{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_24406/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_24406","id":"gutenberg_24406","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24406","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Soul"],"text":"Produced by Andrew Sly\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE PRICE OF A SOUL\n\nBy\n\nWILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN\n\n\nFUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY\n\nNEW YORK AND LONDON\n\n1914\n\n\n\nPUBLISHERS' NOTE\n\n\"The Price of a Soul\" is an address delivered by Mr. Bryan, first\nat the Northwestern Law School Banquet in Chicago, then as a\nCommencement Oration at the Peirce School in Philadelphia and,\nin 1909, extended into a lecture.\n\n\n\n\nTHE PRICE OF A SOUL\n\n\nThe fact that Christ dealt with this subject is proof conclusive that\nit is important, for He never dealt with trivial things. When Christ\nfocused attention upon a theme it was because it was worthy of\nconsideration--and Christ weighed the soul. He presented the subject,\ntoo, with surpassing force; no one will ever add emphasis to what He\nsaid. He understood the value of the question in argument. If you\nwill examine the great orations delivered at crises in the world's\nhistory, you will find that in nearly every case the speaker\ncondensed the whole subject into a question, and in that question\nembodied what he regarded as an unanswerable argument. Christ used\nthe question to give force to the thought which he presented in\nregard to the soul's value.\n\nOn one side He put the world and all that the world can contain--all the\nwealth that one can accumulate, all the fame to which one can aspire,\nand all the happiness that one can covet; and on the other side he\nput the soul, and asked the question that has come ringing down the\ncenturies: \"What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and\nlose his own soul?\"\n\nThere is no compromise here--no partial statement of the matter. He\nleaves us to write one term of the equation ourselves. He gives us all\nthe time we desire, and allows the imagination to work to the limit,\nand when we have gathered together into one sum all things but the\nsoul, He asks--What if you gain it all--_all_--ALL, and lose the soul?\nWhat is the profit?\n\nSome have thought the soul question a question of the next world only,\nbut it is a question of this world also; some have thought the soul\nquestion a Sabbath-day question only, but it is a week-day question as\nwell; some have thought the soul question a question for the ministers\nalone, but it is a question which we all must meet. Every day and every\nweek, every month and every year, from the time we reach the period of\naccountability until we die, we--each of us--all of us, weigh the soul.\n\nAnd exactly in proportion as we put the soul above all things else we\nbuild character; the moment we allow the soul to become a matter of\nmerchandise, we start on the downward way.\n\nTolstoy says that if you would investigate the career of a criminal it\nis not sufficient to begin with the commission of a crime; that you must\ngo back to that day in his life when he deliberately trampled upon his\nconscience and did that which he knew to be wrong. And so with all of\nus, the turning point in the life is the day when we surrender the soul\nfor something that for the time being seems more desirable.\n\nMost of the temptations that come to us to sell the soul come in\nconnection with the getting of money. The Bible says, \"The love of\nmoney is the root of all evil.\" If I had been making the statement,\nI think I would have said that the love of money is the root of\n_nearly_ all evil. But that is probably due to the fact that I am\nso conservative in thought and in method of statement, that, in\nstating a proposition, I prefer to leave a margin, so that if\nanybody disputes it I can bring proof of more than I said. But\nthe Bible says, \"The love of money is the root of _all_ evil\"\nand I shall not attempt to weaken the statement. If it is a mistake\nat all it is so slight a mistake that we need not spend time in\ncorrecting it.\n\nAnd because so many of our temptations come through the love of money\nand the desire to obtain it, it is worth while to consider the laws\nof accumulation. We must all have money; we need food and clothing\nand shelter, and money is necessary for the purchase of these things.\nMoney is not an evil in itself--money is, in fact, a very useful\nservant. It is bad only when it becomes the master, and the love of\nit is hurtful only because it can, and often does, crowd out the love\nof nobler things.\n\nBut since we must all use money and must in our active days store up\nmoney for the days when our strength fails, let us see if we can\nagree upon the rules that should govern us in the accumulation of\nthe money that we need. How much money can a man rightfully collect\nfrom society? Surely, there can be no disagreement here. He can not\nrightfully collect more than he honestly earns. If a man collects\nmore than he honestly earns, he collects what somebody else has earned,\nand we call it stealing if a man takes that which belongs to another.\nNot only is a man limited in his collections of what he honestly earns,\nbut no honest man will desire to collect more than he earns.\n\nIf a man can not rightfully collect more than he honestly earns, it is,\nthen, a matter of the utmost importance to know how much money a man can\nhonestly earn. I venture an answer to this and say that a man can not\nhonestly earn more than fairly measures the service which he renders to\nsociety. I can not conceive of any way of earning money except to give\nto society a service equivalent in value to the money collected. This is\na fundamental proposition and it is important that it should be clearly\nunderstood, for if one desires to collect largely from society he must\nbe prepared to render a large service to society; and our schools and\ncolleges, our churches and all other organizations for the improvement\nof man have for one of their chief objects the enlargement of the\ncapacity for service.\n\nThere is an apparent exception in the case of an inheritance, but it is\nnot a real exception, for if the man who leaves the money has honestly\nearned it, he has already given society a service of equivalent value\nand, therefore, has a right to distribute it. And money received by\ninheritance is either payment for service already rendered, or payment\nin advance for service to be rendered. No right-minded person will\naccept money, even by inheritance, without recognizing the obligation\nit imposes to render a service in return. This service is not always\nrendered to the one from whom this money is received, but often to\nsociety in general. In fact, most of the blessings which we receive come\nto us in such a way that we can not distinguish the donors and must make\nour return to the whole public.\n\nBut I need not dwell upon this, because in this country more than\nanywhere else in the world we appreciate the dignity of labor and\nunderstand that it is honorable to serve. And yet there is room for\nimprovement, for all over our land there are, scattered here and there,\nyoung men and young women--and even parents--who still think that it\nis more respectable for a young man to spend in idleness the money\nsome one else has earned than to be himself a producer of wealth.\nAnd as long as this sentiment is to be found anywhere, there is\neducational work to be done, for public opinion will never be what\nit should be until it puts the badge of disgrace upon the idler, no\nmatter how rich he may be, rather than upon the man who with brain or\nmuscle contributes to the nation's wealth, the nation's strength\nand the nation's progress. But, as I said, the inheritance is an\napparent, not an actual, exception, and we will return to the\noriginal proposition--that one's earnings must be measured by the\nservice rendered. This is so important a proposition that I beg leave\nto dwell upon it a moment longer, to ask whether it is possible to fix\nin dollars and cents a maximum limit to the amount one can earn in a\nlifetime.\n\nLet us begin with one hundred thousand dollars. If we estimate a\nworking life at thirty-three years--and I think this is a fair\nestimate--a man must earn a little more than three thousand dollars\nper year for thirty-three years to earn one hundred thousand dollars\nin a lifetime. I take it for granted that no one will deny that it is\npossible for one to earn this sum by rendering a service equal to it\nin value. What shall we say of a million dollars? Can a man earn\nthat much? To do so he must earn a little more than thirty thousand\ndollars a year for thirty-three years. Is it possible for one to\nrender so large a service? I believe that it is. Well, what shall we\nsay of ten million? To earn that much one must earn on an average\na little more than three hundred thousand a year for thirty-three\nyears. Is it possible for one to render a service so large as to earn\nso vast a sum? At the risk of shocking some of my radical friends I\nam going to affirm that it is possible. But can one earn a hundred\nmillion? Yes, I believe that it is even possible to serve society to\nsuch an extent as to earn a hundred million in the span of a human\nlife, or an average of three million a year for thirty-three years.\nWe have one man in this country who is said to be worth five hundred\nmillion. To earn five hundred million one must earn on an average of\nfifteen million a year for thirty-three years. Is this within the\nrange of human possibility? I believe that it is. Now, I have gone as\nhigh as any one has yet gone in collecting, but if there is any\nyoung man with an ambition to render a larger service to the world,\nI will raise it another notch, if necessary, to encourage him. So\nalmost limitless are the possibilities of service in this age that I\nam not willing to fix a maximum to the sum a man can honestly and\nlegitimately earn.\n\nNot only do I believe that a man can earn five hundred million, but I\nbelieve that men have earned it. I believe that Thomas Jefferson\nearned more than five hundred million. The service that he rendered\nto the world was of such great value that had he collected for it\nfive hundred million of dollars, he would not have been overpaid. I\nbelieve that Abraham Lincoln earned more than five hundred million,\nand I could go back through history and give you the name of man after\nman who rendered a service so large as to entitle him to collect more\nthan five hundred million from society, but if I presented a list\ncontaining the name of every man who, since time began, earned such\nan enormous sum, one thing would be true of all of them, namely: that\nin not a single case did the man collect the full amount. The men who\nhave earned five hundred million dollars have been so busy earning it\nthat they have not had time to collect it; and the men who have\ncollected five hundred million have been so busy collecting it that\nthey have not had time to earn it.\n\nJefferson did not collect all he earned; in fact, he began public\nlife well-to-do for a man of that period, and died poor--impoverished\nby visits of those who called to tell him how much they loved him and\nhow much they appreciated his work. Lincoln did not collect the full\namount; neither Jefferson nor Lincoln would have cared to collect\nfive hundred million. What would either one have done with such a\nsum? Or, what is more important, what would five hundred million of\ndollars have done with Jefferson or Lincoln?\n\nIn that wonderful parable of the sower, Christ speaks of the seeds that\nfell and of the thorns that sprang up and choked them, and He himself\nexplained what he meant by this illustration, namely: That the cares of\nthis world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the truth. If the great\nbenefactors of the race had been burdened with the care of big fortunes,\nthey could not have devoted themselves to the nobler things that gave\nthem a place in the affection of their people and in history.\n\nIt seems, therefore, that while one can not rightfully collect more\nthan he honestly earns, he may earn more than it would be wise for\nhim to collect. And that brings us to the next question: How much\nshould one desire to collect from society? I answer, that no matter\nhow large a service he may render or how much he may earn, one should\nnot desire to collect more than he can wisely spend.\n\nAnd how much can one wisely spend? Not as much as you might think,\nand not nearly as much as some have tried to spend. No matter how\nhonestly money may be acquired, one is not free to spend it at will.\nWe are hedged about by certain restrictions that we can neither\nremove nor ignore. God has written certain laws in our nature--laws\nthat no legislature can repeal--laws that no court can declare\nunconstitutional, and these laws limit us in our expenditures.\n\nLet us consider some of the things for which we can properly spend\nmoney. We need food--we all need food, and we need about the same\namount; not exactly, but the difference in quantity is not great.\nThe range in expenditure is greater than the range in quantity, for\nexpenditure covers kind and quality as well as quantity. But there is\na limit even to expenditure. If a man eats too much he suffers for\nit. If he squanders his money on high-priced foods, he wears his\nstomach out. There is an old saying which we have all heard, that\n\"The poor man is looking for food for his stomach, while the rich man\nis going from one watering place to another looking for a stomach for\nhis food.\" This is only a witty way of expressing the sober truth,\nnamely, that one is limited in the amount of money he can wisely\nspend for food.\n\nWe need clothing--we all need clothing, and we need the same\namount. The difference in quantity is not great. The range in\nexpenditure for clothing is greater than the range in quantity,\nbecause expenditure covers style and variety as well as quantity, but\nthere is a limit to the amount of money one can wisely spend for\nclothing. If a man has so much clothing that it takes all of his time\nto change his clothes, he has more than he needs and more than he can\nwisely spend money for.\n\nWe need homes--we all need shelter, and we need about the same amount.\nIn fact, God was very democratic in the distribution of our needs,\nfor he so created us that our needs are about the same. The range of\nexpenditure for homes is probably wider than in the case of either food\nor clothing. We are interested in the home. I never pass a little house\nwhere two young people are starting out in life without feeling a\nsympathetic interest in that home; I never pass a house where a room is\nbeing added without feeling interested, for I know the occupants have\nplanned it, and looked forward to it and waited for it; I like to see a\nlittle house moved back and a larger house built, for I know it is the\nfulfilment of a dream. I have had some of these dreams myself, and I\nknow how they lead us on and inspire us to larger effort and greater\nendeavor, and yet there is a limit to the amount one can wisely spend\neven for so good a thing as a home.\n\nIf a man gets too big a house it becomes a burden to him, and some\nhave had this experience. Not infrequently a young couple will start\nout poor and struggle along in a little house, looking forward to the\ntime when they can build a big house. After a while the time arrives\nand they build a big house, larger, possibly, than they intended to\nand it nearly always costs more than they thought it would, and then\nthey struggle along the rest of their lives looking back to the time\nwhen they lived in a little house.\n\nWe speak of people being independently rich. That is a mistake; they\nare dependently rich. The richer a man is the more dependent he is--the\nmore people he depends upon to help him collect his income, and the more\npeople he depends upon to help him spend his income. Sometimes a couple\nwill start out doing their own work--the wife doing the work inside the\nhouse and the man outside; but they prosper, and after a while they are\nable to afford help. They get a girl to help the wife inside and a man\nto help the husband outside; then they prosper more--and they get two\ngirls to help inside and two men to help outside, then three girls\ninside and three men outside. Finally they have so many girls helping\ninside and so many men helping outside that they can not leave the\nhouse--they have to stay at home and look after the establishment.\nAnd this is not a new condition. One of the Latin poets complained of\n\"the cares that hover about the fretted ceilings of the rich,\" and it\nwas this condition that inspired Charles Wagner to write his little\nbook entitled \"The Simple Life,\" in which he entered an eloquent\nprotest against the materialism which makes man the slave of his\npossessions and presented an earnest plea for the raising of the\nspiritual above the purely physical. I repeat, there is a limit\nto the amount a man can wisely spend upon a home.\n\nBut a man can give his money away. Yes, and no one who has ever tried\nit will deny that more pleasure is to be derived from the giving\nof money to a cause in which one's heart is interested, than can\nbe obtained from the expenditure of the same amount in selfish\nindulgence. But if one is going to give largely he must spend a great\ndeal of time in investigating and in comparing the merits of the\ndifferent enterprises, and I am persuaded that there is a better life\nthan the life led by those who spend nearly all the time accumulating\nbeyond their needs and then employ the last few days in giving it\naway. What the world needs is not a few men of great wealth, doling\nout their money in anticipation of death--what the world needs is\nthat these men shall link themselves in sympathetic interest with\nstruggling humanity and help to solve the problems of to-day, instead\nof creating problems for the next generation to solve.\n\nBut you say, a man can leave his money to his children? He can, if he\ndares. But a large fortune, in anticipation, has ruined more sons\nthan it has ever helped. If a young man has so much money coming to\nhim that he knows he will never have to work, the chances are that it\nwill sap his energy, even if it does not undermine his character, and\nleave him a curse rather than a blessing to those who brought him\ninto the world. And it is scarcely safer to leave the money to a\ndaughter. For if a young woman has a prospective inheritance so\nlarge that, when a young man calls upon her, she can not tell whether\nhe is calling upon her or her father, it is embarrassing--especially\nso if she finds after marriage that he married the wrong member of\nthe family. And, I may add, that the daughters of the very rich are\nusually hedged about by a social environment which prevents their\nmaking the acquaintance of the best young men. The men who,\ntwenty-five years from now, will be the leaders in business, in\nsociety, in government, and in the church, are not the pampered sons\nof the rich, but the young men who, with good health and good\nhabits, with high ideals and strong ambition, are, under the spur of\nnecessity, laying the foundation for future achievements, and these\nyoung men do not have a chance to become acquainted with the\ndaughters of the very rich. Even if they did know them they might\nhesitate to enter upon the scale of expenditure to which these\ndaughters are accustomed.\n\nI have spoken at length in regard to these limitations, altho we all\nknow of them or should. The ministers tell us about these things\nSunday after Sunday, or should, and yet we find men chasing the\nalmighty dollar until they fall exhausted into the grave. A few\nyears ago I read a sermon by Dr. Talmage on this subject; he said a\nman who wore himself out getting money that he did not need would\nfinally drop dead, and that his pastor would tell a group of\nsorrowing friends that, by a mysterious dispensation of Providence,\nthe good man had been cut off in his prime. Dr. Talmage said that\nProvidence had nothing to do with it, and that the minister ought to\ntell the truth about it and say that the man had been kicked to death\nby the golden calf.\n\nA few weeks ago I read a story by Tolstoy, and I did not notice until\nI had completed it that the title of the story was, \"What shall it\nprofit?\" The great Russian graphically presented the very thought\nthat I have been trying to impress upon your minds. He told of a\nRussian peasant who had land hunger--who added farm to farm and land\nto land, but could never get enough. After a while he heard of a\nplace where land was cheaper and he sold his land and went and bought\nmore land. But he had no more than settled there until he heard of\nanother place among a half civilized people where land was cheaper\nstill. He took a servant and went into this distant country and\nhunted up the head man of the tribe, who offered him all the land he\ncould walk around in a day for a thousand rubles--told him he could\nput the money down on any spot and walk in any direction as far and\nas fast as he would, and that if he was back by sunset he could have\nall the land he could encompass during the day. He put the money down\nupon the ground and started at sunrise to get, at last, enough land.\nHe started leisurely, but as he looked upon the land it looked so\ngood that he hurried a little--and then he hurried more, and then he\nwent faster still. Before he turned he had gone further in that\ndirection than he had intended, but he spurred himself on and started\non the second side. Before he turned again the sun had crossed the\nmeridian and he had two sides yet to cover. As the sun was slowly\nsinking in the west he constantly accelerated his pace, alarmed at\nlast for fear he might have undertaken too much and might lose it\nall. He reached the starting point, however, just as the sun went\ndown, but he had overtaxed his strength and fell dead upon the spot.\nThen his servant dug a grave for him and he only needed six feet of\nground then, the same that others needed--and the rest of the land\nwas of no use to him. Thus far Tolstoy told the story of many a\nlife--not the life of the very rich only, but the story of every\nlife in which the love of money is the controlling force and in which\nthe desire for gain shrivels the soul and leaves the life a failure\nat last.\n\nI desire to show you how practical this subject is. If time permitted I\ncould take up every occupation, every avocation, every profession and\nevery calling, and show you that no matter which way we turn--no matter\nwhat we do--we are always and everywhere weighing the Soul.\n\nIn the brief time that it is proper for me to occupy, I shall apply the\nthought to those departments of human activity in which the sale of a\nsoul affects others largely as well as the individual who makes the\nbargain.\n\nTake the occupation in which I am engaged, journalism. It presents a\ngreat field--a growing field; in fact, there are few fields so large.\nThe journalist is both a news gatherer and a molder of thought. He\ninforms his readers as to what is going on, and he points out the\nrelation between cause and effect--interprets current history. Public\nopinion is the controlling force in a republic, and the newspaper\ngives to the journalist, beyond every one else, the opportunity to\naffect public opinion. Others reach the readers of a newspaper\nthrough the courtesy of the owner of the paper, but he has full\naccess to his own columns, and does not fear the blue pencil. The\njournalist occupies the position of a watchman upon a tower. He is\noften able to see dangers which are not observed by the general\npublic, and because he can see these dangers he is in a position of\ngreater responsibility. Is he discharging the duty which superior\nopportunity imposes upon him? I might mention a number of temptations\nwhich come to the journalist, but I shall content myself with a few.\nFirst, there is the temptation to conceal the name of the real owner\nof the paper. The proprietor of a paper should be known, but his\nidentity is not always disclosed. The corporate entity which plays so\nlarge a part in the business world has entered the newspaper field.\nThe names of the stockholders are not published and we do not always\nknow what individuality directs the paper's policy. Year by year the\ndisclosures are bringing to light the fact that the predatory\ninterests are using the newspapers and even some magazines for the\ndefense of commercial iniquity and for the purpose of attacking those\nwho lift their voices against favoritism and privilege. A financial\nmagnate interested in the exploitation of the public secures control\nof a paper; he employs business managers, managing editors, and a\nreportorial staff. He does not act openly or in the daylight but\nthrough a group of employes who are the visible but not the real\ndirectors. The reporters are instructed to bring in the kind of news\nwhich will advance the enterprises owned by the man who stands\nback of the paper, and if the news brought in is not entirely\nsatisfactory it is doctored in the office. The columns of the paper\nare filled with matter, written not for the purpose of presenting\nfacts as they exist, but for the purpose of distorting facts and\nmisleading the public. The editorial writers, whose names are\ngenerally unknown to the public, are told what to say and what\nsubjects to avoid. They are instructed to extol the merits of those\nwho are subservient to the interests represented by the paper, and to\nmisrepresent and traduce those who dare to criticize or oppose the\nplans of those who hide behind the paper. Such journalists are\nmembers of a kind of \"Blackhand society\"; they are assassins, hiding\nin ambush and striking in the dark; and the worst of it is that the\nreaders have no way of knowing when a change takes place in the\nownership of such a paper. Editorial poison, like other poisons, can\nbe administered more successfully if the victim is in ignorance as to\nwho administers it.\n\nThere are degrees of culpability and some are disposed to hold an\neditorial writer guiltless even when they visit condemnation upon\nthe secret director of the paper's policy. I present to you a\ndifferent--and I believe higher--ideal of journalism. If we are going\nto make any progress in morals we must abandon the idea that morals\nare defined by the statutes; we must recognize that there is a wide\nmargin between that which the law prohibits and that which an\nenlightened conscience can approve. We do not legislate against\nthe man who uses the printed page for the purpose of deception\nbut, viewed from the standpoint of morals, the man who, whether\nvoluntarily or under instructions, writes what he knows to be\nuntrue or purposely misleads his readers as to the character of a\nproposition upon which they have to act, is as guilty of wrong-doing\nas the man who assists in any other swindling transaction.\n\nAnother method employed to mislead the public is the publication of\neditorial matter supplied by those who have an interest to serve.\nThis evil is even more common than secrecy as to the ownership of the\npaper. In the case of the weekly papers and the smaller dailies,\nthe proprietor is generally known, and it is understood that the\neditorial page represents his views. His standing and character give\nweight to that which appears with his endorsement. A few years ago,\nwhen the railroad rate bill was before Congress, a number of\nrailroads joined in an effort to create a public sentiment against\nthe bill. Bureaus were established for the dissemination of\nliterature, and a number of newspapers entered into contract to\npublish as editorial matter the material furnished by these bureaus.\nThis can not be defended in ethics. The purchase of the editorial\ncolumns is a crime against the public and a disgrace to journalism,\nand yet we have frequent occasion to note this degradation of the\nnewspaper. Senator Carter, of Montana, speaking in the United States\nSenate, caused to be read several printed slips which were sent out\nby a bankers' association to local bankers with the request that\nthey be inserted in the local papers, suggestion being made that the\ninstructions to the local bankers be removed before they were handed\nto the papers. The purpose of the bankers' association was to\nstimulate opposition to the postal savings bank, a policy endorsed\naffirmatively by the Republican party, and, conditionally, by the\nDemocratic party, the two platforms being supported at the polls by\nmore than ninety per cent of the voters. The bankers' association\nopposed the policy, and, in sending out its literature, it was\nendeavoring to conceal the source of that literature and to make it\nappear that the printed matter represented the opinion of some one\nin the community.\n\nThe journalist who would fully perform his duty must be not only\nincorruptible, but ever alert, for those who are trying to misuse the\nnewspapers are able to deceive \"the very elect.\" Whenever any movement\nis on foot for the securing of legislation desired by the predatory\ninterests, or when restraining legislation is threatened, news bureaus\nare established at Washington, and these news bureaus furnish to such\npapers, as will use them, free reports, daily or weekly as the case\nmay be, from the national capitol--reports which purport to give\ngeneral news, but which in fact contain arguments in support of the\nschemes which the bureaus are organized to advance. This ingenious\nmethod of misleading the public is only a part of the general plan\nwhich favor-holding and favor-seeking corporations pursue.\n\nDemosthenes declared that the man who refuses a bribe conquers the\nman who offers it. According to this, the journalist who resists the\nmany temptations which come to him to surrender his ideals has the\nconsciousness of winning a moral victory as well as the satisfaction\nof knowing that he is rendering a real service to his fellows.\n\nThe profession for which I was trained--the law--presents another\nline of temptations. The court room is a soul's market where many\nbarter away their ideals in the hope of winning wealth or fame.\nLawyers sometimes boast of the number of men whose acquittal they\nhave secured when they knew them to be guilty, and of advantages won\nwhich they knew their clients did not deserve. I do not understand\nhow a lawyer can so boast, for he is an officer of the court and, as\nsuch, is sworn to assist in the administration of justice. When a\nlawyer has helped his client to obtain all that he really deserves\nhe has done his full duty as a lawyer, and if he goes beyond this,\nhe goes at his own peril. Show me a lawyer who has spent a lifetime\ntrying to obscure the line between right and wrong, trying to prove\nthat to be just which he knew to be unjust, and I will show you a man\nwho has grown weaker in character year by year, and whose advice, at\nlast, will be of no value to his clients, for he will have lost the\npower to discern between right and wrong. Show me, on the other hand,\na lawyer who has spent a lifetime in the search for truth, determined\nto follow where it leads, and I will show you a man who has grown\nstronger in character day by day and whose advice constantly becomes\nmore valuable to his clients, because the power to discern the truth\nincreases with the honest search for it.\n\nNot only in the court room, but in the consultation chamber the\nlawyer sometimes yields to the temptation to turn his talents to a\nsordid use. The schemes of spoliation that defy the officers of the\nlaw are, for the most part, inaugurated and directed by legal minds.\nPresident Roosevelt, speaking at Harvard a few years ago, complained\nthat the graduates of that great university frequently furnished the\nbrains for conspiracies against the public welfare. I was speaking\non this very subject in one of the great cities of the country some\nmonths ago, and at the close of the address, a judge commended my\ncriticism and declared that most of the lawyers practising in his\ncourt were constantly selling their souls. The lawyer's position\nis scarcely less responsible than the position of the journalist,\nand if the journalists and lawyers of the country could be brought\nto abstain from the practises by which the general public is\noverreached, it would be an easy matter to secure the remedial\nlegislation necessary to protect the producing masses from the\nconstant spoliation to which they are now subjected by the privileged\nclasses.\n\nIf a man who is planning a train-robbery takes another along to hold a\nhorse at a convenient distance, we say that the man who holds the horse\nis equally guilty with the man who robs the train; and the time will\ncome when public opinion will hold as equally guilty with the plunderers\nof society the lawyers and journalists who assist the plunderers to\nescape.\n\nMost of you are, I presume, engaged in what is known as business,\naltho I confess that I have no sympathy with the narrow definition\nwhich is often given to the word business. Every person who\ncontributes by brain or muscle to the nation's wealth and greatness\nis engaged in business and is a necessary factor in the world's\nprogress.\n\nCommerce is an increasing factor in the business world. It includes\nboth exchange and transportation and stands next in importance to\nproduction. Production comes first, but production could only be\nconducted on a limited scale without the exchange of merchandise. To\ndesire to gain an honorable distinction in this department of labor\nis a worthy ambition. He who improves the instruments of trade by\nbringing purchaser and consumer nearer together, thus facilitating\nexchange, may count himself a real benefactor. But even here there\nare temptations to be avoided. Let me suggest three. First,\nspeculation. I do not mean to say that the element of chance can be\nentirely eliminated from any kind of business. The farmer takes his\nchances upon the seasons; the merchant takes his chances upon the\nmarket; the railroad owner takes his chances upon both the season and\nthe market; and we all take our chances upon sickness and death.\nUncertainty enters into every human calculation, but a distinction\ncan be drawn between those uncertainties which are unavoidable and\nthose uncertainties which are of the very essence of the transaction.\nThere is a legitimate work for the stock exchange and for the chamber\nof commerce, but there is an illegitimate and vicious speculation on\nthe stock exchange and the produce market which has lured many\nbusiness men to their fall. The ordinary methods of accumulation are\nnecessarily slow when competition is left free to regulate profits,\nwhile the gambler is spurred on by the hope of quickly realizing a\nlarge profit upon a small investment. It is not strange that many are\ncharmed by the siren song of the stock ticker, but it means ruin, and\nto the extent that a man yields to the temptation his morals are\nweakened. There is but one sure measure of rewards, viz., one that\ncompensates each in proportion as he serves society. The securing of\nsomething for nothing by a lucky turn of a card, or by a sudden\nchange in the market paralyzes one's purpose, and, in time, renders\nhim unfit for patient and persistent effort. I might emphasize the\nfact that gambling in stocks and farm products often leads to\nembezzlement, larceny and suicide, for these are the fruits of\nspeculation when it becomes a disease. But I prefer to put my\nargument against gambling upon the broader ground that it is, in all\ncases, a demoralizing influence, whether the gambler wins or loses.\n\nI might dwell upon the evil effects of speculation upon innocent\nparties whose property is juggled up or juggled down by the\nmanipulations of the market, but I would appeal, not only to the\ninnocent outsider, but to those who may be tempted by the profits\npromised to the inside ring. I would suggest, however, that those\nwho by cornering the market suspend the law of supply and demand,\nadd crime to vice and defraud those who are induced to invest in\na \"chance\" which has no actual existence.\n\nMonopoly is the second commercial temptation. Monopolies have been\nattempted ever since trading began, and they are more common to-day\nthan ever before because more money can be made out of them. Many\nwell-meaning business men permit themselves to be drawn into\npractises which are not only indefensible in the realm of conscience,\nbut which violate the statutes. The officers of the law are\nconstantly engaged in an effort to prevent the monopolizing of trade.\n\nIt is strange that anyone should attempt to defend a private\nmonopoly, for its plan and operation can be easily understood by any\none who knows either human nature or history. No judge would be\npermitted to preside in his own case; no juror would be allowed to\nserve in a suit to which he was a party, and yet the head of a\nmonopoly arbitrarily decides, every-day, questions where his\ninterests are on one side and public interests on the other. Can he\nbe trusted to decide impartially and to exact only a reasonable\nprofit? It is absurd to expect him to do justice to those whith whom\nhe deals. The student of history knows that the monopolist has always\nbeen an outlaw. Three centuries ago, under Queen Elizabeth, the House\nof Commons protested against the monopolies which she had authorized,\nand I found, when in the Holy Land, that a very complete monopoly\nexisted there some seventeen hundred years ago. Josephus tells how\nJohn of Gishala secured a monopoly in olive oil and charged ten times\nas much for the oil as he paid for it. For the benefit of those who\nthink that all monopolies are traceable to the rebate, I venture to\nsuggest that the oil trust of Palestine was successfully operated\nbefore railroads existed. But even tho John had nothing better than a\nfast freight line of donkeys and distributed the oil in goat skins,\nhe showed as correct an understanding of the possibilities of\nmonopoly as any trust magnate has to-day, and I have wondered whether\nour John secured his idea of an oil trust from John of Gishala.\n\nWe need laws making the private monopoly impossible, but we must have\nback of these laws a moral sentiment which will condemn the club\nwielded by the monopolist, as moral sentiment now condemns the\nhighwayman's bludgeon.\n\nThe third temptation to which the commercial man is subjected is the\ncorruption of politics. Just in proportion as a corporation secures a\nmonopoly of the business in which it is engaged, in that proportion\nthe necessity for government regulation increases, and I may add, the\ndifficulty of securing regulation increases in proportion to the\nnecessity for it. Municipal corruption has become a byword, and the\nlobbyist has made his evil presence felt at the national and State\ncapitals. Bribery is becoming a fine art, and neither the voter nor\nhis representative is spared. The one lesson that must be taught is\nthat the man who gives a bribe is as wicked as the man who accepts\nit--I am not sure but that he is more wicked, for the necessities\nof the man who accepts the bribe--if need can palliate such an\noffense--are usually greater than those of the man who offers it.\nI appeal to you to assist, in every possible way, in the creation of\na public sentiment which will ostracise the business man who\npurchases legislation with the profits derived from privileges\nalready secured, or who advances corruption money in anticipation of\nthe profits which governmental favors promise.\n\nIn the counting room as well as in the editor's library and in the\nlawyer's office one hears the heart-searching question: \"What shall\nit profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own\nsoul?\"--and happiness, honor and usefulness all hang upon the answer.\n\nI would not be forgiven if I failed to apply my theme to the work of the\ninstructor. The purpose of education is not merely to develop the mind;\nit is to prepare men and women for society's work and for citizenship.\nThe ideals of the teacher, therefore, are of the first importance. The\npupil is apt to be as much influenced by what his teacher is as by\nwhat the teacher says or does. The measure of a school can not be\ngathered from an inspection of the examination papers; the conception of\nlife which the graduate carries away must be counted in estimating the\nbenefits conferred. The pecuniary rewards of the teacher are usually\nsmall when compared with the rewards of business. This may be due in\npart to our failure to properly appreciate the work which the teacher\ndoes, but it may be partially accounted for by the fact that the teacher\nderives from his work a satisfaction greater than that obtained from\nmost other employments.\n\nThe teacher comes in contact with the life of the student, and,\nas our greatest joy is derived from the consciousness of having\nbenefited others, the teacher rightly counts as a part of his\ncompensation the continuing pleasure to be found in the knowledge\nthat he is projecting his influence through future generations.\nThe heart plays as large a part as the head in the teacher's work,\nbecause the heart is an important factor in every life and in the\nshaping of the destiny of the race. I fear the plutocracy of wealth;\nI respect the aristocracy of learning; but I thank God for the\ndemocracy of the heart. It is upon the heart-level that we meet; it\nis by the characteristics of the heart that we best know and best\nremember each other. Astronomers tell us the distance of each star\nfrom the earth, but no mathematician can calculate the influence\nwhich a noble teacher may exert upon posterity. And yet even\nthe teacher may fall from his high estate, and, forgetting his\nimmeasurable responsibility, yield to the temptation to estimate\nhis work by its pecuniary reward.\n\nLet me turn for a moment from the profession and the occupation to the\ncalling. I am sure I shall not be accused of departing from the truth\nwhen I say that even those who minister to our spiritual wants and, as\nour religious leaders, help to fix our standards of morality, sometimes\nprove unfaithful to their trust. They are human, and the frailties of\nman obscure the light which shines from within, even when that light is\na reflection from the throne of God. The ministers have for years\nconsidered the liquor question a moral question, and I would not\nchide them for their activity; but I think too little emphasis has\nbeen placed upon the importance of total abstinence. Whether a\nChristian can drink in moderation without harm to himself is purely\na physical question, and some Christians have overestimated their\nability to confine their drinking within safe limits; but there is a\nmoral question which is much larger, namely, can a Christian afford to\nindulge the appetite for drink if his example leads weaker men to ruin?\n\nThe great apostle said that, if eating meat made his brother to\noffend, he would eat no meat. It is a part of the minister's work\nto cultivate such a love of brother in the Christian heart that the\nChristian will paraphrase the language of the apostle and say: If\ndrinking maketh my brother to offend, I shall not drink.\n\nThen, too, we have not sufficiently considered man's social needs.\nMan must have communion with his friends, and we have left the saloon\nto furnish about the only meeting place in the cities and towns.\nRooms should be opened where men can meet with wholesome surroundings\nand free from the temptations that are ever present where men meet in\na room provided by one who has a pecuniary interest in cultivating an\nappetite for drink.\n\nThe ministers must deal with all questions that involve morals, and\nevery great question is in its final analysis a question of ethics.\n\nWe need more Elijahs in the pulpit to-day--more men who will dare to\nupbraid an Ahab and defy a Jezebel. It is possible, ay, probable, that\neven now, as of old, persecution would follow such boldness of speech,\nbut he who consecrates himself to religion must smite evil wherever he\nfinds it, altho in smiting it he may risk his salary and his social\nposition. It is easy enough to denounce the petty thief and the\nback-alley gambler; it is easy enough to condemn the friendless rogue\nand the penniless wrong-doer, but what about the rich tax-dodger, the\nbig law-breaker and the corrupter of government? The soul that is\nwarmed by divine fire will be satisfied with nothing less than the\ncomplete performance of duty; it must cry aloud and spare not, to the\nend that the creed of the Christ may be exemplified in the life of\nthe nation.\n\nNot only does the soul question present itself to individuals, but it\npresents itself to groups of individuals as well.\n\nLet us consider the party. A political party can not be better than its\nideal; in fact, it is good in proportion as its ideal is worthy, and its\nplace in history is determined by its adherence to a high purpose. The\nparty is made for its members, not the members for the party; and a\nparty is useful, therefore, only as it is a means through which one may\nprotect his rights, guard his interests and promote the public welfare.\nThe best service that a man can render his party is to raise its ideals.\nHe basely betrays his party's hopes and is recreant to his duty to his\nparty associates who seeks to barter away a noble party purpose for\ntemporary advantages or for the spoils of office. It would be a\nreflection upon the intelligence and patriotism of the people to assert,\nor even to assume, that lasting benefit could be secured for a party\nby the lowering of its standards. He serves his party most loyally who\nserves his country most faithfully; it is a fatal error to suppose that\na party can be permanently benefited by a betrayal of the nation's\ninterests.\n\nIn every act of party life and party strife we weigh the soul. That\nthe people have a right to have what they want is a fundamental\nprinciple in free government. Corruption in government comes from the\nattempt to substitute the will of a minority for the will of the\nmajority. Every measure which comes up for consideration involves\njustice and injustice--right and wrong--and is, therefore, a question\nof conscience. As justice is the basis of a nation's strength and\ngives it hope of perpetuity, and, as the seeds of decay are sown\nwhenever injustice enters into government, patriotism as well as\nconscience leads us to analyze every public question, ascertain the\nmoral principle involved and then cast our influence, whether it be\ngreat or small, on the side of justice.\n\nThe patriot must desire the triumph of that which is right above the\ntriumph of that which he may think to be right if he is, in fact,\nmistaken; and so the partizan, if he be an intelligent partizan, must\nbe prepared to rejoice in his party's defeat if by that defeat his\ncountry is the gainer. One can afford to be in a minority, but he can\nnot afford to be wrong; if he is in a minority and right, he will\nsome day be in the majority.\n\nThe activities of politics center about the election of candidates to\noffice, and the official, under our system, represents both the party\nto which he belongs and the whole body of his constituency. He has\ntwo temptations to withstand, first, the temptation to substitute\nhis own judgment for the judgment of his constituents, and second,\nthe temptation to put his pecuniary interests above the interests\nof those for whom he acts. According to the aristocratic idea, the\nrepresentative thinks _for_ his constituents; according to the\ndemocratic idea, the representative thinks _with_ his constituents. A\nrepresentative has no right to defeat the wishes of those who elect\nhim, if he knows their wishes.\n\nBut a representative is not liable to knowingly misrepresent his\nconstituents unless he has pecuniary interests adverse to theirs.\nThis is the temptation to be resisted--this is the sin to be avoided.\nThe official who uses his position to secure a pecuniary advantage at\nthe expense of those for whom he acts is an embezzler of power--and\nan embezzler of power is as guilty of moral turpitude as the\nembezzler of money. There is no better motto for the public official\nthan that given by Solomon: \"A good name is rather to be chosen than\ngreat riches, and loving favor rather than silver and gold.\" And\nthere is no better rule for the public official to follow than\nthis--to do nothing that he would not be willing to have printed\nin the newspaper next day.\n\nOne who exercises authority conferred upon him by the suffrages\nof his fellows ought to be fortified in his integrity by the\nconsciousness of the fact that a betrayal of his trust is hurtful to\nthe party which honors him and unjust to the people whom he serves,\nas well as injurious to himself. Nothing that he can gain, not even\nthe whole world, can compensate him for the loss that he suffers in\nthe surrender of a high ideal of public duty.\n\nPermit me, in conclusion, to say that the nation, as well as the\nindividual and the party, must be measured by its purpose, its ideals\nand its service. \"Let him who would be chiefest among you be the\nservant of all,\" was intended for nations as well as for citizens.\nOur nation is the greatest in the world and the greatest of all\ntime, because it is rendering a larger service than any other nation\nis rendering or has rendered. It is giving the world ideals in\neducation, in social life, in government and in religion. It is the\nteacher of nations, it is the world's torch-bearer. Here the people\nare more free than elsewhere to \"prove all things and hold fast that\nwhich is good\"; \"to know the truth\" and to find freedom in that\nknowledge. No material considerations should blind us to our nation's\nmission, or turn us aside from the accomplishment of the great work\nwhich has been reserved for us. Our fields bring forth abundantly and\nthe products of our farms furnish food for many in the Old World. Our\nmills and looms supply an increasing export, but these are not our\ngreatest asset. Our most fertile soil is to be found in the minds and\nthe hearts of our people, and our most important manufacturing plants\nare not our factories, with their smoking chimneys, but our schools,\nour colleges and our churches, which take in a priceless raw material\nand turn out the most valuable finished product that the world has\nknown.\n\nWe enjoy by inheritance, or by choice, the blessings of American\ncitizenship; let us not be unmindful of the obligations which these\nblessings impose. Let us not become so occupied in the struggle for\nwealth or in the contest for honors as to repudiate the debt that we\nowe to those who have gone before us and to those who bear with us\nthe responsibilities that rest upon the present generation. Society\nhas claims upon us; our country makes demands upon our time, our\nthought and our purpose. We can not shirk these duties without\ndisgrace to ourselves and injury to those who come after us. If one\nis tempted to complain of the burdens borne by American citizens, let\nhim compare them with the much larger burdens imposed by despots upon\ntheir subjects.\n\nI challenge the doctrine, now being taught, that we must enter into\na mad rivalry with the Old World in the building of battleships--the\ndoctrine that the only way to preserve peace is to get ready for wars\nthat ought never to come! It is a barbarous, brutal, unchristian\ndoctrine--the doctrine of the darkness, not the doctrine of the dawn.\n\nNation after nation, when at the zenith of its power, has proclaimed\nitself invincible because its army could shake the earth with its tread\nand its ships could fill the seas, but these nations are dead, and we\nmust build upon a different foundation if we would avoid their fate.\n\nCarlyle, in the closing chapters of his \"French Revolution\" says\nthat thought is stronger than artillery parks and at last molds the\nworld like soft clay, and then he adds that back of thought is love.\nCarlyle is right. Love is the greatest power in the world. The\nnations that are dead boasted that their flag was feared; let it be\nour boast that our flag is loved. The nations that are dead boasted\nthat people bowed before their flag, let us not be content until our\nflag represents sentiments so high and holy that the opprest of every\nland will turn their faces toward that flag and thank God that there\nis one flag that stands for self-government and for the rights of man.\n\nThe enlightened conscience of our nation should proclaim as the\ncountry's creed that \"righteousness exalteth a nation\" and that\njustice is a nation's surest defense. If there ever was a nation it\nis ours--if there ever was a time it is now--to put God's truth to\nthe test. With an ocean rolling on either side and a mountain range\nalong either coast that all the armies of the world could never climb\nwe ought not to be afraid to trust in \"the wisdom of doing right.\"\n\nOur government, conceived in liberty and purchased with blood, can be\npreserved only by constant vigilance. May we guard it as our children's\nrichest legacy, for what shall it profit our nation if it shall gain the\nwhole world and lose \"the spirit that prizes liberty as the heritage of\nall men in all lands everywhere\"?","title":"The Price of a Soul","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":9520}