{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_46380/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_46380","id":"gutenberg_46380","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46380","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - American","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","United States -- Politics and government","United States -- Social conditions"],"text":"_VANISHING LANDMARKS_\n\n\n\n\n    \u201c_When the mariner has been tossed for many days in thick weather\n    and on an unknown sea he naturally avails himself of the first\n    pause in the storm, the earliest glance of the sun, to take his\n    latitude and ascertain how far the elements have driven him from\n    his true course._\u201d\n\n                                                                 Webster\n\n    \u201c_Have you lately observed any encroachment upon the just liberties\n    of the people?_\u201d\n\n                                                                Franklin\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\n                          VANISHING LANDMARKS\n\n                     _The Trend Toward Bolshevism_\n\n\n                                   By\n                             Leslie M. Shaw\n\n                    Former Secretary of the Treasury\n                          Ex-Governor of Iowa\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                           Laird & Lee, Inc.\n                                Chicago\n\n                            Copyright, 1919\n\n                                   By\n\n                           Laird & Lee, Inc.\n\n\n\n\n                         _Vanishing Landmarks_\n\n                            IN JUSTIFICATION\n\nThere are several types of intellect, with innumerable variations and\ncombinations. Some see but do not observe. They note effects but look\nupon them as facts and never seek a cause. Tides lift and rock their\nboats but they ask not why. They stand at Niagara and view with some\noutward evidence of delight a stream of water and an awful abyss, but\nthey lift neither their thoughts nor their eyes towards the invisible\ncurrent of equal volume passing from Nature\u2019s great evaporator, over\nNature\u2019s incomprehensible transportation system, back to the mountains,\nthat the rivers may continue to flow to the sea and yet the sea be not\nfull. That class will find little in this volume to commend, and much\nto criticise.\n\nA man is not a pessimist who, when he hears the roar and sees the\nfunnel-shaped cloud, directs his children to the pathway leading to the\ncyclone cellar. He is not a pessimist who, after noting forty years of\nboastful planning, realizes that war is inevitable, and urges\npreparedness. But the man is worse than a pessimist\u2014he is a fool\u2014who\nstands in front of a cyclone, rejoicing in the manifestation of the\nforces of nature, or faces a world war, expatiating on the greatness of\nhis country and the patriotism and prowess of his countrymen.\n\nIt is commonly believed that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Conceding\nthat he did, it was relatively innocent folly compared to the way many\nAmericans fiddled, and fiddled, and fiddled, and fiddled, until Germany\nwas well on the way to world domination. Coming in at fabulous cost and\nincalculable waste, and saving the situation at the sixtieth minute of\nthe eleventh hour, we not only claim a full day\u2019s pay but seem to\nresent that those who toiled longer, with no more at stake, are asking\nthat honors be divided.\n\nWe are now facing a far worse danger than the armed hosts of the\nCentral Powers\u2014a frenzied mob each day extending its influence, and\nmultiplying its adherents. Shall we again fiddle and fiddle, and fiddle\nand fiddle, or shall we both think and act?\n\nFor six thousand years the human race has experimented in governments\nand only China boasts of its antiquity. During this period almost every\npossible form of government was tried but nothing stood the test of the\nages. The few surviving pages of the uncertain history of nations that\nhave existed and are no more, give ample proof that the task of\nself-government is the severest that God in his wisdom has ever placed\nupon His children.\n\nWhen this government was launched the world said it would not endure.\nIt has both existed and prospered for more than a century and a\nquarter, but there is no thinking man between the seas, and no thinking\nman beyond the seas, who does not recognize that representative\ngovernment, in the great republic, is still in its experimental stage.\nEven Washington declared he dared not hope that what had been\naccomplished or anything he might say would prevent our Nation from\n\u201crunning the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations.\u201d\n\nIt is said that when Galusha Grow entered Congress he carried a letter\nof introduction to Thomas Benton, then just concluding his thirty years\nof distinguished service. Naturally, Senator Benton was pleased with\nthe brilliant Pennsylvanian, for he said to him: \u201cYoung man, you have\ncome too late. All the great problems have been solved.\u201d Ah! they had\nnot been. Mr. Grow lived to help solve some; others have since been\nsolved; more confront us now than ever before in our history, and the\nsky is lurid with their coming. If we are to continue a great\nself-governing and self-governed nation, we must spend some time in the\nstudy of statecraft, the most involved, the most complex, and, barring\nhuman redemption, the most important subject that ever engaged the\nattention of thinking men.\n\nAbout the only subject which vitally affects all, and yet to which few\ngive serious thought, is the science of government. Our farms and our\nfactories, our mills and our mines, together with current news, much of\nit frivolous, and little of it thought-inspiring, engage our attention,\nbut statecraft, as distinguished from partisan politics, is accorded\nscant consideration. In the first place we are too busy, and, secondly,\nwe do not improve even our available time. A young New Englander was\nasked how his people spent their long winter evenings. \u201cOh,\u201d said he,\n\u201csometimes we sit by the fire and think, and sometimes we sit by the\nfire.\u201d It is the hope of the author that the following pages will\ninvite attention to some problems that in his humble judgment must be\nthought out at the fireside, and must be wisely solved, if we expect to\nkeep our country on the map, and our flag in the sky until the Heavens\nshall be rolled together as a scroll.\n\nRecent years have demonstrated the abiding patriotism of the American\npeople and their faith in the ever-increasing greatness of America. Few\nthere be who would not gladly die for their country. The only thing\nthey are not willing to do is to think, and then hold their conduct in\nobedience to their judgment. The future of our blessed land rests with\nthose who can think, who will think, who can and will grasp a major\npremise, a minor premise and drawing a conclusion therefrom, never\ndesert it.\n\nIt has become painfully commonplace to say that the American people can\nbe trusted. While their good intentions can be relied upon, no nation\nwill long exist on good intentions. The nations that have gone from the\nmap have perished in spite of good intentions. The future of America\nrests not in the purity of motives, nor upon the intelligence, but in\nthe wisdom of its citizens. In the realm of statecraft some of the most\ndangerous characters in history have been intelligent, pious souls, and\nsome of the safest and wisest have been unlearned.\n\nSocrates taught by asking questions. So far as possible he who is\ninterested enough to read this volume will be expected to draw his own\nconclusions. The facts stated are historically correct. What deductions\nI may have drawn therefrom is relatively immaterial. The question of\nprimary importance to you will be, and is, what conclusions you draw.\nAnd even your conclusions will be worthless to you and to your country\nunless your conduct as a citizen is in some degree influenced and\ncontrolled thereby.\n\nFrom the monument that a grateful people had erected to a worthy son I\nread this extract from a speech he had made in the United States\nSenate: \u201cHe who saves his country, saves himself, saves all things, and\nall things saved bless him; while he who lets his country perish, dies\nhimself, lets all things die, and all things dying curse him!\u201d\n\n                                                         LESLIE M. SHAW.\n\n  Washington, D.C., March, 1919.\n\n\n\n\n                                CONTENTS\n\n\n              I Republic Versus Democracy                      13\n             II The Constitutional Convention                  19\n            III Statesmen Must First be Born and Then Made     27\n             IV Expectations Realized                          31\n              V Independence of the Representative             36\n             VI Trend of the Times                             43\n            VII Constitutional Liberty                         48\n           VIII What is a Constitution                         57\n             IX Preliminary                                    70\n              X No Competition Between the Sexes               74\n             XI Purposes and Policies of Government            79\n            XII The Result of this Policy                      86\n           XIII All Dependent Upon the Payroll                 93\n            XIV American Fortunes not Large, Considering       98\n             XV Popular Dissatisfaction                       103\n            XVI Greed and its Punishment                      110\n           XVII Obstructive Legislation                       115\n          XVIII The Inevitable Result                         121\n            XIX Unearned Increment                            131\n             XX Business Philosophies                         137\n            XXI The Government\u2019s Handicap                     145\n           XXII The Post Office                               158\n          XXIII Civil Service                                 161\n           XXIV Civil Service Retirement                      179\n            XXV Property by Common Consent                    184\n           XXVI Equality of Income                            193\n          XXVII An Historical Warning                         196\n         XXVIII Capital and Labor                             202\n           XXIX Can the Crisis be Averted                     209\n            XXX Industrial Republics                          217\n                _Conclusion_                                  224\n                _Appendix_                                    232\n\n\n\n\n                          VANISHING LANDMARKS\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I\n\n                       REPUBLIC VERSUS DEMOCRACY\n\n    Representative government and direct government compared.\n\n\nThe Fathers created a republic and not a democracy. Before you dismiss\nthe thought, examine your dictionaries again and settle once and\nforever that a republic is a government where the sovereignty resides\nin the citizens, and is exercised through representatives chosen by the\ncitizens; while a democracy is a government where the sovereignty also\nresides in the citizens but is exercised directly, without the\nintervention of representatives.\n\nFranklin Henry Giddings, Professor of Sociology of Columbia University,\ndifferentiates between democracy as a form of government, democracy as\na form of the state, and democracy as a form of society. He says:\n\u201cDemocracy as a form of government is the actual decision of every\nquestion of legal and executive detail, no less than of every question\nof right and policy, by a direct popular vote.\u201d He also says:\n\u201cDemocracy as a form of the state is popular sovereignty. The state is\ndemocratic when all its people, without distinction of birth, class or\nrank, participate in the making of legal authority. Society is\ndemocratic only when all people, without distinction of rank or class,\nparticipate in the making of public opinion and of moral authority.\u201d\n\nThe distinction, briefly and concisely stated, is this: One is direct\ngovernment, the other representative government. Under a democratic\nform of government, the people rule, while in a republic they choose\ntheir rulers. In democracies, the people legislate; in republics, they\nchoose legislators. In democracies, the people administer the laws; in\nrepublics, they select executives. In democracies, judicial questions\nare decided by popular vote; in republics, judges are selected, and\nthey, and they only, interpret and construe laws and render judgments\nand decrees. I might add that in republics the people do not instruct\ntheir judges, by referendum or otherwise, how to decide cases. Unless\nthe citizens respect both the forms of law and likewise judicial\ndecisions, there is nothing in a republic worth mentioning.\n\nWhen we speak of individuals and communities as being democratic, we\ncorrectly use the term. My father\u2019s family, for instance, like all New\nEngland homes of that period, was very democratic. It was so democratic\nthat the school teacher, the hired man and the hired girl ate with the\nfamily. We sat at a common fireside and joined in conversation and\ndiscussed all questions that arose. It was a very democratic family;\nbut it was not a democracy. My father managed that household.\n\nIn very recent years we have been using the word \u201cdemocracy\u201d when we\nhave meant \u201crepublic.\u201d This flippant and unscientific manner of\nspeaking tends to lax thinking, and is fraught with danger. A good\nillustration of careless diction is found in the old story that Noah\nWebster was once overtaken by his wife while kissing the maid. She\nexclaimed: \u201cI am surprised!\u201d Whereupon the great lexicographer rebuked\nher thus: \u201cMy dear Mrs. Webster, when will you learn to use the English\nlanguage correctly? You are astonished. I\u2019m surprised.\u201d\n\nIt is a well known fact that the meaning of words change with usage.\nSome recent editions of even the best dictionaries give democracy\nsubstantially the same definition as republic. They define a republic\nas a \u201crepresentative democracy\u201d and a democracy as a government in\nwhich the people rule through elected representatives. This gradual\nchange in the meaning of the word would be perfectly harmless if our\ntheory of government did not also change. Probably our change of\nconception of representative government is largely responsible for the\nevolution in the popular use of the word democracy.\n\nA far more important reason why the term \u201cdemocracy\u201d should not be used\nimproperly lies in the fact that every bolshevist in Russia and\nAmerica, every member of the I. W. W., in the United States, as well as\nsocialists everywhere, clamor for democracy. All of these people, many\nof them good-intentioned but misguided, understand exactly what they\nmean by the term. They seek no less a democratic form of government as\nProfessor Giddings defines it, than a democratic society as he defines\nthat, and likewise financial and industrial democracy. They want not\nonly equality before the law, but equality of environment and equality\nof rewards. Only socialists, near-socialists, anarchists and bolsheviki\nclamor for \u201cdemocracy.\u201d Every true American is satisfied with\nrepresentative government, and that is exactly what the term republic\nmeans.\n\n\n                                EQUALITY\n\nThe expression, \u201cAll men are created equal,\u201d does not signify equality\nof eyesight, or equality of physical strength or of personal\ncomeliness. Neither does it imply equal aptitude for music, art or\nmechanics, equal business foresight or executive sagacity or\nstatesmanship. Equality before the law is the only practicable or\npossible equality.\n\nWhy educate, if equality in results is to be the goal? Why practice\nthrift, or study efficiency, if rewards are to be shared independent of\nmerit? Those who clamor most loudly for equality of opportunity, have\nin mind equality of results, which can be attained only by denying\nequality of opportunity. Equal opportunity in a foot race is secured\nwhen the start is even, the track kept clear and no one is permitted to\nfoul his neighbor. But equality of results is impossible between\ncontestants of unequal aptitude when all are given equality of\nopportunity.\n\nThe kind of \u201cdemocracy\u201d which the socialist and the anarchist demand,\nconfessedly hobbles the fleet, hamstrings the athletic and removes all\nincentive to efficiency. The keystone of representative government is\nrewards according to merit, and the buttresses that support the arch\nare freedom of action on the one side, and justice according to law on\nthe other.\n\nRepublics keep a one-price store. Whoever pays the price, gets the\ngoods. Democracy, on the contrary, expects voluntary toil, popular\nsacrifices and then proposes to distribute the resultant good either\n_pro rata_ or indiscriminately. No one can read socialistic literature\nwithout recognizing that political, social, industrial and financial\ndemocracy is the goal of its endeavor. When the supreme conflict comes\nbetween organized government, organized liberty, organized justice and\nbolshevism under whatsoever garb it may choose to masquerade, I do not\nintend anyone shall \u201cshake his gory head\u201d at me and say that I helped\npopularize their universal slogan and international shibboleth. Unless\nwe speedily give heed we shall be fighting to make America _unsafe_ for\ndemocracy. Then we may have difficulty in explaining that we have meant\nall these years a very different thing than our language has expressed.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II\n\n                     THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION\n\n    The republican character of the constitutional convention, the\n    qualifications of the delegates, and the extent to which they\n    trusted to the wisdom of the people.\n\n\nThe Constitutional Convention was a republican body, and not a mass\nmeeting. George Washington presided. He was a delegate from Virginia.\nJames Madison was another representative from the same state, and he\nwrote the greater part of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was in\nFrance, and had nothing whatever to do with drafting the great\ndocument, or in securing its adoption. Benjamin Franklin was a delegate\nfrom Pennsylvania. Roger Sherman was a representative of Connecticut.\nNew York sent no delegate, but Alexander Hamilton, who with George\nWashington had early recognized that the League of Nations, or League\nof Sovereign States, which means the same, and which the old Articles\nof Confederation created, was proving an utter failure in practice, and\nhad, therefore, urged from the beginning \u201ca more perfect union,\u201d\nattended and he was seated as a delegate from New York. His matchless\nvision led him to seek the incorporation of additional safeguards\nagainst bolshevism, as it is now called, and though his advice was not\nheeded it was Hamilton, more than any other man, with John Jay and\nJames Madison his able supporters, who secured the ratification of the\nConstitution as drafted.\n\nThese, and the other delegates, representing the people of the several\nstates, after much deliberation formulated the historic document\nbeginning, \u201cWe the people.\u201d It provides among other things that its\nratification by _delegated conventions_ in nine of the thirteen states\nshall make it binding upon the states so ratifying the same. It also\nprovides that it can be amended in a similar _delegated convention_\ncalled at the request of chosen representatives in the legislatures of\ntwo-thirds of all the states, or by joint resolutions passed by\ntwo-thirds of the representatives of the people, in Congress assembled,\nwhen ratified by representatives of the people in three-fourths of the\nstates, in their respective legislatures assembled.\n\nThose who talk about \u201ctaking the government back to the people\u201d would\ndo well to remember that the American people have never voted upon any\nprovision of the National Constitution, and there is no way provided by\nwhich they can, in any direct way, express their approval or\ndisapproval. I repeat, the Fathers created a republic, and not a\ndemocracy. Washington speaks of \u201cthe delegated will of the\nnation\u201d\u2014never of the popular wish of the people.\n\n\n                     THE FATHERS CONSULTED HISTORY\n\nThe members of the Constitutional Convention were worthy of their\nseats. They were men of both learning and experience. They had read\nhistory. They knew that many attempts at representative government had\nbeen made and that all had failed. They also knew the path all these\nrepublics had taken on their way to oblivion. They were fully alive to\nthe fact that the first step had always been from representative\ngovernment to direct government; from direct government to chaos, from\nchaos to the man on horseback\u2014the dictator; thence to monarchy. The\ndiscussion in the convention makes it abundantly clear that the Fathers\nsought to save America from the monarch, and to protect her from the\nmass. They chose the middle ground between two extremes, both fraught\nwith danger.\n\nThey even went so far as to guarantee that no state should be cursed\nwith a democratic form of government, or a monarchial form of\ngovernment or any other kindred system. The provision is in this\nlanguage: \u201cThe United States shall guarantee to every state in this\nUnion a republican form of government.\u201d That excludes every other form.\n\n\n                   CONFIDENCE IN THE PEOPLE JUSTIFIED\n\nThe members of the Constitutional Convention, having been selected\nbecause of their aptitude for public matters, their knowledge of public\nquestions and their experience in public affairs, very naturally had\nconfidence that men of like caliber and character would always be\nselected for important representative positions. They believed the\npeople would choose legislators, executives and judges of aptitude, at\nleast, and would retain them in office until they attained efficiency\nthrough experience.\n\nPresumably these delegates anticipated that men would be born with no\naptitude for public positions, but they confidently believed even these\nwould be able to select men of aptitude. They may have realized that\nsome men would be unfit for Congress, who, nevertheless, would be\ncompetent to select able congressmen. For these, as well as for other\nreasons, they provided no way by which those whom no one would think of\nsending to Congress, and who naturally give no attention to public\naffairs, could instruct their congressmen, who alone must bear the\nresponsibility of legislation. Had such a thing as legislating by\nreferendum been thought of at that time, the Fathers certainly would\nhave expressly prohibited it. Legislation by representatives was\nconsidered and express and detailed provision therefor was made.\n\nThe preceding differentiation between republic and democracy has no\nreference, of course, to political parties. Long before the republican\nparty, as now constituted, had an existence, democratic orators grew\neloquent over \u201crepublican institutions,\u201d meaning thereby representative\ninstitutions.\n\nEvery protestant church in America is a republic. Its affairs are\nmanaged by representatives\u2014by boards. Otherwise there would be no\nchurches. Every bank and every corporation is a republic, managed by\nboards and officers selected by stockholders. The United States Steel\nCorporation, for instance, is analogous to a republic, the stockholders\nbeing the electors, but if the stockholders were to take charge of that\ncorporation, and direct its management by initiative or referendum, it\nwould be in the hands of a receiver within ninety days.\n\nThe United States of America is a great Corporation, in which the\nStockholder is the Elector. Stockholders of financial and industrial\ncorporations desire dividends, which are paid in cash. Not desiring\noffice, the stockholders are satisfied to have the corporation managed\nby representatives of aptitude and experience. The dividends paid by\npolitical corporations like the United States and the several states\nare \u201cliberty and the pursuit of happiness,\u201d \u201cequality before the law,\u201d\nan army and navy for national defense, and courts of justice for the\nenforcement of rights and the redress of wrongs. But stockholders in\npolitical corporations are not always satisfied with these returns.\nSome prefer office to dividends payable only in blessings.\n\nIn banks and other business corporations, stockholders are apt to\ninsist that representatives and officers who show aptitude and\nefficiency shall be continued in office so long as dividends are\nsatisfactory. In political corporations the people have recently been\npursuing a very different course. They have been changing their\nrepresentatives so frequently that efficiency, which results only from\nexperience, is impossible.\n\nWhile stockholders of a corporation would certainly wreck the\ninstitution if they attempted to manage its affairs directly or by\nreferendum, it is very appropriate for stockholders, acting on the\nrecommendation of their representatives\u2014the board of directors\u2014to\ndetermine an important measure like an issue of bonds, or whether the\nscope and purpose of the concern shall be enlarged or its capital\nincreased. Analogous to this is the determination of governmental\npolicies at regular elections where the people choose between the\nprograms of different political parties as set forth in their\nplatforms. Thus the people sometimes ratify the policy of protection,\nand sometimes the policy of free trade, demonstrating that they do not\nalways act wisely by frequently reversing themselves.\n\nPolitical parties usually omit from their platforms the details of\nlegislation. The only exception that occurs to me was when every detail\nof a financial policy was incorporated in the platform submitted for\nratification. The coinage was to be \u201cfree,\u201d it was to be \u201cunlimited,\u201d\nand at the \u201cratio of 16 to 1.\u201d If the people had approved this at the\npolls their representatives would have had no discretion. There would\nhave been no room for compromise. While the people are presumably\ncompetent to choose between policies recommended in the platforms of\npolitical parties, it is a far stretch of the imagination to suppose\nthat the average citizen is better prepared to determine the details of\na policy than the man he selects to represent him in the halls of\nCongress. The congressman who concedes that his average constituent is\nbetter prepared to pass upon a proposition than he is necessarily\nadmits in the same breath that his district committed a serious blunder\nin sending him. It ought to have selected a man at least of average\nintelligence.\n\nThe fact that neither stockholders _en masse_, nor employees _en masse_\nare able to manage a business enterprise does not imply that the\nprinciple of a republic may not be advantageously applied to industrial\nconcerns. This question is again referred to in Chapter XXX, and the\npossible safe, middle course between the industrial autocracy demanded\nby capital, and the industrial democracy demanded by labor, is\nsuggested and briefly discussed.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III\n\n               STATESMEN MUST FIRST BE BORN AND THEN MADE\n\n    Some fundamental qualifications for statesmanship. Integrity\n    and wisdom compared.\n\n\nHow are lawyers obtained? Admission to the bar does not always produce\neven an attorney. And there is a very marked difference between an\nattorney and a lawyer. But when a young man is admitted to the bar who\nhas aptitude for the law, without which no man can be a lawyer,\nindustry in the law, without which no man ever was a lawyer, then with\nsome years of appropriate environment\u2014the court room and the law\nlibrary\u2014a lawyer will be produced into whose hands you may safely\ncommit your case.\n\nHow are law makers obtained? Many seem to think it only necessary to\ndeliver a certificate of election, and, behold, a constructive\nstatesman, of either gender. I would like to ask whether, in your\njudgment, it requires any less aptitude, any less industry, or a less\nperiod of appropriate environment to produce a constructive law maker,\nthan to develop a safe law practitioner.\n\nI will carry the illustration one step further. Do you realize that it\nwould be far safer to place the man of ordinary intelligence upon the\nbench, with authority to interpret and enforce the laws as he finds\nthem written in the book, than to give him pen and ink and let him\ndraft new laws? We all recognize that it requires a man of legal\naptitude and experience to interpret laws, but some seem to assume\nneither aptitude nor experience is necessary in a law-maker. If\nlegislators in state and nation are to be abjectly obedient to the wish\nof their constituents, what use can they make of knowledge and\njudgment? They will prove embarrassments, will they not?\n\nTo interpret the laws requires aptitude improved by experience; it\ndemands special knowledge, both of the general law and of the\nparticular case under discussion. It takes a specialist.\n\nI would rather have the ordinary man stand over my dentist and tell him\nhow to crown my tooth than to have him stand over my congressman and\ntell him how to vote. He knows, in a general way, how a tooth should be\ncrowned, and further than that I refuse to carry the illustration.\nThen, I can stand a bad tooth better than I can a bad law. No man ever\nlost his job because of a bad tooth. But millions have stood in the\nbread line, and other millions will suffer in like manner because of\nunfortunate and ill-considered legislation.\n\n\n                        INTEGRITY VERSUS WISDOM\n\nWe all demand integrity in office, but integrity is the most common\nattribute of man. I can go on the street and buy integrity for a dollar\na day, if it does not require any work; but aptitude, experience and\nwisdom are high-priced. If I had to choose between men of probity but\nwanting in aptitude and experience, and men of aptitude and experience\nknown to be dishonest, I should unhesitatingly choose the crook rather\nthan the fool; either for bank president or congressman. Banks seldom\nfail because of dishonesty. Banks fail because of bad management. The\nthief may steal a little of the cream but the careless and the\ninexperienced spill the milk.\n\nThus far in our history no man has ever walked the street in vain for\nwork, no man has gone home to find his wife in rags and his children\ncrying for bread, because of dishonesty in public office. The United\nStates can stand extravagance, it can stand graft, it has stood and is\nstanding the most reckless abandon in all its financial expenditures.\nThe worst this nation has yet encountered\u2014and may the good Lord save\nus from anything more dreadful\u2014is incompetency in the halls of\nlegislation. Extravagance and graft stalk forth at noonday when\nincompetency occupies the seats intended for statesmen.\n\nNone but bolsheviki would consider subjecting an army to democratic\ncommand. The personnel of an army may possess equal patriotism without\npossessing equal aptitude for war. Recent experiences have only\nemphasized what was said more than a thousand years ago: \u201cAn army of\nasses commanded by a lion will overthrow an army of lions commanded by\nan ass.\u201d\n\nStrange, is it not, that every one should recognize this principle when\napplied to an army and to business, and an overwhelming majority\noverlook it when applied to governmental matters?\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV\n\n                         EXPECTATIONS REALIZED\n\n    The capacity of the people to select representatives wiser than\n    their constituents illustrated by historic facts.\n\n\nAmerica has passed through several crises, and each time has been saved\nbecause the people\u2019s representatives were wiser than the people. In\nthis respect, the expectation of the Fathers has been realized. I will\nmention but three instances.\n\nDuring the Civil War the government resorted to the issuance of paper\ncurrency, commonly called greenbacks. While conservative people assumed\nthat these greenbacks would be redeemed whenever the government was\nable, nevertheless, there being no express provision for their\nredemption, they went to depreciation, and passed from hand to hand far\nbelow par. All this resulted in inflation which inevitably led to a\nperiod of depression.\n\nIn this connection it is well to remember that whenever we have had a\nperiod of depression, and whenever we shall have such a period, there\nalways has been and ever will be a group of people with a panacea for\nour ills. During the period referred to, a political party, calling\nitself the \u201cGreenback Party,\u201d came into existence and advocated the\nissuance of an indefinite volume of irredeemable paper currency which,\nin their ignorance, they called \u201cmoney.\u201d The specious argument was to\nthe effect that when \u201cmoney\u201d can be made on a printing press, it is\nsilly to have less than enough. They expressly advocated issuing all\nthe currency the people could use without making any provision for its\nretirement. Whenever the people wanted more, they proposed to print\nmore.\n\nFully seventy-five percent of the American people, without regard to\npolitical affiliation, favored some phase or degree of \u201cgreenbackism.\u201d\nWhile much of this sentiment failed of crystallization, quite a number\nof congressmen were elected on that issue. If the direct primary law,\nwith which most of the states are now cursed, had been in force at that\ntime, it is probable that no man could have been nominated for\nCongress, by any party, who was not avowedly in favor of inflation by\nsome method. But the people were saved from themselves exactly as the\nFathers had anticipated. The representatives of the people, being wiser\nthan the people, refused the people what most of them desired and gave\nthem what they needed, resumption of specie payment.\n\nAgain, in the \u201990\u2019s we had a period of depression, and the panacea then\nrecommended was the free and unlimited coinage of silver, at the ratio\nof 16 to 1 with gold. The difference between \u201cgreenbackism\u201d and \u201cfree\nsilverism\u201d was simply one of degree. The greenbacker desired the\ngovernment to print the dollar mark on a piece of paper, thus producing\ncurrency one hundred percent fiat, while the free silverite asked that\nthe government stamp the dollar mark upon a piece of silver, thus\nproducing currency fifty percent fiat.\n\nFully nine-tenths of the American people desired the free and unlimited\ncoinage of silver. William McKinley, willing as he was to run for\npresident on a gold standard platform in 1896, when in Congress had\nvoted for a clean-cut free silver measure. The lower house of Congress\nactually passed a free silver bill. But, exactly as the Fathers\nexpected, the people\u2019s representatives in the Senate, wiser than the\npeople who had placed them there, refused the people what ninety\npercent of them wanted and gave them what one hundred percent\nneeded\u2014sound money.\n\nOutside of Russia, there is scarcely a man in all the world who would\nnow recommend the issuance of irredeemable paper currency, what\nthree-fourths of the American people wanted in the \u201970\u2019s; and there is\nnot more than one man in all the world who would now recommend the free\ncoinage of silver, what four-fifths of the American people wanted in\nthe \u201990\u2019s.\n\nThe direct primary in 1896 would have nominated a free silver\nrepublican, and a free silver democrat in each and every congressional\ndistrict of the United States, and we would have had a solid free\nsilver House. If the United States senators had been then elected by\nthe people, preceded by a direct primary, the Senate of the United\nStates would have been solidly for free silver; and we would have\npassed, as everyone now recognizes, to financial ruin. We were saved,\nbecause the United States of America was a republic and not a\ndemocracy\u2014because, if you please, we had representative and not direct\ngovernment.\n\nMore recently, Germany and the Central Powers made war upon the United\nStates. This they continued for more than two years. Finally, the\nPresident, in his message of April 2, 1917, advised Congress to\n\u201cdeclare the course of the Imperial German Government to be, in fact,\nnothing less than war against the country and the people of the United\nStates.\u201d A resolution to that effect was thereupon passed on April 6,\n1917.\n\nIf the proposition of going to war with Germany had been submitted to a\ndirect vote of the American people, under a referendum, they would have\nvoted against it, two to one, and in many localities and cities, four\nto one. Again we were saved, because we had a republican and not a\ndemocratic form of government. We were saved because our\nrepresentatives proved wiser than their constituents.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V\n\n                   INDEPENDENCE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE\n\n    The effect of popular instructions to representatives discussed\n    and illustrated.\n\n\nThe Fathers never intended that the people should legislate, interpret\nthe laws or administer justice. They did provide, however, that the\npeople should choose their legislators, their judges and their\nexecutives. They sought also to render impossible any interference with\nthe independence of these representatives. Judges are not expected to\ninquire of bystanders how questions of law shall be decided, or what\ndecrees shall be rendered, or what punishments imposed.\n\nThe Fathers did not anticipate that executives would hold their ears so\nclose to the ground as to become nests for crickets. I do not mean to\nbe understood, however, as intimating that the buzzing of insects has\nnever been mistaken for the voice of the people. Members of the House\nand the Senate were not supposed to conform to Dooley\u2019s definition of a\nstatesman: \u201cOne who watches the procession until he discovers in which\ndirection it is moving and then steals the stick from the drum major.\u201d\nThe Fathers expected officials to be as independent of the voters who\nselect them as officers of a corporation are independent of\nstockholders.\n\nIn proof that Washington did not consider the delegates to the\nConstitutional Convention bound to follow the wishes of the people they\nrepresented I cite what Gouverneur Morris quotes him as saying: \u201cIt is\ntoo probable that no plan we propose will be adopted. Perhaps another\ndreadful conflict is to be sustained. If to please the people we offer\nwhat we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let\nus raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the\nevent is in the hand of God.\u201d\n\nSuppose the state should engage in banking. A doorkeeper, a bookkeeper\nand a president would be necessary. But if the president sought\ninstruction from the street, the bank would be short-lived. If a body\nof stockholders were to enter a bank, as now operated, and demand a\nloan without security, either for themselves or for some needy fellow\ncreature, the president would probably say, \u201cYou can have another\npresident any day you please, but while I am president, you will\nfurnish collateral.\u201d Otherwise, there would be no bank.\n\nL. Q. C. Lamar used to say to his constituents: \u201cIf you desire me to\nrepresent you in Congress, I will do so.\u201d Then, with becoming dignity\nand in absolute harmony with the principles of the republic, as\nestablished by the Fathers, he would add, \u201cBut do not, for a moment,\nsuppose you can stand between the plow handles during the day and tell\nme how to vote.\u201d Evidently Mr. Lamar expected to study public questions\nand to be better informed than his average constituent.\n\nLater, the legislature, recognizing his ability, sent him to the United\nStates Senate. Here he opposed greenback legislation which was\nfavorably considered by the people of Mississippi. Thereupon the\nlegislature passed a resolution demanding either that he vote in\nharmony with the sentiment of his state, or resign. He refused to do\neither, but continued to speak, and to vote his convictions based on\nknowledge. Before his term expired, the wisdom of his course was\nrecognized and he was re-elected to the Senate by the very men who\nhad sought to direct his action in a matter wherein they had no\njurisdiction and he had supreme responsibility, and concerning which\nthey knew nothing, while he knew much.\n\nFollowing the Civil War impeachment proceedings were instituted against\nAndrew Johnson. Because of the known prejudices of the people of Iowa,\nSenator Grimes of that state was expected to vote \u201cguilty.\u201d He voted\n\u201cnot guilty,\u201d and his colleague asked him, \u201cDo you think you are\nexpressing the sentiment of the people of Iowa?\u201d The grand old Roman\nreplied: \u201cI have not inquired concerning the sentiment of the people of\nIowa. I vote my convictions.\u201d That would be political suicide today.\n\nA few years ago proceedings to expel a certain senator were pending and\nseveral of his associates, after hearing the evidence submitted to them\nin their judicial capacity, expressed the conviction that the accused\nwas innocent, but, because of the prejudices of their states, they\nwould have to vote for expulsion. Senator Depew told me of a member who\nactually cried as he contemplated voting to expel a man whom he\nbelieved to be innocent.\n\nI would like to ask how long you think the United States of America can\nmaintain her proud position among the nations of the world, if\noath-bound representatives of the people accept popular sentiment as\nthe guide of their official conduct.\n\nAt the unveiling of the monument to Elijah Lovejoy, a letter was read\nfrom Wendel Phillips containing this sentence: \u201cHow cautiously most\nslip into oblivion and are forgotten, while here and there a man\nforgets himself into immortality.\u201d In these most trying times our\ngreatest need is men in public life whose ears are always open to\ncounsel but ever closed to clamor\u2014who will approach pending problems\nthat threaten our very existence, with no other care but their\ncountry\u2019s weal. The corner stone of freedom, as laid by the Fathers, is\nthe absolute independence of the representative, coupled with the\nunimpeded right of the people to choose again at brief but appropriate\nintervals.\n\n\n                    HOW WOULD YOU BUILD A SUBMARINE?\n\nSuppose the government should delegate to some congressional district\nthe responsibility of building a submarine. Would anyone think of\nundertaking the task except on the principle of a republic? You would\nselect some man of mechanical aptitude, plus mechanical experience, and\nyou would hold him responsible for the result. Would you require your\nrepresentative when selected to listen to popular sentiment, as\nexpressed on the street corners or in the press? Would you have him\nsubmit his plans and blue prints to the \u201cpeople,\u201d by referendum or\notherwise?\n\nWe all admit that some men know more about farming than others, some\nmore about commerce than others, some more about science than others,\nbut the sentiment is alarmingly general that in the realm of\nstatecraft\u2014the most complex subject ever approached\u2014one man is just\nas wise as another. At Detroit, Michigan, during the campaign of 1916,\nWoodrow Wilson used this language: \u201cSo I say the suspicion is beginning\nto dawn in many quarters, that the average man knows the business\nnecessities of the country just as well as the extraordinary man.\u201d\n\nI do not wish to question Mr. Wilson\u2019s sincerity, though I am not\nunmindful of the fact that he spent the greater part of his active life\nin college work trying to produce \u201cextraordinary men,\u201d and in that\nfield he was quite successful. Taking issue with his position, but not\nwith his sincerity, I am going to insult popular sentiment and say that\nI believe there are many men competent to select a competent\nconstructor of a submarine, who are not competent to construct a\nsubmarine, or competent to instruct a constructor of a submarine.\n\nBut, suppose the people should build such a craft on the principle of a\ndemocracy, each one doing what seemed to him wise, without dishonesty\nor graft. I have no question but that a submarine would be produced\nthat would \u201csub,\u201d and I am equally certain that it would stay \u201csubbed.\u201d\n\nI want to ask whether, in your opinion, the ship of state\u2014the\ngovernment of the United States\u2014is any less complicated, any less\ncomplex or any less likely to \u201csub\u201d and stay \u201csubbed,\u201d exactly as each\nand every republic for twenty-five hundred years did \u201csub\u201d\u2014if placed\nin the hands of an inexperienced mass of experimenters in statecraft.\n\nThink this out for yourself. This is your government quite as much as\nmine, and it will be your government long after the conservative \u201cOld\nGuard\u201d have left the field of human activities.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI\n\n                           TREND OF THE TIMES\n\n    A consideration of the constitutional guarantee that each state\n    shall have a republican form of government, and the warning of\n    Washington against making changes in the constitution.\n\n\nBoth the trend of thought and the current of events are away from\nrepresentative government and toward direct government.\n\nLegislating by initiative or by referendum, the recall of judges, and\nespecially the recall of judicial decisions, come dangerously near\nconstituting a democratic form of government, against which the\nConstitution of the United States guarantees. Its language you\nremember: \u201cThe United States shall guarantee to every state in this\nUnion a republican form of government.\u201d\n\nChief Justice Taney, interpreting this section, said: \u201cIt rests with\nCongress to decide what government is the established one in a state,\nfor, as the United States guarantees to each state a republican form of\ngovernment, Congress must necessarily decide what government is\nestablished in the state before it can determine whether it is\nrepublican or not.\u201d[1]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  Luther vs. Borden, 7 Howard 1.\n\nChief Justice Waite used the following language, the vital sentence of\nwhich I have italicized: \u201cAll the states had governments when the\nConstitution was adopted. In all, the people participated, to some\nextent, _through their representatives selected in the manner specially\nprovided_. These governments the Constitution did not change. They were\naccepted precisely as they were and it is therefore to be presumed that\nthey were such as it is the duty of the states to provide. Thus, we\nhave unmistakable evidence of what was republican in form within the\nmeaning of that term as employed in the Constitution.\u201d[2]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  Minar vs. Happersatt, 21 Wall 112.\n\nIt is well to note that this participation in their government, which\nthe learned Chief Justice mentions, was \u201c_through their\nrepresentatives_,\u201d and in no other way.\n\nMore than one state has been required to change its constitution before\nadmission into the Union. Congress refused to admit Arizona under a\nconstitution providing for the recall of judges and judicial decisions.\nIt smacked too strongly of direct government. After her admission,\nhowever, she amended her constitution and inserted the socialistic\u2014the\n\u201cdemocratic\u201d\u2014provisions, the elimination of which Congress had made a\ncondition precedent to admission.\n\nIn his work, \u201cThe State,\u201d Woodrow Wilson calls attention to the fact\nthat constitution-making is fast becoming \u201ca cumbrous mode of\nlegislation.\u201d The record in many states justifies this comment.\n\nAt the election of 1918, in the state of California there were\nsubmitted through referendum nineteen proposed amendments to its\nconstitution, no one of which legitimately belongs in a constitution.\nThey were simply legislative acts sought to be inserted in the organic\nlaw, or state charter, for the sole purpose of rendering them more\ndifficult of repeal when proved bad. The \u201cpeople\u201d had so little\nconfidence in themselves that they deemed it imprudent to trust to\ntheir wisdom whether a law should be continued when found beneficial or\nrepealed when its effects were evil, and hence sought to tie their own\nhands by placing the act in the constitution instead of in the revised\nstatutes.\n\nGeorge Washington, with prophetic vision, foresaw and in his immortal\nFarewell Address warned against this tendency towards evolutionary\nrevolution and employed this language, the last sentence of which I\nfeel certain he would today italicize:\n\n\u201cTowards the preservation of your government and the permanency of your\npresent happy state, it is requisite not only that you speedily\ndiscountenance irregular opposition to its acknowledged authority, but\nalso that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its\nprinciples, however specious the pretext. _One method of assault may be\nto effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will\nimpair the energy of the system and thus to undermine what cannot be\ndirectly overthrown._\u201d\n\nThis trend towards a democratic form of government, or direct\ngovernment, finds fitting illustration in the fact that if you were to\nlocate a homestead in any one of several states, prove up and secure\nyour patent, and someone should contest your title, and the court\nshould find the land belonged to you, and should render decision\naccordingly, the people might reverse this decree and give the land to\nthe contestant. It is not a question whether they are likely to do such\na thing. The fact that the people in several states have deliberately\nprovided the machinery by which they can thus defeat justice,\nconstitutes a perpetual menace that should adversely affect the market\nvalue of all real estate in those states. When title to property is\nmade to rest upon the sentimental whim of the masses, as distinguished\nfrom a decree of court, liberty itself is rendered unstable and\norganized government is abandoned and socialism is substituted.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VII\n\n                         CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY\n\n    The necessity for organized government and organized justice as\n    a guarantee of constitutional liberty is sought to be shown.\n    Plato\u2019s dream, Macaulay\u2019s dire prediction and a threat.\n\n\nA democratic form of government precludes the possibility of\nconstitutional liberty. Constitutional liberty does exist in what\nProfessor Giddings calls a \u201cdemocratic state,\u201d but cannot in what the\nsame author calls a \u201cdemocratic form of government.\u201d His admittedly\ncorrect differentiation cannot be too often repeated.\n\n\u201cA democratic state,\u201d says this high authority, \u201cis popular\nsovereignty,\u201d while \u201ca democratic form of government is the actual\ndecision of every question of legal and executive detail by a direct\npopular vote.\u201d\n\nI grant the formality of a constitution may exist under a democratic\nform of government, but where all functions of government are exercised\ndirectly by the people, necessarily there can be no tribunal to enforce\nthe provisions of a constitution. Let me illustrate.\n\nSuppose, if you will, that an uninhabited island has been discovered,\nand a government is about to be formulated preliminary to its\noccupation. Undoubtedly, we would agree that the sovereignty of the\nisland should be vested in the people. This, according to Professor\nGiddings, would make it a \u201cdemocratic state.\u201d The next question would\nbe whether this sovereignty would be exercised directly or through\nrepresentatives. Shall it be a democratic form of government, or a\nrepublican form of government?\n\nSomeone would propose that a majority should rule. If I were present, I\nwould promptly suggest that the rights of majorities always have been,\nand always will be, secure. Minorities, not majorities, need\nprotection. I would ask what protection is to be given me, or anyone\nwho may prove an undesirable citizen. Will we be thrown into jail and\nkept there indefinitely, without trial and without knowing the cause of\nour incarceration? Such wrongs were common for centuries and are\nperpetrated by bolshevists, and defended by socialists today. Very\nlikely the assembly would then promise a speedy trial, with right to\nsummon witnesses, and to be confronted by one\u2019s accusers, and other\nsafeguards of liberty such as are now guaranteed in the Constitution of\nthe United States, and that of every state.\n\nBut this would not satisfy me. I would ask \u201cHow do I know that this\npromise will be kept?\u201d Then, doubtless, the right to a writ of _habeas\ncorpus_ would be promised. And this would not satisfy me. I would ask:\n\u201cBy whom will it be issued, and by whom enforced?\u201d Before we were\nthrough, it is quite probable we would create a tribunal, clothe it\nwith greatest dignity, segregate it from the affairs of business and\nsafeguard it against political influence, and for want of a better\nname, we would call it \u201cThe Supreme Court of the Island.\u201d This court\nwould be clothed with authority to grant and enforce not only writs of\n_habeas corpus_ but any and all other orders and decrees and judgments\nnecessary to protect the minority, even though a minority of one, in\nhis every constitutional right.\n\n\n                       TREASON AS AN ILLUSTRATION\n\nTreason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. Prior to the\nyear 1352 there was great uncertainty in England as to what constituted\ntreason, and Parliament, for the purpose of restraining the power of\nthe Crown to oppress the subject by arbitrary construction, passed, in\nthat year, what is commonly known as the \u201cStatute of Treason.\u201d All acts\nthat might be construed treasonable were classified under seven\nbranches. The framers of the Constitution, desiring to protect the\nminority, chose only one of the seven and placed a perpetual bar\nagainst any other act being made treason, and further safeguarded the\nminority by defining the only basis of conviction. Section 3, Article\nIII, is as follows:\n\n\u201cTreason against the United States shall consist only in levying war\nagainst them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and\ncomfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the\ntestimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in\nopen court.\u201d\n\nNow, suppose confiscationists, whether styling themselves socialists,\nbolsheviki, single-taxers, or non-partisan leaguers, shall get control\nand, by referendum, extend the scope of treason to include such\noffenses as claiming title to real estate, which all the breed insist\nrightfully belongs to the people _en masse_. Far less degrees of what\nthey consider \u201ccrime\u201d were made punishable by death when democracy went\nmad in France. Of what use would the express provisions of the\nConstitution be if the power to recall decisions, as well as the judges\nwho render them, is to be exercised by the mass?\n\nLeave it to the people to afford protection from the people and you\nmight just as well abolish all constitutional guarantees. Were the\npeople _en_ _masse_ to make the laws, _en masse_ to interpret the laws,\nand _en masse_ to enforce the laws, the individual would have no rights\nthat the people _en masse_ would be bound to respect.\n\n\n                 SOVIET RUSSIA AND AMERICAN REVOLUTION\n\nIn a widely circulated pamphlet, \u201cA Voice Out of Russia,\u201d the author\nspeaks of \u201ca certain divine sense in which the Russian revolution\nparallels the revolt of the thirteen American colonies, and in which\nthe proletariat of Russia is striving to accomplish for his world much\nthe same ideals which our forefathers laid down for theirs. There was,\u201d\nhe says, \u201cmore of the spirit of the people, more of faith and\ndependence in the proletariat, in American revolutionary doctrines,\nthan we seem disposed to admit today; and by the same token, it is\nbecause we have lost our sense of fundamental democracy that we do not\ncare to admit it.\u201d\n\n\u201cFundamental democracy\u201d is the correct term. But we have not lost it.\nWe are simply in danger of getting it. It is exactly what the Fathers\nsought to eliminate and prevent.\n\nOn the next page of the pamphlet, the author says: \u201cThe writers of the\nAmerican Constitution certainly strove to do away with the artificial\ncomplexities of politics, and to bring every function of government\nwithin the grasp and comprehension of the whole electorate.\u201d\n\nI submit that that is exactly what the framers of the Constitution did\nnot seek to do. They created representative government and sought to\nguard against direct government. The author quoted, and every other\nteacher of revolution, either by peaceful or violent means, is seeking\nto establish direct government. When they use the word \u201cdemocracy,\u201d\nthey use it in its dictionary sense. They use it as Rousseau,\nRobespierre, Lenine, Trotsky and a very large number of others,\nincluding some widely known Americans, use it. Why do liberty-loving\nAmericans seek to divorce the word \u201cdemocracy\u201d from its original\nmeaning and popularize the greatest enemy liberty has ever known?\n\n\n                             PLATO\u2019S DREAM\n\nOne of the best and most conservative newspapers in the United States\nprinted late in 1918 a carefully written editorial under the above\ntitle, from which I quote a few disconnected sentences, italicizing the\nmost important:\n\n\u201cTwenty-five hundred years ago in Athens, Plato, the philosopher, who\nis called the \u2018father of idealists,\u2019 framed the structure of an ideal\ngovernment among men, in the form of a republic. ... When the dust of\nPlato was gathered into a Grecian urn, his dream did not die. The\ngenerations harbored and treasured it. Time after time, and in place\nafter place, republics were formed. Men gave their blood and their\nlives to realize the dream of Plato. But always might prevailed over\nthem. Only America endured to make the dream come true. In these times\nthere are numerous republics but there is not one among them that does\nnot owe its existence to the example and the influence of the United\nStates. Were our republic to crumble, every other on earth would\ncrumble with it.... Since the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, one\nhundred and thirty years have passed and _during that time America has\nmet and overcome every trial to which the ideal republic could possibly\nbe subjected_. It has answered every argument against a republican form\nof government advanced by the most stubborn objectors.\u201d\n\nThe foregoing is historically correct except the last two sentences.\nAmerica has stood every test except that which ruined every other\nrepublic. It has not yet encountered _direct government_, towards which\nwe seem radically tending. It has not withstood what Lord Macauley, a\ncentury ago, predicted would prove our overthrow. He declared the\nrepublic was \u201call sail and no ballast.\u201d He predicted great speed for a\nperiod; but he warned against the day when those who did not have\nbreakfast and did not expect dinner would elect our congress and our\npresident. The demagogue would be abroad in the land and he would say:\n\u201cWhy do these have and you suffer?\u201d\n\n\u201cYour republic will be pillaged and ravaged in the 20th century, just\nas the Roman Empire was by the barbarians of the fifth century, with\nthis difference, that the devastators of the Roman Empire, the Huns and\nVandals, came from abroad, while your barbarians will be the people of\nyour own country, and the product of your own institutions.\u201d\n\nIf \u201cCoxie\u2019s army\u201d had been led by Eugene Debs, or any one of more than\na score whose names are revered by many, instead of by a patriotic\nAmerican, every mile of the road over which it traveled would have\nreeked with human gore. Had it resorted to bloodshed at that time,\nhowever, it would not have proceeded far. But socialism has made great\nprogress since 1895.\n\nSpeaking before a Senate committee early in January of this year, the\npresident of the American Federation of Labor is reported to have said:\n\u201cThe people will not countenance industrial stagnation after the war.\nThere can be no repetition in the United States of the conditions that\nprevailed from 1893 to 1896 when men and women were hungry for the want\nof employment.\u201d\n\nThe same veiled threat has been uttered repeatedly by men high in\nofficial position.\n\nAre we face to face with a condition and not a theory? Will laborers\nrevolt if they fail to secure employment, or when compelled to accept a\nlesser wage? Will farmers turn anarchist if they can find no market for\ntheir crops, or when compelled to accept a lesser price? Will bankers\nbecome bomb throwers if unloanable funds accumulate? No, America has\nnot withstood every trial to which she can possibly be subjected. The\nsupreme menace stands today with gnashing teeth, glaring into our faces.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VIII\n\n                        WHAT IS A CONSTITUTION?\n\n    The nature of the constitution and the dependence of the\n    minority thereon and hence the necessity for an independent\n    judiciary discussed and illustrated.\n\n\nA constitution is little less than a firm and binding contract between\nthe majority and the minority, entered into for the sole protection of\nthe minority, with regularly constituted courts to enforce its\nprovisions.\n\nThe Supreme Court of the United States, from which every root of the\nJudiciary Department\u2014one of the three coordinate branches of\ngovernment\u2014derives its vitality, is our only continuing and unchanging\nbulwark of liberty.\n\nThe executive branch, from President down through all the departments,\nState, Treasury, War and Navy, is liable to radical change on the\nfourth day of March every four years. Either house and both houses of\nCongress frequently change in partisan complexion at a single election.\nThe Supreme Court, the members of which hold by life tenure, remains,\ntheoretically, at least, unchanged.\n\nUnless the people undermine their liberties by \u201ceffecting in the forms\nof the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the\nsystem,\u201d which Washington warned against, or unless some executive\ncorrupts the personnel of the Supreme Court by filling vacancies with\nsocialists, or other revolutionary elements, Anglican liberty, the hope\nof the world, is secured in America against everything except\nbolshevism. With respect to the courts, Washington\u2019s famous order is\npertinent: \u201cPlace none but Americans on guard tonight.\u201d\n\n\n                          WHO IS AN AMERICAN?\n\nWho is an American, worthy to be placed on guard tonight? Is he\nAmerican born? He may be, and he may have been born beneath any flag\nand under any sky. An American is one who believes in and is ready to\ndefend this _republic_. To be ready to defend our territory, or even\nour flag, is not enough.\n\nThough we continue our socialistic bent and either undermine or\noverthrow our form of government through peaceful evolution or forceful\nrevolution, with sword or by ballot, the land will remain. The rains\nwill water it, the sun warm it, human life will exist, the Stars and\nStripes will still float, but, except from the map, America will be\ngone forever.\n\nAmerica is more than fertile fields, more than bursting banks, more\nthan waving flags. The America in which one must believe, and for which\nhe must sacrifice, is constitutional liberty and justice according to\nlaw, guaranteed and administered by three coordinate branches of\ngovernment. Just in proportion as we weaken the energy of the system\nthrough changes in the Constitution\u2014which Washington so earnestly\nwarned against\u2014we undermine what thus far no one has succeeded in\noverthrowing.\n\nI repeat, three coordinate branches of government with no subordinate\nbranch! In the America which the world knows, and which we love, laws\nmust be enacted by the legislative branch, and not by the executive or\nby the proletariat. Laws must be interpreted by an independent\njudiciary, fearless and unrecallable except by impeachment. And these\nlaws, whose scope is limited by the Constitution, must be administered\nby the executive and not by the legislative branch. Congress has no\nmore right to direct the manner of execution of its acts than the\npresident has to direct or coerce the nature of its acts. Let each\ncoordinate branch keep hands off the sacred prerogatives of the other.\nThat\u2019s America! And the man who defends her traditions and her\ninstitutions, regardless of his nativity, is an American who can safely\nbe placed on guard tonight.\n\n\n                            AN ACTUAL MENACE\n\nOn February 3, 1919, an editorial writer who has testified that he has\nsix million or more readers, quoted Samuel Gompers, president of the\nAmerican Federation of Labor, as saying:\n\n\u201cI mean that the people propose to control their government and do not\nintend any longer to have the governing power exercised by judges on\nthe bench.\u201d\n\nAnd the editor correctly adds:\n\n\u201cThis is as near to an American revolutionary statement as has ever\ncome from a man as important officially as Mr. Gompers.\u201d\n\nThus the issue is sharply drawn. This organization, if its president\nhas been correctly quoted, intends to abolish one of our coordinate\nbranches of government, to-wit, the courts.\n\nWhat have the courts done to justify such a radical change in our form\nof government? When the government was organized the Fathers thought\nwise to make express provision that no class should ever become the\nspecial favorite of legislation. The Constitution forbids class\nlegislation and the courts enforce it. Unless labor union people demand\nspecial exemptions from obligations to which all others are amenable,\nor special privileges denied to others, why do they officially make the\nrevolutionary announcement that the courts are to be abolished? Yet\nthis very thing has the approval of this most widely known and\nbest-paid editorial writer in the world. Pressed in a corner, I presume\nboth would claim that their only desire is to compel the courts\npromptly to observe popular sentiment instead of studying legal\nprinciples and, to that end, propose to subject judges to some kind of\nrecall. And they would doubtless justify all this by the hackneyed\nphrase, \u201cthe people can be trusted.\u201d\n\nThus they follow Rousseau and Robespierre. The former declared, \u201cThe\ngeneral will, the public will, is always right.\u201d The latter said, \u201cThe\npeople is infallible.\u201d\n\nA case that well illustrates this \u201cpopular infallibility\u201d as taught by\nRousseau and Robespierre, as well as by their present day disciples,\noccurred in a certain county in Iowa, not fifty miles from my home. A\nperson charged with second degree murder sought his constitutional\nright of a fair and impartial trial. He made application for a change\nof venue, alleging that his case had been prejudged and that because of\nthe existing prejudice he could not obtain a fair trial within that\ncounty. Five citizens, the minimum requisite number, supported his\nmotion by their affidavits. Promptly, two hundred most reputable\ncitizens filed counter affidavits alleging that there was no prejudice\nwhatever. The judge believed the five. It is probable that he discerned\nevidence of prejudice in the eagerness with which the two hundred\nsought to have the case tried in their midst. A change of venue was\ngranted, and that night these two hundred liberty-loving citizens\ndecided they would \u201cno longer have the governing power exercised by\njudges on the bench,\u201d broke open the jail, hung the accused and would\nhave done violence to the judge if he had not been spirited away.\n\nIf you want the opposite view of \u201cpopular infallibility,\u201d so you may\nthe better determine for yourself, listen to Colonel Henry Watterson, a\ndemocrat of the old school and an American always, in the _Brooklyn\nEagle_ of February 1, 1919:\n\n\u201cThe people,\u201d says Colonel Watterson, \u201c_en masse_ constitute what we\ncall the mob. Mobs have rarely been right\u2014never, except when capably\nled. It was the mob of Jerusalem that did the unoffending Jesus of\nNazareth to death. It was the mob in Paris that made the Reign of\nTerror. From that day to this, mobs have seldom been tempted, even had\na chance to go wrong, that they have not gone wrong. \u2018The people\u2019 is a\nfetish. It was the people misled, who precipitated the South into the\nmadness of secession and the ruin of a hopelessly unequal war of\nsections. It was the people, backing if not compelling, the Kaiser, who\ncommitted hari-kari for themselves and their empire in Germany. It is\nthe people, leaderless, who are now making havoc in Russia. Throughout\nthe length and breadth of Christendom in all lands and ages, the\npeople, when turned loose, have raised every inch of hell to the square\ninch they were able to raise, often upon the slightest pretext, or no\npretext at all.\u201d\n\n\n                   OFFICIAL TIMIDITY AND ITS EFFECTS\n\nIn some, perhaps most of the states, candidates for either House of\nCongress, knowing in advance that if, by investigation and by listening\nto arguments pro and con, they arrive at conclusions based on knowledge\nthat differ from the impressions of their constituents based on\nprejudice, they will never be returned, make more or less formal\nannouncement that, if elected, they will study no question but, when\nready to vote, will inquire of those who have had neither opportunity\nnor desire to inform themselves, and vote as directed. We pay\ncongressmen and senators of this type\u2014just the same as statesmanlike\nrepresentatives\u2014seven thousand, five hundred dollars a year, and they\nvote as they are told to vote. If I am correctly informed, in some\nstates men have been found who will vote as they are instructed for\nconsiderably less money even than that.\n\nWhile the bill was pending to declare war against Germany, I called\nupon a Congressman who, without question, is the ablest man from his\nstate. He had written to lawyers, bankers, farmers and labor men in his\ndistrict, asking how he should vote on that momentous question. He\nhanded me a package of replies he had received. I returned them and\nasked: \u201cDo you agree with the President that Germany is already making\nwar upon the United States?\u201d \u201cYes,\u201d he replied, \u201cshe has waged war\nagainst us for more than two years.\u201d \u201cDo you think your constituents\nknow better than you what should be done?\u201d His up-to-date reply was:\n\u201cMy constituents know nothing whatever about it, but I want to be\nre-elected.\u201d\n\nBut not every congressman is that subservient. A certain well-known\nrepresentative of a strongly German district in Ohio explained his\nsupport of the declaration of war in this language:\n\n\u201cIf I were to permit any solicitude for my political future to govern\nmy action, I might hesitate, but, gentlemen of the House, the only\ninterest to which I give heed tonight is the interest of the American\npeople; the only future to which I look is the future of my country.\u201d\n\nA few years ago a bill was pending to revise the tariff and a member of\nCongress from a certain industrial district arose and informed the\nHouse that he had written to several labor men in his district and\nasked them how he should vote and that he had received a telegram\nsaying, \u201cVote for the bill.\u201d He obeyed. This member did not profess to\nvote his convictions. In fact, he did not claim to be troubled with\nconvictions. And I submit that if a man is to vote the sentiment of his\ndistrict, rather than his judgment, it is foolish to waste the time of\nmen of judgment by sending them to Congress. It would be more\nappropriate and in far better taste to send men who have nothing else\nto do. A thousand dollars a year ought to be enough for a man who bears\nno responsibility except to listen well, especially if he be of a\ncaliber willing to act as a \u201crubber stamp\u201d for the people at home.\n\nRight here I want to venture an opinion, asking no one to agree with\nme: The gravest danger that confronts the United States of America, or\nthat has confronted her in the last decade, has not been the armed\nforces against which we sent our brave boys in khaki, but in the fact\nthat there are hundreds of representatives, and thousands of ambitious\npoliticians, who cannot be purchased with the wealth of Croesus, but\nwho will vote for anything and everything if by so doing they can\nadvance their political fortunes.\n\nBolshevism would be crushed and the red flag of anarchy would be no\nlonger flaunted in the face of Freedom, were it not for this timidity\ninspired by those who insist that their representatives shall have no\ndiscretion and no responsibility except as clerks for an irresponsible\npopulace. This is the doctrine taught in Rousseau\u2019s \u201cSocial Contract,\u201d\nwhich Robespierre read every day and which furnished the inspiration\nfor the French Revolution. His scheme was \u201cpure democracy, unchecked,\nunlimited and undefiled by political leadership or political\norganization.\u201d\n\nMarat declared: \u201cIn a well regulated government the people as a body is\nthe real sovereign; their deputies are appointed solely to execute\ntheir orders. What right has the clay to oppose the potter?\u201d Again, he\nsays: \u201cIt is a sacred right of constituents to dismiss their\nrepresentatives at will.\u201d And again: \u201cReduce the number of deputies\u201d\n(corresponding to our members of Congress) \u201cto fifty; do not let them\nremain in office more than five or six weeks; compel them to transact\ntheir business during that time in public.\u201d\n\nThis spirit of \u201cpure democracy\u201d which Washington, with prophetic eye,\nsaw and warned against, wrought its natural and legitimate ruin in\nFrance, is responsible for conditions now existing in Russia and\naffords the greatest menace to civilization that the world has ever\nseen. I do not consider Washington a pessimist when, near the close of\nhis \u201cFarewell Address\u201d with heart full of apprehension, he uttered\nthese words:\n\n\u201cIn offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and\naffectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and\nlasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual\ncurrent of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course\nwhich hitherto has marked the destiny of nations.\u201d\n\nSomeone has declared life to be \u201cone succession of choices.\u201d The choice\npresented today is: Heed the warnings and return to the teachings of\nWashington; or go with Rousseau and Robespierre and enter the port\ntowards which we are unmistakably headed\u2014the port where lie the\nrotting timbers of all previous republics. Representative government\nand direct government are inherently incompatible. They are absolutely\nantagonistic.\n\n\n\n\n                              PART SECOND\n\n\n           DANGERS FROM CHANGES IN OUR PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IX\n\n                              PRELIMINARY\n\n    The basis of human happiness most be understood before one can\n    judge if the policy which our government has pursued is\n    calculated to afford liberty in the pursuit of\n    happiness\u2014admittedly the most important of our inalienable\n    rights\u2014as well as to determine whether the same should be\n    reversed.\n\n\nPreliminary to the discussion of the original design of government, and\nits gradual reversal of purpose, I want to present as briefly as I may,\nsome philosophies of life. This I deem important, for only as we\nunderstand the basis of human happiness can we appreciate the wisdom of\nthe course which the United States pursued for more than one hundred\nyears, during which it attained the proudest position ever occupied by\nany nation.\n\nIt is recorded that when the first parents were being expelled from the\nGarden of Eden God pronounced this blessing upon the race: \u201cIn the\nsweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.\u201d I have heard this referred to\nas a curse, but the All-wise Father has never cursed the race. God\nseems to be an individualist and not a collectivist. \u201cWhosoever will,\u201d\n\u201cThe soul that sinneth it shall die,\u201d and many similar passages are as\nfar removed from socialistic teachings as is possible. They are the\nexact opposite. After some years of experience and much observation, I\nfeel justified in saying that, barring the promise of redemption, the\ngreatest blessing God Almighty ever pronounced upon the race of man was\nwhen he said: \u201cIn the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.\u201d\n\nThen God promulgated a great commandment containing two injunctions,\nthe first of which the church seeks to enforce. It reads: \u201cRemember the\nSabbath day to keep it holy.\u201d The second, equally important and as\nwoefully transgressed, says: \u201cSix days shalt thou labor.\u201d I know people\nwho violate each of these injunctions. They break the Sabbath and will\nnot work the other six days.\n\nWe also read that when God had made the worlds and swung them into\nspace, he pronounced them \u201cVery good.\u201d It is but reasonable to believe,\nand certainly reverent to say, that the Great Jehovah got divine\nsatisfaction and gratification from his creatorship, and his\nsovereignty. When, in the fullness of time, He made man in His own\nimage, wanting to provide for man\u2019s happiness, He harked back to the\nthrill of creatorship and gave man the capacity for the maximum of\nhappiness from his creatorships, his sovereignties, his achievements.\n\nOne needs but little observation to recognize that achievement is the\nbasis of man\u2019s material happiness. How often we hear men say: \u201cThis was\nraw prairie. I made this farm.\u201d \u201cI planted this grove.\u201d \u201cI started this\nstore.\u201d \u201cI established this bank.\u201d \u201cI built this factory.\u201d I remember\nvery well Sir Thomas Lipton telling me where, as an immigrant with but\nfifty cents in his pocket, he spent his first night in New York City.\nThere is something more than a joke in the statement that \u201cself-made\nmen are apt to be proud of the job.\u201d\n\nNothing will develop manhood in a boy like giving him a pig, a calf, a\nlamb or even a rabbit. My! how a boy will grow in self-respect when\npermitted just to call a colt \u201chis,\u201d and to feel the resultant sense of\nproprietorship. The establishment of gardens for boys, and the offering\nof prizes for the best acre of corn grown by a boy, is the best \u201cuplift\nwork\u201d that was ever attempted. Until very recent years the public has\nnever sought to apply these principles of mental philosophy to the\ndevelopment of manly character in the young.\n\nAs soon as the savage feels this divinely implanted impulse for\nownership and achievement, he is on the road towards civilization.\nThen, as he advances, \u201cindividualism\u201d becomes more marked and instead\nof living in a hut, wearing braided grass and eating his meat and fish\nraw, he improves his condition and inequality begins. Is civilization a\nfailure? It must be if socialism has any place in divine economy.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER X\n\n                    NO COMPETITION BETWEEN THE SEXES\n\n    A brief discussion of the distinction between women as voters\n    and as statesmen.\n\n\nWhile this chapter is parenthetical and is not essential to the\nargument, yet a discussion of the philosophy of human happiness would\nbe incomplete without it.\n\nIf man had the power of creation his present wisdom would cause him not\nonly to omit competition between the sexes, but he would avoid the\npossibility of even rivalry. The Creator in His wisdom did not put the\nsexes in competition and man can neither improve nor amend.\n\nOccasionally a woman develops a beard, but it is so rare that she\nusually enters a museum. Many years ago I saw a woman with a\nwell-defined \u201cAdam\u2019s apple.\u201d But none of us admire either \u201cmannish\u201d\nwomen or \u201csissy\u201d men.\n\nWoman does not get her happiness from her creatorships or\nsovereignties. The normal woman prefers that her husband be the\nsovereign, and she his queen. Woman gets her happiness from her\nsacrifices. She gives herself to husband, to children, to home, to\nchurch, to hospital, to good deeds, and out of these sacrifices she\ngets the maximum of her happiness. A boy asked the butcher for tough\nmeat and gave this reason: \u201cIf I get tender meat, dad\u2019ll eat it all.\u201d\nThat would be a libel upon woman. We have each seen a thousand times\nwhere mother was getting more happiness in picking the neck and the\nback than the children in eating the white meat, while dad grabbed both\nupper joints.\n\nBut there is another side to this. When dad is refreshed, when his\nblood is red, when he is a full-grown normal man, what does dad do? He\nbears all the hardships and all the dangers this world holds in store;\nhe freezes in the arctics, he melts in the tropics, that he may bring\nto those he loves the choicest of earth, and adorn his queen with the\nbrightest jewels that glitter.\n\nI have never supposed that when our early ancestors were confronted\nwith danger that there was any controversy as to who should defend the\nother. I have assumed that she as instinctively sprang to his left, as\nhe to her right, that _his_ sword arm might be free. His name was John.\nHer name was Mary. His brother\u2019s name was Peter; he married Margaret.\nEach pair named their son Ole. There being two Oles in the tribe, a\ndistinguishing name was necessary. Do you suppose there was a family\ncontroversy to determine whether one should be called \u201cOle Johnson\u201d or\n\u201cOle Maryson\u201d?\n\nNo, woman does not wish to be the head of a clan, or to create or to\npossess, but she does desire that her husband shall be a chieftain, a\nbuilder and a landlord, and is willing to make any sacrifice to that\nend. Woman wants to be loved and, incidentally, let me say, needs to be\ntold that she is, in the tenderest way, and more than once. If told\nsufficiently often, she is even proud to be a slave to the man who\nloves her and sometimes is without ever receiving a single post-nuptial\nword of endearment.\n\nI doubt if anyone would favor woman\u2019s suffrage if he thought it would\nresult in changing woman\u2019s nature, or in making her masculine in\nmanner. \u201cMan\u2019s chiefest inspiration to well-doing is hope of\ncompanionship with that sacred, true and well-embodied soul\u2014a\nwoman\u201d\u2014only because an All-wise Creator made the sexes as unlike as\npossible and still keep them both human.\n\n  \u201cFor woman is not undeveloped man,\n  But diverse. Could we but make her as the man,\n  Sweet love were slain.\u201d\n\nOnly one woman has occupied a seat in Congress and I am glad to record\nthat she remained womanly, and the other members manly. In that respect\nthe experiment was harmless. She was permitted to violate the rules and\nto interrupt a rollcall to explain her vote. Neither the Speaker nor\nthe members called her to order. Perhaps they would have done so had\nshe not been crying at the time. During a speech criticising the\nenforcement of law against a certain element in her state, she was\nasked several questions which, together with her answers, were taken\ndown by the official stenographer. When she revised the extension of\nthe notes for the Congressional Record, she again violated the rules\nand struck out the questions and answers and explained her conduct by\nsaying: \u201cI didn\u2019t want them in there.\u201d The congressmen affected, still\nchivalrous, did not even ask to have the Record corrected.\n\nIt will probably be some years before another woman occupies a seat in\neither house, for statesmanship is not gauged by intelligence or purity\nof motive, so much as by aptitude crossed on experience. Aptitude for\nthe law, aptitude for mechanics and aptitude for statecraft, are quite\nrare, even among men. Many women have been admitted to the bar, and\nwhile a few have had some practice as attorneys, thus far the sex has\ndeveloped no one of marked legal ability. If it should produce a lawyer\nor a master mechanic or a statesman, it will not necessarily entitle\nthe unfortunate to a place in a museum, but it will be about as rare as\nanything in a museum.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER XI\n\n                  PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF GOVERNMENT\n\n    In this chapter the wisdom of the Fathers is sought to be shown\n    by the fact that they inaugurated policies and purposes\n    admirably calculated to develop the individuality of each\n    citizen, and to afford the greatest opportunity for the maximum\n    of human happiness.\n\n\nWith these philosophies of human life in our mind, let us pass to the\nstudy of the purpose and policy of our government as shown in its\nhistory.\n\nImagine, if you will, that we have just won our independence, that the\nConstitutional Convention has been held, the matchless document there\nformulated has been adopted and that the United States of America has\nbecome a Nation. Then suppose all the people within our domain gather\nto determine the purpose and policy of their government. Will we choose\nthe least possible government, and the greatest measure of liberty, or\nshall the United States become a great business concern with all its\ncitizens on the payroll? Shall government guard the liberties of the\npeople while they prosecute their business, or shall the government\nconduct the business and the citizen guard the government?\n\nAlexander Hamilton will attend this meeting and will make the speech of\nhis life. Talleyrand declared Hamilton\u2019s to be the greatest intellect\nhe ever met. In addition to well-nigh matchless mentality he probably\npossessed greater vision than any man of his time; and vision is the\nnatural parent of statesmanship, if indeed it be not statesmanship\nitself.\n\nStanding at the cradle of this nation, Alexander Hamilton assures\nTalleyrand that either Philadelphia or New York will be ultimately the\nfinancial center of the world. Back in the interior he predicts another\nmetropolis. Eventually, he declares, the United States will extend to\nthe Pacific Ocean and yonder on the western coast there will be another\nmetropolis. If we build to such dimensions these must be our policies.\n\nHe continues his speech and tells us that the United States is not only\ndestined to be the most powerful but likewise the richest nation in the\nworld. Our unearned increment will exceed the dream of man. These\nlands, now worthless, are intrinsically of great value. All the\nminerals and all the metals will be found within our borders and these\nwill measure untold riches. Today we have resources unequalled in any\nland, and resourcefulness unmatched by any people, and he reminds us\nthat resourcefulness, when applied to resources, will produce greatness.\n\nThen someone in the audience rises and announces himself a bolshevist\nand moves that the United States retain title to all these wonderful\nresources until they attain their maximum value. He proposes that we\ntolerate no \u201cland hogs\u201d and permit no one to exploit the resources of\nAmerica or make profit out of iron or coal or oil or even a waterpower.\n\nThen a socialist declares this to be a concise statement of his creed\nand seconds the motion. Non-partisan leaguers from North Dakota, and\nsingle-taxers from California, also favor it. An anarchist joins to say\nthat while his people are opposed to any laws, yet if laws are to be\nmade, they should each prohibit something and none should encourage\nanything. Then an I. W. W. declares that this will suit him, provided\nhe be not required to work. But the proposition is lost.\n\nThen a preamble and resolution is offered to this effect: \u201cWhereas, the\nAll-wise Creator has decreed that man shall derive his greatest\nhappiness from his achievements, therefore, with faith both in God and\nman and believing in America, be it resolved, that we emblazon upon the\nsky where all the world shall see, the great announcement that the\nStars and Stripes shall forever stand for Opportunity!\u201d This is carried\nby acclamation and amid applause.\n\nThen another moves that we give notice to every citizen, and to every\nperson who may desire to become a citizen, that in the pursuit of\nguaranteed happiness, each shall have guaranteed liberty to look over\nour broad domain, select the biggest thing he dare undertake and, if he\nmakes it win, it shall belong to him. This motion is carried by a\nrising vote.\n\nThen a third man moves that in the development of our resources, the\ngovernment shall foster everything, and father nothing. In his speech\nsupporting the motion, he suggests that if Mr. Hamilton\u2019s prediction\nconcerning the ultimate greatness of America proves true, men will\nengage in commerce; they will build ships and they will build them too\nlarge for our harbors. Then the government, in fostering commerce, will\ndeepen and widen our waterways, but it will not father commerce and\ntake over the ships. It will leave to the citizen the right to own the\nship, to fly his flag at its mast and to get the thrill that will\nsurely come from sailing the biggest ship that cuts the waves of ocean.\nAchieve and be happy! This motion is also adopted.\n\nAfter these hopeful and courageous souls have thus formulated a\nprogressive policy, a man announces his fear that he does not possess\nthe necessary vision, and certainly not the requisite courage to\naccomplish any great thing and, therefore, intends to become a\nwage-earner, and asks the assembled citizenship of America what they\npropose to do for him. Being honest with ourselves we are compelled to\nadmit that we can promise little for the present. We tell him frankly\nthat if he is simply seeking wages, he might as well remain in the\ncountry of his nativity. We assure him, however, that if he can endure\npioneer hardships until the lands have value, until the mines are\ndeveloped, until means of transportation are afforded, until the\nunearned increment begins to appear, we will give him better wages than\nthe world has ever seen. Have we kept faith? Let us see.\n\n\n                 RELATIVE REWARDS OF CAPITAL AND LABOR\n\nAs late as 1840 men worked twelve hours per day for twenty-five cents,\npayable in cornmeal or meat, for there was no money. I can remember\nwhen fifty cents per day was a good wage. Then, when property began to\nhave value, we started up the spiral stairway of more wage and more\nwage and then more wage.\n\nWhat effect did this have? The world took notice and immigration\nincreased as wages advanced. In 1907 over one million immigrants landed\non our shores, and more than half with less than the required $35.00 in\ncash. The next year 800,000 went back. Some of them had been here\nseveral years and others only a short time, but, in addition to what\nthey had sent home, they took with them from three hundred to five\nthousand dollars each.\n\nHow about capital? For nearly one hundred years, foreign capital sought\nAmerican opportunity. Foreign capital built our first railways,\nestablished our first banks, erected our first factories. But about\ntwenty-five years ago it largely ceased to come, for it could do no\nbetter here than elsewhere. Even American capital sought employment in\nMexico, China and in Canada, simply because these countries offered\nbetter rewards for capital. The records of the Immigration Department\ncontain positive proof that for more than twenty-five years labor in\nthis country has been relatively better rewarded than capital.\nOtherwise capital would have come as labor came.\n\nThis great truth ought not to be ignored. The only reason capital\ncontinued to come for one hundred years is because it could do better\nhere than elsewhere. The only reason that it ultimately went elsewhere\nis because it could do better elsewhere. Meantime, immigration, most of\nit swelling the ranks of labor, increased solely because labor received\nin America a relatively larger share of the profits of business and\nenterprise than in any other country on the map.\n\nNo one claims that even now labor receives more than its due. I am\nsimply demonstrating the _relative_ rewards of capital and labor in the\nUnited States and citing positive proof that immigrants who come\nseeking opportunity do not pursue a barren hope.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XII\n\n                       THE RESULT OF THIS POLICY\n\n    The policy defined in the preceding chapter is illustrated and\n    its wisdom shown by the logical results thereof. The source and\n    constant course of wages is also discussed.\n\n\nAfter spending seventy-five years of our national life in the\ndiscussion of state rights, and then four years of bloody fratricidal\nwar, the fact that the United States of America is a nation and not\nsimply a confederation of sovereign states was definitely determined.\nOccasionally, we still hear people speak of \u201c_these_ United States.\u201d\nBut there are none. This one is all there is. The term \u201cthese United\nStates\u201d comes dangerously near a treasonable utterance. The court of\nlast resort rendered its decree at Appomattox that the United States of\nAmerica is \u201cone and inseparable, now and forever.\u201d\n\nAfter this perplexing question was settled, the government proceeded to\nfoster industry in the largest possible way. For instance, certain men\nproposed that, if properly encouraged, they would construct a railroad\nto the Pacific coast. They were reminded that only a few years before\nit had been said that not even a wagon road could be builded across the\nRocky Mountains. \u201cYes,\u201d says General Dodge, \u201cbut we will build a\nrailroad.\u201d They asked a subsidy of money, to be returned as soon as\npossible, and one-half of a twenty mile strip of land in perpetuity.\nThey were given both. The land was then worthless. Do you realize that\nif the land that was given to the Union Pacific Railroad on condition\nthat the road should be builded to the Pacific Ocean, had been given to\nthe Astors, on condition that the Astors should go out and look at it\neach year, it would have broken the Astors. There was no way to go out\nto see it. In effect, the government kept most of the land for\nhomesteaders and gave half of certain adjacent tracts to railroads on\ncondition that they make it worth while for homesteaders to occupy the\nreserved portions. What is the result? The Rocky Mountain Empire,\nyielding all the minerals, all the metals, lumber, fruits, vegetables,\nwith millions of people living in happy homes, and all because the\ngovernment fostered enterprise and said: \u201cAchieve and be happy.\u201d\n\nWhere there is incentive there will always be achievement.\n\n\n                          ANOTHER ILLUSTRATION\n\nPermit one more illustration. One thousand can be furnished as well as\none. Certain men proposed to the government that on certain conditions\nthey would build a silk mill. The government exclaimed: \u201cA silk mill in\nthe United States! We produce no raw silk.\u201d This was promptly\nacknowledged and likewise the higher wages necessary to be paid in\nAmerica. Still they promised to build a silk mill if they were\npermitted to buy their raw silk wherever they could find it without\npaying anything to the government for the privilege, and, provided\nfurther, that foreigners who might bring manufactured silk to this\nmarket, in competition with the product of their mill, should be\nrequired to pay sixty cents out of every dollar received, into the\ntreasury of the United States for the maintenance of this government,\nand go home contented and happy with forty cents. The government\nreplied: \u201cGo build your mill. If you cannot live on those terms, we\nwill make the foreigner pay sixty-five cents.\u201d What is the result?\nNinety million dollars\u2019 worth of raw silk is annually imported and\nforty-five million dollars are paid in wages to the workmen\nmanufacturing it. Achieve and be happy!\n\n\n                         WHAT BECOMES OF WAGES?\n\nWhat becomes of this forty-five million dollars in wages annually paid\nby the silk mills of America? Every dollar of it is spent. We all spend\nall we get. We spend it for necessaries or comforts or luxuries or\ntaxes or foolishness, or we expend it for a house, or a bond, or we\ndeposit it in a bank and someone else spends or expends it.\n\nLet us assume that this particular forty-five million dollars of silk\nmill wages is paid to western farmers for food. The western farmers\nsend it east for knit goods and shoes and these factories pay it out\nagain to labor and labor sends it west again for food. How often will\nwages make the circuit?\n\nA man earns, say, five dollars and spends it at night for food and\nclothes. The merchant spends his profit and pays the balance to the\nproducer of food and clothes. The producer keeps it as a reward for his\ntoil or pays it for wages. In either event, it goes again for food and\nclothes. William McKinley estimated that wages would thus make the\ncircuit and come back to the wage earner ten times per annum. I believe\nthe estimate conservative. A million men annually earning one thousand\ndollars each, makes one billion dollars in wages. This billion dollars\ngoing to the merchant ten times a year and back to labor as often,\nmakes an aggregate of ten billion dollars in trade every twelve months.\n\n\n                        A SUMMARY OF ACHIEVEMENT\n\nNow, hold your breath. The figures showing the material result of fifty\nyears of applied common sense, will stagger you.\n\nWhen the European war began, our farms were producing more than the\nfarms of any other country on the map. Our mines yielded gold by\ntrainload annually, and we unloaded from coastwise ships and railways\non the soil of Ohio alone more iron ore than any other country in the\nworld produced. In fifty years we had builded as many miles of railroad\nas all the rest of the world, and these roads, before the government\nbegan fixing rates, were carrying our freight for one-third of what was\ncharged for like service elsewhere beneath the sky. We cut from our\nforests one hundred million feet of lumber for every day of the\ncalendar year, and annually pumped from the earth beneath 250,000,000\nbarrels of petroleum, over sixty-five percent of the world\u2019s gross\nproduct. Owing to the rapid exchange of wages for necessaries and\ncomforts and then again for wages, our domestic trade had become five\ntimes as large as the aggregate international commerce of creation. Our\nshops and factories turned out more finished products than all the\nshops and all the factories of Great Britain and France and Germany\ncombined, plus five thousand million dollars\u2019 worth every twelve\nmonths, and we paid out as much in wages as all the rest of the human\nfamily. Achieve and be happy!\n\nI hope you will understand that I am not defending either our form of\ngovernment or our policy. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton,\nBenjamin Franklin and those other immortal men, may have been\nblithering idiots when they chose to create a republic instead of a\ndemocracy. I only cite the fact that they did create a republic. We\n_might_ have accomplished more had the government tilled the lands,\nbuilt the ships, constructed and operated the railroads, erected the\nfactories, opened the mines, transacted the business and put everyone\non the public payroll. I only seek to make it clear that this was not\ndone and that we did fairly well, considering.\n\nDuring all this period, the government accepted as its appropriate\nfunction the protection of the citizen, while the citizen sought\nhappiness and secured it through achievement. The government sought to\nprotect him from murder, but did not always succeed. It tried to shield\nhim from robbery, but sometimes failed. It aimed to prevent extortion\nbut was not always successful. It did its best to see that opportunity\nshould knock once at every door, but did nothing to force an entrance\nor insure a second call. Still, notwithstanding errors, weaknesses and\nadmitted inefficiency, the American citizen has been afforded better\nprotection against all the evils that assail mankind, than the people\nof any other country and, in the pursuit of happiness, Americans have\nenjoyed far wider liberty of action, and an infinitely greater percent\nof realization.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIII\n\n                     ALL DEPENDENT UPON THE PAYROLL\n\n    The importance of the American payroll upon which all rely is\n    emphasized, and the necessity of safeguarding this payroll is\n    shown together with a lesson in domestic economy.\n\n\nWhile the government has kept as few as possible in its employ we are\ndependent, directly or indirectly, upon the payroll. Not only the\nmerchant and the farmer, but the professional man and banker, have\nsuffered when, for any cause, labor has stood in the bread line. This\nis well illustrated by the fact that the American people consumed 5.94\nbushels of wheat per capita during 1892, only 3.44 bushels in 1894 and\nover 7 bushels in 1906. He who had eaten at the back door as a tramp\nfed himself like a prince when every wheel was turning and everyone\nworking.\n\nThese figures are also illuminating: We imported for consumption $12.50\nper capita in 1892, only $10.81 in 1896 and $16.49 in 1907. This may\ncause surprise when you remember that the minimum per capita\nimportation of 1896 was when the average tariff duty collected thereon\nwas only 20.67 percent, while in 1907 the average rate was 23.28\npercent. Notwithstanding the higher rate, we actually imported for\nconsumption sixty percent more merchandise per capita than under the\nlower tariff rate. No more indubitable proof can be found that when\nlabor is employed, and the payroll large, all classes and conditions\nprosper.\n\n\n                          ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY\n\nSuppose I build a factory costing, say, one hundred thousand dollars,\nand enter an untried field of manufacture. I pay out two hundred\nthousand dollars in wages and make a net profit of fifty thousand\ndollars. These figures are unimportant except as an illustration. I\nhave made fifty per cent on my investment and the world says it is too\nmuch. It is too much, notwithstanding the fact that I take all the\nrisk, make the experiment and demonstrate the possibilities of a new\nindustry. I also pay a wage at which my employees are glad to work. Not\none of them risks a day\u2019s toil. But, because my profits are large, if\nfor no other reason, I am certain to have competition next year.\n\nWhat shall I do with my fifty thousand dollars net profit? I can eat no\nmore than I have eaten, and I cannot wear more than one suit of clothes\nat a time.\n\nI challenge anyone to tell me how I can keep my profit away from labor\nexcept by converting it into cash and locking it in a safe deposit box.\nSuppose I give my daughter a big wedding and spend much money for cut\nflowers. Cut flowers are nature\u2019s sunshine plus management and labor.\nSo management and labor get that. But management is compelled to spend\nits share as I spend mine, and thus it all goes directly or indirectly\nto labor. I build for my daughter a home and fill it with furniture,\nchina, glass and silver. Both the house and its furnishings consist of\nlumber in the forest, ore in the ground, clay in the pit, white sand in\nthe bank, and other raw materials, plus management, labor and\ntransportation\u2014and transportation is labor. Thus labor gets all except\nthe portion which goes to management and capital, and management and\ncapital are compelled to turn their respective shares into labor.\n\nHere the theoretical socialist and the scientist\u2014I mean the man who\nrecognizes that nothing is scientific except what stands the test of\nexperience\u2014part company. The socialist admits that cut flowers are\nsunshine plus labor and as sunshine receives no portion he demands that\nlabor shall have it all. He forgets or refuses to recognize that\nwithout directing energy there would be no greenhouse, water system,\nheating plant or other essential of production. Labor and sunshine\nnever produced anything better than a wild flower. Of course labor may\nand frequently does furnish the management. All the necessary equipment\nfor the production of the various articles I have mentioned is the\nresult of a directing genius which we call management.\n\nLet no one accuse me of trying to deceive or cajole labor. I not only\nadmit, but I assert, that there is far more satisfaction, though not\nnecessarily greater happiness, in drawing dividends than wages. I have\nhad both experiences. I am an expert, for I have either touched or seen\nlife at every angle. I have worked to the limit, day after day, from\nfive in the morning until nine at night for hire, with not to exceed\none hour for the three meals, and have gone to bed happy. For fifteen\nyears I was at my law office, as a rule, from seven in the morning\nuntil ten at night, and for more than thirty years of my mature life I\nnever took a day for recreation. My wife and I are now living quite\ncomfortably from dividends, but we look back upon those strenuous\nyears, in which this best woman in the world joyfully and even joyously\nbore her share, as the happiest period of our lives. Still I repeat,\ndividends are better than pay envelopes or checks from clients. And I\nam glad they are. The All-Wise must have designed they should be, for\notherwise life would be one dreary humdrum of drudgery, with little\nincentive to great effort and greater sacrifice, the universal _quid\npro quo_ in the great one-price store of republics.\n\nIn this connection permit me to urge every man whose wakeful hours are\nspent in toil, to make it exceedingly clear to his children that there\nis more satisfaction in drawing dividends than wages. Let the youth\nalso know that nearly every one who now draws dividends began by\ndrawing wages. I can recall very few men whose names are or have been\nknown beyond the confines of local communities, whether bankers,\nlawyers, manufacturers, merchants or railroad presidents, whose hands\nhave not been calloused with humble toil. This is conspicuously so of\nRockefeller, Carnegie, Wanamaker and Schwab, and was equally true of E.\nH. Harriman, C. P. Huntington, J. J. Hill, George M. Pullman, the\nMcCormicks and practically all others who in days past rendered\nconspicuous service in making America.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIV\n\n                AMERICAN FORTUNES NOT LARGE, CONSIDERING\n\n    A country of such resources could not be developed as America\n    has been without great fortunes resulting. Inequality of\n    results in every field of human endeavor, except the\n    acquisition of property, is welcomed and approved by everyone.\n\n\nI am not surprised at the fortunes that have been made in this country.\nOn the contrary, even greater fortunes might have been reasonably\nexpected. As I look over the matchless resources of America, the\nsurface of which as yet has been only scratched, and the matchless\nresourcefulness of our people, I marvel that even greater accumulations\nhave not been made. I have been frequently surprised that I did not\nmake more myself. But I can account for it, so far as I am concerned. I\nheard of a man who said he could write as good poetry as Shakespeare,\n\u201cif he had a mind to.\u201d His friends assured him he had discovered his\nhandicap. That was my difficulty. I had the disposition, and I have had\nthe opportunity. As I look back over the years of my mature life I\nrecognize that I have failed to heed opportunities where I might have\nmade more money than any man has made. But I did not have the vision; I\ndid not have the courage; I did not have the \u201cmind to.\u201d\n\nI can construct a highway so the worst old scrub of a horse, with his\nmane and tail full of cockleburrs, can keep up with a thoroughbred.\nYes, I can. But the mud must needs be very deep and quite thick. When\nthe mud is sufficiently heavy, one horse can keep up with another. But\nwhen the track is improved, the horse with aptitude for speed will soon\ndistance the old cockleburred scrub, who would, if he could talk, very\nlikely insist there is something wrong with our civilization, and\nbecome a socialist.\n\nWe all demand good roads, though we all know that if we have good roads\nwe will have to take someone\u2019s dust. The only way, my friend, to\nprotect yourself from the other man\u2019s dust is to have the roads so bad\nhe cannot pass you.\n\n\n                               A PARABLE\n\nDuring the free silver campaign of 1896, a man with a full unkempt\nbeard and shaggy hair, after several times interrupting the speaker,\nfinally asked in squeaky voice: \u201cMr. Speaker, how do you account for\nthe unequal distribution of wealth?\u201d The answer came with promptness.\n\u201cHow do you account for the unequal distribution of whiskers?\u201d When the\naudience had quieted down, the speaker might have said: \u201cMy friend, I\ndid not make that remark to cause merriment at your expense. I made it\nto illustrate a great truth. I was born with equal opportunity and\nequal aptitude for whiskers with yourself. But I have dissipated mine.\nWhenever I have found myself in possession of any perceptible amount of\nwhiskers, I have dissipated them. Had I conserved my whiskers, as you\nevidently have, I, too, would be a millionaire in whiskers.\u201d\n\nTell your boys, and the boys you meet, that if ever they become\nmillionaires in dollars as in whiskers, the chances are it will be\nbecause they conserve. John J. Blair, the pioneer railroad builder west\nof the Mississippi River, once told Senator Allison that the wife of\nCommodore Vanderbilt had many times cooked for him a five o\u2019clock\nbreakfast, for which she charged twenty cents. The seed from which all\ngreat fortunes have been grown was hand picked.\n\nIn the war between the states more than a million men enlisted on\neither side, and at the end of four and one-half years there were fifty\nor one hundred multi-millionaires in military achievement and military\nglory and ten thousand in unmarked graves. Socialists do not object to\nthese inequalities. While they seem to welcome millionaires in art, in\nmusic, and in athletics they all point to millionaires in business as\nan unanswerable indictment of America\u2019s political system. They rejoice\nthat it can produce an Edison, but mourn that it can also produce a\nRockefeller. Yet the success of these two wizards is traceable alike to\nextraordinary aptitude in their respective fields of achievement, plus\nextraordinary application. Neither of these men ever robbed me of a\npenny. On the contrary each has contributed to my comfort, thus adding\nto the worth of living, and each has cheapened for me the cost of high\nliving. But for Mr. Edison, or someone of a different name to do what\nhe has done, I would be deprived of electric light and many other\ncomforts. But for Mr. Rockefeller, or some one of a different name to\ndo what Mr. Rockefeller has done, every owner of an oil well would be\npumping his product into barrels in the olden way, hauling it to town\nand selling on a manipulated market, while I would be deprived of a\nhundred by-products of petroleum, be still paying twenty-five cents per\ngallon for poor kerosene, and there would be no such thing known in all\nthe world as gasoline.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER XV\n\n                        POPULAR DISSATISFACTION\n\n    It is as logical that dissatisfaction should develop because of\n    inequality of results in \u201cmoney making,\u201d as it is that\n    inequality in results shall follow inequality of aptitude and\n    effort. This dissatisfaction has tended strongly to develop\n    socialistic thought and teaching.\n\n\nA century and a quarter, during which representatives were chosen\nbecause of actual or supposed aptitude, and retained in office during\nlong periods\u2014frequently for life\u2014when nearly every industry was\nfostered, and none fathered, developed a people, the best paid, the\nbest fed, the best clothed, the best housed, the best educated,\nenjoying more of the comforts of life, far more of its luxuries,\nenduring less hardships and privations, than any other in all history;\nbut it is an even guess if, at the same time, we did not become more\nrestless, discontented and unhappy.\n\nWe were not so much dissatisfied, however, with our own condition,\nabstractly considered, as with our relative condition. The man with\nrubber heels would have thought himself favored had he not seen someone\nwith a bicycle, and the man with a bicycle was contented until his\nfriend got a motorcycle. The man with a motorcycle thought he had the\nbest the world afforded until he saw an automobile and the man in the\nautomobile was happy until his neighbor got a yacht. \u201cAll this availeth\nme nothing so long as I see Mordecai, the Jew, sitting at the king\u2019s\ngate.\u201d\n\nI have lived some years in this blessed land and the only criticism I\nhave ever heard, either of our form of government or our policy, is the\nfact that some men have got rich.\n\nI made this statement in a public speech some months ago and asked who\nhad heard any other. A man answered: \u201cSome people have got poor.\u201d I\nadmitted that I had known a number of fellows whose fathers had left\nthem money and who had got poor, but I told the audience that most of\nthe poor men whom I had known had simply remained poor. I asked my\ncritic if he had ever fattened cattle. He admitted he had not. Then I\nassured him that he would seldom see a steer getting poor in a feed\nyard where others were doing well and most were getting fat, but he\nwould frequently see one that remained poor, notwithstanding his\nenvironments.\n\nTwo men were standing by the side of the New York Central Railroad. One\nsaid to the other: \u201cMy, see this track of empire! Four tracks, great\nMogul engines taking two thousand tons of freight at a load, passenger\ntrains making sixty miles an hour. There comes the express!\u201d As the\ntrain passed a cinder lit in the eye of the enthusiast, when\nimmediately he denounced the road, cursed the management and swore at\nall four tracks.\n\nIn a country like ours, where conditions have been superb, resources\nmatchless and resourcefulness unequalled, none should be surprised at\nthe speed we have developed and no one ought to use language unfit to\nprint simply because there are cinders in the air. Admittedly there\nare. We have all had them in our eyes. They are more than annoying, but\nthe only way to prevent cinders is to tear up the tracks. And it is\nsimply surprising the number of good people who are trying to make the\nworld a paradise through a policy of destruction.\n\nSocialists, near-socialists, bolsheviki, anarchists, I. W. W.\u2019s,\nnon-partisan leaguers, single taxers, and all the infernal bunch of\ndisturbers and propagandists of class hatred, unintentionally led and\nreinforced by a large percent of the teachers of political economy and\nsociology in our colleges and universities, seem bent upon nothing less\nthan a revolution in both our form of government and our policy of\ngovernment. Unless something be speedily done to counteract there\nsurely will be precipitated in America what France experienced, and\nwhat Russia is now suffering.\n\n\n             WHILE STATESMEN SLEEP THE EVIL ONE SOWS TARES\n\nIn the winter of 1898 I attended a much advertised lecture by George D.\nHerron, then Professor of Applied Christianity in one of the largest\ncolleges west of the Mississippi. The lecture was given in the largest\nchurch of Des Moines, on a Sunday evening, and most of the other\nchurches adjourned their services that they might hear this \u201cremarkable\nman.\u201d Several of the leading pastors occupied the pulpit with him and\nthe pastor of the second largest church in the city introduced the\nlecturer, I remember, as \u201ca Man with a Mission.\u201d He spoke at length and\nhis utterances were applauded by a good percent of the congregation,\nand by several of the pastors. Of course the vile life he was living,\nand the viler social belief which he then and now entertains, were\nunknown, but his far more dangerous teachings were well known to all\nand approved by many. The burden of his \u201cmission\u201d was denunciation of\nwhat he called the \u201cDivine Right of Property,\u201d which he compared to the\n\u201cDivine Right of Kings\u201d and predicted that as the latter had been\noverthrown by revolution, the former must be. It was indeed a \u201ctheory\npickled in the preserving juices of pulpit eloquence and laid by\nagainst a day of reckoning.\u201d I speak of this not to criticise the good\npeople who approved his utterances, many of whom did not comprehend\nwhat was involved, but to show the prevalence of bolshevist teachings\ntwenty years ago. Unless he has changed he should prove very\nsatisfactory to the bolshevists of Russia, where at this writing he is\nsupposed to be at the request of the President.\n\nQuite recently the professor of political economy in one of the\nstate universities of the Middle West, in the course of his daily\ndenunciations of the policy of internal improvement as pursued by this\ngovernment, and his condemnations of wealth and the possessors thereof,\nreferred to the grant of land to the Northern Pacific Railroad and\ncharacterized it as a \u201cgigantic steal.\u201d A member of his class who had\nhad rare privileges interrupted to ask: \u201cIf the lands in this grant\nwere so valuable how do you explain the fact that Jay Cooke, after\nfinancing the Civil War, went broke in selling Northern Pacific\nRailroad Bonds, secured by both the road and the lands, at 85 per cent\nof par?\u201d The professor inquired where the young man had obtained his\ninformation and was told: \u201cFrom the memoirs of Jay Cooke.\u201d \u201cWell,\u201d said\nthe professor, \u201cthat is a subject to be considered.\u201d But the next day\nhe continued sowing seeds of anarchy.\n\nDuring the winter of 1916 I listened to a lecture by a man of\ninternational reputation before the students of one of our very large\neastern universities. Early in his tirade, improperly called lecture,\nhe informed the students that there were two ways to make money\u2014\u201cone\nto earn it and the other to steal it.\u201d He told them that when they\nworked on the street railway they earned their money, but when the\ncompany charged five cents for a ride, it stole its money. The students\napplauded. Later he told them that if they wanted to go to Boston over\nthe New Haven Railroad, and all the workmen should die or strike, they\nwould get no farther than they could walk; but if all the stockholders\nand bond owners were to die, they \u201cmight thank God for the dispensation\nbut they would get to Boston just the same.\u201d The students applauded. He\nclosed in this language: \u201cThey talk about preparedness, and well they\nmay, for if these conditions continue, preparedness will be necessary\nagainst the internal uprising that is certain to follow.\u201d The students\nagain applauded.\n\nIf there has been any systematic effort made to suppress, nullify or\ndestroy bolshevistic teachings, not always as bold but of the same\ncharacter, with which nearly every college and university is daily\ndeluged, both from chair and rostrum, I will be glad to know when and\nwhere the counteracting forces have been applied. Many men of wealth\nhave thought they were advancing the interest of their country and\nhumanity generally by endowing colleges and universities. We have made\neducation a fetich and have assumed that all education is alike good.\nIt would be far better for America to have its youth poisoned with\nstrychnine than with bolshevism. Poison administered through the\nstomach is not contagious, but what has been lodged in the brain at\nthese hotbeds of socialism spreads, and when it breaks in epidemic no\narmy can effect a quarantine.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XVI\n\n                        GREED AND ITS PUNISHMENT\n\n    The government very properly interfered to curb aggression and\n    extortion. That is a most appropriate function of government,\n    but a very inappropriate end and can be carried too far.\n\n\nJust cause for complaint did, does and always will exist. The Kingdom\nof Heaven has not yet been established by human agencies. Greed of\ngain, whetted by indulgence, led to practices in many instances\nreprehensible. Some of the big fellows who had achieved great things,\nand rightfully owned what they had accomplished, seemed to think they\nalso owned the little things that others had done. Punishment became\nnecessary and the government administered it wisely and with lavish\nhand. Not a few of the big boys were whipped in the presence of the\ninfant class, a thing always gratifying to juniors. Thereupon, all the\nlittle people became hilarious over these just punishments and it\nbecame a pastime to get after \u201cthose higher up.\u201d One of our\ndistinguished senators is credited with the statement that the people\nchanged the motto over their Temples of Justice to \u201cSoak Him.\u201d It soon\nbecame more difficult to secure the acquittal of an innocent man of\naffairs, than it had been to convict the guilty. Until time is no more\nthe pendulum will continue to swing from one extreme to another.\n\n\n                     PUNISHMENT A MEANS, NOT AN END\n\nI know of no better illustration of the necessity of punishment and the\ndesirability of quitting when its purpose is accomplished than an\nincident told me by a man who claimed to have been an eye-witness.\n\nBack in the days when young men attended school until they were\nmarried, a theological student attempted to teach in a country district\non the frontier of Ohio. The big boys became obstreperous. He urged\nthem to treat him respectfully for he said he was studying for the\nministry. The effect was as one might suppose. They carried him out,\nthey washed his face in the snow, they dipped him in the creek until he\ngave up in despair.\n\nShortly thereafter, another youth applied. The director told him he\ncould not maintain discipline. He said if he failed, it would cost the\ndistrict nothing. Certificates to teach were then unknown. When the\npupils assembled, they found him sitting at his desk reading. They\nlooked him over, sized him up, thought him an easy mark and commenced\npounding their desks and stamping their feet, and kept it up until nine\no\u2019clock. Then the new teacher laid aside his book, locked the door, put\nthe key in his pocket and called school to order. The preliminaries\nhaving been unusual, silence was secured. He informed them they need\nnot attempt to escape, for the windows were nailed down. Then, opening\nhis carpet bag, he brought forth a revolver, a bowie knife and a\nblacksnake whip. Then after warning the pupils not to arise until their\nnames were called, he summoned John Jones to the floor. With whip in\none hand and revolver in the other, he proceeded to give private\nlessons. When through with John he called Bill Smith. He did not need\nto ask their names. After going some distance down his list, he told\nthem they had probably learned more that day than they had ever learned\nin any one day in their lives, and perhaps as much as it was wise to\nattempt to learn in one day, adding: \u201cWhen you come again, come\nexpecting to obey the rules, attend to business and make no false\nmotions. There will be no further exercises today.\u201d They never knew\nwhence he came nor where he went. He had performed his mission and\nwisely left future tasks to his successor.\n\nI did not inquire concerning the subsequent history of that school, but\nI understand human nature enough to know that if his successors were\nmen without plan or purpose or policy of their own, and only sought to\nrepeat the popular practices of their predecessor, they permanently\nruined that school. There was but one wise course. Without apologizing\nfor what had been done, or lowering the standard of discipline, there\nshould have been a return to the ordinary tasks of the schoolroom\nwithout unnecessary delay, for I declare to you that corporal\npunishment is not the purpose for which schools are established, nor\nare criminal prosecutions the aim and end for which governments are\ninstituted among men. Both are essential at times, but let us hope that\ncaptains of industry and business men generally have learned their\nlesson sufficiently so that it shall not be necessary to continue\nindefinitely what was so admirably done a decade or more ago.\n\nUnless punishment is discriminately administered, demoralization will\nfollow, and if the big boys are whipped for no other purpose than to\nplease the little folks, they will probably go fishing. And whenever\nthe big boys of America take a day off, trouble ensues. Only a very few\nyears ago, I saw a thousand men standing in line awaiting their turn\nfor a cup of coffee and a slice of bread at the hands of charity.\nBusiness simply could not stand the lash incessantly applied. It had\ntaken a day off.\n\nThen the war came, abnormal demands were created and great prosperity\nensued. But before the revival of industry, sufficient time elapsed to\npermit a fundamental economic principle to be elucidated in the\ngreatest school of the world, the school of experience.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XVII\n\n                        OBSTRUCTIVE LEGISLATION\n\n    While supervision and control of big business is essential, the\n    trend has been in the direction of interference and in many\n    instances inhibition.\n\n\nWhile both political parties, and all administrations, profess great\nfriendship for business, the treatment that both political parties have\naccorded business is well illustrated by the fable of the elephant\nthat, in going through the jungle, stepped on a mother bird. When the\nelephant saw the havoc she had wrought, she called the orphaned chick\nand said: \u201cThis is deplorable. I did not intend to kill your mother. I\nam a mother myself and have the mother instinct. But the deed has been\ndone and is past recall. Being unable to restore your mother I shall\ngive my efforts to the task that your mother would perform if she were\nliving.\u201d So the elephant sat down on the chicks.\n\nThe American people have shown great aptitude and achieved unparalleled\nsuccess in two distinct fields\u2014baseball and business. During the\nperiod of development and successful prosecution of these two great\nnational games, the rules of the game were made by experts in the\nrespective games. Practical bankers made the rules of banking,\nexperienced traffic men made rules governing transportation, and expert\nbaseball players formulated the rules of that game. Business has\nsuffered because of modern methods, and baseball will go where business\nhad gone prior to the war, should the same policy be pursued and the\ncommittee that is to make the rules of baseball be selected under the\ndirect primary system, from among those who never play the game, and\nseldom see it played, upon a platform demanding that strenuous playing\nshall cease, and that the score must be a tie regardless of errors.\n\nInstead of permitting practical bankers to apply fundamental banking\nprinciples, we have forty-nine distinct sets of statutory rules, one\nfor each state and one for the union of states, enacted by men some of\nwhom have no more knowledge of banking than they have of aeronautics,\nand frequently administered by those whose tenure of office depends\nupon the amount of trouble they can make.\n\nWe legislate to prevent monopolies and for the ostensible purpose of\nencouraging competition, but the rules of banking are well nigh\nprohibitive of the creation of new competitive concerns. The president\nof one of the largest banking institutions in the United States, whose\noperations extend into every state, told me that he had refused a loan\nto Phil Armour except upon collateral that could be sold on the stock\nexchange of any city, and in the same conversation said there was not a\nloan in his institution except upon listed collateral. Only big\nconcerns can furnish that class of security.\n\nSuppose you were to build a packing house costing one million dollars\nand should make a bond issue of five hundred thousand dollars so as to\nhave collateral. The officers of no bank would care to lend on those\nbonds. To do so would be to rely upon their judgment, and some little\nbank examiner would report that the bank had loaned on collateral that\nhad no market value. Thereupon the Banking Department would write\ncriticising the loan and directing that the letter be read to the board\nand a certain number of directors sign a reply. The course of least\nresistance is to refuse all loans except to monopolies or upon stock\nexchange collateral.\n\nNot long ago a friend applied to one of the large banking institutions\nin New York City for a loan upon unlisted securities. The president\ntook from his desk a certificate of stock of a certain railroad and\nsaid: \u201cI do not believe this stock worth the paper it is printed on,\nbut I will lend money upon it. I believe your securities are absolutely\ngood but I will not lend a dollar upon them.\u201d\n\nThe reason was sensible, and the banker was wise when banking laws and\nthe rules of banking departments are considered. The railroad stock was\nlisted and dealt in every hour. Hence the public assumed it had value,\nand it could be sold on the stock exchange for a price that fluctuated\nlittle. Its intrinsic value, if any, was problematic, but it did have a\nmarket value. The security offered was not listed. In the opinion of\nthe banker it had abundant intrinsic value, but since it did not have a\nmarket value on the stock exchange, he did not feel justified in\ninviting criticism from the Banking Department by relying upon his\njudgment. It is difficult for a new concern to get credit and without\ncredit no concern can live.\n\n\n      BECAUSE ONE HORSE KICKS SHALL WE HAMSTRING THE WHOLE DROVE?\n\nTo a greater or less degree, the same policy has been applied to nearly\nall important branches of business. The rules for the operation of\nrailroads and insurance companies are both complex and conflicting. The\nbooks have to be kept to conform to the legislative requirements of\nevery state in which the concern does business.\n\nA certain express company formerly employed one attorney at two\nthousand dollars a year. It now maintains a legal department occupying\nan entire floor of an office building, and the officers of the company\nare in daily consultation lest they violate some state or federal\nstatute and go to the penitentiary.\n\nThe president of an insurance company told me that if he did in\nMissouri what he was required to do in Texas, the penitentiary would\nawait him, while if he omitted it in Texas, his punishment would be\nequally modest.\n\nSeverity of punishment in the United States has not yet reached the\nlimit witnessed in France late in the eighteenth century when direct\ngovernment was carried to its logical extreme. At that time the death\npenalty was prescribed for those who took food products out of\ncirculation and kept them stored without daily and publicly offering\nthem for sale. Failing to make a true declaration of the amount of\ngoods on hand for eight days, and retaining a larger stock of bread\nthan was necessary for daily wants, were punishable by death. Death\nalso awaited the farmer who did not market his grain weekly and the\nmerchant who failed to keep his shop open for business. We may or may\nnot go to this extreme in America. I do not at the moment recall any\npunishment at the present time in this country more severe than six\nmonths in jail and a fine of five hundred dollars for spitting on the\nsidewalk.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XVIII\n\n                         THE INEVITABLE RESULT\n\n    As soon as the government changed its policy and denied\n    exceptional rewards for exceptional risks virile Americans\n    refused to assume these risks and internal improvements ceased.\n    A distinction is drawn between pioneer capital and improvement\n    capital.\n\n\nThe effect of this changed attitude toward internal improvement and\nbusiness generally is exactly what every thoughtful person foresaw. No\nrailroad construction worth mentioning has been begun in the last\ndecade. A few unimportant extensions have been made. About five years\nago, John D. Spreckels attempted the construction of a road from San\nDiego to the Imperial Valley, but a possible six percent return, if it\nproved a success, and total loss if it failed, did not prove inviting\nto capital. Facing disaster, he turned it over to one of the old\nestablished lines to be builded on the accumulated credit of that\nsystem.\n\nThe United States was never in such great need of additional\ntransportation as during the last ten years and never before was so\nlittle done to supply it. James J. Hill, the great empire builder of\nthe Northwest, used to furnish figures to prove that we must invest two\nbillion dollars new capital per annum to keep pace with the development\nof the country. It did not require a sage or a seer to discern that if\nwe multiplied production from farm and factory, mill and mine,\nindefinitely, and failed to provide transportation facilities, we would\nultimately reach a time when crops would rot on the ground while those\nwho had grown them would be freezing and coal miners starving. Truly,\nthe American people are \u201ckin-folks.\u201d\n\nFor more than three years, liberty hung in the balance simply because\nthe United States, with all her development, had failed to keep her\ntransportation facilities abreast of her production.\n\nWe had no merchant marine and during the entire period of the war were\ndependent largely upon the Allies to transport our troops and our\nmunitions. Adverse marine laws had been passed rendering it impossible\nto sail an American ship in deep sea transportation except at great\nloss even if the ship had cost nothing whatever. It became necessary\nfor the government to take possession of the railroads in order to\navoid the effect of statutes filled with restrictive and prohibitive\nprovisions. If the railroads had been operated under private ownership\nas the government is now operating them, every railroad president in\nthe United States would be in the penitentiary. The roads asked an\nincrease of fifteen percent in freight rates, which raised a furore of\nobjection from both shipper and public, and it was denied. Government\ncontrol and operation resulted in a loss of seventy million dollars the\nfirst month. Then both freight and passenger rates were increased\ntwenty-five percent, generally, and in many instances, one hundred\npercent, and no one murmured. And still the loss continues. _It was\nfour hundred million dollars the first year of government operation._\n\n\n                     WILL WE EVER BUILD MORE ROADS?\n\nIf someone should predict that the last railroad ever to be built in\nthe United States of America, has been built, are you prepared to\nquestion its correctness? Will it be necessary to change our policy if\nmore roads are to be builded?\n\nListen! Will you invest money in railroad construction, knowing that if\nit succeeds you will be allowed no more than six or eight percent on\nthe money wisely spent, and that if, through misfortune or want of\nforesight, it fails, you will lose everything? The theory of public\nutility commissions generally, is that if money is unwisely invested it\nought to be lost, and when it is wisely invested, it should earn about\nsix percent.\n\nSuppose you and I install a hydraulic power plant and build our dam\naccording to plans and specifications prepared by a reputable engineer.\nThen a flood destroys it and demonstrates that the money was _unwisely\nspent_ and, therefore, according to these commissions, should be lost.\nIf the dam stands the strain, and if it was wisely placed, and if it be\neconomically operated, we will be allowed six percent. Are you ready to\njoin in an enterprise of this character? If you will not, who will?\n\nSuppose a promoter presents to you an engineer\u2019s report made from a\npreliminary survey of a railroad extending, let us say, from St. Louis,\naround through Arkansas and Texas to Galveston. I am informed that such\na report exists, and that it shows that the road will go through the\nlargest body of uncut white oak in the world, extensive pine forests,\ntap that belt of zinc ore extending south from Joplin, Missouri, make\navailable large coal measures, iron deposits and agricultural areas now\nobtainable at less than twenty dollars per acre, but which with proper\ntransportation facilities, and a progressive citizenship, would be\nworth two hundred dollars per acre. The engineer estimates that\nthe road when completed will earn twenty percent on the cost of\nconstruction, and you are asked to buy some of the stock at par. The\nstatutes of most states forbid the sale of even initial stock issues\nfor less than par. How much of this stock will you take? Will your\nneighbors and friends want some? How much stock in an unbuilt railroad\ndo you think can be sold at any price when good farm lands adjacent can\nbe bought at twenty-five percent of par?\n\nWhile the wisdom of the modern law-maker prohibits the sale of stock at\nless than par few if any statutes have been enacted, limiting the price\nat which bonds may be sold. Suppose you are offered bonds instead of\nstock. Possibly you can get the bonds at less than par. What will you\npay, and how large a block do you desire? Remember, the road has not\nyet been built. The money must be placed in the bank to be used in\nconstruction and you must wait for your interest until the road has\nearned it. If you will not buy, will your neighbors?\n\nIt will help to solve these problems if you recognize early in your\ncalculations that men with much money are not much bigger fools than we\nwith little. If you and I will not invest in railroad construction\nunder present conditions, men of means and experience will not, and the\nlast railroad ever to be built beneath the Stars and Stripes is now in\noperation unless\u2014unless!\n\n\n                              THE OLD WAY\n\nDuring the half century and more of the unparalleled growth and\ndevelopment of the United States, bonds of unbuilt railroads were\noffered with fifty percent or more of stock as a bonus. The estimates\nindicated that the roads would earn not only interest on the bonds but\ndividends on the stock, and a portion of the unearned increment\nresulting from development was in this way awarded to those who took\nthe risks. Investors were thus encouraged to expect reasonable returns,\nplus fifty percent or more of water. The promoters who had paid the\nexpenses of preliminary surveys (often abandoned as worthless) also\nlabored with hopes of great gain if they should discover a meritorious\nproposition. Those who bought and occupied the lands contiguous to new\nroads endured some hardships but took no risks and yet expected to add\nat least four hundred percent of water to their investments. They\nrealized in most instances more than one thousand percent profit on the\noriginal cost.\n\nDoes anyone doubt that a return to the policy of apportioning unearned\nincrement equitably among those who shall in any way contribute to the\ngeneral result will revive internal improvements? No one asks, and no\none would consent, that all the unearned increment should go to the\nstockholders of a railroad. Every one favors governmental supervision\nand control of rates. The point where a few diverge from the mass is in\nrecommending that those whose vision and courage are solely responsible\nfor development, shall have an equitable share of the unearned\nincrement.\n\nLest I be misunderstood, I desire to state parenthetically that I have\nnever owned a railroad bond or a share of railroad stock; and I have\nnever promoted a railroad or been employed in any capacity by a\nrailroad. Most of what little I now possess, I have made by watering\nthe capitalization of real estate. Occasionally, in times past, when I\nhave known of a railroad about to be constructed, and have recognized\nan opportunity to make a little money through another man\u2019s vision, on\nanother man\u2019s courage and at the other man\u2019s risk, I have purchased a\nlittle contiguous real estate, watered the capitalization from one\nhundred to one thousand percent, and then insisted that the road should\nhaul me and my produce at cost plus six percent.\n\n\n                            PIONEER CAPITAL\n\nDoes it occur to you that pioneer capital should be accorded pioneer\nrewards? Pioneer people make sacrifices, endure hardships, suffer\nprivations; but in America they take no risks and their rewards have\nbeen certain and speedy. But their rewards would be neither certain nor\nspeedy did not pioneer capital precede them, blaze the way and assume\nall risks. During the period when pioneer capital was liberally\nrewarded, development outstripped the imagination of men. It will do\nthe same again if given like encouragement.\n\nI assume that a return of six percent would be ample on capital, let us\nsay, to construct an additional track for the Pennsylvania Railroad\nbetween New York and Philadelphia. That would be improvement capital.\nWould the same rate be satisfactory for money invested in an unbuilt\nroad into an undeveloped country? To state the case is to state the\nargument, and yet no railroad commissioner has yet been created with\nboth the wisdom and the courage to stand openly for a distinction\nbetween development capital and pioneer capital. Unless returns are\npermitted large enough to induce a reasonable man to take a risk none\nwill take it, for the unreasonable man has no money to risk.\n\nIn a preceding paragraph I referred to the attempt of Mr. Spreckels to\nbuild a railroad across, or rather through, and much of the way under,\nthe most barren succession of mountain peaks and defiles I have ever\nseen. An automobile road has been built at great expense across the\nmountain. Nine-tenths of the way not a green leaf or living thing\u2014not\neven a bird or insect\u2014will be seen.\n\nMr. Spreckels is a very wealthy man. He is supposed to own over\nfifty-one percent of the gas, electric light, street railways and\nferries of San Diego. He does not, however, consume fifty-one percent\nof the food cooked by the gas he generates; he does not enjoy fifty-one\npercent of the light that illuminates that beautiful little city; he\ndoes not take fifty-one percent of the rides on street car or ferry;\nand not one percent of the unearned increment, the advance in the value\nof property occasioned by his public-spirited enterprises, inures to\nhim. Having more money than he can use and more than his children can\nlegitimately spend, why does he risk everything on a railroad involving\nan aggregate of more than twenty miles of tunnel through solid granite?\nI will tell you why.\n\nFor some reason, let us hope a sufficient reason, the All-wise Father\nhas implanted in certain natures somewhat more than the average vision,\nsomewhat more than the average courage, somewhat more than the average\ndesire to achieve, and He seems to have ordained that these men shall\nbe happy only when achieving. Service expresses the thought admirably\nwhen he put into the mouth of the returning Klondiker:\n\n  \u201cYes, there\u2019s gold and it\u2019s haunting and haunting;\n  It lures me on as of old.\n  But it isn\u2019t the gold that I\u2019m wanting,\n  So much as just finding the gold.\u201d\n\nSo it has ever been, and thus it is and ever will be. These daring,\nprogressive souls risk their past, their present, their future and the\nfuture of their families, upon gigantic propositions, the consummation\nof which makes the appellation, \u201cI am an American,\u201d the proudest boast\nof man.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIX\n\n                           UNEARNED INCREMENT\n\n    Originally the government permitted each to enjoy the natural\n    advance in the value of his holdings\u2014the unearned increment.\n    In recent years it has discriminated and in certain classes of\n    investments has sought to limit rewards to the equivalent of\n    reasonable interest rates.\n\n\nThe first piece of land I ever owned was a half interest in one hundred\nand sixty acres. My law partner and I got four hundred and eighty\ndollars together and we bought one hundred and sixty acres at three\ndollars per acre. We put part of it under plow, rented it and within a\nfew years, sold it. That land is no more productive today than when we\nsold it, but the rascal who owns it has watered the capitalization\nuntil when I buy a pound of butter or a dozen eggs I am helping to pay\nhim a dividend on two hundred and fifty dollars per acre. We watered it\na little, ourselves. We sold it, I remember, for twelve dollars and\nfifty cents an acre. That was the first dollar I had ever received that\nI had not earned in the hardest way. It was the first dollar of\nunearned increment that ever came my way. It was the first water, so to\nspeak, I had ever tasted. I liked it.\n\nI remember when John Trumm purchased that land of us. If he had said to\nme: \u201cThe country is new, population sparse, commerce limited; if these\nconditions change and the land advances in value, to whom will belong\nthe unearned increment?\u201d Very promptly I should have told him it would\nbelong to him. There was not only a competency but a speculation in the\npurchase of that land.\n\nBut suppose he had said to me: \u201cIf I do not buy this land, I shall put\nmy money into the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad that is now\nbuilding through the county. The country is new, the population sparse\nand commerce limited. If these conditions change and the railroad\nadvances in value, to whom will belong the unearned increment?\u201d In my\ninnocence, I should have told him it would belong to him. I might have\nwarned him that if it resulted like the first three attempts to build a\nrailroad across Iowa, he would lose every dollar he invested, but if\nthe time had then arrived, and if the road was built economically and\noperated efficiently, and did prove a success, it doubtless would\nadvance in value and the unearned increment would belong to those who\nhad shown great vision, taken great risk and exercised great skill.\n\n\n                          SOME CONCRETE CASES\n\nI recall a man who purchased in an early day large bodies of Iowa land\nat from three to five dollars per acre. His rentals must have equalled\ntwenty percent per annum on his investment. Then he watered the\ncapitalization and sold these lands at seventy-five dollars per acre.\nThey are now worth over two hundred dollars per acre. But, even at\nseventy-five dollars, they made him a millionaire, financially. Then he\nassailed the railroads for watering their capitalization, though money\ninvested in a railroad never yielded a quarter as large returns as his\nland investments netted. His opposition to railroads, however, made him\na millionaire, politically.\n\nSome years ago a man asked me to join him and some friends in promoting\na railroad to the coal fields of Alaska. I asked him who owned the coal\nand was told that anyone could have all he cared to buy at a nominal\nprice. I called attention to a statute that forbade the same men owning\nboth the railroad and the coal. Then I proposed that I take the coal\nand let him and his friends build the railroad. If they succeeded, I\nwould then go to the Interstate Commerce Commission and get a rate that\nwould give them six percent on their investment and I would take all\nthe profit. I reminded him that the public thought six percent was\nenough for money invested in railroads. The road has never been built.\n\nI met a friend not long ago who, in explaining that the world had been\ngood to him, told me that some years before he had bought a large body\nof badly located but excellent timber back in the mountains of\nWashington, at fifteen cents per thousand on the stump. Then a railroad\nwas built up to his holdings. That was some years ago and during the\nperiod of national development. When the road was completed, he went to\nthe Interstate Commerce Commission and got a rate so that he was then\nselling his timber, which cost him fifteen cents per thousand, for five\ndollars per thousand, while those who builded the road are presumably\ngetting six or eight percent on their investment and will until the\ntimber is exhausted, when their road will be worthless. My friend is\nnot a reactionary but is far-sighted. I think he said he studied\nfinance from the standpoint of a farmer.\n\nA few years ago, at a Chamber of Commerce dinner in New York, Myron K.\nJessup asked me if I knew that he was once president of a railroad in\nIowa. The road extended from Dubuque to Farley. I asked him if he\nremembered when an engineer by the name of Smith made a preliminary\nsurvey from Farley to Sioux City, and reported that there was nothing\nwest of Iowa Falls worth building a railroad into. \u201cRemember it!\u201d said\nhe. \u201cHe made that report to me.\u201d\n\nThink of it. A man living and in good health in 1906 who was old enough\nto be the president of a railroad at a time when two-thirds of the\nnorth half of Iowa was considered not worth developing. Ultimately the\nroad was constructed and I happened to be at Storm Lake when the last\nspike was driven connecting the two ends of the road. This was in 1870.\nThat whole stretch of country could have been bought at that time at an\naverage of less than five dollars per acre. I remember riding forty\nmiles without seeing a house. The lands I saw that day could not have\nbeen sold for two dollars and are now worth two hundred dollars per\nacre.\n\nThese lands were worthless without the railroad and the railroad\nrelatively worthless without the lands. The lands, exclusive of\nimprovements, have paid in rentals more than twenty percent on their\ncost and their present value is ninety-nine-one-hundredths water. No\nmoney invested in railroads or any other industry ever yielded returns\ncomparable with that.\n\nThe wealth of the United States, estimated at two hundred and fifty\nbillion dollars, is probably ninety percent water. Farm lands, timber\nlands, mineral lands, oil lands, town lots, originally cost very\nlittle. Deducting improvements, interest and taxes from rents and\nreturns already received, plus the market value, and the difference is\nthe unearned increment or the water that has been added to the original\ncapitalization.\n\nSuppose, if you please, we are just opening a new country. What policy\nwould you recommend? Would you expect each one to attempt everything?\nOr would you encourage a division of labor and enterprise? I fancy we\nwould follow the policy the Fathers adopted. We would encourage the\nimprovements of lands, the construction of transportation facilities,\nthe building of mills and factories, of stores and banks, the opening\nof mines and the development of water power, and then we would tacitly\nagree that whoever contributed in any manner to the common good should\nshare equitably in the resultant unearned increment.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER XX\n\n                         BUSINESS PHILOSOPHIES\n\n    This is a preliminary chapter intended to show that management\n    is the most essential factor in every business proposition.\n    Several illustrations are given, and some advice offered.\n\n\nBefore discussing government construction, ownership and operation of\nrailroads, and other so-called public utilities, I want to call\nattention to some well-known but seldom recognized principles.\n\nAll business stands on three legs. No business can stand on two legs.\nNotwithstanding the persistent nonsense that has emanated from press\nand platform, from pulpit and professor\u2019s chair, by thoughtless\npolitician and thoughtful demagogue, capital and labor, unaided, have\nnever accomplished anything and never will. But management, plus\ncapital, plus labor, have done wonders and still greater achievements\nawait the cooperation of this irresistible trinity.\n\nSome have tried to make it appear that the public constitutes a fourth\nleg. While the public has rights, and affords markets, business\nsucceeds only when the public does not interfere.\n\nTake the case of the farmer. His lands, his tools, his teams and other\nlivestock, constitute his capital. He performs the labor, furnishes the\nmanagement, and all goes well. Occasionally a farmer prospers when he\nfurnishes only capital and management, notwithstanding Benjamin\nFranklin\u2019s proverb: \u201cHe who on a farm would thrive, must either hold\nthe plow or drive.\u201d The one absolutely indispensable element of success\nin farming is management. No man ever prospered on a farm simply\nbecause he worked. He must wisely manage if he lifts the mortgage. When\nthe farmer\u2019s management fails, the sheriff becomes his land agent, and\nit matters not how productive his land, or how willing his team, or how\nfruitful his flock or how hard he works.\n\nYou never knew a merchant to fail except when his management buckled.\nYou may have thought some failures were due to want of capital; but\neven in these instances management was solely at fault, for it\nattempted too much with its available capital. Barring accidental and\nincidental fortune, good or ill, management or the want of it is the\nprime factor in every success and in every failure.\n\nThe president of a certain Chicago federation of labor, after listening\nto this thought, brought a party of friends to my platform and in the\ncourse of a brief visit said: \u201cThey have talked to us about capital and\nlabor, capital and labor, nothing but capital and labor. We knew there\nwas another guy in there but we couldn\u2019t find him.\u201d Then he added: \u201cAnd\nyou have got to pay that guy, too.\u201d\n\n\n                         ILLUSTRATIVE INSTANCES\n\nSome years ago and during the period of evolution in harvest machinery,\nMarsh Brothers put upon the market what was known as the Marsh\nHarvester. It was the first radical improvement upon the old self-rake.\nTwo men rode upon the machine and bound the grain as it was cut. For\nsome reason, perhaps disagreement among the interested parties, the\nconcern was reorganized into three independent companies and certain\nterritory was allotted to each. A local preacher by the name of Gammon\ntook one allotment, associated with him William Deering, and the\nlargest manufacturing plant then in the world was built where nothing\nhad stood before. The other two concerns took equally favorable\nterritory, operated under the same patents, obtained their capital in\nthe same market, hired labor at the same wage, and utterly failed. Five\nyears thereafter nothing remained except court records to show they had\never existed.\n\nDid capital build the Deering plant? It did not. Did labor do it? By no\nmanner of means. The germ of management in the brain cells of William\nDeering, which no crucible would disclose and no scalpel reveal, was\nwholly and alone responsible. Do you suggest that able subordinates and\nefficient labor were in part responsible? My answer is that William\nDeering was wholly responsible for having able subordinates and\nefficient labor. Andrew Carnegie said to me: \u201cI have never been able to\ndiscover wherein I have been more clever than others except in\nselecting men cleverer than I.\u201d That is the acme of clever management,\nand affords the only certainty of success.\n\nDuring a congressional investigation of the meat industry the president\nof one of the \u201cbig five\u201d packing houses appeared, and in the course of\nhis examination testified that while holding a position of considerable\nresponsibility to which he had been gradually advanced, he was asked to\norganize a company to take over a certain concern, the stock of which\nwas selling at about ten dollars per share. The necessary capital was\ntendered and he was offered a salary of one hundred and fifty thousand\ndollars per year, quite a large block of stock gratis and an option on\nthirty-five thousand shares at ten dollars per share, which he\nsubsequently exercised. When asked if he thought his salary was\nunreasonably large, he called attention to the fact that within ten\nyears his company had become one of the five largest in the world and\nthat its stock had advanced from ten dollars per share to par.\nThereupon the chairman of the committee remarked that while he was\nopposed to large salaries, he thought that one hundred and fifty\nthousand dollars per annum was not excessive for this particular\nwitness. Did capital accomplish that? Did labor? No, management did it.\n\n\n                             SUPPOSE A CASE\n\nIn a certain city a thousand men are out of employment. In a bank in\nthat city a million dollars are out of employment. In the foothills\nnear the city fifty million tons of coal are out of employment. The\nunemployed men see the opportunity and offer their joint note for the\nmoney with which to develop a coal mine. But the officers of the bank\nwill not lend money that does not belong to them upon the signature of\na thousand men, each out of employment. Then management walks in and\nsays to the president of the bank: \u201cI am a practical coal operator. I\nhave had experience, and have associated with me a board of directors,\neach a successful coal producer. In proof that we understand what we\nare undertaking, here is the report of the best-known coal engineer in\nthe world, who at our expense has bored every square rod of that tract\nof coal, showing the exact number of tons available. Here also is an\nassay showing the quality of the coal. It is worth so much per ton on\nthe track. It will cost so and so to put it on the track. After we have\ninvested a million dollars of our own money, we want to borrow a\nmillion to complete the development and for working capital.\u201d By giving\na majority of the stock, and all the bonds of the company as\ncollateral, and by each director signing the note, the money is\nobtained. The hitherto idle men are now employed and a great industry\nresults. Query: Locate the cause. Is it capital? Capital languished and\nearned nothing. Is it labor? Labor was in rags and labor\u2019s children\nwere crying for bread. That coal field is developed, the wealth of the\nnation increased, homes are warmed, furnaces made to glow, wheels to\nturn, by management, plus capital, plus labor. It is so everywhere, in\neach and every instance, in this and all other lands.\n\nCapital can usually be had upon approved security, and labor is most\nalways available at a satisfactory wage, but management, the one\nessential of every achievement, is the most difficult thing in the\nworld to find and, when discovered, imposes its own conditions and\nnames its reward.\n\n\n                            A WORD OF ADVICE\n\nIf teachers of economics and of sociology would somewhat oftener and\nmore generally teach the Benjamin Franklin brand of common sense and\nmake their classes understand that there are in the United States\nvastly more twenty-five thousand dollar jobs than there are twenty-five\nthousand dollar men to fill them, bolshevism would diminish as rapidly\nas it has increased under the opposite tuition. Where do our editors\nand newspaper writers come from? Whence the principals of our high\nschools, teachers in our colleges, preachers and lawyers? Ninety\npercent of them are from our colleges and universities, and those who\ngraduate with socialistic and bolshevistic tendencies have usually\nimbibed them either from imported professors or from American\nprofessors who have received their Ph.D\u2019s in Germany.\n\nIn this connection I also want to say a word to parents: Would it not\nbe well early in the life of your boy to impress upon him that he will\nprobably get out of life something fairly commensurate with what he\nputs into life? You might also suggest that if he will observe he will\nprobably discover that those who complain most because the world has\nbeen stingy with them, are seldom able to show a receipt for much that\nthey have contributed to the world. If instead of giving wholesome\nguidance you permit to go unchallenged the teachings which your boy is\ncertain to get in the school room, in the pew, at the theater and the\nmovie, on the street, and especially from the demagogue, that those who\nmake money are invariably dishonest, those who accumulate wealth are\nscoundrels and that those who amass fortunes should be in the\npenitentiary, I will go security for your son that he will never\ndisgrace his parents by getting the family name on the letterhead of\nany big institution, or in the Directory of Directors.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XXI\n\n                       THE GOVERNMENT\u2019S HANDICAP\n\n    In this chapter an argument is made that no government, and\n    especially no republic, can supply the necessary management for\n    business enterprises. The effect of popular and political\n    interference with public business is illustrated.\n\n\nThe principal reason why government business operations are always\nfinancial failures is that no republic can supply the all-essential\nthird leg. Its management is always defective. It can furnish capital,\nit can employ labor, but in a government where the people have a voice,\nmanagement always buckles.\n\nSenator Aldrich was frequently quoted as saying that the government\ncould save three hundred million dollars per annum if it would apply\nbusiness principles to its affairs. The distinguished senator never\nsaid that. What he did say was that the government _would_ save three\nhundred million dollars per annum if it _could_ apply business\nprinciples. Experience had taught the senator what experience has\ntaught everyone who has had experience and what observation has taught\nthe observing: that it cannot be done.\n\nDuring the campaign of 1916, I sat on the platform and heard the then\ncandidate for governor of a great middle-west state tell an audience\nthat if he were elected governor, he would apply business principles to\nstate affairs. I followed him and told his hearers that, if elected, he\nwould do nothing of the kind. In the first place, it was impossible,\nand, secondly, they would not consent to it even if it were possible. I\nreminded them that I knew better than their candidate, for I had tried\nit. I did suggest, however, that simply because business principles\ncannot be applied to public affairs, is no excuse for conducting public\naffairs in a thoroughly unbusinesslike manner. It is not necessary to\nviolate every business principle because some cannot be applied.\n\nThe candidate was elected, as he deserved to be, and has made one of\nthe best, many say the best, governor his state ever had. But he will\nhave to admit that he cannot remove officials simply for inefficiency,\nand he cannot make appointments in the face of public opposition,\nhowever fit and worthy the applicant. In a thousand ways he cannot\nexercise the independent discretion which he would if president of a\nbank or the head of some industrial corporation.\n\nWhen I took charge of the Treasury Department I found an appraiser at\none of the principal ports who had outlived his usefulness. He was not\ndishonest. Dishonesty is the least of all evils of government service.\nHe was simply inefficient. He had a good army record, was a very\nreputable gentleman, highly esteemed, absolutely honest, and Mr.\nMcKinley had made him appraiser. There were many evidences of\ninefficiency. Importers at far distant ports were entering their\nmerchandise at this city and shipping them back home, manifestly for\nthe purpose of evading the payment of appropriate duties. I have no\ndoubt that the government was losing a million dollars or more a year\nthrough the inefficiency of this good man.\n\nPresident Roosevelt authorized a change. I informed the two senators\nfrom that state what had to be done, and asked them to select the best\nman they could find and I would arrange a vacancy to meet their\nconvenience. President Lincoln is credited with saying that when he had\ntwenty applicants for a position and appointed one, he made nineteen\nenemies and one ingrate. I wanted to protect these senators from\nnineteen enemies.\n\nThey found an excellent man and I had the old appraiser come to\nWashington. He fully recognized his utter failure, and willingly\nresigned. We parted friends. The inexperienced will suppose that was\nthe end of the incident. It was not. It was the beginning of it. The\nremoval was declared to be purely a political deal. The President was\ncriticized, I was abused and the two senators maligned. Every prominent\nGrand Army man in the country was asked to protest, and most of them\ndid, until this dear old fellow was made to believe he had been imposed\nupon. He published his grievances in an extended interview and in about\nthree months died of a broken heart.\n\nThe people will not consent that public affairs shall be conducted as\nbusiness is conducted. Had this man been in the employ of a business\nenterprise in any large city, his removal would not have elicited so\nmuch as a notice that he had resigned for the purpose of giving\nattention to his \u201clong-neglected private affairs.\u201d\n\nPublic opposition to the application of business principles to\ngovernment affairs is well illustrated in the location and erection of\npublic buildings. Chicago has a federal building which was intended to\naccommodate, and does hold, not only the post office, but serves as\ncourt house, custom house and shelters all other federal offices. It\ncost nine million dollars and is ill-suited for anything. There are\nplenty of architects who can design a court house, or a post office, or\nan office building, but no one has yet appeared, and no one ever will\nbe found, who can combine the three without ruining all.\n\nDuring the period of construction, the Chicago post office occupied\ntemporary quarters on the lake front in a wooden building, veneered\nwith brick, built expressly for the purpose. Unquestionably it was the\nmost convenient, and therefore the best post office in the United\nStates. This of course is from the standpoint of a business man.\nEveryone connected with it regretted its abandonment for the huge,\nimposing but outrageous new building. The architect\u2019s pride centered in\nits enormous dome. All the mail had to be taken from the basement up a\nsteep incline and, until they began using heavy gasoline trucks, it\nrequired four horses to pull out from under the building what one horse\ncould haul to the depot.\n\nPittsburgh wanted a building equally imposing, and Congress\nappropriated a million dollars to buy a site. That sum would pay for\nnothing suitable in the central part of the city. The newspapers had\nall purchased property at the top of the hill, in the newer part of the\ncity, and the Secretary of the Treasury was expected to locate the\nFederal Building accordingly. He did not do so and for this reason:\nThere were no street cars going near the proposed site. It was before\nthe advent of gasoline trucks and the mail would have to be hauled up\nthe long inclines by teams. In slippery weather a team of horses,\nunless freshly shod, cannot climb that hill with an empty wagon.\n\nInspired by the experience at Chicago, the Secretary decided to give\nPittsburgh the best post-office service in the world. An entire block\nnear the principal depot was purchased, at fifty percent or more above\nits market value. But that was relatively cheaper than anything else\noffered, and less proportionately than what the government is usually\ncompelled to pay. A suitable site for a business enterprise employing a\nlike number of people, and doing an equal volume of business, would be\ntendered on a silver platter. The people\u2019s government never got\n\u201csomething for nothing\u201d until we entered the war. What it then got and\nwhere it got it is quite generally surmised.\n\nThe intention was to erect a steel-framed post office, not more than\nthree stories high, with wide court, so the light would be abundant,\ninstall a system of pneumatic or electric carriers, with tubes\nextending to all the depots and substations of the city. This, I\nsubmit, is exactly what any business concern would have done. But it\nwas not satisfactory. A perfect furore was raised, every bit of which\nhad its root either in a hope of profit through the location of the\nbuilding, or in a desire for a big and imposing public building with an\nenormous dome. The people thought it a shame that Pittsburgh should be\nasked to put up with the expenditure of a fraction of the money that\nhad been thrown away in Chicago, and the fact that one hour would be\nsaved in the distribution and delivery of every piece of mail, did not\npalliate the offense. A post office erected solely for the purpose of\nefficient mail service will satisfy no community.\n\nThere are quite a large number of ports of entry where the entire\nrevenue collected is not enough to pay the expenses of the office. In\nmy annual reports I recommend that several of these be abolished, but\nno congressman from those states would support such a recommendation\nand no congressman from any other state would favor it lest economies\napplicable to his own locality would be thus invited. Everyone insists\nupon economy in government matters, but all demand that it be exercised\nin a distant state, and preferably in some territory or in the District\nof Columbia where the franchise is denied.\n\nMany will remember William S. Holman of Indiana, for many years\nchairman of the Committee on Appropriations. He was not only an able\nman but a wise and economical statesman, and merited the appellation by\nwhich he was internationally known, \u201cThe Watchdog of the Treasury.\u201d The\nCommittee on Rivers and Harbors, desiring his support, inserted an item\nfor dredging a creek extending into Holman\u2019s district, so ships could\ncome to central Indiana. Of course Mr. Holman wanted to be returned and\nwas therefore compelled to support the bill. He even made a short\nspeech in favor of this particular item. When he closed, Tom Reed arose\nto remark in his inimitable drawl,\n\n  \u201c\u2019Tis sweet to hear the honest watchdog\u2019s bark,\n  Bay deep-mouthed welcome as he draws near home.\u201d\n\n\n                          A SELF-EVIDENT FACT\n\nNo government subordinate or bureau chief ever got into difficulty\nexcept when he did something. No one ever knew a refusal to act, or a\ndelay in acting, to be the subject of judicial or legislative\ninvestigation. Pigeonholes all filled is infinitely safer than a few\nsigned documents. This is fully recognized throughout the whole realm\nof public service and the result is logical\u2014everything of a decisive\nnature is deferred as long as possible.\n\nIn 1906 Congress authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to settle a\nclaim for ice sold to the government for the use of the Union Army in\n1863. I am the only official who, in more than forty years, could have\nbeen impeached for action taken in connection with that knotty problem.\n\nSubordinates in corporations and private business are criticised and\nlose their positions for failure to act. With the government, men are\ndischarged and disgraced only when they do act. Unless a clerk or\nbureau chief or head of a department is caught red-handed, so there can\nbe no question of guilt, there is no way to rid the department of an\nincubus without great difficulty. What I am trying to emphasize is a\nfact that everyone knows, few recognize, fewer still admit and many\ndeny, to-wit: That government, state and municipal affairs are\nnecessarily conducted upon entirely different principles from ordinary\nbusiness.\n\n\n                           TWO ARMY INCIDENTS\n\nI am indebted to an army officer for the following, which I have not\nverified and therefore cannot vouch for, but I give it simply because\nit is absolutely true to life.\n\nDuring the Indian insurrections in Texas, a certain officer got word to\nhis quartermaster that he must have supplies and ammunition at a given\npoint on the Rio Grande River without delay or his detachment would be\nannihilated. The quartermaster must have been a civilian for,\nregardless of red tape and formality, he proceeded to act. He found a\nboat and sought to engage it. But the river was low and the owner dared\nnot attempt the trip. \u201cBut,\u201d said the quartermaster, \u201cif you do not go,\nthose men will be annihilated.\u201d \u201cIf I do go,\u201d said the owner, \u201cmy boat\nwill be annihilated, and it\u2019s the only boat I have. You have more men.\u201d\n\nRather than fail, the quartermaster purchased the boat for twelve\nthousand dollars. He loaded it with supplies and ammunition, started it\nup the river and made his report. Promptly, the department at\nWashington refused to ratify the purchase, and reprimanded the\nquartermaster severely for exceeding his authority in purchasing a\nboat. I submit that the department was right. No member of Congress\nwould vote to give a quartermaster authority to buy a river steamer.\nEven the Secretary of the Navy would need congressional authorization.\nFortunately, the boat returned and the quartermaster tried to get the\nman to take it back. He refused. Then the quartermaster found a\npurchaser, sold the boat for twelve thousand five hundred dollars, paid\nthe purchase price and sent five hundred dollars to Washington.\nPromptly the department refused to ratify the sale and again\nreprimanded the quartermaster because he had sold a boat without\nauthority. And the department was again right. Congress never has given\nand never will give authority to a quartermaster or anyone to sell a\nboat or anything else except after prolonged condemnation proceedings,\nand then at auction. Any corporation, under like circumstances, would\nhave made that quartermaster a vice-president. Instead his pay was held\nup, and he faced court martial until some comptroller risked his\nofficial life and reputation by closing the account, also in violation\nof law.\n\nIf I remember correctly, it was Colonel Phillips of the regular army\nwho gave me this chapter from his experience: While in command at a\nfrontier post he was asked by the department to make a recommendation\nconcerning a certain matter. Following the regulations, he referred the\nmatter to his quartermaster. The quartermaster reported favorably\nto the colonel in command, and he, as colonel, joined in the\nrecommendation and sent it to Washington. In due time he received\ninstructions to proceed and, again obeying regulations, he directed the\nquartermaster to carry out the instructions of the department. This was\ndone and the quartermaster so reported to the colonel in command, and\nthe colonel approved this report and forwarded it to the department.\nAll of this was regular and would afford no occasion for comment but\nfor the fact that Colonel Phillips, the officer in command, was also\nquartermaster. He had asked himself what had best be done, made his\nreport to himself, approved the report made to himself, joined in his\nown recommendation, then directed himself what to do, reported to\nhimself that it had been done and then, as commander of the post, had\ntransmitted all the papers to the department, which, in course of time,\nwere approved, and one more closed incident in the military affairs of\nthe United States of America resulted. He had signed the same paper\nseven times and there had been no way to abbreviate.\n\nI submit that if he had been in charge of railroad operations, some\ncongestion of freight would have resulted while all these necessary\nformalities were being worked out.\n\nI want it definitely understood that in recording these instances, no\ncriticism is intended. No material improvement ever can be made without\nthrowing wide open every conceivable door and shutter through which\nfraud and corruption not only can creep but leap and run. I give them\nfor no other purpose than to prove established principles to which\nthere are few if any exceptions, to-wit: That a republic in business is\nan ass.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XXII\n\n                            THE POST OFFICE\n\n    The common belief that the Post Office Department is conducted\n    along approved business methods is sought to be dissipated.\n\n\nThe advocates of government ownership continually remind you that the\nPost Office Department is a government managed affair. It is, and I\nthink I am perfectly safe in saying that until the government took\ncontrol of the railroads, cables, telegraph and telephone lines,\ncommenced building ships and constructing airplanes, it was the worst\nmanaged institution on the face of the earth. And it has mattered\nlittle, if any, which political party has had control of its affairs.\n\nFor six years every new post office erected in the United States has\nborne upon its corner stone this inscription: \u201cWilliam G. McAdoo,\nSecretary of the Treasury.\u201d As you have seen this evidence of official\nprominence in city after city in every state of the Union, have you\nwondered why the name of the Postmaster General did not appear above,\nor below, or at least on the rear of the building? It is simply because\nthe Postmaster General has nothing in the world to do with the\nselection of sites, erection of buildings, or in their care or\nimprovement. The Treasury Department buys and pays for the sites,\nprepares the plans, erects the buildings, repairs them, lights them,\nheats and janitors them. It also pays the rent of post office quarters\nwhere the government has not been as yet foolish enough to build. The\nTreasury Department also audits the accounts of all postmasters and not\none dollar of all this expense is charged to postal receipts. Even the\nsalary of the Postmaster General and all his clerks is paid from\nappropriations independent of postal revenues. Then, with no rent to\npay, no coal or current to buy, with janitor and elevator service\ngratis and accounts audited, the Post Office Department has run behind\nan aggregate of something over two hundred million dollars. Any express\ncompany would be glad to take the Post Office Department off the hands\nof the government if it could have free rent, free coal, the salaries\nof their principal officers paid and all their accounts audited gratis,\nfor sixty-five per cent of what it now costs the government to take\ncare of our mail service.\n\n\n                           RIVERS AND HARBORS\n\nUnder the Constitution, Congress has charge of all navigable streams\nand harbors and it has spent billions in their improvement. Colonel\nHepburn once made the statement on the floor of the House that the\nappropriations for the improvement of the channel of the Mississippi\nRiver between St. Louis and the Gulf were sufficient to have built a\nship canal of boiler iron between these two points. No one ever\nquestioned the correctness of the statement.\n\nA recent River and Harbor bill contained an appropriation to dredge the\nchannel of a stream in Texas where the government\u2019s engineers reported\nthere was only one inch of water. Another brook in Arkansas with only\nsix inches of water, got an appropriation. I assume that two more votes\nwere necessary. I might add for the reader\u2019s information that any\nstream in the United States can be made navigable in law by a joint\nresolution of the two Houses of Congress saying that it is navigable.\nLawyers would call that navigable _de jure_ but many of them cannot be\nmade navigable _de facto_ however much is expended in dredging and\nwidening.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXIII\n\n                             CIVIL SERVICE\n\n    The sole purpose of discussing the Civil Service System in this\n    connection is to show what must ensue if the government\n    continues its trend and enlarges its business operations.\n    Partisan politics cannot be eliminated, neither does the Civil\n    Service secure the most efficient. Concrete and actual\n    instances are given as illustrations.\n\n\nSo much has been said in favor of Civil Service by its friends, and so\nmuch criticism offered by those who know little about it, that I am\nimpelled to submit a few observations drawn from five years\u2019 experience\nat the head of a department having, a portion of the time, as high as\ntwenty thousand people on its payroll, over ninety percent of whom were\nin the classified service.\n\nIt is not my purpose to criticise or commend. I do intend, however, to\nmake reasonably clear some of the inevitable conditions that would\nensue if the government should remain operator or should become owner\nand operator of railroads, merchant ships, express, cable, telegraph\nand telephone companies, and other public utilities, constructor of\nairplanes, merchant ships, and logically producers of all materials and\nsupplies therefor.\n\nEveryone concedes that to avoid complete partisan prostitution of these\nwidely-extended and diversified interests, every agent, servant and\nemployee, with the possible exception of unskilled laborers, would have\nto be covered under Civil Service. This would palliate the evil but, as\nwe shall presently see, would not prevent political manipulation and\ninfluence, and would render efficient service absolutely impossible.\n\nIt will be idle to approach this subject without recognizing a very\nmarked distinction between business operations and government service.\nBusiness is conducted primarily for the profit that legitimately\nresults. The wise man knows, however, that the better the service, the\nmore certain his rewards. The merchant who best serves his customers\nwill have the most customers to serve, and the lawyer who best protects\nhis clients will have the largest and the most lucrative practice.\nService and profit are seldom divorced. If it be true, as has been\nsaid, that a grateful people will make a beaten path to the door of him\nwho improves a mousetrap, it is also equally true that the world\u2019s\nfinancial rewards are liberal beyond calculation to him who renders any\nsubstantial service.\n\nThis principle does not apply to government matters. Here the ultimate\nend is not profit, but power. While a political party may hope to be\ncontinued if its service is acceptable, it has no right to expect its\nadministration will be acceptable if it neglects the ordinary methods\nby which approval is secured\u2014which is politics. In politics,\neverything reasonable and honest is made to serve the ends of politics,\nexactly as in business everything reasonable and honest is made to\ncontribute to profit.\n\nA most natural result of public service is loyalty to superiors. This\nis true in a very marked degree in all government departments. If\ngovernment clerks were to vote, I suppose three-fourths of them would\nsupport the party in power, without regard to which party it happened\nto be. One-half of the balance would fear even to vote lest they might\ncause offense and prejudice their promotion\u2014the sole consideration\nwith many department clerks\u2014while only a comparative few would openly\nsupport the opposite party and some of these would subsequently regret\nit.\n\nA case is current where an official who is supposed not to be devoid of\nfuture political ambition, said to a friend who had witnessed the\nobsequious servility of subordinates: \u201cThere are two million of these\nand every one is a voter.\u201d\n\nYou will recognize that no promotion, demotion or dismissal within a\nbusiness organization invites newspaper comment or criticism from\nfriend or foe. In government service the exact opposite is the rule.\nWhen constituents inform a congressman that someone from his district\nhas had his salary reduced, the whole delegation from that state get\nbusy. Let it be known that some clerk has been longer in a department\nthan another who has received more promotion, and an explanation is\ncertain to be demanded, and it is relatively useless to urge\ninefficiency as the cause. In such cases the public ascribes but two\ncauses, politics and favoritism.\n\nWhile \u201coffensive partisanship\u201d is publicly forbidden, it is generally\nrecognized on the inside that no activity of a partisan character is\n\u201coffensive\u201d so long as it is quiet, and is exercised in favor of the\nparty in power. Public officials, of the rank of postmasters, customs\nand internal revenue collectors, and district attorneys are not\nexpected to be delegates to political conventions, but I have never\nknown their superiors, when of the same political faith, to object to\ntheir being in the town while the convention is in session, maintaining\nsuitable headquarters at the hotel, and even volunteering valuable\nadvice to those who happen to call, as well as to those who are sent\nfor.\n\nBut politics is not the only weakness of the system. The public has\nbeen taught to believe that Civil Service examinations result in\nsecuring the most efficient. This is a serious delusion.\n\nThose who take civil service examinations usually find their names\nrejected or upon the eligible list within six months. It takes about\nthat long to classify. Any time within two years thereafter the\napplicant is liable to be certified and called.\n\nWhen a requisition is made the Commission certifies three names. It is\nnot at all likely that they are the three whose examinations show them\nthe best qualified. That question is not considered\u2014applicants either\npass or fail. They are simply the three names at the head of the list\nfrom the state whose quota is not exhausted. The officer calling for\nthe clerk examines the records of the certified names and makes a\nselection. Thereupon the applicant is notified to present himself at a\ngiven place where the minimum salary\u2014in normal times seven hundred\ndollars per annum\u2014awaits him. Even though he took his examination only\ntwelve months before, the chances are he declines, giving as his reason\nthat he is now getting a thousand dollars with good prospects of\npromotion.\n\nIt is only a question of time, however, when some applicant will be\nfound who, during the period between examination and certification,\nvarying from six months to two years and six months, has been unable to\nget a job at seven hundred dollars and he jumps at the chance to \u201cserve\nhis country.\u201d\n\nYou knew this must be the way but probably you had not stopped to\nanalyze it. The Civil Service screen is so constructed as to catch the\nsmall fish and allow the large ones to escape. And there is no way\nknown to man to change it without opening wide the door for favoritism,\nwhich the Civil Service system is supposed to close and effectively bar.\n\nNevertheless some of the clerks and employees selected in this way\ndevelop a good degree of efficiency and prove far better than anyone\nwould expect from an inspection of the machinery by which they are\nsecured. With scarcely an exception they are honest and conscientious\ntoilers, with very little ambition. A few have ambition but these\nshould, and usually do, soon resign.\n\nI have in mind a business organization with several thousand on\nits payroll. Its operations extend from ocean to ocean and its\nemployees include geologists, chemists, engineers of every kind,\npurchasing agents, salesmen, superintendents of both construction and\ntransportation, clerks, clear down to unskilled laborers. Everyone\nconnected with the organization is made to understand that any\nposition is open to him provided he can show greater efficiency than\nthe incumbent. While most of the force have grown up within the\norganization, not all have been started at the minimum salary nor\npromoted because of length of service. The former is insisted upon, and\nthe latter urged, by all friends of Civil Service.\n\nImagine such a concern as I have described, depending upon an outside\ncommission to examine and certify the people whom it might employ in\nits clerical and technical force, and being bound by its own by-laws\nnot to employ anyone selected in any other way. No business concern\ncould face competition and survive under such a system. Yet everyone\nrecognizes that when applied to government affairs, Civil Service is\nnot only the best but the only way. I am not criticising it. I am only\nshowing the inevitable result if we change the purpose of government\nfrom the greatest liberty institution in the world to a corporation for\nthe transaction of business.\n\nDuring five years that I recruited the force of the Treasury Department\nfrom names certified by the Civil Service Commission, nothing occurred\nto engender ill feeling. The members of the Commission and the officers\nof the Treasury Department understood each other perfectly and\nsympathized. Every member of the Commission sought as best he\ncould\u2014subject, of course, to the restrictions and limitations of his\noffice\u2014to serve the Treasury Department, and the Secretary of the\nTreasury, believing in Civil Service, reciprocated. There were,\nhowever, some rather plain and expressive letters exchanged. Believing\nthat letters that actually passed between departments are the best\nproof of conditions as they exist, I have inserted in the Appendix the\nmaterial correspondence covering four distinct cases.\n\nSome of the letters were answered by personal interviews but enough\nremains to show the cordial feeling that existed, as well as the nature\nof the contentions. It also reveals the earnestness with which the\nSecretary of the Treasury sought some relaxation in the rules which\nfriends of the system, as well as the members of the Commission, insist\nmust be rigidly enforced, and which were rigidly enforced.\n\nThe last case cited relates to a request for experienced lawyers for\nspecial agents of the Treasury Department. The necessity for these will\nbe apparent to every experienced business man.\n\nMany of the tariff rates are _ad valorem_, the duty being levied upon\nthe foreign market value of the imported merchandise. Importers are\nrequired to enter their goods at the price at which such articles are\nusually bought and sold in the country of their origin. Undervaluation\nby unscrupulous importers is the most common way of defrauding the\ngovernment. Cases of alleged undervaluation are tried by the Board of\nGeneral Appraisers, at which the importers are represented by lawyers\nwho make a specialty of this class of cases. They are not only men of\nexperience but many of them possess great natural aptitude. Some, I\nsuppose, make as high as fifty thousand dollars per annum. The\ngovernment is represented by attorneys who receive, if I remember\ncorrectly, three thousand dollars per annum, and the cases are usually\nprepared by special agents, or special employees, who receive from\nfifteen hundred to two thousand dollars per annum. The government is at\na tremendous disadvantage. I have heard it estimated that the Treasury\nloses two hundred million dollars per annum through undervaluations. I\nthink this is excessive but unquestionably it runs into tens of\nmillions.\n\nI desired several country lawyers who had had actual experience in\ntrying cases, and asked the Civil Service Commission to provide an\neligible list. The need of capable men in this particular branch of the\nservice is well illustrated by the following incidents.\n\nCertain importers were entering their merchandise, which had been paid\nfor in Indian rupees, as costing the bullion value of rupees, about\ntwenty cents. England was maintaining the parity of the rupee at about\nfifty cents in our money. The Secretary of the Treasury certified that\nthe rupee was worth fifty cents and directed that duties be collected\naccordingly. As was anticipated, the importers all paid under protest\nand one of them prosecuted an appeal. A decision against the government\nwas rendered by the Board of General Appraisers and by all the courts\nincluding the Supreme Court of the United States. I ordered that\nanother case be made and gave instructions how it should be prepared.\nAgain, much to my surprise, the government was defeated. Investigation\nshowed that the second case had been prepared exactly like the first.\nMore detailed instructions were given and the government was\nsuccessful, and more than one million dollars that had been paid by\nimporters under protest, was saved to the government and at least two\nhundred thousand dollars per annum from then until now. Any country\nlawyer with a general practice would have known how to prepare and\npresent the case in the first instance.\n\nThe Treasury Department has several special agents in Europe whose\nbusiness it is to look after and discover evidence of undervaluation,\nas well as other frauds upon the revenues of the country. The\nDepartment knew that certain merchandise was viciously undervalued, but\nthe special agents all failed to get material evidence. Special\nemployees were not then under Civil Service and I got an up-state\nlawyer from New York to accept a position as special employee, sent him\nto Europe and he came back with evidence that secured advances in\nvaluations which saved the government perhaps fifty thousand dollars a\nyear from one importer alone.\n\nAppendix \u201cD\u201d will show the material correspondence concerning this\nparticular request for experienced trial lawyers. My first request is\ndated September 20, 1905; my second, October 14th of the same year.\nFinally the Commission replied and its first letter bears date of\nDecember 2, 1905. It mentions oral requests also having been made.\nSeveral examinations were held but up to the time I left the Treasury\nDepartment, March 4, 1907, no eligible list had been provided\ncontaining a single lawyer who had ever prepared or tried a case in any\ncourt. The department needed at least six, could have profitably used\ntwelve, but could not and did not get one. If interested read Appendix\n\u201cD.\u201d You will detect enough spice to give it a flavor not its own.\n\nThe correspondence set out in Appendix \u201cC\u201d has reference to a tobacco\nexaminer. Tobacco intended for Florida was being imported from Cuba at\na certain inland city and then shipped back to Tampa and Key West. The\nduty on unstemmed wrapper tobacco was at that time $1.85 per pound and\nonly 35 cents per pound on unstemmed filler tobacco. When any bale of\ntobacco contained more than fifteen per cent wrapper, the entire bale\nwas dutiable as wrapper. There was a further provision that tobacco\nfrom two or more provinces or dependencies, if mixed, should be\ndutiable at $1.85 per pound, regardless of its character. Naturally, a\ntobacco examiner should know something about tobacco. In fact, that is\nthe only subject that a tobacco examiner need know anything about. The\ncorrespondence will show the efforts made to secure one and the desire\nof the Civil Service Commission to aid, as well as the disaster which\nit believed would follow if the Treasury Department was allowed any\nvoice in the manner of the examination or in classification of those\nwho took the same.\n\nAppendix \u201cB\u201d has reference to a tea examiner, another position that, in\nthe opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury, should be filled by an\nexpert.\n\nThe correspondence with reference to a tobacco examiner began some time\nin 1904. My first rejection of each of the three names certified as\nbeing eligible is dated December 15, 1904. The request for a tea\nexaminer was made somewhat later. I quote a paragraph from the Civil\nService Commission\u2019s letter of December 9, 1905, which, though written\nwith special reference to the request for eligible trial lawyers,\nmentions both tobacco and tea examiners:\n\n\u201cYour attention is also invited to the recent examination for tea\nexaminer and tobacco examiner at the Port of \u2014\u2014. Owing to objections\nby your Department to eligibles certified, it became necessary to hold\nthree examinations before a selection was made for tobacco examiner and\ntwo examinations before a selection was made for tea examiner. The\nexaminations finally resulted in the selection of the temporary\nemployees, who, in the judgment of the Commission, after careful\ninvestigation, have no unusual qualifications for the duties to be\nperformed and came in at the advanced age of sixty-three years. It\nseemed to the Commission so apparent that the examinations in question\nhad not resulted in securing to the government the services of the most\nsuitable competitors, that it became necessary for it to recommend to\nthe President that it be relieved of all responsibility for these\nexaminations and on November 18th, the President placed in the excepted\nclass, one examiner of tea and one examiner of tobacco at the Port of\n\u2014\u2014, which employees do not now have the status of competitive\nemployees.\u201d\n\nIt will be noted that the Civil Service Commission itself finally\nrecognized such a weakness in the system that it consented and even\nrecommended that Treasury officials be permitted to select _one_\nexaminer of tea and _one_ examiner of tobacco at _one_ port, though the\nlast phrase quoted seems to betray a slight apprehension of disaster\nresulting from there being in the United States two examiners, each\nrequiring very accurate and technical qualifications, \u201cwho do not now\nhave the status of competitive employees.\u201d\n\nAppendix \u201cA\u201d is limited to two letters written by the Secretary of the\nTreasury to the Civil Service Commission refusing to approve rules and\nregulations which it proposed to promulgate, unless the President so\ndirected. I will add that the President did not so direct. In this\ninstance, as in the last two, the Secretary of the Treasury had his way.\n\n\n                          DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.\n\nWhile on this subject, I cannot refrain from discussing Civil Service\nas applied to our diplomatic and consular service.\n\nThere is quite a widespread demand that everything shall be taken out\nof politics, and a presumption is indulged, that, if this were done,\nall of the evils which now inhere in representative government would be\ncured. Undoubtedly men have been rewarded for political service with\nappointments to foreign fields, and some of these appointees have been\nwanting both in business experience and education as well as in\naptitude. On the other hand, it is most unfortunate if only those who\nare disqualified for positions of responsibility are interested in\npolitics. If every public position at home and abroad were to be filled\nwith those who either take no interest in public affairs, or by those\nwho are incapable of exerting any political influence, do you think the\nservice would be materially improved?\n\nThe further criticism is indulged that administrations make foreign\nappointments from among their party friends, and utterly ignore\nadherents of the opposite political faith. Has it ever occurred to you\nthat when a man is unable to find as good and able men among those who\nbelieve in political doctrines which he advocates as are available\namong his opponents, he ought in justice to himself to renounce\nallegiance to the party he believes in, and join the ranks of those\nwith whom he disagrees?\n\nUndoubtedly, the United States has sent some chumps abroad, but anyone\nwho has lived long in Washington must have recognized that other\ncountries also occasionally have chumps in their diplomatic service.\nAfter some years\u2019 observation, I asked John Hay, then Secretary of\nState, whose experience at home and observation abroad better qualified\nhim to speak than any other man in America, how our diplomatic and\nconsular service compared with that of other countries. Promptly and\nwithout hesitation, he said: \u201cIt is universally recognized everywhere\nthat American foreign service is the best in the world.\u201d\n\nOne might as well expect to develop a successful trial lawyer by\nconfining him to a law school all his life, or a successful business\nman by keeping him indefinitely in a business college, as to expect to\nproduce an efficient representative of American interests abroad by\nrequiring him to spend the most virile period of his life in studying\nhow to represent these interests and all the while keeping him out of\ntouch with the interests which he is to represent. A lawyer should\nunderstand his client\u2019s business, if possible, better than his client.\nIf he is to represent mining interests, he should know metallurgy, all\nprocesses of mining, reduction of ores and mining practices, as well as\nmining laws. Before a man can successfully, advantageously and wisely\nrepresent American interests abroad, he must understand American\ninterests at home. He must have a practical knowledge of what Americans\nrequire in foreign countries, and the natural effect at home of the\nthings he is trying to do abroad.\n\nWhen confined to clerical positions, Civil Service is a lesser evil\nthan anything else that has been tried, but it falls far short of\nbeing a panacea. When applied to positions requiring scientific,\nprofessional, technical or expert knowledge, it is an utter failure. If\nthe government extends beyond its appropriate functions, and enters the\nbusiness arena, Civil Service will result, first, in the greatest\npossible inefficiency; second, in political manipulation and control of\neverything, and, third, in transforming a hitherto virile and\nself-reliant people into a race of pap seekers. If the government\npursues its present trend and enters one field of business activity\nafter another it will logically end with everyone on the government\npayroll and all of us working for the rest of us and taxing ourselves\nto pay pensions to ourselves. When a government once enters the field\nof paternalism there is no place where it can logically stop.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XXIV\n\n                        CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT\n\n    Before increasing the business activities of the government and\n    creating an enormous army of government officials, clerks and\n    employees, all under Civil Service, it is well to consider some\n    feasible plan of retirement, for it is a question that will not\n    down.\n\n\nThe discussion of Civil Service as applied to governmental industrial\noperations will be incomplete unless it includes the question of\nretirement. Shall those who have been for many years on the government\npayroll be pensioned? With few exceptions that is what the present\nCivil Service employees desire. They claim to have served their country\nas faithfully, and much longer, than soldiers in the army, and\ntherefore are entitled to equal recognition and honor.\n\nMost thoughtful people are able to note some marked differences. Few\nwho are physically fit fail when they seek admission to the army or\nnavy, but I have known quite a number who have sought government\npositions in vain. In addition to this the pay of the soldier is very\nmeagre, while that of civil service clerks, in normal times, is at\nleast fifty per cent higher than the same grade of service commands in\nthe business world. The question resolves itself therefore into this\nproposition: Shall those who have secured government positions and held\nthem for thirty years, when there have been thirty thousand other\ncitizens equally patriotic, and equally competent, who have sought\ngovernment employment in vain, be rewarded and pensioned because of\ntheir good fortune, and at the expense of their less favored brothers\nand sisters?\n\nThe same argument applies to old age pensions. Most red-blooded\nAmericans are willing to assume responsibility for the support of\nthemselves and their families, and gladly contribute in some fair and\nequitable manner, through appropriate processes of taxation, towards\npensioning those who bear arms in defense of our common flag, and for\nthe dignity of our country, and they are also willing to pay their\nshare towards the maintenance of the helpless and the unfortunate few.\nBut it is no evidence of yellow that some object to the burden of\npaying pensions to men and women who have no other claim thereto than\nthat they have grown old and have failed to provide for themselves.\n\nTake the case home and apply it to yourself and your family. Do you\ndesire the government to promise you and your children a pension\nindependent of the manner in which you and they acquit yourselves? Or\nwould you prefer to face the future in the belief that if you win,\nthrough merit, the rewards of victory will be yours to enjoy, and if\nyou lose you will be expected to suffer the consequences. In other\nwords do you desire the government to pension you simply because you\nhold a poor hand or play a good hand badly? What effect do you think\nthe promise of old age pension would have upon the rising generation?\nIs not the youth of America already sufficiently wanting in\nself-reliance?\n\nThe only other way thus far proposed by which the government shall\nsupport its employees in old age, is by means of guardianship. This\nplan seems to proceed upon the theory that those who are fortunate\nenough to secure government positions, are necessarily unable to look\nafter their own affairs, and therefore are entitled to a guardian. The\nproposition is that the government shall take charge of a portion of\nthe earnings of this favored set of American citizens\u2014withhold part of\ntheir salary and deal it out to them as a mother does candy to her baby\nlest it overeat or consume it too soon. It is a pretty weak citizen who\nneeds a guardian, and those who do\u2014provided they are _compos mentis_\nand fourteen years of age\u2014are entitled under the laws of most states\nto select their own.\n\nFive years\u2019 experience led me to recognize that new clerks as a rule\nare better than old ones. Those who come with any enthusiasm whatever\nmake very rapid advancement in efficiency, but in a very few years the\nenthusiasm vanishes and hope of advancement is based entirely on\nseniority of service.\n\nBefore leaving the Department I recommended\u2014and am now more convinced\nthan ever of its wisdom\u2014that government positions should be filled, as\nnow, under the rules of Civil Service but that all new clerks should\ncome facing a statute limiting the periods of their service to five\nyears. Five years of government service, especially in the city of\nWashington, is in itself an education. In addition there are excellent\nnight schools where clerks can and do pursue their studies. Before\nCivil Service was inaugurated thousands secured appointments in\nWashington, graduated in law or medicine and went forth familiar with\nthe official atmosphere and prepared to give the lie to those in every\ntown who teach that the Capitol of the Nation is a den of thieves. John\nW. Gates got his start in life as a sixty dollar per month clerk in the\nPost Office Department and spent his evenings writing letters for\nSenator John A. Logan, and meeting the big men of the nation who called.\n\nA limited period in college is of great advantage but it would ruin any\nboy to keep him year after year in the same classes, going over the\nsame subjects, reciting to the same tutors, getting nothing new and all\nthe while segregated from all practical things of life. Why give these\nplums of official position\u2014and they are no less plums because secured\nunder Civil Service\u2014to young men and women for life when they might be\npassed around with great advantage to that larger body of equally\ndeserving citizens who would be benefited by a brief experience in\npublic service.\n\nThe present force should be permitted to complete the tenor of their\nnatural lives in the service. The new rule if adopted should apply only\nto those taken on after the enactment of the law limiting the period of\nservice to five years. Exceptions would have to be made in cases\nrequiring technical, professional or scientific knowledge. Provision\nwould also have to be made whereby by executive order, on the\nrecommendation of heads of departments, the specially competent could\nbe retained.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XXV\n\n                       PROPERTY BY COMMON CONSENT\n\n    The desire that the government shall enlarge its functions so\n    as to prevent large accumulations, has led to the verge of\n    confiscation of property. Several proposed methods of partial\n    or total confiscation are discussed.\n\n\nOriginally no one held property by common consent, and in the very\nearly history of the race I suppose no one gave a thought to what we\nnow call \u201cproperty rights.\u201d Even now savages seldom claim ownership to\nanything beyond a dog, weapons of the chase, possibly a horse or a\ncanoe. Gradually the divinely implanted desire for ownership,\nsovereignty, independence, led the more advanced to assert exclusive\nrights, but still they held little if anything by common consent. Each\nheld what he could by force. Under these conditions civilization had\nits birth.\n\nAs the race advanced and began to feel the throb of God-like impulses,\nand to live in harmony with divine law, consent to proprietorship\ndeveloped. For several centuries, in all civilized countries, with here\nand there a relapse into barbarism like the French Revolution of the\n18th century, and the Russian Revolution of the 20th century, property\nrights and some measure of personal liberty have gone hand in hand and\nhave been quite generally recognized and respected.\n\n\n                           CONSENT WITHDRAWN\n\nFor the first time in the history of an English speaking people consent\nto personal ownership is being gradually withdrawn. Unless you have\nstudied popular audiences, analyzed current magazine articles and\nscrutinized modern legislation, probably you have little conception of\nthe proportion, even among the respectable and high minded, who are\ncommitted to some degree of confiscation.\n\nAt a joint debate on single tax under the auspices of an organization\nlike many styled \u201cAcademy of Political Science\u201d or \u201cPolitical Science\nClub\u201d or \u201cScience of Government League,\u201d which in this instance was an\nadjunct of one of our very large universities, I called for a direct\nexpression from the audience upon the clear-cut proposition of\nconfiscation of all private property. Two-thirds of the audience\npromptly responded in its favor. That audience was composed of\n\u201chigh-brows.\u201d They were men and women who read magazines, attended\nlectures, belonged to \u201cuplift\u201d associations and indulged in mental\nprocesses which they thought was thinking. I had had similar\nexperiences in joint debates on socialism, but had never before struck\na bunch of incipient anarchists of such apparent respectability.\n\nSome years ago I had the privilege of addressing an association of\nSocialist Clubs at Cooper Union. While I have addressed many better\nread audiences I have never seen one that had read more. Many of them\ndid little else but read. In addition they were a most sincere and good\nintentioned body of men and women. There are, as every one knows who\nhas come in contact with them, somewhat more than fifty-seven varieties\nof socialists, every one of which was well represented that evening.\nThey were courteous, they were respectful, they listened with manifest\ninterest; but it was easily discernible that they considered our\ncivilization wrong and harmful in the extreme. One could see it, feel\nand taste it. The very atmosphere conveyed to every sense the\nunmistakable evidence that that great body of men and women thoroughly\nbelieved that what they termed \u201cCapitalism\u201d had its heel upon their\nnecks. They were not rebellious, but it was evident they did not intend\nanyone to be misled into supposing that they were unconscious of their\nconditions, or that they intended to acquiesce longer than necessary.\n\nIn the campaign of 1918 the \u201csingle-taxers\u201d of California made their\nthird and great attempt to confiscate land values in that beautiful\nstate. The issue of July 20th of \u201cThe Great Adventure,\u201d an official\norgan of the single-tax propaganda, printed upon its front page in\nheavy double leaded type this announcement: \u201c_Single tax will put these\nbig land values into the public treasury and leave the Ground Hogs\nnothing to rent but the actual value of their buildings._\u201d\n\nThe January, 1918, number of \u201cEveryman,\u201d another of their official\norgans, contained a well-considered article lauding conditions in\nRussia, and promising the same for California. I quote briefly: \u201cThe\npeople of Russia, who only yesterday were semi-starving slaves to a\ntinsel aristocracy, are now for the first time living upon their own\nlands, in their own homes, and working in their own fields and\nfactories. They have dispossessed landlords and profiteers; and all who\nwork have plenty. People do not starve where there is none to take the\nfood out of their mouths. Famine is a result of human exploitation.\nWhen the people of any country go hungry it is because they are denied\naccess to natural resources. The people of Russia have taken their\nnatural resources, and also their industries and they will not go\nhungry.... Out of darkest Russia has come the great light of actual\nfreedom; and there is every reason to hope she will soon have the\nweakest government in the world, which means, of course, the strongest,\nbravest, truest and most united people.... That is what we are striving\nto do in California, but we won\u2019t stop with the land. We will only\nbegin there. We could not stop there; the tide is too strong. It will\nbear us on into the new world of economic friendship.\u201d\n\nThe same issue of \u201cEveryman\u201d gave a word picture, for the truth of\nwhich it vouched, of what it termed \u201cZapataland\u201d\u201490,000 square miles\nin Mexico\u2014where it claimed confiscation had wrought its legitimate\nand beneficial results. It claimed the same conditions would be\naccomplished in California through the adoption of the single tax\namendment to the Constitution as had been wrought in Mexico with the\nmusket. It says: \u201cIn Zapataland they have no need for money. Is it food\nyou want? Go to the market and help yourself. Do you need shoes or a\nhat? Go and take what you need! Have you a fancy for jewelry? Go make\nyour selection.... In some of the centers the women of Zapataland\nclamored for finger rings and bracelets. The elders consulted. They\nmelted down some of the church ornaments, and in a few months baskets\nfull of the envious shining trinkets were in all the Plaza shops. Help\nyourself.... Labor is plentiful. Everybody wants to work at least a few\nhours a day\u2014they insist upon it. \u2018Give me that shovel! You have been\ndigging there for a couple of hours or more. Let me dig awhile.\u2019 \u2018Here,\nyou, stop straining yourself. Go and rest. I am stronger than you.\u2019...\nIn Mexico, the propaganda was carried on with \u201830-30\u2019s\u2019. The Zapata\narmy went from valley to valley, from village to village, and\ndispossessed the owners.\u201d\n\nSuch stuff is well calculated to deceive almost anyone except those who\nhave seen a Mexican. For three successive campaigns California was\nflooded with that class of literature, its boasted purpose being\nconfiscation. The organization back of the propaganda, with ample\nendowment, purposes to use California as an object lesson and to extend\nthe principle throughout the nation.\n\nFor the benefit of any who thus far have not appreciated the gravity of\nthis most plausible attack upon property rights, and therefore have not\nstudied the question, I make the following brief statement of the case\nas it appeals to a very large number.\n\nHenry George, the great apostle of single tax, was a very able man. I\ndo not say he was a very wise man. Great intellects frequently lead to\ngreat errors.\n\nEvery advocate of single tax legislation has been a faithful disciple\nof Henry George. No one has added a new argument, stated an old\nargument with greater force, or reached a different conclusion. None of\nhis followers has ever apologized for anything Henry George ever said,\nor refused to stand or fall with the great originator of the scheme.\nTherefore, to quote Henry George is to quote the best authority, and\nall authority.\n\nI propose, therefore, to make a few extracts from Henry\nGeorge\u2019s standard work on the subject\u2014the great text book of\nsingle-taxers\u2014\u201cProgress and Poverty.\u201d\n\nHe begins and ends his argument with the proposition that God made the\nland, the sea, and the air, for his children collectively, and has\nnever granted the exclusive right to any part thereof to king or\nsubject. All pretended grants and conveyances, therefore, have been\nfictitious. Relying upon this argument, he holds that all natural\nresources still belong to the people collectively, and confiscation in\nthe interest of all is justified.\n\n  On page 401 of \u201cProgress and Poverty,\u201d he says: \u201cBut a question of\n  method remains. How shall we do it? We should satisfy the law of\n  justice. We should meet all economic requirements by at one stroke\n  abolishing all private titles, declaring all lands public property,\n  and letting it out to the highest bidder in lots to suit.\u201d\n\n  On page 403 he says: \u201cI do not propose either to purchase, or to\n  confiscate property in land. The first would be unjust; the second\n  needless. Let the individuals who now hold it still retain, if they\n  want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land; let\n  them continue to call it their land; let them buy, and sell, and\n  bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the shell, if we\n  take the kernel. It is not necessary to confiscate land; it is only\n  necessary to confiscate rent.\u201d\n\n  Again, on the same page, he says: \u201cWe already take some rent in\n  taxation. We have only to make some changes in our mode of taxation\n  to take it all.\u201d\n\nThus it will be seen that Henry George, with all his intellect, was\nmentally dishonest. His heart-beats were sympathetic, but his mind\nwobbled. He was able to perceive nothing dishonest when I sold my\nacres, or my lot, invested the proceeds in stocks and bonds, and then\nby my vote exempted my property from taxation, and placed all the\nburdens of government on the purchaser of my land.\n\nHe would have seen no injustice in a government of the people\nestablishing Rural Credit Banks, as has been done, loaning millions,\nwith mortgages as security, upon lands purchased from the government,\nthen inducing widows and orphans to buy securities issued against these\nmortgages, and finally taxing the value of the real estate away, thus\nleaving the widows and orphans to beg their bread from door to door.\n\nThe American people are inherently and intuitively honest and just. Do\nyou think it would be just, after the people, through their Congress\nand their president, had granted the homesteader a patent title in fee\nsimple, now to tax its value away? As Henry George says, the effect is\nthe same as confiscation. He calls it \u201ctaking the kernel and leaving\nthe shell.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XXVI\n\n                           EQUALITY OF INCOME\n\n    The inevitable effect of equality of income, assuming it could\n    be accomplished, is discussed.\n\n\nTwo or three years ago George Bernard Shaw had a prize article in the\n\u201cMetropolitan\u201d in which he advocated \u201cEquality of Income\u201d as a panacea\nfor all the ills that afflict civilization. I remember he urged that if\nall had equal incomes the race would be improved; for there would be\ngreater freedom of selection. He seemed to deplore the fact that under\npresent conditions \u201cmen and women meet in parks and other public\nplaces, recognize natural affinity\u201d so promptly responded to by some\nbut are nevertheless kept apart because of this iniquitous inequality\nof income. However much the man may be attracted by the personality of\nthe lady he will not humble himself to make advances if she gives\nevidence of being financially beneath him; while his advances will be\nspurned if he bears the marks of a more meagre income than she enjoys.\n\nIt was the same old free-love doctrine, and the author argued at length\nto show that inequality of income thus seriously interferes with the\nfree course of \u201cnatural affinity\u201d and hence retards the coming of the\n\u201csuperman.\u201d He did not in that article suggest how he would equalize\nincomes. Suppose we study, for a moment, not how to accomplish it, but\nthe effect of its consummation.\n\nIf equality of income would be a panacea now\u2014if it would solve the\nills we have and prevent others\u2014it would have worked well from the\nbeginning. Imagine therefore that instead of following the divinely\nimplanted impulse to acquire, to hold, to exercise sovereignty, to\nachieve, the race had remained as it was when it had no income, and\ntherefore when no inequality of income existed. Would churches and\ncathedrals have been built? Would colleges and universities have been\nfounded? Would art and literature have flourished? Would America have\nbeen discovered? Equality of income would have left Queen Isabella with\nno jewels to sell with which to purchase the Santa Maria. In fact there\nwould have been no Santa Maria to purchase. The race would have\nremained where the race started. Inequality of income began when\nincomes began. Inequality of income marks the birth of civilization,\nand if civilization ever dies \u201c_equality of income_\u201d should be the\ntitle of its dirge.\n\nThe wealth of the United States is about twenty-five hundred dollars\nper capita. Assume, if you please, that all our property could be and\nhas been converted into cash. Then assume that the rest of the world is\nable and willing to supply our every need and our every want so long as\nour money lasts! We would eat up and wear out the accumulation of the\ncenturies in about three years; and henceforth would go about clothed\nin skins, and our own skins at that. The world lives from the income\nand accretion resulting from the accumulations of the ages, but in\norder to make it effective it must be kept in circulation, going first\nto labor, thence to the producer\u2014the manager\u2014by way of the merchant,\nand again to labor.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXVII\n\n                         AN HISTORICAL WARNING\n\n    The teachings of Rousseau, which logically resulted in the\n    French revolution, wherein the confiscation of property was the\n    prime purpose, is compared with some of the teachings of today.\n    History that should constitute an ample warning is cited.\n\n\nWe have been sowing what Rousseau was permitted to sow and from which\nwas reaped the French revolution. The \u201cSocial Contract\u201d taught that\nproperty as understood today did not exist. The citizen simply held it\nin trust for society. For under the \u201cSocial Contract\u201d each \u201csurrenders\nhimself up absolutely, just as he actually stands, he and all his\nresources, of which his property forms a part.\u201d The next logical step\nin the revolution was to discharge or recall the trustee, and thus vest\nthe property again in society itself. That was done. George W. Hinman\nin \u201cCan We Learn Anything from History?\u201d summarizes this recall of\ntrusteeships as follows: \u201cSociety proceeded to recall its trustees as\nfast as \u2018Society\u2019 needed the property. It recalled the trusteeships of\nall the church property, $800,000,000; of all the property of exiles,\n$600,000,000; of all the property of the guillotined and condemned,\n$200,000,000; of all the property of hospitals and charitable\ninstitutions, $200,000,000; of all the state domains sold and rented in\nthe last three hundred years, $400,000,000; of all the gold and silver\nvessels and specie, $100,000,000; of all the property of other\ninstitutions, valuables and common goods, $700,000,000. Then it\nrecalled the trusteeships of coats and trousers, growing crops, pots,\nkettles, pans and mattresses. In one town it recalled the trusteeship\nof ten thousand pairs of shoes from ten thousand pairs of feet, and\nthus condemned ten thousand former custodians of this property to go\nabout their tasks barefooted in the snow.\u201d\n\nNot only this but the government extended confiscation by means of\nincome tax until the whole of every income in excess of six hundred\ndollars was to be taken. Taine, the historian, summarizes thus:\n\u201cWhatever the grand terms of liberty, equality and fraternity may be,\nwith which the revolution graces itself, it is in its essence a\ntransfer of property. In this alone consists its chief support, its\nenduring energy, its primary impulse and its historical significance.\u201d\n\nHinman summarizes thus: \u201cThe people in a body is infallible; unlike\nindividuals it can make no mistakes. Therefore we should not trust\ngovernment to individual representatives or agents but to the pure and\ndirect democracy. But we cannot have direct democracy at its purest\nwithout equality of condition. To get equality of condition we must get\nequality of property. To get equality of property we must correct the\ninequalities of the past and present. Therefore to correct these\ninequalities we invent the theory of trusteeship of property, recall\nthe trustees, and take possession of all unequal properties in the name\nof society.\n\n\u201cThat is the whole cycle; that is the great revolution! Twenty-five\nyears in preparation, eleven years in actual practice, fourteen years\nin immediate consequences; fifty years all told and that is sum,\nsubstance and essence from the beginning to the end, a transfer of\nproperty! A transfer of property without compensation! A confiscation\nof property beyond appeal and beyond recall! There were movements also\nagainst the church, and against the family, but the transfer of\nproperty far surpassed them both in size and in significance.\n\n\u201cThat the convulsions attending the movement were more spectacular than\nthe movement itself; that a million persons were stabbed, drowned,\nshot, beheaded and hunted to death within the borders of the nation;\nthat wars were started that strewed Europe with 5,000,000 dead; that\nthe oppression was far more ferocious than under Louis XIV, that the\nwaste of government was arithmetically four times greater than under\nthe most wasteful monarchy; that a whole nation was bathed in blood,\nbankrupted in morals, and rotted in character to the core\u2014all of these\nthings, hideous and appalling as they may be, distracting and absorbing\nas they may be, are still but as colossal incidents. _The chief\nmovement through this sea of blood and wilderness of death was the\ntransfer of property._\u201d\n\nNevertheless, Robespierre\u2014the bloodiest man who had ever lived, the\nbloodiest man who ever has lived outside of Russia, and the bloodiest\nman who ever will live unless socialism gets control in the United\nStates\u2014was an idealist. He resigned the bench rather than pronounce\nsentence of death upon a convicted criminal. He read Rousseau\u2019s \u201cSocial\nContract\u201d every day. He was the leader in the \u201cuplift\u201d movement of the\nage in which he lived and sought to produce Utopian conditions of\n\u201cliberty, equality and fraternity\u201d throughout France. While an\nInternationalist he sought to reform and transform France before\nextending his field of influence.\n\nBut being self-willed as well as self-opinionated, at the first\nappearance of opposition he threw down the challenge. There was \u201csome\nfight in him and he liked it.\u201d He appealed directly to the people and\ncondemned to the guillotine everyone who had the temerity to resist his\nefforts to ameliorate human conditions. While seeking everywhere for\nproperty to confiscate, and heads to guillotine, he made the most\nelaborate speech of his career:\n\n\u201cOur purpose is to substitute morality for egotism, honesty for honor,\nprinciples for customs, duties for proprieties, the empire of reason\nfor the tyranny of habit, contempt of vice for indifference to\nmisfortune, dignity for insolence, nobility for vanity, love of glory\nfor love of money, good people for society, merit for intrigue, genius\nfor intellectual brilliancy, the charm of contentment for the satiety\nof pleasure, the majesty of man for the high breeding of the great, a\nmagnanimous, powerful and happy people for amiable, frivolous and\nwretched people; that is to say, every virtue and miracle of the\nrepublic in the place of the vices and absurdities of the monarchy.\u201d\n\nI submit that is pretty good rhetoric and excellent diction. Though it\nmeans absolutely nothing it must have sounded well to the proletariat.\nThe people idolized Robespierre for a while at least, as they always\nidolize an orator who has great command of indefinite and high-sounding\nlanguage. Idolizing an idealist they followed him and were led to the\nextremes of democracy. The whole population of France was transformed\ninto an organized mob, doing everything that a mob can do but, in the\nmain, preserving the forms of law.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXVIII\n\n                           CAPITAL AND LABOR\n\n    Among the dangers threatening the republic is the warfare which\n    admittedly exists between capital and labor, the manifest\n    tendency of which is in the direction of bolshevism. Some\n    citations are made showing its imminence.\n\n\nOne need not to have read the preceding pages to know that the United\nStates is fast approaching a crisis. Industrial and social unrest is\neverywhere apparent. Capital and labor are at grips in many places,\nwhile management, the all-essential factor, seems helpless to\naccomplish reconciliation.\n\nWhen given free rein, capital enforced unbearable terms. This resulted\nin legislation forbidding combinations for the purpose of limiting\noutput or advancing prices of the products of labor. Thus far labor has\nenjoyed express exemptions from anti-trust laws, and it is now making\nunbearable exactions. I would like to warn labor unions that they are\nliable to exceed the limits of prudence. Admittedly Congress has the\nsame power to forbid combinations of labor as it had to prohibit\ncombinations of capital. Combinations of every kind are beneficial so\nlong as their purpose is legitimate.\n\nThere is an old fable of a man who had an ox that he worked with a\ndonkey. One day the ox refused to work and at night he asked the donkey\nhow matters had progressed without him. \u201cI had a very hard day, but I\ngot through with it,\u201d said the donkey. \u201cDid the boss say anything about\nme?\u201d asked the ox. \u201cNot a word,\u201d said the donkey. The next night the ox\nagain inquired and received the same reply: \u201cA very hard day, but\ncompleted.\u201d \u201cDid the boss say anything about me?\u201d asked the ox. \u201cNot a\nword,\u201d said the donkey, \u201cbut coming home he stopped in and talked\nawhile with the butcher.\u201d It might be well for us all to understand\nthat if one million or ten million bankers, if one million or ten\nmillion farmers, or if one million or ten million organized labor men\nshould ever attempt to rule America in the interest of any one class,\nand should assume to dictate the terms on which production can be\ncontinued, it will be only a question of time when one hemisphere will\nbe freed from organized coercion. But every organization of labor,\nevery combination of capital, and every association of farmers, might\nbe dissolved and it would not more than temporarily relieve the\nsituation. It is a condition that confronts us and no amount of\ntheorizing will improve it.\n\nRecently an official of the Department of Labor, in a carefully\nprepared article, made the profound declaration that warfare between\ncapital and labor will continue until justice is assured. Grant, if\nyou please, that a court of exact justice could be created, with a\njudge wiser than Solomon on the bench. Its decisions would satisfy\nneither capital nor labor. Arbitration boards occasionally seek to do\nexact justice. They usually ignore that element and aim simply to\neffect a workable compromise, that will temporarily save the\nsituation. When the terms are accepted and acquiesced in, both sides\nprofess to be satisfied, but neither side is satisfied. Capital\nthinks it is entitled to everything because without capital labor\nwould starve, and it demands that labor remove its shoes from off its\nfeet in its presence. Labor thinks _it_ is entitled to everything\nbecause without labor capital would languish. It goes further and\ndeclares capital to be a myth. It says that all so-called wealth is\nthe product of labor; and if labor had not been robbed there would be\nno accumulated wealth\u2014and all such socialistic and anarchistic\nnonsense which emanates largely from German-bred or German-educated\nteachers of political economy and sociology, emphasized by a large\nnumber of public speakers both within and without the church, and by\ndemagogues generally. Hence \u201clabor claims the full proceeds of its\nservice less enough to keep the tools and machinery in repair.\u201d It\nasks that capital remove its shoes. Both capital and labor ignore the\nmost important factor of production\u2014management.\n\nA century and more of matchless development, wherein money getting had\nbeen the chief aim of life, especially with those possessing aptitude\nand enough energy to pay the price of achievement, divided the people\ninto classes. Those possessing aptitude for acquisition won wealth,\nthose with aptitude for discovery won distinction, those possessing\naptitude for statesmanship, or for war, won fame. Many of those who won\nwealth became arrogant, overbearing, snobbish and some of them\ndespisedly mean. Logically\u2014for everything in this world proceeds from\ncause to effect\u2014those who did not possess the particular type of\naptitude necessary for acquisition, together with those who were\nunwilling to pay the price, denounced riches and the possessors\nthereof. Some of these became envious, threatening, even rebellious,\nand not a few despisedly mean. The result is a different America than\nthe one our fathers knew, and it does not require an old fogy to see\nit. A man is not a pessimist simply because he recognizes self-evident\nfacts. Noah came far nearer being a statesman than a pessimist. History\nsimply repeats itself. Macauley, singing of the \u201cbrave days of old,\u201d\nsays:\n\n  \u201cThen none was for a party,\n  Then all were for the State,\n  Then the rich man helped the poor\n  And the poor man loved the great.\u201d\n\nNow the poor man first envies the rich man and then hates him, the rich\nman hates the richer, and the richer snubs the would-be rich. As a\nmatter of fact, there was never as much sympathy for the poor as now,\nnever as much being done for him as at present. But sympathy and\ncharity are not what he needs, as I hope to be able to show.\n\n\n                       IS THE SITUATION HOPELESS?\n\nIf the human race has reached a condition where further progress is\nimpossible, and nothing but class antagonisms are left, it would seem\nthat a second occasion has arisen when Jehovah might \u201crepent that he\nhad made man.\u201d Patriotism demands a solution, without which no sane man\ndares hope for anything except what the socialist predicts in language\nmore ominous than any direct threat.\n\nPermit a few excerpts from a chapter, \u201cThe Revolution,\u201d added by its\nauthor to a pamphlet containing a debate on socialism, and which he\nused extensively in his campaign for Congress in 1916. The author is a\nman of excellent presence and seeming patriotism. I believe him to be\nas sincere in his belief as any evangelist of the olden times. He\ncommends the vision of Ignatius Donneley in prophesying the approaching\ncataclysm: \u201cThe people cannot comprehend it. They look around for their\ndefenders\u2014the police, the soldier, where are they? Will not this\ndreadful nightmare pass away? No, never! This is the culmination\u2014this\nis the climax, the century\u2019s aloe blooms today.\u201d He adds: \u201cThese are\nthe grapes of wrath which God has stored up for the day of His\nvengeance; and now He is tramping them out and this is the red\njuice\u2014look you\u2014that flows so thick and fast in the very gutters....\nEvil has but one child\u2014DEATH. For years you have nourished and\nnurtured evil. Do you complain if her monstrous progeny is here, with\nsword and torch? What else did you expect? Did you think she would\nbreed angels?\u201d And then after explaining that he does not speak \u201cthese\nbitter words in the spirit of a challenge, but with the kindliest,\ndeepest feeling of love for all humanity, and with the most fervent and\npatriotic feelings of veneration for my country\u2014the grandest country\nin the world, but now being systematically robbed,\u201d he warns \u201cthe\nmasters of the bread\u201d thus: \u201cI warn them that if they want \u2018red hell\u2019\nwith all the accompanying fireworks\u2014with all the attendant brutality,\nand crime, and suffering, and misery, and degradation, and sorrow and\ndeath, with the destruction of their cities and the wiping out of their\nso-called civilization, they can have it just when they most desire. It\nis up to them. The revolutions of the past will be but kindergarten\naffairs compared to the revolution now pending and coming when some one\nstrikes a match in the powder house.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XXIX\n\n                       CAN THE CRISIS BE AVERTED?\n\n    Our troubles have all resulted from false teachings which are\n    leading us farther and farther afield. The very rich will spend\n    nothing to correct the public mind and legislation seems\n    powerless to afford a remedy.\n\n\nAll this might have been prevented and possibly even now can be\navoided. It has been brought upon us in part by false education but\nlargely through evolution in our form of government, in our purpose of\ngovernment, and in industrial conditions. It could have been prevented\nby correct education both inside and outside the schoolroom. It may\npossibly be avoided by a speedy return to fundamental Americanism. But\nwhatever happens, no citizen can boast of patriotism until he has\nsought a remedy; and no one is a patriot who will not sacrifice\neverything to save the situation.\n\nIn this connection let me warn you not to expect any considerable\nportion of the necessary work to be done by the very rich. They have so\nlong believed, and their experience has justified the conviction that\nmoney will buy anything, that many of them seem to think their wealth\nwill enable them to buy liberty of a mob. A mob is always venal but it\ncan never be bribed by what it has the power to take. Did the wealthy\nof France escape? They were the first to die. Have the rich of Russia\nbeen spared? They have been the first to suffer. Possibly the rich may\nbe able to buy their choice of being mutilated before or after death.\nThe history of all revolutions of the kind that seems impending\njustifies the prediction that the more money a man has the greater\ncertainty of his torture and ultimate death. Quite recently a very rich\nman was asked to contribute to a campaign of education against\nbolshevism. He wrote a patronizing letter acknowledging the importance\nof the work, but expressed the opinion that it should be financed, not\nby the rich, but by men worth thirty or forty thousand dollars.\n\u201cAccursed be the gold that gilds the narrow forehead of the fool.\u201d\n\n\n                      LEGISLATION OFFERS NO REMEDY\n\nIt is recorded that the children of Israel once upon a time got into\nserious difficulty through worshipping a golden calf while Moses was on\nthe mountain getting the Moral Law. If American civilization is\nidolatrous\u2014and it seems not to be free from that sin\u2014the object of\nits worship is statute law, to the neglect of underlying principles\nwhich make most laws unnecessary. In the last ten years over sixty-five\nthousand statutes have been enacted by Congress and the state\nlegislatures and approved by executives. Meanwhile the evil we are now\nconsidering, in common with most others recognized a decade ago, has in\nthe main increased. Neither the laws of nature, nor the laws of\neconomics, nor the laws of society, can be reversed by statute. We have\nproceeded upon the theory that a republic can accomplish anything by\npopular edict, but the tides come in whether prohibited by sovereign\nking or by sovereign people.\n\n\n                              A DIAGNOSIS\n\nBefore a disease can be treated with any hope of success, its cause, no\nless than its manifestations, must be studied. American industries and\ninternal improvements were begun with American labor. I can remember\nwhen girls in northern New England spent their winters in the factories\nat Lowell and Manchester and returned to teach school during the\nsummer. When our industries outgrew the supply of American labor,\nagents were sent abroad and immigrants were brought over under\ncontract. When Congress forbade the admission of contract labor, and\nwages still advanced, the world heard of it and a polyglot mass of all\nkindreds and tribes and complexions came flocking to our shores,\nbecause, as we have seen elsewhere in this volume, labor was better\nrewarded here than elsewhere, and relatively better rewarded than\ncapital. Naturally, American-bred boys and girls did not fancy working\nside by side with foreigners who did not speak the English language,\nwho had not imbibed American ideas and were strangers to American\nstandards of living. So they ceased to accept work, and commenced\nlooking for situations.\n\nI visited a mill in Passaic, New Jersey, where the rules were posted in\nfive languages, and a teacher in one of the schools told me there were\nnineteen languages spoken in her room. In thousands of establishments,\nlaborers, many of whose names are unpronounceable, are known by\nnumbers. Think of an American citizen, outside of a penitentiary, being\nidentified and known by number. Will any wage satisfy that man? What\nwage or salary will you accept and be known to your boss only by\nnumber, and stand in line and accept a pay envelope at the end of the\nweek as \u201c437\u201d? An increased wage may temporarily satisfy the intellect\nof a man thus environed but it will not satisfy his heart hunger.\n\nThere are only two demands that a laborer knows how to make: He can ask\nshorter hours, and he can demand more wages, but neither will satisfy,\nfor neither is the thing he needs. Would you like to know what it\nis for which the very soul of every man\u2014laborer no less than\ncapitalist\u2014cries and without which he will not be appeased? You do not\nneed to be told. You have only to hark back to the days of your youth.\nYou have only to study mental philosophy, using your own inner\nconsciousness as a text book, and you will find the answer. What the\nAmerican laborer demands, what the American citizen, regardless of his\nsurroundings, needs, is recognition. He wants a voice. His very being\ndemands some measure of responsibility. He needs to feel that in some\nway he has contributed to results and that someone besides himself\nknows it. God save America from a generation in whom these divinely\nimplanted aspirations have been stifled.\n\nBeing unable to formulate these longings, the laborer limits his\ndemands to the two things which the walking delegate tells him are the\nonly things necessary\u2014shorter hours and more pay. When he gets them\nthe real need of his being remains untouched and he repeats his demand.\nWhen his employer seeks to do something for him, instead of _doing\nsomething together with him_, he resents both his charity and his\nsympathy, and spurns his advice.\n\nMen who are required to deal with men ought to give primary study to\nhuman nature, and omit the study of angelic nature until they join the\nangels. Suppose we continue this analysis of human nature for therein\nwe may find the seed of truth that shall, if nurtured, fructify in\nblessing to us all.\n\nA few years ago the Chamber of Commerce of one of our very large cities\ngave a Lincoln Day Banquet at which the speaker of the House of\nRepresentatives of Congress was the guest of honor. Among other wise\nphilosophies that fell from his lips was this: \u201cI do not know your\npersonal genesis but I will guess that less than fifty years ago nine\nout of ten of the intelligent, virile leaders of production, who own\nand represent capital, as well as the high officials of your state, and\nof the nation, who sit at this table, were bright-faced schoolboys in\nthe common schools, \u2018building castles in Spain.\u2019 If this Chamber shall\nrepeat this banquet a half century hence, you can find your successors\nin the public schools of today \u2018building castles in Spain.\u2019\u201d The\nthought I gather is not the trite expression that \u201cThe youth of today\nis the adult of tomorrow,\u201d nor that the public school is the nursery of\ngreatness. The thought I get is that he who is destined to achieve\nprominence in any walk of life is the youth who \u201cbuilds castles in\nSpain,\u201d who imagines, who hopes, and who goes out to fight for the\nfulfillment of his dreams.\n\nWhat is the probability of a man who cannot speak the English language,\nand who receives nothing more tangible than a pay envelope and its\ncontents, handed to him by number, sitting by the cot of his son and\ninspiring the imagination of the coming American? If he says anything,\nis he not likely to say\u2014are there not a million homes where this is\nthe only appropriate thing that can be said: \u201cMy boy, I am sorry that I\nbrought you into the world. I see nothing in life for you. The future\nis not only dumb but awful dark.\u201d\n\nThe kind of men who made this country were told a different story at\ntheir trundle beds. They were inspired with hope, for their parents\nwere full of hope. They were filled with expectation, for they knew\ntheir parents were expectant. If we revive contented, hopeful\nAmericanism we must inspire \u201ccastle building.\u201d We must fill the youth\nwith hope and whet his imagination to keenest edge until he will\nintuitively seek literature instead of twaddle with which to express\nhis aspiration.\n\n  \u201cI stand at the end of the past, where the future begins I stand,\n  Emperors lie in the dust, others shall rise to command;\n  But greater than rulers unborn, greater than kings who have reigned\n  Am I that have hope in my heart and victories still to be gained.\n  Under my feet the world, over my head the sky,\n  Here at the center of things, in the living presence am I.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XXX\n\n                          INDUSTRIAL REPUBLICS\n\n    While democracy as a form of government spells ruin, democracy\n    in society spells America in her best estate. The possibility\n    of industrial republics is suggested.\n\n\nWhile talking about democracy in government we seem to have lost our\nconception of democracy in society. What better can we expect from\ndemocracy in government than France\u2019s experience, when the voice of the\npeople was declared to be the voice of God? But social democracy is a\nvery different thing from a democratic form of government, and has well\nnigh become a lost blessing.\n\nWhen the socialist talks about \u201cIndustrial Democracy\u201d he means a\ndemocratic form of government, with all industries under popular\nmanagement. That is one extreme. The capitalist demands industrial\nautocracy. That is the other extreme.\n\nIn a previous chapter I have tried to show that when the Fathers formed\nthis government, their experiences, as well as their knowledge of\nhistory led them to fear the monarch. The French Revolution was about\nto burst into what its promoters promised should be the purest form of\ndemocracy which the world had ever seen, and the Fathers were justly\napprehensive. Dreading the mass quite as much as they feared the\nmonarch, they chose the middle course. They chose representative\ngovernment.\n\nI wonder if there be a middle course between industrial autocracy and\nindustrial democracy. Is it possible for business concerns and\nmanufacturing plants to create within their organizations industrial\nrepublics where each employee shall have some actual voice, and through\ntheir representatives sitting in deliberative bodies, analogous to our\nlegislative branch, originate and recommend or approve reforms and\nimprovements subject, of course, to a veto by a cabinet?\n\nMany methods of profit sharing have been tried and they have usually\nworked advantageously, but admittedly they fall far short of the\nrequirements. So-called cooperative industrial concerns have been\ncreated with some measure of success, yet the real problem remains\nuntouched and as complex as ever. Labor has never established a\ncooperative industry worthy of the name, except as Mallock shows in\n\u201cThe Limits of Pure Democracy,\u201d[3] when the actual operation of\nthe concern has been placed in the hands of an oligarch whose\nadministration is as arbitrary as that of any captain of industry. Only\nin that way has it been possible to supply management, the most\nessential element, as we have seen, in any enterprise. Labor has\nsometimes found the capital, but capital and labor without management\nare impotent. A goodly number of corporations have encouraged and even\nassisted their workmen to buy stock, which is a very good and\nmeritorious policy. It may tend to alleviate but it fails to cure.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  Published by E. P. Dutton & Company, New York.\n\nMallock clearly shows that every successful government unites the\nelements of autocracy and democracy. Even the Imperial German\nGovernment granted certain powers to the people, while the Constitution\nof the United States clothes the president with powers in certain\nrespects rivaling those of the kaiser. The power of veto which the\nConstitution vests in the president exceeds any prerogative possessed\nby the king of England. On the other hand the power to make war rests\nwith Congress, while in Great Britain it requires no parliamentary\nact. Mallock enlarges upon this thought and shows that socialist\norganizations and labor unions are successful only because they are\narbitrarily managed. Their so-called leaders are, in fact, oligarchs.\nThe Russian Revolution, like the French Revolution, was avowedly of\ndemocratic origin, but in fact both were as despotic as anything the\nworld has ever seen. The strength and grandeur of the government of the\nUnited States, as established by the Constitution, lies in the most\nhappy combination and blending of these two fundamental principles,\npopular sovereignty and centralized strength.\n\nThe primary difficulty in solving the so-called labor question lies, I\nthink, in failing to recognize the individuality\u2014the personality of\nthe employee. Some tiny share of profits is offered in lieu of\nincreased wages and it is accepted as a mere sop. The offer of stock at\na price below the market, with easy payments, is looked upon as a cheap\nway of tying the hands of the employee, and as an insurance against\nstrikes. I think I am safe in saying that in a very large majority of\ncases where any of these methods have been tried the men have resented\nthem, and in some instances spurned them. Then the employer concludes\nthat labor will not accept decent treatment, closes his ears, his mouth\nand his heart and proceeds to get all he can and to give as little as\ncan possibly be forced out of him.\n\nIf the basis of masculine happiness is, as I have tried to show, the\ndivinely implanted desire for creatorship, sovereignty and achievement,\nthen we will find it impossible to satisfy the subconscious longings of\nthe human heart with shorter hours, increased wages, or with some\nslight share of profits in lieu of increased wages. If I am right in my\nanalysis the pathway of access to the real man in the overalls\u2014and a\nreal man is in the overalls and must be discovered\u2014is by some scheme\nthat will necessarily recognize him as a real, thinking and potential\nentity.\n\nMost humans prefer to be called \u201ccitizens\u201d rather than \u201csubjects.\u201d\nAutocrats speak of their subjects. In republics there are no subjects.\nAll are fellow citizens. If this thought can be carried into the\nindustrial world, the \u201ccitizens\u201d therein will find their heart hunger\nappeased, their hope inspired and they will lift their heads into the\nclearer atmosphere of industrial opportunity, and possibility of\nultimate social recognition. If the theory of evolution has any\nfoundation in fact the species began to lift its head with the first\nimpulse of hope, and its whole body stood erect when the consciousness\ndawned of being human. A free, brave and hopeful people never went mad.\nDesperation and failure of recognition is the parent of revolution.\nMost anyone will fight when called \u201cit.\u201d\n\nPardon a little personal observation which has direct bearing upon\nincreased efficiency resulting from no other cause than recognition and\nhope. Forty years ago immigrants from both Germany and Sweden came from\nCastle Garden to my town every few days. They had been born \u201csubjects\u201d\nand they toiled after their arrival as they had toiled before as\n\u201csubjects.\u201d They moved with the air of \u201csubjects.\u201d In my imagination I\ncan see those German families coming up the middle of the street in\nwooden shoes, single file, the man ahead empty handed except his long\npipe, the wife close behind with a baby in her arm, and a big bundle on\nher head, and the children in regular succession according to age,\nwhich seldom varied more than two years. There must have been some hope\nin the man\u2019s heart or he would not have left his native country. But\nneither his gait nor his other movements betrayed it. These immigrants\nimmediately sought and secured employment, but they were not worth much\nthe first month or so. It did not take long, however, until it would\ndawn upon them that opportunity had actually knocked at their door. A\nfew Sunday afternoons on the porch of friends who had left the\nFatherland as poor as they, and who were now comfortably situated, plus\na wage scale of which hitherto they had only been told, transformed\nthose big fellows. I am not exaggerating when I say they would do\nwithout urging from fifty to one hundred percent more work six months,\nand often six weeks, after their arrival than when they came. They had\nbegun \u201cbuilding castles in Spain.\u201d They were dreaming dreams and the\ncentral figure in every vision was a home of their own, and personal\nrecognition. Instead of being subjects they had determined to become\ncitizens.\n\nCan this transformation still be wrought? If it can all danger is past.\nOf one thing I am certain. It cannot be done by legislation.\n\n\n\n\n                               CONCLUSION\n\n\nI came to man\u2019s estate thoroughly believing that the Constitution of\nthe United States is the greatest chart of liberty ever penned by man;\nand nothing that I have seen, nothing that I have heard, and nothing\nthat has transpired in all my mature life has shaken my faith.\n\nI think I must have been born an optimist. From earliest recollection I\nhave liked the rooster that crows in the morning better than the owl\nthat hoots in the nighttime. And what is best of all, the surroundings\nof my childhood and youth were exceedingly hopeful. I have seen few\nhours of discouragement and none of despondency. Despising the\npessimist, I have resolved, and am resolved, that nothing shall dim my\nhope or weaken my confidence either in my country or in the American\npeople, and yet in spite of myself I sometimes feel a very unwelcome\nimpulse.\n\nI observe the teachings of Jefferson forsaken and instead of the\nminimum of government and the maximum of liberty, more and more of\ngovernment and less and less of liberty. I see ignored the warnings of\nWashington against weakening the energy of our governmental system by\nmaking changes in the Constitution. I mark the trend away from\nrepresentative government towards direct government, a policy that has\nwrought ruin whenever and wherever it has been tried. I note the\ngrowing disrespect for authority in the home, in the school and on the\nstreet, coupled with certain slurs at the forms of law, as well as for\njudgments and decrees rendered in harmony therewith, emphasized by bald\nand naked threats to undermine and, if possible, overthrow our entire\njudicial system. I overhear the subtle suggestion to our youth that\nthey need give no thought for the morrow, for the government will soon\ninsure employment; that it is folly to make themselves efficient, for\nthe government will sooner or later guarantee wages regardless of\nmerit; that they need not practice thrift, for the government will\nultimately pension their old age regardless of profligate habits or\nvicious living. I discover a growing recognition of capitalistic,\nindustrial and even servant classes, with attempts at class\nlegislation, all subversive of republican ideas, republican traditions\nand republican institutions. When I realize that all this is as yet\nonly a verdant growth from socialistic, not to say anarchistic seed\nsown broadcast with scarcely a protest, and knowing that a harvest must\nyet be garnered, I am at times apprehensive.\n\nBut I am reminded that this is the people\u2019s government. If they want it\nthis way it is their business and not mine. If they make a mistake they\nare abundantly able to respond in consequences. All of which is true,\nbut the fact that it is true, and awfully true, only emphasizes the\nimportance of alert men in the watch towers.\n\nRecognizing the existence of the greatest crisis of all time, a crisis\nwherein all that we call Christian civilization is imperiled, and being\nunable to hold my peace I have produced what I hope shall be considered\nan argument. I have tried to prove scientifically that the fathers were\nwise beyond their generation. Nothing is scientific that will not stand\nthe test of application. I consider the unschooled George Stevenson a\nscientist of the first order. He thought out, and worked out, a safety\nlamp for the protection of coal miners, who during every hour of their\ntoil stood in imminent danger of explosions. Then to prove that he was\nscientifically correct he had himself lowered into the mine in the\nnighttime, and, standing there alone, thrust his lighted lamp into the\nescaping gas. The achievements of the past afford proof positive that\nour form of government, our policy and our purpose of government were\nscientifically correct. It cannot be exploded or overthrown. Its only\ndanger is from those of its own household, the children of its own\ninstitutions, who may undermine it.\n\nEven the most casual reader must have discovered that in a very marked\ndegree we have departed from the teachings of the Fathers. This we have\ndone first in our form of government, and secondly in our purpose of\ngovernment, both of which tend strongly to bolshevism, sometimes called\nsocialism, and sometimes called \u201cpure democracy.\u201d It might as well be\ncalled Rousseauism. The name is immaterial. The thing itself is the\nsame old snake that first charms, then strangles, covers its victim\nwith ooze and swallows at leisure.\n\nThere is little in the book except what the writer considers has direct\nbearing upon one or the other of two major proposition. First:\nRepresentative government was the correct principle when established,\nand therefore is correct now and will be correct to the end of time.\nSecond: The government was originally correct in granting liberty of\naction to the citizens and in limiting its own activities to strictly\ngovernmental functions. Third: Each and every departure from correct\nprinciples or wise policies has led by one pathway or another in the\ndirection of bolshevism.\n\nNo people will ever outgrow correct principles of government any more\nthan they will correct principles of agriculture. The fact that times\nhave changed, that inventions have revolutionized industry and that\nimproved methods of transportation have annihilated space, do not in\nthe slightest degree make erroneous a correct principle of government\nany more than they render false a principle of nature. If the law of\ngravitation were a provision of the Federal Constitution, there were\nmany in the United States who would have sought to amend it when the\n\u201cTitanic\u201d went down. They would have argued that when the principle was\npromulgated by the Great Law Giver, there were neither icebergs nor\nsteamships.\n\nThe argument that the people are wiser now than they were is false. The\nConstitutional Convention contained a larger proportion of college\ngraduates than any convention that has since assembled anywhere, and\nsome of the wisest, and safest and most experienced were not college\nmen. The people who came to America prior to 1787 came for motives as\nlofty as have actuated those of recent years, and in character, breadth\nof purpose and intelligence they compare favorably with immigrants of\ntoday. In addition, they had many advantages which we do not possess.\nThey had time to think, the prime essential of greatness. They had\nneither the inclination nor the opportunity to read news items from all\nover the globe in three or four editions of a metropolitan newspaper,\nwhich professedly prints only news, but prints it several times each\nday. Meditation is necessary for a statesman whether he be required to\ndischarge his responsibility in the halls of legislation or permitted\nto do so at the polls.\n\nIn defending our form of government, I have submitted a brief argument\nfor an independent judiciary. This should be unnecessary in any country\nenjoying and professing adherence to Anglican liberty. In justification\nI plead the growing disrespect for, and the multiplied attacks upon,\nour whole judicial system.\n\nI have also sought to show by the record, as well as by some reference\nand analysis of human aspirations and emotions, that the governmental\npolicy pursued for many years was correct, and therefore is and will be\ncorrect forever. If I have failed to make it clear that for more than\none hundred years the government fostered every industry and fathered\nnone, I have made poor use of the material at hand. I have sought to\nshow that the government merely safeguarded the liberties of the\npeople, while her citizens pursued their happiness and won it in\nachievement, which, in regular sequence, made the nation great. If the\nargument has any force, it should lead irresistibly to the conclusion\nthat if America expects to make further advancement, the only sure way\nis to return to these fundamental principles.\n\nI have referred to and briefly discussed bolshevist or socialist\ndoctrines, including confiscation of property, only because they are\nall involved in the departure from the policy of the fathers. When the\nRepublic changed its course little by little away from granting liberty\nand affording opportunity and began to restrict and to absorb what the\ncitizen had formerly enjoyed, the way was opened for all the elements\nof revolution. To understand the gravity of the situation one must\nstudy the logical effect, and to comprehend the effect some reference\nto similar movements in France and Russia is necessary.\n\nI have sought to strengthen the argument against governmental\ninterference in purely secular affairs by showing the unavoidable\nhandicap the government is under when it enters the field of business.\nThis has occasioned some analysis of the Civil Service system, with\nillustrations of its actual operations.\n\nThat my country will return to its original form and purpose, I am more\nthan hopeful; yea, I am confident. It must be that the United States\nwill revert to representative government in its original simplicity. It\ncannot be otherwise than that a wise citizenship will again select\ntheir representatives because of aptitude and will retain them in\npositions of responsibility until they shall have acquired efficiency\nthrough experience, gauging their worth, the while, by results rather\nthan by subservient obedience. An ambitious people, resourceful and\nhopeful, virile and expectant will certainly take their government out\nof business, and confine its operations to the legitimate functions of\ngovernment. All the traditions of the past, all the teachings of the\nFathers, all the warnings of history are against paternalism. No\ngovernment ever made or will make a people great except as it\nguarantees liberty whereby the people shall make themselves great. No\npeople ever have made or will make themselves great by relying upon\ntheir government to do for them the things which the Almighty\nintended\u2014yea decreed\u2014that they should do for themselves.\n\n\n\n\n                               APPENDIX A\n\n                           UNSKILLED LABORERS\n\n\n                                   Treasury Department, Nov. 11, 1903.\n\nTo Civil Service Commission:\n\nYour letter of November 4th relative to the adoption of rules governing\nthe employment of laborers in the Federal Service at Boston is at hand.\nI will have occasion to take the matter up with the President, and if\nhe desires the rules signed I shall be glad to comply. Otherwise I\nshall decline.\n\nMy principal objection is the fact that paragraph 6, \u201cDefinition of\nClassified Work,\u201d contained in the regulations governing the employment\nof classified laborers, adopted July 23, 1903, has proved very\nimpracticable. In fact that Department not only violates these rules\nevery day, but ignores them and is compelled to do so. I am also\nadvised that the Civil Service Commission not only violates them, but\nignores them. I respect the Commission for doing this, and my respect\nwould not be diminished if it would repeal such regulations as have to\nbe ignored by the very men who promulgate them. The fact that they are\nthus ignored by the Civil Service Commission is supported by the clear\nand repeated statement of a member of the Commission, made in my office.\n\nAnd this is not all. It is well nigh impossible to secure from the\nskilled laborer register of the Commission persons who are willing to\nperform the menial service which is required of unskilled laborers. The\nrule referred to forbids our taking unskilled laborers from our payroll\nto perform this menial service, and permit them incidentally to perform\nservice that requires a knowledge of reading and writing. We are now in\nthe midst of a prolonged correspondence with the Civil Service\nCommission over a case arising at San Francisco where the offense was\nthat an unskilled laborer, assigned to handle merchandise, was\npermitted to go to a pile of bales and boxes on the docks and select a\npackage that was needed for examination, and exercised his ability to\nread the number on the package. Had some skilled laborer gone with the\nunskilled laborer, to read the number, and had then informed the\nunskilled laborer that that package bore the desired number, all would\nhave been well. Under the rules for which you are contending it\nrequires two men to get a package, when either one can get it alone,\nand then it takes a man and a stenographer in this office to conduct\nthe correspondence that grows out of the offense of allowing either one\nto do it unaided by the other. If the President wants this condition\ninaugurated at Boston and other ports, as well as at San Francisco, I\nshall be very glad to see that it is done.\n\nI will be very glad to co-operate with the Civil Service Commission to\nimprove the service in this Department, not only in Boston but in every\nport. I am a firm believer in Civil Service, and, I may add, in the\nmachinery of Civil Service but I am more interested in improving the\nproduct than in perfecting the machine. So far as I am concerned I will\nnot voluntarily sign and promulgate rules for the mere sake of signing\nand promulgating rules. I will co-operate to the fullest extent in\nanything that will improve the service.\n\n                                                   Very respectfully,\n                                                   LESLIE M. SHAW.\n\n\n                REQUIREMENTS FOR MALE UNSKILLED LABORERS\n\n                                   Treasury Department, Jan. 26, 1904.\n\nTo the Civil Service Commission:\n\nYour letter of the 14th inst, submitting for approval a statement of\nphysical requirements for male unskilled laborers is received.\n\nI am unalterably opposed to a graduated scale of physical ability. If a\nman of medium weight, 130 lbs., and minimum height, 5 ft. 3 in., and\nwith strength to carry a minimum weight, 150 lbs., is to be marked 70,\nas you propose, then a man weighing 200 lbs., 6 ft. tall, and able to\ncarry 200 lbs., would I supposed be marked 80; and a man weighing 300\nlbs., 6 ft. 5 in. in height, and able to carry 500 lbs., should be\nmarked 100. No one would have such a man around. He would be physically\nincompetent. Either a man is physically competent or he is not. Most of\nthe defects referred to as sufficient to justify rejection are all\nright. I have no objection to a list of competents being made and from\nthat list we will select. But I would rather base my judgment upon the\nappearance of an applicant who would come into the office and say \u201cgood\nmorning\u201d and retire than all the physical examinations that the Civil\nService Commission can give.\n\nI do not care to prolong the correspondence; I simply will not consent\nto accept unskilled laborers on a graduated scale of physical ability.\nI do not care whether a man can lift 150 lbs. or 400 lbs. when there be\nonly 10 lbs. to lift.\n\n                                                   Very respectfully,\n                                                   LESLIE M. SHAW.\n\n\n\n\n                               APPENDIX B\n\n                              TEA EXAMINER\n\n\n                                   Treasury Department, Dec. 15, 1904.\n\nTo the Civil Service Commission:\n\nI am in receipt of your communication of November 21st certifying three\nnames from which to select a Tea Examiner.\n\nI hereby file objection to each and all of the persons so certified\nbecause of mental unfitness for the position for which they apply.\n\nThere is no tariff duty on tea and the sole purpose of examination of\ntea is to protect the American people from cheap and deleterious\npreparations. A competent tea examiner must be able to pour hot water\non a sample of tea and by tasting, tell within five cents per pound of\nwhat it is worth, and to determine accurately whether the sample is\ncomposed of tea or of some imitation or preparation thereof, and\nwhether it has been adulterated. Whether he can speak the English\nlanguage or sign his name is immaterial. If he knows tea, and is honest\nand incorruptible, the American people will get protection. These men\nknow no more about tea than you or I and they are as unfit for the\nplace as either of us.\n\nIn proof of the foregoing, one of the names certified is that of a\nclerk in the Customs Service and is known to this Department to be\nwholly unfit for Tea Examiner. He is a clerk and not a Tea Expert.\n\nAnother is a bookkeeper, and has been continuously thus employed since\n1886, and knows nothing about tea and does not pretend to.\n\nThe third is now an opener and packer in the Customs Service and admits\nthat all he knows about tea is the fact that he once sold coffee. The\nserious side of this matter is the absolute and literal truth of the\nforegoing.\n\nSome conception of the importance of the position may be gained from\nthe fact that over three hundred packages of alleged tea have been\nexcluded in the last ninety days at that port alone.\n\n                                                   Very respectfully,\n                                                   LESLIE M. SHAW.\n\nThe balance of the correspondence is unimportant in view of the\nCommissioner\u2019s letter of Dec. 9, 1905, practically one year thereafter,\nquoted page 173, and in which the Commission states that after two\nexaminations, on its recommendation the place was excepted by the\nPresident and filled independent of Civil Service.\n\n\n\n\n                               APPENDIX C\n\n                            TOBACCO EXAMINER\n\n\n                               Treasury Department, December 15, 1904.\n\nTo the Civil Service Commission:\n\nI am in receipt of your letter of the 12th inst. certifying three names\neligible for selection as Tobacco Examiner at the port of \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014.\n\nI hereby file objections to each and all because of mental unfitness\nfor the position for which they apply.\n\nThe Tariff Duty on unmanufactured tobacco is in part as follows:\n\n                                  Per lb.\nWrapped Tobacco, unstemmed         $1.85\nWrapped Tobacco, stemmed            2.50\nFiller Tobacco, unstemmed            .35\nFiller Tobacco, stemmed              .50\nFiller Tobacco, if packed or mixed\n  with more than 15 per cent of\n  wrapper tobacco, unstemmed        1.85\nIf stemmed                          2.50\nTobacco, the product of two or more\n  countries or dependencies when\n  mixed, unstemmed                  1.85\nIf stemmed                          2.50\n\nThis is sufficient to show the importance of the position and the\nnecessity of having an expert tobacco man as examiner. No one of these\ncertified is competent. The first is a clerk and stenographer. He has\nbeen a letter carrier and is now a clerk in the Customs House at\n$1,200.00 per annum. He is a professional Civil Service Examination\ntaker, and admits having \u201ccrammed\u201d as he terms it for this examination.\nHe has never had anything to do with the tobacco business except that\nhe was once stenographer to a tobacco merchant.\n\nThe second is a storekeeper and clerk in the Customs Service. He has\nhad no experience whatever in tobacco except to have seen bales of\ntobacco while storekeeper for the government.\n\nThe third has been a cigar maker but does not pretend to know anything\nabout the tobacco business except a little experience in making cigars\nfrom tobacco purchased by others, and that in a very small way. He is\nin my judgment wholly unprepared to protect the revenues of the\ngovernment against the frauds continually attempted by unscrupulous\nimporters, who pursue the line of least resistance, and bring their\ntobacco to the port where deception is least likely to be detected. He\nis equally unprepared to protect the honest importer from competition\nwith the unscrupulous.\n\nIn kindness but in honesty let me say that the man who conducted the\nexaminations has no conception whatever of the qualifications needed in\na tobacco examiner.... These applicants may be nice men, and they may\nwear good clothes, and they may speak good English, and may be men of\nintegrity, but no one of them is fit to hold the very important\nposition to which he aspires, and for the simple reason that he knows\nnothing at all about the only thing he needs to know anything about,\nto-wit: Tobacco!\n\n                                                   Very respectfully,\n                                                   LESLIE M. SHAW.\n\nThe balance of the correspondence is unimportant in view of the\nCommission\u2019s statement in its letter of Dec. 9, 1905, quoted page 173,\nthat after three examinations the President on request had excepted one\ntobacco examiner and the place had been filled independent of\nexaminations.\n\n\n\n\n                               APPENDIX D\n\n\n    Correspondence between the Secretary of the Treasury and the\n    Civil Service Commission _in re_ Trial Lawyers.\n\n                                  Treasury Department, Sept. 20, 1905.\n\nTo the Civil Service Commission:\n\nGentlemen:\n\nI wish you would hold an examination for special agents at the earliest\npossible moment. As I explained to your Mr. \u2014\u2014 the other day, the\nDepartment needs some special agents with legal training. Not all\nspecial agents need legal training, but there are many times when cases\nhave to be prepared for presentation to the Board of General\nAppraisers, or to the Court, where legal experience is almost\nessential. I will give you an illustration: Not long ago I needed to\nsend a man to Europe to investigate alleged undervaluations in crockery\nand chinaware. I had the matter investigated by three special agents\nand special employees with no satisfactory results. They did not know\nwhat was essential, and did not seem to know evidence when they saw it.\nI then appointed an experienced lawyer as special employee and sent him\nover. The evidence he collected ought to secure a fifty percent advance\non these goods.\n\nI want to urge that in this instance you prepare the questions so as to\nexclude everyone who is not an experienced lawyer. I also desire to see\nthe questions before the examination is held. I want to cooperate with\nthe Commission, and I urge the Commission to cooperate with me in\ngetting material absolutely necessary to good administration.\n\n                                        Very truly yours,\n                                        LESLIE M. SHAW,\n                                        Secretary of the Treasury.\n\n\n                             SECOND LETTER\n\n                                Treasury Department, October 14, 1905.\n\nTo the Civil Service Commission:\n\nGentlemen:\n\nHow are you progressing preparatory to the examination for special\nagents? I am very anxious that this shall be done at the earliest\npossible moment. I have a well-defined policy that I would like to put\nin operation before I retire.\n\n                                                   Very truly yours,\n                                                   LESLIE M. SHAW.\n\n\n                    FIRST LETTER FROM THE COMMISSION\n\n                                                     December 2, 1905.\n\nThe Honorable\n  The Secretary of the Treasury:\n\nSir:\n\nReferring to the examination for special treasury agents which you\ndesire this Commission to hold and with respect to which you make oral\ninquiry today, the Commission has the honor to state that the questions\non government, law, and customs matters prepared by your Department\nhave been given careful consideration. It is the opinion of the\nCommission that the questions are of such a character that they might\nbe answered by a person without testing his qualifications for the\nposition of Special Treasury Agents, and that, on the other hand,\nfailure to answer the questions would not indicate lack of\nqualification for such position.\n\nThe Commission is sincerely desirous of co-operating with your\nDepartment in securing competent persons for the service, but it does\nnot believe that an examination along the lines indicated in the\nmaterial submitted by your Department would have the desired effect.\n\nThe Commission very seriously doubts whether the position of Special\nAgent can be filled as satisfactorily by open competitive examinations\nas by transfer or promotion of trained and experienced employees in the\nservice who are familiar with the workings of your Department and\nespecially with customs matters.\n\n                                                 Very respectfully,\n                                                 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                                                 Commissioner.\n\n\n                           REPLY TO FOREGOING\n\n                                Treasury Department, December 5, 1905.\n\nTo the Civil Service Commission:\n\nI am in receipt of your letter of the 2nd relative to an examination\nfor Special Agents to the Treasury Department.\n\nI know you will pardon me if I insist that I know better the necessary\nqualifications of Special Agents than any person who knows nothing\nabout it whatever. If there were experienced employees in the service\nwho could be transferred I certainly should do so rather than to await\nan examination. You will remember a personal interview I had with you\nabout this some months ago, and several requests, some of them personal\nand some of them in writing followed by the preparation of the\nquestions in this Department, still followed by oral inquiry to which\nyou courteously refer. I will explain again that I need some lawyers in\nthe Special Agent Force. The government loses millions every year (and\nI speak within bounds) for want of suitable preparation of cases for\npresentation to the Board of General Appraisers. I want men who know\nevidence when they see it and who know how to present a case. I do not\nwant a physician or a preacher, but I do want and must have lawyers. I\ncare very little whether they know anything about Customs matters or\nnot\u2014they can learn that but they may know everything about Customs\nmatters and cannot become lawyers. I have clerks in the Department who\nhave graduated in law but that does not make a lawyer of a man. I know\nwhat the Department needs, and I want that need supplied. Please advise\nwhether you will hold the required examinations or whether I will have\nto fill the vacancies with incompetent clerks, or by executive order.\nIf you will join in a request that suitable men be put into this\nimportant work by executive order I will let the Civil Service\nCommission make the nominations from a list which I will furnish, or I\nwill ask them to furnish the list and I will make the nominations. I am\nnot trying to escape the Civil Service, for I heartily believe in it\nwhen so applied as to bring material that can be used to bring results.\nI appreciate your expressed desire to co-operate and I only ask that\nyou make it good by co-operating.\n\n                                                   Very truly yours,\n                                                   LESLIE M. SHAW.\n\n\n                       LETTER FROM THE COMMISSION\n\n                                                     December 9, 1905.\n\nThe Secretary of the Treasury:\n\nThe Commission has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter\nof the 5th inst. in which are indicated your wishes with respect to the\nproposed examination for Special Agents.\n\nIn reply your attention is invited to the general questions on\ngovernment, law and customs matters which have been submitted to the\nCommission by your Department. Of the fifty-three questions so\nsubmitted, fifteen are of a general character and could be readily\nanswered by any law student. Only three relate to evidence in any form.\nThese are of such an elementary character that they may be found in any\ntext book on the subject and are not sufficient to bring out a\nsatisfactory knowledge of evidence. There are thirty-seven questions\nbearing directly upon customs matters although your letters indicate\nthat a knowledge of the subject is not to be required of applicants.\nAfter careful consideration of the matter and in view of your recent\nletter it is believed that the questions submitted by your Department\nare not suitable for an examination of Special Agents.\n\n_After discussing the responsibility which the Commission must bear the\nletter proceeds_:\n\nIn this connection your attention is invited to an examination for law\nclerk, Class 4, held for your Department in April, 1903. This\nexamination was prepared along the lines indicated by you and your\nstatement that only graduates of reputable law colleges who had had at\nleast three years practical experience subsequent to graduation would\nbe acceptable to the Department, was incorporated in the announcement.\nThe examination consisted principally of practical questions in law and\nthe preparation of opinions upon stated cases. Of the 367 persons who\ncompeted only 20 attained eligibility. The results of this examination\nwere very unsatisfactory to the Commission and to a large number of the\ncompetitors who felt that injustice had been done them. It is\nunderstood that several persons who were regarded by the officials of\nthe Treasury Department as qualified for the position failed in the\nexamination. A large number of appeals from the ratings were received,\nsome of them being from men who were graduates of the best law schools\nin the country and who had many years experience in the practice of law\nin the general field.\n\n_Then follows reference to examinations for Tobacco and Tea Examiners\nquoted in Chapter_ XXIII; _and the letter closes as follows_:\n\nThe Commission is strongly of opinion that in the entire force of the\nTreasury Department, comprising as it does many thousand employees,\npersons can be found who possess suitable qualifications for Special\nAgents.\n\n                                                 Very respectfully,\n                                                 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                                                 Commissioner.\n\n\n                               Treasury Department, December 11, 1905.\n\nTo the Civil Service Commission:\n\nFor three months I have been trying to get some lawyers on the eligible\nlist that I may improve the Special Agent Service, and I am this near\nsuccess: I have had the solicitor for this Department prepare a list of\nquestions to be submitted with others which the Commission may be\npleased to prepare. I have not examined the questions. They were\nprepared by Judge O\u2019Connell, who has been a practicing lawyer of\nextensive experience for twenty years, and has several times served on\nthe committee to examine applicants for admission to the Supreme Court\nof his state. These questions your Commission refused to use and\ndeclined to prepare others. You tell me that I must fill the vacancies\nfrom clerks in the Department. This I will never do. The vacancies will\nremain while I remain unless I can fill them in a way that in my\njudgment will improve the service. Possibly some clerk in your\nDepartment can prepare a better list of questions than Judge O\u2019Connell\nhas submitted. If so I have no objection. In fact I have no objection\nto any course you may be pleased to pursue and I have no further\nsuggestions to make. I only ask that some time within a year or so the\nCivil Service Commission get a few lawyers within reach for the special\nservice where lawyers are necessary. The government loses millions\nevery year for the want of men in the Special Agent force, competent to\nprepare cases for submission to the Board of General Appraisers. If the\nCommission shall elect to assist me in the premises I shall appreciate\nit very much, and if it declines to act in the future, as it has\ndeclined in the past I shall submit, unless I can devise some other way\nto improve the service.\n\n                                                   Very truly yours,\n                                                   LESLIE M. SHAW.\n\n\n              COMMISSION\u2019S REJOINDER DATED DEC. 20, 1905.\n\nWe are clear that vacancies in the position as Special Agent cannot be\nsatisfactorily filled by open competitive examinations....\n\n... If it be your desire as indicated in your letter that we should\nhold an examination for law clerk we will do so; and if you wish to\nmake use of that register in filling vacancies in the position as\nSpecial Agent, it is of course your privilege to do so.\n\n                                                 Very respectfully,\n                                                 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                                                 Commissioner.\n\n\nThereupon the Secretary of the Treasury made request:\n\n\u201cReplying to your letter of December 20th handed to me by your Mr. \u2014\u2014\nand in harmony with our verbal understanding I request that the Civil\nService Commission hold an examination, giving it such name as it may\ndeem appropriate but so arranged as to exclude all but graduates from\nlaw colleges, and who in addition have had not less than three years\nexperience in active practice including trial of cases in _Nisi Prius_\nCourts. I desire to make use of these clerks as Special Agents. They\nshould be eligible for appointment direct or by immediate transfer\nwithout waiting six months. I need them now, and will be pleased if the\nCommission will expedite the examination in every possible way.\u201d\n\nOn December 29, 1905, the Commission submitted draft of an announcement\nof an examination for law clerks in the Treasury Department and added:\n\u201cIt is requested that the announcement be returned to this office at\nyour earliest convenience with such suggestions as you may desire to\nmake in regard thereto.\u201d\n\nSuggestions were made January 4, 1906.\n\n\u201cI suggest that you eliminate from the first paragraph the following:\n\n\u2018In making certifications to positions in the Customs Branch of the\nTreasury Department, consideration will be given to experience showing\nfamiliarity with Customs Law and practice in Customs Cases.\u2019\n\nThere is not a lawyer in the United States who has had experience in\nCustoms Cases whom I would appoint Special Agent, except those who are\nearning five times what the position will pay. There are some in the\ncities, and especially in New York, quite a number of disreputable\nfellows who have had some experience in practice in Customs Cases, but\nthere is not a New York lawyer of experience in Customs Cases whom I\nwould appoint Special Agent except as I say those who would not accept.\nI care nothing for familiarity or practice in Customs Cases. What I\nwant is a man competent to practice in Customs Cases, and with\nintegrity enough to justify his appointment.\u201d\n\nAs already stated, without fault of the Commission no lawyer who had\never tried a case in any court was ever made eligible and the Secretary\nof the Treasury could secure one only from the eligible list. There was\nan eligible list of law clerks but no list of lawyers.\n\n\n\n\n                          TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTES\n\nThis text has been preserved as in the original, including archaic and\ninconsistent spelling, punctuation and grammar, except as noted below.\n\nObvious printer\u2019s errors have been silently corrected.\n\nText in italics in the original work is represented herein as _text_.\n\nSmall capitals are shown herein as all capitals.\n\nFootnotes have been renumbered and then moved to directly below the\nparagraphs to which they belong.\n\n\u201cTallyrand\u201d was changed to \u201cTalleyrand\u201d\n\n\u201ccocklebur\u201d was changed to \u201ccockleburr\u201d","title":"Vanishing Landmarks: The Trend Toward Bolshevism","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":46949}