VANISHING LANDMARKS

“When the mariner has been tossed for many days in thick weather and on an unknown sea he naturally avails himself of the first pause in the storm, the earliest glance of the sun, to take his latitude and ascertain how far the elements have driven him from his true course.”

Webster

“Have you lately observed any encroachment upon the just liberties of the people?”

Franklin

VANISHING LANDMARKS
The Trend Toward Bolshevism

By

Leslie M. Shaw

Former Secretary of the Treasury

Ex-Governor of Iowa

Laird & Lee, Inc.

Chicago

Copyright, 1919

By

Laird & Lee, Inc.

Vanishing Landmarks

IN JUSTIFICATION

There are several types of intellect, with innumerable variations and combinations. Some see but do not observe. They note effects but look upon them as facts and never seek a cause. Tides lift and rock their boats but they ask not why. They stand at Niagara and view with some outward evidence of delight a stream of water and an awful abyss, but they lift neither their thoughts nor their eyes towards the invisible current of equal volume passing from Nature’s great evaporator, over Nature’s incomprehensible transportation system, back to the mountains, that the rivers may continue to flow to the sea and yet the sea be not full. That class will find little in this volume to commend, and much to criticise.

A man is not a pessimist who, when he hears the roar and sees the funnel-shaped cloud, directs his children to the pathway leading to the cyclone cellar. He is not a pessimist who, after noting forty years of boastful planning, realizes that war is inevitable, and urges preparedness. But the man is worse than a pessimist—he is a fool—who stands in front of a cyclone, rejoicing in the manifestation of the forces of nature, or faces a world war, expatiating on the greatness of his country and the patriotism and prowess of his countrymen.

It is commonly believed that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Conceding that he did, it was relatively innocent folly compared to the way many Americans fiddled, and fiddled, and fiddled, and fiddled, until Germany was well on the way to world domination. Coming in at fabulous cost and incalculable waste, and saving the situation at the sixtieth minute of the eleventh hour, we not only claim a full day’s pay but seem to resent that those who toiled longer, with no more at stake, are asking that honors be divided.

We are now facing a far worse danger than the armed hosts of the Central Powers—a frenzied mob each day extending its influence, and multiplying its adherents. Shall we again fiddle and fiddle, and fiddle and fiddle, or shall we both think and act?

For six thousand years the human race has experimented in governments and only China boasts of its antiquity. During this period almost every possible form of government was tried but nothing stood the test of the ages. The few surviving pages of the uncertain history of nations that have existed and are no more, give ample proof that the task of self-government is the severest that God in his wisdom has ever placed upon His children.

When this government was launched the world said it would not endure. It has both existed and prospered for more than a century and a quarter, but there is no thinking man between the seas, and no thinking man beyond the seas, who does not recognize that representative government, in the great republic, is still in its experimental stage. Even Washington declared he dared not hope that what had been accomplished or anything he might say would prevent our Nation from “running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations.”

It is said that when Galusha Grow entered Congress he carried a letter of introduction to Thomas Benton, then just concluding his thirty years of distinguished service. Naturally, Senator Benton was pleased with the brilliant Pennsylvanian, for he said to him: “Young man, you have come too late. All the great problems have been solved.” Ah! they had not been. Mr. Grow lived to help solve some; others have since been solved; more confront us now than ever before in our history, and the sky is lurid with their coming. If we are to continue a great self-governing and self-governed nation, we must spend some time in the study of statecraft, the most involved, the most complex, and, barring human redemption, the most important subject that ever engaged the attention of thinking men.

About the only subject which vitally affects all, and yet to which few give serious thought, is the science of government. Our farms and our factories, our mills and our mines, together with current news, much of it frivolous, and little of it thought-inspiring, engage our attention, but statecraft, as distinguished from partisan politics, is accorded scant consideration. In the first place we are too busy, and, secondly, we do not improve even our available time. A young New Englander was asked how his people spent their long winter evenings. “Oh,” said he, “sometimes we sit by the fire and think, and sometimes we sit by the fire.” It is the hope of the author that the following pages will invite attention to some problems that in his humble judgment must be thought out at the fireside, and must be wisely solved, if we expect to keep our country on the map, and our flag in the sky until the Heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll.

Recent years have demonstrated the abiding patriotism of the American people and their faith in the ever-increasing greatness of America. Few there be who would not gladly die for their country. The only thing they are not willing to do is to think, and then hold their conduct in obedience to their judgment. The future of our blessed land rests with those who can think, who will think, who can and will grasp a major premise, a minor premise and drawing a conclusion therefrom, never desert it.

It has become painfully commonplace to say that the American people can be trusted. While their good intentions can be relied upon, no nation will long exist on good intentions. The nations that have gone from the map have perished in spite of good intentions. The future of America rests not in the purity of motives, nor upon the intelligence, but in the wisdom of its citizens. In the realm of statecraft some of the most dangerous characters in history have been intelligent, pious souls, and some of the safest and wisest have been unlearned.

Socrates taught by asking questions. So far as possible he who is interested enough to read this volume will be expected to draw his own conclusions. The facts stated are historically correct. What deductions I may have drawn therefrom is relatively immaterial. The question of primary importance to you will be, and is, what conclusions you draw. And even your conclusions will be worthless to you and to your country unless your conduct as a citizen is in some degree influenced and controlled thereby.

From the monument that a grateful people had erected to a worthy son I read this extract from a speech he had made in the United States Senate: “He who saves his country, saves himself, saves all things, and all things saved bless him; while he who lets his country perish, dies himself, lets all things die, and all things dying curse him!”

Leslie M. Shaw.

Washington, D.C., March, 1919.

CONTENTS

VANISHING LANDMARKS

CHAPTER I
REPUBLIC VERSUS DEMOCRACY

Representative government and direct government compared.

The Fathers created a republic and not a democracy. Before you dismiss the thought, examine your dictionaries again and settle once and forever that a republic is a government where the sovereignty resides in the citizens, and is exercised through representatives chosen by the citizens; while a democracy is a government where the sovereignty also resides in the citizens but is exercised directly, without the intervention of representatives.

Franklin Henry Giddings, Professor of Sociology of Columbia University, differentiates between democracy as a form of government, democracy as a form of the state, and democracy as a form of society. He says: “Democracy as a form of government is the actual decision of every question of legal and executive detail, no less than of every question of right and policy, by a direct popular vote.” He also says: “Democracy as a form of the state is popular sovereignty. The state is democratic when all its people, without distinction of birth, class or rank, participate in the making of legal authority. Society is democratic only when all people, without distinction of rank or class, participate in the making of public opinion and of moral authority.”

The distinction, briefly and concisely stated, is this: One is direct government, the other representative government. Under a democratic form of government, the people rule, while in a republic they choose their rulers. In democracies, the people legislate; in republics, they choose legislators. In democracies, the people administer the laws; in republics, they select executives. In democracies, judicial questions are decided by popular vote; in republics, judges are selected, and they, and they only, interpret and construe laws and render judgments and decrees. I might add that in republics the people do not instruct their judges, by referendum or otherwise, how to decide cases. Unless the citizens respect both the forms of law and likewise judicial decisions, there is nothing in a republic worth mentioning.

When we speak of individuals and communities as being democratic, we correctly use the term. My father’s family, for instance, like all New England homes of that period, was very democratic. It was so democratic that the school teacher, the hired man and the hired girl ate with the family. We sat at a common fireside and joined in conversation and discussed all questions that arose. It was a very democratic family; but it was not a democracy. My father managed that household.

In very recent years we have been using the word “democracy” when we have meant “republic.” This flippant and unscientific manner of speaking tends to lax thinking, and is fraught with danger. A good illustration of careless diction is found in the old story that Noah Webster was once overtaken by his wife while kissing the maid. She exclaimed: “I am surprised!” Whereupon the great lexicographer rebuked her thus: “My dear Mrs. Webster, when will you learn to use the English language correctly? You are astonished. I’m surprised.”

It is a well known fact that the meaning of words change with usage. Some recent editions of even the best dictionaries give democracy substantially the same definition as republic. They define a republic as a “representative democracy” and a democracy as a government in which the people rule through elected representatives. This gradual change in the meaning of the word would be perfectly harmless if our theory of government did not also change. Probably our change of conception of representative government is largely responsible for the evolution in the popular use of the word democracy.

A far more important reason why the term “democracy” should not be used improperly lies in the fact that every bolshevist in Russia and America, every member of the I. W. W., in the United States, as well as socialists everywhere, clamor for democracy. All of these people, many of them good-intentioned but misguided, understand exactly what they mean by the term. They seek no less a democratic form of government as Professor Giddings defines it, than a democratic society as he defines that, and likewise financial and industrial democracy. They want not only equality before the law, but equality of environment and equality of rewards. Only socialists, near-socialists, anarchists and bolsheviki clamor for “democracy.” Every true American is satisfied with representative government, and that is exactly what the term republic means.

EQUALITY

The expression, “All men are created equal,” does not signify equality of eyesight, or equality of physical strength or of personal comeliness. Neither does it imply equal aptitude for music, art or mechanics, equal business foresight or executive sagacity or statesmanship. Equality before the law is the only practicable or possible equality.

Why educate, if equality in results is to be the goal? Why practice thrift, or study efficiency, if rewards are to be shared independent of merit? Those who clamor most loudly for equality of opportunity, have in mind equality of results, which can be attained only by denying equality of opportunity. Equal opportunity in a foot race is secured when the start is even, the track kept clear and no one is permitted to foul his neighbor. But equality of results is impossible between contestants of unequal aptitude when all are given equality of opportunity.

The kind of “democracy” which the socialist and the anarchist demand, confessedly hobbles the fleet, hamstrings the athletic and removes all incentive to efficiency. The keystone of representative government is rewards according to merit, and the buttresses that support the arch are freedom of action on the one side, and justice according to law on the other.

Republics keep a one-price store. Whoever pays the price, gets the goods. Democracy, on the contrary, expects voluntary toil, popular sacrifices and then proposes to distribute the resultant good either pro rata or indiscriminately. No one can read socialistic literature without recognizing that political, social, industrial and financial democracy is the goal of its endeavor. When the supreme conflict comes between organized government, organized liberty, organized justice and bolshevism under whatsoever garb it may choose to masquerade, I do not intend anyone shall “shake his gory head” at me and say that I helped popularize their universal slogan and international shibboleth. Unless we speedily give heed we shall be fighting to make America unsafe for democracy. Then we may have difficulty in explaining that we have meant all these years a very different thing than our language has expressed.

CHAPTER II
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

The republican character of the constitutional convention, the qualifications of the delegates, and the extent to which they trusted to the wisdom of the people.

The Constitutional Convention was a republican body, and not a mass meeting. George Washington presided. He was a delegate from Virginia. James Madison was another representative from the same state, and he wrote the greater part of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was in France, and had nothing whatever to do with drafting the great document, or in securing its adoption. Benjamin Franklin was a delegate from Pennsylvania. Roger Sherman was a representative of Connecticut. New York sent no delegate, but Alexander Hamilton, who with George Washington had early recognized that the League of Nations, or League of Sovereign States, which means the same, and which the old Articles of Confederation created, was proving an utter failure in practice, and had, therefore, urged from the beginning “a more perfect union,” attended and he was seated as a delegate from New York. His matchless vision led him to seek the incorporation of additional safeguards against bolshevism, as it is now called, and though his advice was not heeded it was Hamilton, more than any other man, with John Jay and James Madison his able supporters, who secured the ratification of the Constitution as drafted.

These, and the other delegates, representing the people of the several states, after much deliberation formulated the historic document beginning, “We the people.” It provides among other things that its ratification by delegated conventions in nine of the thirteen states shall make it binding upon the states so ratifying the same. It also provides that it can be amended in a similar delegated convention called at the request of chosen representatives in the legislatures of two-thirds of all the states, or by joint resolutions passed by two-thirds of the representatives of the people, in Congress assembled, when ratified by representatives of the people in three-fourths of the states, in their respective legislatures assembled.

Those who talk about “taking the government back to the people” would do well to remember that the American people have never voted upon any provision of the National Constitution, and there is no way provided by which they can, in any direct way, express their approval or disapproval. I repeat, the Fathers created a republic, and not a democracy. Washington speaks of “the delegated will of the nation”—never of the popular wish of the people.

THE FATHERS CONSULTED HISTORY

The members of the Constitutional Convention were worthy of their seats. They were men of both learning and experience. They had read history. They knew that many attempts at representative government had been made and that all had failed. They also knew the path all these republics had taken on their way to oblivion. They were fully alive to the fact that the first step had always been from representative government to direct government; from direct government to chaos, from chaos to the man on horseback—the dictator; thence to monarchy. The discussion in the convention makes it abundantly clear that the Fathers sought to save America from the monarch, and to protect her from the mass. They chose the middle ground between two extremes, both fraught with danger.

They even went so far as to guarantee that no state should be cursed with a democratic form of government, or a monarchial form of government or any other kindred system. The provision is in this language: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government.” That excludes every other form.

CONFIDENCE IN THE PEOPLE JUSTIFIED

The members of the Constitutional Convention, having been selected because of their aptitude for public matters, their knowledge of public questions and their experience in public affairs, very naturally had confidence that men of like caliber and character would always be selected for important representative positions. They believed the people would choose legislators, executives and judges of aptitude, at least, and would retain them in office until they attained efficiency through experience.

Presumably these delegates anticipated that men would be born with no aptitude for public positions, but they confidently believed even these would be able to select men of aptitude. They may have realized that some men would be unfit for Congress, who, nevertheless, would be competent to select able congressmen. For these, as well as for other reasons, they provided no way by which those whom no one would think of sending to Congress, and who naturally give no attention to public affairs, could instruct their congressmen, who alone must bear the responsibility of legislation. Had such a thing as legislating by referendum been thought of at that time, the Fathers certainly would have expressly prohibited it. Legislation by representatives was considered and express and detailed provision therefor was made.

The preceding differentiation between republic and democracy has no reference, of course, to political parties. Long before the republican party, as now constituted, had an existence, democratic orators grew eloquent over “republican institutions,” meaning thereby representative institutions.

Every protestant church in America is a republic. Its affairs are managed by representatives—by boards. Otherwise there would be no churches. Every bank and every corporation is a republic, managed by boards and officers selected by stockholders. The United States Steel Corporation, for instance, is analogous to a republic, the stockholders being the electors, but if the stockholders were to take charge of that corporation, and direct its management by initiative or referendum, it would be in the hands of a receiver within ninety days.

The United States of America is a great Corporation, in which the Stockholder is the Elector. Stockholders of financial and industrial corporations desire dividends, which are paid in cash. Not desiring office, the stockholders are satisfied to have the corporation managed by representatives of aptitude and experience. The dividends paid by political corporations like the United States and the several states are “liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” “equality before the law,” an army and navy for national defense, and courts of justice for the enforcement of rights and the redress of wrongs. But stockholders in political corporations are not always satisfied with these returns. Some prefer office to dividends payable only in blessings.

In banks and other business corporations, stockholders are apt to insist that representatives and officers who show aptitude and efficiency shall be continued in office so long as dividends are satisfactory. In political corporations the people have recently been pursuing a very different course. They have been changing their representatives so frequently that efficiency, which results only from experience, is impossible.

While stockholders of a corporation would certainly wreck the institution if they attempted to manage its affairs directly or by referendum, it is very appropriate for stockholders, acting on the recommendation of their representatives—the board of directors—to determine an important measure like an issue of bonds, or whether the scope and purpose of the concern shall be enlarged or its capital increased. Analogous to this is the determination of governmental policies at regular elections where the people choose between the programs of different political parties as set forth in their platforms. Thus the people sometimes ratify the policy of protection, and sometimes the policy of free trade, demonstrating that they do not always act wisely by frequently reversing themselves.

Political parties usually omit from their platforms the details of legislation. The only exception that occurs to me was when every detail of a financial policy was incorporated in the platform submitted for ratification. The coinage was to be “free,” it was to be “unlimited,” and at the “ratio of 16 to 1.” If the people had approved this at the polls their representatives would have had no discretion. There would have been no room for compromise. While the people are presumably competent to choose between policies recommended in the platforms of political parties, it is a far stretch of the imagination to suppose that the average citizen is better prepared to determine the details of a policy than the man he selects to represent him in the halls of Congress. The congressman who concedes that his average constituent is better prepared to pass upon a proposition than he is necessarily admits in the same breath that his district committed a serious blunder in sending him. It ought to have selected a man at least of average intelligence.

The fact that neither stockholders en masse, nor employees en masse are able to manage a business enterprise does not imply that the principle of a republic may not be advantageously applied to industrial concerns. This question is again referred to in Chapter XXX, and the possible safe, middle course between the industrial autocracy demanded by capital, and the industrial democracy demanded by labor, is suggested and briefly discussed.

CHAPTER III
STATESMEN MUST FIRST BE BORN AND THEN MADE

Some fundamental qualifications for statesmanship. Integrity and wisdom compared.

How are lawyers obtained? Admission to the bar does not always produce even an attorney. And there is a very marked difference between an attorney and a lawyer. But when a young man is admitted to the bar who has aptitude for the law, without which no man can be a lawyer, industry in the law, without which no man ever was a lawyer, then with some years of appropriate environment—the court room and the law library—a lawyer will be produced into whose hands you may safely commit your case.

How are law makers obtained? Many seem to think it only necessary to deliver a certificate of election, and, behold, a constructive statesman, of either gender. I would like to ask whether, in your judgment, it requires any less aptitude, any less industry, or a less period of appropriate environment to produce a constructive law maker, than to develop a safe law practitioner.

I will carry the illustration one step further. Do you realize that it would be far safer to place the man of ordinary intelligence upon the bench, with authority to interpret and enforce the laws as he finds them written in the book, than to give him pen and ink and let him draft new laws? We all recognize that it requires a man of legal aptitude and experience to interpret laws, but some seem to assume neither aptitude nor experience is necessary in a law-maker. If legislators in state and nation are to be abjectly obedient to the wish of their constituents, what use can they make of knowledge and judgment? They will prove embarrassments, will they not?

To interpret the laws requires aptitude improved by experience; it demands special knowledge, both of the general law and of the particular case under discussion. It takes a specialist.

I would rather have the ordinary man stand over my dentist and tell him how to crown my tooth than to have him stand over my congressman and tell him how to vote. He knows, in a general way, how a tooth should be crowned, and further than that I refuse to carry the illustration. Then, I can stand a bad tooth better than I can a bad law. No man ever lost his job because of a bad tooth. But millions have stood in the bread line, and other millions will suffer in like manner because of unfortunate and ill-considered legislation.

INTEGRITY VERSUS WISDOM

We all demand integrity in office, but integrity is the most common attribute of man. I can go on the street and buy integrity for a dollar a day, if it does not require any work; but aptitude, experience and wisdom are high-priced. If I had to choose between men of probity but wanting in aptitude and experience, and men of aptitude and experience known to be dishonest, I should unhesitatingly choose the crook rather than the fool; either for bank president or congressman. Banks seldom fail because of dishonesty. Banks fail because of bad management. The thief may steal a little of the cream but the careless and the inexperienced spill the milk.

Thus far in our history no man has ever walked the street in vain for work, no man has gone home to find his wife in rags and his children crying for bread, because of dishonesty in public office. The United States can stand extravagance, it can stand graft, it has stood and is standing the most reckless abandon in all its financial expenditures. The worst this nation has yet encountered—and may the good Lord save us from anything more dreadful—is incompetency in the halls of legislation. Extravagance and graft stalk forth at noonday when incompetency occupies the seats intended for statesmen.

None but bolsheviki would consider subjecting an army to democratic command. The personnel of an army may possess equal patriotism without possessing equal aptitude for war. Recent experiences have only emphasized what was said more than a thousand years ago: “An army of asses commanded by a lion will overthrow an army of lions commanded by an ass.”

Strange, is it not, that every one should recognize this principle when applied to an army and to business, and an overwhelming majority overlook it when applied to governmental matters?

CHAPTER IV
EXPECTATIONS REALIZED

The capacity of the people to select representatives wiser than their constituents illustrated by historic facts.

America has passed through several crises, and each time has been saved because the people’s representatives were wiser than the people. In this respect, the expectation of the Fathers has been realized. I will mention but three instances.

During the Civil War the government resorted to the issuance of paper currency, commonly called greenbacks. While conservative people assumed that these greenbacks would be redeemed whenever the government was able, nevertheless, there being no express provision for their redemption, they went to depreciation, and passed from hand to hand far below par. All this resulted in inflation which inevitably led to a period of depression.

In this connection it is well to remember that whenever we have had a period of depression, and whenever we shall have such a period, there always has been and ever will be a group of people with a panacea for our ills. During the period referred to, a political party, calling itself the “Greenback Party,” came into existence and advocated the issuance of an indefinite volume of irredeemable paper currency which, in their ignorance, they called “money.” The specious argument was to the effect that when “money” can be made on a printing press, it is silly to have less than enough. They expressly advocated issuing all the currency the people could use without making any provision for its retirement. Whenever the people wanted more, they proposed to print more.

Fully seventy-five percent of the American people, without regard to political affiliation, favored some phase or degree of “greenbackism.” While much of this sentiment failed of crystallization, quite a number of congressmen were elected on that issue. If the direct primary law, with which most of the states are now cursed, had been in force at that time, it is probable that no man could have been nominated for Congress, by any party, who was not avowedly in favor of inflation by some method. But the people were saved from themselves exactly as the Fathers had anticipated. The representatives of the people, being wiser than the people, refused the people what most of them desired and gave them what they needed, resumption of specie payment.

Again, in the ’90’s we had a period of depression, and the panacea then recommended was the free and unlimited coinage of silver, at the ratio of 16 to 1 with gold. The difference between “greenbackism” and “free silverism” was simply one of degree. The greenbacker desired the government to print the dollar mark on a piece of paper, thus producing currency one hundred percent fiat, while the free silverite asked that the government stamp the dollar mark upon a piece of silver, thus producing currency fifty percent fiat.

Fully nine-tenths of the American people desired the free and unlimited coinage of silver. William McKinley, willing as he was to run for president on a gold standard platform in 1896, when in Congress had voted for a clean-cut free silver measure. The lower house of Congress actually passed a free silver bill. But, exactly as the Fathers expected, the people’s representatives in the Senate, wiser than the people who had placed them there, refused the people what ninety percent of them wanted and gave them what one hundred percent needed—sound money.

Outside of Russia, there is scarcely a man in all the world who would now recommend the issuance of irredeemable paper currency, what three-fourths of the American people wanted in the ’70’s; and there is not more than one man in all the world who would now recommend the free coinage of silver, what four-fifths of the American people wanted in the ’90’s.

The direct primary in 1896 would have nominated a free silver republican, and a free silver democrat in each and every congressional district of the United States, and we would have had a solid free silver House. If the United States senators had been then elected by the people, preceded by a direct primary, the Senate of the United States would have been solidly for free silver; and we would have passed, as everyone now recognizes, to financial ruin. We were saved, because the United States of America was a republic and not a democracy—because, if you please, we had representative and not direct government.

More recently, Germany and the Central Powers made war upon the United States. This they continued for more than two years. Finally, the President, in his message of April 2, 1917, advised Congress to “declare the course of the Imperial German Government to be, in fact, nothing less than war against the country and the people of the United States.” A resolution to that effect was thereupon passed on April 6, 1917.

If the proposition of going to war with Germany had been submitted to a direct vote of the American people, under a referendum, they would have voted against it, two to one, and in many localities and cities, four to one. Again we were saved, because we had a republican and not a democratic form of government. We were saved because our representatives proved wiser than their constituents.

CHAPTER V
INDEPENDENCE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE

The effect of popular instructions to representatives discussed and illustrated.

The Fathers never intended that the people should legislate, interpret the laws or administer justice. They did provide, however, that the people should choose their legislators, their judges and their executives. They sought also to render impossible any interference with the independence of these representatives. Judges are not expected to inquire of bystanders how questions of law shall be decided, or what decrees shall be rendered, or what punishments imposed.

The Fathers did not anticipate that executives would hold their ears so close to the ground as to become nests for crickets. I do not mean to be understood, however, as intimating that the buzzing of insects has never been mistaken for the voice of the people. Members of the House and the Senate were not supposed to conform to Dooley’s definition of a statesman: “One who watches the procession until he discovers in which direction it is moving and then steals the stick from the drum major.” The Fathers expected officials to be as independent of the voters who select them as officers of a corporation are independent of stockholders.

In proof that Washington did not consider the delegates to the Constitutional Convention bound to follow the wishes of the people they represented I cite what Gouverneur Morris quotes him as saying: “It is too probable that no plan we propose will be adopted. Perhaps another dreadful conflict is to be sustained. If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God.”

Suppose the state should engage in banking. A doorkeeper, a bookkeeper and a president would be necessary. But if the president sought instruction from the street, the bank would be short-lived. If a body of stockholders were to enter a bank, as now operated, and demand a loan without security, either for themselves or for some needy fellow creature, the president would probably say, “You can have another president any day you please, but while I am president, you will furnish collateral.” Otherwise, there would be no bank.

L. Q. C. Lamar used to say to his constituents: “If you desire me to represent you in Congress, I will do so.” Then, with becoming dignity and in absolute harmony with the principles of the republic, as established by the Fathers, he would add, “But do not, for a moment, suppose you can stand between the plow handles during the day and tell me how to vote.” Evidently Mr. Lamar expected to study public questions and to be better informed than his average constituent.

Later, the legislature, recognizing his ability, sent him to the United States Senate. Here he opposed greenback legislation which was favorably considered by the people of Mississippi. Thereupon the legislature passed a resolution demanding either that he vote in harmony with the sentiment of his state, or resign. He refused to do either, but continued to speak, and to vote his convictions based on knowledge. Before his term expired, the wisdom of his course was recognized and he was re-elected to the Senate by the very men who had sought to direct his action in a matter wherein they had no jurisdiction and he had supreme responsibility, and concerning which they knew nothing, while he knew much.

Following the Civil War impeachment proceedings were instituted against Andrew Johnson. Because of the known prejudices of the people of Iowa, Senator Grimes of that state was expected to vote “guilty.” He voted “not guilty,” and his colleague asked him, “Do you think you are expressing the sentiment of the people of Iowa?” The grand old Roman replied: “I have not inquired concerning the sentiment of the people of Iowa. I vote my convictions.” That would be political suicide today.

A few years ago proceedings to expel a certain senator were pending and several of his associates, after hearing the evidence submitted to them in their judicial capacity, expressed the conviction that the accused was innocent, but, because of the prejudices of their states, they would have to vote for expulsion. Senator Depew told me of a member who actually cried as he contemplated voting to expel a man whom he believed to be innocent.

I would like to ask how long you think the United States of America can maintain her proud position among the nations of the world, if oath-bound representatives of the people accept popular sentiment as the guide of their official conduct.

At the unveiling of the monument to Elijah Lovejoy, a letter was read from Wendel Phillips containing this sentence: “How cautiously most slip into oblivion and are forgotten, while here and there a man forgets himself into immortality.” In these most trying times our greatest need is men in public life whose ears are always open to counsel but ever closed to clamor—who will approach pending problems that threaten our very existence, with no other care but their country’s weal. The corner stone of freedom, as laid by the Fathers, is the absolute independence of the representative, coupled with the unimpeded right of the people to choose again at brief but appropriate intervals.

HOW WOULD YOU BUILD A SUBMARINE?

Suppose the government should delegate to some congressional district the responsibility of building a submarine. Would anyone think of undertaking the task except on the principle of a republic? You would select some man of mechanical aptitude, plus mechanical experience, and you would hold him responsible for the result. Would you require your representative when selected to listen to popular sentiment, as expressed on the street corners or in the press? Would you have him submit his plans and blue prints to the “people,” by referendum or otherwise?

We all admit that some men know more about farming than others, some more about commerce than others, some more about science than others, but the sentiment is alarmingly general that in the realm of statecraft—the most complex subject ever approached—one man is just as wise as another. At Detroit, Michigan, during the campaign of 1916, Woodrow Wilson used this language: “So I say the suspicion is beginning to dawn in many quarters, that the average man knows the business necessities of the country just as well as the extraordinary man.”

I do not wish to question Mr. Wilson’s sincerity, though I am not unmindful of the fact that he spent the greater part of his active life in college work trying to produce “extraordinary men,” and in that field he was quite successful. Taking issue with his position, but not with his sincerity, I am going to insult popular sentiment and say that I believe there are many men competent to select a competent constructor of a submarine, who are not competent to construct a submarine, or competent to instruct a constructor of a submarine.

But, suppose the people should build such a craft on the principle of a democracy, each one doing what seemed to him wise, without dishonesty or graft. I have no question but that a submarine would be produced that would “sub,” and I am equally certain that it would stay “subbed.”

I want to ask whether, in your opinion, the ship of state—the government of the United States—is any less complicated, any less complex or any less likely to “sub” and stay “subbed,” exactly as each and every republic for twenty-five hundred years did “sub”—if placed in the hands of an inexperienced mass of experimenters in statecraft.

Think this out for yourself. This is your government quite as much as mine, and it will be your government long after the conservative “Old Guard” have left the field of human activities.

CHAPTER VI
TREND OF THE TIMES

A consideration of the constitutional guarantee that each state shall have a republican form of government, and the warning of Washington against making changes in the constitution.

Both the trend of thought and the current of events are away from representative government and toward direct government.

Legislating by initiative or by referendum, the recall of judges, and especially the recall of judicial decisions, come dangerously near constituting a democratic form of government, against which the Constitution of the United States guarantees. Its language you remember: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government.”

Chief Justice Taney, interpreting this section, said: “It rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a state, for, as the United States guarantees to each state a republican form of government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the state before it can determine whether it is republican or not.”[^[1]]

Chief Justice Waite used the following language, the vital sentence of which I have italicized: “All the states had governments when the Constitution was adopted. In all, the people participated, to some extent, through their representatives selected in the manner specially provided. These governments the Constitution did not change. They were accepted precisely as they were and it is therefore to be presumed that they were such as it is the duty of the states to provide. Thus, we have unmistakable evidence of what was republican in form within the meaning of that term as employed in the Constitution.”[^[2]]

It is well to note that this participation in their government, which the learned Chief Justice mentions, was “through their representatives,” and in no other way.

More than one state has been required to change its constitution before admission into the Union. Congress refused to admit Arizona under a constitution providing for the recall of judges and judicial decisions. It smacked too strongly of direct government. After her admission, however, she amended her constitution and inserted the socialistic—the “democratic”—provisions, the elimination of which Congress had made a condition precedent to admission.

In his work, “The State,” Woodrow Wilson calls attention to the fact that constitution-making is fast becoming “a cumbrous mode of legislation.” The record in many states justifies this comment.

At the election of 1918, in the state of California there were submitted through referendum nineteen proposed amendments to its constitution, no one of which legitimately belongs in a constitution. They were simply legislative acts sought to be inserted in the organic law, or state charter, for the sole purpose of rendering them more difficult of repeal when proved bad. The “people” had so little confidence in themselves that they deemed it imprudent to trust to their wisdom whether a law should be continued when found beneficial or repealed when its effects were evil, and hence sought to tie their own hands by placing the act in the constitution instead of in the revised statutes.

George Washington, with prophetic vision, foresaw and in his immortal Farewell Address warned against this tendency towards evolutionary revolution and employed this language, the last sentence of which I feel certain he would today italicize:

“Towards the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you speedily discountenance irregular opposition to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretext. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.”

This trend towards a democratic form of government, or direct government, finds fitting illustration in the fact that if you were to locate a homestead in any one of several states, prove up and secure your patent, and someone should contest your title, and the court should find the land belonged to you, and should render decision accordingly, the people might reverse this decree and give the land to the contestant. It is not a question whether they are likely to do such a thing. The fact that the people in several states have deliberately provided the machinery by which they can thus defeat justice, constitutes a perpetual menace that should adversely affect the market value of all real estate in those states. When title to property is made to rest upon the sentimental whim of the masses, as distinguished from a decree of court, liberty itself is rendered unstable and organized government is abandoned and socialism is substituted.

CHAPTER VII
CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY

The necessity for organized government and organized justice as a guarantee of constitutional liberty is sought to be shown. Plato’s dream, Macaulay’s dire prediction and a threat.

A democratic form of government precludes the possibility of constitutional liberty. Constitutional liberty does exist in what Professor Giddings calls a “democratic state,” but cannot in what the same author calls a “democratic form of government.” His admittedly correct differentiation cannot be too often repeated.

“A democratic state,” says this high authority, “is popular sovereignty,” while “a democratic form of government is the actual decision of every question of legal and executive detail by a direct popular vote.”

I grant the formality of a constitution may exist under a democratic form of government, but where all functions of government are exercised directly by the people, necessarily there can be no tribunal to enforce the provisions of a constitution. Let me illustrate.

Suppose, if you will, that an uninhabited island has been discovered, and a government is about to be formulated preliminary to its occupation. Undoubtedly, we would agree that the sovereignty of the island should be vested in the people. This, according to Professor Giddings, would make it a “democratic state.” The next question would be whether this sovereignty would be exercised directly or through representatives. Shall it be a democratic form of government, or a republican form of government?

Someone would propose that a majority should rule. If I were present, I would promptly suggest that the rights of majorities always have been, and always will be, secure. Minorities, not majorities, need protection. I would ask what protection is to be given me, or anyone who may prove an undesirable citizen. Will we be thrown into jail and kept there indefinitely, without trial and without knowing the cause of our incarceration? Such wrongs were common for centuries and are perpetrated by bolshevists, and defended by socialists today. Very likely the assembly would then promise a speedy trial, with right to summon witnesses, and to be confronted by one’s accusers, and other safeguards of liberty such as are now guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and that of every state.

But this would not satisfy me. I would ask “How do I know that this promise will be kept?” Then, doubtless, the right to a writ of habeas corpus would be promised. And this would not satisfy me. I would ask: “By whom will it be issued, and by whom enforced?” Before we were through, it is quite probable we would create a tribunal, clothe it with greatest dignity, segregate it from the affairs of business and safeguard it against political influence, and for want of a better name, we would call it “The Supreme Court of the Island.” This court would be clothed with authority to grant and enforce not only writs of habeas corpus but any and all other orders and decrees and judgments necessary to protect the minority, even though a minority of one, in his every constitutional right.

TREASON AS AN ILLUSTRATION

Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. Prior to the year 1352 there was great uncertainty in England as to what constituted treason, and Parliament, for the purpose of restraining the power of the Crown to oppress the subject by arbitrary construction, passed, in that year, what is commonly known as the “Statute of Treason.” All acts that might be construed treasonable were classified under seven branches. The framers of the Constitution, desiring to protect the minority, chose only one of the seven and placed a perpetual bar against any other act being made treason, and further safeguarded the minority by defining the only basis of conviction. Section 3, Article III, is as follows:

“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

Now, suppose confiscationists, whether styling themselves socialists, bolsheviki, single-taxers, or non-partisan leaguers, shall get control and, by referendum, extend the scope of treason to include such offenses as claiming title to real estate, which all the breed insist rightfully belongs to the people en masse. Far less degrees of what they consider “crime” were made punishable by death when democracy went mad in France. Of what use would the express provisions of the Constitution be if the power to recall decisions, as well as the judges who render them, is to be exercised by the mass?

Leave it to the people to afford protection from the people and you might just as well abolish all constitutional guarantees. Were the people en masse to make the laws, en masse to interpret the laws, and en masse to enforce the laws, the individual would have no rights that the people en masse would be bound to respect.

SOVIET RUSSIA AND AMERICAN REVOLUTION

In a widely circulated pamphlet, “A Voice Out of Russia,” the author speaks of “a certain divine sense in which the Russian revolution parallels the revolt of the thirteen American colonies, and in which the proletariat of Russia is striving to accomplish for his world much the same ideals which our forefathers laid down for theirs. There was,” he says, “more of the spirit of the people, more of faith and dependence in the proletariat, in American revolutionary doctrines, than we seem disposed to admit today; and by the same token, it is because we have lost our sense of fundamental democracy that we do not care to admit it.”

“Fundamental democracy” is the correct term. But we have not lost it. We are simply in danger of getting it. It is exactly what the Fathers sought to eliminate and prevent.

On the next page of the pamphlet, the author says: “The writers of the American Constitution certainly strove to do away with the artificial complexities of politics, and to bring every function of government within the grasp and comprehension of the whole electorate.”

I submit that that is exactly what the framers of the Constitution did not seek to do. They created representative government and sought to guard against direct government. The author quoted, and every other teacher of revolution, either by peaceful or violent means, is seeking to establish direct government. When they use the word “democracy,” they use it in its dictionary sense. They use it as Rousseau, Robespierre, Lenine, Trotsky and a very large number of others, including some widely known Americans, use it. Why do liberty-loving Americans seek to divorce the word “democracy” from its original meaning and popularize the greatest enemy liberty has ever known?

PLATO’S DREAM

One of the best and most conservative newspapers in the United States printed late in 1918 a carefully written editorial under the above title, from which I quote a few disconnected sentences, italicizing the most important:

“Twenty-five hundred years ago in Athens, Plato, the philosopher, who is called the ‘father of idealists,’ framed the structure of an ideal government among men, in the form of a republic. ... When the dust of Plato was gathered into a Grecian urn, his dream did not die. The generations harbored and treasured it. Time after time, and in place after place, republics were formed. Men gave their blood and their lives to realize the dream of Plato. But always might prevailed over them. Only America endured to make the dream come true. In these times there are numerous republics but there is not one among them that does not owe its existence to the example and the influence of the United States. Were our republic to crumble, every other on earth would crumble with it.... Since the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, one hundred and thirty years have passed and during that time America has met and overcome every trial to which the ideal republic could possibly be subjected. It has answered every argument against a republican form of government advanced by the most stubborn objectors.”

The foregoing is historically correct except the last two sentences. America has stood every test except that which ruined every other republic. It has not yet encountered direct government, towards which we seem radically tending. It has not withstood what Lord Macauley, a century ago, predicted would prove our overthrow. He declared the republic was “all sail and no ballast.” He predicted great speed for a period; but he warned against the day when those who did not have breakfast and did not expect dinner would elect our congress and our president. The demagogue would be abroad in the land and he would say: “Why do these have and you suffer?”

“Your republic will be pillaged and ravaged in the 20th century, just as the Roman Empire was by the barbarians of the fifth century, with this difference, that the devastators of the Roman Empire, the Huns and Vandals, came from abroad, while your barbarians will be the people of your own country, and the product of your own institutions.”

If “Coxie’s army” had been led by Eugene Debs, or any one of more than a score whose names are revered by many, instead of by a patriotic American, every mile of the road over which it traveled would have reeked with human gore. Had it resorted to bloodshed at that time, however, it would not have proceeded far. But socialism has made great progress since 1895.

Speaking before a Senate committee early in January of this year, the president of the American Federation of Labor is reported to have said: “The people will not countenance industrial stagnation after the war. There can be no repetition in the United States of the conditions that prevailed from 1893 to 1896 when men and women were hungry for the want of employment.”

The same veiled threat has been uttered repeatedly by men high in official position.

Are we face to face with a condition and not a theory? Will laborers revolt if they fail to secure employment, or when compelled to accept a lesser wage? Will farmers turn anarchist if they can find no market for their crops, or when compelled to accept a lesser price? Will bankers become bomb throwers if unloanable funds accumulate? No, America has not withstood every trial to which she can possibly be subjected. The supreme menace stands today with gnashing teeth, glaring into our faces.

CHAPTER VIII
WHAT IS A CONSTITUTION?

The nature of the constitution and the dependence of the minority thereon and hence the necessity for an independent judiciary discussed and illustrated.

A constitution is little less than a firm and binding contract between the majority and the minority, entered into for the sole protection of the minority, with regularly constituted courts to enforce its provisions.

The Supreme Court of the United States, from which every root of the Judiciary Department—one of the three coordinate branches of government—derives its vitality, is our only continuing and unchanging bulwark of liberty.

The executive branch, from President down through all the departments, State, Treasury, War and Navy, is liable to radical change on the fourth day of March every four years. Either house and both houses of Congress frequently change in partisan complexion at a single election. The Supreme Court, the members of which hold by life tenure, remains, theoretically, at least, unchanged.

Unless the people undermine their liberties by “effecting in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system,” which Washington warned against, or unless some executive corrupts the personnel of the Supreme Court by filling vacancies with socialists, or other revolutionary elements, Anglican liberty, the hope of the world, is secured in America against everything except bolshevism. With respect to the courts, Washington’s famous order is pertinent: “Place none but Americans on guard tonight.”

WHO IS AN AMERICAN?

Who is an American, worthy to be placed on guard tonight? Is he American born? He may be, and he may have been born beneath any flag and under any sky. An American is one who believes in and is ready to defend this republic. To be ready to defend our territory, or even our flag, is not enough.

Though we continue our socialistic bent and either undermine or overthrow our form of government through peaceful evolution or forceful revolution, with sword or by ballot, the land will remain. The rains will water it, the sun warm it, human life will exist, the Stars and Stripes will still float, but, except from the map, America will be gone forever.

America is more than fertile fields, more than bursting banks, more than waving flags. The America in which one must believe, and for which he must sacrifice, is constitutional liberty and justice according to law, guaranteed and administered by three coordinate branches of government. Just in proportion as we weaken the energy of the system through changes in the Constitution—which Washington so earnestly warned against—we undermine what thus far no one has succeeded in overthrowing.

I repeat, three coordinate branches of government with no subordinate branch! In the America which the world knows, and which we love, laws must be enacted by the legislative branch, and not by the executive or by the proletariat. Laws must be interpreted by an independent judiciary, fearless and unrecallable except by impeachment. And these laws, whose scope is limited by the Constitution, must be administered by the executive and not by the legislative branch. Congress has no more right to direct the manner of execution of its acts than the president has to direct or coerce the nature of its acts. Let each coordinate branch keep hands off the sacred prerogatives of the other. That’s America! And the man who defends her traditions and her institutions, regardless of his nativity, is an American who can safely be placed on guard tonight.

AN ACTUAL MENACE

On February 3, 1919, an editorial writer who has testified that he has six million or more readers, quoted Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor, as saying:

“I mean that the people propose to control their government and do not intend any longer to have the governing power exercised by judges on the bench.”

And the editor correctly adds:

“This is as near to an American revolutionary statement as has ever come from a man as important officially as Mr. Gompers.”

Thus the issue is sharply drawn. This organization, if its president has been correctly quoted, intends to abolish one of our coordinate branches of government, to-wit, the courts.

What have the courts done to justify such a radical change in our form of government? When the government was organized the Fathers thought wise to make express provision that no class should ever become the special favorite of legislation. The Constitution forbids class legislation and the courts enforce it. Unless labor union people demand special exemptions from obligations to which all others are amenable, or special privileges denied to others, why do they officially make the revolutionary announcement that the courts are to be abolished? Yet this very thing has the approval of this most widely known and best-paid editorial writer in the world. Pressed in a corner, I presume both would claim that their only desire is to compel the courts promptly to observe popular sentiment instead of studying legal principles and, to that end, propose to subject judges to some kind of recall. And they would doubtless justify all this by the hackneyed phrase, “the people can be trusted.”

Thus they follow Rousseau and Robespierre. The former declared, “The general will, the public will, is always right.” The latter said, “The people is infallible.”

A case that well illustrates this “popular infallibility” as taught by Rousseau and Robespierre, as well as by their present day disciples, occurred in a certain county in Iowa, not fifty miles from my home. A person charged with second degree murder sought his constitutional right of a fair and impartial trial. He made application for a change of venue, alleging that his case had been prejudged and that because of the existing prejudice he could not obtain a fair trial within that county. Five citizens, the minimum requisite number, supported his motion by their affidavits. Promptly, two hundred most reputable citizens filed counter affidavits alleging that there was no prejudice whatever. The judge believed the five. It is probable that he discerned evidence of prejudice in the eagerness with which the two hundred sought to have the case tried in their midst. A change of venue was granted, and that night these two hundred liberty-loving citizens decided they would “no longer have the governing power exercised by judges on the bench,” broke open the jail, hung the accused and would have done violence to the judge if he had not been spirited away.

If you want the opposite view of “popular infallibility,” so you may the better determine for yourself, listen to Colonel Henry Watterson, a democrat of the old school and an American always, in the Brooklyn Eagle of February 1, 1919:

“The people,” says Colonel Watterson, “en masse constitute what we call the mob. Mobs have rarely been right—never, except when capably led. It was the mob of Jerusalem that did the unoffending Jesus of Nazareth to death. It was the mob in Paris that made the Reign of Terror. From that day to this, mobs have seldom been tempted, even had a chance to go wrong, that they have not gone wrong. ‘The people’ is a fetish. It was the people misled, who precipitated the South into the madness of secession and the ruin of a hopelessly unequal war of sections. It was the people, backing if not compelling, the Kaiser, who committed hari-kari for themselves and their empire in Germany. It is the people, leaderless, who are now making havoc in Russia. Throughout the length and breadth of Christendom in all lands and ages, the people, when turned loose, have raised every inch of hell to the square inch they were able to raise, often upon the slightest pretext, or no pretext at all.”

OFFICIAL TIMIDITY AND ITS EFFECTS

In some, perhaps most of the states, candidates for either House of Congress, knowing in advance that if, by investigation and by listening to arguments pro and con, they arrive at conclusions based on knowledge that differ from the impressions of their constituents based on prejudice, they will never be returned, make more or less formal announcement that, if elected, they will study no question but, when ready to vote, will inquire of those who have had neither opportunity nor desire to inform themselves, and vote as directed. We pay congressmen and senators of this type—just the same as statesmanlike representatives—seven thousand, five hundred dollars a year, and they vote as they are told to vote. If I am correctly informed, in some states men have been found who will vote as they are instructed for considerably less money even than that.

While the bill was pending to declare war against Germany, I called upon a Congressman who, without question, is the ablest man from his state. He had written to lawyers, bankers, farmers and labor men in his district, asking how he should vote on that momentous question. He handed me a package of replies he had received. I returned them and asked: “Do you agree with the President that Germany is already making war upon the United States?” “Yes,” he replied, “she has waged war against us for more than two years.” “Do you think your constituents know better than you what should be done?” His up-to-date reply was: “My constituents know nothing whatever about it, but I want to be re-elected.”

But not every congressman is that subservient. A certain well-known representative of a strongly German district in Ohio explained his support of the declaration of war in this language:

“If I were to permit any solicitude for my political future to govern my action, I might hesitate, but, gentlemen of the House, the only interest to which I give heed tonight is the interest of the American people; the only future to which I look is the future of my country.”

A few years ago a bill was pending to revise the tariff and a member of Congress from a certain industrial district arose and informed the House that he had written to several labor men in his district and asked them how he should vote and that he had received a telegram saying, “Vote for the bill.” He obeyed. This member did not profess to vote his convictions. In fact, he did not claim to be troubled with convictions. And I submit that if a man is to vote the sentiment of his district, rather than his judgment, it is foolish to waste the time of men of judgment by sending them to Congress. It would be more appropriate and in far better taste to send men who have nothing else to do. A thousand dollars a year ought to be enough for a man who bears no responsibility except to listen well, especially if he be of a caliber willing to act as a “rubber stamp” for the people at home.

Right here I want to venture an opinion, asking no one to agree with me: The gravest danger that confronts the United States of America, or that has confronted her in the last decade, has not been the armed forces against which we sent our brave boys in khaki, but in the fact that there are hundreds of representatives, and thousands of ambitious politicians, who cannot be purchased with the wealth of Croesus, but who will vote for anything and everything if by so doing they can advance their political fortunes.

Bolshevism would be crushed and the red flag of anarchy would be no longer flaunted in the face of Freedom, were it not for this timidity inspired by those who insist that their representatives shall have no discretion and no responsibility except as clerks for an irresponsible populace. This is the doctrine taught in Rousseau’s “Social Contract,” which Robespierre read every day and which furnished the inspiration for the French Revolution. His scheme was “pure democracy, unchecked, unlimited and undefiled by political leadership or political organization.”

Marat declared: “In a well regulated government the people as a body is the real sovereign; their deputies are appointed solely to execute their orders. What right has the clay to oppose the potter?” Again, he says: “It is a sacred right of constituents to dismiss their representatives at will.” And again: “Reduce the number of deputies” (corresponding to our members of Congress) “to fifty; do not let them remain in office more than five or six weeks; compel them to transact their business during that time in public.”

This spirit of “pure democracy” which Washington, with prophetic eye, saw and warned against, wrought its natural and legitimate ruin in France, is responsible for conditions now existing in Russia and affords the greatest menace to civilization that the world has ever seen. I do not consider Washington a pessimist when, near the close of his “Farewell Address” with heart full of apprehension, he uttered these words:

“In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which hitherto has marked the destiny of nations.”

Someone has declared life to be “one succession of choices.” The choice presented today is: Heed the warnings and return to the teachings of Washington; or go with Rousseau and Robespierre and enter the port towards which we are unmistakably headed—the port where lie the rotting timbers of all previous republics. Representative government and direct government are inherently incompatible. They are absolutely antagonistic.

PART SECOND

DANGERS FROM CHANGES IN OUR PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT

CHAPTER IX
PRELIMINARY

The basis of human happiness most be understood before one can judge if the policy which our government has pursued is calculated to afford liberty in the pursuit of happiness—admittedly the most important of our inalienable rights—as well as to determine whether the same should be reversed.

Preliminary to the discussion of the original design of government, and its gradual reversal of purpose, I want to present as briefly as I may, some philosophies of life. This I deem important, for only as we understand the basis of human happiness can we appreciate the wisdom of the course which the United States pursued for more than one hundred years, during which it attained the proudest position ever occupied by any nation.

It is recorded that when the first parents were being expelled from the Garden of Eden God pronounced this blessing upon the race: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.” I have heard this referred to as a curse, but the All-wise Father has never cursed the race. God seems to be an individualist and not a collectivist. “Whosoever will,” “The soul that sinneth it shall die,” and many similar passages are as far removed from socialistic teachings as is possible. They are the exact opposite. After some years of experience and much observation, I feel justified in saying that, barring the promise of redemption, the greatest blessing God Almighty ever pronounced upon the race of man was when he said: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.”

Then God promulgated a great commandment containing two injunctions, the first of which the church seeks to enforce. It reads: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” The second, equally important and as woefully transgressed, says: “Six days shalt thou labor.” I know people who violate each of these injunctions. They break the Sabbath and will not work the other six days.

We also read that when God had made the worlds and swung them into space, he pronounced them “Very good.” It is but reasonable to believe, and certainly reverent to say, that the Great Jehovah got divine satisfaction and gratification from his creatorship, and his sovereignty. When, in the fullness of time, He made man in His own image, wanting to provide for man’s happiness, He harked back to the thrill of creatorship and gave man the capacity for the maximum of happiness from his creatorships, his sovereignties, his achievements.

One needs but little observation to recognize that achievement is the basis of man’s material happiness. How often we hear men say: “This was raw prairie. I made this farm.” “I planted this grove.” “I started this store.” “I established this bank.” “I built this factory.” I remember very well Sir Thomas Lipton telling me where, as an immigrant with but fifty cents in his pocket, he spent his first night in New York City. There is something more than a joke in the statement that “self-made men are apt to be proud of the job.”

Nothing will develop manhood in a boy like giving him a pig, a calf, a lamb or even a rabbit. My! how a boy will grow in self-respect when permitted just to call a colt “his,” and to feel the resultant sense of proprietorship. The establishment of gardens for boys, and the offering of prizes for the best acre of corn grown by a boy, is the best “uplift work” that was ever attempted. Until very recent years the public has never sought to apply these principles of mental philosophy to the development of manly character in the young.

As soon as the savage feels this divinely implanted impulse for ownership and achievement, he is on the road towards civilization. Then, as he advances, “individualism” becomes more marked and instead of living in a hut, wearing braided grass and eating his meat and fish raw, he improves his condition and inequality begins. Is civilization a failure? It must be if socialism has any place in divine economy.

CHAPTER X
NO COMPETITION BETWEEN THE SEXES

A brief discussion of the distinction between women as voters and as statesmen.

While this chapter is parenthetical and is not essential to the argument, yet a discussion of the philosophy of human happiness would be incomplete without it.

If man had the power of creation his present wisdom would cause him not only to omit competition between the sexes, but he would avoid the possibility of even rivalry. The Creator in His wisdom did not put the sexes in competition and man can neither improve nor amend.

Occasionally a woman develops a beard, but it is so rare that she usually enters a museum. Many years ago I saw a woman with a well-defined “Adam’s apple.” But none of us admire either “mannish” women or “sissy” men.

Woman does not get her happiness from her creatorships or sovereignties. The normal woman prefers that her husband be the sovereign, and she his queen. Woman gets her happiness from her sacrifices. She gives herself to husband, to children, to home, to church, to hospital, to good deeds, and out of these sacrifices she gets the maximum of her happiness. A boy asked the butcher for tough meat and gave this reason: “If I get tender meat, dad’ll eat it all.” That would be a libel upon woman. We have each seen a thousand times where mother was getting more happiness in picking the neck and the back than the children in eating the white meat, while dad grabbed both upper joints.

But there is another side to this. When dad is refreshed, when his blood is red, when he is a full-grown normal man, what does dad do? He bears all the hardships and all the dangers this world holds in store; he freezes in the arctics, he melts in the tropics, that he may bring to those he loves the choicest of earth, and adorn his queen with the brightest jewels that glitter.

I have never supposed that when our early ancestors were confronted with danger that there was any controversy as to who should defend the other. I have assumed that she as instinctively sprang to his left, as he to her right, that his sword arm might be free. His name was John. Her name was Mary. His brother’s name was Peter; he married Margaret. Each pair named their son Ole. There being two Oles in the tribe, a distinguishing name was necessary. Do you suppose there was a family controversy to determine whether one should be called “Ole Johnson” or “Ole Maryson”?

No, woman does not wish to be the head of a clan, or to create or to possess, but she does desire that her husband shall be a chieftain, a builder and a landlord, and is willing to make any sacrifice to that end. Woman wants to be loved and, incidentally, let me say, needs to be told that she is, in the tenderest way, and more than once. If told sufficiently often, she is even proud to be a slave to the man who loves her and sometimes is without ever receiving a single post-nuptial word of endearment.

I doubt if anyone would favor woman’s suffrage if he thought it would result in changing woman’s nature, or in making her masculine in manner. “Man’s chiefest inspiration to well-doing is hope of companionship with that sacred, true and well-embodied soul—a woman”—only because an All-wise Creator made the sexes as unlike as possible and still keep them both human.

“For woman is not undeveloped man,

But diverse. Could we but make her as the man,

Sweet love were slain.”

Only one woman has occupied a seat in Congress and I am glad to record that she remained womanly, and the other members manly. In that respect the experiment was harmless. She was permitted to violate the rules and to interrupt a rollcall to explain her vote. Neither the Speaker nor the members called her to order. Perhaps they would have done so had she not been crying at the time. During a speech criticising the enforcement of law against a certain element in her state, she was asked several questions which, together with her answers, were taken down by the official stenographer. When she revised the extension of the notes for the Congressional Record, she again violated the rules and struck out the questions and answers and explained her conduct by saying: “I didn’t want them in there.” The congressmen affected, still chivalrous, did not even ask to have the Record corrected.

It will probably be some years before another woman occupies a seat in either house, for statesmanship is not gauged by intelligence or purity of motive, so much as by aptitude crossed on experience. Aptitude for the law, aptitude for mechanics and aptitude for statecraft, are quite rare, even among men. Many women have been admitted to the bar, and while a few have had some practice as attorneys, thus far the sex has developed no one of marked legal ability. If it should produce a lawyer or a master mechanic or a statesman, it will not necessarily entitle the unfortunate to a place in a museum, but it will be about as rare as anything in a museum.

CHAPTER XI
PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF GOVERNMENT

In this chapter the wisdom of the Fathers is sought to be shown by the fact that they inaugurated policies and purposes admirably calculated to develop the individuality of each citizen, and to afford the greatest opportunity for the maximum of human happiness.

With these philosophies of human life in our mind, let us pass to the study of the purpose and policy of our government as shown in its history.

Imagine, if you will, that we have just won our independence, that the Constitutional Convention has been held, the matchless document there formulated has been adopted and that the United States of America has become a Nation. Then suppose all the people within our domain gather to determine the purpose and policy of their government. Will we choose the least possible government, and the greatest measure of liberty, or shall the United States become a great business concern with all its citizens on the payroll? Shall government guard the liberties of the people while they prosecute their business, or shall the government conduct the business and the citizen guard the government?

Alexander Hamilton will attend this meeting and will make the speech of his life. Talleyrand declared Hamilton’s to be the greatest intellect he ever met. In addition to well-nigh matchless mentality he probably possessed greater vision than any man of his time; and vision is the natural parent of statesmanship, if indeed it be not statesmanship itself.

Standing at the cradle of this nation, Alexander Hamilton assures Talleyrand that either Philadelphia or New York will be ultimately the financial center of the world. Back in the interior he predicts another metropolis. Eventually, he declares, the United States will extend to the Pacific Ocean and yonder on the western coast there will be another metropolis. If we build to such dimensions these must be our policies.

He continues his speech and tells us that the United States is not only destined to be the most powerful but likewise the richest nation in the world. Our unearned increment will exceed the dream of man. These lands, now worthless, are intrinsically of great value. All the minerals and all the metals will be found within our borders and these will measure untold riches. Today we have resources unequalled in any land, and resourcefulness unmatched by any people, and he reminds us that resourcefulness, when applied to resources, will produce greatness.

Then someone in the audience rises and announces himself a bolshevist and moves that the United States retain title to all these wonderful resources until they attain their maximum value. He proposes that we tolerate no “land hogs” and permit no one to exploit the resources of America or make profit out of iron or coal or oil or even a waterpower.

Then a socialist declares this to be a concise statement of his creed and seconds the motion. Non-partisan leaguers from North Dakota, and single-taxers from California, also favor it. An anarchist joins to say that while his people are opposed to any laws, yet if laws are to be made, they should each prohibit something and none should encourage anything. Then an I. W. W. declares that this will suit him, provided he be not required to work. But the proposition is lost.

Then a preamble and resolution is offered to this effect: “Whereas, the All-wise Creator has decreed that man shall derive his greatest happiness from his achievements, therefore, with faith both in God and man and believing in America, be it resolved, that we emblazon upon the sky where all the world shall see, the great announcement that the Stars and Stripes shall forever stand for Opportunity!” This is carried by acclamation and amid applause.

Then another moves that we give notice to every citizen, and to every person who may desire to become a citizen, that in the pursuit of guaranteed happiness, each shall have guaranteed liberty to look over our broad domain, select the biggest thing he dare undertake and, if he makes it win, it shall belong to him. This motion is carried by a rising vote.

Then a third man moves that in the development of our resources, the government shall foster everything, and father nothing. In his speech supporting the motion, he suggests that if Mr. Hamilton’s prediction concerning the ultimate greatness of America proves true, men will engage in commerce; they will build ships and they will build them too large for our harbors. Then the government, in fostering commerce, will deepen and widen our waterways, but it will not father commerce and take over the ships. It will leave to the citizen the right to own the ship, to fly his flag at its mast and to get the thrill that will surely come from sailing the biggest ship that cuts the waves of ocean. Achieve and be happy! This motion is also adopted.

After these hopeful and courageous souls have thus formulated a progressive policy, a man announces his fear that he does not possess the necessary vision, and certainly not the requisite courage to accomplish any great thing and, therefore, intends to become a wage-earner, and asks the assembled citizenship of America what they propose to do for him. Being honest with ourselves we are compelled to admit that we can promise little for the present. We tell him frankly that if he is simply seeking wages, he might as well remain in the country of his nativity. We assure him, however, that if he can endure pioneer hardships until the lands have value, until the mines are developed, until means of transportation are afforded, until the unearned increment begins to appear, we will give him better wages than the world has ever seen. Have we kept faith? Let us see.

RELATIVE REWARDS OF CAPITAL AND LABOR

As late as 1840 men worked twelve hours per day for twenty-five cents, payable in cornmeal or meat, for there was no money. I can remember when fifty cents per day was a good wage. Then, when property began to have value, we started up the spiral stairway of more wage and more wage and then more wage.

What effect did this have? The world took notice and immigration increased as wages advanced. In 1907 over one million immigrants landed on our shores, and more than half with less than the required $35.00 in cash. The next year 800,000 went back. Some of them had been here several years and others only a short time, but, in addition to what they had sent home, they took with them from three hundred to five thousand dollars each.

How about capital? For nearly one hundred years, foreign capital sought American opportunity. Foreign capital built our first railways, established our first banks, erected our first factories. But about twenty-five years ago it largely ceased to come, for it could do no better here than elsewhere. Even American capital sought employment in Mexico, China and in Canada, simply because these countries offered better rewards for capital. The records of the Immigration Department contain positive proof that for more than twenty-five years labor in this country has been relatively better rewarded than capital. Otherwise capital would have come as labor came.

This great truth ought not to be ignored. The only reason capital continued to come for one hundred years is because it could do better here than elsewhere. The only reason that it ultimately went elsewhere is because it could do better elsewhere. Meantime, immigration, most of it swelling the ranks of labor, increased solely because labor received in America a relatively larger share of the profits of business and enterprise than in any other country on the map.

No one claims that even now labor receives more than its due. I am simply demonstrating the relative rewards of capital and labor in the United States and citing positive proof that immigrants who come seeking opportunity do not pursue a barren hope.

CHAPTER XII
THE RESULT OF THIS POLICY

The policy defined in the preceding chapter is illustrated and its wisdom shown by the logical results thereof. The source and constant course of wages is also discussed.

After spending seventy-five years of our national life in the discussion of state rights, and then four years of bloody fratricidal war, the fact that the United States of America is a nation and not simply a confederation of sovereign states was definitely determined. Occasionally, we still hear people speak of “these United States.” But there are none. This one is all there is. The term “these United States” comes dangerously near a treasonable utterance. The court of last resort rendered its decree at Appomattox that the United States of America is “one and inseparable, now and forever.”

After this perplexing question was settled, the government proceeded to foster industry in the largest possible way. For instance, certain men proposed that, if properly encouraged, they would construct a railroad to the Pacific coast. They were reminded that only a few years before it had been said that not even a wagon road could be builded across the Rocky Mountains. “Yes,” says General Dodge, “but we will build a railroad.” They asked a subsidy of money, to be returned as soon as possible, and one-half of a twenty mile strip of land in perpetuity. They were given both. The land was then worthless. Do you realize that if the land that was given to the Union Pacific Railroad on condition that the road should be builded to the Pacific Ocean, had been given to the Astors, on condition that the Astors should go out and look at it each year, it would have broken the Astors. There was no way to go out to see it. In effect, the government kept most of the land for homesteaders and gave half of certain adjacent tracts to railroads on condition that they make it worth while for homesteaders to occupy the reserved portions. What is the result? The Rocky Mountain Empire, yielding all the minerals, all the metals, lumber, fruits, vegetables, with millions of people living in happy homes, and all because the government fostered enterprise and said: “Achieve and be happy.”

Where there is incentive there will always be achievement.

ANOTHER ILLUSTRATION

Permit one more illustration. One thousand can be furnished as well as one. Certain men proposed to the government that on certain conditions they would build a silk mill. The government exclaimed: “A silk mill in the United States! We produce no raw silk.” This was promptly acknowledged and likewise the higher wages necessary to be paid in America. Still they promised to build a silk mill if they were permitted to buy their raw silk wherever they could find it without paying anything to the government for the privilege, and, provided further, that foreigners who might bring manufactured silk to this market, in competition with the product of their mill, should be required to pay sixty cents out of every dollar received, into the treasury of the United States for the maintenance of this government, and go home contented and happy with forty cents. The government replied: “Go build your mill. If you cannot live on those terms, we will make the foreigner pay sixty-five cents.” What is the result? Ninety million dollars’ worth of raw silk is annually imported and forty-five million dollars are paid in wages to the workmen manufacturing it. Achieve and be happy!

WHAT BECOMES OF WAGES?

What becomes of this forty-five million dollars in wages annually paid by the silk mills of America? Every dollar of it is spent. We all spend all we get. We spend it for necessaries or comforts or luxuries or taxes or foolishness, or we expend it for a house, or a bond, or we deposit it in a bank and someone else spends or expends it.

Let us assume that this particular forty-five million dollars of silk mill wages is paid to western farmers for food. The western farmers send it east for knit goods and shoes and these factories pay it out again to labor and labor sends it west again for food. How often will wages make the circuit?

A man earns, say, five dollars and spends it at night for food and clothes. The merchant spends his profit and pays the balance to the producer of food and clothes. The producer keeps it as a reward for his toil or pays it for wages. In either event, it goes again for food and clothes. William McKinley estimated that wages would thus make the circuit and come back to the wage earner ten times per annum. I believe the estimate conservative. A million men annually earning one thousand dollars each, makes one billion dollars in wages. This billion dollars going to the merchant ten times a year and back to labor as often, makes an aggregate of ten billion dollars in trade every twelve months.

A SUMMARY OF ACHIEVEMENT

Now, hold your breath. The figures showing the material result of fifty years of applied common sense, will stagger you.

When the European war began, our farms were producing more than the farms of any other country on the map. Our mines yielded gold by trainload annually, and we unloaded from coastwise ships and railways on the soil of Ohio alone more iron ore than any other country in the world produced. In fifty years we had builded as many miles of railroad as all the rest of the world, and these roads, before the government began fixing rates, were carrying our freight for one-third of what was charged for like service elsewhere beneath the sky. We cut from our forests one hundred million feet of lumber for every day of the calendar year, and annually pumped from the earth beneath 250,000,000 barrels of petroleum, over sixty-five percent of the world’s gross product. Owing to the rapid exchange of wages for necessaries and comforts and then again for wages, our domestic trade had become five times as large as the aggregate international commerce of creation. Our shops and factories turned out more finished products than all the shops and all the factories of Great Britain and France and Germany combined, plus five thousand million dollars’ worth every twelve months, and we paid out as much in wages as all the rest of the human family. Achieve and be happy!

I hope you will understand that I am not defending either our form of government or our policy. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin and those other immortal men, may have been blithering idiots when they chose to create a republic instead of a democracy. I only cite the fact that they did create a republic. We might have accomplished more had the government tilled the lands, built the ships, constructed and operated the railroads, erected the factories, opened the mines, transacted the business and put everyone on the public payroll. I only seek to make it clear that this was not done and that we did fairly well, considering.

During all this period, the government accepted as its appropriate function the protection of the citizen, while the citizen sought happiness and secured it through achievement. The government sought to protect him from murder, but did not always succeed. It tried to shield him from robbery, but sometimes failed. It aimed to prevent extortion but was not always successful. It did its best to see that opportunity should knock once at every door, but did nothing to force an entrance or insure a second call. Still, notwithstanding errors, weaknesses and admitted inefficiency, the American citizen has been afforded better protection against all the evils that assail mankind, than the people of any other country and, in the pursuit of happiness, Americans have enjoyed far wider liberty of action, and an infinitely greater percent of realization.

CHAPTER XIII
ALL DEPENDENT UPON THE PAYROLL

The importance of the American payroll upon which all rely is emphasized, and the necessity of safeguarding this payroll is shown together with a lesson in domestic economy.

While the government has kept as few as possible in its employ we are dependent, directly or indirectly, upon the payroll. Not only the merchant and the farmer, but the professional man and banker, have suffered when, for any cause, labor has stood in the bread line. This is well illustrated by the fact that the American people consumed 5.94 bushels of wheat per capita during 1892, only 3.44 bushels in 1894 and over 7 bushels in 1906. He who had eaten at the back door as a tramp fed himself like a prince when every wheel was turning and everyone working.

These figures are also illuminating: We imported for consumption $12.50 per capita in 1892, only $10.81 in 1896 and $16.49 in 1907. This may cause surprise when you remember that the minimum per capita importation of 1896 was when the average tariff duty collected thereon was only 20.67 percent, while in 1907 the average rate was 23.28 percent. Notwithstanding the higher rate, we actually imported for consumption sixty percent more merchandise per capita than under the lower tariff rate. No more indubitable proof can be found that when labor is employed, and the payroll large, all classes and conditions prosper.

ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY

Suppose I build a factory costing, say, one hundred thousand dollars, and enter an untried field of manufacture. I pay out two hundred thousand dollars in wages and make a net profit of fifty thousand dollars. These figures are unimportant except as an illustration. I have made fifty per cent on my investment and the world says it is too much. It is too much, notwithstanding the fact that I take all the risk, make the experiment and demonstrate the possibilities of a new industry. I also pay a wage at which my employees are glad to work. Not one of them risks a day’s toil. But, because my profits are large, if for no other reason, I am certain to have competition next year.

What shall I do with my fifty thousand dollars net profit? I can eat no more than I have eaten, and I cannot wear more than one suit of clothes at a time.

I challenge anyone to tell me how I can keep my profit away from labor except by converting it into cash and locking it in a safe deposit box. Suppose I give my daughter a big wedding and spend much money for cut flowers. Cut flowers are nature’s sunshine plus management and labor. So management and labor get that. But management is compelled to spend its share as I spend mine, and thus it all goes directly or indirectly to labor. I build for my daughter a home and fill it with furniture, china, glass and silver. Both the house and its furnishings consist of lumber in the forest, ore in the ground, clay in the pit, white sand in the bank, and other raw materials, plus management, labor and transportation—and transportation is labor. Thus labor gets all except the portion which goes to management and capital, and management and capital are compelled to turn their respective shares into labor.

Here the theoretical socialist and the scientist—I mean the man who recognizes that nothing is scientific except what stands the test of experience—part company. The socialist admits that cut flowers are sunshine plus labor and as sunshine receives no portion he demands that labor shall have it all. He forgets or refuses to recognize that without directing energy there would be no greenhouse, water system, heating plant or other essential of production. Labor and sunshine never produced anything better than a wild flower. Of course labor may and frequently does furnish the management. All the necessary equipment for the production of the various articles I have mentioned is the result of a directing genius which we call management.

Let no one accuse me of trying to deceive or cajole labor. I not only admit, but I assert, that there is far more satisfaction, though not necessarily greater happiness, in drawing dividends than wages. I have had both experiences. I am an expert, for I have either touched or seen life at every angle. I have worked to the limit, day after day, from five in the morning until nine at night for hire, with not to exceed one hour for the three meals, and have gone to bed happy. For fifteen years I was at my law office, as a rule, from seven in the morning until ten at night, and for more than thirty years of my mature life I never took a day for recreation. My wife and I are now living quite comfortably from dividends, but we look back upon those strenuous years, in which this best woman in the world joyfully and even joyously bore her share, as the happiest period of our lives. Still I repeat, dividends are better than pay envelopes or checks from clients. And I am glad they are. The All-Wise must have designed they should be, for otherwise life would be one dreary humdrum of drudgery, with little incentive to great effort and greater sacrifice, the universal quid pro quo in the great one-price store of republics.

In this connection permit me to urge every man whose wakeful hours are spent in toil, to make it exceedingly clear to his children that there is more satisfaction in drawing dividends than wages. Let the youth also know that nearly every one who now draws dividends began by drawing wages. I can recall very few men whose names are or have been known beyond the confines of local communities, whether bankers, lawyers, manufacturers, merchants or railroad presidents, whose hands have not been calloused with humble toil. This is conspicuously so of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Wanamaker and Schwab, and was equally true of E. H. Harriman, C. P. Huntington, J. J. Hill, George M. Pullman, the McCormicks and practically all others who in days past rendered conspicuous service in making America.

CHAPTER XIV
AMERICAN FORTUNES NOT LARGE, CONSIDERING

A country of such resources could not be developed as America has been without great fortunes resulting. Inequality of results in every field of human endeavor, except the acquisition of property, is welcomed and approved by everyone.

I am not surprised at the fortunes that have been made in this country. On the contrary, even greater fortunes might have been reasonably expected. As I look over the matchless resources of America, the surface of which as yet has been only scratched, and the matchless resourcefulness of our people, I marvel that even greater accumulations have not been made. I have been frequently surprised that I did not make more myself. But I can account for it, so far as I am concerned. I heard of a man who said he could write as good poetry as Shakespeare, “if he had a mind to.” His friends assured him he had discovered his handicap. That was my difficulty. I had the disposition, and I have had the opportunity. As I look back over the years of my mature life I recognize that I have failed to heed opportunities where I might have made more money than any man has made. But I did not have the vision; I did not have the courage; I did not have the “mind to.”

I can construct a highway so the worst old scrub of a horse, with his mane and tail full of cockleburrs, can keep up with a thoroughbred. Yes, I can. But the mud must needs be very deep and quite thick. When the mud is sufficiently heavy, one horse can keep up with another. But when the track is improved, the horse with aptitude for speed will soon distance the old cockleburred scrub, who would, if he could talk, very likely insist there is something wrong with our civilization, and become a socialist.

We all demand good roads, though we all know that if we have good roads we will have to take someone’s dust. The only way, my friend, to protect yourself from the other man’s dust is to have the roads so bad he cannot pass you.

A PARABLE

During the free silver campaign of 1896, a man with a full unkempt beard and shaggy hair, after several times interrupting the speaker, finally asked in squeaky voice: “Mr. Speaker, how do you account for the unequal distribution of wealth?” The answer came with promptness. “How do you account for the unequal distribution of whiskers?” When the audience had quieted down, the speaker might have said: “My friend, I did not make that remark to cause merriment at your expense. I made it to illustrate a great truth. I was born with equal opportunity and equal aptitude for whiskers with yourself. But I have dissipated mine. Whenever I have found myself in possession of any perceptible amount of whiskers, I have dissipated them. Had I conserved my whiskers, as you evidently have, I, too, would be a millionaire in whiskers.”

Tell your boys, and the boys you meet, that if ever they become millionaires in dollars as in whiskers, the chances are it will be because they conserve. John J. Blair, the pioneer railroad builder west of the Mississippi River, once told Senator Allison that the wife of Commodore Vanderbilt had many times cooked for him a five o’clock breakfast, for which she charged twenty cents. The seed from which all great fortunes have been grown was hand picked.

In the war between the states more than a million men enlisted on either side, and at the end of four and one-half years there were fifty or one hundred multi-millionaires in military achievement and military glory and ten thousand in unmarked graves. Socialists do not object to these inequalities. While they seem to welcome millionaires in art, in music, and in athletics they all point to millionaires in business as an unanswerable indictment of America’s political system. They rejoice that it can produce an Edison, but mourn that it can also produce a Rockefeller. Yet the success of these two wizards is traceable alike to extraordinary aptitude in their respective fields of achievement, plus extraordinary application. Neither of these men ever robbed me of a penny. On the contrary each has contributed to my comfort, thus adding to the worth of living, and each has cheapened for me the cost of high living. But for Mr. Edison, or someone of a different name to do what he has done, I would be deprived of electric light and many other comforts. But for Mr. Rockefeller, or some one of a different name to do what Mr. Rockefeller has done, every owner of an oil well would be pumping his product into barrels in the olden way, hauling it to town and selling on a manipulated market, while I would be deprived of a hundred by-products of petroleum, be still paying twenty-five cents per gallon for poor kerosene, and there would be no such thing known in all the world as gasoline.

CHAPTER XV
POPULAR DISSATISFACTION

It is as logical that dissatisfaction should develop because of inequality of results in “money making,” as it is that inequality in results shall follow inequality of aptitude and effort. This dissatisfaction has tended strongly to develop socialistic thought and teaching.

A century and a quarter, during which representatives were chosen because of actual or supposed aptitude, and retained in office during long periods—frequently for life—when nearly every industry was fostered, and none fathered, developed a people, the best paid, the best fed, the best clothed, the best housed, the best educated, enjoying more of the comforts of life, far more of its luxuries, enduring less hardships and privations, than any other in all history; but it is an even guess if, at the same time, we did not become more restless, discontented and unhappy.

We were not so much dissatisfied, however, with our own condition, abstractly considered, as with our relative condition. The man with rubber heels would have thought himself favored had he not seen someone with a bicycle, and the man with a bicycle was contented until his friend got a motorcycle. The man with a motorcycle thought he had the best the world afforded until he saw an automobile and the man in the automobile was happy until his neighbor got a yacht. “All this availeth me nothing so long as I see Mordecai, the Jew, sitting at the king’s gate.”

I have lived some years in this blessed land and the only criticism I have ever heard, either of our form of government or our policy, is the fact that some men have got rich.

I made this statement in a public speech some months ago and asked who had heard any other. A man answered: “Some people have got poor.” I admitted that I had known a number of fellows whose fathers had left them money and who had got poor, but I told the audience that most of the poor men whom I had known had simply remained poor. I asked my critic if he had ever fattened cattle. He admitted he had not. Then I assured him that he would seldom see a steer getting poor in a feed yard where others were doing well and most were getting fat, but he would frequently see one that remained poor, notwithstanding his environments.

Two men were standing by the side of the New York Central Railroad. One said to the other: “My, see this track of empire! Four tracks, great Mogul engines taking two thousand tons of freight at a load, passenger trains making sixty miles an hour. There comes the express!” As the train passed a cinder lit in the eye of the enthusiast, when immediately he denounced the road, cursed the management and swore at all four tracks.

In a country like ours, where conditions have been superb, resources matchless and resourcefulness unequalled, none should be surprised at the speed we have developed and no one ought to use language unfit to print simply because there are cinders in the air. Admittedly there are. We have all had them in our eyes. They are more than annoying, but the only way to prevent cinders is to tear up the tracks. And it is simply surprising the number of good people who are trying to make the world a paradise through a policy of destruction.