If any further argument were needed to convince you that the United States is no place for Socialism, its root or branches, it may be found in the radical and quite amusing change of front shown by Major Dalrymple, of Glasgow, upon the occasion of his visit to this country. He came here at the request of Major Dunne, of Chicago, and the Municipal Ownership League of New York, to aid the forces of Socialism in their efforts in behalf of Municipal Ownership. He was the great Apostle of that doctrine in Glasgow, and the very man, in their opinion, to convert our people to that system.
Upon his arrival here, he was greeted with great éclat by the League of this city, and gave out an interview in which he spoke as follows:
“I see no reason why any city in this country should not be able to own its street railways, and to run them with as much success as we have achieved at Glasgow. I admit that the proposition is a much larger one than the one we had to tackle, but at the bottom it is the same.”
This was before he knew our country and its institutions. After an extended stay here, he prepared for his homeward journey, but before sailing, he was again interviewed, and to the surprise and discomfiture of the Socialists, he retracted all that he had said before in favor of Municipal Ownership, in the following language:
“To put street railways, gasworks, telephone companies, etc., under Municipal Ownership would be to create a political machine in every large city that would be simply impregnable. These political machines are already strong enough, with their control of policemen, firemen, and other office holders.
“If, in addition to this, they could control the thousands of men employed in the great public utility corporations, the political machines would have a power that could not be overthrown. I came to this country a believer in public ownership. What I have seen here, and I have studied the situation carefully, makes me realize that private ownership, under proper conditions, is far better for the citizens of American cities.”
[Illustration:
From stereograph. Copyright, 1906, by Underwood & Underwood, N. Y. JOHN W. GATES. ]
The New York papers aptly called this “The conversion of the Scot”; and this blunt and honest admission coming from their own authority, that Municipal Ownership in this country was wholly impracticable, stunned and paralyzed its agitators, and caused many of its adherents to leave the ranks of Socialism.
Mr. James Bryce, the worthy newly appointed English Ambassador to this country, pointed out some twenty years ago, in his “American Commonwealth,” how the then future of the United States sometimes presented itself to the mind as a struggle between two forces—the one beneficent, the other malign; the one striving to speed the nation to a port of safety before the storm arrives, the other to retard its progress, so that the tempest may be upon it before the port is reached. He further expressed concern as to whether the progress then discernible toward a wiser public opinion and a higher standard of public life would succeed in bringing the mass of the people up to a high level, or whether the masses would yield to the temptation to abuse their power and seek violent and vain and useless remedies—like Socialism—for the evils which would affect us.
This able statesman predicted that the question would be decided early in the present century, and would be evidenced by the condition of progress and prosperity brought about by the people in the meantime.
When the Ambassador was recently welcomed to our shores, the answer to this question concerning us, asked by him so long ago, was found awaiting him.
It was spoken clearly and loudly by our teeming products of agriculture and mining, and echoed in thunder tones by our mammoth shops and factories of industry, and it was seen shining in the happy faces of our busy and prosperous people.
Upon the golden page of to-day in our splendid history will stand out the assuring fact that this surpassingly successful state of things has not blossomed and come forth under the blighting shade of the deadly Upas tree of Socialism, but that it has all been developed by and through Individualism.
In conclusion, let me impress upon you that Individualism in the United States has stood all tests—especially the crucial tests of time and experience—and it points with pride and satisfaction to the great developments secured for the American people under the bright and beneficent rays of our admirable Constitution and Republican form of government.
And if the aim of all government is to ensure prosperity to the country, and happiness to the people it controls, the unrivaled excellence of Individualism may fairly be judged by its magnificent results.
* * * * *
Edwin Markham, Esq., the Author and Poet, being agreed upon by both parties to the debate, presided at the meeting.
At the close of the above address the chairman addressed the 5,000 assemblage as follows:
“LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I hope you have enjoyed listening to Mr. Clews’s very able address as much as I have. He swept the entire horizon and has left nothing more to be said on his side.”
Mr. Markham then introduced Professor Kirkpatrick, to combat Mr. Clews’s arguments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER LXXVII.
GREAT WEALTH AND SOCIAL UNREST.[5]
Footnote 5:
An address delivered by Henry Clews at the Thirty-fourth Annual Assembly of the Chautauqua Institution at Chautauqua, N. Y., July 29, 1907.
_Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen_:
I think that you will agree with me when I say that there is nothing more commendable and that augurs better for the future of the institutions of our country—our great American Republic—than the interest shown by all classes in the important sociological questions of the day. The general willingness of our citizens to solve the serious problems involved by rationally debating them, and allowing careful consideration and calm judgment to lead the way to honest conviction, is one of the good signs of the times.
We are progressive in spirit as well as in our practical achievements, and, in many respects, we have set the pace for other nations.
At one time, we know, capitalists and leaders of industry too often either wholly ignored the discontent or appeals of the laboring people in their employ, or subject to their influence, or, if appreciating the causes of their discontent, showed no disposition whatever to right their wrongs, or even to define their own views and position, or make any attempt to defend their own side of the case.
This was the attitude of Capital toward Labor in former times that I may liken to the Dark Ages. It was, of course, radically wrong and unjust. The refusal, or, at least, the unwillingness, of Capital to recognize the fact that there are two sides to every case was not only oppressive, but often led to costly and destructive strikes, and, doubtless, in a measure, retarded development and progress in industrial and other human affairs. But now Capital is showing more readiness to meet Labor on the same platform of discussion; and in keeping with this opening of the door to fair and full two-sided discussion is the general tendency of legislation to improve the condition of the masses, and the Chautauqua Institution in holding this Convention to consider the question of Social Unrest is entitled to great credit for the performance of a most laudable service in the interest of education and progress and the uplifting of humanity. It is sowing the seeds of future advancement and greatness in those directions.
The fact that Social Unrest exists, and moreover is very prevalent, not only here but throughout the world, cannot be denied. Thus, in Russia, just emerging from the throes of a deadly and costly war, the spirit of discontent and Nihilism is rampant, and in France the Terrorists are gaining in numbers and clamoring for their rights, while Austria and Germany are greatly disturbed by the constant persistence of the violent and revolutionary Socialists in railing against society and government as they now exist. In Great Britain, too, the Socialists have stirred the people to uneasiness by the loud threats, and rule or ruin alarms, that they are sounding.
While this unrest and discontent are especially great in foreign countries, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that these exist in the United States—though not in such large proportions as in Europe. Moreover, they are largely of a different kind and quality.
But it is not well for us to give undue recognition to the Socialistic outcries in this country, for by so doing we might encourage and aggravate a condition that, to my mind, is an equal menace to both Capital and Labor—the two great living forces of our national life. We may increase an evil by magnifying it.
Too much appreciation and regard cannot, however, possibly be shown to that spirit of unrest existing among us, which leads to individual betterment and national development, and which is especially characteristic of the American people.
Ever since the blazing torch of civilization threw its bright light upon the world, it has been the paramount disposition of man to add to his possessions and to aspire to higher and better conditions. In this he is distinguished from savages and the lower orders of animal life, which have no perception of what we call ambition and achievement.
Man being endowed with a mind, it is through the exercise of his mental faculties that he is made restless under unsatisfactory conditions; and civilized man is fired with a desire for improvement, and particularly to improve his own fortunes and position by increasing his possessions, and acquiring distinction, or reputation in his business. This is well, so long as it does not degenerate into graft, or the misuse of other people’s money.
It is this unrest and this aspiration that constitute the great incentive to human progress, and that have given us our cultivated fields and teeming harvests, endowed and multiplied our noble edifices of learning and religion, built our large and splendid cities and homes, our great bridges and other engineering works, and our vast factories and other busy hives of industry. This is laudable ambition that stimulates national development.
We must, however, be careful to draw a plain line of demarcation between that unrest I have described, and which springs from an appreciation of the solidity and soundness of our foundation and aspires to build thereon so as to realize the highest ideals of perfection and success—and that misguided or malicious unrest and discontent incited by Socialism. This is really at enmity with all civilized forms of government and all measures of advancement in the right direction, and seeks their overthrow and utter destruction.
The spirit of unrest that I have commended, and which I have termed an American type, is not noisy and clamorous in its nature, and it manifests itself mostly through organizations of labor, in demands for adequate or increased compensation, or the fixing of a stated reasonable number of hours to constitute a day’s work. With these purposes, and the aims of Labor-Unions generally, I want to state that I am in the fullest accord. The laborer is worthy of his hire, as the Bible says.
But it is not from this source that the wail and cry of Social Unrest comes. No, “The shallows murmur, while the depths are dumb,” and it is from the other and Socialistic class that we hear the government and its institutions decried, and capital and commerce attacked, and the spirit of competition and achievement assailed. I say, Down with these assassins of good government, these assailants of law and order!
True, we see Labor strikes in some places; but these are incidents that have not been uncommon at any time in the past, and are not marked or significant enough now to form a particular feature of the prevailing Social Unrest. We have not yet reached the Millennium!
But whence comes the Socialist’s expression of unrest and discontent, and what is it based on? It reminds me of Don Quixote, and the fight against a windmill.
What is the sum and substance of the Socialists’ grievance? They see only evil in what is really good government, and none are so blind as those who will not see.
They claim to be dissatisfied with the existing order of things. But what remedies that are not revolutionary do they prescribe for the cure of existing social and political ills? The fact is that many Socialists at heart are anarchists!
In almost every instance you will find among the rabble at a Socialist meeting some honest but mistaken theorists, who plausibly find fault not only with the conduct of our government, but with the very form of our government itself, and picture, under the delusion they cherish, an utterly impossible Utopia where—
“The people all are blessed And the weary all have rest.”
These visionaries are reinforced by pretended reformers and professional agitators, often of great persuasive powers, who appeal strongly to the passions and prejudices of the ignorant people of various nationalities who are made to imagine that they are still down-trodden. Here, in my opinion, lies a real menace and danger—that of these people being carried away by the power and passion of such appeals, the inflammatory utterances of reckless demagogues and firebrands. They are the public enemies we have most need to guard against.
The path of safety lies in standing ready to discuss every proposition which they advance, and then refute, with cool reasoning and argument, the fallacy and falsity of their position and the destructive doctrines they teach.
It will also be very noticeable that the people comprising the Socialistic audiences at such meetings are mostly foreigners who, seeking better social and political environments, emigrated to America, a large part of them within the past decade or two. As discontented aliens they become as dangerous as the firebrands they listen to, but there is no spirit of self-sacrifice among them. Moreover, they are slaves to what is worst in Socialism and blind followers of a false god!
That this peculiar condition of things should exist in this country seems almost paradoxical. It is something that a patriotic American cannot tolerate, and mainly an outcome of Russian oppression, imported by those who have fled from it, and who fail to understand or appreciate the new conditions under which they live. We can well understand and appreciate how, in a country ruled by a despot, whose heel of oppression and tyranny is ever on the necks of the down-trodden people, the masses, desiring some measure of free action and equality, would revolt against these conditions, and seek a reorganization of society. They would, naturally, look as far away as they could from such a government of despotism—the only one they had ever known—to the other extreme—an imaginary country where the State should own all the land and capital, employ all the people and divide everything, share and share alike, among the community. Such a government will, of course, never exist. It is simply impossible.
But the spirit of revolt, which, in that case, may be patriotism, becomes ridiculous, and open to the charge of insincerity, when its worst doctrines are transplanted and cultivated upon American soil by our foreign population. When it appears here it is really more like Anarchism than Socialism, and I emphasize this.
Born of the spirit of resistance to oppression, with the broadest and freest constitution that the world has ever known—a land of freedom and equality in the best and most liberal sense of the term—it would seem that the sincere lover of liberty and equality could ask no better home than this democracy of ours—whose glorious flag floats over eighty-four millions of prosperous and enlightened people.
With further reason, also, must we question the sincerity of the violent type of Socialist, who, leaving oppression behind, emigrates to this country, where tyranny and despotism are unknown, and yet continues to echo Socialism’s war-cry of destruction, wrung from his heart by the cruelty of his old-time oppressors. When he does this he becomes an enemy of our Republic, unworthy of citizenship.
He comes here from a land of want and thraldom to a land of plenty and freedom. He may come without name, fame, or property, and he is received with open arms. After a brief residence, he is entitled to full citizenship, and is then a part of the government, enjoying all the rights and privileges of the native born. He is a sharer in the equality possessed by all, the right to share in the government such as the electoral franchise and eligibility to public office. He is possessed of the civil rights enjoyed by all citizens in the equality of material conditions—that is, the right to acquire wealth and all that wealth implies.
Every opportunity for him to achieve success and happiness abounds on every hand, and every incentive to industry and accomplishment awaits him, and, if he is energetic and skilful, there is nothing to hinder him from becoming prosperous, or, in other words, successful in whatever vocation in life he may engage. With qualities that commend themselves to his fellow men, there is no limit to the possibilities of his achievements, and very soon, as has been very often the case, he may become not only wealthy but a leader of men. If, therefore, he is sincere, surely he must agree with me that in view of these conditions this is no place for the Socialist. He must be an ingrate who would fail to appreciate the splendid boon.
Does it not, indeed, sound like a paradox to hear this cry of Socialism still rending the air while every avenue of fortune lies open to everyone? It is a glaring anomaly of the times, an offence to American institutions, a poor return for our national hospitality. Vague and illogical as the theories advanced by the doctrinaires of Socialism are, there runs throughout all their teachings and preachings bitter and radical opposition to individual accumulation of wealth and individual competition in industry.
Socialists would, in other words, fence up the great field of free opportunity, deaden all incentive or inspiration for great achievement and not only curtail, but wholly remove the right to compete and excel and make it impossible to achieve success as the result of individual effort. They would reduce us all to a barren uniformity.
Think of this monstrous proposition! Why, the very thing that the Socialists attack as untenable and wrong in government, namely, individual competition, has done more than anything else to make us what we are as a nation; has kept alive the precious fires of liberty and freedom, and preserved the institutions of our country. Take away the progressive spirit of Individualism from the people, and you at once eliminate the American spirit—the love of freedom—of free industry—and free and unfettered opportunity—you take away indeed freedom itself!
The state of society the Socialists seek to establish might be beneficial to a class which, under any conditions, lacks frugality, thrift and self-reliance; but just where the general mass of humanity would be bettered or elevated socially, morally or politically, is a point not satisfactorily explained, and never will be.
If you render equally accessible to each and every member of the human family the benefits of civilization, all holding “properly in common,” why should a man rack his brain or strain his muscles in producing something which he expects to prove remunerative or beneficial to himself in some way, but which under the Socialistic state would contribute to the equal financial benefit of all? The highway to distinction and opulence would be closed.
As illustrating the inconsistency of some poor specimens of human nature, when put to the test of Socialism, I will tell two stories:
Jerry Sullivan had proclaimed himself a Socialist, and was being interviewed by his friend, Mike Casey.
“Jerry, do you believe in dividing up everything with your neighbor?”
“Indeed, and I do that.”
“If you had two horses (Jerry had none) would you give one to your neighbor Flanagan?”
“I’d be only too glad to.”
“And if you had two automobiles, would you give him one?”
“Sure, Mike, I would. We should have share and share alike in this world.”
“And if you had two Angora goats (which Jerry did have) would you give one to Flanagan?”
“What, give him one of my goats! Not by a jugful! Let Barney Flanagan buy his own goats.”
One of my millionaire clients, on his return from a trip abroad, called upon me to pay his respects. In the course of our conversation he said he had become a confirmed Socialist. I expressed surprise, and said, “Then, of course, you are going to divide up all your properly with your less fortunate associates?” He said, “Oh no, but I want all the other fellows to do it.”
The most commendable object in Socialism is the uplifting of the down-trodden and poor, yet that great Commoner and Tribune of the People, William Jennings Bryan, tells us that under Individualism we have seen a constant increase in altruism. That the fact that the individual can select the object of his benevolence and devote his means to the causes that appeal to him has given an additional stimulus to his endeavors. And Mr. Bryan pointedly asks the question: “Would this stimulus be as great under Socialism?” Let it not be forgotten that by means of present tendencies and existing economic laws the poor are constantly growing richer, that is, better off, particularly as indicated by the savings bank deposits. The common people and the savings banks were never before so prosperous as they are now. Labor has made great strides, and the uplift in the lower walks of life in all Christendom during this generation and particularly during the past twenty years has been beyond precedent. Give us wise and just legislation, and complaints of the inequitable distribution of wealth will quickly disappear. Let us put down and keep down the revolutionary Socialists and Anarchists.
Of course, if the unrest of a people is prompted by a desire to promote the good of the greatest number of their fellow beings it will be productive of lasting benefit to all in the long run. But if any combination of capitalists, laborers, politicians, or religious bodies, has for its aim the particular good of only a certain class or party, such action as they take will be prompted by selfish desire, and will work for evil and injustice. The great mass of the people of this country, outside of the big cities, are not allied with either the members of labor unions or the very large capitalists, and the feeling of discontent is largely bred in cities, where it is magnified by the prominence given to it by agitators and the newspapers.
The wage earner in the cities is more or less disheartened by the high prices of food supplies, the higher rents and the higher rates of interest on mortgages, and he argues that his pay has not advanced in the same proportion as the price of home necessaries. Mechanics and other laboring men are receiving higher average wages than ever before, but the display of wealth in modern palaces for the rich, and the abundance of automobile and kindred luxuries among them, have kindled envy and whetted their desire for things beyond their means or hopes of attainment. While no law can change the nature of a man, and while we cannot expect an ambitious man with an elastic conscience to always become a benefactor, or a labor union leader, filled with hate, to become a saint, I hope that the agitation now existing may lead in time to a more general observance of the Golden Rule, to do unto others as we would they should do unto us.
I may say here that I believe nine-tenths of the dissatisfaction of the masses is based upon mistaken ideas. Few men are capable of judging impartially of the rights or the motives which actuate those upon whom Fortune has smiled: Success may be often a matter of luck and opportunity; but it cannot be denied that judgment, mental force and courage are the factors which are bound to insure success.
I now speak not only of success from a monetary standpoint—for many of our most useful, intelligent and influential citizens are comparatively poor—but of all success. Our larger cities are the hotbeds of unrest. The older generation, being anxious that their sons shall have more, and know more, than themselves, and enjoy the good things in life which they have desired but have not been able to obtain, now try to give their children a liberal education and fit them for what they consider more congenial or higher-class occupations than their own.
The outcome of this is that the younger men, when their education is completed, drift into the cities, where they think they have a better chance of getting on in life. It is the same with farmers, laborers and mechanics. Their children desire to rise above their early environments, and wish to occupy positions where they can use their brains rather than their hands. Hence the many deserted farms in New England and in the State of New York, for poor soil is not sufficient cause for their desertion. It can be made good by fertilizers, and where there’s a will there’s a way.
This discontent is producing a superfluity of clerks and other brain workers, who think work with the head more genteel than work with the hands, and a great shortage of farm workers that are needed to develop our agricultural resources. Even the children of the most ignorant foreigners are imbued with this ambition before they are able to speak our language. Too many despise honest labor and want to live by their wits. So we have a vast host of surplus politicians, office-seekers, promoters, brokers, lawyers, clerks, canvassers and drones.
In olden days the young were willing to follow in the footsteps of the old, and begin life where their fathers began. Now they expect to begin where their fathers leave off, and are dissatisfied and disappointed if they find that they have to start from the foot of the ladder.
What we most need in this country to promote and popularize farm and village life, and check the general tendency of both young men and young women to drift to the large cities, is a change in our educational system. We should establish trade schools everywhere to teach the trades and practical sciences, and so make country-bred people proficient in occupations that they could follow on the farm, and in village as well as town life. This knowledge would induce them to stay where they were born, instead of rushing off to make or mar their fortunes in the overcrowded cities where many come to grief. Thus the congestion of population in the cities would be relieved, and the country generally would be able to retain the men and women it needs for its industries that are now held in check by an insufficiency of labor. In this way we might gain millions of good mechanics and other useful workmen where they are most needed, and reduce the number of the inefficient and unemployed in the cities, to say nothing of the chronic idlers and the sporting, gambling and criminal classes. Men instructed for the professions would of course still study in the colleges, but the masses have no use to which they can put the higher education of even the high schools.
There are a lot of well-meaning theorists engaged in so-called Social reform who are largely responsible for many things that add to the unrest in the poorer sections of our cities. Far be it from me to criticize anyone who has the desire to better the condition of his less fortunate brothers, but the work of many of these reformers reminds me of the man who threw a panful of kerosene on a small fire with the idea of putting out the flames. To be a true Social reformer a man must be well informed on conditions which obtain on all sides of life. A rich man may have acquired wealth by miserly habits, but if he has not been dishonest he is entitled to his savings, and no law can compel him to divide with the poor man who has been profligate in the use of his earnings. The thousands of immigrants who arrive at our ports each week are, for the most part, poor and ignorant. The greater number of them remain in our cities and add to the congestion and widespread poverty of the cities. But these same immigrants are willing to work, and in a year or two, instead of being a charge upon the community, have savings bank accounts of their own. However, they are ripe for the reception of the gospel of unrest, as they have lived hitherto in places where the poor are always poor, with no lookout for improvement, and willingly listen to the agitator and prophet of discontent. Mr. Roosevelt has said and done things in the last four years which have shaken our land. Many investors have thought that he had gone too far in his insistence that the law should be rigidly enforced, as they, innocent holders of securities, had been made to suffer loss by the depression in prices. While it is hard that such losses should have been incurred, it is no fault of the President, and his action, in the long run, is to be of untold value to our national and individual prosperity. If his actions will insure the fulfillment of the law by the magnates in power in our railroads and corporations, the little man will be on a par with the big man, and all investments will be on a safer basis, and the dark secrets of the manipulator will give place to the open publication of rates and earnings so that a stockholder will know where he stands and what his company is doing.