diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/65693-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/65693-0.txt | 20172 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 20172 deletions
diff --git a/old/65693-0.txt b/old/65693-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index c6ac8e7..0000000 --- a/old/65693-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,20172 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Forgotten Man and Other Essays, by -William Graham Sumner, Edited by Albert Galloway Keller - - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - - -Title: The Forgotten Man and Other Essays - - -Author: William Graham Sumner - -Editor: Albert Galloway Keller - -Release Date: June 25, 2021 [eBook #65693] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE FORGOTTEN MAN AND OTHER -ESSAYS*** - - -E-text prepared by Tim Lindell, Charlie Howard, and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made -available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org) - - - -Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this - file which includes the original illustration. - See 65693-h.htm or 65693-h.zip: - (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/65693/65693-h/65693-h.htm) - or - (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/65693/65693-h.zip) - - - Images of the original pages are available through - Internet Archive. See - https://archive.org/details/forgottenmanothe00sumn - - -Transcriber’s note: - - Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_). - - Text in heavy tyoe is enclosed by equal signs (=heavy type=). - - - - - -[Illustration: - - _William Graham Sumner_ - [1907]] - - -THE FORGOTTEN MAN AND OTHER ESSAYS - -by - -WILLIAM GRAHAM SUMNER - -Edited by Albert Galloway Keller - - -[Illustration] - - - - - - -New Haven -Yale University Press -London: Humphrey Milford -Oxford University Press -MDCCCCXVIII - -Copyright, 1919, -by Yale University Press - - - - -PREFACE - - -With the present collection the publication of Sumner’s Essays comes to -an end. The original project of publishers and editor contemplated but -a single volume--“War and Other Essays”--and they accordingly equipped -that volume with a bibliography which was as complete as they then -could make it. But when, later on, other materials came to be known -about, and especially after the discovery of a number of unpublished -manuscripts, the encouraging reception accorded to the first venture -led us to publish a second, and then a third collection: “Earth Hunger -and Other Essays” and “The Challenge of Facts and Other Essays.” It was -during the preparation of the latter of these, now some five years ago, -that the late Professor Callender deplored to the editor the omission -of certain of Sumner’s essays in political economy--in particular those -dealing with free trade and sound money. And the reviewers of preceding -collections had reminded us, rightly enough, that there should be a -fuller bibliography and also an index covering all the essays. - -In this last volume we have striven to meet these several suggestions -and criticisms. And it is now the purpose of the publishers to form -of these singly issued volumes a set of four, numbered in the order -of their issue. Since the series could not have been planned as such -at the outset, this purpose is in the nature of an after-thought; -and there is therefore no general organization or systematic -classification by volumes. In so far as classification is possible, -under the circumstances, it is made by way of the index. This and the -bibliography are the work of Dr. M. R. Davie; and are but a part of the -service he has performed in the interest of an intellectual master whom -he could know only through the printed word and the medium of another -man. - -Sumner’s dominant interest in political economy, as revealed in his -teaching and writing, issued in a doughty advocacy of “free trade and -hard money,” and involved the relentless exposure of protectionism -and of schemes of currency-debasement. As conveying his estimate of -protectionism, it is only fitting that his little book on “The -Ism -which teaches that Waste makes Wealth” should be recalled from an -obscurity that it does not deserve; it is typical of the author’s most -vigorous period and witnesses to the acerbity of a former issue that -may recur. In default of a single, comprehensive companion-piece in the -field of finance, and one making as interesting reading, it has been -necessary to confine selection to several rather brief articles, most -of them dating from the campaign of 1896. In the choice of all economic -essays I have been guided by the advice of my colleague, Professor F. -R. Fairchild, a fellow-student under Sumner and a fellow-admirer of his -character and career. Professor S. L. Mims also has been generous in -his aid. I do not need to thank either of these men, for what they did -was a labor of gratitude and love. - -The title essay will be found at the end of the volume. It is the -once-famous lecture on “The Forgotten Man,” and is here printed for -the first time. When “War and Other Essays” was being prepared, we -had no knowledge of the existence of this manuscript lecture; and, in -order to bring into what we supposed was to be a one-volume collection -this character-creation of Sumner’s, one often alluded to in modern -writings, we reprinted two chapters from “What Social Classes Owe to -Each Other.” It has been found impracticable in later reprintings of -Vol. I to replace those chapters with the more complete essay; and we -have therefore decided to reproduce the latter, despite the certain -degree of repetition involved, rather than leave it out of the series. -In view of the fact that Sumner has been more widely known, perhaps, as -the creator and advocate of the “Forgotten Man,” than as the author of -any other of his works, we entitle this volume “The Forgotten Man and -Other Essays.” - -Several essays not of an economic order have been included because they -have come to my knowledge within the last few years and have seemed to -me to call for preservation. It is almost impossible to fix the dates -of such manuscript essays, for I have not been able in all cases to -secure information from persons who might be able to identify times and -occasions. And there remain a good number of articles and manuscripts, -published or unpublished, which can receive no more than mention, with -a word of characterization, in the bibliography. - -Some mention ought to be made here of a large body of hand-written -manuscript left by Sumner and representing the work of several -years--1899 to 1905 or thereabouts--upon a systematic treatise on “The -Science of Society.” Printed as it was left, partially and unevenly -completed and with many small and some wide hiatuses, this manuscript -would make several substantial volumes. It is a monument of industry, -involving, as it did, the collection over many years of thousands of -notes and memoranda, and the extraction from the same, by a sort of -_tour de force_, of generalizations intended to be set forth, with the -support of copious evidence, in the form of a survey of the evolution -and life of human society. These manuscripts, as left, represent no -more than a preliminary survey of a wide field, together with more -elaborately worked out chartings of sections of that field. The -author planned to re-write the whole in the light of “Folkways.” The -continuation, modification, and completion of this enterprise, in -something approaching the form contemplated by its author, must needs -be, if at all possible, a long task. - -As one surveys, through these volumes of essays, the various phases -of scholarly and literary activity of their author, and then recalls -the teaching, both extensive and intensive, done by him with such -unremitting devotion to what he regarded as his first duty--and when -one thinks, yet again, of his labors in connection with college -and university administration, with the Connecticut State Board of -Education, and in other lines--it is hard to understand where one man -got the time, with all his ability and energy, to accomplish all this. -In the presence of evidence of such incessant and unswerving industry, -scarcely interrupted by the ill-health that overtook Sumner at about -the age of fifty, an ordinary person feels a sense of oppression and of -bewilderment, and is almost willing to subscribe to the old, hopeless -tradition that “there were giants in those days.” - -In the preparation of this set of books the editor has been constantly -sustained and encouraged by the interest and sympathy of the woman who -stood by the author’s side through life, and to whom anything that had -to do with the preservation of his memory was thereby just, perfect, -and altogether praiseworthy. The completion of this editorial task -would be the more satisfying if she were still among us to receive the -final offering. - - A. G. KELLER. - - WEST BOOTHBAY HARBOR, ME., - September 1, 1918. - - - - -CONTENTS - - - PAGE - PREFACE 3 - - PROTECTIONISM, THE -ISM WHICH TEACHES THAT WASTE MAKES - WEALTH (1885) 9 - - TARIFF REFORM (1888) 115 - - WHAT IS FREE TRADE? (1886) 123 - - PROTECTIONISM TWENTY YEARS AFTER (1906) 131 - - PROSPERITY STRANGLED BY GOLD (1896) 141 - - CAUSE AND CURE OF HARD TIMES (1896) 149 - - THE FREE-COINAGE SCHEME IS IMPRACTICABLE AT EVERY POINT - (1896) 157 - - THE DELUSION OF THE DEBTORS (1896) 165 - - THE CRIME OF 1873 (1896) 173 - - A CONCURRENT CIRCULATION OF GOLD AND SILVER (1878) 183 - - THE INFLUENCE OF COMMERCIAL CRISES ON OPINIONS ABOUT ECONOMIC - DOCTRINES (1879) 213 - - THE PHILOSOPHY OF STRIKES (1883) 239 - - STRIKES AND THE INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION (1887) 249 - - TRUSTS AND TRADES-UNIONS (1888) 257 - - AN OLD “TRUST” (1889) 265 - - SHALL AMERICANS OWN SHIPS? (1881) 273 - - POLITICS IN AMERICA, 1776–1876 (1876) 285 - - THE ADMINISTRATION OF ANDREW JACKSON (1880) 337 - - THE COMMERCIAL CRISIS OF 1837 (1877 OR 1878) 371 - - THE SCIENCE OF SOCIOLOGY (1882) 401 - - INTEGRITY IN EDUCATION 409 - - DISCIPLINE 423 - - THE COÖPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 441 - - THE FORGOTTEN MAN (1883) 465 - - BIBLIOGRAPHY 499 - - INDEX 521 - - - - -PROTECTIONISM - -THE -ISM WHICH TEACHES THAT WASTE MAKES WEALTH - -[1885] - - -PREFACE - -During the last fifteen years we have had two great questions to -discuss: the restoration of the currency and civil-service reform. -Neither of these questions has yet reached a satisfactory solution, -but both are on the way toward such a result. The next great effort to -strip off the evils entailed on us by the Civil War will consist in the -repeal of those taxes which one man was enabled to levy on another, -under cover of the taxes which the government had to lay to carry on -the war. I have taken my share in the discussion of the first two -questions, and I expect to take my share in the discussion of the third. - -I have written this book as a contribution to a popular agitation. -I have not troubled myself to keep or to throw off scientific or -professional dignity. I have tried to make my point as directly and -effectively as I could for the readers whom I address, _viz._, the -intelligent voters of all degrees of general culture, who need to -have it explained to them what protectionism is and how it works. I -have therefore pushed the controversy just as hard as I could, and -have used plain language, just as I have always done before in what I -have written on this subject. I must therefore forego the hope that -I have given any more pleasure now than formerly to the advocates of -protectionism. - -Protectionism seems to me to deserve only contempt and scorn, satire -and ridicule. It is such an arrant piece of economic quackery, and it -masquerades under such an affectation of learning and philosophy, that -it ought to be treated as other quackeries are treated. Still, out of -deference to its strength in the traditions and lack of information of -many people, I have here undertaken a patient and serious exposition of -it. Satire and derision remain reserved for the dogmatic protectionists -and the sentimental protectionists; the Philistine protectionists and -those who hold the key of all knowledge; the protectionists of stupid -good faith and those who know their dogma is a humbug and are therefore -irritated at the exposure of it; the protectionists by birth and -those by adoption; the protectionists for hire and those by election; -the protectionists by party platform and those by pet newspaper; -the protectionists by “invincible ignorance” and those by vows and -ordination; the protectionists who run colleges and those who want to -burn colleges down; the protectionists by investment and those who sin -against light; the hopeless ones who really believe in British gold and -dread the Cobden Club, and the dishonest ones who storm about those -things without believing in them; those who may not be answered when -they come into debate, because they are “great” men, or because they -are “old” men, or because they have stock in certain newspapers, or are -trustees of certain colleges. All these have honored me personally, -in this controversy, with more or less of their particular attention. -I confess that it has cost me something to leave their cases out of -account, but to deal with them would have been a work of entertainment, -not of utility. - -Protectionism arouses my moral indignation. It is a subtle, cruel, and -unjust invasion of one man’s rights by another. It is done by force -of law. It is at the same time a social abuse, an economic blunder, -and a political evil. The moral indignation which it causes is the -motive which draws me away from the scientific pursuits which form my -real occupation, and forces me to take part in a popular agitation. -The doctrine of a “call” applies in such a case, and every man is -bound to take just so great a share as falls in his way. That is why I -have given more time than I could afford to popular lectures on this -subject, and it is why I have now put the substance of those lectures -into this book. - - W. G. S. - - -CHAPTER I - -DEFINITIONS: STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION TO BE INVESTIGATED - -(_A_) THE SYSTEM OF WHICH PROTECTION IS A SURVIVAL. - -1. The statesmen of the eighteenth century supposed that their business -was the art of national prosperity. Their procedure was to form ideals -of political greatness and civil prosperity on the one hand, and to -evolve out of their own consciousness grand dogmas of human happiness -and social welfare on the other hand. Then they tried to devise -specific means for connecting these two notions with each other. Their -ideals of political greatness contained, as predominant elements, a -brilliant court, a refined and elegant aristocracy, well-developed fine -arts and _belles lettres_, a powerful army and navy, and a peaceful, -obedient, and hard-working peasantry and artisan class to pay the taxes -and support the other part of the political structure. In this ideal -the lower ranks paid upward, and the upper ranks blessed downward, and -all were happy together. The great political and social dogmas of the -period were exotic and incongruous. They were borrowed or accepted from -the classical authorities. Of course the dogmas were chiefly held and -taught by the philosophers, but, as the century ran its course, they -penetrated the statesman class. The statesman who had had no purpose -save to serve the “grandeur” of the king, or to perpetuate a dynasty, -gave way to statesmen who had strong national feeling and national -ideals, and who eagerly sought means to realize their ideals. Having as -yet no definite notion, based on facts of observation and experience, -of what a human society or a nation is, and no adequate knowledge -of the nature and operation of social forces, they were driven to -empirical processes which they could not test, or measure, or verify. -They piled device upon device and failure upon failure. When one -device failed of its intended purpose and produced an unforeseen evil, -they invented a new device to prevent the new evil. The new device -again failed to prevent, and became a cause of a new harm, and so on -indefinitely. - -2. Among their devices for industrial prosperity were (1) export taxes -on raw materials, to make raw materials abundant and cheap at home; (2) -bounties on the export of finished products, to make the exports large; -(3) taxes on imported commodities to make the imports small, and thus, -with No. 2, to make the “balance of trade” favorable, and to secure -an importation of specie; (4) taxes or prohibition on the export of -machinery, so as not to let foreigners have the advantage of domestic -inventions; (5) prohibition on the emigration of skilled laborers, -lest they should carry to foreign rivals knowledge of domestic arts; -(6) monopolies to encourage enterprise; (7) navigation laws to foster -ship-building or the carrying trade, and to provide sailors for the -navy; (8) a colonial system to bring about by political force the very -trade which the other devices had destroyed by economic interference; -(9) laws for fixing wages and prices to repress the struggle of the -non-capitalist class to save themselves in the social press; (10) -poor-laws to lessen the struggle by another outlet; (11) extravagant -criminal laws to try to suppress another development of this struggle -by terror; and so on, and so on. - - -(_B_) OLD AND NEW CONCEPTIONS OF THE STATE. - -3. Here we have a complete illustration of one mode of looking at human -society, or at a state. Such society is, on this view, an artificial -or mechanical product. It is an object to be molded, made, produced -by contrivance. Like every product which is brought out by working up -to an ideal instead of working out from antecedent truth and fact, -the product here is haphazard, grotesque, false. Like every other -product which is brought out by working on lines fixed by _a priori_ -assumptions, it is a satire on human foresight and on what we call -common sense. Such a state is like a house of cards, built up anxiously -one upon another, ready to fall at a breath, to be credited at most -with naïve hope and silly confidence; or, it is like the long and -tedious contrivance of a mischievous schoolboy, for an end which has -been entirely misappreciated and was thought desirable when it should -have been thought a folly; or, it is like the museum of an alchemist, -filled with specimens of his failures, monuments of mistaken industry -and testimony of an erroneous method; or, it is like the clumsy product -of an untrained inventor, who, instead of asking: “what means have -I, and to what will they serve?” asks: “what do I wish that I could -accomplish?” and seeks to win steps by putting in more levers and cogs, -increasing friction and putting the solution ever farther off. - -4. Of course such a notion of a state is at war with the conception -of a state as a seat of original forces which must be reckoned with -all the time; as an organism whose life will go on anyhow, perverted, -distorted, diseased, vitiated as it may be by obstructions or -coercions; as a seat of life in which nothing is ever lost, but every -antecedent combines with every other and has its share in the immediate -resultant, and again in the next resultant, and so on indefinitely; -as the domain of activities so great that they should appall any -one who dares to interfere with them; of instincts so delicate and -self-preservative that it should be only infinite delight to the wisest -man to see them come into play, and his sufficient glory to give them a -little intelligent assistance. If a state well performed its functions -of providing peace, order, and security, as _conditions_ under which -the people could live and work, it would be the proudest proof of its -triumphant success that it had nothing to do--that all went so smoothly -that it had only to look on and was never called to interfere; just -as it is the test of a good business man that his business runs on -smoothly and prosperously while he is not harassed or hurried. The -people who think that it is proof of enterprise to meddle and “fuss” -may believe that a good state will constantly interfere and regulate, -and they may regard the other type of state as “non-government.” The -state can do a great deal more than to discharge police functions. If -it will _follow_ custom, and the growth of social structure to provide -for new social needs, it can powerfully aid the production of structure -by laying down lines of common action, where nothing is needed but -_some_ common action on conventional lines; or, it can systematize a -number of arrangements which are not at their maximum utility for want -of concord; or, it can give sanction to new rights which are constantly -created by new relations under new social organizations, and so on. - -5. The latter idea of the state has only begun to win way. All history -and sociology bear witness to its comparative truth, at least when -compared with the former. Under the new conception of the state, of -course liberty means breaking off the fetters and trammels which the -“wisdom” of the past has forged, and _laissez-faire_, or “let alone,” -becomes a cardinal maxim of statesmanship, because it means: “Cease -the empirical process. Institute the scientific process. Let the state -come back to normal health and activity, so that you can study it, -learn something about it from an observation of its phenomena, and -then regulate your action in regard to it by intelligent knowledge.” -Statesmen suited to this latter type of state have not yet come forward -in any great number. The new radical statesmen show no disposition to -let their neighbors alone. They think that they have come into power -just because they know what their neighbors need to have done to them. -Statesmen of the old type, who told people that they knew how to make -everybody happy, and that they were going to do it, were always far -better paid than any of the new type ever will be, and their failures -never cost them public confidence either. We have got tired of kings, -priests, nobles and soldiers, not because they failed to make us all -happy, but because our _a priori_ dogmas have changed fashion. We have -put the administration of the state in the hands of lawyers, editors, -_littérateurs_, and professional politicians, and they are by no means -disposed to abdicate the functions of their predecessors, or to abandon -the practice of the art of national prosperity. The chief difference is -that, whereas the old statesmen used to temper the practice of their -art with care for the interests of the kings and aristocracies which -put them in power, the new statesmen feel bound to serve those sections -of the population which have put them where they are. - -6. Some of the old devices above enumerated (§ 2) are, however, out -of date, or are becoming obsolete.[1] Number 3, taxes on imports for -other than fiscal purposes, is not among this number. Just now such -taxes seem to be coming back into fashion, or to be enjoying a certain -revival. It is a sign of the deficiency of our sociology as compared -with our other sciences that such a phenomenon could be presented in -the last quarter of the nineteenth century, as a certain revival of -faith in the efficiency of taxes on imports as a device for producing -national prosperity. There is not a single one of the eleven devices -mentioned above, including taxes on the exportation of machinery and -prohibitions on emigration, which is not quite as rational and sound as -taxes on imports. - -I now propose to analyze and criticize protectionism. - - -(_C_) DEFINITION OF PROTECTIONISM--DEFINITION OF “THEORY.” - -7. By protection_ism_ I mean the doctrine of protective taxes as -a device to be employed in the art of national prosperity. The -protectionists are fond of representing themselves as “practical” -and the free traders as “theorists.” “Theory” is indeed one of the -most abused words in the language, and the scientists are partly -to blame for it. They have allowed the word to come into use, even -among themselves, for _a conjectural explanation_, or _a speculative -conjecture_, or _a working hypothesis_, or _a project which has not -yet been tested by experiment_, or _a plausible and harmless theorem -about transcendental relations_, or _about the way in which men will -act under certain motives_. The newspapers seem often to use the word -“theoretical” as if they meant by it imaginary or fictitious. I use the -word “theory,” however, not in distinction from fact, but, in what I -understand to be the correct scientific use of the word, to denote _a -rational description of a group of coördinated facts in their sequence -and relations_. A theory may, for a special purpose, describe only -certain features of facts and disregard others. Hence “in practice,” -where facts present themselves in all their complexity, he who has -carelessly neglected the limits of his theory may be astonished at -phenomena which present themselves; but his astonishment will be due to -a blunder on his part, and will not be an imputation on the theory. - -8. Now free trade is not a theory in any sense of the word. _It is -only a mode of liberty_; one form of the assault (and therefore -negative) which the expanding intelligence of the present is making on -the trammels which it has inherited from the past. Inside the United -States, absolute free trade exists over a continent. No one thinks -of it or realizes it. No one “feels” it. We feel only constraint -and oppression. If we get liberty we reflect on it only so long as -the memory of constraint endures. I have again and again seen the -astonishment with which people realized the fact when presented to them -that they have been living under free trade all their lives and never -thought of it. When the whole world shall obtain and enjoy free trade -there will be nothing more to be said about it; it will disappear from -discussion and reflection; it will disappear from the text-books on -political economy as the chapters on slavery are disappearing; it will -be as strange for men to think that they might _not_ have free trade as -it would be now for an American to think that he might not travel in -this country without a passport, or that there ever was a chance that -the soil of our western states might be slave soil and not free soil. -It would be as reasonable to apply the word “theory” to the protestant -reformation, or to law reform, or to anti-slavery, or to the separation -of church and state, or to popular rights, or to any other campaign in -the great struggle which we call liberty and progress, as to apply it -to free trade. The pro-slavery men formerly did apply it to abolition, -and with excellent reason, if the use of it which I have criticized -ever was correct; for it required great power of realizing in -imagination the results of social change, and great power to follow and -trust abstract reasoning, for any man bred under slavery to realize, in -advance of experiment, the social and economic gain to be won--_most -of all for the whites_--by emancipation. It now requires great power -of “theoretical conception” for people who have no experience of the -separation of church and state to realize its benefits and justice. -Similar observations would hold true of all similar reforms. Free trade -is a revolt, a conflict, a reform, a reaction and recuperation of the -body politic, just as free conscience, free worship, free speech, free -press, and free soil have been. It is in no sense a theory. - -9. Protectionism is not a theory in the correct sense of the term, but -it comes under some of the popular and incorrect uses of the word. It -is purely dogmatic and _a priori_. It is desired to attain a certain -object--wealth and national prosperity. Protective taxes are proposed -as a means. It must be assumed that there is some connection between -protective taxes and national prosperity, some relation of cause and -effect, some sequence of expended energy and realized product, between -protective taxes and national wealth. If then by theory we mean a -speculative conjecture as to occult relations which have not been and -cannot be traced in experience, protection would be a capital example. -Another and parallel example was furnished by astrology, which assumed -a causal relation between the movements of the planets and the fate -of men, and built up quite an art of soothsaying on this assumption. -Another example, paralleling protectionism in another feature, was -alchemy, which, accepting as unquestionable the notion that we want -to transmute lead into gold if we can, assumed that there was a -philosopher’s stone, and set to work to find it through centuries of -repetition of the method of “trial and failure.” - -10. _Protectionism, then, is an_ ISM; that is, it is a doctrine -or system of doctrine which offers no demonstration, and rests -upon no facts, but appeals to faith on grounds of its _a priori_ -reasonableness, or the plausibility with which it can be set forth. -Of course, if a man should say: “I am in favor of protective taxes -because they bring gain to me. That is all I care to know about them, -and I shall get them retained as long as I can”--there is no trouble -in understanding him, and there is no use in arguing with him. So far -as he is concerned, the only thing to do is to find his victims and -explain the matter to them. The only thing which can be discussed is -the doctrine of national wealth by protective taxes. This doctrine -has the forms of an economic theory. It vies with the doctrine of -labor and capital as a part of the science of production. Its avowed -purpose is impersonal and disinterested--the same, in fact, as that -of political economy. It is not, like free trade, a mere negative -position against an inherited system, to which one is led by a study of -political economy. It is a species of political economy, and aims at -the throne of the science itself. If it is true, it is not a corollary, -but a postulate, on which, and by which, all political economy must be -constructed. - -11. But then, lo! if the dogma which constitutes -protectionism--_national wealth can be produced by protective taxes -and cannot be produced without them_--is enunciated, instead of going -on to a science of political economy based upon it, the science falls -dead on the spot. What can be said about production, population, land, -money, exchange, labor and all the rest? What can the economist learn -or do? What function is there for the university or school? There is -nothing to do but to go over to the art of legislation, and get the -legislator to put on the taxes. The only questions which can arise are -as to the number, variety, size, and proportion of the taxes. As to -these questions the economist can offer no light. He has no method of -investigating them. He can deduce no principles, lay down no laws in -regard to them. The legislator must go on in the dark and experiment. -If his taxes do not produce the required result, if there turn out to -be “snakes” in the tariff which he has adopted, he has to change it. If -the result still fails, change it again. Protectionism bars the science -of political economy with a dogma, and the only process of the art -of statesmanship to which it leads is eternal trial and failure--the -process of the alchemist and of the inventor of perpetual motion. - - -(_D_) DEFINITION OF FREE TRADE AND OF A PROTECTIVE DUTY. - -12. What then is a protective tax? In order to join issue as directly -as possible, I will quote the definitions given by a leading -protectionist journal,[2] of both free trade and protection. “The term -‘free trade,’ although much discussed, is seldom rightly defined. -It does not mean the abolition of custom houses. Nor does it mean -the substitution of direct for indirect taxation, as a few American -disciples of the school have supposed. It means such an adjustment -of taxes on imports as will cause no diversion of capital, from any -channel into which it would otherwise flow, into any channel opened -or favored by the legislation which enacts the customs. A country -may collect its entire revenue by duties on imports, and yet be an -entirely free trade country, so long as it does not lay those duties -in such a way as to lead any one to undertake any employment, or make -any investment he would avoid in the absence of such duties: thus, the -customs duties levied by England--with a very few exceptions--are not -inconsistent with her profession of being a country which believes -in free trade. They either are duties on articles not produced in -England, or they are exactly equivalent to the excise duties levied -on the same articles if made at home. They do not lead any one to put -his money into the home production of an article, because they do not -discriminate in favor of the home producer.” - -13. “A protective duty, on the other hand, has for its object to effect -the diversion of a part of the capital and labor of the people out of -the channels in which it would run otherwise, into channels favored or -created by law.” - -I know of no definitions of these two things which have ever been made -by anybody which are more correct than these. I accept them and join -issue on them. - - -(_E_) PROTECTIONISM RAISES A PURELY DOMESTIC CONTROVERSY. - -14. It will be noticed that this definition of a protective duty -says nothing about foreigners or about imports. According to -this definition, a protective duty is a device for effecting a -transformation in our own industry. If a tax is levied at the port -of entry on a foreign commodity which is actually imported, the tax -is paid to the treasury and produces revenue. A protective tax is -one which is laid to act as a bar to importation, in order to keep a -foreign commodity out. It does not act protectively unless it does act -as a bar, and is not a tax on imports but an obstruction to imports. -Hence a protective duty is a wall to inclose the domestic producer and -consumer, and to prevent the latter from having access to any other -source of supply for his needs, in exchange for his products, than -that one which the domestic producer controls. The purpose and plan of -the device is to enable the domestic producer to levy on the domestic -consumer the taxes which the government has set up as a barrier, -but has not collected at the port of entry. Under this device the -government says: “I do not want the revenue, but I will lay the tax so -that you, the selected and favored producer, may collect it.” “I do not -need to tax the consumer for myself, but I will hold him for you while -you tax him.” - - -(_F_) “A PROTECTIVE DUTY IS NOT A TAX.” - -15. There are some who say that “a tariff is not a tax,” or as one of -them said before a Congressional Committee: “We do not like to call it -so!” That certainly is the most humorous of all the funny things in -the tariff controversy. If a tariff is not a tax, what is it? In what -category does it belong? No protectionist has ever yet told. They seem -to think of it as a thing by itself, a Power, a Force, a sort of Mumbo -Jumbo whose special function it is to produce national prosperity. They -do not appear to have analyzed it, or given themselves an account of -it, sufficiently to know what kind of a thing it is or how it acts. Any -one who says that it is not a tax must suppose that it costs nothing, -that it produces an effect without an expenditure of energy. They do -seem to think that if Congress will say: “Let a tax of ---- per cent -be laid on article A,” and if none is imported, and therefore no tax -is paid at the custom house, national industry will be benefited and -wealth secured, and that there will be no cost or outgo. If that is so, -then the tariff is magic. We have found the philosopher’s stone. Our -congressmen wave a magic wand over the country and say: “Not otherwise -provided for, one hundred and fifty per cent,” and, presto! there we -have wealth. Again they say: “Fifty cents a yard and fifty per cent -_ad valorem_”; and there we have prosperity! If we should build a wall -along the coast to keep foreigners and their goods out, it would cost -something. If we maintained a navy to blockade our own coast for the -same purpose, it would cost something. Yet it is imagined that if we -do the same by a tax it costs nothing. - -16. This is the fundamental fallacy of protection to which the analysis -will bring us back again and again. Scientifically stated, it is that -_protectionism sins against the conservation of energy_. More simply -stated, it is that _the protectionist either never sees or does not -tell the other side of the account, the cost, the outlay for the gains -which he alleges from protection, and that when these are examined and -weighed they are sure vastly to exceed the gains, if the gains were -real_, even taking no account of the harm to national growth which is -done by restriction and interference. - -17. There are only three ways in which a man can part with his product, -and different kinds of taxes fall under different modes of alienating -one’s goods. First, he may exchange his product for the product of -others. Then he parts with his property voluntarily, and for an -equivalent. Taxes which are paid for peace, order, and security, fall -under this head. Secondly, he may give his product away. Then he parts -with it voluntarily without an equivalent. Taxes which are voluntarily -paid for schools, libraries, parks, etc., fall under this head. -Thirdly, he may be robbed of it. Then he parts with it involuntarily -and without an equivalent. Taxes which are protective fall under this -head. The analysis is exhaustive, and there is no other place for them. -Protective taxes are those which a man pays to his neighbor to hire -him (the neighbor) to carry on his own business. The first man gets -no equivalent (§ 108). Hence any one who says that a tariff is not a -tax would have to put it in some such category as tribute, plunder, or -robbery. In order, then, that we may not give any occasion for even an -unjust charge of using hard words, let us go back and call it a tax. - -18. In any case it is plain that _we have before us the case of two -Americans_. The protectionists who try to discuss the subject always -go off to talk English politics and history, or Ireland, or India, -or Turkey. I shall not follow them. I shall discuss the case between -two Americans, which is the only case there is. Whether Englishmen -like our tariff or not is of no consequence. As a matter of fact, -Englishmen seem to have come to the opinion that if Americans will take -their own home market as their share, and will keep out of the world’s -market, they (the Englishmen) will agree to the arrangement; but it is -immaterial whether they agree, or are angry. The only question for us -is: What kind of an arrangement is it for one American to tax another -American? How does it work? Who gains by it? How does it affect our -national prosperity? These and these only are the questions which I -intend to discuss. - -19. I shall adopt _two different lines of investigation_. First, -I shall examine protectionism on its own claims and pretensions, -taking its doctrines and claims for true, and following them out to -see whether they will produce the promised results; and secondly, I -shall attack protectionism adversely, and controversially. If any -one proposes a device for the public good, he is entitled to candid -and patient attention, but he is also under obligation to show -how he expects his scheme to work, what forces it will bring into -play, how it will use them, etc. The joint stock principle, credit -institutions, coöperation, and all similar devices must be analyzed -and the explanation of their advantage, if they offer any, must be -sought in the principles which they embody, the forces they employ, -the suitableness of their apparatus. We ought not to put faith in any -device (_e.g._, bi-metalism, socialism) unless the proposers offer an -explanation of it which will bear rigid and pitiless examination; for, -if it is a sound device, such examination will only produce more and -more thorough conviction of its merits. I shall therefore first take -up protectionism just as it is offered, and test it, as any candid -inquirer might do, to see whether, as it is presented by its advocates, -it has any claims to confidence. - - -CHAPTER II - -PROTECTIONISM EXAMINED ON ITS OWN GROUNDS - -20. It is the peculiar irony in all empirical devices in social science -that they not only fail of the effect expected of them, but that -they produce the exact opposite. Paper money is expected to help the -non-capitalist and the debtor and to make business brisk. It ruins the -non-capitalists and the debtors, and reduces industry and commerce -to a standstill. Socialistic devices are expected to bring about -equality and universal happiness. They produce despotism, favoritism, -inequality, and universal misery. The devices are, in their operation, -true to themselves. They act just as an unprejudiced examination of -them should have led any one to expect that they would act, or just as -a limited experience has shown that they must act. If protectionism -is only another case of the same kind, an examination of it on its -own grounds must bring out the fact that it will issue in crippling -industry, diminishing capital, and lowering the average of comfort. Let -us see. - - -(_A_) ASSUMPTIONS IN PROTECTIONISM. - -21. Obviously the doctrine includes two assumptions. The first is, -that if we are left to ourselves, each to choose, under liberty, his -line of industrial effort, and to use his labor and capital, under -the circumstances of the country, as best he can, we shall fail of -our highest prosperity. Secondly, that, if Congress will only tax us -(properly) we can be led up to higher prosperity. Hence it is at once -evident that free trade and protection here are not on a level. No free -trader will affirm that he has a device for making the country rich, or -saving it from hard times, any more than a respectable physician will -tell us that he can give us specifics and preventives to keep us well. -On the contrary, so long as men live they will do foolish things, and -they will have to bear the penalty; but if they are free, they will -commit only the follies which are their own, and they will bear the -penalties only of those. The protectionist begins with the premise that -we shall make mistakes, and that is why he, who knows how to make us go -right, proposes to take us in hand. He is like the doctor who can give -us just the pill we need to “cleanse our blood” and “ward off chills.” -_Hence either prosperity in a free-trade country, or distress in a -protectionist country, is fatal to protectionism_, while distress in -a free-trade country, or prosperity in a protectionist country proves -nothing against free trade. Hence the fallacy of all Mr. R. P. Porter’s -letters is obvious. (§§ 52, 92, 102, 154.) - -22. The device by which we are to be made better than ourselves is to -select some of ourselves, who certainly are not the best business men -among ourselves, to go to Washington, and there turn around and tax -ourselves blindly, or, if not blindly, craftily and selfishly. Surely -this would be the triumph of stupidity and ignorance over intelligent -knowledge, enterprise and energy. The motive which would control each -of us, if we were free, would be the hope of the greatest gain. We -should have to put industry, prudence, economy, and enterprise into -our business. If we failed, it would be through error. How is the -congressional interference to act? How is it to meet and correct our -error? It can appeal to no other motive than desire for profit, and can -only offer us a profit where there was none before, if we will turn out -of the industry which we have selected, into one which we do not know. -It offers a greater profit there only by means of what it takes from -somebody else and somewhere else. Or, is congressional interference to -correct the errors of John, James and William, and to make the idle, -industrious, and the extravagant prudent? Any one who believes it must -believe that the welfare of mankind is not dependent on the reason and -conscience of the interested persons themselves, but on the caprices of -blundering ignorance, embodied in a selected few, or on the trickery of -lobbyists, acting impersonally and at a distance. - - -(_B_) NECESSARY CONDITIONS OF SUCCESSFUL PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION. - -23. Suppose, however, that it were true that Congress had the power -(by some exercise of the taxing function) to influence favorably the -industrial development of the country: is it not true that men of sense -would demand to be satisfied on three points, as follows? - -24. (_a_) If Congress can do this thing, and is going to try it, -_ought it not, in order to succeed, to have a distinct idea of what -it is aiming at and proposes to do_? Who would have confidence in any -man who should set out on an enterprise and who did not satisfy this -condition? Has Congress ever satisfied it? Never. They have never had -any plan or purpose in their tariff legislation. Congress has simply -laid itself open to be acted upon by the interested parties, and the -product of its tariff legislation has been simply the resultant of -the struggles of the interested cliques with each other, and of the -log-rolling combinations which they have been forced to make among -themselves. In 1882 Congress did pay some deference, real or pretended, -to the plain fact that it was bound, if it exercised this mighty -power and responsibility, to bring some intelligence to bear on it, -and it appointed a Tariff Commission which spent several months in -collecting evidence. This Commission was composed, with one exception, -of protectionists. It recommended a reduction of twenty-five per cent -in the tariff, and said: “Early in its deliberations the Commission -became convinced that a substantial reduction of tariff duties is -demanded, not by a mere indiscriminate popular clamor, but by the best -conservative opinion of the country.” “Excessive duties are positively -injurious to the interests which they are supposed to benefit. They -encourage the investment of capital in manufacturing enterprises by -rash and unskilled speculators, to be followed by disaster to the -adventurers and their employees, and a plethora of commodities which -deranges the operations of skilled and prudent enterprise.” (§ 111.) -This report was entirely thrown aside, and Congress, ignoring it -entirely, began again in exactly the old way. The Act of 1883 was not -even framed by or in Congress. It was carried out into the dark, into a -conference committee,[3] where new and gross abuses were put into the -bill under cover of a pretended revision and reduction. When a tariff -bill is before Congress, the first draft starts with a certain rate on -a certain article, say twenty per cent. It is raised by amendment to -fifty, the article is taken into a combination and the rate put up to -eighty per cent; the bill is sent to the other house, and the rate on -this article cut down again to forty per cent; on conference between -the two houses the rate is fixed at sixty per cent. He who believes in -the protectionist doctrine must, if he looks on at that proceeding, -believe that the prosperity of the country is being kicked around the -floor of Congress, at the mercy of the chances which are at last to -determine with what per cent of tax these articles will come out. And -what is it that determines with what tax any given article will come -out? Any intelligent knowledge of industry? Not a word of it. Nothing -in the case of a given tax on a given article, but just this: “Who is -behind it?” The history of tariff legislation by the Congress of the -United States throws a light upon the protective doctrine which is -partly grotesque and partly revolting. - -25. (_b_) If Congress can exert the supposed beneficent influence on -industry, _ought not Congress to understand the force which it proposes -to use_? Ought it not to have some rules of protective legislation so -as to know in what cases, within what limits, under what conditions, -the device can be effectively used? Would that not be a reasonable -demand to make of any man who should propose a device for any purpose? -Congress has never had any knowledge of the way in which the taxes -which it passed were to do this beneficent work. It has never had, -and has never seemed to think that it needed to get, any knowledge of -the mode of operation of protective taxes. It passes taxes, as big as -the conflicting interests will allow, and goes home, satisfied that -it has saved the country. What a pity that philosophers, economists, -sages, and moralists should have spent so much time in elucidating the -conditions and laws of human prosperity! Taxes can do it all. - -26. (_c_) If Congress can do what is affirmed and is going to try -it, is it not the part of common sense to demand that _some tests -be applied to the experiment after a few years to see whether it is -really doing as was expected_? In the campaign of 1880 it was said -that if Hancock was elected we should have free trade, wages would -fall, factories would be closed, etc. Hancock was not elected, we did -not get any reform of the tariff, and yet in 1884 wages were falling, -factories were closed, and all the other direful consequences which -were threatened had come to pass. _Bradstreet’s_ made investigations in -the winter of 1884–1885 which showed that 316,000 workmen, thirteen per -cent of the number employed in manufacturing in 1880, were out of work, -17,550 on strike, and that wages had fallen since 1882 from ten to -forty per cent, especially in the leading lines of manufacturing which -are protected. What did these calamities all prove then? If we had had -any revision of the tariff, should we not have had these things alleged -again and again as results of it? Did they not, then, in the actual -case, prove the folly of protection? Oh, no! that would be attacking -the sacred dogma, and the sacred dogma is a matter of faith, so that, -as it never had any foundation in fact or evidence, it has just as much -after the experiment has failed as before the experiment was made. - -27. If, now, it were possible to devise a scheme of legislation which -should, according to protectionist ideas, be just the right jacket of -taxation to fit this country to-day, _how long would it fit_? Not a -week. Here are certain millions of people on three and a half million -square miles of land. Every day new lines of communication are opened, -new discoveries made, new inventions produced, new processes applied, -and the consequence is that the industrial system is in constant -flux and change. How, if a correct system of protective taxes was a -practicable thing at any given moment, could Congress keep up with -the changes and readaptations which would be required? The notion is -preposterous, and it is a monstrous thing, even on the protectionist -hypothesis, that we are living under a protective system which was set -up in 1864. The weekly tariff decisions by the treasury department may -be regarded as the constant attempts that are required to fit that -old system to present circumstances, and, as it is not possible that -new fabrics, new compounds, and new processes should find a place in -schedules which were made twenty years before they were invented, those -decisions carry with them the fate of scores of new industries which -figure in no census, and are taken into account by no congressman. -Therefore, even if we believed that the protective doctrine was sound -and that some protective system was beneficial, and that the one which -we have was the right one when it was made, we should be driven to the -conclusion that one which is twenty years old is sure to be injurious -to-day. - -28. There is nothing then in the legislative machinery by which the -tariff is to be made which is calculated to win the confidence of a -man of sense, but everything to the contrary; and the experiments -of such legislation which have been made have produced nothing but -warnings against the device. Instead of offering any reasonable ground -for belief that our errors will be corrected and our productive powers -increased, an examination of the tariff as a piece of legislation -offers to us nothing but a burden, which must cripple any economic -power which we have. - - -(_C_) EXAMINATION OF THE MEANS PROPOSED, _viz._, TAXES. - -29. Every tax is a burden, and in the nature of the case can be -nothing else. In mathematical language, every tax is a quantity -affected by a minus sign. If it gets peace and security, that is, if -it represses crime and injustice and prevents discord, which would be -economically destructive, then it is a smaller minus quantity than -the one which would otherwise be there, and that is the gain by good -government. Hence, like every other outlay which we make, taxes must -be controlled by the law of economy--to get the best and most possible -for the least expenditure. Instead of regarding public expenditure -carelessly, we should watch it jealously. Instead of looking at -taxation as conceivably a good, and certainly not an ill, we should -regard every tax as on the defensive, and every cent of tax as needing -justification. If the statesman exacts any more than is necessary to -pay for good government economically administered, he is incompetent, -and fails in his duty. I have been studying political economy almost -exclusively for the last fifteen years, and when I look back over -that period and ask myself what is the most marked effect which I -can perceive on my own opinion, or on my standpoint, as to social -questions, I find that it is this: I am convinced that nobody yet -understands the multiplied and complicated effects which are produced -by taxation. I am under the most profound impression of the mischief -which is done by taxation, reaching, as it does, to every dinner-table -and to every fireside. _The effects of taxation vary with every change -in the industrial system and the industrial status_, and they are so -complicated that it is impossible to follow, analyze, and systematize -them; but out of the study of the subject there arises this firm -conviction: taxation is crippling, shortening, reducing all the time, -over and over again. - -30. Suppose that a man has an income of one thousand dollars, of which -he has been saving one hundred dollars per annum with no tax. Now a tax -of ten dollars is demanded of him, no matter what kind of a tax or how -laid. Is he to get the tax out of the nine hundred dollars expenditure -or out of the one hundred dollars savings? If the former, then he must -cut down his diet, or his clothing, or his house accommodation, that -is, lower his standard of comfort. If the latter, then he must lessen -his accumulation of capital, that is, his provision for the future. -Either way his welfare is reduced and cannot be otherwise affected, -and, through the general effect, the welfare of the community is -reduced by the tax. Of course it is immaterial that he may not know the -facts. The effects are the same. In this view of the matter it is plain -what mischief is done by taxes which are laid to buy parks, libraries, -and all sorts of grand things. The tax-layer is not providing public -order. He is spending other people’s earnings for them. He is deciding -that his neighbor shall have less clothes and more library or park. -But when we come to protective taxes the abuse is monstrous. The -legislator who has in his hands this power of taxation uses it to -say that one citizen shall have less clothes in order that he may -contribute to the profits of another citizen’s private business. - -31. Hence if we look at the nature of taxation, and if we are examining -protectionism from its own standpoint, under the assumption that it is -true, instead of finding any confirmation of its assumptions, in the -nature of the means which it proposes to use, we find the contrary. -Granting that people make mistakes and fail of the highest prosperity -which they might win when they act freely, we see plainly that more -taxes cannot help to lift them up or to correct their errors; on the -contrary, _all taxation, beyond what is necessary for an economical -administration of good government, is either luxurious or wasteful_, -and if such taxation could tend to wealth, waste would make wealth. - - -(_D_) EXAMINATION OF THE PLAN OF MUTUAL TAXATION. - -32. Suppose then that the industries and sections all begin to tax each -other as we see that they do under protection. Is it not plain that -the taxing operation can do nothing but _transfer_ products, never by -any possibility create them? The object of the protective taxes is to -“effect the diversion of a part of the capital and labor of the country -from the channels in which it would run otherwise.” To do this it must -find a fulcrum or point of reaction, or it can exert no force for the -effect it desires. The fulcrum is furnished by those who pay the tax. -Take a case. Pennsylvania taxes New England on every ton of iron and -coal used in its industries. Ohio taxes New England on all the wool -obtained from that state for its industries.[4] New England taxes -Ohio and Pennsylvania on all the cottons and woolens which it sells to -them. What is the net final result? It is mathematically certain that -the only result can be that (1) New England gets back just all she paid -(in which case the system is nil, save for the expense of the process -and the limitation it imposes on the industry of all), or, (2) that New -England does not get back as much as she paid (in which case she is -tributary to the others), or, (3) that she gets back more than she paid -(in which case she levies tribute on them). Yet, on the protectionist -notion, this system extended to all sections, and embracing all -industries, is the means of producing national prosperity. When it -is all done, what does it amount to except that _all Americans must -support all Americans_? How can they do it better than for each to -support himself to the best of his ability? Then, however, all the -assumptions of protectionism must be abandoned as false. - -33. In 1676 King Charles II granted to his natural son, the Duke of -Richmond, a tax of a shilling a chaldron on all the coal which was -exported from the Tyne. We regard such a grant as a shocking abuse -of the taxing power. It is, however, a very interesting case because -the mine owner and the tax owner were two separate persons, and the -tax can be examined in all its separate iniquity. If, as I suppose -was the case, the Tyne Valley possessed such superior facilities for -producing coal that it had a qualified monopoly, the tax fell on the -coal mine owner (landlord); that is, the king transferred to his son -part of the property which belonged to the Tyne coal owners. In that -view the case may come home to some of our protectionists as it would -not if the tax had fallen on the consumers. If Congress had pensioned -General Grant by giving him seventy-five cents a ton on all the coal -mined in the Lehigh Valley, what protests we should have heard from -the owners of coal lands in that district! If the king’s son, however, -had owned the coal mines, and worked them himself, and if the king had -said: “I will authorize you to raise the price of your coal a shilling -a chaldron, and, to enable you to do it, I will myself tax all coal -but yours a shilling a chaldron,” then the device would have been -modern and enlightened and American. We have done just that on emery, -copper, and nickel. Then the tax comes out of the consumer. Then it is -not, according to the protectionist, harmful, but the key to national -prosperity, the thing which corrects the errors of our incompetent -self-will, and leads us up to better organization of our industry than -we, in our unguided stupidity, could have made. - - -(_E_) EXAMINATION OF THE PROPOSAL TO “CREATE AN INDUSTRY.” - -34. The protectionist says, however, that he is going to create -an industry. Let us examine this notion also from his standpoint, -assuming the truth of his doctrine, and see if we can find anything to -deserve confidence. A protective tax, according to the protectionist’s -definition (§ 13), “has for its object to effect the diversion of a -part of the labor and capital of the people ... into channels favored -or created by law.” If we follow out this proposal, we shall see what -those channels are, and shall see whether they are such as to make us -believe that protective taxes can increase wealth. - -35. _What is an industry?_ Some people will answer: It is an enterprise -which gives employment. Protectionists seem to hold this view, -and they claim that they “give work” to laborers when they make an -industry. On that notion we live to work; we do not work to live. But -we do not want work. We have too much work. We want a living; and work -is the inevitable but disagreeable price we must pay. Hence we want -as much living at as little price as possible. We shall see that the -protectionist does “make work” in the sense of lessening the living -and increasing the price. But if we want a living we want capital. -If an industry is to pay wages, it must be backed up by capital. -Therefore protective taxes, if they were to increase the means of -living, would need to increase capital. How can taxes increase capital? -Protective taxes only take from A to give to B. Therefore, if B by -this arrangement can extend his industry and “give more employment,” -A’s power to do the same is diminished in at least an equal degree. -Therefore, even on that erroneous definition of an industry, there is -no hope for the protectionist. - -36. _An industry is an organization of labor and capital for satisfying -some need of the community._ It is not an end in itself. It is not a -good thing to have in itself. It is not a toy or an ornament. If we -could satisfy our needs without it we should be better off, not worse -off. How, then, can we create industries? - -37. If any one will find, in the soil of a district, some new power to -supply human needs, he can endow that district with a new industry. If -he will invent a mode of treating some natural deposit, ore or clay, -for instance, so as to provide a tool or utensil which is cheaper and -more convenient than what is in use, he can create an industry. If he -will find out some new and better way to raise cattle or vegetables, -which is, perhaps, favored by the climate, he can do the same. If he -invents some new treatment of wool, or cotton, or silk, or leather, or -makes a new combination which produces a more convenient or attractive -fabric, he may do the same. The telephone is a new industry. What -measures the gain of it? Is it the “employment” of certain persons in -and about telephone offices? The gain is in the satisfaction of the -need of communication between people at less cost of time and labor. It -is useless to multiply instances. It can be seen what it is to “create -an industry.” It takes brains and energy to do it. How can taxes do it? - -38. Suppose that we create an industry even in this sense--_What is the -gain of it?_ The people of Connecticut are now earning their living by -employing their labor and capital in certain parts of the industrial -organization. They have changed their “industries” a great many times. -If it should be found that they had a new and better chance hitherto -undeveloped, they might all go into it. To do that they must abandon -what they are now doing. They would not change unless gains to be made -in the new industry were greater. Hence the gain is the _difference_ -only between the profits of the old and the profits of the new. The -protectionists, however, when they talk about “creating an industry,” -seem to suppose that the total profit of the industry (and some of -them seem to think that the total expenditure of capital) measures -their good work. In any case, then, even of a true and legitimate -increase of industrial power and opportunity, the only gain would be a -margin. But, by our definition, “a protective duty has for its object -to effect the diversion of a part of the capital and labor of the -people out of the channels in which it would otherwise run.” Plainly -this device involves coercion. People would need no coercion to go -into a new industry which had a natural origin in new industrial power -or opportunity. No coercion is necessary to make men buy dollars at -ninety-eight cents apiece. The case for coercion is when it is desired -to make them buy dollars at one hundred and one cents apiece. Here -the statesman with his taxing power is needed, and can do something. -What? He can say: “If you will buy a dollar at one hundred and one -cents, I can and will tax John over there two cents for your benefit; -one to make up your loss and the other to give you a profit.” Hence, -_on the protectionist’s own doctrine_, his device is not needed, and -cannot come into use, when a new industry is created in the true and -only reasonable sense of the words, but _only when and because he -is determined to drive the labor and capital of the country into a -disadvantageous and wasteful employment_. - -39. Still further, it is obvious that the protectionist, instead of -“creating a new industry,” has _simply taken one industry and set it -as a parasite to live upon another_. Industry is its own reward. A -man is not to be paid a premium by his neighbors for earning his own -living. A factory, an insane asylum, a school, a church, a poorhouse, -and a prison cannot be put in the same economic category. We know that -the community must be taxed to support insane asylums, poorhouses, and -jails. When we come upon such institutions we see them with regret. -They are wasting capital. We know that the industrious people all -about, who are laboring and producing, must part with a portion of -their earnings to supply the waste and loss of these institutions. -Hence _the bigger they are the sadder they are_. - -40. As for the schools and churches, we know that society must pay for -and keep up its own conservative institutions. They cost capital and -do not pay back capital directly, although they do indirectly, and in -the course of time, in ways which we could trace out and verify if that -were our subject. Here, then, we have a second class of institutions. - -41. But the factories and farms and foundries are the productive -institutions which must provide the support of these consuming -institutions. If the factories, etc., put themselves on a line with -the poorhouses, or even with the schools, what is to support them and -all the rest too? They have nothing behind them. If in any measure or -way they turn into burdens and objects of care and protection, they -can plainly do it only by part of them turning upon the other part, -and this latter part will have to bear the burden of all the consuming -institutions, _including the consuming industries_. For a protected -factory is not a producing industry. _It is a consuming industry!_ If a -factory is (as the protectionist alleges) a triumph of the tariff, that -is, if it would not be but for the tariff (and otherwise he has nothing -to do with it), then it is not producing; it is consuming. It is a -burden to be borne. _The bigger it is the sadder it is._ - -42. If a protectionist shows me a woolen mill and challenges me to -deny that it is a great and valuable industry, I ask him whether it is -due to the tariff. If he says “no,” then I will assume that it is an -independent and profitable establishment, but in that case it is out of -this discussion as much as a farm or a doctor’s practice. If he says -“yes,” then I answer that the mill is not an industry at all. We pay -sixty per cent tax on cloth _simply in order that that mill may be_. -It is not an institution for getting us cloth, for if we went into the -market with the same products which we take there now and if there -were no woolen mill, we should get all the cloth we want. The mill is -simply _an institution for making cloth cost per yard sixty per cent -more of our products than it otherwise would_. That is the one and only -function which the mill has added, by its existence, to the situation. -I have called such a factory a “nuisance.” The word has been objected -to. The word is of no consequence. He who, when he goes into a debate, -begins to whine and cry as soon as the blows get sharp, should learn -to keep out. What I meant was this: A nuisance is something which by -its existence and presence in society works loss and damage to the -society--works against the general interest, not for it. A factory -which gets in the way and hinders us from attaining the comforts which -we are all trying to get--which makes harder the terms of acquisition -when we are all the time struggling by our arts and sciences to make -those terms easier--is a harmful thing, and noxious to the common -interest. - -43. Hence, once more, starting from the protectionist’s hypothesis, and -assuming his own doctrine, we find that he cannot create an industry. -He only fixes one industry as a parasite upon another, and just as -certainly as he has intervened in the matter at all, just so certainly -has he forced labor and capital into less favorable employment than -they would have sought if he had let them alone. When we ask which -“channels” those are which are to be “favored or created by law,” -we find that they are, by the hypothesis, and by the whole logic of -the protectionist system, _the industries which do not pay_. The -protectionists propose to make the country rich by laws which shall -favor or create these industries, but these industries can only waste -capital, so that if they are the source of wealth, _waste is the source -of wealth_. Hence the protectionist’s assumption that by his system -he could correct our errors and lead us to greater prosperity than we -would have obtained under liberty, has failed again, and we find that -he wastes what power we do possess. - - -(_F_) EXAMINATION OF THE PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP OUR NATURAL RESOURCES. - -44. “But,” says the protectionist, “do you mean to say that, if we have -an iron deposit in our soil, it is not wise for us to open and work -it?” “You mean, no doubt,” I reply, “open and work it _under protective -help and stimulus_; for, if there is an iron deposit, the United States -does not own it. Some man owns it. If he wants to open and work it, -we have nothing to do but wish him God-speed.” “Very well,” he says, -“understand it that he needs protection.” Let us examine this case, -then, and still we will do it assuming the truth of the protectionist -doctrine. Let us see where we shall come out. - -The man who has discovered iron (on the protectionist doctrine), when -there is no tax, does not collect tools and laborers and go to work. He -goes to Washington. He visits the statesman, and a dialogue takes place. - -Iron man.--“Mr. Statesman, I have found an iron deposit on my farm.” - -Statesman.--“Have you, indeed? That is good news. Our country is richer -by one new natural resource than we have supposed.” - -Iron man.--“Yes, and I now want to begin mining iron.” - -Statesman.--“Very well, go on. We shall be glad to hear that you are -prospering and getting rich.” - -Iron man.--“Yes, of course. But I am now earning my living by tilling -the surface of the ground, and I am afraid that I cannot make as much -at mining as at farming.” - -Statesman.--“That is indeed another matter. Look into that carefully -and do not leave a better industry for a worse.” - -Iron man.--“But I want to mine that iron. It does not seem right to -leave it in the ground when we are importing iron all the time, but -I cannot see as good profits in it at the present price for imported -iron as I am making out of what I raise on the surface. I thought that -perhaps you would put a tax on all the imported iron so that I could -get more for mine. Then I could see my way to give up farming and go to -mining.” - -Statesman.--“You do not think what you ask. That would be authorizing -you to tax your neighbors, and would be throwing on them the risk of -working your mine, which you are afraid to take yourself.” - -Iron man (aside).--“I have not talked the right dialect to this man. -I must begin all over again. (Aloud.) Mr. Statesman, the natural -resources of this continent ought to be developed. American industry -must be protected. The American laborer must not be forced to compete -with the pauper labor of Europe.” - -Statesman.--“Now I understand you. Now you talk business. Why did you -not say so before? How much tax do you want?” - -The next time that a buyer of pig iron goes to market to get some, he -finds that it costs thirty bushels of wheat per ton instead of twenty. - -“What has happened to pig iron?” says he. - -“Oh! haven’t you heard?” is the reply. “A new mine has been found down -in Pennsylvania. We have got a new ‘natural resource.’” - -“I haven’t got a new ‘natural resource,’” says he. “It is as bad for me -as if the grasshoppers had eaten up one-third of my crop.” - -45. That is just exactly the significance of a new resource on the -protectionist doctrine. We had the misfortune to find emery here. -At once a tax was put on it which made it cost more wheat, cotton, -tobacco, petroleum, or personal services per pound than ever before. A -new calamity befell us when we found the richest copper mines in the -world in our territory. From that time on it cost us five (now four) -cents a pound more than before. By another catastrophe we found a -nickel mine--thirty cents (now fifteen) a pound tax! Up to this time we -have had all the tin that we wanted above ground, because beneficent -nature has refrained from putting any underground in our territory. In -the metal schedule, where the metals which we unfortunately possess are -taxed from forty to sixty per cent, tin alone is free. Every little -while a report is started that tin has been found. Hitherto these -reports have happily all proved false. It is now said that tin has been -found in West Virginia and Dakotah. We have reason devoutly to hope -that this may prove false, for, if it should prove true, no doubt the -next thing will be forty per cent tax on tin. The mine-owners say that -they want to exploit the mine. They do not. They want to make the mine -an excuse to exploit the taxpayers. - -46. Therefore, when the protectionist asks whether we ought not by -protective taxes to force the development of our own iron mines, the -answer is that, on his own doctrine, he has developed a new philosophy, -hitherto unknown, by which “natural resources” become national -calamities, and the more a country is endowed by nature the worse off -it is. Of course, if the wise philosophy is not simply to use, with -energy and prudence, all the natural opportunities which we possess, -but to seek “channels favored or created by law,” then this view of -natural resources is perfectly consistent with that philosophy, for it -is simply saying over again that _waste is the key of wealth_. - - -(_G_) EXAMINATION OF THE PROPOSAL TO RAISE WAGES. - -47. “But,” he says again, “we want to raise wages and favor the poor -working man.” “Do you mean to say,” I reply, “that protective taxes -raise wages--that that is their regular and constant effect?” “Yes,” -he replies, “that is just what they do, and that is why we favor them. -We are the poor man’s friends. You free-traders want to reduce him to -the level of the pauper laborers of Europe.” “But here, in the evidence -offered at the last tariff discussion in Congress, the employers all -said that they wanted the taxes to protect them _because_ they had to -pay such high wages.” “Well, so they do.” “Well then, if they get the -taxes raised to help them out when they have high wages to pay, how -are the taxes going to help them any unless the taxes _lower_ wages? -But you just said that taxes raise wages. Therefore, if the employer -gets the taxes raised, he will no sooner get home from Washington than -he will find that the very taxes which he has just secured have raised -wages. Then he must go back to Washington to get the taxes raised to -offset that advance, and when he gets home again he will find that he -has only raised wages more, and so on forever. You are trying to teach -the man to raise himself by his boot straps. Two of your propositions -brought together eat each other.” - -48. We will, however, pursue the protectionist doctrine of wages a -little further. It is totally false that protective taxes raise wages. -As I will show further on (§ 91 and following), protective taxes lower -wages. Now, however, I am assuming the protectionist’s own premises and -doctrines all the time. He says that his system raises wages. Let us -go to see some of the wages class and get some evidence on this point. -We will take three wage-workers, a boot man, a hat man, and a cloth -man. First we ask the boot man, “Do you win anything by this tariff?” -“Yes,” he says, “I understand that I do.” “How?” “Well, the way they -explain it to me is that when anybody wants boots he goes to my boss, -pays him more on account of the tax, and my boss gives me part of it.” -“All right! Then your comrades here, the hat man and the cloth man, pay -this tax in which you share?” “Yes, I suppose so. I never thought of -that before. I supposed that rich people paid the taxes, but I suppose -that when they buy boots they must do it too.” “And when you want a -hat you go and pay the tax on hats, part of which (as you explain -the system) goes to your friend the hat man; and when you want cloth -you pay the tax which goes to benefit your friend the cloth man?” “I -suppose that it must be so.” We go, then, to see the hat man and have -the same conversation with him, and we go to see the cloth man and -have the same conversation with him. Each of them then gets two taxes -and pays two taxes. Three men illustrate the whole case. If we should -take a thousand men in a thousand industries we should find that each -paid nine hundred and ninety-nine taxes, and each got nine hundred and -ninety-nine taxes, if the system worked as it is said to work. What is -the upshot of the whole? Either they all come out even on their taxes -paid and received, or _some of the wage receivers are winning something -out of other wage receivers to the net detriment of the whole class_. -If each man is creditor for nine hundred and ninety-nine taxes, and -each debtor for nine hundred and ninety-nine taxes, and if the system -is “universal and equal,” we can save trouble by each drawing nine -hundred and ninety-nine orders on the creditors to pay to themselves -their own taxes, and we can set up a clearing house to wipe off all the -accounts. Then we come down to this as the net result of the system -when it is “universal and equal,” that _each man as a consumer pays -taxes to himself as a producer_. That is what is to make us all rich. -We can accomplish it just as well and far more easily, when we get up -in the morning, by transferring our cash from one pocket to the other. - -49. One point, however, and the most important of all, remains to be -noticed. How about the thousandth tax? How is it when the boot man -wants boots, and the hat man hats, and the cloth man cloth? He has to -go to the store on the street and buy of his own boss, at the market -price (tax on), the very things which he made himself in the shop. He -then pays the tax to his own employer, and the employer, according to -the doctrine, “shares” it with him. Where is the offset to that part -which the employer keeps? There is none. The wages class, even on the -protectionist explanation, may give or take from each other, but to -their own employers they give and take not. At election time the boss -calls them in and tells them that they must vote for protection or he -must shut up the shop, and that they ought to vote for protection, -because it makes their wages high. If, then, they believe in the -system, just as it is taught to them, they must believe that it causes -him to pay them big wages, out of which they pay back to him big taxes, -out of which he pays them a fraction back again, and that, but for this -arrangement, the business could not go on at all. A little reflection -shows that this just brings up the question for a wage-earner: _How -much can I afford to pay my boss for hiring me?_ or, again, which is -just the same thing in other words: _What is the net reduction of my -wages, below the market rate under freedom, which results from this -system?_ (See § 65.) - -50. Let it not be forgotten that this result is reached by accepting -protectionism and reasoning forward from its doctrines and according -to its principles. In truth, the employees get no share in any taxes -which the boss gets out of them and others (see § 91 ff. for the truth -about wages). Of course, when this or any other subject is thoroughly -analyzed, it makes no difference where we begin or what line we follow, -we shall always reach the same result if the result is correct. If -we accept the protectionist’s own explanation of the way in which -protection raises wages we find that it proves that protection lowers -wages. - - -(_H_) EXAMINATION OF THE PROPOSAL TO PREVENT COMPETITION BY FOREIGN -PAUPER LABOR. - -51. The protectionist says that he does not want the American laborer -to compete with the foreign “pauper laborer” (see § 99). He assumes, -that if the foreign laborer is a woolen operative, the only American -who may have to compete with him is a woolen operative here. His -device for saving our operatives from the assumed competition is to -tax the American cotton or wheat grower on the cloth he wears, to make -up and offset to the woolen operative the disadvantage under which he -labors. If then, the case were true as the protectionist states it, -and if his remedy were correct, he would, when he had finished his -operation, simply have allowed the American woolen operative to escape, -by transferring to the American cotton or wheat grower the evil results -of competition with “foreign pauper labor.” - - -(_I_) EXAMINATION OF THE PROPOSAL TO RAISE THE STANDARD OF PUBLIC -COMFORT. - -52. But the protectionist reiterates that he wants to make our -people well off, and to diffuse general prosperity, and he says that -his system does this. He says that the country has prospered under -protection and on account of it. He brings from the census the figures -for increased wealth of the country, and, to speak of no minor errors, -draws an inference that we have prospered _more than we should have -done under free trade_, which is what he has to prove, without noticing -that the second term of the comparison is absent and unattainable. In -the same manner I once heard a man argue from statistics, who showed by -the _small_ loss of a city by fire that its fire department cost too -much. I asked him if he had any statistics of the fires which we should -have had but for the fire department (see § 102). - -53. The people of the United States have inherited an untouched -continent. The now living generation is practicing bonanza farming -on prairie soil which has never borne a crop. The population is only -fifteen to the square mile. The population of England and Wales is four -hundred and forty-six to the square mile; that of the British Islands -two hundred and ninety; that of Belgium four hundred and eighty-one; -of France one hundred and eighty; of Germany two hundred and sixteen. -Bateman[5] estimates that in the better part of England or Wales a -peasant proprietor would need from four and a half to six acres, and, -in the worse part, from nine to forty-five acres on which to support “a -healthy family.” The soil of England and Wales, equally divided between -the families there, would give only seven acres apiece. The land of the -United States, equally divided between the families there, would give -two hundred and fifteen acres apiece. These old nations give us the -other term of the comparison by which we measure our prosperity. They -have a dense population on a soil which has been used for thousands of -years; we have an extremely sparse population on a virgin soil. We have -an excellent climate, mountains full of coal and ore, natural highways -on the rivers and lakes, and a coast indented with sounds, bays, and -some of the best harbors in the world. We have also a population -of good national character, especially as regards the economic and -industrial virtues. The sciences and arts are highly cultivated among -us, and our institutions are the best for the development of economic -strength. As compared with old nations we are prosperous. Now comes the -protectionist statesman and says: “The things which you have enumerated -are not the causes of our comparative prosperity. Those things are all -vain. Our prosperity is not due to them. I made it with my taxes.” - -54. (_a_) In the first place the fact is that we surpass most in -prosperity those nations which are most like us in their tax systems, -and those compared with whom our prosperity is least remarkable -are those which have by free trade offset as much as possible the -disadvantage of age and dense population. Since, then, we find greatest -difference in prosperity with least difference in tax, and least -difference in prosperity with greatest difference in tax, we cannot -regard tax as a cause of prosperity, but as an obstacle to prosperity -which must have been overcome by some stronger cause. That such is the -case lies plainly on the face of the facts. The prosperity which we -enjoy is the prosperity which God and nature have given us _minus what -the legislator has taken from it_. - -55. (_b_) We prospered with slavery just as we have prospered with -protection. The argument that the former was a cause would be just as -strong as the argument that the lattes is a cause. - -56. (_c_) The protectionists take to themselves as a credit all the -advance in the arts of the last twenty-five years, because they have -not entirely offset it and destroyed it. - -57. (_d_) The protectionists claim that they have increased our wealth. -All the wealth that is produced must be produced by labor and capital -applied to land. The people have wrought and produced. The tax gatherer -has only subtracted something. Whether he used what he took well or -ill, he subtracted. He could not do anything else. Therefore, whatever -wealth we see about us, and whatever wealth appears in the census is -what the people have produced, _less_ what the tax gatherer has taken -out of it. - -58. (_e_) If the members of Congress can establish for themselves some -ideal of the grade of comfort which the average American citizen ought -to enjoy, and then just get it for him, they have used their power -hitherto in a very beggarly manner. For, although the average status -of our people is high when compared with that of other people on the -globe, nevertheless, when compared with any standard of ideal comfort, -it leaves much to be desired. If Congress has the power supposed, they -surely ought not to measure the exercise of it by only making us better -off than Europeans. - -59. (_f_) During the late presidential campaign the protectionist -orators assured the people that they meant to make everybody well off, -that they wished our people to be prosperous, contented, etc. I wish -so too. I wish that all my readers may be millionaires. I freely and -sincerely confer on them all the bounty of my good wishes. They will -not find a cent more in their pockets on that account. The congressmen -have no power to bless my readers which I have not, save one; that is, -the power to tax them. - -60. (_g_) If the congressmen are determined to elevate the comfort -of the population by taxing the population, then every new ship load -of immigrants must be regarded as a new body of persons whom we must -“elevate” by the taxes we have to pay. It is said that an Irishman -affirmed that a dollar in America would not buy more than a shilling -in Ireland. He was asked why then he did not stay in Ireland. He -replied that it was because he could not get the shilling there. That -is a good story, only it stops just where it ought to begin. The next -question is: How does he get the dollar when he comes to America? The -protectionist wants us to suppose that he gets it by grace of the -tariff. If so he gets it out of those who were here before he came. But -plainly no such thing is true. He gets it by earning it, and he adds -two dollars to the wealth of the country while earning it. The only -thing the tariff does in regard to it is to lower the purchasing power -of the dollar, if it is spent for products of manufacture, to seventy -cents. - -61. Here, again, then, we find that protective taxes, if they do -just what the protectionist says that they will do, produce the very -opposite effects from those which he says they will produce. They -lessen wealth, reduce prosperity, diminish average comfort, and lower -the standard of living. (See § 30.) - - -CHAPTER III - -PROTECTIONISM EXAMINED ADVERSELY - -62. I have so far examined protectionism as a philosophy of national -wealth, assuming and accepting its own doctrines, and following them -out, to see if they will issue as is claimed. We have found that they -do not, but that protectionism, on its own doctrines, issues in the -impoverishment of the nation and in failure to do anything which it -claims to do. On the contrary, an examination in detail of its means, -methods, purposes, and plans shows that it must produce waste and loss, -so that _if it were true, we should have to believe that waste and loss -are means of wealth_. Now I turn about to attack it in face, on an open -issue, for if any project which is advocated proves, upon free and fair -examination, to be based on errors of fact and doctrine, it becomes a -danger and an evil to be exposed and combated, and truth of fact and -doctrine must be set against it. - - - 1. _PROTECTIONISM INCLUDES AND NECESSARILY CARRIES WITH IT - HOSTILITY TO TRADE OR, AT LEAST, SUSPICION AGAINST TRADE_ - - -(_A_) RULES FOR KNOWING WHEN IT IS SAFE TO TRADE. - -63. Every protectionist is forced to regard trade as a mischievous or -at least doubtful thing. Protectionists have even tried to formulate -rules for determining when trade is beneficial and when harmful. - -64. It has been said that we ought to trade only on meridians of -longitude, not on parallels of latitude. - -65. It has been affirmed that we cannot safely trade unless we have -taxes to exactly offset the lower wages of foreign countries. But it is -plain that if the case stands so that an American employer says: “I am -at a disadvantage compared with my foreign competitor, because he pays -less wages than I”--then, by the same token, the American laborer will -say: “I am at an advantage, compared with my foreign comrade, for I get -better wages than he.” If the law interferes with the state of things -so that the employer is enabled to say: “I am now at less disadvantage -in competition with my foreign rival, because I do not now have to pay -as much more wages than he as formerly”--then, by the same token, the -American laborer must say: “I am not now as much better off than my -foreign comrade as formerly, for I do not now gain as much more than -he as I did--there is not now as much advantage in emigrating to this -country as formerly.” Therefore, whenever the taxes just offset the -difference in wages, _they just take away from the American laborer -all his superiority over the foreigner_, and take away all reason -for caring to come to this country. So much for the laborer. But the -employer, if he has arrested immigration, has cut off one source of the -supply of labor, tending to raise wages, and is at war with himself -again (§ 47). - -66. It has been said that two nations cannot trade _if the rate of -interest in the two differs by two per cent_. The rate of interest in -the Atlantic States and in the Mississippi Valley has always differed -by two per cent, yet they have traded together under absolute free -trade, and the Mississippi Valley has had to begin a wilderness and -grow up to the highest standard of civilization in spite of that state -of things. - -67. It has been said that we ought to _trade only with inferior -nations_. The United States does not trade with any other nation, save -when it buys territory. A in the United States trades with B in some -foreign country. If I want caoutchouc I want to trade with a savage -in the forests of South America. If I want mahogany I want to trade -with a man in Honduras. If I want sugar I want to trade with a man in -Cuba. If I want tea I want to trade with a man in China. If I want silk -or champagne I want to trade with a man in France. If I want a razor -I want to trade with a man in England. I want to trade with the man -who has the thing which I want of the best quality and at the lowest -rate of exchange for my products. What is the definition or test of an -“inferior nation,” and what has that got to do with trade any more than -the race, language, color, or religion of the man who has the goods? - -68. If trade was an object of suspicion and dread, then indeed we -ought to have _rules for distinguishing safe and beneficial trade_ -from mischievous trade, but these attempts to define and discriminate -only expose the folly of the suspicion. We find that the primitive -men who dwelt in caves in the glacial epoch carried on trade. The -earliest savages made footpaths through the forests by which to traffic -and trade, winning thereby mutual advantages. They found that they -could supply more wants with less effort by trade, which gave them a -share in the natural advantages and acquired skill of others. They -trained beasts of burden, improved roads, invented wagons and boats, -all in order to extend and facilitate trade. They were foolish enough -to think that they were gaining by it, _and did not know that they -needed a protective tariff to keep them from ruining themselves_. Or, -why does not some protectionist sociologist tell us at what stage -of civilization trade ceases to be advantageous and begins to need -restraint and regulation? - - -(_B_) ECONOMIC UNITS NOT NATIONAL UNITS. - -69. The protectionists say that their system advances civilization -inside a state and makes it great, but the facts are all against them -(see § 136ff). It was by trade that civilization was extended over -the earth. It was through the contact of trade that the more civilized -nations transmitted to others the alphabet, weights and measures, -knowledge of astronomy, divisions of time, tools and weapons, coined -money, systems of numeration, treatment of metals, skins, and wool, and -all the other achievements of knowledge and invention which constitute -the bases of our civilization. On the other hand, the nations which -shut themselves up and developed an independent and self-contained -civilization (China and Japan) present us the types of arrested -civilization and stereotyped social status. It is the penalty of -isolation and of withdrawal from the giving and taking which properly -bind the whole human race together, that even such intelligent and -highly endowed people as the Chinese should find their high activity -arrested at narrow limitations on every side. They invent coin, but -never get beyond a cast copper coin. They invent gunpowder, but cannot -make a gun. They invent movable types, but only the most rudimentary -book. They discover the mariner’s compass, but never pass the infancy -of ship-building. - -70. The fact is, then, that _trade has been the handmaid of -civilization_. It has traversed national boundaries, and has gradually, -with improvement in the arts of transportation, drawn the human race -into closer relations and more harmonious interests. The contact of -trade slowly saps old national prejudice and religious or race hatreds. -The jealousies which were perpetuated by distance and ignorance cannot -stand before contact and knowledge. To stop trade is to arrest this -beneficent work, to separate mankind into sections and factions, and to -favor discord, jealousy, and war. - -71. Such is the action of protectionism. The protectionists make much -of their pretended “nationalism,” and they try to reason out some -kind of relationship between the scope of economic forces and the -boundaries of existing nations. The argumentation is fatally broken -at its first step. They do not show what they might show, _viz._, -that the scope of economic forces on any given stage of the arts does -form economic units. An English county was such a unit a century ago. -I doubt if anything less than the whole earth could be considered -so to-day, when the wool of Australia, the hides of South America, -the cotton of Alabama, the wheat of Manitoba, and the meat of Texas -meet the laborers in Manchester and Sheffield, and would meet the -laborers in Lowell and Paterson, if the barriers were out of the way. -But what the national protectionist would need to show would be that -the economic unit coincides with the political unit. He would have to -affirm that Maine and Texas are in one economic unit, but that Maine -and New Brunswick are not; or that Massachusetts and Minnesota are in -one economic unit, but that Massachusetts and Manitoba are not. Every -existing state is a product of historic accidents. Mr. Jefferson set -out to buy the city of New Orleans. He awoke one morning to find that -he had bought the western half of the Mississippi Valley. Since that -turned out so, the protectionists think that Missouri and Illinois -prosper by trading in perfect freedom.[6] If it had not turned out -so, it would have been very mischievous for them to trade in perfect -freedom. Nova Scotia did not join the revolt of our thirteen colonies. -Hence it is thought ruinous to let coal and potatoes come in freely -from Nova Scotia. If she had revolted with us, it would have been for -the benefit of everybody in this union to trade with her as freely -as we now trade with Maine. We tried to conquer Canada in 1812–1813 -and failed. Consequently the Canadians now put taxes on our coal and -petroleum and wheat, and we put taxes on their lumber, which our coal -and petroleum industries need. We did annex Texas, at the cost of war, -in 1845. Consequently we trade with Texas now under absolute freedom, -but, if we trade with Mexico, it must be only very carefully and under -stringent limitations. Is this wisdom, or is it all pure folly and -wrongheadedness, by which men who boast of their intelligence throw -away their own chances?[7] - -72. _Trade is a beneficent thing._ It does not need any regulation or -restraint. There is no point at which it begins to be dangerous. It is -mutually beneficent. If it ceases to be so, it ceases entirely, because -he who no longer gains by it will no longer carry it on. (See § 125.) - - -2. _PROTECTIONISM IS AT WAR WITH IMPROVEMENT._ - -73. The cities of Japan are built of very combustible material, and -when a fire begins it is rarely arrested until the city is destroyed. -It was suggested that a steam fire-engine would there reach its -maximum of utility. One was imported and proved very useful on -several occasions. Thereupon the carpenters got up a petition to -the government to send the fire-engine away, because it ruined their -business. - -74. The instance is grotesque and exaggerated, but it is strictly true -to the principle of protectionism. The southern counties of England, -a century ago, protested against the opening of the great northern -turnpike, because that would bring the products of the northern -counties to the London market, of which the southern counties had -had a monopoly. After the St. Gothard tunnel was opened the people -of southern Germany petitioned the Government to lay higher taxes on -Italian products to offset the cheapness which the tunnel had produced. -In 1837 the first two steamers which ever made commercial voyages -across the Atlantic arrived at the same time. A grand celebration was -held in New York. The foolish people rejoiced as if a new blessing had -been won. Man had won a new triumph over nature. What was the gain of -it? It was that he could satisfy his needs with less labor than before; -or, in plain language, get things cheaper. But in 1842 a Home Industry -Convention was held in New York, at which it was alleged as the prime -reason why more taxes were needed, that this steam transportation -had made things cheap here.[8] Taxes were needed to neutralize the -improvement. - - -(_A_) TAXES TO OFFSET CHEAPENED TRANSPORTATION. - -75. For the last twenty-five years, to go no farther back, we have -multiplied inventions to facilitate transportation. Ocean cables, -improved marine engines, and screw steamers, have been only improved -means of supplying the wants of people on two continents more -abundantly with the products each of the other. The scientific -journals and the daily papers boast of every step in this development -as a thing to be proud of and rejoice in, but in the meantime the -legislators on both sides of the water are hard at work to neutralize -it by taxation. We, in the United States, have multiplied monstrous -taxes on all the things which others make and which we want, to prevent -them from being brought to us. The statesmen of the European continent -are laying taxes on our meat and wheat, lest they be brought to their -people. The arts are bringing us together; the taxes are needed to -keep us apart. In France, for instance, the agriculturist complains -of American competition--not “pauper labor,” but gratuitous soil and -sunlight. He does not want the French artisan to have the benefit of -our prairie soil. The government yields to him and lays a tax on our -meat and wheat. This raises the price of bread in Paris, where the -reconstruction of the city has collected a large artisan population. -The government then finds itself driven to fix the price of bread -in Paris, to keep it down. But the reconstruction of the city was -accomplished by contracting a great debt, which means heavy taxes. -These taxes drive the population out into the suburbs. At least one -voice has been raised by an owner of city property that a tax ought to -be laid on suburban residents to drive them back to the city,[9] and -not let them escape the efforts of the city landlord to throw his taxes -on them. Then, again, France has been subsidizing ships, and when the -question of renewing the subsidy came up, it was argued that the ships -subsidized at the expense of the French taxpayer had lowered freight on -wheat and made wheat cheap; that is, as somebody justly replied, had -wrought the very mischief against which the increased tax had just been -demanded on wheat. Therefore the taxpayer had been taxed first to make -wheat cheap, and then again to make it dear. - -76. Tax A to favor B. If A complains, tax C to make it up to A. If -C complains, tax B to favor C. If any of them still complain, begin -all over again. Tax them as long as anybody complains, or anybody -wants anything. This is the statesmanship of the last quarter of the -nineteenth century. - -77. Bismarck, too, is going into the business. He has to rule a people -who live on a poor soil and have to bear a crushing military system. -The consequence is that the population is declining. Emigration exceeds -the natural increase. Bismarck’s cure for it is to lay protective taxes -against American pork and wheat and rye. This will protect the German -agriculturist. If it lowers still more the comfort of the buyers of -food, and drives more of them out of the country, then he will go and -buy or fight for colonies at the expense of the German agriculturists -whom he has just “protected,” although the surplus population of -Germany has been taking itself away for thirty years without asking -help or giving trouble. What can Germany gain by diverting her -emigrants to her own colony unless she means to bring the able-bodied -men back to fight her battles? If she means that, the emigrants will -not go to her colony. - -78. France is also reviving the old colonial policy with discriminating -favors and compensatory restraints. She already owns a possession -in Algeria, which is the best example of a colony for the sake of a -colony. It has been asserted in the French Chambers that each French -family now in Algeria has cost the Government (_i.e._, the French -taxpayer) 25,000 francs.[10] The longing of these countries for -“colonies” is like the longing of a negro dandy for a cane or a tall -hat so as to be like the white gentlemen. - - -(_B_) SUGAR BOUNTIES. - -79. The worst case of all, however, is sugar. The protectionists long -boasted of beet-root sugar as a triumph of their system. It is now -an industry in which an immense amount of capital is invested on the -Continent, but cheap transportation for cane sugar, and improvements -in the treatment of the latter, are constantly threatening it. Mention -is made in _Bradstreet’s_ for June 28, 1885, of a very important -improvement in the treatment of cane which has just been invented -at Berlin. Germany has an excise tax on beet-root sugar, but allows -a drawback on it when exported which is greater than the tax. This -acts as a bounty paid by the German taxpayer on the exportation. -Consequently, beet-root sugar has appeared even in our market. The -chief market for it, however, is England. The consequence is that the -sugar, which is nine cents a pound in Germany, and seven cents a pound -here, is five cents a pound in England, and that the annual consumption -of sugar per head in the three countries[11] is as follows: England, -sixty-seven and a half pounds; United States, fifty-one pounds; -Germany, twelve pounds. I sometimes find it difficult to make people -understand the difference between wanting an “industry” and wanting -goods, but this case ought to make that distinction clear. Obviously -_the Germans have the industry and the Englishmen have the sugar_. - -80. No sooner, however, does Germany get her export bounty in good -working order than the Austrian sugar refiners besiege their government -to know whether Germany is to have the monopoly of giving sugar to the -Englishmen.[12] They get a bounty and compete for that privilege. Then -the French refiners say that they cannot compete, and must be enabled -to compete in giving sugar to the Englishmen. I believe that their case -is under favorable consideration. - -80_a._ I have found it harder (as is usually the case) to get recorded -information about the trade and industry of our own country than about -those of foreign nations. However, we too, although we do not raise -beet-sugar, have our share in this bounty folly, as may be seen by -the following statement, which comes to hand just in time to serve my -purpose.[13] “The export of refined sugar [from the United States] -is entirely confined to hard sugars, or, to be more explicit, loaf, -crushed, and granulated. This is because the drawback upon this class -of sugar is so large that refiners are enabled to sell them at less -than cost. The highest collectable duty upon sugar testing as high as -99° is but 2.36, but the drawback upon granulated testing the same, and -in the case of crushed and loaf less, is 2.82 less 1 per cent. This -is exactly 43 cents per one hundred pounds more than the government -receives in duty. But it rarely happens that raw sugar is imported -testing 99°, and never for refining purposes. The following table gives -the rates of duty upon the average grades used in refining: - - Degrees Duty - Fair refining testing 89 1.96 - Fair refining testing 90 2.00 - Centrifugal testing 96 2.28 - Beet-sugar testing 88 1.92 - -It will be clearly seen from the above figures that with a net drawback -upon hard sugar of 2.79 our refiners are able to sell to foreigners, -through the assistance of our Treasury, sugar at less than cost. -Taking, for instance, the net price of centrifugal testing only 97° and -the net price less drawback of granulated: - - Centrifugal raw sugar testing 97° 6.00 - Less duty 2.28 - Net ----- 3.72 - Granulated refined testing 99° 6.37½ - Less drawback 2.71 - Net ----- 3.66½ - -------- - 6½ - -Nothing could demonstrate the absurdity of the present rate of drawback -more clearly than the above. A refiner pays 6½ cents per hundred -more for raw sugar testing 2° less saccharine than he sells refined -for. Not, however, to the American consumers, but to foreigners. -After paying the expenses necessary to refining by the assistance -of a drawback, which clearly amounts to a subsidy of about 50 cents -a hundred pounds, our large sugar monopolists are assisted by the -government to increase the cost of sugar to American consumers. One -firm controls almost the entire trade of the east; at all events it is -safe to say that the trade of the entire country is controlled by three -firms, and the Treasury assists this monopoly in sustaining prices -against the interest of the country at large. Up to date the exports of -refined sugar have amounted to 83,340 tons, which, taken at 50 cents -a hundred, has cost the treasury over $830,000. All this may not have -gone into the pockets of the refiners, as the ship owners have obtained -a share, but the fact remains that the Treasury is the loser by this -amount. Besides this bounty presses hard upon the consumers. They not -only have to pay the tax, but during the late rise they were compelled -to pay more for their sugar than they otherwise would have done had not -the export demand caused by selling sugar to foreigners at less than -cost, the Treasury paying the difference, increased prices. While an -American consumer is charged 6½ cents for granulated, foreign buyers, -through the liberality of our government, can buy it under 3¾ cents. -Certainly it is time that the Secretary of the Treasury asked the -sugar commission to commence a comprehensive and impartial inquiry.” - -81. Of course the story would not be complete if the English refiners -did not besiege their government for a tax to keep out this maleficent -gift of foreign taxpayers. This, say they, is not free trade. This is -protection turned the other way around. We might hold our own on an -equal footing, but we cannot contend against a subsidized industry. A -superficial thinker might say that this protest was conclusive. The -English government set on foot an investigation, not of the sugar -refining, but of _those other interests which were in danger of being -forgotten_. There was a tariff investigation which was worth something -and was worthy of an enlightened government. It was found that the -consumers of sugar had gained more than all the wages paid in sugar -refining. But, on the side of the producers, it was found that 6,000 -persons are employed and 45,000 tons of sugar are used annually in -the neighborhood of London in manufacturing jam and confectionery. In -Scotland there are eighty establishments, employing over 4,000 people -and using 35,000 tons of sugar per annum in similar industries. In the -whole United Kingdom, in those industries, 100,000 tons of sugar are -used and 12,000 people are employed, three times as many as in sugar -refining. Within twenty years the confectionery trade of Scotland has -quadrupled and the preserving trade--jam and marmalade--has practically -been originated. In addition, refined sugar is a raw material in -biscuit making and the manufacture of mineral waters, and 50,000 tons -are used in brewing and distilling. Hence the _Economist_ argues (and -this view seems to have controlled the decision): “It may be that the -gain which we at present realize from the bounties may not be enduring, -as it is impossible to believe that foreign nations will go on taxing -themselves to the extent of several millions a year in order to supply -us and others with sugar at less than its fair price, but that is no -reason for refusing to avail ourselves of their liberality so long as -it does last.”[14] (See § 83, note.) - -82. One point in this case ought not to be lost sight of. If the -English government had yielded to the sugar refiners without looking -further, all these little industries which are mentioned, and which -in their aggregate are so important, would have been crushed out. Ten -years later they would have been forgotten. It is from such an example -that one must learn to form a judgment as to _the effect of our tariff -in crushing out industries_ which are now lost and gone, and cannot -even be recalled for purposes of controversy, but which would spring -into existence again if the repeal of the taxes should give them a -chance. - -83. On our side the water efforts have been made to get us into the -sugar struggle by the proposed commercial treaties with Spain and -England, which would in effect have extended our protective tariff -around Cuban and English West Indian sugar.[15] The sugar consumers of -the United States were to pay to the Cuban planters the twenty-five -million dollars revenue which they now pay to the treasury on Cuban -sugar, on condition that the Cubans should bring back part of it and -spend it among our manufacturers. It was a new extension of the plan of -taxing some of us for the benefit of others of us. Let it be noticed, -too, that when it suited their purpose, the protectionists were ready -to sacrifice the sugar industry of Louisiana without the least concern. -We have been trying for twenty-five years to secure the home market -and keep everybody else out of it. _As soon as we get it firmly shut, -so that nobody else can get in, we find that it is a question of life -and death with us to get out ourselves._ The next device is to tax -Americans in order to go and buy a piece of the foreign market. At the -last session of Congress Senator Cameron proposed to allow a drawback -on raw materials used in exported products. On that plan the American -manufacturer would have two costs of production, one when he was -working for the home market, and another much lower one when working -for the foreign market. As it is now, the exports of manufactured -products, of which so much boasting is heard, are for the most part -articles sold abroad lower than here so as not to break down the home -monopoly market. The proposed plan would raise that to a system, and we -should be giving more presents to foreigners. - -84. To return to sugar, our treaty with the Sandwich Islands has -produced anomalous and mischievous results on the Pacific coast. In the -southern Pacific New Zealand is just going into the plan of bounties -and protection on sugar.[16] It would not, therefore, be very bold to -predict a worldwide catastrophe in the sugar industry within five years. - -85. Now what is it all for? What is it all about? Napoleon Bonaparte -began it in a despotic whim, when he determined to force the production -of beet-root sugar to show that he did not care for the supremacy of -England at sea which cut him off from the sugar islands. In order not -to lose the capital engaged in the industry, protection was continued. -But this led to putting more capital into it and further need of -protection. The problem has tormented financiers for seventy-five -years. There are two natural products, of which the cane is far -richer in sugar. But the processes of the beet-sugar industry have -been improved, until recently, far more rapidly than those of the -cane industry. Then the refining is a separate interest. If, then, -a country has cane-sugar colonies which it wants to protect against -other colonies, and a beet-sugar industry which it wants to protect -against neighbors who produce beet-sugar, and refiners to be protected -against foreign refiners, and if the relations of its own colonial -cane-sugar producers to its own domestic beet-sugar producers must -be kept satisfactorily adjusted, in spite of changes in processes, -transportation, and taxation, and if it wants to get a revenue from -sugar, and to use the colonial trade to develop its shipping, and if -it has two or three commercial treaties in which sugar is an important -item, the statesman of that country has a task like that of a juggler -riding several horses and keeping several balls in motion. Sugar is the -commodity on which the effects of a world-embracing commerce, produced -by modern inventions, are most apparent, and it is the commodity -through which all the old protectionist anti-commercial doctrines will -be brought to the most decisive test. - - -(_C_) FORCED FOREIGN RELATIONS TO REGULATE IMPROVEMENT WHICH CAN NO -LONGER BE DEFEATED. - -86. If we turn back once more to our own case, we note the rise in -1883–1884 of the policy of commercial treaties and of a “vigorous -foreign policy.” For years a “national policy” for us has meant -“securing the home market.” The perfection of this policy has led to -isolation and ostentatious withdrawal from cosmopolitan interests. -I may say that I do not write out of any sympathy with vague -humanitarianism or cosmopolitan sentiments. It seems to me that local -groupings have great natural strength and obvious utility so long as -they are subdivisions of a higher organization of the human race, or so -long as they are formed freely and their relations to each other are -developed naturally. But now suddenly rises a clap-trap demand for a -“national policy,” which means that we shall force our way out of our -tax-created isolation by diplomacy or war. The effort, however, is to -be restrained carefully and arbitrarily to the western hemisphere, and -we have anxiously disavowed any part or lot in the regulation of the -Congo, although we shall certainly some day desire to take our share in -the trade of that district. Our statesmen, however, if they are going -to let us have any foreign trade, cannot bear to let us go and take it -where we shall make most by it. They must draw _a priori_ lines for -it. They have taxed us in order to shut us up at home. This has killed -the carrying trade, for, if we decided not to trade, what could the -shippers find to do? Next ship-building perished, for if there was no -carrying trade why build ships, especially when the taxes to protect -manufactures were crushing ships and commerce? (§ 101.) Next the navy -declined, for with no commerce to protect at sea, we need no navy. Next -we lost the interest which we took thirty years ago in a canal across -the isthmus, because we have now, under the no-trade policy, no use for -it. Next diplomacy became a sinecure, for we have no foreign relations. - -87. Now comes the “national policy,” not because it is needed, but -as an artificial and inflated piece of political bombast. We are to -galvanize our diplomacy by contracting commercial treaties and meddling -in foreign quarrels. No doubt this will speedily make a navy necessary. -In fact our proposed “American policy” is only an old, cast-off, -eighteenth-century, John Bull policy, which has forced England to keep -up a big army, a big navy, heavy debt, heavy taxes, and a constant -succession of little wars. Hence we shall be taxed some more to pay -for a navy. Then it is proposed to tax us some more to pay for canals -through which the navy can go. Then we are to be taxed some more to -subsidize merchant ships to go through the canal. Then we are to be -taxed some more to subsidize voyages, _i.e._, the carrying trade. Then -we are to be taxed some more to provide the ships with cargoes (§ 83). - -88. All this time, the whole West Indian, Mexican, and Central and -South American trade is ours if we will only stand out of the way and -let it come. It is ours by all geographical and commercial advantage, -and would have been ours since 1825 if we had but taken down the -barriers. Instead of that we propose to tax ourselves some more to -lift it over the barriers. Take the taxes off goods, let exchange go -on, and the carrying trade comes as a consequence. If we have goods to -carry, we shall build or buy ships in which to carry them. If we have -merchant ships, we shall need and shall keep up a suitable navy. If -we need canals, we shall build them, as, in fact, private capital is -now building one and taking the risk of it. If we need diplomacy we -shall learn and practice diplomacy of the democratic, peaceful, and -commercial type. - -89. Thus, under the philosophy of protectionism, the very same thing, -if it comes to us freely by the extension of commerce and the march of -improvement, is regarded with terror, while, if we can first bar it -out, and then only let a little of it in at great cost and pains, it -is a thing worth fighting for. Such is the fallacy of all commercial -treaties. The crucial criticism on all the debates at Washington in -1884–1885 was: _Have these debaters made up their minds to any standard -by which to measure what you get and what you give under a commercial -treaty?_ It was plain that they had not. A generation of protectionism -has taken away the knowledge of what trade is (§§ 125, 139), and whence -its benefits arise, and has created a suspicion of trade (§§ 63 ff.). -Hence when our public men came to compare what we should get and what -we should give, they set about measuring this by things which were -entirely foreign to it. Scarcely two of them agreed as to the standards -by which to measure it. Some thought that it was the number of people -in one country compared with the number in the other. Others thought -that it was the amount sold to as compared with the amount bought from -the country in question. Others thought that it was the amount of -revenue to be sacrificed by us as compared with the amount which would -be sacrificed by the other party. If any one will try to establish a -standard by which to measure the gain by such a treaty to one party or -the other, he will be led to see the fallacy of the whole procedure. -The greatest gain to both would be if the trade were perfectly free. -If it is obstructed more or less, that is a harm to be corrected as -far and as soon as possible. If then either party lowers its own -taxes, that is a gain and a movement toward the desirable state of -things. No state needs anybody’s permission to lower its own taxes, and -entanglements which would impair its fiscal independence would be a new -harm.[17] - -90. Protectionism, therefore, is at war with improvement. It is only -useful to annul and offset the effects of those very improvements of -which we boast. In time, the improvements win power so great that -protectionism cannot withstand them. _Then it turns about and tries -to control and regulate them at great expense by diplomacy or war._ -The greater and more worldwide these improvements are, the more -numerous are the efforts in different parts of the world to revive or -extend protection. No doubt there is loss and inconvenience in the -changes which improvement brings about. A notable case is the loss -and inconvenience of a laborer where a machine is first introduced to -supplant him. Patient endurance and hope, in the confidence that he -will in the end be better off, has long been preached to him. It is -true that he will be better off; but why not apply the same doctrine in -connection with the other inconveniences of improvement, where it is -equally true? - - -3. _PROTECTION LOWERS WAGES_. - -91. On a pure wages system, that is, where there is a class who have -no capital and no land, wages are determined by supply and demand of -labor. The demand for labor is measured by the capital in hand to pay -for it just as the demand for anything else is measured by the supply -of goods offered in exchange for it. In Cobden’s language: “When two -men are after one boss, wages are low; when two bosses are after one -man, wages are high.” - - -(_A_) NO TRUE WAGES CLASS IN THE UNITED STATES. - -92. The United States, however, have never yet been on a pure wages -system because there is no class which has no land or cannot get any. -In fact, the cheapening of transportation which is going on is making -the land of this continent, Australia, and Africa available for the -laborers of Europe, and is breaking down the wages system there. This -is the real reason for the rise of the proletariat and the expansion of -democracy which are generally attributed to metaphysical, sentimental, -or political causes. A man who has no capital and no land cannot live -from day to day except by getting a share in the capital of others in -return for services rendered. In an old society or dense population, -such a class comes into existence. It has no reserves; no other -chances; no other resource. In a new country no such class exists. The -land is to be had for going to it. On the stage of agriculture which is -there existing very little capital and very little division of labor -are necessary. Hence he who has only unskilled manual strength can get -at and use the land, and he can get out of it an abundant supply of the -rude primary comforts of existence for himself and his family. If it -is made so cheap and easy to get from the old centers of population to -the new land that the lowest class of laborers can save enough to pay -the passage, then the effect will reach the labor market of the old -countries also. Such is now the fact. - -93. The weakness of a true wages class is in the fact that they have -no other chance. Obviously, however, _a man is well off in this world -in proportion to the chances which he can command_. The advantage of -education is that it multiplies a man’s chances. _Our_ noncapitalists -have another chance on the land, and the chance is near and easy to -grasp and use. It is not necessary that all or any number should -use it. Every one who uses it leaves more room behind, lessens the -supply and competition of labor, and helps his class as a class. The -other chance which the laborer possesses is also a _good_ one, and -consequently sets the minimum of unskilled wages high. Here we have the -reason for high wages in a new country. - -94. The relation of things was distinctly visible in the early colonial -days. Winthrop tells how the General Court in Massachusetts Bay tried -to fix the wages of artisans by law. It is obvious that artisans were -in great demand to build houses, and that they would not work at their -trades unless the wages would buy as good or better living than the -farmers could get out of the ground, for these artisans could go and -take up land and be farmers too. The only effect of the law was that -the artisans “went West” to the valley of the Connecticut, and the law -became a dead letter. The same equilibration between the gains from the -new land and the wages of artisans and laborers has been kept up ever -since. - -95. In 1884 an attempt was made to unite the Eastern and Western Iron -Associations for common effort in behalf of higher wages. The union -could not be formed because the Eastern and Western Associations _never -had had the same rate of wages_. The latter, being farther west, where -the supply of labor is smaller and the land nearer, have obtained -higher wages. It may be well to anticipate a little right here in -order to point out that this difference in wages has not prevented the -growth of the industry in the West, and has not made competition in -a common market impossible.[18] The fact is of the first importance -to controvert the current assumption of the protectionists. They -say that an industry cannot be carried on in one place if the wages -there are higher than must be paid by somebody in the same industry -in another place. This proposition has no foundation in fact at all. -Farm laborers in Iowa get three times the wages of farm laborers in -England. The products of the former pay 5,000 miles transportation, and -then drive out the products of the latter. Wages are only one element, -and often they are far from being the most important element, in the -economy of production. _The wages which are paid to the men who make an -article have nothing to do with the price or value of that article._ -This proposition, I know, has a startling effect on the people who -hold to the monkish notions of political economy, but it is only a -special case of the theorem that “_Labor which is past has no effect on -value_,” which is the true cornerstone of any sound political economy. -Wages are determined by the supply and demand of labor. Value is -determined by the supply and demand of the commodity. These two things -have no connection. Wages are one element in the capitalist’s outlay -for production. If the total outlay in one line of production, when -compared with the return obtained in that line, is not as advantageous -as the total outlay in another line when compared with the return -available in the second line, then the capital is withdrawn from the -first line and put into the second; but the rate of wages in either -case or any case is the market rate, determined by the supply and -demand of labor, for that is what the employers must pay if they want -the men, whether they are making any profits or not. - -96. The facts and economic principles just stated above show plainly -why wages are high, and put in strong light the assertion of the -protectionists that their device makes wages high (§ 47), that is, -higher than they would be otherwise, or higher here than they are in -Europe. Wages are not arbitrary. They cannot be shifted up and down at -anybody’s whim. They are controlled by ultimate causes. If not, then -what has made them fall during the last eighteen months, ten to forty -per cent, most in the most protected industries (§ 26)? Why are they -highest in the least protected and the unprotected industries, _e.g._, -the building trades? Hod-carriers recently struck in New York for three -dollars for nine hours’ work. Where did the tariff touch their case? -_Why does not the tariff prevent the fall in wages?_ It is all there, -and now is the time for it to come into operation, if it can keep wages -up. Now it is needed. When wages were high in the market, and it was -not needed, it claimed the credit. Now when they fall and it is needed, -it is powerless. - -97. Wages are capital. If I promise to pay wages I must find capital -somewhere with which to fulfill my contract. If the tariff makes me -pay more than I otherwise would, where does the surplus come from? -Disregarding money as only an intermediate term, a man’s wages are -his means of subsistence--food, clothing, house rent, fuel, lights, -furniture, etc. If the tariff system makes him get more of these for -ten hours’ work in a shop than he would get without tariff, _where does -the “more” come from_? Nothing but labor and capital can produce food, -clothing, etc. Either the tax must make these out of nothing, or it can -only get them by taking them from those who have made them, that is by -subtracting them from the wages of somebody else. Taking all the wages -class into account, then the tax cannot possibly increase, but is sure -by waste and loss to decrease wages. - - -(_B_) HOW TAXES DO ACT ON WAGES. - -98. If taxes are to raise wages they must be laid not on goods but on -men. Let the goods be abundant and the men scarce. Then the average -wages will be high, for the supply of labor will be small and the -demand great. If we tax goods and not men, the supply of labor will be -great, the demand will be limited, and the wages will be low. Here -we see why employers of labor want a tariff. For it is an obvious -inconsistency and a most grotesque satire that the same men should tell -the workmen at home that the tariff makes wages high, and should go to -Washington and tell Congress that they want a tariff because the wages -are too high. We have found that the high wages of American laborers -have independent causes and guarantees, outside of legislation. They -are provided and maintained by the economic circumstances of the -country. This is against the interest of those who want to hire the -laborers. No device can serve their interest unless it lowers wages. -From the standpoint of an employer the fortunate circumstances of the -laborer become an obstacle to be overcome (§ 65). The laborer is too -well off. Nothing can do any good which does not make him less well -off. The competition which troubles the employer is not the “pauper -labor” of Europe. - -99. “Pauper labor” had a meaning in the first half of this century, -in England, when the overseers of the poor turned over the younger -portion of the occupants of the poorhouses to the owners of the new -cotton factories, under contracts to teach them the trade and pay them -a pittance. Of course the arrangement had shocking evils connected -with it, but it was a transition arrangement. The “pauper laborers’” -children, after a generation, became independent laborers; the system -expired of itself, and “pauper laborer” is now a senseless jingle. - -100. The competition which the employers fear _is the competition of -those industries in America which can pay the high wages and which keep -the wages high because they do pay them_. These draw the laborer away. -These offer him another chance. If he had no other way of earning more -than he is earning, it would be idle for him to demand more. The reason -why he demands more and gets it is because he knows where he can get -it, if he cannot get it where he is. If, then, he is to be brought -down, the only way to do it is _to destroy, or lessen the value of, his -other chance_. This is just what the tariff does. - -101. The taxes which are laid for protection must come out of somebody. -As I have shown (§§ 32 ff.) the protected interests give and take -from each other, but, if they as a group win anything, they must -win from another group, and that other group must be the industries -which are not and cannot be protected. In England these were formerly -manufactures and they were taxed, under the corn laws, for the benefit -of agriculture. In the United States, of course, the case must be -complementary and opposite. We tax agriculture and commerce to benefit -manufactures. Commerce, _i.e._, the ship-building and carrying trade, -has been crushed out of existence by the burden (§ 86). But the burden -thus thrown on agriculture and commerce lowers the gains of those -industries, lessens the attractiveness of them to the laborer, lessens -the value of the laborer’s other chance, lessens the competition of -other American industries with manufacturing, and so, by taking away -from the blessing which God and nature have given to the American -laborer, enable the man who wants to hire his services to get them at a -lower rate. The effect of taxes is just the same as such a percentage -taken from the fertility of the soil, the excellence of the climate, -the power of tools, or the industrious habits of the people. Hence it -reduces the average comfort and welfare of the population, and with -that average comfort it carries down the wages of such persons as work -for wages. - - -(_C_) PERILS OF STATISTICS, ESPECIALLY OF WAGES. - -102. Any student of statistics will be sure to have far less trust in -statistics than the uninitiated entertain. The bookkeepers have taught -us that figures will not lie, but that they will tell very queer -stories. Statistics will not lie, but they will play wonderful tricks -with a man who does not understand their dialect. The unsophisticated -reader finds it difficult, when a column of statistics is offered to -him, to resist the impression that they must prove _something_. The -fact is that a column of statistics hardly ever proves anything. It -is a popular opinion that anybody can use or understand statistics. -The fact is that a special and high grade of skill is required to -appreciate the effect of the collateral circumstances under which -the statistics were obtained, to appreciate the limits of their -application, and to interpret their significance. The statistics which -are used to prove national prosperity are an illustration of this, for -they are used as absolute measures when it is plain that they have no -use except for a comparison. Sometimes the other term of the comparison -is not to be found and it is always ignored (§ 52). - -103. A congressional committee in the winter of 1883–1884, dealing with -the tariff, took up the census and proceeded to reckon up the wages in -steel production by adding all the wages from the iron mine up. Then -they took bar iron and added all the wages from the bottom up again, in -order to find the importance of the wages element in that, and so on -with every stage of iron industry. They were going to add in the same -wages six or eight times over. - -104. The statistics of comparative wages which are published are of -no value at all.[19] It is not known how, or by whom, or from what -selected cases, they were collected. It is not known how wide, or how -long, or how thorough was the record from which they were taken. The -facts about various classifications of labor in the division of labor, -and about the rate at which machinery is run, or about the allowances -of one kind and another which vary from mill to mill and town to town -are rarely specified at all. Protected employers are eager to tell -the wages they pay per day or week, which are of no importance. The -only statistics which would be of any use for the comparison which -is attempted would be such as show the proportion of wages to total -cost per unit. Even this comparison would not have the force which is -attributed to the other. Hence the statistics offered are worthless -or positively misleading. In the nature of the case such statistics -are extremely hard to get. If application is made to the employers, -the inquiry concerns their private business. They have no interest -in answering. They cannot answer without either spending great labor -on their books (if the inquiry covers a period), or surrendering -their books to some one else, if they allow him to do the labor. If -inquiry is made of the men, it becomes long and tedious and full of -uncertainties. Do United States Consuls take the trouble involved -in such an inquiry? Have they the training necessary to conduct it -successfully? - -105. The fact is generally established and is not disputed that wages -are higher here than in Europe. The difference is greatest on the -lowest grade of labor--manual labor, unskilled labor. The difference is -less on higher grades of labor. For what the English call “engineers,” -men who possess personal dexterity and creative power, the difference -is the other way, if we compare the United States and England. The -returns of immigration reflect these differences exactly (§ 122, note). -The great body of the immigrants consists of farmers and laborers. -The “skilled laborers” are comparatively a small class, and, if the -claims of the individuals to be what they call themselves were tested -by English or German trade standards, the number would be very small -indeed. Engineers emigrate from Germany to England. Men of that class -rarely come to this country, or, if they come, they come under special -contracts, or soon return. Each country, spite of all taxes and other -devices, gets the class of men for which its industrial condition -offers the best chances. The only thing the tariff does in the matter -is to take from those who have an advantage here a part of that -advantage. - - -4. _PROTECTIONISM IS SOCIALISM_ - -106. Simply to give protectionism a bad name would be to accomplish -very little. When I say that protectionism is socialism I mean to -classify it and bring it not only under the proper heading but into -relation with its true affinities. _Socialism is any device or doctrine -whose aim is to save individuals from any of the difficulties or -hardships of the struggle for existence and the competition of life by -the intervention of “the State.”_ Inasmuch as “the State” never is or -can be anything but some other people, socialism is a device for making -some people fight the struggle for existence for others. The devices -always have a doctrine behind them which aims to show why this _ought_ -to be done. - -107. The protected interests demand that they be saved from the trouble -and annoyance of business competition, and that they be assured profits -in their undertakings, by “the State,” that is, at the expense of their -fellow-citizens. If this is not socialism, then there is no such thing. -If employers may demand that “the State” shall guarantee them profits, -why may not the employees demand that “the State” shall guarantee them -wages? If we are taxed to provide profits, why should we not be taxed -for public workshops, for insurance to laborers, or for any other -devices which will give wages and save the laborer from the annoyances -of life and the risks and hardships of the struggle for existence? The -“we” who are to pay changes all the time, and the turn of the protected -employer to pay will surely come before long. The plan of all living -on each other is capable of great expansion. It is, as yet, far from -being perfected or carried out completely. The protectionists are only -educating those who are as yet on the “paying” side of it, but who will -certainly use political power to put themselves also on the “receiving” -side of it. The argument that “the State” must do something for me -because my business does not pay, is a very far-reaching argument. If -it is good for pig iron and woolens, it is good for all the things to -which the socialists apply it. - - -CHAPTER IV - -SUNDRY FALLACIES OF PROTECTIONISM - -108. I can now dispose rapidly of a series of current fallacies -put forward by the protectionists. They generally are fanciful or -far-fetched attempts to show some equivalent which the taxpayer gets -for his taxes. - - -(_A_) THAT INFANT INDUSTRIES CAN BE NOURISHED UP TO INDEPENDENCE AND -THAT THEY THEN BECOME PRODUCTIVE. - -109. I know of no case where this hope has been realized, although -we have been trying the experiment for nearly a century. The weakest -infants to-day are those whom Alexander Hamilton set out to protect in -1791. As soon as the infants begin to get any strength (if they ever do -get any) the protective system forces them to bear the burden of other -infants, and so on forever. The system superinduces hydrocephalus on -the infants, and instead of ever growing to maturity, the longer they -live, the bigger babies they are. It is the system which makes them so, -and on its own plan it can never rationally be expected to have any -other effect. (See further, under the next fallacy, §§ 111 ff.) - -110. Mill[20] makes a statement of a case, as within the bounds of -conceivability, where there might be an advantage for a young country -to protect an infant industry. He is often quoted without regard to -the limitation of his statement, as if he had affirmed the general -expediency of protection in new countries and for infant industries. -It amounts to a misquotation to quote him without regard to the -limitations which he specified. The statement which he did make is -mathematically demonstrable.[21] The doctrine so developed is very -familiar in private enterprise. A business enterprise may be started -which for some years will return no profits or will occasion losses, -but which is expected later to recoup all these. _What are the limits -within which such an enterprise can succeed?_ It must either call for -sinking capital only for a short period (like building a railroad or -planting an orange grove), or it must promise enormous gains after it -is started (like a patented novelty). The higher the rate of interest, -as in any new country, the more stringent and narrow these conditions -are. Mill said that it was conceivable that a case of an industry might -occur in which this same calculation might be applied to a protective -tax. If, then, anybody says that he can offer an industry which meets -the conditions, let it be examined to see if it does so. If protection -is never applied until such a case is offered, it will never be applied -at all. A thing which is mathematically conceivable is one which is -not absurd; but a thing which is practically possible is quite another -thing. For myself, I strenuously dissent from Mill’s doctrine even as -he limits it. In the first place the state cannot by taxes work out -an industrial enterprise of a character such that it, as any one can -see, _demands the most intense and careful oversight by persons whose -capital is at stake in it_, and, in the second place, the state would -bear the loss, while it lasted, but private interests would take the -gain after it began. - - -(_B_) THAT PROTECTIVE TAXES DO NOT RAISE PRICES BUT LOWER PRICES. - -111. To this it is obvious to reply: what good can they then do -toward the end proposed? Still it is true that, under circumstances, -protective taxes do lower prices. The protectionist takes an infant -industry in hand and proposes to rear it by putting on taxes to ward -off competition, and by giving it more profits than the world’s market -price would give. This raises the price. But the consumer then raises -a complaint. The protectionist turns to him and promises that by and -by there will be “overproduction,” and prices will fall. This arrives -in due time, for every protected industry is organized as a more or -less limited monopoly, and a monopoly which has overproduced its -market, _at the price which it wants_, is the weakest industry possible -(§ 24). The consumer now wins, but a wail from the cradle calls the -protectionist back to the infant industry, which is in convulsions from -“overproduction.” Some of the infants die. This gives a new chance to -the others. They combine for more effective monopoly, put the prices -up again by limiting production, and go on until “overproduction” -produces a new collapse. This is another reason why infants never win -vitality. The net result is that the market is in constant alternations -of stringency and laxity, and nothing at all is gained. - -112. Whenever we talk of prices _it should be noticed that our -statements involve money_--the rate at which goods exchange for money. -If then we want to raise prices, we must _restrict the supply_ of -goods, so that on the doctrine of money also we shall come to the same -result as before, that protective taxes lessen production and diminish -wealth. - -113. The problem of managing any monopoly is to dose the market with -just the quantity which it will take at the price which the monopolist -wants to get. In a qualified monopoly, that is, one which is shared -by a number of persons, the difficulty is to get agreement about the -management. They may not have any communication with each other and may -compete. If so they will overdose the market and the price will fall. -Then they meet, to establish communication; form an “association,” to -get harmonious action, and agree to divide the production among them -and limit and regulate it, to prevent the former mistake and restore -prices (§ 24). - - -(_C_) THAT WE SHOULD BE A PURELY AGRICULTURAL NATION UNDER FREE TRADE. - -114. A purely agricultural nation covering a territory as large as that -of the United States is inconceivable. The distribution of industries -now _inside_ the United States is a complete proof that no such thing -would come to pass, for we have absolute free trade inside, and -manufactures are growing up in the agricultural states just as fast -as circumstances favor, and just as fast as they can be profitably -carried on. Under free trade there would be a subdivision of cotton, -woolen, iron and other industries, and we should both export and -import different varieties and qualities of these goods. The southern -states are now manufacturing coarse cottons in competition with New -England. The western states manufacture coarse woolens, certain grades -of leather and iron goods, etc., in competition with the East. Here -we see the exact kind of differentiation which would take place under -free trade, and we can see the mischief of the tariff, whether on the -one hand it strikes a whole category with the same brutal ignorance, -or tries, by cunning sub-classification, to head off every effort to -save itself which the trade makes.[22] If, however, it was conceivable -that we should become a purely agricultural nation, the only legitimate -inference would be that our whole population could be better supported -in that way than in any other. If there was a greater profit in -something else some of them would go into it. - - -(_D_) THAT COMMUNITIES WHICH MANUFACTURE ARE MORE PROSPEROUS THAN THOSE -WHICH ARE AGRICULTURAL. - -115. This is as true as if it should be said that all tall men are -healthy. It would be answered that some are and some are not; that -tallness and health have no connection. Some manufacturing communities -are prosperous and some not. The self-contradiction of protectionism -appears in one of its boldest forms in this fallacy. We are told that -manufactures are a special blessing. The protectionist says that he -is going to give us some. Instead of that he makes new demands on us, -lays a new burden on us, gives us nothing but more taxes. He promises -us an income and increases our expenditure; promises an asset and gives -a liability; promises a gift and creates a debt; promises a blessing -and gives a burden. The very thing which he boasts of as a great -and beneficial advantage gives us nothing, but takes from us more. -Prosperity is no more connected with one form of industry than another. -If it were so, some of mankind would have, by nature, a permanently -better chance than others, and no one could emigrate to a new, that is -agricultural country, without injuring his interests. The world is not -made so. - - -(_E_) THAT IT IS AN OBJECT TO DIVERSIFY INDUSTRY, AND THAT NATIONS -WHICH HAVE VARIOUS INDUSTRIES ARE STRONGER THAN OTHERS WHICH HAVE NOT -VARIOUS INDUSTRIES. - -116. It is not an object to diversify industry, but to multiply and -diversify our satisfactions, comforts, and enjoyments. If we can do -this by unifying our industry, in greater measure than by diversifying -it, then we should do, and we will do, the former. It is not a question -to be decided _a priori_, but depends upon economic circumstances. If -a country has a supremacy in some one industry it will have only one. -California and Australia had only one industry until the gold mines -declined in productiveness, that is, until their supreme advantage -over other countries was diminished: they began to diversify when -they began to be less well off. The oil region of Pennsylvania has a -chance of three industries, the old farming industry, coal, and oil. It -will have only one industry so long as oil gives chances superior to -those enjoyed by any other similar district. When it loses its unique -advantage by nature it will diversify. The “strongest” nation is the -one which brings products into the world’s market which are of high -demand, but which cost it little toil and sacrifice to get; for it will -then have command of all the good things which men can get on earth at -little effort to itself. Whether the products which it offers are one -or numerous is immaterial. All the tariff has to do with it is that -when the American comes into the world’s market with wheat, cotton, -tobacco, and petroleum, all objects of high demand by mankind and -little cost to him, it forces him to forego a part of his due advantage -(§§ 125, 134). - - -(_F_) THAT MANUFACTURES GIVE VALUE TO LAND. - -117. This doctrine issued from the Agricultural Bureau. It has been -thought a grand development of the protectionist argument. It is a -simple logical fallacy based on some misconstrued statistics. The -value of land depends on supply and demand. The demand for land is -population. Hence where the population is dense the value of land is -great. Manufactures can be carried on only where there is a supply of -labor, that is, where the population is dense. Hence high value of land -and manufacturing industry are common results of dense population. The -statistician of the Agricultural Bureau connected them with each other -as cause and effect, and the New York _Tribune_ said that it was the -grandest contribution to political economy since “the fingers of Horace -Greeley stiffened in death”; which was true. - -118. If manufactures spring up spontaneously out of original -strength, and by independent development, of course they “add value -to land,” that is to say, the district has new industrial power and -every interest in it is benefited; but if the manufactures have to -be protected, paid for, and supported, they do not do any good as -manufactures but only as a device for drawing capital from elsewhere, -as tribute. In this way, protective taxes do alter the comparative -value of land in different districts. This effect can be seen under -some astonishing phases in Connecticut and other manufacturing -states. The farmers are taxed to hire some people to go and live -in manufacturing villages and carry on manufacturing there. This -displacement of population, brought about at the expense of the rural -population, diminishes the value of agricultural land and raises that -of city land right here within the same state. The hillside population -is being impoverished, and the hillside farms are being abandoned on -account of the tribute levied on them to swell the value of mill sites -and adjoining land in the manufacturing towns (§§ 120, 137). - - -(_G_) THAT THE FARMER, IF HE PAYS TAXES TO BRING INTO EXISTENCE A -FACTORY, WHICH WOULD NOT OTHERWISE EXIST, WILL WIN MORE THAN THE TAXES -BY SELLING FARM PRODUCE TO THE ARTISANS. - -119. This is an arithmetical fallacy. It proposes to get three pints -out of a quart. The farmer is out for the tax and the farm produce and -he can not get back more than the tax because, if the factory owes its -existence to the protective taxes, it cannot make any profit outside of -the taxes. The proposition to the farmer is that he shall pay taxes to -another man who will bring part of the tax back to buy produce with it. -This is to make the farmer rich. The man who owned stock in a railroad -and who rode on it, paying his fare, in the hope of swelling his own -dividends, was wise compared with a farmer who believes that protection -can be a source of gain to him. - -120. Since, as I have shown (§ 101), protective taxes act like a -reduction in the fertility of the soil, they lower the “margin of -cultivation,” and raise rent. They do not, however, raise it in -favor of the agricultural land owner, for, by the displacement just -described, they take away from him to give to the town land owner. Of -course, I do not believe that the protective taxes have really lowered -the margin of cultivation in this country, for they have not been able -to offset the greater richness of the newest land, and the advance in -the arts. What protection costs us comes out of the exuberant bounty of -nature to us. Still I know of very few who could not stand it to be a -great deal better off than they are, and the New England farmer is the -one who has the least chance, and the fewest advantages, with which to -endure protection. - - -(_H_) THAT FARMERS GAIN BY PROTECTION, BECAUSE IT DRAWS SO MANY -LABORERS OUT OF COMPETITION WITH THEM. - -121. Since the farmers pay the taxes by which this operation is -supposed to be produced, a simple question is raised, _viz._, how -much can one afford to pay to buy off competition in his business? He -cannot afford to pay anything unless he has a monopoly which he wants -to consolidate. Our farmers are completely open to competition on every -side. The immigration of farmers every three or four years exceeds all -the workers in all the protected trades. Hence the farmers, if they -take the view which is recommended to them, instead of gaining any -ground, are face to face with a task which gets bigger and bigger the -longer they work at it. If one man should support another in order to -get rid of the latter’s competition as a producer, that would be the -case where the taxpayer supports soldiers, idle pensioners, paupers, -etc. A protected manufacturer, however, by the hypothesis, is not -simply supported in idleness, but he is carrying on a business the -losses of which must be paid by those who buy off his competition in -their own production. On the other hand, when farmers come to market, -they are in free competition with several other sources of supply. -Hence, if they did any good to agricultural industry by hiring the -artisans to go out of competition with them, they would have to share -the gain with all their competitors the world over while paying all the -expense of it themselves. - -122. The movement of men over the earth and the movement of goods -over the earth are complementary operations. Passports to stop the -men and taxes to stop the goods would be equally legitimate. Since it -is, once for all, a fact that some parts of the earth have advantages -for one thing and other parts for other things, men avail themselves -of the local advantages either by moving themselves to the places, or -by trading what they produce where they are for what others produce -in the other places. The passenger trains and the freight trains are -set in motion by the same ultimate economic fact. Our exports are -all bulky and require more tonnage than our imports. On the westward -trip, consequently, bunks are erected and men are brought in space -where cotton, wheat, etc., were taken out. The tariff, by so much as -it lessens the import of goods, leaves room which the ship owners -are eager to fill with immigrants. To do this they lower the rates. -Hence the tariff is a premium on immigration. The protectionists have -claimed that the tariff does favor immigration. But nine-tenths of the -immigrants are laborers, domestic servants, and farmers.[23] Probably -more than one-third of the total number, including women, find their -way to the land. As we have seen, the tariff also lowers the profits -of agriculture, which discourages immigration and the movement to the -land. Therefore, if the farmer believes what the protectionist tells -him, he must understand that the taxes he pays bring in more people, -and raise the value of land by settling it, and that they also bring -more competition, which the farmer must buy off by lowering the profits -of his own (the farming) industry. Then, too, so far as the immigrants -are artisans, the premium on immigration is a tax paid to increase the -supply of labor, that is, to lower wages, although the protectionists -say that the tariff raises wages. Hence we see that when a tax is laid, -in our modern complicated society, instead of being a simple and easy -means or method to be employed for a specific purpose, its action and -reaction on transportation, land, wages, etc., will produce erratic, -contradictory, and confused effects, which cannot be predicted or -analyzed thoroughly, and the protectionist, when he pleads three or -four arguments for his system, is alleging three or four features of -it which, if properly analyzed and brought together, are found to be -mutually destructive, and cumulative only as to the mischief they do -(see §§ 29, 101). - - -(_I_) THAT OUR INDUSTRIES WOULD PERISH WITHOUT PROTECTION. - -123. Those who say this think only of manufacturing establishments as -“industries.” They also talk of “our” industries. They mean those we -support by the taxes we pay; not those from which we get dividends. No -industry will ever be given up except in order to take up a better one, -and if, under free trade, any of our industries should perish, it would -only be because the removal of restrictions enabled some other industry -to offer so much better rewards that labor and capital would seek the -latter. It is plain that, if a man does not know of any better way to -earn his living than the one in which he is, he must remain in that, or -move to some other place. If any one can suppose that the population -of the United States could be forced, by free trade, to move away, he -must suppose that this country cannot support its population, and that -we made a mistake in coming here. This argument is especially full of -force if the articles to be produced are coal, iron, wool, copper, -timber, or any other primary products of the soil. For, if it is said -that we cannot raise these products of the soil in competition with -some other part of the earth’s surface, all it proves is that we have -come to the wrong spot to seek them. If, however, the soil can support -the population under an arrangement by which certain industries support -themselves, and those which do not pay besides, then it is plain that -the former are really supporting the whole population--part directly -and part indirectly, through a circuitous and wasteful organization. -Hence the same strong and independent industries could certainly still -better support the whole population, if they supported it directly. - -124. I have been asked whether we should have had any steel works in -this country, if we had had no protection. I reply that I do not know; -neither does anybody else, but it is certain that we should have had a -great deal more steel, if we had had no protection. - -125. “But,” it is said, “we should import everything.” Should we import -everything and give nothing? If so, foreigners would make us presents -and support us. Should we give equal value in exchange? If so, there -would be just as much “industry” and a great deal less “work” in that -way of getting things than in making them ourselves. The moment that -ceased to be true we should make and not buy. Suppose that a district, -A, has two million inhabitants, one million of whom produce a million -bushels of wheat, and one million produce a million hundredweight of -iron; and suppose that a bushel of wheat exchanges for a hundredweight -of iron. Now, by improved transportation and emigration, suppose that -a new wheat country, B, is opened, and that its people bring wheat to -the first district, offering two bushels for a hundredweight of iron. -Plainly they must offer more than one bushel for one hundredweight, -or it is useless for them to come. Now the people of A, by putting -all their labor and capital in iron production, produce two million -hundredweight. They keep one million hundredweight, and exchange one -million hundredweight of iron for two million bushels of wheat. The -destruction of their wheat industry is a sign of a change in industry -(unifying and not diversifying) by which they have gained a million -bushels of wheat. Such is the gain of all trade. If the gain did not -exist, trade would not be a feature of civilization. - - -(_J_) THAT IT WOULD BE WISE TO CALL INTO EXISTENCE VARIOUS INDUSTRIES, -EVEN AT AN EXPENSE, IF WE COULD THUS OFFER EMPLOYMENT TO ALL KINDS OF -ARTISANS, ETC., WHO MIGHT COME TO US. - -126. This would be only maintaining public workshops at the expense -of the taxpayers, and would be open to all the objections which are -conclusive against public workshops. The expense would be prodigious, -and the return little or nothing. This argument shows less sense of -comparative cost and gain than any other which is ever proposed. - - -(_K_) THAT WE WANT TO BE COMPLETE IN OURSELVES AND SUFFICIENT TO -OURSELVES, AND INDEPENDENT, AS A NATION, WHICH STATE OF THINGS WILL BE -PRODUCED BY PROTECTION. - -127. I will only refer to what I have already said about China and -Japan (§ 69) as types of what this plan produces. If a number of -families from among us should be shipwrecked on an island, their -greatest woe would be that they could not trade with the rest of the -world. They might live there “self-contained” and “independent,” -fulfilling the ideal of happiness which this proposition offers, but -they would look about them to see a surfeit of things which, as they -know, their friends at home would like to have, and they would think -of all the old comforts which they used to have, and which they could -not produce on their island. They might be contented to live on there -and make it their home, if they could exchange the former things for -the latter. If now a ship should chance that way and discover them and -should open communication and trade between them and their old home, a -protectionist philosopher would say to them: “You are making a great -mistake. You ought to make everything for yourselves. The wise thing to -do would be to isolate yourselves again by taxes as soon as possible.” -We sent some sages to the Japanese to induct them into the ways of -civilization, who, as a matter of fact, did tell them that the first -step in civilization was to adopt a protective tariff and shut up again -by taxes the very ports which they had just opened. - - -(_L_) THAT PROTECTIVE TAXES ARE NECESSARY TO PREVENT A FOREIGN MONOPOLY -FROM GETTING CONTROL OF OUR MARKET. - -128. It is said that English manufacturers once combined to lower -prices in order to kill out American manufactures, and that they then -put up their prices to monopoly rates. If they did this, why did not -their other customers send to the United States and buy the goods here -in the first instance, and why did not the Americans go and buy the -goods of the Englishmen’s other customers in the second instance? If -the Englishmen put down their prices for their whole market in the -first instance, why did they not incur a great loss? and, if they -raised it for their whole market in the second instance, why did they -not yield the entire market to their competitors? The Englishmen are -said to be wonderfully shrewd, and are here credited with the most -stupid and incredible folly. - -129. The protective system puts us certainly in the hands of a home -monopoly for fear of the impossible chance that we may fall into the -hands of a foreign monopoly. Before the war we made no first quality -thread. We got it at four cents a spool (retail) of an English -monopoly. Under the tariff we were saved from this by being put into -the hands of a home monopoly which charged five cents a spool. In the -meantime the foreign monopoly lowered thread to three cents a spool -(retail) for the Canadians, who were at its mercy. Lest we should have -to buy nickel of a foreign monopolist, Congress forced us to buy it of -the owner of the only mine in the United States, and added thirty cents -a pound to any price the foreigner might ask. - - -(_M_) THAT FREE TRADE IS GOOD IN THEORY BUT IMPOSSIBLE IN PRACTICE; -THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING IF ALL NATIONS WOULD HAVE IT. - -130. That a thing can be true in theory and false in practice is -the most utter absurdity that human language can express. For, if a -thing is true in practice (protectionism, for instance) the theory -of its truth can be found, and that theory will be true. But it was -admitted that free trade is true in theory. Hence two things which -are contradictory would both be true at the same time about the same -thing. The fact is, that _protectionism is totally impracticable_. It -does not work as it is expected to work; it does not produce any of the -results which were promised from it; it is never properly and finally -established to the satisfaction of its own votaries. They cannot let -it alone. They always want to “correct inequalities,” or revise it one -way or another. It was they who got up the Tariff Commission of 1882. -Their system is not capable of construction so as to furnish a normal -and regular status for industry. One of them said that the tariff would -be all right if it could only be made stable; another said that it -ought to be revised every two years. One said that it ought to include -everything; another said that it would be good “if it was only laid on -the right things.” - -131. If all nations had free trade, no one of them would have any -special gain from it, just as, if all men were honest, honesty would -have no commercial value. Some say that a man cannot afford to be -honest unless everybody is honest. The truth is that, if there was one -honest man among a lot of cheats, his character and reputation would -reach their maximum value. So the nation which has free trade when the -others do not have it gains the most by comparison with them. It gains -while they impoverish themselves. If all had free trade all would be -better off, but then no one would profit from it more than others. If -this were not true, if the man who first sees the truth and first acts -wisely did not get a special premium for it, the whole moral order of -the universe would have to be altered, for no reform or improvement -could be tried until unanimous consent was obtained. If a man or a -nation does right, the rewards of doing right are obtained. They are -not as great as could be obtained if all did right, but they are -greater than those enjoy who still do wrong. - - -(_N_) THAT TRADE IS WAR, SO THAT FREE TRADE METHODS ARE UNFIT FOR IT, -AND THAT PROTECTIVE TAXES ARE SUITED TO IT. - -132. It is evidently meant by this that trade involves a struggle -or contest of competition. It might, however, as well be said that -practicing law is war, because it is contentious; or that practicing -medicine is war, because doctors are jealous rivals of each other. The -protectionists do, however, always seem to think of trade as commercial -war. One of them was reported to have said in a speech, in the late -campaign, that nations would not fight any more with guns but with -taxes. The nations are to boycott each other. One would think that -the experience our Southerners made of that notion in the Civil War, -upon which they entered in the faith that “cotton is king,” would -have sufficed to banish forever that antique piece of imbecility, a -commercial war. If trade is war, all the tariff can do about it is -to make A fight B’s battles, although A has his own battles to fight -besides. - - -(_O_) THAT PROTECTION BRINGS INTO EMPLOYMENT LABOR AND CAPITAL WHICH -WOULD OTHERWISE BE IDLE. - -133. If there is any labor or capital which is idle, that fact is a -symptom of industrial disease; especially is this true in the United -States. If a laborer is idle he is in danger of starving to death. If -capital is idle it is producing nothing to its owner, who depends on -it, and is suffering loss. Therefore, if labor or capital is idle, -some antecedent error or folly must have produced a stoppage in the -industrial organization. The cure is, not to lay some more taxes, -but to find the error and correct it. If then things are in their -normal and healthy condition, the labor and capital of the country are -employed as far as possible under the existing organization. We are -constantly trying to improve our exchange and credit systems so as -to keep all our capital all the time employed. Such improvements are -important and valuable, but to make them cost more thought and skillful -labor than to invent machines. Hence Congress cannot do that work by -discharging a volley of taxes at selected articles, and leaving those -taxes to find out the proper points to affect, and to exert the proper -influence. It takes intelligent and hard-working men to do it. The -faith that anything else can do it is superstition. - - -(_P_) THAT A YOUNG NATION NEEDS PROTECTION AND WILL SUFFER SOME -DISADVANTAGE IN FREE EXCHANGE WITH AN OLD ONE. - -134. The younger a nation is the more important trade is to it (cf. §§ -127 ff.). The younger a nation is the more it wins by trade, for it -offers food and raw materials which are objects of greatest necessity -to old nations. The things England buys of us are far more essential -to her than what she buys of France or Germany. The strong party in an -exchange is not the rich party, or the old party, but the one who is -favored by supply and demand--the one who brings to the exchange the -thing which is more rare and more eagerly wanted.[24] If a poor woman -went into Stewart’s store to buy a yard of calico, she did not have to -pay more because Stewart was rich. She paid less because he used his -capital to serve her better and at less price than anybody else could. -England takes 60 per cent of all our exports. We sell, first, wheat and -provisions, prime articles of food; second, cotton, the most important -raw material now used by mankind; third, tobacco, the most universal -luxury and the one for which there is the intensest demand; fourth, -petroleum, the lighting material in most universal use. These are -things which are rare and of high demand. We are, therefore, strong in -the market. Protection only robs us of part of our advantage (§ 116). - - -(_Q_) THAT WE NEED PROTECTION TO GET READY FOR WAR. - -135. We have no army, or navy, or fortifications worth mentioning. We -are wasting more by protective taxes in a year than would be necessary -to build a first-class navy and fortify our whole seacoast. It is said -that, in some way, the taxes get us ready for war, and yet in fact -we are not ready for war. It is plain that this argument is only a -pretense put forward to try to cover the real motives of protection. If -we prefer to go without army, navy, and fortifications, as we now do, -then the best way to get ready for war, consistently with that policy, -is _to get as rich as we can_. Then we can count on buying anything in -the world which anybody else has got and which we need. Protection, -then, which lessens our wealth, is only diminishing our power for war. - - -(_R_) THAT PROTECTIONISM PRODUCES SOME GREAT MORAL ADVANTAGES. - -136. It is a very suspicious thing when a man who sets out to discuss -an economic question shifts over on the “moral” ground. Not because -economics and morals have nothing to do with each other. On the -contrary, they meet at a common boundary line, and, when both are -sound, straight and consistent lines run from one into the other. -Capital is the first requisite of all human effort for goods of any -kind, and the increase of capital is therefore the expansion of -_chances_ that intellectual, moral, and spiritual good may be won. The -moral question is: How will the chances be used? If, then, the economic -analysis shows that protective taxes lessen capital, it follows that -those taxes lessen the regular chances for all higher good. - -137. It is argued that hardship disciplines a man and is good for him; -hence, that the free traders, who want people to do what is easiest, -would corrupt them, and that protectionists, by “making work,” bring in -salutary discipline for the people. This is the effect upon those who -pay the taxes. The counter-operation on the beneficiaries of the system -I have never seen developed. Bastiat said that the model at which the -protectionist was aiming was Sisyphus, who was condemned in Hades to -roll a stone to the top of a hill, from which, as soon as he got it -there, it rolled down again to the bottom. Then he rolled it up again, -and so on to all eternity. Here then was infinity of effort, zero of -result; the ultimate type to which the protectionist system would come. -Somebody pitied Sisyphus, to whom he replied: “Thou fool! I enjoy -everlasting hope!” If Sisyphus could extract moral consolation from his -case, I am not prepared to deny but that a New England farmer, ground -between the upper millstone of free competition, in his production, -with the Mississippi Valley, and the nether millstone of protective -taxes on all his consumption, may derive some moral consolation from -his case. There are a great many people who are apparently ready -to inflict salutary chastisement on the American citizen for his -welfare--and their own advantage. - -138. The protectionist doctrine is that _if my earnings are taken from -me and given to my neighbor, and he spends them on himself, there will -be important moral gains to the community which will be lost if I keep -my own earnings, and spend them on myself_. The facts of experience are -all to the contrary. When a man keeps his own earnings he is frugal, -temperate, prudent, and honest. When he gets and lives on another man’s -earnings, he is extravagant, wasteful, luxurious, idle, and covetous. -The effects on the community in either case correspond. - -139. The truth is that protectionism demoralizes and miseducates a -people (§§ 89, 153, 155). It deprives them of individual self-reliance -and energy, and teaches them to seek crafty and unjust advantages. It -breaks down the skill of great merchants and captains of industry, -and develops the skill of lobbyists. It gives faith in monopoly, -combinations, jobbery, and restriction, instead of giving faith in -energy, free enterprise, public purity, and freedom. Illustrations of -this occur all the time. Objection has been made to the introduction -of machines to stop the smoke nuisance because they would interfere in -the competition of anthracite and bituminous coal. People have resisted -the execution of ordinances against gambling houses because said houses -“make trade” for their neighbors. The theater men recently made an -attempt to get regulations adopted against skating rinks--purely on -moral grounds. The industries of the country all run to the form of -combinations.[25] Our wisdom is developed, not in the great art of -production, but in the tactics of managing a combination, and while we -sustain all the causes and all the great principles of this system of -business we denounce “monopoly” and “corporations.” - - - (_S_) THAT A “WORKER MAY GAIN MORE BY HAVING HIS INDUSTRY PROTECTED - THAN HE WILL LOSE BY HAVING TO PAY DEARLY FOR WHAT HE CONSUMES. - A SYSTEM WHICH RAISES PRICES ALL ROUND--LIKE THAT IN THE UNITED - STATES AT PRESENT--IS OPPRESSIVE TO CONSUMERS, BUT IS MOST - DISADVANTAGEOUS TO THOSE WHO CONSUME WITHOUT PRODUCING ANYTHING, - AND DOES LITTLE, IF ANY, INJURY TO THOSE WHO PRODUCE MORE THAN THEY - CONSUME.” - -140. This is an English contribution to the subject dropped in passing -by a writer on economic history.[26] It is a noteworthy fact that the -“historical economists” and others who deride political economy as a -science do not desist from it, but at once set to work to make very -bad political economy of the “abstract” or “deductive” sort. The -passage quoted involves three or four fallacies already noticed, and an -assumption of the truth of protectionism as a philosophy. As we have -abundantly established, “workers” gain nothing by protection in their -production (§ 48). Also, “a system which raises prices all around” must -either lessen the demand and requirement for money, _i.e._, restrict -business and the supply of goods (§ 112), or it must increase the -amount of money. In the former case it could not but injure “workers”; -in the latter case we should find ourselves dealing with a greenback -fallacy. But passing by that, who are they who consume more than they -produce? I can think only of (1) princes, pensioners, sinecurists, -protected persons, and paupers, who draw support from taxes, and (2) -swindlers, confidence men, and others who live by their wits on the -produce of others. Those under (1), if they receive fixed money grants -or subsidies, find an advance in price most disadvantageous. So the -protected, of course, as consumers of others’ products, when they -spend what they have received by protection, suffer. Who are they who -produce more than they consume? I can think only of (1) taxpayers, -and (2) victims of fraud and of those economic errors which give one -man’s earnings to another’s use. Rise in price is just as advantageous -to this class as it was disadvantageous to the other, on the same -hypothesis, _viz_., if they pay fixed money taxes to the parasites, and -can sell their products for more money. Evidently the writer did not -understand correctly what his two classes consisted of, and he put the -protected “workers” in the wrong one. If in industry a person should -produce more than he consumes, he could give it away, or it would decay -on his hands. If he should consume more than he produced, he would run -in debt and become bankrupt.[27] Protection has nothing to do with -that. - - - (_T_) THAT “A DUTY MAY AT ONCE PROTECT THE NATIVE MANUFACTURER - ADEQUATELY, AND RECOUP THE COUNTRY FOR THE EXPENSE OF PROTECTING - HIM.” - -141. This is Professor Sidgwick’s doctrine.[28] It has given great -comfort to our protectionists because it is put forward by an -Englishman and a Cambridge professor. It is offered under the “art” -of political economy. It is a new thing; an _a priori_ art. The “may” -in it deprives it of the character of a doctrine or dogma such as our -less cultivated protectionists give us--“Protective taxes come out of -the foreigner”--but it is not a maxim of art. It has the air of a very -astute contrivance (see § 3), and is therefore very captivating to many -people, and it is very difficult to dissect and to expose in a simple -and popular way. It has therefore given great trouble and done great -mischief. It is, however, a complete error. It is not possible in any -way or in any degree to use duties so as to make the foreigner pay for -protection. - -142. Professor Sidgwick states the hypothetical instance which he -sets up to prove by illustration that there “may” be such a case, as -follows: “Suppose that a five per cent duty is imposed on foreign -silks, and that, in consequence, after a certain interval, half the -silks consumed are the product of native industry, and that the price -of the whole has risen 2½ per cent. It is obvious that, under these -circumstances, the other half, which comes from abroad, yields the -state five per cent, while the tax levied from the consumers on the -whole is only 2½ per cent; so that the nation, in the aggregate, is at -this time losing nothing by protection, except the cost of collecting -the tax, while a loss equivalent to the whole tax falls on the foreign -producer.” - -143. It is necessary, in the first place, to complete the hypothesis -which is included in this case. Let us assume that the consumption of -silk, when all was imported, was 100 yards and that the price was $1 -per yard. Then the following points are taken for granted, although not -stated in the case as it is put: (1) That the state needs $5 revenue; -(2) that it has determined to get this out of _the consumers of silk_; -(3) that the advance in price does not diminish the consumption; (4) -that the tax forces a reduction of price for the silk in the whole -outside market; (5) that the “_silk_” in question is the same thing -after the tax is laid as before. Of these assumptions, 3, 4, and 5 are -totally inadmissible, but, if they be admitted in the first instance, -and if the doctrine of the case which is put be deduced, it is this: -If the part imported multiplied by the tax is equal to the total -consumption multiplied by the advance in price, the consumers can -pay the latter in protection, for it is equal to the former, and the -former, which is paid to the government by the foreigner, is what the -consumers of silk must otherwise have paid. - -144. Obviously this deduction is arithmetically incorrect, even on -the hypothesis. In the first place, the government has not obtained -$5 revenue which it needed, but $2.50 (5 cents on 50 yards). In the -second place, the foreigner sells at $1.02½ (net 97½) the silk which -he used to sell for $1. He therefore gets back from the consumers 2½ -cents per yard on 50 yards, or $1.25 out of the $2.50 which he has paid -to the government. Also, the domestic silk to compete must be equal -to the dollar imported silk which now sells for $1.02½. Hence, the -consumers really pay in protection only 2½ cents on 50 yards, _i.e._ -$1.25. This case, then, is, that the foreigner pays $1.25 revenue, -and the consumers pay $1.25 revenue and $1.25 protection. Hence the -result is not at all what is asserted, and there is no such operation -of the contrivance as was expected. But the government needs $2.50 -more revenue, the operation of its tax having been interfered with by -protection. As there is no equivalence or compensation in the case as -it already stands, it is evident that the effect of any further tax, -instead of bringing about equivalence or compensation, will be to -depart from such a result still further. - -145. It is, however, impossible to admit assumptions 3, 4, and 5 above, -or to deal with any economic problem by any arithmetical process. The -result above reached is totally incorrect and only serves to clear the -ground for a correct analysis. The producer may have to bear part of a -tax, if he is under the tax jurisdiction, or if he has a monopoly. If -he has no monopoly, and is not under the tax jurisdiction, and works -for the world’s market, he cannot lower his price in order to assume -part of the tax. What he does is that he differentiates his commodity. -This is the fact in the art of production which is established by -abundant experience. It is the explanation of the constant complaint, -under the protective system, of “fraud” and of the constant demand for -subclassification in the tariff schedules. The protected product never -is, at least at first, as good in quality as the imported article which -it aims to supersede. Hence the foreigner, if he desires to retain the -protected market, can prepare a special quality for that market. The -“silk” after the tax is laid is not the same silk as before. It nets to -the foreign producer 97½ cents, and pays him business profits at that -price. Therefore when he sells it at $1.02½ he gets back the whole tax -from the consumers. The domestic silk sold at $1.02½ is no better than -might have been obtained for 97½ cents. Hence the consumers are paying -a tax for protection which is full and equal to the revenue rate. The -fact that the price has fallen to $1.02½, and is not $1.05, evidently -proves that instead of disproving it, as many believe. - -146. Thus this case falls to pieces. It gains a momentary plausibility -from the erroneous assumptions which are implicit in it. The foreign -producer may suffer a narrowing of his market and a reduction of his -aggregate profits, but there is no way to make him tributary (unless he -has a monopoly) either to the treasury or the protected interests of -the taxing country.[29] If it was true in general, or in any limited -number of cases, that a country which lays protective taxes can make -foreigners pay those taxes, then England, which has had no protective -taxes since (say) 1850, and has been surrounded by countries which have -had more or less protective taxes, must have been paying tribute to -them all this time and must have been steadily impoverished accordingly. - - -Chapter V - -SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION - -147. I have now examined protectionism impartially on its own grounds, -assuming them to be true, and adversely from ground taken against it, -and have reviewed a series of the commonest arguments put forward in -its favor. If now we return, with all the light we have obtained, to -test the assumptions which we found in protectionism, that the people -would not organize their industry wisely under liberty, and that -protective taxes are the correct device for bringing about a better -organization, we find that those two assumptions are totally false -and have no semblance of claim upon our confidence. At every step -the dogmas of protectionism, its claims, its apparatus, have proved -fallacious, absurd, and impracticable. We can now group together some -general criticisms of protectionism which our investigation suggests. - -148. We have taken the protectionist’s own definition of a protective -duty, and have found that such a duty, instead of increasing national -wealth, must, at every step, and by every incident of its operation, -waste labor and capital, lower the efficiency of the national industry, -weaken the country in trade, and consequently lower the standard -of comfort of the whole population. We have found that protected -industries, according to the statement of the protectionists, do not -produce, but consume. If then these industries are _the_ ones which -make us rich, _consumption is production and destruction produces_. -The object of a protective duty is “to effect the diversion of a part -of the capital and labor of the people out of the channels in which it -would run otherwise, into channels favored or created by law” (§ 13). -We have seen that the channels _into_ which the labor and capital of -the people are to be diverted are offered by _the industries which do -not pay_. Hence protectionism is found to mean that national prosperity -is to be produced by forcing labor and capital into employments where -the capital cannot be reproduced with the same increase which could be -won by it elsewhere. If that is so, then capital in those employments -will be wasted, and the final outcome of our investigation, which must -be made the primary maxim of the art of national prosperity under -protectionism, is that _Waste makes Wealth_. Such is its outcome when -regarded as an economic philosophy. - -149. As regards the social and jural relations which are established -between citizen and citizen, protectionism is proved by a half-dozen -independent analyses of it to be simply a device for forcing us to levy -tribute on each other. If the law brings a cent to A it must have taken -it from B, or else it must have produced it out of nothing, that is, -it must be magic. Every soul pays protective taxes. If, then, anybody -gets anything from them, he needs to remember what they cost him, and -_he should insist on casting up both sides of the account_. If anybody -gets nothing from them, then _he pays the taxes and gets no equivalent_. - -150. During the anti-corn-law campaign in England, a writer in the -_Westminster Review_ illustrated protectionism by the story of the -monkeys in a cage, each of whom received for his dinner a piece of -bread. Each monkey dropped his own piece of bread and grabbed his -neighbor’s. The consequence was that soon the floor of the cage was -strewn with fragments, and each monkey had to make the best dinner he -could from these. It is a good and fair illustration. I saw a story -recently in a protectionist newspaper about the peasants in the Soudan. -Each owns pigeons, and at evening, when the pigeons come home, each -tries to entice as many of his neighbors’ pigeons as he can into his -own pigeon house. “All of them do the same thing, and therefore each -gets caught in his turn. They know this perfectly well, but no Egyptian -fellah could resist the temptation of cheating his neighbor.” They -ought to _tax_ each other’s pigeons all around. Then they would put -themselves at once on the level of free and enlightened Americans. -The protectionist assures me that it is for the good of the community -and for my good that he should tax me. I reply that, in his language, -“these are fine theories,” but that whether it is good for the -community or not, and whether it is good for me or not, that he should -tax me, I can see that it is for his good that he should tax me. Then -he says: “Now you are abusive.” - -151. _If protectionism is anything else than mutual tribute, then it is -magic._ The whole philosophy of it comes down to questions like this: -How much can I afford to pay a man for hiring me? How much can I afford -to pay a man for trading with me? How much can I afford to pay a man -to cease to compete with me in my production? How much can I afford to -pay a man to go and compete with those who supply me my consumption? -It is only _an expensive way to get what we could get for nothing if -it was worth having_ (§ 89). It is admitted that one man cannot lift -himself by his boot straps. Suppose that a thousand men stand in a -ring and each takes hold of the other’s boot straps reciprocally and -they all lift, can the whole group lift itself as a group? That is -what protection comes to just as soon as we have drawn out into light -the other side, the _cost side_ of it. Whatever we win on one side, we -must pay for by at least equal cost on another. The losses will all be -distributed as net pure injury to the community. The harm of protection -lies here. It is not measured by the tax. _It is measured by the total -crippling of the national industry._ We might as well say that it would -be a good thing to put snags in the rivers, to fell trees across the -roads, to dull all our tools, as to say that unnecessary taxation could -work a blessing. Men have argued that to destroy machines was to do -a beneficial thing, and I have recently read an article in a Boston -paper, quoting a Massachusetts man who thinks that what we need is -another war in the United States. Such men may believe that protective -taxes work a blessing, but to those who will see the truth, it is plain -that, when the whole effect of the protective system is distributed, it -benefits nobody. It is a dead weight and loss upon everybody, and those -who think that they win by it would be far better off in a community -where no such system existed, but where each man earned what he could -and kept what he earned. - -152. There is a school of political science in this country in whose -deed of foundation it is provided that the professors shall teach how -“by suitable tariff legislation, a nation may keep its productive -industry alive, cheapen the cost of commodities, and oblige foreigners -to sell to it at low prices, while contributing largely toward -defraying the expenses of the government.”[30] Is not that a fine -thing? Those professors ought to likewise provide us a panacea, the -philosopher’s stone, a formula for squaring the circle, and all the -other desiderata of universal happiness. It would be only a trifle for -them. The only fear is that they may write the secret which they are to -teach in books, and that other nations to whom we are “foreigners,” may -learn it. Then while Englishmen, Frenchmen, and Germans work for us at -low prices and pay our taxes, we shall be forced to work for them at -low prices and pay their taxes, and the old somber misery will settle -down upon the world again the same as ever. - -153. Some years ago we were told that protection was necessary because -we had a big debt to pay. Well, we have paid the debt until we have -reduced it from $78.25 per head to $28.41 per head. We, the people, -have also raised our credit until the annual debt charge has been -reduced from $4.29 per head to 95 cents per head. Now it is necessary -to keep up the debt in order to keep up the taxes, and protectionism -is now most efficient in forcing wasteful and corrupting expenditures -to get rid of revenue, lest a surplus should furnish an argument for -reducing taxation. This is right on the doctrine that waste makes -wealth. - -154. They tell us that protection has produced prosperity, and when we -ask them to account for hard times in spite of the tariff, they say -that hard times are caused by the free traders who will not keep still. -Therefore _the prosperity produced by protection is so precarious that -it can be overthrown by only talking about free trade_. They denounce -_laissez-faire_, or “let alone,” but the only question is _when_ to -let alone, _when_ to keep still. They do not let the tariff alone if -they want to revise it to suit them, or want to make it “equitable.” -When they get it “equitable” they will let it alone, but that insures -agitation, and makes sure that they will cause it, for an indefinite -time to come. On the other hand the victims of the tariff will not keep -still. Their time to “let alone” is when it is repealed. If the tariff -did not hurt somebody somewhere it would not do any good to anybody -anywhere, and the victims will resist.[31] Mr. Lincoln used to tell a -story about hearing a noise in the next room. He looked in and found -Bob and Tad scuffling. “What is the matter, boys?” said he. “It is -Tad,” replied Bob, “who is trying to get my knife.” “Oh, let him have -it, Bob,” said Mr. Lincoln, “just to keep him quiet.” “No!” said Bob, -“it is my knife and I need it to keep me quiet.” Mr. Lincoln used the -story to prove that there is no foundation for peace save truth and -justice. Now, in this case, _the man whose earnings are being taken -from him needs them to keep him quiet_. Our fathers fought for free -soil, and if we are worthy to be their sons we shall fight for free -trade, which is the necessary complement of free soil. If a man goes to -Kansas to-day and raises corn on “free soil,” how does he get the good -of it, unless he can exchange that corn for any product of the earth -that he chooses on the best terms that the arts and commerce of to-day -can give him? - -155. The history of civil liberty is made up of campaigns against -abuses of taxation. Protectionism is the great modern abuse of -taxation; the abuse of taxation which is adapted to a republican -form of government. _Protectionism is now corrupting our political -institutions just as slavery used to do_, _viz._, it allies itself -with every other abuse which comes up. Most recently it has allied -itself with the silver coinage, and it is now responsible, in a -great measure, for that calamity. The silver coinage law would have -been repealed three years ago if the silver mining interest had not -served notice on the protectionists that that was their share of -protection, and the price of their coöperation. The silver coinage is -the chief cause of the “hard times” of the last two or three years. In -a well-ordered state it is the function of government to repress every -selfish interest which arises and endeavors to encroach upon the rights -of others. The state thus maintains justice. Under protectionism _the -government gives a license to certain interests to go out and encroach -on others_. It is an iniquity as to the victims of it, a delusion as to -its supposed beneficiaries, and a waste of the public wealth. There is -only one reasonable question now to be raised about it, and that is: -How can we most easily get rid of it? - - - - -TARIFF REFORM[32] - - -A year and a half ago a gentleman who had just been reëlected, by -Republicans, to the Senate of the United States, made a five-minute -speech acknowledging the honor. In respect to public affairs he uttered -but one opinion: that the people of the United States were confronted -by a most serious problem, _viz._, how to reduce taxation. On the face -of it, this was a most extraordinary statement, and the chronicler or -historian might well take note of it as a new event in the life of -the human race. Statesmen and historians are familiar enough with the -difficulty of raising more revenue, and laying more taxes, but the -solemn and calamitous position of a nation which is forced to reduce -its taxes, and finds itself confronted by industrial disaster if it -does it, is something new. Students of political economy are familiar -with the question: What harm to industry may be done by levying taxes -on it? But the problem of how to avert the economic disaster which may -follow taking them off is new. Of course the state of mind revealed -by the formulation of the above problem is the result of a long habit -of regarding taxation as an industrial force, or, at least, as an -effective condition of industrial success. - -There is, however, a problem; in regard to that fact all concur. It is -also a rare problem, one for which the only precedent is to be found -in our own history, and when the case occurred before, it proved to be -fraught with calamity. We are confronted by the dangers of a surplus -revenue, and no proposal to do away with the surplus in extravagant -expenditures can stand before the common sense of the people. - -If the taxes are collecting more than the public necessities require, -then the simple and obvious, and, in fact, the only solution, is not -to collect the taxes; let the people keep their own products and do -what they please with them. If we do not make a problem there will not -be any; if we simply do in the most straightforward manner what the -common sense of the situation demands, there will be no difficulty; the -consequences will all take care of themselves, and all the imaginary -calamities will fail to appear. If, however, we must have a grand -scheme of national prosperity established in advance, then the case is -different. - -During the war a notion grew up here that, through some new -dispensation of fate, it was possible for the American people to make -war and prosper by it. After the war the notion grew up that the paper -money was a condition of success and that we should be ruined if we -resumed specie payments. Now we are met by the doctrine that we cannot -repeal the taxes which were laid during the war, partly in order to -carry it on, because our national prosperity is bound up in them. These -notions, in fact, are all consistent, and all hang together; they all -belong to a philosophy that men prosper by discord and war, not by -peace and harmony. According to that philosophy we touched unawares -the springs of prosperity when we engaged in a civil war, incurred an -immense debt, and laid crushing taxes. Now, therefore, when we ask -that the taxes which are no longer necessary may be taken off, the men -who have fallen under the dominion of these fallacies tell us that -it cannot be done; that our prosperity would be undermined by it. -They have been assuring us for years past that the protective system -was sure to produce a solid and stable prosperity; now, by their own -statement, it has produced a state of things so weak and unstable that -it must be maintained by heavy taxes. The industrial prosperity of the -United States proves to be as burdensome to it as the armaments of the -European nations are to them. - -The notion seems to be that protective taxes, laid on imports, are -the particular kind of taxes which make national prosperity, and -which therefore ought not to be touched. It is proposed that internal -taxes shall be reduced. If local taxes on real estate, etc., are -reduced, every one rejoices; that is supposed to be a clear and simple -gain. I have known the same man to exert himself very actively to -scrutinize local expenditures, and reduce local taxes, and to boil -with rage against free traders who want to reduce protective taxes. -However, there is probably no tax of any kind whatsoever which does -not interfere with the conditions of supply and demand, or industrial -competition, in such a way as to give “protection” to somebody at -the expense of somebody else. There are persons who are now enjoying -great advantages in their business from the whisky and tobacco taxes -which they would lose if those taxes were repealed. This is one of -the incidental mischiefs of all taxation and one of the reasons for -insisting that taxation shall be as slight as possible, and, to that -end, that government functions shall be limited as much as possible. - -We are, therefore, face to face with the question whether we are able -to reduce our own taxes, and whether we are free to do so. We may -fairly ask: if not, why not? It is plain that this is a question of -domestic policy and of our own interest altogether. All the attempts -to prejudice it by talking about “England” are impertinent, and all -allegations that those of us who want to reduce our own taxes are -trying “to give away our market,” etc., belong to the worst abuses of -political discussion. What is true is that we have built up a vast -combination of vested interests, which in a few cases have, and in -nearly all cases think they have, an interest in maintaining the -taxes. These are among ourselves; what they gain, they gain from us; it -is with them that we have to contend. They have thus far carried on the -fight by all the methods dear to vested interests; they have put forth -plausible fallacies, sought alliances, procured delays, appealed to -prejudices. - -Behind these selfish and sordid interests, however, there is the strong -and sincere prejudice which still prevails among the civilized nations -of to-day, and which is dividing them into hostile parties, carrying -on tariff wars with each other. I call it “protectionism,” because it -is not a policy, but a philosophy of national welfare. In the United -States it takes the form of various fallacies about the home markets, -diversification of industry, wages, etc. As these are all questions -of political economy, and as all who talk on the subject at all are -talking political economy of some sort or other, it seems that a great -work of education is to be done here on the field of economic doctrine. -Hitherto the attempt of the politicians has been not to perform this -work of education but to thrust it aside. - -As soon as the issue is formed, however, and the protectionists are -forced to formulate their doctrine, as a doctrine, its absurdity -becomes apparent. It is not capable of statement. If we are to have -temporary protection, in order to start infant industries, then it will -become imperatively necessary, so soon as public attention is occupied -by the subject, to say how, and how far, and how long, the system is to -be kept up, and the public will demand to know how it is getting on, -and at what rate it is approaching its goal. For this reason those who -have any logical directness of thinking, have already advanced to a -more intense position; they advocate protectionism as a permanent and -universal economic philosophy. In that form it flies in the face of -common sense and civilization; in some of the latest forms which it has -taken on in the hands of some professors of political economy, it is a -kind of economic mysticism. - -If, however, the United States could be cut off from all the rest of -the world as regards trade and industry, then at least it should be -plain that whatever material prosperity they could gain would be just -what they, with their energy, enterprise, and capital, are able to -extract from such soil and climate as nature has given to us here. What -would be the difference if, then, there were no tax barriers? Certainly -none whatever. The wealth which the American people get they must -produce by applying their labor and capital to the natural advantages -which they possess. With foreign trade open to them, they will not make -use of it unless they find an advantage in it; that is, unless American -labor and capital can attain more wealth through exchange than without -it. The task of American producers will still be to attain the greatest -possible wealth by expending their labor and capital on American soil, -either directly, or with an intermediate step of exchange. Wages are -only a part of the product of the country; if then, trade increased -the amount of commodities at the disposition of the people, it would -increase the amount of each share in the distribution. This is the -simplest common sense of the matter, stripped of all technicalities, -and to this the whole discussion must again and again return. - -If now we begin to reduce and abolish the taxes which were laid during -the war, we shall simply begin to free the American people from a clog -on their energies and a waste of their industrial strength. Every step -in this direction is an emancipation under which we may be sure that -the national energy which is set free will spring up with the quickest -response. The guarantee of this is in the character of the people, and -in the natural advantages which they possess. Whatever chances we have, -we have in the nature of the case; the tariff could not give us any; it -could only divert in one way or another those which nature has given -us. This diversion or perversion has now entered into the experience -and education of our generation. We have no idea of the welfare we -should enjoy if we were only free to use the chances which are within -our reach, and a great many of us have spun out a kind of political -economy to prove that the cords which bind us are the tools by which we -work. - - - - -WHAT IS FREE TRADE?[33] - - -There never would have been any such thing to fight for as free -speech, free press, free worship, or free soil, if nobody had ever -put restraints on men in those matters. We never should have heard of -free trade, if no restrictions had ever been put on trade. If there -had been any restrictions on the intercourse between the states of -this Union, we should have heard of ceaseless agitation to get those -restrictions removed. Since there are no restrictions allowed under -the Constitution, we do not realize the fact that we are enjoying -the blessings of complete liberty, where, if wise counsels had not -prevailed at a critical moment, we should now have had a great mass of -traditional and deep-rooted interferences to encounter. - -Our intercourse with foreign nations, however, has been interfered -with, because it is a fact that, by such interference, some of us can -win advantages over others. The power of Congress to levy taxes is -employed to lay duties on imports, not in order to secure a revenue -from imports, but to prevent imports--in which case, of course, no -revenue will be obtained. The effect which is aimed at, and which is -attained by this device, is that the American consumer, when he wants -to satisfy his needs, has to go to an American producer of the thing -he wants, and has to give to him a price for the product which is -greater than that which some foreigner would have charged. The object -of this device, as stated on the best protectionist authority, is: “To -effect the diversion of a part of the labor and capital of the people -out of the channels in which it would run otherwise, into channels -favored or created by law.” This description is strictly correct, and -from it the reader will see that protection has nothing to do with any -foreigner whatever. It is purely a question of domestic policy. It -is only a question whether we shall, by taxing each other, drive the -industry of this country into an arbitrary and artificial development, -or whether we shall allow one another to employ each his capital and -labor in his own way. Note that there is for us all the same labor, -capital, soil, national character, climate, etc.,--that is, that all -the conditions of production remain unaltered. The only change which is -operated is a wrenching of labor and capital out of the lines on which -they would act under the impulse of individual enterprise, energy, -and interest, and their impulsion in another direction selected by -the legislator. Plainly, all the import duty can do is to close the -door, shutting the foreigner out and the Americans in. Then, when an -American needs iron, coal, copper, woolens, cottons, or anything else -in the shape of manufactured commodities, the operation begins. He has -to buy in a market which is either wholly or partially monopolized. -The whole object of shutting him in is to take advantage of this -situation to make him give more of his products for a given amount of -the protected articles, than he need have given for the same things -in the world’s market. Under this system a part of our product is -diverted from the satisfaction of our needs, and is spent to hire some -of our fellow-citizens to go out of an employment which would pay -under the world’s competition, into one which will not pay under the -world’s competition. We, therefore, do with less clothes, furniture, -tools, crockery, glassware, bed and table linen, books, etc., and the -satisfaction we have for this sacrifice is knowing that some of our -neighbors are carrying on business which according to their statement -does not pay, and that we are paying their losses and hiring them to -keep on. - -Free trade is a revolt against this device. It is not a revolt against -import duties or indirect taxes as a means of raising revenue. It has -nothing to say about that, one way or the other. It begins to protest -and agitate just as soon as any tax begins to act protectively, -and it denounces any tax which one citizen levies on another. The -protectionists have a long string of notions and doctrines which they -put forward to try to prove that their device is not a contrivance by -which they can make their fellow-citizens contribute to their support, -but is a device for increasing the national wealth and power. These -allegations must be examined by economists, or other persons who are -properly trained to test their correctness, in fact and logic. It -is enough here to say, over a responsible signature, that no such -allegation has ever been made which would bear examination. On the -contrary, all such assertions have the character of apologies or -special pleas to divert attention from the one plain fact that the -advocates of a protective tariff have a direct pecuniary interest -in it, and that they have secured it, and now maintain it, for that -reason and no other. The rest is all afterthought and excuse. If any -gain could possibly come to the country through the gains of the -beneficiaries of the tariff, obviously the country must incur at least -an equal loss through the losses of that part of the people who pay -what the protected win. If a country could win anything that way, it -would be like a man lifting himself by his boot straps. - -The protectionists, in advocating their system, always spend a -great deal of effort and eloquence on appeals to patriotism, and to -international jealousies. These are all entirely aside from the point. -The protective system is a domestic system, for domestic purposes, -and it is sought by domestic means. The one who pays, and the one who -gets, are both Americans. The victim and the beneficiary are amongst -ourselves. It is just as unpatriotic to oppress one American as it -is patriotic to favor another. If we make one American pay taxes to -another American, it will neither vex nor please any foreign nation. - -The protectionists speak of trade with the contempt of feudal nobles, -but on examination it appears that they have something to sell, and -that they mean to denounce trade with their rivals. They denounce -cheapness, and it appears that they do so because they want to sell -dear. When they buy, they buy as cheaply as they can. They say that -they want to raise wages, but they never pay anything but the lowest -market rate. They denounce selfishness, while pursuing a scheme for -their own selfish aggrandizement, and they bewail the dominion of -self-interest over men who want to enjoy their own earnings, and object -to surrendering the same to them. They attribute to government, or to -“the state,” the power and right to decide what industrial enterprises -each of us shall subscribe to support. - -Free trade means antagonism to this whole policy and theory at every -point. The free trader regards it as all false, meretricious, and -delusive. He considers it an invasion of private rights. In the best -case, if all that the protectionist claims were true, he would be -taking it upon himself to decide how his neighbor should spend his -earnings, and--more than that--that his neighbor shall spend his -earnings for the advantage of the men who make the decision. This is -plainly immoral and corrupting; nothing could be more so. The free -trader also denies that the government either can, or ought to regulate -the way in which a man shall employ his earnings. He sees that the -government is nothing but a clique of the parties in interest. It is -a few men who have control of the civic organization. If they were -called upon to regulate business, they would need a wisdom which -they have not. They do not do this. They only turn the “channels” to -the advantage of themselves and their friends. This corrupts the -institutions of government and continues under our system all the old -abuses by which the men who could get control of the governmental -machinery have used it to aggrandize themselves at the expense of -others. The free trader holds that the people will employ their labor -and capital to the best advantage when each man employs his own in his -own way, according to the maxim that “A fool is wiser in his own house -than a sage in another man’s house”;--how much more, then, shall he be -wiser than a politician? And he holds, further, that by the nature of -the case, if any governmental coercion is necessary to drive industry -in a direction in which it would not otherwise go, such coercion must -be mischievous. - -The free trader further holds that protection is all a mistake -and delusion to those who think that they win by it, in that it -lessens their self-reliance and energy and exposes their business to -vicissitudes which, not being incident to a natural order of things, -cannot be foreseen and guarded against by business skill; also that it -throws the business into a condition in which it is exposed to a series -of heats and chills, and finally, unless a new stimulus is applied, -reduced to a state of dull decay. They therefore hold that even the -protected would be far better off without it. - - - - -PROTECTIONISM TWENTY YEARS AFTER[34] - - -I think it must be now nearly twenty years since I have made a -free-trade speech or been able to take share in a free-trade dinner. - -When I was invited here this evening I thought I would try to come -for the pleasure of hearing the gentlemen, especially the members of -Congress, who were announced to speak here. I have been so out of -health that it has been impossible for me to sit up evenings or to -attempt public speaking in the evenings, but things are going a little -better and I will make an attempt to say a little--not very much, as -the hour is now late. - -Thirty-five or forty years ago I became a free trader for two great -reasons, as far as I can now remember. - -One was because, as a student of political economy, my whole mind -revolted against the notion of magic that is involved in the notion of -a protective tariff. That is, there are facts that are accounted for -by protectionism through assertions that are either plainly untrue or -are entirely irrational. The other reason was because it seemed to me -that the protective tariff system nourished erroneous ideas of success -in business and produced immoral results in the minds and hopes of the -people. - -I cannot say that I have got any more light on the matter within the -last twenty years; it looks to me still as if the great objections -to protectionism were these two. No man who enjoys the benefit of a -protective tariff, as he believes, can ever tell whether he gets back -anything for the taxes which he pays or not. He never has any analysis -of the operation and never knows whether or not he really recovers from -the action of the tariff what he pays in. - -I say now the taxes which he pays, because--let us not make any -mistake about this--the matter we are talking about is one entirely -of Americans and between Americans. If the protective tariff operates -so as to perform what is attributed to it, it prevents things from -being imported into this country. That may be a disadvantage to the -foreigner, it may disappoint him in his hopes, but we may leave him -out of account. Then the increase of the cost of these commodities for -the American consumer at home is the source from which the American -protected manufacturer must obtain his benefit, if he ever obtains any. -Therefore he has to pay also taxes to the other protected industries on -account of the operation of the system. Therefore he is both paying and -receiving, but whether or not he gets back the part that he hoped to -receive is a question which he never can sift and never can know. - -I should myself suppose that possibly the Pennsylvanian on his coal and -iron might stand a good chance of winning something. The operation is -direct and simple in that case, and coal and iron are to-day the very -first conditions of industry. They must be obtained as raw material, -because they enter into everything, and it is possible that under those -circumstances the game might be sufficiently direct so that its effect -could be felt and perceived. But the Connecticut manufacturer has to -pay taxes on coal and iron and copper and the other metals, and he has -to pay also the taxes on wool and the other raw materials, and then -comes the question whether he ever gets it back again or not. He never -knows; he cannot know; he cannot feel it and he cannot possibly know -whether the operation of the system is to bring him back a return for -his outlay or not. - -We hear a great deal about a rightly adjusted tariff. It is a constant -ideal that is presented, whenever the tariff subject comes up again for -discussion in Congress, that it ought to be rightly adjusted, and when -it is, it is going to perform its beneficial operation. - -How can a tariff ever be rightly adjusted unless the industry will -stand still? The taxes stand still for years without change. The -industries never stand still. There are new inventions in machinery, -there are new raw materials brought into use, there are new processes -developed, and all that changes the character of the industry. These -inventions and improvements and processes are all ignored by the -protective system. It contains no allowance for them at all. But our -people are full of enterprise, they are fond of improvements, they like -novelties, and they adopt changes. The consequence is that the industry -changes, and then again the decisions that are made by somebody or -other as to the doubtful questions in the interpretation of the law -are also constantly changing, and then by and by we find a lot of -people who want the tariff changed. They say it needs to be adapted -to the time, it is out of date, it has fallen behind, it does not fit -the requirements of the moment, and they would like to have a tariff -revision; but they are told then that they ought to keep still and -not make a disturbance which will bring up a discussion of the entire -tariff system, and that they ought to allow it to go on for the sake of -the “system.” - -What is the system then? The system means that the import duties that -we have in this country have raised the prices of all commodities -in our market, I may say thirty or forty per cent on a very low -calculation. Is not that a very extraordinary thing when you stand off -and try to realize it for a minute--that we have raised the prices in -the United States thirty or forty per cent--perhaps more nearly fifty -per cent--above the level of the prices for the same commodities in -the other civilized countries of our grade; and that we believe that we -have done a grand and noble thing by raising these prices, putting the -whole level of life in this country on an artificial plane that much -above the level of the world’s market? In fact, if you should listen -to a protectionist he would make you believe that this continent would -not be habitable if it was not for the protective tariff that is here -working this operation all the time on the American market. - -I am of the opinion--I am not very confident about it--but it looks to -me as if it were true that a protective tariff wears out in a little -while--I mean, so far as its expected beneficial effect is concerned. -Its effects are distributed, they are taken up and they are allowed -for all around the market until the expected benefit to the protected -people is lost and there remains nothing but the dead weight of the -system itself as an interference with the industries. There is then -a call for a new tariff in order to get another impulse or another -fillip, as I have heard it called, to give things a new impulse, to -start them on again. - -That has been the history of our tariff now for one hundred years, that -it has been restarted, reinvigorated from time to time in order to give -a new impulse. Then in the very nature of the case, therefore, it seems -to me that a new impulse is constantly required. - -As I said at the outset, the tariff system seems to me to teach us to -believe that a man needs a “pull” of some kind or other to make any -industry a success. It is an idea that there must always be a provision -of easy profit in connection with the industry that shall demand no -labor or no expenditure of capital to get it. That is the pure doctrine -of graft. The tariff teaches us to look for a fee or a gratuity or a -rake-off which will be a pure and net profit. People are told that -tariff taxes are a rightful gift to the beneficiary. Those who do not -get that gain seek another one of the same kind somewhere, and when -they do that they have recourse to graft. - -It is a shameful fact that this notion of graft, and this word, should -have come to us, as it has within the last four or five years, and -should have extended so far and become so familiar to us in connection -with a great many of the operations of business. It is customary, -as we have known for a long time, in some nations, for instance in -Russia, China, and Turkey; and with us it has seemed to spread and -win acceptance and currency in a most astonishing manner. I cannot -believe but what the tariff system has educated us in this direction -and prepared us to tolerate and accept the development of this idea. It -also seems to me that now, after one hundred years of this system, the -tariff is no longer properly an economic question. It is a practical -political question. The politics and the business are interwoven in -it inextricably. There is no economic discussion possible of the -propositions that are made, economic in form, in connection with the -tariff system. There is only a war of partial views and of superficial -inferences. - -Our American protectionism has grown out of the peculiar circumstances -of this country. It is an old idea that has come down to us from -Europe, and, indeed, from the Middle Ages in Europe, and here it found -a chance for a new and very remarkable development. There were new -conditions here, and the chances were so big and grand that, as a -matter of fact, the protective system has never done more than exact a -certain tribute from us on these chances. It has never really touched -us in an acute and sensible way, and in spite of it we have enjoyed -marvelous prosperity which is due really to the circumstances of -advantage and favor which we have enjoyed here. - -In the year 1892 we got an issue on this matter and went to the -electorate with it, with the result that we all know. But the mandate -of the people was neglected and disobeyed by the government and the -purpose that the people showed at that time was defied. - -We have also had opportunity to notice the great power of the protected -interests in Congress. The fact is that we are being governed at the -present time by a combination of these protected interests which -have got control of the machinery of government, and have control of -the personnel of the government to such an extent that it is almost -impossible, practically, to make any breach in this system at all. That -is because the political combinations have been so thoroughly wrought -out and so ingeniously developed that they look at present as if they -were impregnable. - -I look around to see if I can find some encouragement. I thought that -it was something of an encouragement when Mr. Dalzell made this speech -in Congress that Mr. Williams has referred to, in which he poured -such scorn on the idea of “incidental protection.” I have never said -anything so severe about any protectionist idea as that which he said -about incidental protection. But suppose that the people of 1850, the -middle of the nineteenth century, could come to life again, the old -protectionists of that time. What would they think to hear a man speak -with scorn of incidental protection? It was what they believed in; it -was the whole business to them. When an old protectionist like Mr. -Dalzell can turn around and pour scorn upon incidental protection I -feel as if we never could tell what they might throw overboard next -time, in some paroxysm of some kind or other, of fear or hope or -something else, and we might get a chance that we have not been able to -get in the past. - -Then, as has been well said by other gentlemen to-night, there has -been within the last year or two a very great revolt in the public -mind against graft and political and business corruption. How far will -this go? We do not know, but it is, at any rate, an opening in the -public mind that is full of chances. It may go very far; it may have -very great effects; it is certainly something to be noticed and taken -advantage of. - -Then, again, there are new conflicts of interests arising. We have -become very great people in the world’s commerce, with a billion -dollars’ worth of exports and imports in a year, and we are so -interwoven with the whole world that it will not be possible for us -to go on with our old policy of discouraging commerce and rejecting -it, and trying to stop it, and paying no attention at all to the -remonstrances of our neighbors. In future we shall be obliged to -pay some attention to these remonstrances. They are just, they are -reasonable, and they will command our attention; and then we shall -have to make concessions to them. In other words, we cannot any longer -afford to reject and neglect these remonstrances. - -It may be, therefore, that in the time that is now before us we shall -have better chances for a practical war upon this system than we have -had hitherto. As long, however, as I can remember, and as long as I -have had any share in it, we have got along without any encouragement -in it at all. We have done what we could without that. We got so we -did not expect it. We knew that we should be neglected and treated as -persons whose opinions in these matters were not of any importance or -worthy of any attention, and so we went on and kept up our arguments, -as we considered them, to the best of our ability and without very much -result. - -Now, it may be that we are on the eve of a different time, when the -circumstances will be more favorable, more hopeful, more full of -opportunities, and I certainly, for my part, most profoundly hope that -that is so. - -I have noticed with some discouragement the efforts that Mr. Williams -has made on the floor of Congress to get some modifications of the -tariff made, or some argument even opened up there that might give -the matter activity and life in the legislative domain. They did not -seem any more encouraging than what we used to see in the old times. -But it is certainly in the nature of things that the difficulties and -absurdities of this system must come out in practice more and more -distinctly as we go on, and the need for reform will therefore force -itself in the shape of a play of interests that will bring new and -counteracting forces into operation to which we may look for help in -the overthrow of the system. - - - - -PROSPERITY STRANGLED BY GOLD[35] - - -Some of the silver fallacies were stated by Mr. St. John, in his -address before the silver convention, with such precision that his -speech offers a favorable opportunity for dealing with them. - -He says that “it is amongst the first principles in finance that the -value of each dollar, expressed in prices, depends upon the total -number of dollars in circulation.” There is no such principle of -finance as the one here formulated. The “quantity doctrine” of currency -is gravely abused by all bimetallists, from the least to the greatest, -and it is at best open to great doubt. When the dollars in question -are dollars of some money of account which can circulate beyond the -territory of the State in which it is issued, the quantity doctrine -cannot be true within that territory. It may be noted, in passing, that -this is the reason why no scheme of the silver people for manipulating -prices in the United States can possibly succeed. Silver and gold will -be exported and imported until their values conform throughout the -world, and prices fixed in one or the other of them will conform to the -world’s prices, after all the trouble and waste and loss of translating -them two or three times over have been endured. - -The quantity doctrine, however, means that the value of the currency -is a question of supply and demand, and everybody knows that to double -or halve the supply does not halve or double the value, or have any -other effect which is simple and direct. If it did have such effect -speculation would not be what it is. - -Mr. St. John goes on to argue that our population increases two -millions every year, on account of which we need more dollars; that -the production of gold does not furnish enough to meet this need, and -that, therefore, prices fall. This argumentation is very simple and -very glib. Prosperity and adversity are put into a syllogism of three -lines. But, if we can avert the fall in prices and adversity by coining -silver, it must be by adding the silver to the gold which we now have. -“High” and “low” prices are only relative terms. They mean higher and -lower than at another time or place; higher and lower than we have been -used to. If misery depends on ten-cent corn we are advised to cut the -cents in two and we shall get twenty-cent corn and prosperity. Corn -will not be altered in value in gold, or outside of the United States, -and, as all other things will be marked up at the same time and in -the same way, its value in other things will not be altered by this -operation. When we get used to twenty-cent corn it will seem just as -low and just as “hard for the debtor” as ten-cent corn is now. Then -we can divide by ten and get two-dollar corn, by adding free coinage -of copper. When we get used to that we shall be no better satisfied -with it. We can then make paper dollars and coin them without limit. -Million-dollar corn will then become as bitter a subject for complaint -as ten-cent corn is now. The fact that people are discontented is no -argument for anything. - -The fact that prices are low is made the subject of social complaint -and of political agitation in the United States. Prices have undergone -a wave since 1850. They arose until about 1872. They have fallen -again. They are lower than they were at the top of the wave all the -world over. This fact, the explanation of which would furnish a very -complicated task for trained statisticians and economists, is made a -topic of easy interpretation and solution in political conventions and -popular harangues, and it is proposed to adopt violent and portentous -measures upon the basis of the flippant notions which are current about -it. But what difference does it make whether the “plane” of prices is -high or low? If corn is at forty cents a bushel and calico at twenty -cents a yard, a bushel buys two yards. If corn is at ten cents a bushel -and calico at five cents a yard, a bushel will buy two yards. So of -everything else. If, then, there has been a _general_ fall, and that -is the alleged grievance, neither farmers nor any other one class has -suffered by it. - -It is undoubtedly true that a period of advancing prices stimulates -energy and enterprise. It does so even when, if all the facts were well -known, it might be found that capital was really being consumed in -successive periods of production. Falling prices discourage enterprise, -although, if all facts were known to the bottom, it might be found that -capital was being accumulated in successive periods of production. - -It is also true that a depreciation of the money of account, _while it -is going on_, stimulates exports and restrains imports. - -But who can tell how we are to make prices always go up, unless by -constant and unlimited inflation? Who can tell how we are to avoid -fluctuations in prices or eliminate the element of contingency, risk, -foresight, and speculation? - -It is also true that, although high prices and low prices are -immaterial at any one time, the change from one to the other, from -one period of time to another, affects the burden of outstanding time -contracts. Men make contracts for dollars, not for dollar’s-worths. -Selling long or short is one thing; lending is another. Borrowers and -lenders never guarantee each other the purchasing power of dollars at a -future time. If the contracts were thus complicated they would become -impossible. Between 1850 and 1872 the debtors made no complaint and -the creditors never thought of getting up an agitation to have debts -scaled up. The debtors now are demanding that they be allowed to play -heads I win, tails you lose, and Mr. St. John and others tell us that -they have the votes to carry it; as if that made any difference in the -forum of discussion. - -Increase in population does not prove an increased need of money. It -may prove the contrary. If the population becomes more dense over a -given area, a higher organization may make less money necessary. If -railroads and other means of communication are extended, money is -economized. If banks and other credit institutions are multiplied, -and if credit operations are facilitated by public security, good -administration of law, etc., less money is needed. If these changes are -going on at the same time that population is increasing (and such is -undoubtedly the case in the United States), who can tell whether the -net result is to make more or less currency necessary? Nobody; and all -assertions about the matter are wild and irresponsible. - -If it was true that an increase of two millions in the population -called for more dollars, how does anybody know whether the current -gold production is adequate to meet the new requirement or not? The -assertion is arithmetical. It says that two quantities are not equal to -each other. The first quantity is the increase in the currency called -for by two million more people. How much more is needed? Nobody knows, -and there is no way to find out. The silver men have put figures for -it from time to time, but the figures rested on nothing and were mere -bald assertions. The second quantity is the amount of new gold annually -available for coinage in the United States. How much is this? Nobody -knows, because if an attempt is made to define what is meant it is -found that there is no idea in the words. The people of the United -States buy and coin just as much gold as they want at any time. Hence -two things are said to be unequal to each other, when nobody knows how -big either one of them is. It may be added that it makes no difference -how big either one of them is. How much additional tin is needed -annually for the increase of our population? Do the mines produce it? -Nobody knows or asks. The mines produce, and the people buy, what they -want. The case is the same as to gold. - -We find, then, that Mr. St. John begins with a doctrine which is -untenable; then he asserts a relation between population and the need -of money which does not exist; then he assumes that this need is -greater than the amount of new gold produced, although neither he nor -anybody else knows how big either one of these quantities is. This is -the argumentation by which he aims to show that prices are reduced and -misery produced by the single gold standard. It is the argumentation -which is current among the silver people. Not a step of it will bear -examination. The inference that we must restore the free coinage of -silver, to escape this strangulation of prosperity, falls to the -ground. - - - - -CAUSE AND CURE OF HARD TIMES[36] - - -It is an essential part of the case of the silver men that the country -is having “hard times.” The bolters from the Republican convention say, -in their manifesto: “Discontent and distress prevail to an extent never -before known in the history of the country.” This is an historical -assertion. It is distinctly untrue. There is no such discontent and -distress as there was in 1819, or in 1840, or in 1875, to say nothing -of other periods. The writers did not know the facts of the history, -and they made use of what is nowadays a mere figure of speech. People -who want to say that a social phenomenon is big, and who do not know -what has been before, say that it is unparalleled in history. - -There has been an advancing paralysis of enterprise and arrest of -credit ever since the Sherman act of 1890 was passed. The bolters say -that “No reason can be found for such an unhappy condition of things -save in a vicious monetary system.” The reason for it has been that the -cumulative effect of the silver legislation was steadily advancing to a -crisis. The efforts by which the effects of that legislation had been -put off were no longer effective, and it was evident that the country -was on the verge of a cataclysm in which the standard of value would be -changed. What man can fail to see the effect of such a fear on credit -and enterprise? And with such a fear in the market, how idle it is to -try to represent the trouble as caused by the fact that the existing -standard was of gold, or of silver, or of anything else! Men will make -contracts and go on with business by the use of any medium, the terms -of which can be defined, understood, and maintained until the contract -is solved, but uncertainty as to the terms, or danger of change in -them, makes credit and enterprise impossible. In the whole history of -finance no crisis can be found which was so utterly unnecessary, and so -distinctly caused by the measures of policy which had gone before it, -as that of 1893. - -So much being admitted as to “hard times,” it remains true, however, -that by far the greatest part of the current declamation about hard -times is false. Prosperity and adversity of society are not capable of -exact verification. At all times some people, classes, industries, are -less prosperous than others. The fashion has grown up among politicians -and stump orators of using assertions about prosperity and distress -as arguments for their purpose, and parties come before the public -with prosperity policies. They have programs for “making the country -prosperous.” If this country, with its population, its resources, and -its chances, is not prosperous by the intelligence, industry, and -thrift of its population, does any sane man suppose that politicians -and stump orators have any devices at their control for making it so? -The orators of the present day see prosperity where they need to see -it for the purposes of their argument. They say that all gold-standard -countries in Europe are in distress. Mr. St. John says that Mexico is -prosperous. As to Canada, we have seen no statement. According to some -discussions which are current, the bicycle rivals the gold standard -as a calamity-producer. As the bicycle has certainly gravely affected -the distribution of expenditure and the accumulation of capital, its -efficiency as a crisis-maker, in its degree, whatever that may be, can -be rationally discerned, but nobody has ever been able to show any -rational grounds of belief that the gold standard is a crisis-maker. - -A crisis will also be produced whenever capital has been invested -on a large scale in any unproductive investment, whereby it is not -reproduced, but is lost. The enterprises are always made the basis of -engagements and contracts. When the enterprises fail, the engagements -cannot be met; other engagements based on these also fail, and so on -through the whole industrial organization. Such crises are inevitable -in a new country. Enterprises run in fashions. At any one time great -groups of producers tend to one line of industry. That industry is -sure to be overdone and to come to a crisis. In a free country, where -every man is at liberty to direct his enterprise as he sees fit, what -is the sense, when it turns out that he has made a mistake, of trying -to throw the losses on other people? No one would propose it as to an -individual or a number, but when there is a great interest it makes -itself a political power and produces a platform for the same purpose, -generally with inflated principles of humanity, justice, democracy, and -Americanism as wind-attachments to make it float. - -Mr. St. John says that the farmers are spending ten dollars an acre to -get eight or nine dollars an acre. What farmer in the United States can -tell how many dollars he spends on an acre? What is the sense of these -pretendedly accurate figures? But, if they had sense, what would be the -gain of cutting the dollars in two? If the farmer spent twenty silver -dollars on an acre and got back sixteen or eighteen, how would he be -benefited? The dollars of outlay are of the same kind as the dollars -of return in any case. If it is true that the return does not equal -the outlay, it must be on account of some facts of production, and it -requires but a moment’s reflection to see that changing the currency in -which outlay and income are reckoned cannot change the relation between -the two. - -A dispassionate view of facts will go to prove that the world is -reasonably and ordinarily prosperous at the present time, except -where particular classes and industries are affected by special -circumstances, as some classes and industries are being affected -at all times. The land-owners of western Europe are in distress -on account of the competition of new land, with cheapened means of -transportation, but now we are told that the holders of the other side -of the competition, the land-owners of the new soil, are victims of -distress. It must be, then, that too much labor and capital are being -expended on the soil the world over, and that, too, in spite of all the -protective tariffs drawing people to the textile and metal industries. -Our silver men say that this is not the correct inference. They say -that the people on the new land suffer because the prices are set in -coins of gold and the debits and credits are kept in terms of those -coins. The prices are fixed in the world’s market in gold. They will be -so fixed, whatever we may do with our coinage laws. If the proceeds, in -being brought home, are converted into silver value, a new opportunity -for brokerage and exchange gambling will be given to the hated bankers -and brokers of Wall Street. That is the only difference which will -be produced. It would be far more sensible to say that distress is -produced by doing the business on the English system of weights and -measures, in bushels and pecks, and that prosperity would be produced -by doing it on the metric system, in litres and hectolitres, for that -charge would at least be harmless. Our distress could all be dispelled -in a week by an act of Congress making all contracts, beyond political -peradventure, that which they are in law and fact, gold contracts. - -There is, however, another cause of hard times for some people which -is far more important in our present case than any other. That is the -case of the boom which has collapsed. We hear a great deal about “Wall -Street gambling.” The gambling in Wall Street is insignificant compared -with the gambling in land, buildings, town sites, and crops which goes -on all over the country, and which is participated in chiefly by the -men who declaim about Wall Street. For three hundred years our history -has been marked by the alternations of “prosperity” and “distress” -which are produced by the booms and their collapses. When the collapse -comes the people who are left long of goods and land always make a -great outcry and start a political agitation. Their favorite device -always is to try to inflate the currency and raise prices again until -they can unload. - -It is a very popular thing to tell men that they have a grievance. That -most of them find it hard to earn as much money as they need to spend -goes without saying. Now comes the wily orator and tells them that this -is somebody’s fault. In old times, if a man was sick, it was always -assumed that somebody had bewitched him. The witch was to be sought. -The medicine-man had to name somebody, and then woe to the one who was -named. Our medicine-men say that it is the gold-bugs, Wall Street, -England, who are to blame for hard times. Whether there is any rational -proof of connection is as immaterial as it always was in witchcraft. It -is a case of pain and passion. The “gold standard” has done it! There -is something to hate and denounce. All would be well if silver could -be coined at four hundred and twelve and a half grains to the dollar. -But the assumption is that while the farmers would sell their products -for twice as many “dollars” as now, in silver, all the prices of things -which they want to buy would remain at the same number of dollars -and cents as now, in gold; that is, it is believed that wheat would -be at, say, one dollar and fifty cents per bushel in silver, instead -of seventy-five cents in gold, but that cloth would remain at fifty -cents a yard in silver, if it is now fifty cents a yard in gold. When -this assumption is brought out into clear words, every one knows that -such can never be the result. The proposed cure is like a witch cure. -It lacks rational basis, and cannot command the confidence of men of -sense. If the times were ever so bad, such a cure could only make them -worse. - - - - -THE FREE-COINAGE SCHEME IS IMPRACTICABLE AT EVERY POINT[37] - - -THE PROGRAM. - -In two former articles I have discussed some points which are presented -by the advocates of the free coinage of silver, on the assumption -that their project was feasible and their conception of its operation -correct. They have laid out a program; free coinage, silver standard, -great demand for silver, rise of prices, rise in the value of silver, -cancellation of debts, prosperity. They now admit that this program -would involve a panic, but it would come out, they say, at the desired -result in two or three years. They denounce the gold standard as having -caused hard times, but they plan a program with a panic as an incident -on the way to a silver standard as if it was a trifle. - -_There is not a step in this program which could or would be carried -out as planned._ - - -FREE SILVER MEANS FIAT PAPER MONEY. - -The amount of circulating cash of all kinds in the hands of the -people at the present time is about nine hundred millions. If the -dollar was reduced to half its present value, and if allowance was -made for reserves, two thousand million silver dollars would be -the specie requirement of the country. We already have nearly five -hundred millions of such dollars. Hence the country could not use at -the utmost, if the new silver dollar was worth not more than half -the present gold dollar, and if the total circulation consisted of -silver without any paper, but three times as many more silver dollars -as we have now. But every one knows that such a state of the currency -never would exist. We should have paper “based on silver”; that is to -say, the silver inflation never will be carried out. It will turn to -paper inflation at the first step. Who can believe that, if the silver -standard was adopted, silver would be bought and piled up dollar for -dollar against the paper, and that the paper would be issued only as -fast as the silver could be coined? In fact, silver would no doubt be -dropped and forgotten, and we should have plain and straightforward -fiat money of paper. Such ought to be faced as the only real sense -and probable outcome of the present agitation for the free coinage of -silver. - - -LIMIT OF THE AMOUNT OF SILVER WHICH COULD BE ABSORBED. - -Let us, however, proceed upon the assumption that the plan proposed is -sincere, and that the attempt would be made to carry it out in good -faith. The circulation in the hands of the people would be paper, for -they would become sick of silver and revolt against it. There would -then be two thousand million dollars in paper afloat, each “dollar” -being of silver and worth half a present gold one. We have now five -hundred million silver dollars. At the utmost not more than another -five hundred millions of silver could be absorbed into the system. That -would give reserves of fifty per cent of the total currency, and that -is the maximum of the demand for silver which could be created if the -United States went over to the silver standard. The supply would come -from all over the earth. Mr. St. John is sure that none would come from -Europe, because legal tender silver there is at a higher ratio than -sixteen to one. Not a nation in Europe which is now under the yoke of -silver would hesitate a moment to demonetize it and send it here if we -opened our mints to it at sixteen to one. He also assures us that none -would come here from the East because the course of silver has always -been from West to East. The course of silver has turned from East to -West more than once when there was a profit on bringing it back, and -that is the only condition necessary to bring it back again. Japan -would adopt a gold currency the moment that the United States adopted a -silver one. - - -IT IS IMPOSSIBLE INDEFINITELY TO INCREASE THE CIRCULATION. - -The power of our currency to absorb silver is not unlimited. People -seem to believe that they can go on and increase the monetary -circulation indefinitely. This is possible with paper, which has no -commodity value and cannot be exported, always understanding that the -paper will depreciate as issued, but it is not possible with any money -which has commodity value. When silver has been put into circulation -here to such an amount that all the fictitious value given to it by the -coinage law has been eliminated--that is to say, when so many silver -dollars, or paper bearing the obligation of silver dollars, have been -issued as will equal in value the present circulation--then there -will be no profit in sending silver here from elsewhere, and no more -profit in minting silver here than in sending it elsewhere. As we have -seen, there is no reason to estimate the amount of silver which would -be absorbed in this operation at more than five hundred millions. The -miners are making all this agitation for the sake of that share which -they could get in furnishing this sum. That share would really not -exceed the silver they had on hand when the law was put in force. - - -ANTAGONISTIC INTERESTS OF MINERS AND POPULISTS. - -What share, then, would the silver-miners get in the results of the -enterprise? They could get none unless the new silver was bought only -of them, and only bought gradually as they produced it, and bought -at a rising price as the demand of debtors acted upon it. Not one of -these conditions would be fulfilled. The debtors and the silver-miners -really have antagonistic interests at every point. It has been proposed -that only American silver should be accepted at the mint. That plan is -impracticable in any case, but, when the Populists had their victory -in hand, does anybody suppose that they would wait eight or ten years -for the realization of their hopes while the mines were producing new -silver, being certain that that delay would cause all they hoped for to -slip through their fingers? I repeat: The interests of the two factions -are all antagonistic to each other, and one of them is destined -inevitably to be the dupe of the other. That destiny is reserved for -the miners who, besides, are paying all the expenses. - -Already, so far as the campaign has proceeded, this antagonism has -begun to manifest itself. Mr. Bryan says that his plan will make silver -worth one dollar and twenty-nine cents per ounce fine. He thus takes -his position with the miners’ faction. Thereupon the organs of the -repudiators’ faction have begun to remonstrate. That is not at all what -they are fighting for. They do not want their scheme to raise silver -at all. But if it does not, the miners gain nothing. If it does, then -again the repudiators take to paper money and the miners win nothing. - -The mechanical difficulty of recoining the silver with the necessary -rapidity could probably be overcome. There are machine-shops enough -to do it if there was a party in power which had that reckless -determination to execute its will which these people show. We may, -therefore, go on to consider the rise of prices. - - -THE RISE OF PRICES. - -The rise in prices would regularly occur only as the new silver or -paper was put out, but as the consequences would all be discounted it -would be sudden and rapid. It would not, however, affect all things -at the same time or to an equal degree. It is here that one of the -first disappointments would occur. It is not possible to put up prices -when and as one would like to do it, even when the rise is due to -inflation. The effect cannot all be distributed at once. An advance -in price reacts on business relations, that is, on the industrial -organization. Many people and many interests find that they cannot -push against others until long after they have been pushed against -themselves. The wages class and the farmers are the ones who are most -clearly in this position, at least as far as the latter do not produce -articles for export. It must be plain that in such a convulsion of the -market everybody will try to save himself at the expense of others. Who -will succeed? Those certainly who spend their lives in the market and -already possess the control of its machinery; not those whose time is -occupied in the details of production. - - -WHERE THE EXPECTED GAINS WOULD GO. - -It is said that the farmer would sell his grain and cotton, as now, for -gold; that he would exchange the gold for silver; would get the silver -coined and would pay his debts with it. Would any individual farmer do -this? Would any one man go through the steps of this operation?--see -the buyer of his products, handle the gold and silver, go to the -mint? Certainly not. All these operations would go on through the -commercial and financial machinery. They would be executed by different -individuals, in the way of business, through the organization, and -every one of them would be lost to view. Every operation would have to -be paid for. Every operation would give a new chance for more middlemen -and more charges. Would, then, the gains of this grand scheme go to the -farmer? Not at all. They would go to the “brokers and speculators of -Wall Street.” They would be lost in commissions and charges. The type -of operator whom the Populist seems to think of when he talks about -“Wall Street sharks,” exists, although his importance in Wall Street is -not as great as that of the political farmer in agriculture; but this -type of man does not care what the currency legislation is, except that -he would like to have a great deal of it, and to have it very mixed. -Whatever it is, when it is made and he sees what it is, he will proceed -to operate upon it. - - -PLAYING INTO THE HANDS OF THE MONEY SHARKS. - -We hear fierce denunciations of what is called the “money power.” -It is spoken of as mighty, demoniacal, dangerous, and schemes are -proposed for mastering it which are futile and ridiculous, if it is -what it is said to be. Every one of these schemes only opens chances -for money-jobbers and financial wreckers to operate upon brokerages and -differences while making legitimate finance hazardous and expensive, -thereby adding to the cost of commercial operations. The parasites on -the industrial system flourish whenever the system is complicated. -Confusion, disorder, irregularity, uncertainty are the conditions of -their growth. The surest means to kill them is to make the currency -absolutely simple and absolutely sound. Is it not childish for simple, -honest people to set up a currency system which is full of subtleties -and mysteries, and then to suppose that they, and not the men of craft -and guile, will get the profits of it? - - - - -THE DELUSION OF THE DEBTORS[38] - - -Fifty years ago a political agitation was started for the annexation -of Texas. As the enterprise appeared like a barefaced piece of -land-grabbing, it was necessary to invent some historical, political, -and moral theories which would give it another color. One such theory -was that Texas had properly belonged to us, but that it was given away -by Monroe and Adams in 1819. Therefore the project was presented as one -for the _re_-annexation of Texas. - - -THE RE-MONETIZATION OF SILVER. - -An attempt is now made to impugn the coinage act of 1873 under various -points of view, in order to lay a foundation for the claim that it -is only sought now to re-monetize silver. Not a single imputation on -the act of 1873 has ever been presented which will stand examination, -but, if that were not so, that act was like any other act of Congress -which has become the law of the land, and under which we have all been -obliged to live for twenty-five years. We cannot go back and undo the -law and live the twenty-five years over again. All the mistakes and -follies of the past are gone into the past for all classes and all -persons amongst us. The men of the past must be assumed to have acted -according to their light, and we who inherit the consequences of what -they did must make the best of both the good and ill of it, as the case -may be, or as we think it is. If now we make a new coinage law it must -stand on its own merits, and on the responsibility of the men who make -it, now and for the future. All references back to 1873 are idle and -irrelevant. - -The plain fact, therefore, to be faced without any disguise, is that -we are invited to debase the coinage and lower the standard of value, -_now_ and for the future, as a free act of political choice, to be -deliberately adopted in a time of profound peace, and that this is -to be done with the intention and hope that it will perpetrate a -bankruptcy at fifty cents on the dollar for all existing debtors. Can -this project be executed? It cannot. The scheme and plan of it for a -nation of seventy million people is silly and wicked at the same time, -and is both, beyond the power of words to express. The projectors of -it deal with the economic phenomena of a great nation as if they were -talking about a game at cards, and they plan to do this with prices -and that with debts, this with exports and that with banks, as if they -were planning a program for building a barn. If we try to realize the -operation proposed we shall see how childish and absurd it is. - -We must distinguish between three classes of debtors: great financial -institutions, small mortgagors, and partners in collapsed booms. - - -FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AS DEBTORS. - -The great financial institutions are intermediaries between debtors and -creditors. They have received capital from some people and lent it to -others. They have to recover it and pay it back. If they only recover -it at fifty cents on the dollar, they can only repay it in the same -way. What this would mean is that the creditors of those institutions -would be paid “dollars,” but that when they tried to re-invest them -they would find that prices had risen to a greater or less degree in -those dollars for the things which they wanted to buy. To this the -Populists answer, triumphantly, that now the debtors find that the -prices of their products have fallen, so that when they try to sell -them they cannot get enough to pay their debts; but the debtors are -those who made contracts and undertook enterprises five, ten, fifteen, -or twenty years ago, expecting to make gains which they certainly would -have kept. As things have turned out they have not made the gains, and -their plan is to escape the loss by throwing it on some one else. The -institutions in question, however, are bound to protect the interests -of either body of their clients, borrowers or depositors, when either -is unjustly threatened, and they are by no means destitute of means to -do it. A law to forbid specific coin contracts is but one step in the -desperate policy of prostituting law and corrupting the administration -of justice, which would be necessary in the attempt to force through -the plan under discussion. It would fail at last, because the advocates -of it would find that, as the popular saying is, it would “fly up and -hit them in the face.” It is not possible to throw society and all its -most important institutions into confusion without ruining all the -interests of everybody, and at last everybody but the tramp or pauper -has to ask himself whether it will pay. As for the institutions, many -of them would be ruined in the operation. It is not possible for them -simply to collect and repay in the debased dollars. The operation would -produce snarls and knots at every turn. Lawsuits would multiply on all -sides, and would so entangle the affairs of the institution as to ruin -it. The proof of this is presented by the difficulties of liquidation -in any case, even when there is no question of currency revolution, -and when general affairs are in a normal condition, unless there is -time and security for all the operations. In this case the demands on -the institution would be precipitated at once, so far as the form of -contract would allow. - - -SMALL MORTGAGORS. - -The small mortgagors are either wages-men or farmers. As to the -wages-men, their wages would undoubtedly go up in time as prices went -up, but in the paralysis of industry which would be the first distinct -effect of the plan, as soon as it was known that the experiment was -to be made, immense numbers of wages-men would be thrown out of -employment, and all wages would fall on account of this condition of -the labor market. Later, when things began to adjust themselves to the -new basis, wages would be low with prices high, both in silver. Advance -of wages would come, but it would have to be won through strikes and -a prolonged industrial war. In the state of things supposed it would -be every man for himself. The wages class would be weakest of all -under the circumstances, as they are in every case of “hard times.” -How would mortgagors of this class traverse such a time and keep up -their interest? As to the principal, which is to be halved, it cannot -be halved unless it is paid, and the mortgagor has nothing to pay it -with except the _surplus_ which he can save from his wages over the -cost of living. The project promises woe and ruin to the wages class, -with industrial war and class hatred as moral consequences of the most -far-reaching importance. - - -FARMER-MORTGAGORS. - -The farmers expect to double the price of their products, and so get -silver to pay off their mortgages. It has been shown elsewhere[39] how -illusory this expectation is as regards prices. Prices would rise, -indeed, in silver, but irregularly and unequally. They would rise for -all things which a farmer buys as well as for all that he sells. If, as -the silver theorists generally say, all prices were to rise uniformly, -the farmer would gain but little. For the only means he would win -toward paying off his mortgage would be the _surplus_ of his income -over his outgo, and this he could only apply year by year as he won it. -If, then, the whole scheme could be made to work smoothly provided the -victims of it would submit to it without resistance, does this afford -any probability of realizing the great hopes which are built upon the -scheme? - - -SOCIAL WAR THE CONSEQUENCE. - -But victims would not submit without resistance, and once more we come -to the result that no effect can be expected from this undertaking -but social war, and a convulsion of the entire social system, whose -consequences defy analysis or prediction. If a man says that he “does -not see” what great difference going over to the silver standard will -make, it must be that he is little trained to understand the workings -of the industrial system in which he lives and on which he depends. It -is a monstrous thing that a free, self-governing people should join a -political battle, in this year of grace 1896, over the question whether -to debase their coinage or not. - - -THE EXPLODED BOOMS. - -The third class of debtors is by far the most important in this -matter--those who are caught in exploded booms. The peaceful and honest -mortgagors of farms and homesteads are not the ones who have gotten up -this political agitation. The jobbers, speculators, and boom-promoters -have been one of the curses of this country from the earliest colonial -days. They are men of the “hustling” type, jobbing in politics with -one hand and in land or town lots with the other. It is they who, at -the worst periods of financial trouble in our history, have always -appeared in the lobby, eager for “relief,” declaiming about the -“people,” the “money power,” the “banks,” “England,” etc. They have -always favored schemes for fraudulent banks, or paper money, or state -subsidies, or other plans by which they could unload on the state or -on their creditors. Just now it is silver, because silver has fallen -within twenty-five years so much that it is what is called “cheap -money.” This type of men have always used a dialect, part of which is -quoted above, which is so well marked that it suffices to identify -them. The history of financial distress in this country is full of it. -No scheme which has ever been devised by them has ever made a collapsed -boom go up again. With very few exceptions, they have, on account of -such expedients, only floundered deeper in the mire. The exceptions -have been those who have succeeded in making the state provide them -with capital, although by no means all of these have been hard-headed -enough to use it to “get out.” Generally they believe in themselves and -their schemes, and use new capital only to plunge in again still deeper. - -It is men of this class and the silver-miners who have brought the -present trouble upon us, who have invented and preached the notions -about the crime of ’73, the hard times, the magical influence of -silver, and all the rest. It is they who have filled and engineered -conventions. They will gain no more now than in any former crisis, but -they insist on involving us all in turmoil, risk, and ruin by their -schemes to save themselves. - - - - -THE CRIME OF 1873[40] - - -LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT OF 1873. - -It is alleged that the law of 1873 was enacted surreptitiously. Mr. -Bryan is quoted as having said that the free-coinage men only ask for -a restoration of “that system that we had until it was stricken down -in the dark without discussion.” Within the last ten years the facts -of the legislative history of that law have been published over and -over again. They are to be found in the report of the Comptroller of -the Currency for 1876, page 170; in “Macpherson’s Political Manual” -for 1890, page 157, and in “Sound Currency,” Vol. III, No. 13. The -bill was before Congress three years, was explained and debated again -and again. The fact that the silver dollar was dropped was expressly -pointed out. It is not now justifiable for any man who claims to be -honest and responsible to assert that it was passed “in the dark and -without discussion.” The fact is that nobody cared about it. It is -noteworthy that the act is not in “Macpherson’s Manual” for 1874. It -was not thought to be of any importance. It was not until after the -panic of 1873 that attention began to be given to the currency. To -that, I who write can testify, since I tried in vain, before that time, -to excite any interest in the subject. I was once in the gallery of -the House of Representatives when a question of coinage was before -the House. I counted those members who, as far as I could judge, were -paying any attention. There were six. What is it necessary to do in -such a case in order to prevent the claim, twenty-five years later, -when countless interests have vested under the law, that the law is -open to “reversal” because it was passed “in the dark”? - - -WAS IT PASSED SURREPTITIOUSLY? - -How can a law be passed through Congress surreptitiously? We have -indeed heard of bills being “smuggled through” in the confusion -attending the last hours of the session, or as an amendment, or under a -misleading title. There are the rules of order, however, by which all -legislation is enacted. All laws which get through the mill are equally -valid. There never has been and never can be any distinction drawn -between them according to their legislative history. In the present -case there was not the slightest manœuvre or trick, nor is there even -room to trump up an allegation of the kind. - - -THAT THE PEOPLE DID NOT KNOW OF IT. - -It is said that “the people” did not know what was being done. How -do they ever know what is being done? There is all the machinery of -publicity, and it is all at work. If people do not heed (and of course -in nearly all cases they do not), whose fault is it? Who is responsible -to go to the ten million voters individually and make sure that they -heed, lest twenty-five years later somebody may say that the fact that -they did not heed lays down a justification for a new project which -certainly is “a crime” in the new sense which is given to that word -here? - - -MOTIVE OF THE LAW. - -The act of 1873 did not affect any rights or interests. It took away an -option which had existed since 1834, but had never been used, and, for -ten years before this act was passed, had sunk entirely out of sight -under paper-money inflation. Secretary Boutwell, when he first brought -the matter to the attention of Congress in 1870, explained the proposed -legislation as a codification of existing coinage laws. Later it took -the shape of a complete simplification of existing law, history, and -fact, in order to put the coinage on the simplest and best system as a -basis for resumption. As we had then no coin, we had a free hand to put -the system on the best basis, there being no vested rights or interests -to be disturbed. That this was a wise and sound course to pursue under -the circumstances is unquestionable. Three years later, by the rise -in greenbacks and the fall in silver, it came about that four hundred -twelve and one-half grains of silver, nine-tenths fine, was worth a -little less than a greenback dollar. The old option would, therefore, -if still existent, have been an advantage to debtors. Complaint and -clamor for the restoration of the option then began, but to give such -an option, after the market had changed, would be playing with loaded -dice. The European countries which still retained the option abolished -it as soon as silver began to fall, and we, if we had retained it open -until that time, ought to have done the same. - - -ALTERNATE RUIN TO DEBTORS AND CREDITORS. - -The inflation of the Civil War had a direful effect upon all creditors -on contracts outstanding in 1862. The resumption of specie payments -had a similar effect on debtors under contracts made between 1868 and -1878. Greenbackism and silver debasement were produced by resistance to -this operation. The debtors of to-day are not those of that period. The -debts of that period are paid off. The pain and strain have been borne. -The credit of the United States has been established, the currency -restored, and the whole business of the country for seventeen years -has been completely established on the gold dollar as the dollar of -account for all transactions whatsoever. The population of the country -is now two and a half times what it was in the war time, and its wealth -is probably a much greater multiple. The debts now outstanding have, -with unimportant exceptions, been contracted since the resumption of -specie payments. What is now proposed is to enter upon a new period of -these alternations of wrong and injustice, first to creditors, then to -debtors, and so on, and to do this in a time of peace, not from any -political necessity, but on the ground of some economic interpretations -of the facts of the market, which are incapable of verification and -proof, when they are not obviously erroneous and partisan. The effect -of the various compromises with silver is that the currency is once -more intricate and complicated, excessive and confused, so that few -can understand it, and it offers all sorts of chances for perverse and -mischievous interpretations. - - -DEMONETIZATION REMOVED NO MONEY FROM USE. - -The law of 1873 never threw a dollar of silver or other currency out -of circulation. We hear it asserted that “demonetization” destroyed -half the people’s money. People say this who know nothing of the facts, -but infer that demonetization must mean that some silver dollars which -were money had that character taken from them. No one of the other -demonetizations, which took place in Europe at about the same time, -diminished the money in use. The result of changes in 1873–1874 was -that the amount of silver coin in use in Europe was greatly increased, -and has remained so since. - -The resumption of specie payments after 1873 by a number of nations -which had issued paper money in the previous period, and the alternate -expenditure and re-collection of war-hoards of gold, had far greater -importance than the demonetizations. - -There has been no diminution of the world’s coined money within -fifty years, but a steady and rapid increase of it. There have been -fluctuations in the production of gold and silver such as belong to the -production of all metals and are inevitable. - - -THE ALLEGED SCRAMBLE FOR GOLD. - -There has been no “scramble for gold.” Those who do not put any -obstacle in the way of gold get more of it than they want. The Bank of -England has had lately the largest stock of gold that it ever had, and -complaints have begun to be heard of a glut. The gold-production in the -last five years is the greatest ever known and there is no fear of any -lack of it, whatever may be the sense in which any one chooses to speak -of a “lack.” There is not and has not been any “scarcity of gold.” -There is no such thing conceivable, except where paper has been issued -in excess, so that it is hard to keep enough gold to redeem it with. - - -PROOF THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO SCARCITY OF GOLD. - -There is one proof that there has been no scarcity of money for -twenty-five years past which has not indeed passed unnoticed, but -which has not received the attention which it deserves; that is the -rate of interest. The rate of interest is normally due to the supply -and demand of loanable capital, and has nothing to do with money. The -value of money is registered by prices, not by the rate of interest. -But whenever there is a special demand for money of account--that -is, for the solvent of debts--the rate of interest on capital passes -over into a rate for the solvent of debts. Banks lend capital in its -most universal form, _i.e._, the currency or money of account, or -bank credits. If credit fails, as in a time of crisis and panic, -actual cash in the money of account is wanted. This now is loaned, -under a rate, by the same persons and institutions who formerly loaned -capital, and the one phenomenon passes into the other without any line -of demarcation. The transition, however, never takes place except in -time of crisis, and therefore at a _high_ rate. From this it follows -certainly that never when the market rate is _low_ can it be a rate -for the solvent of debts. Now, ever since 1873, with the exception of -periods of special stringency in 1884, 1890, and 1893, we have had -very low rates of interest; the rate for call loans (which in this -connection are the most important) has been about two per cent. This is -a demonstration that the country has not been suffering from a crisis -on account of a lack of currency for the normal needs of business. -Proofs could be presented, on the other hand, that the currency for the -last six years has been constantly in excess, excepting in 1893, when -the credit of the currency failed for a time. - - -HOW TO GET POOR AND RICH AT THE SAME TIME. - -Mr. St. John tries his hand at the relation between prices and -interest in connection with our subject. He says: “If the dollar can -be cheapened by increasing the number of dollars, so that each dollar -will buy less wheat, the increasing price of wheat will increase the -demand for dollars to invest in its production.” Evidently he fails to -distinguish between the rise in price of wheat from one gold dollar -to two gold dollars per bushel, and the rise in wheat from one gold -dollar to two fifty-cent silver dollars per bushel. The former would -undoubtedly stimulate production. The latter would do so also, among -farmers who shared Mr. St. John’s confusion on this matter. There would -be many of them. They would imagine that they were getting rich by -raising wheat to sell at two silver dollars, or five, ten, fifteen, -or twenty paper dollars, as depreciation went on. Hence, as he says, -they would pay a banker eight, ten, twelve, or fifteen per cent, in -the depreciated dollars, in order to get “money,” as he calls it, with -which to raise wheat. Mr. St. John thinks that this would mean that -farmer and banker were both magnificently prosperous. It would mean -that the real value which came in was steadily growing less than that -which went out, so that the capital was being consumed. Hence the high -rates of inflation times, and the disaster which follows when the -truth is realized. They told a story in Revolutionary times of a man -who invested his capital in a hogshead of rum which he sold out at -an enormous advance--in Continental paper; but when he went to buy a -new supply, all his “money” would only buy a barrel. This he retailed -out at another enormous advance--in Continental--but when he went to -buy more he had only enough money to buy a gallon. If he had borrowed -his first capital he might have paid twenty per cent for it--in -Continental--but the banker would hardly have made a good affair. - - -MONOPOLY OF THE MONEY. - -We hear it asserted that the gold standard gives the owners of gold -power to appropriate the money and make it scarce, and that they have -used this power. Why, then, under silver or paper, may not the holders -of silver or paper do the same? That the holders of gold have not done -it has been shown above. But nobody can do it with any kind of value -money. There are no “holders of gold.” He who holds gold wins no gains -on it. The bankers who are supposed to hold it, if peace and security -reign, put it all out at loan in order to get gain on it. When peace -and security do not reign it is not safe to put it out, and borrowers, -fearing to engage in new enterprises, do not present a demand for -it. Furthermore, the greatest gains can then be won by holding money -ready to buy property when the crash comes. That is what those who -own surpluses are doing now. Hence there are no “holders of gold” -until monetary threats and dangers call them into existence. Silver -legislation has made a great many. The law of 1873 never made any. - -There is not, therefore, a fact or deduction about the law of 1873, or -the history of the market since, which the silver men have put forward, -which will stand examination. - - - - -A CONCURRENT CIRCULATION OF GOLD AND SILVER - -[1878] - - -It seems as if the United States were destined to be the arena for -testing experimentally every fallacy in regard to money which has -ever been propounded. A few years ago only a very few people here -had ever heard of the “double standard” or knew what it meant. In -1873 we became simply and distinctly a “gold country” in law, as we -had been for forty years in fact. Immediately after that date silver -began to fall in value relatively to gold, so that, if we had been on -the “double standard,” and had not been deterred by considerations -of honor, morality, and public credit, which considerations kept the -double-standard countries from taking that course, we could have paid -our debts in silver at an advantage. Forthwith all those persons -who had before been racking their brains to devise some scheme for -resumption without pain or sacrifice, turned their attention to silver, -and began to devise plans for getting back to the position which, as -they thought, we had unwisely abandoned. The consequence has been that, -for the last year, the country has produced numberless editorials, -essays, lectures, and speeches, full of the most crude sophistry, and -the most astonishing errors as to all the elementary doctrines of -coinage and money. The favorite object of all these schemes is to find -some means of increasing the amount of money at the disposal of the -world, or of this nation, so as to raise prices and make it easier to -pay debts. These schemes have taken their point of departure in the -speculations of some European economists. In Europe the propositions -of the economists in question have never passed beyond the realm of -speculation and theoretical discussion amongst professional economists. -They have been regarded by some as probably sound, and capable of -being made the basis of advantageous legislation. By others, superior -in number and authority, they have been regarded as unsound. Inasmuch -as they involve an international coinage union between all civilized -countries and could be put to the experiment only on a scale involving -immeasurable risks, the overwhelming judgment has been that they were -out of the question. Here, however, our amateurs and empirics are in -hot haste to make the experiments, without any coinage convention, or -with the coöperation of only a few and the less important nations, that -is to say under circumstances which even the most extreme bimetallists -condemn as ruinous. - -It must be observed then that there lies back of all this popular -discussion a scientific and technical question of great delicacy. I -might even say that it is a speculative question, or a question in -speculative economics, for we have no experience of an international -coinage union, or of a concurrent circulation, of the metals. We have -to imagine the state of things proposed and reason _a priori_ as to -what must be the result. There is a postulate to all these schemes -which has never been expressed and never been discussed, but which -is assumed to be true. It has two different forms: (1) A concurrent -circulation of gold and silver may be established in any country: (2) -A concurrent circulation of gold and silver may be established by a -coinage union of all civilized nations. These postulates, or we may -say this postulate, for the latter includes the former, I have now to -bring in question. If the science of money teaches that there cannot be -a concurrent circulation of the metals, then the schemes which I have -referred to are all condemned. The question, moreover, has won such -an immediate and practical significance in the country that it is no -longer a subject for academical discussion amongst economists, about -whom opinions may differ without importance. - -The Senate of the United States has just passed a bill containing the -following provision: - -“Sec. 2. That immediately after the passage of this act the President -shall invite the governments of the countries composing the Latin -Union, so called, and of such other European nations as he may deem -advisable, to join the United States in a conference to adopt a -common ratio between gold and silver for the purpose of establishing -internationally the use of bimetallic money and securing a fixity of -the relative value between those metals; such conference to be held at -such a place in Europe or in the United States at such a time within -six months as may be mutually agreed upon by the executives of the -governments joining in the same. Whenever the governments so invited, -or any three of them, shall have signified their willingness to unite -in the same, the President shall, by and with the advice and consent -of the Senate, appoint three commissioners who shall attend such -conference on behalf of the United States, and shall report the doings -thereof to the President, who shall transmit the same to Congress.” - -The conception which governed this legislation is plain enough. It -proposes to secure a concurrent circulation of the two metals at a -fixed ratio by an international agreement. The proposition is to put -the experiment at work when only three nations besides ourselves -consent and in the meantime to remonetize silver here at sixteen to -one when the market ratio is seventeen and one-half to one. This -adds to the absurdity of the bill, but has no bearing on my present -controversy. I challenge the postulate which is assumed, which has -never been discussed, much less proved, that a concurrent circulation -is possible if an international union can be made. Anybody who concedes -this concedes, as I view it, the fundamental and controlling error in -the silver craze. If this premise is conceded, there can be no further -controversy on the arena of science. It remains only to try to overcome -practical difficulties. Such is the issue I raise with those who, under -any reservations whatsoever, concede that a concurrent circulation is -possible. In a body of scientific gentlemen I need only refer to the -mischief done in science by assuming the truth of postulates without -examination, and I need make no apology for bringing forward with all -possible force and vigor a controversy on a point so essential. It is -my duty to say that I may be in error, and I have the misfortune to -differ here with gentlemen from whom I dissent seldom and unwillingly, -but it will not be denied that, while there is controversy on a -point so essential, and at a moment when practical measures of high -importance to every person in this country are proposed, based on -certain views of the matter, I am right in promoting discussion. I wish -to be understood as paying full respect to everybody, but I address -myself, without compliments, to the question in hand. I shall be -satisfied if I make it appear that I have some strong grounds for the -position I take in a long, careful, and mature study of this question -in all its bearings. - -It will economize time and space, if, before entering on my subject, -I try to clear up two points: (1) what is an economic force or an -economic law, and how ought we to go about the study of economic -phenomena? (2) What is a legal tender? - -(1) What should be our conception of an economic force or an economic -law, and how ought we to study economic phenomena? Some people seem to -think that economic phenomena constitute a domain of arbitrary and -artificial action. They think that social phenomena of every kind are -subject to chance or to control. They see no sequence between incidents -of this kind. They have no conception of social forces. They think -economic laws are only formulae established by grouping a certain -number of facts together, like a rule in grammar, and they are prepared -for a list of exceptions to follow. This conception, in its grosser -forms, is now banished from the science, but it still has strong hold -on popular opinion. It also still colors a great many scientific -discussions, those, namely, who seek to carry forward the science by -following out the complicated cases produced by the combined action of -economic forces in our modern industrial life, and describing them in -detail. In my opinion such efforts are all mistaken. - -I regard economic forces as simply parallel to physical forces, arising -just as spontaneously and naturally, following a sequence of cause and -effect just as inevitably as physical forces--neither more nor less. -The perturbations and complications which present themselves in social -phenomena are strictly analogous to those which appear in physical -phenomena. The social order is, to my mind, the product of social -forces tending always towards an equilibrium at some ideal point, -which point is continually changing under the ever-changing amount or -velocity of the forces or under their new combinations. Consequently, -I do not believe that the advance of economic science depends upon -fuller and more minute description of complicated social phenomena -as they present themselves in experience, but on a stricter analysis -of them in order to get a closer and clearer knowledge of the laws -by which the forces producing them operate. If this can be attained, -all the complications which arise from their combined action will be -easily solved. Of course we have peculiar difficulties to contend with, -inasmuch as we cannot constitute experiments, and it is necessary -to rely largely upon historical cases which present now one and now -another force or set of forces in peculiar prominence. The facts which -show the difficulty of the task, however, have nothing to do with its -nature. - -According to this view of the matter there is no more reason to be -satisfied with generalities in economics than in physics. Some writers -on economic subjects, who pride themselves upon scientific reluctance, -remind me of Mr. Brooks, in “Middlemarch.” They believe in things up -to a certain point, and are always afraid of going too far. They would -be careful about the multiplication table, and not bear down too hard -on the rule of three. They do not discriminate between care in the -application of rules, and confidence in scientific results; or between -harshness in personal relations and firm convictions in science. The -more we come to understand economic science the more clear it is that -we are dealing with only another presentation of matter and force, -that is to say, with quantity and law, so that we have mathematical -relations, and have every encouragement to severity and exactitude in -our methods. When, therefore, it is said that the economists do not -pay sufficient heed to the power of legislation, that is no stopping -place for the argument any more than it would be in physics to say -that sufficient heed was not paid to friction. The question would then -arise: What is the force of legislation? Let us study it, just as we -would go on to study friction in mechanics. When it is loosely said -(as if that dismissed the subject) that men have passions and emotions -and do not act by rule, the objection is not pertinent at all. It is -connected with another wide and common, but very erroneous notion, -that economic laws involve some stress of obligation on men to do or -abstain from doing certain things. I suppose this notion arises from -the classification of political economy amongst the moral sciences. -Economic laws only declare relations of cause and effect which will -follow, if set in motion. Whether a man sets the sequence in motion at -all or not, and if he does so, whether he does it from passion or habit -or upon reflection, is immaterial. Such is the case, as I understand -it, with all sciences. They simply instruct men as to the laws of this -world in which we live that they may know what to expect if they take -one course or another, or they instruct men so that they may understand -the relations of phenomena of forces beyond our control so that we may -foresee and guard ourselves against harm. It follows from all this -that I demand and aim at just as close thinking in political economy -as in any other science. I think we must try to get as firm hold of -principles and fundamental laws as we can, and that, especially in the -face of speculative propositions, we ought to cling to and trust the -firmly established laws of the science. - -(2) As to legal tender, it seems to me that the public mind has been -sadly confused under the régime of paper money. Money is any commodity -which is set apart by common consent to serve as a medium of exchange. -If it is a commodity, it will exchange by the laws of value, and will -therefore serve to measure value. It must therefore be a commodity, an -object of desire requiring onerous exertion to get it. In theory, it -may be any commodity. The question as to what commodity is a question -of convenience--that one which will answer the purpose best. Through a -long period of experiments we have come to use gold or silver, simply -because we found them the best. Convenience here gave rise to custom, -and money of gold or silver owes its existence to custom entirely, and -not to law at all. Law has only in very few instances even selected -that one of the two metals which should be used. Even that has come -about through custom. Law, therefore, here as elsewhere where it has -been beneficent and not arbitrary, has followed custom, recognized it, -ratified it, and given it sanctions. (1) A legal tender law, therefore, -where customary money is used, simply declares that the parties to a -contract shall not vex each other by arbitrarily departing from the -custom. The creditor shall not demand, and the debtor shall not offer, -out of spite or malice, anything but the customary money of the nation. -Such a legal tender law has no significance whatever. No one thinks of -it or speaks of it or takes it into account, unless he be one of those -whose idle malice it prevents. - -(2) A legal tender law is used where a subsidiary token currency is -employed as a part of the system, to prevent debtors from using it in -payment, and to prevent the system from bringing about a depreciation -of the money. In this case it is part of the device for using a token -currency, and is open to no objection. It would check the debtor when -he meant to perpetrate a wrong. It would not enable him to do one. - -(3) A legal tender law has been used very often, however, to give -forced circulation to a depreciated currency of little or no value -as a commodity. In that case the legal tender act enables the debtor -to discharge his obligations with less commodities than he and the -creditor understood and expected when the contract was made. If the -creditor appeals to the courts, they are obliged to rule that the -debtor has discharged his obligation, when he has not, and they give -the creditor no relief. Hence it appears that a legal tender act giving -forced circulation to depreciated currency amounts simply to this: it -withdraws the protection of the courts from one party to a contract, -and leaves him at the mercy of the other party to the extent of the -depreciation of the currency. Obviously no other act of legislation -more completely reverses the whole proper object of legislation, -or more thoroughly subverts civil order. The English passed two or -three acts of this nature, although they were not specifically -acts for making banknotes legal tender, during the bank suspension -at the beginning of this century. It would have been interesting to -see what English courts would have made of an act which reversed the -whole spirit of English law by diminishing the rights of one party -under a contract, and which made the courts an instrument for his -oppression instead of an institution to provide a remedy, but no -case came up. The twelve judges on appeal overturned the sentence of -a man convicted of buying and selling gold at a premium. Some few -persons demanded and obtained gold payments throughout the suspension -but the paper circulation was really sustained by public opinion and -consent, it being believed that the bank suspension was necessary. -This form of legal tender, therefore, is totally different from that -first described. I call it, for the sake of discrimination, a forced -circulation. When a legal tender act giving forced circulation to -a depreciated currency is first passed, if it applies to existing -contracts it transfers a percentage of all capital engaged in credit -operations from the creditor to the debtor. In its subsequent action it -subjects either party to the fluctuations which may occur in the forced -circulation, robbing first one and then another. Hence the debtor -interest is that the depreciation once begun shall go on steadily, -because any recovery would rob debtors as creditors were robbed in the -first place. - -Having disposed of these two points I now take up the question I -proposed at the outset: Is a concurrent circulation of gold and silver -possible under an international coinage union? - -Here we have to make a radical distinction between two different -propositions for an international coinage union. The first is that -of M. Wolowski. He pointed to the comparatively small fluctuations -of the precious metals and to the effect which France had exerted -by the double standard, and inferred that if all civilized nations -would join France in her system they might arrest the fall of either -metal before it became important. If the coinage union fixed upon a -ratio of one to fifteen and one-half, then, if silver fell all would -use silver, which would arrest its fall. If gold should fall, all -would use gold. As the metal in use would always be the one which was -cheaper than the legal ratio, the other would be above it, if I may so -express it. Hence neither would be permanently demonetized, because -neither could fall so low as to go out of use. Only one would be used -at a time but the other would be within reach, and if either should -rise relatively to commodities, debtors would not suffer but might -even be benefited by being enabled to turn to the falling metal. This -system would require of the law nothing except to prescribe that the -mint should coin either metal indifferently which people might bring, -silver coins being made fifteen and one-half times as heavy as gold -coins of the same denomination, both being of the same fineness. This -is Wolowski’s plan, and these are the advantages he expected from -it. He thought that it would hold the alternative open between the -two metals. He feared that silver, if universally demonetized, would -fall so low as to go out of use entirely for money. He thought that -France and, later, the Latin Union ought not to bear alone the cost -of keeping up the value of silver. He thought the debtor ought not to -be oppressed by being forced to rely on one metal alone which might -rise relatively to commodities. He did not propose to give the debtor -the use of the whole mass of both metals at the same time. Indeed that -arrangement would defeat Wolowski’s purpose, for if the whole mass of -both metals could be brought into use at once prices would rise. Those -who are indebted now would win, but when prices and credit had adjusted -themselves to the bimetallic money the effect would be exhausted. Debts -contracted after that would be relatively just as heavy to pay as they -are now, and if the precious metals taken together rose relatively -to commodities, debtors would have no recourse to anything else. Now -this chance of recourse, when the standard of value rose, was just -what Wolowski wanted. His language is very guarded and scientific. He -never went further than to say that his scheme would restrain and limit -the fluctuations of the metals--how far he did not know and did not -pretend to say. He thought the fluctuations would be so narrow that the -transition from one metal to the other would be a relief to debtors -without any appreciable injustice to creditors. All this is very clear -and very sensible. On theory it is open to no radical objection. The -discussion of it turns upon considerations of practicability and -expediency. It is much to be wished that this plan should be called -by its proper name: the alternative standard, or, better still, the -alternate standard. It counts among its adherents a number of strong -men, and many others have signified assent to it on theoretical grounds. - -The term “bimetallism” ought to be restricted to another theory of -which Cernuschi is the advocate, which has for its purpose to unite -the two metals at once in the circulation and give debtors the whole -mass of both metals as a means of payment. Cernuschi believes that -the international coinage union could arrest the fluctuations of the -metals entirely; or that there is some narrow limit of fluctuation -within which both would remain in use, and that the coinage union -could hold the value-fluctuations of the metals within these limits. -The American schemes are numerous and so crude that it is difficult -to analyze or classify them. They are also of many different grades. -They all, however, seem to have this in common, that they want to -secure to the debtor the use of both metals at once, and that they -aim at a concurrent circulation. They must, therefore, be classed -under bimetallism. These schemes all involve not simply what Wolowski -said--that legislation and union could limit the fluctuations--but the -proposers know how much it would limit them, and they can control the -results. This view has very few adherents in Europe. It has not been -discussed there save by one or two writers. It is passed by in silence -for reasons which I shall soon show. - -The opinion has been expressed that these two propositions differ only -in degree. From this opinion I must express my earnest dissent. It is -the very cardinal point of my present argument. Wolowski’s alternate -standard seems to me to rest upon the belief that legislation of -the kind proposed would restrict the fluctuations in value of the -metals. It affirms that legislation would have a certain tendency. -Any plan for a concurrent circulation giving debtors the use of -the whole mass of both metals pretends to say how far the tendency -would go and what its results would be. To my mind the difference -between those two propositions is that between a scientific and an -unscientific proposition. We have a parallel case before us. Some -say re-monetization would cause an advance in silver. Others say -re-monetization would make a four hundred and twelve and one-half grain -silver dollar equal in value to a gold one. Are those two propositions -the same save in degree? It seems to me that only a very superficial -consideration of them could so declare. Obviously they differ in -quality more than in degree. The former of these propositions is not -false in principle; the question in regard to it must be decided by -circumstances. The second is false and erroneous from beginning to end, -and would be false even if temporarily and by force of circumstances -the silver dollar should become equal to the gold dollar, because it -rests, like the old doctrine that nature abhors a vacuum, upon false -views of all the forces involved. Just so with regard to a concurrent -circulation or bimetallism as compared with the alternate standard. -The latter predicts tendencies to arise from the play of certain -forces. Those tendencies are the true effect of those forces. The -question may be raised whether the means proposed would bring those -forces into action, whether they would be as great as is expected, -whether they would be counteracted by others, but there is no error as -to the nature and operation of economic forces. Bimetallism predicts -results, not tendencies. It assumes to measure the consequences and -say what will result as a permanent state of things. It therefore -involves the doctrine that legislation can control natural forces for -definite results. If legislation cannot so control natural forces, -then we cannot secure a concurrent circulation, giving the debtor the -use of the whole mass of both metals with which to pay his debts. At -a time like this, when the silver craze seems to be asserting itself -as a mania, by sweeping away some who ought to be most staunch in -their adherence to economic laws and most clear in their perception of -economic truths, I may be pardoned for insisting most strenuously upon -this distinction and upon its importance. Many of the American writers -have been betrayed into error by not having examined these two plans -and discriminated between them with sufficient care. It is very common -to see arguments based upon the alternate standard and inferences drawn -as to bimetallism which are entirely fallacious because they cross the -gulf between the two theories without recognizing it. Bimetallism is so -plainly opposed to fundamental doctrines of political economy that few -European economists have felt called upon to discuss it. Here the case -is different, and the more ground it wins, and the more danger there is -that it will affect legislation, the more urgent is the necessity to -resist every form of it. - -Now my proposition is that a concurrent circulation, that is a -permanent union of the two metals in the coinage, so that the debtor -can use both or either, is impossible. Permanent stability of the -metals in the coinage, whether with or without an international -coinage union, is just as impossible in economics as perpetual motion -is in physics. Against perpetual motion the physicist sets a broad -and complete negation, because action and reaction are equal. He -does not care what the principle may be on which any one may try to -construct perpetual motion. If any one brings to him a perpetual -motion perhaps he will spend time to examine and analyze it and show -how it contravenes the great law of motion. I claim that a concurrent -circulation is impossible on any scheme or under any circumstances -because it contravenes the law of value. Value fluctuates under supply -and demand at a limit fixed by what Cairnes calls cost of production, -or Jevons calls the final increment of utility, or Walras calls -scarcity, all of which on analysis will be found to be the same thing. -Bimetallism affirms that, under legislation, although supply and demand -may vary, value shall not. In order to test this let us next examine -the influence of legislation on value. - -The cases in which legislation acts on value are all cases of monopoly. -Such is the case with token money; such is the case with irredeemable -paper. As with every other monopoly, the successful manipulation of -these monopolies consists in controlling supply, to fit the supply to -the demand at the price which the monopolist wants to get. The history -of every monopoly shows the great difficulty, I might say, in the -long run, the impossibility, of doing this. The bimetallists propose -not to act on the supply, and so create a monopoly, but to act upon -the demand. This is a new exercise of legislation, different from any -yet tried, and not guaranteed by any experience. Now to act upon the -demand is, in the phrase of the stock brokers, to make a corner, that -is to buy all that is offered at a price. Stock gamblers do this so -as to sell out again at an advance to those who are forced to buy. If -there are none who are forced to buy, then those who bought above the -market have lost their capital. The propositions of the advocates of -the alternate standard and of bimetallism are alike in proposing that -all civilized nations shall combine to make a corner on the falling -metal. Whether that is a worthy undertaking or not I will not stop to -inquire. It is evident that the nations of the coinage union would -have no one on whom to unload after they had bought, and that there -would be an inevitable loss and waste of capital in the transaction. -This, however, is not all. A corner is effective or not according to -its scope. It must embrace the whole object to be raised in price, and -above all it must act upon a limited amount which is not fed from any -new source of supply. A corner on the precious metals is not to be -made effective even by a combination of all civilized nations. In my -opinion there is a grand fallacy in the notion that a coinage union -would do what France did, only on a larger scale. Wolowski saw France, -lying between Germany, a silver nation, and England, a gold nation, -carry out the compensatory operation, and he inferred that all nations -could agree to do the same, more widely, more easily, and with wider -distribution of the loss. It seems to me that there was an action and -reaction here between members of the group of nations which one can -easily understand, but that if all nations joined in the system, the -alternation would not work at all for want of a point of reaction. -If all nations agreed to join the corner on the falling metal, they -could not all bring their new demand to bear on the new supply at the -same time. As the mines are limited and local, a new supply would -touch the market only at one point. Hence the coinage union implies -no aggregation of force at all. Make the union embrace the whole -world, and the effect is just the same as if there were none at all, -the matter standing simply on the natural laws for the distribution -of the precious metals. Control of demand by a corner or of supply by -a monopoly acts more efficiently the smaller and closer the market -is, and, conversely, the larger and wider the transaction, the less -the efficiency. Furthermore, a corner to succeed must make sure that -there is no source of supply, and that it has to deal only with an -amount which can be computed. The gold corner on Black Friday, 1869, -was ruined when the Secretary of the Treasury ordered sales of gold. A -monopoly in like manner, must be able to count on steady and uniform -demand. The coal combination failed when the hard times suddenly -contracted the demand for coal. Hence the movement towards a wider -market, embracing a larger quantity, is always a movement towards less, -and not towards greater control by artificial expedients. - -Applying these observations to the matter before us, I have to say -(1) that I consider the inference that a coinage union would do what -France did under the double standard, only more surely and efficiently, -quite mistaken; (2) as to the alternate standard, I do not believe -that the alternation would work on a worldwide scale at all. I regard -its operation in France as fully accounted for by the relations of the -three countries, England, France, and Germany; (3) as to bimetallism, -the coinage union, instead of gaining more stringent control to -counteract and nullify the effect of changes in supply of either metal, -would have less effect in that direction the larger it was. - -Having thus examined the nature of artificial interferences with value, -and their limitations, I return to my proposition that to establish a -concurrent circulation is just as impossible as to square the circle -or to invent perpetual motion. No doubt it is difficult, perhaps -impossible, to make a demonstration of a negative proposition like -this. The burden of proof lies upon those who bring forward attempts to -solve the problem, and I can justly be held only to examine and refute -such attempts. No proof has ever been offered by any of the persons -in question. No one of them has attempted as much of an analysis of -the effect of artificial expedients on value as the one I have just -offered. No one of them has attempted to analyze the operation of the -proposed coinage union, to show how or why they expect it to act as -they say. They pass over this assumption as lightly as our popular -advocates of silver assume that re-monetization would put an end to -the hard times. They content themselves with analogies, or with loose -and general guesses that such and such things would result from a -coinage union. We all know what dangers lurk in the argument from -analogy. The further you follow it the further you are from the point. -An analogy has no proper use save to set in clearer light an opinion -or a proposition which must rest for its merits on an appropriate -demonstration. Thus the attempt has been made to illustrate the power -of governments to control the fluctuations of the metals by the analogy -of a man driving two horses. It is said that this is “controlling -natural forces for definite results,” and it is asked, “if one man in -his sphere can do this, why may not the collective might of the nation -do this in its sphere?” My answer is that it is in the sphere of man to -tame horses, but it is not in the sphere of nations to control value, -and therefore the analogy is radically false. I cannot be held to argue -both sides of the question. I am not bound to put all the cases of the -adversaries into proper shape for discussion and then to refute them. -I plant myself squarely upon the fundamental principles of the science -of which I am a student and deny that any concurrent circulation is -possible except under temporary and accidental circumstances, because -it involves the proposition that legislation can control value to -bring about desired results. A concurrent circulation must mean one -which is concurrent, and if it is to offer debtors the whole mass of -both metals to pay their debts with, it must be permanent. If both -metals should be used for a time until prices and contracts were -adjusted to them, and then one should rise so much as to go out of use, -the consequences would be disastrous to debtors beyond anything now -apprehended. - -I proceed then to criticize the notions of a concurrent circulation, -as to their common features. The error with them all is that they try -to corner commodities the supply of which is beyond their control or -knowledge. That is a fatal error in any corner, as I have already -shown. If it were proposed that each nation should have a certain -amount of circulation, composed of the two metals in equal parts, and -then that the circulation should be closed, then the corner might work -and there would be some sense in it. Suppose that a nation had two -hundred millions of fixed circulation, half gold and half silver, and -that this sum was not in excess of its requirement for money. Then I do -not see how either half of the coinage should fall relatively to the -other; but if silver did fall, every dollar of silver which was sought -would involve the relinquishment of a dollar in gold and this exchange -would act on equal and limited amounts of each metal. It would then -depress one metal and raise the other to an exactly equal degree. The -balance might, in that case, be retained. The hypothesis of a closed -circulation is, however, preposterous. No one thinks of it. - -The plan of a concurrent circulation with a free mint strikes, upon -close examination, at every step, against difficulties of that sort -which warn a scientific man that he is dealing with an empirical and -impossible delusion. How is it to be brought about? The movement -towards a bimetallic circulation would never begin unless the ratio -of the coinage was the market ratio. It would not go on unless the -mint ratio followed every fluctuation of the market. It would not be -accomplished unless the mint ratio at last was that of the market. It -would not remain unless the market ratio remained fixed. But the mint -ratio cannot be changed from time to time. If it were, the result would -be inextricable confusion in the coins, driving us back to the use of -scales and weights with which to treat the coins as bullion. - -If we pass over this difficulty, and suppose, for the sake of argument, -that the system had been brought into activity, the reasons why it -could not stand present themselves in numbers. They all come back to -this, that the supply is beyond our knowledge and control. If the -supply of either metal increased, it would overthrow the legal rating -at the point at which it was put into the market, and would destroy the -equality there. Its effects would spread according to the amount of the -new supply and the length of time it continued. The bimetallists seem -to forget that an increased demand counteracts an increased supply only -by absorbing it under a price fluctuation. The same error is familiar -in the plans for perpetual motion. Speculations to that end often -overlook the fact that we cannot employ a force in mechanics without -providing an escapement which is always exhausting the force at our -disposal. So the bimetallists seem to think of their enhanced demand -as acting on value without an actual action and reaction which consist -in absorbing supply under a price fluctuation. The new metal would -therefore pass into the circulation and would destroy the equilibrium -of the metals in the coinage. If this new addition were only a -mathematical increment it would suffice to establish the principle for -which I contend and to overthrow the bimetallic theory, for if I see -that any force has a certain effect I must infer that the same force -increased or continued would go on to greater effects; and if the -final effect is not reached it is because the force is not sufficient, -not because there is an act of the legislature in the way. If then, -silver entered the circulation, gold would leave it and be exported, if -the exchanges allowed of any export, or would be hoarded and melted. -The silver-producing countries would therefore gravitate towards a -silver circulation only, and other countries towards a gold circulation. - -Here another assumption of the bimetallists is involved. They assume -that the metal to be exported would be the one which falls. Thus, if -all nations had a bimetallic circulation, and if the supply of silver -in the United States increased, it would be necessary that this silver -should be proportionately distributed among all the nations in order -to keep up the bimetallic system. No bimetallist has ever faced this -question. They assume that Americans would pay their foreign debts -with silver in that case, and they rely on the international legal -tender law to secure this. This is one of the fallacies of legal tender -referred to at the outset. Rates of exchange and prices would at once -vary to counteract any such operation, just as they always counteract -the injustice of a forced circulation and throw it back on those who -try to perpetrate it. It may suffice to put the case this way. If we -had both metals circulating together so that a merchant obtained both -in substantially equal proportions, and if silver should fall ever -so little in our markets, owing to increased production, and if a -foreigner were selling his products here, intending to carry home his -returns in metal, which metal would he retain to carry away? Obviously -that one which at the time and prospectively had the higher value. -Rates of exchange and prices would adjust themselves so as to bring -about the same result through the mechanism of finance. This is one -of the most subtle questions involved in the general issue, but it is -vital to the bimetallic theory. - -Some writers have satisfied themselves with general opinions--guesses, -I am obliged to call them--that if the fluctuations were kept within -certain limits the concurrent circulation would stand. They probably -rely on an element analogous to friction which unquestionably acts -in economy and finance. This element consists of habit, prejudice, -passion, dislike of trouble. It acts with great force in retail -trade, and in individual cases, and in small transactions. Its force -diminishes as we go upwards towards the largest transactions, where -the smallest percentages give very appreciable sums. It seems to me -that the bimetallic system reduces this friction to a minimum. If a -man has to spend a dollar he does not go to a broker to buy a trade -dollar with a greenback dollar, and save a cent or two, but if he has -both a gold dollar and a silver dollar in his pocket (and, under the -bimetallic system, the chances are that when he has two dollars he -will have one of each), it needs only the lightest shade of difference -in value to determine him which to give and which to hold. A bank of -issue, holding equal amounts of the two metals with which to redeem its -notes, would find an appreciable profit in giving one and holding the -other, and it would require nothing but a word of command to the proper -officer, involving no risk at all. Hence I say this friction would be -reduced to its minimum under the bimetallic system. It is astonishing -what light margins of profit suffice to produce financial movements -nowadays; and the tendency is to make the movements turn on smaller and -smaller margins. Five in the thousand above par carries gold out of -this country. Four in the thousand carries it from England to France. -When the French suspended specie payments a depreciation of two in the -thousand on the paper sufficed to throw gold out of circulation. A -variation in the ratio of metals from 15.5:1 to 15.6:1 is a variation -of six and one-half in the thousand. I do not see how small a variation -must be in order to justify any one in saying that a bimetallic -circulation could exist in spite of it. Therefore it seems to me that -the more accurately the bimetallic system was established the more -delicate and more easily overthrown it would be, while if it was not -accurately established it would not come about at all. I submit that -such a result is one of the notes of an absurdity in any science. - -An analogy has been suggested in illustration and support of the -bimetallic theory that two vessels of water connected by a tube -tend to preserve a level. I have already indicated my suspicion of -all analogies, but I will alter this one to make it fit my idea of -bimetallism. Suppose two vessels capable of expansion and contraction -to a considerable degree, under the operation of forces which act -entirely independently of each other, so that the variations in -shape and capacity of each may have all conceivable relations to the -corresponding variations of the other. Suppose further that each is fed -by a stream of water, each stream being variable in its flow and the -variations of each having all possible relations to the variations of -the other. The fluctuations in capacity may represent fluctuations of -demand, and the fluctuations of inflow, fluctuations of supply. Would -the water in the two vessels stand at the same level except temporarily -and accidentally, even though the two vessels were connected by a tube? -The analogy of the connecting tube could not be admitted even then, -because it brings into play the natural law of the equilibrium of -fluids, to which the legal tie between the metals is not analogous. If -we desire to make the analogy approximately just, in this respect, we -may suppose that each vessel has an outlet and that a man is stationed -to open the outlet of the vessel in which the water is at the higher -point so as to try to keep them both at a level. It is evident that his -utmost vigilance would be unavailing to secure the object proposed. I -do not borrow the analogy or adopt it. I only show how inadequate it -is, in the form proposed. - -There is another group of propositions which have many advocates -amongst us, of which something ought to be said--propositions of those -who want to use silver as a legal tender at its value, under some -scheme or other. Some want a public declaration, by appointed persons, -from time to time, of the market value. Any such plan would throw on -the officers in question a responsibility which would be onerous in the -extreme, so much so that no one could or would discharge it; and it -would introduce a mischievous element of speculation into the payment -of all debts. It is, besides, open to the objections which may be -adduced against the other plan, which is to have either coins or bars -of silver, assayed and stamped, legal tender for debts at the market -quotation. Here we need to remember the definition of legal tender -given at the outset. If these silver coins and bars are convenient for -the purpose they will come into use by custom and consent at their -value. If they really pass at their market value, there will be no -advantage to the debtor. One who has silver and wants to pay a debt -can do so at its value by selling the silver. In this sense every man -who produces wheat, cotton, iron, or personal services, pays his debts -with them at their value. One who produced something else than silver -would have no object in selling it for silver, to pay his debt with at -the value of silver. He would have the trouble of another transaction, -he would have to buy silver at its selling price, and the creditor to -whom he paid it would have to sell it for money at the broker’s buying -price, with no advantage to either, but only to the broker. If silver -passes at its value, legal tender has no force for it; if it is to have -forced circulation in some way, it will help the debtor, as all forced -circulation does, by enabling him to keep part of what he borrowed. If -then these schemes really mean that silver shall pass at its value, -they are of no use. It does so now. If they mean that silver shall be -enabled to pay debts in some other way than iron, wheat, cotton, etc., -then we know what we are dealing with. There is just as much reason why -the government should pay for elevators and issue certificates of the -amount and quality of grain, which should be legal tender, as there is -why it should assay and stamp silver for that purpose, and issue notes -for it. These cases only serve to bring out the distinction between -money and merchandise, and to show that the perfection of money does -not lie in the direction of a multiple legal tender, but of a single -standard, as sharp and definite as possible. Such a standard has the -same advantages in exchange as the most accurate measures of length and -weight have in surveying or in chemistry, and it is turning backward -the progress of monetary science to introduce fluctuations and doubt -into the standard of value, just as it would be to cultivate inaccuracy -in weights and measures. - -Here I am forced to notice another hasty and mischievous analogy. Some -devices for composite measures of length have been adopted to avoid -contraction and expansion, and it is urged that bimetallic money is -a step in the same direction. I by no means assert that science can -do nothing to reach a better standard of value than gold is. What -progress in that direction may lie in the future no one can tell, and -he would be rash who should ever presume to deny that progress can be -made; but when any proposition is presented it will have to show what -composite measures of length show, _viz._, that its action is founded -on natural laws. Heat and cold act oppositely on the components of -the composite measures of length, or the arrangement is such that the -action of the natural forces neutralizes. No such scientific principle -underlies bimetallic money. The forces determining the value of gold -and silver act independently of each other and are not subject to -common influences. They are complex, moreover, and their effects are -not uniform in their different degrees. Therefore this analogy also -fails. - -The opinion that a concurrent circulation is not possible has led -several of the leading nations of Europe (and, at the time of writing -such is still the system of the United States) to adopt the plan of a -permanently false rating of gold and silver, so as to use silver as a -subsidiary coinage. Silver is permanently overrated, so that it obtains -currency above its bullion value. If the civilized nations want to use -silver for money, so that the total amount of metallic money in the -Western world shall be greater than the amount of gold, and if they -are not satisfied with the use of it as subsidiary, then there is only -one way left, and that is for some nations to use gold and some to use -silver. This was the solution of the bimetallic difficulty which China -was forced to adopt a thousand years ago. Some provinces used iron and -some copper. The question then arises as to who will take silver. This -brings me to the last point of which I have to speak. - -I have discussed my subject as if gold and silver stood on the same -level of desirability for money, and as if there were no choice of -convenience between them. Such is not the case in fact. It will be -observed that gold and silver never have been used together. Gold has -generally been subsidiary, being employed for large transactions. With -the advance of prices and the increase in variety of commodities, -as well as in the magnitude of transactions, nations have passed -from copper money to silver and from silver to gold. This advance is -dictated by convenience. Silver is no longer as convenient a money for -civilized industrial and commercial nations as gold. We therefore see -them gradually abandoning silver, and we saw the Latin Union set up a -bar against silver so soon as the operation of the double legal tender -threatened to take away gold and give it silver. Whether this movement -from silver to gold can be accomplished without financial convulsions -I am not prepared to say, especially in view of the extent to which -the nations have depreciated gold by paper issues, but I regard the -movement as one which must inevitably go forward. The nations which -step into the movement first will lose least on the silver they have -to sell. The nations which use silver until the last will lose most -upon it, because they will find no one to take it off their hands. If -we now abandon the gold standard and buy the cast-off silver of the -nations which have been using it and are now anxious to get rid of -it, we voluntarily subject ourselves to that loss, which we are in no -respect called upon to share. The Dutch at New York kept up the use -of wampum longer than the English in New England. When the Yankees -were trying to get rid of it, they carried it to New York, adding some -which they manufactured for the purpose, and they carried the goods -of the Dutchmen away. The latter then found that they held a currency -which they could only get rid of at great loss and delay to the Indians -north and west of them. The Yankees thus early earned a reputation -for smartness. The measure now proposed is a complete parallel, only -that now this nation proposes to take the rôle of the Dutch. We shall -have to give our capital for silver, and after we have suffered from -years of experience with a tool of exchange inferior to that which -our neighbors are using, we shall have to get rid of it and buy the -best. Then we shall incur the loss--to all those who have anything--of -the difference between the capital we gave and that which we can get -for the silver. The dreams of getting silver and keeping gold too, -so as to have a concurrent circulation, are all vain. At the rating -proposed there is no difference of opinion on this point amongst any -persons at all qualified to give an opinion. The real significance of -the propositions before the country is to make us one of the nations -to take silver in the distribution I have described. The notion of -a coinage union is impracticable. It would be easier to get up an -international union to do away with war. England is perfectly satisfied -with her money. She appreciates the peril of monetary experiments -and will make none. Germany, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Holland -have just changed from silver to gold, and will not enter on any new -changes for a long period, if ever. The coinage union is therefore out -of the question. The issue before us is simply whether we, being a -gold nation, will, under these circumstances, abandon gold and take up -silver. No doubt the nations which want gold would be very glad to have -us do it. We should render them a great service; we should, however, do -ourselves great harm, as much so as if we should buy a lot of cast-off -machinery from them. They are waiting to see whether we are ignorant -and foolish enough to put ourselves in this position; and when they -have seen, we shall hear no more of the coinage union. - -I have now presented the views to which my study of this question -has led me. It will be perceived that I direct my attack against -the postulate of all the bimetallic theories. I have carefully -discriminated between the alternate standard and bimetallism. I have -said little about the former. It is very much a matter of opinion -whether it would work or not. I do not believe that it would, under -a coinage union, but I should not feel forced to take strong ground -against any one who held the contrary opinion. My subject has been -a concurrent circulation of gold and silver, and I have tried to -controvert the notion that any such thing is possible, with or without -a coinage union, because that notion contradicts the first great law -of economic science. If that notion is true, then there is no science -of political economy at all; there are no laws to be found out, a -professional economist has nothing to teach, and he might better try -to find some useful occupation. If that notion is true, we have no -ground on which to criticize the Congressmen who are trying to pass the -silver bill. We cannot predict any consequences or draw any inferences -from past experience. If legislation can control value for definite -results, then the whole matter is purely empirical. In that case, the -Congressional experiment may turn out well for all the grounds we have -to assert the contrary; its success would only be questionable, not -impossible; if it failed it would not be because its supporters had -attempted the impossible, but because they had not used sufficient -means. They could go on to try the experiment again and again in other -forms and with other means, and they would indeed be doing right to -proceed with their experiments, like the old alchemists, in the hope -of hitting it at last. No economist would have any ground upon which -to step in and define the limits of the possible, or to prescribe -the conditions of success, or to set forth the methods which must be -pursued--if he could not appeal with confidence to the laws of his -science as something to which legislature as well as individuals must -bend. Therefore one who holds the views I have expressed in regard to -economic forces, laws, and phenomena is compelled, as well by his faith -in his science as by the public interests now at stake in the question, -to maintain that a concurrent circulation of gold and silver, either -with or without a coinage union, is impossible. - - - - -THE INFLUENCE OF COMMERCIAL CRISES ON OPINIONS ABOUT ECONOMIC DOCTRINES - -[1879] - - -Any one who follows the current literature about economic subjects -will perceive that it is so full of contradictions as to create a -doubt whether there are any economic laws, or whether, if there are -any, we know anything about them. No body of men ever succeeded in -molding the opinions of others by wrangling with each other, and that -is the present attitude in which the economists present themselves -before the public. Like other people who engage in wrangling, the -economists have also allowed their method to degenerate from argument -to abuse, contempt, and sneering disparagement of each other. The -more superficial and self-sufficient the opinions and behavior of the -disputants, the more absolutely they abandon sober arguments and devote -themselves to the method I have described. As I have little taste for -this kind of discussion and believe that it only degrades the science -of which I am a student, I have taken no part in it. In answer to your -invitation, now, what I propose to do is to call your attention to some -features of the economic situation of civilized nations at the present -time with a view to establish two points: - -1. To explain the vacillation and feebleness of opinions about economic -doctrine which mark the present time, and - -2. To show the necessity, just at this time, of calm and sober -apprehension of sound doctrine in political economy. - -At the outset let me ask you to notice the effects which have been -produced during the last century by the developments of science and -of the industrial arts. Formerly, industry was pursued on a small -scale, with little or no organization. Markets were limited to small -districts, and commerce was confined to raw materials and colonial -products. Producer and consumer met face to face. The conditions of -the market were open to personal inspection. The relations of supply -and demand were matters of personal experience. Production was carried -on for orders only in many branches of industry, so that supply -and demand were fitted to one another, as we may say, physically. -Disproportionate production was, therefore, prevented and the necessity -of redistributing productive effort was made plain by the most direct -personal experience. Under such a state of things, much time must -elapse between the formation of a wish and its realization. - -Within a century very many and various forces have been at work to -produce an entire change in this system of industry. The invention -of the steam engine and of the machines used in the textile fabrics -produced the factory system, with a high organization of industry, -concentrated at certain centers. The opening of canals and the -improvement of highways made possible the commerce by which the -products were distributed. The cheapening of printing and the -multiplication of means of advertising widened the market by -concentrating the demand which was widely dispersed in place, until -now the market is the civilized world. The applications of steam power -to roads and ships only extended further the same development, and the -telegraph has only cheapened and accelerated the means of communicating -information to the same end. - -What have been the effects on industry? - -1. The whole industry and commerce of the world have been built up into -a great system in which organization has become essential and in which -it has been carried forward and is being carried forward every day to -new developments. Industry has been growing more and more impersonal -as far as the parties to it are concerned. Our wants are satisfied -instantaneously and regularly by the coöperation of thousands of people -all over the world whom we have never seen or heard of; and we earn -our living daily by contributing to satisfy the wants of thousands -scattered all over the world, of whom we know nothing personally. In -the place of actual contact and acquaintance with the persons who are -parties to the transactions, we now depend upon the regularity, under -the conditions of earthly life, of human wants and human efforts. The -system of industry is built upon the constancy of certain conditions of -human existence, upon the certainty of the economic forces which thence -arise, and upon the fact that those forces act with perfect regularity -under changeless laws. If we but reflect a moment, we shall see that -modern industry and commerce could not go on for a day if we were not -dealing here with forces and laws which may properly be called natural -because they come into action when the conditions are fulfilled, -because the conditions cannot but exist if there is a society of human -beings collected anywhere on earth, and because, when the forces come -into action, they work themselves out, according to their laws, without -possible escape from their effects. We can divert the forces from one -course to another; we can change their form; we can make them expend -themselves upon one person or interest instead of upon another. We do -this all the time, by bad legislation, by prejudice, habit, fashion, -erroneous notions of equity, happiness, the highest good, and so on; -but we never destroy an economic force any more than we destroy a -physical force. - -2. Of course it follows that success in the production of wealth under -this modern system depends primarily on the correctness with which -men learn the character of economic forces and of the laws under -which those forces act. This is the field of the science of political -economy, and it is the reason why it is a science. It investigates -the laws of forces which are natural, not arbitrary, artificial, or -conventional. Some communities have developed a great hatred for -persons who held different religious opinions from themselves. Such a -feeling would be a great social force, but it would be arbitrary and -artificial. Many communities have held that all labor, not mental, was -slavish and degrading. This notion, too, was conventional, but it was -a great social force where it existed. Such notions, either past or -present, are worth studying for historical interest and instruction, -but they do not afford the basis for a science whose object is to find -out what is true in regard to the relations of man to the world in -which he lives. The study of them throws a valuable sidelight on the -true relations of human life, just as the study of error always throws -a sidelight upon the truth, but they have no similarity to the law -that men want the maximum of satisfaction for the minimum of effort, -or to the law of the diminishing return from land, or to the law of -population, or to the law of supply and demand. Nothing can be gained, -therefore, by mixing up history and science, valuable as one is to the -other. If men try to carry on any operation without an intelligent -theory of the forces with which they are dealing, they inevitably -become the victims of the operation, not its masters. Hence they always -do try to form some theory of the forces in question and to plan the -means to the end accordingly. The forces of nature go on and are true -only to themselves. They never swerve out of pity for innocent error -or well-intentioned mistakes. This is as true of economic forces as of -any others. What is meant by a good or a bad investment, except that -one is based on a correct judgment of forces and the other on incorrect -judgment? How would sagacity, care, good judgment, and prudence meet -their reward if the economic forces swerved out of pity for error? We -know that there is no such thing in the order of nature. - -I repeat, then, that the modern industrial and commercial system, -dealing as it does with vast movements which no one mind can follow -or compass in their ramifications and which are kept in harmony by -natural laws, demands steadily advancing, clear, and precise knowledge -of economic laws; that this knowledge must banish prejudices and -traditions; that it must conquer baseless enthusiasms and whimsical -hopes. If it does not accomplish this, we can expect but one -result--that men will chase all sorts of phantoms and impossible hopes; -that they will waste their efforts upon schemes which can only bring -loss; and that some will run one way and some another until society -loses all coherence, all unanimity of judgment as to what is to be -sought and how to attain to it. The destruction of capital is only the -least of the evils to be apprehended in such a case. I do not believe -that we begin to appreciate one effect of the new civilization of -the nineteenth century, _viz._, that the civilized world of to-day -is a unit, that it must move as a whole, that with the means we have -devised of a common consent in regard to the ends of human life and -the means of attaining them has come also the _necessity_ that we -should move onward in civilization by a common consent. The barriers of -race, religion, language, and nationality are melting away under the -operation of the same forces which have to such an extent annihilated -the obstacles of distance and time. Civilization is constantly becoming -more uniform. The conquests of some become at once the possession of -all. It follows that our scientific knowledge of the laws which govern -the life of men in society must keep pace with this development or we -shall find our social tasks grow faster than our knowledge of social -science, and our society will break to pieces under the burden. How, -then, is this scientific knowledge to grow? Certainly not without -controversy, but certainly also not without coherent, steady, and -persistent effort, proceeding on the lines already cut, breaking new -ground when possible, correcting old errors when necessary. - -3. It is another feature of the modern industrial system that, like -every high organization, it requires men of suitable ability and -skill at its head. The qualities which are required for a great -banker, merchant, or manufacturer are as rare as any other great -gifts among men, and the qualities demanded, or the degree in which -they are demanded, are increasing every day with the expansion of the -modern industrial system. The qualities required are those of the -practical man, properly so called: sagacity, good judgment, prudence, -boldness, and energy. The training, both scientific and practical, -which is required for a great master of industry is wide and various. -The great movements of industry, like all other great movements, -present subordinate phenomena which are apparently opposed to, or -inconsistent with their great tendencies and their general character. -These phenomena, being smaller in scope, more directly subject to -observation and therefore apparently more distinct and positive, are -well calculated to mislead the judgment, either of the practical -man or of the scientific student. In nothing, therefore, does the -well-trained man distinguish himself from the ill-trained man more than -in the balance of judgment by which he puts phenomena in their true -relative position and refuses to be led astray by what is incidental -or subsidiary. If, now, the question is asked, whether we have -produced a class of highly trained men, competent to organize labor, -transportation, commerce, and banking, on the scale required by the -modern system, as rapidly as the need for them has increased, I believe -no one will answer in the affirmative. - -4. Another observation to which we are led upon noticing the character -of the modern industrial system is that any errors or follies committed -in one portion of it will produce effects which will ramify through -the whole system. We have here an industrial organism, not a mere -mechanical combination, and any disturbance in one part of it will -derange or vitiate, more or less, the whole. The phenomena which here -appear belong to what has been called fructifying causation. One -economic error produces fruits which combine with those of another -economic error, and the product of the two is not their sum, nor even -their simple product, but the evil may be raised to a very high power -by the combination. If a number of errors fall together the mischief -is increased accordingly. Currency and tariff errors constantly react -upon each other, and multiply and develop each other in this way. -Furthermore, the errors of one nation will be felt in other nations -through the relations of commerce and credit which are now so close. -There is no limit to the interest which civilized nations have in -each other’s economic and political wisdom, for they all bear the -consequences of each other’s follies. Hence when we have to deal with -that form of economic disease which we call a commercial crisis, we -may trace its origin to special errors in one country and in another, -and may trace out the actions and reactions by which the effects have -been communicated from one to another until shared by all; but no -philosophy of a great commercial crisis is adequate nowadays unless it -embraces in its scope the whole civilized world. A commercial crisis -is a disturbance in the harmonious operation of the parts of the -industrial organism. During economic health, the system moves smoothly -and harmoniously, expanding continually, and its health and vigor -are denoted by its growth, that is, by the accumulation of capital, -which stimulates in its turn the hope, energy, and enterprise of -men. Industrial disease is produced by disproportionate production, -a wrong distribution of labor, erroneous judgment in enterprise, or -miscalculations of force. These all have the same effect, _viz._, to -waste and destroy capital. Such causes disturb, in a greater or less -degree, the harmonious working of the system, which depends upon the -regular and exact fulfillment of the expectations which have been -based on coöperative effort throughout the whole industrial body. The -disturbance may be slight and temporary, or it may be very serious. -In the latter case it will be necessary to arrest the movement of the -whole system and to proceed to a general liquidation, before starting -again. Such was the case from 1837 to 1842, and such has been the case -for the last five years. It is needless to add that this arrest and -liquidation cannot be accomplished without distress and loss to great -numbers of innocent persons, and great positive loss of capital, to say -nothing of what might have been won during the same period but must be -foregone. - -The financial organization is the medium by which the various parts of -the industrial and commercial organism are held in harmony. It is by -the financial organization that capital is collected and distributed, -that the friction of exchanges is reduced to a minimum, and that time -is economized, through credit, between production and consumption. -The financial system furnishes three indicators--prices, the rate -of discount, and the foreign exchanges--through which we may read -the operation of economic forces now that their magnitude makes it -impossible to inspect them directly. Hence the great mischief of -usury laws which tamper with the rate of discount, and of fluctuating -currencies which falsify prices and the foreign exchanges. They destroy -the value of the indicators, and have the same effect as tampering with -the scales of a chemist or the steam-gauge of a locomotive. - -In the matter of prices we have another difficulty to contend with, -which is inevitable in the nature of things. We must choose some -commodity to be the denominator of value. We can find no commodity -which is not itself subject to fluctuation in its ratio of exchange -with other things. Great crises have been caused in past times by -fluctuations in the value of the commodities chosen as money, and such -an element is, no doubt, at hand in the present crisis, although it had -nothing to do with bringing it about. It follows that any improvement -in the world’s money is worth any sacrifice which it can possibly cost, -if it tends to secure a more simple, exact, and unchanging standard of -value. - -The next point of which I wish to speak is easily introduced by the -last remark; that point is the cost of all improvement. The human -race has made no step whatever in civilization which has not been won -by pain and distress. It wins no steps now without paying for them -in sacrifices. To notice only things which are directly pertinent to -our present purpose: every service which we win from nature displaces -the acquired skill of the men who formerly performed the service; -every such step is a gain to the race, but it imposes on some men the -necessity of finding new means of livelihood, and if those men are -advanced in life, this necessity may be harsh in the extreme. Every new -machine, although it saves labor, and because it saves labor, serves -the human race, yet destroys a vested interest of some laborers in the -work which it performs. It imposes on them the necessity of turning to -a new occupation, and this is hardly ever possible without a period of -distress. It very probably throws them down from the rank of skilled to -that of unskilled labor. Every new machine also destroys capital. It -makes useless the half-worn-out machines which it supersedes. So canals -caused capital which was invested in turnpikes and state coaches to -depreciate, and so railroads have caused the capital invested in canals -and other forms to depreciate. I see no exception to the rule that the -progress won by the race is always won at the expense of some group of -its members. - -Any one who will look back upon the last twenty-five years cannot -fail to notice that the changes, advances, and improvements have been -numerous and various. We are accustomed to congratulate each other -upon them. There can be no doubt that they must and will contribute -to the welfare of the human race beyond what any one can now possibly -foresee or measure. I am firmly convinced, for my opinion, that the -conditions of wealth and civilization for the next quarter of a century -are provided for in excess of any previous period of history, and that -nothing but human folly can prevent a period of prosperity which we, -even now, should regard as fabulous. We can throw it away if we are -too timid, if we become frightened at the rate of our own speed, or if -we mistake the phenomena of a new era for the approach of calamity, -or if the nations turn back to mediæval darkness and isolation, or if -we elevate the follies and ignorances of the past into elements of -economic truth, or if, instead of pursuing liberty with full faith and -hope, the civilized world becomes the arena of a great war of classes -in which all civilization must be destroyed. But, such follies apart, -the conditions of prosperity are all provided. - -We must notice, however, that these innovations have fallen with great -rapidity upon a vast range of industries, that they have accumulated -their effects, that they have suddenly altered the currents of trade -and the methods of industry, and that we have hardly learned to -accommodate ourselves to one new set of circumstances before a newer -change or modification has been imposed. Some inventions, of which the -Bessemer steel is the most remarkable example, have revolutionized -industries. Some new channels of commerce have been opened which have -changed the character and methods of very important branches of -commerce. We have also seen a movement of several nations to secure a -gold currency, which movement fell in with a large if not extraordinary -production of silver and altered the comparative demand and supply of -the two metals at the same time. This movement had nothing arbitrary -about it, but proceeded from sound motives and reasons in the interest -of the nations which took this step. There is here no ground for -condemnation or approval. Such action by sovereign nations is taken -under liberty and responsibility to themselves alone, and if it is -taken on a sufficiently large scale to form an event of importance to -the civilized world, it must be regarded as a step in civilization. -It can only be criticized by history. For the present, it is to be -accepted and interpreted only as an indication that there are reasons -and motives of self-interest which can lead a large part of the -civilized world to this step at this time. - -The last twenty-five years have also included political events which -have had great effects on industry. Our Civil War caused an immense -destruction of capital and left a large territory with millions of -inhabitants almost entirely ruined in its industry, and with its labor -system exposed to the necessity of an entire re-formation. Part of the -expenditures and losses of the war were postponed and distributed by -means of the paper currency which, instead of imposing industry and -economy to restore the losses and waste, created the foolish belief -that we could make war and get rich by it. The patriotic willingness -of the nation to be taxed was abused to impose taxes for protection, -not for revenue, so that the industry of the country was distorted and -forced into unnatural development. The collapse of 1873, followed by -a fall in prices and a general liquidation, was due to the fact that -every one knew in his heart that the state of things which had existed -for some years before was hollow and fictitious. Confidence failed -because every one knew that there were no real grounds for confidence. -The Franco-Prussian war had, also, while it lasted, produced a period -of false and feverish prosperity in England. It was succeeded by great -political changes in Germany which, together with the war indemnity, -led to a sudden and unfounded expansion of speculation, amounting to -a mania. Germany undoubtedly stands face to face with a new political -and industrial future, but she has postponed it by a headlong effort to -realize it at once. In France, too, the war was followed by a hasty, -and, as we are told, unwise extension of permanent capital, planned -to meet the extraordinary demand of an empty market. In England the -prosperity of 1870–1872 has been followed as usual by developments of -unsound credit, bad banking, and needless investments in worthless -securities. - -Here then we have, in a brief and inadequate statement, circumstances -in all these great industrial nations peculiar to each, yet certainly -sufficient to account for a period of reaction and distress. We have -also before us great features of change in the world’s industry and -commerce which must ultimately produce immeasurable advantages, -but which may well, operating with local causes, produce temporary -difficulty; and we have to notice also that the local causes react -through the commercial and credit relations of nations to distribute -the evil. - -It is not surprising, under such a state of things, that some people -should lose their heads and begin to doubt the economic doctrines -which have been most thoroughly established. It belongs to the -symptoms of disease to lose confidence in the laws of health and to -have recourse to quack remedies. I have already observed that certain -phenomena appear in every great social movement which are calculated -to deceive by apparent inconsistency or divergence. Hence we have seen -the economists, instead of holding together and sustaining, at the -time when it was most needed, both the scientific authority and the -positive truth of their doctrines, break up and run hither and thither, -some of them running away altogether. Many of them seem to be terrified -to find that distress and misery still remain on earth and promise to -remain as long as the vices of human nature remain. Many of them are -frightened at liberty, especially under the form of competition, which -they elevate into a bugbear. They think that it bears harshly on the -weak. They do not perceive that here “the strong” and “the weak” are -terms which admit of no definition unless they are made equivalent to -the industrious and the idle, the frugal and the extravagant. They -do not perceive, furthermore, that if we do not like the survival of -the fittest, we have only one possible alternative, and that is the -survival of the unfittest. The former is the law of civilization; the -latter is the law of anti-civilization. We have our choice between the -two, or we can go on, as in the past, vacillating between the two, -but a third plan--the socialist desideratum--a plan for nourishing -the unfittest and yet advancing in civilization, no man will ever -find. Some of the crude notions, however, which have been put forward -surpass what might reasonably have been expected. These have attached -themselves to branches of the subject which it is worth while to notice. - -1. As the change in the relative value of the precious metals is by -far the most difficult and most important of the features of this -period, it is quite what we might have expected that the ill-trained -and dilettante writers should have pounced upon it as their special -prey. The dabblers in philology never attempt anything less than the -problem of the origin of language. Every teacher knows that he has to -guard his most enthusiastic pupils against precipitate attempts to -solve the most abstruse difficulties of the science. The change in the -value of the precious metals which is going on will no doubt figure in -history as one of the most important events in the economic history of -this century. It will undoubtedly cost much inconvenience and loss to -those who are in the way of it, or who get in the way of it. It will, -when the currency changes connected with it are accomplished, prove a -great gain to the whole commercial world. The nations which make the -change do so because it is important for their interests to do it. -Now, suppose that it were possible for those who are frightened at the -immediate and temporary inconveniences, to arrest the movement--the -only consequence would be that they would arrest and delay the -inevitable march of improvement in the industrial system. - -2. The second field, which is an especial favorite with the class of -writers which I have described, is that of prognostications as to what -developments of the economic system lie in the future. Probably every -one has notions about this and every one who has to conduct business or -make investments is forced to form judgments about it. There is hardly -a field of economic speculation, however, which is more barren. - -3. The third field into which these writers venture by preference is -that of remedies for existing troubles. The popular tide of medicine is -always therapeutics, and the less one knows of anatomy and physiology -the more sure he is to address himself exclusively to this department, -and to rely upon empirical remedies. The same procedure is followed -in social science, and it is accompanied by the same contempt for -scientific doctrine and knowledge and remedies. To bring out the points -which here seem to me important, it will be necessary to go back for a -moment to some facts which I have already described. - -One of the chief characteristics of the great improvements in -industry, which have been described, is that they bring about new -distributions of population. If machinery displaces laborers engaged -in manufactures, these laborers are driven to small shopkeeping, if -they have a little capital; or to agricultural labor, if they have no -capital. Improvements in commerce will destroy a local industry and -force the laborers to find a new industry or to change their abode. -When forces of this character coöperate on a grand scale, they may -and do produce very important redistributions of population. In like -manner legislation may, as tariff legislation does, draw population to -certain places, and its repeal may force them to unwelcome change. We -may state the fact in this way: let us suppose that, in 1850, out of -every hundred laborers in the population, the economical distribution -was such that fifty should be engaged in agriculture, thirty in -manufacturing, and the other twenty in other pursuits. That is to -say that, with the machinery and appliances then available, thirty -manufacturing laborers could use the raw materials and food produced -by fifty agricultural laborers so as to occupy all to the highest -advantage. Now suppose that, by improvements in the arts, twenty men -could, in 1880, use to the best advantage the raw materials and food -produced by sixty in agriculture. It is evident that a redistribution -would be necessary by which ten should be turned from manufacturing to -land. That such a change has been produced within the last thirty years -and that it has reached a point at which is setting in the counter -movement to the former tendency from the land to the cities and towns, -seems to me certain. There are even indications of great changes going -on in the matter of distribution which will correct the loss and waste -involved in the old methods of distribution long before any of the -fancy plans for correcting them can be realized, and which are setting -free both labor and capital in that department. Now if we can economize -labor and capital in manufacturing, transportation, and distribution, -and turn this labor and capital back upon the soil, we must vastly -increase wealth, for that movement would enlarge the stream of wealth -from its very source. - -Right here, however, we need to make two observations. - -1. The modern industrial system which I have described, with its high -organization and fine division of labor, has one great drawback. The -men, or groups of men, are dissevered from one another, their interests -are often antagonistic, and the changes which occur take the form of -conflicts of interest. I mean this: if a shoemaker worked alone, using -a small capital of his own in tools and stock, and working for orders, -he would have directly before him the facts of the market. He would -find out without effort or reflection when “trade fell off,” when there -was risk of not replacing his capital, when the course of fashion or -competition called upon him to find other occupation, and so on. When a -journeyman shoemaker works for wages, he pays no heed to these things. -The employer, feeling them, has no recourse but to lower wages. It is -by this measure that, under the higher organization, the need of new -energy, or of a change of industry, or of a change of place is brought -home to the workman. To him, however, it seems an arbitrary and cruel -act of the master. Hence follow trade wars and strikes as an especial -phenomenon of the modern system. It is just because it is a system, -or more properly still, an organism, that the readjustments which are -necessary from time to time in order to keep its parts in harmonious -activity, and to keep it in harmony with physical surroundings, are -brought about through this play of the parts on each other. - -2. A general movement of labor and capital towards land, throughout the -civilized world, means a great migration towards the new countries. -This does not by any means imply the abandonment or decay of older -countries, as some have seemed to believe. On the contrary, it means -new prosperity for them. When I read that the United States are about -to feed the world, not only with wheat and provisions, but with meat -also, that they are to furnish coal and iron to mankind, that they -are to displace all the older countries as exporters of manufactures, -that they are to furnish the world’s supply of the precious metals, -and I know not what all besides, I am forced to ask what is the rest -of the world going to do for us? What are they to give us besides -tea, coffee, and sugar? Not ships, for we will not take them and are -ambitious to carry away all our products ourselves. Certainly this is -the most remarkable absurdity into which we have been led by forgetting -that trade is an exchange. Neither can any one well expect that all -mankind are to come and live here. The conditions of a large migration -do, however, seem to exist. A migration of population is still a very -unpopular idea in all the older states. The prejudice against it is -apparent amongst Liberals and Tories, economists and sentimentalists. -There is, however, a condition which is always suppressed in stating -the social problem as it presents itself in hard times. That problem, -as stated, is: “How are the population to find means of support?” and -the suppressed condition is: “if they insist on staying and seeking -support where they are and in pursuits to which they are accustomed.” -The hardships of change are not for one moment to be denied, but -nothing is gained by sitting down to whine about them. The sentimental -reasons for clinging to one’s birthplace may be allowed full weight, -but they cannot be allowed to counterbalance important advantages. I do -not see that any but land owners are interested to hold population in -certain places, unless possibly we add governing classes and those who -want military power. When I read declamations about nationality and the -importance of national divisions to political economy (observe that I -do not say to political science), I never can find any sense in them, -and I am very sure that the writers never put any sense into them. - -We may now return to consider the remedies proposed for hard times. We -shall see that although they are quack remedies, and although they set -at defiance all the economic doctrines which have been so laboriously -established during the last century, they are fitted to meet the -difficulty as it presents itself to land owners, governments, military -powers, socialists, and sentimentalists. The tendency is towards an -industrial system controlled by a natural coöperation far grander than -anybody has ever planned, towards a community of interest and welfare -far more beneficent than any universal republic or fraternity of labor -which the Internationalists hope for, and towards a free and peaceful -rivalry amongst nations in the arts of civilization. It is necessary to -stop this tendency. What are the means proposed? - -1. The first is to put a limit to civil liberty. By civil liberty (for -I feel at once the need of defining this much-abused word) I mean the -status which is created for an individual by those institutions which -guarantee him the use of his own powers for his own development. For -three or four centuries now, the civilized world has been struggling -towards the realization of this civil liberty. Progress towards it has -been hindered by the notion that liberty was some vague abstraction, -or an emancipation from some of the hard conditions of human life, -from which men never can be emancipated while they live on this earth. -Civil liberty has also been confused with political activity or share -in civil government. Political activity itself, however, is only a -means to an end, and is valuable because it is necessary to secure to -the individual free exercise of his powers to produce and exchange -according to his own choice and his own conception of happiness, and -to secure him also that the products of his labor shall be applied -to his satisfaction and not to that of any others. When we come to -understand civil liberty for what it is, we shall probably go forward -to realize it more completely. It will then appear that it begins and -ends with freedom of production, freedom of exchange, and security of -property. It will then appear also that governments depart from their -prime and essential function when they undertake to transfer property -instead of securing it, and it may then be understood that legal tender -laws, and protective tariffs as amongst the last and most ingenious -devices for transferring one man’s product to another man’s use, are -gross violations of civil liberty. At present the attempt is being -made to decry liberty, to magnify the blunders and errors of men in -the pursuit of happiness into facts which should be made the basis of -generalizations about the functions of government, and to present the -phenomena of the commercial crisis as reasons for putting industry once -more in leading strings. It is only a new foe with an old face. Those -who have held the leading strings of industry in time past have always -taken rich pay for their services, and they will do it again. - -2. The second form of remedy proposed is quite consistent with the -last. It consists in rehabilitating the old and decaying superstition -of government. It is called the state, and all kinds of poetical and -fanciful attributes are ascribed to it. It is presented, of course, -as a superior power, able and ready to get us out of trouble. If -an individual is in trouble, he has to help himself or secure the -help of friends as best he can, but if a group of persons are in -trouble together, they constitute a party, a power, and begin to make -themselves felt in the state. The state has no means of helping them -except by enabling them to throw the risks and losses of their business -upon other people who already have the burdens and losses of their -own business to bear, but who are less well organized. The “state” -assumes to judge what is for the public interest and imposes taxes or -interferes with contracts to force individuals to the course which -will realize what it has set before itself. When, however, all the fine -phrases are stripped away, it appears that the state is only a group -of men with human interests, passions, and desires, or, worse yet, -the state is, as somebody has said, only an obscure clerk hidden in -some corner of a governmental bureau. In either case the assumption of -superhuman wisdom and virtue is proved false. The state is only a part -of the organization of society in and for itself. That organization -secures certain interests and provides for certain functions which are -important but which would otherwise be neglected. The task of society, -however, has always been and is yet, to secure this organization, -and yet to prevent the man in whose hands public power must at last -be lodged from using it to plunder the governed--that is, to destroy -liberty. This is what despots, oligarchs, aristocrats, and democrats -always have done, and the latest development is only a new form of the -old abuse. The abuses have always been perpetrated in the name of the -public interest. It was for the public interest to support the throne -and the altar. It was for the public interest to sustain privileged -classes, to maintain an established church, standing armies, and the -passport and police system. Now, it is for the public interest to have -certain industries carried on, and the holders of the state power -apportion their favor without rule or reason, without responsibility, -and without any return service. In the end, therefore, the high -function of the state to regulate the industrial organization in the -public interest is simply that the governing group interferes to make -some people give the products of their labor to other people to use -and enjoy. Every one sees the evils of the state meddling with his -own business and thinks that he ought to be let alone in it, but he -sees great public interests which would be served if the state would -interfere to make other people do what he wants to have them do. - -Now if these two measures could be carried out--if liberty -could be brought into misapprehension and contempt, and if the -state-superstition could be saved from the decay to which it is doomed, -the movements of population and the changes in industry, commerce, and -finance, could be arrested. The condemnation of all such projects is, -once and for all, that they would arrest the march of civilization. The -joy and the fears which have been aroused on one side and on the other -by the reactionary propositions which have been made during the last -five years are both greatly exaggerated. Such reactionary propositions -are in the nature of things at such a time. It must be expected -that the pressure of distress and disappointed hopes will produce -passionate reaction and senseless outcries. From such phenomena to -actual practical measures is a long step. Every step towards practical -realization of any reactionary measures will encounter new and -multiplying obstacles. A war of tariffs at this time would so fly in -the face of all the tendencies of commerce and industry that it would -only hasten the downfall of all tariffs. Purely retaliatory tariffs are -a case of what the children call “cutting off your nose to spite your -face.” Some follies have become physically impossible for great nations -nowadays. Germany has been afflicted: first, by too eager hopes, -second, by the great calamity of too many and too pedantic doctors, -third, by a declining revenue, and fourth, by socialistic agitation -amongst the new electors. It appears that she is about to abandon the -free-trade policy although she does not embrace protection with much -vigor. The project already comes in conflict with numerous and various -difficulties which had not been foreseen, and, in its execution, -it must meet with many more. The result remains to be studied. -France finds that the expiration of each treaty of commerce produces -consequences upon her industry which are unendurable, and while the -task of adjusting rival and contending interests so as to create a -new system drags along, she is compelled to ward off, by temporary -arrangements, the revival of the general tariff which the treaties had -superseded. In the meantime her economists, who are the most sober and -the best trained in the world, are opening a vigorous campaign on the -general issue. If England should think of reviving protection, she -would not know what to protect. If she wanted to retaliate, she could -only tax raw materials and food. The proposition, as soon as it is -reduced to practical form, has no footing. As for ourselves we know -that our present protective system never could have been fastened upon -us if it had not been concealed under the war legislation, and if its -effects had not been confused with those of the war. It could not last -now if the public mind could be freed from its absorption in sectional -politics, so that it would be at liberty to turn to this subject. - -In conclusion, let me refer again to another important subject on -which I have touched in this paper--what we call the silver question. -It would, no doubt, be in the power of civilized nations to take -some steps which would alleviate the inconveniences connected with -the transition of several important nations from a silver to a gold -currency. For one nation, which has no share in the trouble at all, -to come forward out of “magnanimity” or any other motive to save -the world from the troubles incident to this step, is quixotic and -ridiculous. It might properly leave those who are in the trouble to -deal with it amongst themselves. Either they or all might, however, do -much to modify the effects of the change. The effort to bring about an -international union to establish a bimetallic currency at a fixed ratio -is quite another thing. It will stand in the history of our time as -the most singular folly which has gained any important adherence. As a -practical measure the international union is simply impossible. As a -scientific proposition, bimetallism is as absurd as perpetual motion. -It proposes to establish perpetual rest in the fluctuations of value of -two commodities, to do which it must extinguish the economic forces of -supply and demand of those commodities upon which value depends. The -movement of the great commercial nations towards a single gold currency -is the most important event in the monetary history of our time, and -one which nothing can possibly arrest. It produces temporary distress, -and the means of alleviating that distress are a proper subject of -consideration; but the advantages which will be obtained for all time -to come immeasurably surpass the present loss and inconvenience. - -I return, then, to the propositions with which I set out. Feebleness -and vacillation in regard to economic doctrine are natural to a period -of commercial crisis, on account of the distress, uncertainty, and -disorder which then prevail in industry and trade; but that is just -the time also when a tenacious grasp of scientific principles is of -the highest importance. The human race must go forward to meet and -conquer its problems and difficulties as they arise, to bear the -penalties of its follies, and to pay the price of its acquisitions. To -shrink from this is simply to go back and to abandon civilization. The -path forward, as far as any human foresight can now reach, lies in a -better understanding and a better realization of liberty, under which -individuals and societies can work out their destiny, subject only to -the incorruptible laws of nature. - - - - -THE PHILOSOPHY OF STRIKES[41] - - -The progress in material comfort which has been made during the last -hundred years has not produced content. Quite the contrary: the men -of to-day are not nearly so contented with life on earth as their -ancestors were. This observation is easily explainable by familiar -facts in human nature. If satisfaction does not reach to the pitch of -satiety, it does not produce content, but discontent; it is therefore -a stimulus to more effort, and is essential to growth. If, however, -we confine our study of the observation which we have made to its -sociological aspects, we perceive that all which we call “progress” -is limited by the counter-movements which it creates, and we also see -the true meaning of the phenomena which have led some to the crude and -silly absurdity that progress makes us worse off. Progress certainly -does not make people happier, unless their mental and moral growth -corresponds to the greater command of material comfort which they win. -All that we call progress is a simple enlargement of chances, and the -question of personal happiness is a question of how the chances will -be used. It follows that if men do not grow in their knowledge of life -and in their intelligent judgment of the rules of right living as -rapidly as they gain control over physical resources, they will not win -happiness at all. They will simply accumulate chances which they do not -know how to use. - -The observation which has just been made about individual happiness has -also a public or social aspect which is important. It is essential that -the political institutions, the social code, and the accepted notions -which constitute public opinion should develop in equal measure with -the increase of power over nature. The penalty of failure to maintain -due proportion between the popular philosophy of life and the increase -of material comfort will be social convulsions, which will arrest -civilization and will subject the human race to such a reaction toward -barbarism as that which followed the fall of the Roman Empire. It is -easy to see that at the present moment our popular philosophy of life -is all in confusion. The old codes are breaking down; new ones are not -yet made; and even amongst people of standing, to whom we must look to -establish the body of public opinion, we hear the most contradictory -and heterogeneous doctrines about life and society. - -The growth of the United States has done a great deal to break up the -traditional codes and creeds which had been adopted in Europe. The -civilized world being divided into two parts, one old and densely -populated and the other new and thinly populated, social phenomena have -been produced which, although completely covered by the same laws of -social force, have appeared to be contradictory. The effect has been -to disturb and break up the faith of philosophers and students in the -laws, and to engender numberless fallacies amongst those who are not -careful students. The popular judgment especially has been disordered -and misled. The new country has offered such chances as no generation -of men has ever had before. It has not, however, enabled any man to -live without work, or to keep capital without thrift and prudence; -it has not enabled a man to “rise in the world” from a position of -ignorance and poverty, and at the same time to marry early, spend -freely, and bring up a large family of children. - -The men of this generation, therefore, without distinction of class, -and with only individual exceptions, suffer from the discontent of an -appetite excited by a taste of luxury, but held far below satiety. The -power to appreciate a remote future good, in comparison with a present -one, is a distinguishing mark of highly civilized men, but if it is -not combined with powers of persevering industry and self-denial, it -degenerates into mere day-dreaming and the diseases of an overheated -imagination. If any number of persons are of this character, we -have morbid discontent and romantic ambition as social traits. Our -literature, especially our fiction, bears witness to the existence -of classes who are corrupted by these diseases of character. We find -classes of persons who are whining and fault-finding, and who use the -organs of public discussion and deliberation in order to put forth -childish complaints and impossible demands, while they philosophize -about life like the _Arabian Nights_. Of course this whole tone of -thought and mode of behavior is as far as possible from the sturdy -manliness which meets the problems of life and wins victories as much -by what it endures as by what it conquers. - -Our American life, by its ease, exerts another demoralizing effect -on a great many of us. Hundreds of our young people grow up without -any real discipline; life is made easy for them, and their tastes and -wishes are consulted too much; they grow to maturity with the notion -that they ought to find the world only pleasant and easy. Every one -knows this type of young person, who wants to find an occupation which -he would “like,” and who discusses the drawbacks of difficulty or -disagreeableness in anything which offers. The point here referred -to is, of course, entirely different from another and still more -lamentable fact, that is, the terrible inefficiency and incapability -of a great many of the people who are complaining and begging. If any -one wants a copyist, he will be more saddened than annoyed by the -overwhelming applications for the position. The advertisements which -are to be found in the newspapers of widest circulation, offering -a genteel occupation to be carried on at home, not requiring any -previous training, by which two or three dollars a day may be earned, -are a proof of the existence of a class to which they appeal. How many -thousand people in the United States want just that kind of employment! -What a beautiful world this would be if there were any such employment! - -Then, again, our social ambition is often silly and mischievous. Our -young people despise the occupations which involve physical effort or -dirt, and they struggle “up” (as we have agreed to call it) into all -the nondescript and irregular employments which are clean and genteel. -Our orators and poets talk about the “dignity of labor,” and neither -they nor we believe in it. Leisure, not labor, is dignified. Nearly -all of us, however, have to sacrifice our dignity, and labor, and it -would be to the purpose if, instead of declamation about dignity, we -should learn to respect, in ourselves and each other, work which is -good of its kind, no matter what the kind is. To spoil a good shoemaker -in order to make a bad parson is surely not going “up”; and a man who -digs well is by all sound criteria superior to the man who writes ill. -Everybody who talks to American schoolboys thinks that he does them -and his country service if he reminds them that each one of them has -a chance to be President of the United States, and our literature is -all the time stimulating the same kind of senseless social ambition, -instead of inculcating the code and the standards which should be -adopted by orderly, sober, and useful citizens. - -The consequences of the observations which have now been grouped -together are familiar to us all. Population tends from the country -to the city. Mechanical and technical occupations are abandoned, -and those occupations which are easy and genteel are overcrowded. -Of course the persons in question must be allowed to take their -own choice, and seek their own happiness in their own way, but it -is inevitable that thousands of them should be disappointed and -suffer. If the young men abandon farms and trades to become clerks -and bookkeepers, the consequence will be that the remuneration of the -crowded occupations will fall, and that of the neglected occupations -will rise; if the young women refuse to do housework, and go into -shops, stores, telegraph offices and schools, the wages of the crowded -occupations will fall, while those of domestic servants advance. If -women in seeking occupation try to gain admission to some business like -telegraphing, in competition with men, they will bid under the men. -Similar effects would be produced if a leisure class in an old country -should be compelled by some social convulsion to support themselves. -They would run down the compensation for labor in the few occupations -which they could enter. - -Now the question is raised whether there is any remedy for the low -wages of the crowded occupations, and the question answers itself: -there is no remedy except not to continue the causes of the evil. To -strike, that is, to say that the workers will not work in their chosen -line, yet that they will not leave it for some other line, is simply -suicide. Neither can any amount of declamation, nor even of law-making, -force a man who owns a business to submit the control of it to a man -who does not own it. The telegraphers have an occupation which requires -training and skill, but it is one which is very attractive in many -respects to those who seek manual occupation; it is also an occupation -which is very suitable, at least in many of its branches, for women. -The occupation is therefore capable of a limited monopoly. The demand -that women should be paid equally with men is, on the face of it, -just, but its real effect would be to keep women out of the business. -It was often said during the telegraphers’ strike that the demand -of the strikers was just, because their wages were less than those -of artisans. The argument has no force at all. The only question was -whether the current wages for telegraphing were sufficient to bring -out an adequate supply of telegraphers. If the growing boys prefer to -be artisans, the wages of telegraphers will rise. If, even at present -rates, boys and girls continue to prefer telegraphing to handicraft or -housework, the wages of telegraphers will fall. Could, then, a strike -advance at a blow the wages of all who are now telegraphers? There was -only one reason to hope so, and that was that the monopoly of the trade -might prove stringent enough and the public inconvenience great enough -to force a concession--which would, however, have been speedily lost -again by an increased supply of telegraphers. - -Now let us ask what the state of the case would be if it was really -possible for the telegraphers to make a successful strike. They -have a very close monopoly; six years ago they nearly arrested the -transportation of the country for a fortnight; but they were unable to -effect their object. More recently the freight-handlers struck against -the competition of a new influx of foreign unskilled laborers, and -in vain. The printers might make a combination, and try to force an -advance in wages by arresting the publication of all the newspapers on -a given day, but there are so many persons who could set type, in case -of need, that such an attempt would be quite hopeless. In any branch of -ordinary handicraft there would be no possibility of creating a working -monopoly or of producing a great public calamity by a strike. If we go -on to other occupations we see that bookkeepers, clerks, and salesmen -could not as a body combine and strike; much less could teachers do -so; still less could household servants do so. Finally, farmers and -other independent workers could not do it at all. In short, a striker -is a man who says: “I mean to get my living by doing this thing and -no other thing as my share of the social effort, and I do not mean to -do this thing except on such and such terms.” He therefore proposes to -make a contract with his fellow-men and to dictate the terms of it. Any -man who can do this must be in a very exceptional situation; he must -have a monopoly of the service in question, and it must be one of which -his fellow-men have great need. If, then, the telegraphers could have -succeeded in advancing their wages fifteen per cent simply because they -had agreed to ask for the advance, they must have been far better off -than any of the rest of their fellowmen. - -Our fathers taught us the old maxim: Cut your coat according to your -cloth; but the popular discussions of social questions seem to be -leading up to a new maxim: Demand your cloth according to your coat. -The fathers thought that a man in this world must do the best he -could with the means he had, and that good training and education -consisted in developing skill, sagacity, and thrift to use resources -economically; the new doctrine seems to be that if a man has been -born into this world he should make up his mind what he needs here, -formulate his demands, and present them to “society” or to the “state.” -He wants congenial and easy occupation, and good pay for it. He does -not want to be hampered by any limitations such as come from a world -in which wool grows, but not coats; in which iron ore is found, but -not weapons and tools; in which the ground will produce wheat, but -only after hard labor and self-denial; in which we cannot eat our -cake and keep it; in which two and two make only four. He wants to be -guaranteed a “market,” so as not to suffer from “overproduction.” In -private life and in personal relations we already estimate this way of -looking at things at its true value, but as soon as we are called upon -to deal with a general question, or a phenomenon of industry in which -a number of persons are interested, we adopt an entirely conventional -and unsound mode of discussion. The sound gospel of industry, prudence, -painstaking, and thrift is, of course, unpopular; we all long to be -emancipated from worry, anxiety, disappointment, and the whole train -of cares which fall upon us as we work our way through the world. Can -we really gain anything in that struggle by organizing for a battle -with each other? This is the practical question. Is there any ground -whatever for believing that we shall come to anything, by pursuing -this line of effort, which will be of any benefit to anybody? If a -man is dissatisfied with his position, let him strive to better it in -one way or another by such chances as he can find or make, and let -him inculcate in his children good habits and sound notions, so that -they may live wisely and not expose themselves to hardship by error or -folly; but every experiment only makes it more clear that for men to -band together in order to carry on an industrial war, instead of being -a remedy for disappointment in the ratio of satisfaction to effort, is -only a way of courting new calamity. - - - - -STRIKES AND THE INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION[42] - - -Anyone who has read with attention the current discussion of labor -topics must have noticed that writers start from assumptions, in regard -to the doctrine of wages, which are as divergent as notions on the same -subject-matter well can be. It appears, therefore, that we must have -a dogma of wages, that we cannot reason correctly about the policy or -the rights of the wages system until we have such a dogma, and that, in -the meantime, it is not strange that confusion and absurdity should be -the chief marks of discussion carried on before this prime condition is -fulfilled. - -Some writers assume that wages can be raised if the prices of products -be raised, and that no particular difficulty would be experienced -in raising prices; others assume that wages could be raised if the -employers would be satisfied with smaller profits for themselves; -still others assume that wages could be raised or lowered according -as the cost of living rises or falls. These are common and popular -assumptions, and have nothing to do with the controversies of -professional economists about the doctrine of wages. The latter are a -disgrace to the science, and have the especial evil at this time that -the science cannot respond to the chief demand now made upon it. - -If the employer could simply add any increase of wages to his prices, -and so recoup himself at the expense of the consumer, no employer would -hold out long against a strike. Why should he? Why should he undertake -loss, worry, and war, for the sake of the consumers behind him? If -an employer need only submit to a positive and measurable curtailment -of his profits, in order to avoid a strike and secure peace, it is -probable that he would in almost every case submit to it. But if the -employees should demand five per cent advance, and the employer should -grant it, adding so much to his prices, they would naturally and most -properly immediately demand another five per cent, to be charged to -the consumers in the same way. There would be no other course for men -of common sense to pursue. They would repeat this process until at -some point or other they found themselves arrested by some resistance -which they could not overcome. Similarly, if wages could be increased -at the expense of the employer’s gains, the employer who yielded one -increase would have to yield another, until at some point he decided to -refuse and resist. In either case, where and what would the limit be? -Whenever the point was reached at which some unconquerable resistance -was encountered, the task of the economist would begin. - -There is no rule whatever for determining the share which any one ought -to get out of the distribution of products through the industrial -organization, except that he should get all that the market will -give him in return for what he has put into it. Whenever, therefore, -the limit is reached, the task of the economist is to find out the -conditions by which this limit is determined. - -Now it is the character of the modern industrial system that it becomes -more and more impersonal and automatic under the play of social forces -which act with natural necessity; the system could not exist if they -did not so act, for it is constructed in reliance upon their action -according to ascertainable laws. The condition of all social actions -and reactions is therefore set in the nature of the forces which we -have learned to know on other fields of scientific investigation, and -which are different here only inasmuch as they act in a different field -and on different material. The relations of parties, therefore, in the -industrial organism is such as the nature of the case permits. The case -may permit of a variety of relations, thus providing some range of -choice. - -A person who comes into the market, therefore, with something to sell, -cannot raise the price of it because he wants to do so, or because -his “cost of production” has been raised. He has already pushed the -market to the utmost, and raised the price as high as supply and demand -would allow, so as to win as large profits as he could. How, then, -can he raise it further, just because his own circumstances make it -desirable for him so to do? If the market stands so that he can raise -his price, he will do it, whether his cost of production has increased -or not. Neither can an employer reduce his own profits at will; he will -immediately perceive that he is going out of business, and distributing -his capital in presents. - -The difficulty with a strike, therefore, is, that it is an attempt to -move the whole industrial organization, in which all the parts are -interdependent and intersupporting. It is not, indeed, impossible to -do this, although it is very difficult. The organization has a great -deal of elasticity in its parts--an aggressive organ can win something -at the expense of others. Everything displaces everything else; -but if force enough is brought to bear, a general displacement and -readjustment may be brought about. An organ which has been suffering -from the aggression of others may right itself. It is only by the -collision of social pressure, constantly maintained, that the life of -the organism is kept up, and its forces are developed to their full -effect. - -Strikes are not necessarily connected with violence to either persons -or property. Violence is provided for by the criminal law. Taking -strikes by themselves, therefore, it may be believed that they are not -great evils; they are costly, but they test the market. Supply and -demand does not mean that the social forces will operate of themselves; -the law, as laid down, assumes that every party will struggle to the -utmost for its interests--if it does not do so, it will lose its -interests. Buyers and sellers, borrowers and lenders, landlords and -tenants, employers and employees, and all other parties to contracts, -must be expected to develop their interests fully in the competition -and struggle of life. It is for the health of the industrial -organization that they should do so. The other social interests are in -the constant habit of testing the market, in order to get all they can -out of it. A strike, rationally begun and rationally conducted, only -does the same thing for the wage-earning interest. - -The facts stare us plainly in the face, if we will only look at them, -that the wages of the employees and the price of the products have -nothing to do with each other; that the wages have nothing to do with -the profits of the employer; that they have nothing to do with the -cost of living or with the prosperity of the business. They are really -governed by the supply and demand of labor, as every strike shows us, -and by nothing else. - -Turning to the moral relations of the subject, we are constantly -exhorted to do something to improve the relations of employer and -employee. I submit that the relation in life which has the least bad -feeling or personal bitterness in it is the pure business relation, the -relation of contract, because it is a relation of bargain and consent -and equivalence. Where is there so much dissension and bitterness as -in family matters, where people try to act by sentiment and affection? -The way to improve the relation of employer and employee is not to get -sentiment into it, but to get sentiment out of it. We are told that -classes are becoming more separated, and that the poor are learning to -hate the rich, although there was a time when no class hatreds existed. -I have sought diligently in history for the time when no class hatreds -existed between rich and poor. I cannot find any such period, and I -make bold to say that no one can point to it. - - - - -TRUSTS AND TRADES-UNIONS[43] - - -I have attempted to show, in foregoing essays,[44] what an immense rôle -is played by monopoly throughout the whole social life of mankind in -all its stages. There would not be any struggle for existence if it -were not true that the supply in nature of the things necessary for -human existence is niggardly. The struggle for existence consists in -a contest against the constraints by which human life is surrounded; -the process by which men have won something in that contest, in the -course of time, has consisted in playing off one of nature’s monopolies -against another--the process, namely, which we call “employing natural -agents.” On its social and political side, the advance has consisted in -securing for the individual a chance in some degree to control his own -destiny; not to be at the sport of natural and social forces, but to -bring his own energy to bear to enlarge his own conditions of enjoyment -and survival. - -At every stage of history, however, the natural monopolies have formed -the basis of social and political monopolies. The possession of those -powers which, under the circumstances, were most efficient for the -acquisition of what men want has always given superiority and dominion -in human society, whether those powers were physical force, beauty, -learning, virtue, capital, or anything else. Where does any one find -ground to believe that the fact will ever be different, and that those -who have the powers which are most potent in the society in which they -live will use those powers, not to get the things which all men want -for themselves, but to get those same things for other people? - -The fashion has always been in the past for those who possessed the -essential powers to take control of the state and realize their -monopoly in that way. If plutocracy should now prevail it would be -simply a repetition of that experience. The only device which has -ever given promise of wider and more humane organization of the state -is constitutional liberty, which compels, by the intervention of -institutions created to serve this purpose, the ruling class, whoever -they were, to respect the recognized and defined rights of all the rest. - -Now, democracy having sapped and dissolved all the inherited forms -of social organization and reduced the social body to atoms, it is -most interesting to observe the inevitable recurrence of all the old -tendencies, in new forms fitted to the times. Some of us thought -that liberty was won forever, and that the race was nevermore to be -disturbed by its old problems, but it is already apparent that, when a -society is resolved into its constituent atoms, the question under what -forces, and upon what nuclei, it will crystallize into new forms, has -acquired an importance never known before. - -Just now public attention is all absorbed by the new name “trust” -applied to one of these phenomena. I can see nothing new in a trust as -compared with the rings, pools, etc., with which we have been familiar -during this generation, except the guarantee which the trust secures to -all the members of the same that no one inside of it shall play traitor -to the rest. The greatest difficulty with modern combinations has been -that there have been no sanctions by which the members could be bound, -and that the profits of the insider who turned against his comrades -have always been an irresistible temptation. In the mediæval guilds, -which were “trusts” of the most solid construction, the sanctions were -of the sternest kind--religious, political, and social--and yet they -never succeeded in their purpose. In modern times, as is well known to -all who are acquainted with the attempts which have been made, inside -of various branches of industry, to arrange agreements which have not -been large enough or public enough to get into the newspapers the -difficulty of enforcing loyalty against those who felt strong enough -to beat the rest if they should go alone, or against those who saw a -chance to sell out on the rest, or against those who were in desperate -straits for cash, has been the constant stumbling-block. Fifty years -ago, in the last days of the United States Bank, Nicholas Biddle -organized a cotton trust, to try to control the cotton market of the -world. It was a complete failure. In general, combinations of this -character are in constant dilemma: they must always grow bigger and -bigger, in order to encompass a sufficient area to constitute a unit; -but the bigger they grow, the less is their internal cohesion. The -exception to this must be noted in a moment. - -The great expansion of the market by modern inventions in -transportation has broken up all the former local and petty monopolies, -and is rapidly making of the industry and commerce of mankind a -whole which cannot be divided by geographical lines. The conditions -of competition in such a system are no doubt onerous to the last -degree. The conditions that must be taken into account to win success -are numerous and complicated. The nerve-strain of comprehending and -of justly estimating the factors, and of following their constant -variations, is too great for any one to endure. Foresight must be used, -yet there are so many unknown quantities that foresight is impossible; -if the attempt is made to master all the unknown quantities, then the -task is so enormous that it cannot be accomplished. Furthermore, the -relations with other persons in the industrial system are necessarily -close. It is impossible to escape such relations, and it is impossible -to avoid a share in the consequences of the mistakes and incompetence -of the others. It must be added that, at a time when the advance in -the arts has forced the whole industry of the globe into intimate -relations which nothing can possibly cut off, legislative interferences -have produced artificial and erratic currents in the industrial -and commercial relations of all countries. The consequences are -disappointing and disastrous incidents in the history of industry. At -the same time the improvements in the communication of intelligence -have made it possible for men farthest apart in space, language, and -nationality, if they have confidence in each other’s business ability -and command of capital, to coöperate by personal agreements. - -Trusts are an attempt to deal with this state of things. It is, of -course, a jest when the makers of a trust affirm that they make it for -the benefit of consumers, and it may very well be doubted whether a -trust is a feasible and beneficial device in the interest of either -party; but it is wrong to overlook the fact that the trust, in its -efforts to deal with the case, and to secure orderly and rational -development, instead of heats and chills in industry, has a real and -legitimate task on hand. It is certain that there is room for the -introduction of intelligent method into modern industry, under forms -which shall be germane to modern conditions, and it is certain that -this will never be done properly by legislation, but only by the -voluntary and intelligent coöperation of the parties interested. It -is also by no means certain that this systematization of industry, -under intelligent coöperation of the parties conducting it, would cost -consumers anything, provided always that there was no legislation to -prevent the recourse at any time to any other sources of supply which -might be available. The economies of management under intelligent -administration are a source from which gains may be made which will -cost the consumer nothing. The expenses of industrial war constitute a -big fund for dividends to which the consumer does not contribute. - -It is worth while to notice, by some familiar examples, what the -motive of a trust is; it will be found a far more everyday matter -than most people suppose. A man who owns a house and lot buys the -vacant lot adjacent in order to control it. He and his neighbors buy -up all the vacant lots on the street in order to prevent undesirable -contact with anything which would deteriorate their property. They -have already fallen victims to the spirit of monopoly, and are subject -to all the denunciations heaped upon aristocrats and exclusivists. -In their case already the practical difficulty of defining the unit -to be comprehended, in order to attain the object and no more, is -apparent. Examples are furnished every day in which capital is refused -for certain enterprises because it is seen that the investment might -no sooner be made than its profits might be destroyed by another -enterprise parallel with it. The thing cannot be done at all until it -is done on a scale sufficiently large to constitute a complete unit. -We are familiar enough with the dilemma offered to us when, on the -one hand, railroads which consolidate put themselves in a position to -serve us far more efficiently, yet on the other hand, railroads which -consolidate cease to compete with each other for our benefit. Which -do we want them to do? The railroads themselves are familiar with -the experience that they are constantly forced to make extensions in -order to secure a certain territory, that is, to establish a closed -unit, and that every extension, instead of attaining a finality, only -makes further extension unavoidable. This is the class of facts in the -industrial development of our time which has produced the trusts, and -it is certain that they offer another motive than that of simple desire -to secure means of extortion. - -I am not yet able to see that any trust can succeed unless it is -founded on a natural or legislative monopoly, and furthermore on a -monopoly whose product cannot be produced in an amount exceeding the -demand at the price which has been customary before the formation of -the trust; and I cannot see any chance for legislation to do any good -unless it is in the repeal of all such laws as are found to furnish a -basis for the organization of an artificial monopoly. - -It cannot have escaped the attention of the reader that trades-unions -are a monopolistic organization on the side of labor entirely parallel -with the trusts on the side of capital, “a product of the same age and -of the same forces,” and an endeavor to deal with the same problem -from the standpoint of another interest. The motives of coercion, -discipline, and strict internal organization are the same in both -cases, and some of the sanctions are the same; for the pools and rings -have tried the boycott until they have proved its worthlessness. There -is a notion afloat that the modern trades-union is a descendant of -the mediæval gild. It might, with equal truth, and equal futility, -be asserted that the modern college, stock exchange, and joint stock -company, are descended from the mediæval gild. The nineteenth-century -trades-union is a nineteenth-century institution, as much or more -so than the ring, pool, corner, or trust. They are all products of -the same facts in the industrial development, and one is just as -inevitable, and, in that sense, legitimate, as the other. There are -some who, while vehemently denouncing trusts, offer us, with great -complacency and satisfaction, as a solution of the “labor question,” -the assertion that the employers and employees ought to combine or -coöperate in some way; they do not appear to see at all that if any -such thing should be brought about it would be the most gigantic -“trust” that could possibly be conceived. - - - - -AN OLD “TRUST”[45] - - -In the year 1579, Conrad Roth, a merchant of Augsburg, who had been -interested in the trade in spices between Lisbon and Germany, proposed -to an officer of the treasury of the Elector of Saxony a scheme for a -company to monopolize the pepper trade. The Elector was one of the most -enterprising and enlightened princes of his time, and the proposition -was really intended to be made to him as the only person who could -command the necessary capital and had, at the same time, courage and -energy to undertake the enterprise. - -A company was formed of officers of the treasury, called the Thuringian -Company, and a warehouse was prepared at Leipzig. It was reckoned -that if the company could raise the price of pepper one groschen per -pound, the profits would be over 38,000 florins per annum. Roth and the -Thuringian Company were to participate in the enterprise equally, but -the Prince was to put up all the capital, and Roth was to do all the -work. The latter also owned a very valuable contract with the King of -Portugal, according to which he was, for five years, to send to India -money enough to buy up all the pepper produced, so that none could come -into Europe through Egypt and Italy. Before that time the Portuguese -officers had illegally sold some of it, so that it did get into Europe -that way; but by buying in India this was now to be stopped. - -Roth proposed to divide Europe into three sections: Portugal, Spain, -and the West; Italy and the South; Germany and the North. The Saxon -company was to have the last as its share of the monopoly. It was hoped -that the gains might be forced up to a much higher figure than the one -above given, if only all pepper then in Frankfort, Venice, Nuremberg, -and Hamburg could be bought up. - -No sooner was the plan formed, however, than Roth began to reach out -after extensions to it. He wanted to include the trade in other spices. -He also proposed that the Elector should provide the capital for an -exchange bank to do the exchange business between Leipzig and Lisbon. -Next he found that the existing postal arrangements were entirely -inadequate to the requirements of his business, and he proposed to the -Elector a complete plan for a postal service between Italy, Germany, -France, Spain, and Portugal. Then, having found the shipping facilities -unsatisfactory, he proposed that the Elector should enter into a -contract with the King of Denmark, by which the latter, who owned -ships, should provide a regular service between Lisbon and the Elbe. - -These plans all show the grand energy of this projector, and the -Elector entered into them all. He could not carry out the postal -service without the consent of the Emperor, and this he was unable to -get. Roth and the Elector were ahead of their time; the Emperor was -not; he said that the plan proposed “something new, which had never -been in use in the time of their ancestors.” The attempt to unite -private merchants in the speculation also failed at Leipzig, and -elsewhere the attitude toward it was extremely unfriendly. - -When the stock of pepper began to accumulate at Leipzig, it was found -that the article did not begin to be scarce elsewhere. Although the -advances of the Prince were already far greater than he had promised -when the plan was formed, it was found impossible to begin sales until -all the pepper on the European market elsewhere could be bought up; -and at the same time reports came that, in spite of Roth’s contract, -any one who had money could buy all the pepper he wanted in India, -and that it was coming into Europe freely through Egypt and Venice. -In the spring of 1580 the supply in the cities of Holland and Germany -was ample. It appeared that Roth could not prevent the contractors -for other parts of Europe from shipping to Germany, and the price -was falling there; instead of being at fifteen groschen, where the -speculators hoped to hold it, it was below twelve. At this point Roth’s -creditors began to put attachments on his property. All this led the -Elector to say: “We fear that there has been a great mistake in Roth’s -original and still repeated assertion that all the pepper which comes -into Europe comes through Lisbon.” - -In April Roth committed suicide upon hearing of the death of the King -of Portugal. It was known that the King of Spain intended to claim the -succession, and that the Portuguese would resist; this war and the -possibility of a Spanish succession meant ruin to the speculation. The -Elector was obliged to send agents in every direction to get possession -of the assets of the company, in order to recover his funds. In the -end it appears that he escaped without very serious loss; he sold -the whole stock to a syndicate of South German merchants, at a price -which restored all his capital. After moralizing on his experience he -declared: “Inasmuch as I am now weary and sick, and am anxious to pass -the remaining time which God vouchsafes me in quiet, I have firmly -determined to have done with commerce, whether it would bring me gain -or loss.” “I have,” he says again, “strengthened my head and I will -have done with false commerce.”[46] - -This enterprise was plainly an attempt to exploit a natural monopoly, -and to do it by an operation which should embrace the whole world; -it was a purely money-making scheme, unrelieved by any social or -industrial advantage. It shows how erroneous it is to suppose that -the merchants of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were inferior -in boldness to those of to-day, or superior to them in disposition -to sacrifice themselves for the public good; it would be easy to -accumulate any amount of evidence that they were, on the contrary, -entirely unscrupulous in the pursuit of gain, and that they were -bold beyond anything known to modern merchants. They might well be -so. This story shows what great risks, dangers, perplexities, and -disappointments they were subject to. The risk element was plainly -enormous, but the gains corresponded, of course, and hence we find some -of these men enormously rich; but it is plain that there was no routine -to help the man who had less natural ability. There was no regularity -in any of the contributory operations, such as shipping lines and -post-office; there were no regular and adequate banking facilities. If -by “trust” we mean a combination to exploit a monopoly, either natural -or artificial, the men of that period had made an art of that sort -of undertaking, and had a skill in it of which the moderns have no -conception. - -One cannot help admiring the courage and energy of this Roth. He had -everything to contend with; he was far in advance of his age. If he had -lived in our time he would have been a great captain of industry--we -could have given him something better to do than making a corner on -pepper. - -In our current social discussions there is a special kind of fallacy -which consists in quasi-historical assertions. For instance, it is said -that the power of capital is increasing and is greater than it ever has -been. This is in form an historical assertion, but those who make it -never expect to be held to an historical responsibility for it. They -throw it out with a kind of risk, because they are not very accurately -informed as to the power of capital in former times, and have not -heard that it used to act as it does now. Capitalists never had less -_irresponsible_ power than now. It is said that monopoly is growing -evil; that it never was so great. If people choose to pass laws to make -monopolies, they must, of course, take the consequences; but there -never was a time when the control of natural monopolies was so rational -as now, and there never was a time when the efforts of cliques to make -artificial monopolies could be so easily frustrated as now. It is said -that trusts embracing the whole world are a new and threatening danger, -never heard of before. It has seemed to me that, if we are to have -history, it might be well for once to see some facts which illustrate -“the good old times” as they really were. Of course nothing is thereby -proved as to the good or ill of trusts; but something is proved as to -the fallacy of that class of quasi-historical assertions which I have -described. - - - - -SHALL AMERICANS OWN SHIPS?[47] - - -Since the war, public attention has been drawn more or less to the -marked decline in American shipping. It has been generally assumed -and conceded that this was a matter for regret, and some discussion -has arisen as to remedies--what to do, in fact, in order to bring it -about that Americans should own ships. In these discussions, there -has generally been a confusion apparent in regard to three things -which ought to be very carefully distinguished from each other: -ship-building, the carrying trade, and foreign commerce. - -1. As to ship-building--Americans began to build ships, as an industry, -within fifteen years after the settlement at Massachusetts Bay. Before -the Revolution they competed successfully as ship-builders with the -Dutch and English, and they sold ships to be used by their rivals. -Tonnage and navigation laws played an important part in the question -of separation between the colonies and England, and the same laws took -an important place in the formation of the Federal Constitution. One -generation was required for the people of this country to get over -the hard logical twist in the notion that laws which were pernicious -when laid by Great Britain were beneficial when laid by ourselves. The -vacillation which has marked the history of our laws about tonnage and -navigation is such that it does not seem possible to trace the effects -of legislation upon ship-building. In the decade 1850–1860 a very great -decline in the number of ships built, especially for ocean traffic, -began to be marked. Sails began to give way to steam, but the building -of steamships required great advantages of every kind in the production -of engines and other apparatus--that is, it required the presence, -in a highly developed state, of a number of important auxiliary and -coöperating industries. As iron was introduced into ship-building, of -course the ship-building industry became dependent upon cheap supplies -of iron as it had before been dependent on cheap supplies of wood. -No doubt these changes in the conditions of the industry itself have -been the chief cause of the decline in ship-building in this country, -and legislation has had only incidental effects. It is a plain fact -of history that the decline in ship-building began before the war and -the high tariff. Of course the effects produced by changes in the -conditions of an industry are inevitable; they are not to be avoided -by any legislation. They are annoying because they break up acquired -habits and established routine, and they involve loss in a change from -one industry to another, but legislation can never do anything but -cause that loss to fall on some other set of people instead of on those -directly interested. Within the last few years it has become certain -that steel is to be the material of ocean vessels--a new improvement -which will not tend to bring the industry back to this country. On the -whole, therefore, the decline in ship-building of the last twenty-five -years seems to indicate that somebody else than ourselves must build -the world’s ships for the present. We have, by legislative devices, -forced the production of a few ocean steamers, but these cases prove -nothing to the contrary of our inference. If this nation has a hobby -for owning some ships built in this country, and is willing to pay -enough for the gratification of that hobby, no doubt it can secure -the pleasure it seeks. A fisherman who has caught nothing sometimes -buys fish at a fancy price; he saves himself mortification and gets -a dinner, but the possession of the fish does not prove that he has -profitably employed his time or that he has had sport. - -2. The carrying trade differs from ship-building as carting differs -from wagon-building. Carrying is the industry of men who own ships; -their interests are more or less hostile to those of the ship-builders. -Ship owners want to buy new ships at low prices; they want the number -of competing ships kept small; they want freights high. In all these -points the interest of the ship-builder is the opposite: the ship -owner is indifferent where he gets his ships; he only wants them cheap -and good. There is no sentiment in the matter any more than there is -in the purchase of wagons by an express company, or carriages by a -livery-stable keeper. - -3. Foreign commerce is still another thing. It consists in the exchange -of the products of one country for those of another. The merchant wants -plenty of ships to carry all the goods at the lowest possible freights, -but it is of no importance to him where the ships were built, or who -owns and sails them. - -A statement and definition of these three industries suffices to show -what confusion must arise in any discussion in which they are not -properly distinguished. It is plain that there are three different -questions: (1) Can the farmer build a vehicle? (2) Can he get his crop -carried to market? (3) Can he sell his crop? It is evident that a -country which needs a protective tariff on iron and steel must give up -all hopes of building ships for ocean traffic. For the country which, -by the hypothesis, needs a protective tariff on iron and steel cannot -produce those articles as cheaply as some other country. Its ships, -however, must compete upon the ocean with those of the country which -has cheap iron and steel. The former embody a larger capital than the -latter, and they must be driven from the ocean. If, then, subsidies -are given to protect the carrying trade, when prosecuted in ships -built of protected iron, the loss is transferred from the ship owners -to the people who pay taxes on shore. These taxes, however, add to the -cost of production of all things produced in the country, and thereby -lessen the power of the country to compete in foreign commerce. This -lessens the amount of goods to be carried both out and in, lowers -freights, throws ships out of use, and checks the building of ships; -and the whole series of legislative aids and encouragements must be -begun over again, with a repetition and intensification of the same -results. As long as the system lasts it works down, and the statistics -show, very naturally, that fewer and fewer ships are built in the -country, and that less and less of the carrying trade is carried on -under the national flag. In view of the three different and sometimes -adverse interests which are connected by their relation to the shipping -question, it is not strange that when the representatives of those -interests meet to try to consider that question, there should simply -be a scramble between them to see which can capture the convention. -The last convention of this sort was captured by the owners of a lot -of unsalable and unsailable old hulks, who had hit upon the brilliant -idea of getting the nation to pay them an annual bounty for the use -of their antiquated and dilapidated property. Strange to say, in a -country which is charged with being too practical and hardheaded, this -proposition received respectful attention and consideration. It is also -strange that our people should believe that taxing farmers to force the -production of iron, taxing farmers again to force the production of -ships out of protected iron, and taxing farmers again to pay subsidies -to enable protected ships to do business, is a way to make this country -rich. - -So soon as the three different industries, or departments of business, -which I have described are distinguished from each other, it is -apparent that the fundamental one of the three is foreign commerce. -If we have no commerce we need no carrying, and it would be absurd to -build ships; if we have foreign commerce its magnitude determines the -amount of demand there is for freight and for ships. The circle of -taxation which I have mentioned, and which is obviously only a kind of -circuit, described from and upon the farmer as a center and fulcrum to -bear the weight of the whole, is necessarily and constantly vicious, -because it presses down on the foreign commerce, which is the proper -source of support for carrying and ship-building. On the other hand, -the emancipation of foreign commerce from all trammels of every sort -is the only means of increasing the natural, normal, and spontaneous -support of carrying and ship-building, assuming that the carrying trade -and ship-building are ends in themselves. - -It is, however, no object at all for a country to have either -ship-building industry, or carrying trade, or foreign commerce; herein -lies the fundamental fallacy of all the popular and Congressional -discussions about ships and commerce. It is only important that the -whole population should be engaged in those industries which will -pay the best under the circumstances of the country. For the sake of -exposing the true doctrine about the matter, we may suppose (what is -not conceivable as a possible fact) that a country might not find -greater profit in the exportation of any part of any of its products -than in the home use of the same. If this could be true, and if it were -realized, the proof of it would be that no foreign trade would exist. -There would be no ground for regret since the people would be satisfied -and better off than as if they had a foreign trade. Carrying trade and -ship-building would not exist. - -If a country had a foreign trade of any magnitude whatever, it would -not be any object for that country to do its own carrying. The figures -which show the amount paid by the people of the United States to -non-American ship owners for freight, and the figures which show the -small percentage of our foreign commerce which is carried under the -American flag, in themselves prove nothing at all. The only question -which is of importance is this: are the people of the United States -better employed now than they would be if engaged in owning and sailing -ships? If they were under no restraints or interferences, that question -also would answer itself. If Americans owned no ships and sailed no -ships, but hired the people of other countries to do their ocean -transportation for them, it would simply prove that Americans had some -better employment for their capital and labor. They would get their -transportation accomplished as cheaply as possible. That is all they -care for, and it would be as foolish for any nation to insist on doing -its own ocean transportation, devoting to this use capital and labor -which might be otherwise more profitably employed, as it would be for a -merchant to insist on doing his own carting, when some person engaged -in carting offered him a contract on more advantageous terms than those -on which he could do the work. - -Furthermore, the people of a country which had little foreign commerce -might find it very advantageous to prosecute the carrying trade. In -history, the great trading nations have been those which had a small -or poor territory at home: the Dutch were the great carriers of the -seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when the foreign commerce of -their own territory was insignificant; the New Englanders of the last -century and of the first quarter of this century became the carriers -of commodities to and fro between all parts of the world, especially -between our middle and southern states and the rest of the world. They -took to the sea because their land did not furnish them with products -which could remunerate their capital and labor so well as the carrying -trade did. They won a high reputation for the merchant service, which -was in their hands, and they earned fortunes by energy, enterprise, -promptitude, and fidelity. The carrying trade is an industry like any -other; it is neither more nor less desirable in itself than any other. -In any natural and rational state of things it would be absurd to be -writing essays about it. If any one thought he could make more profit -in that business than in some other he would set about it. When the -census was taken he would be found busy at that business, would be so -reported, and that would be the end of the matter as a phenomenon of -public interest. - -If a nation had foreign commerce, and some of its citizens found the -carrying trade an advantageous employment for their labor and capital -as compared with other possible industries in the country, it would -not follow that some other citizens of that country ought to engage -in ship-building. It is no object to build ships, but only to get -such ships as are wanted, in the most advantageous manner. If a man -should refuse to carry on a carting business unless he could make -his own wagons, it would be such a reflection on his good sense that -his business credit would be very low. If some Americans could buy -and sail ships so as to make profits, what is the sense of saying -that they shall not do it because some other Americans cannot build -ships at a profit? Only one answer to this question has ever been -offered by anybody, and that is the prediction that, some day, if we -go without ships long enough, we shall, by the mere process of going -without, begin to get some--a prediction for which the prophets give no -guarantee, in addition to their personal authority, save the fact that -we have fewer ships and worse ones every year. - -I have said above that, if there were no restraints or interferences, -we should simply notice whether any Americans took to the carrying -trade or not, and should thence infer that they might or might not -be better employed in some other industry. It is impossible, now, -to say whether, if all restrictions were removed, the carrying -trade or ship-building would be a profitable industry in the United -States or not. Any opinion given by anybody on that point is purely -speculative. The present state of the iron and steel industries, and -of the manufacture of engines and machinery, is so artificial that -no one can judge what would be the possibilities of those industries -under an entirely different state of things. It is, however, just -because the present state of things prevents a free trial that it is -indefensible; we are working in the dark and on speculation all the -time and have none of the natural and proper tests and guarantees for -what we are doing. We are controlled by the predictions of prophets, -the notions of dogmatizers, the crude errors of superficial students -of history, the wrong-headed inferences of shallow observers, and the -selfish machinations of interested persons. We can distinguish many -forces which are at work on our ship-building and on our carrying -trade, but none of them are genuine or respectable. We are submitting -to restraints and losses, and we have no guarantee whatever that we -shall ever win any compensation. The teaching of economic science -is distinctly that we never shall win any. We are expending capital -without any measurement or adjustment of the _quid pro quo_; we are -spending without calculation, and receiving something or nothing--we -do not know which. The wrong of all this is not in the assumption that -we have not certain industries which we would have (for we cannot -tell whether that is so or not), but the wrong is in the arbitrary -interference which prevents us from having them, if any man wants to -put his capital into them, and which prevents us from obtaining the -proper facts on which to base a judgment about the state and relations -of industries in the country. - -Whenever the question of ships is raised, the clamor for subsidies -and bounties is renewed, and we are told again that England has -established her commerce by subsidies. It would be well if we could -have an understanding, once for all, whether England’s example is a -good argument or not. As she has tried, at some time or other, nearly -every conceivable economic folly, and has also made experiment of -some sound economic principles, all disputants find in her history -facts to suit them, and it needs only a certain easily acquired skill -in misunderstanding things to fashion any required argument from the -economic history of England. Some of our writers and speakers seem to -be under a fascination which impels them to accept as authoritative -examples the follies of English history, and to reject its sound -lessons. In the present case, however, the matter stands somewhat -differently. England is a great manufacturing area; it imports food -and raw materials, and exports finished products; it has, therefore, -a general and public interest in maintaining communication with all -parts of the world. The analogy in our case is furnished by the -subsidized railroads in our new states, or, perhaps even better, by -the mail routes which we sustain all over our territory, from general -considerations of public advantage, although many such routes do not -pay at all. Subsidies to ships for the mere sake of having ships, or -ocean traffic, when there is no business occasion for the subsidized -lines, would have no analogy with English subsidies. - -If then the question is put: Shall Americans own ships? I do not see -how any one can avoid the simple answer: Yes, if they want them. -Universally, if an American wants anything, he ought to have it if he -can get it, and if he hurts no one else by getting it. To enter on the -question whether he is going to make it or buy it, and whether he is -going to buy it of A or of B, is an impertinence. We boast a great deal -of having a free country; our orators shout themselves hoarse about -liberty and freedom. Stop one of them, however, and ask him if he means -free trade and free ships, and he will demur. No; not that; that will -not do. He is in favor of freedom for himself and his friends in those -respects in which they want liberty against other people, but he is -not in favor of freedom for other people against restraints which are -advantageous to him and his political allies. He is in favor of freedom -for those who are being oppressed--by somebody else; not for those who -are being oppressed by himself. I heard it asserted not long ago that -we have no monopolies in this country, _because_ it is a free country. -It is not a free country, because there are more artificial monopolies -in it than in any other country in the world. The popular notion that -it is free rises from the fact that there are fewer natural monopolies -in it than in any other great civilized country. It is necessary, -however, to go to Turkey or Russia to find instances of legislative and -administrative abuses to equal the existing laws and regulations of the -United States about ships, the carrying trade, and foreign commerce. -These laws have been brought to public attention again and again, but -apparently with little effect in awakening popular attention, while the -newspapers carry all over the country details about abuses in Ireland, -Russia, and South Africa. We should stop bragging about a free country -and about the enlightened power of the people in a democratic republic -to correct abuses, while laws remain which treat the buying, importing, -owning, and sailing of ships as pernicious actions, or, at least, as -doubtful and suspicious ones. I have no conception of a free man or a -free country which can be satisfied if a citizen of that country may -not own a ship, if he wants one, getting it in any legitimate manner in -which he might acquire other property; or may not sail one, if he finds -that a profitable industry suited to his taste and ability; or may not -exchange the products of his labor with that person, whoever he may be, -who offers the most advantageous terms. - - - - -POLITICS IN AMERICA, 1776–1876[48] - - -When the Continental Congress met in 1774, few persons in the colonies -perceived that the ties to the mother country were about to be severed, -and few, if any, were republicans in theory, or contemplated a -“revolution” in the political system. The desire for independence was -developed during 1775, and the question as to the form of government -to be adopted came up by consequence. It presented no real difficulty. -The political organization of some of the colonies was such already -that there were no signs of dependence except the arms and flag, the -form of writs, and a responsibility to the Lords of Trade which sat -very lightly upon them. Necessary changes being made in these respects, -those colonies stood as complete republics. The others conformed to -this model. - -In bringing about these changes great interest was developed in -political speculations, an interest which found its first direction -from Paine’s “Common Sense,” and was sustained by diligent reading of -Burgh’s “Political Disquisitions,” and Macaulay’s “History of England.” -The same speculations continued to be favorite subjects of discussion -for twenty-five years afterwards. The journals of the time were largely -made up of long essays by writers with fanciful _noms de plume_, who -discussed no simple matters of detail, but the fundamental principles -of politics and government. The method of treatment was not historical, -unless we must except crude and erroneous generalizations on classical -history, and it seemed to be believed that the colonial history of this -country was especially unfit to furnish guidance for the subsequent -period; but the disquisitions in question pursued an _a priori_ method, -starting from the broadest and most abstract assumptions. The same -method has marked American political philosophy, so far as there has -been any such thing, ever since. It is very much easier than the method -which requires a laborious study of history. - -The natural effect of the war, but still more of the doctrines in -regard to liberty taught by Paine, and of the deplorable policy of -local terrorism pursued by the Committees of Safety against Tories -and Refugees, was to produce and bring into prominence a class of -active, shallow men, who felt their new powers and privileges but not -the responsibility which ought to go with these. The old colonial -bureaucracy, which had enjoyed all the social preëminence that colonial -life permitted, was gone. Office was open to many who, before the war, -had little chance of attaining it. They sought it eagerly, expecting to -enjoy the social advantages they had formerly envied. In the northern -states a class of eager office-seekers arose who gained a great -influence, saw their arena in the states especially, and jealously -opposed the power of the Confederation. This class made hatred to -England almost a religion, and testified to their political virtues by -persecuting Tories and Refugees. They found popular grievances also -ready to their hand as a means of advancement. The mass of the people -had been impoverished by the war. The attempts at commercial war had -reacted upon the nation with great severity. The paper issues of the -Congress and the states had wrought their work to derange values, -violate contracts, inflate credit, and destroy confidence. On the -return of peace the industries which had been sustained only by war -ceased to be profitable; the reduction of prices spread general ruin -and left thousands indebted and impoverished. The consequence was -discontent and disorder. All this was heightened by the contrast with -another class which had been enriched by privateering, contracts, and -“financiering.” The soldier who returned in rags, bringing only a few -bits of scrip worth fifteen or twenty cents on the dollar, found his -family in want, and some of his neighbors, who had borne few of the -sacrifices of the war, enriched by it and now enjoying its fruits. It -seemed to this whole class that they had not yet got liberty, or that -they did not know what it was. They did not look for it to a closer -union. - -This party, for it soon became a party, found an alliance in a quarter -where it would hardly have been expected, in the slave-owning planters -of the South--an alliance which has been of immense importance in our -political history. The planters, at the outbreak of the war, had been -heavily indebted to English capitalists and merchants. They now feared -that they would be compelled to pay their debts, and they saw in the -treaty-making power of the general government the source from which -this compulsion would come. They therefore opposed any union which -would strengthen and give vigor to that power. To this party were added -those who had adopted, on theoretical and philosophical grounds, the -enthusiasm for liberty which was then prevalent in both hemispheres. -It should be added to the characteristics of this party that it looked -with indifference upon foreign commerce, cared little for foreign -opinion, would have been glad to be isolated from the Old World, and -had very crude opinions as to the status and relations of European -nations. - -This party naturally went on to confound liberty with equality, and -political virtue with tenacity of rights. It furthermore confounded -power with privilege, and thought that it must allow no civil power -or authority to exist if it meant really to exterminate aristocratic -privilege. It was not so clear in its conception of political duties, -and certainly failed to see that the best citizen is not the one who -is most tenacious of his political rights, but the one who is most -faithful to his political duties; that envy and jealousy are not -political virtues; and that equality can be attained only by cutting -off every social advance and setting up as the standard, not what is -highest, but what is a low average. - -An opposing party gradually formed itself of men of wider information -and superior training. These men understood the institutions of Great -Britain and their contrast to those of any other country in Europe. -They understood just what the war had done for the Colonies. They did -not consider that it had altered the internal institutions inherited -from the mother country, or set the Colonies adrift upon a sea of -political speculation to try to find a political utopia. Some of them -joined for a time in the prevalent opinion that the Americans were -better and purer than the rest of mankind, but experience soon taught -them their error. Tradition and experience still had weight with -them; and in making innovations they sought development rather than -destruction and reconstruction. They were conservative by property, -education, and character. - -To this party it was evident that the colonies had lost much by falling -out of the place in the family of nations which they had filled as part -of the British Empire, and they believed that a similar place must -now be won on an independent footing. They understood the necessity -of well-regulated foreign relations, of foreign commerce, and of -public credit. Their general effort was, therefore, to secure order -and peace in the internal relations of the country by establishing -liberty indeed, but liberty under law; and to secure respectability and -respect abroad by fidelity to treaties and pecuniary engagements, by a -reputation for commercial integrity, and by a development of the arts -of peace. The first requisite to all this was a more perfect union. - -The two parties, therefore, formed about the issue of a revision of the -Articles of Confederation, but it was not until the absolute necessity -of the objects aimed at by the Federalists--objects which are in their -nature less directly obvious and tangible--had been demonstrated by -experience, that this revision was brought about. The Union was not -the result of a free and spontaneous effort, but was “extorted from -the grinding necessity of a reluctant people.” A political party which -resists a proposed movement by predicting calamitous results to flow -from it must abide by the verdict of history. Tried by this test, the -anti-Federalists are convicted of resisting the most salutary action -in our political history. The victory was won, not by writing critical -essays about the movement and the relations of parties, but by the -direct and energetic activity of those men of that generation who had -enjoyed the greatest advantages of education and culture. - -Three evils were inherited under the new Constitution from the old -system: slavery (which the framers of the Constitution tolerated, -thinking it on the decline), paper money (which they thought they had -eradicated), and the mercantile theories of political economy. These -three evils, in their single or combined development, have given -character to the whole subsequent political history of the country. One -of them has been eliminated by a civil war. The other two confront us -as the great political issues of to-day. - -The framers of the Constitution, without having any precise definition -of a republic in mind, knew well that it differed from a democracy. -No one of them was a democrat. They were, at the time of framing the -Constitution, under an especial dread of democracy, on account of the -rebellion in Massachusetts. They meant to make a Constitution in order -to establish organized or articulated liberty, giving guarantees for it -which should protect it from popular tyranny as much as from personal -despotism. Indeed, they recognized the former as a great danger, the -latter as a delusion. They therefore established a constitutional -republic. The essential feature of such a system of government (for -it is a system of government, and not a political theory) is that -political power be conferred under a temporary and defeasible tenure. -That it be conferred by popular election is not essential, although -it is convenient in many cases. This method was the one naturally -indicated by the circumstances of the United States. The system which -was established did not pretend to give direct effect to public opinion -according to its fluctuations. It rather interposed delays and checks -in order to secure deliberation, and it aimed to give expression to -public opinion only after it was matured. It sought to eliminate -prejudice and passion by prescribing beforehand methods which seemed -just in themselves, independently of conflicting interests, in order -that, when a case arose, no advantage of procedure might be offered to -either party; and it aimed to subject action to organs whose operation -should be as impersonal as it is possible for the operation of -political organs to be. - -Democracy, on the other hand, has for its essential feature equality, -and it confers power on a numerical majority of equal political units. -It is not a system of government for a state with any but the narrowest -limits. On a wider field it is a theory as to the depositary of -sovereignty. It seizes upon majority rule, which is only a practical -expedient for getting a decision where something must be done and a -unanimous judgment as to what ought to be done is impossible, and it -makes this majority the depositary of sovereignty, under the name of -the sovereignty of the people. This sovereign, however, is as likely -as any despot to aggrandize itself, and to promulgate the unformulated -doctrines of the divine right of the sovereign majority to rule, the -duty of passive obedience in the minority, and that the majority can do -no wrong. - -Opposition to the Federal Constitution died out in a year or two, -and no one could be found who would confess that he had resisted its -adoption. Parties divided on questions of detail and of interpretation, -and the points on which they differed were those by which the -Constitution imposed delays and restraints upon the popular will. The -administrations of Washington and Adams threw continually increasing -weight in favor of constitutional guarantees, as the history of the -French Revolution seemed to the Federalists to furnish more and more -convincing proofs of the dangers of unbridled democracy. The opposition -saw nothing in that history save the extravagant ebullitions of a -people new to freedom--saw rather examples to be imitated than dangers -to be shunned. Sympathy and gratitude came in to exercise a weighty -influence on political issues. The personal executive and the judiciary -were the chief subjects of dislike, and General Washington himself -finally incurred abuse more wanton and severe than any President since, -except the elder Adams, has endured, because the fact was recognized -that Washington’s personality was the strongest bulwark which the -system possessed at the outset. - -Democracy, however, was, and still is, so deeply rooted in the -physical and economic circumstances of the United States, that the -constitutional barriers set up against it have proved feeble and vain. -Fears of monarchy have now almost ceased or are ridiculed. Monarchist -and aristocrat are now used only as epithets to put down some over-bold -critic of our political system; but in the early days of the Republic -the mass of the people believed that the supporters of the first two -administrations desired aristocracy and monarchy. In a new country, -however, with unlimited land, the substantial equality of the people -in property, culture, and social position is inevitable. Political -equality follows naturally. Democracy is given in the circumstances of -the case. The yeoman farmer is the prevailing type of the population. -It is only when the pressure of population and the development of a -more complex social organization produce actual inequality in the -circumstances of individuals, that a political aristocracy can follow -and grow upon a social aristocracy. The United States are far from -having reached any such state as yet. These facts were felt, if not -distinctly analyzed and perceived, even by those who might on theory -have preferred monarchical institutions; and, as Washington said, there -were not ten men in the country who wanted a monarchy. - -The Federalists repaid their opponents with a no less exaggerated -fear of their principles and intentions, regarding them as Jacobins -and _sans culottes_, who desired to destroy whatever was good and to -produce bloodshed and anarchy. Party spirit ran to heights seldom -reached since. Partisan abuse outstripped anything since. It was -an additional misfortune that the questions at issue were delicate -questions of foreign policy and international law. It is a great evil -in a republic that parties should divide by sympathy with two foreign -nations, and it is the greatest evil possible that they should not -believe in each other’s loyalty to the existing constitution. - -The deeper movement which was stirring to affect the general attitude -or standpoint from which the Constitution was viewed (a matter, of -course, of the first importance under a written constitution), and -which was changing the constitutional republic into a democratic -republic, did not escape the observation of the most sagacious men of -the earliest days. Fisher Ames wrote to Wolcott in 1800: “The fact -really is, that over and above the difficulties of sustaining a free -government, and the freer the more difficult, there is a want of -accordance between our system and the state of our public opinion. The -government is republican; opinion is essentially democratic. Either -events will raise public opinion high enough to support our government, -or public opinion will pull down the government to its own level.” The -fact was that the government could not, under the system, long remain -above the level of public opinion. The Federalists, assisted by the -prestige of Washington’s name, held it there for twelve years; but they -probably never, on any of the party issues, even with a restricted -suffrage, had a majority of the voters. Dating the rise of parties -from the time of Jay’s Treaty, they had a majority of the House of -Representatives only under the excitement of French insult in 1798. - -The leading men of 1787–1788, as has been said, worked industriously -and energetically for political objects. The first decade of the -Republic had not passed by, however, before men began to estimate -the cost and sacrifices of public life and the worry of abuse and -misrepresentation, to compare this with what they could accomplish -in politics, and to abandon the contest. To the best public men -professions and other careers offered fame, fortune, honorable and -gratifying success. In public life they struggled against, and were -defeated by, noisy, active men who could not have competed with them -in any other profession. Their best efforts were misunderstood and -misrepresented. They had no reward but the consciousness of fulfilling -a high public duty. Furthermore they lacked, as a class, the tact and -sagacity which the system indispensably requires. The leaders of the -Federal party committed a political blunder of the first magnitude in -quarrelling with John Adams, whatever may have been his faults. They -thereby separated themselves from the mass of their own party, and at -a time when parties were so evenly balanced that they required harmony -for any chance of success; and they put themselves in the position -of a junto or cabal, trying to dictate to the party without guiding -its reason. Those of them who had withdrawn from, or had been thrown -out of political life by the causes above mentioned were most active -in this work of disorganization. They had abandoned that sort of task -which they had engaged in at the outset, and which, difficult as it is, -is permanently incumbent on the cultured classes of the country--to -make the culture of the nation homogeneous and uniform by imparting -and receiving, by living in and of and for the nation, contributing to -its thought and life their best stores, whatever they are. A breach -was opened there which has gone on widening ever since, and which has -been as harmful to our culture as to our politics. On the one side -it has been left to anti-culture to control all which is indigenous -and “American”; and on the other hand American culture has been like -a plant in a thin soil, given over to a sickly dilettantism and the -slavish imitation of foreign models, ill understood, copied for matters -of form, and, as often as not, imitated for their worst defects. - -An actual withdrawal of the ablest men from political life, such as -we have come to deplore, began, then, at this early day. Many others -were thrown out for too great honesty and truth in running counter to -the popular notions of the day. John Adams incurred great unpopularity -for having said that the English Constitution was one of the grandest -achievements of the human race--an assertion which Callender disputed, -with great popular success, by dilating upon the corruption of the -English administration under George III, but an assertion which, in -the sense in which it was made, no well-informed man would question. -Sedgwick laid down the principle that the government might claim the -last man as a soldier and the last dollar in taxation--an abstract -proposition which is unquestionable, but which Callender disputed, -once more with great popular success, by arguing as if it were a -proposition to take the last man and the last dollar. Dexter lost a -reëlection by opposing a clause of the naturalization law, that a -foreign nobleman should renounce his titles on being naturalized. It -was opposed as idle and frivolous, and favored as if every foreign -nobleman would otherwise become by naturalization a member of -Congress. Hamilton and Knox abandoned the public service on account -of the meagerness of their salaries. Pickering, who left office -really insolvent, and with only a few hundred dollars in cash, was -pursued by charges of corruption on the ground of unclosed accounts. -Wolcott, at the end of long and faithful service, was charged with the -responsibility for a fire which broke out in his office, as if he had -sought to destroy the records of corrupt proceedings. - -It is no wonder that these men abandoned public life, and that their -examples deterred others, unless they were men born to it, who could -not live out of the public arena; but it is true now, as it was then, -that men of true culture, high character, and correct training can -abandon public political effort only by the surrender of some of the -best interests of themselves and their posterity. The pursuit of -wealth, which is the natural alternative, has always absorbed far -too much of the ambition of the nation, and under such circumstances -there could be no other result than that a wealthy class should arise, -to whom wealth offers no honorable social power, in whom it awakens -no intellectual or political ambition, to whom it brings no sense of -responsibility, but for whom it means simply the ability to buy what -they want, men or measures, and to enjoy sensual luxury. A class of men -is produced which mocks at the accepted notions while it uses them, and -scorns the rest of us with a scorn which is so insulting only because -it is so just. It is based on the fact that we will not undergo the -sacrifices necessary to self-defense. This pursuit of wealth was -almost the only pursuit attractive to able men who turned their backs -on the public service in the early days. In later years professional -careers and scientific and literary pursuits have disputed to a great -and greater extent the dominion of wealth over the energies of the -nation; but politics have not yet won back their due attraction for -able and ambitious men. - -The Federalists also held a defective political philosophy. They did -not see that the strength of a constitutional republic such as they -desired must be in the intelligent approval and confidence of the -citizens. Adams and Hamilton agreed in supposing that some artificial -bond must be constructed to give strength to the system. Hamilton -looked for it in the interest of the wealthy class, which he wanted -to bind up in the system--a theory which would have changed it into -a plutocracy. Adams sought the bond in ambition for social eminence, -and did not see that, where such eminence sprang only from wealth or -official rank, the very principle of human nature which he invoked -would, under the form of envy, counteract his effort. - -The presidential election of 1801 having been thrown into the House of -Representatives, the Federalists added to their former blunder another -far more grave. Abandoning their claims to principle and character, -they took to political intrigue and bargaining, in the attempt to elect -Burr over Jefferson. Their exit from power might otherwise have been -honorable, and they might, as an opposition party, have made a stand -for inflexible principle and political integrity; but it was hard for -them after this to talk of those things, especially as Burr went on to -develop the character which Hamilton had warned them that he possessed. -They fell into the position of “independent voters,” throwing their -aid now with one and now with the other faction of the majority; but -history does not show that they ever forced either one or the other -to “adopt good measures,” for the obvious reason that the majority -possessed the initiative. The purchase of Louisiana seemed to them to -transfer the power of the Union to the southern and frontier states, -the seat of the political theories which they regarded as reckless -and lawless. They feared that the power of the Union would be used -to sacrifice commerce and to put in operation wild theories by which -the interests of the northern and eastern states would be imperiled, -and the inherited institutions of constitutional liberty, which they -valued as their best possessions, would be overthrown. The Embargo and -Non-intercourse Acts seemed only the fulfillment of these fears. The -recourse of a minority has always been to invoke the Constitution and -to insist upon the unconstitutionality of what they could not resist -by votes, each party in turn thereby bearing witness to the truth that -the Constitution is the real safeguard of rights and liberty. In the -last resort also the minority, if it has been local, and has seen the -majority threatening to use the tremendous power of the Confederation -to make the interests of the minority subservient to the interests -of the rest, has felt its loyalty to the Union decline. How far the -Federalists went in this direction it is difficult to say, but they -certainly went farther than they were afterwards willing to confess -or remember. They gradually faded out of view as a political power -after the second war and in the twenties “Federalist” became a term of -reproach. - -The opposite party, called by themselves Republicans after 1792, took -definite form in opposition to Washington’s administration on the -question of ratifying Jay’s Treaty. They were first called Democrats in -1798, the name being opprobrious. They adopted it, however, first in -connection with the former name; and the joint appellation, Democratic -Republicans, or either separately, was used indifferently down to the -middle of this century. Jefferson was the leader of this party. He -did not write any political disquisitions or aid in the attempts which -have been mentioned to form public opinion; but his expressions in -letters and fugitive writings struck in with the tide of Democracy so -aptly and exactly that he seemed to have put into people’s mouths just -the expression for the vague notions which they had not yet themselves -been able to get into words. Jefferson, in fact, was no thinker. -He was a good specimen of the _a priori_ political philosopher. He -did not reason or deduce; he dogmatized on the widest and most rash -assumptions, which were laid down as self-evident truths. He did not -borrow from the contemporaneous French schools, for his democracy is -of a different type; but both sprang from the same germs and pursued -the same methods of speculation. Freneau, Bache, Callender, and Duane -wrought continually upon public opinion, and Jefferson entered into -the leadership of the party they created, by virtue of a certain skill -in giving watchwords and dogmatic expressions for the ideas which they -disseminated. - -The dogmas which Jefferson taught, or of which he was the exponent, -were not without truth. Their fallacy consisted in embracing much -falsehood, and also in excluding the vast amount of truth which -lay outside of them. For instance, the dogma that the voice of the -people is the voice of God is not without truth, if it means that the -enlightened and mature judgment of mankind is the highest verdict on -earth as to what is true or wise. This is the truth which is sought -to be expressed in the ecclesiastical dogma of Catholicity, but the -political and the ecclesiastical dogma have the same limitation. This -verdict of mankind cannot be obtained in any formal and concrete -expression, and is absolutely unattainable on grounds of speculation -antecedent to experiment. It is in history only; or, rather, it -constitutes history. In Jefferson’s doctrine and practice it resolved -itself simply into this practical rule: the test of wisdom for the -statesman and of truth for the philosopher is popularity. When the -statesman has a difficult practical question before him as to what to -do, according to this theory he puts forward what seems to him best -as a proposition. If, then, the return wave of popular sympathy comes -back to him with promptitude and with the intensity to which he is -accustomed, he infers that he has proposed wisely, and goes forward. -If there is delay or uncertainty in the response, he draws back. The -actual operation of this theory is that, if the statesman in question -is the idol of a popular majority, the approving response is quick and -sure, because the proposition comes from him, not because the tribunal -of appeal has considered or can consider the question. If an unpopular -man endeavors to use the same test, the answer is doubtful, feeble, -hesitating, or impatient, because those to whom he appeals have not the -necessary preparation, or time, or interest to judge in the matter. -In general, the theory is popular, because it flatters men that they -can decide anything offhand, by the light of nature, or by some prompt -application of assumptions as to “natural rights,” or by applying the -test of a popular dogma or prejudice. It tramples study and thought and -culture under foot and turns their boasts to scorn. On the other hand, -it makes statesmanship impossible. Study and thought go for nothing. -There can be no authority derived from information or science or -training, and no leadership won by virtue of these. If the decision is -to come from a popular vote, why not abandon useless trouble and trust -to that alone? - -Such has been the outcome in history, as will appear further on, -of the doctrines which are associated with the name of Jefferson, -although they really had their origin in the great social tendencies -of the time and in the circumstances of the American people. The love -of philosophizing about government was a feature in the life of the -second half of the eighteenth century. The method of philosophizing -on assumptions was the only one employed. The Americans, with meager -experience and high purposes, readily took refuge in abstractions. -The habit of pursuing two or three occupations at once destroyed -respect for special or technical knowledge. There seemed to be nothing -unreasonable in referring a question of jurisprudence or international -law to merchants, farmers, and mechanics, for them to give an opinion -on it as a mere incident in their regular occupations. Jefferson -himself could sit down and develop out of his own consciousness a plan -for fortifications and a navy, for a nation in imminent danger of -war, with no more misgivings, apparently, than if he was planning an -alteration on his estate. - -“The further democracy was pushed, first in theory, then in practice, -the more completely was the belief in the equality of all [in rights -and privileges] converted, in the minds of the masses, into the -belief in the equal ability of all to decide political questions of -every kind. The principle of mere numbers gradually supplanted the -principle of reflection and study.” This tendency reaches its climax -in the popular doctrines that every man has a right to his opinion -and that one man’s opinion is as good as another’s. We have abundant -illustration of the might which it gives to “the phrase.” - -It has been well said that “men can reason only from what they know”--a -doctrine which would reduce the amount of reasoning to be done by -anybody to a very little. The common practice is to reason from what we -do not know, which makes every man a philosopher. - -Jefferson’s election was the first triumph of the tendency towards -democracy--a triumph which has never yet been reversed. The old -conservatism of the former administrations died out, and it is -important to observe that, from this time on, we have in conflict not -the same two parties as before, but only factions or subdivisions of -the one party which, under Washington and Adams, was in opposition to -the administration. - -The event did not justify the fears which were entertained before -the election. Jefferson did not surrender any of the power of the -executive. He aggrandized it as neither of his predecessors would have -dared to do. He did not surrender the central power in favor of states’ -rights; and his foreign policy, governed by sympathy to France and -hatred to England, was only too sharp and spirited. It seldom happens -to an opposition party, coming into power, to have the same question -proposed to it as to its predecessor, and to put its own policy to -trial. This happened to Jefferson. Jay’s Treaty was hesitatingly -signed by Washington, and it gave the country ten years of peace and -neutrality. Pinckney and Monroe’s Treaty was rejected by Jefferson, and -in six years the country was engaged in a fruitless war. - -Madison’s administration revived many of the social usages which -Jefferson had ostentatiously set aside, in consistency with the general -spirit of preference, on the ground of republican simplicity, for what -is common over what is elegant and refined. The natural tendency of -the party in power to think that what is is right, and that while they -are comfortable other people ought to be so, was apparent here. It -went on so far during Madison’s first term, that the leaders thought -it necessary to break the monotony and to secure again, in some way, -the readiness and activity of political life which had prevailed under -Jefferson. They forced Madison into the war with England--a war which -brought disturbance into the finances and spread distress amongst -the people, which won some glory at sea only by vindicating the old -Federalist policy in regard to a navy, but which was marked by disaster -on land until the battle of New Orleans. At the return of peace in -Europe, England was left free to deal with the United States, and a -peace was hastily made in which the question of impressment, the only -question at issue, was left just where it had been at the beginning. - -There ensued in our internal politics an “era of good feeling.” The -old parties no longer had any reason to exist. Some of the Federal -doctrines had been adopted. The navy was secure in its popularity. -The Federal financial system had been adopted by the party in power. -They had contracted a debt, laid direct taxes, and enlisted armies. -When confronted by problems of war and debt, they had found no better -way to deal with them than the ways which had been elaborated by -the older nations, and which they had blamed the Federalists for -adopting. The questions of neutrality had disappeared with the return -of peace in Europe. The fears of Jacobinism on the one hand and of -monarchy on the other were recognized as ridiculous. If, however, any -one is disposed to exaggerate the evils of party, he ought to study -the history of the era of good feeling. Political issues were gone, -but personal issues took their place. Personal factions sprang up -around each of the prominent men who might aspire to the Presidency, -and, in their struggles to advance their favorites and destroy their -rivals, they introduced into politics a shameful series of calumnies -and personal scandals. Every candidate had to defend himself from -aspersions, from attacks based upon his official or private life. The -newspapers were loaded down with controversies, letters, documents, -and evidence on these charges. The character of much of this matter -is such as to awaken disgust and ridicule. Mr. A. tells Mr. B that, -when in Washington, he was present at a dinner at the house of Mr. -C at which Mr. D said that he came on in the stage with Mr. E, who -told him that Mr. F had seen a letter from Mr. G, a supposed friend -of one candidate, to Mr. H, the friend of another candidate, making -charges against the first candidate, which he (Mr. G) felt bound -in honor to make known. Mr. B publishes his information, and then -follow long letters from all the other gentlemen, with explanations, -denials, corroborative testimony, and so on, in endless reiteration -and confusion. It was another noteworthy feature of this period, that -every public man seemed to stand ready to publish a “vindication” at -the slightest provocation, and that in these vindications a confusion -between character and reputation appears to be universal. - -These faction struggles culminated in the campaign of 1824. The first -mention of General Jackson for the Presidency seems to be in a letter -from Aaron Burr to his son-in-law, Alston of South Carolina, in -1815. An effort was being made to form a party against the Virginia -oligarchy. Those who were engaged in it sought a candidate who might -be strong enough to secure success. Burr justified his reputation -as a politician by pointing out the man, but it was yet too soon. -The standard of what a Federal officer ought to be was yet too high. -The Albany Argus said of the nomination, in 1824: “He [Jackson] is -respected as a gallant soldier, but he stands in the minds of the -people of this state at an immeasurable distance from the executive -chair.” The name of Jackson was used, however, in connection with the -Presidency, by various local conventions, during 1822 and 1823; and, -although the nomination was generally met with indifference or contempt -in the North and East, it soon became apparent that he was the most -dangerous rival in the field. The nominations had hitherto been made by -caucuses of the members of Congress of either party. Until Jefferson’s -second nomination, these had been held under a decent veil of secrecy. -Since that time they had exerted more and more complete and recognized -control. Crawford was marked for the succession, although he was under -some discipline for having allowed his name to be used in the caucus of -1816 against Monroe. The opposing candidates now discovered that caucus -nominations were evil, and joined forces in a movement to put an end -to them. This movement gained popular approval on general principles. -When the caucus was called, naturally only the friends of Crawford -attended--sixty-six out of two hundred and sixteen Republican members. -The nomination probably hurt him. It was proudly said that King Caucus -was now dethroned, but never was there a greater mistake. He had only -just come of age and escaped from tutelage. He was about to enter on -his inheritance. - -General Jackson obtained the greatest number of votes in the electoral -college; and when the election came into the House, a claim was loudly -put forward which had been feebly heard in 1801, that the House -ought simply to carry out the “will of the people” by electing him. -This claim distinctly raised the issue which has been described, of -democracy against the Constitution. Does the Constitution give the -election to the House in certain contingencies, or does it simply -charge it with the duty of changing a plurality vote into an election? -No one had a majority, but the House was asked really to give to a -major vote the authority which, even on the democratic theory, belongs -to a majority. - -The election could not but result in the discontent of three -candidates and their adherents, but the Jackson party was by far the -most discontented and most clamorous. They proceeded to organize and -labor for the next campaign. They were shrewd, active men, who knew -well the arena and the science of the game. They offered to Adams’s -administration a ruthless and relentless opposition. There were no -great party issues; indeed, the country was going through a period -of profound peace and prosperity which offered little material -for history and little occasion for active political combat. The -administration was simple and businesslike and conducted the affairs -of the government with that smoothness and quiet success which belong -to the system in times of peace and prosperity. Mr. Adams was urged to -consolidate his party by using the patronage of the executive, and the -opinion has been expressed that, if he had done so, he could have won -his reëlection. He steadfastly refused to do this. - -The truth was that a new spirit had come over the country, and that the -candidacy of Jackson was the form in which it was seeking admission -into the Federal administration. Here we meet with one of the great -difficulties in the study of American political history. The forces -which we find in action on the Federal arena have their origin in the -political struggles and personal jealousies of local politicians, now -in one state and now in another; and the doctrines which are propounded -at Washington, and come before us in their maturity, have really grown -up in the states. Rotation in office began to be practiced in New York -and Pennsylvania at the beginning of the century. The Federalists then -lost power in those states, and their political history consists of the -struggles of factions in the Republican party. Jefferson and Madison -taught Democracy in Virginia, but it never entered their heads that -the “low-down whites” were really to meddle in the formative stage of -politics. They expected that gentlemen planters would meet and agree -upon a distribution of offices, and that then the masses should have -the privilege of electing the men they proposed. The Clintons and -Livingstones in New York were Democrats, but they likewise understood -that, in practice, they were to distribute offices around their -dinner-tables. - -In the meantime men like Duane were writing essays for farmers and -mechanics, which were read from one end of the Union to the other, in -which they were preaching hostility to banks and the “money power,” -hostility to the judiciary and to the introduction of the common law -of England, the election of judicial officers, rotation in office, and -all the dogmas which we generally ascribe to a much later origin. These -notions even found some practical applications, as in the political -impeachment of judges in Pennsylvania in 1804--acts which fortunately -did not become precedents. The new constitutions which were adopted -from time to time during the first quarter of this century show the -slow working of this leaven, together with the gradual adoption of -improvements far less questionable. - -After 1810 began also the series of great inventions which have really -opened this continent to mankind. The steamboat was priceless to a -country which had grand rivers but scarcely any roads. In 1817 De Witt -Clinton persuaded New York to commence the Erie Canal, and before it -was finished scores of others were projected or begun. Politically and -financially the system of internal improvements has proved disastrous, -but those enterprises helped on the events which we are now pursuing, -for they assisted in opening the resources of the continent to the -reach of those who had nothing. The great mass of the population -found themselves steadily gaining in property and comfort. Their -independence and self-reliance expanded. They developed new traits of -national character, and intensified some of the old ones. They had full -confidence in their own powers, feared no difficulties, made light -of experience, were ready to deal offhand with any problems, laughed -at their own mistakes, despised science and study, overestimated the -practical man, and overesteemed material good. To such a class the -doctrines of democracy seemed axiomatic, and they ascribed to democracy -the benefits which accrued to them as the first-comers in a new -country. They generally believed that the political system created -their prosperity; and they never perceived that the very bountifulness -of the new country, the simplicity of life, and the general looseness -of the social organism, allowed their blunders to pass without the evil -results which would have followed in an older and denser community. The -same causes have produced similar results ever since. - -Political machinery also underwent great development during the first -quarter of the century. In New York there was perhaps the greatest -amount of talent and skill employed in this work, and the first engine -used was the appointing power. The opposing parties were only personal -and family factions, but they rigorously used power, when they got -it, to absorb honors and places. That conception of office arose, -under which it is regarded as a favor conferred on the holder, not a -position in which work is to be done for the public service. Hence the -office-holder sat down to enjoy, instead of going to work to serve. -If some zealous man who took the latter view got into office, he soon -found that he could count upon being blamed for all that went amiss, -but would get little recognition or reward while things went well, and -that the safest policy was to do nothing. The public was the worst -paymaster and the most exacting and unjust employer in the country, and -it got the worst service. The consequence was that the early political -history of New York is little more than a story of the combinations -and quarrels of factions, annual elections, and lists of changes in -the office-holders. The Clintons and Livingstones united against Burr, -who was the center of an eager and active and ambitious coterie of -young men, who already threatened to apply democratic doctrines with -a consistency for which the aristocratic families were not prepared. -Then they began to struggle with each other until the Livingstones were -broken up. Then the “Martling men” and the Clintonians, the Madisonians -and the Clintonians, the “Bucktails” and the Clintonians, with various -subdivisions, kept up the conflict until the Constitution of 1821 -altered the conditions of the fight, and Regency and Anti-regency, or -Regency and People’s Party, or Regency and Workingmen’s Party became -the party headings. The net result of all this for national politics -was the production of a class of finished “politicians,” skilled in -all the work of “organization” which in any wide democracy must be -the first consideration. Some of these gentlemen entered the national -arena in 1824. The Regency was then supporting Crawford as the regular -successor. On its own terms it could have been won for Adams, but this -arrangement was not brought about. It did not require the astuteness -of these men to see on reflection, that Jackson was the coming man. -He was in and of the rising power. He represented a newer and more -rigorous application of the Jeffersonian dogmas. His manners, tastes, -and education, had nothing cold or aristocratic about them. He had -never been trained to aim at anything high, elegant, and refined, and -had not been spoiled by contact with those who had developed the art -of life. He had, moreover, the great advantage of military glory. He -had bullied a judge, but he had won the battle of New Orleans. He had -hung a man against the verdict of a court-martial, but the man was a -British emissary. It was clear that a tide was rising which would carry -him into the Presidential chair, and it behooved other ambitious men to -cling to his skirts and be carried up with him. - -It is in and around the tariff of 1828 that the conflict centers in -which these various forces were combined or neutralized to accomplish -the result. The student of our economic or political history cannot -pay too close study to that crisis. For the next fifteen years the -financial and political questions are inextricably interwoven. - -The election of Jackson marks a new era in our political history. A -new order of men appeared in the Federal administration. The whole -force of local adherents of the new administration, who had worked for -it and therefore had claims upon it, streamed to Washington to get -their reward. It seems that Jackson was forced by the rapacity of this -crowd into the “reformation” of the government. The political customs -which had grown up in New York and Pennsylvania were transferred to -Washington. Mr. Marcy, in a speech in the Senate, January 24, 1832, -on Van Buren’s nomination as minister to England, boldly stated the -doctrine that to the victors belong the spoils, avowing it as a -doctrine which did not seem to him to call for any delicacy on the -part of politicians. In fact, to men who had grown up as Mr. Marcy -had, habit in this respect must have made that doctrine seem natural -and necessary to the political system. The New York politicians -had developed an entire code of political morals for all branches -and members of the political party machine. They had studied the -passions, prejudices, and whims of bodies of men. They had built up -an organization in which all the parts were adjusted to support and -help one another. The subordinate officers looked up to and sustained -the party leaders while carrying the party machinery into every nook -and corner of the state, and the party leaders in turn cared for and -protected their subordinates. Organization and discipline were insisted -upon throughout the party as the first political duty. There is -scarcely a phenomenon more interesting to the social philosopher than -to observe, under a political system remarkable for its looseness and -lack of organization, the social bond returning and vindicating itself -in the form of party tyranny, and to observe under a political system -where loyalty and allegiance to the Commonwealth are only names, how -loyalty and allegiance to party are intensified. It is one of the forms -under which the constant peril of the system presents itself, namely, -that a part may organize to use the whole for narrow and selfish ends. -The idea of the commonwealth is lost and the public arena seems only a -scrambling-ground for selfish cliques. In the especial case of the New -York factions, this was all intensified by the fact that there were -no dignified issues, no real questions of public policy at stake, but -only factions of the ins and the outs, struggling for the spoils of -office. Naturally enough, the contestants thought that to the victors -belong the spoils--otherwise the contest had no sense at all. In this -system, now, fidelity to a caucus was professed and enforced. Bolting, -or running against a regular nomination, were high crimes which were -rarely condoned. On the other hand, the leaders professed the doctrine -that a man who surrendered his claims for the good of the party, or -who stood by the party, must never be allowed to suffer for it. The -same doctrines had been accepted more or less at Washington, but in a -feeble and timid way. From this time they grew into firm recognition. -Under their operation politics became a trade. The public officer was, -of necessity, a politician, and the work by which he lived was not -service in his official duty, but political party labor. The tenure of -office was so insecure and the pay so meager, that few men of suitable -ability could be found who did not think that they could earn their -living more easily, pleasantly, and honorably in some other career. -Public service gravitated downwards to the hands of those who, under -the circumstances, were willing to take it. It presented some great -prizes in the form of collectorships, etc., the remuneration for which -was in glaring contrast with the salaries of some of the highest and -most responsible officers in the government; but, for the most part, -the public service fell into the hands of men who were exposed to the -temptation to make it pay. - -After the general onslaught on the caucus, in 1824, it fell into disuse -as a means of nominating state officers, and conventions took its -place. At first sight this seemed to be a more complete fulfillment -of the democratic idea. The people were to meet and act on their own -motion. It was soon found, however, that the only change was in the -necessity for higher organization. In the thirties there was indeed a -fulfillment of the theory which seems now to have passed away; there -was a spontaneity and readiness in assembling and organizing common -action which no longer exists; there was a public interest and activity -far beyond what is now observable. One is astonished at the slight -occasion on which meetings were held, high excitement developed, and -energetic action inaugurated. The anti-Masonic movement, from 1826 to -1832, is a good instance. The “Liberty party” (Abolitionists), the -“Native Americans,” the “Anti-renters,” all bear witness to a facility -of association which certainly does not now exist. It is, however, an -indispensable prerequisite to the pure operation of the machinery of -caucus and convention. The effort to combine all good men has been -talked about from the beginning, but it has always failed on account of -the lack of a bond between them as strong as the bond of interest which -unites the factions. - -During the decade from 1830 to 1840 a whole new set of machinery was -created to fit the new arrangements. This consisted in committees, -caucuses, and conventions, ramifying down finally into the wards of -great cities, and guided and handled by astute and experienced men. -Under their control the initiative of “the people” died out. The public -saw men elected whom they had never chosen, and measures adopted which -they had never desired, and themselves, in short, made the sport of a -system which cajoled and flattered while it cheated them. If a governor -had been elected by some political trickery a little more flagrant than -usual, he was very apt, in his inaugural, to draw a dark picture of the -effete monarchies of the Old World, and to congratulate the people on -the blessings they enjoyed in being able to choose their own rulers. - -This period was full of new energy and turbulent life. Railroads -were just beginning to carry on the extension of production which -steamboats and canals had begun. Immigration was rapidly increasing. -The application of anthracite coal to the arts was working a revolution -in them. On every side reigned the greatest activity. Literature and -science, which before had had but a meager existence, were coming into -life. The public journals, which had formerly been organs of persons -and factions, or substitutes for books, now began to be transformed -into the modern newspaper. The difficulties and problems presented by -all this new life were indeed great, and the tasks of government, as -well to discriminate between what belonged to it and what did not, as -to do what did belong to it, were great. On the general principles -of the Democratic party of the day in regard to the province of -government, history has already passed the verdict that they were sound -and correct. On the main questions which divided the administration and -the opposition, it must pass a verdict in favor of the administration. -These issues were not indeed clear and the parties did not, as is -generally supposed, take sides upon them definitely. Free trade, so -far as it was represented by the compromise tariff, was the result -of a coalition between Clay and Calhoun against the administration, -after Calhoun’s quarrel with Jackson had led the latter to revoke the -understanding in accordance with which Calhoun retired from the contest -of 1824 and took the second place. The South was now in the position -in which the northeastern states had found themselves at the beginning -of the century. The Southerners considered that the tariff of 1828 had -subjected their interests to those of another section which held a -majority in the general government, and that the Union was being used -only as a means of so subjecting them. They seized upon the Kentucky -and Virginia resolutions of 1798, which Jefferson and Madison had -drawn when in opposition, as furnishing them a ground of resistance, -and threw into the tariff question no less a stake than civil war and -disunion. On this issue there were no parties. South Carolina stood -alone. - -Banks had been political questions in the states and in the general -government from the outset. The history of Pennsylvania and New York -furnishes some great scandals under this head. From time to time, -the methods of banking employed had called down the condemnation of -the most conservative and sensible men, and had aroused some less -well-balanced of judgment to indiscriminate hostility. Jackson’s attack -on the Bank of the United States sprang from a political motive, and -he proposed instead of it a bank on the “credit and revenues of the -government”--a proposition too vague to be understood, but which -suggested a grand paper-machine, at a time when the Bank of the United -States was at its best. This attack rallied to itself at once all the -local banks; the great victory of 1832 was not a victory for hard money -so much as it was a victory of the state banks over the national bank. -The removal of the deposits was a reckless financial step, and the -crash of 1837 was its direct result. - -The traditional position of the Democratic party on hard money has -another source. In 1835 a party sprang up in New York City, as a -faction of Tammany, which took the name of the “Equal Rights party,” -but which soon received the name of the “Locofoco party” from an -incident which occurred at Tammany Hall, and which is significant of -the sharpness of party tactics at the time. This party was a radical -movement inside of the administration party. It claimed, and justly -enough, that it had returned to the Jeffersonian fountain and drawn -deeper and purer waters than the Jacksonian Democrats. It demanded -equality with a new energy, and in its denunciations of monopolies -and banks went very close to the rights of property. It demanded -that all charters should be repealable, urgently favored a metallic -currency, resisted the application of English precedents in law courts -and legislatures, and desired an elective judiciary. It lasted as a -separate party only five or six years, and then was cajoled out of -existence by superior political tactics; but it was not without reason -that the name spread to the whole party, for, laying aside certain -extravagances, two or three of its chief features soon came to be -adopted by the Democrats. - -On the great measures of public policy, therefore, the position of the -administration was not clear and thorough, but the tendency was in -the right direction, especially when contrasted with the policy urged -by the Whigs. In regard to internal improvements, the administration -early took up a position which the result fully justified, and in its -opposition to the distribution of the surplus revenue its position was -unassailable. In its practical administration of the government there -is less ground for satisfaction in the retrospect. Besides the general -lowering of tone which has been mentioned, there were scandals and -abuses which it is not necessary to specify. General Jackson’s first -cabinet fell to pieces suddenly, under the effect of a private scandal -and of the President’s attempt to coerce the private social tastes -of his cabinet, or rather of their wives. He held to the doctrine of -popularity, and its natural effect upon a man of his temper, without -the sobriety of training and culture, was to stimulate him to lawless -self-will. He regarded himself as the chosen representative of the -whole people, charged, as such, with peculiar duties over against -Congress. The “will of the people” here received a new extension. He -found it in himself, and what he found there he did not hesitate to -set in opposition to the will of the people as this found expression -through their constitutional organs. At the same time the practice of -“instructions” marked an extension, on another side, of the general -tendency to bring public action closer under the control of changing -majorities. - -Van Buren’s election was a triumph of the caucus and convention, which -had now been reduced to scarcely less exactitude of action than the old -congressional caucus. Van Buren, however, showed more principle than -had been expected from his reputation. He had to bear all the blame -for the evil fruits resulting from the mistakes made during the last -eight years. Moving with the radical or Locofoco tendency, he attempted -to sever bank and state by the independent treasury, and in so doing -he lost the support of the “Bank Democrats.” This, together with the -natural political revulsion after a financial crisis, lost him his -re-election. - -The Whig party was rich in able men, which makes it the more -astonishing that one cannot find, in their political doctrines, a sound -policy of government. The national bank may still be regarded as an -open question, and favoring the bank was not favoring inconvertible -paper money; but their policy of high tariff for protection, of -internal improvements, and of distribution of the surplus revenue, -has been calamitous so far as it has been tried. They also present -the same lack of political sagacity which we have remarked in the -Federalists, whose successors in general they were. They oscillated -between principle and expediency in such a way as to get the advantages -of neither; and they abandoned their best men for available men at just -such times as to throw away all their advantages. The campaign of 1840 -presents a pitiful story. There are features in it which are almost -tragic. An opportunity for success offering, a man was chosen who had -no marks of eminence and no ability for the position. His selection -bears witness to an anxious search for a military hero. It resulted in -finding one whose glory had to be exhumed from the doubtful tradition -of a border Indian war. The campaign was marked by the introduction -of mass meetings and systematic stump-speaking, and by the erection -of “log-cabins,” which generally served as barrooms for the assembled -crowd, so that many a man who went to a drunkard’s grave twenty or -thirty years ago dated his ruin from the “hard-cider campaign.” After -the election it proved that hungry Whigs could imitate the Democrats -of 1829 in their clamor for office, and, if anything, better the -instruction. The President’s death was charged partly to worry and -fatigue. It left Mr. Tyler President, and the question then arose -what Mr. Tyler was--a question to which the convention at Harrisburg, -fatigued with the choice between Clay and Harrison, had not given much -attention. It was found that he was such that the Whig victory turned -to ashes. No bank was possible, no distribution was possible, and only -a tariff which was lame and feeble from the Whig point of view. The -cabinet resigned, leaving Mr. Webster alone at his post. In vain, like -a true statesman, he urged the Whigs to rule with Mr. Tyler, since -they had got him and could not get rid of him or get anybody else. -Like a true statesman, again, he remained at his post, in spite of -misrepresentation, until he could finish the English treaty, and it -was another feature of the story that he lost position with his party -by so doing. The system did not allow Mr. Webster the highest reward -of a statesman, to plan and mold measures so as to impress himself on -the history of his country. It allowed him only the work of reducing -to a minimum the harm which other people’s measures were likely to do. -In the circumstances of the time war with England was imminent, and -there was good reason for fear if the negotiation were to fall into -the hands of the men whom Mr. Tyler was gathering about him. The Whigs -were broken and discouraged, and as their discipline had always been -far looser than that of their adversaries, they seemed threatened with -disintegration. The other party, however, was divided by local issues -and broken into factions. Its discipline had suffered injury, and its -old leaders had lost their fire while new ones had not arisen to take -their places. The western states were growing into a size and influence -in the confederation which made it impossible for two or three of the -old states to control national politics any longer. - -In this state of things the southern leaders came forward to give -impetus and direction to the national administration. They had, what -the southern politicians always had, leisure for conference. They had -also character and social position, and a code of honor which enabled -them to rely on one another without any especial bond of interest other -than the general one. They had such a bond, common and complete, in -their stake in slavery. They could count, without doubt or danger, on -support throughout their entire section. They had a fixed program also, -which was an immense advantage for entering on the control of a mass -of men under no especial impetus. They had besides their traditional -alliance with the Democrats of the North--an alliance which always was -unnatural and illogical, and which now turned to the perversion of that -party. They prepared their principles, doctrines, and constitutional -theories to fit their plans. - -Difficulties with Mexico in regard to Texas had arisen during Jackson’s -administration. These difficulties seemed to be gratuitous and unjust -on the part of the United States, and they seemed to be nursed by -the same power. The diplomatic correspondence on this affair is not -pleasant reading to one who would see his country honorable and -upright, as unwilling to bully as to be bullied. Such was not the -position of the United States in this matter. - -It was determined by the southern leaders to annex Texas to the United -States, and to this end they seized upon the political machinery and -proceeded to employ it. - -The election of Polk is another of the points to which the student of -American politics should give careful attention. The intrigues which -surrounded it have never been more than partially laid bare, but, if -fairly studied, they give deep insight into the nature of the forces -which operate in the name of the will of the people. The slavery issue -was here introduced into American politics; and when that question was -once raised, it “could not be settled until it was settled right.” For -ten years efforts were made to keep the issue out of politics and to -prevent parties from dividing upon it. What was desired was that the -old parties should stand in name and organization, in order that they -might be used, while the actual purposes were obtained by subordinate -means. A party with an organization and discipline, and a history such -as the Democratic party had in 1844, is a valuable property. It is like -a well-trained and docile animal which will go through the appointed -tasks at the given signal. It disturbs the discipline to introduce -new watchwords and to depart from the routine, in order to use reason -instead of habit. Hence the effort is to reduce the new and important -issues to subordinate places, to carry them incidentally, while the -old commonplaces hold together the organization. It is safe to say, -however, that, in the long run, the true issues are sure to become the -actual issues, and that delay and deceit only intensify the conflict. - -Upon Polk’s election the independent treasury and comparative free -trade were fixed in the policy of the government for fifteen years, -with such beneficial results as to render them the proudest traditions -of the party which adopted them. - -Mr. Calhoun had abandoned the opposition during Van Buren’s -administration, and had begun to form and lead the southern movement. -His own mind moved too rapidly for his adherents, and he could not -bring them to support him up to the positions which he considered -it necessary to take; but, even as it was, the steps of the southern -program came out with a rapidity, and were of a character, to shock the -imperfectly prepared northern allies. The Democratic party of the North -was not a proslavery party. Whigs and Democrats at the North united in -frowning down Abolition excitements, and in maintaining the compromises -of the Constitution. Old-line Whigs and hunker Democrats agreed in the -conservatism which resisted the introduction of this question; but -when, in 1844, Van Buren was asked, as a test question to a candidate, -whether he would favor the annexation of Texas, the subject of slavery -in the territories was thrown into the political arena from the -southern side. It was not then a question of abolishing slavery in the -southern states, which could not have obtained discussion except in -irresponsible newspapers and on irresponsible platforms. It was not -a question of spreading slavery into the old territories, for Texas -and the Indian Territory barred the way to all which the Missouri -Compromise left open. It was now a question of taking or buying or -conquering new territory for slavery, and every one knew well that the -chief reason for the revolt of Texas was that Mexico had abolished -slavery. The South indeed claimed to have suffered aggressions and -encroachments in regard to slavery ever since the adoption of the -Constitution, and the attempt was now to be made to secure recompense. -In the form in which the proposition came up it was no slight shock -to those who had always been in alliance with the South. Party men -like Van Buren and Benton drew back. Southerners like Clay resisted. -The actual clash of arms, fraudulently brought about and speciously -misrepresented, put an end to discussion, and aroused a war fever under -the pernicious motto, “Our country, right or wrong.” If we are a free -people and govern ourselves, our country is ourselves, and we have no -guaranty of right and injustice if we throw those standards behind us -the moment we have done wrong enough to find ourselves at war. The war -ended, moreover, in an acquisition of territory, which, of course, was -popular; and it proved that this territory was rich in precious metals, -which added to the popular estimate of it. The antecedents of the war -were forgotten. - -Its political results, however, were far more important. Calhoun now -came forward to ward off a long conflict in regard to slavery in these -territories, by the new doctrine that the Constitution extended to all -the national domain, and carried slavery with it--a doctrine which -his followers did not, for ten years afterwards, dare to take up and -rigorously apply, and which divided the Democratic party of the North. -The repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the enactment of the Fugitive -Slave Law were only steps in the conflict which was as yet confused, -but which was clearing itself for a crisis. The South, like every -clamorous suitor, reckless of consequences, obtained wide concessions -from an adversary who sought peace and contentment, and who saw clearly -the dangers of a struggle outside the limits of constitution and law. - - * * * * * - -The Abolitionists, from their first organization, pursued an -“irreconcilable” course. They refused to vote for any slaveholder, or -for any one who would vote for a slaveholder, and refused all alliances -which involved any concession whatever. They more than once, by this -course, aided the party most hostile to them, and, in the view of the -ordinary politician, were guilty of great folly. They showed, however, -what is the power of a body which has a principle and has no ambition, -and is content to remain in a minority. Probably if the South had been -more moderate, the Abolitionists would have attracted little more -notice than a fanatical religious sect; but, as events marched on, -they came to stand as the leaders in the greatest political movement -of our history. The refusal of the Whig Convention of 1848 to adopt an -antislavery resolution, and the great acts above mentioned, together -with the popular reaction against a party which, if it had had its way, -would never have won the grand territories on the Pacific, destroyed -the Whig party. The party managers, enraged at the immense foreign -element which they saw added year by year to their adversaries, forming -a cohort, as it appeared, especially amenable to party discipline and -the dictation of party managers, took up the Native American movement, -which had had some existence ever since the great tide of immigration -set in. The effort was wrecked on the obvious economic follies -involved in it. How could a new country set hindrances against the -immigration of labor? Politically, the effect was great in confirming -the allegiance of naturalized voters, as a mass, to the Democratic -party as the party which would protect their political privileges -against malicious attacks. The formation of the Free-Soil party or -its development into the Republican party, brought the extension of -slavery into the territories, and the extension of its influence in the -administration of the government, distinctly forward as the controlling -political issue. - -On this issue the Democratic party, as a political organization, made -up traditionally of the southern element which has been described, -of so much of the old northern Democratic party as had not been -repelled by the recent advances in Southern demands, and of the -large body of immigrants who regarded that party as the poor man’s -and the immigrant’s friend, fell out of the place it had occupied as -the representative of the great democratic tide which flows through -and forms our political history. This movement has been in favor of -equality. It has borne down and obliterated all the traditions and -prejudices which were inherited from the Old World. It has eliminated -from our history almost all recollection of the old Federal party, -with its ideas of social and political leadership. It has crushed out -the prestige of wealth and education in politics. It has, by narrow -tenures, and by cutting away all terms of language and ceremonial -observances tending to mark official rank, restrained the respect and -authority due to office. The Northern hatred of slavery in the later -days was due more to the feeling that it was undemocratic than to -the feeling that it was immoral. It was always an anomaly that the -Virginians should be democrats _par excellence_, and should regard the -yeomen farmers of New England as aristocrats, when, on any correct -definitions or standards, the New England States were certainly the -most democratic commonwealths in the world. Slavery was an obvious bar -to any such classification; and when slavery became a political issue, -the parties found their consistent and logical position. The rise and -victory of the Republican party was only a continuation of the same -grand movement for equality. The old disputes between Federalists and -Jeffersonians had ended in such a complete victory for the latter, -that the rising generation would have enumerated the Jeffersonian -doctrines as axioms or definitions of American institutions. Every -schoolboy could dogmatize about natural and inalienable rights, about -the conditions under which men are created, about the rights of the -majority, and about liberty. The same doctrines are so held to-day -by the mass of the people, and they are held so implicitly that -corollaries are deduced from them with a more fearless logic than is -employed upon political questions anywhere else in the world. Even -scholars and philosophers who reflect upon them and doubt them are -slow to express their dissent, so jealous and quick is the popular -judgment of an attempt upon them. The Democratic party of the fifties -was, therefore, false to its fundamental principle of equality when it -followed its alliance with the South and allowed itself to be carried -against equality for negroes. Whether there were not subtle principles -of human nature at work is a question too far-reaching to be followed -here. - -With the rise of the Republican party there came new elements into -American politics. The question at stake was moral in form. It enlisted -unselfish and moral and religious motives. It reached outside the -proper domain of politics--the expedient measures to be adopted for -ends recognized as desirable--and involved justice and right in regard -to the ends. It enlisted, therefore, heroic elements: sacrifice for -moral good, and devotion to right in spite of expediency. At the -same time, the issue was clear, simple, single, and distinct. The -organization upon it was close and harmonious, not on account of party -discipline, but on account of actual concord in motive and purpose. -The American system was here seen in many respects at its best, and -it worked more nearly up to its theoretical results in the election -of Lincoln, a thoroughly representative man out of the heart of the -majority, than in any other election in our history. It is probably -the recollection and the standard of this state of things which leads -men now on the stage to believe that corruption is spreading and that -the political system is degenerating. It is one of the peculiarities -of the government of the United States, that it has little historical -continuity. If it had more, or if people had more knowledge of their -own political history, the above-mentioned opinion would find little -ground. The student of history who goes back searching for the golden -age does not find it. - -All the heroic elements in the political issue of 1860 were, of course, -intensified by the war. There was the consciousness of patriotic -sacrifice in submitting to loss, bloodshed, and taxation for the -sake of an idea, for the further extension of political blessings -long enjoyed and highly esteemed. After the war, national pride and -consciousness of power expanded naturally, but the questions which -then arose were of a different order. They were properly political -questions. They concerned taxation, finance, the reconstruction of -the South, the status of the freedmen. The war fervor, or the moral -fervor of the political contest, could not remain at the former high -pitch. There followed a natural reaction. Questions which touched the -results of the war brought a quick and eager response. It would not -be in human nature that that response should not be tinged by hatred -of rebels and by the worse passions which war arouses. For war is at -best but a barbarous makeshift for deciding political questions. Let -them be never so high and pure in their moral aspects, war drags them -down into contact with the lowest and basest passions--with cruelty, -rapacity, and revenge. Moreover, it was natural that people should -want rest and quiet after the anxiety and excitement of war. Every -householder desired to enjoy in peace the political system which he -had defended and established by war; he did not care to renew the -excitement on the political arena. The questions which arose were no -longer such as could be decided by reference to a general political -dogma or a moral principle or a text of Scripture. They were such as -to perplex and baffle the wisest constitutional lawyer or the ablest -financier or the wisest statesman. The indifference and apathy which -ensued were remarkable, and they probably had still other causes. The -last twenty-five years have seen immense additions to the number and -variety of subjects which claim a share of the interest and attention -of intelligent men. Literature has taken an entirely new extension and -form. Newspapers bring daily information of the political and social -events of a half-dozen civilized countries. New sciences appeal to -the interest of the entire community. Educational, ecclesiastical, -sanitary, and economic undertakings, in which the public welfare is -involved, demand a part of the time and effort of every citizen. At -the same time trade and industry have undergone such changes in form -and method that success in them demands far closer and more exclusive -application than formerly. The social organization is becoming more -complex, the division of labor is necessarily more refined, and the -value of expert ability is rapidly rising. - -It follows from all this that, while public interests are becoming -broader and weightier, the ability of the average voter to cope with -them is declining. It is no wonder that we have not the political -activity of the first half of this century. Instead of grasping at the -right to a share in deciding, we shrink from the responsibility. We are -more inclined to do here what we should do in any other affair--seek -for competently trained hands into which to commit the charge. The -frequent elections, instead of affording a pleasurable interest to -the ordinary voter, appear to be tiresome interruptions. What he -wants is good government, honorable and efficient administration, -businesslike permanence, and exactitude. He recognizes in the short -terms and continual elections, not an opportunity for him to control -the government, but an opportunity for professional hangers-on of -parties to make a living, and a continually recurring opportunity for -schemers of various grades to enter and carry out their plans when -people are too busy to watch them. The opinion seems to be gaining -ground that, for fear of power, we have eliminated both efficiency and -responsibility; that if power is united with responsibility, it will -be timid and reluctant enough; and that the voter needs only reserve -the right of supervision and interference from time to time. The later -state constitutions show a reaction from those of the first half of -the century in the length of terms of office, and in the general -tendency of the people to take guaranties against themselves or their -representatives. There seems also to be a tendency to investigate the -theory of appointments or elections to office as a means of devising -measures more satisfactory to that end. No system will ever give a -self-governing people a government which is better than they can -appreciate; but the very belief, to which we have before referred, -that the government is degenerating, is the best proof that the public -standards as to the _personnel_ and the methods of the government are -rising. It seems to be perceived that the plan of popular selection is -applicable to executive and legislative officers, but that it is not -applicable to the judiciary or to administrative officers. In the one -case, broad questions of policy control the choice; in the other case, -personal qualifications and technical training, in regard to which the -mass of voters cannot be informed and cannot judge. In some quarters, -an unfortunate effort has been made to charge the duty of making -certain appointments upon the judges, because, as a class, they retain -the greatest popular confidence and because the restraints of their -position are the weightiest. This, however, seems to be using up our -last reserves. There has been abundant criticism of political movements -and circumstances of late years. At first sight, it does not appear to -be very fruitful. People seem to pay as little heed to it as devout -Catholics do to the asserted corruptions of the Church; but other and -deeper signs point to a conservative movement, slow, as all popular -movements must be, but nevertheless real. - -The political party system which had been developed previous to the -war underwent no change during the heroic period. The doctrines of -spoils and of rotation in office were indeed condemned, but it appeared -(as it must appear to any new party coming into office) that the -interests at stake were too great to be risked by leaving any part -of the administration in the hands of disaffected men, and, with -some apologies, the changes were made. It is the fate of the party in -power to draw to itself all the unprincipled men who seek to live by -politics, and to lose its principled adherents as, on one question -after another, they disapprove of its action. The moral and heroic -doctrines or sentiments of the Republican party were just the political -principles which offered the best chance to the unprincipled. A man -of corrupt character could “hate slavery” when that was the line of -popularity and success, and could be “loyal” when only loyal men could -get offices. The political machinery whose growth has been traced was -adopted by the new party as a practical necessity, and the men “inside -politics” still teach the old code wrought out by Tammany Hall and the -Albany Regency, not only as the only rules of success for the ambitious -politician, but also as the only sound theories on which the Republic -can be governed. In those quarters where hitherto the refinements -of the system have all been invented, a new and ominous development -has recently appeared in the shape of the “Boss.” He is the last and -perfect flower of the long development at which hundreds of skilful -and crafty men have labored, and into which the American people have -put by far the greatest part of their political energy. It has been -observed that the discipline or coercion which we dread for national -purposes and under constitutional forms appears with the vigor of a -military despotism in party; and that the conception of loyalty, for -which we can find no proper object in our system, is fully developed -in the party. Under this last development, also, we find leadership, -aristocratic authority of the ablest, nay, even the monarchical control -of the party king. He is a dictator out of office. He has power, -without the annoyance or restraints of office. He is the product of -a long process of natural selection. He has arisen from the ranks, -has been tried by various tests, has been trained in subordinate -positions, and has come up by steady promotions--all the processes -which, when we try to get them into the public service, we are told are -visionary and aristocratic. With the now elaborate system of committees -rising in a hierarchy from the ward to the nation, with the elaborate -system of primaries, nominating committees, caucuses, and conventions, -not one citizen in a thousand could tell the process by which a city -clerk is elected. It becomes a special trade to watch over and manage -these things, and the power which rules is not the “will of the -people,” but the address with which “slates” are made up. Organization -is the secret by which the branches of the political machinery are -manipulated, when they are not, by various devices, reduced, as in the -larger cities, to mere forms. In these cases the ring and the “Boss” -are the natural outcome. Any one who gets control of the machine can -run it to produce what he desires, with the exception, perhaps, that if -he should try to make it produce good, he might find that this involved -a reverse action of the entire mechanism, under which it would break -to pieces. These developments are as yet local, for the plunder of a -great city is a prize not to be abandoned for any temptation which the -general government can offer. In some cases they are hostile to the -power of the Federal office-holders where that is greatest and most -dangerous, so that they neutralize each other. At the same time some of -the Federal legislation in the way of “protection” and subsidies offers -high inducements and abundant opportunities for debauching the public -service. There are afforded by the system in great abundance means of -rewarding adherents, distributing largess, collecting campaign funds, -and performing favors; and it tends to bind men together in cliques up -and down through the service, on the basis of mutual assistance and -support and protection. Suppose that the ring and the “Boss” should -ever be ingrafted upon this system! - -It cannot be regarded as a healthful sign that such a state of things -creates only a laugh or a groan of disgust or at best a critical essay. -It seems sometimes as if the prophecy of Calhoun had turned into -history: “When it comes to be once understood that politics is a game, -that those who are engaged in it but act a part, and that they make -this or that profession, not from honest conviction or an intent to -fulfil them, but as a means of deluding the people, and, through that -delusion, acquiring power,--when such professions are to be entirely -forgotten, the people will lose all confidence in public men. All will -be regarded as mere jugglers, the honest and patriotic as well as the -cunning and profligate, and the people will become indifferent and -passive to the grossest abuses of power, on the ground that those whom -they may elevate, under whatever pledges, instead of reforming, will -but imitate the example of those whom they have expelled.” - -In the final extension of the conception of the “will of the people,” -and of the position of Congress in relation to it, Congress has come -to be timid and faltering in the face of difficult tasks. It knows how -to go when the people have spoken, and not otherwise. The politician -gets his opinions from the elections, and the legislature wants to -be pushed, even in reference to matters which demand promptitude and -energy. Statesmanship has no positive field and has greatly declined. -The number of able men who formerly gave their services to mold, -correct, and hinder legislation, and upon whom the responsibility -for leading on doubtful and difficult measures could be thrown, has -greatly decreased. The absence of “leaders” has often been noticed. -The fact seems to be that able men have observed that such statesmen -as have been described bore the brunt of the hard work, and were held -responsible for what they had done their best to hinder; that they -cherished a vain hope and ambition their whole lives long, and saw -inferior men without talent or industry preferred before them. It is a -sad thing to observe the tone adopted towards a mere member of Congress -as such. When one reflects that he is a member of the grand legislature -of the nation, it is no gratifying sign of the times that he should -be regarded without respect, that a slur upon his honor should be met -as presumptively just, and that boys should turn flippant jests upon -the office, as if it involved a dubious reputation. If the Republic -possesses the power to meet and conquer its own tasks, it cannot too -soon take measures to secure a representative body which shall respect -itself and be respected, without doubt or question, both at home and -abroad; for the times have changed and the questions have changed, -and we can no longer afford to govern ourselves by means of the small -men. The interests are now too vast and complex, and the greatest -question now impending, the currency, contains too vast possibilities -of mischief to this entire generation to be left the sport of -incompetents. The democratic Republic exults in the fact that it has, -against the expectations of its enemies, conducted a great civil war -to a successful result. A far heavier strain on democratic-republican -self-government lies in the questions now impending: can we ward -off subsidy-schemers? can we correct administrative abuses? can we -purify the machinery of elections? can we revise erroneous financial -systems and construct sound ones? The war appealed to the simplest -and commonest instincts of human nature, especially as human nature -is developed under democratic institutions. The questions before us -demand for their solution high intellectual power and training, great -moderation and self-control, and perhaps no less disposition to endure -sacrifices than did the war itself. - -Such a review as has here been given of the century of American -politics must raise the question as to whether the course has been -upward or downward, and whether the experiment is a success or not. On -such questions opinions might fairly differ, and I prefer to express -upon them only an individual opinion. - -The Federal political system, such as it is historically in the -intention and act of its framers, seems to me open to no objection -whatever, and to be the only one consistent with the circumstances -of the case. I have pursued here a severe and exact criticism of its -history, as the only course consistent with the task before me, and the -picture may seem dark and ungratifying. I know of no political history -which, if treated in the same unsparing way, would appear much better. -I find nothing in our history to throw doubt upon the feasibility and -practical advantage of a constitutional Republic. That system, however, -assumes and imperatively requires high intelligence, great political -sense, self-sacrificing activity, moderation, and self-control on the -part of the citizens. It is emphatically a system for sober-minded men. -It demands that manliness and breadth of view which consider all the -factors in a question, submit to no sophistry, never cling to a detail -or an objection or a side issue to the loss of the main point, and, -above all, which can measure a present advantage against a future loss, -and individual interest against the common good. These requirements -need only be mentioned to show that they are so high that it is no -wonder we should have fallen short of them in our history. The task -of history is to show us wherein and why, so that we may do better in -future. - -If the above sketch of our political history has been presented with -any success, it shows the judgment which has been impressed upon my -mind by the study of it, namely, that the tenor of the Constitution -has undergone a steady remolding in history in the direction of -democracy. If a written constitution were hedged about by all the -interpretations conceivable, until it were as large as the Talmud, it -could not be protected from the historical process which makes it a -different thing to one generation from what it is to another, according -to the uses and needs of each. I have mentioned the forces which seem -to me to produce democracy here. They are material and physical, and -there is no fighting against them. It is, however, in my judgment, a -corruption of democracy to set up the dogma that all men are equally -competent to give judgment on political questions; and it is a still -worse perversion of it to adopt the practical rule that they must be -called upon to exercise this ability on all questions as the regular -process for getting those questions solved. The dogma is false, and the -practical rule is absurd. Caucus and wire-pulling and all the other -abuses are only parasites which grow upon these errors. - -Reform does not seem to me to lie in restricting the suffrage or -in other arbitrary measures of a revolutionary nature. They are -impossible, if they were desirable. Experience is the only teacher -whose authority is admitted in this school, and I look to experience -to teach us all that the power of election must be used to select -competent men to deal with questions, and not to indirectly decide -the questions themselves. I expect that this experience will be very -painful, and I expect it very soon. - -On the question whether we are degenerating or not, I have already -suggested my opinion that we are not degenerating. The lamentations -on that subject have never been silent. It seems to me that, taking -the whole community through, the tone is rising and the standard is -advancing, and that this is one great reason why the system seems to -be degenerating. Existing legislation nourishes and produces some -startling scandals, which have great effect on people’s minds. The -same legislation has demoralized the people, and perverted their -ideas of the functions of government even in the details of town and -ward interests. The political machinery also has been refined and -perfected until it totally defeats the popular will, and has produced -a kind of despair in regard to any effort to recover that of which -the people have been robbed; but I think that it would be a great -mistake to suppose that there are not, behind all this, quite as high -political standards and as sound a public will as ever before. An -obvious distinction must be made here between the administration of the -government, or the methods of party politics, and the general political -morale of the people. Great scandals are quickly forgotten, and there -are only too many of them throughout our history. Party methods have -certainly become worse and worse. The public service has certainly -deteriorated; but I should judge that the political will of the nation -never was purer than it is to-day. That will needs instruction and -guidance. It is instructed only slowly and by great effort, especially -through literary efforts, because it has learned distrust. It lacks -organization, and its efforts are spasmodic and clumsy. The proofs -of its existence are not very definite or specific, and any one in -expressing a judgment must be influenced by the circle with which he -is most familiar; but there are some public signs of it, which are the -best encouragement we have to-day. - - - - -THE ADMINISTRATION OF ANDREW JACKSON[49] - -[1880] - - -You must have observed that the social sciences, including politics -and political economy, are the favorite arena of those who would like -to engage in learned discussion without overmuch trouble in the way of -preparation. I doubt not that you have also been struck by the fact -that these sciences are now the refuge of the conceited dogmatism -which has been expelled from the physical sciences. It follows that -the discussions in social science are the widest, the most vague, the -most imperative in form of statement, the most satisfactory to the -writers, the least convincing to everybody else; and that the social -sciences make very little progress. The harm does not all come from -the amateurs and volunteers who meddle in these subjects. It comes -also from false methods and want of training on the part of those of -higher pretensions. If, however, the methods which have hitherto been -pursued are correct, if any one is able without previous care or study -to strike out the solution of a difficult social problem, for which -solution, however, he can give no guarantee to anybody else, then the -social sciences are given over to endless and contemptible wrangling, -and are unworthy of the time and attention of sober men. Such, however, -is not the case. The Science of Life, which teaches us how to live -together in human society, and has more to do with our happiness here -than any other science, is not a mere structure of _a priori_ whims. It -is not a mass of guesses which the guesser tries to render plausible. -It is not a tangle of dogmas which are incapable of verification. It -is not a bundle of sentiments and enthusiasms and soft-hearted wishes -bound together either by religious or by irreligious prejudices. It is -not a heap of statistical matter without logic. Whether you regard the -social science under the form of law, politics, political economy, or -social science in its narrower application, these negatives all apply. -It is only under some application of scientific methods and scientific -tests that, in this department as in others, any results worth our -notice can be won. - -Now the materials, the facts, and the phenomena of social science -are presented to us under two forms: first, as a successive series, -_viz._, in history, in which we see social forces at work and the -social evolution in progress; secondly, in statistics, in which the -contemporaneous phenomena are presented in groups.[50] Under this view -social science has promise, at least, of issuing from its present -condition and taking on a steady progress, while it also becomes -evident what history ought to be and how we ought to use it. - -I have thought it necessary to preface the present lecture with this -bare suggestion of the standpoint from which I take up my subject. For -the study of politics, some questions in political economy, and some -social problems, the history of the United States has greater value -than that of any other country. All the greater is the pity that its -history is as yet unwritten, or all the greater is the humiliation -that the only attempts in that direction which are worth mentioning -have been made by foreign scholars, and are not even in the English -language. In American history also, for the study of politics and -finance, no period equals in interest the administration of Andrew -Jackson. I propose, therefore, in the limited time I can now command, -to point out to you the reasons why this period of our history is -worthy of the most attentive study. I may say here that Professor -Von Holst of Freiburg has perceived the importance and interest of -this period and published a lecture in regard to it which I regard -as thoroughly sound and correct in its standpoint and criticism. His -views coincide with those which I have been accustomed to present in my -lectures on the History of American Politics, and I have profited, for -my present purpose, by some suggestions of his. - -Mr. Monroe was the last of the public men of the first generation -of the republic who succeeded to the presidential chair by virtue -of a certain standing before the public. During his administration -the old parties died out or were merged in a new party, a compromise -between the two. There followed during his second administration -what was called the “era of good feeling,” during which there were -no party divisions and no strong party feeling. This period was very -instructive, however, for any one who is disposed to see the evils -of party in an exaggerated light, for there sprang up no less than -five aspirants to the succession, whose interests were pushed by -personal arguments solely. These arguments took the form also, not of -enumerating the services of the candidate favored, but of spreading -scandals about his rivals. The newspapers were loaded down with weary -“correspondence” about “charges and countercharges” against each of the -candidates. - -Mr. Crawford of Georgia obtained the nomination of the democratic -congressional caucus in 1824, but loud complaints were raised against -this method of nominating candidates. It was demanded that the people -should be free from the dominion of King Caucus, and should nominate -and elect freely. No machinery for accomplishing this was yet at hand, -and none was proposed, but the outcry which was partly justified by -the evils of the congressional caucus system and partly consisted of -phrases which were sure of great popular effect, greatly injured Mr. -Crawford. He had been Secretary of the Treasury during the financial -troubles of the years following the war, and had managed that thankless -office on the whole very well, but he had not performed the impossible. -He had not brought the finances of the country into a sound condition -while allowing the banks to do as they chose. He had not kept up the -revenue while trade was prostrated, and he had not crushed the United -States Bank while preserving the business interest of the country. He -had many enemies amongst those who, on the one side and on the other, -thought that he ought to have done each of these things. Hostility to -the Bank was not as great in 1824 as in 1820, but there was a large -party which was determined in this hostility. Mr. Crawford was also -said to be broken in health, and this came to be believed so firmly -that it has generally passed into history as one of the chief causes of -his defeat. It is so accepted by Von Holst. Mr. Crawford was disabled -from September, 1823, to September, 1824, but he lived until 1834, -spending the last years of his life as a circuit judge, and he was well -enough in 1830 to ruin John C. Calhoun’s chances of succeeding General -Jackson. - -The next candidate was Mr. Adams, Secretary of State under Mr. -Monroe. He enjoyed the support of New England. There was no question -of Mr. Adams’s abilities, or of his great public services, or of his -character; but he was not popular. I do not, of course, think this at -all derogatory to him, but you observe that it is hard for a man to -despise popularity and at the same time have enough of it to be elected -to office in a democracy. Mr. Adams really liked popularity and wanted -it, and there was a continual strife within him between the aristocrat -who sought independent and isolated activity to please himself and the -politician who must please others. It is the explanation of much in -his conduct which seemed erratic and inconsistent to his contemporaries. - -Mr. Clay was the candidate of the West, and Mr. Calhoun of a portion of -the South. - -These men were all in prominent positions, three of them in the -Cabinet, and one speaker of the House. On the 20th of August, 1822, -the House of Representatives of Tennessee presented another candidate -in the person of General Jackson. This gentleman had been educated for -a lawyer and had been on the bench of Tennessee. He was in Congress -during the administration of Washington and voted against a clause -in the address of Congress to Washington on his retirement, in which -a hope was expressed that Washington’s example might be imitated by -his successors.[51] As a member of Congress he had been noticeable -only for violence of speech and action. At New Orleans he had won a -creditable military success at the close of a war which had brought -little glory on land. While there he came into collision with the civil -court on refusing to obey a writ of habeas corpus. Some incidents of -this event are especially characteristic of the man. He came into court -March 31, 1815, surrounded by the populace, and refused to answer -interrogatories. Then, pointing to the crowd, he said to the judge, -alluding to the previous judicial inquiry: “I was then with these brave -fellows in arms; you were not, sir!” He interrupted the judge while -he was reading his decision, saying: “Sir, state facts and confine -yourself to them, since my defence is and has been precluded; let not -censure constitute a part of this sought-for punishment.” The judge -replied: “It is with delicacy, general, that I speak of your name or -character. I consider you the savior of the country, but for your -contempt of court authority, or to that effect, you will pay a fine of -$1000.” The general drew his check for the sum and retired. The crowd -dragged his carriage to the French coffee-house, with acclamations and -waving flags. He there made a speech.[52] The fine, amounting with -interest to $2,700, was refunded by Congress in 1844. - -In 1818 he had violated the territory of Florida, then a province of -Spain, with whom we were at peace. He claimed, in 1830, that he had -done this with the connivance of Mr. Monroe. During the same campaign -against the Seminoles he captured two men who were aiding the enemy and -were said to be British subjects. A court-martial condemned one of them -to death and the other to less punishment. He ordered both executed, -thus overruling the verdict on the side of severity. - -The people might have been divided into two great classes according to -the opinion of Jackson which was entertained in 1822. The more sober -and intelligent considered him a violent, self-willed, ignorant, and -untrained man. They thought that he had perhaps the soldier’s virtues -and that he had done the country good service as a soldier but they -doubted if he had the first qualification of a ruler, _viz._, to know -how to obey. They thought him quarrelsome, vain, untutored in the forms -of civilized life which teach men to ignore much, to endure more, and -to reserve the stake of personal feeling and personal struggle for -the last and highest emergencies. They perceived, on the contrary, -that he never distinguished great things from small, especially where -his own pride was involved, and that he had no reserve at all about -throwing his personality into unseemly controversies, which he never -shunned but seemed to like. I have already said that these personal -criminations and recriminations were common at the time; Mr. Webster -is the only prominent public man of the time who succeeded in avoiding -newspaper controversies, and he did not altogether escape altercations -in the Senate. Public men were continually scenting attacks on their -character and setting vigorously to work to vindicate the same, not -perceiving that such vindications always derogate from the man who -makes them. This much ought to be said in excuse for General Jackson -if this fault was especially prominent in him. You may imagine how -incredible it seemed to persons who formed this estimate of Jackson -that any one could soberly propose him for the chair which had hitherto -been filled by Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. The -Federalists of New England had had little affection or admiration for -the last three Presidents, but they had never been ashamed of them as -public men. - -The other of the two great classes to which I have referred held a very -opposite opinion of General Jackson. To them he was a military hero and -a popular idol. They liked him better for taking Pensacola in defiance -of international law. They liked him for bearding the judge who wanted -to enforce the habeas corpus. They thought it spirited in him to hang -two Englishmen to solve a doubt. I do not mean that they reasoned much -about it, for they did not; at bottom they were actuated by an instinct -of fellowship. They recognized a man with the same range of ideas and -feelings, the same contempt for history, law, Old-World forms, and -traditions by which they themselves were actuated. His bluntness, his -rollicking, untamed manner, his hit-or-miss arguments, his respect -for the popular whim or emotion as the only control he would admit, -his plump ignorance which exceeded omniscience in its boldness, -all flattered the populace and won its favor. Here was a hero from -amongst themselves, using their methods, despising the restrictions -of the cultivated and the learned, a virtuoso in negligence and -carelessness of manner, aiming at rudeness and bluntness as things -worth cultivating, and elevating want of culture into a qualification -for greatness and a title to honor. - -In order to understand the full importance of this you must look at -some facts in social and political development which had immediately -preceded. At the adoption of the Constitution property qualifications -limiting the suffrage were general, but they had been removed steadily -and gradually until by 1820 the suffrage was universal throughout -almost all the states. The Jeffersonian ideas of government and -policy had also spread steadily and rapidly and had received more -and more extended interpretation. They were fallacious and only half -true at best, that is to say, they were of the most mischievous -order of propositions possible in politics; but in popular use and -interpretation they had become worn into a kind of political cant, in -which the moiety of truth had disappeared and the residuum of falsehood -had become the highest political truth and the badge of political -orthodoxy. To use the ballot was held synonymous with freedom; the rule -of the numerical majority was made equivalent to the republic; the -“will of the people” was held paramount to the Constitution--which is -nothing more than saying that to do as you choose is superior to doing -as you have agreed. And it had become a political dogma that, if there -are only enough of you together, when you do as you have a mind to, you -are sure to do right. - -I use the past sense here, but you will at once perceive that I am -describing what is still strong amongst us. - -Of course there was, outside of these two classes, a large body of -persons, scattered, as to their political opinions, all the way between -the two extremes; but the second class was large and was growing very -rapidly from social and industrial causes which are yet to be specified. - -During the European wars the people of the New England states made -great gains from commerce. In the middle states manufactures began -under the protection of embargo and war. In the South there was less -wealth, but the possession of land and slaves created an aristocracy -of large political influence over poorer neighbors. In New York -something of the same kind existed, two or three of the great families -struggling with one another for the political control of the state. -These were all democrats of a peculiar type well worthy of study. -They professed popular principles while they scorned the populace and -led cohorts of uneducated men whom they handled and disposed of as -they chose. After the war the commerce and industry of the country -suffered a heavy reverse from which it did not recover until 1820 or -1821; but then came the influence of steam navigation, as the first of -the great inventions, together with the factory system and some great -improvements in machinery, and the position of the artisan, in spite -of the protective policy to which the result was generally attributed -as a cause, underwent a steady and very great improvement. In 1825 -the Erie Canal was opened and, together with the application of steam -to lake and river navigation, led to an unparalleled development west -of the Alleghanies. In the southwestern states the immense profits of -cotton culture led to rapid settlement and development. As early as -1816 the tide of immigration had become marked. It was interrupted -during the hard times but went on again increasing steadily. Thus you -see that the material prosperity of this country was just taking its -great start at the beginning of the twenties. The natural consequence -was that there was a great body of persons here who had been used to -straitened circumstances, but who now found themselves prosperous, -every year improving their condition. Such a state of things is of -course eminently desirable. Economists and statesmen are continually -trying to bring it about. Observe, however, some of the inevitable -social, political, and moral effects. This class expanded under the sun -of prosperity both its virtues and its vices. It became self-reliant -and independent. It feared no mishap. It took reckless risks. It -laughed at prudence. It had overcome so many difficulties that it took -no forethought for any yet to come. It loved dash and bravado and high -spirit. It admired energy and enterprise as amongst the highest human -virtues. It scorned especially theory, or philosophy, and professed -exaggerated faith in the practical man. It never estimated science -very highly until science began to lead to patent mixtures for various -purposes and to mining engineering. Then it took to business colleges -and technical schools for the dissemination of the same. Especially did -this class despise any historical or scientific doctrines which came -from the other side of the water. It was a general premise that the new -country needed new systems throughout the whole social and political -fabric, and that what was enforced by European experience was surely -inapplicable here. As against England this assumption was considered -especially strong. In the writings of some of the men who greatly -influenced public opinion from 1820 to 1830 this amounted almost to -fanaticism. “Home industry,” and “Internal Improvements,” owed much of -their success over the mind of the nation to the industrious use of -this prejudice. These subjects were not political issues until 1830. - -Of course I have nothing to do with the question which to many would -seem to be here the only important one, _viz._, whether these traits -are not noble and praiseworthy and do not constitute the Americans -the first nation in the world. Those are idle questions. Political -institutions are not framed to produce noble and praiseworthy men. -If any are planned to that end they always fail. But political -institutions follow the social and industrial conditions, if the people -adapt themselves to the facts of the case. So it has been here; and, -although I have used the past tense in this description of the effects -of rapid prosperity, you observe that the features are those which -still mark our American society as a whole. I have simply to take -cognizance of these effects as facts inseparable from the conditions of -that society. - -Here, then, I come to the assertion to which I desire especially to -call your attention under my present subject: that is, that General -Jackson’s personal popularity and his political influence were not -created by him at all, but were simply the results of the fact that he -exactly fitted in as a leader into the rising class of persons of small -property, low education, and crude notions of politics and finance. Of -this class he was the leader as long as he lived. You will recognize -here an illustration of the wider historical generalization, that the -prominent man and his surroundings always act and react on one another -and the old question as to which “causes” the other is idle. - -Such being the circumstances in 1822, when Jackson’s name was first -mentioned in connection with the Presidency, the class of persons -whom I first described as considering this a bad joke soon discovered -their mistake. In the following year the people of Blount County, -Tennessee held a meeting at which they passed strong resolutions in his -support,[53] and it was soon evident to the aspirants at Washington -that he was the most dangerous competitor of all. Calhoun hastened to -retire into the second place, with the understanding that he was to -succeed in four years, Jackson having pronounced for one term only. -Pending the contest, in 1823, Jackson was elected United States Senator -from Tennessee. The result of the election of 1824 was that Jackson got -99 votes in the electoral college, Adams 84, Crawford 41, and Clay 37. -Clay was thus excluded from the contest in the House. His friends voted -for Adams, who got 13 states, Jackson 7, and Crawford 4. The states -which voted for Jackson were New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, -Tennessee, Indiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. This election was in -many respects important for the history of politics in the country. I -leave aside all but the relation to Jackson and the political movement -which he represented. His friends were by no means content, and they -were not quiet in their discontent. They accused Clay of carrying his -votes over to Adams by a corrupt bargain, according to which he was to -be Secretary of State in the new Cabinet. There was less ground for -this accusation than for almost any other personal calumny to be found -in our political history, but it clung to Mr. Clay as long as he lived. - -The most significant feature, however, for the political movement of -the time was this: General Jackson’s supporters claimed that, as he -had a plurality of the votes of the Electoral College, it was shown to -be the will of the people that he should be President, and that the -House of Representatives ought simply to have carried out the popular -will, thus expressed, to fulfillment. You observe the full significance -of the doctrine thus affirmed. The Constitution provides that the -House shall elect a President when the Electoral College fails to give -any candidate a majority. It confers an independent choice between -the three highest candidates upon the House. Already the independent -choice which the Constitution intended to give to the Electoral College -had been abrogated by Congressional caucus nominations and pledged -elections. It was now claimed that the House should simply elevate the -plurality of the highest candidate in the College to a majority in the -House. Thus the antagonism between the permanent specification of the -Constitution and the momentary will of the people was sharply defined. -It was the antagonism between the general law and the momentary -impulse, between sober dispassionate judgment as to what is generally -wise and a special inconvenience or disappointment. I strive to put -it into everyday language because it is a phenomenon of human life -which is the same whether it is seen in the character of an individual -striving to control his wayward impulses by general principles, or in -the political history of a great democratic republic seeking to obtain -dignity, stability, and imperial majesty by binding the swaying wishes -of the hour under broad and sacred constitutional provisions. It was -the opening of that issue which is vital to this republican issue -which cleaves down through our entire political and social fabric, -the issue to which parties must ever return and about which they will -always form so long as this experiment lasts--the issue, namely, of -constitutionalism _versus_ democracy, of law _versus_ self-will; the -question whether we are a constitutional republic whose ultimate bond -is the loyalty of the individual citizen to the Constitution and the -laws or a democracy in which at any time the laws and the Constitution -may give way to what shall seem, although not constitutionally -expressed, to be the will of the people. General Jackson was from the -time of this election the exponent of the latter theory. - -I do not mean to say that the issue was clearly defined at the time, or -that the parties ranged themselves upon it with logical consistency. -Any student of history knows that political parties never do that. -Still less do I mean to say that parties since that time have kept -strictly to the position on one side or the other of this issue which -their traditions would require. Political history and political -tradition have little continuity with us, and the fact has been that -the Jacksonian doctrine has permeated our whole community far too -deeply. We have had some who merely grubbed in a mole-eyed way in the -letter of the Constitution, as indeed Jackson and his fellows did, and -we have had others who were and are restive under any invocation of the -Constitution. True constitutionalism, however, the grand conception -of law, of liberty under law, of the free obedience of intelligent -citizens, is what now needs explaining and enforcing as the key to -any true solution of the great problems which, as we are told on every -side, beset the republic. - -I cannot now follow the history in detail to show the movements of -parties during the next four years. Mr. Adams’s administration was -unfortunate in its attempts to settle the old misunderstanding with -England about the West India trade. It got that question into one of -those awkward corners, out of which neither party can first seek exit, -which the diplomatist ought to avoid as the worst form of diplomatic -failure. In its home policy it favored internal improvements and -protection to the most exaggerated degree. But the administration was -dignified, simple, and businesslike. It was a model in these respects -of what an administration under our system ought to be. It presented no -heroics whatever, neither achievements nor scandals, and approached, -therefore, that millenial form of society in which time passes in peace -and prosperity without anything to show that there is either government -or history. - -Nevertheless this administration did not receive justice from its -contemporaries. Mr. Adams seemed always to feel a certain timidity, -which he expressed in his letter to the House of Representatives on his -election, because he had gone into office without a popular majority. -In Congress he had to deal with an opposition which was factious, -disappointed, and malignant, determined to make the worst of everything -he did and to make capital at every step for General Jackson. It -was a campaign four years long, and it was conducted by a new class -of politicians who made light of principle and gloried in finesse. -The end of the old system of family leadership in New York and the -certainty that there would never be another congressional caucus, led -to new forms of machinery for manipulating the popular power. These -were set up under loud denunciations of dynasties, aristocracies, -families, dictation, and so on. The most remarkable and most powerful -of these new organs was the Albany Regency, which shaped our political -history for the next ten or fifteen years. The intrigues of the period -culminated in the tariff act of 1828, in which Pennsylvania and -the South were brought into a strange coalition to support Jackson -and a high tariff, leaving New England out of the golden shower of -tariff-created wealth, as she held aloof from the support of the -popular idol. I regret that I cannot now stop to analyze and expose -this prime specimen of legislation in which tariff and politics were -scientifically intermingled. - -As for political principles, there were none at stake and none argued -in the contest. The struggle was ruthlessly personal. A month before -the election an editorial in _Niles’s Register_ used the following -language: “We had much to do with the two great struggles of parties -from 1797 to 1804 and 1808 to 1815, and we are glad that we are not so -engaged in this, more severe and ruthless than either of the others, -and, we must say, derogatory to our country, and detrimental to its -free institutions and the rights of suffrage, with a more general -grossness of assault upon distinguished individuals than we ever before -witnessed.” - -Jackson was elected by 178 votes to 83 for Adams. The criticisms which -had been made upon Adams’s administration were now all used as a basis -for representing the entire government as needing reform. This reform -took the form of removing all persons in office and replacing them by -friends of the new President. Up to this time the tenure of office -in the public service had been during efficiency or good behavior, -although instances of removals for political reasons had not been -wanting and there had been many changes when Jefferson went into -office. I will only say in passing that the complaints of inefficiency -in office and of corruption during Jackson’s administration steadily -and justly increased. According to a report by Secretary Ewing, in -1841, there were lost, to the government between 1829 and 1841, over -two millions and a half of dollars by defalcations of public officials. -The Cabinet selected by Jackson at the outset consisted of obscure -men remarkable only for their loyalty to the person of the President. -It may be said in general of the new appointments to inferior offices -that they constituted a deterioration of the public service. Two -doctrines were now affirmed as democratic principles which, if they -should be accepted as such, would be the condemnation of democracy to -all sober-minded men. The first was that of rotation in office, which, -if it is a democratic principle, raises inefficiency and venality to -permanent features of the public service. You will observe that its -effect has been, as a matter of history, to make thousands of people -believe despairingly that these things are inseparable from the public -service and that elections only determine which set shall enjoy the -opportunity. The other doctrine or democratic principle was that to the -victors belong the spoils. This was distinctly enunciated by William -L. Marcy on the floor of the Senate. He said that he did not hesitate -to avow the principle as a principle. By this principle corruption in -the public service is made a matter of course. I think that these two -“principles” are rotten, and by virtue of their own intrinsic baseness. -If any one is inclined to despair of the republic now, he ought to -remember that there was a time when men shamelessly professed these -doctrines as principles. I doubt if any one would be bold enough to do -it to-day. - -Whether General Jackson went into office intending to make war on -the United States Bank, is a question which has never yet found a -solution, but the drift of the evidence is for the negative. During -the summer of 1829 some of the New Hampshire politicians of the new -school endeavored to obtain the removal of Mr. Jeremiah Mason from the -Presidency of the Portsmouth Branch of the United States Bank. They -brought no charge whatever against him save that he was a friend of Mr. -Webster, and they urged that some friend of the administration might -make the Branch useful in its service. The Secretary of the Treasury -(Ingham) endeavored to induce the President of the Bank (Biddle) to -remove Mr. Mason. Biddle refused to do this. In this controversy the -administration men were in the position of striving to bring the -Bank into politics on their side and the Bank was in the position of -striving to remain neutral in politics. From this, however, dates -the great conflict of Jackson’s administration. You will greatly err -in trying to form any judgment in this matter if you doubt the _bona -fides_ of General Jackson. Where his personal value was not at stake -he was genial, good-natured, and generous. In questions of policy he -was easily led up to the point at which he formed an opinion. His -opinion might be crystallized, however, suddenly, by the most whimsical -consideratives, or under the most erratic motives. When he had formed -what for him was an opinion, he clung to it with astonishing obstinacy. -It rose before his mind as a fact of the most undeniable certainty. The -echo of it, which came back to him by virtue of his popularity, seemed -to him to sanction it with the highest authority. One who denied it was -shameless and unpardonable, one who resisted it deserved any punishment -which the fashions of the age allowed. You recognize the description of -a strong and originally powerful mind destitute of training. - -At the outset the Bank was guilty only of neutrality where he demanded -support. At this time it had lived down much of the hatred it had -justly incurred at the outset, but there was no difficulty in reviving -it. The Bank was never in a stronger or sounder condition than in 1829, -and it enjoyed high credit both at home and abroad. The word went out, -however, that the Bank was a monopoly, the possession of the moneyed -aristocracy, undemocratic, and hostile to liberty. The first blow fell, -in spite of some vague premonitory rumors, with great suddenness. In -the annual message of December, 1829, Jackson incorporated a short -paragraph questioning the constitutionality of the Bank and proposing -a Bank on the credit and revenues of the government. The alarm thus -created was twofold, first on account of the Bank which was threatened, -and second on account of the new institution which sounded like a -government paper money bank. Parties did not as yet divide on this -issue. The strongest partisans of Jackson took up the cry against the -Bank, but not yet with vigor; the more intelligent supporters of the -administration still favored it. In 1830 the message was much milder in -regard to the Bank, and the Treasury Report was even favorable to it. -In 1831, however, the message was once more strongly hostile. - -In the meantime the President had vetoed an internal improvement bill -and taken up a position of hostility to the policy of improvements. -The tariff of 1828 had provoked the South to more and more energetic -protests until South Carolina adopted the doctrine and policy of -nullification. There never was a greater political error, for she -alienated the vast body of the nation, even in the South, which -might have been brought to oppose protection but would not favor -nullification as a means of destroying it. It was in this connection -that Jackson’s traits availed to procure him, in his own day, the -approval of men like Webster and has availed to give him a place -amongst our political heroes and in the hearts of people who to-day -know little more about him than that he prevented nullification. He -certainly acted with very commendable firmness in giving it to be -understood that nullification meant rebellion and war. His attitude -and, far more, the legislation of the session of 1832–1833 including -the compromise tariff of March 2, 1833, averted civil war. What part -in all this drama was played by his hostility to Mr. Calhoun it is -difficult to say. They were now sworn enemies, General Jackson having -been informed (by Mr. Crawford) that Mr. Calhoun, instead of being -his friend in the cabinet of Mr. Monroe, had been one of those who -disapproved of his acts in the Seminole war in 1878. General Jackson -upon this diverted the succession from Mr. Calhoun and, after taking a -second term himself, gave the succession to Martin Van Buren, a weak -and unpopular candidate, who had, by virtue of his position in the -Albany Regency, given New York to Jackson. Mr. Van Buren was Secretary -of State in Jackson’s first cabinet, which suddenly exploded in 1831 on -a question of social etiquette. He was next nominated to the English -mission and went out, but failed of confirmation, an incident only -worth mentioning because the hotter partisans of Jackson proposed to -abolish the Senate for rejecting one of his nominations. - -All these and other personalities which it is impossible to group in -any way, and which I cannot follow into detail, played their part -in the great drama which was opening. The popular democratic party -was gaining ground every day. A consciousness of power, a desire to -assume public duties from which they had hitherto held aloof, was -taking stronger possession of them. On the other hand, an opposition -was forming under the name of the National Republican party which had -a certain vague legitimacy of descent from the old Federal party. -It adopted as its principles protection, internal improvements, -distribution of the public lands, and the National Bank. This party -first began to be called Whigs in Connecticut, in 1834.[54] It always -seemed strangely lacking in political sagacity. It offered to its -enemies the very strongest arguments against itself. It had managed to -get on the side, which will pass into history as the wrong side, of at -least three great questions and perhaps also of the fourth. It forced -the administration into an impregnable position in regard to free -trade, hard money, and an opposition to the distribution of land or -revenue; and it managed in the end to put itself unequivocally in the -wrong and the opposite party in the right on the sub-treasury and the -public finances. - -It commenced its career as a party by a great blunder--an act which -was recognized as such immediately afterwards--and that was the effort -to re-charter the Bank in 1832. It had been the strongest answer of -the Bank to Jackson’s early attacks that its charter did not expire -until March 3, 1836, that he had forced the issue of a re-charter on -the country six and a half years before the time, and that he had -nothing to do with the re-charter unless he assumed that he was to be -reëlected. The National Republican convention was held at Baltimore on -December 12, 1831. Mr. Clay was nominated for President. The petition -for a re-charter was presented January 9, 1832, as a manœuvre in the -campaign. Forthwith the charge of anticipating an exciting question -was turned against the opposition. They were charged with bringing the -Bank into politics, and the Bank was forced into the political campaign -to defend its existence. The re-charter was passed July 4, 1832, and -vetoed July 10. Up to this time there had been plenty of administration -men who favored the Bank. This issue, thus forced by the opposition on -the eve of election, and thus accepted by the President for his own -person, raised Bank on Anti-Bank to a test of political orthodoxy, -and, in the political language of the time, many were forced to “turn -a sharp corner.” The issue was now also Jackson _versus_ the Bank, and -then first did it become apparent to what extent the Jackson party had -gained and how thorough was its devotion. The current party names were -Jackson and Anti-Jackson, and candidates were so designated down to the -lowest town officers. The Whigs protested in vain against the folly of -this. They argued with men who would not argue, and assumed the force -of motives the powerlessness of which was proved by the fact that men -could profess such personal political allegiance. They did not truly -appreciate the democracy in which they lived. They suffered themselves -to be isolated as a body and they lost the proper conservative power -of an opposition by failing to go with the sentiment of the vast -energetic, growing (if you choose to call it so), vulgar democracy. -It is a danger which always besets the conservative party here, whose -members will always be a minority, and will always find much to offend -their refinement in a new community like this. They will always be -tempted to withdraw from contact with it and to gratify their vanity at -the expense of all public influence. - -The consequence of the issue as it was made in 1832 was that Jackson -got 219 and Clay 49 votes in the Electoral College.[55] Things -now entered on a new stage. The lower class which I have hitherto -endeavored to characterize fairly, but without timidity, now took -on the character of a genuine proletariat. It has been only at few -periods that any development of the lowest sections of our population -has produced what could properly be called by that name. The period -of Jackson’s second administration was the most marked of these. In -the large cities trades-unions arose, and in certain sections agrarian -doctrines were advocated, while there was a general dissemination -of socialistic notions. In 1836 there were formal riots and public -disturbances of lesser grade. Partly this was due to the arrogance -of class success, partly to the flattery of demagogues, and partly -to industrial changes and to currency disturbances which are to be -mentioned in a moment. - -The National Bank being doomed if Jackson should be reëlected, a large -moneyed class had been drawn into the administration party, _viz._, -those who wanted to found local banks. The administration party, -therefore, included these two branches, to the former or lower of which -the nickname Locofoco was given. - -General Jackson regarded his reëlection as a sanction of all that he -had done or proposed. According to his principles the question of -wisdom in banking and currency did not come from history or science, -but from a majority vote of the people. What is to be noticed, however, -is that the people simply assented to whatever he proposed and ratified -whatever he did, because it was he that did it. There resulted a state -of things paralleled in our history only in the case of Mr. Jefferson, -that is, an action and reaction between the executive and a popular -majority in which each stimulated the other by ready sympathy and -mutual support. The President pursued his way without a misgiving, -and the opposition in Congress while they saw their members dwindling -and the majority becoming more and more overwhelming, could only -express their astonishment at the sudden acts and irregular methods -of procedure of the executive. The subservient majority, consisting -largely of professional politicians of the new type, recognized that -for the time being their occupation of plotting and controling was -gone. Their hopes lay in no independent action, but in loyalty to the -chief. - -I feel here how much I am saying which under other circumstances would -require proof, but the proof lies before any one who will throw aside -Benton and Parton and look into the Congressional debates and the -newspapers of the time. - -The President now pushed on his hostility to the Bank, being -doubly enraged by the efforts it had made to fight its own battle -in contending against him during the campaign. He avowed his -determination to make the “experiment” of using local banks as fiscal -agents of the government. Naturally enough, the banking and commercial -world was frightened at experiments, carried on without skill or -knowledge and running athwart the financial and business interests of -the country. Up to this time, you must remember, the administration had -not pronounced for specie currency at all, but it was supposed that the -President favored a government paper bank. In his Bank veto message -he had said that a charter for a Bank which would have been free from -objection might have been obtained by coming to him beforehand. In his -first message after his reëlection he raised the question whether the -public deposits were safe in the Bank and whether the government shares -in the Bank ought not to be sold. In spite of all that had gone before -these were startling questions. A majority of the Committee of Ways -and Means found the deposits safe. The minority made some strong and -undeniable points against the Bank. - -During the summer of 1833 Amos Kendall was appointed agent to see -what banks could be engaged to take the public deposits. On August -19 of that year the five government directors of the Bank made a -report showing the amount expended by the Bank in printing during the -campaign, and on September 18, 1833, the President read to his cabinet -a paper setting forth the reasons why the public deposits should be -removed from the United States Bank. The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. -Duane, refused to give the order for removal and was dismissed. Mr. -Taney was made Secretary and he ordered that no further sums should -be deposited in the Bank by collectors or others. December 3, 1833, -he reported to Congress his reasons for doing this. On December 9, -the government directors sent in a memorial to Congress saying that -they had been shut out from a knowledge of the affairs of the Bank. On -March 28, 1834, the Senate, after having tried in vain to pass a more -specific censure, resolved that the President had “assumed upon himself -authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and the laws.” -On April 15, the President sent in a protest against this resolution, -saying that if he had been guilty of violating the Constitution he -ought to be impeached, not censured by resolution. This protest the -Senate refused to register. They could not impeach him, and the House -was far from thinking of such a thing. In fact, the question of status -of the Secretary of the Treasury is a delicate one. Some independent -responsibility is laid upon him, according to the laws of 1789 and -1800, but, as he is liable to be dismissed by the President, he -cannot have an independent responsibility. The resolution of censure -was “expunged” on January 16, 1837. In the House of Representatives, -on April 4, 1834, it was resolved that the Bank ought not to be -re-chartered, that the deposits ought not to be restored, that the -state banks ought to be made depositories of the public funds, and that -a select committee on the Bank should be raised. The majority of this -committee reported, on May 22, that the Bank had refused to submit to -investigation, while the minority (Everett and Ellsworth) reported that -the majority had made unreasonable demands. On February 4, 1834 the -Senate had referred to the Finance Committee an inquiry in regard to -the Bank; and at the next session, on December 18, 1834, the Committee -reported, by John Tyler, favorably to the Bank in every respect. In the -message of December, 1834, the President reviewed the whole war against -the Bank and summed up the charges against it. Therewith the political -and congressional war over the old Bank came to an end with a full -victory for the administration. - -The earliest announcement of the policy of the administration in favor -of a metallic currency was in a reply made by the President[56] in -February, 1834, to a deputation from Philadelphia who came to complain -of the hard times. According to the report they gave, the President was -very rude and violent. He ascribed all the trouble to the “monster,” -as he called the Bank over and over again. He declared that he would -introduce a specie currency and that the government should use no -other. He evidently knew little of the laws of money and finance, and, -although much which he and his supporters afterwards urged in support -of this policy was as true and sound as any propositions in physical -science, yet it was mixed up with fallacies which neutralized it, and -it degenerated into a kind of fanaticism about the precious metals. -The measure of distributing the deposits amongst local banks, and -thereby stimulating bank credits, was destructive to the other measure -of introducing a specie currency. The distribution of the surplus -revenue, which had accumulated in the banks amongst the states, was an -opposition measure that was passed on account of the foolish belief, -which so often leads our politicians astray, that there was political -capital in it. Jackson signed the bill, but he criticized it in his -next message, giving plain and statesmanlike reasons against it. - -I must mention one other institution which took its rise in this -period, and that is the national convention. I have already mentioned -the Convention of the National Republicans at Baltimore in 1831. The -Jackson men held one at Baltimore on May 21, 1832. With this invention -our political institutions entered on a new phase, and “politician” -acquired a new meaning. The power of party, the binding force of -caucus agreements, the conception of bolting a regular nomination as -the highest political crime, were developed first in the ranks of the -Jackson party, but speedily followed to the best of their ability by -the opposition. The Tammany Club of New York was the school in which -these political arts were cultivated to the highest pitch, to be -imitated elsewhere. There had been loud shouts over the downfall of -“King Caucus” when, in 1824, the candidate of the congressional caucus -was defeated, but the fact was that King Caucus had only just come -of age and was entering into his inheritance. Behind the convention -speedily arose the class of politicians vulgarly known as wire-pullers -who spent their time between elections in intriguing and plotting and -distributing. The Albany Regency found that its power slipped away into -the hands of these more secret operators. There sprang up men who did -not care for office, who lived no one knew how, or who took offices -which to them were sinecures while they wielded the real political -power. The convention proved to be an engine well adapted to the -purposes of this class. It had all the forms of freedom, publicity, and -popular initiative, while the real manipulation was astonishingly easy -for two or three shrewd and experienced men. I am using the past tense -here again for decency’s sake. I wish that I could do so because the -things I describe were really matters of history. - -You see now that I have spared nothing whatever here, neither national -pride, nor party prejudice, nor hereditary family feeling. My business -is simply with the truth of history so far as it is attainable, and so -far as I am able faithfully to state it. It would be very easy now to -say that Andrew Jackson demoralized American politics, and to throw -upon his memory the blame for all the political troubles, shames, and -problems of which we are every day reminded. Such, however, would be -very far from the inference I want to draw. I have tried to emphasize -the fact that Jackson himself was only a typical and representative man -in and of his time, that it is often difficult to say whether he led or -was carried forward. His administration, in the view I have tried to -present, was only the time at which a certain tendency came to victory. -It was only a case of the conflict which constitutes great political -parties under all governments, the conflict between the radical and -conservative tendencies. The radical tendency had won one victory -under Jefferson, and, coming into office, had become conservative. -In Jackson’s elevation a new radical tendency, more excessive than -the first, came to victory. I have shown also in my criticism on the -Whig party how it fell out of sympathy with the great movement which -was going on and which was inevitably conditioned in the social and -economic circumstances of the country. - -This tendency has still pursued its way down to our own times. The -party which organized under Jackson became involved in the slavery -question by combinations which it would be most interesting to study; -but this will be only a passing phase, a temporary issue in our -political life, and only a feature of the history of the concrete -Democratic party, not of the great democratic tendency. The doctrines -of the Jacksonian democracy have permeated nearly the whole country. -They have come to be popularly regarded as postulates or axioms of -civil liberty. Those who deny them are the scholars, the historians, -the philosophers, the book-men of every grade; and they deny them -under their breath, at the penalty of sacrificing all share in public -life. It is certain, however, that the issue must come back to its -permanent form and that the political strife must be waged between the -conservative and the radical theories of politics--between those who -lay the greater stress on law and those who lay the greater stress on -liberty, between those who see political health chiefly in the social -principle and those who see it chiefly in the individual, between -constitutionalism and democracy. - -This will not come about by any critical reflections of mine or by -those of any other political philosopher. It will come about by -experience, and by instinct rather than by reflection. For the evils -and corruptions of which we daily complain arise from democratic -theories of politics, developed and applied without reference to the -actual circumstances of the case, and under assumptions which are -false. Experience has convinced nearly all of us who are willing to -think about the matter that rotation in office is mischievous to the -public interest and demoralizing to the men who enter the public -service. Experience has long since brought home to us the shame of the -doctrine that to the victors belong the spoils. Experience has shown -us the evils of frequent elections and short terms of office, and it -is continually opening the eyes of more and more of us to the evils -of electing a large number of administrative officers and making them -independent of each other. Experience has shown us the inapplicability -of the principle of election to the selection of judges. Experience -is showing that the notion of the responsibility of a party is a -delusion and that the notion of responsibility to the people is only a -jingle of words; and as new constitutions are formed we find that they -continually take more guarantees from the people against themselves. - -On the contrary the path of reform lies in the direction of stronger -constitutional guarantees and greater reverence for law as law. -Any conservative party which fulfills its function in this country -will have to take its stand on that platform. Its reforms must be -historical, not speculative. They must be founded in the genius and -history of the country. The democracy here, in the sense of the widest -popular participation in public affairs, is inevitable until the land -is taken up and the population begins to press upon the means of -subsistence, that is to say, for a future far beyond what we need take -into consideration. Our whole history shows this, and the part which -I have discussed shows conclusively what we may also all see in our -own daily observation--that the men, the parties, the theories which -oppose themselves to this tendency are swept down like seeds before -a flood. It is idle to ask whether is it a good tendency. It is a -fact--a fact whose causes arise from the deepest and broadest social -and economic circumstances of the country. But there is a foundation -for true constitutionalism in the traditions of our race and in our -inherited institutions--in our inherited reverence for law, which is -all that keeps us from going the way of Mexico and Peru. - -The philosophers and book-men have no great rôle offered them in a new -country. They will always be a minority, they will always be holding -back in the interest of law, order, tradition, history, and they will -rarely be entrusted with the conduct of affairs; but, since their -lot is cast here, if they withdraw from the functions which fall to -them in this society, such as it is, they do it at the sacrifice not -only of duty but also of everything which makes a fatherland worth -having, to them or to their posterity. The fault which they commit is -the complement of that committed by their opponents. For the notion -which underlies democracy is that of rights, tenacity in regard to -rights, the brutal struggle for room for one’s self, and, still more -specifically, for _equal_ rights, the root principle of which is envy. -This was abundantly illustrated in Jackson’s day. The opposition of -his supporters to bank and tariff had no deeper root than this, and -the name they chose for themselves as descriptive of their aims was -“The Equal Rights Party.” But the principle of political life lies -not in rights but in duties. The struggle for rights is at best war. -The subjection to duty reaches the same end, reaches it far better, -and reaches it through peace. Still less is there any principle of -political health in the idea of _equality_ of rights, much as some -people seem to believe the opposite. In political history it has been -the melancholy province of France to show us that if you emphasize -equality you reduce all to a dead level of slavery, with a succession -of revolutions to bring about a change of masters. - -If, then, the classes which are by education and position conservative -withdraw from public activity, pride themselves on their cleanness from -political mire, and satisfy themselves at most with a negative and -destructive interference at the polls from time to time, the conception -of political duty with them must be as low as with their opponents; -and I will add that they will at best turn from one set of masters to -another, under a general and steady deterioration in the political tone -of the country. If we have to-day a society in which we go our ways -in peace, freedom, and security, a society from the height of which -we look back upon the life of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries -with a shudder, we owe it to no class of men who wrote satirical essays -on contemporary politics and said to one another: “What is the use?” -Elliott and Hampden and Sydney and these revolutionary heroes whose -praise we are just now chanting did not win for us all the political -good we owe them by any such policy as that. There was no use, as -far as any one could see, in their cases. They risked persecution, -imprisonment, the axe, and the scaffold, and their puny efforts seemed -ridiculous in the face of the task they undertook; but they never -stopped to think of that. They saw that it was the right thing to do -then to speak or to resist, and they did it and let the end take care -of itself. - -Now we Americans of to-day have no heroic deeds to perform. We have -no fear of the stake or the axe for political causes. We are not -called upon to do any grand deeds. Perhaps it would be easier if we -were. If we had a Cæsar at Washington I would warrant him his Brutus -within a fortnight. But we have need of the same sense of duty which -has animated all the heroes of constitutional government and civil -liberty, and I am not sure but we need some of their courage also, -for it demands at least as much moral courage to beard King Majority -as it ever did to beard King Cæsar. Nothing less than the experiment -of self-government is at stake in the question whether thousands of -citizens are capable of that form of duty which makes a man work on -without results and without reward, even, it may be, in the face of -misrepresentation and abuse, simply because he sees a certain direction -in which his efforts ought to be expended. - -Such, however, I conceive to be the calling of the conservative classes -of this country, at least for this generation. We have undertaken to -govern ourselves, and we are just finding, now that the country is -filling up and its cities growing large, that it is a great task, -that it takes time and thought, that we need any and all resources -of science and experience which we can call to our aid; and we are -finding especially that the forms of law and of the Constitution are -every year more essential, and the untamed forces of society more -dangerous. No supernatural interference will come to our assistance. -No man, no committee, no party, no centralized organization of the -general government, can rid us of our difficulties and yet leave us -self-government. Nor can we invent any machinery of elections or of -government which will do the work for us. We have got to face the -problems like men, animated by patriotism, acting with business-like -energy, standing together for the common weal. Whenever we do that we -cannot fail of success in getting what we want; so long as we do not do -that, our complaints of political corruption are the idlest and most -contemptible expressions which grown men can utter. - - - - -THE COMMERCIAL CRISIS OF 1837 - -[1877–1878] - - -The decade from 1830 to 1840 is the most important and interesting in -the history of the United States. The political, social, and industrial -forces which were in action were grand, and their interaction produced -such complicated results, that it is difficult to obtain a just and -comprehensive view of their relations and influences. In the first -place, the United States advanced between the second war with England -and 1830 to a position of full and high standing in the family of -nations. The security and stability of the government were accepted -as established. England and France, on the other hand, just before -and after 1830, were involved in social and political troubles of -an alarming kind. By contrast, the United States, with a rapidly -increasing population, expanding production and trade, a contented -people, and a surplus revenue offered great attractions to both -laborers and capital. At the same time the pride of the Americans in -their country produced self-reliance, energy, and enterprise which -laughed at difficulties. New means of transportation by steamboats -and canals were opening up the country and assuring to the population -the advantages of a new and unbounded continent. Production therefore -offered high returns to both labor and capital. - -The advantages of a new country were credited to the political -institutions of democracy, and increasing prosperity, due to the fresh -resources brought within reach, was held to be proof of the truth of -the political dogmas entertained by the workers. A sort of boyish -exuberance, compounded of inexperience, ignorance, and fearless -enterprise, marked politics as well as industry. Jackson’s election -in 1828 brought to power a party which had been produced by these -circumstances. - -The war debt of 1812 became payable in the years after 1824 and was -distributed over the period down to 1835. With growth and increasing -prosperity, the revenue increased with such rapidity that the debt -could be paid almost as fast as it became payable. The chief purposes -for which the Bank of the United States had been founded in 1816 -were to provide a sound and uniform paper currency convertible with -specie, of uniform value throughout the Union, and to act as fiscal -agent for the government, holding the revenue wherever collected and -disbursing the expenditures wherever they were to be made. The interest -of the government and the people was the motive, and the bank charter -was a contract with the Bank to perform the services for specified -considerations. One of the considerations was the right of the Bank -to use the deposits as loanable capital. The government was not bound -to keep any balance over expenditure, but the revenue was so large -that the Bank came to hold annually increasing average deposits of -from five to eight or nine millions of public money, which it used for -profit. From this vicious arrangement two consequences followed: first, -public attention was directed to the deposits, not as existing for the -public service, but for the profit of the Bank; and, second, the public -considered itself entitled to claim something of the Bank besides true -business credit, in the matter of discounts. - -Jackson opened the war on the Bank publicly in his first message. -Sharp correspondence had been going on already between the Secretary -of the Treasury and the Bank, which had reached such a point that the -Secretary had referred to the removal of the deposits as a power in his -hands to coerce the Bank. Generally speaking, the state of the Bank -and the state of the currency were satisfactory in 1830, but the Bank -had begun in 1827 to issue branch drafts which stimulated credit and -soon produced mischief. Of the war on the Bank it is not necessary to -speak in detail. In December, 1831, Clay was nominated for President by -the National Republicans, and he and his friends determined to bring -on the question of the re-charter of the Bank as a campaign issue. -The re-charter was passed by Congress and vetoed by the President in -1832. The issue in the campaign was thus made up between the personal -popularity of Jackson and of the Bank. The former won an overwhelming -victory which he construed to mean that the people had weighed the -question of re-chartering the Bank and had decided against it. - -In September, 1833, he removed the deposits from the National Bank -on his own responsibility, and placed them in selected state banks -which would agree to keep one-third of their note circulation in coin, -redeem all notes on demand, and issue no notes under a five-dollar -denomination. This was to be an experiment. In the meantime the -administration was eagerly pressing on the extinction of the public -debt. The consequences were such as to prove that, however popular -such a policy may be, it may easily be carried too far. The public -deposits were loaned by the Bank to merchants, then recalled and paid -to the public creditors, and then reinvested by them, so that the money -market was subjected to recurrent and sudden shocks. The withdrawal and -transfer of the deposits constituted another and more violent operation -of the same kind, so that there was a crisis and panic in the spring of -1834. The eight or nine millions of public deposits were a continual -source of mischief to the money market. By the contraction of the Bank -of the United States to pay the deposits, and the contraction of the -state banks to put themselves within the rule for receiving the same, -the currency, in the summer of 1834, was perhaps better than ever -before. The coinage act of June, 1834, turned the standard over from -silver to gold. - -The deposit banks were urged to discount freely so as to satisfy the -public with the change. Banks were organized in great numbers all over -the country to take the place of the great Bank and to get a share in -the profits of handling the public money. On January 1, 1835, the debt -was all paid and the government had no further use for its surplus -revenue. There was but one correct and straightforward course to pursue -in such a case and that was to lower taxes so as not to collect any -surplus, but this the Compromise Act forbade. The surplus revenue was -the greatest annoyance to the protectionists who wanted to keep duties -high for “incidental protection,” and they proposed scheme after scheme -for distributing the lands, or the proceeds of the lands, or, finally, -the surplus revenue itself, so as to cut down the revenue without -reducing the import duties. - -With the increase of banks and bank issues speculation began. It became -marked in the spring of 1835 and went on increasing for two years. -Cotton was rising in price, for the new machinery, and new means of -transportation in England, together with the extension of joint stock -banks there, had given a great stimulus to the cotton manufacturer. -There was an increasing demand for the raw material. It followed that -the cities in which the exchange and banking of all this industry were -carried on also enjoyed great prosperity. Railroads were just being -introduced and ships were needed to transport the products. Thus from -natural causes the period was one of immense industrial development. -The great need for carrying it on was capital, and the political -incidents which brought about or encouraged the bank expansion may be -regarded as accidental. The combination of the two in fact, however, -produced a wild speculation. The banks furnished credit, not capital, -and being restrained by usury laws from exerting through the rate of -discount the proper check upon an inflated or speculative market they -embarked with the business community on a course where all landmarks -were soon lost. - -No sooner, however, was this condition of the commercial and banking -community well established than a new shock was given by another -political interference. The administration had now advanced to the -point of desiring to establish a specie currency for the country. The -object was laudable and the means taken were proper, but, following as -they did in the train of the events already mentioned, they produced -new confusion. In 1836 various acts were passed to bring about a specie -currency, and in July of that year the Secretary of the Treasury -ordered the receivers of public money to take only gold and silver -for lands. The circumstances warranted this order. The sales of lands -had risen from two or three to twenty-four million dollars in a year, -and the amount was paid in the notes of “banks”[57] which deserved -no credit. If the nation was not to be swindled out of the lands the -measure was necessary. It then became necessary for the purchasers of -land to carry specie to the West and vast amounts of it accumulated -in the offices of the receivers, or were transferred at great trouble -and expense to deposit banks. The specie was obtained from the -eastern banks, and inasmuch as the whole existing system had pushed -them to the utmost limit of expansion, these demands for specie were -embarrassing. Two points here deserve notice. It is strange to see what -a superstition about “specie” had taken possession of the public mind. -It was regarded as a good thing to have, but too good to use. A specie -dollar was regarded as an excuse for its owner to print and circulate -from three to twenty paper ones, but it was not regarded as having any -other use. The withdrawal of the specie basis from an inflated paper -was no doubt a serious blow to the whole fabric, but, if the paper had -not been redundant the transfer of specie to the West could only have -forced an importation of so much more. This superstition about specie -also prevented any demand upon the banks for specie for any purpose. -Such a demand was regarded as a kind of social or business crime. Hence -the “convertibility” of the notes was a polite fiction. The second -point worth noticing is that the bank advocates continually talked -about “the credit system” when they meant the system of issuing credit -bank notes; and they grew eloquent about the advantages of credit, as -if those advantages could only be won by using worthless bank notes and -not by lending gold or silver or capital in any form. - -We are not yet, however, at the end of the political acts which threw -the money market into convulsions. The opposition succeeded, in the -summer of the presidential election year, 1836, in passing an act to -_deposit_ with the states the surplus over a balance of five millions -in the Treasury on January 1, 1837. The amount was thirty-seven -millions. This sum was scattered in eighty-nine deposit banks all over -the country. Its distribution was, therefore, controlled by local -pressure and political favoritism, not by the needs of the government -(for it did not need the money at all) or by the demand and supply -of capital. The banks had regarded it as a permanent deposit and had -loaned it in aid of the various public and private enterprises which -were being pushed on every hand at such a rate that labor was said to -be drawn away from agriculture so that the country was importing bread -stuffs. It was now to be withdrawn and transferred once more, and this -time it was said that, if these “deposits” were such an advantage, -the states ought to have it, and could then, as well as the banks, -be called on to give back the money whenever it might be needed. The -deposit took place in 1837, in three installments, January, April, and -July, and amounted to twenty-eight millions. The fourth installment was -never paid. The money was all squandered or worse. - -The charter of the Bank of the United States was to expire on the -3d of March, 1836. One year before that time the directors ordered -the “exchange committee” to loan the capital, as fast as it should -be released, on stocks, so as to prepare for winding up. From this -resolution dates the subsequent history of the Bank, for the exchange -committee consisted of the President and two directors selected by him, -to whose hands the whole business of the Bank was hereby entrusted. The -branches were sold and the capital gradually released throughout 1835, -but in February, 1836, an act was suddenly passed by the Pennsylvania -legislature to charter the United States Bank of Pennsylvania, -continuing the old Bank. The act was said to have been obtained by -bribery, but investigation failed to prove it. The most open bribery -was on the face of it, for it provided for several pet local schemes of -public improvement, for a bonus and loans to the state by the Bank, and -for abolishing taxes--provisions which secured the necessary support to -carry it. - -During the year 1836 the money market was very stringent. The -enterprises, speculations, and internal improvements demanded continual -new supplies of capital. The amount of securities exported grew -greater and greater and kept the foreign exchanges depressed. American -importing houses contracted larger and longer debts to foreign agents. -The money market in England became very stringent likewise, and these -long credits became harder and harder to carry. Three English houses, -Willson, Wildes, and Wiggins, had become especially engaged in these -American credits which they found it necessary to curtail. The winter -was one of continual stringency, aggravated by popular discontent, -riots, and trades-union disturbances, arising from high prices and high -rents. The failures commenced on the fourth of March, 1837, the day -that Van Buren was inaugurated, in Mississippi and Louisiana. Hermann, -Briggs & Co., of New Orleans, failed, with liabilities said to be from -four to eight millions. As soon as this was known in New York, their -correspondents, J. L. & S. Joseph & Co. failed. The first break in the -expanded fabric of credit therefore came in connection with cotton. -The price had advanced so much during the last three or four years -as to draw many thousands of persons who had no capital into cotton -production, but the profits were so great that a good crop or two would -pay for all the capital. The planters of Mississippi especially had -accordingly organized themselves into banking corporations and issued -notes as the easiest way to borrow the capital they wanted. From 1830 -to 1839 the banking capital of Mississippi increased from three to -seventy-five millions, which of course represented one credit built -upon another, on renewed and extended debt, as the old planters bought -more slaves and took up more land instead of paying for the old, or -as new settlers came in. Mississippi was therefore indebted to the -Northeast for the redemption of their immense bank debt, or for the -capital bought with it. The high rates for money in England and this -country at last checked the rise in cotton in 1836. Bad harvests and -high prices for food fell in with a glut of manufactured cotton, and -when cotton began to fall ruin was certain. As soon as the revulsion -came it ran through the whole speculative system. The new suburbs which -had been laid out in every city and village never came to anything. -Western lands lost all speculative value, and railroad and canal stock -fell with rapidity. - -The first resort for help was to Mr. Biddle. The calamity most -apprehended was a shipment of specie, and the effort was to gain an -extension of credit or the substitution of a better for a less known -credit. The Bank of the United States had high credit in Europe, and -indeed all over the world. Ultimately payment must be made by crops yet -to be produced or forwarded. Biddle entered into an agreement with the -New York banks which seems to have been only partially carried out, but -he sold post notes payable one year from date at Barny’s in London. He -received one hundred and twelve and one-half for these, specie being at -one hundred and seven. The bonds were discounted in England at five per -cent. United States Bank stock was at one hundred and twenty. - -The situation in England was so serious that all seemed to depend on -remittances from the United States. The Bank of England extended aid -to “the three W’s” to the extent of five hundred thousand pounds on -a guarantee made up in the city, and opened a credit of two million -pounds for the United States Bank, if one-half the amount should be -shipped in specie. To this condition the United States Bank would not -agree. The proposition attributed to the Bank of the United States -a strength which it did not possess. The management of the Bank of -England in this and the two following years was bad, and did much to -enhance the mischief in both countries. France participated in the -distress although there had been no speculation there. - -A delegation of New York merchants was sent to Washington on May 3 -to ask the President to recall the specie circular, to defer the -collection of duty bonds, and to call an extra session of Congress. In -their address to him they sum up the situation: in six months at New -York, real estate had shrunk forty millions; in two months two hundred -and fifty firms had failed, and stocks had shrunk twenty millions; -merchandise had fallen thirty per cent, and within a few weeks twenty -thousand persons had been thrown out of employment. - -Early in May three banks at Buffalo failed. On May 8, the Dry Dock Bank -(New York) failed. On the tenth all the New York City banks suspended. -The militia were under arms and there were fears of a riot. On the -eleventh the Philadelphia banks suspended, because the New York banks -had, and because, although they had plenty of specie for themselves, -they had not enough for the whole “Atlantic seaboard.” They said, -however, that they were debtors, on balance, to New York. As the news -spread through the country, the banks, with few exceptions, suspended. -It was one of the notions born of the bank war that the United States -Bank was guilty of oppression when it called on state banks for their -balances, and the state banks had practiced “leniency” towards each -other. Bank statements of the period show enormous sums as due to and -from other banks. This was what carried them all down together, for one -could not stand alone unless its debits and credits were with the same -banks. - -During the summer the governors of several states called extra -sessions of the legislatures. The President had refused to recall -the specie circular, or to call an extra session of Congress, but -the embarrassments of the Treasury forced him to do the latter. The -collection of duty bonds was deferred and the revenue thereby cut -off. The public money was in the suspended banks, and the Treasury, -nominally possessed of forty millions, at the very time when part of -this sum was being paid to the states, had to drag along from day to -day by the use of drafts on its collectors for the small sums received -or by chance left over in their hands since the suspension. As notes -under five dollars had been forbidden by nearly all the states, and as -specie was at ten per cent premium, all small change disappeared, and -the towns were flooded with notes and tickets for small sums, issued by -municipalities, corporations, and individuals. - -The most interesting fact connected with this commercial credit is -that New York and Philadelphia took opposite policies in regard to -it, and thus offered, in their differing experience, an experimental -test of those policies. The New York legislature passed an act -allowing suspension for one year. The New York policy then was to -contract liabilities and prepare for resumption at the date fixed. The -Philadelphia policy, in which Mr. Biddle was the leader, was to wait -without active exertions for things to get better. In his letter of -May 13 to Adams, Biddle said that the Bank could have gone on without -trouble, but that consideration for the rest forced him to go with -them. What especially moved him was that, if the Pennsylvania banks -had not suspended, Pennsylvanians would have had to do business with a -better currency than the New Yorkers, which would have been unfair. Mr. -Biddle knew perfectly well that the exchanges would arrange all that. -He was an adept at writing plausible letters. The truth, which was not -known until four years later, was that the capital of the Bank had -never been withdrawn from the stock loans, that the chief officers of -the Bank were plundering it, and that suspension was not more welcome -to any institution in the country than to the great Bank. The jealousy -between New York and Philadelphia was very great at this time. Mr. -Biddle’s personal vanity seems to have been greatly flattered when, in -March, he was called on by the New Yorkers to help them. He was still -the leading financier of the country. The business men could not spare -him, even if the government had thrown him off. There seems also to be -some evidence that he hoped that a great and universal revulsion would -force the general government to re-charter his Bank. The success of his -post notes in England and France was another source of gratified vanity -to him. In his theory of banking he was one of those who believe that -the redemption of the bank note is effected by the merchandise. Hence -banking was, for him, an art by which the banker regulated commerce -through expansions and contractions of the circulation according to the -circumstances which he might observe in the market. - -The first effect of the opposite courses taken by New York and -Philadelphia was very favorable to his views. The southern trade was -transferred from New York to Philadelphia. Southern notes were at a -discount of twenty or twenty-five per cent. Receiving these notes from -the merchants, the Bank employed them through Bevan and Humphreys in -buying cotton. This operation began in July and was intended to move -the cotton to Europe in order to meet the post notes of the Bank when -they should become due. The firm of Biddle and Humphreys was also -formed and established at Liverpool as the agent of this operation. -In the extension of the transaction cotton was bought and paid for -by drafts on Bevan and Humphreys of Philadelphia, which drafts were -discounted by the Bank. Biddle and Humphreys, having sold the cotton, -remitted the proceeds to Mr. Jandon, former cashier of the Bank, sent -to England as its agent in July. To all this it must be added that -the Bank assumed the function of securing, for its producers, a good -or fair price for cotton. Jandon’s instructions were to protect the -interests of the bank, and “of the country at large.” - -If the Bank had simply been a strong, sound bank, intent on earning -profits, it would have sent two or three millions to Europe, selling -exchange at one hundred and twelve, and would not have suspended. -The rest of the story would then have been very different for all -concerned. The arrival in June of a ship in England with one hundred -thousand dollars specie sufficed to sustain American credit and to -revive American securities. When the credit of a debtor is tainted, -nothing revives it like payment. - -The extra session of Congress met on September 4. The fourth -installment of the State Deposit Fund was postponed until January 1, -1839, but it was locked up in the suspended banks and, as the former -installments had been drawn from the better banks, the balance due -was all in the worst banks of the country, those of the southwestern -states. As they had loaned it to their customers, it was, in fact, -amongst the people of those states. A law was passed to institute suit -against these banks unless they paid on demand, or gave bonds to do so -in three installments before July 1, 1839. There were only six deposit -banks then paying specie; one was new, four had not suspended, and one -had resumed. Power to call on the states for the funds “deposited” with -them was taken from the Secretary of the Treasury and held by Congress. -Interest-bearing Treasury notes were provided for one year, to meet -expenses, and an extension of nine months was given on duty bonds. -At this session the sub-treasury system was brought forward as an -administration measure. It split the party. The “bank democrats” (state -bank interest which joined the Jackson party in 1832 to break down the -United States Bank) went into opposition. The advocates of the “credit -system” said the sub-treasury scheme, by giving the government control -of the specie in the country, would give it control of all credit. -Meanwhile Benton said that the eighty million specie in the country -was its bulwark against adversity, and the Locofocos said that any one -who exported specie was a British hireling. So that there was a fine -confusion of financial notions. - -In the fall the English money market became much easier, and the same -tendency appeared here. Specie at New York was at about seven per -cent premium, but steadily declining. Prices of breadstuffs remained -very high (flour nine dollars to nine dollars and a half at New York) -and the stagnation of industry was complete. Migration to the West was -large. - -On August 18 the New York banks called a convention of banks to -deliberate on resumption. The Philadelphia banks frustrated the -proposition by refusing. A convention met in October but adjourned -without action until April. On the 7th of April the New York banks -had assets two and a half times their liabilities, excluding real -estate, and were creditors of the Philadelphia banks for $1,200,000. -They had reduced their liabilities from $25,400,000 on January 1, 1837 -to $12,900,000 on January 1, 1838, and the foreign exchanges were -favorable. - -The bank convention met April 1, 1838, and voted by states to resume -January 1, 1839, without precluding an earlier day. New York and -Mississippi alone voted nay, the former because the date was too -remote; the latter because it was too early. New England joined -Philadelphia and Baltimore for the later day. Mr. Biddle published -another letter in which he blamed the rigor of the contraction at New -York; he wanted to remain “prepared to resume but not resuming,” and -looked to Congress to do the work. The exchange between New York and -Philadelphia was then four and a half per cent against the latter. The -southwestern exchanges were growing worse. On May 1, the Philadelphia -banks resolved to pay specie for demands under one dollar. The Bank -of England engaged to send one million pounds in specie to support -resumption, and did send one hundred thousand pounds, but then receded -from the undertaking; its stock of specie was now very large and -increasing. The New York banks resumed during the first week in May, -the Boston and New England banks generally at the same time. Specie was -coming into New York. On May 31 Congress repealed the specie circular, -whereupon Mr. Biddle published another letter saying that since -Congress had acted, he saw his way to resumption and would “coöperate.” -The Bank had, at this time, over thirteen millions loaned on “bills -receivable,” that is, on securities put in the teller’s drawer, as cash -to replace cash taken out. - -After the adjournment of Congress on July 9 there was a much better -feeling, especially on account of the defeat of the sub-treasury -bill, and on July 10, Governor Ritner of Pennsylvania published a -proclamation requiring the banks to resume on August 13, and to pay and -withdraw all notes under five dollars. On July 23 a bank convention -composed of delegates from the middle states met at Philadelphia. It -was agreed to resume on August 13. The Philadelphia banks were obliged -to contract very suddenly and money was very dear there. As soon -as they resumed there were demands on them from New York, exchange -being against them. This caused excitement and indignation. The banks -generally declared dividends as soon as they resumed. Elsewhere, here -and in England, money was easy and the times rapidly improving. There -was, however, a feverish and uncertain market for cotton. Biddle and -Humphreys were carrying an immense stock, and buyers and sellers -differed as to prices. - -On December 10, 1838, Biddle published another letter to Adams in -which he reviewed his policy of the last two years, and withdrew the -Bank from all its former public activity. He says: “It abdicates its -involuntary power.” He defended the cotton speculations, saying that -he had saved the great staple of our country from being sacrificed, by -introducing a new competitor into the market. Here then was a buyer who -had gone into the market on purpose to “bull” some one else’s property. -His fate could not be very doubtful. At this same time the Liverpool -market was very dull and the spinners were curtailing their demands -because the supply was under the control of speculators. It was true, -as was asserted, that the crop was short, but the buyers took this for -a speculator’s story, and, anticipating a break in the corner and a -fall in price, they refused to buy. The speculation no doubt unduly -depressed the price. The southwestern agents of the Bank of the United -States were offering advances of from two to five cents above the -market price to secure consignments to Biddle and Humphreys, and Mr. -Jandon, because he had lost instead of winning confidence, was paying -ruinous rates for money to carry on his operations. - -During the winter most of the southern and western banks resumed, at -least nominally, but as the spring of 1839 approached the southern -exchanges again fell and many of the banks suspended again. On March -29 Biddle resigned the presidency of the Bank, saying that he left it -strong and prosperous. The stock fell from one hundred and sixteen to -one hundred and twelve, but soon recovered. The money market became -stringent again, influenced by fears of the South. - -In March, by speculative sales, by the diminution of stock, and by the -real shortness of the crop, cotton was forced up one and one-fourth -pence at Liverpool, and Biddle and Humphreys sold out their entire -stock. The net profit was six hundred thousand dollars. This was -regarded as a great triumph, and as a complete vindication of Biddle’s -policy. In July, 1839, the Bank of the United States paid a semi-annual -dividend of four per cent--its last one. - -The success of the cotton speculation led to a plan for renewing it on -a grander scale. On June 6, an unsigned circular was published at New -York, which proposed a scheme for advancing three-fourths of the value -at fourteen cents on all cotton consigned to Biddle and Humphreys. -They were to “hold on until prices vigorously rally.” The agent, Mr. -Wilder, declared that this had nothing to do with the United States -Bank, so far as he knew. It was, however, a scheme of the Bank. The -Southwestern notes were falling lower and lower, and the post notes -issued in the Southwest the year before were now falling due, and were -not paid. The pressure of this fell on Philadelphia, where money was -up to fifteen per cent and the banks were curtailing. The news from -England was also bad. Cotton was down two cents. The specie of the Bank -of England was rapidly declining and money was at five per cent. The -arrangements from this side in 1837 had simply consisted in renewals -or extensions, and as yet few payments had been made. Stocks, etc., -were sent over, but they fell upon a glutted and stringent market and -the prices declined. These securities therefore did not furnish means -of payment, and specie shipments were found to be necessary. The Bank -of the United States had prevented any shipment of specie by offering -all the bills demanded at one hundred and nine and a half, and Mr. -Jandon had been obliged to adopt the most reckless means to meet these -bills. In August he wrote to Biddle and Humphreys to supply him with -money at any sacrifice of cotton. “Life or death to the Bank of the -United States is the issue.” The Bank here urged Bevan and Humphreys -to direct their agents to meet Jandon’s demands and the Bank assumed -the loss. In August the Bank sent an agent to New York, to draw all the -bills he could sell on Hottinguer at Paris, to draw the proceeds in -specie from the New York banks, and to ship it to meet the bills, the -object being to force the New York banks to suspend in order that their -example might again be quoted. The Bank also sold its post notes at a -discount of eighteen per cent per annum in Boston, New York, Baltimore, -and smaller places, and gathered up capital to meet the emergency at -Philadelphia caused by the failure of the Southern remittances. The -money markets in all these cities were very stringent until October. On -the ninth of that month the Bank of the United States failed on drafts -from New York, and on the tenth the news was received that the drafts -on Hottinguer had been protested. He had given notice that he would not -pay unless he was covered, and the drafts arrived before the specie -did. Jandon succeeded in getting Rothschild to take up the bills. The -amount was seven million francs. - -The banks south and west of New York and some of the Rhode Island -banks now suspended again. Specie at Philadelphia was at one hundred -and seven to one hundred and seven and one-half. United States Bank -stock at seventy. On October 15, it was at eighty, and sold at New -York at one-fourth premium. Scarcely any New York City notes were in -circulation. - -This suspension was the real catastrophe of the speculative period -which preceded. A great and general liquidation now began. Perhaps as -many as two hundred of these banks never resumed. The stagnation of -industry lasted for three or four years. The public improvements so -rashly begun were suspended or abandoned. The states were struggling -with the debts contracted. Some repudiated; some suspended the payment -of interest. The New England states and New York escaped all the -harsher features of this depression and emerged from it first. In -proportion as we go further south and west we find the distress more -intense and more prolonged. The recovery was never marked by any -distinct point of time, but came gradually and imperceptibly. - -The credit of the Bank of the United States bore up wonderfully under -the shock of its second suspension. Its friends were ready to attribute -its misfortunes to conspiracies, jealousy, or any other cause but its -own faults. They did not indeed know its internal history. It might -have recovered if it had not been ruined from within. The cotton -speculations showed a loss, in the summer of 1840, after saddling the -Bank with all possible charges, of $630,000 for the speculators. The -legislature of Pennsylvania ordered the banks to resume January 15, -1841. On the first of January, 1841, a statement of the assets of -the Bank was made, when it appeared that they consisted of a mass of -doubtful and worthless securities. The losses to date were over five -millions, according to the report of the directors, but over seventeen -millions, taking the stocks at their market value. The Bank resumed -January 15, with the other Philadelphia banks, and the great Bank -loaned the state four hundred thousand dollars, agreeing to loan as -much more. In twenty days the Philadelphia banks lost eleven millions -in specie, of which six millions were taken from the Bank of the United -States. On February 4 the Bank failed for the third and last time. -Its final failure was said to be due to stock jobbers. Suits were at -once begun in such numbers that all hope of ever resuscitating it had -to be abandoned. Its deposits, when it failed, were one million one -hundred thousand dollars and its notes in circulation two million eight -hundred thousand dollars. Twenty-seven millions out of the thirty-five -of its capital were held in Europe. The stock, in March, 1841, was at -seventeen. A committee of the stockholders reported in April, showing -the internal history of the Bank for five years. This brought out from -Mr. Biddle six letters of explanation, defense, and recrimination, -which are valuable chiefly for the further insight they give into the -history. As to the winding up of the Bank it is very difficult to -obtain information. Private inquiries lead to the following results. -Three trusts were constituted: one for the city banks to which the Bank -owed five or six millions; one for the note-holders and depositors; and -one for the other creditors. The city banks, the note-holders, and the -depositors were ultimately paid in full. The other claims were bought -up by one or two persons who took the assets. What they made of them is -not matter of history. - -The attempt of the Pennsylvania banks to resume in January, 1841, had -been the signal for similar attempts in the other states. The banks on -the seaboard as far south as South Carolina generally resumed, and in -the Western and Gulf states some took the same step. All were indebted -to the Northeast, and were asked to pay as soon as they said they -were ready to pay. Like the Philadelphia banks they succumbed to this -demand. The Virginia banks held out until April, when the suspension -was once more universal south of New York. - -All the states except New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, -Connecticut, and Delaware had debts, amounting in all to nearly two -hundred millions. The Southern States had generally contracted these -debts to found banks. The Middle and Western States had contracted -debts for public works. In the former case the profits of the banks -were expected to cover the interest on the debt. In the latter case -the works were expected to be remunerative in a short time, and the -interest was provided for in the meantime by bank dividends (on stocks -owned by the state, which only constituted another debt), by taxes on -banks, and by royalties. Both schemes were plausible and might have -been successful if managed with good judgment and moderation. Under -the actual circumstances they were subject to political control, the -methods of which were reckless and ignorant. The consequence was -that when credit collapsed and the English market no longer absorbed -the state stocks with avidity, the states found themselves heavily -indebted, bound to pay large interest charges, and without the -anticipated revenue. The state banks of the South had loaned their -borrowed capital to legislators and politicians, and had no assets but -“suspended debt.” The improvement states had become heavily indebted -to their own banks and depended on bank dividends to pay interest. The -state banks all held state stocks as assets, and when these declined -in value, the banks became insolvent. Thus the banking system was -interlocked with the state finances and with the mania for improvements -unwisely planned and attempted without reference to the capital at -command. The aversion to taxation was very strong, and as taxation -was delayed, one state after another defaulted on its interest. The -delinquent states were Pennsylvania (which laid taxes in 1840, but -inadequate to meet the deficiency), Michigan (of which the Bank of the -United States held two millions in bonds not paid for when it failed), -Mississippi (of which the same bank held five millions in bonds the -obligation of which was disputed and never met), Indiana (whose debt -was one-fifth of the total valuation), Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland -and Arkansas, and Florida territory--total amount, one hundred and -eleven millions. In five years the Bank of the United States gave to -Pennsylvania three millions, subscribed nearly half a million to public -improvements by corporations, and loaned the state eight and one-half -millions. In 1857–1858 Pennsylvania sold out her works, which had cost -thirty-five millions, for eleven millions. The bonds deposited in New -York to secure circulation had a par value of four and six-tenths -millions, but were worth only one and six-tenths millions on the first -of January, 1843. As early as March, 1841, this decline caused a panic -in “Safety Fund” and “Free Bank” notes at New York. - -Pennsylvania now entered on another experiment which threatened to -ruin her remaining banks as the reckless demands on the Bank of the -United States had helped to ruin that institution. On May 3, 1841, the -legislature passed, over a veto, a “Relief Act.” The object was to -secure a loan of three millions from the banks. The Act allowed them to -issue that amount in small notes which they were to subscribe to a five -per cent loan. They were to redeem the notes in five per cent stock on -demand in amounts over one hundred dollars. The stocks were then at -eighty and specie at seven per cent premium. - -The best financial writer in the country at that time (Gouge) said of -this Act: Pennsylvania, “after having borrowed as much as she could in -the old-fashioned way from banks and brokers, and domestic and foreign -capitalists, resolved to extort a loan of a dollar a head from every -washerwoman and woodsawyer and everybody else within her limits who -had a dollar to lend. But as washerwomen and woodsawyers and other -dollar people cannot long dispense with the use of their funds, it was -necessary to give these certificates of loan in a circulating form, so -that the burden might be shifted from one to another day by day, or, if -necessary, two or three times a day.” - -The summer of 1841 was marked by intense distress in Pennsylvania. A -table of the best investment stocks of Philadelphia shows a shrinkage -between August, 1838, and August, 1841, from sixty million to three and -one-half millions. The wages class was exposed to the bitterest poverty -and distress. The Pennsylvanians attributed the trouble to the want of -a protective tariff. For a time, in the autumn, the Relief notes seemed -to act beneficially. The banks took them and they circulated at par -with the rest of the state currency. In January, 1842, the Girard Bank -failed, and about the same time the Pennsylvania and three others less -important, and by March a crisis was reached worse than anything which -had preceded. A bill was suddenly passed by the legislature commanding -immediate resumption. An amendment was proposed that the banks should -no longer be bound to receive the Relief notes, although the state -should do so. The amendment was afterwards withdrawn, but the Relief -notes were ruined. They fell, some to seventy-five and some to fifty -in state currency and then became merchandise, after six months and -three days of use. Capital was now not to be had at four per cent per -month, but this bankruptcy had cleared the situation. The eleven banks -which had not failed agreed to resume on March 18. The exchanges with -New York turned in favor of Philadelphia. The years 1842 and 1843 were -years of great depression. The banks throughout the west and south were -liquidating, after which they either perished or resumed. From 1843 a -new sound and healthy development of industry and credit began. The -recovery, however, was very slow, and banks sprang up again sooner and -faster than anything else. - -The total amount of Relief notes issued in Pennsylvania was two and -one tenth millions. In January, 1843, the amount outstanding was, -of depreciated $639,834, of specie value (issued by banks which had -resumed) $240,801. Bicknell’s _Reporter_ said: “If any one can devise -an immediate plan whereby the people can get rid of about $700,000 of -paper trash, he will be entitled to the name of a public benefactor.” -In February, 1843, the Legislature ordered the Treasurer to cancel -$100,000 of Relief notes at once and $100,000 monthly until all were -destroyed, but in June, 1843, there were still $684,521 out. - -This is certainly a melancholy story of the way in which people who -enjoy the most exceptional chances of wealth and prosperity can -squander them by ignorance of political economy and recklessness -in political management. Banks were regarded as means of borrowing -capital, not as institutions for lending it. If there was anywhere -a group of needy speculators, they secured a bank charter, elected -themselves directors, gave their notes for the stock, printed a lot -of bank notes, loaned the notes to themselves, and went out and with -the notes bought the capital they wanted. Bank after bank failed with -an immense circulation afloat and no assets but the notes of its -directors, who had failed too. When the United States had thirty or -forty millions surplus on hand and these banks could get the custody -and handling of it for an indefinite period, because the country had -no need for it, it can readily be understood why banks multiplied. The -banks were encouraged to lend this deposit freely to the public, which -they were by no means loath to do, for that was the only way to gain a -profit on it. They lent it, not once but two or three times over. The -New York bank commissioners pointed out the danger of a system in which -the borrower came directly into contact with the bank which issued the -currency. If a man was eager to borrow and pay high interest and the -bank had only to print the notes to accommodate him, there was every -stimulus to over-issue. If the borrower engaged in any enterprise he -raised the price of everything he bought. When he became engaged in -his enterprise and wanted more capital, he went back to the bank more -eager and more ready to pay high interest than ever, and the operation -was repeated. In 1836, on the top of the inflation, the rates for money -were twelve and fifteen per cent throughout the year, with a very -tight money market. The banks and the business community could not -throw the blame on each other. They stimulated each other and went on -in their folly hand in hand. The penalties, however, were not fairly -distributed. The banks “suspended,” as they called it; that is, when -asked to pay their debts, they said they would not; and they enjoyed a -complete immunity in this respect, while people outside who could not -pay had to fail. - -I have tried, within the limits to which I am bound, to show how many -elements were combined in this period and how they were all interwoven. -There are the political elements, the tariff element, the movement -of population to the new land, the fiscal operations of the general -government, the revolution in the coinage, the mania for public -improvements, the reckless creation of state debts, and the war on -the United States Bank. Any one of these might have accounted for a -financial crisis in an old country, and the fact that the catastrophe -produced by all combined was not greater here is a striking proof of -the vitality of the country and the wonderful advantages which it was -wasting. - -On the four or five years of inflated prosperity there followed four -or five years of the most slow and grinding distress. 1843 is the year -of lowest prices in our history, and the year of severest restriction -in industry. In 1842 the United States Treasury was under protest and -actually bankrupt, and American credit was so low that an agent of the -general government who was sent to Europe to try to place a loan of -only twelve million dollars there could not do it at all. In that same -year, however, out of what income it did have, the general government -distributed six hundred thousand dollars, which came from land, amongst -the states. As for calling back any of the twenty-eight millions -deposited with the states, no effort of the kind was ever made. The -states were complaining that the fourth installment, to which they had -a right, had never been paid to them. The question is sometimes mooted -whether a national debt is a curse or a blessing. There can be no doubt -whatever that a national surplus is a curse. - -In the years before 1837 there had been a great deal of eloquence -spent upon “the credit system.” After 1837 this matter was dropped. By -the credit system they meant the multiplication of bank notes which -were false promises. The notion was that the system of using these in -business gave poor men an easier chance to get rich. At first they -were loaned easily at low rates. Then, as prices rose and speculation -became active, interest advanced. The “poor men” found themselves -forced to submit to more and more ruinous renewals, all the heavier -because of the usury law, until they lost all they had ever really -owned. The question, then, is how much better off than they were would -the poor men of 1830 have been in 1845 if they had gone on slowly -earning and saving capital and making no use of credit at all. As it -was, the poor men of 1830, after supposing themselves rich in 1836, -were all bankrupt in 1845. Such is the course of every inflation of -the currency. It is proved by hundreds of instances; and there is no -delusion which it seems so hard to stamp out of the minds of men as -this, that in business we can make something out of nothing, although -we cannot in chemistry or mechanics. Nothing more surely tempts the man -without capital to his ruin than the easy credit which accompanies the -first stages of inflation. - -It is worth while also to reflect for a moment on the results of the -two plans for dealing with the crisis: the New York plan and the -Philadelphia plan. When an error has been committed in this world, we -always have to bear the penalty for it. If we do not like the stripes -on one side we can turn and take them on the other, but when nature -inflicts penalties for her broken laws we never can squirm out of -the way. In this case, then, when the folly had been perpetrated the -punishment had to be suffered. The only choice was whether to take it -quick and heavy, or light and long. The New Yorkers chose the former -way. The contraction was severe and painful while it lasted, but it -was soon over. From May, 1838, the New York banks resumed and held on -without further default and the New York business recovered and entered -upon a new course of growth from that time. The Philadelphians took -the other course. They made it easy for the debtors and waited for the -storm to blow over. The consequence was that the debts increased still -further. The advantage in trade over New York proved shortlived and -terribly expensive, for the goods were not paid for. The confusion and -distress lasted for four years longer than in New York, and the total -loss was very much greater. For the last five years we have been under -the same necessity as that which oppressed the country in 1837. We have -been following the Philadelphia plan and I may give you my opinion that -we have not been wise. I think that we might have escaped three years -ago with far less loss, and might have been three years further on the -road to new prosperity. - -In conclusion let me draw your attention to the lesson of this history -in regard to resumption. There was no resumption, you see, until the -currency had been reduced to the limits of the actual specie necessity -of the country or even below it. Either voluntarily or by bankruptcy -the redundant paper had to be withdrawn. Such has been the case in -every other instance of resumption that I know of, which has been real -and permanent. Applying this to our own present circumstances I ask -myself whether the amount of paper now in circulation is in excess of -the requirement of the country, and there seems to me every reason -to believe that it is. If that is so, resumption cannot be real and -permanent until a portion of it has been redeemed and withdrawn. -The interest in resumption of the great body of industrious, sober, -and thrifty citizens cannot be exaggerated. Renewed prosperity on a -solid basis is impossible until after a complete return to specie -value. There are those, however, who want to live by anything but -honest labor, who find their best chance when prices are fluctuating -and currency is continually changing in value. They have schemes and -interests which resumption must destroy. They have done all they could -to make it fail and they are watchful and eager to see it fail. If it -does fail it will be a great national calamity, on account of the -authority which it will offer to these prophets of evil if for no other -reason. Resumption with us now stands at just that point where the -lightest preponderance of force may turn it one way or the other--may -insure its success or cause its failure. It is a great gain to get our -faces set in the right direction. It arouses the national pride in the -success of resumption. It silences opposition and malevolent efforts -against it. It makes it very much easier to take the requisite steps to -insure success, for they involve no pain at all, nothing but economy -and prudence in the national finances; the avoidance of unnecessary -expenditure and the postponement for a time of certain expenditures -proper in themselves. If the country needs six hundred million dollars -to do its business with, then the withdrawal of a portion of the paper -would simply bring gold into circulation, and resumption would be -placed beyond a doubt. If the country does not want six hundred million -dollars to do its business with, then we cannot sustain specie payments -with that amount afloat, and we have still before us more of the -experience of 1842 and 1843. - - - - -THE SCIENCE OF SOCIOLOGY[58] - - -In the present state of the science of sociology the man who has -studied it at all is very sure to feel great self-distrust in trying -to talk about it. The most that one of us can do at the present time -is to appreciate the promise which the science offers to us, and to -understand the lines of direction in which it seems about to open out. -As for the philosophy of the subject, we still need the master to show -us how to handle and apply its most fundamental doctrines. I have the -feeling all the time, in studying and teaching sociology, that I have -not mastered it yet in such a way as to be able to proceed in it with -good confidence in my own steps. I have only got so far as to have an -almost overpowering conviction of the necessity and value of the study -of that science. - -Mr. Spencer addressed himself at the outset of his literary career to -topics of sociology. In the pursuit of those topics he found himself -forced (as I understand it) to seek constantly more fundamental -and wider philosophical doctrines. He came at last to fundamental -principles of the evolution philosophy. He then extended, tested, -confirmed, and corrected these principles by inductions from other -sciences, and so finally turned again to sociology, armed with the -scientific method which he had acquired. To win a powerful and correct -method is, as we all know, to win more than half the battle. When so -much is secured, the question of making the discoveries, solving the -problems, eliminating the errors, and testing the results, is only a -question of time and of strength to collect and master the data. - -We have now acquired the method of studying sociology scientifically so -as to attain to assured results. We have acquired it none too soon. The -need for a science of life in society is urgent, and it is increasing -every year. It is a fact which is generally overlooked that the great -advance in the sciences and the arts which has taken place during -the last century is producing social consequences and giving rise to -social problems. We are accustomed to dwell upon the discoveries of -science and the development of the arts as simple incidents, complete -in themselves, which offer only grounds for congratulation. But the -steps which have been won are by no means simple events. Each one -has consequences which reach beyond the domain of physical power -into social and moral relations, and these effects are multiplied -and reproduced by combination with each other. The great discoveries -and inventions redistribute population. They reconstruct industries -and force new organization of commerce and finance. They bring new -employments into existence and render other employments obsolete, -while they change the relative value of many others. They overthrow -the old order of society, impoverishing some classes and enriching -others. They render old political traditions grotesque and ridiculous, -and make old maxims of statecraft null and empty. They give old vices -of human nature a chance to parade in new masks, so that it demands -new skill to detect the same old foes. They produce a kind of social -chaos in which contradictory social and economic phenomena appear side -by side to bewilder and deceive the student who is not fully armed -to deal with them. New interests are brought into existence, and new -faiths, ideas, and hopes, are engendered in the minds of men. Some of -these are doubtless good and sound; others are delusive; in every case -a competent criticism is of the first necessity. In the upheaval of -society which is going on, classes and groups are thrown against each -other in such a way as to produce class hatreds and hostilities. As -the old national jealousies, which used to be the lines on which war -was waged, lose their distinctness, class jealousies threaten to take -their place. Political and social events which occur on one side of the -globe now affect the interests of population on the other side of the -globe. Forces which come into action in one part of human society rest -not until they have reached all human society. The brotherhood of man -is coming to be a reality of such distinct and positive character that -we find it a practical question of the greatest moment what kind of -creatures some of these hitherto neglected brethren are. Secondary and -remoter effects of industrial changes, which were formerly dissipated -and lost in the delay and friction of communication, are now, by -our prompt and delicate mechanism of communication, caught up and -transmitted through society. - -It is plain that our social science is not on the level of the tasks -which are thrown upon it by the vast and sudden changes in the whole -mechanism by which man makes the resources of the globe available to -satisfy his needs, and by the new ideas which are born of the new -aspects which human life bears to our eyes in consequence of the -development of science and the arts. Our traditions about the science -and art of living are plainly inadequate. They break to pieces in our -hands when we try to apply them to the new cases. A man of good faith -may come to the conviction sadly, but he must come to the conviction -honestly, that the traditional doctrines and explanations of human life -are worthless. - -A progress which is not symmetrical is not true; that is to say, every -branch of human interest must be developed proportionately to all the -other branches, else the one which remains in arrears will measure the -advance which may be won by the whole. If, then, we cannot produce a -science of life in society which is broad enough to solve all the new -social problems which are now forced upon us by the development of -science and art, we shall find that the achievements of science and art -will be overwhelmed by social reactions and convulsions. - -We do not lack for attempts of one kind and another to satisfy the -need which I have described. Our discussion is in excess of our -deliberation, and our deliberation is in excess of our information. Our -journals, platforms, pulpits, and parliaments are full of talking and -writing about topics of sociology. The only result, however, of all -this discussion is to show that there are half a dozen arbitrary codes -of morals, a heterogeneous tangle of economic doctrines, a score of -religious creeds and ecclesiastical traditions, and a confused jumble -of humanitarian and sentimental notions which jostle each other in the -brains of the men of this generation. It is astonishing to watch a -discussion and to see how a disputant, starting from a given point of -view, will run along on one line of thought until he encounters some -fragment of another code or doctrine, which he has derived from some -other source of education; whereupon he turns at an angle, and goes on -in a new course until he finds himself face to face with another of -his old prepossessions. What we need is adequate criteria by which to -make the necessary tests and classifications, and appropriate canons of -procedure, or the adaptation of universal canons to the special tasks -of sociology. - -Unquestionably it is to the great philosophy which has now been -established by such ample induction in the experimental sciences, and -which offers to man such new command of all the relations of life, that -we must look for the establishment of the guiding lines in the study of -sociology. I can see no boundaries to the scope of the philosophy of -evolution. That philosophy is sure to embrace all the interests of man -on this earth. It will be one of its crowning triumphs to bring light -and order into the social problems which are of universal bearing on -all mankind. Mr. Spencer is breaking the path for us into this domain. -We stand eager to follow him into it, and we look upon his work on -sociology as a grand step in the history of science. When, therefore, -we express our earnest hope that Mr. Spencer may have health and -strength to bring his work to a speedy conclusion, we not only express -our personal respect and good-will for himself, but also our sympathy -with what, I doubt not, is the warmest wish of his own heart, and our -appreciation of his great services to true science and to the welfare -of mankind. - - - - -INTEGRITY IN EDUCATION[59] - - -In addressing you on the present occasion, I am naturally led to -speak of matters connected with education. We are met here amid -surroundings which, to the great majority of us, are unfamiliar, but -we are assembled in the atmosphere of our school days and under the -inspiration of school memories. Some of us are rapidly approaching, if -we have not already reached, the time when our interest in education -re-arises in behalf of the next generation. Many are engaged in the -work of teaching. Others have only just finished a stage in their -education. I therefore propose to speak for a few minutes about -integrity in education, believing that it is a subject of great -importance at the present time, and one which may justly command your -interest. - -By integrity in education, I mean the opposite of all sensationalism -and humbug in education. I would include under it as objects to be -aimed at in education, not only the pursuit of genuine and accurate -information and wide knowledge of some technical branch of study, but -also real discipline in the use of mental powers, sterling character, -good manners, and high breeding. - -Modern sensationalism is conquering a wide field for itself. It is a -sort of parasite on high civilization. Its motto is that seeming is as -good as being. Its intrinsic fault is its hollowness, insincerity, and -falsehood. It deals in dash, flourish, and meretricious pretense. It -resides in the form, not in the substance; in the outward appearance, -not in the reality. It arouses disgust whenever it is perceived; but -the worst of it is that its forms are so various, its manifestations -are sometimes so delicate, and it often lies so near to the real and -the true, that is it difficult to distinguish it. Life hurries past -us very rapidly. The interests which demand our attention are very -numerous and important. We have not time to scrutinize them all. Then, -too, the publicity of everything nowadays prevents modest retirement -from being a sign of merit. We go on the principle that if anything -is good, it is for the public. Publicity is honorable and proper -recognition, and those who have charge of the public trumpets have not -time, if they have the ability, to discriminate and criticize very -closely. - -These reflections account sufficiently for the growth of sensationalism -in general. Probably each one sees the mischief which it does in -his own circle or profession more distinctly than elsewhere. I have -certainly been struck by its influence on education. I see it in -common-school education as well as in the universities. It attaches to -methods as well as to subjects. It develops a dogmatism of its own. -Men without education, or experience as teachers, often take up the -pitiful rôle of another class which has come to be called “educators.” -They start off with a whim or two which they elaborate into theories -of education. These they propound with great gravity in speech and -writing, producing long discussions as to plans and methods. They are -continually searching for a patent method of teaching, or a royal road -to learning, when, in fact, the only way to learn is by the labor of -the mind in observing, comparing, and generalizing, and any patent -method which avoids this irksome labor produces sham results and -fails of producing the mental power and discipline of which education -consists. - -Persons of this class are generally impatient until they have attained -some opportunity of putting their notions in practice, and then it -is all over with any institution which becomes subject to their wild -empiricism. - -The saddest results of such proceedings are seen, of course, in the -pupils. That a certain school should lose its pupils, or fall into -debt, or be closed, is a comparatively small affair. The real mischief -is that men should be produced who have no real education, but only -a perverse training in putting forward plausible and meretricious -appearances. Such education falls in with the outward phenomena of -a sensational era and strengthens the impressions which a young and -inexperienced observer gets from our modern society, that audacity -is the chief of talents, that success or failure is the only measure -of right or wrong, that the man to be admired is the one who invents -clever tricks to circumvent a rival or opponent, or to skip over -a troublesome principle. Young people are more acute in their -observations, and they draw inferences and form generalizations -more logically and consistently than their elders. They have not -yet learned respect for dogmas, traditions, and conventionalities, -and their “education” goes on silently but surely, developing a -philosophy of life either of one kind or another. If, therefore, you -have an educational system consisting of formal cram for recitation or -examination, if there is a skimming of text-books, an empty acquisition -of terms, a memorizing of results only, you may pursue high-sounding -studies and “cover a great deal of ground,” you may have an elaborate -curriculum and boast of your proficiency in difficult branches, but you -will have no education. You may produce men who can spend a lifetime -dawdling over trifles, or men who always scatter their force when -they try to think, but you will not have intelligent men with minds -well-disciplined and well under control, who are able to apply their -full force to any new exigency, or any new problem, and to grasp and -conquer it. - -The fault here is plain enough. People forget, or do not perceive, that -simplicity and modesty are the first requisites in scientific pursuits. -We have to begin humbly and with small beginnings if we want to go -far. Inflation and pretense only lead to vanity and dilletantism, not -to strength and fruitful activity. If we advance eagerly, we deceive -ourselves by the notion that we are making grand progress. We are only -leaving much undone which we shall have to go back and repair. If, on -the other hand, we proceed slowly and with painstaking, every step of -advance is sure and genuine. It forms a great vantage-ground for the -next step. It strengthens and confirms the mental powers. They come -to act with certainty by scientific processes, not by guesses, and -this mental discipline enables us to apply our powers wherever we need -them. A new task is not a dead wall which is impassable to us because -we have never seen one like it before. It is only a new case for the -application of old and familiar processes. I never see anything more -pitiable than the helpless floundering in a new subject of a young man -far on in his education who has never yet learned to use his mind. - -In what I have already said about the philosophy of life which a young -person forms during the process of education, I have suggested that -education must exert a great influence on character. It is sometimes -asserted that education ought to mold character--ought to have that -object and work towards it, of set purpose. I do not deny this, but -I beg you to observe that it obscures the truth. The truth is that -education inevitably forms character one way or the other. The error is -in speaking as if academical instruction could be carried on without -training character, unless the set purpose were entertained. One might -read many books on mathematics and the sciences without any very direct -moral culture, but everything we learn about this world in which we -live reacts in some sort of principle for the regulation of our -conduct here. This, however, is not the most important thing. A school -is a miniature society. Do we not all know how it forms an atmosphere -of its own, how the members make a code of their own, and a public -opinion of their own? And then, what a position the teacher holds in -this little community. What a dangerous and responsible eminence he -occupies. What criticism he undergoes. What an authority his example -exerts. So, in this little society, general notions of conduct are -unconsciously formed, principles are adopted, habits grow. Every member -in his place gives to, and takes from, the common life. It may be well -doubted whether there is any association of life which exerts greater -influence on character than does the school, and its influence comes, -too, just as the formative period, when impressions are most easily -received and sink deepest. - -Here then is where sensationalism may do its greatest harm, and -where integrity of method is most important. The untruthfulness of -sensationalism here becomes a germinal principle, which develops into -manifold forms of untruthfulness in character. Young people cannot -practice show and pretense and yet be taught to believe that the only -important thing is what you are, and not at all what people think -about you. They cannot practice the devices which give a semblance of -learning, and yet be taught to believe that shams are disgraceful and -that the frank honesty which owns the worst is a noble trait. They may -learn to be ashamed when caught in a false pretense, but they will -not learn shame at deceit. I do not say that they will lie or steal, -but it is a pitiful code which defines honesty as refraining from -seizing other people’s property. Honesty is a far wider virtue than -not-stealing. It embraces rectitude of motive and purpose, completeness -and consistency of principle, and delicacy of responsibility. -Truthfulness is the very cornerstone of character, and an instinct of -dislike for whatever is false or meretricious is one of the feelings -which all sound education must inculcate. It cannot do so, however, -unless its _personnel_ and its methods are all animated by unflinching -integrity. - -I mentioned also, at the outset, amongst those things which are -embraced in education and to which I desire to see the principle of -integrity applied, good manners. Some people make an ostentatious -display of neglect for good manners. They think it democratic, or a -sign of good fellowship, to be negligent in this respect. They think -it something to be boasted of that they have no breeding. Some others -make manners supersede education and training and even character. -It is the latter error which most invades the sphere of education. -We are familiar with its forms. It gives us the mock gentleman of -the drawing-room under the same coat with the rowdy of the bar-room. -When this system triumphs, it fits our young people out with a -few fashionable phrases, which suffice for the persiflage of the -drawing-room, when a scientific subject by chance comes up. Girls are -the victims of this system far more than boys, but in “cultivated -circles” cases are common of this kind, in which a smattering of books -has been engrafted on the culture of the dancing school. Young men -and young women who have tacked together a few miscellaneous phrases -current amongst the learned will deliver you their opinions roundly -on the gravest problems of philosophy and science. The phrases which -stick in their minds the longest are those which are epigrammatic and -paradoxical, whether true or not. In fact, they could not analyze -or criticize their mental stock if they should try. They have never -learned to consider a subject and form an opinion. - -It does not follow, however, that boorishness is erudition, or that it -does not belong to education to teach the good manners which are good -simply because they are the spontaneous expression of a sound heart -and a well-trained mind. Envy, malice, and selfishness are the usual -springs of bad manners. They belong to the untrained and brutish man, -and it is the province of true education to eradicate them. Hence it -is that where true education is wanting we may often find the worst -manners with the greatest social experience, and the truest courtesy -where there has been genuine discipline, but little acquaintance with -social forms. - -I have not started this train of thought in order to tell you now that -we have enjoyed the true method of education, and that others have -not, but there are some things connected with this institution which -we may remember with pleasure in view of the reflections which I have -presented. - -This school was founded so long ago that it already has a body of -graduates who are useful and influential men in this city, and many -others are scattered up and down the country, useful and honorable, if -not celebrated citizens. It was not founded without some struggle, but -the more enlightened views prevailed and the results have vindicated -those views, I suppose to the satisfaction of everybody. The enterprise -enjoyed at the outset the patronage of a body of men of remarkably -broad views and sound public spirit. We who profited by its instruction -in our time may properly remember those men on this occasion with -gratitude and respect. One of them, surpassed by none in zeal to work -for and intelligence to plan such an institution, has only just passed -away. Your city has been fortunate in possessing such citizens. - -The plan on which the school was founded was remarkably wise and -farseeing. It has placed the highest education within the reach of -every boy in your city who had sufficient industry and self-denial to -seek it. Many of you are now in the position of active and responsible -citizens. You must regard this institution as one of the boasts of -your city. Guard it well. You may not boast of it only. You owe it a -debt which you must pay. Every boy and girl who has graduated here owes -a debt to the common school system of America. Every man for whom this -school has opened a career which would otherwise have been beyond his -reach, owes a tenfold debt, both to the common school system and to -the class in which he was born. Sectarian interests, private school -interests, property interests, and some cliques of “culture” falsely -so called, are rallying against the system a force which people as yet -underrate. There is no knowing how soon the struggle may open, and you -may be called upon to pay the allegiance you owe. - -This school has also been remarkably fortunate in the selection of the -teachers who have presided over it. We cannot exaggerate the value of -this selection. It is by the imperceptible influence of the teacher’s -character and example that the atmosphere of a school is created. It is -from this that the pupils learn what to admire and what to abhor, what -to seek and what to shun. It is from this that they learn what methods -of action are honorable and what ones are unbecoming. They learn all -this from methods of discipline as well as from methods of instruction. -They may learn craft and intrigue, or they may learn candor and -sincerity. They may learn to win success at any cost, or they may learn -to accept failure with dignity, when success could only be won by -dishonor. - -You know well what has always been the tone impressed on this -institution by the teachers we had here. We had many, both gentlemen -and ladies, whom we remember with respect and affection. Our later -experience of the world and of life has only served to show us more -distinctly, in the retrospect, how elevated was their tone, how sincere -their devotion, how simple and upright their methods of dealing with -us. They were not taskmasters to us, and their work was not a harsh and -ungrateful routine to them. - -One figure will inevitably arise before the minds of all when these -words are said, the figure of one who died with the harness on. I -have never seen anywhere, in my experience, a man of more simple and -unconscious high-breeding, one who combined more thoroughly the dignity -of official authority with the suavity of unrestrained intercourse with -his pupils. It is a part of the good fortune which came to us and to -this city from this institution that so many young people here enjoyed -his personal influence. - -It follows, as a natural consequence, from these facts, that we enjoyed -here to a high degree what I have described as integrity in education. -Sensationalism of any kind has always been foreign to the system here. -It must perish in such an atmosphere. We had instruction which was real -and solid, which conceded nothing to show and sacrificed nothing to -applause. We learned to work patiently for real and enduring results. -We learned the faith that what is genuine must outlast and prevail -over what is meretricious. We learned to despise empty display. We had -also a discipline which was complete and sufficient, but which was -attained without friction. There was no sentimentality, no petting, no -affectation of free and easy manners. Discipline existed because it was -necessary, and it was smooth because it was reasonable. - -Now there is nothing to which people apply more severe criticism, as -they grow old, than to their education. They find the need of it every -day, and they have to ask whether it was sufficient and suited to the -purpose or not. It is because we find, I think, that our education here -does stand this test that we are able to meet here on an occasion like -this with genuine interest and sympathy. The years in their flight have -scattered us and brought us weighty cares and new interests. We could -not lay these aside to come back here for purposes of mere sentiment, -or to repeat conventional phrases. We meet on the ground of grateful -recollection of benefits received, benefits which we can specify and -weigh and measure. - -This school must be regarded as a local institution. It belongs to -this city and its advantages are offered to the young people who grow -up here. I have referred to the exceptional wisdom and enlightenment -which presided over its foundation and have nourished its growth. In -conclusion, let me refer to what concerns its present and its future. -We are reminded by all we see about us here that its building and its -appliances are far better than they were in our day. Its prosperity -bears witness to its present good management. But, gentlemen, these -good things are not to be preserved without vigilance and labor. The -same wisdom and enlightenment must preside over the future as over the -past. I doubt not that the value of this institution to your city is -so fully appreciated, and the methods by which it has been developed -are so well understood, that any peril to it or to them would arouse -your earnest efforts for its defence. Keep it as it has been, devoted -to correct objects by sound methods. Sacrifice nothing to the _éclat_ -of hasty and false success. Concede nothing to the modern quackery -of education. Resist the specious schemes of reckless speculators on -educational theories. It is not to be expected that you can escape -these dangers any more than other people, and you have to be on your -guard against them. You want here an educational institution which -shall, in its measure, instruct your children in the best science and -thought of the day. You want it to make them masters of themselves and -of their powers. You want it to make them practical in the best and -only true sense, by making them efficient in dealing intelligently with -all the problems of life. The country needs such citizens to-day. The -state needs them. Your city needs them. They are needed in all the -trades and professions. You must look to such institutions as this to -provide them, and you must keep it true to its methods and purpose -if you want it to turn out men of moral courage, high principle, and -devotion to duty. - - - - -DISCIPLINE - - -It occurs very frequently to a person connected as a teacher with a -great seat of learning to meet persons who, having completed a course -of study and having spent a few years in active life, are led to make -certain reflections upon their academical career. There is a great -uniformity in the comments which are thus made, so far as I have heard -them, and they enforce upon me certain convictions. I observe that an -academical life is led in a community which is to a certain extent -closed, isolated, and peculiar. It has a code of its own as well for -work as for morals. It forms a peculiar standpoint, and life, as viewed -from it, takes on peculiar forms and peculiar colors. It is scarcely -necessary to add that the views of life thus obtained are distorted and -incorrect. - -I should not expect much success if I should undertake to correct -those views by description in words. It is only in life itself, that -is, by experience, that men correct their errors. They insist on -making experience for themselves. They delude themselves with hopes -that they are peculiar in their persons and characters, or that their -circumstances are peculiar, and so that in some way or other they can -perpetrate the old faults and yet escape the old penalties. It is -only when life is spent that these delusions are dispelled and then -the power and the opportunity to put the acquired wisdom to practice -is gone by. Thus the old continually warn and preach and the young -continually disregard and suffer. - -Although I could not expect better fortune than others if I should thus -preach, yet there are some things which, as I have often been led to -think, young men in your situation might be brought to understand with -great practical advantage, and which, if you did understand them, and -act upon them, would save you from the deepest self-reproach and regret -which I so often hear older men express; and the present occasion seems -a better one than I can otherwise obtain, for presenting those things. -I allude to some wider explanations of the meaning and purpose of -academical pursuits. I do not mean theories of education about which -people dispute, but I mean the purposes which any true education has -in view, and the responsibilities it brings with it. It surely is not -advisable that men of your age should pursue your education as a mere -matter of routine, learning prescribed lessons, performing enforced -tasks, resisting, unintelligent, and uninterested. Such an experience -on your part would not constitute any true education. It would not -involve any development of capability in you. It could only render you -dull, fond of shirking, slovenly in your work, and superficial in your -attainments. Unless I am greatly mistaken, some counteraction to such -a low and unworthy conception of academical life may be secured by -showing its relation to real life, and attaching things pursued here to -practical and enduring benefits. I have known men to get those benefits -without knowing it; and I believe that you would get them better if you -got them intelligently, and that you would appreciate them better if -you got them consciously. - -In the first place, it will be profitable to look at one or two notions -in regard to the purpose of education which do not seem to be sound. -One is that it is the purpose of education to give special technical -skill or dexterity and to fit a man to get a living. We may admit at -once that the object of study is to get useful knowledge. It was, -indeed, the error of some old systems of academical pursuits that they -gave only a special dexterity and that too in such a direction as -the making of Greek and Latin verses, which is a mere accomplishment -and not a very good one at that. It must be ranged with dancing and -fencing; it is not as high as drawing, painting, or music. There is, -moreover, a domain in which special technical training is proper. It is -the domain of the industrial school, for giving a certain theoretical -knowledge of persons who will be engaged for life in the mechanic arts. -With this limitation, however, we have at once given to us the bounds -which preclude this notion from covering the true conception of an -academic career. It does not simply provide technical training for a -higher class of arts which require longer preparation. You know that -this conception is widely held through our American community, and that -it is laid down with great dogmatic severity by persons who sometimes, -unfortunately, are in a position to turn their opinions into law. It -is one of the great obstacles against which all efforts for higher -education amongst us have to contend. - -I pass on, however, to another opinion just now much more fashionable -and held by people who are, at any rate, much more elegant than the -supporters of the view just mentioned, that is, the opinion that what -we expect from education is “culture.” Culture is a word which offers -us an illustration of the degeneracy of language. If I may define -culture, I have no objection to admitting that it is the purpose of -education to produce it; but since the word came into fashion, it has -been stolen by the dilettanti and made to stand for their own favorite -forms and amounts of attainments. Mr. Arnold, the great apostle, if -not the discoverer, of culture, tried to analyze it and he found it to -consist of sweetness and light. To my mind, that is like saying that -coffee is milk and sugar. The stuff of culture is all left out of it. -So, in the practice of those who accept this notion, culture comes to -represent only an external smoothness and roundness of outline without -regard to intrinsic qualities. - -We have got so far now as to begin to distinguish different kinds of -culture. There is chromo culture, of which we heard much a little while -ago, and there is bouffe culture, which is only just invented. If I -were in the way of it, I should like to add another class, which might -be called sapolio culture, because it consists in putting a high polish -on plated ware. There seems great danger lest this kind may come to be -the sort aimed at by those who regard culture as the end of education. - -A truer idea of culture is that which regards it as equivalent to -training, or the result of training, which brings into intelligent -activity all the best powers of mind and body. Such a culture is not to -be attained by writing essays about it, or by forming ever so clear a -literary statement or mental conception of what it is. It is not to be -won by wishing for it, or aping the external manifestations of it. We -men can get it only by industrious and close application of the powers -we want to develop. We are not sure of getting it by reading any number -of books. It requires continual application of literary acquisitions to -practice and it requires a continual correction of mental conceptions -by observation of things as they are. For the sake of distinguishing -sharply between the true idea of culture and the false, I have thought -it better to call the true culture discipline, a word which perhaps -brings out its essential character somewhat better. - -Here let me call your attention to one very broad generalization on -human life which men continually lose sight of, and of which culture -is an illustration. The great and heroic things which strike our -imagination are never attainable by direct efforts. This is true -of wisdom, glory, fame, virtue, culture, public good, or any other -of the great ends which men seek to attain. We cannot reach any of -these things by direct effort. They come as the refined result, in a -secondary and remote way, of thousands of acts which have another and -closer end in view. If a man aims at wisdom directly, he will be very -sure to make an affectation of it. He will attain only to a ridiculous -profundity in commonplaces. Wisdom is the result of great knowledge, -experience, and observation, after they have all been sifted and -refined down into sober caution, trained judgment, skill in adjusting -means to ends. - -In like manner, one who aims at glory or fame directly will win only -that wretched caricature which we call notoriety. Glory and fame, so -far as they are desirable things, are remote results which come of -themselves at the end of long and repeated and able exertions. - -The same holds true of the public good or the “cause,” or whatever -else we ought to call that end which fires the zeal of philanthropists -and martyrs. When this is pursued directly as an immediate good, there -arise extravagances, fanaticisms, and aberrations of all kinds. Strong -actions and reactions take place in social life, but not orderly -growth and gain. The first impression no doubt is that of noble zeal -and self-sacrifice, but this is not the sort of work by which society -gains. The progress of society is nothing but the slow and far remote -result of steady, laborious, painstaking growth of individuals. The man -who makes the most of himself and does his best in his sphere is doing -far more for the public good than the philanthropist who runs about -with a scheme which would set the world straight if only everybody -would adopt it. - -This view cuts down a great deal of the heroism which fills such a -large part of our poetry, but it brings us, I think, several very -encouraging reflections. The first is that one does not need to be a -hero to be of some importance in the world. Heroes are gone by. We want -now a good supply of efficient workaday men, to stand each in his place -and do good work. The second reflection to which we are led is that we -do not need to be straining our eyes continually to the horizon to see -where we are coming out, or, in other words, we do not need to trouble -ourselves with grand theories and purposes. The determination to do -just what lies next before us is enough. The great results will all -come of themselves and take care of themselves. We may spare ourselves -all grand emotions and heroics, because the more simply and directly -we take the business of life, the better will be the result. The -third inference which seems to be worth mentioning is that we come to -understand the value of trifles. - -All that I have said here about wisdom, fame, glory, “public good,” as -ends to be aimed at, holds good also of culture. It becomes a sham and -affectation when we make it an immediate end, and comes in its true -form only as a remote and refined result of long labor and discipline. - -Before I speak of it, however, in its direct relation to education, let -me introduce one other observation on the doctrine I have stated that -we cannot aim at the great results directly. That is this: the motive -to all immediate efforts is either self-interest or the desire to -gratify one’s tastes and natural tendencies. I say that all the grand -results which make up what we call social progress are the results -of millions of efforts on the part of millions of people, and that -the motive to each effort in the heart of the man who made it was the -gratification of a need or a tendency of his nature. I know that some -may consider this a selfish doctrine, eliminating all self-sacrifice -and martyr or missionary spirit, but to me it is a pleasure to observe -that we are not at war with ourselves, and that the intelligent pursuit -of our best good as individuals is the surest means to the good of -society. Moreover, do you imagine that if you set out to make the most -of yourself in any position in which you are placed, that you will have -no chance for self-sacrifice, and no opportunity of martyrdom offered -you? Do you think that a man who employs thoroughly all the means he -possesses to make his one unit of humanity as perfect as possible, -can do so without at every moment giving and receiving with the other -units about him? Do you think that he can go on far without finding -himself stopped by the question whether his comrades are going in the -same direction or not? Will he not certainly find himself forced to -stand against a tide which is flowing in the other direction? It will -certainly be so. The real martyrs have always been the men who were -forced to go one way while the rest of the community in which they -lived were going another, and they were swept down by the tide. I -promise you that if you pursue what is good for yourself, you need not -take care for the good of society; I warn you that if you pursue what -is good, you will find yourself limited by the stupidity, ignorance, -and folly of the society in which you live; and I promise you also -that if you hold on your way through the crowd or try to make them go -with you, you will have ample experience of self-sacrifice and as much -martyrdom as you care for. - -Now, if I have not led you too deep into social philosophy, let us -turn again to culture. We find that culture comes from thought, study, -observation, literary and scientific activity, and we find that men -practice these for gain, for professional success, for immediate -pleasure, or to gratify their tastes. The great motive of interest -provides the energy and this culture is but a secondary result. It -is a significant fact to observe that when the motive of interest is -removed, culture becomes flaccid and falls into dilletantism. - -I think that we have gained a standpoint now from which we can study -undergraduate life and make observations on it which have even -scientific value. During an undergraduate career, the motive of -interest in each successive step is wanting. There is no immediate -object of pleasure or gain in the lesson to be learned next. Only -exceptionally is it true that the learning of the lesson will gratify -a taste or fill a desire. The university honors are only artificial -means of arousing the same great motive, which is in the social body -what gravitation is in physics. The penalties which are here to be -dreaded are but imitations of life’s penalties. I think that many who -have undertaken to give advice and rebuke and warning to young men in -a state of pupilage have failed because they have not fully analyzed -or correctly grasped this fact, that the academical world is a little -community by itself in which the great natural forces which bind -older men to sobriety and wisdom act only imperfectly. Life is far -less interesting when the successive steps are taken under compulsion -or for a good which is remote and only known by hearsay, than it is -when every step is taken for an immediate profit. I doubt very much -whether the hope of culture or self-sacrificing zeal for the public -good would make older men toil in lawyer’s offices and counting-houses, -unless there were such immediate rewards as wealth and professional -success. In real life it is true that men must do very many things -which are disagreeable and which they do not want to do, but there -too the disagreeable things are made easier to bear. The troubles of -academical life seem to be arbitrary troubles, inflicted by device -of foolish or malicious men. Troubles of that kind always rouse men -to anger and rankle in their hearts. But there is no railing against -those ills of life which are inherent in the constitution of things. -A man who rails at those is laughed at. So the man just emancipated -from academical life finds himself freed from conventional rules -but subjected to penalties for idleness and extravagance and folly -infinitely heavier than any he has been accustomed to, and inflicted -without warning or mercy or respite. On the other hand, he finds that -life presents opportunities and attractions for him to work, where -work has a zest about it which comes from contact with living things. -His academical weapons and armor are stiff and awkward at first and he -may very probably come to despise them, but longer experience will show -that his education, if it was good, gave him rather the power to use -any weapons than special skill in the use of particular ones. Special -technical skill always tends to routine. Although it is an advantage in -itself, it may under circumstances become a limitation. The only true -conception of a “liberal” education is that it gives a broad discipline -to the whole man, which uses routine without being conquered by it and -can change its direction and application when occasion requires. - -This brings me then to speak of the real scope and advantage of a -disciplinary education. A man who has enjoyed such an education has -simply had his natural powers developed and reduced to rule, and he -has gained for himself an intelligent control of them. Before an -academical audience it is not necessary for me to stop to clear away -the popular notions about untutored powers and self-made men. It is -enough to say that the “self-made” man is, by the definition, the first -bungling essay of a bad workman. An undeveloped human mind is simply -a bundle of possibilities. It may come to much or little. If it is -highly trained by years of patient exercise, judiciously imposed, it -becomes capable of strict and methodical action. It may be turned to -any one of a hundred tasks which offer themselves to us men here on -earth. It may have gained this discipline in one particular science -or another, and it may have special technical acquaintance with one -more than another. Such will almost surely be the case, but there -is not a more mistaken, one-sided, and mischievous controversy than -that about _the_ science which should be made the basis of education. -Every science has, for disciplinary purposes, its advantages and its -limitations. The man who is trained on chemistry will become a strict -analyst and will break up heterogeneous compounds of all kinds, but he -will be likely also to rest content with this destructive work and to -leave the positive work of construction or synthesis to others. The -man who is trained on history will be quick to discern continuity of -force or law under different phases, but he will be content with broad -phases and heterogeneous combinations such as history offers, and will -not be a strict analyst. The man who is trained on mathematics will -have great power of grasping purely conceptional relations, or abstract -ideas, which are, however, most sharply defined; but he will be likely -to fasten upon a subordinate factor in some other kind of problem, -especially if that factor admits of more complete abstraction than -any of the others. The man who is trained on the science of language -approaches the continuity and development of history with a guiding -thread in his hand, and his comparisons, furnishing stepping-stones -now on the right and now on the left, lead him on in a course where -induction and deduction go so close together that they can hardly -be separated; but the study of language again always threatens to -degenerate into a cram of grammatical niceties and a fastidiousness -about expression, under which the contents are forgotten. Now, in -individual affairs, family, social, and political affairs, all these -powers of mind find occasion for exercise. They are needed in business, -in professions, in technical pursuits; and the man best fitted for the -demands of life would be the man whose powers of mind of all these -diverse orders and kinds had all been harmoniously developed. How -shallow then is the idea that education is meant to give or can give -a mass of monopolized information, and how important it is that the -student should understand what he may expect and what he may not expect -from his education. As your education goes on, you ought to gain in -your power of observation. Natural incidents, political occurrences, -social events, ought to present to you new illustrations of general -principles with which your studies have made you familiar. You ought to -gain in power to analyze and compare, so that all the fallacies which -consist in presenting things as like, which are not like, should not be -able to befog your reason. You ought to become able to recognize and -test a generalization, and to distinguish between true generalizations -and dogmas on the one hand, or commonplaces on another, or whimsical -speculations on another. You ought to know when you are dealing with a -true law which you may follow to the uttermost; when you have only a -general truth; when you have an hypothetical theory; when you have a -possible conjecture; and when you have only an ingenious assumption. -These are most important distinctions on either side. Some people are -affected by a notion, fashionable just now, that it belongs to culture -never to go too far. Mr. Brook, in “Middlemarch,” you remember, is -a type of that culture. He believed in things up to a certain point -and was always afraid of going too far. We have a good many aspirants -after culture nowadays whose capital consists in a superficial literary -tradition and the same kind of terror of going too far. They would put -a saving clause in the multiplication table, and make reservations -in the rule of three. On the other hand, we have those who can never -express anything to which they are inclined to assent without gushing. -A simple opinion must be set forth in a torrent fit to enforce a great -scientific truth. One is just as much the sign of an imperfect training -as the other, and you meet with both, as my description shows, in -persons who pride themselves on their culture. I will not deny that -they are cultivated; I only say that they are not well disciplined, -that is, not well educated. - -Your education, if it is disciplinary, ought also to teach you -the value of clear thinking, that is, of exact definitions, clear -propositions, well-considered opinions. What a flood of loose rhetoric, -distorted fact, and unclear thinking is poured out upon us whenever -a difficult question falls into popular discussion! You cannot find -that people who assume to take part in the discussion have a clear -definition in their minds of even what they conceive the main terms in -the discussion to mean. They do not seem able to make a proposition -which will bear handling so as to see what it is, and whether it -is true or not. They cannot analyze even such facts as they have -collected, and hence cannot draw inferences which are sound. It needs -but little discussion of any great political or social question to show -instances of this, and to show the immense importance of having in the -community men of trained and disciplined intellects, who can think -with some clearness and resist plain confusion of terms and thought. -For instance, I saw the other day a long argument on an important -public topic which turned upon the assertion and belief on the part -of the writer that a mathematical ratio and a subjective opinion were -things of the same nature and value. Perhaps, when he was at school, -his father thought there was no use in studying algebra and geometry. -It would not make so much difference if he would not now meddle with -things for which he did not prepare himself, but it is this kind of -person who is the pest of every science, traversing it with his whims -and speculations; and perhaps I feel the more strongly the importance -of this point because the political, economic, and social sciences -suffer from the want of high discipline more than any others. - -I ought not to pass without mention here the mischief which is done in -every science by its undisciplined advocates who, while admitted to -its inner circle, distract its progress and throw it into confusion by -neglect of strict principles, by incorrect analyses or classifications, -or by flinching in the face of fallacies. They render the ranks -unsteady and delay the march, and the reason is because they have never -had rigorous discipline either before or since they enlisted. - -If your education is disciplinary, it ought also to teach you how to -organize. I add this point especially because I esteem it important -and it is rarely noticed. It is really a high grade of discipline -which enables men to organize voluntarily. If men begin to study and -think, they move away from tradition and authority. The first effect -is to break up and dissolve their inherited and traditional opinions -as to religion, politics, and society. This is a necessary process of -transition from formal and traditional dogma to intelligent conviction. -It applies to all the notions of religion, as has often been noticed, -but it applies none the less to politics and to one’s notions of -life. The commonplaces of patriotism, the watchwords of parties and -tradition, the glib and well-worn phrases and terms have to be analyzed -again, and under the process much of their dignity and sanctity -evaporates. So too one’s views of life, of the meaning of social -phenomena, and of the general rules for men to pursue with each other, -undergo a recasting. Now during this process, men diverge and break -up. They do not agree. They differ by less and more, and also by the -various recombinations of the factors which they make. Pride, vanity, -and self-seeking come in to increase this divergence, it being regarded -as a sign of independence of thought. - -It is not too much to say that so long as this divergence exists, it -is a sign of a low and imperfect development of science. If pride and -vanity intermingle, they show that discipline has not yet done its -perfect work. It is only on a higher stage of culture or discipline -that self is so overborne in zeal for the scientific good that opinions -converge and organization becomes possible. But you are well aware -that without organization we men can accomplish very little. It is not -the freedom of the barbarian who would rather live alone than undergo -the inevitable coercion of the neighborhood of others that we want. We -want only free and voluntary coördination, but it belongs to discipline -itself to teach us that we must have coördination in order to attain to -any high form of good. - -I have now tried to show you the scope, advantages, and needs of -a disciplinary education. I have one remark more to make in this -connection. A man with a well-disciplined mind possesses a tool which -he can use for any purpose which he needs to serve. I do not consider -it an important question by the study of what sciences he shall get -this discipline, for, if he gets it, the acquisition of information in -any new department of learning will be easy for him, and he will be -strong, alert, and well equipped for any exigency of life. - -Before quitting the subject, I desire to point out its relation to -one other matter, that is, to morals, or manners. It is a common -opinion that the higher man attains, the freer he becomes. A moment’s -reflection will show that this is not true--but rather quite the -contrary. The rowdy has far less restraints to consider than the -gentleman. “Noblesse oblige” was perverted in its application, perhaps, -before the Revolution, but it contains a sound principle and a great -truth. The higher you go in social attainments, the greater will be -the restraints upon you. The gait, the voice, the manner, the rough -independence, of one order of men is unbecoming in another. Education -above all brings this responsibility. Discipline in manners and morals -does not belong to the specific matter of education, but it follows of -itself on true education. The educated man must work by himself without -any overseer over him. He finds his compulsion in himself and it holds -him to his task longer and closer than any external compulsion. - -This responsibility to self we call honor, and it is one of the -highest fruits of discipline when discipline, having wrought through -intellect, has reached character. Honor falls under the rule which I -mentioned early in this lecture. You cannot reach it because you want -it. You cannot reach it by direct effort. It cannot be taught to you -as a literary theory. True honor can only grow in men by the long -practice of conduct which is good and noble under motives which are -pure. We laugh at the artificial honor of the Middle Ages and despise -that of the dueling code, but let us not throw away the kernel with -the shell. Honor is a tribunal within one’s self whose code is simply -the best truth one knows. There are no advocates, no witnesses, and no -technicalities. To feel one’s self condemned by that tribunal is to -feel at discord with one’s self and to sustain a wound which rankles -longer and stings more deeply than any wound in the body. It is the -highest achievement of educational discipline to produce this sense -of honor in minds of young men, which gives them a guide in the midst -of temptation and at a time when all codes and standards seem to be -matter of opinion. I have said some things about lack of discipline in -thought and discussion, but that is nothing compared with the lack of -discipline in conduct which you see in a man who has never known what -honor is, whose whole moral constitution is so formless and flabby that -it can perform none of its functions, and who is continually seeking -some special plea, or sophistry, or deceptive device for paying homage -to the right while he does the wrong. Education ought to act against -all this and in favor of a high code of honor, not simply the education -of schools and academies, but that together with the education of -home and family. Our great educational institutions ought to have an -atmosphere of their own and impose traditions of their own, for the -power which controls in the academic community is not the voice of -authority but the voice of academic public opinion. That might root out -falsehood and violence and meanness of every kind, which no penalties -of those in authority could ever reach; and I submit that such a -public opinion would be becoming in a body of young men of good home -advantages and the best educational opportunities the country affords. -Call it high training, or culture, or discipline, or high breeding, or -what you will, it is only the sense of what we owe to ourselves, and it -is greater and greater according to our opportunities. - - - - -THE COÖPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH - -NOTE BY THE EDITOR - - -Among Professor Sumner’s papers there turned up a curiosity which I -do not like to pass over altogether, although it is more appropriate, -perhaps, to the purposes of the biographer. Apparently Sumner amused -himself, along in the seventies or early eighties, in figuring to -himself the state of the world under a socialistic régime of the sort -which he was always ridiculing and opposing. He did this by imagining -the contents of a socialist newspaper, the _New Era_, of the date July -4, 1950, consisting of editorials, news notes, public announcements, -criminal cases, and even a book review. The whole caricatures in -high colors the phenomena attending such a régime in its period of -exuberance. “The following,” he writes, “is a complete and verbatim -copy of a [New York City] newspaper of the date given. It is printed on -a small quarter sheet of coarse paper. The printing is so bad that it -is hard to read, and the typographical errors, all of which have been -corrected, are inexcusable.” - -The motto of the paper is: “Let the Rich Pay! Let the Poor Enjoy!” -The responsible editor is Lasalle Smith, and the proprietors Marx -Jones, Chairman of the New York City Board of Ethical Control, Cabet -Johnson, Chairman of the Board of Arbitration for Wages and Prices, -Babœuf Brown, Chairman of the Board of Control for Rents and Loans, -and Rousseau Peters, President of the Coöperative Bank. A notice warns -readers that “This paper is published strictly under the coöperative -rules established by the Typographical Union in our office and under -the direction of the council of the same. The Committee of Grievances -gives its assent and approval to each number before it is published. -All subscriptions are payable monthly in advance to the Treasurer of -the Typographical Union. The Typographical Union, being a member of -the organized Coöperative Commonwealth, has police powers for the -collection of all sums due to it.” - - * * * * * - -A special notice reads as follows: - -We send copies of this edition of our paper to a large number of -persons who have not hitherto coöperated in our enterprise but whom -we have enrolled until they signify their refusal. We call especial -attention to the names and standing in the Coöperative Commonwealth -of the proprietors of this journal. We believe that many of those -whom we now invite to coöperate, and who have been under suspicion of -being monopolists, capitalists, recalcitrants, and reactionists, will -see that they cannot better establish their credit for civism than by -accepting our invitation. - - * * * * * - -The following extracts are from the editorials: - -Our reports of the Ethical Tribunal show that our noble Board of -Ethical Control needs to guard diligently our interests. Another -pestilent preacher has been condemned to the chain gang. At least we -make sure that our streets will be cleaned, a task which no coöperators -could be asked to perform, since all the ancient lawyers, professors, -and preachers are now condemned to this business. The stubbornness -and incorrigibility of these classes towards the Commonwealth is -astonishing. - - -The Board of Ethical Control announce as the result of the plébiscite -which was taken on April 1 last, that, by a vote of 5319 to 782, the -Commonwealth voted to retain the present Board of Ethical Control for -ten years, instead of reëlecting them annually as heretofore. This is -as it should be. Why disturb the tranquillity of our happy state by -constant elections when our affairs are entrusted to such competent -hands? - - -The agents of the Board of Ethical Control reported 213 persons found -dead in the streets at the dawn of day, 174 bearing marks of violence; -the rest, not having coöperators’ tickets, were ancient monopolists -who had apparently perished of want. The Grand Coöperator said that he -should submit to the Board of Ethical Control the question whether it -is edifying to continue these reports. - - * * * * * - -There follow extracts from the inaugural of G. P. M. C.[60] Lasalle -Brown, which begin with the sentiment: - -_Of old ye were enslaved by those who said: Work! Save! Study! We -emancipate you by saying: Enjoy! Enjoy! Enjoy!_ - -The first right of everyone born on this earth is the right to enjoy. -The Coöperative Commonwealth assures this right to all its members. - -We have not abolished private property. We only hold that every man -is considered to have devoted his property to public use. We have not -abolished landlords, capitalists, employers, or captains of industry. -We retain and use them. Such members of a society are useful and -necessary if only they be held firmly in check and forced to contribute -to the public good. - -We need “history” and “statistics” to batter down all the old system, -but we should be the dupes of our own processes if we used them -against ourselves. All sensible coöperators should know that history -and statistics are far greater swindles than science. - -There are dangers in the Coöperative Commonwealth which demand -vigilance. There is danger of jealousy and division amongst -coöperators. Harmony is essential to the Coöperative Commonwealth and -we must have it at any price. - -Some say that our Commonwealth is weak. It is the strongest state that -ever existed. No one before our time ever knew the power of a “mob,” -as it used to be called. At a tap of the bell, every coöperator is at -hand. Our only danger is factious division of this power. Let every -coöperator have rewards for harmony and penalties for faction--strict, -sure, and heavy! - -There is danger from science. The evolution heresy is a worse foe to -coöperation than the old Christian dogma. Stamp it out! - -There is danger from the virus of the old anarchism--worst of all -because it is often enough like the truth to deceive the elect. It -means liberty and individualism. Stamp it out! - - * * * * * - -Under the heading “Domestic News” occurs the following: - -The Commissioners of Emigration have detected several persons striving -to leave the city for Long Island, carrying gold with them. It is well -known that many rich persons, animated by selfishness and disregarding -their duties as trustees of their wealth for the public, have escaped -to the wilds of Long Island beyond the Commune of Brooklyn, carrying -with them all the gold which they could obtain. Hence the Commissioners -of Emigration have arranged to patrol the East River by the -Commonwealth galleys and have limited the ferry transits to the Fulton -ferry between 8 and 9 A.M. and 5 and 6 P.M. Any persons found carrying -away gold will be sent to the galleys and the gold confiscated. Gold is -needed to buy supplies for the Commonwealth. - - -No dispatches from Philadelphia have been received for a fortnight. A -steamboat of 100 tons burden is cruising in the Hudson River, taking -toll of all goods in transit across the river. Reports disagree as to -the character of the persons on this boat. By some it is asserted to be -manned by coöperators who, being poor, are putting into effect ethical -claims against material goods. By others it is said to be manned by a -gang of monopolist scoundrels and vagabonds, who, driven to desperation -by the boycott and plan of campaign, seek this means to perpetuate -their existence. It behooves the Board of Ethical Control to learn -which of these reports is correct before taking action. - - -A report comes from the West that the Indians have seized Illinois, -killing the whites and taking possession of the improvements. They -have imbibed the ancient capitalistic notions and are impervious to -ethical and coöperative doctrines. They are rapidly increasing in -numbers, strange as it may seem, for we have read in ancient books -that they were dying out a century ago. It is suggested that they now -increase because they are conquering, and that they will go on doing so -until they exterminate all whites from the continent. In the absence -of private mails, we humbly suggest that our Board of Ethical Control -should communicate with similar boards of the communes to the westward. - - * * * * * - -Under the heading “Industrial”: - -The Board of Equalization of Production have set the amounts of various -commodities which may be produced during the coming fall season. Those -whom it concerns are to call at the office of the Board at once, pay -the fees, and obtain their instructions. The penalty of over-production -is fixed at 100 coöperative units per unit of product, half to the -informer. - - -The Board of Arbitration for Contracts will sit daily at their office -in Coöperative Hall from 10 to 12 A.M. to approve of contracts. The -fee is 1000 coöperative units from each party. Notice is called to the -ordinance of the Board of Ethical Control: “If two or more persons -make a contract without the presence and approval of the Board of -Arbitration or otherwise than in conformity with the regulations of -said Board, they may be fined according to the circumstances of the -case.” - - -The Coöperative Railroad Commission, having found a mechanic to repair -the locomotive, announce that they will recommence regular weekly trips -to Yonkers on next Monday. A train will start at 9 A.M., or as soon -thereafter as convenient. Accommodation for twenty-five passengers. -Passports may be obtained until noon on Saturday. They must be viséd -by the Railroad Commission and by the Coöperative Guardians of Public -Morals at their office in the Coöperative Workhouse not later than -two o’clock on the same time. The fare to Yonkers will be 10,000 -coöperative units. On account of the inter-county commerce law, all -freight and passengers will be trans-shipped at Yonkers. To prevent -vexatious inquiries, the Commission hereby announce that they are not -informed whether or when trains will be dispatched to points beyond. - - -Since the Commonwealth was founded, as our readers know, coöperators -have refused to work in coal mines. No great harm has come of this -since the factories and machinery have been abolished and railroads -and steamers have almost gone out of use. Some coal, however, is a -convenience, and our readers will see with pleasure that delinquents in -considerable numbers are being sent to these mines under an agreement -with our Board of Ethical Control with the similar authority of the -Lehigh Commune in the ancient state of Pennsylvania. - -We are informed that a number of ancient capitalists and monopolists, -being in a starving condition, recently applied to the Board of the -said Commune for leave to go into an abandoned coal mine and work it -for their own support. - - -A week ago yesterday, Coöperative Association 2391, A. P. D., -bricklayers, 7824, M. X. H., plasterers, 4823 N. K. J., hodcarriers, -F. L. M. 8296, joiners, met to consider the state of the building -trades. On account of the decrease in the population, by which great -numbers of houses are vacant, building has ceased for years past and -these once great associations have dwindled down. The Board of Ethical -Control has caused public buildings to be constructed in order to give -them work and has ordered landlords to make repairs to the same end. -The conference on Friday, a week ago, was to consider further measures -of relief. It was decided that no vacant house ought to be allowed to -stand. Some maintained that no repairs ought to be allowed at all, -in order that new houses might become necessary, but others thought -that this would take away what little work is now obtained. G. C. Marx -Rogers, former professor of political economy, made a speech in which -he proposed that all houses now vacant and all ruins now standing which -give shelter to unregistered vagabonds and boycotted persons should be -destroyed; also that a committee be appointed to inspect all existing -dwellings, mark those which are out of repair and unfit for coöperative -residences, and that these latter should then be razed to the ground. -This would cause an immediate demand for new houses. This proposition -was unanimously adopted. - -On Wednesday last the coöperative associations aforesaid met to hear -the report of the committee. Twelve hundred and forty-seven houses -had been noted so far as unfit for residences. The joint associations -passed a decree against said houses, as a beginning, and ordered the -committee of the whole to proceed to execute it. - -They marched in a body to Bleecker Street, the northernmost limit -of the ruined houses and demolished them entirely. They then moved -southerly, destroying all vacant houses. Gradually, a number of persons -gathered to look on. The agents of Ethical Supervision kept this crowd -at a distance and secured the joint Coöperative Associations full -independence in the execution of their decree. - -In East Canal Street, Nonconformist Jonathan Merritt, lessee of a block -of tenements, tried to dissuade or prevent the destruction of his -buildings. He was roughly handled, his skull split open and his arm -broken by the coöperators. The agents of Ethical Supervision took him -in on a charge of disturbing the public peace. - -When it came to the destruction of occupied buildings, the tenants -objected. By the ordinance of the Board of Lodgings and Rents, each -had been allotted to his domicile and was, of course, bound to keep it -until allowed to change. It was also feared that no lodgings could be -found. The Board of Lodgings and Rents immediately convened and issued -new allotments of domicile. Suspects, nonconformists, recalcitrants, -and reactionists were sent to lodge in the ancient churches and the -coöperators were assigned to their tenements. - -The revival and prosperity of the building trades is now assured. - - * * * * * - -Under the heading “Misdemeanors”: - -Of all forms of incivism, the most reprehensible is hoarding gold. All -good coöperators who know of cases of this criminal selfishness are -bound to report it at the Bureau of Ethical Supervision under penalty -of incivism on the one hand and a reward of ten per cent of the sum on -the other. All gold must be exchanged at the bank of G. C. Cabet Rogers -for coöperative units. - - -An audacious lampoon has been printed at some secret press, the authors -of which must be discovered at all cost. It is a blasphemous parody -of the Coöperative Catechism. The Commission of Ethical Inquiry has -directed all its powerful machinery to detect the authors of this -outrage. Let every coöperator appoint himself a detective to help. -Search every house in your neighborhood! Trust nobody! Every person -found in possession of a copy of this pamphlet will be summarily -removed from the Commonwealth. - - -The supply of potatoes which forms the staple food of the mass of our -population is obtained from the northern part of the commune, in what -was formerly Westchester County. The great fields there are tilled -by the delinquents under taxes and fines, incorrigible monopolists, -survival capitalists and others under judicial sentence, under the -direction of the Board of Ethical Control. The convicts work from -sunrise to sunset, in order to mark the distinction between them and -honorable coöperators, who work but five hours per day. The product -of the fields on its way to the town is subjected to toll by the free -coöperative associations of the suburbs. Hence it always threatens to -be inadequate. Good coöperators cannot better serve the Commonwealth -than by ferreting out violators of the ordinances and other persons -guilty of incivism. - - -Karl Marx Jones, agent of the Board of Equalization of Distribution, -has disappeared. It is thought that he has gone towards Boston. He -reported to the Board, it will be remembered, two weeks ago, a case of -hoarding of gold. He was sent to collect it and was made custodian of -it. It has disappeared. The Board count upon the aid of communes to the -eastward to recover the gold, but not very confidently. He left all his -coöperative units behind him. - - * * * * * - -Ordinances of the Committee of Inquiry appears as follows: - -Boycotts are declared against Robert Dorr, for saying that the -Coöperative Commonwealth is only a scheme to let a few exploit all the -rest; Matthew Brown, for saying that it is all a woman’s honor is worth -to appear on the street of the Coöperative Commonwealth, even thickly -veiled, for she runs the risk of attracting the attention of someone -against whom no one can defend her; James Rowe, for refusing to aid the -agents of the society in taking from her home without public scandal -a woman charged with incivism; John White, for hiding gold coin; -William Peck, for saying that Grand Coöperator Lasalle Brown secured -the boycott of Elihu Snow to get his property away from him; Edward -Grant, for saying that the Coöperative Commonwealth is only slavery in -disguise and the treatment of persons convicted of incivism is slavery -without disguise; Peter Moon, for saying that the Plan of Campaign is -only a scheme to allow a man’s debtors to rob him of a small fraction -of their debts if they will let some of the Grand Coöperators rob him -of all the remainder. - - * * * * * - -A considerable number of minor offences are tried before Grand -Coöperator Rodbertus Pease, Member of the Board of Ethical Control: - -George Wood, aged sixty, was arraigned for carrying a pistol at night, -not being a member of any coöperative club and therefore not entitled -so to do. He declared that the streets were unsafe at night and that -he never went out after dark if he could help it, but that he was -compelled to go for a doctor for his sick grandchild and took the -pistol for security. He was met by two coöperators who asked him to -contribute to the Aged Coöperators’ Retreat. On his declaring that he -had nothing, they searched him and found the pistol. They then demanded -his coöperator’s ticket. As he had none, they took him to the Bureau -of Ethical Supervision, where he was detained until morning. The two -complainants appeared against him. They declared that they were poor -men. On examination it appeared that he was an incorrigible adherent -of the ancient monopolism. He was fined 10,000 coöperative units, half -to the informers. He began to lament at this, saying that he was very -poor--poorer than the complainants; but the Grand Coöperator declared -that no man could be a poor man who was not a coöperator. - -The Emigration Commissioners whose sole duty is to prevent any -immigrants from coming into our commune put at the bar Fritz Meyer, -charged with immigrating. He pretended to be a sailor on the _Ferdinand -Lasalle_, but did not return on board of her before she sailed. In -defence he pleaded that he was left by accident. He was condemned to -serve on the yacht of the Board of Ethical Control at the pleasure of -said Board. - -Ulysses Perkins and others, some of whom were coöperators and some -not, complained that their neighborhood was annoyed by the Coöperative -Brotherhood who hold their evening festivals at Coöperative Hall. They -declared that there was shouting and singing and that windows were -broken in spite of the heavy shutters. Their complaint was dismissed -as an attempt to oppress organized labor, and the coöperators amongst -them were especially reprimanded. The Grand Coöperator remarked that -the prejudice against beer which was manifested in ancient prohibitory -and license laws was not respected by the ethical judgment of our time. - -On Monday last, several persons appeared to complain that the roads -outside of the city are infested by robbers. They were detained and the -Board of Ethical Control sent out delegates to inquire. They reported -yesterday, when the complainants were brought before the tribunal -to hear their report. They denied that there was any robbery, since -robbery means undue exaction of rent or of work for wages. The word -was used by the complainants in the ancient capitalistic sense. The -delegates found many coöperators enjoying holiday in the fields and -by the wayside. Some of them were playful and resented the exclusive -manner of passers-by who did not engage in sport. They asked for -treats, and they had appointed a committee to solicit funds for their -games. Some bands of banished monopolists were reported to be infesting -the woods, living by chance or by tilling some small fields which have -not been allotted to them, and plotting against the Commonwealth. The -Grand Coöperator said that such persons would be promptly dealt with -and dispatched a force of guardians of Ethical Order against them. The -complainants were discharged with a reprimand for misrepresenting the -innocent enjoyment of the coöperators in the suburb. - -William Johnson, employer, was arraigned for contumacy. The Board of -Arbitration ordered him to pay 1000 coöperative units per day of six -hours. He closed his works. The Grand Coöperator ordered a second -charge for malicious lockout and fined him 10,000 coöperative units per -day until he should reopen his works. - -Eliza Marcy, cook, actress, 26, was charged with defamation of Emily -Wilson, coöperative seamstress. The accused presented a certificate -of patronage from G. M. C. Brissot Robinson and was discharged from -custody, a rescript of the charge being transmitted to G. M. C. -Robinson for such action as he should deem proper. - -Maria Waters, arraigned for working at type-setting below man’s rates, -pleaded poverty and distress as an excuse. She is the daughter of -an ancient monopolist from whom she inherited $100,000 before the -abolition of inheritance. She had therefore been denied admittance to -any coöperative society. She was fined 1000 coöperative units and sent -to the Ethical Workhouse to work it out. - -Patrick Boyle, coöperative bricklayer, for mending his own table, he -not being a member of the furniture-makers’ union, was arraigned as a -scab and sentenced to forfeit his coöperative ticket, be graded as a -non-conformist, and pay 1000 coöperative units fine. Being unable to -pay, he was put under G. M. C. Scroggs to work it out. - - * * * * * - -Under “Benefits and Amusements”: - -In addition to the three regular Labor Days of July, the 10th, 20th, -and 30th, the Board of Ethical Control has decreed an extra one on the -18th, with full wages. Commonwealth galleys will be ready to convey -coöperators and their families to Blackwell’s Island, where the dancing -and dining rooms in the ancient prisons of despotism will be arranged -for their entertainment. There will be a free circus at 3 P.M. and a -free variety entertainment in the evening. The two latter have been -provided by the liberality of G. P. M. C. Lasalle Brown. - - -Rents remitted for June and all arrears before January 1. - - -All coöperators in good standing are entitled to pensions of 100 -coöperative units per week, with rations of coöperative bread and beer. - - -The agents of the Board of Equalization of Distribution will begin -next Monday the distribution of July pensions to all coöperators in -good and regular standing. The agents will call at the residences -of coöperators. There has been some delay which has occasioned just -murmurs. It has been due to delinquencies of tax-payers, amongst whom -not a little old capitalistic virus remains. - - -Masked Ball on every Sunday evening in the ancient Trinity Church. -Coöperative Enjoyment Association. Admission 100 c. u. All persons must -wear coöperative medals displayed. - - * * * * * - -“Foreign News” reports the following débâcle: - -It will be remembered that about three years ago the last remnant of -English landlords was exiled to Guiana. The Commune of London granted -them a ship, of which an immense number blocked the Thames, not having -occupation, and they were allowed to navigate it if they could. Their -children were taken away from them, to be educated in the principles -of coöperation. From this mistaken complaisance a series of evil -consequences have flowed. - -Some of the exiles have had yachting experience and most of them, -being trained in the ancient athletic sports, were able to navigate -the ship. Instead of obeying the law, they sailed to Gibraltar and -captured the ancient fortress. There they obtained arms and cannons, -of which they put a number on board their ship and returned to London. -Their first step was to seize the _Columbus_, a fine steamer of 1000 -tons burden, one of the newest and in best repair of those lying in the -river. They then filled her bunkers with coal and wood which they took -by force from the Commonwealth barges in the river. They next seized -the arsenals at Greenwich and Norwich, carried off a great number -of repeating rifles and ammunition, and destroyed all the rest. The -coöperators of London, being taken unawares and being prepared only to -cope with the city monopolists, who had been disarmed, were unable to -interfere. - -The pirates moored their vessel opposite the city and sent a message -of the G. P. M. C. by a captured coöperator that they would bombard -the city if their children were not all delivered to them. A hundred -of them landed with repeating rifles and revolvers and marched to the -coöperative factories, where they set free all who chose to join them. -In short, they departed after securing their children, a vast quantity -of tools and machinery, arms, supplies, and ammunition. A large number -of flunkies and snobs joined them, sufficient to man one or two other -vessels. - -It now appears that they have taken possession of the Island of Sicily -and made it a base of concentration for a grand political reaction. -They have proclaimed as far as possible that their island is a refuge -for landlords, monopolists, and capitalists, and the roads of Europe -are crowded with vagabonds seeking to reach this nest of pirates. The -pirate state is growing. It is a republic like one of our ancient -states. It has an army of 5000 men who boast that with the arms which -they possess they can march from one end of Europe to another. They -control the Mediterranean and all its coasts. They have served notice -on the communal commonwealths of the Continent that they will avenge -any coercion exercised against any persons who seek to join them, and -six months ago they sent a force of 6000 men to Lyons to set free a -band of aristocrats who were imprisoned there and were threatened with -the guillotine. - -It is said that there are no artisans now who are able to manufacture -repeating rifles like those which these robbers possess, except amongst -themselves--they having hired mechanics to recover the art. Even the -guns yet remaining on the Continent cannot be used because the art of -making the ammunition is lost. It was a great mistake to let these -pestilent scoundrels loose. Their state threatens the whole coöperative -movement. Its existence has greatly strengthened the collectivists -among coöperators, for it is said that the big empires must be restored -(on coöperative principles) to cope with them. - - * * * * * - -“Personal Items” record the following: - -G. P. M. C. Lasalle Brown last evening gave a grand ball and -house-warming in his new house on Fifth Avenue. By demolishing and -removing the unsightly ruined houses in the neighborhood, a beautiful -park and garden have been added to this fine tenement. It was -illuminated last evening by thousands of lamps and torches carried by -the convicts who are under discipline in the household of the G. P. M. -C. The guests were members of the Board of Ethical Control and their -families, some of whom, remembering their own antecedents, observed -with interest amongst the convicts sons and daughters of ancient -monopolists, and in some cases white-haired survivals from the age of -bankers, railroad kings, and merchant princes. Such are the revenges of -history! - - -One hundred new carriages for the Board of Ethical Control have just -arrived. They are of the most superb workmanship and cost $5000 in -gold each. They belong, of course, to the Commonwealth and can only be -used under permission of the Board of Ethical Control. They have been -put, one each, under the care of separate members of the Board, as no -private individual is allowed to violate equality by owning a carriage. -We noticed with pleasure yesterday the families of Grand Coöperators in -these carriages in the park. - -Non-conformists and others like them outside the pale of the -Commonwealth have, of late years, when they found their position -disagreeable, adopted the plan of attaching themselves voluntarily -as retainers or vassals to coöperators, especially to the leading -members of the Board of Ethical Control. In this way they secure some -of the advantages of coöperation. In order to show their position -and relationship, they wear special tokens or marks. The clients of -the newly inaugurated G. P. M. C. have just been put into uniform or -livery. They attended him in a body on his recent visit to his country -seat at Riverdale, where they did guard duty. Added to his personal -bodyguard of coöperators and friends, they made an imposing body. This -country-seat, by the way, has just been surrounded by a high stone wall. - - * * * * * - -There occurs an obituary of one of the community’s leading lights: - -G. C. Brissot Cunningham died at 01 Fifth Avenue on Wednesday last. -He was born May 16, 1905 and was educated for a lawyer. In 1930, -putting himself in the foremost rank of the coöperative movement and -identifying himself with the most radical section, he was admitted to -the bar. By the abolition of inheritance, he found himself, on the -death of his father in the following year, thrown entirely on his own -resources. He then passed through some years of obscurity and great -poverty, which taught him to feel for the poor. - -Allying himself with the noble band which supported our present G. P. -M. C., he helped to bring about the foundation of the coöperation in -1940 and was elected member of the Board of Ethical Control. In the -Board he filled many of the most important and responsible positions -on the several committees and was regularly reëlected. He devoted -himself to securing the Commonwealth, flinching from no measure to -establish it. He believed thoroughly in the motto “Enjoy.” After he -became a member of the Board of Ethical Control, the former mansion -of the ----s on Fifth Avenue was allotted to him and furnished from -the Commonwealth storehouse of forfeited property. He there kept up a -munificent hospitality on the most altruistic principles. He neither -cared to know whence his income came nor whither it went. In the spirit -of a true coöperator, whatever belonged to the Commonwealth was his -and whatever was his was free to any coöperator. His popularity with -the masses was shown yesterday when they turned out in a body for his -funeral. The non-coöperators who had felt his scourge were naturally -absent. A few of them who could not conceal their joy at his death were -summarily corrected by the coöperators. By his death at the early age -of forty-five, our Commonwealth has lost a valuable supporter. - -[According to the ordinance adopted by the Board of Ethical Control, -February 10, 1945, since he died a member of the Board, his family will -have a pension of $15,000 per annum in gold for twenty-five years and -the use of his house for the same time. The Board will fill the vacancy -next week.--Editor of this paper.] - - * * * * * - -The _Text-book of Coöperation_, ordained by the Board of Ethical -Control for schools, is reviewed as follows: - -This book is an authoritative exposition of the Coöperative -Commonwealth in the commune form. It is to supersede all other books -except the primer, writing-book, and elementary arithmetic. We have -done with all the ancient rubbish. All the books which have not been -destroyed are under the control of the Board of Ethical Control. -Especially we are now rid of all pernicious trash about history, law, -and political economy. The present book contains all that a good -coöperator needs to know. Its tone is strictly ethical. By separating -all children of incorrigibles and survivals from their parents and -educating them on this book, we may soon hope to bring all capitalistic -tradition to an end. - -It is plainly proved here that the first right of every man and woman -is the right to capital. This right is valid up to the time when he -or she gets capital, when it becomes ethically subject to the similar -right of someone else, who has no capital as yet, to have some. This -principle carried out is the guarantee of justice and equality and is -the fundamental principle of the Coöperative Commonwealth in the middle -of the twentieth century. - -The text-book describes the organization of our Commonwealth, with the -duties of coöperators, and gives a list of the ordinances of the Board -of Control. - -There are now 1000 members of the Board of Ethical Control and 10,000 -agents in their employ, chosen by lot monthly from all coöperators. The -Board is divided into ten Boards of 100 each for various branches of -duty. The members receive no salary but are remunerated by fees. They -enjoy no privileges or rights in the Commonwealth, but have the duty -of regulating all coöperative affairs according to their conscientious -convictions of justice. The ten chairmen of Boards form an exclusive -commission which decrees boycotts and plans of campaign. There are no -laws or lawyers in the system and no courts or juries of the ancient -type, now happily almost forgotten. There are no police, no detectives, -no army, no militia, and no prisons. The ancient prison at Sing Sing, -which is now within the limits of this commune, is turned into a -Coöperators’ Retreat. Under this happy régime no coöperator can do -wrong. Our only culprits are recalcitrants, suspects, incorrigibles, -survivals, and other would-be perpetuators of the old régime of monoply -and capitalistic extortion. Such persons are compelled to expiate their -selfishness and incivism by hard labor, but they are taken for this -purpose into the households or factories of the members of the Board -of Ethical Control, where they are subject to ethical discipline and -produce those things which are essential to the community and which the -Board of Ethical Control contracts to provide. The employments are such -as free coöperators consider disagreeable, unhealthy, or degrading. - -The Committee of Inquiry into Incivism is a committee of the Board of -Ethical Control and has the high and important duty of watching over -coöperative duties. Its number and members are unknown, lest they -should be objects of malice. Its sessions and procedure are secret. It -employs 100 agents but has a right to command the services at any time -of all coöperators. Complaints of incivism may be lodged night or day -by any coöperator in the lion’s mouth in the court of the Coöperative -Hall (ancient United States postoffice). - -The Committee proceeds against persons guilty of incivism by boycotts -chiefly. This measure puts the culprit outside the pale of the -Commonwealth which he has maligned or in which he has refused to take -his share. Such persons become vagabonds, and disappear or perish. - -The chapter on coöperative religion is in the form of a catechism and -is to be thoroughly learned by heart by all pupils. It inculcates the -doctrines of our social creed by which each one is bound to serve -the health, wealth, and happiness of every other. Those who have the -means of material enjoyment shall put them at the disposition and use -of those who have them not. It impresses above all the great duty of -civism, or conformity to coöperative organization and obedience to the -Board of Ethical Control. - -There is complete equality and no distinction of class in the -Coöperative Commonwealth. Every man, woman, and child is eligible -to the Board of Ethical Control. The only distinction is of merit -and service to the Commonwealth. In this the members of the Board -of Ethical Control stand first. There is no second. Outside of the -Coöperative Committee are, in order of demerit and detestation, -probationers (coöperators who have forfeited their coöperative tickets -for fault but who may be restored to membership), survivals (employers, -capitalists, landlords, usurers, subject to the Commonwealth and -continuing the ancient functions of such persons), nonconformists -(stubborn persons who refuse to conform to the new order), -recalcitrants (any of the former who have been subject to discipline -five times), incorrigibles (after twenty cases of discipline), suspects -(so decreed if charged but not convicted of incivism), reactionists -(once coöperators but convicted of disorganization) and convicts -(under boycott or plan of campaign). Every person must be registered -and have always on his person a brass medal hung by a chain about his -neck, bearing his designation and number, with the letters designating -his group, domicile, also district, ward, and arrondissement. This -constitutes his social designation. These medals are given out by -the Board of Ethical Supervision. The fee is 1000 coöperative units, -repeated each time that the person is re-classified and a new medal -issued. - - * * * * * - -Advertisements are included, as, for example: - -John Moon, licensed to sell pistols and ammunition. A few revolvers -newly imported from the commune of Hartford at great difficulty and -expense. Bliss Bldg. - -Henry Black, pistols and bowie-knives. Sales strictly within the -ordinances. Every purchaser required to show coöperator’s ticket, and -sales registered. 268 Felicity Boulevard. - -Elias Israel, pawn broker, loans at 10% per month on coöperative -private property only. Sales of forfeited goods every Sunday. 618 Joy -Avenue. - - * * * * * - -The editor has no compunction about publishing these extracts, though -it may be objected that they can be at most of historical or personal -interest. Perhaps, in the light of the antics of the Bolsheviki, even -such a parody as the foregoing may seem less wide of the potentialities -of the socialistic system. In any case, if modern socialism has -renounced some of the wild dreams of its past, that is largely owing -to the criticism and ridicule poured upon them by vigorous opponents -of the Sumner type. Says a prominent American, writing to the editor -subsequently to the publication of one of the foregoing volumes of this -series: “I have for many years publicly and privately urged socialists -to read--_really_ read--Sumner--as the most doughty and competent foe -with whom they have to reckon.” - - - - -THE FORGOTTEN MAN - -[1883] - - -I propose in this lecture to discuss one of the most subtile and -widespread social fallacies. It consists in the impression made on the -mind for the time being by a particular fact, or by the interests of -a particular group of persons, to which attention is directed while -other facts or the interests of other persons are entirely left out of -account. I shall give a number of instances and illustrations of this -in a moment, and I cannot expect you to understand what is meant from -an abstract statement until these illustrations are before you, but -just by way of a general illustration I will put one or two cases. - -Whenever a pestilence like yellow fever breaks out in any city, our -attention is especially attracted towards it, and our sympathies are -excited for the sufferers. If contributions are called for, we readily -respond. Yet the number of persons who die prematurely from consumption -every year greatly exceeds the deaths from yellow fever or any similar -disease when it occurs, and the suffering entailed by consumption is -very much greater. The suffering from consumption, however, never -constitutes a public question or a subject of social discussion. If an -inundation takes place anywhere, constituting a public calamity (and an -inundation takes place somewhere in the civilized world nearly every -year), public attention is attracted and public appeals are made, but -the losses by great inundations must be insignificant compared with -the losses by runaway horses, which, taken separately, scarcely obtain -mention in a local newspaper. In hard times insolvent debtors are -a large class. They constitute an interest and are able to attract -public attention, so that social philosophers discuss their troubles -and legislatures plan measures of relief. Insolvent debtors, however, -are an insignificant body compared with the victims of commonplace -misfortune, or accident, who are isolated, scattered, ungrouped and -ungeneralized, and so are never made the object of discussion or -relief. In seasons of ordinary prosperity, persons who become insolvent -have to get out of their troubles as they can. They have no hope of -relief from the legislature. The number of insolvents during a series -of years of general prosperity, and their losses, greatly exceed the -number and losses during a special period of distress. - -These illustrations bring out only one side of my subject, and that -only partially. It is when we come to the proposed measures of relief -for the evils which have caught public attention that we reach the real -subject which deserves our attention. As soon as A observes something -which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it -over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the -evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do -for X or, in the better case, what A, B and C shall do for X. As for A -and B, who get a law to make themselves do for X what they are willing -to do for him, we have nothing to say except that they might better -have done it without any law, but what I want to do is to look up C. -I want to show you what manner of man he is. I call him the Forgotten -Man. Perhaps the appellation is not strictly correct. He is the man -who never is thought of. He is the victim of the reformer, social -speculator and philanthropist, and I hope to show you before I get -through that he deserves your notice both for his character and for the -many burdens which are laid upon him. - -No doubt one great reason for the phenomenon which I bring to your -attention is the passion for reflection and generalization which marks -our period. Since the printing press has come into such wide use, we -have all been encouraged to philosophize about things in a way which -was unknown to our ancestors. They lived their lives out in positive -contact with actual cases as they arose. They had little of this -analysis, introspection, reflection and speculation which have passed -into a habit and almost into a disease with us. Of all things which -tempt to generalization and to philosophizing, social topics stand -foremost. Each one of us gets some experience of social forces. Each -one has some chance for observation of social phenomena. There is -certainly no domain in which generalization is easier. There is nothing -about which people dogmatize more freely. Even men of scientific -training in some department in which they would not tolerate dogmatism -at all will not hesitate to dogmatize in the most reckless manner about -social topics. The truth is, however, that science, as yet, has won -less control of social phenomena than of any other class of phenomena. -The most complex and difficult subject which we now have to study is -the constitution of human society, the forces which operate in it, -and the laws by which they act, and we know less about these things -than about any others which demand our attention. In such a state of -things, over-hasty generalization is sure to be extremely mischievous. -You cannot take up a magazine or newspaper without being struck by -the feverish interest with which social topics and problems are -discussed, and if you were a student of social science, you would find -in almost all these discussions evidence, not only that the essential -preparation for the discussion is wanting, but that the disputants do -not even know that there is any preparation to be gained. Consequently -we are bewildered by contradictory dogmatizing. We find in all these -discussions only the application of pet notions and the clashing of -contradictory “views.” Remedies are confidently proposed for which -there is no guarantee offered except that the person who prescribes -the remedy says that he is sure it will work. We hear constantly of -“reform,” and the reformers turn out to be people who do not like -things as they are and wish that they could be made nicer. We hear a -great many exhortations to make progress from people who do not know in -what direction they want to go. Consequently social reform is the most -barren and tiresome subject of discussion amongst us, except æsthetics. - -I suppose that the first chemists seemed to be very hard-hearted -and unpoetical persons when they scouted the glorious dream of the -alchemists that there must be some process for turning base metals into -gold. I suppose that the men who first said, in plain, cold assertion, -there is no fountain of eternal youth, seemed to be the most cruel and -cold-hearted adversaries of human happiness. I know that the economists -who say that if we could transmute lead into gold, it would certainly -do us no good and might do great harm, are still regarded as unworthy -of belief. Do not the money articles of the newspapers yet ring with -the doctrine that we are getting rich when we give cotton and wheat for -gold rather than when we give cotton and wheat for iron? - -Let us put down now the cold, hard fact and look at it just as it is. -There is no device whatever to be invented for securing happiness -without industry, economy, and virtue. We are yet in the empirical -stage as regards all our social devices. We have done something in -science and art in the domain of production, transportation and -exchange. But when you come to the laws of the social order, we know -very little about them. Our laws and institutions by which we attempt -to regulate our lives under the laws of nature which control society -are merely a series of haphazard experiments. We come into collision -with the laws and are not intelligent enough to understand wherein -we are mistaken and how to correct our errors. We persist in our -experiments instead of patiently setting about the study of the laws -and facts in order to see where we are wrong. Traditions and formulæ -have a dominion over us in legislation and social customs which we seem -unable to break or even to modify. - -For my present purpose I ask your attention for a few moments to -the notion of liberty, because the Forgotten Man would no longer be -forgotten where there was true liberty. You will say that you know what -liberty is. There is no term of more common or prouder use. None is -more current, as if it were quite beyond the need of definition. Even -as I write, however, I find in a leading review a new definition of -civil liberty. Civil liberty the writer declares to be “the result of -the restraint exercised by the sovereign people on the more powerful -individuals and classes of the community, preventing them from availing -themselves of the excess of their power to the detriment of the other -classes.” You notice here the use of the words “sovereign people” to -designate a class of the population, not the nation as a political -and civil whole. Wherever “people” is used in such a sense, there is -always fallacy. Furthermore, you will recognize in this definition a -very superficial and fallacious construction of English constitutional -history. The writer goes on to elaborate that construction and he comes -out at last with the conclusion that “a government by the people can, -in no case, become a paternal government, since its law-makers are its -mandataries and servants carrying out its will, and not its fathers or -its masters.” This, then, is the point at which he desires to arrive, -and he has followed a familiar device in setting up a definition to -start with which would produce the desired deduction at the end. - -In the definition the word “people” was used for a class or section -of the population. It is now asserted that if _that_ section rules, -there can be no paternal, that is, undue, government. That doctrine, -however, is the very opposite of liberty and contains the most vicious -error possible in politics. The truth is that cupidity, selfishness, -envy, malice, lust, vindictiveness, are constant vices of human nature. -They are not confined to classes or to nations or particular ages of -the world. They present themselves in the palace, in the parliament, -in the academy, in the church, in the workshop, and in the hovel. They -appear in autocracies, theocracies, aristocracies, democracies, and -ochlocracies all alike. They change their masks somewhat from age to -age and from one form of society to another. All history is only one -long story to this effect: men have struggled for power over their -fellow-men in order that they might win the joys of earth at the -expense of others and might shift the burdens of life from their own -shoulders upon those of others. It is true that, until this time, the -proletariat, the mass of mankind, have rarely had the power and they -have not made such a record as kings and nobles and priests have made -of the abuses they would perpetrate against their fellow-men when they -could and dared. But what folly it is to think that vice and passion -are limited by classes, that liberty consists only in taking power away -from nobles and priests and giving it to artisans and peasants and that -these latter will never abuse it! They will abuse it just as all others -have done unless they are put under checks and guarantees, and there -can be no civil liberty anywhere unless rights are guaranteed against -all abuses, as well from proletarians as from generals, aristocrats, -and ecclesiastics. - -Now what has been amiss in all the old arrangements? The evils of the -old military and aristocratic governments was that some men enjoyed -the fruits of other men’s labor; that some persons’ lives, rights, -interests and happiness were sacrificed to other persons’ cupidity and -lust. What have our ancestors been striving for, under the name of -civil liberty, for the last five hundred years? They have been striving -to bring it about that each man and woman might live out his or her -life according to his or her own notions of happiness and up to the -measure of his or her own virtue and wisdom. How have they sought to -accomplish this? They have sought to accomplish it by setting aside -all arbitrary personal or class elements and introducing the reign of -law and the supremacy of constitutional institutions like the jury, -the habeas corpus, the independent judiciary, the separation of church -and state, and the ballot. Note right here one point which will be -important and valuable when I come more especially to the case of the -Forgotten Man: whenever you talk of liberty, you must have _two_ men in -mind. The sphere of rights of one of these men trenches upon that of -the other, and whenever you establish liberty for the one, you repress -the other. Whenever absolute sovereigns are subjected to constitutional -restraints, you always hear them remonstrate that their liberty is -curtailed. So it is, in the sense that their power of determining what -shall be done in the state is limited below what it was before and the -similar power of other organs in the state is widened. Whenever the -privileges of an aristocracy are curtailed, there is heard a similar -complaint. The truth is that the line of limit or demarcation between -classes as regards civil power has been moved and what has been taken -from one class is given to another. - -We may now, then, advance a step in our conception of civil liberty. It -is the status in which we find the true adjustment of rights between -classes and individuals. Historically, the conception of civil liberty -has been constantly changing. The notion of rights changes from one -generation to another and the conception of civil liberty changes with -it. If we try to formulate a true definition of civil liberty as an -ideal thing towards which the development of political institutions is -all the time tending, it would be this: Civil liberty is the status of -the man who is guaranteed by law and civil institutions the exclusive -employment of all his own powers for his own welfare. - -This definition of liberty or civil liberty, you see, deals only with -concrete and actual relations of the civil order. There is some sort -of a poetical and metaphysical notion of liberty afloat in men’s minds -which some people dream about but which nobody can define. In popular -language it means that a man may do as he has a mind to. When people -get this notion of liberty into their heads and combine with it the -notion that they live in a free country and ought to have liberty, -they sometimes make strange demands upon the state. If liberty means -to be able to do as you have a mind to, there is no such thing in this -world. Can the Czar of Russia do as he has a mind to? Can the Pope -do as he has a mind to? Can the President of the United States do -as he has a mind to? Can Rothschild do as he has a mind to? Could a -Humboldt or a Faraday do as he had a mind to? Could a Shakespeare or -a Raphael do as he had a mind to? Can a tramp do as he has a mind to? -Where is the man, whatever his station, possessions, or talents, who -can get any such liberty? There is none. There is a doctrine floating -about in our literature that we are born to the inheritance of certain -rights. That is another glorious dream, for it would mean that there -was something in this world which we got for nothing. But what is the -truth? We are born into no right whatever but what has an equivalent -and corresponding duty right alongside of it. There is no such thing -on this earth as something for nothing. Whatever we inherit of wealth, -knowledge, or institutions from the past has been paid for by the labor -and sacrifice of preceding generations; and the fact that these gains -are carried on, that the race lives and that the race can, at least -within some cycle, accumulate its gains, is one of the facts on which -civilization rests. The law of the conservation of energy is not simply -a law of physics; it is a law of the whole moral universe, and the -order and truth of all things conceivable by man depends upon it. If -there were any such liberty as that of doing as you have a mind to, the -human race would be condemned to everlasting anarchy and war as these -erratic wills crossed and clashed against each other. True liberty -lies in the equilibrium of rights and duties, producing peace, order, -and harmony. As I have defined it, it means that a man’s right to take -power and wealth out of the social product is measured by the energy -and wisdom which he has contributed to the social effort. - -Now if I have set this idea before you with any distinctness and -success, you see that civil liberty consists of a set of civil -institutions and laws which are arranged to act as impersonally -as possible. It does not consist in majority rule or in universal -suffrage or in elective systems at all. These are devices which are -good or better just in the degree in which they secure liberty. The -institutions of civil liberty leave each man to run his career in life -in his own way, only guaranteeing to him that whatever he does in -the way of industry, economy, prudence, sound judgment, etc., shall -redound to his own welfare and shall not be diverted to some one else’s -benefit. Of course it is a necessary corollary that each man shall also -bear the penalty of his own vices and his own mistakes. If I want to be -free from any other man’s dictation, I must understand that I can have -no other man under my control. - -Now with these definitions and general conceptions in mind, let us -turn to the special class of facts to which, as I said at the outset, -I invite your attention. We see that under a régime of liberty and -equality before the law, we get the highest possible development of -independence, self-reliance, individual energy, and enterprise, but we -get these high social virtues at the expense of the old sentimental -ties which used to unite baron and retainer, master and servant, sage -and disciple, comrade and comrade. We are agreed that the son shall not -be disgraced even by the crime of the father, much less by the crime -of a more distant relative. It is a humane and rational view of things -that each life shall stand for itself alone and not be weighted by the -faults of another, but it is useless to deny that this view of things -is possible only in a society where the ties of kinship have lost -nearly all the intensity of poetry and romance which once characterized -them. The ties of sentiment and sympathy also have faded out. We have -come, under the régime of liberty and equality before the law, to a -form of society which is based not on status, but on free contract. Now -a society based on status is one in which classes, ranks, interests, -industries, guilds, associations, etc., hold men in permanent relations -to each other. Custom and prescription create, under status, ties, the -strength of which lies in sentiment. Feeble remains of this may be seen -in some of our academical societies to-day, and it is unquestionably -a great privilege and advantage for any man in our society to win -an experience of the sentiments which belong to a strong and close -association, just because the chances for such experience are nowadays -very rare. In a society based on free contract, men come together -as free and independent parties to an agreement which is of mutual -advantage. The relation is rational, even rationalistic. It is not -poetical. It does not exist from use and custom, but for reasons given, -and it does not endure by prescription but ceases when the reason for -it ceases. There is no sentiment in it at all. The fact is that, under -the régime of liberty and equality before the law, there is no place -for sentiment in trade or politics as public interests. Sentiment is -thrown back into private life, into personal relations, and if ever -it comes into a public discussion of an impersonal and general public -question it always produces mischief. - -Now you know that “the poor and the weak” are continually put forward -as objects of public interest and public obligation. In the appeals -which are made, the terms “the poor” and “the weak” are used as if they -were terms of exact definition. Except the pauper, that is to say, the -man who cannot earn his living or pay his way, there is no possible -definition of a poor man. Except a man who is incapacitated by vice -or by physical infirmity, there is no definition of a weak man. The -paupers and the physically incapacitated are an inevitable charge on -society. About them no more need be said. But the weak who constantly -arouse the pity of humanitarians and philanthropists are the shiftless, -the imprudent, the negligent, the impractical, and the inefficient, -or they are the idle, the intemperate, the extravagant, and the -vicious. Now the troubles of these persons are constantly forced upon -public attention, as if they and their interests deserved especial -consideration, and a great portion of all organized and unorganized -effort for the common welfare consists in attempts to relieve these -classes of people. I do not wish to be understood now as saying that -nothing ought to be done for these people by those who are stronger -and wiser. That is not my point. What I want to do is to point out the -thing which is overlooked and the error which is made in all these -charitable efforts. The notion is accepted as if it were not open to -any question that if you help the inefficient and vicious you may gain -something for society or you may not, but that you lose nothing. This -is a complete mistake. Whatever capital you divert to the support of -a shiftless and good-for-nothing person is so much diverted from some -other employment, and that means from somebody else. I would spend any -conceivable amount of zeal and eloquence if I possessed it to try to -make people grasp this idea. Capital is force. If it goes one way it -cannot go another. If you give a loaf to a pauper you cannot give the -same loaf to a laborer. Now this other man who would have got it but -for the charitable sentiment which bestowed it on a worthless member -of society is the Forgotten Man. The philanthropists and humanitarians -have their minds all full of the wretched and miserable whose case -appeals to compassion, attacks the sympathies, takes possession of -the imagination, and excites the emotions. They push on towards the -quickest and easiest remedies and they forget the real victim. - -Now who is the Forgotten Man? He is the simple, honest laborer, -ready to earn his living by productive work. We pass him by because -he is independent, self-supporting, and asks no favors. He does not -appeal to the emotions or excite the sentiments. He only wants to -make a contract and fulfill it, with respect on both sides and favor -on neither side. He must get his living out of the capital of the -country. The larger the capital is, the better living he can get. Every -particle of capital which is wasted on the vicious, the idle, and the -shiftless is so much taken from the capital available to reward the -independent and productive laborer. But we stand with our backs to the -independent and productive laborer all the time. We do not remember -him because he makes no clamor; but I appeal to you whether he is not -the man who ought to be remembered first of all, and whether, on any -sound social theory, we ought not to protect him against the burdens -of the good-for-nothing. In these last years I have read hundreds of -articles and heard scores of sermons and speeches which were really -glorifications of the good-for-nothing, as if these were the charge -of society, recommended by right reason to its care and protection. -We are addressed all the time as if those who are respectable were -to blame because some are not so, and as if there were an obligation -on the part of those who have done their duty towards those who have -not done their duty. Every man is bound to take care of himself and -his family and to do his share in the work of society. It is totally -false that one who has done so is bound to bear the care and charge -of those who are wretched because they have not done so. The silly -popular notion is that the beggars live at the expense of the rich, but -the truth is that those who eat and produce not, live at the expense -of those who labor and produce. The next time that you are tempted -to subscribe a dollar to a charity, I do not tell you not to do it, -because after you have fairly considered the matter, you may think it -right to do it, but I do ask you to stop and remember the Forgotten Man -and understand that if you put your dollar in the savings bank it will -go to swell the capital of the country which is available for division -amongst those who, while they earn it, will reproduce it with increase. - -Let us now go on to another class of cases. There are a great many -schemes brought forward for “improving the condition of the working -classes.” I have shown already that a free man cannot take a favor. One -who takes a favor or submits to patronage demeans himself. He falls -under obligation. He cannot be free and he cannot assert a station of -equality with the man who confers the favor on him. The only exception -is where there are exceptional bonds of affection or friendship, that -is, where the sentimental relation supersedes the free relation. -Therefore, in a country which is a free democracy, all propositions -to do something for the working classes have an air of patronage and -superiority which is impertinent and out of place. No one can do -anything for anybody else unless he has a surplus of energy to dispose -of after taking care of himself. In the United States, the working -classes, technically so called, are the strongest classes. It is they -who have a surplus to dispose of if anybody has. Why should anybody -else offer to take care of them or to serve them? They can get whatever -they think worth having and, at any rate, if they are free men in a -free state, it is ignominious and unbecoming to introduce fashions of -patronage and favoritism here. A man who, by superior education and -experience of business, is in a position to advise a struggling man of -the wages class, is certainly held to do so and will, I believe, always -be willing and glad to do so; but this sort of activity lies in the -range of private and personal relations. - -I now, however, desire to direct attention to the public, general, and -impersonal schemes, and I point out the fact that, if you undertake to -lift anybody, you must have a fulcrum or point of resistance. All the -elevation you give to one must be gained by an equivalent depression on -some one else. The question of gain to society depends upon the balance -of the account, as regards the position of the persons who undergo the -respective operations. But nearly all the schemes for “improving the -condition of the working man” involve an elevation of some working men -at the expense of other working men. When you expend capital or labor -to elevate some persons who come within the sphere of your influence, -you interfere in the conditions of competition. The advantage of -some is won by an equivalent loss of others. The difference is not -brought about by the energy and effort of the persons themselves. If -it were, there would be nothing to be said about it, for we constantly -see people surpass others in the rivalry of life and carry off the -prizes which the others must do without. In the cases I am discussing, -the difference is brought about by an interference which must be -partial, arbitrary, accidental, controlled by favoritism and personal -preference. I do not say, in this case, either, that we ought to do -no work of this kind. On the contrary, I believe that the arguments -for it quite outweigh, in many cases, the arguments against it. What I -desire, again, is to bring out the forgotten element which we always -need to remember in order to make a wise decision as to any scheme of -this kind. I want to call to mind the Forgotten Man, because, in this -case also, if we recall him and go to look for him, we shall find him -patiently and perseveringly, manfully and independently struggling -against adverse circumstances without complaining or begging. If, then, -we are led to heed the groaning and complaining of others and to take -measures for helping these others, we shall, before we know it, push -down this man who is trying to help himself. - -Let us take another class of cases. So far we have said nothing about -the abuse of legislation. We all seem to be under the delusion that the -rich pay the taxes. Taxes are not thrown upon the consumers with any -such directness and completeness as is sometimes assumed; but that, in -ordinary states of the market, taxes on houses fall, for the most part, -on the tenants and that taxes on commodities fall, for the most part, -on the consumers, is beyond question. Now the state and municipality -go to great expense to support policemen and sheriffs and judicial -officers, to protect people against themselves, that is, against the -results of their own folly, vice, and recklessness. Who pays for it? -Undoubtedly the people who have not been guilty of folly, vice, or -recklessness. Out of nothing comes nothing. We cannot collect taxes -from people who produce nothing and save nothing. The people who have -something to tax must be those who have produced and saved. - -When you see a drunkard in the gutter, you are disgusted, but you pity -him. When a policeman comes and picks him up you are satisfied. You -say that “society” has interfered to save the drunkard from perishing. -Society is a fine word, and it saves us the trouble of thinking to -say that society acts. The truth is that the policeman is paid by -somebody, and when we talk about society we forget who it is that pays. -It is the Forgotten Man again. It is the industrious workman going home -from a hard day’s work, whom you pass without noticing, who is mulcted -of a percentage of his day’s earnings to hire a policeman to save the -drunkard from himself. All the public expenditure to prevent vice has -the same effect. Vice is its own curse. If we let nature alone, she -cures vice by the most frightful penalties. It may shock you to hear me -say it, but when you get over the shock, it will do you good to think -of it: a drunkard in the gutter is just where he ought to be. Nature -is working away at him to get him out of the way, just as she sets up -her processes of dissolution to remove whatever is a failure in its -line. Gambling and less mentionable vices all cure themselves by the -ruin and dissolution of their victims. Nine-tenths of our measures -for preventing vice are really protective towards it, because they -ward off the penalty. “Ward off,” I say, and that is the usual way of -looking at it; but is the penalty really annihilated? By no means. It -is turned into police and court expenses and spread over those who have -resisted vice. It is the Forgotten Man again who has been subjected to -the penalty while our minds were full of the drunkards, spendthrifts, -gamblers, and other victims of dissipation. Who is, then, the Forgotten -Man? He is the clean, quiet, virtuous, domestic citizen, who pays his -debts and his taxes and is never heard of out of his little circle. Yet -who is there in the society of a civilized state who deserves to be -remembered and considered by the legislator and statesman before this -man? - -Another class of cases is closely connected with this last. There -is an apparently invincible prejudice in people’s minds in favor of -state regulation. All experience is against state regulation and in -favor of liberty. The freer the civil institutions are, the more weak -or mischievous state regulation is. The Prussian bureaucracy can do -a score of things for the citizen which no governmental organ in the -United States can do; and, conversely, if we want to be taken care -of as Prussians and Frenchmen are, we must give up something of our -personal liberty. - -Now we have a great many well-intentioned people among us who believe -that they are serving their country when they discuss plans for -regulating the relations of employer and employee, or the sanitary -regulations of dwellings, or the construction of factories, or the -way to behave on Sunday, or what people ought not to eat or drink or -smoke. All this is harmless enough and well enough as a basis of mutual -encouragement and missionary enterprise, but it is almost always made -a basis of legislation. The reformers want to get a majority, that is, -to get the power of the state and so to make other people do what the -reformers think it right and wise to do. A and B agree to spend Sunday -in a certain way. They get a law passed to make C pass it in their -way. They determine to be teetotallers and they get a law passed to -make C be a teetotaller for the sake of D who is likely to drink too -much. Factory acts for women and children are right because women and -children are not on an equal footing with men and cannot, therefore, -make contracts properly. Adult men, in a free state, must be left to -make their own contracts and defend themselves. It will not do to -say that some men are weak and unable to make contracts any better -than women. Our civil institutions assume that all men are equal in -political capacity and all are given equal measure of political power -and right, which is not the case with women and children. If, then, we -measure political rights by one theory and social responsibilities by -another, we produce an immoral and vicious relation. A and B, however, -get factory acts and other acts passed regulating the relation of -employers and employee and set armies of commissioners and inspectors -traveling about to see to things, instead of using their efforts, if -any are needed, to lead the free men to make their own conditions as to -what kind of factory buildings they will work in, how many hours they -will work, what they will do on Sunday and so on. The consequence is -that men lose the true education in freedom which is needed to support -free institutions. They are taught to rely on government officers and -inspectors. The whole system of government inspectors is corrupting -to free institutions. In England, the liberals used always to regard -state regulation with suspicion, but since they have come to power, -they plainly believe that state regulation is a good thing--if _they_ -regulate--because, of course, they want to bring about good things. In -this country each party takes turns, according as it is in or out, in -supporting or denouncing the non-interference theory. - -Now, if we have state regulation, what is always forgotten is -this: Who pays for it? Who is the victim of it? There always is a -victim. The workmen who do not defend themselves have to pay for the -inspectors who defend them. The whole system of social regulation by -boards, commissioners, and inspectors consists in relieving negligent -people of the consequences of their negligence and so leaving them -to continue negligent without correction. That system also turns -away from the agencies which are close, direct, and germane to the -purpose, and seeks others. Now, if you relieve negligent people of the -consequences of their negligence, you can only throw those consequences -on the people who have not been negligent. If you turn away from the -agencies which are direct and cognate to the purpose, you can only -employ other agencies. Here, then, you have your Forgotten Man again. -The man who has been careful and prudent and who wants to go on and -reap his advantages for himself and his children is arrested just -at that point, and he is told that he must go and take care of some -negligent employees in a factory or on a railroad who have not provided -precautions for themselves or have not forced their employers to -provide precautions, or negligent tenants who have not taken care of -their own sanitary arrangements, or negligent householders who have not -provided against fire, or negligent parents who have not sent their -children to school. If the Forgotten Man does not go, he must hire an -inspector to go. No doubt it is often worth his while to go or send, -rather than leave the thing undone, on account of his remoter interest; -but what I want to show is that all this is unjust to the Forgotten -Man, and that the reformers and philosophers miss the point entirely -when they preach that it is his duty to do all this work. Let them -preach to the negligent to learn to take care of themselves. Whenever -A and B put their heads together and decide what A, B and C must do -for D, there is never any pressure on A and B. They consent to it and -like it. There is rarely any pressure on D because he does not like it -and contrives to evade it. The pressure all comes on C. Now, who is C? -He is always the man who, if let alone, would make a reasonable use -of his liberty without abusing it. He would not constitute any social -problem at all and would not need any regulation. He is the Forgotten -Man again, and as soon as he is brought from his obscurity you see that -he is just that one amongst us who is what we all ought to be. - -Let us look at another case. I read again and again arguments to prove -that criminals have claims and rights against society. Not long ago, I -read an account of an expensive establishment for the reformation of -criminals, and I am told that we ought to reform criminals, not merely -punish them vindictively. When I was a young man, I read a great many -novels by Eugene Sue, Victor Hugo, and other Frenchmen of the school -of ’48, in which the badness of a bad man is represented, not as his -fault, but as the fault of society. Now, as society consists of the bad -men plus the good men, and as the object of this declaration was to -show that the badness of the bad men was not the fault of the bad men, -it remains that the badness of the bad men must be the fault of the -good men. No doubt, it is far more consoling to the bad men than even -to their friends to reach the point of this demonstration. - -Let us ask, now, for a moment, what is the sense of punishment, since -a good many people seem to be quite in a muddle about it. Every man in -society is bound in nature and reason to contribute to the strength and -welfare of society. He ought to work, to be peaceful, honest, just, -and virtuous. A criminal is a man who, instead of working with and -for society, turns his efforts against the common welfare in some way -or other. He disturbs order, violates harmony, invades the security -and happiness of others, wastes and destroys capital. If he is put to -death, it is on the ground that he has forfeited all right to existence -in society by the magnitude of his offenses against its welfare. If he -is imprisoned, it is simply a judgment of society upon him that he is -so mischievous to the society that he must be segregated from it. His -punishment is a warning to him to reform himself, just exactly like the -penalties inflicted by God and nature on vice. A man who has committed -crime is, therefore, a burden on society and an injury to it. He is a -destructive and not a productive force and everybody is worse off for -his existence than if he did not exist. Whence, then, does he obtain -a right to be taught or reformed at the public expense? The whole -question of what to do with him is one of expediency, and it embraces -the whole range of possible policies from that of execution to that -of education and reformation, but when the expediency of reformatory -attempts is discussed we always forget the labor and expense and who -must pay. All that the state does for the criminal, beyond forcing -him to earn his living, is done at the expense of the industrious -member of society who never costs the state anything for correction -and discipline. If a man who has gone astray can be reclaimed in any -way, no one would hinder such a work, but people whose minds are full -of sympathy and interest for criminals and who desire to adopt some -systematic plans of reformatory efforts are only, once more, trampling -on the Forgotten Man. - -Let us look at another case. If there is a public office to be filled, -of course a great number of persons come forward as candidates for -it. Many of these persons are urged as candidates on the ground that -they are badly off, or that they cannot support themselves, or that -they want to earn a living while educating themselves, or that they -have female relatives dependent on them, or for some other reason of a -similar kind. In other cases, candidates are presented and urged on the -ground of their kinship to somebody, or on account of service, it may -be meritorious service, in some other line than that of the duty to be -performed. Men are proposed for clerkships on the ground of service in -the army twenty years ago, or for custom-house inspectors on the ground -of public services in the organization of political parties. If public -positions are granted on these grounds of sentiment or favoritism, -the abuse is to be condemned on the ground of the harm done to the -public interest; but I now desire to point out another thing which is -constantly forgotten. If you give a position to A, you cannot give it -to B. If A is an object of sentiment or favoritism and not a person fit -and competent to fulfill the duty, who is B? He is somebody who has -nothing but merit on his side, somebody who has no powerful friends, -no political influence, some quiet, unobtrusive individual who has -known no other way to secure the chances of life than simply to deserve -them. Here we have the Forgotten Man again, and once again we find him -worthy of all respect and consideration, but passed by in favor of the -noisy, pushing, and incompetent. Who ever remembers that if you give a -place to a man who is unfit for it you are keeping out of it somebody, -somewhere, who is fit for it? - -Let us take another case. A trades-union is an association of -journeymen in a certain trade which has for one of its chief objects -to raise wages in that trade. This object can be accomplished only -by drawing more capital into the trade, or by lessening the supply -of labor in it. To do the latter, the trades-unions limit the number -of apprentices who may be admitted to the trade. In discussing this -device, people generally fix their minds on the beneficiaries of this -arrangement. It is desired by everybody that wages should be as high as -they can be under the conditions of industry. Our minds are directed -by the facts of the case to the men who are in the trade already and -are seeking their own advantage. Sometimes people go on to notice the -effects of trades-unionism on the employers, but although employers -are constantly vexed by it, it is seen that they soon count it into -the risks of their business and settle down to it philosophically. -Sometimes people go further then and see that, if the employer adds -the trades-union and strike risk to the other risks, he submits to it -because he has passed it along upon the public and that the public -wealth is diminished by trades-unionism, which is undoubtedly the case. -I do not remember, however, that I have ever seen in print any analysis -and observation of trades-unionism which takes into account its -effect in another direction. The effect on employers or on the public -would not raise wages. The public pays more for houses and goods, but -that does not raise wages. The surplus paid by the public is pure -loss, because it is only paid to cover an extra business risk of the -employer. If their trades-unions raise wages, how do they do it? They -do it by lessening the supply of labor in the trade, and this they do -by limiting the number of apprentices. All that is won, therefore, for -those in the trade, is won at the expense of those persons in the same -class in life who want to get into the trade but are forbidden. Like -every other monopoly, this one secures advantages for those who are in -only at a greater loss to those who are kept out. Who, then, are those -who are kept out and who are always forgotten in all the discussions? -They are the Forgotten Men again; and what kind of men are they? They -are those young men who want to earn their living by the trade in -question. Since they select it, it is fair to suppose that they are fit -for it, would succeed at it, and would benefit society by practicing -it; but they are arbitrarily excluded from it and are perhaps pushed -down into the class of unskilled laborers. When people talk of the -success of a trades-union in raising wages, they forget these persons -who have really, in a sense, paid the increase. - -Let me now turn your attention to another class of cases. I have -shown how, in time past, the history of states has been a history of -selfishness, cupidity, and robbery, and I have affirmed that now and -always the problems of government are how to deal with these same vices -of human nature. People are always prone to believe that there is -something metaphysical and sentimental about civil affairs, but there -is not. Civil institutions are constructed to protect, either directly -or indirectly, the property of men and the honor of women against the -vices and passions of human nature. In our day and country, the problem -presents new phases, but it is there just the same as it ever was, -and the problem is only the more difficult for us because of its new -phase which prevents us from recognizing it. In fact, our people are -raving and struggling against it in a kind of blind way, not yet having -come to recognize it. More than half of their blows, at present, are -misdirected and fail of their object, but they will be aimed better -by and by. There is a great deal of clamor about watering stocks -and the power of combined capital, which is not very intelligent or -well-directed. The evil and abuse which people are groping after in all -these denunciations is jobbery. - -By jobbery I mean the constantly apparent effort to win wealth, not -by honest and independent production, but by some sort of a scheme -for extorting other people’s product from them. A large part of our -legislation consists in making a job for somebody. Public buildings are -jobs, not always, but in most cases. The buildings are not needed at -all or are costly far beyond what is useful or even decently luxurious. -Internal improvements are jobs. They are carried out, not because they -are needed in themselves, but because they will serve the turn of some -private interest, often incidentally that of the very legislators who -pass the appropriations for them. A man who wants a farm, instead -of going out where there is plenty of land available for it, goes -down under the Mississippi River to make a farm, and then wants his -fellow-citizens to be taxed to dyke the river so as to keep it off his -farm. The Californian hydraulic miners have washed the gold out of the -hillsides and have washed the dirt down into the valleys to the ruin of -the rivers and the farms. They want the federal government to remove -this dirt at the national expense. The silver miners, finding that -their product is losing value in the market, get the government to go -into the market as a great buyer in the hope of sustaining the price. -The national government is called upon to buy or hire unsalable ships; -to dig canals which will not pay; to educate illiterates in the states -which have not done their duty at the expense of the states which have -done their duty as to education; to buy up telegraphs which no longer -pay; and to provide the capital for enterprises of which private -individuals are to win the profits. We are called upon to squander -twenty millions on swamps and creeks; from twenty to sixty-six millions -on the Mississippi River; one hundred millions in pensions--and there -is now a demand for another hundred million beyond that. This is the -great plan of all living on each other. The pensions in England used to -be given to aristocrats who had political power, in order to corrupt -them. Here the pensions are given to the great democratic mass who have -the political power, in order to corrupt them. We have one hundred -thousand federal office-holders and I do not know how many state and -municipal office-holders. Of course public officers are necessary -and it is an economical organization of society to set apart some of -its members for civil functions, but if the number of persons drawn -from production and supported by the producers while engaged in civil -functions is in undue proportion to the total population, there is -economic loss. If public offices are treated as spoils or benefices or -sinecures, then they are jobs and only constitute part of the pillage. - -The biggest job of all is a protective tariff. This device consists -in delivering every man over to be plundered by his neighbor and in -teaching him to believe that it is a good thing for him and his country -because he may take his turn at plundering the rest. Mr. Kelley said -that if the internal revenue taxes on whisky and tobacco, which are -paid to the United States government, were not taken off, there would -be a rebellion. Just then it was discovered that Sumatra tobacco was -being imported, and the Connecticut tobacco men hastened to Congress -to get a tax laid on it for their advantage. So it appears that if a -tax is laid on tobacco, to be paid to the United States, there will be -a rebellion, but if a tax is laid on it to be paid to the farmers of -the Connecticut Valley, there will be no rebellion at all. The tobacco -farmers having been taxed for protected manufactures are now to be -taken into the system, and the workmen in the factories are to be taxed -on their tobacco to protect the farmers. So the system is rendered more -complete and comprehensive. - -On every hand you find this jobbery. The government is to give every -man a pension, and every man an office, and every man a tax to raise -the price of his product, and to clean out every man’s creek for him, -and to buy all his unsalable property, and to provide him with plenty -of currency to pay his debts, and to educate his children, and to -give him the use of a library and a park and a museum and a gallery -of pictures. On every side the doors of waste and extravagance stand -open; and spend, squander, plunder, and grab are the watchwords. We -grumble some about it and talk about the greed of corporations and -the power of capital and the wickedness of stock gambling. Yet we -elect the legislators who do all this work. Of course, we should -never think of blaming ourselves for electing men to represent and -govern us, who, if I may use a slang expression, give us away. What -man ever blamed himself for his misfortune? We groan about monopolies -and talk about more laws to prevent the wrongs done by chartered -corporations. Who made the charters? Our representatives. Who elected -such representatives? We did. How can we get bad law-makers to make -a law which shall prevent bad law-makers from making a bad law? That -is, really, what we are trying to do. If we are a free, self-governing -people, all our misfortunes come right home to ourselves and we can -blame nobody else. Is any one astonished to find that men are greedy, -whether they are incorporated or not? Is it a revelation to find -that we need, in our civil affairs, to devise guarantees against -selfishness, rapacity, and fraud? I have ventured to affirm that -government has never had to deal with anything else. - -Now, I have said that this jobbery means waste, plunder, and loss, -and I defined it at the outset as the system of making a chance to -extort part of his product from somebody else. Now comes the question: -Who pays for it all? The system of plundering each other soon destroys -all that it deals with. It produces nothing. Wealth comes only from -production, and all that the wrangling grabbers, loafers, and jobbers -get to deal with comes from somebody’s toil and sacrifice. Who, then, -is he who provides it all? Go and find him and you will have once more -before you the Forgotten Man. You will find him hard at work because -he has a great many to support. Nature has done a great deal for him -in giving him a fertile soil and an excellent climate and he wonders -why it is that, after all, his scale of comfort is so moderate. He has -to get out of the soil enough to pay all his taxes, and that means the -cost of all the jobs and the fund for all the plunder. The Forgotten -Man is delving away in patient industry, supporting his family, -paying his taxes, casting his vote, supporting the church and the -school, reading his newspaper, and cheering for the politician of his -admiration, but he is the only one for whom there is no provision in -the great scramble and the big divide. - -Such is the Forgotten Man. He works, he votes, generally he prays--but -he always pays--yes, above all, he pays. He does not want an office; -his name never gets into the newspaper except when he gets married or -dies. He keeps production going on. He contributes to the strength of -parties. He is flattered before election. He is strongly patriotic. He -is wanted, whenever, in his little circle, there is work to be done -or counsel to be given. He may grumble some occasionally to his wife -and family, but he does not frequent the grocery or talk politics at -the tavern. Consequently, he is forgotten. He is a commonplace man. He -gives no trouble. He excites no admiration. He is not in any way a hero -(like a popular orator); or a problem (like tramps and outcasts); nor -notorious (like criminals); nor an object of sentiment (like the poor -and weak); nor a burden (like paupers and loafers); nor an object out -of which social capital may be made (like the beneficiaries of church -and state charities); nor an object for charitable aid and protection -(like animals treated with cruelty); nor the object of a job (like the -ignorant and illiterate); nor one over whom sentimental economists and -statesmen can parade their fine sentiments (like inefficient workmen -and shiftless artisans). Therefore, he is forgotten. All the burdens -fall on him, or on her, for it is time to remember that the Forgotten -Man is not seldom a woman. - -When you go to Willimantic, they will show you with great pride the -splendid thread mills there. I am told that there are sewing-women who -can earn only fifty cents in twelve hours, and provide the thread. In -the cost of every spool of thread more than one cent is tax. It is -paid, not to get the thread, for you could get the thread without it. -It is paid to get the Willimantic linen company which is not worth -having and which is, in fact, a nuisance, because it makes thread -harder to get than it would be if there were no such concern. If a -woman earns fifty cents in twelve hours, she earns a spool of thread as -nearly as may be in an hour, and if she uses a spool of thread per day, -she works a quarter of an hour per day to support the Willimantic linen -company, which in 1882 paid 95 per cent dividend to its stockholders. -If you go and look at the mill, it will captivate your imagination -until you remember all the women in all the garrets, and all the -artisans’ and laborers’ wives and children who are spending their -hours of labor, not to get goods which they need, but to pay for the -industrial system which only stands in their way and makes it harder -for them to get the goods. - -It is plain enough that the Forgotten Man and the Forgotten Woman -are the very life and substance of society. They are the ones who -ought to be first and always remembered. They are always forgotten by -sentimentalists, philanthropists, reformers, enthusiasts, and every -description of speculator in sociology, political economy, or political -science. If a student of any of these sciences ever comes to understand -the position of the Forgotten Man and to appreciate his true value, -you will find such student an uncompromising advocate of the strictest -scientific thinking on all social topics, and a cold and hard-hearted -skeptic towards all artificial schemes of social amelioration. If -it is desired to bring about social improvements, bring us a scheme -for relieving the Forgotten Man of some of his burdens. He is our -productive force which we are wasting. Let us stop wasting his force. -Then we shall have a clean and simple gain for the whole society. The -Forgotten Man is weighted down with the cost and burden of the schemes -for making everybody happy, with the cost of public beneficence, with -the support of all the loafers, with the loss of all the economic -quackery, with the cost of all the jobs. Let us remember him a little -while. Let us take some of the burdens off him. Let us turn our pity -on him instead of on the good-for-nothing. It will be only justice -to him, and society will greatly gain by it. Why should we not also -have the satisfaction of thinking and caring for a little while about -the clean, honest, industrious, independent, self-supporting men and -women who have not inherited much to make life luxurious for them, but -who are doing what they can to get on in the world without begging -from anybody, especially since all they want is to be let alone, with -good friendship and honest respect. Certainly the philanthropists and -sentimentalists have kept our attention for a long time on the nasty, -shiftless, criminal, whining, crawling, and good-for-nothing people, as -if they alone deserved our attention. - -The Forgotten Man is never a pauper. He almost always has a little -capital because it belongs to the character of the man to save -something. He never has more than a little. He is, therefore, poor -in the popular sense, although in the correct sense he is not so. I -have said already that if you learn to look for the Forgotten Man and -to care for him, you will be very skeptical toward all philanthropic -and humanitarian schemes. It is clear now that the interest of the -Forgotten Man and the interest of “the poor,” “the weak,” and the other -petted classes are in antagonism. In fact, the warning to you to look -for the Forgotten Man comes the minute that the orator or writer begins -to talk about the poor man. That minute the Forgotten Man is in danger -of a new assault, and if you intend to meddle in the matter at all, -then is the minute for you to look about for him and to give him your -aid. Hence, if you care for the Forgotten Man, you will be sure to be -charged with _not_ caring for the poor. Whatever you do for any of the -petted classes wastes capital. If you do anything for the Forgotten -Man, you must secure him his earnings and savings, that is, you -legislate for the security of capital and for its free employment; you -must oppose paper money, wildcat banking and usury laws and you must -maintain the inviolability of contracts. Hence you must be prepared to -be told that you favor the capitalist class, the enemy of the poor man. - -What the Forgotten Man really wants is true liberty. Most of his wrongs -and woes come from the fact that there are yet mixed together in our -institutions the old mediæval theories of protection and personal -dependence and the modern theories of independence and individual -liberty. The consequence is that the people who are clever enough -to get into positions of control, measure their own rights by the -paternal theory and their own duties by the theory of independent -liberty. It follows that the Forgotten Man, who is hard at work at -home, has to pay both ways. His rights are measured by the theory -of liberty, that is, he has only such as he can conquer. His duties -are measured by the paternal theory, that is, he must discharge all -which are laid upon him, as is always the fortune of parents. People -talk about the paternal theory of government as if it were a very -simple thing. Analyze it, however, and you see that in every paternal -relation there must be two parties, a parent and a child, and when -you speak metaphorically, it makes all the difference in the world -who is parent and who is child. Now, since we, the people, are the -state, whenever there is any work to be done or expense to be paid, and -since the petted classes and the criminals and the jobbers cost and -do not pay, it is they who are in the position of the child, and it -is the Forgotten Man who is the parent. What the Forgotten Man needs, -therefore, is that we come to a clearer understanding of liberty and to -a more complete realization of it. Every step which we win in liberty -will set the Forgotten Man free from some of his burdens and allow him -to use his powers for himself and for the commonwealth. - - - - -BIBLIOGRAPHY - - -BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE - -The following bibliography is as nearly exhaustive as we have been able -to make it. There are doubtless other articles which have not come -under our notice; and there are certainly a number of contributions -to the press, signed and unsigned, to which we have no clue. The -distribution of those which we have found will indicate the task of any -one who should aim at exhaustiveness. - -It has seemed best to us to include the titles of certain unpublished -writings, especially where these are to be made accessible to students -by the deposit of the manuscripts with the Yale University Library -(under Sumner Estate). Sumner had a way of writing something out -very carefully, perhaps as a lecture, and then laying it away with -apparently no thought of publishing it; a number of such manuscripts -have been printed for the first time in this series of volumes. There -are also a few of Sumner’s printed utterances which we possessed in the -form of clippings, but could not locate; the titles of such have been -included as accessible at the Yale Library. - -There is a good deal of Sumner’s writing in the reports of the -Connecticut State Board of Education. We have been informed that his -services to that Board, extending over twenty years, included much -committee work and many carefully written reports. As these are of a -somewhat special nature, we refer simply to the documents of the Board. - -It is the intention of the publishers to make of the volumes now in -print under uniform style a set of four, to be numbered in the order of -their appearance. For the sake of brevity, then, War and Other Essays -is referred to below as Vol. I; Earth Hunger and Other Essays, as Vol. -II; The Challenge of Facts and Other Essays, as Vol. III; and The -Forgotten Man and Other Essays, as Vol. IV. - -There are in these volumes a few numbers not written by Sumner, but -about him, such as the Memorial Addresses in Vol. III. - - A. G. K. - M. R. D. - - 1872. THE BOOKS OF THE KINGS, by K. C. W. F. Bähr. Translated, - Enlarged, and Edited ... Book 2, by W. G. - Sumner, in Lange, J. P., A commentary on the Holy - Scripture ... New York, Scribner, Armstrong & Co., - 1866–1882, 26 vols., VI, 312 pp. - - THE CHURCH’S LAW OF THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. - Unpublished manuscript on scientific criticism - of the Bible. April 3. 61 pp. (Sumner Estate.) - - MEMORIAL DAY ADDRESS. Delivered at Morristown, - May 30. Printed for the first time in Vol. III, pp. 347–362. - - 1873. THE SOLIDARITY OF THE HUMAN RACE. Unpublished - manuscript of an address on the influence of ideas and - events in one country on conditions in other countries, - delivered at the Sheffield Scientific School, January 11. - 40 pp. (Sumner Estate.) - - RELATION OF PHYSICAL TO MORAL GOOD. An address. - Unpublished manuscript probably of this date, 35 pp. - (Sumner Estate.) - - INTRODUCTORY LECTURE TO COURSES IN POLITICAL AND - SOCIAL SCIENCE. Printed for the first time in Vol. III, - pp. 391–403. - - HISTORY OF PAPER MONEY. Paper money in China, - England, Austria, Russia, and the American Colonies. - Unpublished manuscript, 109 pp. (Sumner Estate.) - - SOCIALISM. Three unpublished manuscripts written between - 1873 and 1880 which appear to be preliminary - sketches to the essay entitled The Challenge of Facts. - 38, 12, and 31 pp. respectively. - - 1874. A HISTORY OF AMERICAN CURRENCY, with chapters on the - English Bank Restriction and Austrian Paper Money, - to which is appended “The Bullion Report.” New - York, H. Holt & Co., iv, 391 pp., twofold diagram. - - THE LESSON OF THE PANIC (of 1873). Unpublished manuscript - advocating a return to a sound currency, 20 pp. - (Sumner Estate.) - - HAVE WE HAD ENOUGH? Unpublished manuscript on the - evils of paper money, written soon after the panic of - 1873, 15 pp. (Sumner Estate.) - - POLITICAL ECONOMY. From 300 to 400 pp. of lecture notes - for classroom use. (Sumner Estate.) - - TAXATION. What it is, what its relation to other departments - of political economy is, and what are the general - principles by which it must be controlled. Unpublished - manuscript probably of this date, 24 pp. (Sumner - Estate.) - - 1875. AMERICAN FINANCE. Boston, Williams. - - THE CURRENCY QUESTION. An address delivered about - this time opposing the issue of irredeemable paper money. - Unpublished manuscript, 96 pp. (Sumner Estate.) - - 1876. MONETARY DEVELOPMENT. (In Woolsey, T. D., and - others, First Century of the Republic. New York, - Harper & Bros.) - - POLITICS IN AMERICA, 1776–1876. North American Review, - January, Vol. CXXII, Centennial number, pp. 47–87. - Reprinted in Vol. IV, pp. 285–333. - - SHALL THE “HARD TIMES” CONTINUE? A review of the - address of Professor Sumner before the New Haven - Chamber of Commerce. The Woonsocket Patriot, - May 19. - - BOURBONISM. “Real Issues of the Day.” New York - World, May 19. - - FREE PIG-IRON. Letter to the New York Mercantile - Journal, June 3. - - FOR PRESIDENT? New Haven Palladium, September 12. - Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 365–379. - - IS THE WAR OVER? “Real Issues of the Day.” New - York World, October 9. - - FEARS OF A SOLID SOUTH. “Real Issues of the Day.” - New York World, October 10. - - POLITICAL STATUS OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. Letter to - the New York World, October 16. - - WHAT HAS BECOME OF REFORM? “Real Issues of the - Day.” New York World, October 23. - - THE DEMOCRATIC REPLY. To the visiting Republicans in - New Orleans who refused to enter into a conference upon - the subject of the counting of the election returns. - New York Tribune, November 17. - - “PROFESSOR SUMNER ON LOUISIANA.” Letter to the - New York World, November 21, in answer to Governor - Ingersoll’s request to express his views on the political - situation in that state after his visit to New Orleans. - - IMPRESSIONS IN NEW ORLEANS. Letter to the New - York Herald, November 22. - - 1877. LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF PROTECTION IN THE UNITED - STATES. Delivered before the International Free-trade - Alliance. Reprinted from “The New Century.” Published - for the International Free-trade Alliance by - G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 64 pp. Contents: - The National Idea and the American System, Broad - Principles Underlying the Tariff Controversy, The - Origin of Protection in this Country, The Establishment - of Protection in this Country, Vacillation of the Protective - Policy in this Country. - - REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. The Chicago Tribune, January - 1. Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 223–240. - - PROTECTION AND PIG-IRON. Letter to the Courier, - February 12. - - DEMOCRACY AND RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT. Address - at Providence, R. I., June 20, before the Phi Beta Kappa - Society of Brown University. The Providence Evening - Press, June 21. Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 243–286. - - SILVER. Address before the Senior Class of Yale University. - The New Haven Union, December 12. - - THE SILVER QUESTION. What it is and how it should be - dealt with. New York World, December 12. - - THE COMMERCIAL CRISIS OF 1837. Written in 1877 or - 1878. (There are indications on the manuscript that - it was once printed, but efforts to find where have - failed.) Published, probably for the first time, in - Vol. IV, pp. 371–398. - - 1878. OUR REVENUE SYSTEM, by A. L. EARLE. Preface by W. G. - Sumner. New York, published for the New York Free-trade - Club by G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 47 pp. (Economic - Monograph No. V.) - - MONEY AND ITS LAWS. International Review, January - and February, Vol. V, pp. 75–81. - - WHAT IS FREE TRADE? Chicago News, January 7. - - SILVER. Address in Chicago. The Chicago Tribune, - January 9. - - THE SILVER QUESTION. Lecture before the Manhattan - Club of New York City, January 25, on the disastrous - results of remonetization. The New York World, - January 26. - - A FEW PLAIN ANSWERS. Letter to the New Haven - Register, February 28, on the tariff. - - PROTECTION AND REVENUE IN 1877. Lecture delivered - before the New York Free-trade Club, April 18. New - York, published for the New York Free-trade Club by - G. P. Putnam’s Sons. (Economic Monograph No. - VIII.) - - SOCIALISM. Scribner’s Monthly, October, Vol. XVI, No. - 6, pp. 887–893. - - RELATION OF LEGISLATION TO CURRENCY. Unpublished - manuscript written about this time dealing with the - nature of money, coining, paper money, legal tender - acts, the monetary experience of England and France, - etc., and opposing the abuses of legislation in regard to - currency. 45 pp. (Sumner Estate.) - - A CONCURRENT CIRCULATION OF GOLD AND SILVER. - Printed for the first time in Vol. IV, pp. 183–210. - - 1879. BIMETALLISM. Princeton Review, November, pp. 546–578. - - AMORTIZATION OF PUBLIC DEBTS. Unpublished manuscript, - chiefly historical, written about this time. 35 pp. - (Sumner Estate.) - - THE INFLUENCE OF COMMERCIAL CRISES ON OPINIONS - ABOUT ECONOMIC DOCTRINES. An address probably of - this date. Printed for the first time in Vol. IV, pp. - 213–235. - - THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH. Written in the - seventies or eighties. Extracts printed for the first - time in Vol. IV, pp. 441–462. - - 1880. WHAT OUR BOYS ARE READING. Combined with “Books - and Reading for the Young,” by J. H. Smart. Chas. - Scribner’s Sons. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 367–377. - - THE TRUE AIM OF LIFE. Address to the Seniors in Yale - University. The New Haven Register, February 1. - (Not in form for re-printing.) - - THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF ELECTIONS. Princeton - Review, March, pp. 262–286, and July, pp. 24–41. - - TWO LETTERS TO THE NEW YORK TIMES, April 3 and 4, - giving his reasons for using Spencer’s “Study of Sociology” - as a text-book. - - THE ADMINISTRATION OF ANDREW JACKSON. Address - before the Kent Club of the Yale Law School, briefly - reported in the New York Tribune, April 29. Printed - in full for the first time in Vol. IV, pp. 337–367. - - THE REVIVAL OF OCEAN COMMERCE. A free-trade letter - to the American Railroad Journal, September 10. - - Professor Sumner’s views respecting the tariff question. - Letters to the New Haven Register, October 9, 12, and 14. - - THE FINANCIAL QUESTIONS NOW BEFORE US. Unpublished - manuscript written about this time, 8 pp. (Sumner - Estate.) - - 1881. ELECTIONS AND CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. Princeton Review, - January, pp. 129–148. - - PANIC WITHOUT CAUSE. Lecture in Brothers’ Hall, New - Haven, on the recent panic in Wall Street. New Haven - Register, January 14. - - THE ARGUMENT AGAINST PROTECTIVE TAXES. Princeton - Review, March, pp. 241–259. - - SHALL AMERICANS OWN SHIPS? North American Review, - June, Vol. 132, No. CCXCV, pp. 559–566. Reprinted - in Vol. IV, pp. 273–282. - - FORTUNES MADE IN THREAD. Letter to the New York - Times, June 5, on the peculiar protection given to the - manufacturers of thread. - - SOCIOLOGY. Princeton Review, November, pp. 303–323. - Reprinted in Vol. I, pp. 167–192. - - 1882. ANDREW JACKSON AS A PUBLIC MAN. What he was, what - chances he had, and what he did with them. Boston, - New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, vi, 402 pp. - (American Statesmen Series.) - - POLITICAL ECONOMY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. Comp. - by W. G. Sumner, D. A. Wells, W. E. Foster, R. L. - Dugdale, and G. H. Putnam. New York Society for - Political Education. Cover title, 36 pp. Economic - Tracts No. 2. - - PROTECTIVE TAXES AND WAGES. Philadelphia Tariff - Commission, 21 pp. Caption title. - - BANK CHECKS AND BLANKETS. A free-trade letter to the - New Haven Register, June 2. - - THE “AMERICAN SYSTEM.” A letter to the American - Free-trade League, June. - - WHY SHOULD THE MEN OF IOWA LEVY TAXES ON THEMSELVES - TO BENEFIT PENNSYLVANIA? Iowa State Leader, - September 4. - - THE FREE PLAY OF ECONOMIC FORCES. Letter to the - Nation regarding Jevons’s “State in Relation to Labor,” - September 30. - - LUMBER PRICES. Letter to the Northwestern Lumberman, - October 14. - - Professor Sumner’s speech before the Tariff Commission, - reviewed by George Basil Dixwell, Cambridge, J. Wilson - & Son, 43 pp. - - Professor Sumner’s “Argument against Protective Taxes,” - reviewed by George Basil Dixwell, Cambridge, J. - Wilson & Son, 13 pp. - - WAGES. Princeton Review, November, pp. 241–262. - - 1883. THE FORGOTTEN MAN. The original lecture on this - subject, delivered in New Haven February 8 or 9. - 28 typewritten pp. Printed for the first time in Vol. IV, - pp. 465–495. - - WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES OWE TO EACH OTHER. First appeared - in Harper’s Weekly, February-May, Vol. XXVII, - Nos. 1366–1376. New York, Harper & Brothers, - 169 pp. - - ON THE CASE OF A CERTAIN MAN WHO IS NEVER - THOUGHT OF. Reprinted in Vol. I, pp. 247–253, from - “What Social Classes Owe to Each Other,” pp. 123–133. - - THE CASE OF THE FORGOTTEN MAN FURTHER CONSIDERED. - Reprinted in Vol. I, pp. 257–268, from “What Social - Classes Owe to Each Other,” pp. 134–152. - - BEST PUBLIC OPINION. Letter to the Gazette and Free - Press, January 12, in reply to T. K. Beecher. - - LET COMMERCIAL RELATIONS ALONE. Letter to W. H. - Knight in the Gazette and Free Press, January 16. - - Letter to Mr. Earle of the American Free-trade League - regarding a speech of Mr. Evarts’s. Printed in the - New York Times, February 6. - - “PROFESSOR SUMNER ON MONETARY SCIENCE.” Letter - to the editor of Bradstreet’s in which he disagrees with - the theory of H. C. Adams that money laws in economics - are dependent on the nation’s sentiment as expressed in - its legislative enactments. February 10. - - “PROFESSOR SUMNER REPLIES.” Letter to the New - Haven Register, February 10, referring to his remarks - about the protective tax on thread in his lecture on the - “Forgotten Man.” - - “PROFESSOR SUMNER’S PRESUMPTION.” A defense of - his letter to Mr. Earle regarding a speech of Mr. Evarts’s. - New York Times, February 14. - - WILLIMANTIC LINEN MILLS. Letter to the New York - Times, February 16, defending his position as taken - against the protective tax on thread. - - SOME FACTS ABOUT THREAD. Unpublished manuscript, - 14 pp., referring to the controversy with the Willimantic - Linen Co. (Sumner Estate.) - - A THEORIST ANSWERED. A free-trade letter to the New - Haven Register, February 26, in reply to a letter signed - “Hardpan.” - - THE GAIN TO THE COUNTRY BY PROTECTION. Letter to - the New York Times, February 27. - - “PROFESSOR SUMNER INSTRUCTS HIS CRITICS.” A free-trade - letter to the New York Times, March 1. - - THAT CENSUS PUZZLE. New York Times, March 2. - - PROTECTIVE TAXES AND WAGES. North American Review, - March, Vol. 136, No. CCCXVI, pp. 270–276. - - A COURSE OF READING IN POLITICAL ECONOMY. Prepared - for The Critic, March, 4 pp. - - THE TARIFF ON THREAD. Letter to the New York Times, - March 8. - - THREAD. Letter to the Boston Transcript, April 25, - regarding the Willimantic Linen Co. - - THREAD AT THREE CENTS A SPOOL. Letter to the New - York Times, April 28. - - THE WILLIMANTIC MILLS’ PROFIT. Letter to the Boston - Transcript, April 30. - - Letter to the Palladium (New Haven), April 30, regarding - the controversy with the Willimantic Linen Co. - - “PROFESSOR SUMNER’S VIEWS.” Letter to the New Haven - Register, May 26, in answer to Mr. Barrows of the - Willimantic Linen Co. - - THE PHILOSOPHY OF STRIKES. Harper’s Weekly, September - 15, Vol. XXVII, No. 1395, p. 586. Reprinted in - Vol. IV, pp. 239–246. - - Letter to the New Haven Register, October 18, regarding - the development of our industries. - - “PROFESSOR SUMNER’S VIEWS RESPECTING THE TARIFF - QUESTION.” New Haven Register, October 19. - - “MIXED UP MR. SHELDON.” Letter to the New Haven - Register, October 30, showing Mr. Sheldon’s ignorance - of tariff laws. - - THE SCIENCE OF SOCIOLOGY. A Speech at the Farewell - Banquet to Herbert Spencer. Delivered November 9, - 1882, published in “Herbert Spencer on the Americans - and the Americans on Herbert Spencer,” pp. 35–40. - New York, D. Appleton & Company, 96 pp. Reprinted - in Vol. IV, pp. 401–405. - - SUGGESTIONS ON SOCIAL SUBJECTS. Passages selected - from “What Social Classes owe to Each Other,” in - the Popular Science Monthly, December, Vol. XXIV, - pp. 160–169. - - AN AMERICAN CRITICISM OF BRITISH PROTECTIONIST - THEORIES. A criticism of Professor Sidgwick’s doctrine - that protective taxes come out of the foreigner. The - London Economist, December 1, Vol. XLI, No. 2,101, - pp. 1397–1398. - - THE DEMOCRATIC THEORY OF PUBLIC OFFICES. Address - before the Civil Service Reform Association, Rochester, - N. Y. Reasons for reform in the manner of selecting - public officers. What would be gained by the change. - Printed in the Rochester newspapers of the time. - (Sumner Estate.) - - 1884. PROBLEMS IN POLITICAL ECONOMY. New York, 12 mo., - 125 pp. H. Holt & Co. - - OUR COLLEGES BEFORE THE COUNTRY. Princeton Review, - March, pp. 127–140. Reprinted in Vol. I, pp. 355–373. - - SOCIOLOGICAL FALLACIES. North American Review, June, - Vol. 138, No. CCCXXXI, pp. 574–579. Reprinted in - Vol. II, pp. 357–364. - - EVILS OF THE TARIFF SYSTEM. North American Review, - September, Vol. 139, No. CCCXXXIV, pp. 293–299. - - 1885. PROTECTIONISM. The -Ism which Teaches that Waste - makes Wealth. New York, H. Holt & Company, - October, 12mo., 170 pp. Reprinted in Vol. IV, pp. - 9–111. - - COLLECTED ESSAYS IN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. - New York, H. Holt & Company, 173 pp. Contents: - Bimetallism, Wages, The Argument against Protective - Taxes, Sociology, Theory and Practice of Elections, - Presidential Elections and Civil Service Reform, Our - Colleges Before the Country. - - OUR CURRENCY FOR THE LAST TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. - Harper’s Weekly, January 10-February 7, Vol. XXIX, - Nos. 1464–1468. - - SHALL SILVER BE DEMONETIZED? North American Review, - June, Vol. 140, No. CCCXLIII, pp. 485–489. - - 1886. REGULATION OF CONTRACTS. How far have modern - improvements in production and transportation changed - the principle that men should be left free to make their - own bargains? Science, March 5, Vol. VII, No. 161, - pp. 225–228. - - WHAT IS FREE TRADE? In Good Cheer for April, p. 7. - Reprinted in Vol. IV, pp. 123–127. - - CAN PROTECTION INCREASE THE WEALTH OF THE COUNTRY? - The Tax-gatherer, May 22, No. 19. - - INDUSTRIAL WAR. Forum, September, Vol. II, pp. 1–8. - Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 93–102. - - MR. BLAINE ON THE TARIFF. North American Review, - October, Vol. 143, No. CCCLIX, pp. 398–405. - - WHAT IS THE “PROLETARIAT”? The Independent, October - 28. Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 161–165. - - WHO WIN BY PROGRESS? The Independent, November - 25. Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 169–174. - - THE NEW SOCIAL ISSUE. The Independent, December 23. - Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 207–212. - - SUBJECTS FOR THESES AND COMPOSITIONS. Prepared - with notes and references attached to the subjects for - Senior and Junior Classes, Yale College. I. Honor - Theses in Political Science. II. Subjects for Required - Compositions. 9 pp. (Sumner Estate.) - - HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1824–1876. - Notes taken by J. C. Schwab, 1886–1887. MS 17½ × - 25½ cm. Yale University Library. - - POLITICAL ECONOMY. Notes of lectures taken by J. C. - Schwab, 1886–1887. MS 17½ × 25½ cm. Yale University - Library. - - 1887. WHAT MAKES THE RICH RICHER AND THE POOR POORER? - Popular Science Monthly, January, Vol. XXX, pp. - 289–296. Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 65–77. - - SOCIALISM. Speech before the Massachusetts Reform - Club, Boston, January 8. Boston Sunday Record, - January 9. - - FEDERAL LEGISLATION ON RAILROADS. The Independent, - January 20. Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 177–182. - - LEGISLATION BY CLAMOR. The Independent, February 24. - Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 185–190. - - THE SHIFTING OF RESPONSIBILITY. The Independent, - March 24. Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 193–198. - - SOME POINTS IN THE NEW SOCIAL CREED. The Independent, - April 21. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 207–211. - - THE INDIANS IN 1887. Forum, May, Vol. III, pp. 254–262. - - SPECULATIVE LEGISLATION. The Independent, May 19. - Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 215–219. - - UNRESTRICTED COMMERCE. Chautauquan, June. - - THE BANQUET OF LIFE. The Independent, June 23. - Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 217–221. - - SOME NATURAL RIGHTS. The Independent, July 28. - Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 222–227. - - STRIKES AND THE INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION. Popular - Science News, July, Vol. XXI, No. 7, pp. 93–94. Reprinted - in Vol. IV, pp. 249–253. - - STATE INTERFERENCE. North American Review, August, - Vol. 145, No. CCCLXIX, pp. 109–119. Reprinted in - Vol. I, pp. 213–226. - - THE ABOLITION OF POVERTY. The Independent, August - 25. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 228–232. - - THE STATE AS AN “ETHICAL PERSON.” The Independent, - October 6. Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 201–204. - - THE BOON OF NATURE. The Independent, October 27. - Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 233–238. - - CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. Chautauquan, November, pp. 78–80. - - IS LIBERTY A LOST BLESSING? The Independent, November - 24. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 131–135. - - ADVANTAGES OF FREE TRADE. The Christian Secretary. - (Sumner Estate.) - - 1888. LAND MONOPOLY. The Independent, January 12. Reprinted - in Vol. II, pp. 239–244. - - A GROUP OF NATURAL MONOPOLIES. The Independent, - February 16. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 245–248. - - THE FALL IN SILVER AND INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION. - Rand McNally’s Banker’s Monthly, February, pp. 47–48. - - THE FIRST STEPS TOWARDS A MILLENNIUM. Cosmopolitan, - March, pp. 32–36. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. - 93–105. - - ANOTHER CHAPTER ON MONOPOLY. The Independent, - March 15. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 249–253. - - TRUSTS AND TRADES-UNIONS. The Independent, April 19. - Reprinted in Vol. IV, pp. 257–262. - - THE FAMILY MONOPOLY. The Independent, May 10. - Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 254–258. - - THE FAMILY AND PROPERTY. The Independent, June 14 - and July 19. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 259–269. - - TARIFF REFORM. The Independent, August 16. Reprinted - in Vol. IV, pp. 115–120. - - THE STATE AND MONOPOLY. The Independent, September - 13 and October 11. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 270–279. - - “A CONDITION NOT A THEORY.” Free trade. Belford’s - Monthly Magazine, October, Vol. I, No. 5. - - DEMOCRACY AND PLUTOCRACY. The Independent, November - 15. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 283–289. - - DEFINITIONS OF DEMOCRACY AND PLUTOCRACY. The - Independent, December 20. Reprinted in Vol. II, - pp. 290–295. - - 1889. THE CONFLICT OF PLUTOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY. The - Independent, January 10. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. - 296–300. - - PEASANT EMANCIPATION IN DENMARK. Based on a - review of Stavnsbaands-løsningen og landboreformerne. - Set fra nationaløkonomiens Standpunkt. Af V. Falbe - Hansen, Copenhagen: Gad. 1888. The Nation, February - 7, No. 1232, pp. 123–124. - - PEASANTS AND LAND TENURE IN SCANDINAVIA. Unpublished - manuscript, 20 typewritten pages, written in - 1889 or later, covering the period from the earliest times - to the eighteenth century. (Sumner Estate.) - - SEPARATION OF STATE AND MARKET. The Independent, - February 14. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 306–311. - - DEMOCRACY AND MODERN PROBLEMS. The Independent, - March 28. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 301–305. - - SOCIAL WAR IN DEMOCRACY. The Independent, April 11. - Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 312–317. - - AN EXAMINATION OF A NOBLE SENTIMENT. The Independent, - May 16. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 212–216. - - SKETCH OF WILLIAM GRAHAM SUMNER. The Popular - Science Monthly, June, Vol. XXXV, pp. 261–268. - Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 3–13. - - AN OLD “TRUST.” The Independent, June 13. Reprinted - in Vol. IV, pp. 265–269. - - WHAT IS CIVIL LIBERTY? The Popular Science Monthly, - July, Vol. XXXV, pp. 289–303. Reprinted in Vol. II, - pp. 109–130. - - WHO IS FREE? IS IT THE SAVAGE? The Independent, - July 18. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 136–140. - - WHO IS FREE? IS IT THE CIVILIZED MAN? The Independent, - August 15. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 140–145. - - WHO IS FREE? IS IT THE MILLIONAIRE? The Independent, - September 12. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 145–150. - - WHO IS FREE? IS IT THE TRAMP? The Independent, - October 17. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 150–155. - - LIBERTY AND RESPONSIBILITY. The Independent, November - 21. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 156–160. - - LIBERTY AND LAW. The Independent, December 26. - Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 161–166. - - DO WE WANT INDUSTRIAL PEACE? Forum, December, - Vol. VIII, pp. 406–416. Reprinted in Vol. I, pp. 229–243. - - FREE TRADE. Unpublished manuscript of about this - date. I. Definitions of Protection and Protectionism. - II. The Medieval Doctrine of Commerce. III. The - Sixteenth Century. IV. The Dynastic States. V. Mercantilism - and the Colonial System. VI. The New - Doctrine. VII. Smithianismus. VIII. Protection in - the United States. IX. Nineteenth-century Protectionism. - X. The Present Situation. About 64 typewritten - pages. (Sumner Estate.) - - THE STRIKES. Unpublished manuscript written sometime - in the eighties, 21 typewritten pages. A general - survey of the “labor question.” (Sumner Estate.) - - A PARABLE. Written in the eighties. Printed for the - first time in Vol. III, pp. 105–107. - - THE SPHERE OF ACADEMICAL INSTRUCTION. Address - delivered at the celebration of a school anniversary. - To judge “what an academy is, what it ought to do, - and how it ought to do it; and to judge of its achievements - by true standards.” Unpublished manuscript - of the eighties, 27 pages. (Sumner Estate.) - - INTEGRITY IN EDUCATION. An address delivered in Hartford - probably in the eighties. Printed for the first time - in Vol. IV, pp. 409–419. - - DISCIPLINE. Probably in the eighties. Printed for the - first time in Vol. IV, pp. 423–438. - - THE CHALLENGE OF FACTS. Written sometime in the - eighties. Original title was Socialism. Printed for the - first time in Vol. III, pp. 17–52. - - 1890. ALEXANDER HAMILTON. (“Makers of America.”) New - York, 12mo., 280 pp., Dodd, Mead & Co. - - LIBERTY AND DISCIPLINE. The Independent, January 16. - Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 166–171. - - DOES LABOR BRUTALIZE? The Independent, February 20. - Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 187–193. - - LIBERTY AND PROPERTY. The Independent, March 27. - Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 171–176. - - LIBERTY AND OPPORTUNITY. The Independent, April 24. - Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 176–181. - - WHY I AM A FREE TRADER. Twentieth Century, April 24, - pp. 8–10. - - CAN WE GET MORE MONEY? Frank Leslie’s Illustrated - Newspaper, May 3, Vol. LXX, No. 1807. - - LIBERTY AND LABOR. The Independent, May 22. Reprinted - in Vol. II, pp. 181–187. - - PROPOSED SILVER LEGISLATION. Frank Leslie’s Illustrated - Newspaper, May 24, Vol. LXX, No. 1810, p. 330. - - LIBERTY AND MACHINERY. The Independent, June 12. - Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 193–198. - - THE DISAPPOINTMENT OF LIBERTY. The Independent, - July 17. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 198–203. - - WHAT EMANCIPATES. The Independent, August 14. Reprinted - in Vol. III, pp. 137–142. - - THE DEMAND FOR MEN. The Independent, September 11. - Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 111–116. - - THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DEMAND FOR MEN. The Independent, - October 16. Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 119–123. - - WHAT THE “SOCIAL QUESTION” IS. The Independent, - November 20. Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 127–133. - - 1891. THE FINANCIER AND THE FINANCES OF THE AMERICAN - REVOLUTION. New York, 2 vols., 8vo., 309 and 330 pp. - - LIBERTÉ DES ÉCHANGES. Nouveau Dictionnaire d’Économie - Politique, vol. 2, pp. 138–166, Guillaumin et Cie., - Paris. - - POWER AND PROGRESS. The Independent, January 15. - Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 145–150. - - CONSEQUENCES OF INCREASED SOCIAL POWER. The Independent, - August 13. Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 153–158. - - 1892. ROBERT MORRIS (“Makers of America”). New York, - 12mo., 172 pp. - - 1893. PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. A - chart printed for distribution to the classes in Social - Science in Yale University. “Not published.” - - 1894. THE ABSURD EFFORT TO MAKE THE WORLD OVER. Forum, - March, Vol. XVII, pp. 92–102. Reprinted in Vol. I, - pp. 195–210. - - 1895. THE VENEZUELA MESSAGE. Letter to the New York - Times, December 18. - - 1896. HISTORY OF BANKING IN THE UNITED STATES. XV, 485 pp. - Being Vol. I of A History of Banking in all the Leading - Nations. - - “PROFESSOR SUMNER ON YALE.” Letter to The Yale - News, January 20. Learning is more appreciated here - now than thirty years ago. - - THE CURRENCY CRISIS. A course of six lectures given at - the house of Mr. John E. Parsons, 30 East 36th St., - New York City, February 13 and 27 and March 5, 12, - 19, and 26. What the lecturer said, as well as the - questions and answers at the end of his lectures, was - taken down in shorthand and typewritten. Mr. Herbert - Parsons has the transcript in bound form, and the Yale - University Library also has a copy. (Sumner Estate.) - - THE TREASURY AS A BANK OF ISSUE AND A SILVER WAREHOUSE. - The Bond Record, March, Vol. IV, No. 2, - pp. 87–89. - - AN ANSWER TO MR. TIGHE’S LETTER ON YALE’S VENEZUELAN - ATTITUDE. Letter to the Yale Alumni Weekly, - May 20, Vol. V, No. 30, pp. 1–2. - - THE FALLACY OF TERRITORIAL EXTENSION. Forum, - June, Vol. XXI, pp. 416–419. Reprinted in Vol. I, - pp. 285–293. - - A FEW WORDS. Short address as member of the State - Board of Education at the graduating exercises of the - New Haven Normal School, June 18. (Sumner Estate.) - - THE POLICY OF DEBASEMENT. “The Battle of the Standards.” - New York Journal, July 29. - - THE PROPOSED DUAL ORGANIZATION OF MANKIND. Popular - Science Monthly, August, Vol. XLIX, pp. 433–439. - Reprinted in Vol. I, pp. 271–281. - - PROSPERITY STRANGLED BY GOLD. Leslie’s Weekly, August - 20. Reprinted in Vol. IV, pp. 141–145. - - CAUSE AND CURE OF HARD TIMES. Leslie’s Weekly, - September 3. Reprinted in Vol. IV, pp. 149–153. - - THE FREE-COINAGE SCHEME IS IMPRACTICABLE AT EVERY - POINT. Leslie’s Weekly, September 10. Reprinted - in Vol. IV, pp. 157–162. - - DELUSION OF THE DEBTORS. Leslie’s Weekly, September - 17. Reprinted in Vol. IV, pp. 165–170. - - THE CRIME OF 1873. Leslie’s Weekly, September 24. - Reprinted in Vol. IV, pp. 173–180. - - THE SINGLE GOLD STANDARD. Chautauquan, October, - Vol. XXIV, pp. 72–77. - - BANKS OF ISSUE IN THE UNITED STATES. Forum, October, - Vol. XXII, pp. 182–191. - - EARTH HUNGER OR THE PHILOSOPHY OF LAND GRABBING. - Printed for the first time in Vol. II, pp. 31–64. - - A FREE COINAGE CATECHISM. Reprinted from The - Evening Post, The Evening Post Publishing Co., New - York, 16 pp. - - LECTURES ON AMERICAN HISTORY, Yale University, - 1896–1897. Notes taken by J. C. Schwab. MS. - 13 × 21 cm. Yale University Library. - - ADVANCING SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN THE - UNITED STATES. 1896 or 1897. Printed for the first - time in Vol. III, pp. 289–344. - - 1897. THE TEACHER’S UNCONSCIOUS SUCCESS. Address given - at a dinner held in honor of Mr. Henry Barnard, at - Jewel Hall, Hartford, January 25. Printed for the - first time in Vol. II, pp. 9–13. - - MONEY AND CURRENCY. A course of four lectures delivered - in Boston. I. The Anxiety Lest there be not - Money Enough. II. How We Resumed Specie Payments - in 1879. What We Did Not Do. III. The - Single Gold Standard--A Beneficent and Accomplished - Fact. IV. Where we now Stand and what we have to - Do. Syllabus. - - SOCIOLOGY. A course of six lectures given in Albany, - February 27, March 6, 13, 20, 27, and April 3. Introduction. - Individuality and Sociality. Property. - Industrialism and Militarism. Population. Mental Reaction - on Experience. Suggested Books for a Course - of Reading. Syllabus. - - THE ORIGIN OF THE DOLLAR. Paper read at meeting of - the British Association for the Advancement of Science - at Toronto, August 19–25. (Sumner Estate.) - - OUTLINE OF A PROPOSED CURRICULUM (for Yale College). - 4 pages typewritten manuscript. (Sumner Estate.) - - 1898. THE SPANISH DOLLAR AND THE COLONIAL SHILLING. - American Historical Review, Vol. III, No. 4, pp. 607–619. - - SYLLABUS of six lectures given during January and February - in Plainfield. N. J. I. What is a Free Man and a - Free State? II. What is Democracy? III. Aggregations - of Wealth and Plutocracy. IV. The Rich and the - Poor. V. Woman. VI. Immigration. - - LEITER HAS BEEN A HERO. Letter to The World, New - York, June 15, on the Joseph Leiter deal. - - THE COIN SHILLING OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY. Yale - Review, November, Vol. VII, pp. 247–264, and February, - 1899, Vol. VII, pp. 405–420. - - 1899. THE CONQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES BY SPAIN. A - lecture before the Phi Beta Kappa Society of Yale University, - January 16. Yale Law Journal, Vol. VIII, - No. 4, pp. 168–193. Boston, D. Estes & Co., 32 pp. 23 cm. - Reprinted in Vol. I, pp. 297–334. - - THE POWER AND BENEFICENCE OF CAPITAL. Proceedings - of the Sixth Annual Convention of The Savings Banks - Association of the State of New York, held at the Rooms - of the Chamber of Commerce, 32 Nassau Street, New - York, May 10; pp. 77–95. J. S. Babcock, New York, - printer. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 337–353. - - 1900. FIRST FRUITS OF EXPANSION. New York Evening Post, - April 14, p. 13. - - THE PREDICAMENT OF SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY. Printed for - the first time in Vol. III, pp. 415–425. Original title of - manuscript was “Sociology.” Written about 1900. - - PURPOSES AND CONSEQUENCES. Printed for the first - time in Vol. II, pp. 67–75. Written sometime between - 1900 and 1906. - - RIGHTS. Printed for the first time in Vol. II, pp. 79–83. - Written sometime between 1900 and 1906. - - EQUALITY. Printed for the first time in Vol. II, pp. 87–89. - Written sometime between 1900 and 1906. - - 1901. THE ANTHRACITE COAL INDUSTRY, by Peter Roberts. Introduction - by W. G. Sumner. New York, London, Macmillan - Co., 261 pp. Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 387–388. - - SPECIMENS OF INVESTMENT SECURITIES FOR CLASS ROOM - USE. New Haven, The E. P. Judd Co., 32 pp., 27 - × 35½ cm. Verbatim reprints of a large number of - shares, certificates, bonds, and other evidences of ownership - of debt, without independent text or comment: - collected for use in college instruction. - - TRUSTS. Journal of Commerce, June 24. - - THE PREDOMINANT ISSUE. Burlington, Vt. Reprinted - from the International Monthly, November, Vol. 2, pp. - 496–509. Reprinted in Vol. I, pp. 337–352. - - THE YAKUTS. Abridged from the Russian of Sieroshevski. - Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain - and Ireland, Vol. 31, pp. 65–110. - - 1902. SUICIDAL FANATICISM IN RUSSIA. The Popular Science - Monthly, March, Vol. LX, pp. 442–447. - - THE CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH: ITS ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION. - The Independent, April-June. Reprinted in - Vol. III, pp. 81–90. - - 1903. AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF WILLIAM GRAHAM SUMNER. - A History of the Class of 1863, Yale College, pp. 165–167. - New Haven, The Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor - Co., 1905. Reprinted in Vol. II, pp. 3–5. - - WAR. Printed for the first time in Vol. I, pp. 3–40. - - 1904. REPLY TO A SOCIALIST (THE FALLACIES OF SOCIALISM). - Collier’s Weekly, October 29, pp. 12–13. Reprinted in - Vol. III, pp. 55–62. - - 1905. LYNCH-LAW, by James Elbert Cutler. Foreword by W. G. - Sumner. New York, Longmans, Green, and Co., v, - 287 pp. Reprinted in Vol. III, pp. 383–384. - - ECONOMICS AND POLITICS. Printed for the first time in - Vol. II, pp. 318–333. - - THE SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE OF MIND. Address to initiates - of the Sigma Xi Society, Yale University, on March 4. - Printed for the first time in Vol. II, pp. 17–28. - - 1906. PROTECTIONISM TWENTY YEARS AFTER. (Title given by - editor.) Address at a dinner of the Committee on - Tariff Reform of the Tariff Reform Club in the City of - New York, June 2. Published by the Reform Club - Committee on Tariff Reform, 42 Broadway, New York, - N. Y. Series 1906, No. 4, 7 pp., August 15. Reprinted - in Vol. IV, pp. 131–138. - - 1907. FOLKWAYS: A Study of the Sociological Importance of - Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. Boston, - Ginn & Co., v, 692 pp. - - SOCIOLOGY AS A COLLEGE SUBJECT. American Journal of - Sociology, March, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 597–599. Reprinted - in Vol. III, pp. 407–411. - - 1908. DECLINE OF CONFIDENCE. Annual Financial and Commercial - Review, New York Herald, January 2. - - 1909. WHAT IS SANE TARIFF REFORM? Annual Financial and - Commercial Review, New York Herald, January 4. - - THE FAMILY AND SOCIAL CHANGE. American Journal of - Sociology, March, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 577–591. Reprinted - in Vol. I, pp. 43–61. - - WITCHCRAFT. Forum, May, Vol. XLI, pp. 410–423. - Reprinted in Vol. I, pp. 105–126. - - AUTOBIOGRAPHY and List of Books Published. Facsimile - of letter and photograph in The Yale Courant, May, - Vol. XLV, No. 7, on occasion of Sumner’s retirement. - - THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN CHALDEA, EGYPT, INDIA, - JUDEA, AND GREECE TO THE TIME OF CHRIST. Forum, - August, Vol. XLII, pp. 113–136. Reprinted in Vol. I, - pp. 65–102. - - THE MORES OF THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE. Yale - Review, November, Vol. XVIII, pp. 233–245. Reprinted - in Vol. I, pp. 149–164. - - 1910. RELIGION AND THE MORES. American Journal of Sociology, - March, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 577–591. Reprinted - in Vol. I, pp. 129–146. - - COMMENT ON WILLIAM GRAHAM SUMNER. (Died April 12.) - The Pioneer, Henry W. Farman. The Teacher, J. C. - Schwab. The Inspirer, Irving Fisher. The Idealist, - Clive Day. The Alan, Albert G. Keller. The Veteran, - Richard T. Ely. Yale Review, May, Vol. XIX, pp. 1–12. - - MEMORIAL ADDRESSES. Delivered June 19, in Lampson - Lyceum, Yale University, by Otto T. Bannard, Henry - De Forest Baldwin, and Albert Galloway Keller. - Printed in Vol. III, pp. 429–450. - - -POSTHUMOUS - - 1911. WAR. Yale Review (New Series), October, Vol. I, No. 1, - pp. 1–27. Printed in Vol. I, pp. 3–40. - - WAR AND OTHER ESSAYS. New Haven, Yale University - Press, 381 pp. - - 1913. EARTH HUNGER OR THE PHILOSOPHY OF LAND GRABBING. - Yale Review (New Series), October, Vol. III, No. 1, - pp. 3–32. Printed in Vol. II, pp. 31–64. - - EARTH HUNGER AND OTHER ESSAYS. New Haven, Yale - University Press, 377 pp. - - 1914. THE CHALLENGE OF FACTS AND OTHER ESSAYS. New - Haven, Yale University Press, 450 pp. - - 1918. THE FORGOTTEN MAN AND OTHER ESSAYS. New Haven, - Yale University Press, 559 pp. - - - - -FOOTNOTES - - -[1] February 4, 1884, Mr. Robinson of New York proposed, in the House -of Representatives, an amendment to the Constitution, so as to allow -Congress to lay an export duty on cotton for the encouragement of home -manufactures. (Record, 862.) - -[2] Philadelphia _American_, August 7, 1884. - -[3] Taussig: “History of the Existing Tariff,” 78 ff. - -[4] The wool growers held a convention at St. Louis May 28, 1885, at -which they estimated their loss by the reduction of the tax on wool -in 1883, or the _difference_ between what they got by this tax before -that date and after, at ninety million dollars (New York _Times_, May -29). If that sum is what they lost, it is what the consumers gained. -They are very angry, and will not vote for any one who will not help to -re-subject the consumers to this tribute to them. - -[5] Broderick, “English Land and English Landlords,” p. 194. - -[6] Since the above was in type, I have, for the first time, seen an -argument from a protectionist, that a tariff between our states is, or -may become, desirable. It is from the Chicago _Inter-Ocean_, and marks -the extreme limit reached, up to this time, by protectionist fanaticism -and folly, although it is thoroughly consistent, and fairly lays bare -the spirit and essence of protectionism: - -“In the United States the present ominous and overshadowing strike in -the iron trade, by which from 75,000 to 100,000 men have been thrown -out of work, is an incisive example of the tendency of this country, -also, to a condition of trade which will compel individual states and -certain sections of the country to ask for legislation, in order to -protect them against the cheaper labor and superior natural advantage -of others.” The remedy for the harm done by taxes on our foreign trade -is to lay some on our domestic trade. (See §§ 26, 95.) - -[7] Since the above was in type, a treasury order has subjected all -goods from Canada to the same taxes as imported goods, although they -may be going from Minnesota to England. Nature has made man too well -off. The inhabitants of North America will not simply use their -chances, but they divide into two artificial bodies so as to try to -harm each other. Millions are spent to cut an isthmus where nature has -left one, and millions more to set up a tax-barrier where nature has -made a highway. - -[8] 62, Niles’s “Register,” 132. - -[9] _Journal des Economistes_, March, 1885, page 496. - -[10] Paris correspondent of the New York _Evening Post_, February 9, -1884. - -[11] _Economist_, Commercial Review, 1884, p. 15. - -[12] The Vienna correspondent of the _Economist_ writes, June 15, 1885, -“The representatives of the sugar trade addressed a petition to the -Finance Minister, asking, above all things, that the premium on export -should be retained, without which, they say, they cannot continue to -exist, and which is granted in all countries where beet-root sugar is -manufactured.” - -[13] _Bradstreet’s_, July 25, 1885. - -[14] _Economist_, 1884, p. 1052. - -[15] A friend has sent me a report (Barbados _Agricultural Report_, -April 24, 1885) of an indignation meeting at Bridgetown to protest -because the English Government refused to ratify the commercial treaty -with the United States. The islanders feel the competition of the -“bounty-fed” sugar in the English market; a new complication, a new -mischief. - -[16] _Economist_, Commercial Supplement, February 14, 1885, p. 7. - -[17] Since the above was in type, a report from the “South American -Commission” has been received and published. This Commission submitted -certain propositions to the President of Chili on behalf of the United -States. The report says: - -“The second proposition involved the idea of a reciprocal commercial -treaty between the two countries under which special products of each -should be admitted free of duty into the other when carried under -the flag of either nation. This did not meet with any greater favor -with President Santa Maria, who was not disposed to make reciprocity -treaties. His people were at liberty to sell where they could get the -best prices and buy where goods were the cheapest. In his opinion -commerce was not aided by commercial treaties, and Chili neither asked -from nor gave to other nations especial favors. Trade would regulate -itself, and there was no advantage in trying to divert it in one -direction or the other. So far as the United States was concerned, -there could be very little trade with Chili, owing to the fact that the -products of the two countries were almost identical. Chili produced -very little that we wanted, and although there were many industrial -products of the United States that were used in Chili, the merchants -of the latter country must be allowed to buy where they sold and where -they could trade to the greatest advantage. With reference to the -provision that reduced duties should be allowed only upon goods carried -in Chilian or American vessels, he said that Chili did not want any -such means to encourage her commerce: her ports were open to all the -vessels of the world upon an equality, and none should have especial -privileges.”--(N. Y. _Times_, July 3, 1885.) - -If this is a fair specimen of the political and economic enlightenment -which prevails at the other end of the American Continent, it is a -great pity that the “Commission” is not a great deal larger. They are -like the illiterate missionaries who found themselves unawares in a -theological seminary. We would do well to send our whole Congress out -there. - -[18] This is the case for which the _Inter-Ocean_ proposed the remedy -described in § 71 note. - -[19] I except those of Mr. Carroll Wright. He has sufficiently stated -of how slight value his are. - -[20] Bk. V, ch. 10, § 1. - -[21] It has been developed mathematically by a French mathematician -(_Journal des Economistes_, August and September, 1873, pp. 285 and -464). - -[22] See a fallacy under this head: Cunningham, “Growth of English -Industry,” 410, note. - -[23] IMMIGRATION IN 1884 - - Males Females Total - Professional occupations 2,184 100 2,284 - Skilled occupations 50,905 4,156 55,061 - Occupations not stated 19,778 11,887 31,665 - No occupation 75,483 169,904 245,387 - Miscellaneous occupations 160,159 24,036 184,195 - ------- ------- ------- - Total 308,509 210,083 518,592 - -Under miscellaneous were 106,478 laborers and 42,050 farmers. - -[24] See a fallacy under this point: Cunningham, “Growth of English -Industry,” 410 note. - -[25] See an interesting collection of illustrations in an article on -“Lords of Industry” in the _North American Review_ for June, 1884. The -futile criticisms at the end of the article do not affect the value of -the facts collected. - -[26] Cunningham, “Growth of English Industry and Commerce,” 316, note -2. (See also §§ 114, 134.) - -[27] Mill, “Political Economy,” Bk. I, ch. 5, § 5. Cairnes, “Leading -Principles,” ch. I, § 5. - -[28] “Political Economy,” 491–492. - -[29] I published a criticism of this case in the London _Economist_, -December 1, 1883. - -[30] Quoted by Taussig: “History of the Existing Tariff,” 73. - -[31] Illustrations of this are presented without number. Here is the -most recent one: “The [silk] masters [of Lyons, France] look to the -government for relief by a reduction of the duty on cotton yarn, or the -right to import all numbers duty free for export after manufacture. -With the present tariffs, they maintained, which is no doubt true, that -they cannot compete with the Swiss and German makers. But the Rouen -cotton spinners oppose the demand of the Lyons silk manufacturers, and -protest that they will be ruined if the latter are allowed to procure -their material from abroad. The Lyons weavers assert that they are -being ruined because they cannot.”--(_Economist_, 1885, p. 815.) The -cotton men won in the Chamber of Deputies, July 23, 1885. - -[32] _Independent_, August 16, 1888. - -[33] In _Good Cheer_ for April, 1886, p. 7. - -[34] Address at a dinner of the committee on Tariff Reform of the -Reform Club in the city of New York, June 2, 1906. - -[35] _Leslie’s Weekly_, August 20, 1896. - -[36] _Leslie’s Weekly_, September 3, 1896. - -[37] _Leslie’s Weekly_, September 10, 1896. - -[38] _Leslie’s Weekly_, September 17, 1896. - -[39] Pp. 161–162. - -[40] _Leslie’s Weekly_, September 24, 1896. - -[41] _Harper’s Weekly_, September 15, 1883 - -[42] _Popular Science News_, July, 1887. - -[43] _The Independent_, April 19, 1888. - -[44] “Earth Hunger, and Other Essays,” pp. 217–270. - -[45] _The Independent_, June 13, 1889. - -[46] Falke, “August von Sacheen.” - -[47] _The North American Review_, Vol. CXXXII, pp. 559–566. (June, -1881.) - -[48] _The North American Review_, vol. cxxii, pp. 47–87. (January, -1876.) - -[49] Address before the Kent Club of the Yale Law School. - -[50] Statistics means here, what it ought to mean, much more than -tables of figures. - -[51] Niles, XLVI, 407. - -[52] Niles, VIII, 246. - -[53] Niles, XXIV, 247. - -[54] Niles, XLVI, 101. - -[55] For Clay, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, -Maryland. - -[56] Niles, March 1, 1834. - -[57] Some counterfeiters were arrested at New York in a garret where -they had $20,000 in notes of the “Ottawa Bank” and $800 in specie. -They were very indignant--said they were a “bank” and were printing -their notes at New York for economy. They came so nearly within the -definition of a “bank” current at this time that they escaped on this -plea. - -[58] Speech at the Farewell Banquet to Herbert Spencer, held November -9, 1882. - -[59] Address delivered in Hartford. - -[60] These initials, as will be seen below, mean Grand Passed Master -Coöperator, while G. C. indicates the lower grade of Grand Coöperator. - - - - -INDEX - - -In the following index, _War and Other Essays_ is referred to as Vol. -I, _Earth Hunger and Other Essays_ as Vol. II, _The Challenge of Facts -and Other Essays_ as Vol. III, and _The Forgotten Man and Other Essays_ -as Vol. IV. References in heavy type are essay titles. - - Abolition, IV, 17–18, 319. - - Abolitionists, IV, 320–321. - - Aborigines, treatment of, I, 27, 33–35, 273, 274, 306, 308; II, 45. - - Absolutism, democratic, III, 305; - state, II, 130. - - Abstract justice, II, 219. - - =ABSURD EFFORT TO MAKE THE WORLD OVER=, I, 195–210. - - Academical life, IV, 423, 430. - - Academical pursuits, IV, 424. - - Academical societies, IV, 474. - - Achievement, the work of, III, 145–146. - - Act of 1873, IV, 165, 173–180. - - Adams, John, III, 378; IV, 291, 293, 294, 296, 381. - - Adams, John Quincy, IV, 304–305, 340, 343, 347, 348, 350, 351. - - Administrative reform, III, 372–374. - - Adults, demand for, III, 113–114. - - Advancement, I, 179. - - Advancing comfort, period of, II, 201–202. - - Advancing industrial organization, I, 196–199. - - Advancing social organization, II, 286–287; III, 315–317. - - =ADVANCING SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES=, - III, 289–344. - - Africa, III, 300; IV, 71; - colonization of, II, 42; - exploitation of, I, 273; II, 51. - - Aggrandizement, territorial, I, 286. - - Agriculture, III, 39; IV, 76; - status of women under, I, 65. - - Air, II, 240. - - Alabama, IV, 55. - - Alarmists, III, 341, 342–343. - - Albany _Argus_, IV, 303. - - Albany Regency, IV, 327, 351, 355, 362. - - Alchemist, IV, 13, 19–20. - - Alchemy, IV, 18. - - Aleatory element, I, 116, 119–120. - - Algeria, IV, 59. - - Allodial land tenure, III, 312. - - Almsgiving, III, 68, 74, 75. - - Alternate standard, IV, 193, 195, 197, 198, 209. - - Altruism, II, 130. - - America, discovery of, II, 41–42, 315; III, 153–154; - Political Growth of, III, 248–249. - - =AMERICA, POLITICS IN, 1776–1876=, IV, 285–333. - - American college, what it ought to be, I, 370–371, 372–373. - - American colleges, improvement in, I, 356. - - American colonies, the, I, 274–276; III, 248–253, 290–325; IV, 285, - 288. - - American commonwealth, conception of the, I, 332–334; II, 56. - - American culture, IV, 294. - - American history contrasted with European, III, 292–293, 307. - - American Indians, the, I, 6–7, 12, 15, 33, 44, 50, 309; II, 137, 138; - III, 230, 249, 250. - - American institutions, III, 244. - - American life, IV, 241–242. - - American politics, history of, IV, 339. - - American principles, I, 326–329. - - American shipping, IV, 273–278. - - American Social Science Association, the, II, 217. - - American traditions, III, 353–354, 355. - - Americanism, I, 346. - - Americans, IV, 123, 125–126, 132, 300; - what they cannot do, I, 329–331. - - Ames, Fisher, IV, 292. - - Analogy, IV, 199, 204, 206; - argument from, IV, 199. - - Anarchistic liberty, II, 119, 131–132, 161, 198, 199, 200, 203; III, - 292, 317, 336. - - Anarchists, II, 112. - - Anarchy and liberty contrasted, II, 164–165. - - Ancient Germans, the, I, 21, 155. - - Anglo-American law, III, 215, 218. - - Anthracite coal industry, III, 387–388. - - =“ANTHRACITE COAL INDUSTRY, THE,” FOREWORD TO=, III, 387–388. - - Anti-federalists, the, III, 307, 327–328; IV, 289. - - Anti-masonic movement, IV, 311. - - Anti-slavery, I, 151. - - Appointing power, IV, 307. - - Apprentices, IV, 486, 487. - - _A priori_ method, the, III, 400, 401. - - _A priori_ philosophers, III, 244–245. - - Arbitration, I, 328. - - Aristocracy, IV, 291, 292; - definition of, II, 290; III, 302–303, 305; - Popular Dislike of All, III, 265–267. - - Aristotle, I, 99; II, 113, 114. - - Army, IV, 104. - - Arnold, Matthew, IV, 425. - - Art of politics, III, 246–247. - - Art of production, IV, 104. - - Art of recitation, I, 366. - - Articles of Confederation, IV, 289. - - Artificial environment, II, 251. - - Artificial monopoly, II, 135, 247; IV, 282. - - Artisans, II, 292; IV, 58, 72, 88. - - Arts, IV, 49, 58, 87, 402; - advance or improvement in the, I, 187–189; II, 32, 42, 197, 198, - 236, 358–360; III, 23, 153, 170–174, 338; - stage of the, III, 22–23. - - Astor, John Jacob, I, 339; III, 83. - - Astrology, IV, 18. - - Atlantic, IV, 57. - - Atlantic States, IV, 52. - - Atomism, II, 127–128. - - Australia, IV, 55, 71, 85; - the colonization of, II, 42. - - Australians, the, I, 3–4, 7, 10, 44, 46; III, 303. - - Autocracy, definition of, II, 290. - - - Babylonia, status of women in, I, 69–71. - - Bache, IV, 298. - - Balance-of-power doctrine, the, I, 274, 278; II, 59. - - Baldwin, Henry de Forest, =MEMORIAL ADDRESS= by, III, 432–439. - - Ballot, the, III, 231, 232–234, 236–238. - - Bank, IV, 313, 393–394; - convention, IV, 384, 385; - local, IV, 359; - national, IV, 313, 315; - of England, IV, 177, 379, 384, 387; - of the United States, IV, 259, 313, 340, 352–354, 355, 356, 358, - 359, 360–361, 372–374, 377, 379, 380, 381–382, 385, 386, 387, - 388–390, 391, 395; - state, IV, 380. - - Bannard, Otto T., =MEMORIAL ADDRESS= by, III, 429–431. - - =BANQUET OF LIFE, THE=, II, 217–221. - - “Banquet of life,” the, II, 210–211, 217–221, 233; III, 112, 115. - - Barny’s, IV, 379. - - Bastiat, Frédéric, IV, 98–99. - - Bateman, IV, 48. - - Bedouin type, the, II, 140. - - Beggars, I, 248–249. - - Belgium, IV, 48. - - Belief in witchcraft, I, 125; II, 21–22. - - Belief that “something must be done,” II, 327. - - Bellamy, Edward, I, 205, 206. - - Beloch, J., I, 100–101. - - Benton, Thomas H., IV, 319, 358, 383. - - Bequest, III, 42–44. - - Berlin, IV, 60. - - Bessemer steel, IV, 222. - - Bevan and Humphreys, IV, 382, 387. - - Bicknell’s _Reporter_, IV, 393. - - Biddle, Nicholas, IV, 259, 353, 379, 381, 384, 385, 386, 389; - and Humphreys, IV, 385, 386, 387. - - Bimetallism, IV, 141, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 201, 202–210, 234–235. - - Biography, the study of, II, 179. - - Bismarck, Prince, IV, 59. - - “Black Friday,” IV, 198. - - Blaine, James G., III, 368. - - Blair, Senator, III, 187. - - Bland Silver Bill, III, 186–187. - - Blood revenge, I, 22, 23. - - Boers, the, I, 342; II, 54. - - Bolsheviki, the, IV, 462. - - Bonds of the social order, III, 315, 325. - - Book-men, the, IV, 363, 365. - - Booms, IV, 152–153; - exploded, IV, 169–170. - - =BOON OF NATURE, THE=, II, 233–238. - - “Boon of nature,” the, II, 210–211, 218, 233–238; III, 115; - disproved by American history, II, 238; III, 291–292. - - Boot-man, the, IV, 44–45. - - Boss, the, IV, 327–329. - - Boston Massacre, the, III, 330. - - Boston Tea Party, the, III, 330. - - Bounties, IV, 12, 60–63, 65. - - _Bourgeoisie_, the, II, 313, 314; III, 161, 163–165. - - Boutwell, G. S., IV, 175. - - Boycott, the, I, 224–225; III, 100–101. - - _Bradstreet’s_, IV, 29, 60. - - Bride-price, the, I, 66, 68, 74. - - Brotherhood of man, IV, 403. - - Broderick, G. C., IV, 48. - - Brutus, IV, 366. - - Bryan, W. J., IV, 160, 173. - - Buddha, I, 134. - - Buddhism, I, 25, 136, 140. - - Bureau of Agriculture, IV, 86. - - Bureaucracy, definition of, II, 290; - in Germany, II, 302; IV, 481. - - Bureaus, the federal, III, 278. - - Burgh, IV, 285. - - Burr, Aaron, IV, 296, 303, 307. - - Bushmen, the, I, 7, 10, 46; III, 303. - - Business and politics, IV, 135. - - Butler, General, III, 378. - - - Cæsar, IV, 366, 367. - - Cæsarism, III, 239, 275, 276. - - Cairnes, J. E., IV, 101, 196. - - Calamities, IV, 29–30, 43. - - Calhoun, John C., IV, 312, 318–319, 320, 329, 340, 341, 347, 355. - - California, IV, 85; - acquisition of, I, 341, 342. - - Callender, IV, 294, 298. - - Cameron, Senator, III, 368; IV, 65. - - Campaign, political, I, 337; IV, 29, 49, 95; - anti-corn-law, IV, 107; - of 1840, IV, 315–316. - - Canada, I, 289–290; II, 50–51; IV, 56, 67, 68, 94, 150. - - Cannibalism, I, 19–20. - - Canon law, I, 144; - and marriage, I, 59. - - Capital, I, 160, 186, 207, 248; II, 144, 145, 147, 177, 187, 210, - 226–227, 236, 252, 266, 267, 268, 288–289, 295, 306, 341–342, - 344–345, 347, 348, 350, 358–360; III, 20–22, 26–28, 35–36, - 38–39, 40–42, 43–44, 61, 123, 127, 128, 130, 132, 156–157, 201, - 422–423; IV, 19, 20, 21, 25, 36, 37–38, 40, 49, 70, 74, 96, - 106, 119, 123, 127, 219, 220, 227–228, 262, 475–476, 494; - accumulation of, I, 202–203; II, 349–352; III, 42, 172; - and civilization, III, 27, 422–423; - and industry, III, 41–42; - and labor, the redistribution of, I, 239–241; - and the state, II, 306; - legislation regarding, III, 27–28; - the asserted natural right to, II, 226–227; - the dignity of, II, 297–298; - the metaphysical side of, II, 359–360; - the power of, II, 297, 329. - - =CAPITAL, THE POWER AND BENEFICENCE OF=, II, 337–353. - - Capitalism, I, 206–207; III, 76–77. - - Capitalists, III, 170, 172. - - Captains of industry, I, 199–200, 201; II, 134, 297–298, 329–330, - 331–332; III, 83, 84; IV, 99, 218. - - Care, II, 149. - - Carlovingians, the, III, 119–120. - - Catholic church and witchcraft, I, 123. - - Caucus, IV, 303–304, 310, 311, 315, 339, 340. - - =CAUSE AND CURE OF HARD TIMES=, IV, 149–153. - - Celibacy, I, 53–54, 59–60, 79. - - Census, IV, 47, 49, 78. - - Centralization in the United States, III, 316–317. - - Cernuschi, Henri, IV, 193. - - Chaldea, status of women in, I, 69, 70, 71. - - =CHALLENGE OF FACTS, THE=, III, 17–52. - - Chance, II, 176–178, 180, 196–197; III, 36. - - Character, II, 11–12, 178, 265; IV, 48, 412–413. - - Charity, IV, 477, 492. - - Charles II, IV, 34. - - Chartered rights, II, 222–223. - - Checks and balances, the system of, III, 283–284. - - Checks on progress, II, 35–37, 163. - - Chemistry, IV, 432. - - Chicanery, III, 231, 258. - - Child labor, II, 100. - - Children, II, 95, 96, 97, 98–101, 104–105; III, 18–19, 113–114; - an asset, I, 66–67; III, 295–296; - a burden, I, 65–67; III, 113–114; - and parents, the rights and duties of, II, 95–102; - and state protection, II, 100; - education of, II, 98–101; - how regarded, I, 66–67; - love for, III, 42, 43–44; - position of, in monogamy, II, 255, 256, 257, 265. - - Chili, IV, 69. - - China, I, 343–344; II, 55; IV, 53, 54, 92, 135, 207. - - Chivalry, II, 19. - - Christian family, the, I, 52. - - Christian view of marriage, I, 52–54. - - Christianity, I, 25–26, 134, 137–138; - and witchcraft, I, 112; - doctrines of natural rights in, II, 114–117; - slavery in early, II, 114–115, 116–118; - medieval, I, 140; - status of women in early, I, 52–60. - - Church, the, III, 203–204; - and state, I, 131, 162; II, 18–19, 310; IV, 18, 38; - Catholic, I, 123; - medieval, I, 133; III, 74; - modern, I, 139; III, 81. - - Cicero, III, 305. - - Circulation, monetary, IV, 157–159; - concurrent, IV, 183–210; - forced, IV, 191. - - City life, I, 156. - - City police, III, 329. - - City, the modern, III, 169–170, 278–279, 420. - - Civil holidays, III, 360. - - Civil institutions, IV, 487. - - Civil liberty, II, 124, 128–129, 182, 198–199, 202; III, 26, 44–45, - 226, 238–240, 276, 336; IV, 110, 469, 470, 471–474; - and the individual, II, 168–169; - a matter of law and institutions, II, 160, 166; - definition of, II, 126–127; IV, 230–231, 472; - relation of, to individual liberty, II, 169–170; - the cost of, II, 128; III, 239. - - =CIVIL LIBERTY, WHAT IS?=, II, 109–130. - - Civil officers, III, 267–268. - - Civil service, III, 268–270; - abuse of, II, 303–304; - reform, III, 262–263, 279–280, 308. - - Civil Service Commission, the, II, 277. - - Civil strife, III, 361. - - Civil War, the, I, 31, 32, 217, 219, 311; III, 277, 316, 321, - 329–330, 333, 349, 351–354, 359–362, 398–400; IV, 175, 223, - 323–324, 330. - - Civilization, II, 83, 139, 180, 220–221, 249–253, 340–341, 342, - 344–345; III, 23, 420–421; IV, 53–54, 93, 217, 221–223, 233; - and capital, III, 27, 422–423; - and liberty, II, 132, 147, 149–150, 175, 362; - and monopoly, II, 249–253; - and war, I, 16, 34–35; - classical, II, 252, 296; - danger to modern, I, 190; - modern, II, 296–297; - offsets to the gains of, I, 190; - the advance of, II, 344–345; - of Egypt, III, 146–147; - rights a product of, II, 83; - share in the gains of, II, 358–360; III, 21–22; - the origin of, II, 137–138; - the triumph of, II, 357–358; III, 421; - the cost of, III, 208. - - Civilized man, the freedom of, III, 26. - - Civilized nations, the peace-institutions of, I, 20–24. - - Civilized society, the organization of, II, 144–145, 250, 251, 252, - 253, 283–287. - - Civilizing mission, I, 303–305. - - Clamor, I, 223; III, 185–190. - - =CLAMOR, LEGISLATION BY=, III, 185–190. - - Class hatred, IV, 253. - - Class jealousies, IV, 402–403. - - Classes, II, 291, 293; III, 131; - conservative, IV, 364–365, 366, 367; - distinguished, III, 308–309; - industrial, II, 191; III, 36; - leisure, III, 281; - non-capitalist, IV, 12; - patronizing the working, I, 250; - petted, IV, 494; - responsible and irresponsible, II, 98, 99, 103; - burdens of the responsible, II, 216; - servile, II, 38–39; - social, I, 241; II, 40–41; III, 68–71, 129–130; 156–157, 307–309, - 392; - wages, III, 94–97, 169, 170; IV, 44–45, 71–72; - working, I, 249–250; - struggle of the, II, 312–317; III, 129–132. - - Classical civilization, II, 252, 296. - - Classical culture, I, 367; - the decline of, I, 157–158. - - Classical education, I, 358–360, 362–370, 372–373; - limitations of, I, 365–370. - - Classical slavery, II, 112–114, 296. - - Classics, the, I, 362–370, 372–373. - - Clay, Henry, IV, 312, 316, 319, 341, 347, 348, 356, 357, 373. - - Cleveland, President, I, 278; II, 59. - - Clinton, De Witt, IV, 305, 306, 307. - - Cloth, IV, 39, 47; - -man, IV, 44–45. - - Coal, IV, 33–35, 48, 56, 85, 90, 132; - heavers, II, 194; - owners, IV, 34–35. - - Cobden, Richard, IV, 70. - - Code of a legislative body, III, 280–281. - - Codes of morals, two, I, 11. - - Coin, IV, 54; - contracts, IV, 167. - - Coinage, IV, 173–177; - Act of 1834, IV, 374; - Act of 1873, IV, 165, 173–180; - union, IV, 184, 191–193, 196, 197–198, 199, 209, 234–235. - - College education not desired, I, 357–358. - - College electives system, I, 361–362. - - College officers, I, 360–361. - - College, the, and national life, I, 360. - - =COLLEGES, OUR, BEFORE THE COUNTRY=, I, 355–373. - - Colonial anarchistic element, the, III, 323, 324–326, 328–331. - - Colonial class distinctions, III, 297. - - Colonial history of the United States, III, 248–253, 290–323. - - Colonial industrial organization, III, 294. - - Colonial lack of organization, III, 324–325. - - Colonial land tenure, III, 312. - - Colonial liberty, III, 317–322; - a necessity, III, 318; - restraint on, III, 318–319. - - Colonial office-seekers, IV, 286. - - Colonial period, review of the, III, 322–323. - - Colonial policies, I, 274. - - Colonial political liberty, III, 320–321. - - Colonial religious sympathy, III, 314, 315. - - Colonial social organization, III, 310–323. - - Colonial society of America, III, 290–323. - - Colonial system, the, I, 274–275, 278; II, 49–50, 53, 57, 60; IV, 12, - 59; - of England, I, 275, 313, 315, 316, 317; III, 323; - of Spain, I, 306–310, 318, 319. - - Colonial towns, III, 313–315, 318–319. - - Colonial wars with the French and Indians, III, 250, 251. - - Colonies, the American, I, 274–276; III, 248–253, 290–323; IV, 285, - 288; - independence of, I, 275–276; - slavery in, III, 250, 298, 301–304; - not pure democracies, III, 297–298; - political equality in, III, 249–250; - political institutions of, III, 249. - - Colonies, the burden of, II, 51–52. - - Colonies, the Spanish-American, I, 276, 306; II, 57–58. - - Colonists, I, 273–274, 275; II, 47–48; - early American, II, 238; III, 291–292; - character of the American, III, 319–320; - liberty of the American, III, 317–322. - - Colonization, I, 272–275; - of Africa, II, 42; - of Australia, II, 42; - the burden of, I, 292–293; - the philosophy, of, II, 43–45. - - Combinations, IV, 99, 258–259. - - Comfort, II, 201–202; III, 123, 139, 170; - material, IV, 239, 240; - standard of, IV, 32, 47, 50, 76, 106. - - Commerce, IV, 66, 68, 76, 137, 214–215, 219; - foreign, IV, 275, 276, 277–282; - the regulation of, III, 323, 326. - - =COMMERCIAL CRISES, THE INFLUENCE OF, ON OPINIONS ABOUT ECONOMIC - DOCTRINES=, IV, 213–235. - - =COMMERCIAL CRISIS OF 1837=, IV, 371–398. - - Commercial crisis, IV, 49. - - Commercial revolution, the, I, 141. - - Commercial treaty, IV, 64–69. - - Commercial war, IV, 95–96. - - _Commercium_ and _connubium_, I, 13. - - Committee, Congressional, IV, 22, 77. - - Committee legislation, III, 261, 281–282. - - Committees of Safety, IV, 286. - - Commodities, IV, 189, 192–193, 200. - - Common aims, convictions, and principles, III, 357–359. - - Common school system, the, III, 357; IV, 416. - - Communalism, II, 261. - - Communication, improvements in, I, 187–189; III, 85. - - Communism, III, 47–48. - - Competent management, III, 81–90. - - Competition, II, 133, 135, 210; III, 67–68, 177, 179; IV, 75, 79, 88, - 95, 99; - and combination, I, 8; - and war, I, 9–10, 14; - of life, I, 9, 176–177, 178, 184; II, 79, 82; III, 25, 26, 30. - - Comte, Auguste, III, 208. - - Concubines, I, 47, 67, 68, 69, 75, 85, 91. - - =CONCURRENT CIRCULATION OF GOLD AND SILVER=, IV, 183–210. - - Confiscation, III, 76. - - Congo, IV, 67. - - Congress, III, 178, 187, 275; IV, 22, 25, 27–29, 35, 43, 49, 65, 68, - 94, 96, 136, 173–174, 175, 285, 329, 330, 342, 358, 359–360, - 383, 385. - - Congressional election, III, 272–273. - - _Congressional Globe_, II, 307. - - _Congressional Record_, II, 287. - - Conjuncture, III, 141; - of the market, I, 200–201; III, 121–122. - - Connecticut, III, 314–315; IV, 37, 72, 86. - - _Connubium_, I, 13, 17. - - Consequences, II, 67–69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75; III, 46, 193, 198; - and motives, I, 15. - - =CONSEQUENCES OF INCREASED SOCIAL POWER=, III, 153–158. - - =CONSEQUENCES, PURPOSES AND=, II, 67–75. - - Conservatism, III, 207–208, 286; IV, 366. - - Consolidation, III, 316. - - Constitution of the United States, I, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315; II, - 333; III, 251, 252–255, 306–307, 325–326, 329, 396–397; IV, - 289, 291, 292, 297, 304, 319, 320, 331–332, 344, 348–349, 360, - 367; - and democracy, III, 334–336. - - Constitutional Convention of 1787, III, 332. - - Constitutional government, I, 163. - - Constitutional liberty, IV, 258. - - Constitutional monarchies, III, 225–226. - - Constitutional question, the, I, 313–314. - - Constitutional republic, IV, 290, 296, 331. - - Constitutionalism, IV, 349, 363, 365. - - Constitution-makers, the, III, 140, 251–255, 256, 306–307, 325–326, - 334. - - Constitutions, III, 140. - - Consuls, IV, 78. - - Consumer, IV, 21, 33–34, 82, 101, 104. - - Consuming industries, IV, 38–39. - - Consumption, IV, 465. - - Content, IV, 239. - - Contingent interest, III, 196–197. - - Contract, I, 233–234; II, 152, 185–186; III, 101, 196, 197; - free, I, 226, 234; IV, 143, 152, 252. - - Contracts, the obligation of, III, 326. - - Convention, Home Industry, IV, 57; - Woolgrowers’, IV, 34. - - Convict-labor, II, 102; - laws, III, 188–189. - - Coöperation, II, 284, 285, 319; III, 41–42. - - =COÖPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH, THE=, IV, 441–462. - - Copper, IV, 35, 42, 96, 207. - - Copyrights, II, 246–247. - - Corn laws, IV, 76. - - Corner, IV, 197–198, 200. - - Cosmopolitanism, IV, 66. - - Cotton, IV, 33, 36, 47, 55, 85, 97, 374, 378, 382, 385, 386, 387. - - Country and town, I, 155–157. - - Courtesans, I, 76, 90, 91, 94. - - Crawford, William H, IV, 303–304, 308, 339–340, 347, 355. - - Credit, IV, 109, 177–178, 220, 376, 396; - system, IV, 96, 383, 395–396. - - Creditor, IV, 143–144, 166–167, 175–176, 190, 191, 192–193. - - Crèvecœur, St. Jean de, III, 297. - - Crime of ’73, the, IV, 170. - - Criminals, I, 260; II, 102; III, 358; IV, 483–485. - - Crises, I, 200; IV, 213–235. - - Crisis, IV, 150–151; - commercial, IV, 49, 371–398; - of 1873, IV, 223; - of 1893, IV, 150. - - Critical temper, the, II, 26–27. - - Criticism, the need of, II, 21, 22–24, 28. - - Crown, the, II, 312–313. - - Crusades, the, I, 33; II, 19. - - Crusoe, Robinson, used as an illustration, II, 237. - - Cuba, I, 290–291, 299; II, 55–57; IV, 53, 64; - the acquisition of, I, 342. - - Cult-group and the peace-group, I, 24–26. - - Cultivation, margin of, IV, 87. - - Culture, IV, 425–426, 429, 433. - - Cunningham, IV, 84, 97, 100. - - Currency, IV, 141, 157–162, 173, 176, 397; - depreciated, IV, 190, 191; - inflation of the, IV, 175, 396; - question, IV, 330. - - Custom, customs, I, 129, 135; IV, 189–190. - - - Dalzell, John, II, 328; 136. - - Danton, Georges Jacques, II, 122. - - Death, II, 228, 231, 312; III, 30, 38. - - Debt, IV, 109, 177–178, 390; - of war of 1812, IV, 372; - “slavery” of, II, 136, 145. - - =DEBTORS, THE DELUSION OF THE=, IV, 165–170. - - Debtors, IV, 143–144, 166–170, 175–176, 190, 191, 192–193, 194, 200, - 466. - - Decade 1830–1840, IV, 371. - - Declaration of Independence, the, I, 162; III, 158, 252, 302, 306. - - Deductive method, the, III, 401. - - Definitions, Fundamental, III, 246–247. - - “Degradation of mankind,” the, III, 148–150. - - Delusions, II, 233; - Revolutionary, III, 329–331. - - Demagogues, III, 277. - - Demand, II, 225; III, 97–98, 119, 121; IV, 70, 141, 196, 198, 201, - 204, 214, 251, 252; - economic, III, 114. - - “Demand for labor,” the, III, 115. - - Demand for men, the, II, 31–32; III, 111–116, 119–123, 132, 140–141, - 145, 154, 157, 171. - - =DEMAND FOR MEN, THE=, III, 111–116. - - =DEMAND FOR MEN, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE=, III, 119–123. - - Democracies, III, 223–225, 226. - - Democracy, I, 26–27, 151, 159–160, 183, 203–208, 302, 303–305; II, - 42, 43, 289, 306–311, 313–317; III, 82–83, 94, 132, 140, - 211–212, 226, 256, 264–275; IV, 71, 258, 280–290, 291, 292, - 300, 306, 332, 349, 352, 357, 363, 364, 365; - and the Constitution, III, 334–336; - and imperialism, I, 322, 325, 326; - and militarism, the antagonism of, I, 322–323; - and organization, III, 266–267; - and plutocracy, I, 160, 204, 325–326; II, 299–300, 329; - and Wealth, III, 274–275; - checks on, III, 334–335; - dangers to, II, 304–305; - definition of, II, 290, 293; III, 302–303, 305; - degenerate form of, III, 305–306; - delegate of a, III, 260–261; - dogmas of, III, 305–306; - dogmatic, III, 308; - fear of, III, 306–307, 334; - Greek, III, 303; - inevitable here, III, 249–250, 273–274, 286, 296, 304, 338–339; - Jacksonian, IV, 363; - Jeffersonian, II, 306–307; - nature of, in the United States, I, 324–325; - Needed, III, 273–274; - Pure, III, 256–257; - Pure, in Cities, III, 257–259; - Popular, Lingering Evils of, III, 262–263; - representative, III, 260–275; - representative, the weaknesses of, III, 270–271; - the new, I, 220–223; - town, III, 256–260, 262, 266, 267; - untried, I, 204–206; - weakness of, II, 299–300, 309. - - =DEMOCRACY, SOCIAL WAR IN=, II, 312–317. - - =DEMOCRACY, THE CONFLICT OF PLUTOCRACY AND=, II, 296–300. - - =DEMOCRACY AND MODERN PROBLEMS=, II, 301–305. - - =DEMOCRACY AND PLUTOCRACY=, II, 283–289. - - =DEMOCRACY AND PLUTOCRACY, DEFINITIONS OF=, II, 290–295. - - =DEMOCRACY AND RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT=, III, 243–286. - - “Democracy of industry,” the, II, 323. - - Democratic absolutism, III, 305. - - Democratic-aristocracy, III, 303–304. - - Democratic Fears, III, 261–262. - - Democratic party, the, I, 160; IV, 312, 313, 316, 318, 319, 320, 321, - 322–323, 363. - - Democratic republic, IV, 330; - nature of a, II, 301–302, 303, 305, 308. - - Democratic temper here, III, 335–336. - - Democratic tide, IV, 321–322. - - Democrats, IV, 297, 317, 319. - - Demonetization, IV, 176. - - Demonism, II, 21, 22. - - _Demos_, the, II, 290–291, 293. - - Dependencies, I, 316–317, 345; - the United States and, I, 310, 311–312, 317–319. - - Depreciation, IV, 179. - - Destiny, I, 341–342; II, 364; - “manifest,” I, 341, 342; II, 54. - - Device, IV, 11–12, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 64–65, 73, 79. - - Dexter, Samuel, IV, 295. - - Digger Indians, the, III, 40. - - Dignity of capital, the, II, 297–298. - - “Dignity of labor,” the, II, 189, 297. - - _Dilettanti_, I, 170, 225–226. - - Diminishing returns, the law of, I, 175–176. - - Dio Chrysostom, II, 114. - - Diplomacy, III, 358; IV, 66–67, 68–69. - - Discipline, II, 144, 250, 251, 301, 302; III, 336, 337; IV, 98–99, - 409, 417, 426, 428, 431, 433–438; - and liberty, II, 170–171, 200; - and war, I, 14, 15; - military, I, 30; - school, I, 368; - the need of, II, 170–171. - - =DISCIPLINE=, IV, 423–438. - - =DISCIPLINE, LIBERTY AND=, II, 166–171. - - Discontent, IV, 149, 241; - and prosperity, II, 337–338. - - Discoveries, the great, I, 203, 209; II, 35,163, 228–229; IV, 402. - - Disease, II, 228, 231, 312; III, 30, 38; IV, 465; - industrial, IV, 96, 219–220; - social, I, 171–172; II, 275. - - Distress, IV, 26, 149, 153, 221. - - Distributive justice, II, 89. - - Dividends, IV, 87, 90. - - Division of departments, III, 283. - - Divorce, I, 68, 69, 77–78, 79, 86, 93; III, 410. - - Doctrine, quantity, IV, 141. - - Doctrine, The Monroe, I, 36, 38–39, 271, 276, 278, 280, 333; II, 58, - 59–60, 333. - - Doctrine of balance of power, I, 274, 278; II, 59. - - Doctrine of equality, I, 309–310; II, 224; III, 262–263, 274. - - Doctrine of life necessity, I, 339–344. - - Doctrine of “manifest destiny,” I, 341. - - Doctrine of popularity, IV, 314. - - Doctrine of rotation in office, IV, 326–327, 352. - - Doctrines, I, 36–39, 275; II, 58–59; - the cost of, I, 279; - Revolutionary, III, 328; - socialistic, III, 34, 41, 42, 44–45. - - Dogma, I, 132, 133, 134, 221; II, 118; IV, 11–12, 15, 19, 30, 298; - that “all men are equal,” II, 88, 102, 362–363; III, 302–303. - - Dogmas, I, 161–163, 164; II, 250, 271, 291–293, 341–344; - eighteenth century, II, 339; IV, 11; - of democracy, III, 305–306; - political, III, 193–194, 258; - religious, I, 129–130; - social, III, 193–194. - - Dogmatic method, the, III, 401. - - Dogmatism, III, 37, 245–246; - political, II, 23; III, 252–253; - in sociology, III, 418–419; - social, III, 33–34. - - Dogmatizing, II, 259–260. - - Dollars, IV, 37–38, 50, 142, 143, 157–158. - - Domestication of animals, II, 244. - - Double standard, IV, 183. - - Dower, I, 58. - - Dowry, I, 68, 70, 86, 93. - - Drunkard, I, 252; IV, 479–480. - - Dry Dock Bank, IV, 380. - - =DUAL ORGANIZATION OF MANKIND, THE PROPOSED=, I, 271–281. - - Dual world-system, the, I, 276, 277, 278; II, 60–62. - - Duane, W. J., IV, 298, 305, 359. - - Duel, the, I, 19. - - Dutch, the, IV, 278; - in New York, III, 320. - - Duties, I, 257, 258, 259; III, 193–194; - and rights, I, 257–258; III, 193, 197–198, 224; - and rights, equilibrium of, II, 126–127, 128–129, 165; - and rights of parents and children, II, 95–102; - and rights, political, III, 224; - and servitude, II, 126; - religious, I, 136. - - Duty, I, 150; IV, 365; - war for, III, 362. - - - Earth hunger, II, 31–64; - and the masses, II, 39; - economic, II, 46–47; - economic and political contrasted, II, 63; - political, II, 64; - political, definition of, II, 46; - political, of the United States, II, 50–51, 53. - - =EARTH HUNGER OR THE PHILOSOPHY OF LAND GRABBING=, II, 31–64. - - Economic and family systems, II, 34–35. - - Economic demand, III, 114. - - Economic development, II, 322–323. - - Economic doctrine, IV, 213. - - Economic earth hunger, II, 46–47; - contrasted with political, II, 63. - - Economic facts, II, 162. - - Economic forces, I, 205; II, 314–315; III, 28–30; IV, 215–217; - not self-correcting, III, 28–29. - - Economic jurisdiction, II, 52. - - Economic laws, III, 98; IV, 186–189, 195, 209, 213, 217. - - Economic mysticism, IV, 119. - - Economic optimism, II, 318–319, 324, 332. - - Economic power, II, 318. - - Economics, IV, 186–189, 196; - and industry, II, 321. - - =ECONOMICS AND POLITICS=, II, 318–333. - - _Economist_, IV, 60, 64, 65, 105, 110. - - Economist, duty of the, III, 399. - - Economists, IV, 213, 224–225, 249, 250; - historical, IV, 100; - sentimental, III, 48. - - Economy, III, 86; - political, I, 180–183; III, 395, 398–400, 418. - - Edmunds, Senator, III, 180. - - Education, II, 72, 144, 177–178, 255, 256, 265, 348; III, 42, - 397–398; IV, 71, 409–419, 423–438; - and marriage, II, 94–95; - change in the character of, I, 360, 362, 371–373; - classical, I, 358–360, 362–370, 372–373; - family, II, 255, 256, 265; III, 18; - mandarinism in, I, 356; - primary, I, 355–356; - relation of primary to secondary, I, 355–356. - - =EDUCATION, INTEGRITY IN=, IV, 409–419. - - “Educators,” IV, 410–411. - - Egypt, II, 55; - slavery in, III, 146; - status of women in, I, 81–85. - - Egyptian civilization, III, 146–147. - - Eighteenth century, IV, 11; - dogmas, II, 339; - notion of liberty, II, 131; - notion of rights, II, 222–223; - philosophy, III, 87; - wars, I, 320; II, 60. - - Election, Congressional, III, 272–273. - - Election, presidential, III, 253–254, 272–273, 335; - of 1824, IV, 347–348. - - Elections, I, 235–236; III, 226, 227–229, 230–238; - the theory of, III, 230–234. - - Electives system, the, I, 361–362. - - Elector of Saxony, IV, 265–267. - - Electoral college, III, 253, 307, 335; IV, 348, 357. - - Electricity, II, 318. - - Eleemosynary institutions, III, 56. - - Element of risk, the, II, 184–185; IV, 268. - - Element, the aleatory, I, 116, 119–120. - - “Elevating” inferior races, III, 148. - - _Elite_, the, II, 341, 362. - - Elliott, IV, 366. - - Ellsworth, IV, 360. - - =EMANCIPATES, WHAT=, III, 137–142. - - Emancipation, II, 187; III, 138–139; IV, 18; - of the serfs, II, 117–118, 175–176. - - Embryonic society, III, 290. - - Emigration, I, 175; III, 22, 23; IV, 12, 16, 52, 59. - - Employees, III, 196; - class of, lacking, III, 293–294, 295; - organization of, III, 100. - - Employer, III, 196; IV, 44, 45, 46, 52, 73, 75, 78, 249–251, 486; - class lacking, III, 293–294, 295; - and employee, III, 93, 97, 99, 101–102; IV, 481–482. - - Employment, IV, 35, 241–242. - - Encyclopædia of Political Science, III, 395, 402. - - Endogamy, I, 75, 76, 77. - - Energy, conservation of, IV, 23; - individual, II, 133–135, 308; - political, II, 295; - vital, III, 96–97. - - England, I, 153, 293, 303, 313, 316, 317; II, 53, 313, 321; IV, 21, - 47, 53, 55, 57, 60, 64, 65, 75, 76, 78, 97, 105, 117, 153, 170, - 224, 234, 281, 346, 350, 371, 378, 379, 482, 489; - and the American colonies, III, 323–324, 326–328; - as a colonizer, II, 47, 49, 52; - jobbery in, I, 262; - the colonial system of, I, 275, 313, 315, 316, 317; III, 323; - the civilizing mission of, I, 303. - - English Constitution, the, III, 251–252, 284; IV, 294. - - English traditions, III, 297. - - Enjoyment, impatience for, III, 36. - - Entail, III, 126. - - Enterprise, large scale, III, 81–82, 85–86. - - Enterprises, joint-stock, III, 82–83. - - Environment, artificial, II, 251; - societal, I, 129, 130, 143; III, 309–310. - - Equal Rights Party, IV, 313–314, 365. - - =EQUALITY=, II, 87–89. - - Equality, II, 123; III, 40, 44–45, 56–59, 157–158, 193, 224, 226–227, - 295, 296–298, 302–304; IV, 290, 291–292, 300, 321, 322, 323, - 365–366, 481; - and progress, III, 299; - before the law, II, 224; III, 44–45; IV, 473–474; - political, III, 249–250, 303–304; - social, III, 304; - the doctrine of, I, 309–310; II, 88, 102, 224, 362–363; III, - 262–263, 274, 302–303; - the thirst for, II, 87, 88–89, 331–332. - - Equilibrium of rights and duties, II, 126–127, 128–129, 165. - - Era of good feeling, IV, 302, 339. - - Erie Canal, IV, 306, 345. - - Eskimo, the, I, 10, 11–12, 44. - - _Esprit de corps_, III, 280. - - Ethical energy, III, 202–204. - - Ethical person, the state as an, I, 221; II, 309. - - =“ETHICAL PERSON,” THE STATE AS AN=, III, 201–204. - - Ethical principles, III, 193. - - Ethical questions, II, 322–323. - - Ethics, I, 195–196; II, 68, 70, 74; III, 95, 98. - - Ethnocentrism, I, 12, 24–25. - - Ethnography, III, 408, 411. - - Europe, IV, 73, 78; - movement of population from, I, 272–274; II, 45. - - European history contrasted with American, II, 292–293, 307. - - Everett, Edward, IV, 360. - - Evolution, IV, 404–405; - societal, III, 82. - - Ewing, Secretary, IV, 352. - - Exact sciences, the, III, 410. - - Exchange, II, 285–286. - - Excise taxes, III, 327; IV, 21, 60. - - Executive, the, III, 282–286; - democracy’s fear of, III, 261–262; - initiating legislation, III, 284–285. - - Executive ability, III, 173; IV, 78. - - Executive officers, III, 261–262. - - Existence, the right to an, II, 225–227; - the struggle for, I, 8, 9, 164, 173, 176–177; II, 226, 347; III, - 17–18, 19, 20, 22, 26, 30–31, 57, 58, 120–121, 122–123; IV, 79, - 257; - worthy of a human being, II, 212–216. - - Expansion, I, 337–339; - and plutocracy, I, 325–326; - business, I, 338; - municipal, I, 338–339; - territorial, I, 337, 339. - - Expansionism, I, 297. - - Experience, IV, 332. - - Exports, IV, 89, 97; - bounties on, IV, 12; - taxes on, IV, 12, 15–16. - - Extension, territorial, I, 285–286, 337, 339; II, 57; - the burdens of, I, 292–293. - - =EXTENSION, THE FALLACY OF TERRITORIAL=, I, 285–293. - - - Faction struggles, IV, 302–303. - - Factory, IV, 38; - acts for women and children, IV, 481; - labor, II, 192–193. - - Facts, III, 87, 408, 410–411; - economic, II, 162. - - =FACTS, THE CHALLENGE OF=, III, 17–52. - - Fallacies, III, 27, 28; - silver, IV, 141–145. - - =FALLACIES, SOCIOLOGICAL=, II, 357–364. - - Family, the, II, 93; III, 18, 203–204; - and economic systems, II, 34–35; - and property, II, 254, 258; - and social change, I, 61; - and the school, I, 61; - an institution, I, 43; - Christian, I, 52; - education, II, 255, 256, 265; III, 18; - father-, I, 47–52, 69, 80, 82, 88; - modern, I, 60–61; - monogamic, II, 254–258, 264–266; III, 24; - mother-, I, 47–50, 69, 81–82, 88; - primitive, I, 43–44, 46–47; II, 260–261, 262, 263–264; - Roman, I, 56–60; - sentiment, II, 256–257, 266–268; III, 19–20; - state regulation of, II, 93–94, 103–104. - - =FAMILY, THE, AND PROPERTY=, II, 259–269. - - =FAMILY, THE, AND SOCIAL CHANGE=, I, 43–61. - - =FAMILY MONOPOLY, THE=, II, 254–258. - - Family of nations, the, II, 62–63. - - Farm, farming, IV, 41, 47, 73. - - Farmer, IV, 151, 161–162, 168, 275, 276; - mortgagors, IV, 168–169. - - Father-family, the, I, 47–52, 69, 80, 82, 88; - position of woman in, I, 51. - - Favoritism, IV, 485. - - Fear, I, 14, 130. - - Federal legislation, III, 316; - on railroads, III, 177–182. - - =FEDERAL LEGISLATION ON RAILROADS=, III, 177–182. - - Federal party, the, III, 328–329. - - Federal political system, IV, 331. - - Federalists, the, III, 307, 329, 332, 342; IV, 289, 291, 292, 293, - 296–297, 302, 305, 315, 322, 343. - - Feudal period, the, II, 190–191. - - Feudal system, the, II, 312–313. - - Feudalism, I, 143, 215; III, 299–300. - - Filipinos, the, I, 301, 304–305, 328. - - Filmer, Sir Robert, II, 161, 165. - - Financial institutions, IV, 166–167. - - Financial organization, IV, 220. - - Fire, IV, 47, 56; - -engine, IV, 57. - - Fittest, survival of the, III, 25, 423; IV, 225. - - Florida, the acquisition of, I, 341. - - Fluctuations, IV, 192–193, 201, 203, 204, 221. - - Folkways, I, 149, 150, 151. - - Foraker, Senator, I, 301. - - Force and rights, II, 82. - - Forces, I, 209–210; IV, 216; - economic, I, 205; II, 314–315; III, 28–30; IV, 215–217; - moral, III, 29–30, 201–202, 352–353; - natural, I, 199, 209–210; - of disruption, III, 315–317; - social, I, 226, 242; II, 312; III, 76, 137, 140, 142; IV, 216, - 250–251. - - Foreign affairs, I, 276–277; II, 60–61; - policy, IV, 66–67; - trade, IV, 119. - - Foreigners, III, 303; IV, 21, 22, 65, 102, 103, 108–109, 132. - - Forgotten man, the, I, 247–253, 257–268; IV, 466, 469, 471, 476, 479, - 480, 482–483, 485, 486, 487, 491–494; - burdens laid on, I, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 259–260, 264, - 267–268; - character of the, I, 249, 264, 266–267; IV, 476, 491–492. - - =FORGOTTEN MAN, THE=, IV, 465–495. - - =(FORGOTTEN MAN) ON THE CASE OF A CERTAIN MAN WHO IS NEVER THOUGHT - OF=, I, 247–253. - - =FORGOTTEN MAN, THE CASE OF THE, FURTHER CONSIDERED=, I, 257–268. - - Forgotten woman, the, I, 264–266; IV, 492–493. - - Fortune, II, 345–346; III, 56–57, 68; - -hunters, I, 273–274. - - France, I, 235, 303, 322–323; II, 313; III, 226; IV, 48, 53, 58, 59, - 97, 192, 197, 198, 224, 233–234, 365, 371; - as a colonizer, II, 52; - civilizing mission of, I, 303; - witchcraft in, I, 117–118. - - Franchises, II, 319–320, 321; III, 88. - - Franco-Prussian War, IV, 224. - - Franklin, Benjamin, I, 292, 313; II, 56. - - =FREE, WHO IS? IS IT THE CIVILIZED MAN?=, II, 140–145. - - =FREE, WHO IS? IS IT THE MILLIONAIRE?=, II, 145–150. - - =FREE, WHO IS? IS IT THE SAVAGE?=, II, 136–140. - - =FREE, WHO IS? IS IT THE TRAMP?=, II, 150–155. - - =FREE-COINAGE SCHEME IS IMPRACTICABLE AT EVERY POINT=, IV, 157–162. - - Free contract, I, 226, 234; IV, 474. - - Free soil, IV, 17–18, 110. - - Free Soil Party, IV, 321. - - Free trade, I, 289–290, 291, 318, 319, 321, 322; II, 109–110, 111; - III, 378; IV, 16, 17–18, 19, 20, 26, 47, 48–49, 83, 90, 94, 95, - 109–110, 123–127, 282, 312, 318; - definition of, IV, 17, 20; - with Canada, II, 51. - - =FREE TRADE, WHAT IS?=, IV, 123–127. - - Free trader, the, IV, 126–127. - - Freedom, II, 209, 220; III, 157–158; IV, 281–282; - of movement, limitations on the, II, 239; - of the press, II, 273, 274. - - Free-will, II, 200–201, 203. - - Freight rates, II, 327, 330–331. - - French, the, I, 153; - in Canada, III, 320–321; - wars with the colonists, III, 250, 251. - - French Revolution, the, III, 58, 60, 73; IV, 291. - - Freneau, IV, 298. - - Friends of humanity, the, I, 248, 250; III, 416, 417. - - Frontier, the, III, 331; - states, III, 332. - - Fructifying causation, IV, 219. - - Fuegians, the, II, 357–358. - - Fugitive Slave Law, the, IV, 320. - - Fur industry, the, II, 242. - - Future, the, III, 275–277; - of the United States, I, 350–351. - - - Gains and penalties, II, 180–181. - - Galton, Francis, I, 135; II, 24. - - Gambling, IV, 480; - -houses, IV, 100. - - Game, the supply of, II, 241–242. - - Garment workers, III, 55, 60. - - Gas supply a natural monopoly, II, 246. - - Generalizations, II, 271; III, 137–138; IV, 467. - - George, Henry, III, 165, 208. - - German school of sociology, III, 418. - - Germany, I, 152–153, 156, 201, 217, 232–233, 293, 304; II, 49, - 302–303, 313; III, 48; IV, 48, 57, 59, 60–61, 78, 97, 224, 233; - as a colonizer, II, 51–52; - bureaucracy in, II, 302; IV, 481; - militarism in, I, 323; - the civilizing mission of, I, 304; - the industry and discipline of, I, 15–16; - witchcraft in, I, 106, 107, 112, 116. - - Ghost-sanction, I, 11. - - Gibson, Randall, III, 378. - - Giddings, Professor, I, 153; II, 27. - - Girard, Stephen, III, 83. - - Girard Bank, IV, 392. - - Glory, IV, 426, 427; - “the pest of,” I, 292, 313; II, 50; - war for, I, 14; III, 362. - - God, the peace of, I, 21; - the Truce of, I, 21. - - Gold, IV, 85, 141, 144–145, 152, 179–180, 183–186, 189, 192, 198, - 201–202, 203, 206–209, 234, 235; - scramble for, IV, 177; - standard, IV, 150, 153, 157, 179. - - =GOLD, PROSPERITY STRANGLED BY=, IV, 141–145. - - =GOLD AND SILVER, A CONCURRENT CIRCULATION OF=, IV, 183–210. - - “Golden age,” the, II, 219. - - Good-for-nothing, the, IV, 476–477, 493. - - “Goods,” II, 178. - - Gouge, IV, 392. - - Governing states, the character of, I, 346. - - Government, III, 223–240, 243–286; IV, 126–127, 230–231, 325–326; - by interests, III, 228; - constitutional, I, 163; - development of, III, 392–393; - good, IV, 31; - Jeffersonian ideas of, IV, 344; - party, III, 393–394; - republican form of, III, 223–240; - Responsible, III, 280–281; - self-, I, 300, 301, 302–303, 312, 349–350; III, 226–227, 229–230, - 238, 285; - “stable,” I, 350; - the “best,” system of, III, 244–245. - - =GOVERNMENT, DEMOCRACY AND RESPONSIBLE=, III, 243–286. - - =GOVERNMENT, REPUBLICAN=, III, 223–240. - - Graft, IV, 134–135, 136. - - Grant, General, IV, 35. - - Great fortunes, I, 199, 201–203. - - “Great principles,” I, 161–163, 326–329; II, 58; III, 245–246; - Falsely So Called, III, 245–246. - - Greece, II, 37; - slavery in, III, 303; - status of women in, I, 85–102. - - Greed, III, 423–424. - - Greek democracy, III, 303. - - Greeks, the, I, 25. - - Greeley, Horace, IV, 86. - - Green-backers, the, I, 169. - - Greenbacks, greenbackism, IV, 175. - - Gregory the Great, II, 116. - - Grotius, Hugo, I, 162. - - Group life and the struggle for existence, I, 8. - - Group sentiment and war, I, 9. - - Groups and the competition of life, I, 10. - - Guerard, II, 174. - - Guest rights, I, 10–11, 17–18. - - Guild, the, I, 215–216; IV, 258, 262. - - Gunpowder, IV, 54; - the invention of, I, 30; III, 153. - - - Half-culture, II, 10–11. - - Hamilton, Alexander, III, 223, 226, 307, 328; IV, 80, 295, 296. - - Hammer of Witches, the, I, 106–109, 112. - - Hammurabi, status of women in the laws of, I, 67–69, 71. - - Hampden, IV, 366. - - Hancock, W. S., IV, 9. - - Happiness, III, 146, 147; IV, 468; - individual, IV, 239; - right to the pursuit of, II, 234. - - Hard times, IV, 9–10, 109, 111, 149–151, 152, 168, 230. - - =HARD TIMES, CAUSE AND CURE OF=, IV, 149–153. - - Hardships of life, III, 74–75. - - Harrison, W. H., IV, 316. - - Hat-man, the, IV, 44–45. - - Hawaii, II, 53; - the admission of, I, 288–289. - - Hayes, Governor, III, 368–369, 371–372, 375–376, 379. - - Hayti, I, 312. - - Heretics, I, 308–309. - - Hermann, Briggs & Co., IV, 378. - - Herodotus, I, 82. - - Heroism, IV, 427. - - Hierocracy, definition of, II, 290. - - “High politics,” II, 56. - - Hindus, the, I, 66–67. - - History, I, 371; II, 20, 26; III, 401, 411; IV, 216, 338, 432; - American and European contrasted, III, 292–293, 307; - American colonial, III, 248–253, 290–323; - the appeal to, II, 118, 120; - the study of, III, 137, 141; - the task of, IV, 331. - - Hobbes, Thomas, I, 115. - - Hod-carriers, II, 194–195, 360. - - Homer, status of women in, I, 85–87. - - Homogeneous institutions, III, 355–356. - - Homogeneous population, III, 354–355. - - Honduras, IV, 53. - - Honesty, IV, 413. - - Honor, IV, 437. - - Hottentots, the, II, 214; III, 303. - - Hottinguer, IV, 387, 388. - - House of Have, the, III, 165. - - House of Representatives, the, II, 327–328; IV, 304, 348, 360. - - House of Want, the, III, 165. - - House-peace, the, I, 16–17, 21. - - Hugo, Victor, IV, 483. - - Human error, II, 230. - - Human nature, II, 230–231; - the vices of, III, 233–234; - the weaknesses of, III, 69. - - Humanitarian propositions, II, 214–215. - - Humanitarianism, I, 29, 139, 146, 163; IV, 475, 476. - - Humboldt, Alexander von, III, 40. - - Hunger, I, 14, 130. - - Huxley, Thomas Henry, III, 29. - - Hysteria, I, 108, 119–120. - - - Ideals, II, 73–74, 187–188, 202, 210, 322; III, 215, 245; IV, 11–12, - 13, 49; - faith in, II, 25–26; - not causes, III, 127. - - “Ideas, the power of,” II, 74. - - Ignorance, II, 229. - - Illinois, II, 44; IV, 55; - Bureau of Labor Statistics, III, 188–189. - - Immigrants, III, 355. - - Immigration, I, 279–280; II, 61, 62; III, 116; IV, 50, 78, 88, 89, - 321, 345. - - Imperialism, I, 297, 312–313, 314, 348, 350; - a philosophy, I, 346; - and democracy, I, 322, 325, 326; - and plutocracy, I, 325–326; - and Spain, I, 297; - and the United States, I, 291, 345–346. - - _Imperium_, II, 307. - - Imports, IV, 12, 16, 21; - taxes on, IV, 20, 28–29. - - Improvement by change, the false hope of, III, 245. - - Improvements, IV, 70, 96, 133, 214, 222, 226–227, 345; - cost of, IV, 221; - internal, IV, 306, 346, 390, 391, 395, 488. - - Increment, the unearned, II, 244; III, 312. - - India, IV, 24; - status of women in, I, 72–75. - - Individual, the, III, 111–112; - and civil liberty, II, 168–169; - productive power of, III, 145. - - Individual effort, II, 216, 230. - - Individual energy, II, 133–135, 308. - - Individual happiness, IV, 239. - - Individual interest, conflict of, with the social interest, I, 218. - - Individual liberty, I, 219–220, 223; II, 198, 199, 202; - relation of, to civil liberty, II, 169–170. - - Individual questions, III, 95–96. - - Individualism, I, 218–219, 225, 226; II, 127–128, 257, 308–309; III, - 17. - - Individualization, I, 178–179. - - Inductive method, the, III, 401. - - Industrial atmosphere, II, 359. - - Industrial changes, I, 239–241. - - Industrial classes, II, 191; III, 36. - - Industrial disease, IV, 96, 219–220. - - Industrial honor, II, 33–34. - - Industrial liberty, I, 233, 234, 236; II, 331–332. - - Industrial organization, I, 155; II, 319–321; III, 82–83; - advancing, I, 196–199; - of the American colonies, III, 294. - - =INDUSTRIAL PEACE, DO WE WANT?=, I, 229–243. - - Industrial power, III, 148, 154. - - Industrial problems, writers on, I, 236–238. - - Industrial revolution, the, I, 141; II, 42. - - Industrial society, III, 66, 321–322; - contrasted with the militant type, I, 28. - - Industrial struggle, II, 286–287. - - Industrial system, the, III, 55–56, 59, 61, 62; IV, 214–215, 217–219, - 222, 223, 228, 250, 259–260. - - Industrial victories, III, 130–132. - - Industrial virtues, the, II, 345–346; III, 51–52, 201–202, 297. - - Industrial war, I, 225, 232, 234–235, 237, 239, 241, 243; III, - 98–102; IV, 246, 261; - and liberty, I, 234, 236. - - =INDUSTRIAL WAR=, III, 93–102. - - Industrialism, I, 13, 208; - conflict of, with militarism, I, 323–324, 348; II, 190–191; III, - 300–301; - definition of, I, 348. - - Industry, II, 320–333; IV, 21, 35–40, 60, 64, 90–92, 133–134, 151, - 214–215, 218, 259–261; - and capital, III, 41–42; - and economics, II, 321; - and legislation, III, 340; - and militancy, I, 30; - and politics, II, 321–333; - and the state, I, 215; II, 300, 310; - and talent, II, 323; - captains of, I, 199–200, 201; II, 134, 297–298, 329–330, 331–332; - III, 83, 84; IV, 99, 218; - definition of, IV, 36; - “democracy” of, II, 323; - dependence of, on political action, II, 320–321; - diversification of, IV, 85, 91; - fur, II, 242; - home, IV, 346; - infant, IV, 80, 82; - modern, II, 294; III, 85–86; - protected, I, 263–264, 266; II, 320; - regulation of, I, 216–217; - women in, IV, 243. - - Inequalities of fortune, III, 88–90. - - Inequality, II, 88, 363; III, 24–25, 26–27, 31, 38–40, 68–69, - 297–298, 302–303. - - Infanticide, I, 151; III, 114. - - Inferiority, servitude with, II, 123. - - Inflation, IV, 175. - - Ingham, Samuel D., IV, 353. - - In-group, the, I, 9–13; II, 79–80, 82; - as peace-group, I, 17; - rights in, I, 11, 17; II, 79–80. - - Injustice, II, 152–153; - social, I, 258, 261; II, 152–153. - - Inquisition, the, II, 21; - and witchcraft I, 105–109. - - Inspectors, government, IV, 482. - - Institutes of Justinian, the, II, 115. - - Institution, conception of an, I, 43. - - Institutions, I, 209; - eleemosynary, III, 56; - homogeneous, III, 355–356; - financial, IV, 166–167; - political, II, 298–299, 332–333; III, 243–244, 247–248, 249, 253; - popular, III, 276–277. - - Insurance, IV, 79. - - =INTEGRITY IN EDUCATION=, IV, 409–419. - - Intellectual work, II, 192–193. - - Intelligence in labor, II, 193–196. - - Interest, I, 218; - contingent, III, 196–197; - individual, I, 218; - military, I, 30; - party, II, 327–328; - public, I, 234–235; III, 258–259, 260–261; IV, 232, 324–325; - rate of, II, 349–351; IV, 52, 177–178; - social, I, 218; - specific, III, 196–197; - the devil of, II, 353. - - Interests, I, 130, 154; II, 309, 314, 322, 323, 324, 326, 328–329, - 342, 343–344; III, 178, 180, 188, 196–197, 216, 228, 258; IV, - 137; - conflict of, II, 323–325, 330–331; - government by, III, 228; - private, III, 258–259, 261; - protected, IV, 136; - struggle of, I, 222, 224; - vested, IV, 117–118, 228. - - Interference, II, 126; - political, II, 332; - state, I, 213–226; II, 96, 98, 100, 270–279, 285–289, 328. - - =INTERFERENCE, STATE=, I, 213–226. - - International law, I, 20, 280–281; II, 62–63; - origin of, I, 13. - - Interstate Commerce Commission, the, II, 277–278, 325–326; III, - 189–190, 218–219. - - Interstate Commerce Law, the, II, 275–279, 288, 300; III, 189–190, - 216–219, 316. - - Inventions, I, 203–209, 230, 241; II, 35, 163, 228–229; III, 141, - 153, 154; IV, 133, 214, 306, 345, 402; - mechanical, III, 247; - military, I, 30. - - Iowa, II, 44, 46; IV, 73. - - Ireland, II, 275; III, 28–29; IV, 24, 50, 282. - - Iron, IV, 33, 40–42, 43, 55, 77, 80, 90, 91–92, 132, 274, 275; - Association, IV, 72. - - Iroquois, the, I, 47–50; - League of, I, 23–24. - - Irredeemable paper, IV, 196. - - Irresponsibility, General, III, 271–272. - - Irresponsible power, III, 225, 264. - - Isolation, I, 326. - - Israelites, the, I, 133–134; - war among, I, 9. - - =ISSUE, THE NEW SOCIAL=, III, 207–212. - - =ISSUE, THE PREDOMINANT=, I, 337–352. - - Italian republics, the, II, 314. - - Italy, I, 293; - as a colonizer, II, 51–52; - witchcraft in, I, 112, 117–118. - - - Jackson, Andrew, III, 269; IV, 303, 304, 305, 308–309, 312, 313, 314, - 338, 340, 341–343, 347–348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354–355, - 356–359, 360–361, 362, 363, 365, 372, 373. - - =JACKSON, ANDREW, THE ADMINISTRATION OF=, IV, 337–367. - - Jacksonian democracy, IV, 363. - - Jacobinism, III, 305–306, 325, 334; IV, 292. - - Jacquerie, the, IV, 131. - - Jamestown settlement, the, II, 238; III, 291–292. - - Jandon, IV, 382, 386, 387, 388. - - Japan, II, 45, 55; IV, 54, 56, 92–93, 159. - - Jefferson, Thomas, III, 158, 302–303, 328, 335, 342; IV, 55, 296, - 298, 299, 300, 301, 343, 351, 358, 363. - - Jeffersonian democracy, II, 306–307; IV, 344. - - Jeffersonians, the, III, 328–329, 341–342; IV, 322. - - Jevons, IV, 196. - - Jews, the, I, 25; - status of women among, I, 51–52, 76–81. - - Jobbery, I, 261–264; IV, 169–170, 488–491; - definition of, I, 261–262; - in England, I, 262; - in the United States, I, 262–263; IV, 488–491. - - Joint-stock enterprises, III, 82–83. - - Joseph & Co., IV, 378. - - _Journal des Economistes_, IV, 58, 81. - - Judaism, I, 131. - - Judea, status of women in, I, 76–80. - - Judges, IV, 364. - - Judgment, Errors of Political, III, 243–244. - - Jural state, the modern, II, 127–128, 160. - - Jurisdiction, I, 286–290; II, 54–56; - economic and political, contrasted, II, 52; - over territory, I, 286–288, 289, 290; II, 54–56; - the burdens of, I, 288–289; II, 54–56; - the forced extension of, I, 290; II, 55. - - Justice, II, 208–209; III, 23–24, 98; - abstract, II, 219; - distributive, II, 89. - - “Justification of labor,” II, 181–182. - - Justification of the Revolutionary War, III, 324. - - Justinian, the Institutes of, II, 115. - - - Karoly, II, 111, 114. - - Keller, Albert Galloway, =MEMORIAL ADDRESS= by, III, 440–450. - - Kelley, IV, 489. - - Kendall, Amos, IV, 359. - - Kin-group, the, I, 8. - - King Caucus, IV, 304, 339, 362. - - King Majority, IV, 367. - - King’s peace, the, I, 21–23; - as law of the land, I, 22–23. - - Kinship and regulation of war, I, 19–20. - - Knights of Labor, the, II, 287. - - Knowledge, II, 10, 73, 177–178; III, 265–266. - - Knox, Henry, IV, 295. - - Koran, the doctors of the, III, 187. - - - Labor, I, 186; II, 181–182, 344; III, 17, 20–21, 34–36, 171; IV, 19, - 21, 25, 37–38, 46–47, 49, 52, 55, 70–75, 96, 119, 123, 127, - 227–228, 262; - and capital, redistribution of, I, 239–241; - and dignity, II, 189; - and property, II, 243–244; - class, benefits to the, II, 40–42, 43; - child, II, 100; - convict, II, 102; III, 188–189; - definition of, II, 182; - demand for, III, 115; - dignity of, II, 189, 297; IV, 242; - disputes, III, 139; - division of, II, 361; - factory, II, 192–193; - intelligence in, II, 193–196; - “justification” of, II, 181–182; - legislation on hours of, III, 35; - literature, I, 236, 237, 238; - manual, II, 225; - market, III, 122; IV, 71; - militant notions about, II, 189–191; - not brutalizing, II, 192–193; - organizations, III, 100, 139; - pauper, IV, 42, 43, 46–47, 58, 75, 106; - problem, the, II, 312; - question, I, 229–230, 231; II, 228–229; III, 93–102, 122; - right to the full product of, II, 224–226; - -saving machinery, IV, 221, 226–227; - thought to be degrading, II, 189–190. - - =LABOR, LIBERTY AND=, II, 181–187. - - =(LABOR) DOES LABOR BRUTALIZE?=, II, 187–193. - - Laborers, II, 40–42, 43; III, 156–157, 295; - non-union, I, 251–252; - position of, in the United States, I, 196; - unskilled, I, 159, 249, 251–252; II, 44; III, 122. - - _Laissez-faire_, I, 209–210; II, 300; IV, 15, 109. - - Land, I, 174–176, 178, 183; II, 235–236; III, 22–23, 156–157; IV, 48, - 49, 70, 72–75, 80, 86–87; - acquisition of, III, 153–154; - beneficial interest in, I, 286–288, 289; II, 54–55; - company, III, 313; - grabbing, I, 322; II, 48; IV, 165; - monopoly, II, 239–244; - new, III, 171–172, 338; - owners, IV, 152; - private property in, I, 179–180; II, 243, 258; - purchases, IV, 375; - ratio of population to, I, 174–176, 188; II, 31, 32–35, 37–40, 42, - 44; III, 22–23, 40, 296; - rent, III, 172, 320; - supporting power of, lessened by errors, II, 35–37, 39–40; - tenure, allodial, III, 312; - tenure, colonial, III, 312; - unlimited supplies of, III, 141, 293–295; - unoccupied, II, 31–32; - waste, II, 37–38. - - =LAND MONOPOLY=, II, 239–244. - - Landlords, III, 156–157, 172, 295. - - Language, I, 150; - science of, IV, 432. - - Languages, modern, I, 363–364. - - Lasalle, II, 185. - - Latin Union, the, IV, 185, 192, 207. - - Laveleye, M. de, II, 171. - - Law, I, 11, 17; II, 165–166; IV, 21, 72, 349, 363, 364; - and liberty, II, 160, 165–166, 167–168; III, 26, 208–210; - Anglo-American, III, 215, 218; - canon, I, 59, 144; - equality before the, II, 224; III, 44–45; IV, 473–474; - impotency of the, III, 232–233, 234–236; - international, I, 13, 20, 280–281; II, 62–63; - Interstate Commerce, II, 275–279, 288, 300; III, 189–190, 216–219, - 316; - legal tender, IV, 190, 191; - -Making, Good and Bad, III, 252–253; - natural, I, 172; - of diminishing returns, I, 175–176; - of population, I, 175–176; - of population, the Malthusian, I, 181–182; - of settlement, II, 125; - oleomargarine, III, 187; - “pass a law,” III, 129; - poor, III, 74; - positive, II, 167; - Ricardian, of rent, I, 181–182. - - =LAW, LIBERTY AND=, II, 161–166. - - Laws, II, 80, 81, 83; III, 292; - Anticipatory, III, 253–256; - convict labor, III, 188–189; - criminal, IV, 13; - economic, III, 98; - navigation, IV, 12; - need of few and good, II, 330; - of Hammurabi, I, 67–69, 71; - of Manu, I, 72–75; - of Moses, I, 67; - of Solon, I, 101; - of the social order, II, 284, 285; - of war, II, 112–113; - poor, IV, 13; - social, I, 191; III, 37; - unwritten, III, 253–254. - - Leaders, IV, 329–330. - - League of the Iroquois, I, 23–24. - - Legal tender, IV, 186, 189–191, 202, 205, 206. - - Legislation, II, 207–208, 298–299, 300, 319–320, 321, 323–324, 327; - IV, 19, 20, 27, 108, 188, 190, 194, 195, 196, 199, 210, 262, - 274, 481, 488; - abuse of, IV, 479; - and industry, III, 340; - and vice, I, 252; - by committees, III, 261, 281–282; - federal, III, 316; - hasty, III, 177; - initiated by the executive, III, 284–285; - on hours of labor, III, 35; - on railroads, III, 177–182; - paternal, II, 275–279; - prohibitory, I, 253; - regarding capital, III, 27–28; - speculative, III, 215–219; - vicious, II, 275, 277. - - =LEGISLATION, SPECULATIVE=, III, 215–219. - - =LEGISLATION BY CLAMOR=, III, 185–190. - - =LEGISLATION ON RAILROADS, FEDERAL=, III, 177–182. - - Legislators, IV, 19–20, 49, 58, 490; - the duty of, III, 185. - - Legislature, acts of the, II, 69. - - Leisure, II, 189; - class, the, III, 281. - - Liberty, I, 198, 299–300, 305; II, 96–97, 209, 210, 211, 235, 251, - 308; III, 23–24, 25–26, 31, 44–46, 49–50, 248, 249, 274; IV, - 14–15, 17, 123, 232, 233, 235, 258, 363, 469, 470, 471–474, - 480, 494–495; - a conquest, II, 174–175; - a product of civilization, II, 132; - anarchistic, II, 119, 131–132, 161, 198, 199, 200, 203; III, 292, - 317, 336; - and anarchy contrasted, II, 164–165; - and civilization, II, 147, 149–150, 175, 362; - and discipline, II, 170–171, 200; - and earthly existence, II, 156–157, 168–169; - and industrial war, I, 234, 236; - and law, II, 160, 165–166, 167–168; - and property, II, 173–174; - and responsibility, II, 158–160, 180; III, 96; - and the schoolboy, II, 140–141; - and wealth, II, 147–150, 150–154; - civil, II, 124, 128–129, 182, 198–199, 202; III, 26, 44–45, 226, - 238–240, 276, 336; IV, 110, 469, 470, 471–474; - civil, a matter of law and institutions, II, 160, 166; - civil, and the individual, II, 168–169; - civil, definition of, II, 126–127; IV, 230–231, 472; - civil, the cost of, II, 128; III, 239; - constitutional, IV, 258; - eighteenth century notions of, II, 131; - individual or personal, I, 219–220, 223; II, 198, 199, 202; - in History and Institutions, II, 121–130; - industrial, I, 233, 234, 236; II, 331–332; - maintenance of, II, 164; - medieval notions of, II, 141, 157–158; - natural, history of the dogma of, II, 112–121; - need of re-analyzing, II, 109–110; - of civilized man, II, 140–155; - of primitive man, II, 131, 132–133, 136–140, 141, 361–362; - of the American colonists, III, 317–322; - of the tramp, II, 154–155; - popular notions of, II, 110–112; - relation of individual to civil, II, 169–170; - solidarity of all forms of, II, 110, 112; - subject to moral restraints, II, 110, 112; - the dream of, II, 201–203; - the price of, II, 143–145, 146–147, 153–154; - to do as one pleases, II, 124, 136, 146, 156, 161, 165, 166; III, - 26, 155–156; IV, 472–473; - the right to, II, 234; - under law, III, 26, 208–210; - with responsibility, III, 96. - - =LIBERTY AND DISCIPLINE=, II, 166–171. - - =LIBERTY AND LABOR=, II, 181–187. - - =LIBERTY AND LAW=, II, 161–166. - - =LIBERTY AND MACHINERY=, II, 193–198. - - =LIBERTY AND OPPORTUNITY=, II, 176–181. - - =LIBERTY AND PROPERTY=, II, 171–176. - - =LIBERTY AND RESPONSIBILITY=, II, 156–160. - - =(LIBERTY) IS LIBERTY A LOST BLESSING?=, II, 131–135. - - =LIBERTY, THE DISAPPOINTMENT OF=, II, 198–203. - - =LIBERTY? WHAT IS CIVIL=, II, 109–130. - - Life, II, 234; - insurance, II, 271–272; - necessity, I, 339–344; - the “banquet” of, II, 210–211, 217–221, 233; III, 112, 115; - the competition of, I, 9–10, 14, 176–177, 178, 184; II, 79, 82; - III, 25, 26, 30; - the hardships of, III, 74–75; - the right to, II, 234. - - =LIFE, THE BANQUET OF=, II, 217–221. - - Lincoln, Abraham, IV, 110, 323. - - Liquidation, IV, 167, 220. - - Literary productions as natural monopolies, II, 246–247, 272–274. - - Literature, II, 246–247, 272–274; - labor, I, 236, 237, 238; - modern, I, 153; II, 27; - the corrupting influence of, II, 367–377; - the regulation of, II, 272–274. - - Living, earning a, II, 213. - - Living, the standard of, II, 33–35. - - Livingstones, the, IV, 305, 307. - - Lobby, the, II, 298; III, 340. - - Lock-outs, II, 233; III, 99. - - Locofoco party, the, IV, 313–314, 315, 358, 383. - - Louis Napoleon, III, 226. - - Louisiana, II, 53–54; IV, 64; - the acquisition of, I, 340; IV, 297. - - Love, I, 14, 130; - modern notions about, III, 424–425; - of war, I, 29. - - Luck, III, 56–57. - - Luxury, II, 293–294; III, 130–131; - the thirst for, I, 190; III, 36. - - Lynch-executions, III, 383. - - =“LYNCH-LAW,” FOREWORD TO=, III, 383–384. - - - Machinery, II, 194–196; III, 171, 173; IV, 12, 16, 70, 77; - labor-saving, IV, 221, 226–227; - party, III, 368, 369; - political, III, 231–235, 238, 267–268, 394. - - =MACHINERY, LIBERTY AND=, II, 193–198. - - MacMahon, President, III, 226. - - Madison, James, III, 307; IV, 301, 305, 343. - - Magic, IV, 22, 106, 107. - - Maine, IV, 55–56. - - Maine, Sir Henry, III, 119. - - Major premises, I, 3, 161–163; III, 55, 57. - - Majority, III, 337; - King, IV, 367; - popular, III, 271, 277; IV, 358; - rule, III, 264, 305; IV, 290; - Sovereignty of the, III, 263–265. - - _Malleus Maleficarum_, the, I, 106–109, 112. - - Malthusian law of population, I, 181–182. - - Man, I, 209–210; - brotherhood of, IV, 403; - burdens laid on the forgotten, I, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, - 259–260, 264, 267–268; - character of the forgotten, I, 249, 264, 266–267; IV, 476, 491–492; - the “Revolt” of, III, 416; - the “rights” of, II, 223; III, 33–34. - - =MAN, ON THE CASE OF A CERTAIN, WHO IS NEVER THOUGHT OF=, I, 247–253. - - =MAN, THE CASE OF THE FORGOTTEN, FURTHER CONSIDERED=, I, 257–268. - - =MAN, THE FORGOTTEN=, IV, 465–495. - - Managers, Officious, III, 267–268. - - Mania, the witchcraft, I, 105–126; II, 23. - - Manifest destiny, I, 341, 342; II, 54. - - Manitoba, II, 46; IV, 55. - - Mankind, III, 207; - the “degradation” of, III, 148–150; - the new power of, III, 207, 211; - the primitive state of, I, 3, 14; II, 219–220, 230, 234–235, - 237–238, 340, 357–358, 360; III, 149. - - =MANKIND, THE PROPOSED DUAL ORGANIZATION OF=, I, 271–281. - - Manners, IV, 414–415, 436. - - Manor system, the, III, 310–312. - - Manu, status of women in the laws of, I, 72–75. - - Manual labor, II, 225. - - Manufactures, IV, 76, 83, 84, 86. - - Marcy, W. L., III, 269–270; IV, 309, 352. - - Market, II, 121; IV, 250, 251, 252; - conjuncture of the, I, 200–201; III, 121–122; - foreign, IV, 65; - home, IV, 24, 64–65, 66; - labor, III, 122; IV, 71; - philosophy of the, II, 121; - ratio, IV, 200–201; - separation of state and, II, 310; - tyranny of the, II, 151–152; - the world’s, IV, 24, 85. - - =MARKET, SEPARATION OF STATE AND=, II, 306–311. - - Marriage, I, 43, 157; II, 93, 260; III, 18; - and canon law, I, 59; - and education, II, 94–95; - by capture, I, 48, 77, 85; II, 262; - by purchase, I, 66, 68, 70, 74, 85, 86; - Catholic law of, I, 60; - Christian view of, I, 52–54; - modern notions about, II, 94, 96–97; - monogamic, III, 24; - pair-, I, 52–53, 80; - state regulation of, II, 93–94, 103–104. - - Martyrs, IV, 428–429. - - Marx, Karl, III, 41, 65. - - Mason, Jeremiah, IV, 352–353. - - Massachusetts, III, 314–315; IV, 51. - - Massachusetts Bay settlement, III, 291–292; IV, 72. - - Masses, the, I, 242; II, 39, 304; III, 162, 193–194, 339; - and earth hunger, II, 39; - power of, III, 131, 133; - wisdom of, III, 308. - - “Material good,” I, 158. - - Mathematics, IV, 432. - - Means and end, III, 85. - - “Measures, not men,” III, 265. - - Mechanic arts, advance in the, III, 153. - - Medieval Christianity, I, 140. - - Medieval church, the, I, 133; III, 74. - - Medieval notions of liberty, II, 141, 157–158. - - Medieval society, I, 143–145, 215–217. - - Medieval system, the, I, 131. - - Medieval theory of rights, II, 222; III, 45. - - Medieval views of women, I, 106–109. - - Megalomania, I, 338, 339. - - Melanesia, war in, I, 5. - - =MEMORIAL ADDRESS= by Henry de Forest Baldwin, III, 432–439; - by Otto T. Bannard, III, 429–431; - by Albert Galloway Keller, III, 440–450. - - =MEMORIAL DAY ADDRESS=, III, 347–362. - - Men, I, 210; - making better, II, 104–105; - the demand for, II, 31–32; III, 111–116, 119–123, 132, 140–141, - 145, 154, 157, 171; - who revolt, III, 139. - - =MEN, THE DEMAND FOR=, III, 111–116. - - =MEN, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DEMAND FOR=, III, 119–123. - - _Menschenwürdiges Dasein_, II, 212–216. - - Mercantile theories, IV, 289. - - Merchant-princes, the, III, 66. - - Metaphysician, the, III, 417. - - Metaphysics, I, 167; III, 58; - political, II, 82. - - Mexico, I, 312; II, 47, 51; IV, 56, 150, 317, 319, 365. - - Middle Ages, the, II, 38–39, 87, 114–118, 125, 314; III, 66; IV, 457; - mores of, I, 152; - the phantasm of, II, 18–20, 21. - - Middle class, the, II, 313, 314, 315; III, 35–36, 70–77, 129–130. - - “Middlemarch,” IV, 188, 433. - - Might, III, 209; - and right, III, 239. - - Migration, IV, 228, 229. - - Militancy, I, 13, 28–30; - and industry, I, 30; - and peacefulness, I, 28. - - Militant notions of labor, II, 189–191. - - Militant type of society, I, 28. - - Militarism, I, 312–313, 314; III, 300–301, 321–322; - and democracy, the antagonism of, I, 322–323; - and industrialism, the conflict between, I, 323–324, 348; II, - 190–191; III, 300–301; - and plutocracy, I, 325–326; - in Germany, I, 323; - the nature of, I, 347–349. - - Military discipline, I, 30. - - Military duty, II, 125–126. - - Military glory, I, 303. - - Military hero, IV, 315, 316. - - Military interest, I, 30. - - Military service, II, 120. - - Military struggle, II, 286–287. - - Mill, John Stuart, IV, 81, 101. - - =MILLENIUM, THE FIRST STEPS TOWARDS A=, II, 93–105. - - Millionaires, II, 269; III, 89–90. - - Miners, mining, IV, 41, 159–160. - - Minnesota, II, 46; IV, 56. - - Minority, the, III, 266. - - Mint ratio, IV, 200–201. - - Misery, III, 23, 31, 32, 36–37, 47, 121–123, 128, 298. - - Misfortune, II, 229, 230; III, 56–57, 67. - - Mississippi, IV, 378, 384; - Valley, IV, 52, 55, 99. - - Missouri, IV, 55; - Compromise, IV, 319, 320. - - Modern age, the, II, 163; - temper of, II, 27. - - Modern church, the, I, 139; III, 81. - - Modern city, the, III, 169–170, 278–279, 420. - - Modern civilization, I, 190; II, 296–297. - - Modern family, the, I, 60–61. - - Modern industry, II, 294; III, 85–86; IV, 214–215, 217–219, 222, 223, - 228, 250, 259–260. - - Modern languages, I, 363–364. - - Modern literature, I, 153; II, 27. - - Modern mores, I, 142–143, 145, 151, 157; II, 87, 89. - - Modern notions about love, III, 424–425. - - Modern notions about marriage, II, 94, 96–97. - - Modern politics, I, 154. - - Modern progress, I, 241. - - Modern religion, I, 138–139, 142–143. - - Modern society, II, 309; III, changes in, III, 394–395. - - Modern spirit, the, III, 347–350. - - Modern warfare, I, 29. - - Modifications, Necessary, III, 277. - - Mohammedanism, I, 47, 129, 134, 135, 137, 140, 304; - the civilizing mission of, I, 304. - - Mohammedans, I, 25. - - Monarchy, IV, 291, 292. - - Money, IV, 82, 101, 144–145, 183, 189–190, 206; - fiat, IV, 158; - hard, III, 370–371; IV, 313; - market, IV, 377–378; - of account, IV, 177–178; - paper, III, 216, 325, 326, 400; IV, 25, 157, 158, 159, 160, 179, - 189, 196, 286, 289, 397, 398; - power, IV, 162, 170; - soft, III, 371; - sharks, IV, 162; - token, IV, 196. - - Monogamic family, the, II, 254–258, 264–266; III, 24. - - Monogamic marriage, III, 24. - - Monogamy, I, 70, 151; II, 254, 257; III, 18, 24; - position of children in, II, 255, 256, 257, 265; - position of women in, II, 255, 257. - - =MONOPOLIES, A GROUP OF NATURAL=, II, 245–248. - - Monopoly, II, 124, 132–135, 210, 220, 235–236, 249–253, 254–258, - 270–279; III, 100; IV, 12, 57, 82, 83, 88, 93, 94, 99–100, 104, - 105, 196, 198, 257, 259, 261–262, 265–269, 487; - and civilization, II, 249–253; - artificial, II, 135, 247; IV, 282; - land, II, 239–244; - natural, II, 132, 134–135, 245–248, 249, 271–274; IV, 257, 267, 269; - limited natural, III, 387; - pressure of, II, 242–243; - railroad, III, 179; - the state a, II, 310. - - =MONOPOLY, ANOTHER CHAPTER ON=, II, 249–253. - - =MONOPOLY, LAND=, II, 239–244. - - =MONOPOLY, THE FAMILY=, II, 254–258. - - =MONOPOLY, THE STATE AND=, II, 270–279. - - Monroe, James, IV, 339, 342, 343, 355. - - Monroe Doctrine, the, I, 36, 38–39, 271, 276, 278, 280, 333; II, 58, - 59–60, 333. - - Montaigne, Michel Eyquem de, I, 115, 121; II, 23. - - Montana, II, 44. - - Moral forces, III, 29–30, 201–202, 352–353. - - Moral judgment, I, 150. - - Moral power, III, 201–204. - - Moral quality, II, 177–178, 192–193. - - Moralists, III, 423. - - Morals, IV, 98, 436; - public, II, 167, 272–274; - two codes of, I, 11. - - Mores, the, I, 129–131, 132, 133, 135, 141, 142–143, 145; - and religion, the interplay of, I, 130, 134, 135, 138, 146; - and rights, II, 79, 83; - and the status of women, I, 67, 68; - definition of, I, 149–151; - of the Middle Ages, I, 152; - of the Occident, I, 152; - of the Orient, I, 152; - origin of, I, 149–151; - modern, I, 142–143, 145, 151, 157; II, 87, 89. - - =MORES, RELIGION AND THE=, I, 129–146. - - =MORES OF THE PRESENT AND FUTURE, THE=, I, 149–164. - - Mortgagors, IV, 168–169. - - Moses, the laws of, I, 67. - - Mother-family, the, I, 47–50, 69, 81–82, 88. - - Motives, II, 67; - and consequences, I, 15; - the four great social, I, 14. - - Municipal expansion, I, 338–339. - - Mystical political economy, III, 418. - - Mystical sociology, III, 418. - - Mysticism, III, 415; - economic, IV, 119; - political, I, 220–221. - - - Napoleon. I, 32; II, 134, 159; IV, 65. - - Nation, III, 353–360, 392; IV, 12; - a strong, IV, 85, 97; - an inferior, IV, 52; - definition of a, II, 353–354; - requisites for a, III, 354–360; - Our, the Earliest State of, III, 249–250; - United States a, III, 350, 354. - - National bank system, the, I, 31. - - National convention, IV, 361–362. - - National debt, IV, 395. - - National prosperity, IV, 11, 16, 18, 22, 25–26, 28, 33, 34, 47, - 48–49, 50, 77, 84, 106, 109; - art of, IV, 11–12, 15, 16–17, 106. - - National Republican Party, IV, 355–356, 361. - - National states, I, 285. - - National surplus, IV, 395. - - National vanity, I, 300–301, 303, 304, 343, 344; II, 46, 651. - - National wealth, I, 307–308. - - Nationalism, II, 130; IV, 54. - - Nations, the family of, II, 62–63. - - Native American movement, IV, 321. - - Natural agents as monopolies, II, 239–243. - - Natural fact, a, II, 135. - - Natural forces, I, 199, 209–210. - - Natural law, conception of, I, 172. - - Natural liberty, history of the dogma of, II, 112–121. - - Natural monopoly, II, 132, 134–135, 245–248, 249, 271–274; IV, 257, - 267, 269; - limited, III, 387. - - =NATURAL MONOPOLIES, A GROUP OF=, II, 245–248. - - Natural resources, IV, 40, 41, 42, 43, 119. - - Natural rights, I, 257–258; II, 79, 81, 219–220, 223, 224, 226–227; - III, 33–34, 45; IV, 322; - the declaration of, II, 224; - the doctrines of, in Christianity, II, 114–117; - the doctrines of, to-day, II, 119. - - =NATURAL RIGHTS, SOME=, II, 222–227. - - Nature, II, 31, 32, 35, 138–139, 142–143, 147, 210, 218–220, 233–234, - 235, 236, 237; III, 17, 20, 21, 25, 112–113; IV, 480; - the “boon” of, II, 210–211, 218, 232–238; III, 115; - the “boon” of, disproved by American history, II, 238; III, 291–292; - conquest from, II, 236; - the method of, III, 29–30; - the processes of, I, 34; - the “state” of, II, 131, 140, 219. - - =NATURE, THE BOON OF=, II, 233–238. - - Navigation Act, the, III, 323. - - Navigation laws, IV, 12. - - Navigation system, the, I, 318, 320. - - Navy, IV, 12, 22, 67, 68, 104, 301, 302. - - Necessities, III, 17. - - Neglect, I, 259. - - Negro suffrage, I, 330–331, 349. - - Negroes, I, 28, 309, 328. - - Nervous temper of the age, I, 152. - - Netherlands, the, I, 15. - - New Brunswick, IV, 55. - - New countries, settling, I, 271–274; III, 148. - - New country, IV, 81, 97, 291–292, 306–307, 371–372, 395; - the society of a, III, 69–70. - - New England, III, 328; IV, 33, 83, 278–279, 322; - towns, III, 256, 314; - witchcraft in, I, 122–123. - - New institutions, III, 139–140. - - New land, III, 171–172, 338. - - New Orleans, IV, 55. - - New philosophies, III, 139–140, 195–196. - - New Testament, status of women in the, I, 80–81. - - New world, opening up of the, II, 315. - - New York City, III, 420; IV, 380, 381, 382, 384, 385, 387, 388, - 396–397. - - New York _Evening Post_, IV, 59. - - New York state, IV, 57, 74, 307, 313, 345, 350, 393; - politics and politicians, III, 372–373; IV, 309, 310. - - New York _Times_, IV, 34, 70. - - New York _Tribune_, IV, 86. - - New Zealand, IV, 65. - - Newspapers, regulation of the, II, 273–274. - - Newton, Isaac, III, 40. - - Nickel, IV, 35, 42, 94. - - _Niles’s Register_, IV, 351. - - Nobles, II, 312–313. - - “Noble savage,” the, II, 131. - - Nomadic stage, the, II, 140. - - Nomads, status of women among, I, 65. - - Nomads and tillers, III, 300. - - Nomination, political, III, 231–232, 234. - - Non-capitalists, III, 170–174; IV, 12. - - Non-government, IV, 14. - - Non-interference, II, 304, 305, 316–317. - - Non-union laborers, I, 251–252. - - _North American Review_, IV, 100. - - Notion that everybody ought to be happy, III, 55–56. - - Notion that “something must be done,” II, 327. - - Notion that the state is an ethical person, I, 221; II, 309. - - Nova Scotia, IV, 56. - - Novelists and sociology, III, 424–425. - - Novels, I, 168–169. - - Nullification, III, 329; IV, 354. - - Numbers, III, 132; - and quality, III, 27–28; - the effect of, on natural supplies, II, 239–243. - - - Obedience, II, 80. - - “Obsequium,” I, 214–215. - - Occupations, desired, IV, 241–243, 245. - - Office, rotation in, III, 263; IV, 305, 326–327, 352, 364; - the spoils of, II, 303. - - Office-holders, III, 341; IV, 307, 328, 351–352, 489. - - Office-seekers, IV, 286. - - Officers, civil, III, 267–268; - college, I, 360–361; - popular selection of, IV, 326. - - Offices, political, III, 259. - - Ohio, IV, 33–34. - - Oil, IV, 85. - - Old Testament, status of women in the, I, 76–80. - - Oleomargarine law, the, III, 187. - - Oligarchies in the United States, II, 329–330. - - Oligarchy, III, 305. - - “Omnicracy,” I, 221–222. - - “One man power,” fear of, III, 261. - - “Open door” policy, the, I, 319, 320, 322. - - Opportunity, II, 179, 337–338. - - =OPPORTUNITY, LIBERTY AND=, II, 176–181. - - Opposition, the, III, 282. - - Optimism, I, 186–187; II, 26; - economic, II, 318–319, 324, 332; - the philosophy of, I, 159. - - Optimists, III, 341–342, 344. - - Oracle, III, 255. - - Ore, IV, 36, 48. - - Organization, II, 342–344; III, 228, 231, 279; - and democracy, III, 266–267; - colonial industrial, III, 294; - colonial lack of, III, 324–325; - colonial social, III, 310–323; - of civilized society, II, 144–145, 250, 251, 252, 253, 283–287; - of labor, III, 100, 139; - of society, I, 213; II, 261, 286–287; - political, II, 363–364; III, 339–340; IV, 308, 309, 311, 328; - social, I, 15, 30–38, 198–199, 238–239; III, 87, 292–293, 309–310, - 310–323, 331, 336–341; - the Imbecility of Our Present, III, 270–271. - - Organs of society, the, II, 284–286. - - Others-group, the, I, 9. - - Other-worldliness, I, 141–142, 143. - - =OUR COLLEGES BEFORE THE COUNTRY=, I, 355–373. - - “Our country, right or wrong,” IV, 319–320. - - Out-group, the, I, 9–13. - - Outlying continents, II, 43; - the exploitation of, II, 47–50; - the opening up of, II, 315; III, 122, 171–172; - the settlement of, I, 271–274; III, 148. - - Overpopulation, I, 59, 126, 164, 184, 185, 187–188, 305–306; III, - 22–23, 120–121. - - Overproduction, IV, 82. - - Overwork, II, 193. - - - Pain, II, 220, 312. - - Paine, Thomas, III, 306; IV, 285, 286. - - Pair-marriage, I, 52–53, 80. - - Panama Congress, the, I, 276; II, 57–58, 60. - - Panic, IV, 157; of 1873, IV, 173. - - Paper currency a natural monopoly, II, 247. - - Paper money, III, 216, 325, 326, 400; IV, 25, 157, 158, 159, 160, - 179, 189, 196, 286, 289, 397, 398. - - Papuans, war among the, I, 4. - - =PARABLE, A=, III, 105–107. - - Parents, III, 18–19; - and children, the rights and duties of, II, 95–102. - - Parliamentary debate, III, 281–282. - - Parties, political, III, 266, 268–273, 339–340, 366–368, 393–394, - 397; IV, 287–289, 292, 293–294, 310, 318, 322, 326–327, 339, - 349, 350. - - Parties are Irresponsible, III, 272–273. - - Parton, IV, 350. - - Party, the Democratic, I, 160; IV, 312, 313, 316, 318, 319, 320, 321, - 322–323, 363; - the Federal, III, 328–329; - the Republican, I, 160; IV, 321, 322, 323, 327. - - Party government, III, 393–394. - - Party interest, II, 327–328. - - Party loyalty, IV, 309, 310, 327. - - Party machinery, III, 368, 369; IV, 309, 311. - - Party methods, IV, 333. - - Party spirit, IV, 292. - - Party spoils, II, 328. - - Passport, IV, 17, 88. - - Patents as artificial monopolies, II, 247. - - Paternal legislation, II, 275–279. - - Paternal theory, IV, 494–495. - - Paternalism, I, 267–268; II, 275–279. - - Pathos, III, 247. - - _Patria potestas_, I, 69. - - “Patrimony of the Disinherited,” the, II, 233. - - Patriotism, I, 12, 301, 302; II, 26; III, 352; IV, 125. - - Patronage, III, 254. - - Patronizing the working classes, I, 250. - - Pauperization, II, 215. - - Paupers, IV, 101, 475, 476. - - Peace, III, 360; - and religion, I, 24–26; - -element, development of the, I, 16; - for women, I, 21; - -group, the, I, 11, 17, 18–19, 23, 24–26, 27, 28, 35; - -institutions, I, 16–24; - -institutions of civilized nations, I, 20–24; - -institutions of the West Australians, I, 18; - makes war, I, 11; - of God, I, 21; - of the house, I, 16–17, 21; - -pacts, I, 7, 10; - -rules, I, 16; - -taboo, I, 16, 18, 26; - the king’s, I, 21–23; - the triumphs of, I, 315; - universal, I, 35–36. - - Peaceful access, I, 17. - - Peacefulness and militancy, I, 28. - - Peasant-proprietors, III, 295, 301; IV, 48. - - Peasants, II, 292, 312–314, 315. - - Pearson, Karl, II, 17, 18. - - Penalties, II, 180–181; - of vice, I, 252. - - Pennsylvania, IV, 33, 42, 313, 389, 390, 391–392; - Relief Act, IV, 392, 393. - - Pensions, I, 262; IV, 101, 489. - - People, the, I, 222, 224; II, 290–293, 307, 329; III, 223–236, - 255–256, 264, 308, 328; IV, 469–470; - sovereignty of, III, 263–264; - the sovereign, III, 370–371; - voice of, IV, 298; - will of, IV, 314, 318, 328, 329, 344, 348. - - Pepper, IV, 265–267. - - Periodicals for boys, II, 367–377. - - Perpetual motion, IV, 196, 201. - - Persians, status of women among the, I, 75–76. - - Personal superiority a natural monopoly, II, 247–248. - - Persons and capital, III, 27–28. - - Peru, IV, 365. - - Pessimism, I, 186–187; II, 26; - political, II, 319–333. - - “Pest of glory,” the, I, 292, 313; II, 50. - - Pestilence, IV, 465. - - Pets, social, I, 248; IV, 494. - - Phantasm, II, 25; - definition of, II, 18; - of the Middle Ages, II, 18–20, 21; - political, II, 189. - - Philadelphia, IV, 380, 381, 382, 384, 385, 387, 388, 389, 390, 393, - 396–397; - _American_, the, IV, 20. - - Philanthropic schemes, I, 247–248. - - Philanthropists, III, 416; IV, 475, 476, 493. - - Philanthropy, III, 48, 127, 128. - - Philippines, the, I, 162, 300, 301–302, 310, 311–312; II, 69; - acquisition of, I, 343, 344, 345; - independence of, I, 351. - - Philosophers, III, 255, 416–417, 423; IV, 299, 300, 365, 483, 493; - social, II, 338–339, 349; III, 48; - _a priori_, III, 244–245. - - Philosophies, new, III, 139–140. - - Philosophizing, IV, 300, 467. - - Philosophy, I, 131, 164; III, 56–57, 59, 153, 157–158; IV, 116, 118; - eighteenth century, III, 87; - of colonization, II, 43–45; - of optimism, I, 159; - of the market, II, 121; - political, I, 158–159, 162, 310; III, 244–245; - popular, IV, 240; - religious, I, 158–159; - sentimental, I, 177; III, 31–32, 36; - social, I, 238–239; II, 339–340; III, 32–35, 68–69; - the new, III, 195–196; - world-, I, 129, 133, 134, 143. - - Phrases, high-sounding, III, 161. - - Pickering, Timothy, IV, 295. - - Plato, I, 98–99. - - Plunder, III, 66, 71–72, 73; IV, 23. - - Plutocracy, I, 207, 262; II, 289, 293–295, 310, 316, 329; III, 212; - definition of, II, 293; - and democracy, the antagonism of, I, 160, 204, 325–326; II, - 299–300, 329; - and expansion, I, 325–326; - and imperialism, I, 325–326; - and militarism, I, 325–326; - and political institutions, II, 298–299. - - =PLUTOCRACY, DEFINITIONS OF DEMOCRACY AND=, II, 290–295. - - =PLUTOCRACY, DEMOCRACY AND=, II, 283–289. - - =PLUTOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY, THE CONFLICT OF=, II, 296–300. - - Plutocrat, definition of a, II, 298. - - Plymouth settlement, the, II, 238; III, 291–292. - - Poland, II, 313. - - Police, city, III, 329. - - Police defense, I, 36. - - Policy, II, 68–70; - and doctrine contrasted, I, 37; - of the “open door,” I, 319, 320, 322; - the prosperity, I, 68, 154, 307, 318; - the protectionist, I, 318, 319, 320–321, 322; - vigorous foreign, IV, 66–67. - - Political action, dependence of industry on, I, 320–321. - - Political alarmists, III, 341, 342–343. - - =POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, INTRODUCTORY LECTURE TO COURSES IN=, - III, 391–403. - - Political “backing,” III, 368, 369. - - Political boss, IV, 327–329. - - Political calling, III, 396. - - Political campaigns, I, 337; IV, 29, 49, 95, 315–316. - - Political changes, recent, I, 241–242. - - Political corruption in the United States, III, 395–396, 397. - - Political debauchery, III, 268. - - Political discussion, III, 277–278; - the temper of our, I, 346–347. - - Political doctrines, IV, 352. - - Political dogmas, III, 193–194, 258. - - Political dogmatism, II, 23; III, 252–253. - - Political earth hunger, II, 64; - definition of, II, 46; - contrasted with economic, II, 63; - of the United States, II, 50–51, 53. - - Political economy, I, 180–183; III, 395, 398–400; IV, 17, 19, 100, - 118, 189, 195, 209, 216, 289, 337; - art of, IV, 102; - mystical, III, 418. - - Political element in socialism, III, 46–48. - - Political energy, II, 295. - - Political equality, III, 303–304; - in the American colonies, III, 249–250. - - Political influence, I, 261. - - Political institutions, III, 247–248; IV, 346; - and plutocracy, II, 298–299; - false notions about, III, 243–244; - inventing new, III, 243–244, 253; - of the American colonies, III, 249; - the strain on, II, 332–333. - - Political interference, II, 332. - - Political issue of 1860, IV, 323–324. - - Political Judgment, Errors of, III, 243–244. - - Political jurisdiction, II, 52. - - Political leaders, III, 259. - - Political liberty of the American colonies, III, 320–321. - - Political machinery, III, 231–235, 238, 267–268, 368, 369, 394; IV, - 307, 327–329, 333, 350–351, 361–362. - - Political metaphysics, II, 82. - - Political mysticism, I, 220–221. - - Political nomination, III, 231–232, 234. - - Political offices, III, 259. - - Political optimists, III, 341–342, 344. - - Political organization, II, 363–364; IV, 308, 309, 311, 328; - advancing, III, 339–340; - and war, I, 4. - - Political parties, III, 266, 268–273, 339–340, 366–368, 393–394, 397; - IV, 287–289, 292, 293–294, 310, 318, 322, 326–327, 339, 349, - 350. - - Political pessimism, II, 319–333. - - Political phantasm, II, 89. - - Political philosophy, I, 158–159, 162, 310; IV, 285–286, 298; - Errors of, III, 244–245. - - Political power, II, 290, 293, 294; III, 46–47, 58, 164, 173–174. - - Political problems, I, 230–231. - - Political prophets, III, 341–344. - - Political reform, IV, 332; - the path of, III, 232. - - Political regulation, II, 326. - - Political responsibility, III, 271–273. - - Political rights and duties, III, 224. - - Political science, IV, 108; - the scope of, III, 395; - vague notions about, III, 391. - - Political skepticism, III, 274–275. - - Political system of the United States, III, 341–342. - - Political topics, speculation on, III, 246. - - Political tyranny, I, 222–223. - - Political vice, I, 300–301, 302. - - Political warfare, III, 268–270. - - Political will, IV, 333. - - Politicians, I, 35, 37; IV, 308, 361, 362. - - Politics, II, 339; III, 227, 396–398; IV, 293–296, 302, 310, 323, - 324, 327, 329, 337, 338, 363, 435; - and business, IV, 135; - and witchcraft, I, 125–126; II, 23; - “high,” II, 56; - modern, I, 154; - the art of, III, 246–247; - the science of, III, 246–247. - - =POLITICS, ECONOMICS AND=, II, 318–333. - - =POLITICS IN AMERICA, 1776–1876=, IV, 285–333. - - Polk, James K., IV, 318. - - Polyandry, II, 264. - - Polygamy, I, 52, 69, 77, 79, 80; II, 262, 263–264. - - Pooling, III, 179, 219. - - “Pools,” II, 253. - - Poor, the, III, 65–77; IV, 395–396, 475, 494. - - Poor-laws, III, 74. - - Poor relief, II, 183. - - Popular conviction, II, 326–327. - - Popular institutions, III, 276–277. - - Popularity, II, 72–73; III, 318–319; IV, 299, 340. - - Population, I, 174–175, 241; II, 93; IV, 47–48, 59, 71, 86, 90–91, - 142, 144–145, 402; - homogeneous, III, 354–355; - increase of, I, 4, 10; III, 140–141, 171–172, 315; - law of, I, 175–176; - Malthusian law of, I, 181–182; - movement of, IV, 227, 229, 242; - movement of, from Europe, I, 272–274; II, 45; - movement of, in the United States, II, 44; - over-, I, 59, 126, 164, 184, 185, 187–188, 305–306; III, 22–23, - 120–121; - ratio of, to land, I, 174–176, 188; II, 31, 32–35, 37–40, 42, 44; - III, 22–23, 40, 296; - under-, I, 159, 183–184, 185, 187–188; II, 42, 43, 44; III, 22–23, - 121. - - Populists, IV, 160, 162, 166. - - Porter, R. P., IV, 26. - - Possession, security of, II, 150, 153. - - Possession of the soil, forms of the, I, 178–180. - - Post notes, IV, 379, 382, 387. - - Poverty, II, 357–358; III, 23, 30, 31, 32, 37, 47, 57, 59, 60–61, - 65–77, 146, 298; - and progress, III, 65–66; - and wealth, III, 65–77; - relative, II, 229–230; - the abolition of, II, 228–232. - - =POVERTY, THE ABOLITION OF=, II, 228–232. - - Power, II, 177–178; III, 84–85, 145–150; - and results, III, 138, 140; - economic, II, 318; - irresponsible, III, 225, 264; - moral, III, 201–204; - of capital, II, 297; - of ideas, II, 74; - of mankind, the new, III, 207, 211; - political, II, 290, 293, 294; III, 46–47, 58, 164, 173–174; - productive, II, 210; - social, I, 199; II, 180–181, 220; III, 140, 141–142, 145–147, 150, - 153–158; - state abuse of, III, 71–72. - - =POWER, CONSEQUENCES OF INCREASED SOCIAL=, III, 153–158. - - =POWER AND BENEFICENCE OF CAPITAL, THE=, II, 337–353. - - =POWER AND PROGRESS=, III, 145–150. - - Precious metals, the, IV, 191–210, 225–226. - - Preparedness, I, 39–40. - - =(PRESIDENT) FOR PRESIDENT?= III, 365–379. - - President of the United States, position of the, III, 283. - - Presidential election, III, 253–254, 272–273, 335. - - Press, freedom of the, II, 273, 274. - - Prices, IV, 12, 82, 101, 133–134, 141, 142–145, 168–169, 178, 202, - 220–221; - rise in, IV, 161–162; - wages and, IV, 249–250, 252. - - Primary, the, III, 231, 234, 267. - - Primitive family, the, I, 43–44, 46–47; II, 260–261, 262, 263–264. - - Primitive horde, the, II, 260–261. - - Primitive liberty, II, 131, 132–133, 136–140, 141, 361–362. - - Primitive society, I, 7–9. - - Primitive state of mankind, I, 3, 14; II, 219–220, 230, 234–235, - 237–238, 340, 357–358, 360; III, 149. - - Primitive trade, IV, 53. - - Principles, great, I, 161–163, 326–329; II, 58; III, 245–246; - Falsely So Called, III, 245–246. - - Printing, the invention of, III, 153. - - Private interests, III, 258–259, 261. - - Private property, II, 259; III, 25; - in land, I, 179–180; II, 243, 258. - - Privilege and rights, II, 126. - - Privilege with servitude, II, 124, 125–126, 127, 128. - - Privilege with superiority, II, 123. - - Producer, IV, 21–22, 101, 104. - - Product, mode of alienating, IV, 23. - - Production, IV, 19, 73, 214; - cost of, IV, 65. - - Profits, IV, 27, 79. - - Progress, I, 152; III, 18, 31–32, 49, 50–51, 127, 146–148, 150, - 169–174, 391–392; IV, 222, 239; - and equality, III, 299; - and poverty, III, 65–66; - checks on, II, 35–37, 163; - meaning of, III, 147; - modern, I, 241; - of society, IV, 427, 428. - - =PROGRESS, POWER AND=, III, 145–150. - - =PROGRESS? WHO WIN BY=, III, 169–174. - - Proletariat, the, II, 316; III, 77, 161–165, 169; IV, 71, 357, 470. - - =“PROLETARIAT”? WHAT IS THE=, III, 161–165. - - Property, II, 217–218, 259–269; III, 61; IV, 231; - and labor, II, 243–244; - and liberty, II, 173–174; - and the family, II, 254, 258; - definition of, II, 173; - private, II, 259; III, 25; - private, in land, I, 179–180; II, 243, 258; - redistribution of, III, 58, 60–61, 62, 69; - war and, I, 4; - women as, II, 262. - - =PROPERTY, LIBERTY AND=, II, 171–176. - - =PROPERTY, THE FAMILY AND=, II, 259–269. - - =PROPOSED DUAL ORGANIZATION OF MANKIND, THE=, I, 271–281. - - Prosperity, IV, 150, 151, 153, 222, 306, 307; - material, IV, 345; - notions about, IV, 116–117; - national, IV, 11–12, 15, 16–18, 22, 25–26, 28, 33, 34, 47, 48–49, - 50, 77, 84, 106, 109; - policy, I, 68, 154, 307, 318. - - =PROSPERITY STRANGLED BY GOLD=, IV, 141–145. - - Prostitution, I, 70, 71, 82. - - Protected industries, I, 263–264, 266; II, 320; IV, 136. - - Protection, IV, 123–127, 234; - impracticability of, IV, 94–95; - incidental, IV, 136, 374. - - Protectionism, III, 187; IV, 118, 131–138; - assumptions in, IV, 13, 18, 25–26, 33, 105; - definition of, IV, 16; - demoralization caused by, IV, 99. - - =PROTECTIONISM=, IV, 9–111. - - =PROTECTIONISM TWENTY YEARS AFTER=, IV, 131–138. - - Protectionist policy, I, 318, 319, 320–321, 322. - - Protectionists, IV, 125–127, 374. - - Protective system, the, IV, 30–31, 34, 44–45. - - Protective tariff, I, 154, 155, 263, 279; II, 61, 68; III, 88, - 216–217, 400; IV, 131–138, 275, 277, 489–490. - - Protective taxes, I, 263, 264–266; III, 74; IV, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, - 36, 43, 44, 50, 82, 86, 87, 97, 99, 105, 108, 117–119, 123; - definition of, IV, 20, 21. - - Protestantism, I, 129. - - Protestants, II, 21, 22. - - Prussian bureaucracy, IV, 481. - - Public, the, IV, 307. - - Public buildings, IV, 488. - - Public calamity, IV, 465. - - Public disturbances, IV, 357. - - Public good, IV, 426, 427. - - Public interest, I, 234–235; III, 258–259, 260–261; IV, 232, 324–325. - - Public life, IV, 293, 294, 295. - - Public morals, II, 167, 272–274. - - Public office, IV, 485. - - Public opinion, III, 264, 279, 392–393, 394; IV, 293; - of a town, III, 318. - - Public service, IV, 310, 328, 333, 351–352; - abuses of the, I, 260–261. - - Public workshops, IV, 79, 92. - - Publicity, IV, 410. - - Puerto Rico, the acquisition of, I, 343. - - Punishment, IV, 484. - - Puritan sects, I, 132. - - Puritans, the, I, 24. - - Purposes, II, 67–69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75. - - =PURPOSES AND CONSEQUENCES=, II, 67–75. - - - Quakers, the, I, 24, 138. - - Quality, III, 27–28; - moral, II, 177–178, 192–193. - - Quantity doctrine, IV, 141. - - Quarrel, I, 4, 7. - - Questions, individual, III, 95–96. - - Questions ill-defined, I, 229, 230, 231, 232. - - - Race antagonism in the United States, I, 28. - - Race problem, the, III, 377. - - Race question, the, III, 409. - - Races, “elevating” inferior, III, 146. - - Racial progress and war, I, 16. - - Radicalism Repudiated, III, 247–248. - - Radium, II, 318. - - Railroad commissioners, III, 189–190. - - Railroad monopoly, III, 179. - - Railroad passes, II, 326. - - Railroad question, the, III, 178–182. - - Railroad wars, I, 240. - - Railroads, II, 275–279; III, 177–182; IV, 87, 261; - as natural monopolies, II, 245; - in North America, III, 217–219; - legislation on, III, 177–182. - - =RAILROADS, FEDERAL LEGISLATION ON=, III, 177–182. - - Rate of interest, II, 349–351; IV, 52, 177–178; - the devil of, II, 353. - - Rate of wages, I, 237. - - Rates, II, 330–331; - freight, II, 327, 330–331. - - Realities, II, 322; III, 408. - - Reality, II, 18, 19, 20, 24, 27. - - “Reasons of state,” I, 37, 333; II, 165–166; III, 240. - - Recitation, the art of, I, 366. - - Reconstruction, III, 376, 378, 398. - - Reform, III, 279–280; IV, 468; - administrative, III, 372–374; - civil service, III, 262–263, 279–280, 308; - field of, III, 202; - political, III, 232; IV, 332; - social, I, 252–253. - - Reformers, social, I, 195–196; IV, 483, 493. - - Refugees, IV, 286. - - Regency, IV, 308. - - Regulation, II, 326; - of commerce, III, 323, 326; - of industry, I, 216–217; - of interstate commerce, II, 275–279, 288, 300, 326; III, 189–190, - 216–219, 316; - of the newspapers, II, 273–274; - of war, I, 19–20; - state, II, 285–287; III, 177, 210. - - Religion, I, 168; II, 255; III, 417; - and ethnocentrism, I, 24–25; - and peace, I, 24–26; - and science, II, 24–25; - and tradition, I, 131; - and war, I, 11, 14–15, 19–20, 24–26; - and the mores, the interplay of, I, 130, 134, 135, 138, 146; - and witchcraft, I, 119–121; - modern, I, 138–139; - the nature of, I, 130. - - =RELIGION AND THE MORES=, I, 129–146. - - Religious dogmas, I, 129–130. - - Religious duties, I, 136. - - Religious philosophy, I, 158–159. - - Religious reformations, I, 133. - - Religious sects, I, 138. - - Religious wars, I, 25. - - Remonetization, IV, 165–170, 194. - - Renaissance, the, I, 141–142, 158. - - Rent, IV, 87; - of land, III, 172, 320; - the Ricardian law of, I, 181–182. - - Renunciation, II, 300, 306–307, 310. - - Representative democracy, III, 260–275; - the weaknesses of, III, 270–271. - - Republic, constitutional, IV, 290, 296, 331; - dangers to the, III, 239–240; - the nature of a democratic, II, 301–302, 303, 305, 308. - - =REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT=, III, 223–240. - - Republican government, III, 223–240; - definition of, III, 223, 226; - assumptions of, III, 227–230. - - Republican party, the, I, 160; IV, 321, 322, 323, 327. - - Republicans, IV, 297. - - Republics, III, 225–227; - the Italian, II, 314; - the South American, I, 277–278; III, 230. - - Requisites for study, III, 391. - - Responsibility, II, 158–160; III, 46, 224–226; - and liberty, II, 158–160, 180; III, 96; - political, III, 271–273; - the principle of, III, 282–286. - - =RESPONSIBILITY, LIBERTY AND=, II, 156–160. - - =RESPONSIBILITY, THE SHIFTING OF=, III, 193–198. - - Responsible classes, burdens of the, II, 216. - - Responsible Government, III, 280–281. - - =RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT, DEMOCRACY AND=, III, 243–286. - - Restrictions, IV, 123. - - Results, III, 138, 140. - - Resumption, IV, 397–398; - act, III, 372. - - Revenue, IV, 20, 22, 109, 115–117; - from dependencies, I, 316–317; - surplus, IV, 109. - - Revolution, III, 347; - the commercial, I, 141; - the economic, II, 315; - the industrial, I, 141; II, 42; - the social, III, 338–339. - - Revolutionary delusions, III, 329–331. - - Revolutionary doctrines, III, 328. - - Revolutionary heroes, IV, 366. - - Revolutionary period, the, III, 323–331. - - Revolutionary principles, III, 330. - - Revolutionary War, the, III, 323–325; IV, 285, 286; - justification of, III, 324; - merits of the quarrel, III, 323–324. - - Ricardian law of rent, I, 181–182. - - Rich, the, III, 65–77, 88–90. - - Right and might, III, 239. - - Right to an existence, II, 225–227. - - Right to be chosen to office, III, 263. - - Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, II, 234. - - Right to the full product of labor, II, 224–226. - - Right to work, III, 34–35. - - Rights, I, 159–160, 163, 164; II, 81, 82, 83, 87, 211, 220, 358; III, - 76, 208, 209, 239; IV, 365, 472; - and duties, I, 257–258; III, 193, 197–198, 224; IV, 494–495; - and duties, equilibrium of, II, 126–127, 128–129, 165; IV, 472, 473; - and duties of parents and children, II, 95–102; - and duties, political, III, 224; - and force, II, 82; - and privilege, II, 126; - and the mores, II, 79, 83; - a product of civilization, II, 83; - chartered, II, 222–223; - eighteenth century notions about, II, 222–223; - guest-, I, 10–11, 17–18; - in the in-group, I, 11, 17; II, 79–80; - medieval notions about, II, 222; III,45; - “natural,” I, 257–258; II, 79, 81, 114–117, 119, 219–220, 223, 224; - III, 33–34, 45; IV, 322; - notion of, IV, 471; - of man, II, 223; III, 33–34; - of society, II, 97–98. - - =RIGHTS=, II, 70–83. - - =RIGHTS, SOME NATURAL=, II, 222–227. - - “Ring,” the, III, 261–262; IV, 328. - - Risk element, II, 184–185; IV, 268. - - Ritner, Governor, IV, 385. - - Ritual, I, 132, 133, 135, 136. - - Robbery, IV, 23. - - Robespierre, Maximilien, II, 212. - - Rodbertus, Karl, I, 271; II, 48, 109, 110; III, 65. - - Roman Catholics, II, 21–22. - - Roman family, the, I, 56–60. - - Roman State, the, I, 32–33, 213–215; II, 34, 48, 113. - - Romanism, I, 129, 132. - - Rome, I, 214; III, 66, 71–73, 74, 119, 120, 162; - slavery at, III, 71, 119; - status of women at, I, 56–60. - - Roth, Conrad, IV, 265–268. - - Rothschild, IV, 388; - fortunes, I, 201–202. - - Rousseau, Jean Jacques, I, 162; II, 131, 137, 138; III, 39–40. - - Rules of war, I, 19–20. - - Russia, I, 235, 286, 293, 304; II, 270, 300, 313; III, 234; IV, 135, - 282; - as a colonizer, II, 52; - the civilizing mission of, I, 304. - - - St. Gothard tunnel, IV, 57. - - St. John, J. P., IV, 141, 142, 144, 145, 150, 151, 158, 178–179. - - Sandwich Islands, IV, 65. - - Sanitary arrangements, III, 123; - the importance of, II, 239–240. - - Sansculottism, III, 306. - - Savage, the, and freedom, III, 26. - - Savage, the “noble,” II, 131. - - Savage life, the hardships of, II, 138–139; - the status of women in, I, 46. - - Savage names, I, 12. - - Savings, III, 163; IV, 32; - accumulation of, II, 349–352; - bank depositor, II, 345, 346–347, 348–349, 352–353; - banks, II, 337, 349; - benefit of, II, 337, 347, 348–349. - - Scandinavia, III, 299–300. - - Scandinavians, the, I, 20. - - School, the, III, 203–204; IV, 19, 38, 413; - and the family, I, 61. - - School discipline, I, 368. - - School system, the common, III, 357. - - Schoolboy, the, and liberty, II, 140–141. - - Schools, II, 98–101, 121–122; - trade, II, 101. - - Science, I, 369, 371–373; III, 417; IV, 216, 346, 402, 404, 431–432; - advance of, III, 415; - and religion, II, 24–25; - definition of, II, 18, 75; - of life, IV, 337–338; - of politics, III, 246–247; - of society, II, 71, 284, 285; - political, III, 391, 395; - social, I, 239; II, 168, 171, 208, 217, 218, 364; III, 127, 141, - 148, 150; IV, 20, 226. - - Sciences, I, 167; II, 32; IV, 189; - exact, III, 410; - progress of the, III, 170–174; - the social, III, 246, 407; IV, 337–338. - - =SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE OF MIND, THE=, II, 17–28. - - Scientific method, the, II, 24–25, 26; III, 401; - need of, III, 425. - - Scientific sociology, III, 419–420. - - Scotland, witch-persecutions in, I, 115–116. - - Secession, III, 329. - - Security, II, 23–24, 208; - of possession, II, 150, 153. - - Sedgwick, Theodore, IV, 294. - - Self-control, II, 168, 184; III, 19. - - Self-denial, II, 34, 236, 238, 344; III, 19, 52. - - Self-government, I, 300, 301, 302–303, 312, 349–350; III, 226–227, - 229–230, 238, 285. - - Selfishness, III, 423–424. - - Self-made men, IV, 431. - - Self-maintenance, III, 127–128. - - Self-perpetuation, III, 127–128. - - Self-will, IV, 349. - - Seminoles, IV, 342; - war with the, IV, 355. - - Senate, IV, 185, 360. - - Sensationalism, IV, 409–410, 413, 417. - - Sentiment, III, 127; - family, II, 256–257, 266–268; III, 19–20; - genuine, II, 212; - group, I, 9. - - =SENTIMENT, AN EXAMINATION OF A NOBLE=, II, 212–216. - - Sentimental philosophy, I, 177; III, 31–32, 36. - - Sentimental sociology, III, 419, 420. - - Sentimental view of social matters, II, 70–72, 73, 74. - - Sentimentalism, III, 415, 417. - - Sentimentalist, the, III, 419, 421–422, 423; IV, 493. - - Serfdom, III, 299–301, 303, 311. - - Serfs, emancipation of the, II, 117–118, 175–176. - - Servile classes, the, II, 38–39. - - Servitude, II, 123–124; - privilege with, II, 124, 125–126, 127, 128; - with inferiority, II, 123. - - Settlement, the law of, II, 125. - - Sex-vice, I, 78. - - Sherman Act, the, IV, 149. - - Ship-building, IV, 12, 54, 67, 68, 273–274, 277, 278, 279–280. - - Ships, IV, 57–58, 70, 273–282. - - =(SHIPS) SHALL AMERICANS OWN SHIPS?=, IV, 273–282. - - “Shooting,” III, 58, 60, 62. - - Short-haul clause, the, III, 180, 217–218. - - Sidgwick, Henry, IV, 102. - - Sieroshevski, M., I, 45. - - Silk, IV, 36, 53, 102, 104, 110. - - Silver, IV, 141, 149, 153, 157–162, 165–170, 173–180, 183–186, 189, - 192, 194, 201–209; - coinage, IV, 111; - craze, IV, 186, 195; - fallacies, IV, 141–145; - free coinage of, IV, 157–162; - men, IV, 149, 152; - mines, I, 286–287; - miners, IV, 170, 488; - question, I, 154, 231, 280; II, 68; IV, 234–235; - remonetization of, IV, 165–170; - standard, IV, 162, 169; - theorists, IV, 168–169. - - Sinclair, Upton, III, 55, 58, 60. - - Single combat, I, 4. - - Single tax, the, III, 312. - - Sisyphus, IV, 99. - - Skepticism, II, 23; - political, III, 274–275. - - Skill, the loss of, II, 361. - - Slavery, II, 140, 183–184, 252; III, 250; IV, 17–18, 49, 110, 289, - 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322–323; - at Rome, III, 71, 119; - Greek, III, 303; - in early Christianity, II, 114, 116–118; - in the classical states, II, 112–114, 296; - in Egypt, III, 146; - in the American colonies, III, 250, 298, 301–304; - in the South, III, 301–304; - in the United States, III, 311, 348–350, 355–356; - “of debt,” II, 136, 145; - of women, I, 47, 57, 68, 75, 77, 85, 87; II, 262; - “wages-,” II, 136, 145, 187, 312. - - Slums, the, I, 156; III, 169–170, 422. - - Smith, Adam, III, 323–324. - - “Social,” III, 93. - - Social actions and reactions, II, 121–122. - - Social agitator, the, II, 337, 352. - - Social ambition, IV, 242. - - Social amelioration, IV, 493. - - Social burdens, III, 70, 128. - - Social change, II, 285–286; - the family and, I, 61. - - =SOCIAL CHANGE, THE FAMILY AND=, I, 43–61. - - Social changes, I, 241; II, 38–40. - - Social classes, I, 241; III, 69–71, 129–130, 156–157, 392; - changes in the, II, 40–41; - in the United States, III, 307–309. - - “Social compact,” I, 162; II, 131, 140. - - =SOCIAL CREED, SOME POINTS IN THE NEW=, II, 207–211. - - Social discontent, II, 337–338. - - Social disease, I, 171–172; II, 275. - - Social dogmas, III, 193–194. - - Social dogmatism, III, 33–34. - - Social endeavor, I, 139. - - Social environment, III, 308–310. - - Social equality, III, 304. - - Social experiments, III, 291. - - Social forces, I, 226, 242; II, 312; III, 76, 137, 140, 142; IV, 216, - 250–251. - - Social ills, I, 185–186. - - Social injustice, I, 258, 261; II, 152–153. - - Social interest, I, 218. - - =SOCIAL ISSUE, THE NEW=, III, 207–212. - - Social laws, I, 191; III, 37. - - Social living, I, 168. - - Social matters, the sentimental view of, II, 70–72, 73, 74. - - Social motives, the four great, I, 14. - - Social order, the, III, 37–38, 39; - bonds of, III, 315, 325; - laws of, II, 284, 285. - - Social organism, II, 283. - - Social organization, I, 238–239; III, 292–293; IV, 325; - advancing, III, 315–317; - colonial, III, 310–323; - importance of the, III, 309–310; - intensification of the, I, 198–199; - in the United States, III, 331, 336–341; - risks of high, III, 340–341. - - Social pets, I, 248; IV, 494. - - Social phenomena, I, 170, 191, 242; IV, 467. - - Social philosophers, II, 338–339, 349; III, 48. - - Social philosophy, I, 238–239; II, 339–340; III, 32–35, 68–69. - - Social power, I, 199; II, 180–181, 220; III, 140, 141–142, 145–147, - 150, 153–158. - - =SOCIAL POWER, CONSEQUENCES OF INCREASED=, III, 153–158. - - Social pressure, I, 184–185, 188–189; III, 156. - - “Social problem,” the, II, 228–229. - - Social problems, I, 169–170, 171, 230–231; II, 93; III, 22–23, 30–31, - 49–50, 51; IV, 229, 402–403, 404, 405. - - Social propositions, III, 208. - - Social question, the, III, 128–131. - - =“SOCIAL QUESTION,” WHAT THE, IS=, III, 127–133. - - Social reaction, II, 283, 285. - - “Social reform,” I, 252–253. - - Social reform and war, I, 31. - - Social reformers, I, 195–196. - - Social relations, II, 123. - - Social remedy, I, 171–172. - - Social revolution, III, 338–339. - - Social risks, III, 155. - - Social science, I, 239; II, 168, 171, 208, 217, 218, 364; III, 127, - 141, 148, 150. - - =SOCIAL SCIENCE, INTRODUCTORY LECTURE TO COURSES IN POLITICAL AND=, - III, 391–403. - - Social sciences, the, III, 246, 407. - - Social scientist, duty of the, III, 399–400. - - Social tinker, the, II, 285–286. - - Social topics, I, 170; III, 415–425; IV, 468, 493. - - Social uplift, I, 250. - - Social victories, III, 131. - - Social war, II, 312–317; IV, 169. - - =SOCIAL WAR IN DEMOCRACY=, II, 312–317. - - Social welfare, I, 186. - - Socialism, I, 207–208, 242, 323; II, 67, 70–71, 122, 127, 130, 174, - 178, 183–184, 187, 191; III, 17, 36–49, 51, 55–62, 65–66, 74, - 211–212; IV, 79, 441–462; - phases of, III, 47–48; - the political element in, III, 46–48. - - =SOCIALIST, REPLY TO A=, III, 55–62. - - Socialistic doctrines, III, 34, 41, 42, 44–45. - - Socialistic measures, the effect of, III, 77. - - Socialistic propositions, III, 193. - - Socialistic state, the, II, 302, 303; III, 73–74, 75, 77, 97, 98. - - Socialists, I, 169, 206, 229–230; II, 109–110, 191, 258, 267; III, - 36–37, 39, 40–44, 52, 55–62, 94–95, 96, 98, 129, 423. - - _Socialpolitik_, III, 215. - - Societal environment, I, 129, 130, 143. - - Societal evolution, III, 82. - - Societal functions, the integration of, III, 82. - - Societal organization, III, 87; - and war, I, 15, 30–35. - - Societal selection and war, I, 32–34. - - Societal undertakings, III, 81–82. - - Society, I, 168, 174–175; II, 364; III, 392, 407–408, 420; IV, 12, - 13, 479–480, 484; - advancing organization of, II, 286–287; - American colonial, III, 290–323; - elasticity and vitality of, III, 155; - embryonic, III, 290; - industrial, III, 66, 321–322; - medieval, I, 143–145, 215–217; - militant type of, I, 28; - modern, II, 309; III, 394–395; - of a new country, III, 69–70; - organization of, I, 213; II, 261; - organization of civilized, II, 144–145, 250, 251, 252, 253, 283–287; - organs of, II, 284–286; - primitive, I, 7–9; - rights of, II, 97–98; - science of, II, 71, 284, 285; - welfare of, III, 201–202. - - =SOCIOLOGICAL FALLACIES=, II, 357–364. - - Sociological questions, III, 409. - - =SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY, THE PREDICAMENT OF=, III, 415–425. - - =SOCIOLOGY=, I, 167–192. - - Sociology, I, 371; II, 67, 357, 358, 364; III, 38, 51–52, 415–425; - IV, 14, 16, 401–405; - and the exact sciences, III, 410; - and novelists, III, 424–425; - and political economy, I, 180–183; - definition of, I, 167–168; - dogmatism in, III, 418–419; - field of, I, 173–178; - German school of, III, 418; - mystical, III, 418; - need of, I, 172–173; III, 407–408; IV, 402; - promise of, I, 192; - scientific, III, 419–420; - sentimental, III, 419, 420; - the task of, I, 170–171. - - =SOCIOLOGY, THE SCIENCE OF=, IV, 401–405. - - =SOCIOLOGY AS A COLLEGE SUBJECT=, III, 407–411. - - Soft money, III, 371. - - Soil, possession of the, I, 178–180. - - Solon, status of women in the laws of, I, 101. - - Sound money, III, 370–371. - - South, the, III, 376–378; IV, 312, 319, 320, 324, 344–345, 354; - planters of, IV, 287; - politicians of, IV, 317; - slavery in, III, 301–304. - - South Africa, IV, 282; - war in, I, 6. - - South America, IV, 52, 55; - and the United States, I, 277–278. - - South American Commission, IV, 69. - - South American republics, I, 277–278; III, 230. - - South Carolina, IV, 354. - - Sovereignty, IV, 290; - of the people, III, 263–264, 370–371. - - Space, II, 240. - - Spain, I, 293, 303, 304, 305, 319; II, 53–54, 313; IV, 64; - and imperialism, I, 297; - the civilizing mission of, I, 304, 305; - the colonial system of, I, 306–310, 318, 319. - - =SPAIN, THE CONQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES BY=, I, 297–334. - - Spanish America, I, 304–305, 308. - - Spanish-American colonies, I, 276, 306; II, 57–58. - - Spanish-American states, I, 312. - - Spanish-American war, I, 29, 297, 298, 300–301, 343; II, 69. - - Specie, IV, 375–376, 381; - circular, IV, 379, 380, 385; - payments, resumption of, IV, 176. - - Specific interest, III, 196–197. - - Speculation, IV, 374–375. - - =SPECULATIVE LEGISLATION=, III, 215–219. - - Spencer, Herbert, III, 208; IV, 401, 405. - - Spices, IV, 265–267. - - Spirit, the modern, III, 347–350. - - Spoils, III, 268–270; - doctrine, III, 269; - of office, II, 303; - party, II, 328; - System, III, 268–270. - - Stable government, I, 350. - - Stamp Act Congress, the, III, 327. - - Standard of gain, IV, 68–69. - - Standard of living, II, 33–35. - - State, the, I, 247–248; II, 129, 183, 305, 364; III, 74–75, 223–226; - IV, 13–14, 15, 17–18, 78–80, 81, 231–232, 258; - a burden, I, 215, 216–217, 218; - a consumer, II, 104–105; - a monopoly, II, 310; - an ethical person, I, 221; II, 309; - and capital, II, 306; - and church, I, 131, 162; II, 18–19, 310; - and industry, I, 215; II, 300, 310; - and market, separation of, II, 310; - as a peace-group, I, 23; - function of, II, 169–170, 271; - “of nature,” II, 131, 140, 219; - “reasons of,” I, 37, 333; II, 165–166; III, 240; - socialistic, II, 302–303; III, 73–74, 75, 77, 97, 98. - - State absolutism, II, 130. - - State action, II, 207–208, 302. - - =STATE AND MARKET, SEPARATION OF=, II, 306–311. - - =STATE AND MONOPOLY, THE=, II, 270–279. - - =STATE AS AN “ETHICAL PERSON,” THE=, III, 201–204. - - State banks, IV, 380. - - =STATE INTERFERENCE=, I, 213–226. - - State interference, I, 213–226; II, 96, 98, 100, 270–279, 285–289, - 328. - - State necessity, I, 339–344. - - State power, abuse of, III, 71–72. - - State protection, II, 153. - - State regulation, II, 285–287; III, 177, 210; IV, 480–482; - of industry, I, 216–217; - of marriage and the family, II, 93–94, 103–104. - - States, character of governing, I, 346; - expedient size of, I, 285; - frontier, III, 332; - national, I, 285; - the Spanish-American, I, 312. - - Statesmanship, III, 396; IV, 15, 20, 59, 329–330; - and war, I, 35; - bad, III, 37; - questions of, I, 298, 299–300, 301. - - Statesmen, III, 281–282; IV, 11–12, 15, 37, 41–42, 58, 66, 67, 299; - of the eighteenth century, IV, 11. - - Statistics, III, 401; IV, 47, 76–77, 86, 338. - - Status, II, 125, 308; IV, 474; - -wife, I, 47, 68, 76, 85–86, 89, 90, 91, 101. - - Steam, the age of, III, 173, 181–182. - - Steel, IV, 77, 91, 274, 275. - - Stewart, A. T., IV, 97. - - Stickney, II, 326. - - Strabo, I, 12. - - Stranger and enemy, I, 10–11. - - Strikes, I, 233; II, 286–287; III, 99–100; IV, 228, 243–245, 249–250, - 251–252; - in Germany, I, 232–233. - - =STRIKES, THE PHILOSOPHY OF=, IV, 239–246. - - =STRIKES AND THE INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION=, IV, 249–253. - - Struggle, II, 312–317; - for existence, I, 8, 9, 164, 173, 176–177; II, 226, 347; III, - 17–18, 19, 20, 22, 26, 30–31, 57, 58, 120–121, 122–123; IV, 79, - 257; - for supremacy in the Union, III, 332–333; - industrial, II, 286–287; - military, II, 286–287; - of classes, II, 312–317; III, 129–132; - of interests, I, 222, 224. - - Subsidies, IV, 58, 275–276, 280–281. - - Subsistence, means of, III, 114–115, 119–121, 145, 146, 171; - war for, I, 14. - - Sub-treasury system, the, IV, 383. - - Sue, Eugene, IV, 483. - - Suffrage, III, 253; IV, 344; - in the United States, III, 225; - negro, I, 330–331, 349. - - Sugar, IV, 53, 60–66. - - Sumatrans, the, I, 20. - - Sumner, William Graham, Autobiographical Sketch of, II, 3–5; - Sketch of, III, 3–13. - - Sunlight, II, 240. - - Superiority, privilege with, II, 123. - - Supply and demand, II, 225; III, 97–98, 119, 121; IV, 141, 196, 198, - 201, 204, 214, 251, 252. - - Supreme Court of the United States, II, 325–326; III, 329. - - Survival of the fittest, III, 25, 423; IV, 225. - - Survival of the unfittest, III, 25, 423; IV, 225. - - Survivals, III, 420–421. - - Sydney, IV, 366. - - System, III, 55–56, 57–58, 59; IV, 133; - colonial, I, 274–275, 278, 306–310, 313, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319; - II, 49–50, 53, 57, 60; III, 323; IV, 12, 59; - common school, III, 357; - feudal, II, 312–313; - manor, III, 310–312; - medieval, I, 131; - navigation, I, 318, 320; - political, of the United States, III, 341–342; - spoils, III, 268–270; - wages, II, 185–187; III, 97, 294. - - - Taboo, II, 80–81; - peace-, I, 16, 18, 26. - - Taine, H. A., III, 73. - - Talent, II, 134, 329; - and industry, II, 323. - - Tammany Hall, IV, 313, 327, 361. - - Taney, R. B., IV, 359. - - Tariff, IV, 22, 24, 44–45, 64, 74, 79, 85, 89, 233, 234; - Commission, IV, 27–28, 63, 94; - decisions, IV, 30; - of 1828, IV, 308, 312–313, 351, 354; - of 1883, IV, 27–29; - rightly adjusted, IV, 133–134; - victims of the, IV, 19, 111. - - =TARIFF REFORM=, IV, 115–120. - - Taussig, F. W., IV, 28, 108. - - Tax, IV, 21–22, 23; payers, I, 259; II, 99–101, 102, 122; IV, 101; - protective, I, 263, 264–266; III, 74; - single, III, 312. - - Taxation, III, 74, 327, 400; IV, 31–32, 58, 108, 110, 115–118; - campaign against, IV, 110. - - Taxes, IV, 11–12, 19–20, 31, 33, 44–45, 58, 67, 74, 76, 96, 479; - excise, III, 327; - on exports, IV, 12, 15–16; - on imports, IV, 12, 16, 20; - reducing, IV, 115–118, 119. - - Teachers, IV, 413, 416–417; - the demands on, II, 12. - - =TEACHER’S UNCONSCIOUS SUCCESS, THE=, II, 9–13. - - Technical training, IV, 424–425, 431. - - Telegraph and telephone, III, 89; - as natural monopolies, II, 245–246. - - Telegraphers, IV, 243–245. - - “Tenant slaves,” II, 136. - - Tenants, III, 156–157, 295. - - Terms, definition of, needed, III, 93; - the vagueness of, III, 161–162. - - Territorial aggrandizement, I, 286. - - Territorial extension, I, 285–286, 337, 339; II, 57; - the burdens of, I, 292–293. - - =TERRITORIAL EXTENSION, THE FALLACY OF=, I, 285–293. - - Territory, jurisdiction over, I, 286–288, 289, 290; II, 54–56. - - Terrorism, III, 186. - - Tertullian, II, 114. - - Texas, II, 47, 57; IV, 55–56, 165, 317, 319; - the acquisition of, I, 341; - the admission of, III, 262. - - Theocracy, definition of, II, 290. - - Theory, IV, 16–17, 18, 19, 94; - definition of, IV, 16. - - Those who consume more than they produce, IV, 101. - - Those-who-have, II, 315–316; III, 102, 165, 339. - - Those-who-have-not, II, 315–316; III, 102, 165, 339. - - Those who produce more than they consume, IV, 101. - - Thread, IV, 94, 492; - protective tax on, I, 264–266; IV, 492. - - Thuringian Co., IV, 265–267. - - Tilden, S. J., III, 369–374, 378–379. - - Tillers and nomads, III, 300. - - Tin, IV, 42–43. - - Tobacco, IV, 489–490. - - Tocqueville, Alexis de, III, 256. - - Toil, II, 236, 238. - - Tories, the, III, 325; IV, 286. - - Town, the, Superseded, III, 260–261. - - Town and country, I, 155–157. - - Town democracy, III, 256–260, 262, 266, 267. - - Town meeting, the, III, 256–259. - - Towns, colonial, III, 313–315, 318–319; - the Evils of Overgrown, III, 259–261. - - Townships and towns contrasted, III, 313–314. - - Trade, I, 320–322; IV, 51–56, 92, 93, 97, 229; - and conquest, I, 321; - balance of, IV, 12; - carrying, IV, 275, 276, 277–279, 280, 282; - conditions of, I, 321; - foreign, IV, 119; - free, I, 289–290, 291, 318, 319, 321, 322; II, 51, 109–110, 111; - III, 378; IV, 16, 17–18, 19, 20, 26, 47, 48–49, 83, 90, 94, 95, - 109–110, 123–127, 282, 312, 318; - primitive, IV, 53. - - Trade schools, II, 101. - - Trades-unions, I, 250–252; III, 102; IV, 262, 486–487. - - Tradition, II, 80; - and religion, I, 131. - - Traditions, III, 347, 348; - American, III, 252–254, 255; - English, III, 297. - - Tramp, liberty of the, II, 154–155. - - Transcendentalism, III, 415, 417. - - Transportation, I, 187–189; III, 85; - means of, II, 245. - - Treaties, I, 13. - - Trial and failure, IV, 18, 20. - - Tribute, IV, 23, 34, 86, 105, 106, 107. - - “Truce of God,” the, I, 21. - - =“TRUST,” AN OLD=, IV, 265–269. - - Trusts, I, 238; II, 253, 298–299, 343; IV, 258–262, 265–269. - - =TRUSTS AND TRADES-UNIONS=, IV, 257–262. - - Truth, II, 18. - - Turkey, II, 55; IV, 24, 135, 282. - - Tweed ring, the, III, 373. - - Tyler, John, IV, 316, 360. - - Tyndall, Professor, III, 400–401. - - Tyranny, I, 213–215; - of the market, II, 151–152; - of vague impression, II, 324; - political, I, 222–223. - - - Ulpian, II, 114–115. - - Undergraduate life, IV, 429–430. - - Underpopulation, I, 159, 183–184, 185, 187–188; II, 42, 43, 44; III, - 22–23, 121. - - Unearned increment, II, 244; III, 312. - - Unfittest, survival of the, III, 25, 423; IV, 225. - - Union, the, III, 315, 325–326; IV, 289, 297; - and the Constitution, III, 250–252; - struggle for supremacy in, III, 332–333. - - Unions, trades-, I, 250–252; III, 102; IV, 262, 486–487. - - =UNITED STATES, ADVANCING SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN THE=, - III, 289–344. - - United States, the, I, 153, 219–220, 297, 304, 305; IV, 17, 48, 52, - 58, 69, 76, 78, 83, 90, 94, 96, 108, 118, 119, 229, 240–242, - 278, 282, 290, 291, 292, 317, 338–339, 371, 379, 477–478, 481, - 489; - and Canada, I, 289–290; II, 51; - and China, I, 343–344; - and Cuba, I, 290–291; II, 55–57; - and dependencies, I, 310, 311–312, 317–319; - and foreign affairs, I, 276–277; II, 60–61; - and Germany, II, 302; - and imperialism, I, 291, 345–346; - and South America, I, 277–278; - and territorial extension, I, 292; - a nation, III, 350, 354; - as a peace-group, I, 26–29; - Bank of, IV, 259, 313, 340, 352–354, 355, 356, 358, 359, 360–361, - 372–374, 377, 379, 380, 381–382, 385, 386, 387, 388–390, 391, - 395; - centralization in, III, 316–317; - civilizing mission of, I, 304, 305; - colonial society of, III, 290–323; - colonial history of, III, 248–253, 290–323; - Constitution of, I, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315; II, 333; III, 251, - 252–255, 306–307, 325–326, 329, 334–336, 396–397; IV, 289, 291, - 292, 297, 304, 319, 320, 331–332, 344, 348–349, 360, 367; - future of, I, 350–351; III, 275–277; - government of, III, 326–328; IV, 323; - growth of, III, 315–316; - industrial organization in, I, 196–199; - industrial power of, III, 154; - jobbery in, I, 262–263; IV, 488–491; - movement of population in, II, 44; - national bank system of, I, 31; - nature of, I, 310–311; - nature of democracy in, I, 324–325; - not a colonizing nation, I, 305–306; - oligarchies in, II, 329–330; - political corruption in, III, 395–396, 397; - political earth hunger of, II, 50–51, 53; - political system of, III, 341–342; - position of, I, 26–27; II, 63–64; III, 321–322, 344, 350–351; - position of laborers in, I, 196; - position of the president of, III, 283; - race antagonism in, I, 28; - slavery in, III, 311, 348–350, 355–356; - social classes in, III, 307–309; - suffrage in, III, 335; - Supreme Court of, II, 325–326; III, 329; - treatment of aborigines by, I, 27–28. - - =UNITED STATES, THE CONQUEST OF THE, BY SPAIN=, I, 297–334. - - Universal peace, I, 35–36. - - University, the, III, 82. - - Unskilled laborers, I, 159, 249, 251–252; II, 44; III, 122. - - Utopias, I, 169; II, 25, 183; III, 243–244. - - - Vagabondage, II, 125. - - Value, IV, 196–198, 199, 210. - - Van Buren, Martin, IV, 315, 318, 319, 355. - - Vanderbilt, I, 201. - - Vanity, I, 14, 130; III, 113; - and war, I, 14, 39; - national, I, 300–301, 303, 304, 343, 344; II, 46, 51. - - Venezuela, I, 38, 278, 328. - - Vice, II, 229; III, 19, 23, 67, 298; IV, 470, 480, 487; - and legislation, I, 252; - penalty of, I, 252; - political, I, 300–301, 302; - sex-, I, 78. - - Vices of human nature, III, 233–234. - - Vicious legislation, II, 275, 277. - - Village communities, III, 298–300, 313–314. - - Violence, III, 73. - - Virginians, IV, 322. - - Virtues, the industrial, II, 345–346; III, 51–52, 201–202, 297; - taught by war, I, 15. - - Vital energy, III, 96–97. - - Voltaire, I, 121; II, 23. - - Von Holst, Professor, IV, 339, 340. - - Vows, I, 157. - - - Wage-earners, III, 141–142, 162–163, 173–174; IV, 168. - - Wages, I, 233, 251, 265–266; II, 42, 43, 44, 61; III, 35, 102, 172; - IV, 12, 29–30, 36, 43–46, 51–52, 70–78, 90, 119, 126, 168, - 243–245, 249–250, 486–487; - and prices, IV, 249–250, 252; - -class, III, 94–97, 169, 170; IV, 44–45, 71–72; - rate of, I, 237; - “slavery,” II, 136, 145, 187, 312; - system, II, 185–187; III, 97; IV, 71; - system lacking, III, 294. - - Wagner, II, 322. - - Wall Street, IV, 152–153, 162. - - Walras, IV, 196. - - Wampum, IV, 208. - - =WAR=, I, 3–40. - - War, I, 3–40; II, 50, 63, 79–80, 301; III, 320–322, 359–360; IV, 67, - 68, 95–96, 108, 324; - about women, I, 5; - a ferment, I, 33; - among the Papuans, I, 4; - and civilization, I, 16, 34–35; - and discipline, I, 14, 15; - and group sentiment, I, 9; - and kinship, I, 19–20; - and political organization, I, 4; - and property, I, 4; - and racial progress, I, 16; - and religion, I, 11, 14–15, 19–20, 24–26; - and social reform, I, 31; - and societal organization, I, 15, 30–35; - and societal selection, I, 32–34; - and statesmanship, I, 35; - and the competition of life, I, 9–10, 14; - and the increase of population, I, 4, 10; - and vanity, I, 14, 39; - benefits of, I, 30–34; - between the tribes of Israel, I, 9; - causes of, I, 14; - Civil, the, I, 31, 32, 217, 219, 311; III, 277, 316, 321, 329–330, - 333, 349, 351–354, 359–362, 398–400; IV, 175, 223, 323–324, 330; - commercial, IV, 95–96; - fairness in, I, 5; - for duty, III, 362; - for glory, I, 14; III, 362; - for religious motives, I, 14; - for subsistence, I, 14; - for women, I, 14; - Franco-Prussian, IV, 224; - horrors of, reduced, I, 19–20; - industrial, I, 225, 232, 234–236, 237, 239, 241, 243; III, 98–102; - IV, 246, 261; - inevitable, I, 10; - in Melanesia, I, 5; - in South Africa, I, 6; - laws of, II, 112–113; - love of, I, 29; - major premises about, I, 3; - makes peace, I, 11; - not known, I, 6; - of 1812, IV, 301–302, 372; - only a makeshift, I, 35; - regulations, I, 19–20; - rules of, I, 19–20; - social, II, 312–317; IV, 169; - Spanish-American, the, I, 29, 297, 298, 299, 300–301, 343; II, 69; - state of readiness for, I, 39–40; - virtues taught by, I, 15; - waste of, I, 16; - within a peace-group, I, 18–19. - - =WAR, INDUSTRIAL=, III, 93–102. - - =WAR, SOCIAL, IN DEMOCRACY=, II, 312–317. - - Warfare, modern, I, 29; - political, III, 268–270. - - Warlikeness, I, 7. - - Wars, eighteenth century, I, 320; II, 60; - of the colonists with the French and Indians, III, 250, 251; - railroad, I, 240; - religious, I, 25. - - “Wares,” II, 185–186. - - Washington, city of, IV, 26, 41, 44, 68. - - Washington, George, III, 342, 343; IV, 291, 292, 293, 341, 343. - - Waste, IV, 33, 40, 43, 51, 106, 109, 111; - land, II, 37–38. - - Watchwords, II, 322; IV, 298. - - Water power, II, 318. - - Water supply, II, 241; - a natural monopoly, II, 246. - - Weak, the, IV, 475, 494. - - Wealth, I, 202; II, 10, 147, 149, 293–295; III, 42–43; 265–266; IV, - 40; - abolishing, II, 231; - accumulation of, III, 320; - aggregation of, III, 66–67, 81, 90; - and Democracy, III, 274–275; - and liberty, II, 147–154; - and poverty, III, 65–77; - cares of, II, 150–154; - concentration of, III, 81–90; - distribution of, II, 228; - national, I, 307–308; - pursuit of, IV, 295–296; - relative, II, 229–230; - thirst for, II, 147. - - =WEALTH: THE CONCENTRATION OF, ITS ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION=, III, - 81–90. - - Webster, Daniel, II, 327; III, 177; IV, 316, 342, 353, 354. - - Wedding, I, 43; - ceremony, I, 75, 76, 93. - - “We-group,” the, I, 9. - - West Africans, the, I, 49, 50. - - West Australians, peace-institutions of the, I, 18. - - _Westminster Review_, IV, 107. - - =WHAT EMANCIPATES=, III, 137–142. - - =WHAT IS CIVIL LIBERTY?=, II, 109–130. - - =WHAT IS FREE TRADE?=, IV, 123–127. - - =WHAT IS THE “PROLETARIAT”?=, III, 161–165. - - =WHAT MAKES THE RICH RICHER AND THE POOR POORER?=, III, 65–77. - - =WHAT OUR BOYS ARE READING=, II, 367–377. - - =WHAT THE “SOCIAL QUESTION” IS=, III, 127–133. - - Wheat, IV, 42, 47, 55–56, 58, 59, 85, 91–92, 97; - and iron, III, 39. - - Whigs, the, III, 325, 327, 328; IV, 314, 315, 316, 319, 321, 355, - 357, 363. - - =WHO IS FREE? IS IT THE CIVILIZED MAN?=, II, 140–145. - - =WHO IS FREE? IS IT THE MILLIONAIRE?=, II, 145–150. - - =WHO IS FREE? IS IT THE SAVAGE?=, II, 136–140. - - =WHO IS FREE? IS IT THE TRAMP?=, II, 150–155. - - =WHO WIN BY PROGRESS?=, III, 160–174. - - Wife, the status-, I, 47, 68, 76, 85–86, 89, 90, 91, 101. - - Wife-capture, I, 48, 77, 85. - - Wife-purchase, I, 66, 68, 70, 74, 85, 86. - - Wilder, IV, 387. - - “Will of the people,” IV, 314, 318, 328, 329, 344, 348. - - Williams, IV, 136, 137. - - Willimantic linen company, IV, 492. - - Willson, Wildes, and Wiggins, IV, 378, 379. - - Winthrop, John, III, 293; IV, 72. - - Wire-pullers, IV, 362. - - Wisdom, IV, 426, 427. - - =WITCHCRAFT=, I, 105–126. - - Witchcraft, I, 105–126; II, 21–23; IV, 153; - and Christianity, I, 112; - and heresy, I, 105; - and hysteria, I, 108, 119–120; - and politics, I, 125–126; II, 23; - and religion, I, 119–121; - and the aleatory element, I, 116, 119–120; - and the Catholic Church, I, 123; - and the Inquisition, I, 105–109; - and women, I, 105–107; - decline of, I, 121; - in France, I, 117–118; - in Germany, I, 106, 107, 112, 116; - in Italy, I, 112, 117–118; - in New England, I, 122–123; - mania, opposition to the, I, 110, 113–115. - - Witch-persecutions, I, 109–112; II, 21–22; - and greed for money, I, 111; - in Scotland, I, 115–116; - recent, I, 124–125; - the extent of, I, 118. - - Witch-trials, I, 109–110. - - Wolcott, Oliver, IV, 292, 295. - - Wolowski, L., IV, 191–193, 194, 197. - - Woman, the forgotten, I, 264–266; IV, 492–493. - - Women, I, 65–102; - as property, II, 262; - as witches, I, 105–107; - dominance of, II, 122; - how regarded, I, 50–60, 73, 74, 77, 78–79, 81, 89, 91–92, 95–97, - 100–101; - in industry, IV, 243; - medieval views of, I, 106–109; - peace for, I, 21; - rule of, I, 49; - seclusion of, I, 65, 69–70, 71, 89, 92, 94, 101; - slaves, I, 47, 67, 68, 69, 75, 77, 85, 87; II, 262; - status of, among nomads, I, 65; - status of, among the Jews, I, 51–52, 76–81; - status of, among the Persians, I, 75–76; - status of, and the mores, I, 67, 68; - status of, at Rome, I, 56–60; - status of, how controlled, I, 65–67; - status of, in Babylonia, I, 69–71; - status of, in Chaldea, I, 69, 70, 71; - status of, in early Christianity, I, 52–60; - status of, in Egypt, I, 81–85; - status of, in Greece, I, 85–102; - status of, in Homer, I, 85–87; - status of, in India, I, 72–75; - status of, in Judea, I, 76–80; - status of, in monogamy, II, 255, 257; - status of, in savage life, I, 46; - status of, in the father-family, I, 51; - status of, in the laws of Hammurabi, I, 67–69, 71; - status of, in the laws of Manu, I, 72–75; - status of, in the laws of Solon, I, 101; - status of, in the New Testament, I, 80–81; - status of, in the Old Testament, I, 76–80; - status of, under agriculture, I, 65; - strength of, I, 44–46; - subjection of, II, 122–123; - war about, I, 5; - war for, I, 14. - - =WOMEN, THE STATUS OF, IN CHALDEA, EGYPT, INDIA, JUDEA, AND GREECE TO - THE TIME OF CHRIST=, I, 65–102. - - Wood supply, II, 241. - - Wool, IV, 33–34, 36, 54, 55, 90. - - Woolen mill, IV, 39–40. - - Woolen operative, IV, 46–47. - - Work, II, 149, 150, 220; III, 34, 35; IV, 36, 55, 91, 98; - intellectual, II, 192–193; - the right to, III, 34–35. - - Working classes, the, I, 249–250; IV, 477–478. - - “Working man,” the, II, 102; IV, 43; - and education, II, 100. - - Workshops, public, IV, 79, 92. - - =WORLD, THE ABSURD EFFORT TO MAKE THE, OVER=, I, 195–210. - - World-improvers, III, 188, 210, 416. - - World-philosophy, I, 129, 133, 134, 143. - - World-system, the dual, I, 276, 277, 278; II, 60–62. - - Worry, II, 150, 154. - - Wright, Carroll, IV, 77. - - Writers on industrial problems, I, 236–238. - - - Yakuts, the, I, 45. - - Yale diploma, what it ought to mean, I, 361–362. - - Yeomen, III, 300. - - - Zendavesta, the, I, 75–76. - - Zoroaster, I, 75, 134. - - Zoroastrianism, I, 137. - - Zulus, the, III, 129. - - - - - * * * * * * - - - - -Transcriber’s note: - -Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a -predominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise they -were not changed. - -Simple typographical errors were corrected. - -Redundant chapter headings were removed. - -Footnotes, originally at the bottoms of pages, have been renumbered -into a single sequence, collected, and placed after the Bibliography. - -The Index references other books in addition to this one, so versions -of this book that support hyperlinks do not contain hyperlinks to -those other books. - -The Index was not systematically checked for proper alphabetization or -correct page references. - -Wikipedia has a short biography of William Graham Sumner: -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Graham_Sumner - -Cover created by Transcriber and placed into the Public Domain. - -Page 355: The Seminole wars were fought in 1817-1818, not in 1878. - -Footnote 46: “August von Sacheen” may be a misprint for “August von -Sachsen.” - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE FORGOTTEN MAN AND OTHER ESSAYS*** - - -******* This file should be named 65693-0.txt or 65693-0.zip ******* - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/5/6/9/65693 - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |