NORTHWESTERN
UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
The Gift of
The Publisher
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Henry Demarest Lloyd
From a ^holograph by E. H Purdy, Boston, 1903
Henry Demarest Lloyd
1847—1903
A Biography
By
Caro Lloyd
With an Introduction by
Charles Edward Russell
In Two Volumes
Volume One
Illustrated
G. p. Putnam's Sons
New York and London
Zbc fíitíclierbocfter iPress
1912
Copyright, 19x2
by
G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
tEbe Vmfclierbocfter ptttt, Hcw Ißcdt
. . thy golden dream
Of knowledge fusing class with class.
Of civic Hate no more to be.
Of Love to leaven all the mass.
Till every Soul be free; ' '
"Freedom," by Teaaytom
INTRODUCTION
Henry DEMAREST LLOYD was the pioneer
and leader of the great movement that has dis¬
illusioned Americans and probably has saved them
from an abominable industrial despotism. He began
at a time when the deadly spirit of complacency and
self-satisfaction (which for some reason is supposed
to be patriotic) was most upon us; and after he had
lighted up the situation as it really was, his country¬
men were never again able to ignore it. He planted
the seed; his fortune, very unusual in such men, was
to see the tilth in a thousand places and in ways of
which he had never dreamed.
One could hardly reconstruct in one's mind now the
conditions that existed when Mr. Lloyd came upon the
stage. The belief in the loveliness and perfection of
ever5rthing was almost imiversal and tmchallenged.
All the records (and results) of rapid fortune-making
were joyously accepted as so many evidences of the
country's greatness and superior qualities. Strange
as it may now seem, we actually looked upon the swell¬
ing monopolies with pride; they were evidences of
American " smartness " ; and we were prepared to resent
any reflections upon the methods of sacred business
as implying a lack of the proper devotion to one's
country. No man, therefore, could have addressed
a more unpromising audience than that to which Mr.
V
vi
Introduction
Lloyd first spoke and no man could have addressed it
more wisely.
His equipment for the work he was to do seemed to
me almost perfect, and one of its strong elements was
his admirable and invariable poise. No one saw more
plainly the imminent peril that threatened republican
institutions in America, and no one felt more deeply
on the subject ; but he never allowed himself one ex¬
travagant nor unwarranted expression, speaking always
with the calm assurance, and therefore with the fuU
weight, of authority. For this reason he was always
far more convincing than the man of excitable tempera¬
ment can ever be; you felt that every sentence of Mr.
Lloyd's had been weighed, considered, and fortified,
and that however revolutionary might be its import it
was founded upon ascertained fact. He never had
anything to take back nor to reconsider; and from his
conclusions the only road of escape lay through not
reading them.
My own acquaintance with him and his cause was
made in a way both sudden and summary. I was a
student at St. Johnsbury Academy, in Vermont. One
day in March, 1881, I strolled into the Public Athe-
neum, or town library, picked up the current munber of
the Atlantic Monthly, and began in a careless way to
read an article about the Standard Oil Company.
Only a year before, an officer of that company had been
seriously proposed and advocated as a candidate for
the Democratic nomination for President of the United
States, and I felt a slight curiosity to see what kind of
a corporation it was. Thus I began to read, but once
laimched upon that historic article, like all others that
encountered it, I was swept by an increasing and irre¬
sistible interest to the end, arising thence with an entirely
Introduction
vil
new sense and conception of the forces at work in my
coimtry and the first glimpse of an American's duty
thereto. Yet I had been reared in an old-time Abo¬
litionist family where opposition to the corporations
was held to be the next great work after the destruction
of slavery, and my father had carried on a lifelong
struggle against the growing power of the railroad
companies. I knew then, in a general way, something
of the menace of accumulated wealth, but it had never
been made clear, vital, and personal to me until I read
that article, and from that time I could never question
the author's own conception of what lay before us.
Moreover, the man's evident candor and sincerity,
his convincing and intimate style, the lucid and sure
arrangement of his facts, and the charm of himself
that shone through his pages were qualities that made
an indelible impression and thereafter no other name
was more familiar to me, and few other men seemed
better known.
No doubt, my own experience merely duplicated that
of thousands of others. That article in the March
Atlantic, 1881, was a turning-point in our social history;
with it dawned upon Americans the first conviction
that this industrial development of which we had been
so proud was a sotuce, not of strength, but of fatal
weakness ; and that the Republic could no more endure
an oligarchy of capitalists than an oligarchy of slave¬
holders. We saw then for the first time that these
methods by which the overshadowing corporations
had been built up were not different in any way from
the methods by which a pirate accumulated his fortune;
not different and not more admirable. From the
beginning of the country, its standard of achievements
had been expressed in terms of money; for the first
viii
Introduction
time, we began to suspect that the process of accumu¬
lation was the process of wresting it from other men
always and usually from the needy; that what we had
called "great business enterprise" might be after all
no more than greed preying upon need. Not for years
thereafter were any of these things made perfectly
clear to all by accomplished facts; Mr. Lloyd's great
article was a note of profound warning and the first
provocative of thought upon the greatest problem of
the times.
This is to look somewhat ahead. For the time being,
the practical effect of Mr. Lloyd's work was to con¬
centrate public attention upon the growing power of
the corporations, to reveal the huge evils of railroad
rebates and discriminations, and to arouse a spirit of
revolt that from that time to this has never ceased to
grow, and will not so cease until the nation has foimd
the one end of all this situation, the end to which Mr.
Lloyd thirty years ago indicated the way.
This is a monumental work for any man to do for his
country; he was serving her better than all the fervent
orators of the Foiurth of July that seemed thrown into
tarantelles of rapture at the thought of her greatness.
Lloyd loved her too, but loved her far too much to be
willing to see her wrecked on the rocks of capitalism.
The means by which such a man produces effects so
profound and enduring are worth our considering;
other men attacked the corporation octopus without
securing a tithe of Lloyd's audience or results. He was,
then, first, the most patient and conscientious of inves¬
tigators, and when, his facts all weighed out, tested, and
verified, he was ready to convey them to another mind,
his vehicle was so clear, so interesting and sympathetic,
that no reader could fail of his one conclusion. He had
Introduction
ix
also a great fvinction in suppl3ñng facts and arguments
to soldiers in the same cause that were not so well
equipped. As an active newspaper man in the West at
the time the fight was beginning against corporation
rule, I had good opportunities to observe this. I re¬
member, for instance, that when Mr. Lloyd wrote
a powerful and convincing article against the practice,
then common, of cornering food supplies and dealing
in grain futures, most of the editorial writers in our
part of the country made free use of his material, and
months afterward were bombarding the question with
ammunition that he had furnished and was now appro¬
priated without a label. Thousands of editorial pages
have been brightened similarly from other work of his.
As the Standard Oil article in the Atlantic became the
armory of every person willing to fight for industrial
freedom, so Wealth Against Commonwealth in later
years became the great storehouse of information to
which numbers of able campaigners habitually resorted
for their facts. Probably millions of men read or heard
Mr. Lloyd's ideas without being aware of the real
authorship. But I judge that with this condition he
was well content. No man ever entered such a fight
with a smaller share of personal vanity to gratify. He
desired that his countrymen should be informed of
existing conditions, but not that he himself should gain
fame or rewards.
Charles Edward Russell.
Chicago, January, 1912.
AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
HE story of this life is offered to the people for two
reasons : because of its relation to the great issues of
the day, and because it depicts an inspiring personality.
The period of my brother's life was co-incident with the
industrial revolution whereby competition has given
way to the great new basic principle of combination.
A pioneer in revealing that the marvellous power of this
new principle was being selfishly captured by a few, he
endeavoured also to inspire the people to develop a
system which should turn it to the good of all. Believ¬
ing that in the labour movement, the great cotmter-force
to capitalism, lay justice and the principles of the new
system, he entered its ranks, and became, on the one
hand, the active champion of the workers, and, on the
other, the most dangerous, because best-informed, foe
of the trusts. Since the troublous struggles of his day
seemed to him nothing less than the genesis of a new
era, he projected his thought along all its avenues of
progress, social, political, industrial, religious.
He was temperamentally a practical idealist; there¬
fore, not from his books alone, but from the picture of his
life with its remarkable interplay of thought and action,
can we gather his full message to humanity. I have
tried to tell the story so that it may go forth with a
mission, that itmay offer theguidanceofaclearandhonest
thinker on the vital problems pressing each day more
XI
xü
Preface
urgently for solution, and by noble example may help
to spread righteousness among the people.
To the many friends, comrades, strangers, who by
generous and efficient help at every point have made of
this work a co-operative labotu of love, and have alone
made the chronicle possible, the author's heartfelt
gratitude is hereby tendered.
My special thanks are due to Margaret Morley,
Henry W. Goodrich, Beatrix Demarest Lloyd, Edwin
D. Mead, Caroline StaUbohm, William Bross Lloyd,
and Florence Kelley, who have criticised the entire
manuscript.
For criticism of separate chapters, thanks are due to
William Dean HoweUs for the first chapter, to Robert
H. Howe for that on the Chicago Anarchists, to Charles
B. Matthews for Wealth Against Commonwealth, to
Victor Berger, Thomas J. Morgan, and Robert H.
Howe for "The People's Party," to George H. Shibley
for the chapter on "The Winnetka System," to Albert
Kimsey Owen and Theodore Gilman for "The Money
of the New Conscience," to Henry Vivian for the
chapter on "Labor Copartnership," and to Robert
Hunter, Charles Edward Russell, Robert H. Howe,
Thomas J. Morgan, Nicholas Kelley, and John Spargo
for "Why I Join the Socialists."
Card Lloyd
Nutley, New Jersey
March, 1912
CONTENTS
pagb
Introduction by Charles Edward Russell . v
Preface ........ xí
chaftbs
I A Picture of an American Family . i
Ancestry—Boyhood.
II Buckling on the Armour . . . i8
The Young Reformer's First Skirmish in
the Mercantile Library—The Over¬
throw of Tammany in 1871—^The Free
Trade League—The Liberal Republi¬
can Movement.
III In Journalism 39
Apprenticeship on Chicago Tribune—
Marriage to Jessie Bross—The
Chicago Sunday Lecture Society—
Loss of the Daily News—Financial
Editorship—Editorials Exposing Mon¬
opolies and Government Land Grants.
IV His First Volley .... 58
Magazine Articles: "The Story of a
Great Monopoly" (Exposé of Stand¬
ard Oil Company); "The Political
Economy of $7:^,000,000" (The Career
of Jay Gould as Illustrative of the
Competitive System in Industry) ;
"Making Bread Dear" (The Story of
Wheat Exchanges); "Lords of Indus-
xiii
xiv
Contents
CHAPTER PAGE
try" (The First Presentation of the
New Industrial Combinations)—End
of Career as Journalist—First Journey
to Europe.
V Defending the Chicago Anarchists . 82
VI "The New Conscience" . . 108
His Attitude on the Problem of Seeking
Redress by Violence—Suggestions for
Possible Legal Redress—Essay on
"The New Conscience"—His Atti¬
tude toward the Church—Espousal of
the Working Man's Side, and Convic¬
tion that the Wages System must Go—
Labour Entering Politics—Nomination
for Congress by Union Labor Party of
the Fourth Chicago District.
VII The Story of Spring Valley . .122
His Work for the Locked-out Miners of
Spring Valley, Illinois, and First Book,
A Strike of Millionaires against Miners
—The Death of his Brother Demarest.
VIII With the Heavy Laden ' . . . 141
His Work for Organised Labour—^Address
at the American Federation of Labor
Convention—The Pullman Strike—
Testimony before the Congressional
Committee on Immigration and Natu¬
ralisation—Protest against Extradi¬
tion Treaty with Russia.
IX Beginning at Home
The Home Life.
166
Contents
xv
CHAPTER PAGE
X "Wealth against Commonwealth" . i8i
His Indictment of our Present Industrial
Régime as Illustrated by the Career of
the Trusts, especially the Standard Oil
Trust.
XI "I Decline to Answer" . . . 206
Impregnable Nature of the Indictment—
George Gunton's Answer—The Trust's
Invitation to Ministers to Examine its
Books—Its Defence Made to B. Fay
Mills and Lloyd's Answers—^John D.
Archbold's Attack on the Book before
the Industrial Commission—News¬
paper Attacks—Correspondence with
Ida M. Tarbell.
XII The People's Party .... 238
XIII A Citizen of "No Mean City" . 266
How Winnetka Won the Advisory
Referendtun and Initiative.
XIV Considering the Way Out . . . 280
His Attitude toward the Problem of
Monopoly and Wage Slavery on the
Destructive and Constructive Sides—
Idea of "Election .by Selection"
through Vocational Education—Posi¬
tion on Free Trade, Single Tax, and
the Woman Question—Decision to
Turn to Constructive Work.
ILLUSTRATIONS
PAGE
Henry Demarest Lloyd . . Frontispiece
Aaron Lloyd and Maria Christie Demarest . 6
The Lloyd Family Group 8
The Middle Dutch Church . . . . io
Young Lloyd in 1872 e8
Mr. Lloyd in 1873 46
Mr. Lloyd in about 1878 52
Leaflet Issued by the Chicago Trade and Labor
Assembly ....... 100
A Typical Handbill, 1890 142
Addressing the Milwaukee Street-Car Strikers 144
Rest Hour. Mrs. Lloyd Reading . . . 168
A Leaf from Walter Crane's Sketch Book . 172
The Dining-room at Winnetka . . . .174
Mr. Lloyd Coming in from the Cornfield . .176
Watch House 178
xvii
xviii
Illustrations
PAGE
The Wayside 184
Writing Wealth Against Commonwealth . . .186
A Fac-simile of Mr. Lloyd's Letter to his Mother 188
A Handbill of the People's Party . . . 250
Leaflet Used in Winnetka, November, 1898 . 272
Henry Demarest Lloyd
Henry Demarest Lloyd
CHAPTER I
A PICTURE OF AN AMERICAN FAMILY
Henry demarest LLOYD, bom on May-day,
1847, might be described as a typical Ameri¬
can. In him commingled the blood of the many
European races who sought a refuge in the New World.
On all sides he was descended from those who, loving
political or religious liberty above all else, broke ties of
home and country to establish freedom. For the insti¬
tutions which budded in this springtime of humanity
he had the deepest love. No man held dearer that
precious achievement in the world's political experience
—the American Republic. Realising that its freedom
was imperilled, he set his lance and never laid it down
except with his life.
He was the first child of Aaron Lloyd, minister of the
Dutch Reformed Church, and of Maria Christie Dema¬
rest. He was bom at the home of his matemal grand¬
father, David Demarest, at 56 Sixth Avenue, New York
City, in one of the red brick gambrel-roofed houses
still to be seen standing derelict in the old French
I
2 Henry Demarest Lloyd
quarter. Looking back over the lives of the men and
women who form his ancestral vista, one sees many a
picture of pioneer struggle, and a forecast of many of
the qualities which were to equip him for his mission.
On his father's side the strains were those of staunch
resisters to tyranny. Here he sprang from some of
the same lines as George Washington, a great-great-
grandmother, Rebecca Ball, being a cousin of Mary
Ball, Washington's mother. Through a great-grand¬
mother, Mehitable Goff, he was descended from Goffe,
one of the English Regicides who decreed the execu¬
tion of Charles I. Mehitable was a notable figure in the
pioneer settlement of McKean Coimty, Pennsylvania,
whither she and her husband, Lemuel Stancliff, also of
Connecticut Puritan stock, had migrated in 1799.
Stancliff served in the Revolution, wintering, it is
said, with Washington at Valley Forge, and later
doing guard duty when Perry's fleet was building at
Erie.
Through the Lloyd line, there ran that passionate
devotion to freedom developed by their race in the
fastnesses of the Welsh mountains. The annals of their
resistance to the British reveal their love of liberty and
the Republic. When the War of 1812 broke out, Henry's
great-grandfather, Aaron Lloyd of McKean County,
Pennsylvania, sojourning in Canada, refused to swear
allegiance to Great Britain. To escape capture, he and
his eldest son with five other aliens hid in the adjacent
moimtains, naming their camp Fort Madison after the
President. A younger son, John Lloyd, Henry's
grandfather, then seventeen, acted as messenger. After
several months of successful hiding, a hunter saw their
smoke. The militia captain, surmising that Lloyd's
camp was at last found, planned to capture it. A friend
A Picture of an American Family 3
informed John, who bore the news to his father. Back
of the camp was a hundred foot precipice, the descent
of which the refugees had practised in idle hours. Ac¬
cordingly, knowing every step of the way, they quickly
descended before dawn and disappeared. When at day¬
break the British closed in on the camp with loaded
muskets, they foimd it deserted. The Captain burst into
a laugh as he read a notice : "Ye shall seek me and shall
not find me and whither I go ye cannot come. " " Boys,
he said, "we may go home and hang up oiu* guns, we
shall never catch that old fox. " The refugees then
made a second camp. Fort Defiance, in a cave hidden
by pines. Hearing that amnesty had been granted,
yet fearing the report a ruse, they arranged that John
should investigate, and if he did not return by a certain
morning that they should come out of hiding. He
found the report to be untrue on the afternoon before
they were to come out. To reach them he walked
fifty-seven miles across covmtry and in the morning fell
fainting at the camp. Finally they were captured and
imprisoned in "the Hulks" with a himdred other aliens.
After three months of intolerable conditions, all were
persuaded to take the oath of allegiance and were freed,
except the three Lloyds and their partner Paul Cool.
Aaron, managing to procure some paper, wrote to the
Commander protesting: "If it is a crime," he said, "to
be true to one's country, then I am guilty." As a
result the four prisoners were released and conducted
over the border under guard. Once in their country,
they figured in many of the severest conflicts, notably
at the storming of Fort Erie and the battle of Bridge-
water. Under the fields of both the Stanclifls and
Lloyds in McKean County, there lay imdiscovered one
of the two greatest oil deposits of the coimtry; and
4 Henry Demarest Lloyd
not conceived of was the industrial tyranny it was to
embody, against which their descendant was to protest.
In striking contrast was the confluence of qualities
and experience on Henry's mother's side. Here he
sprang as well from resisters, the Protestants of the
Reformation, but between them and him there stretched
at least two centuries of peace. His mother was the
offspring of French Huguenots and of the first Dutch
emigrants. She was descended by many lines from
David Demarest who as a boy in 1620 had fled with his
Huguenot father from the village of Beauchamp in
Picardy and travelled in peril from city to city imtil at
Middelburg, Zeeland, he married Marie Sohier and
settled at Mannheim. Thence, twenty years later,
finding the Palatinate threatened by the Catholics,
they sailed with their children in the Bontekoe
(Spotted Cow) and landed at Perth Amboy, April 16,
1663.' The next year David Demarest served in the
Privy Council of Peter Stuyvesant. He bought from the
Tappan Indians several thousand acres in New Jersey
between the Hackensack and Hudson rivers, where his
family intermarried with the Dutch. Here, wearied
from their European struggle, and free to worship in
their Calvinist faith, the Demarests rested peacefully
in the community of Schraalenberg, "the bare hills."'
Their protesting fervour was transmuted into content¬
ment as they tamed the wild woods into farms. By
the soothing rumble of their mill and among fertile
fields they lived in peace unbroken save by the Revolu¬
tion, in which they bore their part. Their land was one
' See the Documentary History of New York; A Frisian Family,
by Theodore M. Banta; The Huguenots on the Hackensack, pamphlet,
by Professor David D. Demarest, late of the Theological Seminary,
New Brunswick.
' Perhaps a name for the Palisades.
A Picture of an American Family 5
smiling in pastoral repose, noted for widespread comfort
and democracy. They seem to have conserved the
spiritual impulse of the Reformation, were godly in
conduct and unambitious, building their castles not in
Spain but in Paradise. Among Henry's forebears on
this side was " the apostle of the Dutch Reformed Church
in America, " Dominie Guiliam Bertholf.
There was, therefore, a wide diversity in the atmo¬
sphere of the homes in which Henry's father and mother
were reared, and which formed the background for his
own childhood's experience. His grandfather Demarest
had brought his family into New York City in 1825
to be educated. At his home, in what was then the
village of Greenwich, there was unbroken harmony of
affection and religious belief; the family treasury was
an open drawer from which each drew according to his
need. The youngest child, Maria, was a fair, imagina¬
tive girl, so shy that she became suffused with blushes
when addressed. She received the polite feminine
instruction of the day at Miss Arabella Clarke's Select
School on Mercer Street, but being delicate was allowed
to dream away much of her time in the study of her
brother William, a divinity student. Here they read
Milton's Paradise Lost and Cowper, while Maria made
romantic water-colour sketches of castles beside lakes,
of arched bridges and ruined mills.
The home of the grandfather John Lloyd, on the
contrary, was one of turmoil and struggle. After his
adventures in the War of 1812, he removed to Belleville,
New Jersey, where as a tailor and lawyer he passed his
entire life. Reared in stress, he expected others to be as
rugged. His great energy is shown in his winning a
wager to fell a tree, cut it into four-foot lengths, and pile
it into a full cord in fifty-ffve minutes. He was an
6 Henry Demarest Lloyd
original thinker, full of intense convictions which he
promulgated with dogged persistence and a fiery temper.
His ruling passion was to spread the principles of demo¬
cracy. There were only two Democrats besides him¬
self in the village when he came, and he passed a
stormy life trying to swing public opinion to his side.
His anon3mious political posters, which appeared mys¬
teriously nailed to the village trees in the early forties,
called upon the working men to unite against monopoly.
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF THE WORKING MEN TO THEIR
BRETHREN IN ALL THE LAND
. . . Brother, union is thy antidote, then let union be
thy motto, and say to thy brethren in all the land under that
sacred name the cause of justice will triumph and the work¬
ing men obtain their rights. . . .
. . . Behold t^e fiend exclusive privilege and monopoly
standeth on the piimacle of the temple power, grinding the
face of the working man. . . .
Now the Lord sent abtmdance on the . . . earth and
these were the locusts that swept it from before the face of
the working man; and behold the judges of Gotham held
their peace, for it only becometh the rich to trespass; verily
they have their price.
If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and the . . .
perverting of judgment . . . marvel not ... for he that
is higher than highest regardeth. . . .
Wherefore, my brethren, I say unto you, the produce of
the field cometh by labour, and the holy one sayeth the
labovuer is worthy of his hire; take ye heed of this and be as
men knowing their inheritance to be the sweat of their
brows. . . .
His ability and integrity kept him continually in
public positions which he never sought but accepted as a
Maria Christie Demarest,
Aaron Lloyd.
A Picture of an American Family
7
means of spreading his principles. He was postmaster,
justice of the peace, coroner, and judge. No decision
of his was ever reversed by a higher court. The last
act of his life was to vote the straight Democratic
ticket. On returning home he sat down in his chair
and died. His only child, Aaron, Henry's father, had a
lonely childhood. In his babyhood domestic tragedy
separated him from his mother, and to her great sorrow
they never met imtil, when he was seventy and she
ninety, he journeyed to California to look upon her
face for really the first and last time of his life. He was
brought up on a frontier farm near Erie with nature
for his companion, learned his letters from a grain
scoop, and practised them on the big hearth with bits
of charred wood. He went to school through the forest
along a trail which his uncle blazed. When he was ten
his father brought him to Belleville, where with scant
food and abvmdant hoggings he was apprenticed as a
tailor in his father's shop. While he was stitching, he
was planning other work. He determined to be a
minister, and so in spite of his father's bitter denuncia¬
tion, he took the course at Rutgers College and Theologi¬
cal Seminary, meanwhile supporting himself by selling
books and writing for the newspapers. He emerged
as a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church, and
married Maria Demarest.
In Henry's early years, the father's various charges
moved the little family from one country parish to an¬
other, and memory flashes its whimsical light here and
there on his young life. It pictures him receiving from
his gentle mother his first vivid impressions of Jesus—
learning first of wickedness when robbed of his errand
money—striving to earn his way, and with the little
brothers, John Calvin and David Demarest, planting
8 Henry Demarest Lloyd
an eleven-acre lot with com—making his first speech,
when a lady whispered to his mother, "he is like a
young prince"—^but, above all, writing his first book.
It is on his father's sermon paper :
A Note Book Containing an account of Natural Philo¬
sophy; Of birds, beasts, phenomena. And other Miscel¬
laneous Matter.
The author takes pleasure in presenting the following
Miscellaneous Pieces in the hope that they may prove use¬
ful to some persons. The critical world will please remem¬
ber that they are the productions of a young person and
not of an old and experienced, who is well acquainted with
all the different customs of the world. Therefore they will
please excuse all errors in precision, conciseness, and pro¬
priety. I hope to improve. Many valuable hints are con¬
tained in the following productions. As that has been the
principal aim of the author he has paid more attention to
the collection of useful facts than to his style of which is
another reason why Critics should make allowance. Indeed
the book was not written for the ordeal of Criticism but to
distribute among men thereby to promote the knowledge
and happiness of mankind.
Life proving too hard in the pioneer village of Pekin,
Illinois, it was decided to return to the shelter of the
New York home. As they came through Ohio, they
passed the strange derricks at the oil wells, for it had
recently been discovered that oil could be drilled for like
water, and wells were being driven at the rate of three
a day. Railroad transportation was still in its early
stages, and to cross New York State the party changed
cars and rechecked baggage at least a dozen times.
Thus the little family returned to its starting-point,
David Demarest's home, now at 27' West Washington
' New number, 88.
John Calvin. Henry Demarest. David Demarest.
The Lloyd Family Group Taken before Starting West.
A Picture of an American Family 9
Place, in one of the group of ten houses he had built.
The quarter was no longer the village of Greenwich
with its green fields, as when the mother played there
in childhood, but a quiet neighbourhood of city resi¬
dences clustered arovmd the gentle shade of Washington
Square. This was a wonderful change to Henry, the
eager boy of thirteen. The vista of Sixth Avenue
presented an absorbing sight after the stretch of silent
prairie. He used to stand on the comer of the Avenue
and watch the horse-cars tinkle out of sight. In later
years when life had opened its opportunities of travel,
he recalled this. "How I used to long for five cents, "
he said, "so that I might go out and see the world!"
Here all his youth was passed. What memories
cling around "No. 27" ! There was the dark mysterious
"room by the clock" —the ancestral clock on the stair
landing—where in the recesses of a vast wardrobe were
stored our aunt's rustling silks, and in some unexplored
region of which was the tin-box of wonderful fruit cake
brought out only on New Year's day and other festive
occasions. Then there was the sacred twilight of the
unused parlors, with their rose carpet and tambour
curtains, over the mantel the engraving of John Knox
hurling his anathemas, and on the table Baxter's Saints'
Rest and The Flower Garden, by Charlotte Elizabeth.
To us children the rooms were full of special treasures,—
the long haircloth sofa which made a pew when we
played church on Stmdays, the prisms of the candelabra,
the vase with the scent of attar of roses, the scarlet
and green birds brought from South America by Uncle
James, the coffee merchant, the old piano with its queer
odour and its spinet-like notes as the boys sang beside it
"Upidee, Upida" and "There's Music in the Air."
Our elders occasionally spoke the Dutch language, and
10 Henry Demarest Lloyd
at our grandfather's table there were still Dutch dishes,
such as roeliches and pumpkin suppaan.
The atmosphere of the home was somewhat solemn
and rigidly Calvinistic. The family assembled daily
for worship and on peaceful Stmday afternoons we
recited the Ten Commandments and the Heidelberg
Catechism and sang hymns imtil as twilight cast its
strange glamour over the well-known room the world
was steeped in gentle melancholy. The same moum-
fulness tinged the Sunday devotions in the old Dutch
Reformed Church at Lafayette Place and Fourth
Street, when the voices of Dominies Dewitt, Vermilye
and Chambers resoimded over the half-vacant pews of
the few loyal Knickerbockers who had not migrated
*' Up-town." Our imaginations were full of supernatural
visions. God was too dazzling to be pictured. I at
one time thought he was elected, confounding the
Sunday talk of the doctrine of election and week-day
politics. We believed in the six days of creation and
the miracles. Heaven appeared as one long Sunday,
where there was a shining throne and the gleaming
river Jordan, and we used to sing "I want to be an
angel, And with the angels stand, A crown upon my
forehead, A harp within my hand." We puzzled over the
Trinity, learned of the "total depravity "of our race,
and believed in the Devil who with his dominion hell had
not yet retreated from the family creed. Not for genera¬
tions had om race gone to the theatre, although our aunt
used to claim weight for her arguments against the
drama by sa3dng that she had once seen The Green
Monster at Niblo's. Our greatest treat was to be taken
to the menagerie or to the panorama of Pilgrim's
Progress in the church.
A religious fervour overbalanced every other quality
The Middle Dutch Church, Lafayette Place, New York.
A Picture of an American Family n
and was so intense that relatives of unspotted lives were
sometimes pltmged in deep melancholy, declaring that
they had committed the unpardonable sin and were not
among "the elect. " Such a one was the uncle for whom
Henry was named, who, when he joined the church as a
yoimg man, had walked weeping all the way to the
pulpit. So absolutely honest was he that for fifty
years, as cashier of the Manhattan Gas Company, it
was his custom to carry two pencils, one of the Com¬
pany's, and one of his own, reserving each for its proper
use. As he lived next door, he contributed not a little
to the family atmosphere. I remember how our mother,
whose joy it was to indulge her imagination by flights
into realms of new religious fancy, had become interested
in her spare moments in a book called Adam and the
Adamite, which accounted for the different races on
the theory of several simultaneous Gardens of Eden
with newly ereated Adams of varying complexions.
Naively thinking that her brother would also enjoy a
détour which had refreshed her, she deputed me to take
him the book as a gift on Christmas morning. To my
amazement he glanced at it, opened the door of his
Baltimore heater, as if it had been the gate of the infer¬
nal regions, and consigned the wicked volume to the
flames, remarking as he did so, "Maria is in a very
dangerous state of mind." Henry, who was already
at thirteen trying to find out "how it is," expressed to
him some doubt concerning the Calvinistic creed.
Thereupon, wishing probably to impress upon him
for ever the sin of heresy, he ordered him to leave the
room in disgrace.
The daily assembling of the family for worship was
omitted not more than three times in Henry's youth.
He never left home without the prayers of his father.
12 Henry Demarest Lloyd
or the^exhortations of his mother, to whose rare spiritual
quality he was much akin. The table talk was not
petty, but turned on a high plane around great ques¬
tions. Indeed it was the mother's frequent custom to
arrange beforehand some subject to talk over, for no
matter how onerous her household duties, she never
lost sight of the task of training the young soids en¬
trusted to her care. Added to this was the influence
of our good father, whose political sympathies were
broad and democratic and who possessed a highly
imaginative mind of a decidedly literary cast. The
presence of our benign old grandfather was a contin¬
ual benediction. Under these conditions Henry's
young mind was equipped with a deep reverence for
life's duties.
When he was transported from prairie to city he was
entering his teens, and the Civil War was breaking out.
At the home of his grandfather Demarest, he heard the
politics of the new Republican party discussed, and
S3nnpathy with the North quietly expressed. But on
his visits to Belleville he heard another story, for there
"Squire Lloyd" was denoimcing the war and so openly
expressing his sympathy with the South that had he
been under the jurisdiction of New York, he would
have found himself locked in Fort Hamilton. As it
was he had the village about his ears. After the Dutch
Reformed Church, of which he was a member, floated a
flag to celebrate a Northern victory, he never entered
it again. Upon the election of Lincoln he resigned the
office of postmaster which he had held for the five
successive administrations from Van Buren to Buchanan.
At all times he seemed full of a sleeping wrath, which we
feared to awaken. Unhappy was it if we mentioned
any unusual expenditure; there came a flourishing of
A Picture of an American Family 13
his cane, a flashing of his piercing eyes, and a storm of
wrath flUed the room: "That's it. Spend all your
money. Get a coach and six!" These scenes always
marred our delight in "the coimtry," but om mother
used to lead us away to the "Summer House," and
read Pollock's Course of Time until we saw visions in
the limpid river and in the clouds sailing over it.
While the little family enjoyed under the grandfather
Demarest's roof a home of dignity and refinement,
their independence compelled them to confront their
own problems. The father having no pulpit had set
up "Ye Olde Booke Store," first in Nassau Street, and
later on the comer of Broadway and Waverly Place.
What a mingled aroma of dust and old books pervades
my memories of Saturday mornings spent there in
voyages of discovery! I remember stopping there on
our way to Belleville, when our father, looking much
worried, took a bundle of unbound books and sold them
for old paper to get money for our railroad tickets.
The straggle of life was indeed very hard. When Henry
needed a pair of rubbers I remember our mother sold
the sugar tongs. She had now developed from a dreamy
girl to a practical housewife, working so hard that I
recall several times seeing her drop on the floor, rest a
minute, and fly on again. She made all the boys'
clothes. I suppose the fit was not very good, for the
boys had unhappy moments when the school children
made fun of them.
The three boys attended the 13 th Street Public
School. In view of the financial straits of the family
they took positions in the Mercantile Library in their
out-of-school hours, which gave them intervals to
indulge in omnivorous reading, and also met the out¬
lay needed for school-books and clothes. They were
14 Henry Demarest Lloyd
already taking up the burdens of life resolutely and
with superb energy. The youngest, Demarest or
Dave, passed his examinations for the New York
University at twelve. "I almost studied my little
head off to do it, " he said later. John valiantly started
out at thirteen to be a merchant. Henry set his heart
upon going to Columbia College, and listening to his
passionate pleadings, his mother applied to Dr. Charles
Anthon of the Columbia Preparatory School, and
eventually obtained a scholarship. At sixteen he stood
ready to enter the college, but with the problem before
him of secvuing the necessary tuition fee. He and his
father called upon several men having scholarships at
their disposal. Mr. Andrew Mills of the Dry Docks
Savings Institution accorded him one for the entire
coiurse, and he entered the class of '67.
His legal bent here showed itself, notably on the
occasion of a clash between his class and the President
of the college, F. A. P. Barnard, the distinguished
editor of Johnson's Cyclopedia. This resulted in a
victory for Henry, on account of which he won renown
in the traditions of Columbia as "the man who threw
Prex. " One day the class, finding a door hitherto
open to them locked, "followed their usual route,"
said Henry, "with results to the door." President
Barnard then served notice that he would hold the
class financially responsible. As it declined to be so
held, the President proposed that the case be tried before
a court of seniors. The class selected for its cotmsel
Nicholas Fish, son of the Secretary of State under
Grant, George G. DeWitt, later a prominent lawyer in
New York, and Henry. At the opening of the court,
Henry raised a constitutional point which he argued as
"a plea in bar of trial," that the college never having
A Picture of an American Family 15
recognised the class as an agent in its discipline, nor
invested it with police powers over its members, could
not now hold it responsible or even subject it to trial.
The court sustained the plea. "The witnesses remained
unheard," said Henry, "the eloquence impoured and
the audience unwnmg. " Following this. President
Barnard, whom, as Henry had now learned shorthand,
he often assisted in secretarial work, pointed out his
eminent qualifications for the law.
He began also to show literary promise; on one of his
compositions his professor wrote: "A most excellent
composition. I do not hesitate to say that in liveliness
of fancy the author excels all his class fellows and with
practice will become a most popular writer." Upon
his graduation he received an honour of the second
degree and edified the commencement audience at the
old Academy of Music with an "oration." "How well
I remember the night when he stepped out erect and
debonair," wrote a friend who followed his career
from beginning to end, "to deliver his graduating ad¬
dress on 'Soda and Society.'" It treated of monopoly
and in it he could plainly be seen taking the first steps
in his life-work.
Exploring expeditions and missionary stations cost
money [he said] and British gold generally comes to the
assistance of British benevolence only on the specie basis
of a safe return of 5 per cent. When the materials for soap
making were found to be exhausted in England and known
to be abundant in Africa, then, when Capital saw profit in
African civilisation, it invested largely in African missions,
it paid and equipped such noble men as Livingstone to go
forth and explore the country in the double character of
missionaries and commercial agents, with a Bible in one
hand and a contract for fat in the other.
i6 Henry Demarest Lloyd
His classmate, Julius Sachs, the eminent New York
educator, says:
The general recollection of him from our college days
that I retain is that of his cordial helpfulness to feUow-
students who were not as quick to appreciate the difficulties
of a new subject as he was; I recall more than one visit of
mine to your father's home, west of Washington Square,
when he patiently solved difficulties that I had experienced.
One of the strongest formative influences of these
years was the preaching of Henry Ward Beecher. When
Henry and his brothers ceased to find inspiration in the
fossilised precepts resounding through the half-deserted
recesses of the Dutch Reformed Church, they went
enthusiastically every Sunday to Beecher's Plymouth
Church. But our mother, to whom a united family on
the Sabbath was a great joy, and who was moreover of
an original and experimental temperament, had the
courage to break away from the stately aristocracy of
the congregation of her forefathers, and took us all to
Dr. Deems's Church of the Strangers. Here, except in
the case of old Commodore Vanderbilt, then living in
East Washington Place, whose family had a seat
reserved, there were no ancestral pews, but a curious
variety of creeds and nationalities imited in a common
worship under a rule of friendly democracy. This
brought a new social element into our family circle,
and on New Year's day, our time-honoured greeting
day, our Knickerbocker cousins hobnobbed with a new
set of strangers.
My memories of the early days are those of one of
two little sisters who caught the fringe of the stirring
events discussed, to whom names of national fame were
as familiar as their games, who were pla3^ully asked
A Picture of an American Family 17
to decipher Horace Greeley's handwriting, or consulted
as to a title for the new paper just starting, The Nation.
My eyes were wide with wonder at this magnificent
big brother whom I never doubted to see some day
president.
I once asked my mother what I should say about
him as a child. "Say," she answered, "that he never
did an3rthing that was not obedient, affectionate, and
noble. "
Thus stands this youth at the outset of life, already
in the beginnings of his character and experience pre¬
figuring his life's trend; bearing in his veins the blood
of the European champions of liberty, Roimdhead,
Huguenot, Welsh rebel, Quaker, Scotch Covenanter,
Italian Waldenses, and Frisian reformers whose motto
he liked to quote: "A Frisian is free as long as the wind
blows out of the clouds. " Their spirits living on under
American skies had for generations by numberless
devotional services been striving to build a free race
and an endimng repubUc. How was he to prove
faithful to the charge they handed down and re-apply
to new crises the old piety and protest?
VOL. I—2
CHAPTER II
BUCKLING ON THE ARMOUR
Living in a great metropolis young Lloyd could at
■' once apply his energies to important issues, and
whenever he appeared before the New York pubhc
in his brief career there from 1869 to 1872, it was as
one of a band of young reformers, full of the crusader's
spirit. The cause which he was so valiantly to champion
was now developing simultaneously with his own un¬
folding manhood.
The contending interests of capital and labour were
only in their inception. Before the Civil War the
country's problems had been mainly political and
provincial. That conflict awoke the nation industrially
and brought it into international prominence. It was
now well started on its career of enormous expansion
in the acquirement of wealth. To meet the first en¬
croachments of this growing wealth, the American
labour movement was struggling into existence. In
1869 a small secret society of garment cutters in Phila¬
delphia formed the nucleus of a union, but a decade was
to pass before it was to assume great proportions as
the Knights of Labour. In the world of capital as well,
despite the teeming prosperity, strange perturbations
began to be felt, especially in the oil fields,—^hints that
free competition was not to be the final basis of industry.
18
Buckling on the Armour 19
In 1872 beside young Lloyd's free trade articles there
appeared in the papers indignant letters against a
certain South Improvement Company, and in this
year a conversation is said to have occurred in a refiner's
office in which an vmknown Cleveland man named
John D. Rockefeller told of a scheme he had for a
combination of refiners. He said he didn't want to
have the market overstocked. As a rule, workers and
capitalists were still meeting as individual competitors.
Such was the field into which stepped Henry Lloyd,
a modem knight ready to combat the dragon of evil
in its nineteenth century form. His personal bias sent
him directly to the questions then germinating, and he
began to equip himself with a thorough knowledge of
economic science and history. The titles of some of the
articles in his scrap-book of 1869 are, "No Monopoly,"
"The Working Man's Ideal Society," "Co-operative
Industry Abroad." He was reading Brougham's
Political Philosophy, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations,
Russell's English Constitution, Cobden's political writ¬
ings, Sartor Resartus, whose "everlasting yea" doubt¬
less thrilled him as it did other youths of that day.
That a high pmpose possessed him was apparent.
Even a chance remark wotdd draw out his ardour.
A hostess mistook him for a young doctor. "No, not
a doctor, " he said, "but one who hopes to be a lawyer
and to right some wrongs, even if he cannot heal
disease. "
By continuing his work at the Mercantile Library
and teaching, he earned his way through the Columbia
Law School, and was admitted to the New York bar
in 1869. The mother's hope had been to see her sons
ministers, but they went naturally to journalism and
reform. The youngest, Demarest, now nineteen, was
20 Henry Demarest Lloyd
writing for the New York Tribune, lavishly spending
his youthful strength in night work. His lack of thought
for his health was a great anxiety to Henry. It was a
relief, therefore, when he received a call to be the
private secretary of Chief Justice Chase. I can see him
now, about to start for Washington, standing before our
grandfather Demarest, "the grand old grandfather,"
Henry called him, then ninety-one, who had risen to
give him his blessing.
The scene of Henry's first skirmish was in the Mer¬
cantile Library, whose governing body, the Clinton
Hall Association, was found to be controlled by a
corrupt "Ring." Out of its six thousand members, a
group of young men, including Henry and his brother
John, arose in protest, forming the "Reform party."
They met the " Regulars " in combat at the 56th annual
meeting in May, 1871. On that evening, the "yoimg
democracy," arriving early, found the hall in possession
of a squad of fifty policemen and several hundred hired
opponents and non-members. Only a few Reformers
managed to get in, among them Henry. FuU of indig¬
nation, he maintained a spirited single-handed fight
during the entire meeting. In the minutes a motion
which had been lost was recorded as "carried." He
raised a storm by moving to correct this. But the
chairman was a leader of "the Ring" and the minutes
were adopted amid great excitement. He then called
for a division and was greeted with a pandemonium
of catcalls, hisses, and cries of " Sit down." " I refuse to
take my seat," he shouted above the din, "imless a
division is had. I appeal from the decision of the chair. "
More hisses, groans, cries of "Dry up," "Go home to
your mother, Sonny," followed, but he refused to be
silenced. Every effort to proceed was met with his
Buckling on the Armour 21
resistance. "I rise to a point of order ... I protest
. . . We will be heard. " On all sides came the cry,
"Put him out." The chairman called upon the police
to remove him from the room. Whereupon they forced
him half-way down the aisle. He returned, however,
and continued his fight, but in vain.
The Reformers were much mortified at this disgrace¬
ful meeting in their time-honoured institution and the
home circle said that Henry looked as if he had been ill
for a week. The Reform Committee made a formal
protest, and held a meeting in which Henry gave a
statement of the Association's finances, showing an
increase of expenditure for "etcs." of over $11,000,
accused the "Ring" leaders of fraud, and closed with
an appeal for Sunday opening. The meeting, which
was orderly and described by the press as "a credit to
the young men," endorsed his action at the stormy
annual meeting.
The campaign for Sunday opening of this and other
city reading-rooms was continued with enthusiasm. As
a climax yoimg Lloyd arranged a meeting in Cooper
Union, heading a list of several hundred members who
requested Henry Ward Beecher to deliver the address,
saying: "We feel solicitous that this matter should be
decided so as to advance the best moral, intellectual,
and social interests of ourselves, our associates, and
all the young men of New York. " The meeting was a
great success. After Beecher's address, ' Henry Lloyd's
resolutions were unanimously adopted :
In the belief that the Sabbath was made for man, not
'Beecher's address, "Libraries and Public Reading-Rooms—Should
They be Opened on Sunday?" was published as a pamphlet by J. B.
Ford & Co., N. Y., 1872.
22 Henry Demarest Lloyd
man for the Sabbath, and that it is right to do good on that
day,
Resolved, That in order to add to the Christian's uses
of the Lord's Day, in order that it may not be broken as
now, but the better kept, in order that there may not be
less, but more of Sunday, that our social, moral, and intel¬
lectual manhood may be suffered to develop on every day
of the week, we earnestly call upon managers of the Mer¬
cantile, Cooper Union, the Astor, and all the great libraries
not only of this but of all the great cities of this land, to
throw open their reading-rooms upon the Sabbath day,
imder regulations which they may deem suitable; and.
Resolved, That we hereby offer the Rev. Henry Ward
Beecher our heartfelt thanks for the noble eloquence with
which he has once more established the harmony between
Christianity and humanity, and has pleaded in behalf of
homeless young men for humanising resorts on Sunday.
Before its close, the chairman, Abram S. Hewitt,
announced that the trustees of Cooper Union had that
day unanimously decided to open their reading-room,
then the only free one in the city, on Sunday for a year
of trial. Following this the directors of the Mercantile
Library unanimously voted in favour of Sunday open¬
ing, and elected Lloyd a director and recording secretary
of the Board. Thus was inaugurated the opening of
New York reading-rooms on Sunday.
But a larger field of corruption was engrossing public
attention. The city was completely tmder the rule of
Tammany Hall, which controlled the municipal govern¬
ment, the State Legislature, and was grasping for na¬
tional plunder. In the spring and summer of 1871 the
exposure of its gigantic frauds appeared in the New York
Times. The young reformer was thus getting his first
view of political corruption, and in an address before the
Buckling on the Armour 23
Political Science Society on "Economic Problems of the
Day" urged young men to unite and educate them¬
selves to combat the ignorance and dishonesty which
characterised American politics.
As the autumn elections approached, New York
organised for its first heroic battle with Tammany, and
it was in connection with this famous campaign that
Lloyd made his entrance into the political field. The
people were worked to a fever heat. No New York
election had ever created so much excitement. Press,
pulpit, bar, labour, and commerce all took part. Among
the forces arising was a group of seventy yotmg men,
including the Lloyd brothers, who formed the Yoimg
Men's Municipal Reform Association, and acting not as
Democrats or Republicans, but as citizens determined
to have a good government, spared no effort to insure a
ftdl and honest vote. They made themselves masters
of the machinery of city politics; they distributed
circulars and canvassed from the Battery to Spuyten
Duyvil, securing the name and address of virtually
every voter. Seeing the need of available information
concerning election laws Lloyd compiled a manual.
This he presented to the Association, and declining
pa3mient placed it at their disposal as his contribution
towards the finance of the campaign. It was adopted
by the Association and under the title Every Man His
Own Voter was published and scattered broadcast.
He headed the pamphlet with Burke's saying: "When
bad men combine the good must associate." It was
printed in full by the New York Times with an editorial
comment :
A few earnest and clear-headed reformers like Mr.
Lloyd are precisely what we want at the present juncture.
24 Henry Demarest Lloyd
and the Young Men's Association has already deserved
public gratitude for bringing his abilities into the sphere of
active politics.
The result of this memorable struggle was the first
overthrow of Tammany. Subsequently a meeting of
great enthusiasm gave testimony to the brilliant work
of these young men, ascribing the victory to them more
than to the "Committee of Seventy," or to any other
single organisation.
Tammany was killed for the first time in 1871 [said
Lloyd many years after]. I was one of those who patrioti¬
cally determined that Tammany must die, and in the hack¬
neyed phrase of Artemus Ward, we saw to it that the corpse
was ready on the day appointed for the funeral. ... It
was one of those deaths which it periodically suffers, but
which never succeed in extinguishing all its lives.
In contrast with this picture of corruption, was his
good fortune in becoming associated with men of pure
political ideals. In 1868, while he was completing his
law course, a group of public spirited men, persuaded of
the injustice of a protective tariff, formed the American
Free Trade League. This included, among others,
Alfred Pell, senior, Robert B. Mintum, Carl Schurz,
Judge Hoadley, ex-Govemor Jacob D. Cox of Ohio,
Horace White of the Chicago Tribune, David A. Wells,
Anson Phelps Stokes, Edward Atkinson, William M.
Grosvenor, E. L. Godkin, editor of The Nation, ex-
Govemor Randolph of New Jersey, David Dudley
Field, William Lloyd Garrison, Samuel J. Tilden, O. B.
Frothingham, and Howard Potter. One of the members
in San Francisco was a young printer named Henry
George, not yet known to fame. William Gullen
Buckling on the Armour 25
Bryant was its President, Charles M. Marshall, Treas¬
urer, Mahlon Sands, Secretary, and Henry D. Lloyd,
Assistant Secretary. It made every effort to inform pub¬
lic opinion through lectures and literature. It issued a
paper called The Free Trader, axxá Lloyd edited a number
or two of an illustrated monthly called The Pictorial
Taxpayer; they published a book by William M.
Grosvenor, Does Protection Protect? A campaign of
public meetings averaging in 1870 more than one
every two days extended from Maine to Mirmesota,
and free trade had a hearing which it had not received
for a generation. All this led young Lloyd at once into
vital work with men and affairs. In the preparation of
The Free Trader, of newspaper articles and tracts, he
was obliged to survey market statistics and to interpret
them in the light of a broad democratic principle—the
greatest good of the greatest number.
He added to this work a class for men in political
economy in the newly established Evening High School
in 13th Street, in which he treated the origin, develop¬
ment, and fvinctions of the State and the Constitutional
Law of the United States. He arranged for this class a
series of addresses on the tariff question, endeavouring
to have the protectionist argument as fairly presented
as his own. Horace Greeley, editor and founder of the
New York Tribune, and Francis Lieber were among the
lectmers. He also discussed the tariff on the platform
of the new Liberal Club of which Horace Greeley was
President and he Vice-President. This lecture was in
answer to that of Greeley at the previous meeting, in
which he had combated the free trade letter written
to the club by John Stuart Mill.
Greeley [said one of the audience, recalling the lectures
26 Henry Demarest Lloyd
thirty-five years later], harping on the old beet-sugar ques¬
tion, and Lloyd answering on the broad ground that the
people paid dear for the sugar that the monopolists might
get richer, and we know by this time that Lloyd was right.
This was a period of great political unrest. Alienated
Republicans and angered Democrats were leaving
their parties and coalescing in the Liberal Republican
movement.
I do not know what day I may not be ordered to Wash¬
ington myself [wrote Henry to Demarest, still at the Chief
Justice's in March '72]. The times are ripening. A new
party must be formed to unite those elements which Grant
has driven out of the Republican Party and which fear of
Tammany and remembrance of Repudiation and Copper-
headism have cut away from the Democratic Party. That
body of men which to-day is neither Republican nor Demo¬
cratic is the largest and best in the country. The League
may send me to Washington ... to assist Col. Grosvenor
and then we will run, between us, the politics and the law of
this great Republic. . . .
From its infancy the ablest promoters of the new
movement were the zealous Free Traders. In the hope
of raising it to a party of sufficient importance to hold
a national convention, with "free trade," or revenue
tariff, as its policy, they devoted years of effort. With
the opening of the presidential campaign of 1872 their
opportunity arrived. The Liberal Republicans of
Missouri issued a call,—"The Missouri Call,"—for a
convention in Cincinnati, May I, based on a platform
advocating a restoration to the States of the powers
usurped in the war by the Federal Government, general
amnesty, civil service reform and tariff reform. Re¬
sponses came from all parts of the country. "On to Cin-
Buckling on the Armour 27
cinnati " became a watchword. But constemation filled
the ranks when Horace Greeley, the bitter enemy of the
League and known the country over as the apostle of
protection, signed the New York response endorsing
its platform. Through this rift the corrupt New York
political ring entered. Thomas Nast, who had been
caricaturing the movement in Harper's Weekly, came
out with a cartoon of a Trojan horse in the streets of
Liberal Republican Town. The wisest of the Free
Traders began to have the feelings of a hen who has
hatched a duckling. Lloyd was working hotly in the new
ranks. At New York's mass meeting in response to the
Missouri Call, where he could be seen on the platform
among the men of years and distinction, he had been
appointed secretary of the State committee.
It was a unique assembly which gathered in Cincinnati
on May i. Most impressive was the scene as with
bands playing and flags flying, each State delegation
marched to take its place under its banner. Rarely
had a convention gathered so many men of mark.
Secret forces were at work, and not even the keenest
observer could foresee what a day would bring forth.
The Free Traders had come from New York, New
England, and the Ohio Valley pledged to support as
presidential nominee Charles Francis Adams of Massa¬
chusetts. The contest between them and the supporters
of Greeley brought the storm centre of the convention
into the New York delegation. Here the yoimg reformer
won the first contest for the Free Traders by bringing
it about that the selection of delegates from the three
hundred who had come be left to each congressional
district ; while Whitelaw Reid won a position for their
opponents by presenting an ingenious and non-committal
revenue plank as embodying Mr. Greeley's views on the
28 Henry Demarest Lloyd
tariflE issue. A crisis was precipitated when a resolution
was offered providing that the vote of the delegation
be cast as a unit for Greeley. One hundred and twenty-
five members supported it, while twenty-seven, "led
by Mahlon Sands and Henry D. Lloyd, " insisted that
delegates be permitted to vote as individuals. Lloyd,
or as the papers described him, "young Lloyd who
first showed fight in the New York Delegation, " arose
against the resolution:
Mr. Lloyd' while expressing kind feelings toward Mr.
Greeley . . . was not in favour of him for the presidential
nomination, because if elected he would ably advocate and
support a policy to which the speaker was unutterably
opposed, as being unwise for the country. He was of course
understood to refer to the policy of protection. For this
reason the speaker was opposed to the adoption of the pend¬
ing resolution, and also because its effect was to assert what
was not true—to wit, that the delegates here are unanimous
on this question. He raised a storm of dissent by claiming
that they had abandoned the regular republican organisa¬
tion because the majority in it had overruled the minority.
He renewed the proposition in stronger terms saying,"This
is a rebellion, instituted because those who control the
regular republican organisation have used its machinery to
force upon us their policy regardless of the views of the
minority." [Cries of "No," "Never," and hisses.] Mr.
Lloyd continued reading from the Missouri Call, and charg¬
ing that in forcing the pending resolution, the meeting
was doing just what the platform denounced in the old
organisation, as its demand "for the surrender of political
freedom, in order that the pleasure, practice, and creed of
some shall be made that of all." He had been urged by one
whose fame was continental to resist this as he would any
other form of tyranny, and stated that in the Ohio delega-
' New York Herald, May i, 1872.
Mr. Lloyd in 1872.
Photograph b>' Rocher. Chicago.
Buckling on the Armour 29
tion the single vote found there for Mr. Greeley was going to
be respected, and the Chairman would cast it as long as the
delegate desired. He had felt it a duty thus to protest,
though necessarily it would result in defeating the formally
expressed wish of his Congressional district, that he should
represent them in the delegate convention.
The resolution in less drastic form was passed amid
scenes of confusion. When at its next session the com¬
mittee read the list of the sixty-five delegates selected to
represent New York, Lloyd's name was among them.
A delegate arose and asked Mr. Lloyd through the
Chair, whether he intended to obey the instructions
adopted by an overwhelming majority that the New
York vote should be a unit for Greeley. Lloyd was
silent. Here and there a member objected to catechis¬
ing, but the delegate claimed the floor imtil he should
be answered. Still no answer came. Theodore Tilton
sprang to Lloyd's defence in this trying moment.
Mr. President, if any gentleman were to rise and ques¬
tion me, either directly or through the Chair, as to how I
would vote as a delegate, I would remain silent until the
day of doom.
Later in the meeting, however, Lloyd reiterated that
he could not conscientiously vote for Greeley, and the
delegation struck his name from its membership.
The pertinacity of the small knot of Free-Traders,
[said the Tribune] greatly annoyed the majority, and
although nothing could exceed the courteous demeanour of
Messrs. Lloyd and Sands, they several times came near
being hissed down.
An editorial in the Evening Post said:
30 Henry Demarest Lloyd
The scheming New York politicians have carried to
Cincinnati the violence and tricks which they are fond of
using in our ward meetings. We refer to the Greeley pro¬
tectionists, who were not originally comprised by the call
for the meeting, which was for revenue and other radical
reformers, but were allowed to come in on their confession
of penitence and amendment. Because the minority re¬
fused to be compelled to vote for Greeley, they are threat¬
ened with expulsion. One of their number, indeed, Mr.
Lloyd, who is not a politician, but a gallant and upright
devotee of principle, and who deserves the thanks of all
genuine reformers for his persistency, has been already
silenced, and the others would be, if they had his daring
and determination.
An appeal was made to the Committee on Rules.
Here there had been felt at the beginning a sympathy
for the silenced Free Traders, indeed their passionate
appeals for a voice had made this general throughout
the convention. "Sands and Lloyd," said the New
York Tribune, "had borne themselves admirably and
barring their pertinacity and youth had made every¬
where the most favourable impression. ' ' This committee
decided for them, and denied the right of any delega¬
tion to enforce the casting of its vote as a tmit. Yet so
skilfully was the "machinery" manipulated that the
entire New York delegation with the exception of
Lloyd was apparently standing solid for Greeley. He
was overwhelmed with persuasions to give at least one
vote on the first ballot to Greeley "as a compliment,"
so that he might go before the convention and the
country with the unanimous vote of his State. But
he resolutely refused.
When, finally, all preliminaries were arranged, the
balloting began. These were exciting moments. One
Buckling on the Armour 31
ballot quickly followed another with Adams always
ahead, until suddenly on the sixth an enthusiasm for
Greeley flared up like a mischievous fire, and sweeping
from one State to another, inflamed all, even many of
the true reformers. In the midst of the wild excitement
another appeal was made in the New York delegation
for a unanimous vote, but in vain. To the end every
ballot showed votes in the New York delegation for
Adams, at first two, then increasing to five. One of
them was always Lloyd's. Amid uproarious.cheers, the
convention nominated Horace Greeley, and thereby
with vociferous enthusiasm voted itself out of history.
It was a bitter moment for the small group of uncom¬
promising Free Traders as they saw the betrayal of the
movement they had fostered. In the delirious excite¬
ment, they stood utterly disheartened. "Wait till
to-morrow," said Lloyd to a reporter, "and you will
hear the funeral guns of this convention. "
A group of the New York Free Traders, however,
rallied. "This is no time for despondency or inaction, "
they said, and in the hope of still reuniting the reform
movement, held a meeting in Steinway Hall on May 30.
The speakers were Professor Perry of Williams Col¬
lege, William Gullen Bryant, David A. Wells, Edward
Atkinson, Simon Steme, and Henry D. Lloyd. The
latter said in part :
The two things to which is to be attributed the nomina¬
tion of Mr. Greeley by a convention which I firmly believe
to have been opposed to him even while it nominated him,
were. First: The weakness of Free Traders in surrendering
the platform; and, second, the fact that Mr. Greeley was
the only candidate who had behind him an efficient, skill¬
ful, well-trained, energetic working force. The real contest
was between Adams and Greeley. Adams had the major-
32 Henry Demarest Lloyd
ity, but the Greeley minority had the mastery of political
machinery, which will overcome the strongest undoubted
majority.
Allies were secured the night before in the various dele¬
gations and preparations duly made for a grand Greeley
rally—purely spontaneous—at the proper moment. The
balloting began. Greeley showed considerable strength,
but Adams more. As the voting wore on, Adams strength¬
ened, and by the time the fifth ballot was reached Greeley
was plainly on the decline. Then came the 'spontaneous'
rally which had been carefully plaimed the night before.
The hall was filled with a mechanical, preordained, sten-
torious bellowing. Hoary-headed, hard-eyed politicians
who had not in twenty years felt a noble impulse, mounted
their chairs, and with faces suffused with a seraphic fervour
blistered their throats hurraying for the great and good
Horace Greeley. The noise bred a panic. A furore, arti¬
ficial at first, became real and ended in a stampede, which
resulted in the nomination of Mr. Greeley. And now the
question is—What are you going to do about it? No Free
Trader is boimd to support the Cincinnati ticket, and no
Free Trader should do so. We have no hatred of the man.
It is the Protectionist Greeley on a platform mutilated by
the omission of Free Trade principles that we combat and
shall combat to the end. ... We are bound only by our
principles, and will follow them though they lead us far
away from Cincinnati. ...
It was decided to hold a private conference at the
Fifth Avenue Hotel, New York, on June 20, and
invitations were sent to two hundred of the original
advocates of the Cincinnati gathering. As secretary of
the committee Lloyd plunged enthusiastically into the
work of preparation. "To-night is the eighth I have
robbed myself of, 'pro patria.' ..." "Some days I
did not eat, " he said later, "and some nights I did not
Buckling on the Armour 33
sleep." This conference, "a bolt within a bolt,"
coming at a period of nervous uncertainty, awakened
great public interest. There was a possibility that it
might furnish a candidate for the forthcoming Demo¬
cratic presidential convention in Baltimore. Its policy
of secrecy likewise stimulated curiosity, and when
reporters saw that they could gather no news except
an occasional non-committal interview, they found a
vent in playf\il sarcasm. No subject seemed better
fitted for this than the yoimg secretary, "the magnifi¬
cent Lloyd," "the inevitable Lloyd," "the yoimg and
innocent Mr. Lloyd," who so sternly refused them
information, and "who was evidently labouring under
the delusion that he was carrying the nation on his
yoimg shoulders." Now they referred to him as "the
beardless youth recommended to take his mind off of free
trade and apply it to the public school curriculum,"
and now "the young agitator nibbling his nearly visible
moustache," and again "the juvenile representative
of the whole free trade sentiment of the nation according
to the sober conviction of himself and his brother. "
On the appointed June 20, over one hundred men
of affairs gathered in the Fifth Avenue Hotel rooms.
Newspaper men were forced to dally outside, unable to
penetrate the sanctum of invited members. Demarest
had come on from Washington to help, and the pro¬
minence of the Lloyds in barring the way led reporters
to dub the affair "the Vario-Lloyd Conference," and
to sharpen their wits at the expense of the "little boy
Lloyds, chief buglemen. "
The two Lloyds [said one account] figured in the pro¬
minent rôles of secretary and doorkeeper. Demarest Lloyd,
the yoimger of the two, is a good-looking, fair-skinned,
VOL. I—3
34 Henry Demarest Lloyd
brown-haired boy, of aSable, dignified, and confident ad¬
dress. . . . This elder Lloyd is also fair-skinned, brown-
haired, cool, and good-looking, with more than ordinary
aplomb, suavity, and primitive character. He is not above
twenty-six or twenty-seven years of age, tall, mannerly,
and good-tempered. He is said to be a fine sophomoric
political economist; to have good clerical and promising
executive ability, and to be thoroughly bound up in the
fortunes of the Free Trade League.
Sympathisers built high hopes on this gathering.
The Evening Post (June 20, 1872), to which Henry
Lloyd was now a contributor, said in sentences which
ring like his:
It will be a real conference of men, not a brokerage of
votes. There will be no more delegates with States in their
pockets; there will be none of those quiet little meetings in
anterooms in which " the heart of the great North-West " sells
itself to some equally vital part of the Atlantic Seaboard or
the Mississippi Valley. There wiU be no States. There will
be no one there who "controls" any one except himself.
It was a singular scene when the Conference gathered,
[said a sportive reporter] the severe and venerable Bryant,
the serene and bullet-headed J. D. Cox in the chair, and the
good-looking, fluent, cranky, and utterly immeasurable
Judge Stallo, . . . the boyish Lloyd, like a juvenile per¬
former on the tight rope, and the little Lloyd peeping in at
the door, cvuiosity overcoming dignity; the apostate free¬
traders BrinkerhofI and Dorsheimer la3dng for Atkinson
and Atkinson himself coveting the glory of martyrdom, . . .
Ik Bromley looking more like a poet than a humourist . . .
and Horace White with his pale student face, . . . Ran¬
dolph of New Jersey presiding at this half-baked meal of
mischief.
The meeting was called to order by ex-Govemor
Buckling on the Armour 35
Randolph; Jacob D. Cox was elected President, William
Gullen Bryant and General John A. Dix Vice-Presidents,
and Lloyd Secretary. A resolution was passed that the
Chair proceed to a call of the States and that each
delegate, under seal of confidence not to report the
proceedings, express his individual opinion as to the
futime course of the Grant opposition. When New
York was called, a stormy debate ensued, and Carl
Schurz, emerging from his period of indecision and
silence, made a two hours' speech said to be one of the
finest he ever delivered. He maintained that it was too
late for a third ticket, that in order to defeat the
corruption in power, the best policy was to unite in
supporting Greeley, whose election by an overwhelming
majority he predicted. "I realised that it was a fine
chance to make a protest and a declaration of principles,"
said Schurz to me years after, "but loyalty to the bolting
South forced me to support Greeley." This speech
swept the conference before it. Indignation over the
Cincinnati fiasco disappeared like morning mist, and
by I A.M. the second bolting convention adjourned sine
die. "The new Vario-Lloyd not catching," said the
facetious reporters in the morning papers, and their
frivolous glee was an expression of the serious relief to
the politicians who had been watching with disquietude
the mysterious conference.
There still remained, however, out of the Cincinnati
thousands a handful of men who were determined not
to compromise their principles. "There is something
in the world better than success," they said, "and
it is for this that we are struggling." They had left
all party ties to go to Cincinnati, they had left Cincinnati
to find their expression in the Fifth Avenue Conference,
they now left this undaunted, and before separating ar-
36 Henry Demarest Lloyd
ranged to meet again. There were only twenty-five in
all who assembled the next morning. Yotmg Lloyd was
among them pleading for " an immediate nomination, ' ' as
a duty to the people. A platform was adopted re-aflBrm-
ing the principles of the Missouri CaU, and William
S. Groesbeck of Ohio and Frederick Law Olmsted of
New York were nominated as candidates. Thus ended
the bolt from the bolt from a bolt. "My brother, the
great bolter, " said Demarest of Henry at this time, and
it is no wonder that later in his first play. For Congress,
he made " Josiah Limber" say as he drew his sweetheart
to the rustic seat under the painted trees : " Let's talk
about something soothing. Let's talk about the tariff."
The collapse of the Liberal Republican movement
and the sad drama of Greeley's downfall endorsed the
wisdom of these persistent opponents. Very swift
were the blows which fate dealt to Mr. Greeley; his
overwhelming defeat at the polls, the appearance in
the Tribune on the morning after the election of a
mushy editorial, "Crumbs of Comfort," apparently
written by him, his indignant repudiation of this, the
ignoring of his request to have this denial published and
the consequent realisation that his beloved Tribune
was no longer his—all this following closely the death
of his wife, broke the heart of this proud man. Before
the month was out he had died.'
This political experience was Lloyd's first great
disappointment. It revealed him as already possessing
that comageous conscience and that fervour of resis¬
tance which were later, as he foreshadowed, to lead
him "far away from Cincinnati." In occasional
lectures and articles at this period there can plainly
be seen the beginnings of those broader interests which
were to possess his soul. In Free Traders he saw en-
Buckling on the Armour 37
folded "free producers and free consumers." He was
already calling to strike down monopolies and those
laws which were taxing the necessaries of the working
people for the benefit of a few. He discerned in society
an enforced inequality "as potent if not as patent"
as under feudalism. He made special pleas for the
equality of women at the bar and in the pulpit, and
in the heat of the Tammany excitement cried: "Our
political liberty is gone and how rapidly oiu: personal
liberty and our property shall follow rests with our
rulers. We must come to bay at some time—now,
say I." His letters to his friend, the brilliant young
journalist, Henry F. Keenan, contain the outpourings
of his youthful soul.
Stronghold Bolt, June 24.
And now, my dear Henry, for a conference with you.
. . . This Free Trade business has drained my vitality.
From the day I first began to work in the Cincinnati Con¬
vention till now ... I have been in a web of toils, dis¬
tractions, pains, and scant profits. . . . The outside history
of our recent conference which has consumed all my time
till now and has nearly wrecked my health you know. The
inside history is most of it secret and uninteresting, but I
have learned from it the last lesson of its kind I trust that
will be necessary. Cincinnati might have been less impos¬
ing in numbers but of greater strength in its unity had the
elements therein been concordant. We would have done
better with our Conference if, without waiting to "tail" our¬
selves to some great and dangerous man like Schurz, we had
been bold enough to strike out on our own path. We tried
once more to unite fire and gunpowder without an explosion
and succeeded as well as we deserved. I had all the while I
was rushing back and forth from Washington and Morris-
town a clearly defined notion that we could not graft a
Groesbeck or Adams branch on a Greeley tree. . . .
38 Henry Demarest Lloyd
The Convention and the Conference have I think taught
me the whole lesson. No more of these false guides for me;
no more thimblerigging in politics—I am going in (if at all)
for a straight persistent fight, with homogeneous elements
and in utter disregard of political compromises. I will make
success come to me—I will not run after it. . . .
In the long run, says somebody, brains win. I propose
to take a hand in the game that is to ensue. My nature may
change but if it remains constant to its present ideals you
will never see this Free Trade party of the future coquetting
with its enemies. . . .
We must have a new party and new men to run it.
Theodore Tilton said to me the other day, "You and I will
soon be in the same party, the Equal Rights Party."
CHAPTER III
IN JOURNALISM
The defeat of the free trade forces brought young
Lloyd to a turning-point. It was now necessary
for him to choose his life-work. To his intimate friend
Henry Keenan, he wrote, with the absorbing egotism
of youth:
You say there is a destiny for me. If there is one, it is
political, that I have felt from my boyhood. . . . The
tendency of my mind is towards politics. Free Trade, minor¬
ity representation, woman's suffrage, etc. . . .
My ambition is daily becoming more clearly defined.
I long to be—of course—as symmetrically developed a man
as can be produced within the shell given me. Sympathies,
intellect, the aesthetic faculties, physique, all that is musi¬
cal, humanitarian, muscular, imaginative, brainy, poetic,
powerful with man and material I would develop to the
highest point. As for the particular service to which I must
devote myself in order to benefit by the services of others,
the most grateful to me with my need for powerful incentive
and my strongly grown approbativeness is some form of
public work. What little ability I may have runs I am
confident in that direction. I never had anything but dis¬
like for the physical sciences, mere literary culture is irk¬
some to me as not being sufficiently practical, all forms of
money making I despise as pursuits in themselves for them¬
selves, the Law is too technical and traditional, I could take
39
40 Henry Demarest Lloyd
no pleasure in a system that bent my will to those of pre¬
ceding centuries. I am too unconventionally and unaffect¬
edly pious to be a minister; I can do what ministers can't
do, I can be right without being religious; and finally with
my taste for Political Science and yearning for public dis¬
tinction I cannot brook the idea of so far endangering my
independence and truckling to other will—single or multi¬
tudinous—as to become a seeker for office and a subservient,
crawling, chronic candidate like Andrew Johnson or John
T. Hoffman. I want power, I must have power, I could not
live if I did not think that I was in some way to be lifted
above and upon the insensate masses who flood the stage
of life in their passage to oblivion, but I want power un-
poisoned by the presence of obligation. Can you think of
any avenue to power, more independent, . . . more in con¬
sonance with such tasks as I describe than Journalism? I
can think of no profession which offers to the ambition a
greater career than that of a man like Bowles or White or
Greeley or Bennett. I had rather be one of those men than
the most successful lawyer or richest merchant or most bril¬
liant author in America. I had rather raise myself to their
height than be raised by others to the Presidency.
He was loath to desert the League at a moment of
defeat, but time seemed to his youthful impatience
"unspeakably precious." He was eager to finish his
apprenticeship in time to be active in the contest that
he saw coming against the granting of special privileges,
and for "equal rights in the legislature." "One thing
is certain, I shall always be a Free Trader. " But he
believed that his influence for the cause would be greater
as an independent journalist than as a paid advocate.
When he at last decided to take the journalistic
leap he passed from high hope to a self-distrust very
characteristic.
I am tortured by doubts as to whether ... I have
In Journalism
41
selected the fittest profession. . . . When I turn upon my¬
self and find seated within a brooding, self-conscious, pro¬
pulsive, far-thrown soul, I doubt whether happiness is to
be mine ever. . . .
He conferred with Horace White, editor of the Chicago
Tribune, and Parke Godwin, of the New York Evening
Post. As the Post, to which he occasionally contributed,
now espoused Grant as a candidate, he withdrew, and
although Godwin invited him to write articles, saying
that his doing so might result in an engagement, he
refused. Mr. White then offered him a position on the
Chicago Tribune which in view of his youth and inex¬
perience was indeed brilliant. Therefore, in September,
1872, he followed Greeley's famous advice to young men
and turned westward. Chicago, recovering from the
great fire of October, 1871, was in a chaotic state.
Business was starting anew, hammer and trowel were
reconstructing a city on the ashes of the old. From the
stable and conservative East, where, in imiversity and
lecture room, he had studied the principles of political
economy, he was now transported to a vast commercial
hive, where the practical side of life was uppermost.
The Tribune was at that time Liberal Republican in
bias and ranked as the leading paper of the North-West
and one of the best in the cotmtry. He entered upon
his apprenticeship with misgivings. His first post was
as paragraph writer, and his letters to Mr. Keenan,
then editing the Indianapolis Sentinel, reflect his
doubts, his gleams of mastery, and his painful growth.
Smith has kept me writing . . . sample paragraphs all
day, so that I have time only to . . . say God bless you.
... I am quartered at 840 Wabash Avenue . . . every¬
thing is quiet, neat. . . .
42 Henry Demarest Lloyd
After three weeks, came the following:
Horace White stepped up to me to-night and said in a
voice which gave my marrow-bones a premonitory chill—
" Mr. Lloyd, I have decided that you have not sufficient ex¬
perience to fill the position you now occupy. . . . You have
commendable zeal and application, but need further prac¬
tice." . . . I told him simply that I had done my best . . .
and should do the same in whatever else he assigned me.
I feel a triñe cut up . . . because I accepted your judgment,
and that of my brother, that I was really doing good work.
I am by no means, however, dispirited. I feel as skittish as
the untamed steed of the prairies, and will yet show H. W.
how to write and run a newspaper. . . . P. S. It is a little
consolatory to find myself figuring in two editorials this
morning.
I am working like a horse, . . . have been put in charge
of the literary department, and . . . re-assigned to the
night work of which I was relieved about a week ago. I
shall have to write every night from 7 to 12 and during each
day enough to supply several columns of book and other
literary notices a week.
Horace White told me yesterday I had done very well
so far. He is going to relieve me of the make-up. He
seemed appalled when I told him that I did not get to bed
till four.
Middlemarch was among the new books placed
on his desk, and so won his admiration that he ventured
to send a copy of his review to George Eliot. He
treasured as one of his early rewards the interesting
response:
The Priory, North Bane, Regent's Pare,
March 19th, 1873.
Dear Sir ;—
I must thank you for the very sympathetic and ex-
In Journalism
43
tremely well written review of Middlemarch you were
good enough to send Mrs. Lewes. She begs me also to thank
you in her name, although in pursuance of a rigid rule never
to read notices about her works, be they never so friendly
or flattering, she has only heard from me of the tenor of
your remarks. Can you not understand the principle of
mental hygiene which makes an imaginative writer resist
the temptation to see what is said of his work and not to
listen to the voice of the critical charmer, charm he never
so wisely? My belief is that reading what is said about one
only intensifles our defects by making us too self-conscious.
At any rate in the case of one so sensitive and easily depres¬
sed as George Eliot, the resistance to the natural temptation
is simply plain prudence. Perhaps because she abstains
from reading Times, Edinburgh Review, Saturday or Chi¬
cago Tribunes she is all the more cheered by hearing of their
friendly sympathetic appreciation.
Yours very truly,
G. H. Lewes.
Our son was greatly pleased with your notice, and so
was his wife. Thus you see four persons have been grati¬
fied by your sending the paper.
In the two years which elapsed before Mr. White left
the Tribune to assume management of the New York
Evening Post, he and his young apprentice became fast
friends. "He and I, " wrote Mr. White, recalling these
early days, "were associated together very closely
then and we remained warmly attached to each other
during all the years that have since passed over our
heads, more than thirty." The charm of these in¬
spiring days is reflected in a letter written by Henry
many years after to Major Henry Huntington:
Would we could recall the rainbow days when man
delighted us and woman, too; when we laughed and knew
44 Henry Demarest Lloyd
not the laugh was in us, and not in that we thought we
laughed at. Dear Major; your letter has been a great œm-
fort to me. Your perfections as a letter writer would have
made your charming pages a treasure in any event, but,
more precious than the charm, was the affectionate tender¬
ness you let me feel. As we get older, every recurring spring
(some one—Emerson?—says) looks more beautiful to us,
and the most beautiful of all the springs are the renewals of
the old loves that have survived the years. As I write, rises
before me the old home at Indiana Avenue and i6th Street,
the dining-room, the parlom, the garden and the croquet,
among the many faces, Cushing's, Keenan's, and brightening
every association of the dear house and dear family your
loving caress of every "good thing" of ours or your
own. . . .
These were days of exaltation, as well, for he was now
deeply in love. Among the new friends was Miss Jessie
Bross, a prominent figure in the brilliant coterie of
Chicago's young people. Her father, William Bross,
popularly known as "Deacon Bross," had come from
the East in 1848, when Chicago was little more than a
village, and his daughter but four years old. A school¬
master in youth, he became in Chicago bookseller,
publisher, journalist, and, with John L. Scripps, fotmded
the Free Press, afterwards merged in the Tribune. Of
the latter paper he was one-quarter owner, and all his
life active in its management. From 1865 to 1869 he
served as Lieutenant-Governor of Illinois, and during
his term, Illinois being the first State in the Union to
ratify the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution,
in February, 1865, Mr. Bross, as presiding officer of the
Senate, was the first to sign it. Miss Bross had therefore
grown up with the city and seemed indeed to typify
its exuberant energy and enthusiasm. She possessed
In Journalism
45
rare social charm and as her father's companion had
met and counted as friends men and women of mark.
When a girl, for instance, during President Lincoln's
administration, she went with her father to call at the
White House, but the President was "too busy" to see
callers. Walking away. Governor Bross heard his
name, and turning, saw the President at an upper
window. "Bross, Bross, " he was calling, "bring Jessie
back; I want to talk to her!" Bereft of home and
fortune in a few hours by the great fire, she was obliged
to stand in Une with her basket waiting to get the pro¬
visions meted out to each citizen. But belonging to
the privileged few who were quickest to recuperate, she
bent her energies to relief work.
Take Saturday, for instance [she wrote], I started out
at nine o'clock, riding till twelve in the open buggy of a kind
friend. ... I visited ten families who needed reUef. . . .
Everything needed to wear and to eat was deUvered from
our unpretending establishment, from a pound of tea for a
poor old woman over seventy, to a pair of mittens for a
three year old. After lunch I wrote a petition to the com¬
mon council which my father and another friend signed, to
ask that honourable body for a free license for a poor bumt-
out Frenchman to peddle coffee and spices. Then I went to
the Bureau of Special Relief for an order for a sewing ma¬
chine, . . . and nightfall found me growUng at the South
Side Headquarters for General Relief because an order for
tubs, stove . . . had not been delivered to a poor Swedish
woman with a bUnd husband. Besides trying to collect
bills for a bvimt-out curler and dyer of feathers, which
added to the long details already written make up a day's
work, . . . and Saturday is only a sample!
When we were burnt out in the great fire [wrote Robert
Collyer, pastor of the Unity Church of Chicago], and she
46 Henry Demarest Lloyd
leämed that I had lost a great many books, she scoured the
book stores of New York and Boston for gifts, and here
they are all about me as I write, Jessie's books. Bless her
dear good heart.
It was while still immersed in this work that she
met the young journalist. What he saw through her
eyes of these distressing conditions made a profound
impression upon him. There now went flying through
the mails to Mr. Keenan the hopes and fears of his
courtship.
... I ought to have written you, I know. ... I can
only plead, dear fellow, that I am drowned in my love for
Jessie. Not a moment I verily believe passes from me
without having been by some thought associated with her.
I love her so that I can say with the old quaint poet, she
hath her faults perhaps, I wish I had them, too. . . .
... I have written you . . . and not an answer do I
get. Not even a word of sympathy for my last cruel sorrow,
the death of my grandfather whom I tenderly loved and
whose death will break up for ever the happy home at No.
27. That is very hard to bear, but there is no help for it.
... I found a very sorrowful family awaiting me at home.
How glad I was that I could take my mother fully into my
arms and give her the comfort, consolation, and affection she
so much needs. I know I came back to her more, much more
than I went away.—I told her that she and I should both
thank God for the quickening influence on my life of your
own noble sympathetic nature and that of Jessie. You
two, God bless you both for ever, have broken up the foun¬
tains of the great deep within me and you have given my
nature a permanent, new direction. You two have taught
me to love, and that not selfishly but in a broad, generous
way so that I seek in my love not only the gratification of
my blissful longings but find delight in giving others, all
others, all the affection I have—in giving them a share in
Henry Demarest Lloyd in 1873.
From a photograph by Rocher, Chicago.
In Journalism
47
the great good which makes all my hours golden. Dear
fellow, I shall never again be the same as you saw me last
April at Cincinnati. I am and shall ever be a new man. I
shudder to think whither I was drifting in my worldliness
and selfishness, when you seized and saved me. All this
and more I told my mother . . . and we blessed you
together. . . .
They were married by Aaron Lloyd on Christmas
day, 1873, and the new home started on the first floor
of the modest frame house at 6 Eldridge Court on the
comer of Michigan Avenue. It was christened ' ' Felicity
Flat" and did not belie its name. It began at once its
notable career of harbouring people of all beliefs and
conditions, one of its first guests being Charles Brad-
laugh, who spent an evening there.
In those years when the desolated city was stmggling
to re-establish itself, Lloyd was conspicuous among the
yotmger men who were striving to build an ideal as
well as a material Chicago. He was one of the founders
of the Chicago Literary Club and the Illinois Free Trade
League in 1874, in which year he was admitted to the
Illinois bar. He was also one of six young men who with
a cash capital of six dollars started the Chicago Simday
Lecture Society. Its aim was to benefit the working
people and, as Lloyd said, "to bring the greatest amount
of entertainment and instruction within the reach of
the people at the smallest possible cost and on the day
of all others that is their own—^the day 'made for man'—
Sunday." The plan, new in America though not in
London, was bitterly opposed by the clergy, with the
exception of Robert Collyer and Charles W. Wendte,
who each gave a lecture. The labour was done by the
executive committee without any recompense except
"the belief that good was being done." Charging ten
48 Henry Demarest Lloyd
cents admission—two and one half cents surplus over
the cost of the lecture—the society became self-sus¬
taining. As its President, Lloyd introduced Charles
Bradlaugh to a large audience. It became a potent
influence for good and the yoimg men had the pleasure
of seeing one of their aims realised in the formation
of similar societies in St. Louis and Milwaukee.
Afterwards [wrote Charles W. Wendte], I successfully
transplanted the meeting to Cincinnati, where for twenty-
five or thirty years the Unity Club Sunday afternoon lec¬
tures, on all possible topics except theology and partisan
politics, have been a feature of the better life of that city.
But the inspiration for this good work came from Henry
Lloyd and his friends.
The Chicago society did not survive its flourishing
third season. During its brief career it endeavoiu-ed to
have the art gallery of the Exposition opened on Svmdays
at ten cents admission. "We did this," said Lloyd,
"beheving that a gallery buÜt on grovmd belonging to
the people of Chicago should not be shut to the people
on their one day of leisure." But the society's offer
to bear all the expenses and give all the profits to the
Exposition was declined by the directors.
All through his work as literary and night editor,
when he was mastering the art of running a great paper,
there had glowed the dream of having a paper of his
own. Here was the road to fortune for those he loved,
the road to power, and the fulfilment of the longing
to serve good causes which was stirring within him.
In the marvellous growth of Chicago and its still un¬
developed field of journalism he saw a place for a great
paper on new lines. In the spring of 1876, there came
a wonderful opportunity. A new paper, the Daily
In Journalism
49
News of Chicago, was battling for its life. Melville E.
Stone, then sole owner, casting about for help, turned
to Henry Lloyd with his influential connections in the
financial and journalistic world. Lloyd, on his side,
saw his longed-for opportunity. He loaned the paper
a small stun and signed a contract, whereby he was to
be allowed a voice in the editing and the option of
purchasing a controlling interest in three months.
His brother John came from New York to act as
business manager, and it was purposed later to enlist
Demarest, now the youngest member of the New York
Tribune staff, whose brilliant work, including his recent
exposm-es of Erie Canal frauds, had won him a national
reputation in his profession. Consulting freely with
Mr. Stone, Mr. Lloyd incorporated some of his new ideas,
which met with remarkable success. His hopes and
enthusiasm were aroused. The circulation advanced
from 4000 to 11,000, and the advertising in proportion.
But his loan was soon exhausted. The paper lived on
from hand to mouth, until for a meagre one hundred
dollars, with which to pay the week's wages, and a
guarantee to run it for six months, he was offered a
controlling interest. The prize for which he had longed
all his manhood was within his grasp. He went through
an intense struggle and anguish of spirit; but for good
and sufficient reasons, arising from circumstances
beyond his control, he decided that it was wiser to
relinquish the prize.
Then he watched the paper rising rapidly to success.
Within a week Victor Lawson, the owner of a Scandina¬
vian paper whose office the Daily News was sharing,
loaned the necessary capital. In one month the paper
was on a paying basis, and was soon embarked on its
brilliant career. The days which followed were dark
VOL. I—4
50 Henry Demarest Lloyd
ones for the young journalist. The strain was too
great. He became deeply melancholy, believing that the
opportimity of his life had been lost. His health, which
had been injured by overwork in the previous summer,
broke down, and for a time his work was quite paralysed.
He almost never broached this subject even to intimate
friends; even twenty-five years afterward he could not
bear to hear it mentioned. "The loss of the News"
was one of the crosses on his life's highway.
It was thus with a less bounding hope that he contin¬
ued his Tribune work, faithfully performing worthy
service. Shortly before, in 1875, he had been assigned to
the financial editorship. This post involved a mastery
of finance and the daily scrutiny of the market. When
he entered upon the duties, the people of the country
were beginning to realise that the recent Congress of
1873 had demonetised silver. To this policy the Chicago
Tribune stood opposed, and during the years of the
debate, the late seventies, Lloyd wrote its money
editorials. He was not a metallist, but argued that if a
metal were used, there should be two to maintain a
balance. Concerning the demonetisation he wrote on
February 23, 1878, then the dead point of the hard
times :
In i873-'74, as it was two years later discovered, the
coinage of this silver dollar was forbidden and silver dollars
were demonetised by law. This act was done secretly and
stealthily to the profound ignorance of those who voted for
it, and of the President who approved it. . . . Under cover
of darkness it abolished the constitutional dollar and has
arbitrarily, and to the immense injury of the people, added
heavily to every form of indebtedness, public and private.
The editorials were so valuable that in 1896, when
In Journalism 51
the question of remonetising silver became an issue,
they were used as campaign documents. In a speech
at that time Governor Altgeld' said: "It is perhaps
not generally known that the Chicago Tribune gave to
the world some of the ablest arguments yet made in
favour of the remonetisation of silver and against a
single gold standard. " He then quoted from many of
the editorials:
To undertake to do the business of the world on a sin¬
gle gold basis of measurement and equivalents means loss,
bankruptcy, poverty, suffering, and despair. Debts will
grow larger and taxes become more onerous. The farmer
will receive small prices for his crops, labour will be forced
down, down, down, and there will be a long series of strikes,
lockouts, and suspension of production. Those who own
property, but owe for it in part, will see their mortgages
increasing in proportion as gold acquires new purchasing
power, while the property itself will be shrinking in value.
There will be no relief, it must be kept in mind, for gold will
be the only recognised equivalent of values, the stock of gold
will be power constantly growing, and the circle of wealth
will be uniformly contracting.
"Nothing more prophetic was ever written," said
Altgeld; "a volume could be filled with editorials ex¬
pressing similar sentiments." Mr. Lloyd also wrote an
article on "The Clearing House " for the first volume of
the Cyclopedia of Political Science, concerning which W.
Stanley Jevons wrote to him from England: "It is very
interesting to me and contains much new information."
But whatever value his work of this period may have
had, he himself had scant appreciation of it, if one may
judge from one of his few letters. It moves with a weary
pace and there is no longer the old-time buoyancy.
' 54th Congress, Senate Document No. 284.
52 Henry Demarest Lloyd
(1878, II Feb.): The events of my life—my life has no
events—a few new books read, 365 columns a year written
of financial slush, a very few cents saved against the old
age that I may cheat Time out of, a new baby, no new
friends—except the baby—, the gradual extirpation of the,
let us call them, theories of my green days, a good many
happy evenings at home, this is the romance of this poor
young man. Coolbaugh, the banker here . . . who came
to be my very fast friend, shot himself dead three months
ago on the steps of his old friend Douglas's monument.
With him went one of the very few human beings for whom
I have a tear to shed. . . .
With his transfer in 1882 from financial editorship to
editorial writer, his important journalistic work began.
To his desk was being brought fresh hourly the world's
unrolling history, raw material for him to sift and gamer
for future use. Much of it came from the marvellous
city around him, and he discussed it in clubs and offices
with the keenest minds; for though Chicago streets
were new, its men were not, but represented the products
of American advantage acting tmder a wonderful new
stimulus. Of the broader field of European news he was
keeping abreast through the foreign periodicals with
which the office was equipped. During the decade
passed since he entered journalism, competition in
industry had been giving way, and, urmoticed by the
ordinary citizen, our marvellous wealth-producing
power was concentrating in ever fewer hands. The
cmel extremes of millionaire and pauper were already
fastened upon us. Monopolies were forming—^fore¬
runners of the imbom Trusts. The labour ranks were
organising in defence and the public stood aghast
while these two forces contended in strikes which, like
that of 1877, were civil warfare. A Socialist Labour
Henry Demarest Lloyd about 1878.
From a photograph.
In Journalism
53
party composed largely of Germans was rising into
view and in 1879 polled 12,000 votes in Chicago.
Of this rapid change—the first steps of the industrial
revolution-rLloyd was a keen observer. The Chicago
Tribune was maintaining its traditional attitude as an
advocate of justice for the people. He was therefore
allowed rather liberal range for exposure and protest.
His editorials were brave attacks principally against
the political bodies of Congress and legislatures and
their immoral and unconstitutional betrayal of the
people's rights. Some received wide attention, such as
his "Comer in Coffins" and the indictment of the Van-
derbilt system called "King's Horses and King's Men."
As one monopoly after another was formed, he gave
the people waming, revealing each as sheltered under
government protection, that of starch, "the stiff mono¬
poly"; of Alaska furs, "the silent monopoly which
makes no noise, but a great deal of money"; the coal
combination, "The King of Black Diamonds"; the
match monopoly, of which he said :
Scratch a monopoly and you will find the Government
underneath is getting to be one of the rules that has no
exceptions. Scratch one of the Diamond Company's
matches and its light will furnish fresh illustration of this
new principle of American political economy.
In one of his first editorials he expressed a view
which he never lost :
The methods by which the Vanderbilts, Goulds, Fields,
Rockefellers, Mackays, Floods, O'Briens, and the coal and
iron and salt Pashas are heaping up enormous fortunes are
methods, not of creation of wealth, but of the redistribution
of the wealth of the masses into the pockets of monopolists.
He made a special study of the railroads. Very
54 Henry Demarest Lloyd
notable, in 1883, was his history of the government
land grants, relating the treachery of the Land OfBce
to the interests of the people and the failure of Congress
to protect them. It filled two pages of the Chicago
Tribune, including a map of his own making, and was
the fullest statement that had yet been made of the
way in which public lands were being surrendered to
the corporations. There was no worse chapter, he
said, in the history of government than this of the
deliberate and heartless evictions of the European
immigrant and the American settler in order to give
their farms to covetous railroad corporations. A land
monopoly worse than that obtaining among certain
families of England was thus begotten in America, for
"corporations are the only aristocrats who have no
souls and never die. "
As correspondent of the Tribune in 1881, he had
accompanied the Silver Spike Expedition over Henry
Villard's Northern Pacific road to its terminal in Mon¬
tana. "Villard first bought the Northern Pacific and
then went to look at it," he said. Now in 1883, when
the road was completed, he again represented his paper
on the famous Golden Spike Expedition, a delightful
experience, which he described in an interview on
revisiting that section, seventeen years later.' After
driving the Spike, the party dispersed and Lloyd came
back through California and Utah. As a result, he
wrote two letters to the Tribune called "California
Cornered. " They described the great railroad combina¬
tion in California, then the most complete comer in
transportation in the country,—one company in which
half a dozen families owned practically all the stock.
He showed how, following "their theory of the private
' Seattle Daily Times, October 12, 1901. See Appendix.
In Journalism 55
nature of the business of a common carrier, " they used
their special control to thwart industries and manufac¬
tures, a condition which seemed to him to presage that
of the entire country in the future.
He was moving rapidly into an increasingly radical
position. In treating of the coal combination and the
Reading Road as "The Pennsylvania Cold Wave,"
he said that the Reading was not the only company
whose chartered rights ought to be forfeited. "In
absorbing the railroad government into the political
government of the country is the greatest opportunity
the people of the United States will ever have for regain¬
ing full control of the corporations which have taken
so insurgent a position. " Vague discussions of theoreti¬
cal reconstruction he deprecated, cautiously advocating
practical work in "the abolition of the protective system
of monopolies, the regulation of railroad and telegraph
monopolies, and cheapening and expediting justice,
which is one of the monopolies of the very rich."
George Holyoake was in America preaching co-opera¬
tion, while Henry George was in England, winning his
first fame, expounding his single tax theory. These
programmes, as well as socialism, seem to have been
still too purely theoretical and too inconspicuous in the
United States to claim his espousal. ' ' Co-operation and
socialism," he said editorially in 1882, "are dreams of
the creation of an artificial society. . . What we have
to do is not to create a new society, but to reform the
one we have. "
He had now clearly heard the key-note of the times,
that the new crusade was to take place in the industrial
domain. In 1883, in an editorial upon Arnold Toynbee's
remarkable lecture course then being given in London,
he said:
56 Heniy Demarest Lloyd
In England, as here, the prophetic instinct of the people
foresees that the emergencies of the near future ought to be,
not of religious liberty as in the time of the Reformation,
nor of political liberty as in the English revolution of the
seventeenth century, and the French and American revo¬
lutions of the next century, but of industrial liberty. A fer¬
ment can be seen at work, by even careless observers of
public opinion, in the minds of the people, that is bringing
up the old question of the rights of the many in a new form.
That the fruits of human labour are unfairly divided and
that the strong oppress the weak, is an old, old story. But
what is new is that the masses can perhaps by acting
together alleviate these wrongs in the world of capital and
labour as in the reformations of the past they have done in
the worlds of politics and the church. . . . But how to do
it is the question to which those who were bom to hate
wrong are turning above every other.
Great changes are impending. New ideas, nebulous yet,
will take clearer shape as they pass through the fires of
one indignant mind after another. It will not continue
for ever that the earth—which is the Lord's and the fulness
thereof—shall be turned by whole counties into aristocratic
turf under the feet of starving British peasants, or that the
population of democratic and republican America shall be
feudalised into industrial Barons by the hundred and serfs
by the million. But the formulas on which this reformation
will move have not been thought out. When they are
revealed the unnatural principles of the competitive eco¬
nomy of John Stuart Mill will be as obsolete as the mies
of war by which Caesar slaughtered the fair-haired men,
women, and children of Germania on the banks of the
Rhine and the Meuse. ■
By thus keeping the large constituency of the Chicago
' Editorial, "A New Magna Charta," Chicago Tribune, February 12.
1883.
In Journalism
57
Tribune throughout the North-West informed of every
usurpation of the rights of the people, he contributed
in these anonymous articles an important link in the
education of the people.
CHAPTER IV
HIS FIRST VOLLEY
lOYD'S most important work in these years lay
outside of journalism. He was now to call the
attention of a wider public to the monopoly drama,
then in its early stages, and to strike the first square
blow at the Standard Oü monopoly, practically complete
six years before, but still unknown to the majority.
His note-books, begun about this time, chronicle
the progress of his thought. They show his search for
light from thinkers, ancient and modem—^Aristotle,
Fichte, De Tocqueville, Clifïe Leslie, Maine. They
reveal him as apprehending a crisis, the straggle between
the masses and the railroad kings, the rich and the poor,
and as feeling that to organise this straggle was the
grandest political mission to which any man or body
of men could be committed. He already saw in the
American monopolists "the passion to enslave labour. "
"They can buy governors and laws and laugh at the
people going through the forms of government." He
realised "the awful blunder" of the people in being
fascinated by their dazzling success.
When monopolists succeed, the people fail. When a
rich criminal escapes justice, the people are punished. . . .
The mass must love the right—must hate wrong. . . .
58
His First Volley
59
Present tendencies, if unchecked, would end free
government, he said. Our only hope lay in educating
the people in the use of the state, and he queried whether
the monopolies should not gravitate into public hands.
He was already troubled over the people's resisting
power and integrity, deploring the profound distrust in
courts and legislatures which was eating into their
minds and making them feel "remote and helpless"—
the first great step towards despotism. "A popular
idol presents himself—what they cannot do he will do.
The First Consul or our Third (term) President."
When he had shown his mettle in 1880 by a paper
before the Chicago Literary Club called "A Cure for
Vanderbiltism, " Major Hvmtington urged him to
put himself forward in the magazines. Thus en¬
couraged he wrote his indictment, "The Story of a
Great Monopoly," and sent it to the North Ameri¬
can Review. When L. S. Metcalf read it he told the
editor, Allen Thomdike Rice, that it was the most
remarkable article he had seen for years, but Rice
declined it. It next fell into the brave and sympathetic
hands of William Dean Howells, then editor of the
Atlantic Monthly, who accorded it the first place, after
the serial, in the number for March, 1881.
It was a presentation of the evils wrought by the
railroads. After a rapid review of their notorious mis¬
deeds in administration, he described the great rail¬
road strike of 1877— "the greatest labour disturbance
on record, " which penetrated twelve States, paralysed
twenty thousand miles of railroad, and directly or in¬
directly threw one million men out of employment.
He then passed to the second point, the growth of the
Standard Oil monopoly, "the greatest that ever over¬
shadowed a state," built up by the discriminating
6o Henry Demarest Lloyd
favours of the railroads. He told of its control of the
Pennsylvania, New York Central, Erie, Baltimore &
Ohio railroads, of how, having used the rebate to crush
out rival producers, ruining hundreds of thousands, it
became the only buyer and therefore the controller of
prices, and by the same means was becoming the only
refiner. Finally he brought the third indictment, that
of a plan to form a great railroad pool, which he charac¬
terised as "the most powerful, the richest, and the ablest
trade-union that has yet confronted any government or
people. ' ' He concluded with suggestions for the control
of the railroads: That their charges shordd be public,
stable, reasonable, equal ; that they should not be allowed
to intermit the exercise of their functions ; that a national
board should be appointed with power to hear complaints
both of citizens and railroads and to siimmon legal
officers to prosecute ; that the laws should be so amended
that all violation of duties of common carriers could be
promptly and cheaply prosecuted. He charged that in a
life's span the railroads had brought upon us the worst
labour disturbance, the greatest of monopolies, and, in
the railroad pool, the most formidable hostile combina¬
tion of brains and money which ever threatened any
nation. He said that the trade-unions were now going
to pool like the railroads. "The forces of capital and
industry have outgrown the forces of our government. "
The movement of the railroad trains of this country is
literally the circulation of its blood. . . . Our treatment of
"the railroad problem" will show the quality and calibre
of our political sense. It will go far in foreshadowing the
future lines of our social and political growth. It may indi¬
cate whether the American democracy, like all the demo¬
cratic experiments which have preceded it, is to become
His First Volley 6i
extinct because the people have not wit enough or virtue
enough to make the common good supreme.
This short article of sixteen pages, written by one
unknown, sent a thrill through the thinking public
far beyond the American boundaries. Seven editions
of the Atlantic Monthly were exhausted before the
demand ceased—a thing entirely unprecedented. Few
knew the first word of the remarkable story it told. Its
facts marshalled in a style masterful and fascinating, its
technicalities simply treated, its judgments just, clear,
fearless, and democratic, marked the advent of a new
voice. The poor might well hail a champion so skilled :
"Only the rich can get justice, only the poor cannot
escape it. " The monopolists might well fear one who
did not hesitate to describe the Standard Oil Company
as "the greatest, wisest, meanest monopoly known to
history," nor to declare that "the plundered found that
the courts, the governor, and the legislature of their
State and the Congress of the United States were the
tools of the plunderers." "The Standard has done
everything with the Pennsylvania legislature," he
declared wittily, "except to refine it." The Titusville
oil men, the "Independents" outside of the monopoly,
said it was by far the strongest connected presentation
of the subject yet made, and railroad experts pronoimced
it the ablest and most interesting exposure yet written
of the secret enormous growth of rebates and discrimina¬
tions. It was not only widely reproduced in American
journals, but also in the London Railway News, which
distributed thousands of copies among shareholders of
American companies residing in England. Some idea
of its infiuence may be gathered from the fact that
nineteen years later, in 1900, Sir Samuel Way of
62 Henry Demarest Lloyd
North Adelaide, Australia, recalled to Mr. Lloyd his
vivid memory of the article.
Lloyd was chagrined that his revised proof contain¬
ing minor corrections and strengthening facts arrived
too late to be used. "It was a great pity that they did
not get your proof," wrote his sympathetic brother
Demarest. "Couldn't you make a supplementary
article embodying your new facts? Fire away! You 're
on the right side of the great fight that is coming. " He
did not relax, but at once began to gather material for
that "supplementary article. " Thus began his prepa¬
ration for his great work. Wealth Against Commonwealth.
The monopoly, now for the first time meeting so
complete and brave an attack, made no answer; but
every night for some weeks, as he returned to Winnetka
from the day's work in the city, a man shadowed him
through the peace of the country walk. This man, as
he was afterward informed, was a detective in the employ
of the Standard Oil Company. "Both Lloyd and his
wife told me," said the late Professor Frank Parsons,
"that he was shadowed for years."
"The Story of a Great Monopoly," which first
brought him into general public notice, was followed by a
series of articles of what might be called a new type,
the "muckraking" species. In a year a second one
appeared in the Atlantic Monthly, entitled "The Politi¬
cal Economy of $73,000,000." It opened with a virile
attack on the orthodox school of political economy,
whose disciples were now quieting the people's first
alarm by declaring that the new despotism was "against
the natural laws of trade" and would defeat itself. In
a series of brilliant expositions he declared this school
moribund; that confessing to a lack of facts, it was
taking refuge in hypothesis and dogma, while the
His First Volley
63
modem world was being actually overwhelmed with
new and uncollected facts. It was ignoring the natural
history of its subject, "its economic news. " He believed
that political economy now demanded a Darwinian
patience in accumulating new facts and a reserve in
generalisation.
The abstract political economist persisted in con¬
tinuing to consider competition as the ruling industrial
force. It is "a mighty one, " said the writer, "but only
one. By neglecting the other forces, from sympathy
to monopoly, he deduces principles which fit no realities,
and has to neglect those realities for which we need
principles most. " His theories of wealth, population,
and wages, Mr. Lloyd declared hotly, are " worse than
bloodless, they are murderous. " Competition, he re¬
ported, was being outdone bj the new forcej_combina¬
tion. which presented the gravest problems of the day.
By its means capital was massing on one side and labour
on the other, notably in the United States in the Knights
of Labour, now numbering two hundred thousand.
Never more than now have we needed such a help as this
political economy has pretended to be. The reaction
against it comes at a time when the body of the people are
growing uneasy at the peril of a position between working
men who combine and capitalists who consolidate. Rings
and bosses are rising to the top in the evolution of industry
as in that of politics. New facts, like the union in one person
of the common carrier and the owner of the highway, are
bafHing our statesmen. A few individuals are becoming
rich enough to control almost all the great markets, includ¬
ing the legislatures. We feel ourselves caught in the whirl
of new forces, and flung forward every day a step farther
into a dim future with the portents of struggle between
Titans reared on steam, electricity, and credit. It is an
64 Henry Demarest Lloyd
unfortunate moment for the breakdown of the science that
claimed to be able to reconcile self-interest with the har¬
mony of interests.
This preface ushered in the story of one who while
not named was recognised to be Jay Gould, as an exem¬
plification of what may be accomplished "by a scien¬
tific devotion to the principles of competition." It told
of Gould's first appearance in New York as a boy bear¬
ing a mouse-trap, "who for the next thirty years was to
be continually before the public and by a strange coin¬
cidence always in connection with some kind of a trap. "
It related relentlessly the story of the wrecking of the
Erie road, of Black Friday with its trail of madness and
suicide, of the control of the telegraph system, "the
rapid transit of news," and of the capture of the New
York elevated railways. No detail of the bravado and
rascality was omitted.
The terrible arraignment, told in a terse, vibrant
style, attracted wide attention. It is not too much to
say that it marked a new era in the thought of many
readers who by its light re-interpreted the times. The
friends of liberty gave thanks that the people had found
a champion, a man of convictions, fearless in speech.
They looked forward to his handling other abuses in
the same masterly manner. Those who had been caught
in the traps praised him for words which were balm to
their indignation. "God bless Lloyd," said one who
had lived and suffered through Black Friday, but now for
the first time realised its true significance. The impres¬
sion which the essay made is shown by this characteristic
bit from "Helen Hunt" Jackson to Mrs. Lloyd:
SmaUey is here. ... He asked us if we had it and
' "E. V. S." of the New York Tribune.
His First Volley
65
praised it highly. ... I found Mr. Jackson reading it at
6.30 a.m. I . . . began to read aloud. The sentences rang
like artillery—and when I came to the end I choked and it
was all I could do to read the last paragraphs. Jessy, I am
not sure that I think anything so splendid as that paper has
ever been done in America! Give my warm love and admi¬
ration to that man. ... I am wondering what will come of
it—something must. . . . The other article was a musketry
fire, this is a battalion of twenty pounders ! Well, we did¬
n't go to breakfast till 10 a.m. ! 1 It was a great morning.
Some wishing to uphold the accepted political economy
of competition averred that not it, but Gould, was at
fault. To such he answered :
A deeper cause than the depravity of individuals must
account for the most dangerous fact of our social condition,
the sudden development of a caste of overgrown wealth
and power. If the theories of laissez-faire and exclusive
regulation by competition do not permit these men to rob
and murder by retail on the highway, they cause society
to leave them to rob and murder by wholesale, by all kinds
of "comers" and combinations, and by legal methods of
oppressing the people, betraying tmsts, and deceiving the
community. This class must be controlled, but they cannot
be overcome by the political and industrial philosophy under
which they have been suffered to grow up.
This article foreshadowed the purpose of his own
work. Henceforth he was to become one of the patient
gatherers of facts, and to help interpret these into a
new and a living political economy.
In August, 1883, he published in the North American
Review a third essay entitled "Making Bread Dear,"
in which one alarming fact followed another in brilliant
succession; facts, summoned from far and near, from
VOL. I—S
66 Henry Demarest Lloyd
the press, from the oíEce of a foreign consul or a Chicago
lawyer, from legislative committees, from the packing
house, and massed with one purpose,—to guard the lives
of the people. The subject was the Exchanges through
which our wheat, oil, and other necessities are sold,—
"price-factories,"—he called them, whose power ex¬
tended "beyond that of Congress, Parliament, the
Assembly, and the Reichstag." Upon them the
"criminal rich" had seized for peculative purposes,
and by gambling in commodities made fictitious prices
which became real ones to the consumers outside. The
part they played in the distribution of the products of
labour and the re-distribution of wealth was "one of
the things which would be new to Solomon if he lived
to-day." "They count and sell chickens, not yet
hatched out of eggs that are yet to be laid, " and deal
in "the speculative wheat and the spectral hog."
The honest industry that builds up our greatest for¬
tunes is raising wheat and pork on the Chicago Board of
Trade, mining on the San Francisco Stock Exchange, build¬
ing railroads in Wall Street, sinking oil wells in William
Street, and picking cotton in Hanover Square. ... Oil
wells are uncertain, but the flow on the Petroleum Ex¬
changes of New York, Bradford, and Oil City never hesi¬
tates. . . . The strong man now builds comers instead of
castles and collects tribute at the end of a telegraph wire
instead of a chain stretched across the Rhine.
The wheat crop of the year in which Mr. Lloyd wrote
this was said by experts to have been sold twenty times
over before the snow was off the ground. His attack
centred upon the Chicago Board of Trade, which he
described as "the finest piece of mechanism commerce
had yet invented," but degraded into the greatest
His First Volley
67
speculative market of the world. His story of how it
made bread dear sparkled with epigram: "There are
giants in these days, and their caves are in the Ex¬
changes. . . . None but a free people would submit to
such wrongs." In speaking of the gamblers on the Ex¬
changes he said: "Their dice are loaves of bread. The
chances they take are the chances of human lives." His
words might well have touched the conscience of the
malefactors:
As wheat rises, flour rises; and when flour becomes dear,
through manipulation, it is the blood of the poor that flows
into the treasury of the syndicate. Such money costs too
much. . . . Every moment the corner lasts there is a
mouthful of food the less for the labouring man. Every
hour of its continuance some child in Pittsburg or Man¬
chester grows more faint, and every day hundreds of little
hands let go another finger from the slippery edge of
existence.
While the other articles had won admirers, this, his
finest piece of work thus far, brought him lovers among
men, for there was life and love in the new political
economy for which he was working, with a zeal that
was growing passionate. It commanded attention on
both sides of the Atlantic as one of the most important
short contributions that had appeared. The article
was especially brave, for he was a propertyless man
with a young family dependent upon the earnings of his
pen, and those whom it hit he was continually meeting
in social and business circles. He noticed that many
who had commended him so warmly for his attack upon
Gotdd now severely criticised him or were sullenly ab¬
sent from the list of his admirers.
Two years later when Charles L. Hutchinson, Presi-
68 Henry Demarest Lloyd
dent of the Chicago Board of Trade, read a paper
before the Literary Club, he commented upon Mr.
Lloyd's article. An incorrect newspaper report led
to a friendly correspondence between them in which
Lloyd said:
The pith and point of all I wrote was to rouse the public
and the Board itself to prevent the destruction of the Board
by corners and syndicates. My attack was not against
the Board, but against the abuses that were threatening
its very life and were in India, South America, and else¬
where awaking a destructive competition against the Ameri¬
can farmer.
One of the main reasons moving him to write was
that the courts of the Board had been declared by
itself and by the State Supreme Court to be above the
law. He advocated the establishment of tribunals for
trade disputes since such could not wait for the ordinary
courts, but to be "courts of justice not injustice," to
be within the jurisdiction of the law, and to be federal.
That this criticism was timely and just subsequent
development proved.
When I wrote in 1883 in the North American Review
[he wrote Mr. Hutchinson in 1888] the Board as I have
stated had abolished its comer rule, and the Supreme Court
of Illinois had just reiterated its preposterous doctrine that
because the Board was a voluntary association, the rela¬
tions of its members were not subject to that review by the
courts which even family life cannot escape. Since then
the Board has restored its comer rule, and the Supreme
Court has abandoned its self-destmctive and state-destmc-
tive fallacies.
His relentless pen did not stop. Within a year, in
His First Volley
69
June, 1884, another article, "Lords of Industry,"
appeared in the North American Review. It was a
formidable exposure of the combinations then organised
in almost every commodity and used to enhance prices
by reducing the output—a "war against plenty,"—■
although "the majority have never yet been able to
buy enough of anything, the minority have too much
of everything to sell. " It surveyed these combinations
in detail,—the National Burial Case Association with
its action to keep up prices and keep down the number
of coffins, done in secret "lest mortality should be dis¬
couraged"; the Empire Iron Company formed "to
prevent the calamity of too much iron pipe " ; the textile
manufacturers who met "to cure the devastating plague
of too much cotton cloth." It told of the large sub¬
sidies paid by combinations to factories for standing
idle "with, however, no payment to its men for not
working"; of the Nail Association's suspension of nail-
making for five weeks, to the great distress of eight
thousand workmen, "who are also machines—self-
feeders."
All this was news. "Lords of Industry" gave the
public its first clear view of the centralisation of its
industries. "It initiated the trust discussion in this
cotmtry," said the Christian Union' years after. The
change it records from competition to combination,
which his trained vision saw as an accomplished fact,
was as yet unnoticed by the average citizen. He gave
the new fact its due place as a primal force ; he saw in
it nothing less than "one of those revolutions which
march through history with giant strides." He gave
it its social and ethical status ; the evil, he said, lay not
in the new force but in its perversion by a few for
' Afterwards called The Outlook.
70 Henry Demarest Lloyd
selfish ends. What was needed was to moralise it.
New moral inventions, he said, must now be made
that will equal our great material ones,—a work for
the citizen and moralist of an importance never before
equalled.
These combinations are not to be waved away as fresh
pictures of folly or total depravity. There is something in
them deeper than that. The Aryan has proved by the ex¬
perience of thousands of years that he can travel. "But
travel," Emerson says, "is the fool's paradise." We must
now prove that we can stay at home, and stand it as well as
the Chinese have done. Future Puritans cannot emigrate
from Southampton to Plymouth Rock. They can only sail
from righteousness to righteousness. Our young men can
no longer go west ; they must go up or down. Not new land,
but new virtue must be the outlet for the future.
The St. Louis Globe-Democrat reprinted the entire
article, and as late as 1888, it was used in Congress in
the trust discussion and referred to as the best authority
extant. He received among other letters the following
from brave John Swinton:
John Swinton's Paper,
21 Park Row, New York,
Dec. 25, 1884.
My Dear Sir:
During the sixteen months of the existence of this paper
of mine—by becoming a subscriber to which you gratified
me long ago—I have done no reading whatever beyond
the "copy" in which I have been perpetually immersed.
Now that the paper's career appears to be drawing to a
close, I have read something of yours that has given me
very great enjoyment indeed. This Christmas night—after
I had finished the writing of a brief piece on " The New Feu¬
dalism"—which made five columns of work for to-day—
His First Volley
71
I recalled that I had heard of an article of yours in the
North American Review for June last. I searched for and
found the number of the Review and I have just at mid¬
night finished its study. I write you these lines merely to
tell you of my profound appreciation of that masterly piece
of work, so full of research, thought, and justice, so compre¬
hensive in its grasp, so far reaching in its views, so great
and good in its purpose. I have felt for the past sixteen
months as though I was fighting a single-handed battle
here in New York, without a backer in the country, but
your brave essay gives me to understand that there are
stouter soldiers of whom I knew nothing. ... It ought
to be put out in a tract and scattered over the land. . . .
I should not have written you this had not your
Hocking contribution shown you to be a man of heart as
the Review article shows you to be a man of thought.
His friend, George lies, sent this and the other arti¬
cles to Robert Louis Stevenson, who wrote :
Saranac Lake, Dec. 14, 1887.
Goodness knows what we have to thank you for—or
I should say, what not. I was exceedingly interested by the
articles of Mr. Lloyd, who is certainly a very capable, clever
fellow; he writes the most workmanlike article of any man
known to me in America, unless it should be Parkman. Not
a touch in Lloyd of the amateur; and but James, Howells,
and the aforesaid Parkman, I can't call to mind one Ameri¬
can writer who has not a little taint of it. . . . It howls
and blows and rains and snows in a pleasant medley of ill
weather; and I am from the midst of it.
Yours truly,
Robert Louis Stevenson.
This was the last of the series which made so profound
an impression, and first brought Henry D. Lloyd into
prominence. Gathered with the utmost conscientious-
72 Henry Demarest Lloyd
ness and submitted to experts for criticism, their facts
were never challenged. They were the earliest complete
portrayals of the revolution from competition to com¬
bination which was so rapidly transforming American
industry, and were the precursors of its now abtmdant
literature. The clearness with which they tell the
story and the accuracy of the warning are remarkable
in view of the confusion of new conditions. In them
he sounded the first faint note of the motive which was
to inspire his future work, namely, an expansion of
social morality to turn this new and inevitable force
from selfish monopoly to the elevation of the mass of
the people.
Through "Lords of Industry" there runs a vein
of joyous brilliancy. This may have resulted from the
happiness of having fotmd his work and a feeling of
power in it. Added to this was his delight in the success
of his brother Demarest, who had produced in his
first play. For Congress, then running at Hooley's
Theatre in Chicago, as new and distinctive a type among
American plays as Henry's articles were in the realm
of social science. "A pair of bright boys, those Lloyds, "
said the Chicago Evening Journal.
About this time Mrs. Lloyd met her old acquaintance,
William Dean Howells, for the first time since her mar¬
riage. He recalled that a contributor by the name of
Lloyd had almost kept him from catching his steamer
to Europe, so fussy was he over the proof of his article
coming out in the Atlantic. "Is he a relative of
yours?" asked Mr. Howells. As this referred to her
husband, Mrs. Lloyd laughed and answered, "Yes,
he's a relative of mine by marriage." "Then there is
another Lloyd, Demarest Lloyd," continued Howells,
"who is equally reprehensible, since his play. For Con-
His First Volley
73
gress, is keeping a play of Mark Twain's and mine
off the boards. Is that a relative too?" Mrs. Lloyd
then explained that whereas she had married Henry
D. Lloyd for himself, she "stayed married" in order to
keep such a charming brother-in-law as Demarest.
Meanwhile the daily routine of Mr. Lloyd's editorial
writing had continued without a break. But he felt
promptings to push more directly into the field of
social service now beginning to reveal itself to him.
He wrote to his father:
There are always unpleasant things about being a hired
man. I suppose I have the minimum of them. I never
receive blame or praise, I am never directed what to do—
I come and go and work absolutely at my own discretion
—but there is no growth in my work in any direction I
specially care to grow in, and I can foresee—feel already—
that before many years I shall need more money and more
liberty than I can have on a salary. I don't care to be
rich, and I have no idea of ever being famous. I would
like to be independent and I would like to feel that I was
doing some good in the world. Perhaps my day will
come—perhaps it never will. Either way, I hope to be¬
have philosophically.
When the campaign of 1884 opened he had so com¬
plete a distrust of the policy of the Republican party
and so strong a feeling against its presidential candidate,
Blaine, whom the Chicago Tribune was supporting, and
for whom he vowed that he should not write a line, that
he was questioning whether the time to cease work for
the paper had come. Mr. Medill knowing his feeling
came to him and told him that they should expect him
to give them good strong articles on financial matters
during the campaign—an incident which he often told
74 Henry Demarest Lloyd
as exemplifying Mr. Medill's professional courtesy.
But before he had taken any definite step, nature inter¬
posed and the course of his work was interrupted by
serious illness. As he wrote many editorials while still
in bed and returned to the office too soon, his recovery
was not complete. Prolonged insomnia and an alarm¬
ing nervous breakdown necessitated rest, and he left
the Tribune in March, 1885.
Following this, he and his wife went on his first
journey to Europe. While in Venice Mrs. Lloyd was
seized with malignant typhoid and her life was in
danger. Alone in a foreign city, surrounded by doctors
and nurses of whose reliability he had no proof, his
situation seemed desperate. His brother Demarest,
then living in Paris where he was recuperating from
overwork, and writing for the Lester Wallack Company
his third play. The Dominie's Daughter, hurried to
Venice. Happily the crisis was passed in safety.
Henry and I have had some enchanting weeks in Swit¬
zerland [wrote Mrs. Lloyd] and the nightmare of Venice
is now only seen through the medium of thankfulness that
it was no darker. . . . Henry is better, and I have never
known him happier than he has been among the mountains.
He stays with Demarest, and I hope the English tour will
re-establish his health and strength.
The brothers had a memorable journey together,
first to the Lake region, "the only place in Europe I
would be willing to live in," Henry wrote, "where we
created all the excitement we could by questioning the
right of the earl to keep a chain across the Avon to
prevent the passage of boats"; to Scotland, "full of
ozone and royalty." He was reading George Eliot's
biography, just published.
His First Volley
75
I have learned some new things from George Eliot's
autobiographic revelations—she was surely a great-hearted
and sincere woman, but what marvellous diet was hers for
a novel writer. There is a certain fitness and continuity
between the fiowers the bee feeds on and the honey, even
the mulberry leaf and the silk, but Hegel and Mommsen
and Kant and Spencer as the raw material for Adam Bede
and The Mill on the Floss, etc., is certainly extraordinary.
. . . George Eliot shows herself to be a noble-hearted,
deep-thoughted, sweet woman in these pages. . . . One
thing she has taught me over again, though you know from
what I have told you that I have already learned it, and
that is that one can do one's life-work despite gravest physi¬
cal limitations. Her way of working through headaches,
prostration, nervousness, and all kinds of ills was heroic.
In London he renewed his acquaintance with William
Mather, the noted philanthropic employer, whom he
had met in America the year before, and with William
Clarke, the socialist writer, with whom he had begun a
brisk correspondence. He wrote home his experiences :
London, England, Aug. i, 1885.
I have almost become a member of the "third house"
of Parliament. With a card from Mr. Thomson, M. P., got
by the kindness of Theodore Stanton, of Paris, I went twice
on Wednesday, and yesterday I went again with a Mr.
Henry Norman. . . . He introduced me in the lobby to
Pamell, whom I am to meet next Thursday at five for a talk
about English-Irish politics, to Professor James Bryce of
Oxford, who pretended that he knew me by name, and
indulged in some kind generalities about coming to take
breakfast with him—to Thorold Rogers, and some lesser
lights.
Aug. 5, 1885.
. . . Meeting Englishmen like Bryce and Rogers and
76 Henry Demarest Lloyd
Monis and seeing the individual and powerful work they
do makes me long to be my own man, and devote myself
wholly to the work I have to do!
Last night I was introduced to Stepniak, the great Rus¬
sian Nihilist, and to Morris, ... at a socialist meeting
where Morris spoke. Morris is a Norse god style of fellow,
big, broad, hairy, loud, and kind. Every allusion—and
there were many—to righting the wrongs of the poor by
revolution was greeted with vociferous applause. Prof.
Bryce said to me that there was, he thought, no revolution¬
ary feeling in England to speak of, no hostility of classes, but
I felt something very different in the air last night. This
meeting, unlike our similar gatherings, was composed almost
entirely of natives, which makes it ten times more significant
for England, than our Bohemian and German socialistic
meetings are in America. I had but a word with Morris,
but am to see him again. It is a curious thing to note, that
just as at the time of the French Revolution, so here the
broadest ideas of free love are going hand in hand with the
other anarchies. I was positively startled to hear Morris
enunciate doctrines which would reduce love to the miscel¬
laneous intercourse that would keep mankind on the level
of a herd of wild dogs. I think even the pure-minded
Clarke is tainted in his head with these abominable miscon¬
ceptions, so false to nature itself. We had a talk about it,
and I think he got a new point of view from what I told him
of my ideas. Even from the point of view of man as an
animal, the highest happiness, the best growth, the noble
life—animal life—are to be found only by finding your mate,
and true matehood demands absolute fidelity from the begin¬
ning of life to the end of it. To live purely until you find
your mate—to live faithfully in love after you have found
him or her—^there can be but one law for both—that is the
real free love. Love is faulty, enslaved, and degraded just
so far as it departs from that ideal. The chastity before
marriage is as much a part of true love as the loyalty after¬
wards to its pledges. The melting into one another of two
His First Volley
77
natures who have lived for each other from the beginning
to the end is the summit of human happiness; it is the only
noble, tolerable animalism. Every heart that loves feels
the imperious necessity of giving all to the one it loves—
body, mind, and soul. It cannot give, and be happy truly,
the body to one and the heart to another, it cannot give
part of the body away to another than its true love, and not
know itself hurt and maimed. We must begin to love long
before we know whom we love.
Aug. 7,1885.
... I called on Prof. Bryce in the morning and I took
Demarest with me. He had promised me some letters of
introduction, but I said nothing about them. He however
to my very great delight did not need any reminder, but
gave me letters that will unlock the best doors in Cambridge,
Edinboro, and Aberdeen. We had a very pleasant talk.
I told him about the socialist meeting the night before, but
he insists that the people are not in any revolutionary tem¬
per at all. As to the people of London, I am sure he is mis¬
taken. He was greatly amused by the remark I repeated to
him, which I made to Morris. I said to Morris: "We have
had for many years in our house a most delightful arm-chair
of your make, which my wife has named the 'Earthly
Paradise.* " Bryce said that was very good, and must have
delighted Morris very much, but the fact is I don't think
Morris really took it in at all. He was excited with the
fumes of the speech he had made. ... In the afternoon
I went with Norman to the House of Commons and was
introduced to several of the Irish members, one of whom, a
very agreeable fellow—T. P. O'Connor—sent me a letter
of introduction which wUl be of use to me in Dublin.
As he turned homeward in September after these
happy weeks he wrote to his wife :
Our love is not perfect, for we are not perfect, but it is
the best there is in us; the best there is for us—this "sweet
78 Henry Demarest Lloyd
association" of heart, head, soul, life. Let us preserve its
passion and its purity as we would the beauty of a lily and
holding each other to this "best," let us look with calm and
really untouched minds on the carking cares of life. ... I
doubt whether I go back to the Tribune. I shall not decide
until I have been able to talk it over with you and Father.
I think perhaps the time has come for me to devote myself
to a larger constituency—a constituency I already have.
I cannot work for both. That did well enough when I was
willing to bum my candle at both ends in my enthusiasm,
but I must now choose one to serve and follow. If I return
to my previous literary excesses I shall soon go the way of
Sheehan and Runnion. And thanks to Father's more than
fatherly kindness to me I do not see that there is any reason
why I should do that. Mother Lloyd wrote me that Father
[Bross] had said to her that it seemed to him it might be
best for me not to return to the Tribune, so that I see his
mind is working in the same direction. . . . The future
presses close with its work calling to be done by tme nerves
and fresh brain.
He came back feeling better, and started in to read
and to study. He wrote, for instance, to Andrew D.
White of Cornell University for a course of reading on
the French Revolution, and to his friend Edwin D.
Mead of Boston for one in higher German philosophy
and ethics. His friendship with William M. Salter,
leader of the Chicago Ethical Culture Society, had
already begtm, and about this time he first met the
noble-hearted Samuel M. Jones of Toledo. But his
return to health was only temporary. He was more ill
than he knew, too ill, he said, to have heart for anything.
The reconquest of his strength was a difficult task, and
one that although he was of rare thoughtfulness called
for devotion and sacrifice on the part of his sympathetic
wife. Mrs. Lloyd wrote to a friend :
His First Volley
79
As day after day goes by and Henry has not yet been
able to go back to work, but still has sleepless nights and
terrible headaches by day, I don't feel sure that otir hard
pull is over yet. It will take time and patience and courage
for the poor fellow to pull through, but I believe he will come
out well, and be able to do the world's work so near his
heart. We have given up all social and worldly ambitions
I really believe. This year of sore trial, of nearness to
separation has almost seemed to alter all our life and
thought.
Through her kind planning his father-in-law, whose
fortunes had recovered from the great fire, now gave
him the land on which stood the Winnetka home
and the privilege of buying ten shares of his Tribune
stock. In this way he acquired an independent in¬
come, and was relieved from the need of returning to
work prematurely. He did not return to the Tribune.
Thus ended his career as a journalist, though his con¬
tinual letters to editors in an endeavour to spread
news or form opinion, even one or two efforts to sug¬
gest policy to the Chicago Tribune after he became a
stockholder, show that he never lost the jotunalist's
point of view. Thirteen years' work on a leading paper,
besides making him master in his profession, had added
to his political experience a thorough comprehension
of the financial and industrial machinery of society.
It had, moreover, led him directly toward that larger
social service for which his ardent spirit was ever
longing. In the course of it, he had diagnosed the
disease of our era, and begun to discern the remedy:
"the idea of collectivity is not new," his notes said,
" but we are on the eve of a great expansion of it—
the extension of co-operative industry into politics. " But
the superb health of his youth was gone forever. He
8o Henry Demarest Lloyd
was now to approach work of increasing seriousness
with a slender vitality unable to endure strain.
In his magazine articles he had been drawing nearer
to his special plea for those upon whom the social
injustice weighed heaviest—the workers. He was
studying and investigating their case. One day in the
Tribune office when he was deploring their sufferings,
an editor said: "But you do not know by experience
whether these facts are true." The justice of this
criticism struck him. He asked his friend Ethelbert
Stewart, Commissioner of the Illinois Board of Labotir
Statistics, to take him on one of his investigating tours.
So they went through the slums. When they reached
the street, after one especially pathetic sight, Lloyd
suddenly sat down on the steps and broke into sobs.
This tour was followed by others. With a policeman's
badge imder his coat, he studied the slums of Chicago
and later of New York and London. He wrote to John
Swinton, June, 1886:
. . . Let me take this opportunity of telling you what you
perhaps already know, that I am not now doing any work
for the Tribune. Since March, 1885, the only lines I have
written for publication were those in the Age of Steel which
you reprinted. But I am overcoming my "brain fag" and
sleeplessness, and hope before long to be afield again. . . .
These lines' show the position to which he had now
thought his way :
The labourers are justly dissatisfied with their share of
the products of their labour. Their remedy seems to me
to lie in combination—combinations to make better con¬
tracts with their employers, combinations like the supply
stores of England, to buy their goods in quantity at whole-
■ The A ge of Steel, January 2, John Swinton's Paper, February 14,1886.
His First Volley-
Si
sale prices, combinations to enable working men to engage
in productive enterprises on their own account, and as their
own capitalists and employers. In all this work it is
abundantly evident that the working men have the S3mipa-
thy of the thinkers of the world and of the lovers of man¬
kind. In our enlightened age this growth upward should be
accomplished without social discord, like that which made
the enfranchisement of the working men of the Middle Ages
the prize of blood and iron; but if a revolution does come,
it will be, like the French Revolution, simply a violent epi¬
sode in the emancipation of man.
vol. I—6
CHAPTER V
DEFENDING THE CHICAGO ANARCHISTS
Chicago now became the theatre of a startling
tragedy in the capital and labour conflict. The
events opening with the Haymarket meeting May 4,
1886, and culminating in the execution of the Anarchists
in 1887 are engraved for ever in the people's history.
Chicago as a labour centre had been charged with
excitement for years. Bitter times had followed the
1873 panic. In 1877 strikes occurred in the United
States so widely that at one time ten governors were
calling for national troops. On July 26 of that year,
Federal troops killed people in the streets of Chicago,
while at "the Turner Hall meeting," a conference of
furniture workers and their employers over the yearly
wage agreement, occurred the following:
The attendants were unarmed, [said Lloyd to Gover¬
nor Oglesby ten years later] the meeting was peaceable.
. . . While the people were sitting quietly, engaged merely
in the business for which they had assembled, a force of
from fifteen to twenty policemen came suddenly into the
hall, many if not all . . . having a police club in one hand,
and a revolver in the other, and making no pause to deter¬
mine the actual character of the meeting, they immediately
shouted: "Get out of here, you !"
and began beating the people with their clubs; some of them
actually fired their revolvers. One young man was shot
82
Defending the Chicago Anarchists 83
through the back of the head and killed; . . . when the
people hastened to make their escape . . . they found
policemen stationed on either side of the stairway . . .
who applied their clubs, . . . seemingly with all the vio¬
lence practicable. . . . These general facts are established
by an overwhelming mass of testimony.
This and similar events led many of the Chicago
workers to feel that their government was in the hands
of a hostile master class. They sought remedy through
politics, but when their candidate was counted out,
a faction in the German Turner Societies advocated
preparation for violent resistance, and converted their
gymnastics into an armed drill. When a subsequent
statute declared this unlawful, they did not disarm.
At the time of the anarchist tragedy, 1886, industrial
depression again prevailed. The American labour
movement was advancing with great speed, politically
and industrially. The Knights of Labour had reached
about 1,000,000 members, but was already giving way
to the new American Federation of Labour. The world¬
wide agitation for an eight-hour day was especially
active in Chicago. In 1885 the American Trades and
Labour Unions, representing about 800,000 organised
workers, including eighty groups of the International
Working Men's Association, had convened in Chicago,
and desiring to help the unemployed, estimated at
2,000,000, decided on concerted effort to establish the
eight-hour day, then legal in many States. This
agitation found its intellectual leaders among the
Germans and was taken up by labour unions over the
country. May i, 1886, was fixed for universal demon¬
strations and strikes. In the principal cities thousands
struck; in New York 30,000 gathered in Union Square.
By Monday, May 3, Chicago strikers numbered 35,000,
84 Henry Demarest Lloyd
and at a meeting of lumber-shovers near McCormick's
Reaper Works, a riot occurred in which the police
fired, and killed a striker. This fresh instance of
the killing of defenceless workers by "Pinkertons"
and police caused great excitement, especially as the
number of slain was erroneously reported to be six.
That evening a meeting took place at Greifs Hall,
known in the history of the case as the " Monday night
meeting," where a circular headed "Revenge, " written
by August Spies, was distributed, calling for a mass
meeting of protest on May 4 in Haymarket Square.
This meeting proved to be about one thousand strong
and was orderly. Shortly before eleven o'clock as the
crowd was dispersing, "Mayor Harrison the First,"
who had been looking on, went to the Desplaines Police
Station and ordered Captain Bonfield to dismiss the
reserves, saying that it would not be necessary to go to
the Haymarket since all was peaceful. Hardly had
Harrison left when Bonfield at the head of 180 police¬
men marched at almost double-quick time into the
Haymarket. Only about two hundred people were
there, for it was late and rain had set in. Bonfield
demanded their dispersion. "We are peaceable," an¬
swered one Fielden who was making a speech. In a
flash a böfnb was thrown. It prostrated sixty-six
policemen and seven died of their wounds.
A panic seized Chicago. The authorities, not finding
the bomb-thrower, arrested anarchists conspicuous in
the eight-hour movement, August Spies, Michael
Schwab, Adolph Fischer, Samuel Fielden, George Engel,
Louis Lingg, and Oscar Neebe. Two suspects, Schnau-
belt and Seliger, were arrested, but soon released.
Albert R. Parsons, a prominent friend of labour, had
returned from Cincinnati on the fatal day, in order to
Defending the Chicago Anarchists 85
organise the sewing women of Chicago, and while thus
engaged had been called to the Haymarket meeting
and been one of the principal speakers. The police
searched for him in vain, though his letter published in
the Daily News showed that he was not far away.
When the Anarchists were to be tried for conspiracy.
Parsons surrendered himself. Mrs. Lizzie M. Holmes, a
pioneer organiser of Chicago's working women, whose
efforts to help the condemned and whose grief are
touching elements in the human side of the story, wrote
recently to me :
I remember that Mr. Parsons returned to the court¬
room, Chicago, on the morning of June 21, 1886. He
had been safely hidden, my husband, Mr. W. T. Holmes,
and Mr. David Hoan of Waukesha being the only persons
in the world who knew where he was. He could have
escaped, but his great regard for truth and justice urged
him to come back and share the fate of his comrades, to
help plead their cause and the cause which had been so dear
to him for a number of years. I consider it one of the
bravest acts in history. . . .
When I heard that he had gone to Chicago to stand
trial [writes W. T. Holmes] I hastened to . . . the jail. I
said to him: "Do you know what you have done?" and he
said: "Yes, thoroughly. I never expect while I live to be a
free man again. They will kill me, but I could not bear to
be at liberty, knowing that my comrades were here and were
to suffer for a crime of which they were as iimocent as
I." . . .
Captain William P. Black, a prominent attorney,
tramped day after day from one Chica:go office to
another seeking a criminal lawyer who would in loyalty
to his oath of service to the State give the accused the
86 Henry Demarest Lloyd
legal means of a fair trial, but not one would do it!
He heroically decided to do it himself. The trial was
conducted in the court of Judge Joseph E. Gary, with
Julius S. Griimell as State's attorney and William P.
Black as prisoners' counsel. Its progress was eagerly
watched in Europe and America. Although five of the
men asked for a separate trial, all were tried under one
panel. The Court early abandoned any attempt to
connect them with the actual throwing of the bomb;
only four had been at the Haymarket, of whom only
two were present at the explosion, and only two attended
the "Monday night meeting" of "conspiracy." The
Court endeavoured to prove that by favouring a general
plan for the overthrow of society by force, and by public¬
ly advising the people to arm, they had abetted the
unknown assassin. The line of the defence was that the
Court, failing to find the bomb-thrower, failed to prove
that he had been influenced by any one of the prisoners.
Tîloyd attended the sessions, deeply interested. Judge
Gary's conduct of the trial aroused in him a seething
wrath which greatly surprised his friends. "I re¬
member," wrote one, years after, "he was imlike him¬
self in denouncing Judge Gary for acting as prosecuting
attorney on the bench."
All were sentenced to be hanged except Neebe, who
was given fifteen years' imprisonment. The verdict
was confirmed upon appeal by the State and Federal
Supreme Courts. After that nothing remained except
to appeal for clemency to the Governor of Illinois, then
Richard J. Oglesby. The sensational conduct of the
trial, the fury of the press, and the fearless speeches of
the prisoners had terrorised the coimtry. The people
of Chicago believed that a revolution already definitely
planned might at any moment burst forth. Therefore
Defending the Chicago Anarchists 87
the verdict had been approved by an overwhelming ma¬
jority. But here and there were independent thinkers
who judged either the trial or the verdict unfair or
believed it inexpedient to hang men for their opinions.
Among a few of the workers and in the small groups
of socialists was found the most pronoimced sympathy
with the prisoners, even those not agreeing with their
political views still feeling that it was for them that the
men had gotten into trouble. From London a memorial
asking for clemency was sent to Oglesby, for which
16,000 signatures were secured in working men's clubs
on a single Sunday. While the majority outside the
workers seemed to have lost their judicial sense and
clamoured for revenge, there were among these a few
who, convinced that justice was being perverted, had
the courage to protest. They included General M. M.
Trumbull, John Brown—son of the great emancipator
—Lyman J. Gage, Judge Murray F. Tuley, Joseph R.
Buchanan, General Roger A. Pryor, William Dean
Howells, John Swinton, Robert G. Ingersoll, Father
James C. Huntington, William Morris, Walter Crane,
Mrs. Annie Besant, Stepniak, Ford Maddox Brown,
Stopford Brooke, and Walter Besant. William M.
Salter spoke bravely for the men in a lecture, after¬
ward circulated as a pamphlet, before the Chicago
Ethical Culture Society, on the ground of an unjust
verdict. He and Mr. Lloyd joined in the work for
commutation of the sentences. On their first visit to
the jail, Lloyd asked Spies to give him a word of intro¬
duction to Lingg, but to his surprise found that Spies
did not know Lingg, his fellow "conspirator." All of
the English-speaking prisoners knew and admired
Lloyd's work. One of the subjects he discussed with
them was the use of force in securing a more just régime.
88 Henry Demarest Lloyd
and not one would deny that he believed in it for
defence.
There is no question [said Mr. Salter, twenty years later]
that the men believed in the use of force, but it was
defensive force, not aggressive; and the throwing of the
bomb undoubtedly came under that category to their minds,
since the rights of public meeting and of free speech seemed
to them invaded—though I believe men like Spies and
Fielden regretted the throwing of the bomb, and it was not
a part of their programme; ... I think it was Fischer
who said to me when I asked him who threw it, "Well, I
don't know, Mr. Salter, but I suppose it was some excited
working man."
Adolph Fischer wrote:
Cook Co. Jail, Nov. 4, 1887.
Messrs. H. D. Lloyd and W. M. Salter:
Gentlemen: — Your communication was handed me
yesterday. As I have told you before, anarchism and force
as such are contrary to each other. But we deny that any
individual has the right to curtail the liberty and rights of
others. The oppressed have the natural right to use force
against their oppressors; or, to speak with Jefferson, force
is justified as a defence of the rights of men. In accordance
with this principle, the Constitution of the United States
says:that the right of the citizens to bear arms is inviolable.
No thinking man will deny that the present condition of
society is not bearable much longer. We stand before a
radical transformation of society. Will those whom the
peculiar state of society gives such enormous advantages
give up their privileges peaceably? This is the question.
If the anarchists would be convinced of this they would be
the happiest of men. But from all observations they con¬
clude that the privileged classes will not give way to reason,
but will uphold their privileges by force, and that therefore
Defending the Chicago Anarchists 89
a general conflict between the diametrical classes is inevi¬
table. In this connection it was that the anarchists warned
the people to be ready for the storm and to defend their
rights.
Yours truly,
Adolph Fischer.
They [Mr. Salter and Mr. Lloyd] were anxious to do
all they could and advised us as to what . . . would be best
for us to say and do. . . . [wrote Samuel Fielden, recalling
these conferences]. As I remember now the situation
appeared to them to be that if we cotdd conscientiously
admit even that we had made mistakes in our propaganda,
that might assist. They were all aware that the sentences
were unjust, and did not for a moment ask us to say any¬
thing that would imply our guilt. But they knew that pub¬
lic opinion had been inflamed against us by falsehood . . .
and felt that the Governor knowing what public opinion
. . . was would be hard to move. ... I am sorry to say
that the sequel proved that they were right. They also,
I remember, mentioned the fact that if they and all the
others working with them failed and the sentence was car¬
ried out it would leave behind it a very bitter feeling
among the labouring element. I remember Mr. Lloyd
saying to me through the bars of the cell that he believed
in the English method of revolution—the parliamentary—
rather than the French—the violent. To which I replied
I did the same provided that the enemy would allow it.
In regard to whether the term anarchist is the proper
one or socialist I wish to say that they were anarchists, all
of them at that time. . . .
Lyman J. Gage arranged a private conference to
discuss an appeal for commutation, the inside history
of which is told in Mr. Lloyd's note-book:
Wm. R. Manierre rettiming Sunday evening, March 3,
90 Henry Demarest Lloyd
1889, from Altgeld's Economic Conference told me about
Gage's story (told Manierre by Gage) of the meeting he
called in behalf of a commutation of the Anarchists' sen¬
tences. Assurances were communicated to me privately,
said Gage, that the Governor would commute the sentence
of death in the case of the condemned Anarchists, excepting
Lingg, Engel, and Fischer, if an influential request to that
effect were forwarded to him from the leading citizens of
Chicago. Mr. Gage called a meeting at once of about fifty
of the leading merchants and business men of his bank. He
stated to them the purpose of the meeting, and gave about
these reasons for the proposed appeal for commutation:
1.—The majesty of the law had been vindicated; the
case had gone from the lowest court to the highest, and
the law had been vindicated and maintained.
2.—The Anarchists in Joliet as hostages would be a better
protection to society than their blood.
3.—It was largely believed by the working men that the
lives of these men were demanded by the wealthy merchants,
etc., because of the threats they were said to have made
against the property and business of the rich. If these
business men now asked to have their lives spared, and the
request were granted, it would show that the blood of the
anarchists was not demanded from selfish fear or vengeful-
ness and it would be an act of magnanimity most useful.
The prosecuting State's attorney Grinnell was not invited,
but he came upon the invitation of some one who had been
asked. He spoke and opposed the commutation strongly.
Marshall Field also opposed it strongly. One by one the
gentlemen present withdrew silently, and the meeting eva¬
porated. " It was terribly mortifying to me," said Mr. Gage.
"Afterwards many of the men present came around to me
singly, and said they had agreed with me in my views and
would have been glad to join in such an appeal, but that in
face of the opposition of powerful men like Marshall Field
they did not like to do so, as it might injure them in business,
or socially, etc."
Defending the Chicago Anarchists 91
So nothing was done and Parsons and Spies were
hanged.
It was indeed an ugly caisis, calling for clear brain
and moral courage. Many were like the millionaire
who said to a friend of Lloyd's : " If Gary does n't convict
those men the business men will drive him out of the
State, and if he does convict them he ought to be driven
out. But you know how I'm situated, I can't afford
to say that openly." Through Mr. Lloyd's mind was
coursing intense indignation that these few powerless
men should be so beset when the great tyrants were
unmolested, when the hands of the State itself were not
clean. Among his notes are the following:
Shall we be safe in setting—by the State—the precedent
of arrest without warrant, search without warrant, and con¬
demnation to death for being "leaders"?
The country is perfectly safe; these men, caged, are
entirely at our mercy, a poor miserable handful. No need
for panic or passion—we can loosen the tension of a false
fright, created by flaring fools, by detectives exaggerating
their own importance, by police most of whom have brought
to this coimtry the notions of Mitchelstown. . . . The cry
of danger to the public is the favourite device of tyrants,
says Aristotle. They thus get a bodyguard, next the body¬
guard are turned against the people. It is true there was
danger to the people—but it came from the very men
who raised the cry. I suspect this clatter and fanfaronade
about dynamite and anarchism—^this obvious attempt of
the press to frighten the women—^male and female—and the
children into fits, . . . —^in a world of justice who fears
dynamite? . . .
These men are very weak and helpless—as are those for
whom however mistakingly they acted. State's attorney
Grinnell claims (in summary of testimony about meeting)
92 Henry Demarest Lloyd
that socialists are not to be believed! As if the fact that a
man believed in extending to machines, etc., the principles
of the post-office incapacitated him from telling the truth.
The worst foreigners are the men who are introducing
European continental methods of government by
police. . . .
Remarks of Supreme Court.
The Court could infer conspiracy and murder from
membership in an international association and for violent
insanity of public speeches, but can not infer prejudicial
remarks when a bailiff admitted that he "packed the
jury. "
The Supreme Court can infer accidents, when one
hundred to two hundred people are killed as result of con¬
solidation, stock-watering, robbing trusts, but not when an
unknown madman throws a bomb; no accident is allowed
to break the connection between that and ranting speeches,
etc.
As the day for the executions drew near, the pleas,
whether for mercy or no mercy, became so numerous
that Governor Oglesby, whose conscientious states¬
manship was under severe trial, announced that he
would devote Wednesday, November 9, to hearing
petitions. Mr. Lloyd, who was his personal friend, and
Mr. Salter, determined to secure a hearing. In the
meantime Lloyd printed appeals which were distributed
in business offices. As Governor Oglesby was an old
friend of Mrs. Lloyd's father, and had known her from
childhood, she decided to go with her husband. As she
happened to meet Mr.Medill,he asked whether what he
heard could be true, that her husband was going to
Springfield to plead for the Anarchists. Upon her
assuring him that not only was this true, but that she
was to accompany him, Mr. Medill, as her father's
Defending the Chicago Anarchists 93
friend, took occasion to warn her against such a dis¬
astrous course.
" Do you realise what you are doing, have you and Mr.
Lloyd considered how this will influence your future.?"
he asked. He pictured her father's extreme displeasure,
and even predicted that it would result in her being
disinherited. He therefore implored her to use her
influence to prevent her husband's taking such action.
"Do you suppose that any such consideration will
stop Henry Lloyd from doing what he believes is right? "
said she.
It was accordingly with a full appreciation of the
possible consequences that Lloyd undertook his inter¬
cession for the men, and that Mrs. Lloyd accompanied
him. On the morning of November 9, the dele¬
gation, composed of Mr. Salter, Mr. Lloyd, and S. J.
McConnell, was among the first to arrive at the State
House. At 9:40 the doors were opened. There were a
hundred or more petitioners from various States, and a
delegation from the Illinois Legislature to ask for a
thirty days' reprieve. The Governor's mail had con¬
tained four hundred and fifty letters; telegrams were
constantly arriving, some begging clemency, but the
majority urging the full execution of the law. Joseph
R. Buchanan, in his book. The Story of a Labour
Agitator, vividly describes the long room and the
Governor pacing anxiously as he listened to the pleas.
Since the Salter-Lloyd delegation represented neither
the Amnesty Society nor any labour organisation, they
requested that their petition be considered separately.
The Governor consented and a private conference was
granted. It was five o'clock before their turn came.
Lloyd then made what was deemed a powerful plea, ' to
' See Appendix.
94 Henry Demarest Lloyd
which the Governor listened with deep interest. He
confined it to:
A presentment of a skeleton statement of facts which for
the most part did not appear in the proceedings in Court,
which show:
1. That the words and acts for which these men are sen¬
tenced to be hanged grew out of the great labour struggle
of our day; and
2. That their circumstances were such that although law
and justice demand punishment, justice demands that that
punishment shall be less than death.
, In general he argued from the side of justice rather
than the law, reviewing old evidence and introducing
new to show a difference between the legal and the
actual import of the case. Among the facts not pre¬
sented in Court, he offered for the first time the affi¬
davit of Otis S. Favor, giving evidence that the bailiff
had selected the jury with the avowed purpose of
hanging the men.
Here is a series of events [he said in closing] beginning
with an unlawful and fatal attack upon citizens by the
police and ending in an unlawful and fatal attack upon the
police by some one unknown, both occurrences being epi¬
sodes in what appears to be growing into the most diflScult
social readjustment in history. Are there not in the whole
chain of events circumstances which make it consistent
with justice to lessen the punishment legally decreed?
His manuscript shows that he had in mind to say
further:
What then will this bloodshed do but tell the world
that power and privilege, culture and ease, will debate in
blood the question between them and the poor and im-
Defending the Chicago Anarchists 95
privileged, the unlearned and desperate. The fair face of
Christ shines through centuries of bloodshed, and says,
"Father,
But here his pen stopped and this was marked out.
The petition printed the day before the execution in the
Chicago Tribune, where rabid editorials against the
condemned had been inflaming the public, revealed to
many readers a new view.
Among the Anarchists themselves. Parsons, Lingg,
Engel, and Fischer, in spite of the heartrending pleas
of their families, refused to ask for less than absolute
acquittal, as the only attitude consistent with their
innocence. "If the State can afford to put me to
death, " said Parsons, "I can afford to die." Spies in a
noble letter pleaded for the lives of his comrades. J: R.
Buchanan, who read it to the Governor, says that the
Governor's eyes filled with tears.
In the name of the traditions of our country [it said]
I beg you to prevent a sevenfold murder upon men whose
only crime is that they are idealists; that they long for a
better future for all. If legal murder there must be, let one,
let mine suffice. . . . Take this then; take my life; I offer
it to you that you may satisfy the fury of a semi-barbaric
mob and save that of my comrades. I know that every one
of my comrades is as willing to die, and perhaps more so
than I am. It is not for their sake that I make this offer, but
in the name of humanity and progress, in the interest of a
peaceable, if possible, development of the social forces that
are destined to lift our race upon a higher and bettér plane
of civilisation.
As a result of the pleas, and the recommendations of
the presiding judge and the State's attorney, Oglesby
commuted the sentences of Fielden and Schwab to life
96 Henry Demarest Lloyd
imprisonment. Lloyd personally carried the commuta¬
tion papers to the men in prison. Those who once
heard him tell the story many years later have not
forgotten the intense feeling with which he mentioned
this fact, saying, "I shall always think more of this
right arm for that service. "
Whether the political and economic theories of the
Anarchists were parallel with his own was not the
question. He was reading Herbert Spencer and it is
likely that his thorough study of anarchism began at
this time. His few notes contain no endorsement of it
for present problems, but show the contrary. Although
a side of the intellectual agitation preceding the forma¬
tion of a new social order, he described it as in part the
fag end of the system of perfect freedom for individual
initiative which was breaking down. To say that he
loved the Republic is not to speak empty words. One
of his notes reveals his own feeling when it speaks of
"that almost suffocating suffusion of emotion in the
breast with which we look upon the flag of our country
in a foreign land. " He saw our courts bending to class
vengeance. He realised the coming struggle and looked
with horror on this preliminary skirmish of violence and
hatred. That he shotdd at such a time experience
moments of despondency was natural. I remember his
saying: "The American Republic has already ceased to
exist. It is rotten before it is ripe. " The day after his
interview with Oglesby, he wrote:
winnbtka, Nov. id, 1887.
My dear Father:
I send you by this mail a pamphlet' on the anarchists
which gives a view of the case in which I coincide for the
' Probably Mr. Salter's.
Defending the Chicago Anarchists 97
most paxt. You will easily see that my interest is not at
all based on a question of sympathy or sentimentalism.
I will also send you a copy of this morning's Tribune con-
teiining a summary of my argument before the Governor.
The part omitted raises the point that the police dispersed
the Haymarket meeting in a manner which is held by some
lawyers to have been technically "An act of violence and
unlawful." And I asked the Governor whether in remem¬
brance of what they had suffered unlawfully and fatally
from the police previously, the attendants of the Hay-
market, apprehending that their lives might again be in
danger, could not justly be considered guilty of something
less heinous than overt and malicious murder, particularly
as the State has never yet shown who did throw the bomb
nor what his motives were.
My point was simply that all the circumstances raised so
fair a question as to whether there was in the minds of the
condemned, none of whom threw the bomb, an intent to
malicious murder that justice demanded that something
less severe than hanging should be the penalty.
If it were possible to do everything I wotdd attempt to
rescue the victims of all injustice. I undertook this because
the condemned were connected with the agitation of the
great social question of our day, of which you know I have
been a student. I am on the side of the under dog. The
agitators on that side make mistakes, commit crimes, no
doubt, but for all that theirs is the right side. I will try
to avoid the mistakes and the crimes, but I will stay by the
cause.
I am dreadfully tired. I have hardly had a square meal
or a good rest for three days. With great love to all. Mother
first.
Affectionately,
Henry.
It will always be remembered that in the stillness of
the jail, on the midnight before the execution. Parsons
VOL. 1—7
98 Henry Demarest Lloyd
sang "Annie Laurie." Was it to send a message of
calmness and courage over the walls to his comrades?
Or was he singing to the ideal of his dreams? Was it
humanity perfected, whose "brow was like the snow¬
drift"? Was it the free man of the future "whose face
was the fairest that e'er the stm shone on"? Was this
the "bonnie Annie Laurie" for whom he was to lay him
down and die?
The next morning, Friday, November li. Parsons
and Spies, Engel and Fischer were hanged—Lingg had
suffered a terrible death in prison, supposedly suicide.
That was a bitter day. How great was the excitement
it is difficult now to imagine. Chicago was in a whirl of
powerful counter currents. Sympathisers sorrowed for
the men as martyrs. Other factions were in terror.
It was rumoured that the jail would be blown up.
Corporation offices employed private detectives all
day, and many men at the pleading of their wives did
not stir outdoors.
For the funeral on Simday Lloyd wrote verses with
the refrain of Parsons's last words on the scaffold: "Let
the voice of the people be heard," and I remember as
Mrs. Lloyd sat at the piano and the family were singing
them to the air of "Annie Laurie," Lloyd wept. He
abandoned the idea of using them, fearing to increase
the people's feeling. No retaliatory blow was struck.
Chicago resumed its normal whirl, and the tragic story
soon passed into the gloom of history. But the common
people pondered it in their hearts. Its inner truth has
never been discovered. Whether the bomb was thrown
by one within the labour movement or at the in¬
stigation of hostile outsiders wishing to discredit it,
remains a mystery. The latter suspicion has not
been without many supporters. The effect, however,
Defending the Chicago Anarchists 99
was manifest. It suddenly checked the rapid pro¬
gress of the labour movement, spreading confusion
and reaction. "The throwing of the bomb has killed
the eight-hotu movement," said Samuel Gompers,
President of the American Federation of Labour, to
Governor Oglesby. One of its legal consequences was
the liability, Lloyd said, "that any participant present
or absent may be hanged for any word or deed of any
person concerned."
At the annual dinner of the Chicago Bar Association
a few weeks later, the episode was discussed. Lloyd
wrote in his note-book :
. . . Mr. Wirt Dexter is reported to have said at the
Bar Association dinner December 27, 1887, responding to
the toast, "Why are you a lawyer?": "Let me call your
attention to our relation to the State. We [the legal pro¬
fession] offer the bulwark of a conservative element, in that
we believe the State exists by contract. How needful is this
bulwark at the present time I need not say, with the deep
unrest that exists about us. When men armed with destruc¬
tive theories seek their enforcement, which would speedily
make for us an earthly hell, other professions will expostu¬
late, but the law—and I say it with Judge Gary sitting in
our midst—will hang. [Great applause.] I mention his
name in obedience to an impulse of the heart too strong to
resist, for I don't believe he will ever know how we feel
towards him and how we love him." [Applause.]
To this pass then has Democracy come in one htmdred
years after the vindication by its founders of the "destruc¬
tive theory " that the "contract" between Great Britain and
the Americans had been so broken as to be null and void.
Public notice is given by one of our greatest lawyers that
those who hold "destructive theories" and "seek their en¬
forcement"—"the law will hang"! The sentiment is
received with great applause by the flower of our bar. . . .
100 Henry Demarest Lloyd
Why, every privilege and right that make it possible for
the Bar Association to hold its meetings, and for Mr. Dexter
to address it, it owes, as we all owe every religious, political,
social, industrial, individual right, to our Huguenot, Dutch,
Roundhead, Puritan, Protestant, Gothic, Jewish ances¬
tors, who, armed with destructive theories, sought—and
achieved—their enforcement.
The first destructive theorist of our race was the incen¬
diary troglodyte who proposed that mankind should cease
running promiscuously over the hills like herds of wild dogs,
as students of primitive men teU us was the fashion, and
should differentiate themselves from tribes into families.
He was certainly condemned to death, and was probably
eaten as the pièce de résistance on the menu of the annual
banquet of the Bar Association of his day.
When Judge Gary responded, the purport of his
words was the lightness of the biurden of monopoly
and the t3n:anny of labour unions. Lloyd answered in
the press,' saying in part:
By this speech Judge Gary and the Bar Association,
which applauded him to the echo, are egging on the mon¬
opolists in their lamentable attempt—sure to fail—to break
up the trade-unions in order to force the disunited and
helpless workers to make their contracts as "individuals"
with employers massed into corporations and unions of
corporations with uncounted millions of capital. He and
the applauding Bar say to the combinations of capital:
"Your offence is light." To the combinations of labour:
"We will break you down." . . . The historian of that pos¬
terity which, as Howells finely says, "judges the judgments
of courts," will pay particular attention to this speech,,. . .
and will see in it a flood of light pouring backward.
■ Chicago Herald, January 3, 1888. See Appendix.
4-THE CHICAGO TRADE AND LABOR ASSEMBLY^
tt regular meeting, Sunday, Nov. 5th, 1893, adopted by an enthuaiaatlB rising vote the following letter by Henry D. Lloyd, and tha
joined resolutions, and or4ered 50,000 copies printed and distributed,
TO AID IN THE DEFEAT OF JUDGE OART.
By order of the Ohioaso Trade and Labor Aeaembly, THOMAS J. MORGAN, Oommttteo.
An Exposure of Judge Gary,
By HBiiRY I>. BL,OYD,
"Burden of Monopoly is Light."—Cwy.
lo the rising issue between the people and monopoly that side will
which has the judges
As ihe judges decide, so goes the contest. To enforce their decis-
i all the police of the cities, and all the sheriffs of the counties can
iscd, and behind them are the militia of the state, and back of them,
eserve, are the regular army and navy of the United States.
After years of consideration the public demanded and the legislature
cted that the abominations of the truck store system must cease, and-
. the employers must no longer force loans of millions'from
r men men and children, without interest and without consent by
iholdiiig wages But these laws are not "the law." The judges of
Supreme Court have found for the benefit of the corporations "a
1er law" in their ancient and fishy political economy. They set aside
anti'truck store law, and the weekly pay-day law. The too-rich
lonaires are made richer, and the million correspondingly poorer,
on the say-so of these judges, without appeal, there is an end of
will and welfare of the people. . ',
Along the line of such late decisions as thoseLpf Judge Ricks, at'
ido, and Judge Billings, at New Orleans, lies the goöd time coming
a every workman can be pinned to his task, if need be, by a bayonet.'
Judge Gary's public utterances-give unmistakable evidence that in
crisis he JDij«nûijoly:--aiid Jgajostr,thrH people,
ially and most bitterly is he against Ihe organizations of labor.
" What can we do to break it down ?" he cries of the latter. But
' burden " of monopoly, he says," is light."
At the Bar Association dinner December 28, rSSy, Judge Gary, as
rted from «his own manuscript by all the leading daily papers, refer-
to what he called "the arrogant assumption of the labor organi-
Qs to control the acts of every man who lives by manual labor,"
e as follows :
'■The monopolies of capital are a mischief which calls for a remedy,
he burden from them upon the individual is so light as to scarcely
:lt. Corruption in office adds temporary burden to taxes, and
s at elections put the wrong men in office. But none of these evils,
s in very rare instances, deprives anybody of the necessities of life,
cyranny under which labor groans stops industry and takes bread
the mouths of hungry women and children. IVAaf con we do to
it downt"
A judge who thinks that the burden of monopoly "is light" will
\ "light" sentence when pronouncing upon those concerned in mo-
lizing the coal, oil, sugar, flour, lumber, salt, gas, street cars,
ays and the other "necessities of life" of the people. So, in Buf-
¡two members of the oil monopoly convicted of having conspired to
up the works of a rival refiner at the risk of murdering a score of
[ngmen were sentenced by a judge who thought the burden of
poly was "light" to pay a fine of $250 each. But workingmen
tiose in the Theiss brewer^' in New York, who distribute circulars
S their friends not to patronize an unjust employer, are sent to the
intiary for a year.
ly this speech, Judge Gary, and the Bar Association which applauded
3 the echo, egged on the monopolists in their lamentable attempt
: to fail—to break up the trades-unions in order to force the disu-
.and helpless workers to make their contracts as "individuals" with
yers massed into corporations and unions of corporations with
nted millions of capital. He and the applauding bar say to the
nations of capital: "Your offence is light." To the combinations
or: , "Wir will break you down."
his extenuation on one side, and on the other the passion of the
lation: **Whai can we do to break it downf reveals a prejudice
whic^, in a great social crisis animating the ezerciae of judicial power,
might do incurable mischief.
Enveloped in several passages of Judge Gary's utterances can he
traced the unborn outlines of the judicial opinion, fully conceived and
waiting for the time of delivery, holding that in_case of a conflict be¬
tween strikers and Pinkertons or other mercenaries of business every
member of the trade-union which ordered the strike is guilty of murder
if anyone be killed. "The law is (my) common sense," and a few easy
strokes of judge-made logic—chop-logic in the days of the headsman^
choke-logic in these better times of the gallows—could hang or jail all
'the members, for instance, of the Amalgamated Association of Iron and
Steel-Workers at Homestead to the accompaniment of "a universal roar
of approval."
In an interview m the daily Tribune, of January ax, 1888, on tne
subject of railway passes. Judge Gary gave utterance to the following
views, which throw a search-light on his relations to the railway corpora¬
tions which are the most powerful and the most constant litigents in our
xdurts.
I have always accepted passes, and probably always shall. I
only regret that I can't get more. The passage and enforcement of the
'^Inter-State Commerce, law has ruined all my passes that were good for
and-I-^wctdd not give much for a paab lijia wiil'DOt rake O^niao
.ouTside the State of Illinois. If anyone has any suspicion that my
possession of these passes is liable to influence my judgment, 'why they
are welcome to such suspicion, that's all. It is unques¬
tionable an abuse, and, as I said before, is only palliated by its being a
universal practice. The acceptance of passes is wrong in theory, hut
very convenient in practice. I intended to go to California next
summer, hut I don't see how I am going to do so without paying my
way beyond the Mississippi River. . . . No, sir ; I don't
believe a judge was ever influenced by a railroad pass. I am sure I
never was, and I have accepted all the passes that were tendered me
and only regretted that I did not have more time to use them. You cao
make that point just as strong as'you please."
A railway president, head of one of the most important western
roads, Mr. A. B. Stickney, tells very frankly and succinctly in his hook
on the Railway Problem, that passes are given by the railways, "to
legislators, the executive officers, the judicial officers, and to all the
clerks, and employes of the several departments of state, then to county
boards and the various county officials, clerks and emf^oyes ; then to
city and town hoards and their various officers, otc., then to that very
numerous class known as " political workers," and finally, to every person
supposed to be able to do something to aid a railway company in case of pol¬
itical or judicial emergency, or if not so propitiated, to do harm."
In plain English they am ment to he bribes. Let us interpret the
velvety word passes into this equivalent. These words quoted above
would then read thus:—"I have always accepted bribes, and-probably
always shall. I only regret that I can't get more. If anyone has any
suspicion that my possession of these bribes is liable to influence ray
judgment, why they are welcome to such suspicion, that's all. It is
unquestionably an abuse, and, as I said before, is only palliated by its
being a universal practice. The acceptance of bribes wrong in theory,
hut very convenient in practice, etc., etc., etc."
Judge Gary's words and example encourage the railways and the
whole army of public servants, from the highest to the lowest, to con¬
tinue the degrading practice of bribe-giving and bribe-taking. Judge
Gary sits in the Court of Appeals to set aside the decision of the lower
courts in favor of citizens against the steam and street railway corpora
tiens.
herefore, Pnolved, By the Trade end Uber Aesembly, that we ee heretofore reeent the patting torwerd of this man for any nnblio noai-
>d ae gi^ citizene, wielwg to eee the taw wieely, properly and justly ndminiBtered, enter onr earnest protest against the eleetioS of Josmh
.« J?^8o of any ooart, and we call npon all car fnends, whether within the ranke of nrgsnized tabor or r it tven those who are noon
:et with nun, to do their ntmost to enoompoaB bis defeat, in order to show that we are not so snhservient as to be al ths beek end «el! ät th«
be monopoliste, or our would-be masters. ®
* This line should read : " this crisis he is on the side of monopoly and against the people, and '*
Leaflet Issued by the Chicago Trade and Labor Assembly Reproducing
a Letter from Mr. Lloyd.
Defending the Chicago Anarchists loi
Mr. Medill's prophecy proved correct. In conse¬
quence of their course, the Lloyds suffered the loss of
fortune. Between Henry Lloyd and his father-in-law
there had always existed sincere respect and affection
which made this honest difference all the more painful.
Mr. Bross declared that Mr. Lloyd had disgraced the
family. The ample fortune was entailed to the grand¬
children, and Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd were not entrusted
with the guardianship nor the care of the property of
their children, a sting even more keen than the financial
loss.
It is sometimes easier to face physical dangers than
social contumely. The Lloyds moved in a circle where
those who defended the men were regarded by many as
advocating immediate, violent revolution. In the press
these defenders were called "rattlesnakes," supporters
of ' ' anarchy, murder, and riot. " When urged to explain,
Mr. Lloyd shook his head: "Time will do that."
Kind, reverential to others, he was sensitive to an¬
tagonism. "I hiet an old friend yesterday, " he said to
me at this time, "and he gave me a look of the most in¬
tense hatred possible from one human being to another. ' '
He was dining in Boston many years later, when the
host asked him to relate the story of the Anarchists,
which he did. As the party broke up, he was standing
between two men, when a member of one of Boston's
illustrious families took leave of the man at Lloyd's
right, wheeled around back to Lloyd, bade good-bye
to the man on his left, and departed without speaking
to Lloyd. While this kind of treatment pained him,
it never aroused enmity, for his sympathetic imagina¬
tion made him tmderstand his opponent's feeling. When
friends became hostile he said to Mrs. Lloyd: "Do not
let us notice or appear to notice any change in them ;
I02 Henry Demarest Lloyd
they are too good and dear friends to be lost in sucdi a
way. "
We [Helen Hunt and Susan Coolidge, wrote the latter
to Mrs. Lloyd], do not see the matter as you do, . . . but
I cannot imagine why any of your friends in Chicago should
quarrel with you, ... or fail to recognise the thorough
unselfishness and sincerity of your husband's position. At
the same time, for love of him, I could wish that he saw
things differently.
Very slim was the packet of friendly letters received
by him and always treasured. Among them is one from
a neighbour who differed absolutely from him. "I
hope," it said, "you will see fit to go to the Club to¬
night. It is a long walk without good company."
Appreciating this little show of friendliness, Lloyd
marked on the outside, "After November ii, 188;;,"
WiUiam Clarke wrote from London:
What happened November ii, 1887, was the worst
day's work the United States ever did. . . . You will never,
regret having said a word for justice and mercy while the
whole press of America was howling for these men's blood.
Ellen M. Henrotin wrote to Mrs. Lloyd:
I feel personally grateful to Mr. Lloyd for his kindneçs
and gracious consideration toward our poor brothers the
anarchists. He did not labour in vain; and I am all the
more grateful, ... as I have not entirely made up my
mind. ... It is a great comfort to me to feel that they
were not lost by indecision.
Among the visitors at the home of Mr. Lloyd and of
Defending the Chicago Anarchists 103
Captain Black at this time was one who, as it was
learned years after, came as a detective.
All passed like a nightmare. A hush followed, but in a
year or two sentiment began to change. "I thought I
found in Chicago much compunction of conscience on
account of those unjust and unnecessary executions,"
wrote Edwin D. Mead in November, 1889. In 1890 an
Amnesty Association was organised to secure the pardon
of the survivors, of which Lloyd was a Vice-President
and member of the Executive Board. About this time
he became the friend of John P. Altgeld, for whom he
never ceased to feel a deep veneration. On June 26,
1893, Altgeld, then Governor of Illinois, pardoned the
prisoners.
In the Chicago Herald, July 10, appeared the
following:
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE
WiNNETKA, III., July 7.
Editor of the Herald:—Your report this morning of the
meeting of the Amnesty Association of Illinois Thursday
evening, calls attention to the fact that I was a member of a
committee instructed to prepare resolutions of thanks to
Governor Altgeld, but was not present at the meeting with
my fellow committee men.
Win you kindly allow me to state that my absence was
due to an accident. I assisted in the preparation of the
resolutions which were adopted, thanking the Governor for
the use of his constitutional power as the supreme authority
of the State in the administration of the criminal law. In
overruling the injustice done by the—as to criminal matters
—Slower tribimals, including the Supreme Court, the Gover¬
nor did a much greater thing than an act of justice or mercy
to individuals, no matter how greatly wronged. As far as in
him lay, he broke the wheels of a judge-made revolution
which would deprive the people of trial by juries of their
104 Henry Demarest Lloyd
peers, would put upon the accused the burden in the Russian
style of proving themselves to be innocent, would establish
a precedent of introducing class distinction in the adminis¬
tration of justice, and in clear defiance of the Constitution
would take away the rights of " speaking freely " and meeting
in public, and place them at the mercy of the police, who are
to tell "by ear" when the people shall speak or keep silence.
Henry D. Lloyd.
For this act Altgeld suffered pitiless persecution,
and whenever possible Mr. Lloyd filled the press with
encomiums of one whom he called "a great man." In
an interview, • among other tributes, he said :
Altgeld knew that for every vote he might gain by
pardoning the Anarchists, he would lose two. But his
training as a lawyer, and his respect for the forms of law,
revolted against the sentences imposed on these men and
he felt that he must undo, so far as he could, the wrong
committed against them.
The message of pardon, an exhaustive review of the
trial, was issued in pamphlet form, but Mr. Lloyd felt
that a detailed history of the whole episode should be
written and a,dvised Captain Black to do it. He an¬
swered (1893):
I have expected that at some time I would write some¬
thing about the anarchist case for publication; and ... to
so write as to make my appeal directly to the members of
my profession, and to challenge, from a legal standpoint,
the trial and judgment. . . . The time is perhaps near . . ..
when this work should be done, either by me or by someone
else; but I have doubt as to whether the time is yet fully
ripe; and certainly I have not yet reached the point where
I have the leisure. . . .
' Boston Herald, January 12, 1895.
Defending the Chicago Anarchists 105
The fact is, as you probably know, my connection with
the . . . case left me in debt, without a business and with¬
out a clientage, and in a community aU of whose wealthy
citizens were in active hostility to me. I have had a some¬
what uphill struggle in the years that have elapsed . . . and
my time and energies have been taxed to the uttermost to
make ends meet. . . . Conditions are greatly changed now,
I am glad to say. . . .
If I am reasonably successftd for the next few years, I
shall be in a position where I can take time for this work,
and thus gratify a long-restrained desire.
As to the last question you suggest I wish, simply for
your consideration, to suggest as follows:
The evidence in the case tended strongly to show that
the bomb was thrown at the Haymarket before any overt
act of violence, beyond the mere order for the dispersal
of the meeting. The law of self-defence is always subject
to this limitation, that the act resorted to in self-defence
must be only such an act as is reasonably necessary to meet
the attack made at the time resort is had to that act. If
the throwing of the bomb had been restrained until the
police had opened fire upon the meeting (and that was
unquestionably their settled determination that night),
then the throwing of the bomb would have been perfectly
justifiable under the law; but it was an illegal act when
thrown in response to the command of dispersal before
actual violence against the meeting had been resorted to
by the attacking party.
This does not in the least shift from the shoulders of the
police the real responsibility for the Haymarket, and even
for the throwing of the bomb. This was the first unlawful
act, committed at a time and in a manner, under existing
conditions, that gave assurance to every rational mind of
violent resistance. No rule of law is better settled than
that he who commits an illegal act is responsible for all
the consequences of the illegal act that were reasonably to
be expected to flow therefrom.
io6 Henry Demarest Lloyd
I want to say to you here and now, for reasons which
are cogent with me, I have always had great doubt as to
whether that bomb was thrown by an anarchist at all; as
to whether it was not thrown by a police minion, for the
purpose of breaking up the eight-hour movement.
In the closing days of the century, when the London
Times wished an article on "Anarchism in America"
for the new edition of the Encyclopœdia Britannica,
Lloyd was asked to write it, treating briefly the recent
incidents connected with the Chicago Anarchists. " It
is rather remarkable, " he said, "that I of all men should
be chosen to write this, but straws show which way the
wind blows, and some day the world will see this thing
as I do." Among other authorities, he consulted Alt-
geld, who wrote:
... I will gladly do anything I can to assist you. My
impression is that you will find all the data you want in my
message granting the pardons, and call your attention to
the documents I quote which show the police brutality some
days before and up to the Haymarket riot: The probability
that some private individual threw the bomb as an act of
revenge—The presence of the Mayor at the Haymarket
meeting and its peaceable character and peaceful dispersion
until Bonfield came to do some more clubbing—The state¬
ment of Chief of Police Eberhard that Captain Schaack
wanted to have some bombs hid around so as to get the
credit of discovering them, etc.—The fact that the State
never found out who threw the bomb and therefore failed
to connect him in any way with the defendants, some of
whom were not at the meeting at all—The fact that the
jury was packed and the ferocious prejudice of the Judge.
If the prosecution did know who threw the bomb it was
unwilling to reveal the identity—^which is a suspicious
circumstance. At all events until they did show some con-
Defending the Chicago Anarchists 107
nection between him and the defendants there was a failure
of proof. To my mind the police brutality preceding the
Haymarket meeting is most important as it furnishes an
explanation and a motive. Prejudice of Gary is important
because it accounts for the result of the trial. You will also
see that the Supreme Court subsequently reversed the rule
in regard to the qualification of jurors. The public fury
which was worked up by the newspapers is also important.
The article when published was brief, and "conspicu¬
ous," said Lloyd, "for what was left out."
From this chapter in the people's struggle, he re¬
ceived a life lesson. In his note-book for 1887 he wrote,
as if making a vow:
"Let the voice of the people be heard,"
The voice of the people shall be heard.
CHAPTER VI
"the new conscience"
IN the peace of his study, Lloyd pondered over the
tragedy. His thoughts were chronicled in a manu¬
script of great beauty, not published. It said in part:
These men have died in vain, unless out of their death
come a restirrection and a new life. . . . They have been
killed because property, authority, and public believed that
they came to bring not reform but revolution, not peace
but a sword. . . . The instinct that will make the gentlest
mother fight for her young is not a fiercer than that with
which established institutions will fight for vested rights.
These men did not hold themselves blameless for the
fright which frenzied those who have taken their lives. The
sun of freedom never sets. The history of mankind is a his¬
tory of emancipation. The serf unfolds from the captive,
the workman rises out of the serf, and out of the workman
is bom the citizen. . . .
The words show that he interpreted the tragedy as a
phase of the new love which was forcing its way over
the earth—a love which while it forbids oppression
"forbids not less that those who are wronged should
do wrong in revenge. "
If the people can agree upon what they want, they can
get it all by their power as men and citizens; if they are
io8
"The New Conscience" 109
agreed those who would like, as wicked oligarchies of hate
have done, to cheat them of it by force will be helpless.
If they are not agreed, the people can not get what they
want either in peace or by force.
The heart of man can not withstand the gentle force of
love. Let the apostles of the new love, like those of the old
love, taking no thought of the morrow, having no stones and
no slings, go forth among mankind to found the new church
of love—the church of deed not of doctrine. The new love
like the old love wiU bring upon them storms of hate, per¬
secutions will drink martyrs' blood. The new emancipa¬
tion will overspread the earth. It will conquer not by the
blows it gives but by those it takes. The love it bears to the
weak and lowly and oppressed will shake the new tyrants of
the industrial world out of their vested rights as surely as
the gentle words of Jesus and Socrates drove the lords of
the political world out of their divine rights. Passions of the
moment may once and again run blood, but the blood will
only make the grass greener and the harvest more golden.
After this experience he took his place on the side of
the working men. He now said to many people :
In all issues the principle of but one side can be right.
The working man is often wrong, but his is always the right
side.
He had before this episode been weighing the problem
of the use of force. The force of the government he
said in 1886 is on the side of the monopolists, but the
oppressed classes possessing free speech, free press, and
the vote can use legal force and by winning over the
majority of the people get possession of the govern¬
ment. He had experimentally sketched in his notes'
a code of immediate remedial measures :
' Note-book, 1886.
no
Henry Demarest Lloyd
Enrolling and licensing all workers each in his trade,
classifying industries into guilds, compelling all contracts
for employment to be made with guild, making guild re¬
sponsible for breach of contract, preventing monopoly by
providing for instruction—technical—in public schools and
giving graduates place in licensed trades. Unskilled labour¬
ers could be protected by law that no dismissal or reduc¬
tion should be made except under cognisance of some
representative of state—specially qualified officials could be
created for that pimpose. A day-labourer's day labour is as
much his property as his employer's capital. Both shotild
be protected. If either should be preferred, the former,
because his life and others' lives are at stake.
The force of state can be used against capitalistic slave-
drivers, by reforming taxation, so that stocks and bonds and
corporate property, etc., shall pay all its proportion. Also
by controlling or confiscating all lines of transportation,
all common carrier business thereon. Since all wealth and
property are control of lives of others, to buy railroads from
existing owners and give them cash or bonds in place would
only shift their slave-holding power from one quarter to
another. Hence confiscation with workhouse relief for
stockholders, at least as good as has been given to working
men; also by system of pensions to disabled or aged work¬
men; also by explicit laws against all forms of fraud and
adulteration; also by stringent regulation of immigration,
etc. ; also by fuUy proportionate, if not progressive, income
tax; also by extension of civil-service system, so that prefer¬
ence shall be given in appointment of graduates of public
schools; also by unconditional repeal of all laws giving
special privilege in banking, currency, etc., transportation,
etc., to any; also by repeal of all forfeitable land grants, and
taxation—heavy—of all unused grants and idle lands; also
by prohibition of all child and wife labour; also by universal
eight-hours law; also by enforcing to full the police pro¬
hibition of all letting of unhealthy and unsafe tenements, and
by complete sanitary code with penalties upon landlords
"The New Conscience" m
(not tenants) who violate ; also by making it murder, man¬
slaughter, mayhem, according to degree, when employé is
hurt by defective or improperly guarded machinery; also
by extending griild system, with state supervision to all
combinations of merchants, manufacturers; also by putting
all expenses of printing, and distributing tickets, etc., at
polls upon state; also by expropriating everything like gas,
water, heat, etc., which can be made communal; also by
adopting Swiss Referendum; also by making justice cheap
by reducing cost and time and by multiplying judges to the
number necessary to keep dockets down; by providing for
furnishing printed copies of laws at cost or less to all regis¬
tered citizens, and by appointing officers to answer most
questions which now can be got answered only by end of
long and costly lawsuits; also by treating all property as
public, to the extent of being taxed and being enrolled when
necessary. Also by confiscatory, and inquisitorial taxation
of all lines of luxury—on pain that no man has a right to
make his fellow work for his pleasure, when others need that
they should work for their lives; also by complete recon¬
struction of our great cities. By guaranteeing every one
against starvation and expostu-e. It is less disgraceful for
one in need to accept food and shelter than for a rich sche¬
mer to accept millions.
Ruin present moated and buttressed fortunes till as
little is left of them as of the great fortresses, of which now
only piles of stone on the hilltops of France and Germany
remain.
Also by defining by law what are betrayals of trust by
lawyers. Congressmen, judges, etc., directors, and forbid¬
ding them and providing measures for preventing and
punishing them. Also by appropriating money for enabling
guilds to go into the manufacttuing business; also by limi¬
ting lives of all corporations. Also by adding to the system
of Labour Reports a system of Health Reports, making it
the special duty of the Health Officers to report on preven¬
table causes of death and disease, and arranging so far as
112 Henry Demarest Lloyd
possible summary means (injunction or mandamus) for
arresting those who violate maxim to use their own so as
not to injure another.
By adding to Health and Labour Reports, Industrial
Reports giving new arts, processes, inventions, etc., and
supplied at cost to all applicants.
By national technical and art schools. . . .
By regulation of St. Ex. (Stock Exchange?)
By providing work on roads, etc. . . .-
After the anarchist tragedy the problem of resistance
by force was pressing still closer for settlement. There
was no doubt, he wrote in his notes, that the divinest
have always sought their victories by the force of mind,
not matter, but it was equally true that the changes
wrought by them had always been accomplished
by bitter strife. Such questions would, he believed,
have to be conscientiously decided as they arose, with a
full acceptance of the consequences. The choice is
always one of comparative good. The utmost fate
allows is that we move to a point better than where we
stand. "There is only one evil greater than reform by
force,—the perpetuation, the permanence of injustice. "
On a Sunday in February following the execution he
addressed the Chicago Society for Ethical Cultiue on
"The New Conscience." It was three years since he
had been heard, and now over a city where men stood
glaring as foes his voice arose with a message of brother¬
hood. His words contained no rebuke to labour. They
were full of warning to the masters, of reproach to the
priests, judges, employers, economists, who were up¬
holding the tyranny of our industries. He said that
the tie which to-day boimd the working men to their
employers was one of force and injustice. "Once it was
the force of the warrior, now it is the force of the
"The New Conscience " 113
capitalist. . . . The ancients bought and sold men; we
buy and sell the heart-beats only." Against this modem
slavery a new conscience was declaring that the labour
is the labourer: "If you shall not buy the whole man,
you shall not buy or sell part of a man. " All the great
emancipations of history had been revolts against
such ties and had begim with the "still small voice"
speaking in obscurity. To-day this voice was heard not
in church, state, or the seats of culture, but in the as¬
pirations of the working men for a fuller, freer life. He
summoned an imaginary delegation from the Money
Power,—the Merchant Prince, the Lawyer, the Rail¬
road King,—and pictured each one's loud self-defence
answered by the gentle voice of the New Conscience:
"Where is thy brother?"
Thus before a community where the workers' cause
had but lately been reviled, he clothed it with majestic
import. He was not speaking the popular word that
Sunday morning. This was the teaching which those
whom he called "our good and brave business men and
their college professors" were trying to stifle. Judge
Gary had warned the Bar Association of the tyranny of
labour. Lloyd's words that morning were eloquent
with the danger of the tyranny of capital, of those who
without conscience were controlling the liberties of our
markets and would, if imchecked, come to control all
our other liberties. To Chicago still trembling from the
fear of revolution he said that this new conscience
urging its way through the labour movement was not
revolution, it was the remedy. The revolution had
already been accomplished by the new industry with its
gospel, that you can do anything with your fellowmen
provided you do it in the market. He left no uncertainty
as to where lay the use of force. " Monopoly is force, "
VOL. 1—8
114 Henry Demarest Lloyd
he said. The press had terrified the people with de¬
scriptions of hostile conspiracies. Lloyd turned their
fears in another direction: "The practical work of
lo-day is to abolish the cannibals of competition,
warriors of supply and demand, tyrants of monopoly,
pionsters of the market, devourers of men, women, and
children, buyers and sellers of life." But the cries of
those contending in the markets were, he said, to blend
into the strains of a widening freedom. " Let those who
are great because others are small—let those who are
happy because others are wretched—let those who are
rich because others are poor—listen out of their golden
secvuity for the crier of the new conscience. His voice
foretells a new day. " Down among the poor and lowly
he said was arising "the greatest cause in history."
The social ferment meant a new heaven and a new
earth. " How much wiser to discuss it than to hang it. "
To settle its problems the only profundities needed were
the simplest elements of justice, freedom, and love.
A new mankind has been conceived and will be bom—
a winged beauty out of the earth-measuring worm—which
will not know force, and fraud, and hatred, and will let
love, their natural tie, bind men and nations together.
In this masterpiece he struck his keynote, that every
question between man and man is a religious one, and
he forecast the fvmctions of the new church, "a church
of the deed as well as of the creed" which shall include
all social, political, and industrial activities. He first
foreshadowed his conception of mankind as man's
redeemer, which was to hold an ever-increasing place
in his thoughts:
A church which will worship God through all his sons
*' The New Conscience " 115
made in his image, through a mediator, Mankind, which,
having suffered all and sinned all, can sympathise with all
and wiU carry all the weak and weary ones safe in its
bosom.
Thus Lloyd spoke his faith. The good waves from his
message, which was full of new thinking, spread far
beyond Chicago and that moment of time. The North
American Review published it in September, 1888. It
was copied in Henry George's paper. Mr. Lloyd read
it in London to the Fellowship of the New Life, ' after¬
wards the New Fellowship, the parent of the Fabian
Society. It was printed by them in pamphlet form, and
went through several editions. Many who had watched
his development now believed that he was destined for
great work. "The message you preach strikes again
on the ears of Americans 'like a fire-bell in the night,' "
wrote one. Among other letters he received the
following:
Chicago, June 3, 1890.
My Dear Mr. Lloyd:
I have read your pamphlet on The New Conscience
and cannot resist sa3dng to you that I would rather be
the author of one such article than to hold any office in
the gift of the American people. It will do more for the
cause of humanity and will bring a greater meed of fame to
its author than would a lifetime of the average high ofiBce-
holding.
Accept my congratulations and go on with your work.
The future will know you and coming generations of suffer¬
ing humanity will rise up and bless you.
With best regards.
Your obt. servant,
John P. Altgeld.
" For an account of the Fellowship of the New Life, see the Memorials
of Thomas Davidson by William Knight (T. Fisher Unwin, London,
1907).
ii6 Henry Demarest Lloyd
His thoughts were now filled with the problem "almost
astronomical in its breadth and height," towards which
he was feeling a large measure of individual responsi¬
bility. The conviction that the matter was at base an
ethical one grew into a purpose. His highest aim became
to write a book on the new religion. Never was there
a time in history, he said, when the rising discontent
more urgently called for spiritual guidance. His talk
began to reflect his meditations. His note-books grew
almost to volume size. But he did not attempt to
publish them. He turned the questions in his mind,
and closed his manuscript in his desk.
He was swinging far away from old moorings, but
only to strive for a new piety. "Tell Father, "he wrote
to his mother, "he has not read me right if he thinks I
have meant to say anything against religion. I hold
religion sacred, though I believe it to be progressive.
My criticism is against the church, which as long as it
is composed of men will deserve, and should piously
profit by, all the discipline it gets." "The Common¬
wealth—a truly Christian State, " he wrote to a friend,
"must be the religious institution of the future instead
of the individualistic or corporate church of to-day."
He said we must have courage to throw away the dead
forms both of church and state. To the Rev* guincy
L. Dowd, Congregational minister of Winnetka> he
wrote:
As to "why I do not join the church," I will answer
briefly, and without any attempt to give systematic form
to the ideas that occur to me, nor will I waste your time and
mine by inventing phrases of complaisance.
I.—I grew tired of the church, compelled as a child to
go to church twice on every Sunday, to Sunday-school,
to the weekly prayer-meeting, and to hear "worship" at
"The New Conscience" 117
home every morning and evening, besides two prayers at
each meal, one before and one after, with a great deal of
well-meant exhortation between times, and an occasional
funeral and anniversary meeting. I got to listening less
and less, and finally not at all. When I became my own
master I ceased to go. . . .
2.—The church now appears to me to have become
impractical, formal, devoted to the show of creed, doctrine,
and ceremony, rather than to the exposition of the real
truth which, though through a glass darkly, I catch glimpses
of, all through nature and humanity, welling up continually
fresh and beautiful, ceaseless dawns of new days. The
church preaches the Hebrew bible; to me all good books
are bibles. It preaches one Son of God, incarnate; I believe
all men are, so far as they do what they can to realise the
divinity within, sons of God incarnate. Whatever the
theory may be, the church seems to me to exhaust its
energies of prayer, worship, faith, by going through certain
forms and programmes, statedly, and in addition doing a
little charity, or we will say, a great deal, and living the
respectable virtues. This seems to me to fall as far short,
both in theory and practice, of the religion demanded by
to-day, as the religion of the Pharisees (although of divine
origin as you define this) fell short of the religion demanded
by the wider life of the times of him who brought the new
religion. For people who have heads to know with, and
hearts to feel with, to consider it worshipping God to sing,
pray, and listen to sermons, while all about them from the
world without the church windows rise the cries of those
who are being plundered, murdered, betrayed, seems to be,
to me, in truth atheism, not piety. To me religion appears
to be living the ideal life, or as you would say, doing the
will of God, in all departments of life, physical, mental,
moral, social, individual. Practically, the church makes
it—barring some charity work—but little more than the
indulgence of a sweet habit of remittent periods of emo¬
tional fervour, and meditation, with accessories of song.
ii8 Henry Demarest Lloyd
stained glass, plush cushions, and eloquence. The world
cries to-day as never before for a Deliverer, and a religious
Deliverer, but he can not come out of such a church as I
see about me.
3-—The church I find preaches a gospel of non-resist¬
ance, brotherliness, faith in God, which it not only fails
to realise, for which no other sinner would have a right to
blame it, but which it does not even pretend to practise.
It ought to abandon this double policy.
4.—The church has so far adopted the economic ideas
of the age of trade—in competitive pew rents, paid preach¬
ers, etc.,—that it is dependent for its support on those
men who are making the money, and (therefore?) does not
attack their sins, although these go to the very root of the
social and individual disorders of our times. Trade, or
business, has now become a system by which the powerful
are those who best organise wholesale lying, theft, killing,
Sabbath-breaking, idolatry, covetousness, but against these
Cyclopean transgressors of the Ten Commandments the
church is silent. There is a new love of God, a new sense of
the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man grow¬
ing up in the hearts of mankind which revolts irreconcilably
against having one brother live in the slums, another on the
Boulevard, one under a death-rate twice that of the other.
But, as far as I can observe, the church of to-day finds it as
impossible to extend—in actuality—the Fatherhood of God
from the well-to-do to both rich and poor, employer and
employed, as the Judaistic church did to extend it from
the Jew alone to both Jew and Gentile.
5.—I do not join the church because I have had the
misfortune to find both among clergy and laity a great
hard-heartedness, and lack of sense of justice—^from my
point of view—^in the consideration of the great wrongs in¬
flicted on the poor" by the rich. The things done daily to
the children, the sewing-women, the miners of Spring Valley,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, are passed by in silence by the church.
It preaches "Thou shalt not steal," but withholds its
"The New Conscience" 119
anathemas from those who by wholesale and of set purpose
steal from whole classes of the people all that they have of
home, life, liberty, time for salvation. If the church can not
advance from the decalogue of old sins—of old definition
of sins, which are ever taking on new forms—to the deca¬
logue of new definitions, if it can not expand to contain the
new love of God and Man which seeks a Mediator to-day,
it must give place to those who will and can do so.
As he now watched Labour forming into ranks he
saw the beginnings of the new brotherhood for which
the ages had been preparing. He gave it a name:
"The Brotherhood of Man will not be complete until a
new nation is added to the constellation of the people—the
International Nation. We will call it the Intemation. "
He had reached the conviction that between capital
and the people, with the farmers and working men in
the van, was a conflict "irreconcilable and irrepressible " ;
that as slavery had gone, "the wages system must
go. . . Because the heart of man has grown too tender
to endure the miseries of the wages system. . . Because
the victims of the 'power of others, under the wages
system, are becoming too strong to remain such victims.
They can read and think; they vote in almost all coun¬
tries; they will not remain in a condition of disadvantage
continued, if not imposed, without their consent, i.e.,
by force and fraud. . . Because history proves that
these ills are the results of the system. Because there
is an intelligence at work which has outgrown the
sophistries (though once wisdoms) on which the system
is founded and this intelligence must issue in action."
Labour was now striving to enter the legislatures, and
he was proposed as candidate for the entire anti-
monopoly forces. He believed that labour should use
its assured political rights to win new industrial rights.
120 Henry Demarest Lloyd
It should listen to its opponents' advice, he said, and
do the opposite. " The capitalist class are anxious to¬
day for nothing so much as that the working man shall
not go into politics. . . It teaches one that politics is
just where the working man had better go, and go at
once and go to stay. When Labour or the people get
real leaders, they will march it, not only into political
association, but religious association; the right to these
has been won, and these steps must be motmted in
order to mount higher." He was nominated for Con¬
gress by the Union Labour Party for the 4th Chicago
district in September, 1888.
His labours against the land rings, his many appeals to
the American people through the great reviews and maga¬
zines, and his active interest in the cause of labom and a
better distribution of its product, at the expense of private
interest and connections, have endeared him to millions of
humble hearts [said the Chicago Herald].
In answer to a request for his attitude, he telegraphed
to the Chicago Herald: " I cherish the honotu- of a
nomination by the working men whether elected or not,
and if elected I shall be proud to serve for them."
The Democrats asked that he be also their candidate,
but when his acceptance bore the condition, I will
not make one speech or spend one cent," they did not
nominate him. In his notes he wrote that the men
who spend money to carry elections are the kind who
part with money to get money—"big money"—^back.
Because of his failure to make the ordinary electioneering
efforts his campaign was called " Walljing for Congress,"
and needless to say resulted in defeat.
His health was returning. " For the past year," he
wrote in 1888, " it has been impossible even for me to
"The New Conscience" 121
doubt that my feet were touching firm ground again."
He was being pressed to write. "They are trying to
make me write fast, " he said, "but they will not do it. "
He added to his friendships that of Thomas Davidson,
and was reading Wendell Phillips, Mazzini, and Karl
Marx. He wrote to John Swinton, whom he called "the
greatest patriot in New York, " suggesting that he col¬
lect Wendell Phillips's speeches on the labour question :
... A silent conspiracy endeavours to hush up his
last and greatest utterances, and I should like to see it
defeated. Of all the anti-slavery leaders he alone saw that
its work built but the vestibule of the real temple.
I thought of him always as the greatest orator of his day,
but his discovery of the continuity of the abolition move¬
ment and the labour movement mark him as the greatest
social thinker. And as I have lately heard on indisputable
authority, because he lifted his voice for the poor white
slaves. Charles Eliot Norton persuaded James Russell
Lowell to leave out of his recent volume of verses a sonnet
he had written to Wendell Phillips! Ye Gods, think of
that!
He was being urged by Richard T. Ely and by his
brother Demarest to reprint his magazine essays, but
he said that he did not like to look back, preferring
to press forward to the prize of a higher calling. He
was now consecrated to a holy cause—the crusade to
make men brothers in the market. This aim shot its
radiance through every subsequent act. Only by its
light can be understood his intensity and exaltation in
even minor moments of industrial strife.
CHAPTER VII
THE STORY OF SPRING VALLEY
IT was characteristic of Lloyd that when he became
convinced of the need of a new ethical enthusiasm
and faced the task of sharing in its generation, he should
plimge into the people's struggles. In the patient
gathering of facts was to be found the new truth. It
was impossible, he had said in 1879, tp secure the atten¬
tion of the people for a philosophical interpretation of
the evils; they must leam of them by experience; imtil
the imderlying facts were collected and collated, it was
too soon for any philosophy ; history was not philosophy
teaching by example, but example teaching philosophy.
He now wrote (note-book, 1888):
Those students in advance who have investigated
through the evils of our present social system, and feel
themselves ready to go forward to construct a new and
better system, must halt till they have so instructed the
multitude that they may have a following which will make
their forward s)mthesis a success. They must in other
words give up the luxury of dreaming for the duty of in¬
forming and inspiring the people, through whom alone can
the new society be made possible.
Thus he stored his philosophy in note-books, and
gathered "economic news." The "Money Power"
was everywhere attempting to break the labotir unions.
122
The Story of Spring Valley 123
In 1889 Illinois became the scene of a death-dealing
combat to that end, in Spring Valley and its rich coal
mines. On one side stood corporations representing
$500,000,000, while on the other were miners with
wives and children, bearing on their gaunt faces a look
of bewilderment, "wondering why they must die."
Back in 1884 the "enterprise" had started. Fields
covering the coal were bought from "uninformed
farmers," a city map drawn, alluring advertisements
circulated, and agents sent abroad. As men of the
best business talent of the country were leaders, lots
sold well and in six months two hundred thousand
dollars had been realised on land costing less than
twenty thousand. Thrifty and intelligent miners, picked
men of the coimtry, attracted by the promise of " steady
work, " settled there, many selling their homes to rein¬
vest their all in Spring Valley. The coal fields were
extended and tradesmen, clergymen, doctors came,
until there were 5000 people, and the estate became the
largest of any coal mining company in the world. Full
of faith the miners bought lots on monthly payments
and built homes, getting their material from the com¬
pany. Thus began bright days. But there was one
cloud. No matter how hard they worked, they cotdd
not make the wages promised. Their accoimts at the
month's end after deducting the bül at the company's
store, the payment on the lots, the cost of oil and
sharpening of tools, showed little or no surplus.
One day shortly before Christmas, 1888, without
warning, with no whisper of strike from the union into
which the men had organised, the company told one
third of the miners to take away their tools and not
return. They had been earning just enough to keep alive
and were now kept from starving by the generosity of
124 Henry Demarest Lloyd
those still at work. "The whole poptilation," said
Lloyd, "staggered through that winter as best they
could." In April, again without notice, the remaining
workers were locked out and the company's store closed.
Then began slow starvation. The men scattered over
the country for work, the women finally went out with
their babies to beg. Within a month it was necessary
to appeal to the country for help. In vain did the
miners write asking how they could get work. No
answers came; the company's office, said Lloyd, stared
out through its two plate-glass eyes and said nothing.
In vain did they send committees from their union
offering to arbitrate any trouble; they were told that
never again would they be dealt with except individu¬
ally. Eviction notices were then served upon those in
the company's houses and threatening reminders given
of a power to wipe out the town. These measures were
intended to prepare them to submit to an offer which
came in August to abandon their union and accept
thirty-five cents a ton where they had been getting
ninety. This offer, said Lloyd, had the distinction of
being the lowest yet made for American labour. Upon
their indignant refusal the company prepared to close
the mines indefinitely. The town was fast becoming
deserted.
The public had become aware of the trouble through
the press, but had been erroneously informed that it
was a strike instead of a lockout. When as summer
closed distressing stories became more frequent, they
were touched with pity, and despite the company's
slander that the miners preferred charity to work,
sent carloads of provisions. Without this the miners
must have perished.
In September, Lloyd went to learn the facts at first
The Story of Spring Valley
125
hand. As a result he published, through the Associated
Press, an appeal for help. "There are thousands,"
he said, "suffering there from want of food, clothing,
medicine, and sympathy. " "A battle of five thousand
with death, . . . a cemetery of the living," he called it.
A fortnight later he went again for a prolonged stay
to make a thorough study. He distributed boxes of
shoes, stockings, quinine, and food, which he had so¬
licited in Chicago. He visited the miners' homes, took
note of the children's scanty clothes and bare feet,
stood by the bedsides of the sick, saw that they had a
doctor and medicine. He talked with the Belgian and
French women, heard their homesick tones: "Oh,
Monsieur, see how we live. It was better at home. If
we could only get back. " Many an errand of mercy he
performed, but charity was not his aim. He became
a warm friend of Father John F. Power, the priest, who
said later: "His genuine sympathy and encouraging
words were of great help to me when times were dark
indeed. ..." He visited the schools, public and Ca¬
tholic, heard from the teachers of the children's hunger,
and talked with the children. He called upon the
mayor, the editor, the clergymen, and all the doctors,
gathered the sad statistics from the imdertakers, asked
the postmistress how far afield the miners had gone,
examined the post-office records and computed how
much money they were sending back to their wives.
He learned from officials the cost to the county of the
militia needlessly sent, to what extent the company
was dodging its taxes, the prices at which it bought and
sold its lands. He got the miners' stories from their own
lips, asked to see the contracts by which they were
buying their land, examined their monthly balances.
He heard the paymaster's story. He interviewed the
126 Henry Demarest Lloyd
manager of the company and asked him why he had
decreed the destruction of the miners' union. He be¬
came convinced that the catastrophe was not the effect
of competition forcing mine-owners to reduce wages, but
of militant greed voluntarily plotting for "more." He
endeavoured to secure the intervention of Archbishop
Feehan to end the trouble, and worked to have the
public correctly informed :
I spent this afternoon among the newspaper offices here
[he wrote from Chicago to Father Power in October] explain¬
ing to the editors the great unfairness of practically all their
despatches from Spring Valley. Without exception, they
all—except the News, which I did not have time to visit—
agreed to instruct their correspondents in future to take
pains that the men's side, as well as the company's side,
should always be given. This I hope will do some good. . . .
Whatever Scott" does I suppose the ruin of the com¬
munity as it once existed is complete. That has been broken
up for ever, whatever may take its place. It makes me
boil with rage to think of it. If the business men and other
" middle class " people of Spring Valley have not the wit and
virtue and bravery to see, feel, and say to Mr. Scott, and
the world, that the miners' cause is their own, and that the
miners have been treated throughout with cruelty and
duplicity, they will deserve their fate. If they would make
common cause even now with the working men much might
be saved out of the wreck. Scott could not carry out his
evictions against a united town, for the country, and then
the State, would take the business men's view. . . .
I saw my friend, Mr. Darrow, yesterday and he says
he will come down if needed. He is one of our best young
lawyers, . . . and a zealous friend of the working men. . . .
Telegraph me at once if trouble threatens. And by the way,
" William L. Scott, President of the Spring Valley Coal Company.
The Story of Spring Valley
127
to cover any attempt in the S. V. oflBce to delay your des¬
patch, state in it the time you send it. . . .
The working men, the business men, the coal miners of
the rest of the State, and the citizens generally should resist
by every means possible the consummation of Scott's
iniquity. The miners in Penn., La Salle (Illinois), should be
dissuaded from marching to S. V., but their attentions and
energies should be directed to peaceful means of getting
Scott's new men to give up work by visiting them, explain¬
ing the state of affairs, and promising them support. Tele¬
grams should be sent Scaife, McBride, and all other leaders
to tell the miners elsewhere to keep away. I shall very
likely come to S. V. in a day or two. . . .
When he had unearthed the truth, he gave the story
to the people. It occupied four columns of the Chicago
Herald for November 13, 1889, and took the form of an
open letter "to certain rich men," the owners of the
Chicago & North-Westem Railway, the Spring Valley
Coal Company, the Spring Valley Town Site Company,
and the North-Westem Fuel Company, as many as
possible of whom he named. He charged that a common
personality ran through all these companies and that the
whole affair with its misery and death was a deliberate
conspiracy. He would have addressed the stockholders
as well by name, each of whom he declared was
responsible.
So far as the public know, not one of you, the directors,
not one of you, the stockholders, in whose name and for
whose profit the campaign of starvation and slander was
carried on, has disavowed or discouraged it. . . . Not one
of you, so far as known, sent a word of sympathy, or a
mouthful of food, to the thousands who were being ground
to powder by your agents for your benefit. Just who you
are, accessories of the original willing sinners, the people
128 Henry Demarest Lloyd
cannot learn, for the names of the stockholders of our public
corporations are kept in closest secrecy as one of the pre¬
rogatives of the private ownership of public highways.
He told of the working of this "conspiracy," relating
the "booming of the town, " by luring there "the work¬
men without the sweat of whose brow you could not
eat bread. " Many of them he said were intelligent men
able to discuss the theories of Henry George, Spencer,
or Darwin. He described the terms on which they were
obliged to buy lots and build, whereby in case of failure
to make any payment, they forfeited all back payments
and the lot. The forfeitvue could be declared without
notice to the miner and without allowing him any legal
opportunity to defend.
Upon inquiring among these trusting men for copies of
the deeds or contracts executed between the seller and these
simple-minded buyers, I caimot find any. But I do find
cases in which the company sold lots without giving the
working man who bought a shred of a title to attest his
rights. Taking sometimes 33 per cent, of the price in cash,
it charged them with the balance, and took part of their
pay every month to wipe it off. All that such buyers had
to show for their money and title were a receipt and an entry
on the books, and what is an entry worth when it is in the
books of men who deal thus with poor and inexperienced
"brothers"? Not one of you would buy ten cents' worth
of land in that way.
"But the miners were brave-hearted," said Lloyd,
"they loved to have homes of their own, " and so ven¬
tured into such agreements because of their faith in the
"steady employment" promised. He then related
"the dooming of the town," the closing of the mines as
Christmas was coming, when "the gentlemen of many
The Story of Spring Valley 129
millions, sitting under brilliantly illuminated Christmas
trees in joyous mansions in Chicago, Erie, St. Paul,
New York, by a click of the telegraph, made a present
of midwinter disemployment to one third of 'their'
town " ; then the closing of all the mines, and the agent's
threat to keep them closed if necessary "until the
grass grows in the streets. "
You who own the coal company could afford even a
longer idleness. Time cannot take away your coal, nor
your lots, nor the railroads, but it began, the day after the
lockout, to eat away the hearts and homes, souls and bodies,
loves and Hves of the poor ones from whom you had deter¬
mined to steal the $20,000,000 by the brute force of your
millions and monopolies.
The public had been told that the men had struck.
"Yes, it is a strike," said Lloyd, "but it is a strike
of millionaires against miners." He portrayed their
pitiful poverty, saying that the last thing any working
man wiU do is to beg. To the rich men he said :
Don't you believe that they love their wives and child¬
ren as you love yours? That their hearts sink as yours
would, when, without warning, they are dispersed penniless
into strange parts for work, leaving wives and babies be¬
hind, perhaps to starve?
He related the campaign of slander, whereby public
sympathy was barred from coming to the miners' side.
He roUed up figures of the 4000 per cent, profit that was
to be reaped. All this he declared—and in his words
spoke "the new conscience"—"was a conspiracy with
a dreadful purpose, namely, to buy brothers below
cost."
All the clever columns of assorted statistics, mystifying
VOL. I—9
I30 Henry Demarest Lloyd
talk about competitive fields, railway discriminations,
"junction points," jargon about "brushing" and slanderous
charges that the men would rather live on charity than work,
—you having yourselves taken away their work and made
them beggars—all simmer down to this: You made com¬
mercial war on them, their wives and children, to add to
your millions at the risk of misery, disease, and death to
them.
I have selected the story of Spring Valley for narration
because I have come to know it; not because there was
anything there in your conduct as capitalists and corpora¬
tions specially worse than what has been done elsewhere.
On the contrary, I believe, from my investigations, that
the case of Spring Valley is fairly representative of the
relations between miners and mine-owners throughout the
country—and that is the worst feature of it all. If Spring
Valley were exceptional, we could dismiss it as a mere aber¬
ration of the commercial conscience of some particularly
depraved pot-hunter, and let it go. But when, by reading
official documents like the reports of the Ohio legislative
committee of 1885 on the Hocking Valley strike, the report
of the congressional committee of 1887 on the coal strikes in
Pennsylvania, and other authorities, we come to realise
that Spring Valley is but one case out of a multitude—but
one pustule of a disease spread through the whole body—
we begin to get an idea of the seriousness of our social
condition.
Having thus published the truth, he did not relax.
When he found that the company, on re-opening,
broke its pledges by compelling miners to abandon their
union, refusing to re-employ tmion officials or those who
helped in the relief work, he published the news in an
Associated Press despatch on Thanksgiving Day (1889).
It was received with indignation throughout the coun-
The Story of Spring Valley 131
try. William L. Scott sent out a reply, but because
of its angry personalities the Associated Press declined
to circulate it. It was however admitted in one paper ' :
"This man Lloyd, " it said in part, " is a conscienceless
liar, and is responsible for most of the falsehoods that
have been published concerning the state of affairs at
Spring Valley." Lloyd felt badly over this insult, but
said in answer to his father's letter of sympathy, "I
feel a great deal more sorry for Scott than for myself. "
He replied in the press, ^ sustaining his statement, doing
so "that the public may know what means are being
employed to terrorise and impoverish the working
people." He decided to give wider circulation to his
Spring Valley article.
"After I have drawn the fire of the adversaries," he
wrote to Father Power, "and fotmd where the article
needs change, correction, etc., I shall publish it as a
pamphlet." Accordingly in February, 1890, The
Strike of Millionaires Against Miners was published
by the Belford-Clarke Company. "My first and worst
book, " he called it then. His recognised integrity, his
position as an impartial outsider, gave imanswerable
force to the arraignment. He added ringing words,
danger signals :
The business men should make common cause with the
working men. Only by such a co-operation can the country
be saved from the catastrophe toward which its rights, pros¬
perity, and liberties are being hurried by the greed and lust
of a small body of the richest and most dangerously disloyal
men popular government has ever been threatened by.
He still believed it possible to influence the oppressors :
' New York Times, Deœmber i, 1889, p. i, column 4.
' New York Herald, December 14, 1889, " Blacklisted Miners."
132 Henry Demarest Lloyd
Political economy gives you private property only that
the interest of all may be served by your self-interest; the
law gives you your franchises and estates only for the gen¬
eral welfare and the public safety; religion holds you to be
only stewards of yotu- riches. If you usurp for your private
profit all these trusts and grants, if you withdraw yourself
from serving and protecting the public and take to oppress¬
ing and plundering them froin your points of vantage, you
will but repeat the folly of your mediasval exemplars whose
castles now decorate a better civilisation with their pro¬
phetic ruins.
In the anarchist case he had seen conspiracy laws
enforced against working men. He said now that the
poor and lowly should no longer have a monopoly of
"conspiracy," but that such things as the millionaires
did at Spring Valley would be made conspiracy by law
as soon as the people grasped their meaning. Since
the contracts made with the men were not free contracts,
he raised an interesting question as to the miners' claims,
saying that they had a valid one for the vmpaid differ¬
ence between what they had received and what they
ought to have received; that this claim could be made
legal the moment the people made themselves in reality
their own rulers. "If the millennial day ever comes
when those unjust men are mtdcted to restore to the
people what they have filched from them, they will
deserve no pity. "
Although leading journals of the country called for a
statement of the millionaires' side, the company kept
silent. When nearly a year after the re-opening of the
mines Lloyd found the conditions worse than ever, he
urged the publication in the Spring Valley Gazette of a
summary of the further oppressions and indignities,
and arranged for its reaching the press, offering to
The Story of Spring Valley 133
send 450 copies to leading editors and reformers, and to
pay for distributing 300 more. He wrote to Father
Power:
Aug. 18, 1890.
... I have had it home in upon me from the beginning
that this Spring Valley affair was going to be a crucial case
—cause célèbre, as the French say,—one of the supreme
illustrations of the folly and cruelty of the old order which
must pass away.
You, it seems to me, as the priest of the people there,
have a great opportunity and a great duty, if you will let
me say so. You should lift up your voice, now, about this
iniquity so that it should be heard not only all through this
country, but Europe. The spiritual life of your people is
denied them by the denial of a right to make a living. This
is a bigger question than slavery, for it affects the physical,
mental, and spiritual salvation, the individual and social
well-being, of the mass of the people of all Christendom.
The splendid performance of Cardinal Manning has pre¬
pared the public to listen to such statements as you can
make.
Things are in a specially favourable state now for an
effort to make a test case at Spring Valley. The Federation
of Labour some time since put the miners foremost among
the workmen to be helped: The International Congress of
Miners in Belgium a few weeks ago arranged that a congress
should be held next April to determine whether there shall
be a universal strike of all the miners of the world for better
conditions. People all over have been made sufficiently
familiar with the picturesque sufferings of these subterra¬
nean brothers to respond to an appeal for them. Here is a
case the facts of which are so separate from all the compli¬
cations with other things that it can be presented so that
the wayfaring man, though a fool, can understand them.
Can you not speak for these men so that their fellow-
Ï34 Henry Demarest Lloyd
workers, miners and others, shall be roused to come to their
relief?
He decided to issue a second edition of his book.
Father Power wrote :
... As to a new edition, I am afraid you will not suc¬
ceed in keeping up an interest in our case. After all it is
nothing strange to miners. Similar injustices have con¬
fronted them everywhere. They readily forget their suffer¬
ings as soon as a measure of prosperity comes to them. You
are more keenly alive to the cold-bloodedness of the iniquity
than the actual victims a thousand times. Therefore make
allowance for your enthusiasm before going further.
Lloyd replied :
Oct i6, 1890.
. . . The very sad fact you mention that these poor
people do not feel their wrong and misery is the very reason
why every one possessed of a spark of humanity should
espouse their cause. I do not expect to get much response
from them, but I do hope to stir among others an intelligence
and sympathy that will help set public opinion right, and pre¬
pare it to support not only the coal miners, but all working
men in their growth upward. The second edition will not
involve much expense, and wiU complete the record by
showing that in the year since the settlement the million¬
aires have only pushed the miners deeper into the mud, and
as regards the exposures of their methods their policy has
been simply one of revenge, not reply.
Dec. 17, 1890.
... I have not often been so . . . disappointed as I was
yesterday. ... I was anxious to have the pleasure of seeing
you at my home, and I also wanted to hear the news from
the miners, and to show you the new chapter I have written
for my book. The delay in producing the second edition is
The Story of Spring Valley
135
so great and inexplicable as almost to suggest the idea that
it is intentional."
It was issued in 1891. The names of the directors
were omitted. The new chapter," Revenge Not Reply,"
showed that the oppressors had only hardened their
hearts:
Along the route they marked out from the very first
they ride their way. Those over whom they drive have
groaned aloud, and because they groaned the wheels are
but made heavier and sharper. . . . This is the answer of
the millionaires—their only answer either to the public or
their employees.
He endeavoured to give the book wide circulation in
America and Europe, and was rewarded with many
tributes. The Duke of Argyle took pains to denounce
it, and Frederic Engels wrote :
122 Regent's Park Road, N. W., London, 27 May, '93.
Dear Sir:
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your book A
Strike of Millionaires Against Miners, 2nd. edition, for
which please accept my best thanks. I shall read it with
great interest. Here in England modem Capitalism, during
the century and a half of its fuU development, has lost much
of its original bmtal energy and moves onwards with a
moderated step; even in France and Germany, this is to a
certain degree the case also; it is only in industrially young
countries like America and Russia, that Capital gives full
fling to the recklessness of its greed. The consolation
however, lies in this; That by this very recklessness it
hurries on the developments of the immense resources of
these young countries, and thereby prepares the period
when a better system of production will be able to take the
place of the old.
136 Henry Demarest Lloyd
In America, at least, I am strongly inclined to believe that
the fatal hour of Capitalism will have struck as soon as a
native American Working Class will have replaced a work¬
ing class composed in its majority by foreign immigration.
Yours very faithfully,
Fredc. Engels.
This book was the first of a series to be called "Our
Bad Wealth Series," named from Emerson's saying,
"It is time our bad wealth came to an end." Lloyd
was to write one on the trusts, while he planned to
induce others to write on the spoliation of public domain,
on the railroads and the courts, on the Pacific railroad
and Crédit Mobilier, on the coal barons and their
victims, and one depicting the poverty among farmers
and working men, but the failime of the publishing
company prevented. It also seriously interfered with
the circulation of his book. In three years it was almost
impossible even for Lloyd to obtain a copy.' In 1894,
when he was still making public the Spring Valley
conditions, he endeavoured to have it republished by
Harper & Brothers, but without success.
This experience brought him nearer to the working
class. Never before had he been among them when
combating their masters. When he saw their starv¬
ing children, their new graves, saw despairing men
proud in spite of want, patient and unrevengeful—
keeping their tempers on the whole marvellously, even
when militia with loaded guns and fixed bayonets
took possession of their peaceful streets—^he was touched
with compassion.
I listened. Of course there would be angry words,
vindictive outbreaks of indignation against those who had
' The plates are in the possession of his heirs.
The Story of Spring Valley
137
so cruelly unhomed and expatriated them for the sake of a
little extra profit. But there was nothing of the kind, not
even a flash of wrath. The poor people answered all in¬
quiries gently and patiently and intelligently, but never a
harsh word against their oppressors. They even laughed as
they talked. It was as if they felt it all to be part of the
inevitable ill fortune of life, which they must bear as best
they could. I was amazed and humbled. It seemed to me
that had I thus been made a victim of inhuman greed for
"more," had I and my home and my life been butchered—
not "to make a Roman holiday," but an American dividend
—I would have thought a lifetime too little to give to a
crusade of retribution. The truth then first really dawned
upon me, that there is a sanctification which comes, however
unconsciously, to the victims of wrong and injustice, and
that it is the master, not the slave, who receives the double
curse of oppression.
Shortly after the settlement, when the men had
relinquished their union and one by one scrambled for
work, he went again and addressed the miners. He
adjured them to uphold their imion, for only through
it could they secure a free and equal contract. He said
that new truths cáme from the suffering people and not
from crowned heads, that a new religion and a new
civilisation were coming which would believe it better
to make men than money. He told them that his
experience with them had opened up a new idea of
life to him.
Among the young miners upon whom he made a
deep impression was John Mitchell, who lived to be
President of the United Mine Workers of America,
numbering over 311,000 members.
Lloyd's service won him the regard of the miners
everywhere, who were then engaged in a world-wide
138 Henry Demarest Lloyd
struggle for better conditions. When, in December,
1889, the miners assembled in delegate convention at
Indianapolis, a letter from Lloyd congratulated them
on their imity of purpose expressed by the holding of
the convention, assuring them of his sympathy and
co-operation in all legitimate efforts for the amelioration
of their craft, and containing a practical suggestion—
probably the raising of a permanent defence fvmd—
which it was voted to carry out. The Columbus
convention of 1891 endorsed his book and voted to
help assist its circulation.
Mr. Lloyd always maintained his interest in Spring
Valley and was ever ready to help all miners as the
most oppressed of the workers. " He has received the
lasting gratitude of a class of people who never forget
a kindness," said the Trades and Mining Gazette.
"Lloyd," said Charles J. Devlin, the superintendent
who rebelled against the policy of the company and
resigned during the struggle, " did more than any other
man in America to end that strike." The beauty of
his spirit left its impress:
During the senatorial contest in the Illinois Legislattue
in 1891, I met a Spring Valley coal miner [wrote W. G.
Eggleston]' who said: "If these legislators would only do
the right thing, they'd elect Henry Lloyd and then we'd
have a real senator." "But," I replied, "why waste such
a man by caging him in the Senate? ... He is doing ten
times the good in private life that he could do in the Senate
as it is now constituted." . . . The miner was silent a few
minutes and then said : "Ah, but what a beautiful world this
would be, if half the men were Lloyds!"
Ten years later Mr. Lloyd said in a letter:
When I wrote the story of Spring Valley I really believed
' Arena, April, 1907, p. 352.
The Story of Spring Valley
139
that its revelations would have some effect upon the direc¬
tors of the Railroad and the Coal Company. ... I was
younger then than I am now. It produced no effect upon
these men whatever. . . . Things at Spring Valley have
ever since gone on from bad to worse and recently an appeal
went out through the country for food and clothing for the
people there, as they were starving. This experience makes
me understand what Ruskin meant when he said; "I am
done with preaching to the rich."
With this work he closed the decade of 1880 to 1890,
so crucial a period in the American labour movement.
From first to last he had been on the people's side,
moving ever nearer to the firing line. He opened it
with "The Story of a Great Monopoly" and ended with
The Strike of Millionaires Against Miners, which was,
he said, "but another chapter of the same 'story.' "
At its beginning he had accurately diagnosed the in¬
justice imdermining our institutions. At its close he
saw the injustice grinding its cruel way over the people's
lives.
Between his first and second visits to Spring Valley,
there occiirred the greatest sorrow of his life, the death
of his brother Demarest, who was stricken in the full
swing of a brilliant career, just as his fourth play, The
Senator, was being put on the boards.
A rare soul and a great mind was this, brilliant,
sinless, a man of the world and yet guileless. Of such
men as peopled the millennium of Henry's vision was
this brother a living example. "I loved him better
than any man," he said, "and I am so lonely without
him. . . . To think that that beautiful soul was ours,
but is ours no longer. "
Your sweet and welcome letter [he wrote to his sister
when he returned to his labour of love for the miners] has
140 Henry Demarest Lloyd
been doing its good work in my heart all these silent weeks.
They have been busy weeks, and I have not felt them to be
a time of expression. Somehow the burden of this grief has
turned me in upon myself in a way less real sorrow never
did. There are griefs I find that like Wordsworth's thoughts
" do often lie too deep for tears. "
"NOT FORGOTTEN"'
TO DAVID DEMAREST LLOYD
Early, but not too early for thy fame,
The seal of silence on thy lips is laid,
While we, aghast, disheartened, and dismayed.
Crush back our tears and softly speak thy name.
To us it has one meaning and the same—
A brave and gentle soul, a noble mind.
Pure, constant, generous, modest and refined.
With simple duty for its only aim.
Dear are the days that thou hast left behind.
By sweet words hallowed, and by kindly deeds;
And thus the heart of sorrow moans and bleeds.
And ever bleeds, and will not be resigned—
Knowing its hopeless hope is all in vain.
To see thy face or hear thy voice again.
William Winter.
London, September, 1889.
" By permission, from the Poems of William Winter, Moffat, Yard
& Co., New York, 1909.
CHAPTER VIII
WITH THE HEAVY LADEN
Lloyd now lost no opportunity to help win for la-
^ hour its right to organise. He considered the sup¬
port of public opinion essential, and endeavoured to
swing as many as possible of the middle class to an
endorsement of this right. He showed them that the
cause of the unions was their cause ; that to submit with¬
out protest to injustice toward the workers—"only
the working men"—was suicidal. "It will be our turn
next." The farmers were beginning to realise this,
but not the business men. From his social vantage
point—^as member, for instance, of the Chicago, Chicago
Literary, the Press, and Sunset Clubs and of the Twen¬
tieth Century and Authors of Boston—he was often
able to act as labour's advocate. When in December,
1889, fresh from the experience at Spring Valley, he
addressed the Chicago Nationalists, one of the clubs
inspired by Bellamy's new book. Looking Backward, he
made "The Union For Ever" his subject:
I can hear the coming notes of a glorious music. The
song that was sung for the slave is being taken up for the
working man. We are coming. Father Abraham, nine
hundred thousand strong!
He demonstrated to Chicago's Sunset Club that men
141
142 Henry Demarest Lloyd
were being "whipped to work." The terms of their
enforced contracts he knew well. He wrote to a
Southerner :
If I were to tell you of the conditions vmder which the
working people of the North lived and laboured, you prob¬
ably would not be able to believe it ; but if I should have
an opportunity to show it to you, you would not only believe
but, I am certain, would become possessed with the idea
that no citizen of the United States could safely take his
ease until such infamies were wiped out of existence.
He told audiences that he was amazed at the con¬
servatism of the workers. Entitled to the full product
of their labour, they were content to ask for pittances
in shorter hours, higher wages.
Let us work but eight hours a day [he said, voicing
their claim]. It is upon us that most of the burden of
pauperism and war falls. Luxury . . . losses of trade . . .
hard times, fall heaviest upon us. Give us a little time to
think every day.
The enforcement of this demand would, he said, re¬
quire some readjustment at first, but would be fol¬
lowed by a prosperity never before seen.
Among the unions as well he worked. He settled to
the carpenters' satisfaction their strike in Chicago in
1890, but warned them that union in their craft was not
enough, that they must achieve unionism on a much
broader scale. He addressed the builders, cornice
makers, steam-fitters, striking garment workers, Ger¬
man furniture workers of Grand Rapids. The workers
saw in him a figure unique in those days, one to whom
fate had opened doors of opportunity closed to them,
and who yet stated their cause with thorough under-
HENRY D.
OF THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE,
One of ChicRgo's foremost business men, author of the "New Con-
6CIEK0E)" recently published in the North American Review,
and one of the ablest and most accumpllshed authors
and speakers in the west, will address the Manu¬
facturers and Workingmen of Grand Rapids, at
Powers' Opera House,
sum raiN6 Msrcli 30tl]
On the LABOR PROBLEM and especially on the EIGHT HOUR
QUESTION. Tom out, every one, and hear these great qnee*
tioDS discnssed. Business men are especially invited.
Lecture begins at 8 o'clock.
ADMISSION FREE
A Typical Handbill, 1890.
With the Heavy Laden 143
standing and a fervour exceeding theirs. He invested
their organisations with lofty significance, saying that
their path was leading to a new human brotherhood.
Should their right to organise be taken away, he told
the striking street car men in Milwaukee, the doom of
the republic would be sealed. "You are doing to-day
the most magnificent thing that is being done . . .
under the American sky."
At the Thirteenth Annual Convention of the Ameri¬
can Federation of Labour, in Chicago, December, 1893,
he delivered an address, "The Safety of the Future
Lies in Organised Labour. " It was received with tm-
bounded enthusiasm and reached the million members
through the tens of thousands of copies circulated by
the Federation. Many outside the ranks of labour felt
as did President Andrews of Brown University, who
called it an inspired address, and Frances Willard,
"his elder sister," as she called herself, who wrote:
"It is my humble opinion that you are chosen by the
powers invisible as the apostle of our great oncoming
movement." His correspondence with Samuel Gompers,
President of the Federation, opened at this time, and
Lloyd wrote to him, concerning the Homestead strike:
Are the relations between the Amalgamated Association
of Iron & Steel Workers and the Federation of Labour such
that the latter could lend a hand in the present struggle?
Carnegie is universally disliked, even among his own class ;
he is here and abroad perhaps the most conspicuous repre¬
sentative of the wage system in its most fanatical form—
that which holds the labourer to be merely a commodity to
be cheapened to the last cent. His present attack on the
union is the most dangerous threat labour has yet had to
encounter. If the persistent attempts to make it appear
that the tariff is the fundamental question involved succeed.
144 Henry Demarest Lloyd
public comprehension of the labour question will be muddled
and side-tracked. No other such opportunity to arouse and
unite the working men of the whole country,—and an un¬
usual proportion of other pursuits—is likely to come. It
unites all the elements to interest and excite. This can be
made the most important conflict of the history of organised
labour and it can be won. All the working men can
be enlisted from those who work directly to those concerned
indirectly. Carnegie can be used to teach the Captains of
Industry that men who treat their "brother" labourers like
sponges to be squeezed and rats to be shot caimot continue
doing business in that style in this country.
During the Pullman strike in 1894, he became a
vigilant guardian of justice. He had watched from its
inception the model town which George M. Pullman
had bmlt for his working men. The noise of hammers
had not ceased before he received a commission from a
leading monthly to write it up. I remember the summer
day when Mr. Pullman showed him the town with its
trim monotonous streets, its flower-bordered walks.
When the article was completed the magazine accepted
it on condition that it contain more laudatory mention
of Mr. Pullman, but Lloyd declined to make the change
and it was never used. "Baron" Pullman's good in¬
tentions proving too feudalistic, a strike was declared
in May, 1894, and in June the American Railway Union,
organised the previous year, refused to handle Pullman
cars, and declared a sympathetic boycott and strike,
the first of its kind. Soon the greatest industrial contest
yet known was being waged. Its events made history
rapidly : the despatch by President Cleveland of Federal
troops to Chicago on July 3, despite Governor Altgeld's
protest, the issuing of injunctions against strikers, the
use against them of the Interstate Commerce Law for
A Cut from the "Chicago Chronicle," June 14,1896, Showing Mr. Lloyd
Addressing the Milwaukee Street Car Strikers in the Rain.
With the Heavy Laden 145
which the unions had worked so hard, the arrest of
Eugene V. Debs, President of the Union, and others
for contempt of court, their imprisonment without a
trial, the appeal to the Federal Supreme Court and its
decision refusing Debs the right of trial, and the failure
of the strike. At these breaches of justice Lloyd
promptly protested. The papers were full of his
brilliant denunciations, of his endorsement of labour's
right to strike.
Mr. Lloyd was a staunch supporter of our side [wrote
Debs later] and I had several letters from him . . . giving
encouragement and advice, but these were in the files of the
American Railway Union whose effects were scattered by
corporate and governmental persecution. I remember that
Mr. Lloyd advised us to employ Mr. Darrow to defend us
and that he also subscribed to our defence fund.
Lloyd wrote to Clarence Darrow, November 23, 1894:
The conviction of the American Railway Union men I
have expected from the beginning. Our judges register the
ruling opinion, as judges always do, and that means at all
hazards to put a stop to the strike. They will pretend that
they are punishing for violence, but that is a pretence.
Their real purpose is, and has been, to stop the strike. They
are religiously in earnest in their conviction that the strike
is the murder of organised society; and they are right. The
strike has but to go a step or two farther to amount to a
dissolution of society. The more advanced "thinkers" are
already demanding a general strike, and you know what
that would mean. Where the plutes are wrong is in their
folly of supposing that they can cure this evil by force.
They are as blind as the fools of power have always been.
They will probably send Debs to jail—Olney's recent pro-
nunciamento was intended to pave the way, putting the
authorities in the attitude of friends of labour unions, to
VOL. I—10
146 Henry Demarest Lloyd
strengthen their coming claim that they are condemning
not labour but violence—and nothing more destructive to
themselves could they do. It is only by the aggressions
of the enemy that the people can be united. Events must
be our leaders, and we will have them. I am not discouraged.
The radicalism of the fanatics of wealth fills me with hope.
They are likely to do for us what the South did for the
North in 1861.
In regard to Mr. Pullman's refusal to arbitrate on the
ground that a man has a right to manage his own
business, he said: "There is no such principle and never
has been in human affairs. " To him the labour move¬
ment was not a movement of hate, but of love.
It pities the man who can stand at the helm of any of
the great concerns of modem industrial life, made possible
only by the countless efforts, loyalty, and genius of thou¬
sands of his fellow-men living and dead, and say, "This is
my business." It says to him, "This is not your business,
not my business. It is our business." ... It pities him as
robbing himself of the greatest joys and triumphs of leader¬
ship. It seeks to lift him from the low level of selfish and
cmel millionairism to that of a general of great co-operative
hosts of industrial brothers.
Of the sympathetic strike he said:
Americans cannot forget that America is free from
Great Britain because France ordered a sjonpathetic strike.
The negro is free because of the sympathetic strike of the
North. What greater love hath any man than this, that he
lay down his life for his friend? The sympathetic strike in
a good cause is orthodox Christianity in action.
As to the sending of Federal troops, he said:
The Democratic party for a hundred years has been the
With the Heavy Laden 147
pull-back against the centralisation in American politics.
. . . But in one hour here last July, it sacrificed the honour¬
able devotion of a century to its great principle and sur¬
rendered both the rights of States and the rights of man to
the centralised corporate déspotism to which the presidency
of the United States was then abdicated.
Of Altgeld's conduct, he said to a friend:'
I happened to be in Springfield at the time of the strike,
and spent an evening with Governor Altgeld. He enter¬
tained me in the executive office, and showed me a huge
map ... of Illinois, on which was marked, with tacks and
pins, the position of every company of militia, while a great
sheet lay on the desk, showing exactly what companies were
under arms, what railroads would be most efficient in taking
them to Chicago, and what provisions were made for sus¬
tenance. The Governor had the troops of the whole State
practically under arms, and ready to throw into Chicago,
when request should be made for them. The constitution
of the State provided that the sheriff or the mayor should
call for troops. Neither one called. Some railroad men and
some stock yards corporation magnates might have ap¬
pealed, but the two responsible officials professed to be
perfectly capable of handling the rioters. I went to bed
that night feeling that the Governor had the situation
securely in hand. . . . The next morning I read in the paper
that without any communication with the Governor at all,
the President had rushed the Federal troops into the city.
He took pains to inform the public through the press : '
I was an eye-witness of Governor Altgeld's conduct
during the great Pullman strike of 1894. • • • I spent a
number of hours with him at the most critical point of those
" Willis J. Abbot in The Pilgrim, April, 1902.
' The Morning Journal, New York, October 18, 1896.
148 Henry Demarest Lloyd
eventful July days. Almost universally the American de¬
sires to treat even a political opponent with fairness and
trust, however sharply he ntay criticise his opinions and
actions. Not one of those who are so volubly joining in the
fashionable denunciation of Governor Altgeld on account
of what they believe, upon information at second hand, to
have been his attitude and behaviour at that time would
indulge in this hue and cry if they knew the facts.
The real Governor Altgeld, as I saw him, was in constant
and anxious conference with the Adjutant-General of the
State and other military officers. He was receiving and
sending despatches connected with the movement of State
troops. He was fertile in suggestions which lay outside the
sphere of his technical obligations. As an instance, it was
reported to him, while I was there, that a train bearing a
detachment of soldiers was stalled on the outskirts of
Springfield because some sjrmpathiser with the strike had
put soap into the boiler of the locomotive. Governor Alt-
geld at once suggested that one of the fire engines of the
city and a watering cart go there to pump water into the
locomotive, so that it could proceed at once. So resolute
was the Governor that there should not be the slightest
occasion for any chance of a failure on the part of the State
to do its full duty in the protection of life and property that
he sent troops when called for, even though he did not
believe the aUeged need for their services was genuine. As
one demand for troops came by telegraph and was answered
by an order for their despatch, the Governor said to me in
substance :
"I have reason to fear that these troops are wanted at
that place only to help the railroad defeat the demand of
their men for higher wages"—this was the case of a strike
not connected in any way with the general strike—"but I
cannot refuse to send them in the face of allegations of pub¬
lic danger." In the intervals of all this business the Gover.
nor discussed the various aspects of the trouble with the
frankness of one talking with a personal friend. He deplored
With the Heavy Laden 149
the strike, and said that, in his judgment, it could not pos¬
sibly succeed, or even last many days longer. The farmers
and business men of the State were wild, he said, on account
of the stoppage of traffic on the roads. . . .
"If it becomes necessary," he said, I particularly remem¬
ber, "I could and would put 100,000 men into the city of
Chicago inside of five days. The whole State would answer
to the call as one man." The records of the time show that
every application from Chicago for State troops was
promptly answered, as from every other place in the State.
The Governor was not responsible for the initial delay on
the part of the Chicago authorities in asking for troops—
a delay which, it is well understood in Chicago, was due to
the fact that one of the then heads of the city government
was in a deadly personal and business feud with the Pull¬
man Company, and looked forward without displeasure
to its probable discomfiture. Governor Altgeld acted in
this crisis with the most scrupulous faithfulness to his
official obligation. He did this, as the remark quoted above
indicates, although he believed, as other cool and conscien¬
tious observers believed and believe, that the troops were
being called for by the railroads for other reasons than to
put down disorder; that the "riots" were largely "fakes,"
and that what was real of them was mostly the work of the
railroads. Most people at first blush receive such a sugges¬
tion as this last with an angry incredulity.
That the railroad corporations should do so dreadful a
thing seems as unbelievable as the stories told by the Abo¬
litionists about the horrors of slavery seemed at first to the
people of the North.
But the firm belief that this is true exists among persons
who have had the best opportunities for learning the facts.
In the Editor's Table of the New England Magazine for
October, edited by one of the best known literary men and
public citizens of Boston, who is a lifelong Republican and
has not the slightest sympathy with the Bryan Democracy
or the free silver movement, occurs the following passage.
150 Henry Demarest Lloyd
It is based in part on the offidal report of the Hon. Carroll
D. Wright on the Pullman strike. The editor of the New
England Magazine says :
"The Chicago strikers did not engage in rioting. The
rioting was done by hoodlums from the slums having no
relations with the working men. It is the duty of every
leading newspaper to show this; to cast this charge at the
working men at this day is a crime. Colonel Wright would
tell our Boston newspapers that not even the hoodlums
instigated the burning of the mass of cars, but that it was
instigated by the railway managers themselves as the
surest way to bring the Federal troops and defeat the
strike. ..."
This is an astounding statement. But that the editor
of the New England Magazine speaks by the card in saying
that Mr. Wright has become convinced that the railway
managers instigated the burning of the cars, which was the
most of the Chicago riots, is well known to a number of
eminent citizens of Boston. The railroads had everything
to gain by a little well-advertised rioting which could be
attributed to the strikers. The strikers had everything
to lose by violence, and they knew it. Whatever Governor
Altgeld, who is a shrewd and successful lawyer, judge, man
of affairs, and politician, may have divined of all this, he
did not allow it to lead him into any failure to comply to the
fullest with the strict letter and the spirit of his public duty
to preserve order. Even as a mere politician, he would have
been led by his estimate, described above, of the intense
and almost unanimous disapproval of the strike to show
not the slightest sign of paltering with it. There were other
personal reasons as strong.
In the centre of the city of Chicago, Governor Altgeld
had property to the value of many hundreds of thousands of
dollars. " Free rioting " would have destroyed this and the
whole fortune he had built up by a life of prudent and saga¬
cious enterprise. Those who can believe that a man of dis¬
tinguished intellectual ability, whose life-training has been
With the Heavy Laden 151
that of the law, the most conservative of sciences, who has
sat for years as a judge upon the bench, without whisper
of reproach, who has never given favour by so much as one
word, private or official, to a single one of the radical social
theories of the day, not even going so far as to accept the
mildest "municipal socialism" of European monarchical
cities, who, as Governor, has kept well within the most con¬
ventional lines of public enterprise, and who has indulged
that "Satanic radicalism" of his which keeps so many good
people in New York and Massachusetts awake these nights,
in nothing more revolutionary than prison and insane
asylvun reform and factory inspection, who has accumulated
a large fortune in real estate and some of the best office
property in the business heart of Chicago—those who can
believe that such a man is an "Anarchist," and believes in
free rioting in general, ought at least to have common-sense
and sense of humour enough to know that he could not have
believed in the particular "free rioting" which took place in
Chicago in July, 1894. The bottom truth is that Governor
Altgeld is of that type whose brains and character alike
do not make it possible for their personal success to stoffocate
their love of justice. He is a man whom the trusts, corpo¬
rations, and concentrated millionairism of the country have
found it impossible to bend, break, or seduce. If such men
as Altgeld the Democrat and Pingree the Republican sur¬
vive, monopoly will perish and monopoly by a sure instinct
of self-preservation has set itself to destroy them by ridi¬
cule, slander, and by every means of financial and political
assault. One of the most regrettable features of public
opinion in this campaign is that so many of the American
people have allowed themselves to be played upon by these
sinister interests who are catering to every prejudice and
using every ingenuity of misrepresentation to destroy public
confidence in the few public men who are standing like
giants on guard for the public.
The following is found in his note-book:
152 Henry Demarest Lloyd
Strike of 1894.—
E. W. Bemis was told that Mayor Hopkins before leaving
office procured 40 affidavits showing that the burning of
freight cars was done by railroad men; that the railroad men
moved cars outside of fire limits, then burned them, inciting
bystanders to participate. Hopkins, fearing these affidavits
might be destroyed by some subsequent railroad mayor,
took certified copies before leaving office. . . .
He wrote to W. T. Stead in August, 1894, the
working men were turning desperately to politics, and
added:
... In no event will the working men and farmers be
allowed, no matter what their majority, to take the control
of the government. If the people will not, out of their
bovine peaceableness, do the acts of violence that would
afford the pretext for the "saviours of society" to keep pos¬
session, these latter will themselves commit the violence,
and charge it upon the people. They did this in Chicago,
I verily believe. They have done it in many preceding
strikes. It is their winning card. Violence, sedition they
must have, of the people. History thus rewrites itself in
every great crisis. . . .
He wrote the following resolutions, but when they
were used is not recorded :
Resolved, that the act of the Pullman Palace Car Com¬
pany in denying a living wage to its working men while
maintaining its own wages—its dividends—at the highest
figure is an oppressive use of power which should be con¬
demned and righted by the community.
Resolved, that the course of the members of the Ameri¬
can Railway Union in giving up their means of livelihood
in order to secure justice for their comrades at Pullman is
one of heroic self-abnegation, and good Samaritanism, and
shames every citizen who has passed by on the other side.
With the Heavy Laden 153
Resolved, that the community has no right to neglect
its duty of establishing industrial justice, or to leave it to be
sought by its sympathetic members at the cost of such
voluntary suffering as has been incurred by the men of the
American Railway Union.
Resolved, that this Pullman panorama of the starvation
of a city full of people within sight of overflowing wealth
it has helped to create, the oppression of citizens by means
of the industrial power delegated by the people to Captains
of Industry for the welfare of aU, the ruinous self-sacrifice of
those brother-workers whom conscience compels to attempt
by private effort the duty society abdicates, the widespread
inconvenience and loss to the public at large, tending
towards chaos, is the writing on the wall to warn us of the
utter breakdown of our present social and industrial system
if left under the anarchy of the struggle for private gain.
Resolved, that we therefore call upon the people to
proceed by all the constitutional and political means at
their command as members of a self-governing community
to take possession of all the necessary means of livelihood
as they elect, and operate them under the principles of
equality, liberty, and happiness for all.
When on November 25, 1895, thousands gathered in
"dingy old Battery D" to welcome Debs on his return
from Woodstock jail, he was there:
Lloyd's appearance and his reception were among the
unparalleled incidents of an event that was altogether
unparalleled.' He was received with tumultuous cordial¬
ity. His fashionable attire, ... his elegant gestures and
his nicety of pronunciation were so pronounced as to make
him almost an oddity in that environment. His speech . . .
bristled with epigrams. They were as unique and charac¬
teristic as his light grey trousers, his long frock coat, his
' Chitxigo Chronicle.
154 Henry Demarest Lloyd
pince-nez glasses. ... In greeting Debs he showed a
marked deference.
In his speech he announced his faith. "The work¬
ing men's side is always the right side and the more
mistakes they make, the more will all those who
love their fellow-men, and who have faith in the
future, give them aid and comfort and affection."
He denotmced the use of the injunction as "judicial
lynch law"; he appealed to the people to elect
their own judges; he awoke unbounded enthusiasm
by his fearless denunciation of the injustice which let
the men of the trusts and railroads go free of all punish¬
ment for their crimes, while using all its powers to
prosecute the men of the Railway Union. An attack
on this speech made by the Oil City Derrick, a paper
favourable to Standard Oil interests, seemed to him
deeply significant. He wrote to F. F. Murray, editor
of the Petroleum Gazette, Titusville, Pa. :
You will observe that I confined myself—I am a lawyer
—scrupulously to the suggestion of legal and political forms
of remedy. This suggestion is met by our lawless wealth
with a reply which simmers down to this:
Our will and greed are the only law. Any appeal to the
law, constitutional, statute, common, civil, or criminal,
against us, is a crime to be punished, by hanging, if need be.
That which these men say to-day, they will do to-mor¬
row. They declare it a crime to-day to talk of recourse to
the law. To-morrow they will, somehow, by the help of
judges, or executive, by laws or injunctions or in some way,
treat as criminals those who have appealed to the law.
In such utterances we see outlined as clear as by noon¬
day light the history the drunken infatuation of these men
means to make. They will never stop themselves; they
will go just as far as they find no resistance to stop them.
With the Heavy Laden 155
My predominant mood now is one of curiosity in watching
how far the Americans are going to let these fellows go. . . .
For the foreign workers, he made special pleas,
controverting the cry that it was they who were re¬
sponsible for our disasters.
"Nothing human is foreign to me," said the ancient
lover of men. Nothing foreign is human to me, says the
modem American Know-Nothing.
With all allowance for primitive unruliness among some
of them [he wrote to Albert Shaw of the Review of Reviews,
in protest against the New Orleans massacres in 1890] I
feel that in the peasantry who come to our shores Eimope
is sending us her "best people." ... It is the Americans
who are hurrying this country into the anti-Republican
rule of wealth that are the dangerous element.
Following his Spring Valley work a Congressional
Committee on Immigration and Naturalisation sought
the benefit of his experience. ' He told of the distress
of the foreign miners there who had been decoyed to
this country. When asked whether the trouble had
been occasioned by them, he answered: "No, sir, I
should say not. The lockout was a clear case of a
commercial war on the working man. "
Q. Have you any opinion to give as to the effect of im¬
migration upon labour in this country? A. (H. D. L.) I
think the voluntary immigration of free men is a great
blessing. I think the immigration which is involuntary,
which is forced, you might say, that which is used by capital
as a kind of a club to knock out the brains of the working
men at home is a great evil.
Q. As a matter of fact, the more labouring men that come
■ See Reports, 2886, Second Session, 51st Congress, i890-'9l.
156 Henry Demarest Lloyd
to this country the less labour there is to be divided among
them? A. No, sir, I should say the more men that come
here the more labour there would be to do.
Q. That is, the work would increase in proportion to the
increase of the working men? A. Yes, sir; I should think
so.
Q. Well, then, what classes would you draw the line on
as being detrimental to labour? A. What classes of immi¬
grants?
Q. Yes, sir. A. I would impose restrictions on men
who come here under a condition of servitude, and men
afflicted with contagious diseases, men who were hopeless
wrecks.
Q. Are there any other classes? A. I caimot recall
any more just now.
Q. You mean the criminal and all classes? A. The
criminals make very good citizens, sometimes.
Q. What have you to say about a class of people that
are known as anarchists in this country? Would you desire
that they should be prohibited from coming? A. No, sir.
I would n't consider myself fit to be an American citizen
if I wanted any man debarred on account of his opinions.
Q. Have you any suggestions of your own to make, as
to legislation which would tend to keep out the classes
which you think objectionable? A. I should think the
extension of ordinary sanitary and police supervision would
be ample.
Q. Where would you have it? A. At the ports of
entry.
Q. You have stated that you have not given this matter
very much investigation? A. No, sir; I have made no
special study of it.
Q. Then you have not examined as to the difflculty of
determining when the immigrant arrives whether he comes
under contract, or whether he comes here of his own voli¬
tion? A. I would infer from some things which I have
seen in the public press, even where it was known, where
With the Heavy Laden 157
men came under contract, they were still admitted, as in the
case of Mr. Vanderbilt's cook, who came under contract
and was admitted without question.
Q. Have you any information touching any other case?
A. I don't recollect the name, but shortly after that there
was a clergyman came to this country under an arrangement
with some congregation in the East, I believe in N. Y. City,
and I remember there was a good deal of trouble about
letting him in, apparently for the purpose of making the
law odious, done by the Custom-house officials for that ap¬
parent purpose.
When in 1893 the safety of political refugees in
America was endangered by the ratification of the
Extradition Treaty with Russia, Mr. Lloyd was among
the three thousand citizens of Chicago who assembled
in mass meeting, and his resolutions eloquently voiced
the protest of the true American spirit against such
betrayal of our traditions. He also wrote the resolu¬
tion presented to the Illinois Senate asking President
Cleveland to withhold the exchange of ratification or to
take steps to annul the agreement. When the President
came to Chicago to open the World's Fair, Lloyd called
on him and asked him not to sign the treaty.
"On what ground should I refuse?" asked Cleveland.
"We cannot accept the decision of a Russian court on
an accusation," answered Lloyd.
"Why," exclaimed Cleveland, "you would not treat
Russia as a barbarous country, would you?"
"Yes, I would," said Lloyd.
Cleveland did not vouchsafe to tell him that at that
moment the treaty had already been signed. Lloyd
interpreted such pacts as victories of international
158 Henry Demarest Lloyd
capitalism. He wrote a paragraph' into his forthcom¬
ing book, giving the reasons for the people's suspicion
that the treaty was granted in return for certain
concessions in the Russian oil fields.
He was working at great pressure, spurred by the
continued success of capitalist encroachment, by the
sight of labour's own weapons being turned against
itself. He dubbed the new Sherman Anti-Trust law
"the Anti-Trade-Union law." In his opinion the
people were continually losing ground, and unless there
was a change soon, would lose their cause. Besides
his efforts for the workers, he was now continually
informing public opinion on the development of the
monopoly drama. As a delegate to the Interstate
Anti-Trust Convention in Chicago, June 6, 1893, he
delivered an address on "The Great Coal Conspiracy,"
which ended with a resolution advocating the govern¬
ment's taking railroads and coal mines by right of
eminent domain and nationalising them. As the con¬
vention, to his knowledge, was packed with railroad
attorneys and coal trust agents, it split on passing the
resolution. He then withdrew the address and a bolt¬
ing minority—30 from 77 delegates—assembled at the
Palmer House on the same day and adopted the address.
That so many should have been willing to vote for the
resolution seemed a great triumph, and convinced him
that once again in history the people were ripening faster
than their leaders. So universally was this significant
event ignored by the press as to suggest a conspiracy
of silence. An effort to counteract this resulted in the
publication of his address in the Boston Traveller and
People's Advocate of Buffalo. It was printed in part
in Bliss's Cyclopedia of Social Reform,' which says: "It
' Wealth Against Commonwealth, p. 448. ' Page 245.
With the Heavy Laden 159
still remains one of the best brief statements of evil in
the coal trade ever made. "
One of his minor but characteristic strokes against
monopoly was dealt one Sunday in 1895, at a mass
meeting called to denounce the gas and street railway
franchises recently passed by the City Council. The
meeting was held under the auspices of the National
Civic Federation, an organisation one of whose basic
principles is a belief in the identity of interest between
capital and labour. There was enthusiastic applause
at the speeches condemning the "iniquitous" franchises
and the "crowning steal" of the "corrupt" Cotmcil.
But there was nothing said about the outrages of the
existing gas and street railway monopolies, some of the
stockholders of which were members of the Civic
Federation. "But," said the Chicago Despatch the
next day, "there was just one man who was 'dead on'
to the whole business and he was present and talked too.
He will probably never again be asked to speak at a
meeting of that kind. . . . Who was he? Henry D.
Lloyd, of course. "
The people see at last [he said] that a system which
makes private property for private profit for a few out of
that which belongs to the whole people exclusively and
should be operated for the profit only of the whole body
of citizens, is inherently vicious, rotten in root and branch,
and capable only of producing rotten fruit—^rotten fruit,
for instance, like the gigantic fortunes of the gas trust,
street railway, and other monopolies and the misery of
multitudes of the people they tax to death.
He said that the Common Coimcilmen who were
corrupted were often only the mere instruments of more
influential and more dangerous men who keep them-
i6o Henry Demarest Lloyd
selves out of sight in the genteel shadow of our best
society. He granted that the new ordinances were inde¬
fensible and the manner of their passage infamous,
but he pointed out that they provided for the payment
to the dty of 3^ per cent, of the gross earnings, for
cheaper gas, thus saving the people $2,500,000 a year,
and permitted the city to own in fifty years. "Let the
people know the whole truth. "
The gas trust is as frightened about these ordinances as
this assemblage of citizens is. If the gas trust could have
captured this great mass meeting and have turned it into
a mere "kick" against these ordinances it would have done
so. ... I am informed that powerful influences are already
marshalled to secure from the State Legislature the passage
of a law which wiU confirm the gas trust, it hopes for ever,
in its monopoly of Chicago, by taking from the Coimcil the
power to grant franchises. I, too, woiild take from the
Cotmcil the power of ever again giving such a franchise, but
not for the purpose of making the monopoly of the gas trust
perpetual. . . .
. . . Public opinion demands that these obnoxious or¬
dinances be vetoed or repealed, but it demands even more
determinedly that they be repealed only to be replaced with
an ordinance to put the whole business of light and elec¬
tricity, including that of the gas trust, under the complete
control and, ultimately, ownership of the city. I speak
advisedly when I say that such an ordinance can easily be
drawn and enforced. Let this be but the opening gun of a
campaign which the people, with leaders or without leaders,
will not close until they have come again into full possession
of their own—their streets and their public powers, which
must be held inalienable, because given by all for all.
When the World's Colrimbian Exposition of 1892-3
was allotted to Chicago, her citizens, realising her reputa-
With the Heavy Laden i6i
tion for material prosperity, longed to proclaim her finer
spirit. Lloyd's pride of citizenship was rekindled :
. . . When the people of the world come to Chicago to
see the World's Fair, let us show them as our supreme
treasure, outshining the magnificence of palaces, a citizen¬
ship with which we vindicate our rights like freemen.
Through the winter and spring of 1893 there grew
beside the blackened Chicago a wondrous white city
gleaming in blue lagoons, and embodying the highest
aspirations in art and industry. There were planned
auxiliary congresses portraying the world's spiritual pro¬
gress, on whose programme was the text: "Not things,
but men. Not matter, but mind. " Among these was
the memorable Parliament of World's Religions to
whose deep significance Lloyd paid frequent tribute,
and the Educational Congress where he figured in a
symposium on the Relation of the Social Settlement to
the Labour Movement. Concerning this congress, he
wrote to his friend Lyman J. Gage:
May I venture unasked to give a reason why it seems
to me of the highest importance to us of Chicago that the
educational exhibit should not only not be slighted, but
should be made surpassingly good?
If this is not done the omission in this, which may be
accurately called the Age of Education, will be so glaring
that no one will be so dull or ignorant as not to see it. It
will be specially resented, and this is my point, by the
literary and student class—who will write the permanent
history of the Fair, that will go on the records outlasting
the newspaper and magazine enthusiasm of the moment.
The literary men, the professors, the critics of the world
will interpret this neglect of education as the most signifi¬
cant revelation of the inner ideals and motives not only of
VOL. I—II
102 Henry Demarest Lloyd
the Fair, but of the civilisation it represents. They will
declare it to be proof that we care for nothing but money-
making, and materialistic self-indulgence. The music, the
architecture, the art of the Exposition will not save us, for
these they will declare the most materialistic civilisations
have always valued the most highly as appanages of social
distinction and luxury. For the affront to the intellectual
life they will take no excuse. Every enemy of Chicago
in America, and every enemy of America in the world will
fasten on this chance for criticism. The point is one that
will grow larger and not smaller with the lapse of time, till
finally it is possible that the neglect to put " the schoolhouse
on the hill"—which we have boasted to be, politically, the
temple of our civilisation—at the very forefront of the Expo¬
sition, with all its cortège of colleges, universities, manual
training schools, Indian schools of Hampton, Carlisle, etc.,
etc., may become one of the stock illustrations of the social
philosopher of the next generation. I don't want Chicago,
nor America, nor the men who have done such noble work
for the Fair to be put into any such position. Trusting
that these words will seem to you to be spoken in the proper
spirit of a citizenship that seeks the greatest good of
all . . .
But Mr. Lloyd's special province was the Labour
Congress. He was chairman of its committee on
programme and correspondence, and helped to bring
to Chicago social workers and thinkers from all parts
of the world. He was keenly disappointed that Bellamy
could not attend. Keir Hardie came and won Lloyd's
esteem. After that he repeatedly urged Hardie to
come to America to lecture, ofifering to make all the
arrangements; when he came in 1895, Lloyd helped to
make the tour successful.
I have formed a very high opinion of him [he wrote to a
With the Heavy Laden 163
friend]. I do not believe that he has John Burns' genius,
but I believe he has something which will count for more
than genius in the times that are ahead of us, that is
unswerving integrity. I believe you can bet on him to the
last dollar. . . .
Hardie himself wrote concerning Lloyd :
I was very much impressed then with the sincerity of the
man and his determination to do the right at all hazards.
The more I knew of him, the more was this feeling
deepened.
At the close of the Congress there was a labour
meeting which adopted Lloyd's resolution:
The working men and women of Chicago, assembled in
mass-meeting Sunday, September 24, 1893, under the
auspices of the Trade and Labour Assembly of Chicago,
hereby extend to their brothers and sisters of Great Britain
and Ireland, Europe and Australia, greetings of fraternity
and fellowship, recognising in the similarity of the problems
of unemployed and misemployed men, land, and machinery
here and there, that the cause of the emancipation of labour
is essentially one and the same the world over; and pledging
themselves to unite with all working men in the spirit of
international patriotism across all dynastic and tribal bar¬
riers to make the world of industry a republic, to make
all its inhabitants fellow-citizens, and restore to every citizen
his alienated though inalienable rights to life, liberty, and
happiness here on earth.
The Fair deeply impressed him. It seemed one of
the heralds of that new "intemation" and the com¬
ing peace of the world. As he walked through its white
streets, they grew in his mind to be the ideal city that
was to rise from our slums. It moved him to write his
164 Henry Demarest Lloyd
lecture, "No Mean City," the only Utopian dream in
which he ever indulged. Even this was founded on fact ;
it described a transcendent city, every progressive in¬
stitution of which was somewhere already in operation.
The mind which helped to create the beauty of the
Fair, John Root, did not live to see it realised. To the
brother architect, Daniel Bumham, he wrote:
Of the things I heard said about our World's Fair, one
that impressed me was the remark of a working man who
said: "It was five hundred years ahead of its time." He
had caught its intimation of an ideal of social effort and
co-operation, and believed it was to have its "time," but he
had not the faith I have that it may be realised in our own
time. The World's Fair revealed to the people possibilities
of social beauty, utility, and harmony of which they had
not been able even to dream. No such vision could other¬
wise have entered into the prosaic drudgery of their lives,
and it will be felt in their development unto the third and
fourth generation. Hope and inspiration for the future
were printed on the minds of many millions in that picture.
"Beauty is its own excuse for being." The beauty which
shone out through the Fair was almost mysterious in the
success of its appeal to the hearts of the people. This outer
beauty was the glow of an inner beauty. The beauty that
brooded over the Lagoons,the Wooded Island, and the Court
of Honour, cotdd we trace its genealogy, would be foimd to
have had its birth in some moment of high converse between
magnanimous souls when the Fair was first conceived. The
noble loveliness of the scene uttered the creative joy of
artists, builders, and men and women of affairs, lifted to
their highest by a unique opportunity to work for a common
good. . . .
One of the impressive things . . . was the superiority
of private effort over governmental. Another, equally
impressive, was the superiority of governmental effort over
With the Heavy Laden 165
private. The wonderful contrast between the architecture
resulting from the voluntary co-operation of our artists and
architects, and that produced under the auspices of Wash¬
ington and Springfield, speaks enough for the former. One
of the best things each exposition does is to show "How not
to do it." We must hope that some day there will be an
exposition in which all the great arts of all the nations will
be illustrated by the comparative method without regard
to the advertising aspirations or the excluding jealousies
either of persons, cities, or nations. Only under government
auspices and the motive of public benefit could such sub¬
ordination of the private and money-making be hoped for.
The greater delight the people found in wandering
through the Paradise of tower, dome, column, façade, park,
garden, and waterside, rather than in studying the treasures
within the walls, recalls Motley's saying, "Give me the
luxuries of life ; I can do without the necessities." The people
saw ghmpses as they wandered through those magic ave¬
nues of the higher levels of social achievement which man¬
kind is destined to reach. How little policing people need
when they are happy and contented, was one of the side¬
lights thrown by the Fair on "the science of society." To
bring so many people together from all parts of the world,
jo3rfuUy and peacefully, was of itself a notable evidence of
civilisation. We are not so many generations away from
the stage of development when a man was a barbarian to
be stoned if he got across the line into the next town.
"Peace," Dante said, "is the great prerequisite of civilisa¬
tion." And there is smely no more encouraging augury of
the disappearance of war than the increasing frequency of
expositions—the international dress-parades of Peace.
CHAPTER IX
BEGINNING AT HOME
IT was only in the shelter of home that the beauty of
Henry Lloyd's personality could be fully seen. To
follow him living this inner drama would be to reveal
him as even more tender, more heroic, more the passion¬
ate human heart than is revealed in his public life.
Like others of his type, he owed much of his distinc¬
tion to the simple fact that the sympathy which was so
real in his attitude to those dearest, he extended to the
lowliest stranger. There was no double standard of
kindness within and hardness without his gates. While
expanding to the full the precious privileges and duties
of kinship, he felt none the less deeply the universal
tie of the whole human group. He believed that in the
home were to be found the hints for the solutions of the
future. His social ideal held that every man should
have some of the deamess of a brother, every child be
suffered to "come," every woman gain some of the
security and honour and love of the wife, sister, or
mother. Thus his public and his private life reacted
on one another. His public work was touched by a
tender human love, and his home life possessed a unique
breadth and inclusiveness. This spirit Mrs. Lloyd
shared with her husband. On the twenty-first anniver¬
sary of their marriage he wrote to her :
l66
Beginning at Home
167
To-day the husband- and wifehood are of age. . . . We
have a great debt to pay this generous world. My only
hope of paying my score is that you with wise head and
tender heart and clasping hand are pressing forward with
me. Dear wife, dearest friend.
Their home in standing not only for self-service but
for social service was the expression of their combined
spirits. Their double attractiveness was irresistible.
Mr. Lloyd radiated quietly a kindliness and inspiration.
When I think of him [said President Hadley of Yale
University] what I most remember is not the brilliant
writer, the active champion, but the man of such wonderful
personal charm in his daily conversation.
Mrs. Lloyd possessed a nature warmly charged with
social magnetism, which her friend "Susan Coolidge"
said amounted to genius. This gift would naturally
have drawn her into the current of what is known as
' * society. " But from this' she deliberately turned aside,
setting it whenever possible an example of wealth de¬
voted to simplicity and unselfish ends. She delighted to
give her best efforts where the need was greatest. Her
ardent nature had hoarded its warmth through a rather
bleak childhood, and in her loneliness she had resolved
that when she grew up she would spread happiness
among children, a resolution which she lived amply to
fulfil. I can see her now in my memory driving her ex¬
press waggon to the woods and gathering in it children
rich and poor until it looked like the family conveyance
of the "old woman who lived in a shoe." With her
the human relationship always prevailed, overstepping
all artificial barriers of class or fortune.
With each enlargement of its sheltering roof their
i68 Henry Demarest Lloyd
home drew nearer to that expression for which it was
finally to stand. From the beginning in Felicity Flat
it passed to the house which the architect John Root
built for them at 202 Michigan Avenue, on the site of
that burned in the great fire, and where Mrs. Lloyd
used to say that the dust which she wiped from shelf
or table was the ashes of her girlhood's treasures.
Finally in Winnetka was developed their representative
home. When Mr. Lloyd's health had suffered after the
loss of the Daily News, they had sought country peace
in this village on the Lake bluff north of Chicago. Its
arched avenue of trees, its green surrounded by the
homes of New England families, lent it an almost his¬
toric charm, not found elsewhere in this new country.
They were captivated and in spite of the protests of
friends that two such shining lights should retire to
life in an orchard with birds for neighbours, they
moved here in 1878. Where the one small ridge in
level prairie running north strikes the Lake side, they
found an old inn, the Wayside, long since deserted,
save by the staunch old trees and neglected shrubbery.
In this, half-ruined and desolate as it was, they saw the
possibility of a home. They accordingly acquired right
and title, and enthusiastically restored it. Piazzas
were propped, bushes pruned, overgrown paths to the
bluff and the beach retraced chiefiy by nestlings in the
shape of the little sons.
To the east through gnarled branches of apple trees,
or the slender tracery of silver birch, lay Lake Michigan,
bearing on its surface a hundred moods in a hundred
days—"our Mediterranean, " they called it. In the west
over the dark line of woods cut by the village steeple
burned the sunsets leading the thoughts far over the
country whose development was being studied with
Rest Hour. Mrs. Lloyd Reading.
Beginning at Home 169
such loving solicitude. It was not long before the
Lloyds were assuring their strenuous city friends that
they had never lived before. Here, in touch with the
inspiring beauty and tranquillity of nature, Mr. Lloyd
regained much of his lost buoyancy, and felt again the
impulse to help with the world's work.
As the little family grew, the old inn added wings,
opened new windows to welcome views, while nature
with embowering shrub and vine bound it to herself.
Here life playing upon these intense natures ran a rare
gamut from joy to sorrow. In an upper wing of the
house was Lloyd's study, where in its solitude peopled
by the portraits of Emerson—"the greatest mind and
heart of his time,"—Lincoln, Morris, Ruskin, and by the
silent companionship of his books he faced his problems,
grappled with his fainting courage, lived his hours of
drudgery or exaltation. From its window he could
look toward the beloved city of his adoption, the tur¬
bulent yoimg giant, Chicago, indicated far to the south
over field and wood by the trail of murky smoke moving
slowly lakeward. Viewing from the calm of this far-
off vantage point the mighty forces there contending,
rushing on to the inevitable conflict, he turned to his
task with renewed determination.
As I look back at this home I recall the delights of
bygone winter days, of ideal Sundays when the goodly
company of this social democracy lingered long aroimd
the dining-room table discussing the vital questions of
the day, and continued their talk in walks through the
tranquil shelter of the woods which then stretched
northward along the Lake bluff. I recall the quiet
evening hours around the wood fire when Henry always
took a rest on the lounge while his wife read aloud from
Scott, Dickens, or Thackeray for the benefit of "the
170 Henry Demarest Lloyd
boys, " who lay sprawled on the floor in various attitudes
of rapt attention, not daring to move for fear of dis¬
turbing the sleeper. Odd bits of unimportant pictures
steal back for no adequate reason, most of them con¬
taining as dramatis persona, one or more of "the boys. "
I see, for instance, the oldest suspending seven ninepins
from the curtain rod—the seven Anarchists of whom the
family taUc was then full. Walking along the hallway
I nearly put my foot into the court of some mediasval
castle of blocks or I fatally interrupt the stage-coach
about to be captured by Robin Hood's band or with one
sweep of my skirt rout the whole of the enemy's forces
at Agincourt, while listening I can hear from "the boys"
some such appropriate exclamation as "Hang a calf
skin over thy pate!" or a complaint from the youngest
one, forced by that disability to take the unpopular
rôles, "I always have to be the British." In fact a
picture of this unique home would not be complete
without a hint of the accessories furnished by these
young humourists, who were always on the horizon
in more or less diverting attitudes according to age or
current enthusiasm, now training for baseball with a
hot-water bottle for chest-protector, now fighting
gallant tournaments in redoubtable armour of iron
dish-cloths and saucepans. There was also trans¬
muted into their vernacular that tender love of nature,
joyous bulletins of new gentians or lady-slippers, of
spring birds and sunsets, of which the home chronicles
were full. There were "dandy rainbows" bridging
lake to wood, and joyful secrets of "slick places" for
trillium. "What Dad don't know about the Hubbard
Woods is n't worth knowing, but I bet I know something
he does n't, " said Will. " I know where there are some
hepáticas an inch broad, pretty fellows too, up in the
Beginning at Home
171
ravine. Regular whoppers, coming out like holy
sixty!"
A neighbour recalling the early days of the home,
said":
No one cared what he had, or what he wore, or how he
looked, but each one felt that he gave and received value
in this clearing house of ideas where both poor and rich
got richer, and every one gained but no one lost. ... I
recall one of the delightful dances of that happy Eocene
period, quite impromptu and entirely unexpected, arising
from the discovery by Mrs. Lloyd of two musical tramps,
one of whom was an artist upon the accordion, while his
partner performed upon the mouth organ. The tramps
were of course hungry; the Lloyds always hospitable, and
Winnetka ever ready to dance. So after a little collective
bargain a tripartite agreement was entered into, Mrs. Lloyd
furnishing the dinner, the tramps the music, and the popu¬
lace dancing. The only ball which ever approached this
one for genuine merriment, artistic dancing, and enthusiastic
music, was the Fezziwigs* ball described by Mr. Scrooge in
the Christmas Carol. And Henry Lloyd as a dancer came
very close to the Fezziwig standard. . . . The Reverend
Brooke Herford and his family came out here early in the
Post Igneous epoch. . . . Towards the end of one of the
meetings of the clan at Mrs. Lloyd's when even the British
reserve had completely thawed, Mr. Herford, at parting,
impulsively threw his arms about Mr. Lloyd's neck and
exclaimed: "Henry Lloyd, this is what I call good society."
In those horseless, motorless, golfless days we walked for
pleasure, and Henry Lloyd on a country ramble through
the woods or across the Skokie was Chief of the Clan. . . .
Such walks and talks never had been nor will be. We
" babbled o' green fields "—and talked of the differing glories
■ Frederick Greeley at the Winnetka memorial meeting, September.
1903.
172 Henry Demarest Lloyd
of the stars, and of the life that we knew and the life that
we hoped for.
Nor did the home escape the ridicule attending its
unusual quality, but none enjoyed this more than the
Lloyds themselves. When, for instance, in a charade
Mr. Lloyd, who often inveighed against strong coffee
as a deleterious drug, saw himself depicted as saying
to the waitress, " Hannah, bring me a cup of hot water,
very weak please," or a notice was found posted in the
guest-room, " In case of fire, come down softly, and
do not wake Mr. Lloyd," the laugh of the victim was
merriest of all.
A newly arrived guest usually foimd some interest¬
ing event transpiring, perhaps the dining-room cleared
for a lecture, or the table sturounded by a corps of
helpers addressing the papers and leaflets which Mr.
Lloyd was continually distributing as propaganda, or the
lawn in possession of girls from Marshall Field's store
revelling in a country holiday ; he was sure to find some
progressive thinker enjoying its stimulus, as Florence
Kelley fresh from her experiences as factory inspector
or Charlotte Perkins Oilman, who wrote three poems
there one morning, including that on immortality. "It
was a good place to write poems," she said. Perhaps
some special conference would be in progress, as when
Professor Bemis came to discuss the statement of
his case against the Chicago University, or Governor
Altgeld or Booker T. Washington brought their pro¬
blems, or some English social reformer or statesman
such as William T. Stead, or Herbert Burrows, or
George Trevelyan was there to discuss themes of
international importance. Among others came Walter
Crane in 1892 when the pardon .of the surviving Anar-
^káliu ^nccah
■xu >Í^/) tU^TíUUy/
^ Kx^tuJrUn^ ~ ^jíAu^iy, iSi^'Z
A Leaf from Walter Crane's Sketch-book.
Beginning at Home
173
chists was being agitated. As Crane while in Boston
had publicly endorsed this policy, the St. Botolph Club,
which had issued invitations to a large reception in his
honour, promptly withdrew them. Accordingly on his
coming to Chicago, the Lloyds made a special effort
to welcome him at a round-table luncheon.
Perhaps on one side the home might be described
as in part a social settlement. Under its roof was usually
some one wounded in soul or body, some outsider with
no claim of friendship or kinship, marvelling at the
unmeastued wealth of sympathy and help lavished
upon him. Now it was some lonely self-supporting
woman, now an overworked mother, who would be
tucked into the steamer chair on the southern porch
by Mrs. Lloyd's kind hands, now some young man away
from homefor thefirst time,who recognised her motherly
touch, or some unpractical crank unable to adjust his
queemess to any world except this broad home. "I
went out there for a rest, " said one. " I was a poor fac¬
tory girl half starving on seven dollars a week, and Mrs.
Lloyd nursed me as if I were her child or her sister. I
never felt so much at home in my life. " An old lady
who came from the Home for a country week was never
tired of boasting of her experience: "And me a poor
Irish widder sat at the table with the Mister, and the
Missus she waited on us." "My cook, I am sure,"
wrote a quondam visitor, "could give testimony to Mr.
Lloyd's unfailing and unusual courtesy, for she always
remembers his efforts to go to the kitchen to greet her
when she was at his home." Here rich and poor,
college bred and untutored, famous and humble,
white and black, met on common ground. "A bit of
nineteenth-century heaven," a friend described it.
Jane Addams, to whom it proved a resource in dealing
174 Henry Demarest Lloyd
with some of her problems, was pleased to call it "an
annex to Hull House. "
It was as well a kind of clearing house of advanced
thought on the labour movement. Thinkers and workers
in all branches of social service from all parts of the
world passed through this home. Rarely was there a
purposeless soul aroimd its table, and the untrammelled
freedom with which questions of religious and political
regeneration were treated and the aspiration which
often ascended from its liberated thought proved an
experience which few who witnessed it ever forgot.
Many a reformer in those days, when radicalism was
much less common than now, came weary of the combat
and found rest for his soul. Professor Vida Scudder of
Wellesley, perplexed by the offer to her college of money
from the Standard Oil Company, sought Mr. Lloyd's
advice.
What refreshed me in Mr. Lloyd, [she said, recalling
her visit,] was of course finding myself in the presence of
a man—indeed of a family—to whom the principles of what
I must consider the social ethics of the future were not
dangerous vagaries or absurd fallacies, but assumptions
that needed no question. To pass from an atmosphere
charged with incredulous perplexity to one full of friendly,
tranquil comradeship is an experience one does not forget;
the Lloyds' home must, I should think, have afforded such
a haven to many a solitary spirit.
That is what one remembers longest about "the
Lloyds," the brave talk. There was a never-ending
conference, its lecture rooms, informal as those of the
Greek philosophers, now at the table or through wood
paths, on a sand dune, or along the shore at sunset,
now on the roof in the moonlight, around the log
The Dining-room at Winnetka.
Beginning at Home
175
fire on a rainy day, sometimes in the retirement of the
study. For Lloyd regarded conversation as of primal
importance. It was in the informal talk of free men and
women that he looked for truth to evolve, and he listened
as if its revelation might come at any moment. This
intensity made itself felt and each contributed his best
or else held his peace.
I shall never forget the pride and pleasure I had in
walking that seven miles with Mr. Lloyd, [said a young
girl] because he talked to me just as he would have talked
to any one, with just as much charm and interest, discussing
Darwin as if we had equally valuable opinions to exchange,
and Matthew Arnold's poetry,—and all sorts of subjects
on which a particularly green school girl is n't usually
listened to with such an inspiring . . . consideration and
fellowship. That is my first memory . . . and that impres¬
sion was so often confirmed when he listened to all the
yotmgsters at the table with as much interest as to experts.
He himself, free from the restraint of the public ear,
lavishly gave his thought however radical and his
hopes however lofty or shy. His talk was brilliant and
fascinating, full of startling prophecy, firm in its
convictions; it was now hard as steel and now tender.
It seethed with indignation. It touched earth, firm-
footed, and again it soared, in a creative flight, far off
into theory. It was interesting to see him throw out
the line of a theory tentatively, so that he might watch
its impression on various minds, testing its value, even
prankishly seeing how near he could come to the quick
of his hearer's prejudices, tickling the talk as it were.
All was moreover touched with wit and suffused with
grace and courtesy. Like Emerson's wise man he
went to this game of conversation "to play upon
others and to be played upon."
176 Henry Demarest Lloyd
The same spirit prevailed in the summer home on
Sakonnet Point, the last tip of land at the mouth of
Narragansett Bay. It had been the happy land first of
the Sakonnet Indians, then of Plymouth Colonists,
and its green fields running to the red rocks which
walled them from the sea were smooth with many
seasons' ploughing. Here on the edge of the continent,
it seemed to have stolen away from the world, basking
lazily by day, and guarded through the night by the
watchful eye of the Sakonnet Lighthouse, which,
flashing ever its three short reds and one long white,
was a symbol of that social love which the State always
signified to Lloyd. Sakonnet had no facilities, and
seemed as hard to find as an enchanted country. When
visitors arrived either down the Bay by the boat or
along the road by the old stage, they felt that they had
reached one of the comers of the earth. Such was its
charm about 1889, when Mr. Lloyd first set foot there.
On the day of his arrival he bought thirty-two acres of
wind-swept coast, and here was built the summer
home, Watch House. Sea grey and vine-covered, it
stands on the hilltop, its front door nine feet wide,
typifying its breadth of hospitality. Here as well it
was a rare experience to witness the many currents of
life, each free, yet all working together for the general
welfare. Indeed, Mrs. Lloyd's social economy made of
her domain a kind of co-operative commonwealth.
After breakfast the younger guests usually formed
themselves into groups for bed-making, dish-washing,
flower-gathering. There were cosy times and good
talks for the girls with Mrs. Lloyd, over the shelling
of peas or hulling of berries. Mr. Lloyd usually enlisted
a corps to pick peas or beans in the garden, during
which process he dispensed philosophy as well as fun.
Mr. Lloyd Coming in from the Sakonnet Cornfield in a prankish Mood.
Beginning at Home
177
The freedom and the happy horizon of Sakonnet seemed
especially to suit him, and he never looked more fas¬
cinating than here, his négligée white suit with blue
shirt harmonising with his kind, blue eyes, and his
mane of prematurely white hair.
There were morning frolics around the swimming
raft, evenings of music, the midday hour of silence,
when for the sake of newcomers placards were hung,
which read, "Rest Hour, please keep quiet." At this
time, according to a custom dating from Mr. Lloyd's
insomnia, Mrs. Lloyd read to him and they tested the
somnolent qualities of Plato, Emerson, or Wordsworth.
There were afternoons yachting or driving in the four-
seated carryall, "The Democrat. " But under summer
frivolity was the serious work. In the solitude of the
long attic at one end worked Margaret Morley, writing,
studjdng her colonies of wasps or bees in the rafters.
At the other end sat Miss Stallbohm, Lloyd's never-
failing helper, who rarely stopped either the click of
the typewriter, or the clip of her editorial scissors, as
she copied his manuscript or cut and sorted the items
in the newspapers covering his desk from all parts of
the world. In the room below Mr. Lloyd wrote. A
part of his continuous work was the survey of the world's
news. The passages which he marked, and all news
bearing on the subjects of his life study, were classified
and filed. As this method was applied for many years
over a wide range of publications, the result was a
collection of great value. He inherited from his father
a keen sense of the historical value of contemporary
documents, and kept all kinds of programmes and pam¬
phlets connected with the labour movement. He also
treated reverently the short-lived reform and labour
papers, issued at great sacrifice by struggling men and
12
178 Henry Demarest Lloyd
women, and in whose simple pages he saw the eloquence
of new truth. AU these together with a part of his
library are now bequeathed to the University of Wis¬
consin, and to the John Crerar Library, Chicago, where
they wiU serve as a treasure-house to future students
of the era.
. . . Working with Mr. Lloyd was one of the most
delightful experiences of my life, [said a secretary.] At
Sakonnet ... he would usuaUy dictate from nine until
eleven; then he would take a glass of hot milk and say,
" I'm going to blow my brains out," which meant that
he was going out on the porch for a brisk walk of a few
minutes. Then he would return and resume work until
luncheon. ... I am a fresh air fiend myself, but Mr. Lloyd
transcended me. In September at Sakonnet when it was
really intensely cold, ... he would . . . dictate to me
with every window open; and on several occasions I have
sat . . . incased in a steamer rug, a golf cape with a
hood about me, taking his dictation with . . . numb
fingers. . . .
"He was a most considerate employer," wrote
Abigail Clarke, the secretary of Edward Everett Hale,
who also helped Mr. Lloyd during the residence in
Boston.
A very interesting thing in my divided service for Mr.
Lloyd and Dr. Hale, was their friendliness. They did not
often meet, but I was constantly the bearer of affectionate
greetings from one to the other. The charming and simple
hospitality of the Lloyd home was a never-failing source of
pleasure to Dr. Hale. "Well, whom did you meet at Lloyd's
yesterday?" Dr. Hale would ask. Once when I had been
telling about a particularly interesting group, he exclaimed:
Watch House, Sakonnet.
Beginning at Home
179
*' Why, my dear, I believe Lloyd and his wife are bringing
in the kingdom of God in Boston. "
Perhaps the most characteristic hour of the Sakonnet
day followed the evening meal, when it was the custom
to pace the length of the unroofed porch. Here with
the expanse of sea and sky, one caught an exhilaration
and releasing of the spirit as on shipboard. Across the
beautiful waters of Narragansett Bay could be seen in
the glory of the stmset the marble palaces of Newport,
homes reared on the proceeds of tyranny. Then in¬
deed did the spirit of Watch House stand most nobly
revealed by contrast, a protest against love confined
to kinship, its hospitality to all classes and races sym¬
bolising the coming international unity, its daily pro¬
gramme pre-figuring co-operation, its benefits offered
by preference to those in need typifying its holding
nearest its heart the problems of the people's life—a
true democracy in miniature.
It would be difficult to say which home of the Lloyds
was more charming—Sakonnet or Boston the sojourn¬
ing places, or Winnetka the real home. Wherever
set, it was ever, in its best phases, an attempt to ex¬
press the ideals of its era.
The home-makers are gone, but Watch House and
The Wayside still stand overlooking sea and lake.
Around their hearths, in every book, or chair, or picture,
are memories of two strong, brave souls, "who made
mankind their business, " and from whose hearth-altar
was ever arising an aspiration toward the heaven on
earth. Oh, days long vanished, burned into nights
long since spent that have rolled into new days now
old, freighted with what hours of rest, inspiration, and
struggle do you retreat into the past ! Around the places
that knew you may there ever linger your fine fragrance.
i8o Henry Demarest Lloyd
WATCH HOUSE
Who builds a house, does more; he blazons there
Himself, his aims, the genius of his mind.
So Watch House stands, broad open to the wind
And welcoming the sun. Around stretch, bare
Of trees, green fields that seem so high in air
They have the uplift of the moors. Confined
By red-rocked shores, the smiling sea is kind.
And healing brings, not harm. Unquiet care
Departs when, twilight fading down the West,
The ordered stars their nightly solace bring.
Long may it stand, sun-warmed to joy, wind-swept
Of care, to high endeavor heartening.
May those who breathe its finer air, attest
Its vision clear, its faith serenely kept.
Henry W. Goodrich.
1900.
CHAPTER X
WEALTH AGAINST COMMONWEALTH
From that natural law of compensation whereby
energy is met with energy, the realm of man's
struggle for freedom is not exempt. Every new tyranny
finds a new protester in its path, every Ahab meets his
Elijah, and our modem "bad wealth" is no exception.
In one of his rare confidential disclosures, the sphinx¬
like President of the oil trust said that in his early
years, being fearful lest his business would never amount
to anything, he often walked the streets all night, laying
plans, solving problems. When about 1872 the results
began to be manifest in bitter outbtirsts in the press
against a certain South Improvement Company, a
yoimg journalist had started taking notes and from
that time had never lost sight of that company, nor
of the oil trust into which it evolved. Clippings,
letters, and documents fell into the pigeon-holes of his
study. His first exposure in the Atlantic Monthly, in
1881, was only a beginning. He relentlessly pursued
his investigations. He too had sleepless hours when he
pondered over the people's business. Would it
"amoimt to anjrthing"? Would they summon virtue
and strength for their deliverance? This problem lay
down with him at night and rose with him in the
morning.
181
182 Henry Demarest Lloyd
When at last he was ready and the hour had struck
for the story to be told, a revulsion came over him. He
felt an impulse to destroy his material, and not to put
before the public the terrible narrative. Beyond his
indignation he could see constructive work. Wotdd not
this be of greater value? Shoiild he awaken the people's
righteous wrath? Should he hasten the pace of events?
Might not their natural play and counterplay more
wisely unroll the appalling facts? There were times
when the mere physical strain appeared too great.
Life's forces had done their share in buffeting about his
sensitive nature and delicate body. But fortunately he
was buüt on weighty lines of spirit and conscience. He
decided that the work had to be done, and that he was
the man to do it. "I have something to tell the Ameri¬
can people," he said, adding quietly, "and I shall do it
without much rhetoric, either."
He approached the task from many sides. He wished
to portray the spirit of the age as astray, to convince
men that the moral principle underlying their industry,
the self-interest of the individual, was an error, and to
help them see that sympathy, mercy, justice must
govern their intercourse in business as well as in the
church, family, or state. He believed that the best way
to do this was by concrete facts to make a realistic
picture of the ruin, social, economic, and moral, which
this error was already creating in the commercial world.
For this illustration he selected the growth of the trust
system, and "as an illustration of the illustration,"
he said, he chose to describe the career of the Standard
Oil Company, the self-confessed "parent of the trust
system."
I consider the episode of the rise and progress of the oil
monopoly [he wrote to his friend Charles B. Mathews, the
Wealth Against Commonwealth 183
Independent oil refiner, in 1889], to be on the whole the
most characteristic thing in our business civilisation—
the most illustrative of the past—the most threatening for
the future. And I perceive its significance to be far more
than American.
His broad purpose was in the performance made less
evident because from limit of space his self-expression
was largely excluded as least important.
The book is misunderstood by many people [he wrote
to Alexander Irvine], as intended to be simply a destruc¬
tive and almost vindictive criticism; but I wrote it with the
most constructive hope of helping in the application of
ethical and religious principles to the business administra¬
tion of the industrial resources of our common humanity.
The failure of our social economy was being daily
disclosed and the discussion of the problem both in
Europe and America wasted much of its force in denun¬
ciatory generalities. While their wealth was being
appropriated by illegal and even criminal means, the
people were standing, Lloyd said, "paralysed and fas¬
cinated, as if helpless tmder the charm of an evil eye."
He hoped to help arouse in them their redemptive
power. What they needed was enlightenment.
The voluminousness of the work [he wrote] is part
of the plan. It is not voluminousness of words—^but of
facts. My conclusions, no matter how eloquently and
accurately put, would be of little value. What the public
to-day demands is the materials from which it may draw its
own conclusions.
He wanted to write it for "the men and women who
do the work of the world," who were, he said, "rising
to a point of information. They want to know how it
184 Henry Demarest Lloyd
is that we, who profess the religion of the golden rule
and the political economy of service for service, come
to divide our produce into incalculable power and pleas¬
ure for a few, and partial existence for the many who
are the fountains of these powers and pleasures." The
aim of his book, which after considering one himdred
and fifty titles, he decided to call Wealth Against
Commonwealth, was to give them this information.
He wrote to a friend:
The real truth about the Standard Oil people is that
they are thieves; the trouble is that neither they nor the
people generally realise this. In the early days good men
. . . could be pirates, and good men could applaud them.
The moral sense has differentiated until it has at last seen
clearly and taught that this piracy of Sir Francis Drake's
was wicked. The task of to-day is to lay bare the realities
of the Standard Oil methods, and the evils of the results so
clearly that the public wiU all be driven, irresistibly, to see
and confess that modern business is still piracy and theft
and lying. There was a time when it was not mxirder to
kill an enemy; when it was not theft to steal that which
belonged to some one of another tribe; when breach of trust
was unknown, because trust had not been conceived of;
when it was not lying to tell untruths to strangers. The
men who first as moral pioneers declared that all these were
simply, clearly, and sharply, murder, theft, and lying were,
as Goethe says must happen to all true reformers, burned
or hanged, in their day, but have become prophets, and are
now revered. As troublesome no doubt will be the pathway
of those who declare and prove that the methods of mod¬
em business, as exemplified in the careers of its most bril¬
liantly successful practitioners, are those still of l3Ûng, theft,
murder, having other gods than the true God. But all this
must be said and proved and believed, before this wicked
and adulterous generation can be got to give up its evil
practices.
" The Wayside," Winnetka, Showing Mr. Lloyd's Study with the
Balcony.
IVealth Against Commonwealth 185
Thus quickened by a sense of impending peril, and
uplifted by the conviction of an inevitable mission, he
faced his work. Within his Winnetka study lay the
material, nearly twenty years' accumulation of docu¬
ments, lawsuits, reports, thousands of newspaper clip¬
pings. From these he must construct a narrative,
impregnable as a lawyer's brief, readable as a story.
No one had been over the path before. His was the
pioneer's task, for the first time to combine, correlate,
interpret. The stoiy was complex, but must be simply
told. He said he wished to make some of the mysteries
of modem business clear to the common people out of
whose lives and labours its fabrics are made. It must
be flawless, for against it would be arrayed all the
powers of capital, experts, judges, the press, and "the
most ingenious of the condottieri of the monopoly."
Therefore, the case must be proved by full details, no
matter how dry.
My article of 1881 [he wrote a friend] remains un¬
answered to this day, and my book I mean to make similarly
impregnable.
Once for all, he would by facts, conclusive and irre¬
futable, disprove the pretensions of the trasts that their
success was due to "greater capital, or skill, or priority,
or enterprise, or cheapness."
^The one point about the Standard business which I find
has taken the strongest hold of the public mind is their
claim that they have made oil cheap. This the public—
dear fools—believe, and it entirely reconciles them—knav¬
ish fools—to the piracies, treasons, and murders by which
the fabled cheapness has been brought to them. It is easy
enough to argue that cheapness cannot be produced by
these tactics of deamess, but that is not enough. It must
186 Henry Demarest Lloyd
be proved arithmetically, statistically, historically that oil
has been made dear by the methods of monopoly. This I
propose to do, and do thoroughly, but I must have the
assistance here of practical and expert oil men. . . . The
demonstration must be so broad and thorough that it
will command the attention and respect of political econo¬
mists, and rout for once and for ever this silly, dishonest,
and impossible, and yet popular, claim of cheapness.
This point I regard as the centre of the whole position,
though it is such only on account of the shameful lack of
moral sense in our people.
Finally, all the ponderous array of facts was to be
made so interesting that it would win its way. The
story of freight rates and oil barrels must flow with a
charm to hold even women. And yet the grace of
rhetoric could have no place in it. His imagination
revealed to him the great possibilities of his material
to writers of fiction. In these archives, he said, were
romance, comedy, tragedy, to feed whole generations
of literary men. But the time for that had not yet
come. He knew that it would and often described his
recital as "raw material," and was always alert to
arouse the interest of some pla3rwright or novelist. He
hoped to tell the story in such a way as to include
in the circle of those initiated into the mysteries of
business, a larger section of the community, notably
clergymen and women.
The conviction has long been borne in on the minds
of many observers of our social drift [he said] that some
new source of energy must be tapped, if the people are not
to be overcome in their struggle with their new "Autocrats
of the Breakfast Table"—^and every other table, in home,
shop, and store.
Wealth Against Commonwealth 187
In an article in the Altruistic Review of December,
1894, which might have served as a preface to the book,
he wrote :
If writers and women can be enlisted in the new cause,
it is surely won. No wrong has ever been able to stand out
against the pens of the world. Once those points are ttirned
against a system, its days are numbered. No matter what
they may pretend to be writing about, the literary class,
once they have set themselves against a folly, or slavery, or
wickedness, will really write about nothing else. Their
trees will give tongue against it, there will be books about
it in their running brooks and sermons in stones. One main
purpose of this book will have been fulfilled if it succeeds
in giving our novelists, dramatists, poets, and historians
some hint of the treasures of new material that lie waiting
for them in real life. Here are whole continents of romance,
adventure, and ungathered gold which have been terrœ
incognitœ to our explorers of the pen.
It was also his aim, as he wrote a publisher, to give
the whole, "so far as the stiffness of the materials—
including the writer—^permitted," a dramatic quality,
so that there should run through it a connected human
interest. Thus he needed to have always two points of
view, not parallel, that of the literary craftsman
forced to interest, and of the lawyer with his brief.
He could not even abstract or paraphrase the words of
witnesses. "This is not," he wrote, "an historical
romance with conversations of cleverly contrived veri¬
similitude à la Froude, but literally true, as to facts not
only, but as to words." And here he met as well the
problem of bulk.
. I could easily tell the story in one quarter the space
[he wrote to a publisher] and . . . tell it better. But then
the story would be only told; it would not be proved. The
188 Henry Demarest Lloyd
story is not new, the public ear has been dulled into in¬
nocuous desuetude by the eloquence and wit and indignation
which " monopoly " has had poured upon it. The only string
left to play that I can see was this of the Fact-OiEcial ad¬
judicated, massed in avalanche. I realise thoroughly that I
sacrifice literary effect by the method I have pursued. My
object necessitated this sacrifice. I have aimed to collate
the materials from which others will produce literary effects.
A résumé, no matter if brilliantly made, would not do
the work that now needs to be done ; the facts must be given
in detail, all the facts, and given so clearly that nobody can
fail to understand, and so fully that the demonstration
leaves the reader no further work of investigation, refer¬
ence, and verification.
The condensation into a rapid running narrative is,
literally, entirely feasible, but it would open the door to the
hopeless befuddlement of the public by the outcry cease¬
lessly reiterated that the facts did not warrant the state¬
ments and inferences, and it involves telling it in my own
words instead of leaving it to be told in the words of the
actors themselves and the courts and legislatures, which
have passed upon them. . . .
From these hints may be seen the diíBculties before
him, and the tension and devotion with which he
entered upon this self-imposed work of enlightenment.
His fears were justified. So repulsive was the work,
that the loftiness of his aim alone sustained him. To a
friend he confessed that he wrote "in agony and depres¬
sion of spirit," weighed down by the matter he was
exposing. "It will grieve you," he wrote President
Andrews of Brown University later, when sending him
the book, "as it grieved me to write it. But we must
face the facts."
I spend every morning at my desk working on a book
-
_J2.—
. //
^ c^
Ol>
* 5 ^
^ y5W^
Facsímile o( a letter from Henry Demarest Lloyd to his Mother.
Wealth Against Commonwealth 189
about the Trusts [he wrote to his mother] but my pro¬
gress seems lamentably slow. However, it " do move." The
worst of it is the work is really so distasteful. It keeps me
poking about and scavengering in piles of filthy human
greed and cruelty almost too nauseous to handle. Nothing
but the sternest sense of duty and the conviction that men
must understand the vices of our present system before
they will be able to rise to a better, drives me back to my
desk every day. When I get this book done, I am going to
write one to suit myself. The subject will be ' 'The Common¬
wealth of Nations."
I have recast it four times [he wrote to Professor
Richard T. Ely]. The gun needs to be loaded carefully;
the query uppermost in my mind is, which is going to be
the most dangerous place, in front of it, or behind?"
Over three years rolled by in the actual preparation
of the book. When it was finished, he submitted the
chapters to leading specialists and attorneys; those on
Toledo's contest were passed upon by the city gas
trustees, and by A. E. Macomber, of that city, while
the Rice and Mathews chapters were read by Adelbert
Moot of Buffalo. The whole manuscript was placed in
the hands of Roger Sherman, the eminent attorney of
Pennsylvania, who was familiar by personal contact
with the oil industry from its beginning. Those con¬
sulted were asked to read as though it were a legal brief,
and report any point where he had failed to prove his
case. Only trivial changes were called for. Fearful of
the power of his enemy to annul his labour, Lloyd
carefully considered the possibility of libel suits, and
asked Sherman to read it "with an eagle eye for libels."
Sherman pronounced it safe.
With his manuscript thus verified and endorsed, he
sought a firm brave enough to accept it. In his judg-
iQo Henry Demaerst Lloyd
ment the more conservative a publisher the better. It
was rejected by four leading firms, although praised in
many respects by their readers. At this jimcture
William Dean Howells, through whose infiuence his
first article had been published, now offered to take
the manuscript to Mr. Harper.
I feel an almost unconquerable reluctance to let this
incubus of mine descend upon you [wrote Lloyd to
Howells). But I cannot deny it to myself—the pleasure
and the honour of letting this book go through your hands.
If you are willing, after squinting at it to call Mr. Harper's,
attention to the book, there is nothing I think for me to add.
I have given the working hours of more than two years to
this compilation, and the sky seems full of signs that the
time for the appearance of such information has come.
Harper & Brothers accepted and published it. "I
of course think very highly of the Harpers," said Mr.
Lloyd years after, "because they had the courage to
print my book." At their request, he subjected his manu¬
script to rigid cutting, making less evident its ethical
purpose. "I have reduced it by one quarter," he
wrote, "by editing myself almost out of the book."
At last, June, 1894, found him correcting proof.
"The publishers celebrated yesterday, the only day
I have not had Fraulein with me, by sending me 50
pages of proof. . . . No wonder that the only saint
ever mentioned in connection with printers is the
devil." One day after the book was in the press, he
discovered, to his dismay, an error. He rushed to the
telephone and found that the printers were at that
moment setting up the very page! " I do not claim to
be omniscient," he wrote to a friend, "but I think it
safe to say that seldom have greater pains and expense
IVealtk Against Commowwealth 191
been taken to make the statements of a book ironclad
than were taken in this case." The work had indeed
entailed not only devoted labor, but a financial sacri¬
fice which from first to last amounted to six thousand
dollars.
In September, 1894, it issued from the press to begin
its high mission. Those who opened it read as if fas¬
cinated. They followed the trust's progress as it swept
tomado-like through industry. Led only by statistics,
they passed from one human fact of the rise of com¬
bination to another, through the story of the genius
robbed of his invention and dying in poverty, of the
widow's tragedy, of the attempt to blow up the rival's
plant, of the brave struggle of the Independents, of the
mysterious charm under which railroad managers
yielded their stockholders' interests to the trust,
namely, "the smokeless rebate," "the golden rule of
the gospel of wealth," and " the source of more than
one half of our great fortimes." They saw depicted
the helplessness of legislatures. Congress, and courts,
under this dominion grown from local to national, even
to international, striving in fact to encircle the globe.
Throughout the recital no opportimity was missed to
make the facts warm-blooded and to lighten the heavi¬
ness by glint of humour or pictmesque detail. Pithy
lines portrayed heroes or victims as living beings.
Simple facts placed side by side thrilled one with anger
or pity. DuU ones touched gaily were sent forth with
solicitude to win their way; pathetic was their mute
appeal when one realised the indignation, the trembling
hope of their compiler. No space could be wasted,
and the author who allowed himself no place in the text
utilised page headings for illuminating comment. Thus
turning the leaves one reads at the top of the page
192 Henry Demarest Lloyd
"heart-beats of gold," "veiled profits," "endowments
and the death-rate," " United Syndicates of America,"
"highways and highwaymen," and of the trust's failure
to testify, "silence is golden." The same method en¬
livened even the dry list of over foim himdred trusts
in the appendix—the first which had ever been made,
and as complete as possible xmder the daily changing
development.
It was a bitter story for a Idnd man to tell. Not a
page but its burden must be the anguish of humanity
or its demoralisation. No wonder that stifling his
anger he made every effort to avoid severity of lan¬
guage, saying "the severity of the facts is enough." He
continually slipped in words to keep up our self-respect,
to emphasise the good, to soimd the notes of a human
sympathy which no statistics can dull, but in the climax
of the last two chapters, "The Old Self-interest," "And
the New," is fotmd, condensed, the only real expression
he permitted himself. Here he touched pithily upon
the leading points of the international debate, and
while making no claim to lead or solve, gave hints of
a hopeful philosophy. His aim shines out at the
close.
When it comes to know the facts, the human heart can
no more endure monopoly than American slavery or Roman
empire. The first step to a remedy is that the people care.
If they know, they will care. To help them to know and
care; to stimulate new hatred of evil, new love of good, new
sjrmpathy for the victims of power and, by enlarging its
science, to quicken the old into a new conscience, this com¬
pilation of fact has been made. Democracy is not a lie.
There live in the body of the commonalty the unexhausted
virtue and the ever-refreshened strength which can rise
equal to any problems of progress. In the hope of tapping
Wealth Against Commonwealth 193
some reserve of their powers of self-help this story is told to
the people.
Perhaps no quality in the concluding chapters is more
striking than their lofty calm. When a friend wrote:
"I must say most of my friends who have read the
volume declare that it makes them so mad that they
have to lay it down and rest between times," he an¬
swered that those were precisely the sensations he felt
in writing the story. But he emerged at the end of his
task serene with the strength of the passions he had con¬
trolled. To appreciate this one must realise the ardour
of his temperament, his intense love for the Republic,
his imaginative sympathy with the people's sufferings,
and measure the effect upon them of the atrocities
whose appalling details had filled his mind for long
years. Nowhere does that control appear more clearly
than in his attitude toward the persons of the drama.
These tjn-ants he said were what our civilisation has
made them, preaching, as it does, one code of morals
and practising an opposite.
If we do not like the picture, and I do not for one, we
cannot make the change we desire unless we first change
ourselves, and adopt for our guidance, at home and abroad,
better ideals than those now generally professed and prac¬
tised.
They were men of the highest position. He was
importuned on all sides to insert their names, some
of the Independents even proposing to publish "a key
to Wealth Against Commonwealth." But although
honotirable men are often named, he took pains even
to the verge of awkwardness to avoid mention of others,
almost the only exception being in the Pa3me Case,
VOL. I—13
194 Henry Demarest Lloyd
where mention was unavoidable. He observed this
method privately as well. Their names were, however,
no secret, for the copious footnotes furnished means for
the most complete verification. His purpose was not
merely to avoid libel suits, but was mixed, as human
motives usually are.
I suppressed names in my book for a variety of reasons.
There was no desire to shield any of the guilty men, and no
possibility of doing so as the principal men in the oil trust
are as well known as Gould or Vanderbilt. But I felt that
the main purpose of the book would be defeated if the
names were given. I wrote not to attack or expose certain
men but to unfold a realistic picture of modem business.
It so happened that the oil tmst afforded in all ways the
very best illustration for my ptupose, but owing to the fact
that it is the creation of but two or three men, if I had men¬
tioned them they would have appeared on almost every
page, and the book would have taken on the appearance of
being a personal assault. No matter how much the assault
was deserved, to have given the work that aspect would
have been fatal to the usefulness which I hope for it. I
weighed this matter pro and con, very thoroughly, before I
came to my decision, and I have felt more sure every day
since that I did the best thing.
The result was a book commensurate in power with
the magnitude of the crisis it described, a chronicle of
living history, revealing an evil system in the full swing
of power. Its dedication as well as its preface were cut
out. Concerning this he wrote in a progressive journal
{Altruistic Review, December, 1894) :
If the author had followed his own predilection, he
would have inscribed his book to woman. Not to woman in
general. It was a woman who first found the words, "Imme¬
diate Emancipation," and set free the slave and his master.
IVealth Against Commonwealth 195
It is in the womanhood of the world that are rising the great
fountains of the enthusiasm and energy of the future.
Through almost every page of his work the author was
drawn on by the hope that some fact, some word, might
kindle the mind of the woman who is to strike the keynote
of the coming emancipation of the Commonwealth, and
that out of our womanhood might come the wit, tenderness,
and virtue to heal the question which has proved to be too
big for the monopoly sex. To her who shall speak for this
womanhood, this book was in spirit dedicated.
Lloyd was his own most zealous circulator. As the
first edition was expensive, he sent it to many who
would find it beyond their reach. "I am not going to
thank you," wrote one," I am going to lend it to some
poor devils like myself who are unable to buy it.
Imagine our pleasure!" Indeed all copies seemed to be
lent to many readers and the book continually circu¬
lated on its mission. It reached the most illustrious
thinkers of Europe, and one enthusiast even sent a
copy to the German Emperor. When flooded with
appeals for a cheap edition, Lloyd tried to have one
issued in paper covers at twenty-five cents, offering to
relinquish his royalties; he succeeded in securing a dol¬
lar edition, sold at the actual cost of production. He
took great pains to see that this reached leaders of
public opinion. He wrote to Rev. Washington Gladden :
. . . I intend to place several hundred copies of it
among the ministers and others who are prepared to discuss
the industrial problems of the day from the ethical point of
view—the only one which seems to me worth while. I
should be very glad to receive from you the names of such
clergymen and other speakers and writers as you think
would be glad to receive a copy of the book and use it in
their public work.
196 Henry Demarest Lloyd
From this act came the first awakening of many a
minister to an xmderstanding of our dilemma. Five
years later he wrote to Rev. Winfield Gaylord:
Your letter gave me a great deal of pleasure. There are
no persons from whom such valuable service is to be ex¬
pected in the work of social reform as the clerg5mien of the
country. There is no class that has taken more to heart
the message of the facts I gave in Wealth Against Common¬
wealth than they, and no class which has made more sacri¬
fices than the ministers in doing their duty as the guardians
of the people against these sinners of wealth. I always take
pains when the topic comes within reason in my public dis¬
cussions to speak to this effect. It seems to me only justice
to do so, as there is so much indiscriminate attack upon the
clergymen and all churches as being the friends of Mammon
in this issue.
From all parts of the land there now came to him the
warm response from an unknown host whose eyes had
never looked into his. Into the study where he had
wrestled with his task, there came words of blessing,
gratitude, courage from men whose ideals rose to meet
his own. He began to feel the beat of the people's
hearts. He woke to find his self-controUed method of
recital producing the most startling effects. Men read
the book with the same absorbing interest which as boys
they gave to pirate stories. So exciting was it that
they could read only a little at a time. Opponents
pronounced it "rant." There were those who opened it,
only to close it with the convictions of a lifetime un¬
settled. Such revelations, it was felt, could not but usher
in a new era. On aU sides was echoed Edward Everett
Hale's verdict, that it was an epoch-making book, an
Uncle Tom's Cabin of the labour movement. In their
Wealth Against Commonwealth 197
enthusiasm men compared it to Burke's indictment
of Warren Hastings, and said it was as significant for
the present crisis as Helper's Impending Crisis had
been for the past. Many were willing to call it at once
a great book, and believed that no more wonderful
romance of real life had ever been written. It startled
many Americans out of that comfortable assurance
that, having the franchise, their liberties were secure.
To lawyers it was particularly convincing. Ministers
and writers preached and wrote upon it, thrilled with
a sense of the peril before the Republic. Many too busy
to read books found that this one they must read,
word by word. A few professors included it in their
courses, as at Johns Hopkins University. Robert Louis
Stevenson decided to found a novel upon its disclosures.
John Burroughs said that after an hour's reading he
was so angry that he "had to go out and kick stumps."
Those indeed were days when good men swore and
even a minister confessed that he threw down the
book and cried, "Damn those rascals." William
Dean Howells wrote:
40 West 57th St., Nov. 2, 1894.
My Dear Lloyd:
I am reading your great book as I get the nervous
strength for it, and I find that it takes a good deal of
nervous strength. To think that the monstrous iniquity
whose story you teU so powerfully, accomplished itself in
our time, is so astounding, so infuriating, that I have to stop
from chapter to chapter, and take breath. It is like a tale
of some remote corruption, some ancient oppression, far
from us, and merely masquerading in the terms of our civil¬
isation. So prosperity was destroyed and law baffled and
justice bought in lands where freedom never was, but
surely not in this home of liberty ! The truth is so repulsive
that one almost wishes the Standard might come to one's
198 Henry Demarest Lloyd
relief with a lie of the sort which has made it irresistible
everywhere but in your pages.
I do not know what effect your book will have in this
generation, but hereafter it will form the source from which
all must draw who try to paint the evillest phase of the cen¬
tury. What strikes me in it, however, is not merely that it
is inexhaustible material, but that it is itself better than any
narrative that can be drawn from it; more dramatic, more
intensely fascinating. It is a sort of kinetoscopic impression
of the abomination it treats of, and leaves no movement, no
colour of it unseen.
By and by when I have read the book through, I will
write you again. I only wished now to thank you for it, and
to try, however inadequately, to give you my sense of it.
Yours ever,
W. D. Howells.
Tolstoy also read it, as one of Mr. Lloyd's friends
wrote to him:
The Count and I were taking a walk and he got to talk¬
ing about certain American writers who interested him.
Howells he seemed to like on account of what he called his
"fine spirit" ; he also admired a number of his books as well
as his manner of writing. Mr. George he considered one of
the greatest apostles of modem times, and he was quite
nonplussed that his single-tax theory had not been put into
practice in the United States. Your book Wealth Against
Commonwealth he also praised very highly, and had evi¬
dently read it with great care. As we walked—the Count is
a great tramper—he suddenly exclaimed: "There are four
men in this world that I should like to be the means of
bringing together," and my recollection is that three of the
four were you, Mr. George, and Mr. Howells. The fourth
was a clergyman in England, 1 believe, although 1 am not
quite sure. The Count seemed to think that if all of you got
together, and had a long soulful conversation, an advance
ÎVealth Against Commonwealth 199
would have been made toward the regeneration of degen¬
erate humanity. . . . My impression of him was that he
was the sweetest and kindest old gentleman it had been my
lot to know. Indeed the entire atmosphere in which I lived
for about ten days made me so ashamed of my . . . short¬
comings that ... I felt as if I had had the greatest spiritual
bath of my life. Later when I had got back my worldly
senses ... I could not help feeling that there was a good
deal in the Count's life as well as in his teachings which was
utterly impracticable. But I have never forgotten the
beautiful time I had in his company, and I have wished at
least fifty-two times a year that I could be half as good as he
is. . . .
None were more stirred than the heroic body of Inde¬
pendent refiners fighting for life. They were astounded
that technical facts familiar to them could be made to
the lay public so enthralling. Many were questioning
the justice of their government, but within these covers
they felt their wrongs righted by a judgment that would
last longer than that of any court. They sent him
impassioned words of gratitude. "How I read that
book, night and day," wrote one," every minute of my
time, I hung over it." Many became his devoted
friends and saw beyond his righting of their class the
broad sweep of his noble purpose.
Even to radicals who had long looked upon the social
system from the same view-point, and known many of
the facts, it was a revelation. Its indictment of the
capitalist system gave a welcome dignity and endorse¬
ment to their side. It seemed one of the Titan efforts
which must be made to save popular government and
true liberty. It revealed that in some form an energy
and concentration greater than that of the magnates
must be generated by the people. John Swinton
200 Henry Demarest Lloyd
wrote pages of enthusiasm, ending: "Before every revo¬
lution marches a book, the Contrat Social, Uncle Tom's
Cabin, Wealth Against Commonwealth."
Yet in spite of the evident effect of the book upon
classes and individuals, no body of protest arose from
the people.
I wonder that Lloyd's book has not caused more excite¬
ment [wrote Washington Gladden]. I hope and trust that
it is doing its work silently; but it surprises me that it does
not cause an insurrection. We must wait. The day of judg¬
ment will come.
To Charles Mosher, editor of the Cincinnati Daily
Post, Mr. Lloyd wrote (1895):
... I am rejoiced to know that your powerful press is
to be enlisted in the task of rousing the public to the dangers
of monopoly. That constrictor has wound itself about us to
very near the last coil of itself and the last breath of the
freedom of its victim. The public seem to be utterly stag¬
nant, but their enemy is not. The aggressions on the rights
of meeting, of free speech, of working, and of quitting work,
and of trial by jiuy, which are made upon the working
people, in times of popular panic like last July, ' are zealously
fostered and supported by the monopolist class because
thereby are established the convenient precedents which
they will use later to deprive the middle classes of the means
for peaceful resistance to extortion. The labour movement
and resistance to monopoly are two wings of the same
advance. This question has as many different sides as
civilisation, but the aspect of it which most perplexes me is
this: How can a liberty-loving people like the American
submit as they do to the most pervasive, penetrating, crush¬
ing, corrupting of all tyrannies—tyranny in the markets?
Theoretically and practically, there have never been realer
tyrants than the men who stand at the point of exchange of
' During the Pullman Strike.
Wealth Against Commonwealth 201
services and dictate without appeal how much we shall give,
how much we shall have. . . .
To F. F. Murray of Titusville, Pennsylvania:
. . . The indifference and lethargy of all classes of the
American public to the maintenance of their rights is one
of the most astonishing features of our times. It would be
discouraging did we not know that always, without any
exception, in history, liberty has been advanced despite
just that obstacle. It was so in France. It was so in this
country in the abolition agitation and in the American
Revolution. It was so in Germany. It has always been
so. . . .
One thing which I think accounts for the apathy of the
working men, the farmers, and the middle class in the cities,
is that with that logic which the people seem to possess by
instinct they divine that the problem of our times is a much
more complicated one than the various vendors of specific
panaceas would have them believe. They are certainly, we
know, reading and thinking; but they are not likely to move
until they have got a pretty clear idea of how the evil is to
be attacked at its roots and then not until they are aroused
by some dramatic event. . . .
A year after publication he wrote:
I have to thank you for your interest in my work.
Although the book has sold and is selling well I must confess
myself mystified, on the whole, by the equanimity with
which the public submit to the facts disclosed by such a
résumé. Think how many times since the Crédit Mobilier
Report and the Erie Essays by C. F. Adams, the alarm has
been sounded to the American sheep by faithfvd shepherds
and how placidly the sheep has gone on feeding, and be¬
ing fed upon! Plato says reading destroys memory, I
sometimes think it destroys everything. We read to be
narcotised.
202 Henry Demarest Lloyd
One phrase nowadays rings continually in my ears—
The Failure of the People. . . . How faithfully have even
the State legislatures and Congress imveiled to the people
the processes by which their liberties were being drained
away. And what response do the people make? . . .
I am an optimist but not for to-day—^for some to¬
morrow.
Trust magnates were now vigorously building bul¬
warks to their power by endowing religious and educa¬
tional institutions, against which Washington Gladden
was making his first valiant protests. No wonder that
Lloyd wrote to him.
WiNNETKA, Dec. 24, 1895.
Your brave and thoughtful article on Tainted Money is
doing good. I hear of it everywhere. But what are the
American people doing with all the good things they are
absorbing? And the American People—where is the Ameri¬
can People? Is there any such people?
The book seemed indeed like a blow which stunned.
" Really great books such as yours," wrote W. T. Stead,
"are too big to have their value recognised immediately
on publication." Few men could open a book with
firm faith in the country's institutions and close it con¬
vinced that the Republic was hanging in the balance. It
needed to be followed by years of gradual disclosure
and corroborating events. And yet the times were ripe
for it, the literature of the subject being almost entirely
in the magazines. Appearing in the period of depres¬
sion, when armies of unemployed were startling the
country, it met the universal outcry of the suffering
people with the story of dazzling wealth appropriated
by a few men, standing, he said, at the receipt of custom
at the railroad gates to the oil regions, to the mines,
IVealth Against Commonwealth 203
to forests, to fields of cotton and wheat. But from this
picture of monstrous wrong, conservative minds instinc¬
tively turned away. "It cannot be so black as it is
painted," they said. "There must be qualifying facts
withheld." Far and wide they challenged the trust,
demanding to know whether these appalling charges
were true.
As he was combating a power rapidly becoming
international, he tried to make the scope of his book's
influence international. His plan of publishing in
France and Germany was not carried out, nor was the
book ever translated except in certain chapters pub¬
lished by French and German papers, and an abridged
translation issued by a monthly magazine, Obrazovaine,
of St. Petersburg, but he sent it to a few of the public
libraries abroad and to leading publicists. He followed
closely and stimulated all the foreign investigations
and efforts to thwart the oil monopoly. He was partic¬
ularly disappointed at the failure of his exposures to
receive any application in England, although the In¬
vestor's Review, considered there the ablest and most
honest financial paper, devoted fourteen pages to
reviewing his book, which depicted the wreckage of the
oil refining business of Scotland and produced evidence
to show that it had passed under the practically com¬
plete control of the American trust. As he wrote to Dr.
Alfred von der Leyen at this time:
I show that there is the strongest presumption to believe
that similar control has been obtained in Germany, France,
Italy, the Low Countries, and Scandinavia, if not in other
parts of the world; and yet the London Daily Chronicle,
which is supposed to take a broad, almost socialistic view oí
the modem industrial situation, entirely overlooks this view
of the matter, and treats the subject as I have said—simply
204 Henry Demarest Lloyd
as an appetising demonstration of the vices of American
society. I am very anxious that a broader view should be
presented. I feel certain that the knowledge that their
market liberties are passing away, would have a profound
effect upon the people when it is once understood. I should
therefore very gratefully appreciate any information which
you would send me as to German newspapers to which I
could send copies of this book with the expectation that they
would treat the subject in all its breadth, and not content
themselves with the opportunity it affords for a temporary
peal of exultation at the misfortunes of America.
Wherever he saw an opportunity of convincing influ¬
ential Englishmen that, through the use of low flash oil,
they were subservient to the trust, he did so. He
believed the recognition of this could not safely be
ignored. He wrote to the London Chemical Trade
Journal, for instance, in October, 1896, a letter which
attracted much attention in the trade, and encouraged
those combating the trust to renew their efforts. * He
also sent a private letter to several of the principal
newspaper editors and succeeded in swinging the policy
of the London Daily Chronicle. On his visits to England,
when the reporters came to him for some new sensation
concerning our trusts, he usually drove a home thrust.
"What are you going to do about it?" he would say.
"Now—we have tried to deal with the Octopus, and
we have failed. Suppose you have a try. When is the
English people going to begin?"
Thus was the drudgery of the exposure done once for
all. While the oil trust was assuming the air of a public
benefactor, it was disproved that its success was due to
"greater capital, or skill, or enterprise, or priority, or
cheapness," and in the face of its denial of charges, there
' See Appendix.
Wealth Against Commonwealth 205
were exhumed from unfrequented storehouses, where it
had supposed them for ever lost to view, the incrim¬
inating proofs, twenty-five years of evidence clarified
until the vital truths stood luminous in their true pro¬
portions. Future historians were spared this hopeless
task, and the people given the clue whereby they could
study and interpret coming events. Monopoly, the
supreme expression of our era, is impaled. Among the
forces to accomplish that end must be counted this
conscientious piece of work. After its share in emanci¬
pation is fulfilled, it may well pass into an honotired
place among the classics of a new era.
CHAPTER XI
"l DECLINE TO ANSWER*'
JIZEALTH Against Commonwealth stands to-day
'' unshaken. After its appearance Lloyd waited
in suspense for the retort from his Titanic combatants.
"You enquire about my book," he had written George
lies. "It will be published in a few weeks. As the
time for its appearance comes near, I shiver, for it is not
scientific, only human." "I remember his anxiety at
Winnetka," said George Warner, "when a notice of
Wealth Against Commonwealth was received one Sun¬
day morning, and his remark that he expected to be
crushed by the Standard people." But the book was
never answered by them directly. George Gunton,
however, came forward in July, 1895, Social
Economist, a monthly review of which he was editor,
declaring that he had no wish to uphold the members
of the Standard Oil trust, whose methods had been
those of business men generally, but that he spoke from
great fear for "The Integrity of Economic Literature,"
which was indeed his subject. He attacked Lloyd's
book as a one-sided presentation, charging unfair
quotation and the suppression of rebuttal.
Such books as Wealth Against Commonwealth [he
said] are calculated to do more to invalidate history and
corrupt the morals of public thought and action than could
206
"I Decline to Answer" 207
a hundred trusts. . . . He [Lloyd] cotdd have come, like
the bee, with the purpose of honest labour. He preferred
to come like the spider or the centipede, and the result is
poison.
Mr. Lloyd confessed that when he took up this
article, which he believed was the answer from the
great trust itself, it was with some trembling, not
because of the abuse, which was "the language of de¬
speration," but because he feared the discovery of some
error.
I saw the article and read it [he said] not doubting
but that, although extraordinary pains were taken to avoid
mistakes, the critic would be able to detect some in a work
so crammed with facts. . . . But his article shows that he
failed to discover the only serious error—a typographical
one—that was made, so far as we have been able to tell.
He wrote to Charles B. Spahr: " It must I suppose be
received as the best reply the trust can make, incredible
as that seems." After considering whether it was worth
while to waste powder on this attack, he wrote a reply
covering several columns of the Boston Herald.^ It
was prepared with great care and submitted to the
adviser of Harper & Brothers, to Rev. John Bascom
of Williams College, and to Mr. Edwin D. Mead,
editor of the New England Magazine. They pro-
noimced it conclusive, as Lloyd himself knew it to be.
" It seems to me [it] does not leave him ground enough
to be buried in," he wrote to Professor Ely.
"Instead of utterly repressing all rebuttal, as
charged," he said in the article, "Wealth Against Com¬
monwealth not only gives every substantial point made
' October 23, 1895.
2o8 Henry Demarest Lloyd
by these men in legal and legislative proceedings, but
goes among their exculpatory press interviews and
public speeches to glean additional light." There were
by actual count, he said, two hundred and twenty-five
quotations in his book from the "defence." Some of
these, he said privately, were "the choicest bits in the
book." The charge of suppressing testimony seemed
to him absurd :
The greatest trouble of the authorities has been to get
the men of the various trusts into the witness box. They
are very retiring, and there seems to be some law of nature
by which the habit of retiring with other people's property
evolves into the habit of retiring from the Avitness box.
They have dodged subpœnas from New York to Texas,
and when rarely they have been got hold of, the one thing
they have known least about has been their own business.
"I don't know," " I don't remember," " I decline to answer,"
has been their constant refrain.
To this article, Gunton wrote a rejoinder, in which,
to quote Mr. Lloyd, "he hoisted himself for ever." It
contained no new matter except on one point. This was
in his denial of Lloyd's proof that the oil trust and the
South Improvement Company were virtually one, to
substantiate which he cited a letter which he had just
received from John A. Hobson, the noted English
economist, and which he claimed corroborated his
views and showed that English students rejected
Lloyd's version. "Amazed," said Lloyd, "that Hobson
should have written thus, inasmuch as he is a friend
of mine and we think alike on almost all questions, I
wrote to him, and received the reply, that he had
uritten precisely the opposite to Mr. Gunton, and, more¬
over, had wTitten the letter for publication." Mr. Lloyd
"I Decline to Answer" 209
gave the restait of this episode to the Boston Herald
(February i, 1896).
To the Editor of the Herald:
In an interview in the Herald of Dec. 16, Mr. George
Gunton returns to his championship of the integrity of
economic literature, by repeating his denials of the accu¬
racy and good faith of the statements about the oil trust
in Wealth Against Commonwealth. As before, he denies
with special emphasis the facts, proved therein, that the oil
trust and the South Improvement Company infamy were
under the same control and were substantially one, and
that the latter was abandoned only because it had to be for
fear of civil war in the oil regions, where the people actu¬
ally rose in revolution and began to destroy the property
of the railroads. To strengthen his denial he says :
"As an instance of the kind of impression this South
Improvement Company creates and which it seems spe-
ciaUy calculated to create, it has been reproduced in a
work on The Evolution of Modern Capitalism, published
in London.
"The English author relates the case in good faith, as if
the South Improvement Company had actually existed,
did business, and was discontinued only through public
indignation. In a personal letter just received, the author
assures me that he had supposed such to be the case."
From the author of The Evolution of Modern Capitalism
and the writer of the letter which Mr. Gunton uses as a cer¬
tificate of his "Economic Integrity," Mr. John A. Hobson
himself, I have it:
First—That this letter was not a "personal letter," but
was sent to Mr. Gunton for publication.
Second—That this letter was not in any way intended,
as Mr. Gunton seeks to make the public believe, as an
acceptance of the colour Mr. Gunton gives the South Im¬
provement Company and its relation to the oil trust,
but exactly the opposite. His letter, as he describes it to
VOL. 1 14
210 Henry Demarest Lloyd
me, reaffirmed that so far from accepting Mr. Gunton's
view of the matter, all Englishmen who read the evidence
were convinced that the charges brought against the South
Improvement Company were correct.
The variance between Mr. Hobson's statement about
his letter and Mr. Gunton's statement about it raises an
awkward question. But this can easily be settled. His
letter was sent to Mr. Gunton for publication by him. Let
him publish it. Until he does so, and it appears that he
can correctly describe so simple a thing as this letter "just
received" and lying before him, the public will not attach
much importance to his efforts to paint the black of the oil
trust white, and the white of Wealth Against Commonwealth
black.
Mr. Gunton never, to Mr. Lloyd's knowledge, pub¬
lished Hobson's letter, nor made any reply to this ex¬
posure of his duplicity. " By this conduct," said Lloyd,
"Gimton has placed himself outside of the pale of con¬
troversy with gentlemen. ... I should never again
condescend to any controversy with him on any sub¬
ject." In summing up Gunton's two attacks, he wrote
to a friend:
You will see that in neither does he in the slightest
degree invalidate the record I have made against the oil
trust. Upon the careless reader his artful and copious use
of adjectives and phrases implying misrepresentation, etc.,
might produce the impression that he had made out such a
case. But he has not done so nor can he or any one else
do so. I kept closely within the adjudicated record. The
book gains what value it has, not from making known any¬
thing not already known to those familiar with the facts,
but only from putting the facts together in one coherent
presentation. Any one who wiU take the trouble to examine
these papers and is competent to judge of the dialectics of
" I Decline to Answer" 211
them, must I think see that Mr. Gunton's falsehood about
Mr. Hobson's letter is of a piece with the whole tissue of his
first attack on the book, which, as my interview in the
Herald shows, was a mass of misstatements. '
As Mr. Lloyd often stated, there was not one sub¬
stantial point made either by Mr. Gunton or by S. C. T.
Dodd, the trust's attorney, who later took up its
defence, nor any rebutting statement by itself in legis¬
lative and court proceedings which was not mentioned
in his book. Indeed the sum of these few attempts to
answer resulted not only in their complete failure to
discover any error, but also in their inability to produce
one specimen of the multitude of "suppressed facts,"
they alleged. ^
There were other indirect attempts to answer or to
stem the tide of incrimination, such as a defence of the
trust's methods by Professor Laughlin of Chicago
University, which was promptly met by Mr. Lloyd. ^
In 1896 when he was distributing the new cheap edition
of Wealth Against Commonwealth to moulders of the
public conscience, the oil trust solicited from a group
of leading ministers and professors an investigation
■ The bibliography of this controversy is as follows: Mr. Gunton's
article in the Social Economist, July, 1895, and following this in the
Boston Herald an interview with Lloyd answering Gunton's charges,
October 23, 1895; a rejoinder from Gunton, December 16, 1895, in which
he again attacked Wealth Against Commonwealth, and Lloyd's reply,
February i, 1896.
' In 1906 George Gunton was sued by Amelia Gunton for divorce.
In granting the decree the papers were ordered sealed. The following
words of Amelia Gunton appeared in the New York Sunday American,
January 14,1906: " I am out of funds now, but Mr. Gunton has promised
to get the Standard Oil to advance him half his yearly retainer, or
$7,500, and as soon as he receives that he will give me the money I
need."
3 Chicago Tribune, November 10, 1895.
212 Henry Demarest Lloyd
of its affairs. This resulted from a call of Rev. B. Fay
Mills at the Standard's office.
I told them [wrote Mr. Mills to Henry Lloyd] that I
had come to ask Mr. Rockefeller what his theory was of
life by which he seemed in his private life to be so estimable
and in his public life to be so wicked. I was received with
. . . great . . . courtesy and spent six or eight hours with
his private manager and with Col. Dodd ... I went
through Wealth Against Commonwealth. . . .
Mr. Mills asked Mr. Dodd why they did not find some
way to present their case to those who like himself
wished to be fair, and yet found it difficult to justify
their methods. Mr. Dodd answered that there was
nothing they would like better than to give the fullest
opportunity for investigation to a committee of minis¬
ters and economists. Mr. Mills then wrote to Edward
Everett Hale:
... in response to the very urgent request of Mr.
Rockefeller that I would write to you with his authority,
stating that all the charges made against the Standard Oil
Co., of various forms of immorality, are unfounded and
false, and that he is pleased to extend to you an invitation—
either alone or in company with others—to visit their office
in New York, where he himself and the Solicitor of the
Standard Oil Trust will be glad to take their own time and
to put all the facilities of the office at their disposal—for
your investigation of the serious charges made against
them. They would not want to do this, except for one whom
they believed to be honestly desiring to know the truth for
the best purposes.
I have sent a copy of this letter to the Rev. Josiah Strong,
D.D., the Rev. Thos. Hall, D.D., the Rev. Graham Taylor,
D.D., Prof. John R. Commons, Prof. Richard T. Ely, the
Rev. E. G. Updike, D. D., the Rev. Washington Gladden,
" I Decline to Answer " 213
D.D., President Geo. A. Gates, D.D., Prof. Geo. D. Herron,
the Rev. Jas. H. Ecob, D.D., the Rev. Leighton Williams.
Dr. Lyman Abbott and Professor J- W. Jenks were also
invited. Mr. Lloyd wrote at once to all of these men :
I have had word from several friends in the East about
an invitation which has been issued by the Oil Trust people
to a number of eminent divines to investigate the truth of
the charges against them, especially those contained in my
book. It has been suggested that I should be invited to
attend. I am entirely ready to do so. I have been thinking
of ways by which the Oil Trust could be made to break its
silence. If now the challenge comes from it, so much the
better. I will meet Mr. Rockefeller anywhere and at any
time before these ministers to consider these "charges,"
stipulating only that the unreversed findings of the courts.
State and Federal, civil and criminal, and of the Interstate
Commerce Commission, as given in my book, be accepted
in the investigation as conclusive as to the facts covered by
them unless the Oil Trust can show that they—the findings
—are incorrectly reported by me.
The investigating committee, as I understand it, is to
sit in the building of the Trust, where it is promised all the
facilities of the office shall be put at the service of the
enquiry. The leading members of the Trust have testified
under oath that it kept no books and that the records of the
proceedings of the managing directors are destroyed after
their meetings. See the testimony before the New York
Senate committee, 1888, pp. 455, 576, 577, 589, and before
Congress, 1888, pp. 391-2. The proper place to investigate
is among the public records of the very numerous judicial
and legislative investigations; but if the ministers are willing
to go to the headquarters of the Trust, I am.
Mr. Lloyd hoped that the project would be carried
out:
214 Henry Demarest Lloyd
I care for nothing but the enlightenment of the public
[he said privately] and I do not think anything has oc¬
curred in connection with the trust movement in the United
States which would so instantly arrest the attention of the
people and set their minds to fermenting as such a pro¬
cedure.
Those invited, however, including Mr. Mills, declared
themselves unwilling to pass so important a judgment
in an unfamiliar field, and without access to necessary
sorirces of information, and several refused to appear
unless Mr. Lloyd and attorneys could be present to
answer questions. The company was tmwilling that
Lloyd be present, and the conference never took place.
He took pains to correct any unfair results of Mr. Mills's
conference, and wrote to him :
WiNNETKA, III., May 12, 1896.
I was very glad to get your frank and kind letter, . . .
and . . . was intensely interested in what you say of your
interview with the Oil Trust people. The question that you
wanted to ask Mr. Rockefeller is one which has been con¬
stantly in my noind. The apparent contradiction between
his personal and his commercial life is very bafHing unless
one takes the ground that a man's commercial character
is also a part of his personal character.
I think I understand perfectly your general feelings on
this question and your desire to avoid putting yourself into
a merely destructive attitude. I am sure that with your
genius and your great love of truth and righteousness, you
will serve the cause, whatever policy you adopt. I hear
echoes of your work from all sides accompanied with en¬
thusiastic commendation. The people are hungering and
thirsting for the message of applied Christianity, and the
more definitely and bravely it is given, the more grateful
will be their response.
There is one thing which I want to ask of you, and I feel
"I Decline to Answer" 215
sure that you will comply with my request. ... I wish
you would write me at once what were the particular points
made by the Oil Trust people which seemed to you to miti¬
gate the case against them? I need to know this, because
having done what I have I need to know everything that
can be said by them as well as on the other side. I think
I am pretty familiar with all the various defences that they
have put forth, and if they have anything new I want to
know what it is.
Possibly, too, I can be of help to you in this matter,
because as one who is preaching the gospel of Christ for
practical application in the business world of to-day, you
need to be not only as harmless as a dove but wise as a
serpent, and I may be able to throw some light where these
men have darkened counsel. . . .
WiNNETKA, III., May 21, 1896.
I am very much indebted to you for your very cour¬
teous and complete answer. ... I venture to hope that
one result . . . will be that I may be of some service to
you. For this is a matter upon which I have taken great
pains to inform myself. All that I know is at your ser¬
vice, because I know that both from inspirational and
prudential motives you seek only the truth, and that you
cannot afford to act upon any smaller capital than the whole
truth.
I am going to take up the points which were made to
you by these people, one by one, and reply to them in full.
Let me preface this by one or two remarks.
First, I make no attack on the domestic life of any of
the men concerned. In my book I even went so far as
purposely to confuse references so that the ordinary reader
should not be able to follow any clue of personal identity.
Also, I took pains in my summing up to reiterate that it was
we—society—who have made these men what they are,
and are, consequently, primarily responsible for the whole
business.
2i6 Henry Demarest Lloyd
The better these men are shown to be, the stronger is
my case. The brief I hold is against monopoly, not against
any certain individuals; and the better these men in their
private lives the more convincing the proof that even the
best of men cannot be trusted with the temptations and
arbitrary power of monopoly. Conversely any plea of their
private perfections as a set-off to their public depredations
is pure sophistication.
In what follows I shall confine myself to the matters
treated in my book, as I do not desire to travel outside
that record, and that will be enough to illustrate the whole
matter. . . .
" I. From the beginning they claim that it has been the
policy of the Standard Oil Company and the Standard Oil
Trust to make no reply to public or private attacks upon
their methods."
Entirely untrue except so far as they have refused to
obey subpoenas and to answer questions when on the
witness stand. (Report of the New York Assembly
Hepburn Committee, 1879, p. 42.) The members of the
Oil Trust have defended themselves in magazines like the
North American Review and The Forum; in newspaper
interviews, and in addresses before commercial bodies,
legislative committees, college assemblies, etc. A presi¬
dent of the Trust filled four columns of the New York
World of March 29, 1890, with an exculpatory interview.
The secretary of the Trust went before the committee of
Congress in 1889, which was investigating the oil monop¬
oly, and requested to be heard in its defence, and was
heard to the extent of 22 pages, their lawyers having even
prepared a memorandum of the questions that he was to
be asked. After the committee had concluded its investi¬
gations, they asked to be heard again. This pretence of
not replying is to give them an appearance of dignity in
not answering now that which they cannot answer.
" I Decline to Answer " 217
"2. They do not claim to be Christian in their methods
in the sense in which you and I would use that term."
There is only one Christ and one kind of Christianity.
"3. They do claim to be thoroughly honest and honour¬
able, and even to a certain extent charitable, in their busi¬
ness practices."
This claim has been made for twenty years before the
courts and other tribunals, but has never been made good
by the evidence or sustained by the decisions.
"4. They utterly deny the expenditure of any money
at any time for the purpose of influencing legislation or for
the producing of any effect on courts, juries, commissions,
etc., etc. They challenge investigation upon this matter,
and say that whatever accusation may be brought against
them is entirely without foundation."
Senator Payne stated in the Senate that when he was
running for Congress in 1871, no association in his dis¬
trict went to so large an expense to defeat him as the
Standard Oil Company; and the representatives of the
State of Ohio offered to prove to the United States Senate
that the purchase of Senator Payne's election to the
Senate in 1885 had been made by the help of four of the
principal members of the Oil Trust in Ohio. Jay Gould
had to explain to the New York Legislature the meaning
of the famous "india rubber" account, which showed the
expenditure of $700,000 in one year as a corruption ftmd,
because the State authorities got hold of the books of the
Erie road. But the members of the Trust have sworn
that they keep no books and even destroy the memoranda
of their meetings. They can, therefore, safely "challenge
investigation," but no man of the world can have the
least doubt as to the facts.
"5. They deny any unkind or unjust or dishonourable
218 Henry Demarest Lloyd
methods in the endeavour to force competitors out of the
business."
This also has been investigated and adjudicated ad
nauseam. See 3 [Answer 3].
"6. In fact, they say that they have endeavoured to
protect competitors just as far as possible, but, that, owing
to their greater facilities for manufacture, transportation,
etc., if they are just to the public in furnishing oil at a rea¬
sonable price, they must necessarily crush out competition."
They were not the first to enter the oil business in
any department. They did not have as great capital or
skill as others, as found by the Hepburn committee. The
committee shows that they did not have as great facilities
as their competitors except facilities for getting rebates.
(See report of Hepburn committee, p. 44.)
"7. But they claim that they have been more than
honourable and have been exceedingly kind when it became
necessary for a competitor to yield up his business, in
offering him the largest possible value for his plant, and in
a very large proportion of cases paying considerably more
than any fair estimate of value for such property."
See 3 and 5. The evidence shows that their rule was
to pay 50% on the construction account, or half the cost
of buildings, machinery, and material, with nothing for
good will.
"8. They say that the fact is, they have not crushed out
competition, as there is now produced by other companies
three times as much as all the competitors of the Standard
Oil produced put together when the Trust was formed."
In 6 competition is crushed, here it is not crushed!
It is true that competition is not entirely suppressed, but
the findings of the Interstate Commerce Commission
"I Decline to Answer" 219
show that they control 90%; and, as pointed out by E.
Benjamin Andrews, in his article on Trusts in the Quar¬
terly Journal of Economics, and by Judge Barrett, in his
decision in the Sugar Trust case,—and as held by all
political economists and jurists,—the control of such a
proportion of the business is a monopoly and carries with
it a monopolistic power over prices and competition.
"9. They disclaim responsibility for some of the acts of
their agents."
This disclaimer of responsibility for the acts of their
agents will sound weak vmtil reinforced by the disclaimer
of resulting profits.
"10. They say that not infrequently some man who
has been made to believe, by various statements (for
instance, such as I have made in public or by your book)
concerning the aims and methods of the managers of the
Company, that they are dishonourable and unscrupulous,
will sometimes do glaringly wrong things with the idea of
pleasing the authorities of the Trust. In such instances
they say that they immediately try to undo the wrong
and thoroughly punish or discharge the agent."
In the Rice case (see 11) in which they claim the
credit of disavowal and reparation, they did not dis¬
charge their agent, but have kept him and promoted
him, and to-day he is one of the most important members
of the Trust.
"11. Col. Dodd says that in the case of Rice, the only
direct transaction with the Company at that time was in the
case where a contract was made by their local agent, which
was disavowed by telegraph just as soon as the home office
received a copy of it, and that reparation was made to Rice
to more than the extent of the amount that he had been
damaged by this contract during the brief time it was in
operation."
220 Henry Demarest Lloyd
Rice says that this refund was not made until after
he had appealed to Judge Baxter. Judge Baxter, who
decided the case, evidently knew nothing of any refund,
because part of his decision was that the damage to Rice
must be ascertained and made good.
" 12. In the Matthews case they said that it was proven
on the trial or believed by them :
"ist. That the Standard did not have a controlling
interest in the Vacuum."
The Standard officials have themselves proved that
they owned the controlling interest in the Vacuum. In
their testimony before the New York investigating com¬
mittee of 1888 (page 571) they stated that the Oil Trust
owned three quarters of the stock of the Vacuiun Oil
Company. Mr. Rockefeller stated in his testimony in
Buffalo in the explosion case that this stock of the Vac¬
uum company had been transferred to the trustees of the
Oil Trust and that he knew in advance of its purchase.
" 13. 2d. That Matthews founded his refinery with the
idea of forcing the Vacuum or Standard people to buy him
out."
Only Matthews knows his idea, and he denies this.
He did enter upon actual and effective competition,
forcing down the price of oil, which has never since been
as high in Buffalo as before he went into the business.
"14. 3d. That there was no reason to suppose that
any attempt had been made to blow up the refinery."
The judge devoted two pages out of five in his charge
to the evidence of the conspiracy for explosion, and the
verdict of the jury was that there was such an attempt.
"15. 4th. That the charge of conspiracy was on three
counts : ( i ) The attempt to induce an employee to leave the
" I Decline to Answer " 221
service of his employer; (2) The attempt to injure the busi¬
ness of the Buffalo company; (3) The attempt to blow up
the refinery. They said that the verdict of guilty was given
only in consideration of the first count ; that the jury, or at
least a majority of them, signed a statement to this effect,
which was the thing that infiuenced the judge in pronoun¬
cing a light sentence upon the Everests."
The majority of the jury did not sign any such state¬
ment. The judge gave an entirely different reason for
his sentence. The statement referred to was signed by
only six of the jury, and the district attorney stated in
court that their signatures had been obtained by the use
of money. He said that he would prove this if challenged.
He was not challenged. The fact that six of the jury,
taken separately some time after the trial, should have
signed such a paper proves nothing; but the fact that six
refused to sign it is very significant. If it had been true,
why shotild they not have signed it?
"16. They also said that the Everests considered them¬
selves perfectly justified in their attempt to get Miller away
from Matthews, as he was unjustly using the secrets of their
business even tho' it was impossible that some of the most
valuable methods should be protected by patents."
The jury did not seem to think so.
" 17. 5th. Regarding the testimony of Truesdale, they
have in their possession a document signed by about one
hundred of the leading citizens of Rochester saying that
they have no confidence in his statement and that they
have perfect confidence in the Everests, and that in an
issue of veracity between Everest and Truesdale they would
not hesitate a second to take the testimony of the Everests."
This should have been presented at the trial. If
this and the other defences were good, why did the
222 Henry Demarest Lloyd
accused abandon their appeal? They secured the right
to try the case all over again by appeal; but they after¬
wards gave this up. The public cannot be influenced now
by the offer of " evidence " which when the accused had the
right they failed to take into court for judicial scrutiny
and endorsement if true.
" i8. Matthews said on the witness stand that he might
have said that he had built his refinery in order to make the
Standard buy him out, and this was testified to by other
witnesses in a most positive manner. "
Matthews made no such statement either in form or
substance; on the contrary, he denied it again and again
without qualification. These other witnesses were Oil
Trust employees and connections.
"19. There was no testimony of any sort conclusive
that there had been any conspiracy to blow up the refinery,
and the prosecution did not dare to question Miller upon
this subject."
Truesdale's testimony was conclusive, as the jury
thought. The prosecution did not question Miller
because he was their witness and they had no need to
humiliate him as they had ehough other evidence, as the
verdict showed.
I have gone into these details because my book must
stand as a faithful report of the commercial life of the world;
but these details are, after all, but side-issues. The main
point is the simple issue of monopoly. If the men of the
various trusts, no matter if they are angels, have obtained
the power of controlling the markets, with all that that
implies of other control, social, ecclesiastical, political, and
educational, we have here a question as great as any of
those which have made the previotis crises in history.
The power to make both sides of its bargains is one to which
"I Decline to Answer" 223
the world has never submitted and never will submit. Our
English ancestors rose successfully three hundred years
ago to break the power of the crown monopolies in Great
Britain ; and the American people are better able than they
to help themselves. No glitter of wealth or personality
in those who hold these anti-social powers will deter the
people from making good their rights.
Mr. Mills replied in part: "... I sent out the cir¬
cular letter because I was asked . . . and the propo¬
sition was so honourable ... I could not refuse. . . .
I have not changed one word of my public addresses
because of my conference in New York." To this Mr.
Lloyd answered:
I can hardly hope to describe to you the delight your
letter has brought me. I will frankly own up that I was
afraid the Philistines had succeeded in deceiving you. It
did not seem possible to me that one who had lived on the
heights you inhabit, and who sought in the love of God and
man the secrets that make life worth living, could compre¬
hend the cruel and sinister wickedness—I will not say of
these men, for I wish to be just even to the humanity of
the bad, but—of the principles by which they act. . . .
After these skirmishes, Lloyd was left in possession
of the field. "So far the armour-plate of Wealth
Against Commonwealth remains shot proof," he wrote
to Harper & Brothers in 1898, and in the same year
he again defined his position, writing to his friend
Samuel Bowles, editor of the Springfield Republican:
I wish positively to disclaim that I have any "view" of
the Standard Oil matter that is peculiarly my own, as you
imply.
If the little I have done has any significance it is not
at all that I have set myself up either as prophet or critic
224 Henry Demarest Lloyd
to discover a new iniquity, or proclaim a new moral stand¬
ard or anything of that kind. That might have been a
higher work than what I have done, but it is not what I
have done.
I have been simply a reporter. My book is only what
lawyers call a transcript of the record. My views, my opin¬
ions, my moral standards, are not a part of the case.
If you would some time look into Wealth Against
Commonwealth you will be surprised to find that it is
wholly official and documentary—except what your father
used to call "the evangelical snapper," the end.
The terrible thing about the business is that the Ameri¬
can people stand convicted of a willingness to allow to go
unpunished and unprevented an habitual course of proce¬
dure which their own laws declare criminal, and which their
own courts have specifically condemned.
Any intelligent man knows enough of history to know
how safe his property will be in the long—or short—^run
under such a state of affairs.
You will of course see at once that I have written this
not to explain myself, but to explain the situation.
Of the effect of the book he wrote to F. Southworth
of Portland, Maine, in 1898:
Your letter . . . has given me a great deal of pleasure.
Such appreciation as yours brings me the only reward I get
except the consciousness of a duty done. The reception of
the book by the public has interested me very much. It
has had the effect that I hoped it would upon clergymen,
editors, and students of public affairs, but has penetrated
only a short distance through the hippopotamus hide that
protects the sensibilities of the people. Just how to under¬
stand this I do not know. The Rev. Washington Gladden
wrote me that he should have thought the book would have
made a revolution. One would suppose that the facts which
the book describes, if not the book itself, would have some
"I Decline to Answer" 225
effect upon the public mind, and they have had. Why they
have not had more can only be explained on the theory,
I think, that the people are not really as yet ready to grasp
the subject. We have so large a country, so extremely com¬
plicated a problem—our crisis being manifestly political,
industrial, religious, and social, all in one,—that progress
must necessarily be very, very slow. I place my hope
chiefly on the enemy. The rich men who are now governing
America are barbarians and fanatics, and I think they can
be safely trusted to do the fool things that will sting the
people out of their inertia.
You ask what has been the result on my theme of the
four years since I laid down the pen. I answer that all the
evil tendencies that I described are in not only unchecked
but accelerated operation. On the one side, the evil grows;
on the other side, however slowly it is perfectly plain, grow
the sentiment and conscience to oppose the evil. We are
moving on to great events, whether we shall see them or not,
and the thousands of years' history of human emancipation
which lies behind us can leave no doubt in any sane mind
of the issue. . . .
In 1898 an attack, not an answer, came from a trust
official. Public indignation over social injustice was
increasing and Congress appointed an Industrial Com¬
mission to investigate the questions of immigration,
labour, agriculture, manufacture, and business. In the
course of his testimony, M. L. Lockwood, a leading
Independent refiner, referred to the chapters on the Rice
contest "in Henry Demarest Lloyd's great book,"
which he advised the Commission to read.' To this
John D. Archbold of the oil trust made answer:
A. I desire to say a word regarding the effort at pathetic
reference of Mr. Lockwood to the Rice case in Mr. Lloyd's
■ House Documents, 57th Congress, Industrial Commission's Report,
vol. i., p. 39.
VOL. I—IS
226 Henry Demarest Lloyd
book. I desire to characterise this statement in Mr. Lloyd's
book, as well indeed as all the other statements with refer¬
ence to our business, as cunning fiction made up entirely of
one-sided testimony and dressed for sale. Whether Mr.
Lloyd expected to share as a result of his advocacy of Rice,
in what Mr. Rice might be able to get from us, I am unable
to say; but he certainly lays himself open to that suspicion.
I desire to say further with reference to this book of Mr.
Lloyd's that if you are disposed to waste your time reading
it, you will find it with reference to its statements regarding
the business of the Standard Oil Co. one of the most untruth¬
ful distorted compilations that was ever inflicted upon a
suffering public.
Q. Will you state the title of the book?
A. Wealth Against Commonwealth. '
Lloyd would immediately have asked to be heard in
answer, but before he was aware of what had been said,
the session had closed. He considered the advisability
of submitting an affidavit, to be incorporated in the
Commission's report. It was of doubtful importance,
he-thought at first, for no specific statement was made,
and "the insinuation," he said, "was wholly an insinua¬
tion." According to his frequent custom when about
to take an important step, he fortified himself with the
opinion of men of various points of view. Among others
he consulted the editors Edwin D. Mead, Charles
Spahr, Willis J. Abbot; the independent refiners
George Rice and M. L. Lockwood; Professors John
Bascom of Williams College, Edward M. Bemis, late
of Chicago University; the Rev. Washington Gladden
and Lewis Emery,—all representatives of the best ele¬
ments opposed to monopoly. In a battle for all, he
needed the strength of all. "I always rejoice when I
' Industrial Commission's Report, vol. i., p. 559.
"I Decline to Answer" 227
hear of yoiir being persecuted," wrote Charles B. Spahr,
"for I know what is coming."
He prepared an elaborate affidavit of six thousand
words, and sent it to various specialists for criticism,
among others to Professor Frank Parsons, to George
Rice, to Samuel S. Mehard to test it on the libel ques¬
tion, and to Professor J. W. Jenks, Expert Agent of the
Commission. It was published in the Commission's
report for 1901," and described the nature of his book,
its impregnable position, and the irreconcilable attitude
of the trust toward all adverse records or decisions.
He gave new data concerning secret freight rates,
showing discrimination in New England and Canada
in 1898 and 1900, and further stated that the success
of the oil monopoly had encouraged the formation of
other monopolies by similar means, "filling the minds
of the people with alarm, and threatening not only the
prosperity but the peace of the country." As to Mr.
Archbold's insinuation in regard to his motives, he
challenged him to produce a single iota of fact to jus¬
tify its utterance. This document produced a strong
impression. Other fighters of the tyranny who had
been similarly attacked made affidavits as well, to all
of whom Archbold made a sworn rejoinder included
in the report, except to Lloyd. To him no answer was
made.
In a letter to a conference on trusts held at the
People's Institute in February, 1900, Rev. Heber
Newton expressed wonder that the oil trust had not
brought a libel suit against the author of Wealth
Against Commonwealth. He received an indignant
letter from John D. Archbold, who, referring him to Mr.
Gunton, said:
' Industrial Commission's Report, vol. xiii, pp. 639-646.
228 Henry Deraarest Lloyd
It seems incredible to me who have had admiration for
you as a teacher that you should have made such a state¬
ment, and especially that you should have made it at this
juncture when the public mind is excited to an acute point
on the subject of industrial organisation. The fact of the
matter is, as you could easily have discovered, that the
supreme merit, if any, of Mr. Lloyd's book is that both he
and his publishers cunningly and carefully avoided the risk
of a libel action. There is not the name of an individual
mentioned in connection with his untruthful and distorted
statements regarding our company and you can rest assured
that this chance was most carefully measured by him and
his publishers. His statements were made entirely from a
one-sided and utterly perverted point of view. He never
made any effort to know the other side, and, as a matter of
fact, his statements have been shown over and over again
to be absolutely untruthful and perverted. His motive in
the publication was, first, sensationalism to sell his book,
and, second, I have personally a strong suspicion which I
think is well grounded that there was a motive on his part
meaner and more mercenary even than this.
Mr. Newton sent a copy of this to Mr. Lloyd saying:
"You ought to know what they say," and asking for
further information.
The . . . surprise of these men that any one should
dare to question the source of their enormous wealth may
be unaffected, but certainly will not be effective to stop
the enquiry [Mr. Lloyd replied in part]. . . . Yoiu Trust
correspondent's statement that I cunningly avoided the
risk of a libel action is wholly erroneous. He no doubt
knows perfectly well that my book is full of libels. He has
no doubt been so informed by his lawyer. My omission of
names was no safeguard. The names were omitted, not to
avoid the risk of a libel action, but to avoid the appearance
of any personal feeling or any mere personal piusuit. They
" I Decline to Answer " 229
were omitted in order that the attention of the public might
be concentrated on the evil behind the obnoxious persons
who were enriching themselves by it. I felt that this was
too momentous a matter to be given the appearance of an
attack on individuals.
Your correspondent says I "never made any effort to
know the other side." I know all of the other side that they
have been able to present in connection with the various
proceedings, for I read them all. . . . What these men
really mean is, that I ought to have come to them to take
down their ex post adjudicate version. Their "other side"
consists in their anarchistic refusal to accept or allow the
public to accept the decisions of the courts as final. They
are adjudicated criminals, but because they are very rich
criminals, they insist that they have the right to disregard
these adjudications and demand that the public shall accept,
in place of the findings of the Interstate Commerce Com¬
mission and the Ohio Supreme Court and the other courts
and the Hepburn committee, their own desperate gloss. . . .
As to the attacks on my personality, I will say, first,
as to the "sensationalism," that sensationalism in the de¬
scription of a crime does not alter the position of the
criminal.
Your correspondent does not specify the particulars of
the "strong suspicion which I think is well grounded that
there was a motive on his part meaner and more mercenary
than this." But John D. Archbold was specific on this
point in his testimony before the Industrial Commission.
He stated that he had a suspicion, which was as far as he
venttired to go, that my book was intended to force the
oil trust to buy Rice's refineries at a blackmail price which
I was to share.
Now, as to myself personally, I do not propose to make
the slightest reply to that. If my life does not speak for
itself, my lips would not be witnesses worth hearing, but
I will point out how perfectly absurd the charge is on the
very face of it.
230 Henry Demarest Lloyd
On page 241, Wealth Against Commonwealth, you will
find that the oil trust in 1891 stigmatised, in court, Rice
as a blackmailer, because, as they said, he had wanted to
seU them his refineries, etc., at a high price and they, of
course, had refused to deal with him on that basis. The
blackmail schemes, in other words, had been sprung on
them, killed, and publicly exposed by them three years be¬
fore my arrival with my book in 1894. And the means by
which I was to resurrect this three-years-old corpse was by
reprinting official findings which were already and for years
have been the common property of the public, found on
the shelves of aU the law libraries and in the files of all of
the leading newspapers.
Is not this contemptible? I do not mean contemptible
towards me, but contemptible as an exhibition of the moral
and intellectual pauperism of their defence. Is it not fair,
also, for me to say that there could be no stronger con¬
firmation of the accuracy of my work and the truth of the
charges which I have codified, than that after five years
going over the book and my personal career they are able
to make no other reply than this? . . .
Their denial, defence, and explanation consist either
of reopening contumaciously out of cottrt cases which
have been decided in court, or importing irrelevant details
like the return of the money of Rice, or third, irrelevant
abuse of the people's attorney, my humble self. . . .
These men ought to be in the penitentiary. Civil
equality in this country is at an end, the republic is at an
end, if we enforce our laws only against the poor and not
against the rich. We should as democrats and true men,
either put the jbig thieves in jail or let the little thieves
out.
Following Ifockwood's testimony before the Indus¬
trial Commission and Archbold's rejoinder, a renewal
of attacks on Wealth Against Commonwealth appeared
"I Decline to Answer" 231
in a few leading papers.' Mr. Lloyd usually replied
by a letter of protest to the paper. To the New York
Evening Post, now edited by E. L. Godkin, he wrote :
In your editorial of Monday last, you refer to a book of
mine, Wealth Against Commonwealth, in terms which might
convey, however unintentionally, a mistaken idea of its
method to those who have not read it. Will you kindly allow
me a word of explanation?
You say, "There is a book called Wealth Against
Commonwealth which is directed against monopolies. It
is filled with the most frightful accusations, and it has no
doubt made a great impression on the public mind, but
many of its charges are improbable, if not false, on their
face, and none is established by sufficient evidence to sus¬
tain a verdict by a jury."
There are no "accusations" of mine in the book. It
does not assvune in the least to be a work of original research,
nor to narrate things which I discovered. Except where its
recital is of facts which are not in controversy, and some
occurrences abroad, it is but a résumé of the official records,
many of them court records.
You speak of a "verdict by a jury." The statements in
the book—the book is mine, but the statements are not—
are based specifically on the verdicts of juries in civil and
criminal cases, the decisions of state and federal courts,
special tribimals like the Interstate Commerce Commission,
and on the findings of state and national legislative in¬
vestigations. The book has been before the public for five
years, but it has not yet been shown that its résumé of the
"verdicts" has been incorrectly given, or has gone beyond
■ Chicago Times-HeraU,, editorial attacking Wealth Against Common¬
wealth, November 12, 1898, answered by Lloyd in the paper, Decem¬
ber 5, 1898; New York Evening Post, editorial, September 18, 1899,
answered by Lloyd, September 26,1899; Brooklyn Daily Eagle, editorial,
June 15, 1899, answered July 27, 1899.
232 Henry Demarest Lloyd
the attested record. In every case I have reported the ver¬
sions of the facts given by those concerned, as well as those
versions which these official findings entitle all students to
accept as the authorised versions. . . .
Of course, there is a mathematical possibility in the
doctrine of chances, that all our judges and investigators,
from United States Judge Baxter and the judges of the
Supreme Court of Ohio to the Honourable T. M. Cooley and
his associates of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and
the Honourable A. B. Hepburn and his committee of the New
York Legislature of i879,andthe Honourable Shelby M.Cul-
lom and his fellow-members of the Senate special committee,
and all the other members of all the other commissions and
courts have been all wrong, and that not one of these
"verdicts," which have been found by them after examina¬
tion and cross-examination of witnesses under oath, is true,
and that all the things done by men who, beginning penni¬
less, have accumulated uncounted millions while they are
yet in the prime of life, have been merely evangelical and
"benevolent assimilation." If this be true, and these au¬
thorities fall, my book, I admit—but, under the cir¬
cumstances, I admit it cheerfully,—must fall with them,
for it is built on them. . . .
Now that, through your courtesy, I have the "open
door" of the Evening Post, will you allow me to submit one
thought to the constituency of the Evening Post, whom it
concerns, perhaps, more than the readers of any other
American paper.?
Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "It is high time our bad
wealth came to an end." "Oiu- criminal rich " is the phrase
in which Governor Roosevelt expressed the same idea in the
days when his pen was mightier than his sword.
I urge that our good wealth will commit the greatest
mistake ever made in history by any people if it allows its
interests to be confounded in the public mind with the in¬
terests of those whom the Earl of Shaftesbury called "the
truly dangerous classes." If the good wealth permits the
"I Decline to Answer" 233
"bad wealth" to take that leadership in business, church,
education, politics, and society which it is, for obvious rea¬
sons of self-preservation, so anxious to take and to pay for
most liberally in campaign contributions, pew-rents, and
endowments, the day may come when the people will be so
confused as not to see any difference between "bad wealth"
and "good wealth." Such a "confusion of tongues" has
happened before, and may happen again."
Not only did Mr. Lloyd's work prove impregnable,
but it was reinforced by Ida M. Tarbell's History of the
Standard Oil Company. He followed with close interest
and sympathy every line of her work, as far as he lived
to see it. He wrote to a friend: "Miss Tarbell seems
to me to be doing her work with great fidelity and
ability. If she does not sometimes push the probe into
the quick of the nerve, she is perhaps well advised in not
doing so."
I sought his acquaintance early in my work [said Miss
Tarbell]. I had long been familiar with his Wealth vs.
Commonwealth, and I was anxious to know if Mr. Lloyd
after ten years of experience still felt as thoroughly con¬
vinced of the position concerning the Standard which he
had taken in that volume, as he did when he wrote it. The
kindness of his reception, the cordial and generous way in
which he put any of his papers at my command, I shall
always remember. In order to see him I made a trip to
Sakonnet Beach in September, I think it was, of 1902. Mr.
Lloyd met me at the train and I shall never forget the ride
we had down that beautiful point of land to his home by the
sea. He was in the most buoyant spirits and gave me
the most animated and amusing account of the history of the
promontory, of its characters of to-day and of a hundred
years ago. . . . Rarely have I met a man who on immediate
acquaintance I found so companionable, so animated, and
234 Henry Demarest Lloyd
so ftill of fresh and healthy interests. I talked over the
plan of my work quite fully with Mr. Lloyd, and from that
time on he never failed to give me any assistance or encour¬
agement in his power. He frequently sent me newspaper
clippings through his secretary, or called my attention to
new points. Altogether, I found him most sympathetic
and helpful. I felt when I received the news of his death
that I had lost a genuine friend.
There were certain court documents in the case of the
Standard Oil Company vs. W. C. Scofield, which con¬
cerned the story of the widow refiner, Mrs, Backus of
Cleveland, of which Lloyd had taken the precaution to
procure certified copies. Before publishing his book, he
had gone to re-examine the originals, only to find that
they had mysteriously disappeared. His copies, locked
in his safe deposit vault, were, therefore, the only ones
to be had. The fact of this disappearance was stated
in the first edition of his book. ' Shortly after, however,
he foimd that the documents had been restored to their
place, by whom no one knew, and accordingly in suc¬
ceeding editions, the paragraph was omitted. When
Miss Tarbell wished to re-tell the story, she journeyed
to Cleveland to examine these records. To her amaze¬
ment she found that they had again disappeared! She
accordingly applied to Mr. Lloyd and he replied (1902) ;
... It will give me great pleasure if I can render any
service to one whose work I know and admire so much. . . .
I took the precaution to have the principal ones [affi¬
davits] copied and certified and in case you wish to see them
I would be happy to place them at your disposal. . . . You
will be interested to know that I have learned from a friend
in California that Mrs. Backus says that when Mr. Rocke-
■ Page 83, concluding paragraph of Chapter VII.
" I Decline to Answer " 235
feller, who was the person who initiated the negotiations
with her, began his courting, he opened by kneeling in
prayer with her. . . .
The oil trust interested me only as the most conspicu¬
ous illustration of the movement towards monopoly. . . .
I would . . . suggest that you see personally Charles B.
Matthews, . . . and George Rice. . . . Both are men of
steel and in both, though Rice is most ineffective in conver¬
sation except as to his straightforward eyes, you will find
that quality of resistance to tyranny, which fortunately
has always appeared in men when tyranny appeared,
and which the newest tyranny, that of wealth, is not
going to find absent from its path. . . . Current indi¬
cations in many quarters show that the great combina¬
tions are still pursuing precisely the same tactics as I de¬
scribed. The Interstate Commerce Commission year after
year points out that rebates are still given by the railroads,
and that the beneficiaries of this course are the largest
shippers; and who are the largest shippers? Probably you
noticed that in a recent investigation before this I. S. C. C.
the railway ofi&cials, blushingly or unblushingly, I don't
know which, testified that they habitually destroyed the
records of their freight payments in order to conceal the
evidence of violation of law. The oil trust has several
times destroyed its records, and habitually destroys the
records of the meetings of its trustees, as Archbold testified.
I am told by a man of affairs, many times a millionaire,
that Mr. R now owns $1,000,000,000. He has lost
more than his hair in this accumulation. I regard him
and his associates as incarnations of the most dangerous
tendencies in modem life. Emerson said ; " Good nature is
plentiful, but we want justice with heart of steel to fight
down the proud," and he said again, "The scholar who
defends monopoly is a traitor." I understand that the in¬
dependent oil men of Pennsylvania (worn out, or rather,
slackening in efforts which seem to them to have less of
private advantage than of public service for a public which
236 Henry Demarest Lloyd
does not care to be thus served, apparently) are making
arrangements with the monopoly for a division of territory,
especially in Europe, and a chance to live. They cannot
be blamed. It is only from the public that the public has
a right to demand public spirit. But the true literary man
has as his special function to keep the conscience of man¬
kind. Self-interest, let alone this ideal, dictates the policy
of the artist towards the monopolist. There is no animal
to whom the close air that comes wdth arbitrary power is
more deadly than to the writer and thinker. As things are
going now, it will not be long before we will all have to have
paladins again, and will carry our pens as a butler carries
his tray.
I shall be back at the end of July, and shall be eager to
serve you in any way. . . .
Thus fully two thirds of the certified copies used
by Miss Tarbell in this case were his. When in 1908
the Federal government instituted a smt to dissolve the
Standard Oil Company under the provisions of the
Sherman Anti-Trust Law, and its attorney wished to
consult this case, the government learned for the first
time that these documents had disappeared from the
Cleveland Court-house. Mr. Lloyd's copies were
placed at its disposal, and a very important affidavit
secured.
The years have confirmed his arraignment. State
courts and legislatures at one time drove the trust to
announce its own dissolution. "In the case of natural
persons," wrote Mr. Lloyd in comment, "dissolution is
attended by grief, decay, and disappearance; but the
artificial person, the oil trust, although five years in
the agonies of dissolution, has never been happier or
more prosperous." Enquiry and attack have passed
from State to Federal tribunal, culminating in the de-
"I Decline to Answer" 237
cree of the Federal Supreme Court in 1911 ordering the
dissolution of the Standard Oil Company.
One opporttmity after another has thus been given
it to vindicate itself before the law, but from the time
of Mr. Lloyd's exposures to the present, its answer to
the cumulative indictment is still ineffective defence
or silence.
CHAPTER XII
THE people'S PARTY
NO sooner had Wealth Against Commonwealth gone
to press, than Mr. Lloyd received a call to
active service which he could not refuse. While he had
been weaving into his book a hope that the people would
move to win their hberty, an uprising had been gath¬
ering. In the early nineties industrial distress was
causing universal discontent. The middle class gener¬
ally were suffering from the trusts. Especially were
the farmers of the South and West demanding reform in
transportation and cixrrency. To their sudden, unor¬
ganised protest was added the discontent of organised
labour, now conscious of its strength, and educated by
experience to a practical understanding of the issues.
All these elements turned to a political remedy, and
believing no relief possible from either Republican or
Democratic parties, deserted their ranks in great num¬
bers. A third party began to coalesce.
As early as 1890, Lloyd had worked on a committee
and attended conferences to organise the movement
into a new independent political party. A convention
in Cincinnati, May 19, 1891, first brought together all
the elements, and inaugurated a National People's
party. A conference at St. Louis, February 22, 1892,
issued the call for its first national convention for
238
The People's Party 239
presidential nominations, which was held in Omaha,
July 4, 1892. Here the working men first appeared
officially in national politics, figuring either as delegates
at large of the American Federation of Labor, or as
representatives of separate unions. Here, too, the new
party began to experience those internal dissensions
inseparable from the union of diverse and unformed
elements. Its main body was of the middle class, the
farmers predominating, and the platform adopted,
although radical enough to demand government owner¬
ship of railroads, committed itself to few of labour's
demands. But the fact that the convention was able
to agree upon any platform whatever, sent it wild with
joy. 'For over an hour," said Lloyd, "the thousand
members sang, cheered, danced, and gave thanks. It
was one of the most thrilling scenes in the panorama of
American political conventions." In the following
November, at its first presidential election, the party,
unknown in 1888, cast a million votes. Then the hope
arose that it would repeat the historic success of the
Republican party which in 1856 had likewise cast
a million votes. It began to be recognised as a possi¬
ble rival in 1896 of the old parties. By 1894 it had
a group of representatives in Congress, "men," said
Lloyd, "whom the fierce light of the opposition never
revealed to be anything but brave, honest, and intelli¬
gent." Continued "hard times" fed its ranks. In
1893, Gompers numbered the imemployed at 3,000,000;
armies of these tmder "General" Coxey marched to
the steps of the Capitol and proclaimed their distress.
Nowhere were conditions worse than in Chicago, not
only among the unemployed but in the relations be¬
tween capital and labour generally. Here the workers,
in answer to the business men's attempt to disrupt the
240 Henry Demarest Lloyd
unions, had strengthened them only to find their in¬
adequacy in dealing with the unemployed problem.
In the Pullman strike was also being revealed the hostile
attitude toward them of courts and Federal govern¬
ment. "They are mystified, troubled, apprehensive,"
said Lloyd, "and scarcely know which way to turn."
These extreme conditions were leading them toward
political action. Thus Chicago led the van in the new
movement, not only in numbers but in the enthusiasm
and sincerity of its programme. Here it was fortunate
in its corps of earnest workers. Indeed all over the
country there appeared noble natures ready to serve.
All who were capable of self-sacrifice for humanity, all
whom injustice fired to resistance could find abundant
work. But there were no prizes. Its candidates were
prepared to wage a hopeless fight, to suffer the oppro¬
brium of friends and the ridicule of the press. With
neither organisation, money, nor experience, with no
newspaper, no leaders of distinction such as had
launched the Liberal Republican movement, the party
was composed of the disinherited. From its birth,
said Lloyd, it had been a party of the people. Its
funds were pathetically inadequate. Even in Illinois
there was not even money enough to print a sufficient
number of platforms. At one time the national head¬
quarters at Washington were closed, the news of which
depressed Lloyd. "There is no sign of the times that
strikes one more with dismay," he wrote, "than the
fact that the people living under government by party
have so relinquished the duty of supporting their party."
One has only to glance through his letters to realise the
brave work of obscure members who wrote to him from
all quarters, men who spent the bulk of their salaries
in the cause, and who strained their responsibility
The People's Party 241
toward their families to the last point of endurance.
The party's only hope lay in numbers, which were rolling
toward two millions. Such was the band of resisters
who bravely challenged the two great parties, en¬
trenched in riches and privilege.
To this rising of the people Henry Lloyd now enthusi¬
astically devoted his powers. He had long deplored
the prevailing political coma, in which men endowed
with free citizenship were either so inert or so demoral¬
ised as to allow their government to pass to a privileged
few. Elections, he said, had become mock battles.
Men went through the form of voting but made no
attempt to control the caucus and political machinery,
the seat of power. He rejoiced to see them awakening
and taking peaceful, law-abiding methods of redress.
Whereas, on all sides the party was described as a
menace to liberty and the Constitution, he proclaimed
it "one of those pacific revolutions which this free
government was created to encourage, and make as
frequent as possible," "a counter-revolution" to that
taking place in industry. He believed that to organise
the uprising under any other than a broad principle
involving justice to all would be wasted effort, and often
at this time quoted Mommsen's saying that Rome fell
because her reformers advocated only half reforms.
Such a principle he found in the socialist demand for the
ownership by the people of the means of produc¬
tion and distribution. His effort was to unite the
movement if possible under that banner.
A conference to formulate a political policy was called
by the Illinois Federation of Labor, July 4, 1894, at
Springfield. Although the delegates were almost all
working men, and although, as Mr. Lloyd said, he had
not the honour to be a member of any labour organisa-
VOL. I—16
242 Henry Demarest Lloyd
tion, he was invited to represent German Typographical
Union No. 9, composed largely of socialists. His
province was, he said, "to help lick the platform into
shape." The Pullman strike was then at its height.
How could the delegates get to Springfield? Union
men did not wish to use even such trains as were
nmning.
I had a conference this afternoon with Mr. Debs [wrote
M. H. Madden of Typographical Union No. 16, and Presi¬
dent of the Illinois Federation of Labor, to Mr. Lloyd], and
told him of the calamity to our movement should we not go
ahead and install this convention after all the months of
labour, and asked that at least no criticism should lie against
the delegates in case the ordinary facilities were used. We
could not recall the convention as the coming national
anniversary was to be used to dedicate anew the common
people to the principles of the Declaration of Independence,
and that more help could be given his struggle now than
subsequently, as we would make an issue of it. He accepted
that view and said that he would regard us as his assistants,
and to go ahead and use what service we could find, and his
heart would be with us.
Delegate Thomas J. Morgan describes the two hund¬
red-mile journey, which took two nights:
We left Chicago late at night behind a "scab" engineer
who . . . stuck us in a swamp just outside the city on the
Wabash Railroad. One of our number, a photographer,
. . . took several pictures of the engine and the men around
it while we were held up. In the afternoon we reached
Decatur where the railroad's ability to run its train ended for
lack of " scabs " and we had to leave the train, almost landing
on the bayonets of soldiers who surrounded it. Repairing
to a hotel, arrangements were made to reach Springfield,
forty miles away, by waggon, and all retired with that ride
The People's Party 243
before them except a half dozen of us who were led to a
largely attended secret midnight meeting of striking rail¬
road men. After an interesting talk, arrangements were
made to get out a train, and all hands were called up at 2.30
A.M., and we were carried the forty miles by daylight.
Although small, the conference was important as a
fountain-head of inspiration and political principle.
All factions were present, single-taxers, socialists,
anarchists, trade-unionists, reformers. It broke almost
immediately into a contest over the seating of Schwab,
the pardoned anarchist, a delegate from the Arbeiter-
Zeitung.
Henry D. Lloyd said no man who advocated revolution
by force had any place in any political convention. He
asked that this calamitous debate be stopped and Schwab
be asked to say whether he advocated . . . action by force
or by the ballot.'
Schwab stated that the Arbeiter-Zeitung for some
years previous to 1887, incensed by the defrauding of
their councilman elect of his office, had advocated
violent tactics, but that this was now considered to have
been a mistake and the paper stood for peaceful political
action. He was then seated amid cheers.
An earnest effort was made to swing the diverse ele¬
ments into agreement. Mr. Lloyd spoke over an hour,
" the only man . . . whose remarks were received with
marked courtesy and without interruption. " ' He gave
the agitation which was overspreading the country a
deep significance:
I would not enter into it [he said], did I not see in it the
' Chicago Tribune, July 4,1894. ' Chicago Tribune, July 6, 1894.
244 Henry Demarest Lloyd
promise of the ultimate supremacy of labour . . . We
stand on the brink of a great step forward. . . . The peo¬
ple are about to take possession of the property of the
people. We are almost to enter a new paradise.
Here as in other speeches at the outset of this move¬
ment, it was evident that his political hope was re-
illumined. His words and the testimony of fellow
workers show that at times a tumultuous joy possessed
him. He urged the working men to seek relief through
political action. He advocated a temporary union
with the People's party, but met with vigorous opposi¬
tion. The conference's most intense debate occurred
over the forming of a platform, and the insertion of the
socialists' demand for the collective ownership by the
people of the means of production and distribution.
This principle had recently been admitted to the pro¬
gramme of the British trade-unions, but was now first
appearing in the American labour movement. At the
American Federation of Labor convention in Phila¬
delphia in 1892 it had received a favourable one third
vote and at the next annual convention in Chicago,
1893, the year of Mr. Lloyd's address, it was incor¬
porated as " Plank 10 " in a programme drawn and pre¬
sented by Thomas Morgan. The convention referred
it to a year's consideration by the labour unions of the
country, requesting that they instruct delegates how to
vote at the next convention in Denver, December, 1894.
The year's discussion led to the adoption of the pro¬
gramme by a very large majority. But at Denver it was
defeated by the failure of certain delegates to vote as
instructed, due, it is said, to confusion caused by a
change in the number of the plank. The struggle to
resuscitate it at Springfield was a bitter one. Lloyd
finally succeeded in drafting a resolution, virtually
The People's Party 245
Plank 10, but described as a "sugar-coated edition,"
which to his delight was carried by a vote of fifty-one
to fifty. It read :
We recommend those we represent in this Conference to
vote for those candidates of the People's party at the coming
election who will pledge themselves to the principles of the
collective ownership by the people of all such means of
production and distribution as the people elect to operate
for the commonwealth.
The saving clause, "as the people elect," applied the
principle upon which all were agreed, namely the initia¬
tive and referendum. That their delegate should have
saved the conference for the socialists was a source of
pride to Typographical Union No. 9.
We feel it a special honour to have had as our representa¬
tive this faithful champion of the rights of the workers,
this pioneer in their emancipation, the generous, noble-
hearted Henry Demarest Lloyd.'
They were also impressed by the modest bill which
only after urgent request he sent them, asking to have
the money turned over to their Debs defence fund.
" Surely, a new proof of the noble spirit of Mr. Lloyd. " ^
In reporting to them, he said, in part {Arbeiter-Zeitung,
5 August, 1894):
The People's party is a middle class party; a permanent
union of the working men with it might prove . . . unprofit¬
able, as it contains too many doubtful and unprogressive
elements. On the other hand I consider a closer union
of the industrial workers with the more advanced farmers to
be necessary; in that way the more conservative farmers
■ Translated from Chicagoer Arbeiter-Zeitung, 2 August, 1894.
" Arbeiter-Zeitung, 5, August.
246 Henry Demarest Lloyd
wotild in time be won over to us. . . . In the future the
unions should give more attention than formerly to the
farmer class and seek in every possible way to draw it into
common action. The American Federation of Labor at its
next convention . . . will have to give a large representa¬
tion to the organised farmers. In the present struggle the
general government is showing itself openly as a money
power. Its attack upon the working people is a national
one, and therefore the resistance must be the same. . . .
Let us seek a protecting haven against the coming storm.
... I shall always stand in the futme, as in the past, for
the rights of my working brothers, so far as in me lies.
Having helped to secure for Illinois the coalition of
the elements under a radical programme,.he endeavoured
to make the position national. He appealed to
Gompers, to lead the American Federation of Labor
under the banner.
I hope you approved the work of the Springfield conven¬
tion. I took the liberty of telegraphing you when you were
in Chicago, suggesting that as means of uniting the farmers
and working men you ask Governors Waite, Pennoyer, and
Lewelling to unite with you in a call for a national conference
of all reformers. This crisis is greater than that of 1776
and 1861. You have in your place at the head of the
working men the key to the immediate future. You can
write your name by the side of our greatest patriots. What
is done needs to be done quickly; so, it will be twice done.
I should be glad to get a word from you, and to do what I
can to further your plans. . . .
And in disapproval of a proposed conference under
the auspices of the Civic Federation, he wrote to him :
What is needed in my view is a delegate assembly of all
the reform elements to give immediate direction and con¬
centration to the acts of the coming election. It should be
The People's Party 247
for the whole cotmtry what the Springfield convention was
for Illinois. It should be held not later than the last week
of September. The time is not so short but that with the
telegraph all the details can be arranged. Such a conven¬
tion should make terms for the working men with the
People's party and the Socialist Labour party and the
Single-Taxers, that would be equal to the fruits of ten years
of agitation. If such a convention gave the word, as I think
it wotdd, and as I think it ought to do—for this moment—
that all the voters of discontent should unite on the candi¬
date of the People's party, we would revolutionise the
politics of this country.
The time has come for the leaders to lead. No man in
history has had a greater opportunity for usefulness than
now begs you to embrace it. The people are scattered,
distracted, leaderless, waiting for just such gtddance. And
the opportunity will not recm. If not taken now the reins
will pass to other hands, or what is more likely, no reins will
be able to control the people. It is a great crisis. Meet it
greatly!
The Illinois campaign ushered in by the Springfield
conference was a model for all independent movements.
Lloyd, who was now a leader among Chicago radicals,
"an idol of the Chicago working men," "loved by the
farmers" of the State, and trusted by all, was nomi¬
nated for Congress by the People's party in the Seventh
District. He declined.
... I do not mean to shirk my share of the work and
sacrifices of the campaign, but I will make them in another
way. Moreover, I think the party honours belong to those
who have borne the burden and heat of the day, and not to
late comers like myself. It was for this reason, among
others, and because of a strong belief that I can serve the
cause better without office than with it, that I regretted the
248 Henry Demarest Lloyd
reference to myself in connection with the United States
senatorship at the Springfield conference. . . .
On the same day he wrote to William M. Salter:
... I have been kept a prisoner of the proofs till now.
... I am just recovering from a severe attack of appendi¬
citis, which is to say, I have been wrestling this week with
the revises of my Appendix. . . . How well I remember
that day in my room when I first mentioned the scheme of
the book' to you—the first time I had spoken of it to any
one. It has been a much moi e serious task than I dreamed.
Facts are difficult things to harness. . . .
Perhaps you noticed that I was nominated for Congress
by the People's party. It was a delicate compliment—
almost too delicate to survive—in view of the fact that the
district has a Republican majority of 7000, and its greatest
voter is the Chicago & North-Westem Railroad. I have
declined, because I think it better politics to spend myself
helping others get elected in more practicable districts,
because I don't want office, and because I think I know I
can serve the cause better in other ways than by going to
Congress.
Many appeals, however, induced him to accept. His
fine campaign was described as characteristic, for his
speeches paid "little attention to his own candidacy,
but preached the gospel of hope and progress for
humanity." He declined the proffered nomination by
the Democrats, giving among other reasons the cus¬
tomary campaign assessment.
. . . My views . . . may be all wrong, but I have always
felt that the practice of assessing candidates was thoroughly
undemocratic, and one of the most powerful of the second¬
ary causes of political corruption. It is the duty of every
' Wealth Against Commonwealth.
The People's Party 249
member of a party to contribute to its success, and I am
giving to the committee of the People's party all the money
I can spare. . . .
In regard to leaders, he added:
. . . The Democrats in Washington by surrendering to
the Senate and the trusts, instead of declaring war upon
them, have just missed one of the two greatest political
opportunities I have seen; the other will be thrown away by
the managers of the People's party if they do not rise equal
to the cry of the people for leadership. Let us not deceive
ourselves about one thing; if in spite of want of leadership,
and all that, the people by the mere momentum of their
own uprising should cast a majority of the votes at the
coming presidential election for the candidates of the
People's party, they will have to fight to seat them. No
one should be given the leadership who does not see this,
and who has not the nerve to act as the emergency will
require. You and I are going to see a good deal of history
made.
The campaign opened with a brilliant meeting in
Central Music Hall, with Clarence Darrow as chairman.
Thousands were unable to gain admission. The appear¬
ance of the venerable Lyman Trumbull as an eloquent
champion of the new party caused a national sensation.
Mr. Lloyd's speech said in part:
It is a fact of political history, that no new party was
ever false to the cause for which it was formed. If the
People's party as organised in Cook County is supported
by the country, and the people get the control of their
industries as of the government, the abolition of monopoly
will as surely follow as the abolition of slavery followed the
entrance of Abraham Lincoln into the White House in 1861.
Then we will have the judges and the injunctions, the presi-
250 Henry Demarest Lloyd
dent and the House of Representatives. There will be no
Senate; we will have the referendum and the Senate will go
out when the people come in. The same Constitution that
could take the property of unwilling citizens for the rail¬
roads for rights of way, can take the railroads, willing or
unwilling, to be the nation's property when the people come
in. Then the national debt, instead of representing the
waste of war, will represent the railroads, and other pro¬
ductive works owned by the people, and worth more, as in
Australia, than the bonds issued for them. The same
Constitution that could demonetise silver can remonetise
it, or demonetise gold for a better money than either. . . .
Women will vote, and some day we will have a woman
president when the people come in. The post-office will
carry your telegrams and your parcels, . . . and will be
the people's bank for savings, and their life and accident
insurance company, as it is elsewhere already. Every dark
place in our cities will be brilliant with electricity, made by
the municipalities for themselves. Working men and women
wiU ride for three cents ... on street car lines owned by
municipalities, and paying by their profits a large part of
the cost of government now falling on the taxpayer. When
the people come in . . . boss ride and boodle will go out,
because these spring mainly from the intrigues ... of
syndicates to get hold of public functions for their private
profit. We will have a real civil service founded ... on a
system of public education which shall give every child . . .
the opportunity to fit himself for the public service. The
same Constitution which granted empires of public lands
to create the Pacific railroad kings will find land for working
men's homes and land for co-operative colonies of the
unemployed.
There will soon be no unemployed when the people come
in. There will be no shoemakers locked out or shoe facto¬
ries shut down while there is a foot unshod, and all the
mines and factories the needs of the people require, the
people shall keep going. Every man who works will get a
SOCIALISM
as defined in Webster's Dictíóbary:
«<A theory of* society which ad¬
vocates a mot^ precise, orderly
and harmonios arrangement of the
social relations of mankind."
Socialism aa definedbyyom
enemies, the Plutocratic press and
the Millionaires :
<< Is anarchy, violence, destruc¬
tion and -disorder. "
The universe is the 'property of
every creature in it.—Emer$on.
The people's hearts are tbo only
title deeds.—Wendell Phillipe
Give a man power ovormyexist-
ence, and you give him pawer over
my whole moral nature
—Alexander Hamilton
You take my life, when you take
the means by which I live.
•—Shakeepeare.
Yon are a stock holder iu the
government, will jrou vote for divi¬
dende or assessments ?
Bad Politics have made times
bod
Good Politics can make them
good.
'—Henry D. Lloyd.
Of all successive shapes which
society has taken, that most neai'ly
approaches perfection in which the
war of individual against indivld-
oal is most strictly limited.
—Prof. Hnxley.
1 affirm it as my conviction that
class law, placing capital above
labor in the structure of govern¬
ment, is more dangerous to the
republic than was chattel slavery
in tile days of its haughtiest
supremacy.
—Ahraham Lincoln.
No reform, moral or intellect¬
ual, ever came from the upper
class of society, each and all came
from the protest of martyr and
victim. The emancipation of the
working people must be achieved
by the working people themselves,
—Wendell Phillipe.
Retormers Beware, mere is Danger!
Tb«re u danger that platitudes, sophistry and frothy de¬
clamation against individnals, parties and surface effects, frill
waste the great opportunities of this campaign and obscure the
vital issue of the nineteenth Century^ Wsge-Slavery ve. the Co¬
operative Commonwealth.
Here is our kind of candidate,
HENRY D. LLOYD
who says : will not veil, or soften, or ambiguify my belief
that there is no way out of the present situation, but the
Co-operative Commonwealth, and that, that ie the only live
issue before us to-day t "
That is the declaration of a Reformer, not a mere hunter
for votes.
With such men, and such determination to tell the
whole truth, a People's Party can live, grow and become the
gi'eatest power in the land.—Thomae J Moryan
People's Party Meeting
UNOBR THB AUSPiOBS OP TH8
Socialist LaPor Party.
Mass Meeting
Central Turner Hall, till Milwaukee Ave.
Monday, Oct. 29th, 8 P. M.
SPEAKERS: COX AND MORGAN.
"Stealingour Right to Votel" Hopkins, Pomeroy.
Ryan Gang, with their bogus democratic
"Labor" ticket, stealing the name
of the People's Party.
Great PROTEST!
-OP THE-
Bulldiuo Trades and Trades Unionists
Wednesday, October 31 st,
at 8 P. IN., at
BftTTERY D, NIehigan Ave. and Monroe Street.
TRADE UNIONISTS. TURN OUTI
Surrender to the money power the right to make but one
price, the control of all prices will be sure to follow. They
who control the prices of a nation, control the liberties of its
markets, and those who control the' liberties of its markets,
will come to control all itB.other liberties.—Henry D. Lloyd
Rome fell because its reformers were only half reformers.
—Henry D. Lloyd.
Revolution by Reform, not Reform by Revolution.
—John Bume.
'Labor ts pnw to and Independ¬
ent uf capital. Capital is only the
fmit of labor and could never have
existed, if labor had not fret
existed. * Labor is the superior of
capital and deserves much the
higher consideration.
—Abraham Lincoln.
The concentration of so many
branches of trade, In the hands of
a few individuals, so that a small
number of very rich men have
been able to lay npon the mosses
of the poor a yoke little better
than slavery itself.
—Pope Leo XIII
The Public be damned.
— Vanderhilt
Liberty cannot long endure in
any country where the tendency
of legislation is to concentrate
wealth in the hands of a few.
-- Weheter.
PLANK 10
IN
LABOR^LITIGS.
Its fundamental basis is the
demand for the collective owner,
ship by the people of all thé
means of production and distribu¬
tion.
'•As it is not possible for the
worker to hold his own, shut out
as he is to-day from the land from
which his food must be drawn,
and from the free use of the
machinery and property without
which he cannot ply his calling Y "
—Tom Mann
No man ahall rule me with my
consent^ 1 will rule over no man.
— ITm. Lloyd Oarrieon.
Far-seeing men count the in-
cressing power of wealth and its
combinations as ens of the chief
dangers with which the institntion
of the United States are threatened
in the not dletsat future.
—Jamee HmeHll Lowell.
4. 8. nBCNBII A DO..
eniHTeee,
A Handbill of the People's Party, Chicago, 1894.
The People's Party 251
living, and every man who gets a living shall work when the
people come in.
This meeting initiated a county campaign of great
thoroughness, whose platform pledged itself to regain
control of all franchises already granted for existing
gas, street railways, and other monopolies, and to make
them the property of the people. Lloyd said it was the
most wonderful outburst of popular hope and enthu¬
siasm in recent politics. An attempt was made to
exclude the party ticket from the official ballot, and
Mr. Lloyd added his protest at the meeting against this
threat to deprive the people of their inherent American
right to voice their claims. Although physically not
strong, he worked very hard in the cause, acting as
secretary of the campaign committee, making almost
nightly speeches, some of which reached the country as
leaflets. While purposely localising to municipal inter¬
ests, he never failed to sound the universal note which
amidst the many petty skirmishes gave his attitude
distinction. The political air was charged with his
graphic words imprinting the new issues on thousands of
minds,—"No private use of public powers, " "People's
transportation, . . . people's money, . . . people's
land, . . . people's wealth, . . . and people's co-opera¬
tion. "
The climax of the local 1894 campaign was a torch¬
light parade, when a peaceful army of fifteen thousand,
lighted by rockets and red fire, sang, shouted, trumpeted
its way through the city, and trooped into Tattersall's
Hall. Those who saw it will never forget it. The
words with which Mr. Lloyd here closed his campaign
were as fervid as the opening speech:
. . . The People's party represents the mightiest hope
252 Henry Demarest Lloyd
that ever stirred in the hearts of the masses, . . . the hope
of realising and incarnating in the lives of the common
people the fulness of the divinity of humanity. . . . When
the people imite in liberty and equality, they become divine,
irresistible. The air of our beloved America has been
heavy for many years with the weary footfalls of the people
—the working men tramping about to find no door open
for them in the palaces of industry they built—the farmer
surrendering first the produce of the year, and then his
farm itself to market riggers and usurers ; one half the clerks,
the salesmen, the skilled organisers of business, set adrift,
and the other half made to do double duty, in order that
"operating expenses may be reduced" and "dividends"
increased: more than half the merchants and manufacturers
in the great industries driven out of their mills, refineries,
and stores by conquering syndicates and trusts. . . . He
that had«ears to hear could hear these feet in all the high¬
ways and byways, too discouraged to keep time, and
shuffling along in a sort of Beggars' Opera of Despair. But
a new sound arises from these tramping millions now. The
people who have been begging for work, for mercy, are
getting off their knees. Their tramp for work is changing
to a march for their rights. A new spirit is rising in them.
They are men ; therefore they have a right to.be men. The
earth is the Lord's and they are the children of the Lord,
and so the earth is theirs, and the fulness thereof. They
are beginning to keep time—time—good times. From the
mountains of Colorado, the uplands and lowlands of Georgia,
the prairies of the Dakotas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Illinois,
from the north, the south, the east, and the west, we can|hear
the march of these millions rising to join the People's party,
in order to make and govern a people's government. . . .
His defeat at the polls was a foregone conclusion.
His district was wealthy, the stronghold of the Chicago
& North-Western Railroad, whose share in the Spring
Valley conspiracy he had exposed. He polled, however.
The People's Party 253
nearly six thousand votes, and bore a good part in a
campaign widely observed the country over. This was
the only time he served by running for office.
I hope they will have the wit and wisdom to nominate
you for president [wrote Frances Willard] ; you seem to be
far and away the right one to head the labour movement at
this crisis. ... I think I shall follow where your plume
waves.
When nominated for lieutenant-governor, he immedi¬
ately declined, but doing so inadvertently to the wrong
official, his name appeared on the ballot, and some
recall with pleasure that they cast their vote for him.
We served together on the campaign committee [wrote
Robert H. Howe] and I learned to know and admire him as
one of the most lovable men it has ever been my good
fortune to meet.
In the presidential campaign which followed, Lloyd
worked hard to keep the party together on the advanced
position taken by Illinois. He wrote to the Chicago
Times, October 14, 1894:
Will you give me space to express my pleasure in reading
. . . "Single-Taxers and Socialists" in the Times. . . .To
divide the people and conquer them has always been the
policy of the oppressors. This insidious and too clever
attempt to break up the newly organised reform forces of
the people by fanning the flames of economic controversy is
like that other effort we are all watching to use religious
differences for the same irreligious purposes. This sowing
of tares by the enemy will not prevail. The people have
come together in the People's party, the most remarkable
uprising of popular sovereignty in our history, in spite of
these differences in doctrine, and they will remain together
254 Henry Demarest Lloyd
in spite of the distress of the politicians and monopolists,
whose occupation will be gone when the People's party
succeeds. There are no greater variances between the
different economic sects who have united themselves in this
movement than between the radically differing schools of
political, economic, and social thought who made common
cause in this country a hundred years ago against a com¬
mon enemy. There is again a common enemy and a com¬
mon cause. Our most pressing and most irreconcilable
difference is with this common enemy. We can afford to
sink our differences with ourselves until that greater one is
settled. We cannot afford not to do so. American liberty
would not yet have been won if our fathers had insisted on
debating the Constitution before they fought the war for
independence. Let us first get the government into the
hands of those who are determined to put an end to all
private use of social powers—from land to trusts—and
fight afterward for the precedence of our favourite re¬
form. . . .
Concerning the socialists, he wrote to Clarence Dar-
row:
. . . The course of the socialists in Chicago deserves
sympathetic attention. Contrary to all their past politics,
their predilections, and the threats and persuasions of the
party's leaders elsewhere, as in New York, the Chicago
socialists gave up their political identity and went in with
all their might for the success of the People's party. They
made a greater sacrifice than any other element of the party.
Unlike the A. R. U.' and the other unions the socialists
actually worked for the ticket. The People's party plat¬
form is socialistic, as all democratic doctrine is. No ques¬
tion of principle is involved in the admission of the socialists
as full and regular members of the People's party. They
are the most intelligent, most energetic, most reliable
' The American Railway Union.
The People's Party 255
workers we have. . . . Our cue is to get the socialists of
other States to do as the Chicago socialists have done. . . .
The Catholic Englishmen joined the Protestant English¬
men to fight the Catholic Philip II., and we must unite in
the same way our dissimilar elements in the face of a com¬
mon danger greater than that of the Spanish Armada. What
we ought to have at once is a conference of the most active
reformers from all over the coimtry to try to bring about
this co-operation of all. But if we begin to read each other
out of the ranks for differences of opinion we are lost. . . .
But a shadow of coming disaster began to appear.
Some of the leaders in the party seemed determined to
throw the radicals overboard, and this at a time when
the enemy was adding aggression to aggression.
Revolutions never go backward [said Mr. Lloyd in
comment]. If the People's party goes backward it will
prove that it is not a revolution, and if it is not a revolution,
it is nothing.
In a few months he wrote to President Gates of Iowa
University ;
I have hopes that the People's party may grow into a
great popular movement for liberty. But there is a rift
within the lute, and it is growing fast.
The party was being captured by those who would
narrow it to a demand for the remonetisation of the
silver dollar. Although he believed in the restoration
of silver as against its continued suppression, and
denoimced its demonetisation as a repudiation especi¬
ally "heinous," since done not by desperate poor but by
greedy rich, he considered that the need was for a social
programme of which even the whole money question
would be only a part.
256 Henry Demarest Lloyd
When I see such a panorama of oppression unfolding as is
to be seen in the records of the concentration of wealth [he
wrote to a friend], the latest example of which is the pubhc
( ?) bond sale, it makes me bewildered to hear it proposed to
cure this evil by—what?—going back to the metallic part
of the currency system we had in 1873 ! To go back to 1873,
to restore silver, that will cure us. This whole brood of
curses was hatched before 1873, before any one thought of
demonetising silver, or resuming specie payment. By 1873
we had Fisk, Gould, Vanderbilt, the prototypes of all the
procession of corrupters and oppressors that has followed.
One trouble with the People's party is that so many of its
members think that political problems which are being
manufactured by steam-engine and dynamo methods can
be cured by spinning-wheel and ox-team political remedies.
He was now carefully considering with himself and
other socialists whether to continue their fight in the
People's party or to withdraw. He wrote :
... I will never recede the microscopic fraction of an
inch from the position of the Springfield Conference and
the Uhlich Hall Convention.' But this question presses
upon me. Is it not better policy to carry this struggle into
the next National Convention of the People's party? . . .
If we recover the position in Chicago we had in . . . 1894
we can fire a shot in the National Convention that will be
heard round the world.
What vantage ground does the alternative policy of
withdrawing now offer us? We cannot join the Socialist
Labor party. At least I cannot. We could not make even
an agitation by forming a new party so close to the . . .
coming campaign? Is it not better . . . to . . . recover
our lost place, and put Chicago into the next Presidential
Convention as the foremost picket on the forward line of the
Co-operative Commonwealth? I am writing, as if . . .
■ A convention which ratified the platform secured at Springfield.
See Appendix.
The People's Party 257
thinking out loud. ... I am anxious only that we shall
make the most capital for our cause. . . .You know, and
I know, that there is not one chance in ten thousand millions
that this crisis will have a political solution. The political
motives of our people are as rotten with selfishness and
greed as their industrial morals, and the reform parties
seem to be deeper in decomposition than the Grand Old
Parties.
Think over these views carefully before organising . . .
any "split." If we must "split," let it be a split that will
be heard far and wide. . . .
He decided to continue the struggle. At a prelim¬
inary conference of leaders in St. Louis in 1895 the
"silventes" made a determined effort to keep the
nationalists' or socialists' demands out of the platform.
"Never," said one of the leaders, "did I see a man do
abler or better work than Lloyd accomplished in that
three days' contest, and to his efforts were in a great
measure due the defeat of the schemes of the silver
men. " The result was the Omaha platform, enlarged
into one which he said was "the most advanced prac¬
tical political document ever submitted to the suffrages
of a people. " The conduct of the forces at the coming
national nominating convention to open on July 22 at
St. Louis continually filled his thoughts. "You saved
the platform, now you must save the party, " wrote one
to him. But he had small hope that the catastrophe
which he saw coming could be averted. He wrote to
Richard T. Ely (April 2, 1896) :
. . . Do you not depreciate the platform of the party
unduly? It can hardly be said to rest "principally upon
a temporary monetary situation." Free silver is a sub¬
ordinate issue in the Omaha platform. I should say that
the strongest plank under the party is the government
Vol. i.—17
25^ Henry Demarest Lloyd
ownership of railroads. Still, I must admit that all the
signs indicate that the plans of the managers will succeed,
and that at the next national convention the People's party
will be overslaughed wholly by the Free Silverites. Then
what?
I send you with this an interesting letter which I have
from Bellamy on this subject. We must, it seems to me,
either be prepared to make some sacrifices to lead the Ameri¬
can people along the path of political action or else face the
alternative of revolution, which I do not expect, or of a
rotting down which I think is already well under way. . . .
Nevertheless he did not relax. He wrote again to
Ely:
I send you a book by Taubeneck, the managing head of
the People's party. I judge it to be designed to prepare
the way for the coming coalition which he intends to bring
about between the People's party and the Silverites. It
has occurred to me that possibly a little pamphlet of criti¬
cism of his views by yourself, Bellamy, Bemis, . . . dis¬
tributed to the People's party newspapers and the leading
speakers and writers of the party, might have a great
effect in spiking his guns. Will you kindly look at it with
this thing in view and see if it looks vulnerable to you, and
let me know if you would be willing to write five hundred
to one thousand words in reply, to be printed in conjunction
with replies from the others I have mentioned, provided I
would go to the expense of printing and circulating it?
This may be a chance to do the country a patriotic service.
The Democrats held their presidential nominating
convention before that of the People's party, and selected
a radical free-silver candidate, William J. Bryan, on a
platform which apparently captured the People's party
position, but one in reality, said Lloyd, very dififerent.
The People's Party 259
Little Compton, R. I., July lo, 1896.
I have read your letter of July 6th with great interest
and sympathy. My own preference for a ticket would be
Coxey and Debs. Those are the two men who have done
something, and have made the record that proves them
indomitable and incorruptible.
But how can you get the delegates whom Taubeneck
and his associates have been slumming for to support any
such men? . . . The simple truth is Taubeneck has been
flimflammed. The politicians at Washington . . . per¬
suaded him that "free silver" was the supreme issue, while
it is only what the homeopaths call the "tenth dilution" of
an issue. They got him to turn all the party manœuvres
into building up this silver issue. Then they sweep in at
Chicago,' pocket the whole thing for themselves, and leave
us at St. Louis only the Hobson's choice of sinking ourselves
out of sight and resurrection in the Democracy; or of
beginning, de novo, within a few weeks of election, the task
of making an issue and finding followers. The masses have
been taught by us that "silver" is the issue, and they will
of course have the common sense to give their votes to the
most powerful of the parties promising it. If the manage¬
ment of the party had been in the hands of really practical
politicians, instead of "Glaubenichts" like Taubeneck, the
full Omaha platform could easily have been made the issue
that would have held us together for a brilliant campaign,
but now that cannot be done. If we fuse, we are sunk ; if
we don't fuse, all the silver men we have will leave us for
the more powerful Democrats. And this is what . . .
Taubeneck calls politics! Curious that the new party, the
Reform party, the People's party, should be more boss-
ridden, ring-ruled, gang-gangrened than the two old parties
of monopoly. The party that makes itself the special
champion of the Referendum and Initiative tricked out of
its very life and soul by a permanent National Chairman—
I Democratic nominating convention, 1896.
26o Henry Demarest Lloyd
something no other party has ! Our Initiative and Referen¬
dum had better begin, like charity, at home!
When he was nominated as a delegate to the St. Louis
convention by the 7th District socialists, he wrote to a
friend (July 18, 1896):
Your letter of the nth was very interesting, and spoke to
me the only question about which I think at all nowadays.
. . . But the poor people are throwing up their hats in the
air for those who promise "to lead them out of the wilder¬
ness " by the currency route. It is awful. The people are
to be kept wandering forty years in the currency lab)ninth,
as they have for the last forty years been led up and down
the tariff hill. . . .
As to gathering up twelve baskets full of socialism out of
the fragments that remain after the inevitable explosion at
St. Louis, I don't believe that that scene of ruin, confusion,
and defeat will be the place and time to organise a really
radical party. There will be some earnest and honest men
there, but they will be forced into the position of " Kickers"
and not very influential ones. It does not seem to me that
we had better begin that way. Whether I go to St. Louis
will depend upon the advices I get from Chicago; if I go I
shall fight (if admitted to the convention, which is most
unlikely) for the most aggressive possible revision of the
Omaha platform, and for paper money instead of free silver.
But my judgment is that if we intended to make such a
fight at St. Louis, we ought to have been at it long ago.
Despite the dark outlook he went to St. Louis,—
political conventions are prolific in surprises ; the party
might even yet fulfil its promise. Perhaps his hopes
stirred when Debs telegraphed that he would try his
best to come. Of aU presidential conventions, so
typical a feature of our national life, this one stands
unique. It drew ridicule from thoughtless reporters.
The People's Party 261
When Mr. Lloyd studied it sympathetically he saw a
convention of poor men. He learned that some, lacking
funds, had walked all the way, that others had gone
without sleeping places in order to save their nickels for
meals, and were suffering from the need of food. He
marvelled at their devotion. Many were ' ' blacklisted ' '
railway employees, hoping to make their hero. Debs, a
candidate. The prevailing expression on the faces was,
he said, anxiety, fear of the unknown. The majority
feared betrayal; the traitorous members who had
planned fusion with one or the other of the old parties
feared the many resolute radicals opposing them, and
the radicals, in their turn, feared lest by insisting too
much on their sweeping reforms they might prevent a
coalition which would later prove invaluable. The
main sentiment was an intense craving to effect a union
of all the forces, and thus insure a victory. For in all
minds trembled the hope that this was really the rising
of the people. All feared to check it. Mr. Lloyd
threw his influence to make it name a candidate and a
platform of its own, and to prevent the blunder and
"the crime" of the independent movement of 1872.
But, now as then, he was powerless. In an article in
the Progressive Review of London, November, 1896, he
wrote;
The National Convention was gagged, clique-ridden,
and machine ruled. Members who were opposed to the
plans they knew to be afoot to deliver the People's party to
the Democracy were privately informed with cynical
frankness by the presiding officer that he would never
allow them to catch his eye to get the floor. The Committee
on Resolutions was packed and summarily squelched any
attempt to get into the platform anything that would
endanger the leader's plans of fusion. When the platform
262 Henry Demarest Lloyd
was reported to the Convention, the previous question was
at once moved and declared carried, and the party sent into
the campaign on a declaration of principles, of which the
delegates who adopted it knew only so much as they had
been able to catch, as it was read rapidly, amid the tumult
and disorder of a convention of fifteen hundred, surrounded
by a noisy audience of thousands of onlookers.
He studied closely the feelings and beliefs of the dele¬
gates. The radical anti-monopolists were the strongest
single body. There was a time when the convention
was wavering, and should they force the issue, there was
an even chance, he computed, of their splitting the
convention near the middle on a platform calling for
"the public ownership of all monopolies. " He had at
hand a carefully prepared speech, a powerful warning
against fusion and "free silver." Should he speak? In
his hands was Debs's telegram: "Please do not permit
the use of my n^ime for nomination. " Some who were
disappointed at the non-appearance of Debs besieged
Mr. Lloyd to lead a radical ring. He turned to Clarencce
Darrow and George H. Schilling, who were silent, asking
their opinion. They said it was better not to speak.
Other men of bravery and initiative stood spellbound,
fearing to break the union. "The leaders did not lead,
and their followers did not clamour to be lead," said
Lloyd. Thus passed what he called "a psychological
moment" in the life of American reform. The pre¬
arranged scheme moved on, and the convention did
what its enemies desired, it nominated Bryan and
merged its current in the ocean of the Democratic party.
In the shock of the first moments, Lloyd waited for a
protest, a halt, but none came, and through eighteen
minutes of tempestuous applause he watched the exit
of this once promising movement. His friend and host.
The People's Party 263
Mr. N. O. Nelson, said that on the night of the fusion,
Mr. Lloyd came home late "in feverish excitement, and
exploded with the expression that the party was buried,
hopelessly sold out. "
St. Louis was a nightmare [he wrote to Professor Ely].
To see the blow to political reform being dealt, and to be
unable to say a word to break the spell of the victims, or to
do a thing to stay the hand of the depredator was dreadful.
The possibility of peaceful reform, or of any reform, is
greatly hindered by such an issue of this attempt to get a
remedy by political action. What are we to think of the
wits of a people who allow themselves to be hypnotised by
gifts of a few millions by the men who at the same moment
are stealing ten times as many millions, and all the people's
liberties?
Oct. 10, 1896.
I did n't answer your letter because I was too sore about
the whole business. The People's Party Convention at
St. Louis was the most discouraging experience of my life.
It was not so much that the leaders tricked and bulldozed
and betrayed, but that the people submitted. The craze
for success "this time" had full possession of all of them.
It was in the main a splendid body of men, but, withal, there
was lacking in them that grasp of fundamental principle
which alone keeps parties together. No party can cohere
unless its members have some common article of faith so
completely engrained in the very texture of their minds
that they spontaneously and without the necessity of
conference will take practically the same views of the same
questions. The People's party is a fortuitous collection of
the dissatisfied. If it had been organised around a clear-
cut principle, of which its practical proposals were merely
external expressions, it could never have been seduced into
fusion, nor induced even to consider the nomination of a
man like Bryan who rejects its bottom doctrine. Such a
264 Henry Demarest Lloyd
party will have to be built up by conscious effort or evolved
by the sharp pressure of events.
The Free Silver movement is a fake. Free Silver is the
cow-bird of the Reform movement. It waited until the
nest had been built by the sacrifices and labour of others,
and then it laid its eggs in it, pushing out the others which
lie smashed on the ground. It is now flying around while
we are expected to do the incubating. I for one decline to
sit on the nest to help any such game.
. . . The People's party has been betrayed, . . . but
after all it is its own fault. No party that does not lead its
leaders will ever succeed. Lincoln had to be pulled along
by his party every step he took. There was a principle
there that had taken complete possession of 4,000,000 men
and if it could not have found effectuation in one man it
would have done it through another.
I may vote for Bryan as the Knight of the Disinherited,
like Ivanhoe, but he will not be the next President, and I
am content. . . .
Among the forecasts which appeared in the press was
Lloyd's:
Democracy' is that bourn from which no reform party
returns. . . . But if the party dies, or degenerates into a
mere vermiform appendix of the Democracy, to be removed
by skilful surgery during an "off year," the movement will
go on. The Free Soil party of 1848 scattered. ... But
in 1856 the same elements combined under another name—
Republican. In i860 they carried the election and before
1864, they had accomplished in the complete emancipation
of slavery a reform as wide and deep as the wildest hopes of
the most fanatical idealists who preceded the movement.
One of the immediate results of this merger at St. Louis
will be that a large percentage of the radical members of the
party will go into one or another of the socialist parties or
• Mr. Lloyd means here the Democratic party.
The People's Party 265
organisations . . . Perhaps in 1900, perhaps not until 1904,
the ideas and the men who went down here before the silver
cyclone will reappear. The politicians in the party who
have been having all the ftm of a witch-buming heresy will
find that they have not even scotched the snake. '
When it came to voting, he was long undecided. A
letter records his vote :
After the People's party took up Bryan, I voted the
Socialist Labor party ticket, and I shall probably be com¬
pelled by my attitude towards its fundamental doctrines to
continue doing so, at least until some other organisation is
formed tmder more representatively American leadership
to advocate the same principles.
For a second time he retired from practical politics,
convinced that until men had thought out the issues
involved it was useless to seek redress through that
channel. "I can see nothing to do for the moment,"
he wrote, "but keep on laying our eggs in the sand,
waiting for the sun of some future spring to hatch them
out."
» Búfalo (N. Y.) Express, July 27, 1896.
CHAPTER XIII
A CITIZEN OF "NO MEAN CITY**
Many Americans now felt politically helpless and
apathetic. Seeking an escape through the ballot
from the tyranny of monopoly, they found their only
means of expression to be a party machinery controlled
by the very monopolists from whom they were trying
to be freed. Advanced thinkers began to plan a
restoration to the people of the law-making power
through the initiative and referendum, or direct legis¬
lation, then an old story in Switzerland but tmtried in
the United States. This provides for the suggestion of
legislation initiated by a certain percentage of the
voters—the initiative,—^and the reference of proposed
legislation to popular vote—the referendtnn. The
American Federation of Labor had begim to advocate
this in its resolutions. But how to achieve it was the
problem. By the nature of the Constitution, the sys¬
tem of government in each city is controlled by its
State legislature. To obtain the referendum power a
city must therefore achieve an enactment of a State
law, or a change in the city charter. Should public
sentiment be sufficiently enlightened to work for this,
it would encounter monopoly entrenched in the ruling
party and its machinery, and controlling the legisla¬
ture. The citizens of the village of Winnetka, con-
266
A Citizen of "No Mean City" 267
taining in 1896 about 2000 inhabitants, meeting one
of their own problems with the spirit of liberty and
ingenuity, worked out a system of self-emancipation,
which opened a way out of the dilemma. They in¬
vented an easy method of immediately obtaining the
initiative and referendum and restoring self-govern¬
ment in local issues.
There prevailed among these villagers a united and
intelligent civic conscience. It had been from its
beginning not a mere suburb of Chicago, but an entity.
The village charter provided for an almost ideal
collection of homes. Its wise founders, Artemus Car¬
ter, Gilbert Hubbard, and their neighbours, including
Jenkin Lloyd Jones who came there for his first pulpit
charge, laid well its comer-stone. They planned for
beauty and health, laying out broad avenues planted
with oaks and elms, arranged for an unusually high
grade of schools, and safeguarded the homes from the
evils of saloons; they recognised the communal life,
making the heart of the village a common or "green."
Thus from the first it garnered traditions of civic
duty, and by a happy fortune succeeding villagers
carried further the ideals of its founders. To quote
its Congregational minister. Rev. Quincy L. Dowd,
himself a rare embodiment of enlightened citizenship:
"One of its chief charms from its early days has been
that its ideal was to be a community of friends whose
diversified traits and training should be put into a
common store of human, social good. "
When the Lloyds first came to Winnetka, in 1878, it
was in what its humourist called "the Post-Igneous"—
After the Fire—period. It was then a straggling village
whose homes were separated by stretches of woods,
and whose currents of neighbourhood intimacy were
268 Henry Demarest Lloyd
likewise detached. There was a rudimentary but no
ideal communal spirit. Its intercourse was about
what is found in the best type of farm neighbourhood,
said Mr. Dowd. There was one institution, however,
which had come from its past as a precious inheritance,
namely, the annual village meeting at which the inhabi¬
tants met to consider their common interests. This
was the instrument which was to be seized upon and
developed into a means of emancipation.
From the first Henry Lloyd took very seriously his
Winnetka citizenship. From 1884 to 1886 he acted
as vice-president of the Council, in 1887 and 1888
he was village treasurer. He was several times elected
trustee and member of the Board of Education, and
was president of the Town Meeting in 1898. Above
all he was deeply interested in furthering the control
by the community of its own public service, and in
all progressive thought and action along that line
was always in the van. When in 1890 Mr. Dowd
sought to convert the village caucus into a larger
community club, he went to Mr. Lloyd with his
plan. "He welcomed the idea at once," said Mr.
Dowd, "and by his own constructive thought hoped
to revive the aims and style of the Town Meeting, once
so important a factor in New England life." That
institution, recognised by the highest authorities as
one of the bulwarks of our liberties, had fallen into
disuse in the land of its origin, but this western village
now caught up the idea and carried it on in its voluntary
monthly meetings. At this village forum, named in
accordance with Mr. Lloyd's suggestion the Winnetka
Town Meeting and first held in December, 1890, the
citizens became acquainted with one another and freely
discussed all local public questions as well as the
A Citizen of "No Mean City" 269
broader field of human society. The meetings were
held in the basement of the Congregational Church
and afforded an open platform for all. Programmes
consisted of an address followed by discussion, the
consideration of local policy, and sometimes some
form of entertainment. For instance, they voted
for enforcement of laws against sale of liquors, for the
institution of evening schools, they resolved as early
as 1894 to own all poles thereafter erected in the village
on which wires were stnmg, they discussed the pro¬
jects of parks and public library, and invited the politi¬
cal candidates to address them. Naturally Mr. Lloyd
was a frequent speaker. Early in the history of these
meetings, he urged the village to secure a portion of
the Hubbard Woods on the Lake shore for a public
park, pointing out that it could easily reimburse itself
by the sale of lots. But it failed to adopt this idea.
When about ten years later, in 1901, it awoke to the
advisability of the plan, it was too late. Mr. Lloyd
then hoped to bequeath his Lake shore to the village
for the pmpose. It was before the Town Meeting of
November, 1894, that he delivered his lecture on
"No Mean City," probably for the first time.
Many of you will remember [said Mr. Dowd to the citi¬
zens after Lloyd's death] the active part Mr. Lloyd took in
those public discussions, outlining a high order of policy for
the citizens to pursue. Mr. Lloyd was an idealist in regard
to what it means to be a citizen. He could not conceive of
a decent man being a mean citizen in a mean village. In
something the same spirit that impelled Mr. Emerson
always to attend the town meeting of Concord, so did Mr.
Lloyd loyally and ardently support the non-partisan vil¬
lage caucus. Well do I remember how earnestly he spoke
of the point of honour involved in maintaining this rally of
270 Henry Demarest Lloyd
citizens as such to provide for and safeguard the village
service and interests. . . . Did not the hearts of many
b\im within us, as we saw him rise to speak among us, and
as we listened to his direct, simple, most eloquent statements
of what human lives are doing, or ought to do, the world
over that citizen life may be complete and worthy? . . .
As the years passed, he brought to this popular, voluntary
meeting contributions of his own cleverest vision and
widest observation bearing on human problems and local
needs. As he came and went, I felt that in Mr. Lloyd we
had our pre-eminent friend and fellow-citizen.
Thus a civic intelligence had been developed in
Winnetka that was in advance of the communities of
its time. Even the streets revealed its spirit. The
stranger walking through the village saw cidtivated
flowers and shrubs bordering the public side of its
paths as well as the private. Its conscious aim had
become to establish the community's ownership of its
own public functions. By 1896 it possessed a pub¬
licly owned water-works system. When therefore in
October of that year a private company of would-be
monopolists, the North-Westem Gaslight and Coke
Company, proposed to the Council that they grant
it a forty years' franchise for a gas plant, the village
mind was already made up. While the project was
being considered by the elected rulers in the Coun¬
cil, the Town Meeting also discussed it thoroughly,
and there was brought clearly before the citizens the
fact that they possessed no legal power to veto such a
contract should it be consummated by their repre¬
sentatives. The stress of the situation aroused public
spirit, and the meeting adopted a resolution asking
the Council to submit the question to the voters.
This was the first step toward self-government.
A Citizen of "No Mean City" 271
Shortly after, Thursday, November 5, a citizen of
the village, while in Chicago, happened to overhear
a conversation revealing, to his dismay, that the
Council was to meet "on the quiet" that evening—
not its regular meeting night—^and grant the forty
years' franchise. This public-spirited citizen, H. I.
Orwig, at once telephoned to a second, F. E. Herdman,
and soon the news was thrilling over the wires to all.
By evening the citizens were a united body, determined
to assert their rights as voters in regard to the disposal
of the village franchise. Accordingly at eight o'clock
when the Council assembled, what was their surprise
to see a body of leading citizens file into the room.
Moreover, when the gas franchise came up for consid¬
eration, these citizens stoutly demanded a hearing.
Lloyd was allowed to speak and urged that the question
be referred to the voters. A long and heated discussion
followed. The Council were unwilling to concede that
privilege, two of them declaring that the people were
not competent to decide such a matter. After a stub-
bom resistance, they finally with reluctance consented
to adjourn without action for two weeks. In the
Council records for this meeting no mention is made of
this visit of the citizens and their protest. A petition
written by Mr. Lloyd was then circulated, signed by
172 residents, and incorporated in the town records :
WiNNETKA, November 7, 1896.
The undersigned residents of said village being informed
that some corporation or persons have applied to your
honourable body for a franchise to erect a gas plant and lay
gas mains in this village, we hereby respectfully declare
that we are emphatically opposed to the introduction of a
gas or other lighting system in this village unless it be
built, owned, and operated by the village.
272 Henry Demarest Lloyd
The Council refused to hold an election referring the
question to the voters, but the citizens, undaunted,
arranged one. It was held on November 14, and
resulted in 182 votes against the franchise and only
4 in favour. At the next meeting of the Council
the citizens were again present, this time bearing with
them the expression of the people through this advisory
referendum vote. The vote was read, and as a result
the franchise was refused.
Having once realised their power, the citizens re¬
solved to retain it. At the next primary election for
the nomination of village trustees, it was voted that
only those men should be nominated who would promise
that if elected they would refer all important questions
to a vote of the people and abide by their decision;
■ each nominee for trustee then stood before his fellow-
citizens and pledged himself. That night the initiative
and referendum became the unwritten law of Winnetka.
The Cotmcil then elected were faithful to their agree¬
ment and their successors have followed the same
co\u'se. In subsequent years the village shaped its
experience into an ordinance.'
Thus did the people of Winnetka without any change
in the written constitution of the State or the local
charter become the sovereign power in their govern¬
ment. This simple act of 182 resolute and intelligent
voters has become widely famous as "the Winnetka
system"—that is, the securing of the advisory refer¬
endum by the questioning of candidates before nomi¬
nation as to whether if elected they will agree to
refer important measmes to the people's vote and
abide by the result. In this way, involving a mini¬
mum of effort and a maximum of results, cities, with-
■ See Appendix.
VOTERS OF WINNETKA
Do Yotji 'Want
A GAS MONOPOLY in WINNETKA?
Do Yon. Kno^w
that an unannounced ordinance is more than half¬
way through the Council to establish such a
monopoly for FORTY YEARS?
that this ordinance gives not a cent of compensation
to the village, contains no provisions for the protec¬
tion of public interests, nor for lighting the streets,
and concedes no right of municipal purchase?
that this ordinance does not bind the monopoly to
furnish gas to any one, but is evidently introduced
not so much to supply gas as to prevent any other
company or the village itself from furnishing heat
and light?
Do Yovi TPlxímli:
Winnetka should own its own light and heat?
You are deeply interested in this proposed 40-year
monopoly. Come with all your neighbors to the
Mass Meeting, Saturday Eve., Nov. 5th, at 8 o'clock,
in basement of Congregational Church.
Do Yod Kixo'w
Do Yod XlLdOA?%r
H. D. LLOYD, LOUIS FAVOUR,
THOS. G. WINDES, H. F. THURSTON
J. A. PUGH, W. H. KING,
A. B. JONES. J. C. WINSHIP,
Leaflet used in Winnetka, November, 1898.
A Citizen of "No Mean City" 273
out waiting to obtain from their legislature the right
to express their will, may, through a league or union,
immediately emancipate themselves.
The people of Winnetka made excellent use of self-
government. After the formal establishment of the
direct vote system, the people voted upon the question :
"Shall a municipal electric light plant be installed?"
The answer was "Yes." At this election nine votes
in favour of the municipal plant were cast by women
and counted. In 1898 the North-Western Gaslight
and Coke Company again attempted to obtain the
gas franchise. To combat t Mr. Lloyd, who was then
president of the Town Meeting, fortified himself with
expert advice. At a meeting of citizens, a resolution
of protest was passed, and a committee with Mr.
Lloyd as chairman presented it to the Council, together
with the suggestion of a novel plan in use in one or
two other communities for the installation of a muni¬
cipal lighting plant; as the village was already bonded
to the limit, the citizens proposed that a private cor¬
poration be formed with an agreement among the
incorporators and with the village that the plant
installed be transferred to the village free of charge
when its cost should all have been paid from profits.
To the surprise of all, the Council rejected the gas
company's franchise and decided to follow the citizens*
suggestion. In two years the lighting plant was owned
and operated by the village.
Far-reaching have been the rays from these sim¬
ple deeds. The Winnetka system, which may be
termed an invention in political machinery, intended
for use only until the usual constitutional form can
be installed, has proved applicable to governmental
machinery—state, county, and municipal, and, in
VOL. 1—18
274 Henry Demarest Lloyd
part, to federal. This was largely accomplished
through the enthusiastic work of George H. Shibley,
who was devoting all his resources to the furtherance
of popular government and against machine rule.
After the defeat of the progressive democrats in the
election of 1900, he began the work of pop\ilarising
the Winnetka system. His volume, The Trust Prob¬
lem Solved, brought about its endorsement by such
organisations as the National Direct Legislation League,
the Social and Political Conference at Detroit, and
the American Federation of Labor representing a mil¬
lion and a quarter voters. At the annual convention
of the latter body, in 1901, President Gompers in
predicating a demand for direct legislation cited the
Winnetka experiment as a model to be followed by
the mtmicipalities of the country. The Executive
Cotmcü ordered that an address explaining the system
be forwarded to the trade-unions of the cotmtry,
having in view its immediate application to cities,
and later to States and the nation. The address was
prepared by Mr. Shibley, then Chairman of the National
Non-Partisan Federation for Majority Rule, and pub¬
lished in an extra number of the American Federationist
in January, 1902, of which about twenty-six thousand
copies were distributed. Immediately following its
publication results were manifest. Labour unions,
farmers' granges, anti-trust leagues, and towns, here
and there, the country over, endorsed or adopted it.
The Federations of Labor in eight States declared
for a modified programme, while in several other States
organised labour questioned candidates. In Chicago,
in 1902, it met with a startling success in a difficult
field, the issue at stake being the street railway fran¬
chise whose proposed extension was valued at $60,000,-
A Citizen of "No Mean City" 275
000. The questioning of candidates resulted in pledges
not only to observe the referendum vote, but to vote
to install the advisory referendum as to franchises
for municipal monopolies. In Detroit the mere proposal
of the Winnetka system in 1901 and 1902 prevented
the extension of the street railway franchises.
These municipal achievements have been widely
published and the questioning of candidates has
become an established institution. Prom municipal
affairs, the plan was in 1902 extended to State issues
and candidates questioned as to whether if elected they
would submit an amendment to the constitution for
the initiative and referendum. This met with imme¬
diate success in seven States. The system was also
applied in national affairs and candidates for the Sen¬
ate and Congress were pledged. It is gaining ground
in Canada and Australia.
The spectacle of the advanced guard of citizenship
ever5rwhere pressing forward to apply this self-help
renewed the courage of workers for political regenera¬
tion. The following letter to Mr. Shibley shows Mr.
Lloyd's view :
I have received and read with great interest The Trust
Problem Solved.
The prominence you give the Winnetka experience is
most gratifying to me. What made that especially encour¬
aging to me was that it was the result of the application of
the simple good sense of an average little community to the
solution of a practical problem. It was not due to any
special propaganda for municipal ownership, or any form
of socialism, or even for a referendum. But the moment
the vast social problem presented itself in a little concrete
problem to these people they "saw the point," and acted
accordingly. That gives me great hope that when the
276 Henry Demarest Lloyd
American people "see the point"—and some day they will
see it in a flash—they will act with equal directness.
You are doing a work to be greatly commended, and are
sowing seed sure to break ground. . . .
P.S.—I think it would be wiser not to emphasise my name
in the Winnetka affair. The policy was the thought of all
the best citizens.
Unimportant it is indeed to determine which item in
the plan his creative touch developed, for a like spirit
of liberty was present in his neighbours and in himself.
When one reads the epitaph which Wordsworth's
neighbours have placed to his memory in the village
church of Grasmere, one would say that he himself
had written it, so truly does it breathe his calm and
lofty temper. In the same way the democracy for
which Mr. Lloyd stood so bravely to the world was
woven warp and woof in the fibre of his village. During
the quarter of a century he lived there, it was in a
limited way an experimental station for his progressive
ideas. Nowhere did he more clearly emphasise his
principles of human brotherhood. But had he been
able to contrive alone some institution of public use¬
fulness, his gratification would have been scant in
proportion. What fortified him and lighted his hopes,
was that in this crisis he saw all the people acting
together with courage and conviction. Those who
worked with him in village affairs speak of his openness
to the suggestions of others, and the absence of any
desire to have a plan go through because proposed by
him.
The general question of direct legislation, unat¬
tached to any fuller programme, was now occup3ring his
thoughts. He wrote to Eltweed Pomeroy :
A Citizen of " No Mean City" 277
The attitude of the English Fabians with regard to the
direct legislation question has produced a very great
impression upon my mind. [They opposed it.] I feel that
politics is breaking politics down; that modem political
means of ascertaining the public will are proving themselves
only a little less defective than the ancient methods of viva
voce shrieking in the Athenian market-place. ... I feel
that to ask the people to attend to the exacting duties of
direct legislation will be to overload an animal whose back is
already very nearly broken; and that as long as we leave
wealth and monopoly in charge of the men who now hold
them, it will be they who will control the initiatives and
referendums as they now control legislattires. I want to
agree with you, and to help you in yotir work; but I have
not yet been able to overcome the obstacles thereto which
arise in my mind from these considerations. If you have
time write to me. . . .
... I am not opposed to the initiative and referendum,
but I cannot bring myself to believe that the advocacy of
them is the most important reform of the present moment.
The people have plenty of machinery already to right their
wrongs if they would only use it. . . . What the people
have not got is the grasp of the economic question which, if
they had it, would lead them not to wait another day until
they put an end to the privileges and monopolies. Give
them the most perfect political machinery in the world, and
without that grasp, they will remain as now helpless and
enslaved. It therefore seems to me to be feared that by
discussing political machinery instead of economic princi¬
ple, we are really going backward. I express these views
tentatively.
He contributed to the movement, however, and with
each year it grew in importance to him, as one of the
lines of advance. It was slow, cumbersome, but the
slower the surer, he said. " One day of the referendum
278 Henry Demarest Lloyd
is worth fifty years of representatives and leading
citizens." He became a member of its national and
international organisations. During his residence in
Boston in 1902, when the trade-unions of Massachu¬
setts were making a brave fight for it in their
legislature, he did what he could to aid, joining
with men like Edward Everett Hale and Edwin D.
Mead in influencing the committees of the House, at
the same time bringing to the attention of leading
unions the Wiimetka system. He advocated working
for both the immediate Winnetka programme and for
constitutional action. "In fact," he said, "I am so
extremely skeptical about the possibility of obtaining
the constitutional action, at least on the Atlantic
slope, that I feel the Winnetka system to be much more
practical." For the work of Mr. Shibley he felt the
warmest enthusiasm :
The record which you make of results is wonderful. If
one citizen can do so much, what might not be done by the
many if they would but rouse themselves. Your work is of
very great value, and I wish that hundreds of thousands of
the citizens of this country would rally around you, and give
you the support that you—and their own safety—so much
deserve.
Thus in the confines of his village, as in the four walls
of home, did Mr. Lloyd practise the gospel he preached.
He earned the right to become an example of the citi¬
zen's high calling. When in 1904, a new wing was
built to the schoolhouse, a tablet bore the names of
Illinois's great sons, and the Hst concludes: "Eugene
Field, Henry D. Lloyd, John Hay. "
Whatever his growing and lasting influence may prove
to be in the universal community [said Mr. Dowd], he per¬
formed a personal service by high example and eloquent
A Citizen of " No Mean City" 279
teaching, which gave a tone and spirit to the local com¬
munity of Winnetka, which remains as a living tribute to
his memory, and would of itself be sufficient fruitage of a
man's piupose and effort.
However wide his work, the human relation, whether
in the home or as neighbour, won his quick response.
"When any local matter came up involving the village
life," said a fellow-citizen, "he threw himself into the
pubhc cause with an enthusiasm as real and a thought-
fulness as earnest as though some large national issue
was at stake. " At the expiration of his term as treasurer
he turned over to the Public Library a bond as a fund
for the purchase of books, the equivalent of his salary.
At another time in the early days he sent in a good-
sized check to the village as his self-imposed tax on
some imassessed property. Even while living tem¬
porarily elsewhere, his warm interest in the village
welfare did not relax. In July, 1898, when his vote as
member of the Board of Education was necessary
to insure the erection of the Horace Mann School
building, he journeyed from Sakonnet to Winnetka to
cast it. For he truly loved Winnetka, not only for its
beauty of field and garden overlooking the pageant
of the Lake, not only that here stood the tenderest
spot on earth, his home, but because of its prevailing
spirit of democracy, where each was for all and all for
each. During his periods of residence elsewhere he was
merely sojourning. He preferred to remain a citizen
of Winnetka. Here alone he lived the full human
life, loving his home, communing with his neighbours,
working for humanity.
CHAPTER XIV
CONSIDERING THE WAY OUT
IN the collapse of the People's party, the political
way out had received for the moment its closure.
Hope died in thousands of hearts. Leaders paused,
bewildered. Lloyd, looking ahead along the slow path
to successful political action, was dejected, feeling that
peaceful reform had received a set-back. He wrote to
Bellamy, Ely, Debs, asking: "What next? Shall we
try to do anything with the Socialist Labour party?"
Victor Berger, destined after many years to become the
first Socialist member of Congress, turned to Lloyd,
whom he revered as a messiah of the rising movement.
" I journeyed to Winnetka to see Henry," says Berger.
" I implored him to gather the scattered forces, and to
lead in organising a new Socialist party, for we had
little faith in the old Socialist Labour Party ; but he said
that he was unfitted for that kind of work. He was in
a despondent mood. ' What is the use in voting?' he
said. 'They will do the counting. And we can't
shoot. They own all the guns.' I left him in great
disappointment. ' '
While the people stood helpless, the power of
plutocracy was swiftly increasing. No wonder that
he could say he had no illusions as to any influence
which his work might have. His attack in Wealth
280
Considering the Way Out 281
Against Commonwealth seemed like a salute for a
start. "A carnival of the trusts is now in progress,"
he wrote in 1897. Their influence in church, the
press, society, and the government could no longer
be denied. Monopoly must be abolished, he said, or
it will abolish us. The letters and notes of these years,
in the middle of the nineties, show that he was continu¬
ally revolving the question of how this was to be done.
But he made no formal statement of his thought. He
was feeling his way with the people, studying and wait¬
ing for events. "My only aim is to do whatever I
can to help," were his words to William Dean Howells,
with whom he discussed our dilemma, for "Howells,"
he wrote to a friend, "is a very noble-hearted man,
and takes the whole world into his sympathy. "
The problem had its destructive and its constructive
side. On the former, the unseating of the tyranny, he
repeatedly said that there were ample means in the
hands of the State. He wrote to Frederick H. Gillett
(1896):
First, I should demand the inflexible administration of
the criminal laws and the punishment of the men, no matter
how rich . . . they may be, who in the formation of these
trusts have violated the law. It seems to me that all other
questions halt until this is settled. If merely because they
are rich and powerful, a certain number of gentlemen can
take possession of the property of their neighbours by
criminal means, without punishment, the American Repub¬
lic is a failure, and the dissolution of American society has
begun, although the fact may not be chronicled by our
Gibbon until sometime long after this. The man in public
life who will stand up in his place and cry aloud for justice
for the people against these men will, I believe, make for
himself the greatest career of any statesman this country
282 Henry Demarest Lloyd
has produced. . . . Especially it is incumbent upon those
who refuse to consider proposals of social reconstruction to
prove that the present . . . system can be administered
with justice and success, for if it cannot be, it is a humbug
and a snare. . . .
... I deliberately say that I believe that every import¬
ant man in the oil, coal, and many other trusts ought to¬
day to be in some one of our penitentiaries. All that is
needed to put them there is no new laws, but simply a
prosecuting attorney, judge, and jury.
He wrote to lawyers urging upon them the study of
the reapplication of the spirit of the law to our new
problems. To a socialist, Thomas Morgan, about to
enter the profession, he wrote:
One of the great works to be done in the reconstruction of
society we are all aiming at is the extension of the ftmda-
mental ideas of the law to the new conditions of modem life.
There is no d5mamite more destructive of the abuses of our
world than the law developed to its logical conclusions,
and held fast to its principles. . . . There can be no com¬
promise between the spirit of law and the present usurpers,
thieves, and t)rrants of industry and property. . . .
The kind of work necessary, he suggested in a letter to
Roger Sherman:
... I would also like to see presented by a first-class law¬
yer the law as to the forfeitability for non-user and mis-user
of the franchises of our corporate bodies. If we are to have
a peaceftil settlement, we shall have to use a good deal of
that kind of law. The doctrine that a grant is a contract
seems to me a sword with an edge in its handle. If it is a
contract, it must be kept by the party of the second part ;
and if not kept, the courts can give relief; that is, ideal
courts could.
Considering the Way Out
283
In an interview in the Boston Herald (October 23,
1895), he said:
The flimsiness of the defence of these monopolies is the
exact measure of the simplicity of the means needed to over¬
throw them. There has never been, and is not now, the
slightest need of new laws, or new political economy, or a
new social system. The common law we have had for
hundreds of years, our oldest fashioned political economy,
any theory and form of civilised government contain all
the principles and agencies for putting an end to such
depredations on individuals and commonwealth. All that
is needed is a judge and twelve jur3mien and a prosecuting
attorney, and a public opinion to set them to work. And
there is the rub. The public opinion as yet is lacking. We
have all the machinery, but the power to exercise it is not
yet generated.
Why?
Not for lack of morality or patriotism, but because the
public mind is confused. It sees these things being done
under cover of the forms of enterprise, integrity, and wealth-
making consecrated by centuries of use and wont, and it
thinks they are enterprise, integrity, and wealth. It thinks
that it is the fittest who are surviving. But it will at last
discover that these forms are only the cloak for the destruc¬
tion of enterprise, integrity, and wealth, and that the homes
of the people are being dismantled to build palaces for their
invaders and betrayers. When the people at last get that
through their heads, no one will any longer have any
occasion to complain of the slow pace of reform. "The
American idea," Emerson says, "is emancipation": and in
comparison with all previous emancipations, the coming
emancipation will be done in a flash. We can already see
the light. We are like the explorers in Rider Haggard's
story, sailing the subterranean river in the volcano. We
can feel that we are safely caught in the current which will
sweep us into the full glory of a new day and a new country.
284 Henry Demarest Lloyd
The sentence that no new laws or new system were
needed was criticised by The Coming Nation.
Taken from its connection [Lloyd wrote to a socialist]
the sentence quoted gives the lie direct to all my views.
. . . Any constitutional authority would support what I
say, that the existing machinery and principles of the law
are ample to knock every one of these trusts ... on the
head if public opinion would only energise them. . . .
Whether or not we can get the public opinion under our
present conditions is another question, and one which I
was not discussing. I do not myself believe that we can.
I think the public opinion will come only with radical
changes in our institutions. . . . The close of the inter¬
view . . . shows with clearness that when I come to speak
of the general situation, I am looking for, praying for,
working for a new day and a new country.
What curious people we reformers are! The capitalists
unite by instinct and act with common energy and faithful¬
ness for their common purposes, without conferences or
conventions or preconcert, simultaneously all over this
country and Europe. . . . But the working men and the
reformers, socialists and all, seem to spend their energy in
tr3ring to break up their own movements by jealousies,
accusations. . . . Here, for instance, is The Coming Nation,
willing to strike at one who has given and is giving all his
life to fighting the cause of the people, and fighting as near
the front line as he can get, although to do so it has to dis¬
regard the deliberate and published utterances ... for
twenty years. That of course is just the way to encourage
and inspirit a fellow-worker, and urge him on to his best !
He worked and hoped that these readjustments
might be made peaceably. "No need to fight," he
wrote in a manuscript in 1896, "only to think. We
must think as we have never thought before. The
crisis of our civilisation is upon us. Which way shall
Considering the Way Out 285
we tum?" In the rising issue that side will win, he
said, which has the judges, since to enforce their deci¬
sions they have behind them the police, sheriffs,
militia, and the regular army and navy.
Washington fought that we, his heirs, need not fight [he
told the audience assembled to greet Debs], . . . Hamilton,
Adams, Franklin, if they were here to-day, would not need
the musket to free the people. They would say to us, If
you can vote public lands and public bonds and public
streets and public rights to private citizens for private profit,
can you not vote the same to the public ... for public
profit? . . . There can come to the bench any day you
choose to elect them judges who can declare void all the
sales of monopoly, coal, oil, salt, lumber, iron, at monopoly
prices, and can order the wealth returned to its real owners
—the people—because taken from them by a "hold-up."
His manuscripts and letters indicate his belief at
this time (1896) that as a self-governing people we
should make our programme reform and compensation,
rather than revolution and confiscation, but that he
doubted whether the t3rrants would admit of this
solution.
... It takes only a modicum of shrewdness and of virtue
to discover ways of circumventing the public depredator
far cheaper and more efficacious than the resort to violence.
... We have given precious franchises to street car lines,
and transcontinental lines, but we have not and could not
have given away the sovereign right of the people to use
their co-operative energies in such public works as they will
to undertake. We have but to build roads for the public
service, and the question of whether we shall pay the stock
market price or the actual cash outlay price for the private
car lines and railroads becomes "a back number." . . .
There are other means to the people's hands. They have
286 Henry Demarest Lloyd
the right of forfeiture for non-user and for mis-user. They
have the right of taxation illustrated when the national
government taxed the state banks out of existence to give
their business to the national banks. Precedents? Plenty
and more.
He wrote to James L. Cowles (1896) :
... I am not prepared to express an opinion about your
plan of having the United States guarantee the dividends
on the stocks of existing railroads. I am afraid it would
lead to a practice of building roads anywhere and every¬
where to get the guaranty. At first blush, it seems to me
a simpler plan to have no conflicting interests of any sort
but to make a clean sweep of the whole business and let the
government buy and operate the railroads. I have always
believed that we should have to pay the market value of the
stock, water and all, if we take the roads by peaceful pro¬
cesses of the law; but the value to be paid should be the
average of a series of years preceding the purchase, not the
quotation which can be made at the last moment by
"boomers" in anticipation of the government purchas¬
ing. . . .
In July, 1897, he wrote in a letter:
It seems to me that for a people who profess to be self-
governing to repudiate and revolute is to throw upon others
that burden of the mistakes and treacheries of others which
they should bear themselves. It is we who elected or
permitted to be elected these Judases. It seems wiser and
better for a people as well as an individual to keep bad
bargains and foolish promises, and leam thereby to do
better.
We may come to repudiation and revolution, but it will
be because we have been unfit for higher methods of reform,
and are still in the brutish stage.
Moreover, it is not fair for the whole people to throw upon
Considering the Way Out
287
the few holders of franchises, etc., the penalty of the igno¬
rance and fraud of which a very large part of the people are
guilty. Only universal repudiation and rehabilitation of
all in the safety of a universal commune would be fair.
I think my reasons are practically identical with those
which led William Lloyd Garrison and Abraham Lincoln to
advocate compensated emancipation. It was the cheapest
and the fairest policy. The fact that I do not believe "the
plutes" will allow us to pursue this cheap and kind pro¬
cedure does not the less make it our policy to proffer it.
Later, as will appear, his ideas as to the form of
compensation were changed, but he never, to my
knowledge, advocated confiscation without compensa¬
tion as a policy.
Looking constructively for measures of remedy, he
did not of course turn backward to competition. Only
long time hence under an entirely regenerated system
would free competition ever be possible again. When
it again emerges, he said, "it will elevate us to the
Elysian fields where all shall struggle with each other
in beauties of service and felicities of art." Strange
to say, his book led some to think that he was combat¬
ing the principle of combination.
... A word as to the purpose of the book. It was not
my intention to oppose the tendency to centralisation,
which is, of course, as you say, one of the tendencies of the
age. I desired only to help bring it about that the concen¬
trations shall be legal, moral, and social, . . . only to draw
such a realistic picture of the ruin and wickedness which
attended our present commercial methods as to revolt the
people into passing on to a better system.
Indeed, he considered the corporation the typical
form of American industry, and one inherited from
288 Henry Demarest Lloyd
Holland, of which country we were quite as much the
heirs as of England.
... It enables a few persons to become one of those
mighty artificial beings that can accomplish enterprises that
before have only been for kings. ... It enables us mortals
to put on immortality for our works, if not for ourselves.
... It is more potent than any church, more cosmopolitan
than any nation, more democratic than any state. . . .
Only in corporations have been realised the dreams of
international co-operation.
He did not, however, defend the trusts as "unavoid¬
able." He combated the economists, who, proving
them to be in the line of social evolution, allowed the
people to draw the illogical conclusion that therefore
their tyrannical sway should be permitted to continue.
This defence was urged by Ernst von Hallé of Hamburg,
in his Trusts and Combinations in the United States,
which followed Wealth Against Commonwealth by a few
months. In reviewing the volume,' Lloyd protested
against this paralysis of the people's will, this "science
of impotence. "
Because they will not recognise the true law of human
association, nor admit that it must rule as inflexibly in
industry as in the family, the church, the state, or any other
tie, it is that this school is radically and entirely unscientific.
They are teaching the same false science which has misled
the greedy and their victims to every social catastrophe of
the past. . . . That the trusts are does not prove that they
are "unavoidable." . . . The author repeatedly refers to
the question as one between large and small methods of
production. ... A larger question is whether true political
economy shall not investigate to see if business and industry
are honest, whether large or small, and thereby profitable,
' Chicago Times-Herald, April 14, 1895.
Considering the Way Out
289
"scientifically." . . . The real question is whether the
power of the trusts has been rightly got, and is rightly held.
Has this power been acquired by methods that were a bene¬
fit, physical, economic, spiritual, to all concerned, and is the
present administration of this power advantageous to
individuals and the community, on political and moral, as
well as on pecuniary grounds? There can be no "science"
of the trusts which does not deal with these questions as
the fundamental ones.
I have just read von Hallé's little book [he wrote to
Albert Shaw]. He has been very industrious, but seems to
me weak in his economics. This I was ready for as when
he was at my house he argued strenuously that the great
German standing army was an economic benefit to the
people because it kept the soldiers out of competition ^th
working men. His acceptance of the trusts as "unavoid¬
able" is the attitude taken by commonplace and conven¬
tional economists towards what they call Facts. It was
thus the economists accepted American slavery and the
English factory system, and left to persons really "scien¬
tific" the work of study, protest, and reform. I was
imprepared for the tone of v. Hallé's references to my book
and particularly for his misstatements—as that I presented
one side only, while I have scrupulously given any defence
the trust has to make—and that my list of trusts was made
from newspaper clippings, etc.,—but as Emerson said of the
minister who prayed against him—He seems an excellent,
well-meaning man.
He wrote to Frederick H. Gillett (1896):
I have not yet attempted to form any bill with regard to
trust legislation. The problem involved in the trusts can
be understood and handled only by always keeping separate,
it seems to me, the question of combination and the question
of arbitrary power in the market. The men who are
VOL. I—19
290 Henry Demarest Lloyd
combining are only pioneers in our commercial evolution.
Combination cannot possibly be prevented; nor do I see
any reason why the attempt to prevent it should be made.
But combination which obtains the power to crush competi¬
tion and manipulate prices is combination which has reached
the point at which something must be done. . . .
He also combated any defence of them as superior
administrators. "To maintain their supremacy, they
need only suppress, not surpass." Especially was the
claim of "cheapness" contested by him outside of his
book. Even if true, he said, it worild still be true
that if the American people were content to accept this
cheapness as the gift of men who had obtained the
power to make the price, they would thereby prove
themselves no longer fit to be free. "Freedom is the
first cheapness." "Liberty that comes by the grace
of a king is not true liberty, and a price that is
made low by the favour of a king of the market is not
cheapness." But it is not true, was his constant
assertion.
The mother-wit of the people knows that prices are not
cheap which produce ten-ply millionaires. To this syndi¬
cate you give an hour, to that a day, to that a week. Each
of these is the payment of an indemnity because like the
Chinese to-day you are at the mercy of a conqueror. Each
of these is a servitude.
He showed his contempt for such "cheapness" as
the occasional lowering of a price. "Dead Sea fruit,"
he called it. "For every dollar the monopolists have
made they have destroyed creative energy in the
people that would have made one thousand dollars."
From the point of view of the whole public—the only
economic one, he said,—it is not cheapness to give
Considering the Way Out 291
things at lower prices to some at the cost of broken
hearts and fortunes to others.
If the public, when it leams the facts, does not become
sensitive to the dearness, which is the chief end of the
trusts, ... it will show two things—a public conscience
so dulled that it looks with the same indifference upon
markets made the theatres of crime as the Romans upon
the iniquities which furnished them with their amusements
in the Colosseum, and a mental arithmetic so rudimentary
that a civilisation which offers its all—homes, motherhood,
childhood, virtue, and happiness—for cheapness, can be
fooled into accepting dearness for cheapness. ... It takes
two to make a bargain in cheapness. Within the terri¬
tories of combination, the party of the second part has
disappeared, ... he must be restored . . . even if it be
necessary for him to be personated by the whole people.
As a remedy, he turned to ownership by the people.
To those who were crying for "moderation," he an¬
swered that there was no moderation on the part of the
syndicates and plutocrats. He wrote to the chairman
of the National Reform Association (1897) :
A policy of "moderation" proposes to fight the devil
without fire. When moderately cold ice and moderately
hot boiling water, moderately pious Christs and moderately
honest "Old Abes" count for anything, the philosophy of
moderation in fighting the immoderate aggressors will
deserve more success than it can possibly have now.
To continue to accept as our sovereign social ideal
the self-interest of the individual and to meet the
resultant evils by constitutional restraint and regula¬
tion was, he said, repeatedly, a failure. "Ownership
has the floor."
292 Henry Demarest Lloyd
We have had thirty years of regulation, and it has been a
thirty-years' war, the people losing all the time, and knowing
it. Special interests are admirably fitted for such a contest ;
the people wholly unfitted for it. Regulation asks the
state to play a double part ; to give away its power and to
retain it ; to bestow grants and to recall them. Regulation
is a people divided against itself. When regulation, as in
early social development, is accomplished by the attritions
of competition in an open market, it is as if a law of nature
did the work and no one feels aggrieved; but when you
regulate the property of others, even if you are the state,
you multiply resentment and every force of nature plays
against the state, including its own inevitable tenderness.
... I cannot think of any remedial measure to which I
would attach the slightest importance except agitation to
awaken the public to the necessity of themselves becoming
the owners of every monopoly. Municipal agitation for
municipal ownership, and national agitation for the owner¬
ship, as an entering wedge, of the railways, telegraphs, and
all the monopolies involving a monopoly of land like that
of the coal mines and the oil wells, are the only direction in
which I can look for profitable effort. . . . The develop¬
ment in this direction is so inchoate in this country that
there is as yet [1896] no field for national legislation. . . .
That he believed the fundamental remedy to be a
change of our ideals, his whole life-work testifies.
Through the years he had been evolving his social philo¬
sophy. His note-books are full of his balancing of the
claims of the individual and of society. He read all
history as the record of the alternation of these two
forces. He believed that finer than the perfected individ¬
ualism which was Emerson's goal in morals, Jefferson's
in politics, and Cobden's in industry, was the fusion
of perfected individuals in social action. He exalted
the social consciousness into a sixth sense. "The
Considering the Way Out
293
Sixth Sense is the social sense."' Self-interest, he
said, is not so bad as it has been painted, but there is a
self-interest of the whole as real as the self-interest of
the one.
Love is that which makes us do for others; self-interest is
that which makes us do for ourselves. A universe of love
unopposed by self-interest, of self-interest not centripetal-
ised by love, would be a universe either without orbits or
without centres. A religion that did not preach self-
interest would be only half a religion. "God is love" is
but half the fact. Love and self-interest in harmony is the
full fact. That is the Supreme Being.
Individualism and socialism formed "the twin
march" in human history. The conflict between,
them was only an apparent one. The higher the social¬
ism the higher must be the individualism, he said.
"The free individual wül crown his individuality by
uniting with his equal in cotmtless forms of association.
. . . Our individuality wül never surrender itself."
Parallel with his hope for a new order of society buüt
on "the self-interest of the whole," there ran to the
very last a hope in the coming of a great personality
or Deliverer, who should personify the new aspiration
of the people.
In our present stage he believed that one of the best
social forms by which the individuality of all could be
served was the state—"the greatest concentration of
all. " Its fundamental idea was the principle of brother¬
hood, of love; the idea of force which had become in¬
volved in it was wrong. " Through it every citizen may
love his neighbour though he know him not. " Thus he
'Note-book, 1888.
294 Henry Demarest Lloyd
could not for our era endorse the philosophy of anarch¬
ism, and he had studied all its literature. He believed
in institutionalising public opinion and conscience.
" Democracy is public opinion plus the law, and obedi¬
ence to the law is voluntary for the majority, and
compulsory only for the intractable." Without law pub¬
lic opinion would get neither obedience nor publicity.
But public opinion was the principal, the state and the
law only its agent. To make changes, to re-equalise
privilege, was, he said, "a necessary and constant
function of government." He believed that the present
state was not meeting the needs of the people; in their
ideals was growing a new free state, which would be
the agent of all the people, "a government by brother¬
hood which is the essence of democracy." Through
the ideals and programme of socialism he believed it
possible to create this new state, to institutionalise the
new ideals. Above all else socialism meant to him
"a reconstructed sentiment." If there were a volun¬
tary association of all, socialism would operate through
that as the superior. In proportion as the motive of
public interest is adopted by the individuals of a
community will socialistic machineiy become unneces¬
sary.
To say that socialism is govemmentalism is as if one were
to define the farmer as a rake. The rake is only one of the
tools of his work. The socialist is one who believes that
the contact of men in industry must, like all human contact
that is to endure, be made a society—an association of
friends. He will use the government as one of his tools.
He is endeavouring to replace the supremacy of selfishness
by that of loving service, the principle of friendship. Since
the fundamental principle of the state is that it exists by all
Considering the Way Out
295
for all, the socialist naturally sees in it his, at present, best
instrument.
Hence its programme meant infinitely more than a
mere transference to our present state of the vast
industries.
The least democratic countries in the world have state
coal mines and state railroads, but they have no ownership
by the people. The socialism of a kingly state is kingly
still; of a plutocratic state, plutocratic. We mean to
transform at the same moment we transfer.
Indeed he believed a great danger lay in the owner¬
ship of enterprises by our state in its present capita¬
listic administration. He had already reached the
conviction, which grew with the years, that when
ownership came some substitute would have to be
made for party politics. Our perpetual politics were
enough, he said, to give any nation nervous prostra¬
tion. People were becoming weary and were leaving
politics to the politicians. He wrote to his father;
. . . No one seems able to shake off the influence of
partisanship. Washington's warnings to his countrymen,
in his Farewell Message, are being justified in nothing more
clearly, it seems to me, than in the development of the very
fury of factionism against which he warned them. For
myself, I begin to doubt whether it is possible to carry on
democracy by means of electoral machinery and party
government without this development of factional feeling:
and I am, consequently, turning more and more to believe
that for operating democracy we shall have to substitute
some other form of institutions. It seems to me that politics
is breaking politics down. The same opinions are being
formed, I notice, in England among some of the most
296 Henry Demarest Lloyd
advanced reformers there, men who believe thoroughly in
the rule of the people and in government only which is a
government of, by, and for all, but who cannot help seeing
that the ordinary political means of voting and campaigning
make it impossible for the real will and the real interests of
the people to come forth as a result.
Searching for help on the ultimate way out from this
dilemma, he foimd the thought-germ in Emerson's
sa5ring, "Some day we will supersede politics by educa¬
tion." By this light, following the lines already
beginning in manual training and civil-service examina¬
tion, he saw foreshadowed the education of the future
which was to fit every individual for some form of
social service, to make of all trades and professions
schools, and to last throughout life.
The next great step forward in the evolution of de¬
mocracy [he wrote to Eltweed Pomeroy in 1897] is going to
be the adoption of a system of selection by education
instead of election by stump speeches and partisan edi¬
torials, "pull" and "push," and horse-stalled electors.
The re-organisation of the state on the basis of
education, and education on the basis of life, revealed
one of the pathways by which men were to achieve
peace. This idea fotmd expression only in letters and
in the first draft of a book. He later briefly suggested
it in his book on New Zealand in words heavy with
warning. '
One of the greatest disasters the world has ever seen
awaits the people who attempt to administer enterprise
on socialistic principles, through present Parliamentary
methods. It would break down as no other civilisation
' Newest England, pp. 295 and 296.
Considering the Way Out 297
has broken down before. All that a co-operative society
is, Parliamentary government is not in the administration
of business. . . . Banks, railroads, mines, insurance, manu¬
facturing, "state theatres," "municipal restaurants," can¬
not be run by mass meetings, stump speakers, caucuses, and
ministerial pull—no more than private banks and business
can be so run. What we know as "politics" and socialism
are incompatible. Democracy itself will see that demo¬
cratic industry must not be at the daily mercy of majorities
of one and of "all-night" sessions, nor of oflScials appointed
to please politicians.
Although he could not see clearly the escape from our
troubles, he did not despair of democracy. " I have the
greatest confidence in the wisdom of the people,"
he said, "if they are only left alone, they will find a
way out. "
He could not be too rigidly defined in the terms of
one Une of poUcy. "Ours is a dual world," he often
said. Hence his philosophy combined the call for
immediate radical reconstruction and the recognition
of the continuous evolution of social forms. He said
that only by winning new freedoms could we perfect
those we possess. "As the republic consummates
liberty of conscience by aboUshing the state chmch,
the commonwealth will make the republic complete
by aboUshing the economic entails, primogeniture,
privileges, and rule of force in the distribution of the
common product." "Liberties go in clusters, like the
Pleiades." The capitalists looked upon him as a
ranting ultra-radical, while many an impatient recon¬
structor thought him an advocate of half-way reforms.
One of the latter said to him :
"You admit our social and industrial systems are corrupt
and evil?"
298 Henry Demarest Lloyd
"Yes, to a certain extent they are."
" Then, why not abolish them at once, and give the people
a chance?"
"Because," he replied, "the people themselves are just
as corrupt and evil."
" Then there is no hope for betterment?"
"Yes, there is. You can never have good government
without good citizens, nor good citizens without good
government. The real problem is how to make them both
better."
When the journal of the single tax colony of Fair-
hope, Alabama, asked for a response to the query:
"Please define the term 'Socialism' and particularly
state whether or not, as understood by you, its ultimate
aim is the complete—enforced if need be—commun-
isation of all production and distribution, and the
distinct prohibition of all individual competitive effort
with private capital, for private gain," he wrote (1898) :
I would not venture without a great deal of care to offer a
definition of socialism.
I am not a sectarian socialist, never having joined any
socialistic organisation. Whenever I meet them I always
quarrel with my Socialist Labour party and Karl Marxian
socialist friends, on their thesis that socialism necessarily
implies the ownership of the means of production, distribu¬
tion, and exchange by the working men.
I would say unhesitatingly in answer to your question
that I do not believe the ultimate aim of socialism is the
complete—enforced if need be—communisation of all pro¬
duction and distribution and the distinct prohibition of
all individual competitive effort with private capital for
private gain. I believe private ownership for private gain,
and competitive and individual initiative, to be entirely
consistent with public and private morality and welfare
under certain conditions. Ours is a dual world in the
Considering the Way Out 299
industrial as well as in every other quarter, and it is impos¬
sible to state any problem or any solution in the terms of a
single force. A social régime must, of necessity, be related
to economic development. It would have been, for instance,
wholly absurd to have delayed the settlement of the whole
North American continent until the people had reached that
state of communal development^ which would have enabled
it to be made with common ownership and common enjoy¬
ment. By that theory it would have even been wrong for
the Anglo-Saxon people to go ahead until all the rest of the
population of the world had reached the same level. The
progress of the world does not move in that way, either in
the realm of mind, or matter, or communities.
I do not believe, for instance, that socialism, as I under¬
stand it, would necessarily forbid the construction of
railroäds by private capital, for private profit. I think
individual enterprise has an initiative which the community
can never quite attain. I would leave the individual and
his private methods free to initiate and pioneer, and when
the right moment came I would then have the community
step in and appropriate and administer. I do not believe
the railway system of America could have been brought to
anything approaching its present economic perfection if we
had undertaken to do it through the agency of the state,
and great as have been the evils which have come with the
private régime, I do not believe that on the whole they
amount to the good which has been done. I think, however,
that now the time has manifestly come when the com¬
munity should take possession of the railroad system, but
even in doing so I would leave to individuals and communi¬
ties the right to build lines themselves and enjoy the profits
for a limited period, say twenty-five years. I think in that
way we could get the benefits of both private enterprise
and public policy.
To me socialism presents itself not so much as a new
doctrine as the entrance of the doctrine of mercy, justice,
and the common good, into the new fields of modern wealth.
300 Henry Demarest Lloyd
Social evolution, as I look at it, is a continual struggle for
equilibrium between the individual and society, between
power and the people. The economic individual has now
become greater than society; the power of money is over¬
shadowing that of the community. Our task is to apply to
this economic tyrant and this money power the same social
restraints that in previous ages we have applied to the
power of the Church and the power of the kings. But let us
beware, lest in doing this we create a new power to
oppress.
There will never be a time when there will not be indi¬
vidual ownership, administration, motive, initiative, and
never a time when society will not be advancing to com-
munalise the things prepared for it by the individual. This
is the economic application of Emerson's fine saying that
before every individual opens liberty, behind him closes
organisation.
You ask for "the ultimate aim" of socialism. This is as
near as I can get to an ultimate conception of it.
When a correspondent asked him to define his posi¬
tion he wrote (1898):
If we begin with definitions we are sure to end with
schisms. Must we have an odium sociologicum now that
the odium theologicum is dying out? Who carries the
brand stencilled "out and out socialist" with which he is
empowered to stamp the orthodox? As to what I am, I
only know that I am doing the best I can to expose the evils
under which we suffer and to make known all the facts that
seem to come within my province that indicate the lines of
evolution towards the remedy. I have never interested
myself in any question of label or intricacies of creed. I no
more believe it possible to cover the social situation by a
name or a bunch of propositions, than to so cover the uni¬
verse ... as our theological friends have so vainly at¬
tempted to do. The last two chapters of Wealth Against
Considering the Way Out
301
Commonwealth contain a pretty full statement of my gen¬
eral beliefs. Sometimes when I am asked to define myself,
I say that I am a socialist-anarchist-communist-individu-
alist-collectivist-co-operative-aristocratic-democrat, for, as
I survey the world, the very complicated thing we call
society is rolling forward along all these lines simultaneously.
In the philosophy of socialism he saw the avenue
to the immediate programme needed—the abolition of
monopoly and the emancipation of the working class.
To sum up, I care nothing for any system of economics
that does not include co-operation and anti-monopoly.
Call it socialism, if you like, I do not care. It is the
only system that will bring ultimate and entire relief from
the existing evils. The people of a community are as able
to co-operate as the people of a corporation. . . . Co-opera¬
tion is a positive idea; anti-monopoly is negative. With
the institution of these will come a system of finance and
of all other things that will go far toward making a paradise
of this world of ours. The perpetual fear of poverty and
panics is absurd—a delusion. The people will not submit
to it long.
To programmes which fell short of this, he gave only a
half-hearted support. Such was the single tax theory,
which he never endorsed as a complete solution. He
conceived a great respect for Henry George, "that
great American," but he had no confidence that his
programme would achieve the results desired; more¬
over, since unearned increments were taken from the
community in many ways besides land, he did not
see the logic of directing our attack against one way.
His position on this and on free trade is stated in a
letter to Dr. W. G. Eggleston in 1890:
After letting George's ideas lie "in soak" for a while, it
302 Henry Demarest Lloyd
seemed clear to me that he saw neither the cause nor the cure
of our social problem. The problem has hurried to its head
at a time when land was more accessible to the people of
the whole migratory world than ever before, and to-day an
increasing proportion—as I understand the statistics—of
the farmers who get land for nothing by inheritance cannot
afford to live on it. As to the cure, the effect of putting all
the taxes on land would be infallibly to shift its possession
to those who had the money to pay the taxes. Free trade
is all right, but the reasons for it seem to me to be all wrong.
The free trade commonly clamoured for is simply a widen¬
ing of the field for competition, and is the last act in a
drama of trade run mad. Our civilisation is commerce
crazy, and thinks that the collapses caused by drunken
indulgence in buying cheap (so-called) and selling dear (so-
called) would be cured by a larger dose of the same stimu¬
lant. Free trade that is free will be a trade where the
barter is of articles that were freely made as well as freely
traded, and "freely" means in obedience to true laws of
honour, health, and beauty. Trade that exchanges the
product of slave labour, whether of plantation or slum, can¬
not be free.
But our bourgeoisie do not care how or where things are
made so long as by swapping them they may be free to
become rich at the cost of poverty to others. Protection
is provincial, worse, parochial, and in practice always rotten
with corruption. The working men and their friends care
nothing for this question of tariff so dear to the business
men, but when they reign, will substitute for it a system of
industry, internationally co-operative, a real free trade,
because bottomed on a brotherhood which recognises that
the common toil of mankind must, and can be, so directed
as to give the necessities of life to all before it gives yachts
and champagne to any. I should hasten free trade in our
present system because it would internationalise more
completely the operation of that system with all its horrors
and would make the breakdown, so accelerated, take place
Considering the Way Out 303
on the same field where the reconstruction must go on—
the field of the internation. Given the theory of a right to
devour. the substance of your neighbour and his family,
because you are stronger in trading than he is, and given
the rights which follow from this cannibalism, of selfish
and exclusive possession of the machinery, lands, highways,
currency, buildings, etc., of the world by the strong, and the
only possible result of the adoption of what is called free
trade would be to develop in an intenser form on the cos¬
mopolitan area all the evils the conscience of society now
seeks to escape. England has free trade, all but absolute,
but she has East London, Darkest England.
While he worked with the socialists and was one in
belief, he was not ready at this time to affiliate formally
with them. The only organisation, the Socialist
Labor party, was governed by a group, popularly
called "the New York Hierarchy," despotic in doctrine
and discipline. It was impossible for Lloyd, as for
many an American socialist in those days, to put him¬
self tmder their yoke. In 1895 he had written to
President Gates of Iowa University:
I have never identified myself with the socialists as an
organisation. If I were in England I should certainly have
affiliated with the Fabian Society. I have been revolted,
here, by the hard tone of the German socialists, who are
about all we have, and by the practical falsity of the doc¬
trine they constantly reiterate, that this crisis must be met
by a class struggle, and that the working people alone are
to be trusted.
But whether we agree with them or not [he wrote ad¬
miringly], we always know that in the social battle there is a
little group clear out on the advance line rallying around
the Soeialist Labor party flag.
304 Henry Demarest Lloyd
In the Progressive Review, an English Fabian monthly
started in September, 1896, by William Clarke and
John A. Hobson, he wrote in 1897 ^.s its American
correspondent :
There has been no more striking development in the
evolution of public opinion anywhere of late years than the
growth of socialism in the United States. But this social¬
ism is unrepresented. It hoped to effectuate itself through
the People's party, but the betrayal of that promising
movement to the Democrats and free silver has put an end
to those hopes. Our Socialist Labor party of German
Marxians has never taken hold of the Americans, and never
will, for the Americans, whatever their political mistakes,
are not so stupid as to make a class movement of an agita¬
tion to abolish class. The most uncertain element in
American political arithmetic to-day is in what form this
unrepresented socialism of the United States will precipitate
itself, and what channels it will make for itself when it
begins to move.
His sum of the glories of the coming social order
always included the equality of women. Toward
them as to children his attitude was ever exquisite and
reverential. He never missed a chance to plead for
the overworked children, to indict our tmchristian
Christendom for robbing many of its children to en¬
rich a few of its men. But with balance of judgment
he suggested that a wise social economy might allow
them in the course of their school training to contribute
in happy and healthful ways to the support of the
community. Of women's emancipation he was ever a
staunch champion; the regenerative power released by
their true freedom would, he foresaw, be a great factor
in the social reconstruction. He said we needed "the
Considering the Way Out
305
woman mind" to help us. Women were, he said, the
first to feel the appeal of the new conscience.
When we admit women to their rights and so get a step
farther forward toward our own rights we will find that we
have added a more constructive and conservative force
than oiu- own to the solution of the troublesome social
question.
In their emancipation, he included full political
rights; the case against woman suffrage was lost, he
said, some thousands of years ago when it was first
admitted that women had souls.
The masses have reached the level at which the form of
their consent is necessary for the validity of their claims
upon their citizenship, industry, family life—except as to
women in government. They are still subject, not citizen;
conscripts, not volunteers; ruled by force, not by consent.
He felt that all the causes he was working for would
be advanced if they had the vote. Their highest
function, however, he held to be the bearing and rear¬
ing of children, for in that they were the creators of
the race. It was women's subjection which complicated
the vexed question of marriage. Because they were
not yet free, he said, the contract between man and
wife was not free. He did not leave the sex and the
marriage problem out of his constructive speculation,
but it was one he mentioned only rarely in intimate
talk; he never treated the subject in public, saying
that the American people would not yet tolerate its
discussion. ' ' Until industrial liberty is founded, ' ' he said,
" this question can only be pecked at." His sympathy
for the women's side was very marked and accorded
VOL. 1—20
3o6 Henry Demarest Lloyd
with' his reverence for them, and with that loving
imagination through which he could always perceive
the troubles of a class not his own. Early in life,
he said, he had determined that no woman should ever
be the worse for his having lived. Whenever possi¬
ble in his writings he exalted woman's position and
brought to her even higher honour than to man. This
was a subject on which he felt deeply. Among his
favourite audiences were ministers and women's clubs.
"We will all be women some day," he used to say
half laughing, when we were trying our powers on
sketching out the millennium. He himself had much
of that finer side of human nature called feminine;
was as brave as men ought to be, and yet tender as
ideal womanhood.
Mr. Lloyd now, in 1896, made a decided change in
the direction of his life-work. He felt that he had
done his part in the work of exposure. With the
revulsion of a wholesome nature, he turned away from
the stifling air of selfish greed. " I am weary of shovel¬
ling filth," he said. "I shall do no more of that kind
of work. I think I have done my share." He turned
toward the light. There was needed, he said, a résumé
of facts on the constructive side to show men how
powerful love was even in the homicidal system of
to-day, and to give them courage to throw aside their
present industrial organisation based on hatred. The
political and moral initiative which had formerly dis¬
tinguished the Americans had given place to timidity.
He ■wrote to President Gates :
. . . The men who want to do something to save this
country must get together soon. And soon or late we can¬
not save it by any amount of mere resistance to present
Considering the Way Out
307
tendencies. We must initiate new tendencies toward the
good.
He determined to help to inform and inspire on the
constructive side of "the way out." "I want to begin
laying a few blocks for a better social structure," he
said. As the present has never been disconnected with
the past, he reasoned, the future could be fotmd in
the present, had we the eyes to see.
What we need is not to attempt to strike out a complete
scheme of social reconstruction, but by patient observation
see whether the lines along which men have been moving
are not the lines along which they are still moving, and
whether they are not lines of hope and progress. If we find
all this to be true, the gathering of the evidence and the
discovery to the people, not out of the dreams of Utopia,
but out of their own record, that they are moving forward,
and how and by what law, can have no less effect on the
science of society than the similar methods of physical
investigations have had on the natural sciences.
Professor Vida Scudder of Wellesley College, journey¬
ing to him at this time for help in an episode of combat
which was puzzling her, thus records her impression
in a letter;
The causes with which Mr. Lloyd's name was most
identified . . . were so to speak dead issues with him. He
had done his duty, in exposing the Standard Oil trust for
instance, with all the vigour, scholarship, and eloquence at
his command. His work was done,—his book there, for
the public to take or leave ; he seemed to me not particularly
interested in that issue any longer. This may be an
exaggeration; but certainly I felt his personal attitude
toward that trust to be humorous and impersonal. He
was its dearest foe, but he was n't, at that time, thinking
3o8 Henry Demarest Lloyd
very much about it. I remember when I broke out into
indignant denunciation of its methods that he looked at me
kindly but a bit impatiently and answered to the effect,—
yes, yes, of course; but it wasn't worth while to waste
emotion over that sort of thing. Vast and profound
changes were going on in the social order; denunciation in
detail was a disagreeable duty which must be fulfilled and
disposed of at times; but the really interesting work was
the study of constructive forces and experiments. . . .
My respect for him and confidence in him were much
deepened when I realised that no campaign of attack and
overthrow could be more than a necessary incident in the
upward struggle, to this essentially large-souled and hopeful
idealist.
He had now evidently thought out the main lines of
his own work in this direction. The design of several
books began to form in his mind, on the New Con¬
science, on the New Money, on the New Education,
on the news of constructive programmes already in
operation in various comers of the world, and he
pressed eagerly forward.
END OF VOLUME I