*
-
- - - -
- º - - -
- - | -- -
Q ºvºv-
- º -
.
-- … º. º
º - - º
wº X__º - vº.
º
-
- -
-
The Individual
and the State
ADDRESS
Delivered before the Philadelphia Tariff Reform Association.
April 1, 1891,
BY
Thomas Earle White, Esq.







Labadie
-
ºffl
º
-
- - - -






-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
---
-
-
- -
-- -
-
-
- - --
-





-
|- |×|-
|-||
_ -
|-
|-
.|-



The Individual and the State.
Every growing tendency of thought, be it for bad or for
good, is entitled to careful investigation. If inimical to human
welfare its fallacies may then be exposed and its spread
checked; if, like many human institutions, the tendency
presents good mingled with chaft, judicious selection may then
be undertaken; and, if it be found that this tendency lead
toward general elevation of ideas and the practical blessings
of increased happiness and enlarged freedom for humanity,
we can then hasten to acclaim the dawn which those with
wilfully closed eyes can never see.
It is, I understand, to this desire of reaching the truth by
open and free discussion of economical problems that your
organization owes its existence; and it is because of the rela-
tion to economical problems, and to a wide-spread mis-
understanding of its views and aims that I am here to-night
to address you upon the subject of the Individualistic, or, to
use the technical term, the Anarchic Method of proposed social
reform.
But first of all I beg you to free your minds of the
common impression that Anarchism means disorder, incen-
diarism, long hair and bombs. There are undoubtedly people
whom others denominate Anarchists who indulge, on occa-
sion, in deeds of violence. If any of these, however, call
themselves Anarchists, they are to say the least singularly
inconsistent, since the fundamental principle of their theory,
as indicated by the name itself, is absence of government by
physical force. Strange as it may appear to you, who have
received your impression from the vague impressions of others,
the sole reliance of the true Anarchist is moral suasion.




L

To such an extent does he carry this that could he by a single
word make laws imposing his plan of social regeneration
upon society, that word would remain unspoken. To make
others conform to his views by enactment would be to submit
them to restraints of which he complains. The consistent
Anarchist will not go to the polls to vote, because the verdict
can only be maintained by force. “The ballot means a bullet,”
“Every ballot is a paper bayonet,” are usual expressions in
his mouth. A non-resistant, like the Quaker, he could cer-
tainly not be induced to enter upon schemes of aggression.
His sole faith is in the spread of convictions,—the propaganda
of the Idea.
Many will here say that if anarchic belief be such as I
have depicted it, it cannot be very dangerous to the com-
munity; but that it is hardly to be credited that a class
invariably represented as blood-thirsty can be so utterly
harmless. I do but draw my information from the writings
of the leading individualists and professed Anarchists. If
there be among the disciples of these, individuals who, con-
trary to their belief, indulge in violence and advocate the
confiscation of the property of others, they cannot be too
severely denounced; but in that case it must be remembered
that they properly belong to a very large class of their fellow-
citizens who, while professing to believe in the sanctity of the
law, defend and even applaud massacre, blood-shed, and a
reversal of legal tribunals by a New Orleans mob.
The fact is, that there are two words the very mention of
which carries sinister import to ordinary hearers. One is
Socialism, the other Anarchism. Both are popularly believed
to be kindred tendencies, the latter being but the former
in a more sanguinary shape. And yet I do not hesitate to
affirm that every individual in the community who has any
views at all upon legislation and economies, is tending towards
one or other of these forms of belief.
Anarchism is the absolute antithesis of Socialism. This
believes in the subordination of the State; to the individual;
that in the subordination of the individual to the State. He
who, like Jefferson, asserts that the least governed are the best
2

governed, or like Matthew Arnold extols the saving grace of
the minority, is anarchic in tendency; and if, like Herbert
Spencer, he preach against the Great Political Superstition and
the Sins of Legislators, or like Ibsen, believes the strongest
man upon earth is he who stands most alone, he is an Anar-
chist pure and simple. If like our temperance and sabbata-
rian friends, he believes the State should regulate the habits
of the individual, that the postal department of the Govern-
ment to preserve individual morality should exercise a censor-
ship of the press; if with our Postmaster General he believe
the telegraph should be conducted by the Government; if in
common with the so-called “protectionists,” he believe that
the State should interfere with paternal care to say what form-
of industry shall be fostered and how, instead of leaving this
to the natural development of trade; if he believe in central-
ization and in extension of governmental power, he is of
distinctly socialistic tendency. And if he read with admira-
tion (as numberless thousands in this country have done),
Edward Bellamy’s “Looking Backward,” and desire the
realization of that dream, he is a Socialist pure and simple.
The only question in the mind of all is, what are the proper
relations of the Individual and the State 2 And no matter
how great difference of opinion may exist in the various gra-
dations between the two antitheses, we may rest assured that
all arise from a sincere desire on the part of their adherents to
better the conditions of existence and to extend the possibilites
of human happiness.
Every one among us is thoroughly familiar with the Gov-
ernmental idea; few, however, are familiar with its opposite
the Individualistic idea. It is to this, therefore, that i have
determined to confine my remarks this evening.
Law, which is simply a rule of action, must always exist;
but there is a vast difference between a rule of action dictated
by nature and that invented by man. To him who is un-
familiar with the workings of evolution there may appear
a necessary divergence between the laws of nature and those
of society; yet, as a matter of scientific demonstration, the
º
same forces which have developed from lower animal forms
the relatively wonderful, but still undeveloped creature, man,
have developed from the necessities of man the social relations
and the laws which govern these relations. These laws—
these rules of action—are contained in the very essence of
things themselves, and need no enactments of legislative
bodies to give them force. Whosoever neglects the rules of
hygiene must pay the penalty of outraged nature; whosoever
runs counter to the unwritten code of society must suffer the
ostracism consequent upon the outraged sensibilities of its
members, and this without recourse to statutes, tribunals,
policemen or prisons. Legislative decrees and legal decisions,
if these aim at the welfare of mankind in general, can but
enforce what nature and custom have decreed; and add a
penalty to what already bears its own penalty in itself. If,
however, legislators were superhumanly wise, and could and
would enact only that which inherent law demands, and inflict
penalties where nature does the same, but little evil could flow
from their acts were it not for the law of progress, which
makes the benign influence of to-day a malign influence
to-morrow. For instance, the tribal feeling which led to the
early formation from isolated families of human society, at a
later date stood in the way of nationality or extended sym-
pathy; and patriotism, which caused the rise of great nations,
now stands in the way of a broader humanitarism, maintaining
the evils of racial hatred, bloodshed and war. But our legis-
lators are not superhumanly wise, and the world in its advance
outgrows its former views together with the laws consequent
upon them, so that what time is not spent by governing bodies
in passing laws for their successors to repeal, is spent in
repealing those of their predecessors.
The Individualist reasons that, having had centuries of
law-making, we can look at the results and deduce from these
our conclusions. He sees that a great portion of the commu-
nity, no matter how useful they may appear under present
conditions, are in no sense producers, but live on that which
is produced by others. Every material want of every man,
woman and child is supplied by the labor of wealth-producers.
-


Yet hundreds of thousands never produce a single article,
living to consume alone. And these, under our present
system, enjoy, too often, the lion's share of the results of
labor, while those who actually produce, labor in factories,
mills and mines—in the main, honest, sober and industrious—
toiling, with their noses to the grindstone, from seven in the
morning till six at night, day in and day out, year after year
—for ten, twenty-five, fifty years, perhaps—and are barely able
to secure from their own output sufficient to keep them and
their families from absolute want; and not enough to keep
their children out of the workshop and in the school house.
The principal classes which do not, as such, aid in material
production, beginning with the president himself, are cabinet
officers, senators, congressmen, politicians, bankers, brokers,
gamblers, speculators, sharpers, confidence men, judges,
lawyers, criminals, prison officials, policemen and customs
officers, soldiers, beggars, tramps and managers of almshouses.
All these may appear, at present, as necessary as they are
numerous, but it is manifest that we could dispense with all
were men just to one another, and that all of these, necessary
or unnecessary, are supported, and with a special munificence,
too, by the toiling masses upon whose shoulders they form a
heavy burden.
Our observer sees prisons teeming with criminals who,
after one incarceration, become hardened enemies of society,
spending the rest of their lives in jail, with the exception of
certain short periods when they are liberated long enough to
allow them to commit one more depradation upon society,
whereupon they are promptly returned to jail for a longer
period. He sees the gallows in every town and reads a full
explanation of the terrors of an execution in every newspaper;
and yet murder has not ceased. He sees that his fellow-
citizens, while thanking heaven that they are so much above
their brutal ancestors who used the rack and the peine
forte et dure, are unconcious of the fact that they are to-day
using in every penitentiary the most refined species of all
torture—solitary confinement.
He sees that the production of wealth through division of
5

labor and improvements in machinery has become vastly
greater; but so uneven and inequitable is our method of
distribution that, while the great fortunes have assumed
enormous proportions, there are, it is said, in the city of New
York ten thousand people who do not know where they will
rest their heads at night; a three days' snow storm in London
reduces one hundred thousand dock laborers to the verge of
starvation; statistics show that in this country nearly one and
a half millions of children are toiling while one and a half
millions of workmen are idle; strikes and shut-downs are
frequent, carrying with them all the consequent miseries and
mortality due to dearth; class feelings are engendered,
culminating in riots and blood-shed and in destruction of lives
which might have been productive, and in destruction of the
very products which all are striving to obtain.
I have merely touched lightly upon the manifestations of
present unequal conditions. To those whose attention has
been directed towards social reform, the few touches of exist-
ing misery to which I have alluded will suggest a picture of
human woe which to properly set forth would require volumes.
Never has the attention of the world been so fully directed to
this subject as at the present time. None will contradict the
existence of the evils at which I have hinted ; and, from the
legislator who conscientiously tries to make people wealthy,
virtuous and happy by law, downto the Anarchist who believes
that no law can be just and that people should be allowed to
work out their own salvation, all are actuated by the same
desire to remedy the evils that exist. As to the absolute
reality of these all are an unit.
But what are we going to do about it?
That is the question! And here is where the daily in-
creasing class of social reformers begin to diverge. Here the
Nationalist, the Single Taxer, the Farmers’ Alliance man,
the Socialist, the Prohibitionist, the Opportunist, the Com-
munist, the Revolutionist, and his direct antagonist, the
Anarchist, spring into being.
It is impossible, of course, to touch even lightly upon the
o

various theories of these different “isms.” In the series of
instructive addresses which are delivered before you weekly,
different, and in many respects, antagonistic views have and
will undoubtedly be advocated by those most familiar with
their force; but time will only allow me to indicate the
grounds of belief and the economic theories of those who
advocate the minimizing of governmental restraint with a view
to its gradual, but complete, elimination from human affairs.
In addition to the existing evil condition which he sees in
common with other social reformers, the advocate of govern-
mental limitation sees, or fancies he does, that beneath all misery
lietwomajorcauses—poverty and slavery; that all social progress
has had for its concomitants increasing wealth and increasing
liberty. He perceives that human society as it first envolved
from the association of primeval man was constituted of fierce
animal-like individuals, quick in passion, yielding to every
impulse and prone to violence. Thus was society in its incep-
tion threatened by violence from without and from within,
and this militant condition necessitated regulations of the army
type in which everyone is subordinate to some one above him
till the top be reached in the general, the chief, or the king.
Detailed regulations of private conduct sprang up, and the
penalty of disobedience was death. He perceives that as
society has progressed from the early primal type to its pres-
ent form, government has been characterized by diminishing
coerciveness and increasing production through extended
division of labor; in other words, increasing freedom and in-
creasing wealth. He sees among the English-speaking peo-
ple that from the Magna Charta wrung from King John by
feudal barons to the Bill of Rights at the accession of William
and Mary, and from the Bill of Rights to the enabling statutes
of recent reigns, every step which has advanced civilization
has been one of withdrawal of State interference with the
individual. The habeas corpus act, catholic emancipation,
disestablishment of the Irish Church, the doctrine of privi-
lege in libel, the abolition of the press-gang, the abrogation of
the laws preventing combinations among artisans and forbid-
ding them freedom to travel, the repeal of the Corn laws, the
7

disuse into which the Blue Laws of Connecticut have fallen,
the abolition of negro slavery in the United States, and the
recent repeal of the constitutional disabilities of Roman
Catholics in New Hampshire, are a few of the indicia of the
loppings off of the branches of governmental power which is
steadily going on, and which in the past two centuries has
transformed from a brutal people, whose politician, as a rule,
died upon the block; who burned, drew and quartered those
differing from them in religious belief; who imprisoned with-
out trial; delighted in torture, and punished one hundred and
sixty offences with death, into a community where all
have immunity from legal interference to express religious
and political views, and,-but for the postal censorship—
with an untrammeled press.
The unavoidable conclusion is that if such evils have
been swept away in the past the evils which now maintain will
follow them in turn. All will probably admit, that if we could
rid ourselves of poverty, gallows and prisons the end would
be indeed desirable. Few, however, can see how that is pos-
sible. Of this I shall speak further on, but at present I ask
such, if any there be here, to remember that when expression
of religious belief was punished with fire and expression of po-
litical faith with the axe, and when the press was gagged, it
was seriously believed by the majority that to allow free speech
to the minority would lead to the destruction of society; and
that before the abolition of the death penalty for one hundred
and fifty-nine out of one hundred and sixty offences, judges
and lawyers generally predicted, that if this reform advocated
by Sir Samuel Romilies were carried out, there would be no
living in England. The result showed that these learned pun-
dits knew but little concerning the effect of the laws they
spent their lives expounding, since the immediate result was a
diminution in crime.
If the lessening of governmental interference in the past
has led to uniformly beneficial results, it would seem to be a
natural induction that the process should be continued, and
that the numerous interferences with the liberty of the indi-
vidual which disgrace our statute-books should be swept from
8

the pages. But before jumping to a conclusion let us see
.#. been the result of restrictive or beneficiary laws
passed with the most sincere desire to benefit the people at
large.
I shall not dwell on ancient laws like those of the Four-
teenth century, which to prevent the evils of luxury regulated
the dress and the diet of the individual nor upon proposals
such as that issuing from the gentlemen who stood upon this
platform and addrcssed you one week ago to-night, that the
legislature prevent by law the benighted citizens of Pennsyl-
vania from injuring themselves with cigarettes; nor on the
edicts of Henry VIII to prevent the lower classes from playing
dice, cards, bowls, etc.; nor upon the laws which have ex-
isted in the United States against bowling alleys and billiard
playing as sinful; nor upon a Sunday law, still in force in
this State, which certain misled gentlemen with unconscious
socialistic tendency are try revivify and bring back from the
Limbo to which public opinion has relegated it. I take it for
granted that few broad-minded men, no matter what their own
opinions in regard to these affairs may be, would wish to make
others conform to their views by physical compulsion—which
is what legislative enactment means. I desire to call your
attention especially to the few instances which my limited
time will allow of the actual workings of laws passed with the
most philanthropic of purposes in regard to subjects which
are generally supposed to be especially proper for legislative
control; after which I shall direct attention to the conduct of
certain social relations which are entirely free from State con-
trol.
Mr. Herbert Spencer has carefully collated a vast number
of these in support of his propositions that “uninstructed
legislators have in past times continually increased human
suffering in their endeavors to mitigate it,” and that “for a
large percentage of the very horrors which our sanitary agita-
tors are trying to cure by law we have to thank previous
agitators of the same school.” Among these examples is that
of the governmental attempt in London to do away with what
they call “rookeries,” and we “tenements,” by building in
9

their places suitable dwellings for the poor. The result is
that, at a cost of over $6,000,ooo to the tax-payers, the metro-
politan board of works has pulled down masses of condemned
houses and has provided properly commodious ones for some
twelve thousand persons. This seems an admirable reform
till one learns that it necessitated the unhousing of nearly
twenty-three thousand and the rendering of eleven thousand
artizans artificially homeless, “to find corners for themselves
in miserable places that were already overflowing.” Again, as
an illustration of interference with trade, the Spittalfields
weavers, being greatly troubled with poverty, succeeded in
getting an act passed to fix a minimum limit of the wages
which an employer might pay his hands. Now, thought they,
“we shall be indeed fortunate, for the lowest sum we can be
paid will be sufficient to render us comfortable.” Fond delu-
sion! In two years thousands of looms were idle and Spittal-
field's industry was destroyed. The fact had escaped notice
that if the employer could not afford to pay the stipulated
minimum under the law he could give no employment at all,
and thus a legal edict, dictated by philanthropy, destroyed the
industry of a district. Another, and a curious case, is that of
the Bavarian attempt to prevent by law improvident marriages.
It was required that the parties should possess a certain amount
of capital or satisfy the authorities that they would be able to
provide for their children before they could marry. In Mu-
nich, the capital, the number of illegitimate births promptly
rose to nearly sixty per cent of the population!
It is unnecessary, however, to seek examples so far from
home. There are plenty at our own threshold. Under the
plea of benefitting American labor, a system has sprung up
which, after adopting an heraldic crest in the shape of an arm
holding aloft a hammer, has taken unto itself what Jeremy
Bentham felicitously calls an “impostor-term,” and has labelled
itself all over in the largest letters, “PROTECTION,”
although in the statute books it is properly called tariff, which
means a tax. Upon the supposition that people can be made
rich by statute, it has taken money from the pockets of the
mass, in whose ostensible favor it is maintained, by increasing
Lo

the price of commodities and limiting the amount of produc-
tion. It has, moreover, injured the country at large by de-
stroying her commerce which, as one of the integral portions
of widely extended division of labor, is perhaps the most im-
portant factor in the production of wealth; and which, by
bringing different nations into close relations, is, more than
any other agency, calculated to break down racial hatred, pre-
vent war and advance civilization.
Another example is to be found in our own State in
what is known as the Brooks High License Law. No one
will deny the evils flowing from intemperance. At the same
time it would be difficult to over-estimate the evils flowing
from this attempt to check intemperance by law. It is
unnecessary to dwell upon the absurdities of the bill as
framed, which, as Mr. Richard C. McMurtrie has pointed out,
practically requires the demolition of every Protestant church
in the Commonwealth where the rite of communion is admin-
istered; since all places in which vinous liquor is gratuitously
dispensed upon Sunday are declared to be public nuisances,
and a public nuisance can be met only by what lawyers call
abatement, or removal. No one has thought of carrying
out this law to the letter; but for our purpose it is sufficient
to regard the affair in the light in which the Courts try to
administer it. It is perfectly evident that the law was passed
with a sincere desire to eradicate the frightful evils resulting
from intemperate drinking, and the granting of licenses was
referred to the Judges of our Courts because of their high
character and integrity and the belief that in their hands
alone could the provisions of the law be honestly adminis-
tered. What has been the result? On one side the number
of licensed saloons has been reduced from about six thousand
to about twelve hundred and fifty; on the other hand the
trade of those who have obtained licenses has been
greatly increased and, moreover, some thousands of
unlicensed saloons, “speakeasies,” are said to have
sprung into existence. Drunkenness and the
consumption of ardent liquor have increased, producing a
diametrically opposite result from that for which the law was
11

intended. One of our criminal courts spends a large propor-
tion of its time in sending a procession of unlicensed liquor
dealers to prison, thus transforming numbers into criminals,
and in some cases causing their families, deprived of support
and disgraced, to seek shelter in the poor-house, thus swelling
the ranks of the ignorant, the pauper and the criminal classes.
Moreover, by placing upon the judges a duty which nothing
short of omnipotence could enable the most just of men to
execute satisfactorily, this law has led to a popular impression
that it has been administered with partiality, and the bench
itself and the administration of justice have undoubtedly
suffered therefrom in popular estimation. Taking advantage
of these effects it is generally asserted and generally believed
that under the pretense of “influence” certain venal politicians
have levied contributions upon the credulous dealers who
were anxious to become one of the great monopoly and privi-
leged liquor class which the Brooks Bill has created. I do
not hesitate to say, that in my opinion the high license law,
though well-meant, has been the most demoralizing measure
of my time and recollection.
If, turning from these examples of the inefficiency of
statute-made law, we take a passing glance at some of the
human affairs which were once regulated govermentally, but
are so no longer we shall be able to get a glimpse of the reason
for the belief held by the limitationist, and for the method of
regulating social conduct which he hopes to see extend further
until all rights are protected by public opinion, and by the
self-control of the individual, instead of by the control of man
over man through physical force.
In the matter of religious observance we all act now as we
please. There is no statute that prescribes belief, a method
of worship, or a form of ceremonial, though all these have in
their time been State-regulated, and millions have suffered
torture and death for non-conformity. And yet, has liberty
of religious action produced the results which a Torquemada
would have undoubtedly phophesied? When one predicts a
spread of crime through an extension of liberty, let him
12

recollect that he is using the very argument which made
possible the Inquisition, and the infliction of the death penalty
upon a woman who stole to preserve her children from starva-
tion.
Dress and diet were once regulated by law. To-day the
dictates of fashion seem to have as strong a hold as ever, but
no one thinks of regulating them by statutes, of calling in a
policeman to convince you with a club that you ought to
wear a dress suit or a frock coat, wide trousers or narrow,
décolleté robes with long trains, or short skirts and high
necks. It has been discovered that in this matter, as in many
others, the people may be safely left to their own common
sense.
Society, in the sense of an individual's personal associa-
tion, and all social gatherings are regulated in precisely the
same manner. Calls are made, ceremonies are performed,
balls and entertainments are given, and practically all the
affairs of life outside of business are conducted under a code
of etiquette that never requires physical compulsion for its en-
forcement. If you do not care to conform, you can withdraw.
Charles Darwin, in his great work, “The Descent of Man,”
has a chapter upon the development of the moral sense. In
it he exclaims: “How often has one, after years have elapsed,
felt a sense of burningshame at the recollection of sometrifling
breach of etiquette!” And he clearly demonstrates that it is
from the feeling of sympathy and the desire for association
with one’s fellow men, and from the regard for the opinion of
others springing out of these, that what we call moral sense,
or conscience, arises. It is the development of this sense that
has elevated man above other animals and has evolved society.
It follows logically that in the further development of this
sympathy, and not in coercion, prisons and gallows, lies the
onward path of the world's progress. When the people,
under the guise of law and outraged virtue, inflict the gross
and brutal punishments which still disgrace our time, they are
unconsciously giving vent to the lower animal instincts which
make beasts and savages injure in like kind those who injure
them. Oscar Wilde, under the title “The Soul of Man under
13

Socialism,” in a recent fortnightly review, writes thus: “As
one reads history, not in the expurgated editions written for
school boys and pass-men, but in the original authorities of
each time, one is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes the
wicked have committed, but by the punishments that the good
have inflicted. A community is infinitely more brutalized by
the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the
occasional occurrence of crime.”
But besides the present religious and social freedom of
which I have spoken, there is a tendency which is beginning
to manifest itself among business men to abandon legal com-
pulsion in the collection of debts and enforcement of contracts.
This is significant when one recollects that it is only about fifty
years since we flung an unfortunate debtor into prison, where
he was compelled to remain, unable to pay or make the money
with which to pay, while his family might be perishing of
want without. From that to the method recently adopted by
the New York Grocers' Association is a long step. Itsud-
denly dawned upon them that the long delays, loss of time,
heavy costs and worthless judgments were poor compensa-
tion, and that there must be some less cumbrous method of
enforcing business honesty. Whereupon they adopted the
simple expedient of notifying each other in the trade of the
names of those who did not pay their bills, and abandoned bring-
ing suit. As a natural resulta dealer does not care to give credit
to one who does not pay others, and the out-of-town buyers are
now much more afraid of the Grocers' Association than they
ever were of the courts of law. No man can carry on business
if people will not sell to him, and as soon as men who do not
pay or live up to their contracts are left to themselves, and not
dealt with by others, commercial dishonesty will rapidly dis-
appear. The tailors and the milliners have begun to adopt in
various parts of the country the same system as the Grocers'
Association, and success will doubtless lead to its gradual
adoption by other trades and to the development of a higher
commercial integrity.
The only debts which are known as “debts of honor” are
those which the courts refuse to recognize.
14

But the most pregnant circumstance of all to my mind
is the fact that among lawyers, the class that lives off appeals
to law by others, a somewhat similar system exists in their
dealings with one another. Much depends upon their
mutual agreements; and the advantages which one lawyer
could take over another by a slight breach of faith, or by the
4.3.gººg of a promise, are very great. A rule of Court-dº-
lºss that no agreements between counsel shall be regarded
unless reduced to writing; yet it would be considered an
insult to ask a fellow-member of the bar to put that which he
has promised into writing. The result is that, though placed
beyond legal redress by an enactment of the Court, no people
have so little reason to complain of over-reaching or breach
of confidence as lawyers among themselves; because, owing
to apparent lack of protection, a sentiment has grown up
against breaking faith, which is the strongest protection the
legal community could possess. This, some believe, would
be the strongest possible protection for the community at
large did they depend upon it too.
I have now indicated how that great factor of social pro-
gress, extended freedom, may gradually be brought about by
removing restraints upon liberty of action; and have sug-
gested how people may be able to live in society without that
governmental interference which most people conceive to be
absolutely necessary in its present form; but which all admit
would be worse than useless in the coerciveness that charac-
terized it in former ages. I also trust that I have made it
equally clear that the contention is not in favor of lawlessness
and confiscation of property, but for a more elevated method
which will lead to voluntary virtue and voluntary regard for
the rights of others. I have dwelt especially upon this,
because I know that to most people it seems as utterly
impossible to exist without coercive law as it does to exist
without air; and that whenever they perceive an evil they
clamor for a new law in order to remedy it.
This attempt to make people either wealthy, virtuous, or
happy by law, is what may be called the empirical or unscien-
15

tific method of social reform. To clap a man into prison for
crime, is like trying to suppress a boil on the body, or like
attempting to stop the eruption of small-pox by plunging the
patient into ice-water. People do not become criminals easily.
Every day men in want kill themselves rather than steal;
every day women in want kill themselves rather than embrace
a life of shameful ease. Every one desires the good will and
approbation of those around him. Crime is an effect, not a
cause. Remove the cause, crime will disappear. Put a man
in jail, make him associate with criminals, and prevent him
from being anything but a criminal, and a criminal he will
remain till the end of his life; and his children will be
brought up in ignorance, and will swell the ranks of criminals
before they reach maturity.
The scientific sociologist sees that habitual drunkenness
is the result of wretchedness, or an inherited effect of former
wretchedness. Men drink deeply who drink to forget. He
sees that crime and ignorance go hand in hand, that both are
the result of want. Want and wretchedness result from pov-
erty. Thus he finds that practically the cause of all the evils
of the world are slavery and poverty. But poverty makes
slavery possible. The woman who sits in her garret stitching
shirts from dawn till far into the night, in order to keep a
miserable life in a miserable body, is infinitely more a slave
than the negro before the war; and her slavery is made pos-
sible by her poverty alone.
Here the scientific searcher for truth being convinced
that slavery and poverty are the root of all evil, and that with-
out the latter the former could not exist, begins to probe
down deep into the nature of things to see whether poverty is
inherent to existence itself, or is the result of human institu-
tions. On reflection, he perceives that wild animals, without
trades, arts, manufactures, or any method of division of labor,
are able to live and find where to lay their heads, and to main-
tain themselves in the comfort they desire. He sees that
masses of men, with the most wonderful of all instruments,
the human hand, with their boasted inventions in machinery,
their division of labor, the control of all the products of the
16

surface of the earth, and all the treasures buried in her bosom
are unable to secure even ordinary comforts. Further
reflection convinces him that much poverty results from
thriftlessness, drunkenness and depravity; but he soon per-
ceives that these are only sequilae of poverty in former gener-
ations;–much as many diseases called by certain names in
this generation, are known to be the subsequents of a disease
of a decidedly different name in generations preceding this.
What, then, is the cause of this terrible thing called pov-
erty, which brings in its train ignorance, thriftlessness, drunk-
enness, depravity, crime, slavery P And how is it that, with
the great productiveness of the world, we have vast slums with
thousands of beings infinitely worse and more degraded than
the savage, who roaming the forests contented with the free
life and the pursuit of game, are much like the wild animal
itself?
To those, who have looked into the matter, it seems
amazing that anyone can ask the question; so patent is the
answer. It is not because the civilized world does not prodnce
enough to make all sufficiently wealthy and contented; but
because, under our customs and laws, the distribution of the
products of the world is as unequal as the production is enor-
mous.
To explain how this inequality in distribution is brought
about would require an essay upon political economy far too
extended for my time and for your power of endurance in one
evening. To those who are interested in this subject I would
recommend the works of Proudhon, Karl Marx, Henry George
and the admirably simple and forceful address of Hugh O.
Pentecost, delivered before the Brooklyn Ethical Culture
Association. It will suffice to hastily point out that the
injustice of division is to be found in the legitimating and
recognizing by law and custom of rent, interest and profit.
In a state of true social relations, no man would wish to
take from another that for which he did not return a full equiv-
alent; in other words, both would desire in exchange to give
equal amounts of the results of their own labor. But rent
enables men to take from others an amount of production
17

without giving their own in return. Land is a natural oppor-
tunity; and like air and water, being a necessity for existence,
should be, as it once was, enjoyed by all in common. Yet by
reason of the legal recognition of paper titles vacant land is
held out of use. He who has no paper title is compelled to
have, at least, a small corner of land on which to live and
sleep; and for this he must yield a large proportion of his
production to the man who holds the sacred bit of paper.
Interest is rent for the use of money. Money was in-
vented to serve as a medium of exchange, so that men might
be enabled to exchange equal values of production. But
money, as at present constituted, has actual value instead of
being issued to represent value produced, and is, therefore, in
a comparative sense, very limited in its amount. Nothing can
be more calculated to ruin business integrity than any form of
inflation, which is false pretense; but from the necessity of
trade, business men have evolved the promissory note, the bill
of exchange and the warehouse receipt, every one of which,
being negotiable, is a form of money founded upon the wealth
of the maker or the possessor, and none of which possess any
inherent value in themselves. The limited quantity of gov-
ernment money enables it to be cornered, which in turn enables
those who are holding money out of use to extort from others
who need this medium of exchange to use in business or what
not, a certain amount of their production. If men who hold
money were in the habit of lending money to those who had
no security to offer, interest would not seem so unreasonable;
but as security is required in all but purely friendly transac-
tions, which may be left out of the question, it becomes
immediately apparent that while the borrower has the actual
value of the money, he is obliged by reason of the non-
exchangability of his wealth, to pay interest, or a portion of
the production of his labor, to one who happens to hold his
wealth in another form.
With regard to profit, it will be readily seen that whoever
makes what we call “profit” in a bargain, gains a certain
amount of the produce of another's labor above what he gives.
18

An exchange may be a gain to both ; but what we recognize
as profit means an advantage to one or to the other.
Other factors in unequal distribution are all forms of
taxation; especially that known as “protection." How
inequalities are brought about through taxes may be seen in
the fact that, while the great landlord appears to pay enormous
taxes for his lands, he promptly adds these to his rents, and the
actual occupant ultimately pays the tax included in his rent.
The smallest beer saloon and Green's hotel pay exactly the
same tax or license fee. A thousand instances of like kind
could be given. The tax of the Court of Justice is as much
for the meanest suitor as for the millionaire; and is practically
prohibitive for many a slender purse.
This is only a vague and hasty sketch of the genesis of
poverty and its results. That it arises from unequal distribu-
tion is manifest. That unequal distribution arises through
rent, interest, profit, and taxes seems to be equally apparent.
Whether this inequality can ever be entirely eliminated or
not, is another question; much like that of the possibility of
entirely abolishing coercive government. It is, of course, “a
consummation devoutly to be wished.”
One thing is certain, and that is men can never be
thoroughly free and thoroughly happy unless those who
surround them are equally free and happy. It is for this
reason that there is a daily increase in the ranks of those
individuals who find their happiness in obtaining for their
fellow-men the advantages which they possess. It is because
absence of coercive government can only be brought to pass
through the desire of the individual to make all others as free
and as happy as he himself desires to be, that no danger to
society is involved in the advocacy of such views as these.
If I desire freedom for others as well as for myself, the
thought of my being free to work any injustice or to per-
petrate any act of violence upon another, is immediately
precluded. All true apostles of freedom have been those who
demanded freedom for others, frequently, unfortunately, at the
loss of their own. When all men desire, as many already do
19

desire, freedom of action and of thought for their fellow-men,
and complete protection of him in all his rights, the necessity
for-I do not say government, since self-control is govern-
ment-but the necessity for government by physical com-
pulsion will have ceased.
A theory of perfect government, or rather no government
at all, must be predicated upon the perfection of the individ-
uals who constitute the community; and this, if ever it exists,
is probably many ages hence. Our progress, however, has
been so enormous since the first appearance on earth of man,
as man,—not to mention his development from the original
protoplasmic germ, that nothing too extravagant can be im-
agined for the future that lies before him. We can all, by
careful thought upon the subjects involving his welfare, and
by the free expression of whatever ideas we derive therefrom,
help along the continued ascent to higher and higher planes;
though most around us, as each plane be reached, will assert
that this is the highest plane on earth.
“Ah, but what you look forward to will be the mil-
lenium !” they exclaim. The millenium is only a cant phrase
for the highest point visible to a narrow vision. “ Human
nature must change, before these things can be,” they cry.
Of course it must. Human nature is changing every day.
If human nature did not change conditions would remain un-
altered. The world would stand still. Progress consists in
steadily changing conditions. It was a change in human
nature that substituted the industrial for the militant type of
society. It is a change in human nature which is daily sup-
planting the régime of status with the régime of contract,
giving us, by slow degrees, in place of universal slavery, uni-
versal freedom. The direction of that progression is, I believe,
along the lines which I have suggested this evening; and before
closing my address I desire to read to you a paragraph from
Examples of Universal Progress by one of the greatest of
modern thinkers, Herbert Spencer:
“Consequent,” he says, “as all kinds of government are
“upon the unfitness of the aboriginal man for social life; and
"diminishing in coerciveness as they all do in proportion as
2-)

“this unfitness diminishes; they must one and all come to an
“end as humanity acquires complete adaptation to its new
“condition. That discipline of circumstances which has
“already wrought out such great changes in us, must go on
“eventually to work out yet greater ones, that daily curbing
“of the lower nature and culture of the higher, which out of
“cannibals and devil-worshippers has evolved philanthropists,
“lovers of peace and haters of superstition cannot fail to
“evolve out of these, men as much superior to them as they
“are to their progenitors. The causes that have produced
“past modifications are still in action; must continue in action
“as long as there exists any incongruity between man's desires
“and the requirements of the social state; and must even-
“tually make him organically fit for the social state. As it is
“now needless to forbid man-eating and Fetishism, so will it
“ultimately become needless to forbid murder, theft, and the
“minor offenses of our criminal code. When human nature
“has grown into conformity with the moral law, there will
“ need no judges and statute-books; when it spontaneously
“takes the right course in all things, as in some things it does
“already, prospects of future reward or punishment will not
“ be wanted as incentives; and when fit behaviour has become
“ instinctive, there will need no code of ceremonies to say
“how behaviour shall be regulated.”
21