JfX s* 
 
 <? w ' i r: 
 
ffii^cteli 
 
jU 
 
 no,. 
 
 i : 
 
 
 
</ 7 
 
 ^ 
 
 / 
 
Trade Organizations 
 
 IN POLITICS 
 
 Progress and Robbery 
 
 AN ANSWER TO HENRY GEORGE. 
 
 J. BLEECKER MILLER. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 THE BAKER & TAYLOR CO. 
 
 1887. 
 

 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1887, by 
 
 J. Bleeckbr Miller, 
 
 in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 
 
 The McWii.liams Printing Company, 
 81 and 83 Elm Street, New York. 
 
TO 
 
 M. DUANE JONES, 
 
 THIS BOOK IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED. 
 
 M130139 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Trade Organizations in Public Affairs, - i 
 Federalism and the Social Contract Theory, 6i 
 
 Universal Suffrage in Cities, - - - 118 
 
 Argument on the Aldermanic Bill, - - 135 
 Progress and Robbery: 
 
 I. A Property Owner's Answer, - - - 153 
 
 II. A Business Man's Answer, - 175 
 
 III. A Workingman's Answer, - 185 
 
 Progress and Justice, - 201 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Considering the attention now given to the participa- 
 tion of trade organizations in public affairs, it occurred to 
 me that the following papers, containing some thoughts 
 on this subject, might be of general interest. The first 
 essay, on " Trade Organizations in Public Affairs," was 
 read before the Academy of Political Science in 1884, and 
 treats of the subject from a historical point of view. 
 The second, on " Federalism and the Social Contract 
 Theory,'' was read before the German Gesellig-Wissen- 
 schaftlicher Verein, of this city, in 1883, and is a review of 
 the opposing theories. The third paper, on " Universal 
 Suffrage in Cities," is an argument in favor of the applica- 
 tion of the theory advocated in the first essay to the 
 election of our legislators, and was read before the Young 
 Men's Democratic Club m 1885. The fourth is a speech 
 in favor of the application of the same principle to the 
 election of Aldermen, and was delivered at a hearing on 
 the Aldermanic bill before Governor Hill in the same 
 year. Of the next three papers, which were in- 
 tended to counteract the false start of the trade 
 organizations made last Fall, two are speeches de- 
 livered during that campaign against the heresies of 
 Henry George, and the other was written since then on 
 the same subject. The last article, entitled " Progress 
 and Justice," is an attempt to show that the recent com- 
 munistic campaign does not affect the correctness of the 
 
VIII 
 
 theories advocated by me in 1883, an d that only by per- 
 sistently following out those ideas on which our federal 
 government was formed can a satisfactory solution of the 
 great problems of the day be attained. 1 wish here to 
 acknowledge my indebtedness to the writings of Stahl, 
 Mario, Von Mohl and the Professorial Socialists, Bren- 
 tano, Schmoller, Gierke and others, although their books 
 are written with but little reference to American affairs; 
 and among American writers, I have obtained valuable 
 suggestions from Walker, Gladden, Cherouny and Pro- 
 fessor Adams of Cornell University. 
 
 The papers, with the exception of the second essay, 
 have been left in their original form. They consequently 
 contain some repetition, but this also makes each one to 
 a certain extent complete in itself, which may not be 
 disagreeable to readers in this busy city of New York. 
 They are all attempts to develop the same idea, namely, 
 that a city should be a political unit in its relations to the 
 State, and that its inhabitants should be allowed to 
 express their political convictions, unhampered by a 
 division into geographical election districts, by which 
 means the trade, business and professional organizations 
 will gradually and peaceably come to take their due part 
 in our public affairs, thereby striking at the root of our 
 main political and economical evils. In my opinion, this 
 change in our government is the one most needed, and 
 must precede all successful attempts to permanently 
 improve our civil service, our methods of transporta- 
 tion, our liquor license laws, our tenement house system, 
 and all the most urgently demanded reforms of the day. 
 
Trade Organizations in Public Affairs. 
 
 i. 
 
 SELF-GOVERNMENT AND REPRESENTATION OF GROUPS OF 
 MEN WITH COMMON MATERIAL INTERESTS. 
 
 MEN, having certain wishes in common, naturally 
 unite in groups in order to carry out those wishes, 
 because they can by their united energy supply many of 
 their wants more easily than by their individual efforts. 
 
 The strongest want among all men is for the means 
 required for their physical existence ; after these have 
 been supplied, so far as absolutely necessary, and their 
 protection from the attacks of others secured, they desire 
 to satisfy other wishes, such as that to exercise their sym- 
 pathy, to worship the deity, to develop their fancy, to 
 increase their knowledge, etc. 
 
 With the object of better carrying out these various 
 wishes, we see that men have united from the earliest 
 times, in various groups, beginning with associations of 
 hunters to capture large quantities of game, or to drive 
 others from their hunting grounds; then uniting to exer- 
 cise their sympathy by punishing some individual, for 
 wronging another, who is too weak to retaliate ; then 
 meeting together to propitiate the deity and supporting 
 a common intercessor or priest. 
 
 But with the beginning of agricultural life, the wants 
 of man's physical body to be supplied by common efforts 
 
increase greatly ; wells must be dug, land must be cleared 
 and drained, heavy weights lifted. The necessity for a 
 ready defence against outsiders and against evil-disposed 
 neighbors increases; consequently, the union becomes 
 closer and common action more frequent. To provide 
 for these most important matters, some organization must 
 be provided, with means at its disposal to meet sudden 
 emergencies, and to provide so far as possible for future 
 wants ; these means must be contributed by the men wha 
 have possessions, and they naturally select the persons 
 who shall have charge of these common matters, although 
 frequent meetings are customary on important questions. 
 Thus begins self-government. Thereby, gradually, the 
 sympathy of members for each other increases, and help 
 for the unfortunate and revenge for the injured becomes 
 a more general practice. With a more regular mode of 
 life, and less uncertainty for the future, grows the habit 
 of looking ahead, and the benefits of superior knowledge 
 and thought become more apparent; hence religion and 
 common education receive more attention. Then neigh- 
 boring groups of agriculturists find that they have wants 
 in common ; roads must be built, streams bridged, mar- 
 kets held for the mutually beneficial exchange of their 
 commodities, and meetings to consider and provide for 
 these common interests must be had through representa- 
 tives, since all cannot conveniently attend. 
 
 The modern materialistic school would have us believe 
 that it is only these physical necessities and dangers 
 which are the mainsprings of human action ; but men 
 have also other wants. 
 
 Thus it becomes possible for groups of men with the 
 same material interests, living some distance apart, to act 
 in common for their furtherance and protection. The 
 duties and rights of these representatives of common 
 material interests of different neighborhoods increase 
 
with the number of common wants, caused by the pro- 
 gress of civilization, and with the danger from attacks by 
 common foes. To provide for these, means must be fur- 
 nished by well-to-do persons, in both communities, and 
 permanent officials appointed to take charge of them. 
 Thus representative government begins. 
 
 In time, sympathy spreads and increases, until misfor- 
 tune or wrong suffered by men in neighboring villages 
 leads to united action. Subsequently, by intercourse, 
 especially with outsiders, the wits of the people are 
 sharpened, and the advantages to be acquired by higher 
 education and better religious services become apparent, 
 and larger unions are formed for raising the necessary 
 means to support their teachers and pastors, who are 
 often induced to come from foreign lands. 
 
 The supervision of these other common wants is gen- 
 erally left to the same persons who were appointed pri- 
 marily only to further the common material interests, 
 since by the similar occupation, in the same geographical 
 division, a similar mode of life and a similarity ot ideas 
 on most important subjects is formed, although, in excep- 
 tional cases, special unions are formed to gratify some 
 other peculiarly strong desire, which intersects the 
 various unions for material interests. 
 
 If men have, in common, desires arising from their com- 
 mon method of gaining a livelihood, their sense of self- 
 preservation will not let them rest, until they have united 
 to secure their fulfilment and preservation, and thus ever 
 larger circles, or groups of groups, may be formed, each 
 intended, however, to embrace a smaller number of vital 
 interests. 
 
 Thus, one person generally belonged to two or more 
 groups of individuals, each with certain common interests, 
 whose sphere of action decreased as the number of its 
 component members or groups increased. The progress 
 
and prosperity of mankind has consisted in the increase of 
 the number of these groups, at the same rate that common 
 interests increased, and in entrusting each with the duty 
 of furthering the interests common to that group, and no 
 others. 
 
 How urgent and numerous the interests of each group 
 may be, and how numerous and powerful consequently 
 must be the officials who watch over these interests, 
 depends upon circumstances. A modern state is, or ought 
 to be, such a group of groups of men, whose common 
 material interests are so strong that they are willing to 
 defend those interests in common, and whose sympathy is 
 so strong that they are willing to submit their mutual 
 differences to peaceful decision — arbitration. 
 
 But men are only too apt to depart from this ideal Ger- 
 manic form of self and representative government, misled, 
 especially, by theories derived from other, older, races ; 
 one group invades the province of another, and undertakes 
 to fulfill its duties, or destroy its existence ; men are slow 
 to recognize the growth of new circles with common 
 material interests, caused by a change in the manner of 
 earning a livelihood, and cling to old associations or try 
 to adopt their forms to satisfy new and different wants ; 
 men fail to see that by the improvement of the means of 
 communication, etc., the existence of new and larger 
 circles becomes possible, and continue instead to plod 
 along in the individualistic struggle and thus lose the 
 saving of energy which united action would cause. Or 
 men, misled again by the examples of others, form unions 
 containing a larger number of individuals, than actually 
 have interests or sympathies, in common, or undertake to 
 perform, in common, work which really belongs to smaller 
 associations. 
 
 Among the principal wants which such a state, or a 
 circle of men with common material interests, united with 
 
5 
 
 other circles lor the furtherance of interests common to 
 all, seek to satisfy are the following : They seek to have 
 the share which each group must contribute to the com- 
 mon fund as small as possible, and collected in a manner 
 as little burdensome as possible, i. e., they have an interest 
 in tax legislation. They strive to protect themselves from 
 the unfair acts of some other group of the same state with 
 whom they come most frequently in contact, and by which 
 they suffer more than the members of any other group, 
 i. e., they have an interest in internal legislation and litiga- 
 tion. They endeavor to protect themselves against the 
 unfair acts of men belonging to some other state, by which 
 they suffer more than the other groups of their state ; {. e., 
 they have an interest in the relations of the state with 
 foreign governments. These wants, common wants of 
 various circles, require that they should be represented in 
 the government of the State. 
 
 The men belonging to the same circle have also an in- 
 terest in satisfying all their common wants by united 
 efforts ; in stopping dishonest work, whereby the produce 
 of all is brought into disrepute; in exercising the greater 
 sympathy, which they in time get to feel for members of 
 the same group, by revenging their injuries and allaying 
 their sufferings. These wants require that each group 
 should retain a certain amount of self-government. 
 
 Whenever men cannot satisfy their wants they are dis- 
 satisfied, and whenever groups of men have such unsatis- 
 fied wishes, the whole group is affected by this dissatis- 
 faction. One group of men often asserts and enforces its 
 wishes over other groups, and undertakes or pretends to 
 undertake, to interpret and fulfill the wishes of the mem- 
 bers of these groups ; but men, with the best intentions, 
 cannot understand other people's wishes so well as they 
 do themselves, nor fulfill them as exactly. If this attempt 
 is persevered in too long and too recklessly, the groups 
 
whose wishes are disregarded will at last undertake to 
 assert them, without recourse to regular means provided 
 by government ; men begin to object to supporting the 
 old means provided by law for the alleged realizing of 
 these wants ; complaints of their expense and their insuf- 
 ficiency become frequent, and if these do not receive 
 attention, and the wishes of the new groups are not sup- 
 plied, revolution follows. 
 
 The wishes which groups of men gaining a livelihood 
 by the same means have in common, exceed in intensity 
 and number those which the people as a whole have in 
 common, i. e., the so-called natural or original rights of 
 life, limb, etc. When one group has usurped an undue 
 amount of authority over another group, the appeal to 
 these original rights is made, in order to get rid of these 
 oppressions by the oppressed group, but so soon as these 
 wrongs are remedied and the group is allowed to regulate 
 its own affairs, it begins anew the construction of regula- 
 tions for itself contrary to or supplementary of the system 
 of so-called original rights, under whose banner they have 
 just been fighting. 
 
 No populous nation with different material interests is 
 ever content to live together, under legislation concerning 
 only the few general interests common to all ; man's self- 
 interest is too strong. 
 
II. 
 
 THE GERMANIC TOWN: AN ASSOCIATION OF FARMERS 
 WITH COMMON INTERESTS. 
 
 WE are all familiar with the Germanic group of men, 
 seeking a livelihood by agriculture in a given neigh- 
 borhood, under the same conditions of soil and climate, 
 and united with other similar communities, in more or less 
 intimate unions, according to the extent of their common 
 interests, and yielding to the common will of the unions 
 in all matters affecting those common interests, and exer- 
 cising themselves all other power over themselves ; we 
 call this the township system, with its principle of self- 
 government and representation. 
 
 As to the admirable working of this system, all are 
 agreed : The common interests are understood and ably 
 defended in the body of representatives, against those of 
 other towns or groups of towns ; justice is administered 
 by neighbors in a fair, considerate manner ; the poor are 
 provided for, although a proper pride urges them not to 
 become a burden on their neighbors ; the bad cultivation 
 of the ground is condemned by public opinion and some- 
 times by local ordinances. 
 
 Nowhere has the natural formation of Germanic agri- 
 cultural communities been more favored by circumstances 
 than in New England ; in fact, it seems as though at that 
 time no model existed for them in Europe. In England, 
 the Anglo-Saxon "tuns" had become manors, as is shown 
 in Seebohm's recent work on the " English Village Com- 
 munity ;" if anywhere, it must have been in the old Frisian 
 
" mark," in the north of Holland, that the Puritans found 
 the prototypes for their communities. 
 
 No better description of a model Germanic association, 
 enjoying the full right of self-government and representa- 
 tion has been given than that of the New England town- 
 ship, by De Tocqueville in his " Democracy in America: " 
 " Its average population is from two to three thousand ; 
 so that, on the one hand, the interests of the inhabitants 
 are not likely to conflict, and, on the other, men capable 
 of conducting its affairs are always to be found among its 
 citizens " (page 63). 
 
 " The New Englander is attached to his township 
 . . because it constitutes a strong and free social 
 body of which he is a member, and whose government 
 claims and deserves the exercise of his sagacity " (page 
 68). " The township and the county are therefore bound 
 to take care of their special interests " (page 83). 
 
 I will only further cite the description in Palfrey's 
 "History of New England," Vol. II., p. 12: "To the 
 utmost extent consistent with the common action and the 
 common welfare of the aggregate of towns that make the 
 State, the towns severally are empowered to take care of 
 those interests of theirs which they respectively can best 
 understand, and can most efficiently and most economi- 
 cally provide lor ; and these are identical with the inter- 
 ests which most directly concern the public security, com- 
 fort and morals." 
 
 That these beauties of the township government are 
 still acknowledged is shown by Governor Seymour's 
 article, on the " Government of the United States," in the 
 " North American Review," of 1878, p. 367 : " Upon such 
 questions, so far as they particularly concern them, the 
 people of the towns are more intelligent and more inter- 
 ested than those outside of their limits can be. The 
 theory of self-government is not founded upon the idea 
 
that the people are necessarily virtuous and intelligent,, 
 but it attempts to distribute each particular power to 
 those who have the greatest interest in its wise and 
 faithful exercise." 
 
 But these New England towns were not mere aggre- 
 gates of a certain number of individuals — as was proper 
 in an agricultural community ; the town meetings were 
 attended only by freeholders or by men with some inter- 
 est in land, within the township. Thus Palfrey in his 
 second volume, page 14, says : " The land, when its bounds 
 had been set out by a Committee of the Court, was held 
 at first by the company as proprietors in common. To 
 transact the joint business .... the organization of 
 a local authority was immediately needed." 
 
 This was thoroughly in accord with the system of the 
 old Germanic "mark,'' in which rights and duties might 
 be said to be attached to the lots of land, and exercised 
 only by the owners of the land. (Gierke, Vol. II., p. 92). 
 The mark and town were both associations of agricult- 
 urists, united to further their common interests. 
 
 III. 
 
 SELF-GOVERNMENT AND REPRESENTATION OF FARMERS, 
 
 WITH COMMON INTERESTS SECURED BY 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 THIS necessity for representation and self-government 
 for groups of men with similar material interests was 
 thoroughly understood and appreciated by the Fathers 
 who formed our Constitution. The Revolution had heen 
 brought about by one group of men attempting to deny 
 the right of the expression of their wishes by other 
 groups of men, engaged in seeking a livelihood by com- 
 mon means, as to the manner and extent of their contribu- 
 
io 
 
 tions toward the expenses of attaining certain ends, which 
 the latter had greatly desired. " Taxation without repre- 
 sentation is tyranny," was the cry, and when that danger 
 to their common material interests had united and roused 
 the men of America to arms, and nerved them through a 
 seven years' war, the Fathers took good care that this 
 principle should be recognized in our government. 
 
 The speeches on the adoption of the Constitution in the 
 different States are full of declarations that men united 
 according to their means of gaining a livelihood, i. e., 
 according to their interests, should be represented in 
 government, and that this new government should be 
 restricted to those common interests ; these principles 
 were nowhere denied ; this is shown by the following 
 three citations, whose number might be greatly increased: 
 
 In the New York Convention, on June 23, 1778, Chan- 
 cellor Livingston said : " As to the idea of representing 
 the feelings of the people, 1 do not entirely understand it, 
 unless by their feelings are meant their interests. They 
 appear to me to be the same thing. But, if they have 
 feelings which do not rise out of their interests, I think 
 they ought not to be represented." (Elliot, II., p. 275.) 
 
 In the Virginia Convention, Mr. Corbin said : " What 
 is the criterion of representation? Do the people wish 
 land only to be represented ? They have their wish ; for 
 the qualifications which the laws of the States require 
 to entitle a man to vote for a State representative, are the 
 qualifications required by this plan to vote for a repre- 
 sentative to Congress; and in this State, and in most of 
 the others, the possession of a freehold is necessary to 
 entitle a man to the privilege of a vote. (Elliot, III., p. 
 no.) 
 
 Mr. Nicholas spoke to the same effect : M We find there 
 is a decided majority [ot electors] attached to the landed 
 interest; consequently, the landed interest must prevail 
 
II 
 
 in the choice. Should the State be divided into districts, 
 in no one can the mercantile interest by any means have 
 an equal weight in the elections ; therefore, the former 
 will be more fully represented in Congress.'' (Elliot, III., 
 p. 9.) 
 
 The Federalist also fully recognizes the necessity of 
 representing the various interests of the citizens, as is 
 shown, for example, by the two following extracts : 
 
 Letter No. 55 : " Taking each State by itself its laws are 
 the same, and its interests but little diversified. A few 
 men, therefore, will possess all the knowledge requisite 
 for a proper representation of them. Were the interests 
 and affairs of each individual State perfectly simple and 
 uniform, a knowledge of them in one part would involve 
 a knowledge of them in every other, and the whole State 
 might be completely represented by a single member 
 taken from any part of it. . . . At present, some of 
 the States are little more than a society of husbandmen. 
 Few of them have made much progress in those branches 
 of industry which give a variety and complexity to the 
 affairs of a nation. ... A representative for every 
 30,000 inhabitants will render the latter both a safe and a 
 competent guardian of the interests which will be con- 
 fided to it." 
 
 Letter No. 58 : "A landed interest, a manufacturing 
 interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with 
 many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized 
 nations. . . . The regulation of these various and 
 interfering interests forms the principal task of modern 
 legislation.'' 
 
 There is nothing surprising in the fact that the agri- 
 cultural interest was uppermost in the minds of the 
 founders of the Republic, and generally referred to, to 
 the exclusion of other interests. For the census returns 
 show that in 1790 only three per cent, of the population 
 lived in cities with more than 8,000 inhabitants. 
 
12 
 
 The first constitutions of almost all the States required,, 
 as stated in the extract of the speech of Mr. Corbin 
 above quoted, an interest in real estate as a qualification 
 for voters. The first constitution of any size, the Bill of 
 Rights, of 1776, of Virginia — the State of Henry and 
 Jefferson — says in §6: "All men having sufficient evi- 
 dence of permanent common interest with, and attach- 
 ment to the community, have the right of suffrage ;" and 
 in that State the property qualification was not removed 
 until 1850. 
 
 The Massachusetts constitution of 1780 allowed only 
 male inhabitants, who were freeholders, to vote ; that of 
 South Carolina, adopted 1790, required ownership of free- 
 hold ; that of Georgia, of 1777, required of the voter a 
 possession of £10, or to belong to a mechanic trade. The 
 constitution of New York, of 1777, which served generally 
 as the model for subsequent constitutions, and which 
 might be called the first of constitutions, as distinguished 
 from the previous Bills of Rights, or Declarations of 
 General Principles, required that voters for the Assembly 
 must have freeholds of £20, or have rented a tenement in 
 the county of the yearly value of 40 shillings; but for 
 Senators only freeholders possessed of franchise of over 
 £100 might vote. The fact that this system had brought 
 to the front the noblest men the world has ever seen, 
 justified their appreciation of it. This property qualifica- 
 tion was not entirely removed till 1846. Representatives 
 were, moreover, required to be landowners, long after 
 the necessity of that qualification was removed for voters. 
 
 Thus, Madison could say : " If those ten men, who 
 were to be chosen, be elected by landed men, and have 
 land themselves, can the electors have anything to appre- 
 hend?" (Elliot, III., p. 332.) And Governor Randolph: 
 " The representatives are chosen by and from among the 
 people They will have a fellow-feeling for the farmers 
 
and planters. . . . What laws can they make that 
 will not operate on themselves and friends, as well as on 
 the rest of the people?" (Elliot, III., pp. 470 and 120.) 
 
 While these extracts show how highly the right of 
 representation was' valued by these agricultural com- 
 munities, and how the necessity for the representation of 
 their most vital interests was understood, the self-govern- 
 ment in all matters which did not concern all the people 
 was most jealously guarded. Many of the speakers in 
 the Constitutional Conventions denied that any such com- 
 mon interest existed ; this almost led to the rejection of 
 the United States Constitution. Luther Martin, in his very 
 elaborate and powerful speech before the Legislature of 
 Maryland, in 1787, declared: "We considered the system 
 proposed (the United States Constitution) to be the most 
 •complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man 
 ever devised under the pretense of forming a government 
 for free states." In fact, the Constitution would very 
 possibly not have been adopted, if it had not been gener- 
 ally understood that the amendment, declaring that all 
 rights not expressly granted were reserved to the people 
 and the States, would be adopted. 
 
 While this dread of centralization in the national gov- 
 ernment was thus shown, no less opposition doubtless 
 existed to the idea that the State governments had abso- 
 lute sovereignty, in the sense in which that word is used 
 by Austin and many modern writers. 
 
 The State governments had been formed in the midst 
 of troublesome times after the model of the colonial gov- 
 ernments ; these certainly possessed no unlimited powers, 
 and no intention to make a radical new departure can be 
 shown. The members of the legislature were not chosen, 
 as at present, by divisions of counties, but were elected 
 by the county on what we would call a general ticket — 
 so that they represented not a mere number of indi- 
 
14 
 
 viduals, but the counties or groups of associated indi- 
 viduals. 
 
 Not till 1846 were the supervisors authorized, in this 
 State, to divide counties into election districts. 
 
 This autonomy of these associations, smaller than the 
 State, is most clearly seen in the New England States, 
 where that Germanic institution had had fullest oppor- 
 tunity to develop itself. Thus, De Tocqueville says in 
 his above cited " Democracy in America," on pages 6y 
 and 66 : " It is important to remember that they [the 
 towns] have not been invested with privileges, but that 
 they seem, on the contrary, to have surrendered a portion 
 of their independence to the State. ... I believe 
 that not a man is to be found who would acknowledge 
 that the State had any right to interfere in their local 
 interests. . . . Hence arises the maxim that every 
 one is the best and sole judge of his own private interest. 
 . . . The township taken as a whole, and in relation 
 to the government of the country, may be looked upon 
 as an individual to whom the theory I have iust alluded 
 to is applied." 
 
 The statutes of Connecticut (Title 7, ch. 2 of Revision 
 of 1874) recognize this reserved right in the people of the 
 towns to make such regulations for their welfare, not con- 
 cerning matters of a criminal nature, nor repugnant to 
 the laws of the State, as they deem expedient. 
 
 In fact the town, county, state and national govern- 
 ment were all of at least equal importance, and to no one 
 of them were the people supposed to have surrendered 
 absolute authority. The sovereignty, if that is a proper 
 term, remained in the people, which could intrust por- 
 tions of it at different times to the government of these 
 larger or smaller associations, as the common interests of 
 that association demanded. In the words ot Elbridge 
 Gerry : " We are neither the same nation, nor different 
 
15 
 
 nations. We ought not, therefore, to pursue the one or 
 the other of these ideas too closely." If anywhere, it 
 was in the smallest association that the greatest power 
 resided. 
 
 In the words of Governor Seymour, in the article in 
 the " North American Review," above cited : " When we 
 have secured good government in towns and counties, 
 most of the objects of government are gained. In the 
 ascending scale of rank, in the descending scale of import- 
 ance is the legislature." 
 
 We see, therefore, that the men of the Revolution did 
 not regard the inhabitants of this country as a mere num- 
 ber of individuals, but as associations of men seeking 
 a common livelihood, whose interests as members of these 
 associations, required to be represented in the govern- 
 ment ; and that the great fear at that time was, that the 
 numerically larger association would interfere with the 
 rights and duties of the smaller associations. 
 
 The fact that the people consisted almost entirely of 
 " husbandmen" made the geographical divsion of election 
 districts the only proper one ; only thus could they be 
 enabled to send representatives of their real interests to 
 the legislatures ; with what opposition would a proposi- 
 tion have been met, that 15,000 inhabitants of tobacco- 
 growing Virginia should vote for one representative, 
 together with 15,000 farmers of New Hampshire! They 
 could not foresee that within so short a time — by the 
 application of steam and the progress of science — so many 
 new means of extracting force, i. e., obtaining the means 
 of livelihood from other substances than the earth, would 
 be discovered ; and that thereby men would be freed from 
 the necessity of direct connection with the soil, and could 
 thus support themselves in large numbers, in a small 
 space, by manipulating the detached products of the soil- 
 
i6 
 
 IV. 
 
 -GROWTH OF CITIES AND OF MEANS OF OBTAINING A LIVING 
 OTHER THAN BY FARMING. 
 
 ACCORDING to the census of 1790, three and one- 
 third per cent, of our total population lived in cities 
 with more than 8,000 inhabitants ; according to the last 
 census over 50 per cent, of the people of the State of New 
 York lived in such cities. 
 
 The positive and relative growth of city life is shown 
 by the following table of the population of the State and 
 of the City of New York, in the ten census reports : 
 
 The population of New York State. 
 The population of New York City.. 
 
 The population of New York State. 1,918,608 2,428,921 3,097,394 3,880,735 
 The population of New York City.. 202,589 312,710 515,547 813,669 
 
 1870. 1880. 
 
 The population of New York State. 4,382,759 5,082,871 
 The population of New York City.. 942,292 1,206,299 
 
 We see, therefore, that the ratio of the population of the 
 •city to the State has increased from less than one-tenth to 
 nearly one-quarter, and that the city has now four times 
 as many inhabitants as the State had in 1790. The 
 United States now have an urban population of 13,000,- 
 000, and New York State has 58 cities of over 8,000 
 inhabitants, with a total urban population of 2,726,367. 
 
 Well may this age be called the era of great cities, and 
 to no State does this apply better than to our own. 
 
 1790. 
 
 1800. 
 
 1 8 10. 
 
 1820. 
 
 340,120 
 
 589,051 
 
 959.049 
 
 1,372,111 
 
 33.131 
 
 60,515 
 
 93.373 
 
 123,706 
 
 1830. 
 
 1840. 
 
 1850. 
 
 i860. 
 
*7 
 
 V. 
 
 ABOLITION OF REAL ESTATE QUALIFICATION FOR VOTERS. 
 
 THE only change in our political system, to correspond 
 to this total change in our daily life and business occu- 
 pation, has been to abolish the qualification of ownership 
 of real estate for the exercise of the franchise, under the 
 influence of the theories of the Democratic party. 
 
 One of the chief causes of the fall of the Federal party 
 was its failure to recognize and provide for this change of 
 the population ; as Hamilton said in his plan for " The 
 Christian Constitutional Society :" " The populous cities 
 ought particularly to be attended to. . . . The cities have 
 been employed by the Jacobins to give an impulse to the 
 country." But his plan was not carried out — even if it 
 could have been successful, and the discontent of the 
 inhabitants of cities was not removed. 
 
 This change was accomplished in this State substan- 
 tially by the Constitutional Convention of 1821. The 
 debates show that it was a contest between the desire of 
 the growing population of cities for political power to 
 protect their interests, and the wish of the agricultural 
 communities to preserve their preponderance. 
 
 Chancellor Kent said : " It is to protect this important 
 class of the community [farmers], that the Senate should 
 be preserved. It should be the representative of the 
 landed interest. ... It 1773, New York City con- 
 tained only 21,000 inhabitants, in 1821 123,000 souls ! . . 
 and it is no hazardous prophecy to foretell that in less 
 than a century, that city will govern the State. And can 
 gentlemen seriously and honestly say, that no danger is to 
 
iS 
 
 be apprehended from those combustible materials which 
 such a city must ever enclose?" (page 116 of Clarke's 
 Constitutional Debates). And Judge Spencer argued: 
 " The landed interest of this State must thus be at 
 the mercy of a description of men who have no solid and 
 permanent interest in your institutions " (page 1 1 5 ib.). 
 
 In favor of the abolition of the property qualification, 
 Mr. Buel claimed : " The city population will never be 
 able to depress that of the country. . . . From what 
 combination of other interests can danger arise to the 
 landed interests ? The mercantile and manufacturing- 
 interests are the only ones which can obtain a formidable 
 influence" (p. 124 ib.). 
 
 Mr. Van Buren, in a very able and elaborate speech, 
 showed that New York City paid taxes on sixty-nine 
 millions dollars worth of property, being twenty-seven 
 millions more than the eastern district, and twenty-four 
 millions more than the middle district, and fourteen mill- 
 ions more than the western district ; and yet the western 
 district sends nine senators, the middle district nine, the 
 eastern eight, and New York City one senator. 
 
 This claim of the inhabitants of cities to have their 
 interests represented was granted, in principle, by abol- 
 ishing the requirement of land ownership for the franchise ; 
 but, unfortunately, the reform stopped there, and no plan 
 for representing the various real interests of the inhabi- 
 tants of cities was devised. Perhaps the chief reason 
 herefor was the prevalence, at that time, of the theories 
 of Rousseau, transplanted by Jefferson, which made the 
 only object of government the assertion of the so-called 
 rights of men, and recognized the need of no associations 
 for a people, except one almighty state, as described in 
 my last year's lecture on the history of the social contract 
 theory. This theory was very useful here, as in France, 
 for tearing down antiquated institutions, but it also pre- 
 
i 9 
 
 vented the adoption of the new forms of government and 
 representation, necessary lor the new groupings of men 
 with common material interests in cities. 
 
 Thus, the strongest champion of the citizens in the Con- 
 vention of 1 82 1, Mr. Root, had declared: "We have no 
 different estates having different interests, necessary to 
 be guarded from encroachment by the watchful eye of 
 jealousy. We are all the same estate — all commoners. 
 . . . These powerful checks may be necessary between 
 different families possessing adverse interests, but can 
 never be salutary among brothers of the same family, 
 whose interests are similar." 
 
 In compliance with this Utopian theory, the inhabitants 
 of cities were admitted to the franchise, divided for con- 
 venience of voting into artificial groups of men, living 
 near a certain polling booth. 
 
 This was not even the theory of Rousseau, for his school 
 contemplated the existence of small agricultural commu- 
 nities, in which all citizens could meet at once in a public 
 meeting ; the great cities of even his day and the large 
 countries of Europe were deemed misfortunes to be 
 remedied. In fact, our present city governments are an 
 accidental growth, formed by attempting to copy too 
 closely theories and practices, which work well in agri- 
 cultural communities, where alone men are divided into 
 groups having common material interests, by geographi- 
 cal lines. 
 
20 
 
 VI. 
 
 UNSCIENTIFIC CHARACTER OF OUR THEORY OF CITY 
 GOVERNMENT. 
 
 NO writers on political science justify our city govern- 
 ments. In the writings of the Fathers, few, if any, 
 references are found to city government ; more modern 
 writers on political science shake their heads and pass by 
 on the other side, to the more attractive subject of town- 
 ship government, as if the form of government for thir- 
 teen millions of our most industrious and wealthy citizens 
 did not deserve as much attention as the hackneyed sub- 
 ject of the New England town. Lieber states : " Though 
 1 own that one of the problems we have yet to solve is 
 how to unite in large cities the highest degree of indi- 
 vidual liberty and order " (p. 392). 
 
 Woolsey, in his " Political Economy," acknowledges that 
 " a township where there is a scattered population with 
 at most a village or two, needs one kind of government, 
 while a city with a compact population needs another," 
 (p. 366), and " that for some reason or other our present 
 system [of city government] is exceedingly bad, the experi- 
 ence of New York will prove," (p. 369), but as to a remedy 
 he confines himself to a few antiquated suggestions con- 
 cerning the introduction of a property qualification. 
 
 Governor Seymour, in his article entitled " The Gov- 
 ernment of the United States," in the North American 
 Review of 1878, in which he lauds the local township 
 government, as the political unit of our nation, to which 
 our greatness is due, has nothing to say for us inhabitants 
 
21 
 
 of cities, except : " Its [the township government] work- 
 ings are more clearly seen in the country than in cities." 
 
 Of foreign writers, I will only cite Professor Gneist in 
 his article on the " Government of the City of London " 
 (p. 52 in Von Holtzendorf 's " Popular Writings ") : "Among 
 all communities, the cities in their unexpected, gigantic 
 growth are still unsolved problems for the legislator ; " 
 and " a city in which a party wall makes inhabitants 
 greater strangers than miles of distance, can not be organ- 
 ized on the simple plan of a peasant community or a stock 
 company." 
 
 And as President Woolsey states, on p. 384 of his work, 
 above cited : "A general law for town administration is 
 easier to be framed than for cities with varying and vast 
 interests " (p. 384). 
 
 No one knows better than the citizens of New York 
 how far these words fall short of describing the actual 
 condition of our government. The " vast and varying 
 interests " of the inhabitants of this city are represented 
 in the Board of Aldermen almost exclusively by liquor 
 dealers, whose regular characteristic joke is to hang 
 their overcoats and plug hats on two busts of American 
 statesmen — and who have not yet organized this year, 
 owing to the desire of a fraction of the majority to make 
 a liquor dealer whose appearance would make him a 
 marked man in any assembly of merchants, tradesmen, or 
 master mechanics, president. The cry to deprive the 
 Board of Aldermen of every power, and even to abolish 
 it, is becoming stronger ; it is recognized as an anachron- 
 ism. The Board has now been reduced to a state of help- 
 lessness, incompatible with the needs of our growing city ; 
 for example, it cannot raise money even to employ a 
 stenographer to make an investigation. Many of the 
 departments are entirely independent, and all real power 
 over the finances has been assumed by the mysterious 
 
22 
 
 Board of Estimate and Apportionment, which determines 
 the appropriation for each department, once lor ail, 
 before the beginning of the year — a plan necessarily 
 inconvenient and extravagant — but which all prefer to 
 trusting our " representatives" with the city finances. In 
 the Legislature our " varying and vast interests'* are repre- 
 sented also to a large extent by liquor dealers, although 
 there are several well-meaning, respectable lawyers in the 
 delegation. One of these is chairman of the Committee 
 on Commerce, and, as he acknowledged after his appoint- 
 ment, he knew the difference between a canal-boat and a 
 Cunarder ; but that was all he knew about commerce. 
 In Congress, the delegation is smaller and more respecta- 
 ble, in proportion ; but no one claims that it fairly repre 
 sents our "varying and vast interests ; ' the legal proles 
 sion predominates, to the exclusion of other trades and 
 professions, as much in Congress as the liquor dealers do 
 in the Board of Aldermen . more than half of the present 
 Congress are lawyers. 
 
 As to self-government in cities, there is even less of 
 that than of representation. The nearest approach to it, 
 for the 1,200,000 citizens, is the party caucus in the elec- 
 tion district ; if a man happens to hear where it is to be 
 held, and if he attends, the browbeating and contempt 
 with which unknown faces are treated prevent a second 
 attempt. The District and Police Courts have in cer- 
 tain cases a jurisdiction limited to their district, that is 
 about all the self-government there is in this city. The elec- 
 tion districts are mapped out in a curious manner, with 
 the professed attempt to bring an equal number of 
 voters in each ; but in fact the object of laying out the 
 districts was generally to secure to some little political 
 boss the assured control of his " deestrick" by an appro- 
 priate arrangement of his friends and foes. The average 
 citizen does not know the limit of his district ; he has but 
 
 * 
 
23 
 
 the slightest interests in common with the unknown men 
 with whom he is called on to elect a " representative," or 
 the only local magistrate, the District Court Judge. 
 
 And yet the inhabitants of cities are not different be- 
 ings from the farmers ; like them, they are groups of men 
 whose most important interest is to gain an honest, steady 
 living ; like them, they want to keep their business or trade 
 from being injured by men with other and opposing inter- 
 ests ; like them, they want to exercise a certain control 
 over dishonest fellow professional or tradesmen, who are 
 injuring their business by dishonest work. 
 
 In short, you may apply every description of a town- 
 ship to a trade, business or professional organization of 
 men living in cities ; but to apply that description to one 
 of our geographical election districts is the bitterest irony. 
 
 ..-:. VII. 
 
 HISTORICAL ORIGIN OF OUR THEORY OF CITY 
 GOVERNMENT. 
 
 HOW has it come, then, that the government of all 
 modern cities is based upon this plan of dividing a 
 city by geographical lines ? The answer is, that it is due, 
 in the first place, in Europe, to the jealousy of royalty, 
 supported by a land-owning nobility, of the power of citi- 
 zens, united, according to the natural plan, i, e., accord- 
 ing to their interests. In England, for example, the tyrant 
 Tudors began and the Stuarts finished the disorganization 
 of the citizens, because they feared their opposition to ab- 
 solute government. 
 
 The English cities existed long before charters were 
 granted to them and, like those of the Continent, owe their 
 
2 4 
 
 growth and prosperity to the guild-associations of citi- 
 zens according to their different trades, which in great 
 part took the place of the older wards or frith-guilds, 
 which consisted generally of land owners. The latter 
 might be compared as to their origin to our Western 
 Vigilance Committees. The following citations show 
 how the old rural division into wards was replaced by 
 the guilds of merchants, which term became synonymous 
 with the city corporation ; thus Glanville says that, if a 
 villain have remained a year and a day in the city, " ita 
 quod in communian, scilicet gyldam tamquam civis re- 
 ceptus fuer it, eo ipso a villenagio liberabitur." (De Legi- 
 bus, lib. v., c. 5.) 
 
 Brady's conclusion, in his English Burghs, published in 
 1700, is : "A free burgess was no other than a man that 
 exercised free trade, according to the liberties and privi- 
 leges of his burgh, whether he resided in it, or whether he 
 had liberty to live and trade otherwhere " (p. 47). 
 
 The first city charters appear to have been granted in 
 King John's time ; that of Andever is granted " homini- 
 bus de Andever guod habeant Gyldam Mercatoriam in And- 
 ever." 
 
 Norfolk had, in the twelfth year of Henry III., for its 
 burgesses, merchants and traders at sea and upon the 
 water. 
 
 In the time of Edward III., the whole government of 
 the City of London was, for seventy years, in the hands 
 of certain guilds ; after that, apart of the power was given 
 back to the wards, but the guilds still retain certain powers 
 to this day. 
 
 The contest between land owners and traders in Eng- 
 lish cities was, however, never so violent as on the Con- 
 tinent, owing to the stronger central power of the English 
 kings, but Toulmin Smith's Collection of the Charters of 
 English Guilds shows to what a large extent these associa- 
 
25 
 
 tions of tradesmen participated in the local and general 
 affairs of government. 
 
 It was Henry VIII., and after him Edward VI., who by 
 the confiscation of the property of the guilds and by their 
 suppression, struck at the root of the liberties of English 
 cities. Queen Elizabeth imposed heavy taxes on them, 
 and the Stuarts naturally followed a similar policy. 
 
 The overthrow of real city government dates from the 
 Restoration, when the old borroughs were called on to 
 produce grants from the crown, as authority for their 
 municipal rights. Jeffries denied that of London, with 
 its oldest exclusive jurisdiction in the land; and the 
 smaller burghs, intimidated by the treatment of London, 
 made haste to surrender their old charters to the crown, 
 and to receive in return new charters, in giving which 
 good care was taken that all remains of municipal sell- 
 government, and the means of allowing citizens to unite 
 according to their interests, were removed. 
 
 The government of cities was placed in the hands of 
 artificial, small, select bodies, which could be easily 
 managed by the crown, with whose selection or control 
 the citizens had little or nothing to do. This legacy of 
 the Stuart despotism was confirmed by William III., who 
 was probably as little a friend of popular government as 
 his predecessors ; he confirmed the new charters, and in 
 the words of Lieber: " Cities in England were considered 
 in the last century chiefly with reference to parliamentary 
 elections;" and since that time no thorough scientific 
 study or treatment of the subject appears to have occupied 
 the minds of England's great thinkers, although the cities 
 have been confessedly hot-beds of crime and misery; 
 changes have been made without system; and to-day, 
 while a great clamor exists for the removal of the remains 
 of these deformed remnants of guild-governments, no sat- 
 isfactory substitute is suggested, except a general exten- 
 
26 
 
 sion of the suffrage, which will give England the same 
 experience which we have had since 1826. In the words 
 of Professor Jameson: " It is not possible to set forth a 
 single definite scheme of town-government and say, This 
 was, in this reign, the form of municipal government in 
 England." 
 
 Our earliest American charters date unfortunately from 
 the age of Stuart despotism ; that of New York was made 
 probably under the personal supervision of James II., and 
 under the illiberal George II, the charter was reaffirmed 
 with additions, his attorney-general Bradley certifying 
 that it contained nothing " prejudicial to the interests of 
 his Majesty." Albany, the only other New York city, 
 prior to the Revolution, received a similar so-called 
 Dongan Charter. 
 
 The Mayor was to be appointed, the ordinances of the 
 Board of Aldermen were to have force only for three 
 months, etc. Of course, no provision is made for the 
 organization of citizens according to their trades, etc., to 
 protect their interests ; James was not going to have in 
 future, in American cities, the same organizations which 
 had opposed the aspiration of his family in England : the 
 citizens were to vote like countrymen, in wards where 
 they resided. The contrast between this Stuart charter, 
 with its mass of unorganized citizens, and the true Ger- 
 manic city, is seen for example by a glance at the " Plat- 
 form of Government ' made by the New England Com- 
 pany, which had been chartered by James I. to settle New 
 England, and which planted, in the Queen Ann Colony, 
 the germ of New England government. This " platform " 
 was dedicated, in 1662, to Prince Charles (afterwards 
 Charles I.) and states . " And there is no less care to be 
 taken for the trade and public commerce of merchants, 
 whose government ought to be within themselves, in respect 
 of the several occasions arising between them " ; and in 
 
another place, it states, that the merchants and mechanics 
 should govern the cities. 
 
 How different might the history of American cities 
 have been, had this colonization of the company not 
 failed, and had it not been forced to give up its charter 
 in 1635. 
 
 The colonization of New England proceeded then by 
 Englishman, mostly from the agricultural districts of 
 Eastern England. They formed good rural governments, 
 but they saw no necessity for making any distinction 
 for cities. 
 
 Thus, Palfrey in History of New England (vol. II., p. 
 12), declares : " In law a city is a town. " And Dillon, 
 on Municipal Corporations (p. 463), says : " In New 
 England towns gradually merged into cities, and that 
 which was done by the direct meeting of the citizens, is 
 subsequently attempted to be accomplished by representa- 
 tives. " Before the Revolution, there were no chartered 
 cities in New England. Boston was governed by select 
 men until 1822. 
 
 From these two types, the one taken from the New 
 England country town, and the other from the Stuart 
 city, an endless number of variations have been formed 
 which it is unnecessary here to follow ; suffice it to say 
 that none of them are satisfactory. It reminds one of De 
 Tocqueville's description of France, under the Old 
 Regime, before the revolution : " Civic rights were con- 
 stantly bestowed, taken away, restored, increased, modi- 
 fied in thousand ways and unceasingly. No better indi- 
 cation of the contempt into which all local liberties had 
 fallen can be found, than such eternal changes of the law 
 which no one seemed to notice" (p, 371). 
 
 No wonder that our citizens have also lost all hope 
 from so-called " tinkering with the charter," and have 
 suffered a principle to become law, that, as Mr. Stern 
 
28 
 
 says, in the above quoted article : " The American city 
 has no chartered privileges which anybody is bound to 
 respect. " See also: Kent's Commentaries, p. 275 : " Such 
 powers [of counties, cities, towns and villages] are subject 
 to the control of the Legislature of the State." And in 
 Darlington vs. Mayor of New York (31 N. Y., 164) Denio, 
 J., held : " City Corporations are emanations of the 
 supreme law-making power of the State. " The principle 
 that our Legislature possesses this power, claimed by the 
 Stuarts, in this land of liberty, and against which, in other 
 days, men have been so ready to stake their lives, and 
 which makes all attempts at improvement, which at best 
 can be but gradual, liable at any moment to be over- 
 thrown, has also been repeatedly affirmed by the United 
 States Courts ; for example, in United States vs. Railroad 
 Company (17 Wall, 329) and New Orleans vs. Clark (95 
 United States, 653). Our State Courts have gove even 
 further and declared that not only the city's public rights, 
 but also the property owned by the city, as a corporation, 
 is under the absolute control of the State, in People vs. 
 Kerr in New York Court of Appeals (27 N. Y., 188). 
 
 As Mr. Stern says, in his article on cities, in " Lalor's 
 Encyclopaedia" : " We have lost, in fact, though not in 
 name, our chartered privileges as binding contracts with 
 the State." 
 
2 9 
 
 VIII. 
 
 OUR ROMAN LAW THEORY OF THE RELATION OF STATE 
 AND CITY GOVERNMENT. 
 
 BESIDES the example of these cities, with charters 
 designed by the Stuarts, a mistaken theory as to the 
 origin of corporations in general, and their relation to the 
 State, has tended to keep our municipalities in abject 
 submission to the State. 
 
 The definition commonly placed at the beginning of 
 treatises on corporations, is that of Chief Justice Mar- 
 shall, in the Dartmouth College Case, that a corporation 
 is " an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing 
 only in contemplation of law ;" and then follows Chancel- 
 lor Kent's statement : " Public corporations are such as 
 are created by the government for political purposes, as 
 counties, cities, towns and villages." (Comra., II., p. 275.) 
 
 Since then public corporations are originated by the 
 State, and exist " only in contemplation of law," it must 
 follow that the State can change or abolish them at any 
 time. • 
 
 But is it an historical fact that the State formed all 
 smaller unions for political purposes, such as counties, 
 cities, towns, etc. ? 
 
 Were not the Anglo-Saxon monarchies formed by a 
 union of the inhabitants of various districts, which still 
 exist as parishes ? Was not the Heptarchy formed from 
 a union of these monarchies, which continued later to 
 exist, with more or less independence, as subdivisions of 
 the kingdom of England ? The shires and parishes and 
 
3° 
 
 cities of England were not all created by the State ; on 
 the contrary, many of them existed before the State, and 
 assisted in creating the State. 
 
 As Coke says, in 5 Reports, p. 64 : " The inhabitants of 
 a town without any custom, may make ordinances or by- 
 laws for any such thing which is for the general good of 
 the public, unless it is indeed pretended by any such by- 
 law to abridge the general liberty of the people." 
 
 As to private associations, with the right to contract 
 and hold property as an association, it is equally true that 
 a formal incorporation was not originally required there- 
 for. 
 
 Thus Kyd, in his work on Corporations (1793), says: 
 " The capacity of contracting in a collective capacity, was 
 not in ancient times [under Henry III.] confined to a cor- 
 poration." The right of unincorporated associations to 
 hold property is further shown by the statutes of Queen 
 Elizabeth's time. (5th Eliz., c. 27.) 
 
 II we look on the continent of Europe, we see number- 
 less associations, with all the rights now claimed by cor- 
 porations, springing into existence without an act of the 
 State, or, in many cases, where no State (according to the 
 modern fashionable definition of the word) could be said 
 to exist ; we see them also uniting and forming them- 
 selves into modern States. 
 
 In fact, according to Germanic principles, the State did 
 not create the corporations, but the corporations created 
 the State. 
 
 In the Roman law it was different ; there, especially the 
 later Byzantine emperors, in their dread of any approach 
 to popular freedom, made the sanction of the State an 
 essential part of a corporation. This theory was particu- 
 larly pleasing to the European monarchs, who wished to 
 emulate the absolute power of the Roman monarch, and 
 to hide their breach of Germanic customs under the 
 
3i 
 
 mysterious cloak of the Pandects. Hence this theory was. 
 introduced in the time of the Tudors and Stuarts, and 
 corporations were said to exist only by privilege granted 
 by the sovereign. 
 
 Recollections of the old Germanic system still re- 
 mained. Thus Coke says, (in I. Inst., 3a, Cities): "The 
 parishioners, or inhabitants, or probi homines of Dale, 
 or church-wardens, are not capable to purchase lands, but 
 goods they are, unless it were in ancient time when such 
 grants were allowed." 
 
 And Dugdale, in his Warwickshire (1730), says: "They 
 [guilds] were in use long before any formal licenses were 
 granted them." (Page 188.) 
 
 And Kyd, in his above cited works, after mentioning 
 the present rule, that an unincorporated association can- 
 not hold land, says : " It is difficult to account for the 
 establishment of this rule. . . . The Societies of the 
 Inns of Court are not corporations ; yet, in their collective 
 capacities, they have held the property of the ground 
 on which the chambers are built, ever since they were 
 established." 
 
 The rule cannot be accounted for, however, like many 
 other anomalies of our law, when we remember that it 
 has been taken from the Roman law, and replaced an old 
 Germanic rule which held the contrary. 
 
 So long as we neglect the study of the history of our 
 Germanic institutions, we will continue to believe in such 
 statements as that of Blackstone, on this subject (I., ch. 
 18): "The honor of originally inventing these political 
 constitutions [corporations] entirely belongs to the Rom- 
 ans." This opinion is adopted by Chancellor Kent (vol. 
 II., p. 269), and his words have been copied by subsequent 
 writers almost verbatim ; for example, in Angell and 
 Ames, on Corporations, p. 37. 
 
 We see, therefore, that, according to the Germanic 
 
32 
 
 theory, neither public nor private corporations are en- 
 tirely dependent beings created by a higher power, sub- 
 ject to be changed at the whim of that almighty sover- 
 eignty ; but that each association has its own sphere ol 
 legitimate action, within which the existence of the small- 
 est is entitled to as much respect as the largest, and that 
 .all come from the same source, i. e., the people. 
 
 IX. 
 
 INSUFFICIENCY OF PROPOSED REMEDIES FOR OUR CITY 
 GOVERNMENT. 
 
 WE see, therefore, that our present plan of division of 
 inhabitants of cities fails to secure them real self- 
 government or representation of their interests in the 
 legislative bodies ; that this plan is not sustained by au- 
 thority of political authors ; that its origin entitles it to 
 no veneration or respect ; that its practical workings are 
 unsatisfactory. 
 
 The evils of our New York city government are only 
 a little greater than those of Philadelphia, Boston, etc. ; 
 the description of an election in London, given by Prof. 
 Gneist, in the article above cited, bears a strong resem- 
 blance to one of our own. 
 
 But yet it will not do to sit passively and say that 
 44 God made the country, but man made the city," or to 
 consider our great cities, as Bismarck did, as excrescences 
 on the body politic; for, in another century, our cities 
 will probably exceed in size those of to-day, as much as 
 the latter do those of the Revolution. 
 
 And yet, according to Mr. Stern's above quoted article 
 in the "North American Review," the indebtedness of 
 
33 
 
 our eighteen largest cities (excluding New Orleans), from 
 i860 to 1875, has increased 270.9 per cent., and the tax- 
 ation has increased 362.2 per cent., and the population 
 70.5 per cent. The States with the largest urban popu- 
 lations are Pennsylvania and New York, and are these 
 not the States in which legislative scandals are most 
 numerous? 
 
 Does this not prove that there is some radical defect in 
 our system of self-government and of representation in 
 cities? 
 
 The only important remedy which has been suggested 
 is that the franchise should be restricted by a property 
 qualification ; a lew gentlemen proposed such a measure 
 in the Constitutional Convention of 1867 — 1868, and more 
 recently, but the intense popular odium which this propo- 
 sition attached to all who were connected with it, proba- 
 bly removes this plan from the field of practical politics. 
 But the plan is also theoretically indefensible ; it would 
 unite the owners of property, according to its value, but 
 it would not unite men according to their many other 
 real interests, and would shut out a large number of 
 people who have important, permanent interests in the 
 proper government of the community ; it would be the 
 natural result of the heartless materialistic philosophy of 
 the day. It would introduce into the New World cities 
 the fierce contests which distracted European cities in 
 the Middle Ages, between real-estate owners and the 
 associations of tradesmen, and would end probably, as in 
 former times, with the victory of the latter. If elections 
 were held on a general ticket, and the power of the Mayor 
 increased, this would perhaps somewhat improve matters, 
 by removing the evils in the present system of pseudo 
 self-government and representation in our geographical 
 election districts ; but no one will consider a plan satis- 
 factory which would leave over a million people — more 
 
34 
 
 than one-third of the population of this country when the 
 Constitution was formed — without a voice to represent 
 its various interests, and which would hand over the im- 
 mense power, necessary to govern such an unorganized 
 mass, to one man, and would leave the people only the 
 power of selecting that man, at stated intervals. 
 
 That was the ideal state of Napoleon III.; "the plebis- 
 cite is the republic," and it is merely an acknowlegment 
 that self-government is a failure, and that we prefer an 
 open, responsible boss to one who works through the 
 forms of an unsuitable government although he may pre- 
 serve the appearance of popular power. This is generally 
 the cause of the growth of despotism. 
 
 The fact is that in our great cities, with their unor- 
 ganized masses of voters, a political oligarchy has grown 
 up, whose common interest it is to preserve the present 
 helplessness of well-meaning citizens, by allowing them to 
 unite only in an artificial group, according to geograph- 
 ical lines, which the popular voice has rightly dubbed 
 "the machine," i. e., an instrument, which has no life in 
 itself, but is run by power from outside, to suit others' 
 purpose.;. It is in order to preserve this system that the 
 "honored leaders" ring the changes on "individualism," 
 so that the people may not hear the forging of their chains 
 in these very " Halls, " which, by their strict centraliza- 
 tion of power, give the lie direct to their professions. By 
 the same cry, before the War, the poor white-trash in the 
 South was humbugged by the slave-holding obligarchy. 
 The great corporations with their consolidated power 
 have also an interest in preserving this powerless indi- 
 vidualism. Chauncey M. Depew spoke not without a 
 purpose at the dinner on Evacuation Day, substantially 
 as follows: ''The great principle, declared when the 
 British flag was torn down, was the liberty of the indi- 
 vidual and his right and ability to govern himself." 
 
35 
 
 General organizations of well-meaning citizens with 
 committees of nine, twenty-four, fifty, seventy, one hun- 
 dred, etc., have been tried again and again, and found want- 
 ing; Irving Hall, the Young Men's Democratic Club, 
 the County Democracy, the Citizens' Committee were 
 started by some of the best and shrewdest men in the 
 city, but they all went the same road. The New Democ- 
 racy, which in these days Mr. Roosevelt is trying to 
 organize, can have no other future ; he states that the plan 
 of the County Democracy was good, but that the " bosses" 
 got hold of it — and so they will of any artificial, machine 
 organization of men, in geographical election districts; 
 even the Republican papers acknowledge this morning 
 that the new Republican organizations are practically in 
 the hands of the old bosses.* The law for the protection 
 of honest voting at primaries will f only cause proto- 
 primaries to be held, in which candidates will be agreed 
 upon for election in the primaries. 
 
 * Since writing the above, the election of John J. O'Brien, as temporary 
 chairman of the new organization, makes the fact patent to every one, that 
 the old bosses are still in command. — Our politics are now: O'Brien vs. Kelly. 
 
36 
 
 X. 
 
 REPRESENTATION AND SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR INHABIT- 
 ANTS OF CITIES. 
 
 WE have now seen that the origin and growth of Ger- 
 manic civilization has been through the union or 
 groups of men with the same material interests ; that the 
 New England township was a model rural group of that 
 character ; that the Fathers who formed our Constitution, 
 intended to form a government in which these groups of 
 farmers, with their material interests, should be fairly 
 represented ; that since then large groups of men have 
 appeared, who gain their living not from the soil, but 
 from working its detached products, and who consequently 
 can live in great masses, in cities ; that no attempt has 
 been made to give to these inhabitants of cities, thus 
 grouped according to their material interests, representa- 
 tion or self-government ; that the subject of city govern- 
 ment has never received thorough scientific consideration ; 
 that our city governments are formed after models of 
 those introduced by the Stuarts, for the purpose of 
 destroying popular government, by keeping the citizens 
 disorganized in geographical election districts ; that these 
 governments fail to give satisfaction, wherever they exist, 
 because citizens lack self-government and representation ; 
 that all attempts at improvement have failed, and that no 
 real hope of improvement is held out by any prominent 
 writer. May we not then draw the conclusion that, since 
 men living in cities are not essentially different from those 
 living in the country, they feel the same need to rally 
 
37 
 
 around their vital interests, i. e., their means of gaining a 
 living, and protect these interests from interference by 
 outsiders, and from injury by dishonest fellow-workmen ; 
 in other words, the trade, business and professional organ- 
 izations need, and before long will surely have representa- 
 tion in our city, state and national legislatures, and more 
 or less self-government and control over their own mem- 
 bers, after the model of the rural associations, called 
 townships, 
 
 The object of representative government is to secure 
 consideration and, so far as possible, realization of the wills 
 of the inhabitants, and, since all cannot attend the legisla- 
 tive meetings in large states, a small number of represent- 
 atives must act for the people. 
 
 Men have an infinite number of wishes, hence it is im- 
 possible to have all the wishes of all the inhabitants repre- 
 sented, and we must be content to have their strongest 
 wishes represented. To secure this, men must first be 
 united in groups, with strong wishes in common, and when 
 these unions are represented, the most important interests 
 of the people are represented. That men's strongest inter- 
 ests centre around their means of gaining a living, in their 
 business, trades, professions, or as managers of their prop- 
 erty, needs no argument in this busy city of New York. 
 
 There ought to be no broad distinction between our 
 public and private affairs. If an individual or a number 
 of individuals wish to send an agent to transact any busi- 
 ness with others, the first care is to choose a man who has 
 no other interest than theirs. The wisdom of this princi- 
 ple is so well established that our law, for example, will 
 not allow an agent, employed to sell a thing, to become 
 the purchaser, under any circumstances ; no man can serve 
 two masters. 
 
 Only by having men with the same most important in- 
 terests united and presented, can we have real represent- 
 
3* 
 
 ative government. Our present representatives under- 
 stand the wishes of their constituents about as well as the 
 person who is " it," in the children's game of shouting 
 proverbs. 
 
 Since, therefore, the participation of these organizations 
 appears to be theoretically in accordance with the spirit 
 of our Germanic institutions, and the legitimate develop- 
 ment of the principles of the authors of our Constitution, 
 I think it can be shown with equal certainty that we will 
 derive direct, practical benefits from allowing these trade, 
 business and professional organizations the right of repre- 
 sentation and a certain amount of self-government. 
 
 XI. 
 
 PRACTICAL BENEFITS FROM REPRESENTATION OF CITIZENS, 
 ORGANIZED ACCORDING TO THEIR INTERESTS. 
 
 BY allowing them representation, we will be benefited 
 as individuals, as members of these organizations and 
 as members of the State. 
 
 In the first place, our rights as individuals are not prop- 
 erly protected by our so-called representatives, because 
 they, as a rule, are not up to the general moral and intel- 
 lectual standard of the average citizen. 
 
 When men come together in an election district to make 
 political nominations, the man having the most extensive 
 personal acquaintance will surely control the meeting. 
 
 Hard-working trade, business, or professional men, as a 
 rule, have but few acquaintances in their election district ; 
 the year has not evenings enough to enable them to get a 
 real acquaintance with their fellow-voters, if they were to 
 devote themselves to the task, especially if we consider how 
 
39 
 
 often our citizens move from one district to the other, and 
 also the many social difficulties which would inevitably 
 ensue from such an attempt. The only class, which can 
 acquire such a local acquaintance is the small retail trader, 
 especially the liquor dealer, hence their prominence in our 
 government. 
 
 By hypocritical professions of interest and friendship 
 with the large number of men, generally not of the best 
 character in their neighborhood, with whom their busi- 
 ness naturally brings them in contact, and by the dispen- 
 sation of cheap, but highly prized favors to the most needy, 
 these liquor-dealers wield and will continue to wield great 
 influence in our government. 
 
 But it is self-evident that these men, and the profes- 
 sional politicians, which they become, if sufficiently adroit, 
 do not possess the same sterling qualities of heart and head 
 as the average hard working man engaged in commercial, 
 trade, mechanical or professional pursuits. On the other 
 hand, experience shows that delegates from business, 
 trade and professional organizations are not blatant 
 demagogues, but that sober, hard-working, conscientious, 
 and able men can alone gain the esteem and confidence 
 of their brethren in business or trade ; such men would 
 not have repeatedly passed the Penal Code, with reading 
 only its first and last sections. Such men will better pro- 
 tect our so-called natural rights of life, limb, liberty and 
 property, than ward politicians and leaders of "deestricks." 
 The last report of the political committee of the Union 
 League Club recognized this, when it recommended that 
 the government of this city had better be left with the 
 Legislature at Albany, than entrusted to our own dele- 
 gates, for they evidently preferred to trust to the general 
 honesty of the men elected by the associations of farmers, 
 than to our own representatives, elected according to our 
 present system. 
 
40 
 
 Secondly, such men will also protect our rights as mem- 
 bers of the various organizations ; and since the interest 
 of a city consists only in the aggregate of the important 
 interests of its citizens, and since the important interest of 
 the City of New York is its commerce and trade, every- 
 thing done to foster and protect our commerce will tend 
 to the welfare of the city. 
 
 Each man will, of course, have the interest of his own 
 association most at heart, like the men from country dis- 
 tricts. But all professions and trades recognize the fact 
 that their business depends for its success on the citv's 
 commercial prosperity. 
 
 But our present representatives do not represent any 
 of these important interests. No legislation ever affects 
 directly or exclusively their u deestrick ;" the members of 
 the different trades and professions live scattered through- 
 out the city, so that they lorm but an insufficient part of 
 the constituency of any one delegate, and he need care but 
 little for their opinion, especially if there happen to be 
 residents in the district with more or less conflicting 
 interests. Thus an important interest may send several 
 representatives, because its memb.ers live together in a 
 few districts, while other more important interests may 
 not be represented, because the men live scattered in 
 many districts ; this is perhaps one ol the causes why the 
 pilots are able to maintain their tax on the commerce of 
 the City of New York. 
 
 Even questions that affect a given locality do not always 
 receive attention ; tor example, in the case of a recent 
 attempt to remove a conceded nuisance — in which I acted 
 as counsel — our representatives took little interest, because 
 it was soon discovered that the diverging wants of tenants 
 and property owners allowed them to act only to a cer- 
 tain extent in concert. Moreover, our city, as the com- 
 mercial centre, will always have certain interests, to a cer- 
 
41 
 
 tain extent, in opposition to those of the remainder of the 
 State , the representatives of our geographical election dis- 
 tricts do not duly assert them ; witness, for example, the 
 fact that every year hundreds of thousands of dollars 
 raised by taxation from this city are spent for educational 
 purposes in other parts of the State. The recent freedom 
 of the Erie Canal would, moreover, never have been gained 
 by our city representatives ; their indifference was equalled 
 only by the hostility shown to the construction of that 
 canal by the Tammany Hall buck-tail politician of that 
 day. 
 
 The presence of these delegates, watching over the 
 business and trade interests of the City of New York, 
 will, therefore, be of benefit to all engaged in trade, busi- 
 ness or professional life. There was a deep meaning in 
 the words of Governor Cleveland, on Evacuation Dayr 
 "Are you sure that you have in your legislative halls proper 
 champions of the cause of your commerce ? Are you 
 sure you have the proper men at Albany to guard your 
 precious interests ? . . . You must not forget that your 
 political interests go hand in hand with your commercial 
 interests." Lastly, the representation of such organiza- 
 tions will be of benefit to the whole State, whose prosper- 
 ity is so closely connected with that of this city, not only 
 in the national legislature, where our representatives, 
 elected on the same vicious principle, equally fail to pro- 
 tect our commercial interests, but also in the Legislature 
 at Albany, where the representatives of the agricultural 
 interests feel the want of a corresponding representation 
 of our great State's commerce, to enable them to decide 
 rightly the many complicated questions affecting special 
 commercial interests. 
 
 Our best city representatives are young lawyers, but 
 even these bring with them, as a rule, little or no ac- 
 quaintance with these wants' of business men; hence 
 
42 
 
 by affording the Government reliable means of gaining 
 information on these commercial questions, which are 
 continually increasing in importance and difficulty, you 
 are rendering a service to the whole State. Congress 
 has to appoint special committees which, at great expense, 
 travel through the land and gather information, which 
 instructs, to a certain extent, the members of that com- 
 mittee ; but, with their retirement from office, the work 
 has to be repeated. 
 
 Our State Legislature, occasionally, goes through a 
 similar form, but its term of office is far too short to thus 
 get any real knowledge. 
 
 As Governor Seymour has rightly said, our country 
 has been governed by the statesmanship of the plough ; 
 however, not only is this Government naturally inclined 
 to be also a little too much for the plough, but, for the 
 sake of the farmers as well as lor the city people, there 
 should be a little more statesmanship of the workshop 
 and of the desk. 
 
 In the words of John Stuart Mill, in his " Representa- 
 tive Government" (p. 65) : " Each is the only safe guard- 
 ian of his own rights and interests" ; and again, on page 
 170: "No class, not even the most numerous, shall be 
 able to reduce all but itself to political insignificance." 
 
 Of course, the objection will be raised that this is only the 
 old guild-system, which has been tried and found wanting 
 generations ago. But, in speaking of the guild-system, 
 we should remember that it had two periods : the first 
 when all were welcome who had necessary skill, and 
 when it built cities, subdued robber knights, made the 
 highways safe by land and by sea, extended commerce, 
 patronized art, founded hospitals, built cathedrals : 
 
 " I gaze round on the windows, pride of France, 
 Each the bright gift of some mechanic guild 
 Who loved their city, and thought gold well spent 
 To make her beautiful with piety." — LowelPs "Cathedra*" 
 
43 
 
 As Lieber says, in his " Political Ethics" : " Without 
 them [the guilds] the cities would never have performed 
 their high service in the promotion of civilization and the 
 acknowledgment of the burghers' rights. (II., 199.) — 
 The second stage when, as a close corporation, it enforced 
 monopolies, crushed trade, and was used merely as an 
 instrument of gain by the fortunate families who belonged 
 to it — utterly regardless of the welfare of the rest of the 
 citizens, and of the duties which were to be rendered in 
 return for its rights. What caused this change?" 
 
 The same event which produced the same selfish and 
 narrow spirit in all other European governments, after 
 the fifteenth century, and, in fact, caused in all respects 
 the greatest injury to our Germanic civilization. I mean 
 the Renaissance. 
 
 That introduced the old heathen spirit of selfishness ; 
 no power would recognize any other in the State ; it 
 turned royalty into absolute monarchy, feudal chiefs into 
 petty sovereigns, republics into close tyrannical corpora- 
 tions ; it abolished all organizations intermediate between 
 the State and the individuals, and left the latter as power- 
 less atoms. The rural republics of Switzerland were as 
 tyrannical as the guilds of the Hanse Cities ; from the 
 experience of that age we might as well argue against 
 the agricultural township, as against the association of 
 trade, professional and business men. The dislike against 
 the exclusiveness of the old guild-system was justified; 
 but we have let this dislike carry us too far; we have 
 pulled down too much, and must now rebuild, but not 
 with the old defects — the State must be supreme, 
 
 In fact, by this plan as to representation, we will have 
 approached, as nearly as we can, to the ideal of Governor 
 Seymour : " That government is most wise which is in 
 the hands of those best informed about the particular 
 questions on which they legislate ; most economical and 
 
44 
 
 honest when controlled by those most interested in pre- 
 serving frugality and virtue; most strong when it only 
 exercises authority which is beneficial in its action to the 
 governed." The helplessness of Congress, in dealing 
 with such questions as that of the tariff, is universally 
 acknowledged. 
 
 At present, only our wishes as individuals, or as mem- 
 bers of the State at large, find utterance, such as it is, 
 in our legislatures, in accordance with the theories of 
 Aristotle and Rousseau ; but our wishes, as members of 
 organizations, between the State and the individual, are 
 disregarded ; though the interests of these intermediate 
 associations of citizens, gaining a livelihood by similar 
 means, are of the first importance ; they deserve to rank 
 with the townships and counties, as of equal birth with 
 the state and national organizations ; their importance is 
 being recognized and insisted on by the so-called Profes- 
 sorial Socialists of Germany. The most oppressive and 
 important function of government, i. e., taxation, bears 
 upon men, directly or indirectly, as members of these 
 organizations ; these organizations are at present not 
 represented, and M taxation without representation is 
 tyranny." 
 
 XII. 
 
 PRACTICAL BENEFITS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT OF CITIZENS- 
 ORGANIZED ACCORDING TO THEIR INTERESTS. 
 
 FINALLY, as to allowing these associations a certain 
 amount of self-government, after the example of 
 agricultural townships, it is, of course, impossible to lay 
 down a general plan, but each association must be left to- 
 discover, by experience, to what extent it is capable and 
 desirous of assuming such functions. 
 
45 
 
 As to the necessity of not leaving these hundreds of 
 thousands of inhabitants of cities without some form of 
 sub-divisions with authority, there can be no question ; 
 the present local divisions of ward or election districts 
 amount to nothing ; they do not replace the " neighbor- 
 hoods " of country ; the only other possible organization 
 to whom power can be entrusted, seems to be that of men 
 united according to their material interests. 
 
 In the words of Professor Gneist, in his above cited 
 article on the government of the City of London: " Is it 
 possible to preserve the union of the neighborhood, where 
 during the day and during the night a different popula- 
 tion lives? It is natural that a people who find no longer 
 support, help, sympathy in the neighborhood, should 
 cling to the associations, which once existed as guilds, 
 where the union of the neighborhood did not exist, and 
 the important want could not be replaced by a periodical 
 bringing together of unconnected masses of voters." 
 
 As Dr. Vaughan writes in his " Age of Great Cities :" 
 " We are done with feudal restraints, but have adopted 
 no-others" (p. 283). 
 
 The great necessity is to replace this neighborhood 
 influence ; men lose in intelligence and in morals when 
 they live only as individuals and atoms ; that is a life for 
 savages ; they have no associations. 
 
 It is true that membership in these associations to some 
 extent curtails our liberty and action ; but these actions 
 will, 1 believe, generally be found to spring from wishes, 
 which it is well to limit. On the other hand the power of 
 the individul is greatly increased through the association. 
 
 No honest business, trade or professional man in this 
 city but feels the injury caused to his business or good 
 name of his profession by the tricks and rascality of dis- 
 honest men in the same occupation, and who will not wish 
 that there was some way of punishing this dishonesty, 
 
4* 
 
 other than the expensive, often impracticable resort, to 
 the State courts. Every trade or profession has regula- 
 tions concerning the education and control of apprentices, 
 the manner of doing work, etc., which it would wish to be 
 able to put in force. 
 
 Every group of business men, mechanics or tradesmen 
 acknowledges an obligation to assist a member of the same 
 group, when disabled by age or misfortune. Are these 
 not the same wants for whose satisfaction the farmers 
 formed the much-lauded township governments ? 
 
 The State does not know how to devise remedies for 
 these wants of inhabitants of cities, or how to execute the 
 remedies devised, any more than a centralized govern- 
 ment can properly build and manage the necessary public 
 institutions of all the villages and townships of the land. 
 
 All the indirect advantages which De Tocquevilie and 
 subsequent writers have represented as coming to the 
 members of the township, from the habit of participating 
 in self-government, will certainly also flow from member- 
 ship in these associations of citizens. The inhabitant of 
 the city thereby becomes a member of the body politic ; 
 he has a feeling of his strength, as a member in good 
 standing of his business organization, and at the same 
 time he feels the reponsibility of participating in great 
 undertakings. By the periodical meetings with others of 
 his business, trade and profession, where the best men in 
 their respective lines are sure to take the lead, he sees a 
 prize offered for honesty and excellence in his work, 
 whatever that may be, and the punishment of social ostra- 
 cism inflicted for the slightest breach of professional or 
 trade morals. By contact with others leading a similar 
 life, mutual friendships spring up ; thence come confidence 
 between man and man, that indispensable medium tor 
 business of any kind, that most important legal tender ; 
 thence comes the feeling of security that even in adversity 
 
47 
 
 there are friends on whom to rely ; and last, but not least,, 
 comes a religious spirit, not a superstitous fear (for that 
 is the result of helpless individualism of all savage or 
 civilized life), but the trustful love of God, which follows 
 the love of neighbor. 
 
 This improvement in morals and religion can be best 
 brought about in this way, through the associations ; clubs 
 or churches for workingmen, gotten up expressly by 
 churches or individuals will always be looked upon as 
 charities and be attended so long as the material benefits 
 are forthcoming ; but these artificial structures will not 
 last. Men of Germanic race require religion and its ser- 
 vices as soon as they unite in associations ; the object of 
 our clergy should be, in the future, to work with and 
 through those organizations ; they may some day become 
 parishes ; each guild was formerly a religious unit. 
 
 And the benefits which men as individuals, as members 
 of the general public, derive from the existence of these 
 organizations, are as important as those of the members 
 themselves. Every business and trade will only be too 
 ready to discover and punish by expulsion from the trade 
 or otherwise, all frauds or cheats ; and thereby the public 
 will be protected and the expense of many — generally 
 unsatisfactory — lawsuits avoided, in the same way as, in 
 the country, the opinion of the neighbors is the chief check 
 on evil-minded persons. 
 
 By the benevolent mutual insurance system, which 
 always comes sooner or later, the expense of supporting 
 many aged and infirm persons will be taken from the State. 
 Davis, in his standard English work on the Law of Friendly 
 Societies, has remarked that trades-unions, by their benev. 
 olent institutions, perform many of the duties of the old 
 parish, in helping those who are in want ; they can man- 
 age a superannuation fund especially well, because they 
 know when a man really cannot work ; and also because 
 
4 cS 
 
 many men entitled to " benefit " do not claim it, out of 
 proper pride. 
 
 The good results to the public from the improvement 
 in morals, by the saving of police-courts of justice and 
 prisons, are obvious, and the sweeping penalties of the 
 Penal Code — the only remedy of liberalism — will be done 
 away with ; but, especially important is the protection 
 which these associations, by satisfying man's legitimate 
 appetite for spmpathy and co-operation, give society 
 against the designs of communistic dreamers, whose influ- 
 ence is the result of our so-called liberal theories of indi- 
 vidualism, cut-throat competition, and helium omnium, con- 
 tra omnes. The Germanic workingman, like the farmer, 
 has the desire for associations, and when these are denied 
 to him, by antiquated conspiracy laws — the highest prod- 
 ucts of the wisdom of the Manchester school — any dema- 
 gogue can move him by striking this note, and depicting 
 to him in glowing colors the pleasures to be gained from 
 this forbidden fruit. In these organizations of working- 
 men, according to trades, the steady, able craftsman has 
 their confidence ; the workingmen are as ready as the 
 property-owners to exclude tramps and loafers from the 
 franchise ; they echo the words of Lieber : " We seek 
 for a criterion which will enable us to distinguish those 
 who have a fair stake in the welfare of the State from those 
 who have not." They know too well how any socialistic 
 talk makes capital take wings, and that the management 
 of large concerns is not a sinecure, which any one could 
 fill. 
 
 The socialistic leaders in this city know well that their 
 only chance is in breaking down the separate trade-organ- 
 izations and in getting the workingmen together in organ- 
 ized masses, where the demagogues' tongues can have 
 full swing. As the greatest German political economist, 
 Roscher, says : " They (workingmcn's associations] can 
 
49 
 
 in peaceful contention with organizations of their respect- 
 ive employers satisfy one of the chief wants of our cen- 
 tralizing-atomizing times, namely, the restoration of strong 
 active organizations between the State and the individual." 
 
 Not less important is the protection which the Republic 
 will get from these organizations of trade and business 
 men against the designs of ambitious political bosses. 
 
 In the words of Lieber : •* This uninstitutional multitude ■ 
 has no organization ; it is, as I have stated, necessarily led 
 by a few or one, and thus we meet in history with the 
 invariable result, that virtually one man rules where 
 .absolute power of the people is believed to exist ;" and 
 '" Longevity [of nations] together with progressive liberty 
 is obtained only by institutional liberty." (361). Presi- 
 dent Woolsey, writing on the same subject, says : " A 
 country without them is like a land without mountains ; 
 it is these that awaken a perpetual joy in the soul. But 
 despotism generally dislikes institutions, because they have 
 an independent existence, and thus resist arbitrary will." 
 (p. 365.) To quote again Governor Seymour's article ; 
 " The theory of self-government is not founded upon the 
 idea that the people are necessarily virtuous and intelli- 
 gent, but it attempts to distribute each particular power 
 to those who have the greatest interest in its wise and faith- 
 ful exercise." 
 
 We see, therefore, that not only will the members of 
 these associations, as such, derive benefit from our endow- 
 ing these organizations with certain functions of self-gov- 
 ernment, but all citizens, as members of the State at large, 
 and the State itself will be benefited thereby. As Lieber 
 says in his work " On Civil Liberty " : " Strike out from 
 England or America this feature and principle [all pervad 
 ing associative spirit] and they are no longer the same 
 self-relying, energetic, indomitable, active people. The 
 spirit of self-government would be gone" (p. 126). 
 
5o 
 
 XIII. 
 
 SIGNS OF THE TIMES. 
 
 1DO not pretend that this is the key to any Utopia, but 
 only that it is a remedy, and, I believe, the only remedy 
 for many evils which inhabitants of cities now suffer, and 
 which are steadily on the increase ; this plan, like any 
 other, will have some evil consequences ; liberty without 
 the possibility ol mistake and wrong is impossible. In 
 the words of Hamilton ; " It (the argument) goes to prove 
 that no powers should be entrusted to any body ol men, 
 because they may be abused" (II. Ell. Deb., p. 267). Our 
 citizens have long recognized intuitively that in these 
 organizations of men with common interests lay their only 
 chance of political salvation, and these associations have 
 been taking upon themselves more and more duties and 
 powers of self-government, and have been every year 
 taking a more direct interest in legislation. 
 
 Any one can observe these signs of the times in the 
 daily newspapers. The following three are a lew of the 
 many notices I have found within the last two weeks, 
 indicating decided advance in the direction advocated by 
 this essay : 
 
 TO WATCH LEGISLATIVE WORK. 
 
 " At a meeting of the representatives of various com- 
 mercial bodies, yesterday, at the Maritime Exchange, a 
 permanent organization was effected under the title of 
 The Association of New York Exchanges on Legislation. 
 The purpose of the association is " to promote such legis- 
 
5i 
 
 lation or measures as are iavored, and to oppose such as 
 are disapproved, by the exchanges or commercial bodies 
 embraced in this association." The officers were elected 
 as follows : President, Robert B. Van Vleck ; First Vice- 
 President, George E. Moore ; Second Vice-President, 
 John E. Henry ; Third Vice-President, Charles C. Lath- 
 rop ; Secretary, James De Mandeville ; Treasurer. J. H. 
 Seymour. An Executive Committee of one from each 
 Exchange was elected. The association then adjourned 
 for one week." 
 
 AT THE LAST MEETING OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 
 
 Mr. William D. Marvel, Chairman of the Committee to 
 which was referred the subject of a commercial treaty 
 with Spain, reported in favor of requesting President 
 Arthur to appoint a commission to meet with the Spanish 
 Minister and arrange for a commercial treaty ; the com- 
 mission to consist of one member appointed as the repre- 
 sentative of the President, one representing the Senate, 
 one the House of Representatives, one the Chamber of 
 Commerce, and one member as the representative of the 
 Maritime Association of this city. 
 
 PREPARING A BUILDING LAW. 
 
 The difference between the architects and builders on 
 the one side and Inspector W. P. Esterbrook, the Mechan- 
 ics and Traders' Exchange, and the Iron Founders' Asso- 
 ciation on the other side, last winter, which operated in 
 the practical defeat of the proposed building law, intro- 
 duced into the Senate by Senator Browning, on February 
 12, have apparently been harmonized this season. Mr. 
 Esterbrook extended an invitation recently to gentlemen 
 representing the New York Chapter of the American 
 Institute of Architects, the Architectural Iron Manuiact- 
 
52 
 
 urers' Society, the Mechanics and Traders' Exchange, and 
 the Real Estate Owners and Builders' Association to meet 
 him and prepare a new bill, which all could unite in sup- 
 porting. In pursuance to the invitation, a meeting was 
 held in the Ashland House, last Tuesday evening, and 
 a joint committee from the various organizations was 
 appointed. It met at the Ashland House last evening 
 and began the work of revision. The defeated bill was 
 taken up and its sections discussed and remodeled. This 
 work will not be completed for several weeks, but it is not 
 expected that any great alterations will be made in it. 
 
 The new Real Estate Exchange, consisting of leading 
 brokers and large real estate dealers in this city, accord- 
 ing to an interview published in to-day's Real Estate 
 Record, intends to take an active part in securing legisla- 
 tion necessary for the interests of property owners in this 
 city, and especially with regard to reform in the law of 
 land transfers ; the Record insists that governments do not 
 do it. 
 
 And here I would remark that what I have stated with 
 reference to organizations of men, with common business, 
 trade or professional interests applies equally to organi- 
 zations of property owners. They, too, have interests to 
 be represented and are entitled to self-government, for the 
 protection of their special interests ; they would continue 
 to be organized according to geographical districts. Their 
 interests do not coincide with their tenants, as was shown 
 in the instance which I have above cited, of an attempt 
 to remove a railroad nuisance from the West Side of this 
 city ; both tenants and property owners worked together 
 at first, so as to have the nuisance diminished, but the 
 tenants soen recognized that, if the nuisance were 
 removed, the character of the neighborhood would be 
 changed, the property would become more valuable and 
 they would be forced to move, hence they lost interest and 
 
53 
 
 practically did not object to the lukewarmness of their 
 representatives in the matter. 
 
 This is an example of the present helplessness of prop- 
 erty owners against illegal acts, if so great as to affect 
 the character of the neighborhood, 
 
 Politicians are recognizing this coming power ; there is 
 no shrewder man among them than Gen. James Husted, 
 and this is a specimen of the sentiments which he has 
 recently repeatedly uttered : 
 
 " Mr. Hooley is the President of the Working Men's 
 Assembly, which will meet in this city in a few days. His 
 indorsement of the bill is sufficient for me," said Mr. 
 Husted, "and I follow where he leads." There was no 
 further opposition, and the bill was ordered to have its 
 third reading to-morrow. The Commission is required to 
 bring in a bill in support of whatever conclusion it 
 reaches. The five Commissioners will be paid $10 a 
 day. " 
 
 The Utica Assembly of Trades last year nominated and 
 elected an Assemblyman. 
 
 In fact, everything shows that the same thing is going 
 to happen, which has always happened where men of 
 Germanic race have been allowed to form their own gov- 
 ernments ; that they will not be satisfied to exist as disor- 
 ganized masses, but will unite in defence of their interests. 
 
54 
 
 XIV. 
 
 PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 NO legislation is needed, at least for the present ; a too 
 hasty recognition of the public rights and duties of 
 these organizations might lead to as unfortunate conse- 
 quences as the present system. The organizations are 
 forming themselves and assuming new duties rapidly; 
 although citizens might be encouraged to join themselves 
 to these associations, if they received some legal recog- 
 nition, such as some slight power to prevent dishonesty, 
 in their various callings. 
 
 What we should do now is this: This coming change 
 in our form of government should be recognized, its causes 
 studied, its progress foreseen, so that the transition to the 
 new state ol things may be as easy and tranquil as possible. 
 The great danger is that some strong interest or group of 
 interests will endeavor to gain for themselves the right of 
 representation and self-government to the exclusion of 
 other groups, with equal rights to these privileges; for 
 example, by the plan of confining the ballot to real estate 
 owners. That has been the trouble heretofore with Ger- 
 manic cities, that one group would try to assert itself to 
 the exclusion of others. 
 
 The same problem was solved by the authors of our 
 Constitution, by the institution ot two chambers, in one 
 of which all interests should be equally represented, as 
 such, and in the other the inhabitants should be repre- 
 sented according to numbers. The conflicting interests 
 of organizations of farmers living in very different climates, 
 fully as various as the trades in our cities, were thereby 
 
55 
 
 harmonized, and the plan worked well, even after the 
 injurious influences of representatives, elected from our 
 city geographical election districts, made themselves felt; 
 and on this model, I believe, an Alliance of Business, 
 Trade, Professional and Property-Owners' Associations of 
 the City of New York might be formed, which would 
 secure us self-government and real representation, at first 
 perhaps indirectly, by exercising a pressure upon the 
 potitical parties, by endorsing or rejecting nominations, 
 but before long by making nominations, and finally by 
 becoming themselves the political units, in place of the 
 present geographical election district, which is unscientific 
 in theory, unjustified by history and condemned by 
 experience. 
 
 A constitution in outline, for such an Alliance, is 
 hereto annexed. Citizens, all over the city, would vote 
 for the nominees of this association, and thus we would 
 begin by carrying out practically Mr. Hare's plan, so 
 warmly endorsed by Mr. Mill in his " Representative 
 Government," with the exception that we would have 
 added the indispensable nominating committee, in which 
 the interests of all citizens might be represented. And, 
 in conclusion, I would venture to suggest that an associa- 
 tion of men interested in this question might at once be 
 formed to study this movement in all its bearings in the 
 past and in the present, to collect facts showing the 
 tendencies of the movement in different localities, and to 
 oppose the attempts of the professional politicians to gain 
 control of the associations, and use them for selfish pur- 
 poses, especially by antagonizing them, and to diffuse 
 among the members of these organizations an appre- 
 ciation of their great usefulness and of their important 
 future. 
 
 By thus helping to organize the great masses in our 
 cities, and giving them representation and self-govern- 
 
56 
 
 ment, we would be carrying out the true principles of 
 our Germanic Constitution, and doing our share towards 
 hastening the fulfilment of Hamilton's prophecy : 
 
 " The time may ere long arrive when the minds of men 
 will be prepared to make an effort to recover the Con- 
 stitution." 
 
 The need of the hour is a new federalism. 
 
57 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE ALLIANCE 
 
 Trade, Professional and Property-Owners' Organizations 
 
 NEW YORK. CITY. 
 
 Section i. 
 
 The object of this Alliance is to promote the interests 
 of the inhabitants of the City of New York, by securing 
 for them the rights of representation and self-govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Section 2. 
 
 The Alliance shall consist of delegates from each of the 
 associations, which shall sign this constitution, or which 
 shall afterwards be admitted to this Alliance. 
 
 Section 3. 
 
 Each of said associations shall appoint three delegates; 
 this appointment shall be made before the close of the 
 year, for the ensuing year ; such appointment shall be 
 witnessed by a certificate, signed by the secretary and 
 sealed with the seal of the association. 
 
 Section 4. 
 
 The officers of this Alliance shall be a President, two 
 Vice-Presidents, a Secretary and a Treasurer, who shall 
 
58 
 
 be elected at the first regular meeting of the Alliance, 
 and hereafter at the last regular meeting of each year, 
 and shall hold office for one year, and perform the usual 
 duties of their respective offices ; no two of said officers 
 shall be members of the same association, but this latter 
 rule shall not apply to the secretary. 
 
 Section 5. 
 
 The following committees and all others, authorized by 
 the by-laws, shall be appointed by the president ; and each 
 committee shall consist of three members, except the Exec- 
 utive Committee, which shall consist of one member from 
 each of the associations. 
 
 Section 6. 
 
 The Committee on National Legislation, the Committee 
 on State Legislation and the Committe on Municipal 
 Legislation shall keep themselves informed concerning 
 legislation, in the national, state or municipal legislative 
 bodies respectively, and shall also keep a record of votes * 
 by the members of those bodies on matters of importance 
 to this Alliance. 
 
 Section 7. . . 
 
 The Committee on Business Organizations shall keep 
 itself informed concerning business organizations, not 
 members of this Alliance, and shall seek to gain their co- 
 operation, and to diffuse among their members an appre- 
 ciation of the benefits to be derived by self-government 
 and representation of such organizations. 
 
 Section 8. 
 
 The Committee on Arbitration shall act as arbitrators in 
 disputes between associations who are members of this 
 Alliance (if any should arise), and the members of said 
 committee shall also act as arbitrators in disputes between 
 
59 
 
 members of different associations, and may also accept 
 such compensation as may be agreed upon by all parties 
 for such services. 
 
 Section 9. 
 
 The Committee on Legislation shall consider all pro- 
 posals for amendment of the law. 
 
 Section 10. 
 
 The Committee on Nominations shall consider nomina- 
 tions for public offices, made by political parties, and shall 
 recommend to the Alliance the endorsement or rejection 
 of such nominations, or shall suggest that nominations be 
 made by the Alliance. 
 
 Section ii. 
 
 The Committee on Grievances shall conduct such liti- 
 gation as may be directed by the Alliance; but no suit 
 shall be begun except when authorized by three-fourths 
 •of the associations. 
 
 Section 12. 
 
 The Committee on Self-Government shall keep itself 
 informed concerning the relations of the various associa- 
 tions to their members, and, when appealed to, shall 
 recommend such action as shall seem conducive to the 
 best interests of all parties. 
 
 Section 13. 
 
 The Committee on Membership shall consider all appli 
 cations for membership from other associations. 
 
 Section 14. 
 The annual dues of each association shall be 
 
 dollars, to be paid in the month of January ; further 
 expense shall be borne equally by the associations, but 
 
6o 
 
 none shall be authorized except by a vote of three-fourths 
 of the associations. 
 
 Section 15. 
 
 Each delegate shall be entitled to one vote, and plurality 
 of votes shall decide all questions, except where the con- 
 stitution requires a vote of associations; in such cases 
 each association, represented at the meeting, shall have 
 one vote, to be cast by a majority of its delegates : if only 
 two delegates of any association are present and cannot 
 agree, the vote of that association shall not be counted: 
 and if only one delegate is present, he can vote for the 
 association. 
 
 Section 16. 
 
 New associations may be admitted, and the constitu- 
 tion may be amended by a vote ot three-fourths of the 
 associations ; but any member, proposing such admission 
 or amendment, shall give notice thereof to the secretary, 
 at least one week before the monthly meeting, and the 
 secretary shall immediately give notice thereof to the 
 members of the Alliance, in the manner provided for 
 calling special meetings. 
 
6i 
 
 Federalism and the Social Contract Theory. 
 
 THE characteristic which lies at the foundation of Fed- 
 eralism and distinguishes it in all times from other 
 systems of government is the belief in the existence of 
 absolute principles of right and wrong, which were cre- 
 ated by God and which exist independently of the human 
 reason. 
 
 By the desire to realize these higher ideas, men are led 
 to form governments ; as the Federalist says, on page 364 
 (Dawson's Ed.) : " Justice is the end of government. It is 
 the end of all civil society." 
 
 Moreover, believing that human reason may not always 
 recognize these great truths, and in order to hand them 
 down to posterity, Federalism imbeds them in constitu- 
 tions beyond the reach of the transient whims of a bare 
 majority of the multitude. 
 
 Thus the preamble of our Constitution reads : " We, 
 the people of the United States, in order to form a more 
 perfect union, establish justice . . . and secure the 
 blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do 
 ordain and establish this Constitution for the United 
 States of America." 
 
 To quote again from the Federalist (p. 498) : " It (the 
 republican principle) does not require an unqualified 
 complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to 
 
62 
 
 every transient impulse which the people may receive 
 from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to 
 betray their interests." 
 
 On the other hand, Federalism does not place the indi- 
 vidual helpless in the hands of an almighty government, 
 but maintains numerous organizations between the indi- 
 vidual and the State. Thus the Federalist says (p. 56) : 
 " From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that 
 a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting 
 of a small number of citizens, who assemble and adminis- 
 ter the government in person, can admit of no cure for 
 the mischiefs of faction ;'' and again, on p. 235 : "The Fed- 
 eral and State governments are in fact but different 
 agents and trustees of the people, constituted with differ- 
 ent powers and designated for different purposes." Our 
 towns, counties and states were unions of agriculturists, 
 each of which managed its own affairs, and whose repre- 
 sentatives met together to reconcile their conflicting inter- 
 ests and protect themselves from others. 
 
 In political economy, Federalism is, in the first place, 
 opposed to Communism. In the words of the Federalist: 
 " The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the 
 rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable 
 obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of 
 these faculties is the first object of government. From 
 the protection of different and unequal faculties of ac- 
 quiring property, the possession of different degrees and 
 kinds of property immediately results ; and from the in- 
 fluence of these on the sentiments and views of the respect- 
 ive proprietors ensues a division of the society into dif- 
 ferent interests and parties. The latent causes of faction 
 are thus sown in the nature of man." (p. 57.) " Among 
 the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed 
 union, none deserves to be more accurately developed 
 than its tendency to break and control the violence of 
 faction" (p. 55). 
 
On the other hand the Federalist recognizes the right 
 of every trade and occupation to maintain its separate 
 interests; thus Letter 58 reads: "A landed interest, a 
 manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, with many 
 lesser interests grow up of necessity in civilized nations. 
 The regulation of these forms the principal task of mod- 
 ern legislation." The whole spirit of Federalism is 
 opposed to permitting one class to oppress another at the 
 expense of the physical and moral health of the latter. 
 The founders of our government conceived its scope to 
 extend beyond the exercise of a mere police power; the 
 Constitution declares one of its objects to be " to promote 
 the general welfare." Our population at that time was 
 an agricultural one, and consequently the necessity for 
 laws regulating the treatment of employees by employers 
 were as little known as they are at present, for employees 
 in our agricultural districts or for our household servants; 
 but the apprenticeship and usury laws, and the provisions 
 for building roads and public education, indicate that the 
 Fathers placed no narrow bounds upon their idea of the 
 duties of a State, or of the minor organizations. 
 
 Law, they held, is not confined to keeping the peace 
 between individuals, or merely compelling them to 
 fulfill contracts, but justifies the prohibition of any act 
 which interferes with any of the greater or smaller 
 organizations attaining the objects of their existence. 
 
 What theory in politics, political economy and law 
 has been the great opponent of the doctrines of Feder- 
 alism, as above set forth ? 
 
 Luther Martin in his report to the Maryland Legis- 
 lature (I.Elliott's Debates, p. 351), concerning the pro- 
 ceedings in the convention which framed the United 
 States Constitution, states: "They (the opponents of 
 the United States Constitution) urged that all men con- 
 sidered in a state of nature, before any government is 
 
6 4 
 
 formed, are equally free and independent, no one having 
 any right or authority to exercise power over another, 
 and this without any regard to difference in personal 
 strength, understanding or wealth, and that when such 
 individuals enter into government, they have each a 
 right to an equal vote in every matter which relates to 
 their government." 
 
 This language is that of the adherents of the social 
 contract theory, which has continued to be the opponent 
 of Federalism to the present day, and the object of this 
 paper is to show the history of this political doctrine, 
 together with a brief reference to its effects on political 
 economy and law. 
 
 This theory, to state it briefly, is as follows : It assumes 
 that men lived originally in a state of nature without 
 laws or government, but that for various reasons thev 
 found this unendurable, and consequently, guided by 
 their reason, they met and resolved to live in social rela- 
 tions and form a State, submitting themselves to an 
 individual, or to a number of individuals, who hereby 
 became their rulers. 
 
 The agreement to live in a State is called pactum 
 unionis ; the agreement to form a government is called 
 pactum constitutionis ; and the agreement between 
 governors and governed is called pactum subjectionis. 
 Of course no place is found for organizations intermediate 
 between the State and the individuals. These are prob- 
 ably the only points on which all the various supporters 
 of this theory agree. The influence of this theory was 
 so widespread, that a reference to most of the prominent 
 political writers will be necessary. 
 
65 
 
 I. 
 
 But, before we go further into the history of its devel- 
 opment, a short account should be given of the theories 
 and causes which, apparently, led up to the adoption of 
 this theory. Among the Greeks, the necessity of any 
 explanation of the unlimited power of the Government 
 does not seem to have been felt. Ulysses, when he 
 chastises Thyrsites, that prototype of democratic dema- 
 gogues, gives no explanation of why Agamemnon was 
 entitled to such a large share of the spoil, and so many 
 beautiful women, beyond the heavy weight of his staff. 
 And, in later times, when the governments had become 
 republics, there was no question but that the Govern- 
 ment might do what it pleased. Thus, in the trial of 
 the naval commanders, after the battle of Arginusas, the 
 law of procedure, which allowed only one man to be tried 
 at a time, was changed, and the commanders were all 
 tried at once ; for, said the popular orators, if we, the 
 people, decide on their fate, can we not also say how we 
 will do it? 
 
 In the same spirit, Plato, in his republic, sacrifices the 
 individual entirely to the State. He sacrifices the well- 
 being of the individual; he seeks only a successful and 
 splendid State, in which an individual must find his 
 satisfaction in knowing that he belongs to it. Thus, he 
 denies to the ruling class all private property ; even their 
 wives must be in common, so that no interests, other than 
 the common welfare, may distract their attention; and, 
 as to the condition of the lower class, consisting of the 
 laborers, artisans, etc., nothing is said of their having any 
 rights, or deserving any consideration. 
 
 Aristotle, whose ideas were intended more for real 
 life, considered man as an animal, destined by nature to 
 
66 
 
 form a State. The object of the State is to live well; it 
 may be in the form of monarchy, aristocracy or democ- 
 racy, whichever is best suited to a city's particular cir- 
 cumstances. But, like Plato, he considers the individual 
 as completely subordinate to the State, and does not con- 
 sider that any question can be raised as to the origin or 
 propriety of this relation. 
 
 The explanation of this may lie in the fact that the 
 Greeks were then for the first time experiencing the 
 advantages derived from city life, in which, necessarily, 
 the central authority must be very great; their idea of a 
 State was the city ; the will of the citizens, who could 
 meet easily, was naturally the supreme law ; all the great- 
 est goods seem to be gained only by this close cohesion 
 of men and subordination of one to all ; hence all smalL 
 unions, such as trade-guilds and even families, were dis- 
 regarded, and the immoderate extension of the principle 
 of absolute government seems to have been one of the 
 principal causes of the unsteadiness and final downfall of 
 these cities and states. 
 
 Their philosophy had destroyed their old religious be- 
 liefs, but they had substituted no new system to carry up 
 man's thoughts to God ; they made man the centre of the 
 universe and his reason or will his all-sufficient guide. 
 
 The Romans, as little as the Greeks, felt the need of 
 any theory to account for the existence of the State. 
 Their absolute public authority, which seems to resemble 
 most nearly the strong power possessed by a robber chief- 
 tain over his band, was never decreased even when the 
 conquest of the world had made it unnecessary. The only 
 remedy they could think of was to increase the number 
 of men who wielded this absolute power ; thus two con- 
 suls were appointed in place of one king ; and again later,, 
 two tribunes were installed to check the two consuls. 
 
 The Romans also copied all their theoretical ideas from 
 
6; 
 
 the Greeks ; hence they repeated the teachings of the en- 
 tire absorption of the individual into the State ; although 
 they were unconscious of the fact that the independence 
 of the pater-familias in all matters pertaining to private 
 law was in direct contradiction to the Greek spirit. 
 
 The Greek idea of the State, as a city, was also unfor- 
 tunate for the Romans, as it prevented the adoption of 
 any theory suitable to its world-wide government, which 
 continned till the time of the absolute empire to be that 
 of a city, governing a surrounding country ; thus a civis 
 romanus could exercise his privileges only in the City of 
 Rome, etc. 
 
 To Christianity is due the elevation of the individual 
 from being merely an instrument of the State ; the high 
 value set upon every man as possessing an immortal soul, 
 raised the humblest individual above the greatest pro- 
 ductions of this world. 
 
 St. Augustine thus considers the State only as a neces- 
 sary evil, the work of the children of this world, with 
 which it is better to have no more to do than is necessary. 
 The real State is supernatual ; it is the union of all true 
 believers in the Church, and the earthly governments 
 should serve only the ends of the Church, since they, like 
 everything else, are the direct productions of the Lord. 
 
 Charlemagne and the succeeding emperors were con- 
 sidered as having the mission of realizing the heavenly 
 kingdom so far as possible on this earth ; hence their 
 authority was deemed to be derived directly from God. 
 The cry of " Deus vult " was the expression of an opinion 
 on earthly matters not confined to the Crusades, but 
 applicable to political institutions in general. 
 
 Dante is the chief writer of this period, and his Latin 
 political writings are full of yearnings for unity under the 
 German Emperor, who derived his authority through the 
 Pope, from God ; but the question of the origin of gov- 
 
68 
 
 eminent is not raised ; Aristotle, the " philosophus," said 
 nothing about it, and that was enough. 
 
 Later writers followed in the same direction, bound by 
 the authority of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas ; the for- 
 mer in worldly, the latter in spiritual matters, being the 
 sufficient authority. 
 
 It was not until the sudden influx of new ideas into 
 Western Europe, which followed the fall of Constanti- 
 nople, had overturned the established ideas of the rela- 
 tions of God and man, that men began also in political 
 matters to question the origin and authority of existing 
 institutions. 
 
 This was, however, not done by the leaders of the 
 Reformation ; on the Continent, they recognized existing 
 civil authority as an institution of God, although not so 
 directly as had been heretofore assumed. The legal and 
 moral duties of a man were derived from the decalogue, 
 and Melancthon's moral philosophy treats of our rights 
 and duties as arising directly from God's command. 
 
 They did not follow out, in political questions, the same 
 course of investigation which they adopted in regard to 
 Church matters, where they assumed by their reason 
 alone to be able to discover at any time, without reference 
 to past development, the true will of God. 
 
69 
 
 II. 
 
 The first writer to claim a similar pre-eminence for 
 human reason in political matters, appears to have been 
 Hugo Grotius, in his work entitled "De jure belli et 
 pacis," published in 1625. 
 
 His object was most laudable. He had seen the 
 miseries which were produced by the unmitigated 
 violence of the religious wars of that period; he could not 
 appeal to the commands of God, as reason for their miti- 
 gation, because the contestants believed that they were 
 fighting under God's commands, and that it was obeying 
 Him and pleasing Him to destroy His enemies. Gro- 
 tius, therefore, had to find some authority other than God. 
 In chapter I. of his first book, he says: "That which we 
 call Natural Right or the Law of Nature is the dictate of 
 
 right Reason The Law of Nature is so immutable 
 
 that God himself cannot alter it." And in the introduc- 
 tion he bases the civil law on this natural law, as follows: 
 " Again seeing that it is a dictate of the Law of Nature to 
 fulfiii covenants and agreements (for it is necessary that 
 there should be some means of obliging men among them- 
 selves, nor can there be any other means found that is 
 natural) from this spring flow all civil laws." 
 
 The state, therefore, arises from contract, contract 
 arises from natural law and natural law arises from human 
 reason, which would have binding authority, as he says 
 in his preface, "though we should grant, what without 
 great wickedness we cannot, that there is no God, or that 
 He takes no care of human affairs." 
 
 Although Grotius thus derives the authority of the 
 state from the people, his teachings were not revolution- 
 ary, because he considers the people as having transferred 
 
JO 
 
 the authority inalienably to their sovereign; nor did he 
 have much effect upon private law, because his attention 
 was chiefly directed to international law, with which we 
 need not concern ourselves in this essay. He merely 
 refers to private law in his first chapter of first book as 
 "that law that is of lesser extent, andariseth not from the 
 civil power, though subject unto it, is various, compre- 
 hending under it that of a father over his children, that 
 of a master over his servants and the like." From this 
 passage, one might conclude that he considered these 
 legal institutions to have an origin independent of the 
 public authority and the social contract; and the subse- 
 quent brief treatment of the institutions of private law in 
 Chapter III. to V. of Book II. does not dispel this idea, 
 although he treats of marriage as an institution of natural 
 law he does not consider individuals as having trans- 
 ferred all their rights to the state, but only such as are 
 necessary for the common defence. 
 
 The reason why Grotius and his successors on the con- 
 tinent adopted the theory of contract, as an explanation 
 of the origin of government, is that at that time, owing to 
 peculiar historical reasons, the mere agreement of the 
 parties {nudum pactum) had become actionable. The 
 Roman law, as is well known, considered an agreement to 
 be actionable only in case it was in the form of a stipuut- 
 tio, or in case something was delivered or performed 
 (real contract), except in the four cases of sale, lease, man- 
 date and partnership, in wh'ch the mere consent of the 
 parties sufficed. 
 
 In the old Germanic law on the continent, a similar 
 rule had prevailed, that mere agreements were not action- 
 able ; thus, in our English law, bonds and covenants cor- 
 responded to the Roman stipulatio, and our old doctrine 
 of consideration, which did not consider a promise a good 
 consideration for a promise, made the cases in which 
 
7* 
 
 informal promises were actionable correspond very nearly 
 to the real contracts of the Roman law. 
 
 However, by the reception ol the Roman law on the 
 continent, the old Germanic forms, in which a promise 
 had to be clothed in order to be actionable, were pushed 
 aside, and as the Roman forms were unsuited to Germanic 
 modes of life and business dealings, they were not 
 adopted nor did any new forms spring up. so that the 
 principle that the nudum pactum was actionable, which the 
 Romans had particularly confined to the above mentioned 
 four contracts, was generally adopted, for the first time, 
 probably in the history of an Aryan people 
 
 Another fact, which tended to produce the idea of the 
 inherent binding power of a promise, was the weight 
 which the Church had through all the middle ages laid 
 upon the solemnity of an oath. The Church carried this 
 so far as to insist that the benefit of all laws passed for 
 the protection of an individual or of a class, might be 
 waived by an oath to that effect ; for, they said, a broken 
 oath will send a man's soul to hell, which far exceeds any 
 earthly ill which he might suffer. Hence, minors were 
 allowed to make binding contracts, if they swore that they 
 would not resist payment by appealing to the law, which 
 prohibited their making contracts. 
 
 The remains of the spirit of chivalry, also, were con- 
 sonant with this idea, that all promises raised binding 
 obligations, for breach of his plighted word was one of 
 the worst offenses of which a knight could be guilty; so 
 that enemies were in the habit of releasing each other on 
 parole, so soon as the amount of the ransom had been 
 agreed upon. It appears, therefore, that all of the three 
 ruling castes of that age — the lawyers, the clergy and the 
 knights, were familiar with the idea that all promises must 
 be kept, and that it would have been against all their 
 teachings and prejudices to have questioned it. 
 
72 
 
 The material situation of the mass of the people at that 
 time had also much to do with the wide influences which 
 this theory obtained. One of the many evil consequences 
 which the sudden immense influx of new ideas, known as 
 the Renaissance, brought with it — in consequence of the 
 inability of one age to digest and assimilate so vast an 
 amount of new facts and theories — was that the feudal 
 chieftain assumed all the privileges and absolute powers 
 of the rulers of the Greek and Roman states, and forgot 
 all the duties which he owed to his vassals under the real 
 feudal system, and which the more settled state of the 
 country rendered less necessary. 
 
 Everywhere, therefore, at that time the rulers had been 
 increasing their power and rights at the expense of their 
 subordinates. 
 
 These rulers needed a theory by which to secure and 
 justify their acquired rights, and the un-Germanic idea 
 of one absolute corporation forming the state. This was 
 furnished them by the social contract, which, as taught 
 before Rousseau, led to the conclusion that the original 
 contract between governors and governed once having 
 been made, it could not now be altered, but was binding 
 as any civil contract. The necessity for this artificial ex- 
 planation arose, therefore, from the fact that the Greek 
 and Roman forms of government were being forced upon 
 a Germanic people. When a people has a suitable gov- 
 ernment it asks for no explanation of it. But the rulers 
 of that century little thought that by the fostering of this 
 artificial theory they were preparing a weapon which 
 could be turned with equal force against their own pre- 
 tensions. 
 
 Puffendorf in his book, " De Jure Naturae " (1672), and 
 " De Officio Hominis et Civis " (1693), developed Grotius' 
 theory and applied it to all the institutions of private law, 
 and he has been followed so blindly, as I will try to show 
 
hereafter, that he might almost be called the father of mod- 
 ern jurisprudence, although in his "De Jure Naturae" he ex- 
 pressly disclaims the intention of writing a complete legal 
 text book. He says : " So we that profess in this work to 
 treat only of those duties of men which the light of reason 
 shows to be necessary do not at all pretend that there ever 
 was or now is or ought to be such a state in which those 
 obligations only should prevail, exclusive of all others." 
 Puffendorf was not a great original thinker ; his ideas 
 were chiefly derived from or suggested by Grotius and 
 Hobbes (whom we shall consider later) ; but he first 
 treated all legal relations from this standpoint of natural 
 law,- and hence his book had such a widespread influence. 
 He confuses law and morals ; he breaks off the slender 
 band which Grotius still maintained between God and 
 man, and declares the latter's reason to be all sufficient; 
 he founds the institution of marriage upon the consent of 
 the parties, and makes desperate efforts to discover some 
 implied consent to explain the duties of parent and child. 
 Property of individuals is derived from all things having 
 been originally held in common, and this communism 
 would be the proper condition of things, except where, 
 by the terms of the social compact, occupation is allowed. 
 Torts and crimes and all subjects which could not be ex- 
 plained as contracts, were pushed into the background. 
 
 Grotius and Puffendorf may, therefore, be considered 
 the chief of the older exponents of the social contract. 
 
 As above stated, Puffendorf derived many of his ideas 
 from Hobbes ; but the latter cannot properly be said to 
 have believed in the social contract. As an Englishman 
 he knew that promises, unless in the form of a bond or 
 covenant, were not actionable ; thus, in Chapter XIV. of 
 his Leviathan (published in 165 1) he says: "Bonds that 
 have their strength not from their own nature (for noth- 
 ing is more easily broken than a man's word), but from 
 
74 
 
 fear of some evil consequences upon the rupture." He 
 therefore derived the necessity of keeping the social con- 
 tract merely from fear of what would happen if it were 
 broken and men were left to their evil passions. He was 
 led to this idea from contemplation of the disorders 
 which filled England during the time of the Common- 
 wealth. 
 
 In other points, however, his strong mind carried out 
 the ideas of Grotius to their furthest consequences. His 
 views on the state are well shown in his first introduction 
 to the Leviathan : " For by art is created that great levia- 
 than called a commonwealth or state (in latin, civitas), 
 which is but an artificial man, .... and in which 
 the sovereignty is an artificial soul, as giving life and 
 motion to the whole body ; . . . . lastly, the pacts 
 and covenants by which the parts of this body politique 
 were first made .... resemble that fiat or ' let us 
 make man,' pronounced by God in the creation." From 
 this we see that he considered the government absolute, 
 and that men could create any form of it they pleased, 
 which opinion he frequently reasserts. He recognized no 
 other wrong than breach ot contract. 
 
 Thus, in Chapter XV., he says: " And the definition of 
 injustice is no other than the not-performance ot cove- 
 nant, and whatsoever is not unjust is just." In this opinion 
 he goes further than Grotius or any of his successors. 
 He derives the absolute power of government from prov- 
 ing, in Chapter XVI II., the absurdity of any other con- 
 clusion from the social contract, supposing that actually 
 to have taken place. This mode of argument was subse- 
 quently to be applied to the theory to produce very 
 different conclusions. This conclusion is expressed in 
 Chapter XXI.: " Liberty of a subject lieth, therefore, only 
 in those things which, in regulating their actions, the 
 sovereign hath praetermitted." 
 
75 
 
 He boldly carries Grotius' theory of the independence 
 of man from God to its full extent; thus he says that 
 atheism cannot be a vice, beause the atheist never sub- 
 mitted his will to God, and no one can have power over 
 another except by the latter's consent. In this opinion he 
 agreed with the absurd views of Spinoza, who declared 
 that divine law began from that time when man by ex- 
 press compact promised to obey God in all things ; by 
 which deed they receded, as it were, from their natural 
 liberty, and transferred their right upon God, just as sov- 
 eignty is conferred in civil states. 
 
 Kant was the next and last of the great writers who 
 derived an absolute form of government from the social 
 contract. The process of reasoning by which he reaches 
 this conclusion is difficult to discover ; thus, in his Rechls- 
 Lehre, he says : " The legislative power can only belong 
 to the united will of the people." But a few pages iater 
 he says : " Against the rightful head of the state there 
 can, therefore, be no rightful resistance by the people." 
 And: "The ruler in the state has towards his' subjects 
 only rights, not duties." 
 
 Judging from his general mode of philosophical argu- 
 ment, which assumes that things are not actually what 
 they seem, but that they nevertheless exist in some ideal 
 form, he probably considered that ideal and not real men 
 made the social contract and instituted absolute govern- 
 ment, concerning which subjects must not now indulge in 
 presumptuous theories (" Vernuenfteleien "). Upon insti- 
 tutions of private law, however, he inconsequently still 
 allows the Volksmeinung full play ; thus, concerning the 
 property of corporations, he writes in his Anmerkung A 
 to his Staats-Recht : " So soon as this ( Volksmeinung) 
 ceases, and even if only in the opinion of those who by 
 their merits have the pre-eminence, .... then the 
 supposed right of property must also cease." The 
 
institution of the family, on the other hand, he regards 
 as positive and unchanged, because demanded by reason. 
 
 We now come to the man who, starting with the same 
 fiction of a social contract, came to very opposite conclu 
 sions from these supporters of absolute monarchies, which 
 we have so far been considering. It was Jean Jaques 
 Rousseau who captured this formidable battery of the rul- 
 ing classes and trained its guns with such deadly effect upon 
 its former owners. He accomplished this by the doctrine 
 of inalienable rights, which he promulgated in his " Con- 
 trat Social." He adopted the theory of an original 
 social contract without reserve ; he says in Livre I., Chap- 
 ter IV.: "Since no man has any natural authority over 
 his equal, and since force produces no right, it fol- 
 lows that only contracts remain as a basis for all legiti- 
 mate authority among men." He, however, differs in 
 this irom Grotius, in that he claims that there are certain 
 rights of which men could not have disposed, because 
 they could receive no equivalent ; thus he says in Chapter 
 IV., that for a freeman to sell himself would be absurd, 
 because he could not be in his senses, since he could 
 receive no equivalent for his liberty. He, therefore, in 
 this respect, limits the power of man over himself. 
 
 Only one form of a good government is therefore possi- 
 ble, which consists in the complete transfer of all indi- 
 vidual rights to the community, as a whole: "enfin 
 chacun se dormant a tons ne se donne d personnel (Liv. 
 1., Ch. 6.) All individuals, therefore, are and remain 
 equal, and a volontb general is created which is the sover- 
 eign, and in which all participate. He meets the objec- 
 tion that in a large state all citizens could not attend the 
 assemblies, by suggesting that large states are not neces- 
 sary, but each city may form a state by itself. (Liv. III., 
 Ch. 13.) Like the Greeks and Romans and all his prede- 
 cessors, he assumes that the power of this government, 
 this volants general is absolute over the individual. 
 
77 
 
 The object is the bien public, which consists in all having 
 an equal share of the goods of this world; hence, all 
 other corporations except the state, and all individual 
 interests must be abolished. 
 
 The officers of the government are the agents of the 
 people, hence they are, at any time, liable to be called to 
 account and deposed. This recall of power is no revolu- 
 tion, any more than a change of ministers by the king ; 
 rebellion is a thing which does not exist. 
 
 Rousseau had thus carried the theory of the social con- 
 tract at one bound to the opposite extreme from that 
 maintained by Hobbes and Kant. He had shown that it 
 was absurd to claim that the original contract consisted 
 in an entire renunciation of all rights on the part of the 
 people, and that, if that had been the case, the contract 
 was voidable. The supporters of monarchy could sug- 
 gest no other theory than this social contract and had, 
 therefore, to rely upon Hobbes' assertion that, if this con- 
 tract were once broken, man would relapse into anarchy 
 and barbarism. 
 
 It was the success and good order of our Revolution 
 which knocked away this last prop of absolute monarch- 
 ies. The New England descendants of the Puritans owed 
 their freedom from the social contract theory, as well as 
 many other of their peculiarities, to the fact that they had 
 escaped the effects of the Renaissance. Their ancestors 
 in England generally belonged to a class which was not 
 affected by the Renaissance ; and after their emigration 
 to this country they were too busy with cutting down the 
 forests and fighting Indians to think much of Grotius and 
 Puffendorf. Besides, these theories of the supremacy of 
 human reason contradicted their belief in the relation of 
 God and man. They still considered themselves under 
 the direct guidance of the Almighty, as all Europe did 
 before the Renaissance ; hence they set up their covenant 
 
78 
 
 with God, as their highest law. Hobbes calls this an 
 unmanly lie ; but, as a matter of fact, it was no more a 
 lie than his faction of the original contract ; and at all 
 events, it had the fortunate effect of preserving our people 
 from its benumbing influence. The reason that New 
 York was less ardent in the beginning of the Revolution 
 may, in part, be ascribed to the fact that it was under the 
 influence of a small number of wealthy families, who, by 
 their superior means and more ample leisure, stood in 
 more direct communication with the European thought 
 of that day, and, like it, dreaded the consequences of 
 questioning this theory, sanctioned by such high authori- 
 ties. 
 
 Rousseau did not have to wait long for an answer ; it 
 was given him in the French Revolution, which, though 
 brought about in a large part by the desire of realizing 
 his Utopias, showed the utter incapacity of man to con- 
 struct a state solely by aid of his reason ; only the mad- 
 dest of the mad, under Baboeuf, actually attempted to 
 turn his ideal into reality, although his ideas were adopted 
 in their repeated declarations of right. 
 
 11. 
 
 Since the French revolution the theory has lost its com- 
 manding position ; the impracticability of its necessary 
 consequences is recognized ; in its entirety it serves now 
 only as a convenient hypothesis on which some theoreti- 
 cian in law or political economy builds up an airy castle, 
 with massive logic and unanswerable arguments ; but its 
 glittering generalities are still scattered through the 
 books of many writers of note, and are still received as 
 axioms, in apparent ignorance of their origin and neces- 
 sary consequences ; law and political science, especially, 
 
79 
 
 still suffer from the effects of its insidious poison, and 
 languish, unaware of the chief cause of their disease. 
 
 But before I attempt to trace out the effects of this 
 theory, in modern law and political economy, I would 
 briefly here consider the merits of the social contract 
 theory and show its fallacy as a theory and its effects on 
 the public and private legal institutions of that age. 
 
 Of course, its great fault is that the whole thing never 
 occurred; that the actual state was not formed from 
 individuals, but from tribes, which again consisted of 
 related families or from other smaller organizations ! 
 that the individual members of these tribes or other 
 organizations were not living in a lawless state 
 of nature, but under customary laws, which had been 
 observed for ages ; that the transition from a confederacy 
 of tribes into a state was so gradual, that it probably had 
 little or no effect upon the institutions of private law ; that 
 this transition was generally effected, not by the consent 
 or promise of the individuals, but of the tribes or other 
 organizations, which, as a rule, transferred only certain 
 enumerated rights ; that no organizations or individuals 
 ever voluntarily surrendered absolute power over them- 
 selves and their property to any government. 
 
 When we consider these delects in the theory, which we 
 would think would strike any superficial observer, we 
 must wonder at the ascendancy which it gained, did we 
 not have examples enough in our day of the influence 
 which absurd theories can acquire when sanctioned by 
 high authorities. When we see the real power which 
 the theory still exercises and the weakness of the oppos- 
 ing theories, I think we will be less positive in this 
 opinion. 
 
 The effect which this theory had in its days on public 
 and private law was enormous. It first of all divorced 
 all institutions, public and private, from all real connec- 
 
tion with God; it failed, however, in all its attempts, to 
 find a firm, new basis on which to erect them ; for, since 
 it was assumed that all institutions were invented by man, 
 man must necessarily be able to change them at will ; but, 
 if man can make what institutions he pleases, he must also 
 be able to give himself into slavery or into subjection to 
 an absolute monarch. So that on the first theory any 
 government might be overthrown at any time ; but, on 
 the second theory, no government, however oppressive, 
 could be resisted or questioned. In the same manner all 
 legal institutions were exposed to this uncertainty ; even 
 contract itself could not be shown to be binding; for, 
 although I promised to do a thing, in the next minute 1 
 might refuse to perform it, as abridging my liberty. The 
 right of property was denied by Proudhon on the same 
 reasoning. Different writers attempted to avoid this 
 dilemma by assuming that those rights which they ap- 
 proved of were inalienable, but the line was entirely arbi- 
 trary. 
 
 Not only the state, but all institutions were thus 
 exposed to the popular whim. Thus marriage was 
 not necessarily monogamous or a union for life ; on the 
 contrary, the freedom of man demanded that this contract 
 might be dissolved at any time, at the will of either party, 
 and certainly by mutual consent. The great fact that the 
 community, as a whole, had any interest in the conduct of 
 individuals, or any right to interfere with them, except 
 where the individuals had consented to such right of 
 interference, was denied. Hence, all legal institutions for 
 which the ingenious imaginations of the philosophers 
 could find no consent as its basis, were shriveled up or 
 discarded altogether. Thus the rights and duties of 
 parents and children towards each other formed a great 
 stumbling block, which they could only partly get over 
 by assuming that by the act of generation the parent had 
 
8i 
 
 impliedly contracted to support his offspring ; "but the 
 duty was reduced to a minimum, as this was felt to be a 
 weak point. 
 
 The whole subject of civil wrongs or torts was usually 
 omitted or brought in under the head of an implied 
 consent, although it would seem that to hold a man 
 liable for consent which he had never in fact given was 
 as tyrannical as any act could well be. The subject of 
 contracts was thereby divorced from that of torts and 
 given undue importance and a separate treatment. More- 
 over, the whole subject of morals was introduced into 
 law and mixed in inextricable confusion ; the law of 
 nature, as it was called, was considered as raising direct 
 legal obligations, without further sanction by the legisla- 
 tive authority. In Germany, it is true, under the influ- 
 ence of Leibnitz, Thomasius distinguished legal from 
 moral obligations by the criterion that only the former 
 were to be enforced by the courts ; but this distinction, as 
 we will see hereafter, was not adopted by later English 
 writers. 
 
 The precise and complete legal system of the Germanic 
 lawyers was replaced, so far as possible, by a confused, 
 barbarous jargon about natural rights, agreements, con- 
 tracts, covenants, pacts, etc., which terms no two writers 
 used in the same sense, or which often meant different 
 things in the same volume or chapter. In England the 
 Germanic law, under the name of the feudal system, was 
 confined to the law of real estate, and could there keep up 
 with the wants of national development only by labori- 
 ously defined fictions — which, however, were after all 
 better than the fine sounding but utterly confused system 
 which regulated personal property ; the lawyers felt that 
 the only salvation for the stability of the law of real prop- 
 erty, on which such vast interests depended, was to keep 
 it out of the vortex of natural law, which had swallowed 
 
82 
 
 so many legal institutions, and which necessarily led to 
 communism. 
 
 Another, probably the most important, evil effect of the 
 social contract theory was, as above stated, that all cor- 
 porations or unions except the State must be abolished. 
 Hobbes declared them to be the animalculae which exist 
 within and feed upon the human body, and Rousseau was 
 most positive in his denunciations of them, because they 
 intercepted the wills of the individuals, and kept them 
 from forming that volont/ general which was the only 
 popular form of government. Other writers of this school 
 were equally contemptuous of these intermediate organi- 
 zations, or simply ignored them. 
 
 We will next endeavor to trace the influence of this 
 theory upon the writings of the chief German philophers, 
 and then, finally, upon the English and American writers 
 on law and political economy. These men differ irom 
 the predecessors of Rousseau in this respect, that they did 
 not actually believe that the social contract theory could 
 be made a rule for the formation of the State, but they 
 accepted it as a theory, in default of any other, to explain 
 and justify the existence of government as a purely human 
 institution without acknowledging God. Thus Fichte 
 carried the theory of human independence to its furthest 
 extent, identifying the thinking individual with the uni- 
 verse. In his " Natur-Recht " (page 139), he says: "The 
 possibility of rights between individuals in natural law is 
 based upon mutual trust and good faith ; " and on page 
 129: "An original right is only a fiction, but it must be 
 assumed for the purposes of science." No one carried the 
 inevitable results of this theory more completely to their 
 greatest extent ; thus he says of property, on page 129: 
 u The right to exclusive possession (property) is acquired 
 by mutual consent, is limited by it, and cannot exist with- 
 out it." He thus preached communism, pure and simple. 
 
83 
 
 However, in his later work, entitled " Staats-Lehre," 
 where he undertakes to construct an actual State, he fol- 
 lows a very different plan. To the question, " Who has 
 the right to be ruler ? " he replies, on page 87 : " The 
 highest human intelligence, and since this never exists, the 
 highest intellect of that age and time." He then discusses 
 at length how this highest intellect is to be recognized, 
 and comes to the conclusion that the learned must name 
 him as ruler from their midst who has shown the highest 
 intellect. He, however, fails to explain how this aristo- 
 cratic body of wise men is to form itself, and generally in 
 his treatment of the subject seems to deserve the epithet 
 of " ink-fish " which Schoppenhauer gave him, from the 
 impenetrable cloud of words in which he enveloped him- 
 self. 
 
 A reaction against this whole social contract philosophy 
 was started by Niebuhr's discovery of Gajus' manuscript, 
 which had been written over with a homily of the Middle 
 Ages. From this it appeared that the Roman law, and 
 consequently the State, was not the product of pure rea- 
 son and absolutely correct, but that it had undergone 
 many and great changes. But the aversion to all philo- 
 sophical theorizing on the subject of law was so great 
 with Savigny and his followers that they never promul- 
 gated any definite system, but contented themselves with 
 looking up the historical development of Roman law and 
 studying out the meaning of dark passages in the corpus 
 juris. And they then applied their conclusions, with but 
 little respect for practical consequences, to upset long 
 established ideas of Roman law, on which the most valu- 
 able rights depended. 
 
 To account for the rule of Roman law in Germany they 
 generally compared the Roman law to Christianity, which 
 had also spread from Rome and thus attempted to give 
 Roman law a sort of halo, which should protect it from 
 
8 4 
 
 inquiry. The great growth of their school may be 
 accounted for by its being in accordance with the popu- 
 lar sentiment at that time, which, sick of the social con- 
 tract and the products of human reason, clung anxiously 
 to all that had been handed down from the past. 
 
 But by the exaltation of the historical method, the 
 Romanists raised an opposition historical school of the 
 so-called Germanists, who contended that Germanic law 
 should be the principal object of our research. They too, 
 however, advanced no decided political or legal theory, 
 being contented with the assertion that the chief source of 
 law was custom, but they carefully and apparently inten- 
 tionally avoided the natural conclusion that law was the will 
 of the people. This would not have pleased the govern- 
 ment, which supported the learned professors. However, 
 the Germanists are gradually being forced to assume that 
 popular customs of to-day also deserve attention, and under 
 the theory of the so-called " Natur der Sache " they are 
 beginning to recognise again the popular participation in 
 the origin of law. Hegel in his Staats-Recht may be 
 said to have developed the philosophy of this school, at 
 least in its results as passively accepting existing govern- 
 ments. As the natural and inevitable result of history 
 it is identical with the inferences to be drawn from the 
 teachings of the historical school. As in his famous sen- 
 tence: " What is rational (vernunftig) exists, and what exists 
 is rational." He denied most emphatically the social con- 
 tract theory, although the reason for the denial is some- 
 what strained ; he says in §75 : " The State must allow per- 
 sons to enter and leave it; this is independent of the will 
 of individuals, and the State therefore cannot rest on con- 
 tract, because that requires free-will (willkur). It is incor- 
 rect to say that it depends on the will of all to form a State ; 
 it is on the contrary absolutely necessary for every one to be 
 in the State." His extreme conservative tendencies are 
 
85 
 
 shown further by his denial in §273 of the right to alter 
 the constitution, except in the manner provided for by the 
 constitution. How he reaches his conclusions I would 
 not dare to guess. As a specimen of his perspicacity I 
 will cite his definiton of a State in §275 : " The State is 
 the reality of the moral idea — the moral spirit, as the re- 
 vealed, self-conscious, substantial will, which thinks and 
 knows and accomplishes that what it knows and so far as 
 it knows it." Fortunately, however, he reassures us in 
 §270 : " The State exists in reality." 
 
 But in spite of this lack of clearness, Hegel deserves 
 the greatest credit for having emancipated himself en- 
 tirely from the social contract theory, and based the State 
 upon the natural requirements of our being. The result 
 of his writings has been to finally banish the social com- 
 pact, even as a fiction, among the things of the past. I 
 will only further call attention to Schleiermacher and 
 Schoppenhauer, the former of whom seems to correspond 
 with our utilitarian school and the latter with the later 
 fatalistic and materialistic philosophy of Darwinism. 
 
 However, Schoppenhauer's abstract ideas of the origin 
 of justice are of the highest value ; but his practical con- 
 clusions, that the constitutional monarchy is the only 
 natural form of government, is an evidence of the strength 
 of his prejudices. 
 
 Ihering, probably the greatest of modern jurists, in his 
 uncompleted work on " Zweck im Recht " (Purpose in 
 Law), although in his earlier work on " Geist des 
 Romischen Rechts" he adopted the social contract 
 theory, promises to give us a philosophy of law equal 
 in value to his preceding historical researches ; in opposi- 
 tion to materialism, he insists upon the dependence of 
 man on God, and that everything is not merely a means, 
 but also serves a purpose. His work is one of the many 
 signs that the world may in the not distant future draw 
 
not only its theory of government, but. also its religion, 
 from Germany. 
 
 We pass to a brief consideration of the influence which 
 this theory had upon English writers on law and political 
 theories. Its effect upon law cannot fully be traced in this 
 essay, as it would lead us into a too technical discussion. 
 I will only mention that the real origin of equity, as we 
 have it to-day, dates from the time of Lord Nottingham, 
 who became Chancellor under Charles II. We may safely 
 assume that this sudden development of a few uncertain 
 principles into the great fabric which arose at that time 
 would not have taken place had not the writings of 
 Grotius and Hobbes existed and shown the way to a 
 larger adaptation of principles of morality as law. The 
 first writers on equity are entirely under the influence of 
 the social contract theory. However, the evils which 
 accompanied this introduction of these teachings are very 
 evident. A whole new terminology was introduced, so 
 that the law of personal property, which came into im- 
 portance since that time, has nothing to offer in compari- 
 son with the exact and complete system of the real estate 
 law. All the evils, which I have before referred to as 
 produced upon the Germanic laws of the Continent, were 
 felt in England, although perhaps not to so great an ex- 
 tent, as the English were more practical in their nature ; 
 thus contracts received undue importance ; duties arising 
 from family relation were decreased ; new duties to suit 
 new forms of business were not imposed ; the certainty of 
 judgment of the older judges, as expressing the will of the 
 people, founded upon absolute ideas of right and wrong, 
 disappeared, and in its place came an anxious searching 
 after some sort of an express or implied consent of the 
 party to be charged with the duty. Blackstone wrote 
 under the direct influence of Puffendorf and Hobbes, 
 whom he cites frequently. His explanation of the origin 
 
87 
 
 of law and its definition is made up of inconsistent ex- 
 tracts from these writers, slightly modified by his practi- 
 cal knowledge of their absurdity. 
 
 Thus, although he denies that an actual social contract 
 was ever made, nevertheless he assumes its existence as 
 the chief argument against changing the British Constitu- 
 tion ; he says in his introduction, section 2 : " The Legis- 
 lature would be changed from that which (upon the sup- 
 position of an original contract, either actual or implied,) 
 is presumed to have been originally set up by the general 
 consent and fundamental act of the society." Such a 
 change, he implies, would produce anarchy, thereby 
 placing himself on the standpoint of Kant as opposed 
 to Rousseau. 
 
 Blackstone's further remarks about the law of nature, 
 from which all human laws derive their authority, and 
 which is to be recognized by individual reason, show the 
 usual confusion of ideas of writers of that period, and fully 
 deserve the merciless criticism to which they were sub- 
 jected by Bentham in his " Fragment of Government." 
 Unfortunately, Blackstone knew nothing of the work of 
 Leibnitz and Thomasius, hence he mixes up law and mor- 
 ality in dire confusion ; and still more unfortunately, no 
 jurist has arisen in English law since his day to pull the 
 English law out of the slough of despond into which the 
 social contract theorists plunged it, as was done by Tho- 
 masius for continental jurisprudence. 
 
 The difference between Blackstone and Coke may be 
 shown, for example, by the fact that Blackstone, in his 
 third volume, derives the right to penalties from the 
 original compact ; but Coke, in the third part of his " In- 
 stitutes " (chap. 69), says that a bond given to the king's 
 officers to secure the performance of a public duty is void, 
 ** for that every man is bound to do to the king as to his 
 liege lord all that appertaineth to him, without any man- 
 ner of writing." 
 
88 
 
 Bentham opposed this social contract theory with the 
 theory of utility ; he claims this in the historical preface 
 to the second edition of the " Fragment of Government." 
 But in fact he only takes up the opposite view to Black- 
 stone, which Rousseau had promulgated, namely, that 
 the government might be altered at any time by individ^ 
 uals ; this in effect, of course, denied the binding force of 
 the contract, and hence upset the theory. Thus he says, 
 in chapter IV., page 37 : " God forbid .... that in any 
 society any convention is or can be made which shall have 
 the effect of setting up an insuperable bar to that which 
 the parties affected shall deem a reformation ;" and again, 
 on page 272: "Now, this other principle (for social contract 
 theory) that still recurs upon us, what other can it be than 
 the principle of utility ? The principle which furnishes us 
 with that reason, which alone depends not upon any higher 
 reason, but which is itself the sole and all sufficient reason 
 for every point of practice whatsoever." 
 
 " Utility " is, of course, nothing but another name for 
 what we desire, what our reason leads us to desire ; this 
 is, therefore, only a translation of Rousseau's theory into 
 English. Even the term " utility," which he claims to 
 derive from Hume, occurs on the first page of the " Con- 
 trat Social," where Rousseau declares it to be his pur- 
 pose " enfin que la justice et Futility ne se trouvent point 
 devises." Bentham's other great idea about the univer- 
 sality of law, that " the same arrangement that would serve 
 for the jurisprudence of any one country would serve with 
 little variation for that of any other" (introduction to 
 " Fragment"), is common to all believers in the social con- 
 tract and the infallibility of reason ; and his theory of an 
 absolute centralized government is evidently taken directly 
 from Hobbes. Thus he says : " Have these supreme gov- 
 ernors any such duties? No!" If Bentham had more 
 often acknowledged the sources from which he drew his 
 
8 9 
 
 ideas, his theories would have had less weight, and his 
 proposed changes would not have been so rashly adopted. 
 
 Austin, in his " Principles of Jurisprudence," although 
 he most clearly shows the absurdity of claiming that an 
 actual social contract was ever made, seems to place him- 
 self very nearly on the same standpoint as Hobbes, 
 except that he also follows Bentham in adopting 
 Rousseau's theory of inalienable rights. Thus, in the 
 note on page 287, volume first, he says that Hobbes* 
 capital errors are : Firstly, " He makes not the requisite 
 allowance for the anomalous and excepted cases wherein 
 disobedience is counselled by that very principle of utility 
 which indicates the duty of submission." Secondly, " In- 
 stead of directly deriving the existence of political gov- 
 ernment from a perception by the bulk of the governed 
 of its great and obvious expediency, he ascribes the 
 origin of sovereignty and of independent political society 
 to a fictitious agreement or covenant." 
 
 " Perception of expediency" and " utility" are, of course, 
 only other names for the dictates of reason. Austin, also, 
 retains the anti-Germanic notions of the supporters of 
 the social contract theory concerning the necessity of an 
 absolute "sovereign;" he quotes Grotius' and Hobbes' 
 definitions of sovereignty # as authorities, on pages 241 and 
 286; he follows Hobbes in the opinion that people obey 
 government chiefly for fear of anarchy which would other- 
 wise ensue ; he confuses law and morality in a manner 
 which has never been excelled before or since. If the 
 philosophy of law is really so difficult and complicated a 
 matter as Austin represents it, it is not worth studying ; 
 he makes a definition of law and then coolly informs us 
 that all special acts of the legislature are not laws, since 
 they do not agree with his definition. As an example, he 
 states, on page 96, " An order issued by Parliament, stop- 
 
go 
 
 ping the exportation of corn then shipped would not be a 
 law or rule, though issued by the sovereign legislature." 
 
 In fact, his whole book, in spite of his admirable ingen- 
 uity, may be considered a melancholy monument to the 
 sad condition of our law, caused by the utter confusion of 
 legal terms and ideas and our inability to form any system 
 without an understanding of the history of these terms 
 and ideas and their derivation from Roman and Germanic 
 sources. That Austin himself regarded his book as a 
 failure is shown by the fact that he always refused to 
 undertake to arrange it for a new edition. His epitaph 
 should be : " Magna conatus periit." 
 
 The great reputation and incomprehensibleness of 
 Austin seems to have prevented other English writers from 
 venturing upon the field of the theory of jurisprudence unfil 
 within the last ten years. The authors of legal works 
 were content to start with the terms law, right, sover- 
 eignty, etc., without offering any theory as to their origin. 
 Recently, however, these questions are again being con- 
 sidered. Thus Sheldon Ames, Professor of Jurispru- 
 dence at the University College, London, has written 
 some interesting books on codification and the science of 
 law, but like Austin he is hopelessly befogged by the 
 various meanings of legal terms and by lack of historical 
 knowledge of jurisprudence. * Thus, in his Science of 
 Jurisprudence (vol. I, p. i) he defines law as a command 
 published by a sovereign political authority, but in the 
 next page he says : " Law and government are born 
 together, grow together and die together." It is difficult 
 to understand how government can be the author of law 
 and yet be born at the same time. In general he may be 
 said to follow Austin in his definitions of law, sovereignty, 
 etc., and the same disheartening lack of perspicuity 
 characterizes his works. He considers that Bentham 
 constructed the science of law and that Austin deserves 
 
9 1 
 
 the credit of its " conscious establishment " (Science of 
 Law, p. 8). The works of the English theoretical writers 
 would be far more valuable if they were less possitive in 
 their tone and recognized the fact that no science of law 
 exists at present, or is at present possible; that we are 
 hopelessly befogged and our only salvation is in a careful, 
 modest study of the historical development of our law, 
 so as to clear away the errors and uncertainties which at 
 present trip us up at every attempted advance. It is not 
 well to cry: " Peace, peace, when there is no peace," or 
 to build houses upon foundations of sand. 
 
 I will only refer to one other jurist who treats of the 
 theory of law and its origin, namely, Mr. Willard, in 
 his book on the " Law of Personal Rights," published 
 by Appleton & Co., 1882. 
 
 He adopts the theory of the social contract as a neces- 
 sary hypothesis. The following selections convey his 
 views : " To find the origin of the principles and the rules 
 of the law it is not necessary that resort should be had 
 to actual historical facts" (p. 25). "We are to consider 
 law as the expanded form of an obligation of a general 
 nature" (p. 44). " According to legal ideas and for legal 
 purposes the delegation of sovereign authority by the 
 members of a society, to be exercised by the major part 
 of such society, is absolute" (p. 29). " Upon the principles 
 of legal construction the original intention of society must 
 be regarded as creating sovereign power and lodging it 
 for exercise in the hands ol the majority of the commun- 
 ity" (p. 27). We see, therefore, that he draws from the 
 myth of an original contract, according to " legal ideas 
 and for legal purposes," the very material result that 
 majorities have absolute power in all communities. This 
 is only another instance of how any form of government 
 can be justified, if we only grant the hypothesis of an 
 original contract. Hobbes proved the exclusive propriety 
 
9 2 
 
 of absolutism ; Rousseau did the same for communism ; 
 Schoppenhauer derived constitutional monarchy, and 
 vVillard democracy, from the same source. 
 
 I will only add, concerning Mr. Willard's book, that its 
 clearest parts are considerably more obscure than Mr. 
 Austin's most involved ratiocinations. 
 
 If we turn from these English theoretical jurists to 
 the English writers on the history of law, we find a 
 wonderful difference. The latter, adopting the methods 
 of the Savigny school, are producing even more im- 
 portant results from their acquaintance with the old 
 laws of India and Ireland, which, as products of related 
 Aryan races, are so useful in elucidating English and 
 Roman law. Moreover, from the fact that England 
 is the only modern Aryan race which has developed 
 a legal system at all comparable to that of Rome,. 
 English lawyers can get a better idea of the actual 
 substance of Roman law from the scattered decisions in 
 the Corpus juris of Justinian than Continental jurists, 
 whose natural law was stamped out centuries ago by 
 attempted imitations of the Corpus juris. 
 
 As to theories of the origin of law, Phillimore contents 
 himself with adopting the social contract theory as a 
 necessary or useful hypothesis, and Maine states in his 
 "Early History of Institutions" (p. 354): "The analysis 
 of government and society and the determination of sov- 
 ereignty are so nearly completed (by Hobbes) that little 
 could be added to them by Bentham and Austin." As 
 Savigny and his followers in Germany were frightened 
 from investigations of legal philosophy by the high- 
 sounding obscurity of Hegel, and contented themselves 
 generally with adopting it blindly, so the English histori- 
 cal jurists were content to worship the vail behind which 
 Bentham and Austin and their followers hid themselves. 
 
 Not so did Franz Lieber. His work is particularly valu- 
 
93 
 
 able as a proof of what advantages residents of America 
 have in the consideration of legal-political topics if they 
 possess adequate theoretical knowledge, from the fact 
 that they live in a land where the origin and growth of 
 Germanic communities and States is under their imme- 
 diate observation, and also from the fact that they are 
 free from the preconceptions necessarily entertained by 
 men whose salaries are paid by a monarchial government, 
 and who have been brought up from their youth with 
 ideas of and traditions in favor of certain forms of govern- 
 ment. 
 
 The great importance of his work, in my opinion, lies 
 in the fact that he expounded scientifically the Germanic 
 theory known as self-government, as distinguished from 
 the theories of absolute sovereignty. In his " Political 
 Ethics" (volume I., page 352), he says that all states are 
 autarchies or hamarchies (the latter word being derived 
 from the Greek words signifying " jointly," and to rule). 
 Autarchy is absolutism, or absolute power ; hamarchy has 
 an organic life, with distinct parts, with independent 
 action, like an animal body ; the form may be monarchy 
 {as in England), or democracy (as in the United States). 
 France, under Napoleon III., was an autarchy, with 
 centralized, absolute government. 
 
 In his subsequent work on Civil Liberty, he develops 
 this idea, terming it " institutional self-government," 
 which he describes as " of an interguaranteeing and con- 
 sequently interlimiting character, and in this aspect the 
 negation of absolutism" (p. 319), and as requiring "that 
 everything which can without general inconvenience be 
 left to the circle to which it belongs, be thus left to its own 
 management" (p. 321). This was the opposite to Rous- 
 seau's " inarticulated, unorganized, uninstitutional major- 
 ity" (p. 372). Lieber therefore in my opinion, although 
 he partly availed himself of the conclusions of Hegel, de- 
 
94 
 
 serves the credit of being the first who met this social 
 contract theory successfully, and gave a foundation of 
 fact instead of fiction for our theories on law and govern- 
 ment ; although De Tocqueville, in his laudation of New 
 England townships in his Democracy in America, had 
 partly shown the way. 
 
 Had Lieber's Political Ethics been written but a few 
 years earlier, so that Webster could have used it, as an ar- 
 senal, in his fight with Calhoun on nullification, the history 
 of the United States might have been very different ; as it 
 is, however, I believe that our whole people owe him a 
 large debt of gratitude. Mohl and other modern German 
 writers of the so-called Professorial Socialist School have 
 followed in and developed the same general line of 
 thought, although they give too much authority and 
 initiative to the State, instead of to the organizations 
 between the State and the individual ; they would force a 
 growth from above, instead of awaiting a development 
 from below. 
 
 Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in his recent book on the 
 Common Law, is another American writer who has steered 
 clear of these Old World fogbanks, but he confines him- 
 self more particularly to questions of private law and the 
 elucidation of the many historical problems, which must 
 precede any successful attempt at construction of new law 
 on our part; he makes the basis of law, however, too nar- 
 row, when he cites with approval Sir James Stephens' 
 opinion, that its object is the gratification of revenge. 
 
 His whole book is a sign of great promise and indicates 
 that we will have a race of American writers on political 
 and legal topics, which will surpass that of any previous 
 age or country, if we will only begin from the beginning 
 and get rid of this conglomeration of Roman and Ger- 
 manic theories and terminology. 
 
95 
 
 III. 
 
 The most important role, however, which this theory 
 of the social contract has played in the world's history, up 
 to the present time, was in this country. It is true that 
 the name appears comparatively seldom, and that its 
 European authors are not often cited, for a very good 
 reason, which will be later explained; but the fact 
 remains, that had it not been for the influence of this 
 theory, the history of the United States would have been 
 very different. The men who guided the country through 
 the Revolution and who afterwards formed the United 
 States Constitution, were not perceptibly influenced by 
 this theory ; in neither the Articles of Confederation nor 
 in the Constitution do the familiar terms of the sup- 
 porters of the theory, such as " compact," " natural 
 rights," " sovereignty," etc., appear, nor are they often 
 used in the early State Constitutions, nor in the debates 
 in the different State conventions on the adoption of the 
 United States Constitution. 
 
 It is true that the Declaration of Independence is full 
 of its " glittering generalities"; but it was the work of 
 Jefferson, and was moreover, in my opinion, not con- 
 sidered of the same importance at that time, as at present. 
 The people of all the different States, in the first place, 
 had not authorized their delegates to sign it ; the act of 
 these delegates was therefore void. Secondly, many of 
 the delegates did not sign until long after the date of the 
 instrument, and some not at all. Thirdly, the States 
 adopted separate declarations of independence in their 
 State conventions — which were clearly not considered 
 superfluous. Thus, the delegates of New York State were 
 not authorized to sign the Declaration of Independence ; 
 they were also absent from Congress at that time and 
 
96' 
 
 attending the State Constitutional Convention, which 
 they apparently considered of more importance. The 
 New York State Constitution, recites the Declaration of 
 Independence, that after "most serious consideration," on 
 July 9th, 1777, they had unanimously resolved that the 
 reasons assigned therein are " cogent and conclusive." 
 " This convention, therefore, in the name and by the 
 authority of the good people of this State doth ordain, 
 determine and declare that no authority shall on any 
 pretense whatever be exercised over the people or mem- 
 bers of this State, but such as shall be derived from or 
 granted by them." 
 
 This statement shows how New York considered the 
 Declaration ; its simple, manly language is also in striking 
 contrast to that of the Declaration, and is only one 
 example of how little that line of thought was at that 
 time appreciated in this country. In fact any one who 
 will read the speeches and writings of that time will find 
 but few traces of the influence of the social contract 
 theory. The " Fathers" went straight ahead ; they knew 
 what they wanted, and they formed a typical Germanic 
 State, consisting of ever larger associations of people, 
 each association with powers to preserve the interests of 
 its members, all united in one harmonious whole. The 
 address of the representatives of New York to the citi- 
 zens of the State, inciting them to resist Great Britain, 
 is full of references to the Bible and the resistance ot 
 the chosen people to the tyrants, but contains no refer- 
 ence to the inalienable rights of man and other catch 
 words of the social contract school. 
 
 When then did the social contract theory make 
 its appearance? It was Jefferson who brought 
 it back with him from Paris, where he had been 
 during the formation of the Constitution, and pre- 
 sented, as his gift to the new-born country, the 
 
97 
 
 Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1789 — like the 
 fairy god-mother who was not invited to the christen- 
 ing, and gave the spiteful wish which condemned the 
 sleeping beauty to her hundred years sleep. Only in 
 this case, the fatal gift was accompanied by no warning ; 
 the poison secretly worked its way into our country's 
 system ; the doctors knew not what the evil was and 
 hence could not prescribe for it ; four years of bloody 
 war was the drastic remedy at last applied, and it is 
 doubtful if we are yet free from its effects. 
 
 In these resolutions we have the theory full grown ; 
 that of Virginia declared that the powers of the Federal 
 Government resulted from the compact to which the 
 States are parties ; that of Kentucky further declared that 
 " as in all other cases of compact, among parties having no 
 common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for 
 itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of 
 redress." 
 
 I know that the Virginia resolution was introduced by 
 Madison, and that in his report in the House of Delegates, 
 (session 1 799-1 780) on the Virginia resolutions, he reiter- 
 ated its assertions as " unexceptionably true in its several 
 positions, as, well as constitutional and conclusive in its 
 inferences." 
 
 But the language and the ideas are so different from 
 those of the Madison who worked so hard for the Consti- 
 tution in the Convention and in the Federalist, that they 
 must be ascribed to the influence of Jefferson, even if the 
 latter had not acknowledged that he consulted with Mad- 
 ison about it. 
 
 Thus in the Virginia Convention in 1788 (Vol. III. of 
 Elliott's Debates, p. 532,) Madison contradicts this resolu- 
 tion flatly : " It may be a misfortune that in organizing 
 any government, the explication of its authority should 
 be left to any of its co-ordinate branches. . . . With 
 
9 8 
 
 respect to the laws of the Union, it is so necessary and 
 expedient that the judicial power should correspond with 
 the legislative, that it has not been objected to." 
 
 The extent to which Jefferson influenced Madison in 
 regard to this social contract theory, and the extent to 
 which he was himself its victim, is shown by a letter from 
 Paris, in which he in perfect good faith carries out Rous- 
 seau's theories to their natural consequences. He pro- 
 poses what he declares to be the novel question of how 
 one generation can bind another ; as no way suggests 
 itself to him, he concludes that it is impossible ; therefore, 
 since according to Buff on each generation lasts 19 years, 
 at the end of that time all constitutions, laws and national 
 contracts are void, and revolution and bankruptcy are nec- 
 essary and legitimate. He suggests to Madison that he 
 bring forward this theory publicly. Madison replied that 
 he found it not " entirely compatible with the course of 
 human events," and declined the honor, although he did 
 not deny the correctness of the theory. 
 
 As is well known, Calhoun, when he proclaimed the 
 doctrine of nullification, did not go beyond the words of 
 these resolutions, and the Rebellion was only applying 
 them practically. 
 
 Jefferson alone, however, could not have introduced 
 this fatal theory, had the general opinion of educated 
 men not at that time been so .attracted by it, all over the 
 civilized world, and it was nourished here by the Franco 
 mania, which so long held sway over our society, and by 
 the subsequent desire of the South to evade the true 
 meaning of the Constitution. 
 
 So far as suited their purposes, the Southerners adopted 
 Rousseau's theory completely, only they substituted the 
 States for individuals, and claimed for them the same 
 right to judge whether the terms of the compact, which 
 they had formed, had been violated, and if the States 
 
99 
 
 decided that it had been violated, they had the same right 
 to refuse to recognize the assumption of power and to 
 declare the compact ended ; this, as Calhoun claimed, was 
 perfectly legal and was no rebellion ; on the same theory, 
 Rousseau's disciples had decapitated Louis XVI. 
 
 The opponents of nullification had unfortunately no 
 theory to oppose to this social compact theory. The 
 hatred of England, which followed the war of 1812, pre- 
 vented the writings of Burke from gaining much credit ; 
 the later State constitutions and the decisions of the 
 courts show how generally the social compact was accept- 
 ed, and accepting this theory, the advocates of the Con- 
 stitution were beaten, as a foregone conclusion. 
 
 This appears, for example, in the great debate between 
 Calhoun and Webster on nullification. Calhoun's resolu- 
 tions were a somewhat elaborate reiteration of the Vir- 
 ginia and Kentucky resolutions of the right of nullifica- 
 tion, with the additional assertion that the people of these 
 United States are not and have never been united on the 
 principle of the social compact and formed into one nation 
 or people. 
 
 Webster did not deny that this was the only principle 
 on which governments could be formed; hence, of course, 
 he could not prove that the United States were a nation ; 
 he relied in part on Hobbes' theory of the fearful conse- 
 quences of dissolution of government, and in part on 
 Kant's and Grotius' theories that the compact having been 
 made, something unalterable had resulted therefrom. He 
 says : " So the Constitution of the United States founded 
 in or on the consent of the people, may be said to rest on 
 compact or consent ; but it is itself not the compact but 
 its result. When a people agree to erect a government 
 and actually erect it, the thing is done and the agreement 
 is at an end." 
 
 Calhoun, in his reply, disposed of these assertions as. 
 
lOO 
 
 easily as Rousseau did of those of Grotius and Kant ; he 
 said: " I would ask to what compact does the Senator 
 refer as that on which the Constitution rests ? What can 
 it be but that the Constitution is itself a compact ? And 
 how will his language read, when fairly interpreted, but 
 that the Constitution was a compact, but is no longer a 
 compact ? It had by some means or another, changed 
 its nature or become defunct." 
 
 Calhoun was therefore logically correct. If the gov- 
 ernments can only be formed by compact, the United 
 , States government was plainly not formed by compact of 
 the individuals (because they had voted to adopt it, only 
 as members of the different States), hence the United 
 States government could be formed only by the compact 
 of the States ; and, if so formed, each State had the right 
 to construe the compact or declare it at an end. 
 
 The doctrine of absolute sovereignty, which always re- 
 sults from the social compact theory, was also imported to 
 add weight to these conclusions. It was a necessary conse- 
 quence upon which all writers, Grotius and Kant, as well 
 as Hobbes and Rousseau, agreed that there must be 
 absolute sovereignty somewhere ; they derived this idea 
 from the Greeks and Romans, and the only question was 
 as to who should wield it. Calhoun in his article on the 
 United States Constitution, says, on page 189 : " Its (the 
 revolution's) first and necessary effect was to cut the cord 
 which had bound the colonies to the parent country — 
 to extinguish all the authority of the latter — and by conse- 
 quence to convert them into thirteen independent and sover- 
 eign States." And in his above cited speech on nullifica- 
 tion, he says : " The whole sovereignty is in the several 
 States, while the exercise of sovereign power is divided — 
 apart being exercised under compact, through the gen- 
 eral government, and the residue through the separate 
 State governments." It is true that Calhoun knew of the 
 
IOI 
 
 true nature of a Germanic State, with its limited govern- 
 ment, as he cites Palgrave to that effect ; but he applied 
 this necessity of limitation only to United States gov- 
 ernment, and considered the States as sovereign. 
 
 The theory was carried out practically when the con- 
 stitutional conventions of the Southern States forced their 
 States, often by small majorities, into the Rebellion. As 
 Yancey said, in the Alabama convention of 1861 : " But 
 in this body is all power, no powers are reserved from it. 
 The people are here in the persons of their deputies. Life, 
 liberty and property are in our hands. All our acts are 
 sumpreme without ratification, because they are the acts 
 of the people acting in their sovereign capacity." Rous- 
 seau might have said that. 
 
 The reason why Rousseau was so seldom quoted was 
 that he had followed out his principles to their natural 
 consequences, which included the abolition of slavery. 
 When arguing on this point, Calhoun adopted the strong- 
 est language of Grotius and Kant. For example, 
 in his Disquisition on Government, he says ! " Men are 
 born in the social and political state ; and of course, 
 instead of being born free and equal, are born subject, not 
 only to parental authority, but to the laws and institutions 
 of the country where born, and under whose protection 
 they draw their first breath." For a similar reason, the 
 Northern men did not cite Rousseau's writings so often 
 in their conflict against slavery, because they seemed to 
 uphold so strongly the States' rights doctrine. 
 
 The upholders of the Union made here again the fatal 
 mistake of recognizing the necessity of absolute sover- 
 eignty ; if it exists, the United States has it not, nor have 
 the people it, since it is an absurdity to talk of absolute 
 sovereignty over oneself — the States certainly have the 
 best claim to it. This admission is a mistake, which has 
 lately been encouraged by the influence of Austin and 
 
102 
 
 Bentham, who derived the idea from Hobbes. J. C. Hurd 
 in his Theory of Our National Existence, and most of the 
 judges of the Supreme Court, since the war, vainly labor 
 to justify the acts of the North, by proving in some way 
 the existence of sovereignty of the United States govern- 
 ment, or of the people. 
 
 It cannot be done, because the Constitution and the 
 men who framed it would have none of it ; they formed 
 a simple natural Germanic State, wherein the individ- 
 uals grouped themselves into associations of different 
 sizes, and endowed each association with the powers nec- 
 essary to protect the interests, for whose protection that 
 association was formed ; and this system they did not in- 
 tend, and would not allow to be broken up, by any of its 
 members, who had entered it and accepted its benefits. 
 
 The idea of " sovereignty of the Nation " is as hostile to 
 the real spirit of our institutions as was that of " sover- 
 eignty of the State ;" both are equally un-Germanic and 
 un-American. The' worship of Nationality was devel- 
 oped by Napoleon I. to hide his overthrow of the Re- 
 public. 
 
 Our trouble has been that after our natural government 
 was formed, the attempt was made to explain it by the 
 terms of the social contract theory and to import into it 
 ideas derived from the absolute governments of Rome 
 and Greece, with the consequent ignoring of all constitu- 
 tional rights. 
 
 What we need is to carry out the spirit of our Constitu- 
 tion. We are no longer merely an agricultural people, 
 divided as to our interests, chiefly by geographical posi- 
 tion, into towns, counties and States, but large cities have 
 come into being, where men know each other, not as 
 residents of the same ward, or district, but as members of 
 the same trade, business or profession ; these associations, 
 with different common interests, should be recognized 
 
103 
 
 politically, and receive a proper share of the powers and 
 duties of government, so that they may provide for and 
 protect their interests. 
 
 That would be carrying out the federal spirit of our Con- 
 stitution, and would secure us as long a lease of prosperity 
 as we might have enjoyed under our present Constitution 
 intended for agricultural communities, had its real mean- 
 ing not been perverted by the introduction of the social 
 contract theory, that blight of our modern political 
 development. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Let us now consider briefly the influence of this theory 
 on the principal writers of political economy. 
 
 The idea of an absolute government, fostered by the 
 social contract theory, produced the mercantile system, 
 in which government considered it as its duty to regulate 
 all industries of the country. Adam Smith led the reac- 
 tion against this paternal government plan ; in his Wealth 
 of Nations he says : " All systems either of prefer- 
 ence or of restraint being thus completely taken away 
 the obvious and simple system of natural liberty estab- 
 lishes itself of its own accord. Every man is left per- 
 fectly free to pursue his own interest his own way. . . 
 According to the system of natural liberty the sovereign 
 has only three duties to perform : ist. To ward off 
 foreign invasion. 2d. To administer justice. 3d. To 
 erect public works, which it would not be for the interest 
 of a small number of individuals to erect." (Book V., 
 Ch. 9.) 
 
 This system of " natural liberty," or laissez-faire as it 
 was afterward called, was the natural result of Grotius' 
 deification of the human reason. If that was sufficient to 
 originate governments it must also be sufficient to dis- 
 
104 
 
 cover the best and only right manner of conducting 
 private business enterprises ; and, as the right to govern 
 depends theoretically upon the consent of the individual, 
 and as this consent is so difficult to prove, the right must 
 be exerted as rarely as possible. 
 
 It was seen that the State interfered too much with the 
 individual upon the Continent, hence this school flew to 
 the opposite extreme, that the "enlightened reason" of 
 the individual must be considered as all-sufficient. It was 
 applying the same reasoning to the business of indi- 
 viduals which Rousseau had applied to public affairs. 
 
 These ideas are not all acknowledged by Adam Smith, 
 but they are evidently the motives which led to the adop- 
 tion of his theory, and they are plainly declared by his 
 followers. Thus, Bentham savs in his " Principles of 
 Legislation" (I., p. 32): " Every one makes himself the 
 judge of his own utility ; such is the fact, and such it 
 ought to be ; otherwise man would not be a rational 
 agent." 
 
 And John Stuart Mill, in his " Political Economy," in 
 his second volume, p. 515, says : " Unless the conscience 
 of the individual goes freely with the legal restraint it 
 partakes either in great or in small degree of the degra- 
 dation of slavery. Scarcely any degree of utility, short 
 of absolute necessity, will justify a prohibitory regulation, 
 unless it can be made to recommend itself to the general 
 conscience." ..." Laissez-faire should be the gen- 
 eral practice" (p. 524). Mill distinctly adopts the 
 social contract theory as a necessary hypothesis. In his 
 first volume (p. 244) he says: " In considering the institu- 
 tion of property we may suppose a community un- 
 hampered (?) by any previous possession .... 
 bringing nothing with them but what belonged in com- 
 mon, and having a clear field for the adoption of the 
 institutions and polity which they judged most expe- 
 
io5 
 
 client." Of course, Mill, no more than any of the other 
 writers, can point to a time or place when this occurred ; 
 his whole argument has, therefore, the same value as those 
 of the astronomers before Kepler's time, who based their 
 conclusions upon various ingenious hypotheses, but not 
 upon facts. 
 
 Mr. Mill illogically considers the rights of property- 
 owners of things personal to be absolute and inviolable, 
 but he applies Proudhon's arguments to the ownership of 
 land, and demands the confiscation of the " unearned in- 
 crement." 
 
 Mr. Mill is naturally opposed to trades-unions; thus he 
 says in Book II., Ch. XIV., §6, of his Political Economy: 
 " The time, however, is past when the friends of human 
 improvement can look with complacency on the attempts 
 of small sections of the community, whether belonging to 
 the laboring or any other class, to organize a separate 
 class interest in antagonism to the general body of labor- 
 ers." In his celebrated theory that wages are regulated 
 by the law of supply and demand, he passes by the unions 
 as an unimportant factor. For this he was taken to task 
 by W. T. Thornton in his book "On Labor" (London, 1 869), 
 who says : " Enough, it is hoped, has now been said to 
 justify the further assertion that, in the actual condition 
 of the world, unionism is to the employed in a double 
 sense a necessity. It is indispensable alike for their pro- 
 tection and for their advancement" (p. 300). 
 
 Mr. Thornton, however, did not free himself from the 
 prejudices of this English school against trades-unions ; 
 thus he says on p. 335 : " Still, even when so modified and 
 chastened, the necessity for its continuing to exist at all 
 will continue to be an evil." The reason for this opinion 
 is found in that Mr. Thornton, although he describes so 
 eloquently the hardships of a workingman's life, fails to 
 see that there is any question of justice in the relations 
 
lo6 
 
 between employers and employees. He says on p. 122; 
 " Employers can equally, without injustice, accept the 
 services of laborers on the very lowest terms to which the 
 latter can voluntarily and with their eyes open be brought 
 to submit. Neither party possesses any relative rights in 
 the business except those which arise out of their mutual 
 agreement or contract. Whatever else that contract may 
 be, it cannot be iniquitous." Mr. Thornton very logically 
 expects no consideration, on the other hand, from the 
 trades-unions should they come into power, and conse- 
 quently does not object to having them called a necessary 
 evil. Mr. Mill, in an article in the Fortnightly Review for 
 M % ay, 1869, was forced to acknowledge in effect the per- 
 tinency of Mr. Thornton's criticism, and quotes with evi- 
 dent approval many of the latter's remarks concerning 
 the benefits to be derived from trades-unions, although he 
 does not in terms retract his theory of supply and demand 
 as being the proper rule to govern the contracts between 
 employers and employees. 
 
 Professor Cairnes, in his Political Economy (1874), 
 practically reasserted Mr. Mill's heartless theory. He 
 says on p. 263 : " I am unaware of any rule ot justice ap- 
 plicable to the problem of distributing the produce of in- 
 dustry ; and, secondly, that any attempt to give effect to 
 what are considered the dictates of justice which should 
 involve as a means towards that end a disturbance of the 
 fundamental assumptions on which economic reasoning 
 is based — more especially those of the right of private 
 property and the freedom of individual industry — would, 
 in my opinion, putting all other than material considera- 
 tions aside, be inevitably followed by the destruction or 
 indefinite curtailment of the fund itself from which the 
 remuneration ot all classes is derived." 
 
 I will only refer to one other thorough-going supporter 
 of the laissez-faire system — Professor Sumner of Yale — 
 
who cannot fail to be an interesting figure as probably 
 one of the last of his race. In his last book, " What 
 Social Classes Owe to Each Other," he says : " In our 
 modern state, and in the United States more than any- 
 where else, the social structure is based on contract ; 
 status is of the least importance. Contract, however, is 
 rational — even rationalistic. In a state based on contract 
 sentiment is out of place in any public or common affairs 
 (p. 25). ... It follows, however, that one man in a 
 free state cannot claim help from and cannot be charged 
 to give help to another (p. 27). . . . The relations of 
 sympathy and sentiment are essentially limited to two 
 persons only, and they cannot be made a basis for the re- 
 lations of groups of persons or for discussion by any third 
 party (p. 160). . . . There is no injunction, no 'ought ' 
 in political economy at all " (p. 156). 
 
 The great fault of this school lies in its undue exalta- 
 tion of the individual, which followed as a natural re- 
 action against the undue exaltation of the State ; but this 
 is as un-Germanic, as unsuited to the wants of our 
 people as the former extreme. The present natural 
 organization of a Germanic people is in many corpora- 
 tions, from the guild or trade-union up to the State, each 
 of these having limited, independent duties to perform, 
 corresponding to the interests which the members of 
 each corporation have in common ; among these corpora- 
 tions the State is the highest and last, but by no means 
 the omnipotent or sole union. 
 
 The Germanic system of many organizations inter- 
 mediate between the State and the individual, is re- 
 ferred to by Tacitus, as a characteristic of the 
 primitive Germans in their native forests. It was 
 by means of these comitatus that the enervated and 
 depraved provinces of the Roman empire were con- 
 quered and divided into towns and counties ; it was by 
 
I oS 
 
 means of these agricultural unions, which subsequently 
 grew into the feudal system, that Europe was preserved 
 during the middle ages from destruction by the ferocious 
 Norsemen and the victorious Arabs ; it was by means of 
 similar unions or guilds when great cities began to spring 
 up that these grew up and were able.to defend themselves 
 against their many enemies. And it was the destruction 
 of the system in England under Henry VIII., which 
 made the introduction of the Roman theory of an absolute 
 government possible. How great a part these guilds 
 played in European history is only now being recog- 
 nized ; Toulmin Smith's collection of charters shows how 
 much of the work of our civilization was done through 
 these organizations. 
 
 The principal evil effect of this social contract theory 
 was, as above stated, that it left no place for these inter- 
 mediate associations, but considered only the powerless 
 individual and the almighty State, and up to the time of 
 Rousseau delivered the former helplessly into the hands 
 of the latter, although it recognized that, like Franken- 
 stein's monster, the individual had produced this almighty 
 State. 
 
 The reaction of the Manchester school in private 
 affairs, and of Rousseau's school in public affairs, has 
 made this mistake ; it has gone too far ; it denies the power 
 of the State, but supplies no other form of union for 
 individuals to follow out their common interests. Mill 
 says : " The unit of society is not the family or clan 
 . . . . but the individual" (vol. I., p. 262). Thus 
 Bentham says in his Principles of Legislation (I., 83): 
 " As a general rule the greatest possible latitude should 
 be left to individuals, in all cases in which they can injure 
 none but themselves — for they are the best judges of their 
 own intetests." The effects of this policy are more un- 
 fortunate in heterogeneous nations (if I may so name 
 
io9 
 
 nations composed of various races) like the French, than 
 in more homogeneous nations like the English or German 
 because where a nation is composed of men of one stock, 
 the theory of their equality is practically nearer the truth. 
 But it is a crime and a wicked deed to tell men they are 
 equal, when the doctrines of heredity show that different 
 races of men have different capacities, which to a great 
 measure necessarily fix their mode of life. To tell such 
 different men that they are equal, is like telling a man 
 who never was in deep water, to plunge off a dock with- 
 out a life preserver, because, being a man, he must be 
 •equal to yonder expert swimmer. 
 
 From my reference to the difference of races of 
 men and the doctrine of heredity, I would not have it 
 inferred that I in any way adopt Herbert Spencer's the- 
 ory that man is but a higher gregarious animal. His 
 whole theory rests on the assumption that the Darwinian 
 theory is proved ; but I do not see how any man, certainly 
 no lawyer, accustomed to distinguish assertions from evi- 
 dence, can read the books of this school carefully without 
 coming to the conclusion that they fail to make out a case; 
 that there is not a missing link, but that every other link 
 is missing, so that there is not the vestige of a chain. 
 This absence of evidence is explained in various ways — 
 that it perished millions of years ago or exists in the 
 centre of Africa or Asia ; but these explanations are not 
 sufficient to take the place of the evidence and prove 
 their case. If Herbert Spencer's theory were cor- 
 rect, it is then of no possible interest to us how the State 
 is formed, any more than it is to the particles of matter 
 which are about to be formed into a crystal, to which he 
 compares the State. If the survival of the fittest is the 
 law by which men are governed, then let us all take to 
 ourselves the advice of the old man in Horace : " Make 
 money ; honestly, if you can — but make money ! " 
 
no 
 
 Spencer's political works remind me of the man who 
 was going to make a great jump ; but he went back so 
 far to get a start, that he ran over a hill before he jumped. 
 Spencer, in my humble opinion, is just starting up the hill. 
 He tries to explain the action of men by the study of the 
 roots of a potato plant ; he says in his Data of Ethics 
 (p. 96) : " Here might be urged the necessity for prelud- 
 ing the study of moral science by the study of biological 
 science." At all events, we can safely leave this "triangu- 
 lation of the universe," this philosophy of the future, to 
 the future. 
 
 No country is so heterogeneous as the United States, 
 although the great majority belong to different families 
 of the Germanic race ; in no country has the system of 
 individualism been carried to such an extent ; in no coun- 
 try has the doctrine of equality been more productive of 
 inequality, considering the brief time of the development 
 of our industries. To tell you or me that we are on an 
 equality with Vanderbilt before the law, is telling us what 
 we know to be untrue. 
 
 Before the tariff, which the war necessitated, we 
 were chiefly an agricultural community ; the division 
 according to our abodes into towns, counties and 
 states, was proper and Germanic. Since, then, large 
 cities have grown up, with the balance of power in the 
 hands of great working populations, we should follow 
 the Germanic precedent, set to us in the 13th, 14th and 
 15th centuries, and have these workingmen, and business 
 men and all professions organized to look after their com- 
 mon interests. They will protect themselves ; they will 
 prevent tramps and loafers stealing the results of their 
 labors ; they will check the arrogance of our railroad 
 barons far better than either the absolute State or the in- 
 dividual can do. This theory of limited sovereignty and 
 unions intermediate between the individual and the State, 
 
n i 
 
 I believe to be the solution of the most pressing problem 
 of the day, in political economy as well as in politics. 
 
 The late W. Stanley Jevons, in his " State in Relation 
 to Labor " (1883), fully recognizes this necessity. He says 
 on p. 6 of the introduction : " One result which clearly 
 emerges from a calm review is that all classes of society 
 are trades-unionists at heart, and differ chiefly in the bold- 
 ness, ability and secrecy with which they push their re- 
 spective interests." 
 
 But, like the other English economists, he looks back 
 to the theory of co-operation (in spite of all its practical 
 failures) as a desideratum for laborers ; so.that, although 
 the book last cited contains much that is suggestive, 
 the whole subject of the proper future development of 
 these trade organizations and their place in the State re- 
 mains a sealed book to the English economists, as well as 
 to their great authorities on the history and theory of law 
 and politics — dominated as they have been by the atheistic 
 tendencies of Bentham and Mill. 
 
 From this brief statement of the positions of our prin- 
 cipal authorities in law, politics, and political econ- 
 omy, who based their theories, tacitly or confessedly, 
 directly on the social contract theory, and ultimately 
 upon the belief in the arbitrary creation of law by man, 
 we are justified in concluding that these theories practi- 
 cally lead, in politics, to the advocacy of absolute sover- 
 eignty and the destruction of the lesser organizations 
 existing between the individual and the State, and the 
 substitution of an absolute unconstitutional government 
 of the masses or of an emperor. Moreover, in political 
 economy we must see that these same theories lead either 
 to communism or to the entire independence of the indi- 
 vidual in business affairs from the dictates of morality, 
 and the denial of the propriety of any organization placing 
 a limit upon the degradation to which human beings may 
 
112 
 
 reduce themselves or others, and that in law they lead to 
 reckless attempts to create the whole social fabric anew, 
 by voluminous codes, and to insisting upon all principles 
 of law being cast in the unbending form of statutes, no 
 matter how many individual cases may be decided 
 unjustly in consequence. 
 
 Meanwhile, the advocates of these theories are forced 
 to confess that the present result of their propaganda has 
 not been satisfactory, that the outlook is lowering, and 
 that they have no remedy to offer, except maintaining the 
 same course. 
 
 That the conclusions of this school are hostile to the 
 spirit of the teachings of the Fathers who formed our 
 Government, as indicated by the extracts from the Fed- 
 eralist at the head of this article, is apparent. 
 
 Is there any doctrine as to the origin of law which 
 justifies these theories of Federalism, and have they any 
 application to the present ? In England, France and Ger- 
 many the three great champions of what we have vent- 
 ured to call Federalism were Burke, Montesquieu and 
 Stahl. Burke, that great admirer of our American Fed- 
 eral Government, declared in his speech against Warren 
 Hastings : " No man can lawfully govern himself accord- 
 ing to his own will ; much less can one person be gov- 
 erned by the will of another. We are all born in subjec- 
 tion, all born equally high and low, governors and 
 governed in subjection to one great, immutable, pre- 
 existent law, prior to all our devices, and prior to all our 
 contrivances. This great law does not arise from our 
 conventions and compacts ; on the contrary, it gives to 
 our conventions and compacts all the force and sanction 
 they can have." 
 
 The same spirit was represented in Fraflce by Montes- 
 quieu, in the words : " Laws are the necessary relations 
 which spring from the nature of things. . . . Before 
 
H3 
 
 there were intelligent beings, these beings were possible ; 
 they had, therefore, relations and, consequently, possibly 
 laws. . . . God made these laws because they have a 
 relation to His wisdom and power." 
 
 In Germany, Stahl in his " Philosophy of Law (vol. II., 
 p. 219), declared : " The prototype of law is God's plan of 
 creation, as the ideal of the beautiful in the human form 
 is the standard which guides the sculptor and in compari- 
 son with which his work is judged." 
 
 Federalism, in my opinion, must be based on the opin- 
 ion that the spring of law lies, not in human reason or in 
 human fear, but in the sympathy for our neighbor, which 
 God has given us. 
 
 It is the teaching of Christianity in the parable of the 
 unjust servant, of whom his fellow servants complained 
 to their master for his harshness towards one of their 
 number, and whom the master then punished so severely. 
 
 Do we not all feel that if we were placed in a position 
 in which all our physical wants were satisfied, and yet 
 saw one of our fellow-beings constantly maltreated that 
 we would sacrifice some of our material comforts, in the 
 first place, to relieve his sufferings, and then to punish the 
 man who had inflicted these sufferings ? 
 
 The true measure of civilization is the extent of this 
 feeling of sympathy, and the great impulse to improve- 
 ment in civilization is its development. 
 
 The mere statement of the penalty to be inflicted on 
 the man who commits a certain act is not the whole law; 
 that is only the prohibitory or negative side. Law con- 
 sists in the will of a people that individuals should show, 
 by their acts, that they have a certain amount of sym- 
 pathy towards each other, in the various relations of life. 
 Law is, therefore, positive and mandatory; it prescribes 
 the rules which individuals should observe towards each 
 other, in their relations of owner, employer, contractor, 
 husband or wife, parent or child. 
 
ii4 
 
 The only way to accomplish the object of law is to go 
 further back than the legislature or the police courts, and 
 develop in man that sympathy which will gradually 
 make law unnecessary ; as in medicine, the great aim of 
 modern science is to keep men healthy, rather than to 
 cure them by noxious doses, after the disease is incurred. 
 The State cannot disregard the development of the eth- 
 ical side of the character of its citizens — increase of sym- 
 pathy decreases crime. 
 
 But man need not seek in theories, founding law upon 
 what may have happened in pseudo-prehistoric times, for 
 an excuse to justify his insisting upon the exercise of a 
 certain amount of sympathy by his fellow-men towards 
 each other, if he believes that this desire is given him by 
 God, and intended to be the means by which he prepares 
 himself and others for a future life. If a man loves not 
 his brother, whom he has seen, how can he love God, 
 whom he has not seen ? 
 
 Our object here should be to realize the brotherhood 
 of man. We can work for this by developing our sym- 
 pathy for each other as individuals, or as members of our 
 various trades or professions, or as members of the State. 
 
 Primitive man has this sympathy towards the members 
 of his immediate family; tribes are formed by the exten- 
 sion of this sympathy to related families ; the Germanic 
 comitatus, the feudal system, the guilds of the middle 
 ages are but products of this extended feeling of sympathy 
 to individuals, with whom we are thrown together in 
 common undertakings. By sympathy I mean here such 
 as shows itself not in words but in deeds; people at differ- 
 ent stages of their development have their power of 
 sympathy necessarily differently developed ; they cannot 
 extend it at will to embrace further circles. 
 
 These organizations, intermediate between the individ- 
 ual and the State, have therefore objects to accomplish 
 
"5 
 
 arising from love of neighbor as well as the individual 
 or the State. 
 
 The great misfortune which the social contract theory 
 brought with it, as I have already stated, was the abolition 
 of the guilds and feudal and corporative ties, by which 
 Germanic Europe was then bound together into smaller 
 bodies, and the attempt to substitute for this sympathy the 
 feeling of nationality, which the Greeks had developed for 
 their small cities and which was not applicable to large, 
 thinly peopled countries. 
 
 The Germanic race at that time was not able to send 
 forth this sympathy. Rousseau and his followers called 
 in vain for fraternity ; they could possibly produce liberty 
 and equality, but fraternity lay in the human will, and that 
 they could not touch. But while they did not accomplish 
 their object they managed to abolish instead of reforming 
 the intermediate associations between the State and indi- 
 vidual, within which the people at that time had sym- 
 pathy. 
 
 This sympathy — from which springs this desire to 
 avenge the injuries of others — is, therefore, the root of 
 all organizations of men into guilds, corporations and 
 States. It is the origin of all law ; and, as it extends to 
 wider circles, families, tribes, guilds, cities and States are 
 organized. 
 
 The injuries to be avenged, and the extent of the 
 vengeance, should depend upon the development of the 
 feeling of sympathy in that particular people. 
 
 If the law does not correspond to and satisfy this want, 
 people will satisfy the craving without resorting to law, 
 in the same way as they would satisfy their physical 
 wants of hunger and thirst. There is no essential differ- 
 ence between criminal law and civil law ; the redress of 
 the wrongs to which the latter apply is merely left to 
 the initiative of the party injured. The crimes to be 
 
Ii6 
 
 punished, and the penalties to be imposed, should, there- 
 fore, be considered as carefully, with reference to the 
 particular wants of a people, as its food or water supply. 
 
 If punishments are too low, people will resort to Lynch 
 law, or personal revenge. A large portion of crime, 
 which our courts v punish, is due to bad criminal and civil 
 law. 
 
 And yet, to-day, no public indignation is visited upon 
 our so-called representatives at Albany, when they, year 
 after year, pass voluminous statutes, called codes, pur- 
 porting to regulate the satisfaction of this most import- 
 ant want of our nature, without inquiry or discussion; 
 although the greatest interest is taken by the public in 
 a bill affecting our water supply, street cars, or other 
 physical want. 
 
 As before stated, I believe that this indifference is 
 largely due to the opinion that laws are purely human 
 creations, originating from man's unaided reason, and 
 which he may, with propriety, change at pleasure, in 
 place of the belief that they should be in accord with 
 eternal principles of justice, applicable to human rela- 
 tions, which it is man's highest privilege and duty to 
 study, ascertain and apply. 
 
 It follows also in politics, that the whim of a temporary 
 majority of a people is not infallible, but that the great 
 principles which a race is seeking to realize should be 
 placed permanently in well-guarded constitutions, and 
 that men should yield absolute government over them- 
 selves, or sovereignty, to no individual or number of indi- 
 viduals, irrespective of these eternal principles of right 
 and wrong. 
 
 It follows, also, in political economy, that we are not 
 justified in permitting any system of business methods 
 which steadily reduces its employees to conditions which 
 prevent their physical and moral development, and their 
 
ii7 
 
 spiritual preparation for a life in the world to come ; and 
 also that the existence and participation in government 
 of organizations which prevent men from not only de- 
 stroying themselves or others, but from making them- 
 selves or others physical or moral plague spots, is perfectly 
 justified. 
 
 An unprejudiced and careful examination of the authors, 
 above briefly referred to, can, as I believe, lead only to 
 the conclusion that all theories are insufficient if they 
 do not acknowledge that the lear of the Lord is the begin- 
 ning of wisdom 
 
 In the words of Plutarch : " It is easier to build a city 
 without foundations, than a State without a God." 
 
 In the words of Maurice: <: The Apostles did not dare, 
 they did not find it possible to think of human society, 
 except as constituted in Christ. It was the confusion, the 
 unbelief of men, to regard themselves as capable of fel- 
 lowship and of existence without him. It was theirs to 
 proclaim that there could be no families, no nations, to 
 resist the selfish tendencies, which each of us is conscious 
 in himself, and complains of in his neighbors, if there had 
 not been one living centre of the whole body of humanity, 
 one head of every man." 
 
Il8 
 
 UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE IN CITIES. 
 
 LAST spring, when the great Statue of Liberty arrived 
 *j in this city, it was accepted, — as I judge from the 
 speeches and editorials of that time, — as a symbol and 
 reminder of the important military aid which the French 
 monarchy rendered us during our struggle for independence. 
 But I believe that there is also another boon which we owe 
 to the French Republic, which is, in my opinion, at least 
 equal to this military assistance. I refer to Universal Suf- 
 frage, which, while it has become so acclimated here, as to 
 be generally considered the American political idea, still 
 was in fact imported from France. What has been its 
 reception? 
 
 The Federal party would have none of it. At the time 
 of our Revolution, and at the time of the adoption of our 
 Constitution, it was in force in none of the States. In this 
 State of New York, an interest in real estate was required 
 for all voters. This was abolished only after a hard 
 struggle, in the convention of 1821, and against the ener- 
 getic protest of such men as Chancellor Kent and Judge 
 Spencer. 
 
 The change was due to the Democratic Party, following 
 especially the great theories of Jefferson, who in turn drew 
 his inspirations from the French philosophers of the 18th 
 century, in opposition to the narrow, colonial ideas of the 
 Federalists, who could imagine no better government than 
 that of a British squirarchy, and whose leader, Hamilton, 
 declared himself in favor of that government as a model, 
 although it was "bottomed in corruption," and although he 
 

 tig 
 
 confessed that to strike out that corruption, would render 
 it impracticable. 
 
 It was Jefferson who wrote to David Hartley : 
 
 " I have no fear but the result of our experiment will be that 
 men may be trusted to govern themselves, without a master. 
 Could the contrary of this be proved, I should conclude either 
 that there was no God, or that he is a malevolent being. " 
 
 And yet I cannot be surprised, if, what I have said, should 
 call forth in this club half derisive smiles, such as the 
 Roman augurs wore, in Cicero's time, when performing their 
 mysterious rites, out of sight of the public. No set of men, 
 perhaps, are better acquainted with the practical working of 
 ourgovernment, — especially in this great city; we know how 
 much it is a government "of the people, by the people, and 
 for the people." We know about what it costs to get a 
 nomination to the Legislature or the Bench ; we know 
 what chance a measure for the general public good has on 
 its merits in the Legislature or in the Board of Aldermen ; 
 we know for what considerations the city is allowed to re- 
 main full of moral plague spots ; we know how often 
 "reform" and " public spirit " have been the screen under 
 whose cover public offices have been gained, only to be 
 used for selfish ends. 
 
 And if we turn from our personal experience, and consult 
 the writers in the magazines of the day, how few do we find 
 of any importance, who have a good word to say for this 
 universal suffrage ! I will only cite a few passages. Thus 
 the historian, Parkman, says in his article in the North 
 American Review (vol. 127), entitled " Failure of Universal 
 Suffrage : " 
 
 ' ' More and more we drift into the condition of those unhappy 
 ~0"nt-ies where 'the post of honor is a private condition.' '' 
 
 • ' What sort of statesmanship these forty millions produce, let 
 the records of Congress show. " 
 
120 
 
 ' ' Our politics do not invite, and hardly even admit, the higher 
 and stronger faculties to a part in them." 
 
 " Liberal education is robbed of its best continuance and con- 
 summation, in so far as it is shut out from the noblest field of 
 human effort, the direction of affairs of State." 
 
 "It is in the cities that the diseases of the body politic are 
 gathered to a head, and it is here that the need of attacking them 
 is most urgent. Our cities have become a prey. " 
 
 Gold win Smith, in Putnam's Magazine (vol. 43, p. 71), says : 
 
 ' ' That Universal Suffrage, in the strict and literal sense of the 
 term, has failed in some respects and produced serious evils, 
 assuredly is not to be denied. While the wealthier classes have 
 lost, the poorer have in no way gained by municipal pillage, 
 which has enriched the demagogues.alone. Witness the condition 
 of the poorer quarters of New York. " 
 
 And again Cuthbert Mills, in International Review of 1880, 
 p. 209 : 
 
 " Universal suffrage has broken down in cities." 
 
 Macaulay, writing to Henry S. Randall, says : 
 
 "It is quite plain that your government will never be able to 
 restrain a distressed and discontented majority. There is nothing 
 to stop you. Your constitution is all sail and no anchor. As I 
 said before, when a society has entered on this downward progress, 
 either civilization or liberty must perish. Thinking thus, of course, 
 I cannot reckon Jefferson among the benefactors of mankind. " 
 
 Other similar articles are " The Failure of Universal 
 Suffrage," in North American Review, for July, 1878 ; Robert 
 Lewes' article, " Mr. Gladstone on Manhood Suffrage," in 
 28^ Fortnightly Review, p. 734 ; " Universal Suffrage in the 
 United States, and its Consequences," in Frasers Magazine, 
 July, 1862. 
 
 But only one magazine article have I found in iavor of 
 this democratic doctrine, " Suffrage a Birtnnght," by Geo. 
 
121 
 
 W. Julian, in International Review, for January, 1879, an d 
 even that writer admits the existence of grave evils under 
 our present system, — only offers the stale denunciation of the 
 recreancy of the better sort of men of all political parties. 
 
 And must we not all admit that the gravest evils do 
 exist ? That this country is not realizing the bright prom- 
 ises of its youth ; that we consider ourselves happy to get 
 rulers, who at least preserve a show of regard for the 
 dictates of ordinary honesty? 
 
 And is it not so, that among the men we meet, it is 
 becoming more and more usual to have them lay the blame 
 for this state of things at the door of Universal Suffrage, 
 and to hear the wish expressed that this right should be 
 limited, in some way, either by a property or educational 
 test ? 
 
 But, Mr. President, I consider that it is worse than idle 
 to talk of limiting universal suffrage ; it has become inex- 
 tricably woven into our theories and institutions. 
 
 Moreover, I do not think that, if they were practicable, 
 either an educational or a property test would be de- 
 sirable. As Mr. Julian said in the above cited article : 
 
 "That a government basing its authority on the doctrine of 
 inalienable rights, and professing to derive its powers from the 
 consent of the governed, would continue to impose a property 
 qualification upon voters, was a manifest political absurdity. " 
 
 Or as Benjamin Franklin puts it : 
 
 " Suppose a man owns a jackass worth $100, and that property 
 confers upon him the right to vote ; very well, he votes, but in 
 the next year the death of the animal deprives the man of the 
 vote ; was it then the man, or the jackass who voted ? " 
 
 Every inhabitant of a country pays taxes directly or 
 indirectly, and suffers from their increase ; every man is 
 liable to be drafted for the common defence ; every trade or 
 business can be ruined by the ordinances of the Board of 
 
122 
 
 Aldermen, or laws of the Legislature. What concerns all 
 must be approved by all. To exclude one class works evil 
 both on the governing and on the governed. The latter 
 lose interest in public affairs and become a dangerous 
 element ; the former assume that everything must yield to 
 their class interest, and the history of oligarchies shows 
 only an invariable increase of class pride and arro- 
 gance. 
 
 Moreover, no one who is accustomed to mingle with rich 
 and poor can say that one class or the other has a monopoly 
 of the vices or of the virtues. 
 
 An educational test would afford no criterion of the 
 moral qualities of the voter, for, as Herbert Spencer has 
 shown, education cannot touch that will, which guides a 
 man's actions and which lies back of his intellect. As 
 Seneca says : " Velle non discitur" Besides men of the 
 student class acquire or lose something which unfits them 
 — as we all know — to a certain extent from practical busi- 
 ness affairs ; and, if this is so, in the small affairs of daily 
 life, still more manifest would it become in public affairs, — 
 as is also shown by history. 
 
 If then neither an educational nor a property qualification 
 of the suffrage is practicable or desirable, what is the cause 
 of these present evils ? I believe a glance at the consti- 
 tutional history of our State will show why universal suffrage 
 in our cities has produced such poor public officials and 
 legislators. 
 
 The Constitution of 1777 provided for the election of 
 24 Senators from four great districts, and 70 Assemblymen, 
 divided among the different counties. The Constitution of 
 1 82 1 directed that 32 Senators be chosen from 8 districts, and 
 128 Assemblymen from different counties. The result was 
 that several Senators and several Assemblymen were voted 
 for by the inhabitants of one county or city, on a general 
 ticket. 
 
123- 
 
 The Constitution of 1846 changed this by requiring one 
 Senator to be elected from each of the 32 senatorial dis- 
 tricts, and by directing the Board of Supervisors of each 
 county to divide that county into districts, containing an 
 equal number of inhabitants, which districts were each to 
 elect one Assemblyman. In the discussions in the Legis- 
 lature, which led to calling this convention, this innovation 
 had not been considered. This change was not effected 
 without strong opposition; 12 of the 15 New York repre- 
 sentatives, including such men as Charles O'Connor, David 
 R. Floyd-Jones and Samuel J. Tilden, voted against it. Mr. 
 Chatfield said : 
 
 " But the more serious objections were that you would get up 59 
 gerrymandering bodies, to cut up counties with reference rather to 
 party objects than anything else. A county is an identity, an in- 
 dividual, so far as its interests were represented on this floor. Why 
 then seek to distract this identity of interests, by breaking up its 
 representation on this floor ? The effect of this representation 
 coming here divided, would be to cause the interests of the county 
 to suffer, as each man would hold himself responsible only to the 
 constituency of his district. It would make mince-meat of the 
 counties for mere political ends. " 
 
 Mr. Tilden denied that the sentiment of the people of 
 New York had been expressed in favor of any districts. 
 Mr. Kennedy hoped : 
 
 ' ' That the Convention, before it adjourned, would see the in- 
 justice done to the City of New York, by obliging a division of it 
 into four separate districts. " 
 
 None of New York's representatives spoke in favor of the 
 change ; the only arguments for it came from county mem- 
 bers in the large senatorial districts, who "wanted to know 
 their Senator, to shake hands with him. r ' 
 
 What has been the effect of this change in our cities ? 
 From that time dates the political decline of the Legis- 
 
124 
 
 lature of the State of New York. Mr. Marcy was not 
 returned to the U. S. Senate, and if we except William H. 
 Seward, who was the leading spirit of this Convention of 
 1846, that position has since then seldom, if ever, been filled 
 by a statesman such as should represent the Empire 
 State, and ably play a part in the history of the country, 
 proportionate to the importance of our State. From that 
 time dates the decline of our primaries in New York City ; 
 prior to 1846, business men made a practice of attending 
 primaries, and enjoyed the feeling that they were taking 
 part in the government of the country. But by 1850, pri- 
 maries had become what we see them to-day. 
 
 The discussions in the Legislature, which prior to that time 
 were so full of wit and wisdom, degenerated, and members 
 spent their energies chiefly in efforts to secure places and 
 shower favors on the men who ran these primaries. Our 
 city representatives allow millions every year to be raised 
 by taxation in this City of New York, and to be distributed 
 among the agricultural counties of the State. The real 
 interests of our city are not represented. When a great 
 body like the Produce Exchange, or the Stock Exchange, 
 or the Bar Association, or the County Medical Society, 
 sends representatives to Albany, to avert some threatened 
 evil, little or no assistance can they get from the city's 
 representatives ; in fact, as a rule, they find that the men 
 from New York in the Legislature, are their worst foes, and 
 the only assistance they can get is from representatives of 
 the rural districts. 
 
 These latter frequently ask half contemptuously, why we 
 do not send better representatives, and complain that the 
 whole State is injured by their ignorance and venality. 
 And yet the men of New York City show no decline in the 
 sagacity of their management of private affairs. 
 
 Our business men still hold the commerce of this continent 
 in their grasp ; the city is rapidly becoming the centre of 
 
125 
 
 art and literature, and especially all questions relating to 
 political economy and government, receive great attention. 
 Why do our legislators so unworthily represent all this 
 accumulation of practical and theoretical knowledge and 
 ability ? It is in vain to adjure the so-called better classes 
 to attend primaries ; the reception of the last resolution to 
 that effect, offered in this club, showed how little faith we 
 had in any such appeal. The great mass of citizens will 
 not come. Their acquaintances live scattered all over the 
 city ; the men, with whom they have common interests, 
 which may be furthered or injured by the Legislature, are 
 the men whom they meet every day in their exchanges, 
 courts, manufactories and shops. With the increase of 
 rapid transit the tie of locality in our cities is becoming daily 
 less ; — what interests, as such, has a man living on the East 
 side of a Third Avenue distinct from those of a man living 
 across the street, so that they must have different repre- 
 sentatives, or what interest has he, which is at all likely to 
 be affected by legislation, in common with the man who 
 lives on the same side of the street, so that they must vote 
 for the same Solon. The man whom he thinks best calculated 
 to ward off in the Legislature some evil, which threatens to 
 destroy his means of gaining a living in his business, trade 
 or profession, very probably lives many blocks off, perhaps 
 at the other end of the city; his fellow tradesmen or business- 
 men may live scattered throughout the 24 districts, so 
 that it is impossible for them, ever, in any one district, 
 to unite and elect a representative of their most important 
 interests. On the other hand, an unimportant interest, whose 
 members happen to live in the same neighborhood, sends a 
 number of representatives, far larger than its importance 
 demands. In fact, the geographical division of the inhabi- 
 tants of cities, for the purpose of electing members of the 
 Legislature, is a false and artificial one, which has no con- 
 nection with the real organizations of the people ; a city 
 
126 
 
 should be a political unit. The great strides of our civili- 
 zation date from the 13th and 14th centuries, when cities 
 were recognized as political units. 
 
 The great reform in city government, produced by the 
 Roosevelt bills, consisted in taking power from the Board 
 of Aldermen, whose members are elected from geographical 
 districts, and in giving that power to the Board of Esti- 
 mate and Apportionment and the Mayor, who are elected 
 on a general ticket. 
 
 Our system of electing representatives is copied from 
 rural institutions, where the division of farmers into 
 townships by geographical lines secures a division of the 
 inhabitants, according to their most important interests, 
 since the farmers of the same neighborhood depend, as a rule,' 
 on the same principal product of the soil. But in cities] 
 where men do not live on the products of the soil, this 
 same division secures the very opposite results, and pre- 
 vents men from sending to the Legislature representatives 
 of their strongest interests. 
 
 At present, religious and other associations, which 
 embrace the whole city, are gaining an undue influence in 
 politics. 
 
 How can this evil be ended ? What must be done to 
 give Universal Suffrage the position it should hold in the 
 hearts of our people ? 
 
 I believe the answer comes to us again from the home of 
 Universal Suffrage — from France. 
 
 The Assemblee Nationale of 1789, declared that France 
 should be divided into a number of large districts, and that 
 each district should return a number of representatives in 
 proportion to the number of its inhabitants. The second 
 Republic of 1848, adopted the same principle of electing a 
 number of representatives from a large district on a general 
 ticket. The third Republic of 1870, did the same. And 
 each time the enemies of the Republic succeeded in cheating 
 
127 
 
 the people out of this system, because the latter did not 
 fully understand its importance, and in introducing the 
 system of elections on a single ticket from small districts, 
 and in each case the fall of the Republic was the expected 
 result. 
 
 Gambetta in his speech in favor of election by general 
 ticket, or scrutin du liste, on November II, 1875, declared : 
 ' ' I give the Empire credit for having understood the power of 
 democracy to the point of wanting to trouble its source." 
 
 And a few days later, he said : 
 
 "The laws which regulate the manner of voting are as essential 
 for the future of society, as even those laws which acknowledged 
 and established the Republic. " 
 
 Can we not, — who know the character of our average 
 city legislators, elected on the single ticket system, — im- 
 agine how it was possible for Napoleon III. to rule France,. 
 with a legislature elected on the principle of Universal 
 Suffrage ? And why, under this present Republic, all its 
 enemies united to banish the scrutin du liste in 1875, and 
 to resist every attempt of Gambetta to bring it back ? 
 
 But while that true Republican did not live to see the 
 triumph of this system, for the realization of which he 
 strained his whole giant energies, yet it has come to pass 
 at last ; and this fall, France is to elect a legislature with 
 scrutin du liste, or on a general ticket in large districts. * 
 In the words of our poet : 
 
 ' ' The thoughts great hearts once broke for, 
 We breathe cheaply in the common air ; 
 The dust we trample heedlessly, 
 Throbbed once in saints and heroes rare ; 
 Who perished, — opening for the race 
 New pathways to the common place." 
 
 * The result of this election in returning an increased number of conservative 
 delegates and defeating many ministerial deputies, shows how idle were the fears 
 
128 
 
 Not only the French have recognized this principle of 
 •election by general ticket, as the foundation of Universal 
 Suffrage, but probably the greatest of modern English 
 political thinkers, — John Stuart Mill, in his "Considerations 
 on Representative Government," thus expresses himself, 
 (on page 167) : 
 
 ' ' But I cannot see why the feelings and interests which arrange 
 mankind according to localities should be the only ones thought 
 worthy of being represented, or why people who have other feelings 
 and interests, which they value more than they do their geographi- 
 cal ones, should be restricted to these as the sole principle of their 
 political classification. " 
 
 And Mr. Mill's whole laudation of the scheme of cu- 
 mulative voting, invented by Mr. Hare, springs evidently 
 from his dissatisfaction with the present system of repre- 
 sentation of small geographical districts ; as he says on 
 page 157 : 
 
 ' ' The member would represent persons, not the mere bricks 
 and mortar of the town, the voters themselves, not a few vestry- 
 men or parish notables. " 
 
 Thomas Jefferson adopted this system of election by a 
 general ticket, in his draft of a Constitution for Virginia. 
 
 Since then we see that this system of election of several 
 legislators, on a general ticket, from a large district, like 
 our City of New York, was introduced by the Fathers, who 
 gave us our National and our first State Constitution, and 
 remained in force for two generations, during which our 
 State held its own in our political history, and its govern- 
 ment was administered by the best men it produced, and 
 since this system was subsequently abolished without good 
 reason, without full discussion, and against the protest of 
 
 of those who predicted a victory of the communists, or absolute power to the 
 professional politicians. Rochefort, instead of heading the ticket, is doubtful 
 of bis election. 
 
I2Q 
 
 such wise men as Charles O'Conner, David R. Floyd-Jones 
 and Samuel J. Tilden, and since our brother Republicans in 
 France have recognized this question of the manner of 
 electing representatives to be of the very essence of Universal 
 Suffrage, and since such great writers as Mill commend it 
 theoretically, and since no other practical remedy to the 
 apparent and ever increasing evils of our government is 
 ■offered, — why should we not return to this plan of making the 
 city a political unit, and electing representatives of the 
 whole of it, and not of its dissected parts ? Might we not 
 thus secure, again a representative government, worthy of 
 the Empire State ? 
 
 To make a beginning, should not the cities be represented 
 in the State conventions as a whole, by electing their dele- 
 gates on a general ticket ? This is now in fact done, 
 when Tammany Hall, Irving Hall and the County Dem- 
 ocracy are each awarded representation, without reference 
 to their numerical strength in the different districts, but in 
 proportion to their influence in the city as a whole. Let it 
 be announced that the 24 Democrats, receiving the largest 
 number of votes from the whole city, are to be sent to the 
 convention, and I believe that you will see the whole city 
 take an interest in the primaries, and that you will see 
 24 men elected of whom the Democratic party and our city 
 will be proud. 
 
 The problem cannot be solved by reference to authorities 
 of the past, when a little over three per cent, of the popu- 
 lation lived in cities of more than 8000 inhabitants, while 
 now in this State more than 50 per cent, live in such cities. 
 Our constitution was intended for an agricultural population, 
 and the wonder is that it has sufficed at all with so few 
 changes to suit our altered circumstances. The Democratic 
 party cannot be content with the cry : " We have Jefferson 
 for our father." 
 
Jefferson wrote to Madison on December 20, 1787, from 
 Paris : 
 
 ' ' This reliance cannot deceive us as long as we remain virtuous ; 
 and I think we shall be so as long as agriculture is our principal 
 object, which will be the case while there remain vacant lands in 
 any part of America. When we get piled upon one another in 
 large cities, as in Europe, we shall become corrupt, as in Europe, 
 and go to eating one another as they do here. " 
 
 No part of the world holds so dense a population as that 
 part of this city which is bounded on the north by 14th 
 Street and on the west by Broadway. Strong measures are 
 needed ; our cities are the great centres upon whose welfare 
 that of the country depends ; the task before this gene- 
 ration is as important as and perhaps more difficult than 
 that which confronted the writers of the Federalist. 
 
 The public affairs of our villages are, as a rule, not so 
 well administered after they receive a city charter ; I believe 
 the reason to be that villages are generally governed by 
 trustees, who are elected by the whole community, on a 
 general ticket, instead of by a Board of Aldermen, each 
 member of which is elected from a single district. 
 
 The Mayors of our cities are, as a rule, chosen from 
 among our best citizens and are far superior to the Alder- 
 men. 
 
 No lawyer doubts that better judges could be obtained 
 for our district courts, if they were elected by the city at 
 large ; their inferiority in learning and character to the 
 judges of our general city courts is far greater than any 
 difference in salary would warrant. 
 
 If we can elect a respectable Mayor, President of the 
 Board of Aldermen and half a dozen judges in one year, 
 why can we not also elect a number of respectable legis- 
 lators on a general ticket ? 
 
The innumerable amendments to the charter of the city, 
 during the last fifty years, have been mostly caused by the 
 necessity of taking one power after the other from the 
 Board of Aldermen and of giving it to officials or boards 
 elected on a general ticket, or appointed by an official 
 elected on such a ticket. 
 
 This movement culminated in the Reform bills of 1884, 
 which took the right of confirmation from the Board of 
 Aldermen and gave the uncontrolled power of appointment 
 to the Mayor. 
 
 These improvements came from the exertions of com- 
 mittees of 50, 70 or 100, selected from the city at large, 
 without reference to the districts ; why could not the con- 
 trol of our municipal affairs be always in the hands of a 
 committee of such character ? 
 
 The reckless manner in which the Board of Aldermen 
 exercises its only remaining power, in giving away the pub- 
 lic streets, shows that this too must shortly be taken from 
 these " deestrick" representatives, and given to a Board 
 elected on a general ticket, or placed under the control of 
 the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. 
 
 The indirect benefits of these reform bills is already 
 becoming apparent in the decreased influence of the Halls ; 
 like Flood Rock after the explosion, they are rent with fis- 
 sures and honeycombed with chasms, and only the shell 
 remains. 
 
 The next task for reform is to abolish the rest of these 
 geographical election districts in cities and to elect our 
 Assemblymen and Senators from the city at large. Let 
 our citizens group themselves according to their most im- 
 portant interests and not according to the places, where 
 they happen to sleep at night, and let those important in- 
 terests send representatives to the Legislature, to meet 
 those of our fellow-citizens who live by agriculture. 
 
132 
 
 So long as we keep these artificial districts, they must be 
 worked by machines ; and the machine which uses the most 
 "soap" will win. No party which tries to carry out the 
 letter and spirit of civil service reform can now remain in 
 power ; civil service reformers must strike deeper and 
 remove the cause for the demand for the political worker, 
 otherwise their Civil-Service Commissioners will sooner or 
 later be politicians, who will use this centralized power to 
 the greater detriment of the country. Remove this demand 
 for " workers," and the constitutional method of selecting 
 public officials will suffice. 
 
 Men are bound to create associations to further their 
 important interests and to seek to have them represented in 
 the Legislature ; if the Constitution does not provide for 
 their natural recognition they will spring up and work out- 
 side of the law and become a danger to the State. 
 
 Our mistake has been in following too blindly the exam- 
 ple of the Germanic township, — so lauded in its New Eng- 
 land form by De Tocqueville, — but we have overlooked the 
 essential difference between an agricultural community and 
 an arbitrary aggregation of city blocks. 
 
 De Tocqueville says in his "Democracy in America" 
 (p. 67): 
 
 " It is important to remember that they (townships) have not 
 been invested with privileges, but that they seem on the contrary, 
 to have surrendered a portion of their independence to the state. 
 
 The New Englander is attached to his township, because it 
 
 constitutes a strong and free social body of which he is a member, 
 and whose government claims and deserves the exercise of his 
 sagacity. " 
 
 Does this apply to our geographical election districts in 
 lities ? 
 
 Can it apply to any geographical sub-division of our 
 Jijty ? 
 
133 
 
 There will be no devotion to the city's interests and no 
 civic pride, and but little devotion to the State, so long as 
 the city is not recognized as a member of the State and 
 represented as such, and its citizens allowed to group them- 
 selves naturally and select their real representatives. 
 
 The evil influences of the bad government and bad repre- 
 sentation of our cities cannot be over-estimated ; if they 
 continue, our civilization may be endangered, especially by 
 reckless attempts at codification. In fact, the less our 
 Legislature does, beyond what is absolutely required for the 
 necessities of the hour, the better ; the prevalence of this 
 sentiment is shown by the general demand for biennial ses- 
 sions. A constitutional convention will be held bef re long 
 in this State ; according to precedent, several members will 
 be elected on a general ticket from each Senatorial district, 
 and a number of representatives from the State at large. 
 In former years, these bodies were composed to a large 
 degree of the ablest and most experienced men in the State. 
 Could not our cities, from such a Convention, regain a 
 system of true representation, and establish on firm Demo- 
 cratic principles, for ages to come, Universal Suffrage — the 
 pedestal of our American Liberty ? 
 
134 
 
 The following lists shozv the occupations of the candidates 
 from the election districts, as given in the EVENING POST 
 of October 29th : 
 
 ALDERMEN : 
 
 Liquor Dealers 19 
 
 No business except politics , 7 
 
 Lawyers 3 
 
 Clerks 3 
 
 Stone-yard owners 2 
 
 Stable keepers 2 
 
 Oyster dealers 2 
 
 Jewellers 2 
 
 Butcher 
 
 Butter dealer 
 
 Fish dealer 
 
 Provision dealer 
 
 Plumber 
 
 Truckman 
 
 Poultry dealer 
 
 Shoemaker 
 
 Undertaker 
 
 Saddler 
 
 Janitor 
 
 Cigar dealer 
 
 Gasemaker 
 
 Mechanic 
 
 Publisher . . . 
 
 Real Estate broker 
 
 Inspector in Custom House 
 
 No business except politics 4 
 
 Lawyers 5 
 
 Merchants ... 2 
 
 Lumber Dealer 1 
 
 Undertaker 1 
 
 Butcher 1 
 
 Real Estate 1 
 
 ASSEMBLYMEN 
 
 No business except politics 14 
 
 Clerks 13 
 
 Lawyers 10 
 
 Liquor dealers 7 
 
 Business unknown 3 
 
 Truckmen I 
 
 Auctioneer 1 
 
 Fish dealer I 
 
 Milk dealer 1 
 
 Stable-keeper 1 
 
 Real estate .... 1 
 
 Merchant 
 
 Butcher 
 
 Baker 
 
 Mason 
 
 Provision Dealer. 
 Ex-policeman . . 
 
 Peddler 
 
 Ice -cart driver . . 
 
 Builder 
 
 Lumber dealer . . 
 
135 
 
 Argument in Favor of Electing Aldermen on a 
 General Ticket. 
 
 THE Spring Election and Aldermanic bill, providing 
 among other things for the election of Aldermen on a 
 general ticket from the City at large, with cumulative vo- 
 ting, deals confessedly with a difficult subject. From De 
 Tocqueville to President Woolsey and Governor Seymour we 
 have innumerable laudations of the rural township system; 
 but, when the government of cities is reached, a few sen- 
 tences of mournful lament over their wickedness suffice and, 
 like the Levite in the parable, they pass by on the other 
 side. And yet all confess that this problem of good city 
 government is of the utmost importance for our future civi- 
 lization. 
 
 The two points in this bill to which I wish to call partic- 
 ular attention are the practical advantages to be derived 
 from the election of Aldermen on a general ticket from the 
 City at large, and the question of the constitutionality of 
 the provision for cumulative voting, — as I understand that 
 the gentlemen representing the City Reform Club intend 
 to state the reasons for the other changes contemplated by 
 this bill. 
 
 The evils which this bill is intended to remedy are so 
 well known, that it is needless for me to dwell upon them 
 here ; it is hardly possible that our Board of Aldermen can 
 sink lower than it has done. — The Board 6f 1884 was not a 
 particularly bad one, — so far as one could judge from gen- 
 eral behaviour and appearance of its members ; — it seemed 
 to me to be somewhat an improvement on that of 1883, 
 which was the first Board elected exclusively from districts. 
 
 The reason the Board of 1884 became so notorious was that 
 it was in 1884 that the law was passed authorizing the Alder- 
 men to grant franchises to City railroads ; that Board was 
 the first which had this opportunity. — No one who has had 
 dealings with the Board of 1885 will claim that it was com- 
 
136 
 
 posed of a class of men superior to its predecessors. It was 
 my fortune to have considerable to do with those three 
 boards, in the capacity of counsel for the Citizens' West Side 
 Association, — an organization which desired to lessen the 
 evils caused by the running of steam cars through the streets 
 on the west side of the City ; — and I confess that in my 
 opinion, the interests of the citizens at large received as 
 much attention from one of these Boards as it did from the 
 other. 
 
 The whole history of the innumerable changes of our 
 charter is explained by the necessity of taking one by one 
 all the powers from the Aldermen, and of giving them to 
 officers elected from the City at large, or to their ap- 
 pointees.— This work was thought to be practically com- 
 pleted when the Committee of Fifty-three secured the pas- 
 sage of the Roosevelt bills, which took the power of con- 
 firming nominations from the Board of Aldermen. — At that 
 time the politicians raised this same cry that democratic in- 
 stitutions were in danger, &c. ; — but to-day not one of them 
 would dare to recommend that we return to that system of 
 " deals " and " bargains." 
 
 Unfortunately, as I have mentioned, the Board's power 
 for evil was revived in the same year, by the fatal gift of 
 the power to grant franchises ; this too has been practically 
 taken from them, after two years' abuse, during which the 
 City has disposed of its most valuable franchises for very 
 inadequate consideration. 
 
 The Board at present has no powers of any importance 
 left to it ; it can appoint commissioners of deeds, — but it 
 can do little else. — That the City will continue to pay about 
 $50,000 per year for this — is not very probable ; no one will 
 probably dare to recommend that the Board be given any 
 new powers or receive again those of which it has been de- 
 prived. The practical question is therefore, is this Board to 
 be abolished, or shall an attempt be made to secure more 
 
137 
 
 satisfactory representatives by selecting its members in 
 some other manner ? 
 
 It is true that the present method has the prestige of an- 
 tiquity ; Governor Dongan, two hundred years ago, intro- 
 duced the charter, granted by James II., which provided 
 that the City should be divided into wards, and one alder- 
 man elected from each ward. — The Montgomery charter, in 
 the early part of the last century, confirmed this, with the 
 limitation, that the Aldermen should be elected only by the 
 freeholders in the Ward. — This system continued down to 
 1804, when by § 2 of chap. 62 the change was made of ex- 
 tending the franchise to all who had paid taxes during the 
 year and "rented a tenement of the yearly value of twenty- 
 five dollars." 
 
 At no time, during these two centuries, can it be said, 
 that the Board of Aldermen has been of great credit to the 
 City. — No sooner had Governor Dongan left, than Leisler, — 
 a man who had obtained his influence as Alderman, — 
 plunged the City into turmoil. Passing over the interme- 
 diate period, when the Board was chosen only by the real 
 estate owners of the ward, and seems never to 'have risen 
 over mediocrity, the change of 1804 did not take long to 
 bring trouble in its train. — Soon the interminable changes 
 began of electing Aldermen and Councilmen in Boards of 
 various sizes, and of depriving them of one power after the 
 other and entrusting these to departments and commis- 
 sioners. 
 
 It is not necessary to detail here this weary story, — we 
 know where it has led to, and we hope, has ended. — After 
 this experience of two centuries, it is senseless to tell New 
 York citizens, that this system of electing aldermen from 
 districts is the best possible and that it must continue un- 
 changed. — Any industrious business man or mechanic, who 
 lives in the City of New York, knows that it is impossible 
 for him to make acquaintances in his Aldermanic district,. 
 
I3« 
 
 so as to enable him to exercise any influence in the prima- 
 ries compared with that of the liquor dealer, who spends his 
 whole days and evenings behind his bar, and by dispensing 
 cheap but highly appreciated favors among his impecunious 
 neighbors, gains a power, which assures him control of the 
 primary. — People living in small towns or in the country, 
 can with difficulty appreciate the entire ignorance of each 
 other of next door neighbors in New York City. — But it is 
 something which cannot be changed ; the large number of 
 calls which every man has on his leisure time from his friends, 
 who reside all over the City, make it impossible for him to cul- 
 tivate the acquaintance of his neighbors, if that were always 
 desirable. — Men in a large City have their acquaintances, — 
 thanks to the ease of rapid transit, scattered over the whole 
 city ; they meet each other in their exchanges, offices, and 
 workshops during the day, and get to know and value each 
 other, although their homes may be miles apart. — The men 
 living in the same district, have no interests as such, in com- 
 mon ; the geographical division of cities is artificial, — copied 
 from rural institutions. — In the country, the people living in 
 the same neighborhood not only know each other, from the 
 permanency of residence, &c, — but as they cultivate the same 
 soil under the same conditions, their principal crops are 
 generally the same, and consequently when a geographical 
 division of the country is represented, a group of men is 
 represented united according to their most important in- 
 terests. — In cities, men do not get their living from the 
 earth, but from manufacturing, transporting, &c, its de- 
 tached products ; — consequently geographical divisions of a 
 city tear men asunder and prevent the great mass of in- 
 dustrious mechanics and business men who know and esteem 
 each other from uniting in the selection of a represent- 
 ative whom they know and honor — And so long as this un- 
 natural division continues, the liquor dealers and their 
 gangs will continue to rule the City ; that is inevitable. 
 
139 
 
 But let the Legislature give our City the chance of acting 
 in its natural way, as a political unit, and the inhabitants 
 of New York, who hold the commerce of this continent in 
 their grasp, and who are always the first to be appealed to 
 and the first to respond to any appeal to their generosity, 
 will show that they have the sagacity as well as the civic 
 pride, necessary to redeem the reputation of their city gov- 
 ernment from being a bye-word, and an example of every- 
 thing that is to be avoided to the inhabitants of two con- 
 tinents, — and will make it worthy of the Empire State. 
 
 Owing to fortunate circumstances, the Legislature has 
 given us this unexpected chance, — let it not be the Exec- 
 utive who dashes this cup, which the whole press and cit- 
 izens of all classes have hailed with such delight, — from our 
 
 lips. We need a Board in which the Citizens can 
 
 have confidence ; the Board of Estimate and Apportionment 
 is too small to consider properly all the City's vast inter- 
 ests. Only to such a Board, — three of whose members are 
 elected on a general ticket, and the fourth appointed by the 
 Mayor, — could the City finances be confided. — But it cannot 
 supervise all the City departments and bring economical, 
 harmonious administration into the whole ; to do that, re- 
 quires a more numerous body, — one selected from the very 
 best men of the City. — These questions which concern the 
 whole City should be decided by representatives of the 
 whole City ; — under the present system a majority in thir- 
 teen districts may govern the City, although the opposing 
 majorities in the other eleven districts together with the 
 minorities in the 13 districts first named greatly exceed the 
 total of the majorities in the 13 districts. — For example, if 
 the twenty-four districts contained each 10,000 voters, 6000 
 voters in 13 districts, or 78,000 voters could elect a majority 
 of the Board and disregard the wishes of 162,000; thus a 
 minority can under the present system rule a majority of 
 over twice its size. Nothing can be more undemocratic 
 
140 
 
 or contrary to common sense. — In questions which concern 
 a number of men, they should all vote for the men who are 
 to decide them. — This is done in all partnerships or private 
 corporations. It is unheard of to divide the stockholders 
 or partners into classes, and let each class vote for a repre- 
 sentative ; no majority of men would expose themselves to 
 the risk of being ruled by a minority ; — but all the stock- 
 holders insist on voting directly for the board of trustees. 
 
 If each district had a Board of Aldermen of its own, and 
 each of these Boards elected a representative to the general 
 board, there would be reason in the plan ; but according to 
 all precedent the members of a body which is a political 
 whole, should vote as a whole for the agents who are to 
 attend to the common interests of these individuals. 
 
 It is only by abolishing this district system and by elect- 
 ing the Aldermen from the whole city, that a real rule of the 
 majority can be secured, and all who favor this true, demo- 
 cratic principle should therefore sustain the system of elect- 
 ing aldermen on a general ticket from the city at large. 
 
 But while the friends of this bill have striven thus ear- 
 nestly to carry into effect the democratic doctrine, that the 
 majority must rule, they have not forgotten the other demo- 
 cratic doctrine of equal importance that so far as possible 
 every portion of the people should have a chance to be 
 heard in our legislative assemblies ; that every group of men, 
 with important interests in common, should have a chance 
 to plead its cause ; " audiatur et altera pars " is a principle 
 as old as civilization. — While therefore we desire election 
 on a general ticket from the whole City, we have also re- 
 cognized that it would not be fair or even desirable that 
 the minority, which may consist of tens of thousands of 
 citizens, should be without even a voice in our City legis- 
 lature. 
 
 But even, if we had desired it, I could see no chance of 
 passing this bill in the Assembly until I recommended 
 
Hi 
 
 cumulative voting ; no Republican Assembly will pass the 
 bill without it, and, as, one house is generally in the hands 
 of that party, it is useless to hope for a bill, without some such 
 provision. But although a Democrat, I do not believe that it 
 would be for the welfare of the City or of the Party, that the 
 Board should be composed exclusively of Democrats. — The 
 experience of all political parties is that when either has an 
 overwhelming majority it does not long retain power. We 
 must have election on a general ticket, and this can be fair 
 only if cumulative voting is allowed. 
 
 As to the practical working of this bill, I will only cite 
 the Journal of the Constitutional Convention of Illinois, in 
 favor of cumulative voting. — The question was subsequently 
 submitted to the people and adopted, and is now in success- 
 ful operation in that State. 
 
 Journal of the Constitutional Convention, State of Illinois, 
 1870. — Report of the Committee on Electoral and Repre- 
 sentative Reform (p. 414) : 
 
 " If a voter may now cast three votes for three candidates, why 
 should he not be permitted to give his three votes to one candi- 
 date ? or two votes to one, and one vote for a second candidate ? 
 or to divide them equally between two candidates ? 
 
 What useful purpose is served by this inhibition on the volition 
 of the citizen ? By what right or authority does the agent dictate 
 to his principal, how he shall distribute his votes? If the people 
 are sovereign they should be left free to dispose of their votes as 
 seemeth good in their sight. The only possible motive that can 
 be adduced for requiring the elector to cast but one vote for each 
 candidate in a triple district, is to enable the stronger party to 
 elect three members and to prevent the weaker party from elect- 
 ing any. This too closely resembles the gamblers' game, wherein 
 the parties play for the whole stake, the winner gaining all and 
 the loser losing all. And the same temptations to the commission 
 of frauds, and cheating, exist in both games. 
 
 The object of the unrestricted ballot is to enlarge the power 
 and privilege of the voter. Instead of obliging him to distribute 
 
1 42 
 
 his votes, it gives him the option to do so, or ]) concentrate them 
 and cast a ' 'plumper" for his favorite candidate .... 
 
 The adoption of this great reform would do much towards 
 abating the baseful spirit of partisan animosity, and removing the 
 temptations and opportunities which now exist for the corrupt 
 use of money at elections ; much to prevent the deliberate frauds 
 on the purity of the ballot box, becoming so alarming and fre- 
 quent 
 
 It will also tend powerfully to relieve the voter from the des- 
 potism of party caucuses, and at the same time constrain party 
 leaders to exercise more care in selecting candidates for law- 
 makers. . . It will enable virtuous citizens to elect the ablest and 
 purest men in their midst, and secure to the legislative councils 
 a larger measure of popular confidence and respect 
 
 The increased power of the voter under the liberty conferred 
 by the proposed amendment, may be thus contrasted with the ex- 
 isting restrictions. A citizen may now cast one vote for A, B and 
 C. If he erases A from his ticket, he loses one third of his voting 
 power. If he also erases B, only one third of it remains. But 
 under the free ballot, he may distribute his voting power in any 
 
 of the following ways : &c. (examples given) Thus by this 
 
 system, the citizen remains in possession of his complete fran- 
 chise, and at the same time the theory of democratic government 
 is reduced to practice, and the minority through the agents of 
 their personal choice, speaks, argues, protests and votes in the 
 law-making body. " 
 
 As I understand that the gentlemen from the Reform 
 Club have prepared an argument in favor of the practical 
 merits of cumulative voting, I now pass to the question 
 of constitutionality. 
 
 Here we must remember, that we are discussing whether 
 an act of the Legislature is contrary to any provision of the 
 State constitution ; it is not necessary to show, as in the 
 case of an act of Congress, that the Constitution has ex- 
 pressly conferred the power to pass the act in question. 
 
 People vs. Flagg (46 N. Y., 401). 
 
143 
 
 "All legislative power is conferred on the Senate and Assembly, 
 and if an act is within the legitimate exercise of that power it is- 
 valid, unless some restriction or limitation can be found in the 
 Constitution itself. 
 
 The distinction between the United States Constitution and our 
 State Constitution is that the former confers upon Congress cer- 
 tain specified powers only, while the latter confers upon the 
 Legislature all legislative power. In the one case, the powers, 
 specifically granted, can only be exercised. In the other all 
 powers, not prohibited, may be exercised." 
 
 People ex rel. Williams vs. Dayton (55 N. Y. 380). 
 
 "It must be born in mind that all legislative power has been 
 granted by the Constitution to the Senate and Assembly, and 
 their acts are held to be valid unless restrained by some provision 
 of the instrument." 
 
 Bank of Chenango vs. Brown (26 N. Y., 467). 
 
 People ex rel. Williams vs. Dayton (55 N. Y., 386). 
 
 "Again it is insisted that the Legislature have, for a long 
 time, acted upon the construction claimed by the appellants, and 
 that the executive officers of the State, in pursuance of its mandate, 
 have acquiesced in such construction .... 
 
 This argument in a government like that of Great Britain, 
 where the constitution consists entirely of precedents and usages 
 would be conclusive ; but in one where the paramount law con- 
 sists of a written constitution, solemnly enacted by the people, 
 for the purpose of organizing the department of government, de- 
 fining and limiting their respective powers, like that of this State, 
 it is entitled to but little weight. 
 
 Here whenever the validity of a legislative act is challenged as 
 unauthorized or prohibited by the Constitution, reference must be 
 had to the instrument itself to determine the question " 
 
 Lemon vs. People (20 N. Y., 602). 
 
 ' ' Every sovereign State has a right to determine by its laws the 
 condition of all persons who may at any time be within its juris- 
 diction 
 
144 
 
 What has been said as to the right of a sovereign State to de- 
 termine the status of persons within its jurisdiction applies to the 
 States of this Union, except as it has been modified or restrained 
 by the Constitution of the United States" (cases cited). 
 
 People vs. Draper (15 N. Y., 543). 
 
 ' ' Plenary power in the Legislature, for all purposes of civil 
 government is the rule, a prohibition to exercise a particular 
 power is an exception. In inquiring therefore, whether a given 
 statute is constitutional, it is for those who question its validity, 
 to show that it is forbidden. " 
 
 There is nothing in the State Constitution which pro- 
 hibits the Legislature from authorizing cumulative voting ; 
 on the contrary full power over this subject is expressly 
 given to the Legislature. — Section two in Article X pro- 
 vides : "All city, town and village officers, whose election or 
 appointment is not provided for by this constitution shall be 
 elected by the electors of such cities, towns and villages or of 
 some division thereof, or appointed by such authorities 
 thereof as the Legislature shall designate for that purpose." 
 
 The leading case on this section is that of People ex rel. 
 Furman vs. Clute (50 N. Y., 459), affirmed in People ex rel. 
 Hatfield vs. Comstock (78 N. Y., 361), in which the Court 
 of Appeals held, that this section authorized the Legis- 
 lature to limit the class of persons, from whom a person 
 <:ould be selected to fill a county office. The court says : 
 ** And the power is reserved to the Legislature to direct 
 whether by election or appointment shall be made the choice 
 of all county officers, the mode of the choice of whom is not 
 provided for by the Constitution (Const. Art. X, § 2)." 
 
 The Legislature is therefore not only not prohibited from 
 providing for city elections in such manner as it may deem 
 best, — but is expressly authorized so to do. 
 
 Under the letter of Constitution it may provide for the 
 election of county officers by some division of the electors. — 
 It is not said that this must be a division according to geo- 
 
145 
 
 graphical lines ; but any fraction or quota may be directed 
 to elect officers, to the exclusion of others, — if we claim a 
 strict construction of the constitution. 
 
 The Legislature has also frequently exercised this power, 
 in providing for minority representation in various ways ; 
 see § i, Chapter 590, laws of 1857 ; § 1, Chapter 321, laws 
 of 1858 ; §§ 6 and 7, Chapter 138, laws of 1870. 
 
 Moreover, Article XIII, § 2, providing for the calling of 
 future constitutional conventions, contains a precisely sim- 
 ilar direction to the Legislature, as to the election of dele- 
 gates to such convention. The Constitution provides, that 
 " the Legislature at its next session shall provide by law 
 for the election of delegates to such convention." — In pur- 
 suance of this authority the Legislature, by Chapter 194, of 
 laws of 1867, provided : 
 
 "Thirty of said delegates shall be chosen for the state at large, 
 and may be voted for by all the electors therein as such electors 
 are hereinafter designated, except that no elector shall vote for 
 more than sixteen of said delegates at large." 
 
 In pursuance of this call, the constitutional Convention 
 was elected, met, proposed various amendments, which were 
 submitted to the people ; among these was Article VI, pro- 
 viding for an elective judiciary, which was adopted and under 
 it our judges now hold office. — The question of the con- 
 stitutionality of the act last cited, was very fully discussed 
 in Green vs. Shumwah (39 N. Y., 418), in regard to the re- 
 quirement of a test oath from all voters, — but not a word 
 was said against the propriety or constitutionality of min- 
 ority representation. 
 
 The New York charter of 1873 provided also for minority 
 representation, directing among other things, that there 
 should be six aldermen at large, but that no voter should 
 vote for more than four candidates. — This law continued in 
 force until its repeal in 1882. A question was raised as 
 to its constitutionality, which always excited more of ridic- 
 
14' 
 
 ule than of anxiety, on the ground that the law violated 
 § I, of Art. II, of the Constitution, which provides, that 
 " every male citizen .... shall be entitled to vote .... for 
 all officers that now are or hereafter may be elective by the 
 peop'e." 
 
 The constitutionality of the act was in effect maintained 
 by the Special and General Term in the First Department, 
 and in the Court of Appeals this case was dismissed on the 
 ground that the complainants had not been prevented from 
 voting for more than four Aldermen, and consequently had 
 no cause of action. 
 
 See People ex rel. Angerstein vs. Kenny (96 N. Y., 294). 
 
 No objection of that kind could even be started against 
 cumulative voting, as provided in this bill, — because no cit- 
 izen is prohibited from voting for all of the Aldermen to be 
 elected, if he wish so to do ; — and consequently this act is 
 within both the language of this article of the Constitution 
 and of the language of the Court of Appeals. 
 
 I examined the very point before I drew the amendment 
 to Senator Daly's bill, providing for cumulative voting. 
 
 If however it were necessary to argue the question more 
 fully, it could easily be shown that this § 1, of Art. II, re- 
 ferred only to the election of officers by the people of the 
 whole State. — It was the burning question in the Constitu- 
 tional Convention ofl82l, to remove the requirement of the 
 constitution of 1777, that all voters for the Assembly and 
 Senate should be land-owners. 
 
 This was accomplished by this section, — but in all the 
 long debates not a word is said about the election of county 
 or city officers. 
 
 In the Constitution of 1846 substantially the same section 
 was again adopted, — together with the additional § 2, of 
 Art. X, above cited, expressly authorizing the Legislature 
 to designate the manner of electing the city and county 
 officers. 
 
H7 
 
 The chartered privileges of a city were held to be sacred 
 in those days; thus the elder Governor Clinton and the 
 majority of the Council of Revision had disapproved of a 
 bill altering the franchise in New York City, on the ground 
 that "charters of incorporation containing grants and privi- 
 leges were not to be essentially affected without the consent 
 of the parties or without due process of law." 
 
 The Constitution of 1821 moreover particularly povides, 
 in § 14 of Art. VII., that " nothing contained in this Constitu- 
 tion .... shall annul any charters to bodies politic and 
 corporate by him or them (the King of Great Britain or per- 
 sons acting under his authority) made . ... or shall affect 
 any such grants or charters made by this State, etc." The 
 Constitution of 1846 contains a similar provision. 
 
 At the time when the Constitution of 1821 was adopted, 
 the election in New York City of charter officers was regu- 
 lated by Chapter 62 of the Laws of 1804; this law prescribed 
 requirements for voters, differing from those of the Consti- 
 tution; for example, a residence of six months in the State 
 was sufficient to entitle a person to vote for charter officers, 
 while the Constitution required a residence of one year. 
 
 If this § 1 of Art. II. of the Constitution applied to char- 
 ter officers, the law concerning election of charter officers, 
 so far as it varied from the Constitution, must have been 
 void. But immediately after the adoption of the Constitu- 
 tion the following act was passed: 
 
 Chapter 223 of the Laws of 1822. " Whereas, The Mayor, 
 Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, by 
 their petition, under their corporate seal, have prayed the 
 Legislature to pass the hereinafter contained provisions* 
 Therefore, be it enacted by the people, etc 
 
 § 6. That every person qualified by the charter of the said city, 
 to vote for charter officers, and every person qualified to vote 
 in any of the wards of the said city, for members of the Assem- 
 bly of this State, by the Constitution of the State of New 
 
148 
 
 York, as amended, shall be authorized to vote for such charter 
 officers in the ward where he actually resides and not else- 
 where." 
 
 Two years later a similar act was passed: Chapter 155, 
 of 1824. 
 
 "An act to alter the organisation of the Common Council 
 of the the City of New York. 
 
 § 9. Every person qualified by the charter of the said city 
 to vote for charter officers, and every person qualified to 
 vote in any of the wards of the said city, for members of the 
 assembly of this state by the constitution, shall be authorized 
 to vote for such charter officers in the ward where he actu- 
 ally resides and not elsewhere ; and that no other person 
 shall be authorized to vote at any such election. 
 
 § 11. That all the provisions of this act shall be null 
 . . . unless the same shall be approved by a majority of the 
 votes of the electors of the City of New York." 
 
 It is therefore plain that these Legislatures did not con- 
 sider the broader franchise allowed by the act of 1804 to 
 be affected by the Constitution. Frequent subsequent refer- 
 ences to the qualification of voters under the city charter 
 occur. Thus Amendment Number Six to the Constitution 
 of 1 82 1, adopted a few years subsequently, provides that in 
 the City of New York "the electors thereof qualified to vote 
 for the other charter officers of the said city " shall annually 
 choose the Mayor. Similar references are found in Chapter 
 155 of laws of 1824 and Chapter 23 of laws of 1834, The 
 courts have unanimously held that the acts passed to carry 
 into effect this § 1, of Article II., of the Constitution, do not 
 apply to charter elections. 
 
 Thus Chapter 130 of laws of 1842, providing for general 
 elections, re-enacts § 1, of Art. II., of the Constitution, and 
 declares that no court shall be open on the day when such 
 election shall be held. In the following case it was decided 
 that this act did not apply to charter elections. 
 
149 
 
 Matter of the Election Law (7 Hill, 194). 
 
 "A doubt was suggested whether under the election law of 
 1842 the court could properly be held open. In conse- 
 quence of this suggestion he (the Chief Justice) had looked 
 into the statute and was of the opinion that it did not apply 
 
 to town and charter elections The elections particularly 
 
 provided for, and which are held in pursuance of the chapter, 
 are general and special elections for the choice of State, 
 district or county officers, and no others. It is true that the 
 act provides for the choice of Inspectors of Elections at 
 town meetings and charter elections. Those meetings and 
 elections, however, are not held in pursuance of the law in 
 question; but under other laws specially providing when and 
 how they shall be held and conducted!' 
 
 See also : People vs. Tripp (4 N. Y. Legal Observer, 344); 
 Wheeler Vs. Bartlett (1 Edw. Eh. p. 323); Redfield vs. 
 Florence (2 E. D, Smith, 342); Pitkin vs. McNair (56 
 Barb., 75.) The qualifications for voters for township officers 
 appear also not to have been affected by the Constitution ; 
 — see Rev. Stat., p. 339, § 1; § 5 of laws of 1823, p. 207. 
 
 Having thus attempted to meet the arguments which may 
 be advanced against the constitutionality of the bill, I will 
 close with a few remarks in answer to the suggestion which 
 may perhaps be made that while this bill may not be 
 against the letter of our Constitution, it is nevertheless 
 an innovation and against the spirit of our institutions, 
 especially that of universal suffrage, which all democrats 
 must value so highly. 
 
 I believe that cumulative voting is an essential part of 
 true universal suffrage. 
 
 Whence did we get universal suffrage ? Not from Eng- 
 land. — The writs for election of members to parliament left 
 it entirely undecided how each borough would select its two 
 representatives. To quote an authority from the last cen- 
 tury : Heywood on Borough Elections (1797), Chapter VI ; 
 On the Electors for cities and boroughs in general (p. 171). 
 
i5o 
 
 "The right of voting for representatives of cities and boroughs 
 is not (as of counties) regulated by any one fixed rule, which uni- 
 formly pervades the whole kingdom, but inquiry must be made 
 after the acts of parliament, charters, or last determinations 
 afflecting each particular place, and the local usage prevailing 
 there. After having shown that the tenants in ancient demesne 
 and in burgage, were probably the most ancient classes of voters, 
 it is not unreasonable to conclude, that many, if not all of the 
 present rights of voting, however remote their connexion or an- 
 alogy may at first appear, were derived originally from tenure, 
 as the parent stock." 
 
 In none of the United Sates did universal suffrage prevail 
 at the time of the Revolution, and the United States Con- 
 stitution said not a word about extending that right. It 
 was practically unknown for nearly a generation afterwards. 
 Universal suffrage is therefore originally neither an English 
 nor an American doctrine ; it was introduced by the Demo- 
 cratic party, in State after State, under the influence of the 
 example of France and the suggestions of Thomas Jefferson — 
 in this State thanks chiefly to Martin Van Buren. — What was 
 the universal suffrage which Thos. Jefferson saw during his 
 long residence in France ? — The Assemblee Nationale of 
 1789 provided, that each department should elect as many 
 representatives as it has thousands of inhabitants. — The 
 Republic of 1848 introduced a similar system ; the present 
 Republic in 1875 instituted it afresh, and although this 
 was repealed, it has been again established and is now 
 in force in France, with cumulative voting — thanks to 
 the last gigantic effort of Gambetta. — It is for this prin- 
 ciple of the scrutin du liste, as opposed to that of the scrutin 
 d arrondissetncnt, that we are contending ; we ask for a sim- 
 ilar election for a number of representatives from a large 
 district, on a general ticket, with cumulative voting. 
 
 The opponents of this measure have expressed the fear 
 that the people could not be trusted to exercise the franchise 
 
i5i 
 
 under this system ; but this argument should have little 
 weight with a Democrat. 
 
 It was this system of election of a number of repre- 
 sentatives on a general ticket from a large district which 
 Jefferson saw in operation when he wrote to David 
 Hartley : " I have no fear, but that the result of our 
 experiment will be, that men may be trusted to govern 
 themselves without a master. Could the contrary of 
 this be proved, I should conclude either that there was 
 no God or that he was a malevolent being." This plan 
 has always been bitterly opposed by all the enemies of 
 Republican France : anarchists, imperialists, royalists and 
 small politicians. 
 
 We hold with Gambetta's declaration on November 24, 
 1875: 
 
 "The laws which regulate are as essential, are as fundamental 
 for the future of society as those which established it. " 
 
 All that we are asking for is that the one essential 
 element, which is lacking to make universal suffrage what 
 it was expected to be, be added, and that this principle be 
 practically applied, in its full strength, on the plan of those 
 who designed and originated it. For a fuller statement on 
 this subject I beg leave to refer to my pamphlet on " Uni- 
 versal Suffrage in Cities," which I submit herewith, in which 
 I also attempt to show the necessity of electing representa- 
 tives to the Legislature from cities, on the plan now advo- 
 cated for Aldermen. 
 
 What greater glory can a democratic Governor have than 
 of initiating the final stage in the completion of this grand 
 democratic doctrine ? — Unless some wise change is made, it 
 is greatly to be feared that in our city it cannot maintain its 
 hold on the affections of our people. — We must abolish this 
 division into districts — this remnant of British feudal and 
 of federalist institutions, but this can not and ought not to 
 be done without a provision for minority representation. 
 
IS2 
 
 All that this bill asks for is the true rule of the majority, 
 the representation of the whole people, the perfection and 
 preservation of universal suffrage ; — the completion of the 
 work begun in this State by Martin Van Buren. 
 
153 
 
 Progress and Robbery. 
 
 THREE AMERICAN ANSWERS TO HENRY GEORGE. 
 
 A PROPERTY-OWNER'S ANSWER. 
 
 The candidacy of Mr. Henry George for the mayoralty is 
 in one way peculiar and appears to me to demand a dif- 
 ferent treatment in this Club, from the usual mere indorse- 
 ment or refusal to indorse. 
 
 Mr. George is known personally to but few of our 
 citizens ; it is only through his books that we can obtain 
 information as to his character, sympathies and intellectual 
 ability. As most of the members of this Club are busy 
 men, and yet must desire to be informed on this subject, I 
 thought it might be acceptable, if I submitted to you the 
 result of my examination of his works, especially as it will 
 consist largely in quotations, showing his opinions on the 
 salient points of his theory. 
 
 Mr. George, moreover, represents an idea ; — for no one 
 can deny that but for his book on "Progress and Poverty" he 
 would not have been nominated for this office. He is not 
 nominated merely because it is believed that he will make 
 a good administrative officer, but because it is hoped that 
 his election will in some way conduce to the realization of 
 a whole theory of political economy, applicable not only to 
 our City, but to the State and Nation. That this theory is 
 of sufficient importance to deserve the careful consideration 
 of this Club, is evidenced, I consider, by the general inter- 
 est which this nomination of its representative has excited 
 among all citizens. 
 
*54 
 
 Among the masses of the people every one knows 
 that a large number of persons who have heretofore voted 
 the Democratic ticket are considering whether they will 
 not vote for Mr. George, or have already made up their 
 minds so to do; it is the same with the Republicans. 
 
 The manner in which he has been nominated is another 
 matter which should attract the attention of this Club. He 
 has not been nominated by politicians, but by a great class 
 of our population ; he represents in many ways a revolt 
 against present political methods; he is brought forward by 
 a combination of organizations whose entrance in the field 
 of politics has long been looked forward to by our citizens 
 with mingled feelings of desire and dread ; he has been 
 placed at the head of a force whose movements statesmen 
 and politicians have long been studying and prognosticat- 
 ing, and which, whatever may be the result of this elec- 
 tion, will remain a power for good or evil in the political 
 horizon for a long time to come, which both political par- 
 ties will have to consider in their calculations, and which 
 may be so strong as to retain permanently the elements 
 that may be attracted to it from either party in this cam- 
 paign. What theories then does the standard-bearer of this 
 new movement represent ? 
 
 It seems to me that this Club should look this matter in 
 the face at once, and consider whether the principles, 
 which Henry George represents, vary from the teachings 
 of Democracy, and whether there is anything that prevents 
 a Democrat from supporting him as a candidate. 
 
 Even if these questions were not forced upon us at this 
 time, the examination of the doctrines taught in "Progress 
 and Poverty " appear to me to be a fitting subject for our 
 careful consideration, whether we are inclined to approve 
 or disapprove of them, in view of the great spread which, 
 this book has attained both in this country and in England 
 In this country over a hundred editions are said to have 
 
155 
 
 Taeen printed, and it has been translated, I believe, into all 
 the languages of Europe. Learned societies have debated 
 its theories and clubs have been formed to put them into 
 practice. Very few books can boast of the reception of this 
 work, — or of having immediately influenced so many minds 
 in its favor. Another reason for considering this work is 
 that it is necessary in order to understand the full and cor- 
 rect meaning of the platform adopted by the Trade and 
 Labor Organizations of New York, and on which Mr. George 
 stands. 
 
 The first section condemns " the system which compels 
 men to pay their fellow-creatures for the use of God's gifts 
 to all," although it does not define what that " system " is; 
 and the second section states that " we aim at the abolition 
 of all laws which give to any class of citizens advantages 
 either judicial, financial, industrial or political, that are 
 not equally shared by all others," — but the statutes referred 
 to are not cited. This platform was adopted after the re- 
 ceipt of a letter from Mr. George in which he promised 
 conditionally to accept the nomination, and as it is under- 
 stood that he has virtually accepted it, we can go safely to 
 his works to ascertain the meaning which he, at all events, 
 puts upon this language, and which he will consider him- 
 self justified to follow in his official acts, if elected. And 
 no one can deny that a vote for Henry George will be con- 
 strued as an indorsement to some extent of his theories. 
 What is this system and what are these laws which are to 
 be abolished ? 
 
 Mr. George has certainly been straight-forward and con- 
 sistent; in his four books: "Progress and Poverty," "Social 
 Problems," "The Irish Land Question" and "Protection and 
 Free Trade," he emits no uncertain sound. 
 
 As the Roman Senator, when suddenly awakened, ex- 
 claimed : " Carthago delenda est" so Mr. George would, I 
 believe, in similar circumstances exclaim in the final words 
 
10 
 
 of his closing chapter in "Protection and Free Trade:" " Pri- 
 vate property in land is doomed." 
 
 It is this cry with which he first startled the world in 
 " Progress and Poverty": " We must therefore substitute for 
 the individual ownership of land a common ownership. We 
 must make land common property," p. 295. 
 
 In his "Social Problems" he says, on page 276: "There is 
 no escape from it. We must make land common property." 
 
 In the " Land Question " he states: ** In the very nature of 
 things, land cannot rightfully be made individual property. 
 This principle is absolute," p. 38. 
 
 It is therefore this system of private ownership of land, 
 and the laws which sustain this system, which the delegates 
 of the Trade and Labor Organizations of New York, in con- 
 ference assembled, declare it to be their aim to abolish, and 
 as the first step in that direction, they have nominated Mr. 
 George for Mayor of New York City. And no one can 
 deny that if this was their object, they have made a wise 
 choice in their standard-bearer. He gives not merely an 
 intellectual assent to the proposition, but no one can doubt 
 his thorough sincerity and fiery zeal. 
 
 His work entitled " Protection and Free Trade," published 
 in i885 is as outspoken in its denunciations as his "Progress 
 and Poverty," written in 1877. 
 
 In the former he says: " Property in land is as indefens- 
 ible as property in man," (p. 349) and " the robber that 
 takes all that is left is private property in land," (p. 285); 
 in the later he says: " If chattel slavery be unjust then is 
 private property in land unjust," (p. 312). In his " Land 
 Question" he says, on page 36: "Here is a system which 
 robs the producers of wealth as remorselessly and far more 
 regularly and systematically than the pirate robs the 
 merchantman." 
 
 In his "Social Problems" he says: " Did you ever see a 
 pail of swill given to a pen of hungry hogs ? That is human 
 society as it is," (p. 102). 
 
157 
 
 And, indeed, extravagant as this language may sound, 
 when one reads the sombre pages on which he paints the 
 horrors and misery of poverty and contrasts it with the ex- 
 travagance of wealth, in language and with pathos, which 
 has been rarely surpassed, one feels more than half inclined 
 to adopt Mr. George's plan or any measure, no matter how 
 radical, if there was only some prospect of improvement. 
 
 But Mr. George does not confine himself to an appeal to 
 our sentiments; he recognizes, of course, that no matter how 
 readily we agree as to the misery and unjustifiable inequality 
 now existing, he must still show that his proposed remedy 
 will lead to an improvement, and also that it can be adopted 
 without acting contrary to the precepts of justice. — Thus, 
 he says in his "Progress and Poverty": "If private prop- 
 erty in land be just, then is the remedy I propose a false 
 one; if on the contrary, private property in land be unjust, 
 then is this remedy the true one," (p. 299.) 
 
 As to the justice of ownership of things other than land 
 Mr. George is pronounced; in his "Social Problems," he 
 says, on pays 278: "What more preposterous than the 
 treatment of land as individual property ? In every es- 
 sential land differs from those things which being the pro- 
 duct of human labor are rightfully property. It is the 
 creation of God ; they are produced by man." 
 
 It is on this distinction that he bases his whole system. 
 In his chapter entitled " Injustice of private property in 
 land," he says (p. 307): "The right to exclusive ownership 
 of anything of human production is clear. No matter how 
 many the hands through which it has passed, there was at 
 the beginning of the line human labor — some one who, hav- 
 ing procured or produced it by his exertions, had to it a 
 clear title as against all the rest of mankind, and which 
 could justly pass from one to another by sale or gift. But 
 at the end of what string of conveyances or grants can be 
 shown or supposed a like title to any part of the material 
 universe ?" 
 
i5« 
 
 I think that such a title can be shown to every piece of 
 land in the State of New York fit for human use. 
 
 There is no reason for the division between personal and 
 real property, on the ground that the former is the pro- 
 duct of»man and the latter created by God. God created 
 personal property as certainly as he did real. As Mr. George 
 says in his "Social Problems" (p. 182): " Man has no power 
 to bring something out of nothing. He cannot create an 
 atom of matter." 
 
 Man can fashion things after they are detached from the 
 soil, and combine them, so that they will affect every one 
 of our senses in a new manner; but is any such change 
 greater than that from a piece of the forest primeval to a 
 Fifth Avenue lot ? 
 
 Did it require no labor to drain the swamps, cut the trees 
 and blast the rocks on this Island of Manhattan, before it 
 assumed its present form, which Mr. George and his friends 
 are now content to assume as their place of residence ? Was 
 not similar work required on every field in the State ? Ask 
 a farmer, who has reduced a ten-acre lot to an arable con- 
 dition, or the builder, who has blasted the rock from a city 
 lot, whether Mr. George is correct when he says, in his 
 "Social Problems," on page 85: "When land increases in 
 value it does not mean that its owner has added to the gen- 
 eral wealth." 
 
 According to Mr. George's own definitions, land can be 
 held as property, because it is no more fit for human use 
 without human labor, than any piece of personal property, 
 and it is as senseless to say of one part of the material uni- 
 verse it can be produced by man without God, as it is of any 
 other. 
 
 It is true that Mr. George does not overlook this 
 point of human labor connected with land, but he says 
 on the page last cited: "It is a title only to the improve- 
 ments and not to the land itself." Should he not then also 
 
159 
 
 say the same thing concerning a diamond, for instance, 
 which a lapidary has cut and polished: "All I can justly 
 claim is the value given by these exertions. They give me 
 no right to the diamond itself." And yet Mr. George claims 
 that as to personal property one can have ownership. 
 
 Quote to the same farmer or builder the definition of 
 property, as given in this chapter under consideration, "As a 
 man belongs to himself, so his labor when put in concrete 
 form belongs to him," and ask him whether he does not think 
 that the definition would entitle him to claim property in the 
 lot as much as in the wood or the stone which he removes 
 from it, and it would take even more than Mr. George's in- 
 genuity to get a negative answer from him. 
 
 We are not now arguing the question of compensation for 
 improvements, which we will consider later, but examining 
 the correctness of the distinction which Mr. George makes 
 between property in land and property in other things. If 
 there be no such broad distinction, as to require that the 
 former should be taken and the latter left, as Mr. George so 
 earnestly demands, the question of compensation, in case 
 we should take the land, need not be considered. Unless 
 this radical difference be proven, he might with equal pro- 
 priety discuss in his book the compensation to be given 
 for improvements to personal property. Having thus, in 
 my opinion, shown that Mr. George's distinction between 
 personal property, as the product of man, and real property, 
 as the creation of God, is untenable, and that consequently 
 his whole theory is indefensible, as he has expressly based 
 it on this claim to justice, let us briefly consider the ques- 
 tion of justice, without reference to Mr. George's book. 
 
 How long has this work been going on in this State and 
 City before they acquired a form, which induces Mr. George 
 and his friends to take up their abode therein and even 
 to desire to have an interest in it ? Where were these gen- 
 tlemen or their ancestors during the two centuries during 
 
i6o 
 
 which this struggle with animate and inanimate foes was 
 going on ? Did they take part in the Indian wars ? Did 
 they fight at Saratoga, or endure the horrors of the seven 
 years' war ? Did they struggle for municipal rights against 
 the New Netherlands Company, or assist in planning the 
 Constitution of 1777 ? Were not their ancestors the men 
 who staid comfortably in Europe until America was pre- 
 pared and put in order — until the human, animal and ma- 
 terial foes were overcome, and now that a passage can be 
 made in a week, and steerage fares cost perhaps twenty 
 dollars — which is often advanced to them by Americans — 
 they sail over here and, not satisfied with our broad 
 naturalization laws, then complain : "American citizen- 
 ship confers no right to American soil," (Social Problems, 
 p. 146). The Report of the Charity Organization Society 
 (which Mr. George cites to prove the existing misery) shows 
 that over 80 per cent, of beggars, whose cases were in- 
 vestigated, were not born in America. 
 
 No matter how absurd this claim may now seem to us, it is 
 one deserving of careful attention — in fact, is not to be 
 wondered at: our Saxon ancestors once did the same thing 
 and thus gained their English homes. It was the Britons 
 who invited the Saxons over from the Continent to fight 
 the Picts, and supported them and took them into their pay, 
 until they finally so increased in number that they took pos- 
 session of the land of their former employers. Human na- 
 ture has not changed very much, and that they come over 
 in Cunarders, instead of in dragon ships or coracles, does 
 not make their demand for the land of the former inhabi- 
 tants essentially different. I believe that the true character 
 of this movement, which is just beginning, should be under- 
 stood by our real estate owners and their friends, so that 
 the contest shall be a fair and open one, and that the 
 leaders of neither side shall increase their forces or diminish 
 hat of their adversary by false pretenses of justice, disinter- 
 estedness, etc. 
 
i6i 
 
 If one wished to descend to his style of language could not 
 the terms " robber" and "pirate" be flung back with perfect 
 propriety ? 
 
 I happen to have the correspondence of James Duane (an 
 ancestor of mine), who settled the township of Duanesburgh, 
 in Schenectady County, with his agents, extending from 
 about 1770 to 1790. I would like to show that correspond- 
 ence to anyone who claims that land is the free gift of God 
 to man and can be used like air and water, without the ex- 
 penditure of labor. Mr. Duane spent the proceeds of a 
 large professional income, together with what was, in those 
 days, considerable inherited property, upon building roads, 
 dams, mills, etc., through that region, so as to make it ac- 
 cessible to his tenants; he advanced them money, as is 
 shown by the continual begging letters, all of them imply- 
 ing confidence in his generosity or gratitude for his assist- 
 ance; there is not one implying any dislike or harsh feeling; 
 a great part of the letters consist in explanations by the 
 agent why the various tenants did not meet their obliga- 
 tions, or requests for money to carry out improvements or 
 maintain those already begun, which seemed very liable to 
 dilapidation. After representing the State of New York in 
 every Congress during the Revolutionary War, and serving 
 as first Mayor of this City after the war, until the Union 
 was formed, and then as first Judge of the United States 
 District Court of New York, he gave up the latter position, 
 and moved up there and devoted himself entirely to care 
 of this land until his death. Would he have done this, if 
 his descendants were to have had no interest in what was 
 then a wilderness ? And if he had not done it, how long 
 would that land have remained uncultivated ? 
 
 I believe that the history of any portion of this State, 
 if known, would be very much the same; and if any one 
 will consult one of the latest books on the history of land, 
 " The English Village Community," by Frederic Seebohm 
 
1 62 
 
 (London, 1883), he will see that in England the theory of 
 an original cultivation of the land by a community of inde- 
 pendent farmers (on which, on page 331 of "Progress and 
 Poverty," Mr. George bases his historical argument) is a 
 myth, and that the new land was then also settled by some 
 man of means advancing to dependents the subsistence and 
 implements required during the hard struggle of rendering 
 land arable. Mr. Seebohm says in his conclusion (p. 438) 
 on the village land system: " The equality in its yardlands, 
 and the single succession which preserved this equality, we 
 have found to be apparently not marks of an original free- 
 dom, not of an original allodial allotment on the German 
 mark system, but of a settled serfdom under a lordship — a 
 semi-servile tenancy implying a mere usufruct, theoretically 
 only for life or at will, and carrying with it no inherent 
 rights of inheritance. But this serfdom, as we have seen 
 reason to believe, was, to the masses of the people, not a 
 degradation, but a step upward out of a once more general 
 slavery. Certainly during the 1200 years over which the 
 direct English evidence extends, the tendency has been 
 towards more and more freedom." And Mr. Seebohm im- 
 plies that the same facts probably existed in other early 
 agricultural communities. Mr. George based his views solely 
 on what he saw in the Great West, where prairies are said 
 to be almost ready for the plow with but little prelimin- 
 ary labor; and upon the rapid increase of real estate values 
 in California, consequent upon the discovery of gold. From 
 these extraordinary circumstances he has evolved a theory 
 which he believes to be ot general application and to which 
 he still adheres, although his subsequent travels and educa- 
 tion might have been expected to have widened and cor- 
 rected his views on this plain matter of history. 
 
 He says, in page 83 of his "Social Studies: "When land 
 increases in value it does not mean that its owner has added 
 to the general wealth. . . . Increase of land values simply 
 
. 163 
 
 means that the owners, by virtue of appropriation of some- 
 thing that existed before man was, have the power of tak- 
 ing a larger share of the wealth produced by other people's 
 labor." However applicable these remarks may be to other 
 parts of the country, and though they may show that the 
 laws concerning the pre-emption of different kinds of public 
 lands should have varied, they do not apply to this State, 
 with its comparatively rugged soil and thick woods. 
 
 What have real estate owners done for the State of New 
 York ? Under the Constitution of 1777, only those in the 
 possession of land could vote, and to the Senate only land- 
 owners were admitted. It was the landowners of New York 
 who enabled that State to meet every requisition made upon 
 it by the Continental Congress for supplies, men and money 
 — the only one of the thirteen States of which that can be 
 said. 
 
 After forty years, the landowners peaceably of their own 
 accord gave up this privilege, and established practically 
 universal suffrage, through the Constitutional Convention of 
 1826, although there were even then men who foresaw the 
 future. Thus Chancellor Kent said, on page 115 of "Pro- 
 ceedings:" 
 
 " It is to protect this important class of the community 
 that the Senate should be preserved. It should be the 
 representative of the landed interest, and its security against 
 the caprice of the motley assemblage of paupers, emigrants, 
 journeymen manufacturers, and those undefinable classes of 
 inhabitants which a State and city like ours is calculated 
 to invite. This is not a fancied alarm. 
 
 Universal suffrage jeopardizes property, and puts it into 
 the power of the poor and profligate to control the affluent." 
 
 He was answered by Mr. Root : " We have no different 
 estates having different interests, necessary to be guarded 
 from encroachment by the watchful eye of jealousy . . . We 
 are all the same estate, all commoners . . . These powerful 
 
164 
 
 checks may be necessary between different families possess- 
 ing adverse interests, but can never be salutary among 
 brothers of the same family, whose interests are similar," 
 (p. 116.) 
 
 What would have been the action of that Convention, if 
 Mr. George's language had been heard in it ? Would he 
 and his friends now be voters ? Does he subscribe to the 
 honeyed phrases of that advocate of universal suffrage, or 
 are those former "brothers " now called robbers and pirates, 
 among whom must be included of course Washington, 
 Franklin, Madison, Jackson and probably every name which 
 Americans have been taught to revere. 
 
 I would pass now from the main point of Mr. George's 
 theory, assuming that it has appeared that Mr. George's 
 distinction between real and personal property is baseless, 
 and that property in the one is as sacred as in the other, 
 and that consequently the question of compensation for im- 
 provements on land, taken by the public, will not arise, 
 because the land may not be taken. But in order to give 
 a more complete view of Mr. George's theory, let us con- 
 sider for a moment his plan for compensation. 
 
 He assumes that there are two kinds of improvements to 
 land, for one of which only compensation is to be made. 
 
 He says on page 308 of " Progress and Poverty:" "There 
 are improvements which in time become indistinguishable 
 from the land itself. Very well ; then the title to the im- 
 provements becomes blended with the title to the land ; 
 the individual right is lost in the common right." 
 
 But he says this in the chapter on " injustice of private 
 property in land," in which he has undertaken to show that 
 this common right exists according to the principles of 
 justice; and yet here he assumes that it is already proven 
 and justified, to the negation of the right even of compen- 
 sation for improvements. — This is a fair specimen of the 
 logical mind of our would-be future Mayor. 
 
i6 5 
 
 But what are these " indistinguishable " improvements ; 
 the term is rather vague. Naturally one would suppose 
 that it would include the results of the first attempts to 
 render wild land fit for cultivation or habitation ; such as 
 the building of roads, bridges and dams in agricultural 
 lands, and clearing away the stones and other objects, 
 which impede cultivation; and in the city, levelling the 
 ground, making the necessary excavations, etc. — I do not 
 know what else can be intended by these "indistinguish- 
 able" improvements. 
 
 I would not ask Mr. George whether this is fair or honest, 
 but I would ask him whether it is consistent with giving 
 compensation for any improvements ? 
 
 Houses and barns, I suppose, would be improvements, if 
 any thing would, whose value is distinguishable from that 
 of the land; but why should the labor spent on the erection 
 of the building be compensated, and not that spent on the 
 preparation of the site or digging the foundation ? 
 
 The real object of this distinction between these two 
 classes of improvements appears to be to form a loop-hole 
 through which Mr. George can creep, whenever he is 
 pressed on this point, so as to suit the wishes of his inter- 
 locutor. But his real spirit with which he would select the 
 " indistinguishable" improvements is shown plainly enough 
 throughout his works. He says in his " Land Question," on 
 page 38: " 1 have dwelt so long upon this question of com- 
 pensating landowners, not merely because it is of great 
 practical importance, but because its discussion brings 
 clearly into view the principles upon which the land ques- 
 tion in Ireland, or in any other country, can alone be justly 
 and finally settled. In the light of these principles we see 
 that the landowners have no rightful claim either to the 
 tand or to compensation for its resumption by the people, 
 and, further than that, we see that no such rightful claim 
 can ever be created. It would be wrong to pay the present 
 landowners for " their" land at the expense of the people." 
 
i66 
 
 On page 36 he says: " Yet we are told that this 
 
 system cannot be abolished without buying off those who 
 profit by it. Was there ever more degrading debasement 
 before a fetish ?" 
 
 Moreover, who would pay for these improvements, if any 
 were paid for ? It would be one landowner who would pay 
 the other, for he contemplates the abolition of all other 
 taxes. He says, on page 281 of "Social Problems:" "Were 
 land treated as the property of the whole people, the ground 
 rent accruing to the community would suffice for public pur- 
 poses and all other taxation might be dispensed with." 
 Literally his greatest advance towards compensating the 
 landowners consists in robbing Peter to pay Paul. 
 
 The last point in Mr. George's theories to which I think 
 it necessary to refer, is his proposed method of accomplish- 
 ing his great reforms. He says, on page 364 of "Progress 
 and Poverty:" "I do not propose either to pur- 
 chase or to confiscate private property in land. The first 
 
 would be unjust; the second, needless We may 
 
 safely leave them the shell if we take the kernel. // is not 
 necessary to confiscate land ; it is only necessary to confiscate 
 
 rent We already take some rent in taxation. We 
 
 have only to make some changes in our modes of taxation 
 to take it all." The naivete of these remarks is refreshing. 
 " Taking property" has a bad name in civilized countries; 
 even professed criminals prefer to avoid it, and to speak of 
 divided the stuff, the boodle or the swag. But if Mr. George 
 thinks that anyone is deceived by this use of terms, it shows 
 that he has great simplicity of mind. Of course this would 
 make the city or the State the landlord, with the accom- 
 panying duties and responsibilities; how they would be ful- 
 filled it is needless to explain to gentlemen so well ac- 
 quainted with the present workings of our government, as 
 the members of this Club. Mr. George says, on page 410: 
 "Government would change its character and would be- 
 
1 67 
 
 come the administration of a great co-operative society. It 
 would become merely the agency by which the common 
 property was administered for the common benefit." 
 
 As to the manner in which the money is to be spent and 
 the benefits to be derived therefrom, Mr. George gives 
 glowing pictures. The Reverend Heber Newton summed 
 the matter up in his speech at the so-called Business Men's 
 Meeting of last week, when he said: "We are going to clear 
 the way for the millenium." Mr. George describes, in his 
 " Social Problems," on page 323, the ordinary farmer, living 
 "with a daily average of two or three hours' work, which 
 more resembled healthy recreation than toil;" that his 
 family " should be able to visit the theatre, or concert or 
 opera as often as they cared to, and occasionally to make 
 trips to other parts of the country or to Europe." 
 
 In his argument in favor of free trade, which he also claims 
 can be brought about only through the appropriation of all 
 land, he says, on page 334 of " Protection and Free Trade:" 
 "An English Democrat puts in this phrase the aim of true 
 Free Trade : ' No taxes at all, and a pension to everybody.' 
 
 If this is Socialism, then it is time that Free Trade 
 
 leads to Socialism." 
 
 Is this the language of a practical man ? 
 
 We have not time here for me to undertake to show 
 the hopelessness of any real improvement of the con- 
 dition of the workingmen through these theories ; I would 
 refer you to the criticisms by Mr. John Rae in " Contem- 
 porary Socialism " and to Mr. Mallock's book on this sub- 
 ject ; but I would call your attention to this fact, that in 
 his earlier work he promised the Millenium, if his plan were 
 adopted. Thus he says in " Progress and Poverty," on page 
 295: " To extirpate poverty .... we must therefore substi- 
 tute for the individual ownership of land a common owner- 
 ship." But in his later book, "Social Problems," he says 
 on page 273: " Yet we might recognize the equal right 
 
1 68 
 
 to the land and tyranny and spoliation be continued, . . . 
 I fully recognize the fact that even after we do this, much 
 will remain to do." 
 
 Would it not be well to wait until his plan is complete, 
 before pulling down our present dwelling ? How much 
 more " will remain to do," before his glowing phantasies are 
 to become realities ? Does this uncertain prophet deserve 
 to be followed by the workingmen into a conflict with the 
 great class of real estate owners and their friends ? 
 
 I would further call attention to this fact that Mr. George's 
 arguments are nothing new. They bear a strong resemblance 
 to those of Proudhon in his book entitled: " Qu'est ce que la 
 Proprie'te?" to which he answers: "Property is theft." 
 Proudhon claimed that property in movables was as wrong 
 as property in land, — but another Frenchman, Considerant, 
 attempted to draw the same distinctions which Mr. George 
 has drawn between real and personal property, and prove 
 the lawfulness of the latter. Mr. George and Considerant 
 also use very much the same arguments. 
 
 Nowhere, however, that I can find, does Mr. George cite 
 Considerant; although he is evidently familiar with French 
 writers, as he has dedicated his " Protection and Free 
 Trade" "to the memory of those illustrious Frenchmen of 
 a century ago, Quesnay, Turgot, Mirabeau, Condorcet, Du- 
 pont and their fellows, who in night of despotism foresaw 
 the glories of the coming day." Mr. George then proceeds 
 to argue in favor of abolition of property in land, — 
 without mentioning Considerant. It is, of course, pos- 
 sible that Mr. George has so superficially studied this 
 subject that he did not hear of the writings of that 
 author, and that the resemblance in the arguments is 
 purely accidental. It is as probable that a man writing 
 on electricity should not have heard the name of Benjamin 
 Franklin, or on abolition of slavery and should not have 
 heard the name of Abraham Lincoln. But be this as it 
 
169 
 
 may, there is nothing new in Mr. George's arguments; they 
 have been promulgated half a century ago by unprincipled 
 Frenchmen in a dozen ways, and the Paris Commune was 
 an attempt to realize them. 
 
 If we draw a conclusion as to Mr. George's character 
 from these works, can we conclude anything except that his 
 mind is that of an illogical, unpractical and dangerous 
 fanatic ? 
 
 At all times progress has had to be on its guard against 
 robbery. We have seen what the system and the laws are 
 which this platform demands shall be abolished. It is true 
 that the Mayor is supposed to be an administrative officer; 
 but cannot the Mayor of New York do something to carry 
 out these principles ? In the first place he is a member 
 of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, which 
 has the power, practically without limitation, of determin- 
 ing the amount of money to be raised each year by taxa- 
 tion. This Board consists of four members; one of them, 
 the President of the Department of Taxes and Assessments, 
 is appointed by the Mayor. Should a vacancy occur in that 
 office, the Mayor might appoint a friend entertaining his^ 
 views, and they would have one-half the Board. But with- 
 out that, the tax levy can only be fixed by the unanimous 
 vote of all the four members on each item; every member 
 can veto any item, unless he is satisfied with the appropria- 
 tion as a whole. Mr. George can, therefore, demand that 
 an immense sum should be raised next year by taxation, or 
 he might by refusing to agree with any items cripple the 
 entire city government. That his power would be immense, 
 of that there can be no doubt. 
 
 The Mayor also appoints the Board of Taxes and Assess- 
 ments, which in turn appoints Deputy Tax Commissioners, 
 who fix the valuation of real estate in their several districts 
 for purposes of taxation. — (Sec. 14 of the Consolidation 
 Act of 1882.) 
 
170 
 
 Even if Mr. George should not appoint directly to these 
 offices, it is well known that with his patronage he could 
 probably influence their appointment, so as to obtain the 
 positions for persons in sympathy with him, and every one 
 knows how easily these officials could change the present 
 valuation of real estate. 
 
 Then the chief practical defense of house-owners in this 
 city comes through the summary proceedings, which are 
 executed by the Marshals of the District Courts. These 
 officers are appointed by the Mayor, and, like other city 
 officials, removed only by him. If he should nominate some of 
 his present supporters, fresh from reading his "Social Prob- 
 lems," where, on page 155, he states that certain landlords 
 "are of no more use than so many great ravenous, destructive 
 beasts, packs of wolves, herds of wild elephants, or such 
 dragons as St. George is reported to have killed," and a 
 complaint should be brought before him against a marshal 
 for neglect of duty in a dispossess proceeding, — what atten- 
 tion would it be likely to receive ? Behind the marshall, for 
 protection of all property stand the police ; what sort of 
 men will Mr. George's Police Commissioners be apt to ap- 
 point ? 
 
 We see, therefore, that a Mayor of New York, with Mr. 
 George's views, might do much to carry them into effect. 
 Probably in no position in the world, under our present laws, 
 could more be done in this direction. It is indeed rare that 
 an enthusiast of that type has a chance to attempt to realize 
 such dreams, and Mr. George will be a good deal less sin- 
 cere than his book shows him to be, if he does not use this 
 wonderful opportunity to the utmost. 
 
 I submit, therefore, that all good citizens should oppose 
 his candidacy. 
 
 But particularly, as Democrats, what ought we to do ? 
 
 The fundamental principle of the Democracy has always 
 been that of admiration and steadfast adherence to the Con- 
 
171 
 
 •stitution and laws authorized by that Constitution. What 
 have they to say on this subject ? 
 
 The United States Constitution declares in the Fifth 
 Amendment: "Nor shall private property be taken for 
 public use without just compensation." 
 
 We have seen the important part which landowners 
 played in the formation of the Constitution of this State. 
 
 Section 6 of the New York State Constitution is to the 
 same effect, and Sec. 13 of this Constitution says: "All 
 lands within this State are declared to be allodial, so that, 
 subject only to the liability to escheat, the entire and abso- 
 lute property is vested in the owners, according to the 
 nature of their respective estates." 
 
 Section 8, of II. Revised Statutes, p. 719, declares: " Every 
 citizen of the United States is capable of holding lands 
 within this State, and of taking the same by descent, devise 
 or purchase." 
 
 This indeed is no new doctrine; it was imbedded in Magna 
 Charta, which declared that no freeman shall be disseised 
 or divested of his freehold, or of his liberties or free customs, 
 but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. 
 Blackstone, in his "Commentaries," Vol. I., p. 129, declares 
 that the three absolute rights of individuals are: "The 
 right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and 
 the right of prrivate property;" and Chancellor Kent, in 
 Vol. II., p. 1, of his "Commentaries," uses the same lan- 
 guage. Elliott's "Constitutional Debates," on the adoption 
 of the United States Constitution in the different States are 
 full of allusions to the protection of property in land, which 
 this Constitution would afford. 
 
 That our Constitution and laws recognize no principle as 
 more fundamental and sacred than that of private property 
 in land is therefore undeniable. 
 
 But Mr. George would perhaps say that he does not 
 demand that the title to land should be taken, but only the 
 rent, and therefore that he does not take property. 
 
172 
 
 He might claim that property meant the thing which is 
 the object of ownership and not the aggregate of rights 
 which an owner has over the thing, so that property was not 
 taken when an owner was deprived of one of these essential 
 rights, such as that of rent, but only when the thing itself 
 was removed or interfered with. But the recent long 
 line of cases in the suits against the Elevated Railroads 
 have settled in this State that property means the aggre- 
 gate of rights and not the thing owned. Probably the most 
 recent decision is that of the Court of Appeals in the matter 
 of Jacobs (98 N. Y., 105). 
 
 "The constitutional guaranty that no person shall be 
 deprived of his property without due process of law may 
 be violated without the physical taking of property for 
 public or private use. Property may be destroyed, or its 
 value may be annihilated . . . any law which destroys it 
 or its value, or takes away any of its essential attributes, 
 deprives the owner of his property." 
 
 However, Mr. George would hardly dare to make this 
 contention, in view of his oft repeated use of the term 
 property, in its correct sense, as defined by the courts; thus, 
 on page 343, of " Protection and Free Trade," he says: " The 
 only way to abolish private property is by the way of taxa- 
 tion. That way is clear and straightforward." 
 
 Since then this direct conflict exists between Mr. George's 
 opinions and the "aims" of his platform on the one hand, 
 and the Constitution and the laws on the other, and since 
 it is also by no means clear which of these "aims" are at 
 once to be put into practice, and since the peculiar boast 
 of the Democracy has always been its conservative strict 
 adherence to the Constitution,! do not see how any Democrat 
 can support Mr. George. 
 
 However, I do not see how Mr. George can accept this 
 office, if elected. How can he swear to support the Con- 
 stitution and laws of this State as they now exist, while he 
 
173 
 
 maintains the views expressed in his works ? — No matter 
 how he may hedge in his letter of acceptance, I do not 
 believe that he can, if he would, free his mind from the 
 passions which these years of controversy have engendered, 
 and see to the administration of these laws, so abhorrent to 
 him, according to their letter and their spirit. If he were run- 
 ning for the Constitutional Convention, this objection would 
 not exist; but to attempt to fill the position of Mayor, without 
 abolishing our present system, but according to the true 
 meaning of the laws now in force, ought to be thoroughly 
 abhorrent to him, if he means half of what he has said. — 
 I can not imagine his taking that oath, without mental 
 reservations, which would make it practically perjury; — and 
 I believe that those who approve of his making such an 
 attempt and aid him in it, by their votes, are not much 
 better than accomplices before the act. 
 
 Finally, I wish to state that these remarks have been 
 made with no feeling of hostility to the workingmen. In my 
 humble way I have for years, by various publications, done 
 what I could to induce them to go into politics; I believe it 
 is a necessary movement, and in time will be a salutary 
 one. But I object to this great movement, the most im- 
 portant one which will probably occur in our generation, 
 instead of being utilized in a practical manner for the bene- 
 fit of all, being turned aside to attack one class of our 
 fellow-citizens. Henry George says, in his " Progress and 
 Poverty," (p. 282): " Nor in the struggle of endurance must 
 it be forgotten who are the real parties pitted against each 
 
 other It is laborers on the one side and the owners 
 
 of land on the other." This will not be the first of these 
 conflicts. The history of the Dark Ages — of the 13th, 14th 
 and 15th centuries — is red with the blood spilt in the cities 
 of Europe in the fights between the trade unions and 
 the real estate owners; every man who reads that history 
 must feel it his duty to do all in his power to prevent the 
 kindling of such a conflict here. 
 
i.74 
 
 While we can all hope that the contingency of such fear- 
 ful contests is still remote, we must recognize that even this 
 peaceful strife at the polls of these two great classes pre- 
 vents their uniting their forces and righting the many 
 wrongs which they jointly suffer. I do not say that this 
 contest has been engineered by the railroad kings, poli- 
 ticians and monopolists, who thrive in the present disorgan- 
 ized state of society, but I do say that nothing could have 
 happened more opportunely for them, and that if they can 
 only fan the flame, they have gained a new lease of life. 
 Moreover, with our system of government the danger of 
 diffusion of these ideas among persons who have not oppor- 
 tunity or ability to thoroughly examine them and see their 
 fallacy, presents a great danger, which all good citizens 
 should oppose. Mr. George's arguments apply to personal 
 property as well as to real; a movement started against the 
 latter cannot be stopped there; in all his books there is no 
 formula that will lay the evil spirits, if they once break 
 loose. The arguments of his master, Proudhon, he cannot 
 refute. He is a preacher of Communism, although he wants 
 to stop half way. It is the interest of all owners of prop- 
 erty, real or personal, to oppose to the utmost the spread 
 of the influence of this demi-communist. 
 
175 
 
 A BUSINESS MAN'S ANSWER. 
 
 FINALLY, let us examine Mr. George's theories from 
 the standpoint of a New York business man. 
 
 His main proposition is that there exists an " unearned 
 increment," which the State should take from land-owners. 
 Thus he says on page 295 of his Social Problems : 
 
 "As society grows, so grows this value, which springs 
 from and represents in tangible form what society as a 
 whole contributes to production as distinguished from 
 what is contributed by individual exertion. . . . Here 
 is a fund belonging to society as a whole, from which, 
 without the degradation of alms, private or public, pro- 
 vision can be made for the weak, the helpless, the aged ; 
 from which provision can be made for the common wants 
 of all, as a matter of common right to each, etc." 
 
 But Mr. George nowhere proposes that society shall 
 return the " unearned detriment." 
 
 If the State of New York should undertake to return 
 all the money invested in lands in this State, with interest, 
 and take the land in return, I doubt if it would make a 
 good bargain. There is good farming land in Westches- 
 ter County which does not now sell for as much as it cost 
 to put up its stone fences. 
 
 If investors and builders do not come to a neighbor- 
 
i;6 
 
 hood, can the unfortunate speculator call upon the city 
 to take his land at what he paid for it, with fair interest? 
 If not, why should he be obliged to surrender the profit 
 which he has acquired by his superior foresight ? 
 
 Mr. Georges friends evidently suppose that investors 
 and builders do no work, in selecting sites, etc., but trust to 
 luck. I recently asked a successful builder why he had 
 purchased a certain site for some houses on the outskirts 
 of Brooklyn. He said that he had counted that there 
 were so many families living in houses beyond these lots, 
 and that they had to pass them in order to go to the 
 nearest stores ; he counted the number of passers-by, con- 
 sidered their probable wealth, the chances of the neigh- 
 borhood remaining a respectable one, etc., and finally 
 decided that by purchasing those lots at such a price and 
 erecting stores on them, the tenants of those stores could 
 make certain profits, which would enable them to pay 
 him a certain rent. 
 
 His calculations proved to be successful ; the stores 
 met a need of that neighborhood, and he secured a fair 
 profit. Should now the City or the State come in and 
 demand that profit from him, and distribute it among all 
 the inhabitants, who had given no thought to the matter ? 
 If the State should do so, would this man be encouraged 
 to select another site, and undergo the worry and excite- 
 ment of erecting other buildings, which would so exactly 
 meet a public demand? 
 
 If this principle is to be applied to profits made from 
 investments in lands, why not to other investments ? For 
 example, a milliner foresees that taste is taking a certain 
 direction, and that certain ornamentation will become 
 fashionable, and manufactures and lays in a store of it ; 
 shall her entire profit be taken, when people come and 
 wish to have that particular ornament, or shall only a 
 certain per cent, be taken, and if so, what per cent.? 
 
177 
 
 Or, it a man foresees that a certain place will have a 
 rapid increase in population, and opens a store and 
 transports a large stock of goods, and proceeds to meet 
 the urgent demand, are his profits to be taken? Are 
 they not due to the increase of the population, just as 
 much as the increase in the land values of that place ? 
 
 On page 82 of his '• Social Problems," Mr. George 
 makes the arguments against allowing profits to land- 
 owners apply to owners of patent-rights and other per- 
 sonal property, although copyrights are not mentioned. 
 
 This is only another evidence that these theories are 
 applicable to personal property, if they apply to real 
 estate, and would put a stop to all speculative invest- 
 ments, which, in effect, only tend to preserve the fruits 
 of the earth for a time when the people will have more 
 need of them than at present. 
 
 But Mr. George makes no practical suggestion as to 
 how this " unearned increment " is to be calculated. In 
 what does the "earned increment" consist? Land in 
 a desert, without inhabitants, has not much value ; who 
 settles a new country, except under the belief that it will 
 be populated? Mr. George says, in the passage above 
 cited, that society contributes its share in a " tangible 
 form," but he does not say with which of our senses this 
 is to be recognized. What a chance for corruption and 
 favoritism would be opened by the attempt to carry out 
 such a scheme ! 
 
 But Mr. George does not condescend to give us any 
 details as to how this shall be done ; his only practical 
 proposition is that all land shall be taxed up to its rental 
 value, so that the owners shall surrender it to the State 
 and the State is then to proceed to act the part of land- 
 lord. Let us suppose that all this has been done and the 
 land in the city has been acquired by the municipality or 
 ,State, which then proceeds to offer to lease it to individ- 
 
i;3 
 
 uals. Of course, in a city long leases would have to be 
 given, especially if repairs or improvements are to be 
 made by the tenants ; large private corporations have 
 found it advisable to give leases for twenty-one years 
 with covenants for two or three renewals. What prices 
 would the city be apt to realize ? An intending bidder 
 would, of course, wish to know how secure the title 
 would be for which he was expected to give value ; he 
 would want to feel sure that the fee or term of years 
 which he* acquired would remain in him undisturbed. 
 He would naturally inquire as to what had been the pre- 
 vious history of such purchasers of the fee or of leasehold 
 interests from the city or from the State, and what would 
 he find? 
 
 If he traced back the title to any piece of ground, 
 he would come to a ground-brief from the Dutch authori- 
 ties, or a grant from the British Crown ; and back of that 
 there was a purchase from the Indian inhabitants of this 
 island. The Crown, which represented the State— the 
 public of that day — received a valuable consideration for 
 the conveyance ; that money went into the public treas- 
 ury, and an instrument was executed by the highest 
 authority in the land, representing the people, conveying 
 and assuring to the grantee the absolute title to the land 
 to himself, and his heirs and assigns forever, with a 
 covenant of warranty, by which the State agreed to 
 defend the title to the lands so purchased at any time in 
 future, when called upon to do so. 
 
 When the Revolution broke out, our State, in the 
 Constitution of 1777, expressly pledged itself, by Article 
 XXXVI., that " nothing in this Constitution contained 
 shall be construed to affect any grant made by said king, 
 or his predecessors," and that clause is in our Constitu- 
 tion to-day. It was, relying on this pledge, that the real- 
 estate owners of this State risked their lives and their 
 
179 
 
 fortunes in favor of the Revolution, and enabled the State 
 of New York to make so noble a record. 
 
 As to the upper part of the city, where the vacant lots 
 he, which Mr. George's friends so particularly abhor, the 
 title to most of it was in the city up to a comparatively 
 recent date ; that formed part of the common lands 
 of New York and Harlem. It was first leased for 
 long terms to individuals for rents payable in a 
 certain number of bushels of wheat, etc. — the book 
 of leases can be seen in the Comptroller's office — and 
 then later these rents were released on the pay- 
 ment of a lump sum to the city. Other parts of these 
 commons were advertised and sold at public auction, 
 some of it quite recently, and the money used to pay the 
 city debts, build the acqueduct and wharves and lay out 
 the Central Park. For these lands, the city executed full 
 covenant and warranty deeds, conveying and assuring to 
 the purchasers and to their successors forever, the absolute 
 ownership to these lands. How can the people now 
 demand that the acts of these public officers, elected by 
 them, shall be nullified, and this land reclaimed, or any 
 unfair burden placed upon it, violating thereby these 
 solemn instruments? 
 
 The aqueduct, the Central Park, etc., were built with 
 the money of these people ; the city, the public, has 
 received full value ; it cannot recall these conveyances in 
 the face ol our constitutional prohibitions against violating 
 the obligation of contracts or depriving individuals of 
 their private property without compensation. 
 
 The policy which dictated these absolute convey- 
 ances was also wise. No one who knows what savage 
 men and nature the early settlers had to contend with will 
 doubt that this was necessary. Do we not know what 
 hard work it took to make this island what it is ? It was 
 once a howling wilderness, where people lived only at the 
 
■i8o 
 
 risk of their lives ; all along the Bowery the farms were 
 given up at one time for fear of the Indians, and later 
 with difficulty could men be induced to live on them ; you 
 can read that in the records at the City Hall. Time and 
 again were these houses plundered by the Indians. 
 
 But now, when that is all changed and forgotten, these 
 men, whose ancestors remained comfortably in Europe, 
 come here and demand it all, in the name of morality, 
 justice, and heaven knows what, and say that land is as 
 free as air, and sneer at these Dutch Indian -fighters. 
 
 Moreover, the natural difficulties which had to be 
 overcome to make this island what it is, were great. 
 
 Let anyone look at the large map of this city, known 
 as General Viele's map, which shows the natural aspect 
 of this island, with its rocks, creeks, swamps and bays, 
 and then let him estimate what it cost to make it the firm, 
 level land that it is now. Who paid for these improve- 
 ments ? On the lots themselves their owners paid for the 
 excavations, etc. And was it not, also, almost exclusively 
 the owners of the lots fronting on the streets who paid 
 the heavy assessments out of their own pockets for 
 building even our streets, which we all use? and as to 
 the share which was raised by taxation, do we not all 
 know how little of that comes from personal property, 
 but almost all from the land-owners, so that they have 
 already practically paid for almost the whole of the city's 
 public works. 
 
 Mr. George pretends to think that these even streets 
 and level lots represent the natural condition of this 
 island. He says, on page 8 1 of his "Social Poroblems," 
 speaking of the settlement of this city : " If the Astors 
 had all remained in Germany, or, if there had never been 
 any Astors, the land of Manhattan Island would have 
 been here all the same." True, the land would have been 
 here ; but, without the men who invested the fortunes 
 
I»I 
 
 which they brought with them, or made in business, in 
 improving this land, Mr. George would have found this 
 island as undesirable as any part of this rocky State 
 which is still in a state of nature, and where land is to be 
 had almost for the asking. 
 
 In fact, the right to no species of personal property has 
 more guarantees under our Constitution and laws, or is 
 entitled, on its own merits, to more consideration, than 
 the right of property in land. 
 
 Considering all the facts, who would risk his money to 
 purchase new titles, or take long leases, from such an 
 Indian-giver as this State or City of New York? Who 
 could tell how soon another demagogue would arise, 
 and demand that the land should be sold over again? 
 George repeats, most emphatically, Rousseau's argu- 
 ments (which justified the anarchy of the French Revolu- 
 tion), that one generation cannot bind another. 
 
 In his " Irish Land Question," Mr. George says, on page 
 26: "It therefore follows, from the very fact of their 
 existence, that the right of each one of the people of 
 Ireland to an equal share in the land of Ireland, is equal 
 and inalienable. . . . This right is irrefutable and inde- 
 feasible. . . . No law, no covenant, no agreement can 
 bar it. One generation cannot stipulate away the rights 
 of another generation. ... If the whole people of 
 Ireland were to unite in bargaining away their rights to 
 the land, how could they justly bargain away the right 
 of the child who the next moment is born ?" 
 
 But, how is a generation to be reckoned? Need a 
 child wait until it comes of age, if opportunity sooner 
 offers? How about children who are under age at the 
 time of this partition, and receive no share, or perhaps 
 not what they consider an adequate share — can they 
 demand a resale, or reletting, when they come of age ? 
 
 In fact, Mr. George's scheme is nothing but repudiation 
 
1 82 
 
 of the State and City's most solemn obligations. It 
 would give a shock to public and to private credit, if any- 
 one supposed for a moment that there was any possibility 
 of realizing such a scheme, compared to which any tam- 
 pering with the currency would be child's play. 
 
 Nothing is heard, when Mr. George goes into practical 
 politics, about any plan for compensation for "earned 
 increment," but their only plan is to tax the owners of 
 land, without reference to the improvements thereon. 
 This shows how much Mr. George and his friends know 
 of practical matters. This is only possible by taking the 
 amount of money to be raised, and dividing it by the 
 number of lots, and raising the quotient from each lot. 
 For a lot can be valued for any purpose, in a city, only 
 with reference to the improvements which are, or might 
 be upon it; thus, assessors estimate the value of a vacant 
 lot by considering what sort of a building could profit- 
 ably be erected on it ; then they estimate the rent of that 
 building ; then they deduct from the rent the interest on 
 the capital required for the building, and other usual 
 expenses of owners, and then they estimate upon how 
 large a capital the remainder of the rent represents the 
 interest, and that sum is taken as the value of the lot. A 
 city lot has no value, except with reference to its actual 
 or possible improvements, unless it be to pasture goats. 
 If a building is already on the lot, and the assessors are 
 told by Mr. George's party to value it without reference 
 to the building, they can do so only by considering the 
 value of some imaginary building on the lot; that consti- 
 tutes the selling value of a lot. 
 
 The only approach to a practical plan of the " Progres- 
 sive Democracy" is, therefore, simply silly and impossi- 
 ble, and the only practical effect would be to tax Vander- 
 bilt's palace no more than a row of houses on Varick 
 street, or a cabbage-garden in the Twenty-fourth Ward. 
 
1*3 
 
 But, supposing that this scheme could, in some way, be 
 carried out, so as to compel all owners to build on their 
 vacant lands at once, what would be the result? What 
 land is there now which is not built upon? It is land 
 which is so situated that the owners believe that in future 
 there will be greater need for it by the public for other 
 purposes than those for which the people would now use 
 it, and that the expense of preparing it for this temporary 
 use would exceed the returns. If an owner thinks that 
 his lot will soon be in demand, as a factory or warehouse, 
 he will not put up a tenement house on it, because, 
 although he might raise the necessary money by a mort- 
 gage, yet, that debt would prevent him subsequently 
 raising the amount necessary to tear down the tenement 
 house and build the factory, when the latter became more 
 important for the wants of the people. The judgment 
 of real-estate owners on these points can generally be 
 trusted ; they have every interest in getting an income 
 from their land ; if it lies in a good situation, and is not 
 built upon, the owner will be continually called upon by 
 agents, suggesting various purposes to which it could be 
 put. To suppose that our public salaried officials would 
 exhibit an equal zeal or judgment in these matters, is 
 absurd. 
 
 If Mr. George and his friends are so improvident as 
 not to see that the only practical measures which they 
 propose will inevitably fail to carry out their schemes 
 for the present, need we wonder that they are unable to 
 look far enough into the past and future, and, conse- 
 quently, fail to appreciate the disastrous consequences 
 which their theories would have, if put into practice, 
 upon the future material and moral welfare of our coun- 
 try, by destroying all the humanizing influences which 
 cluster around the ownership of a home, by terminating 
 the inducements which are necessary, even now, to lead 
 
1 84 
 
 men to make the great' sacrifices necessary to make hab- 
 itable a new country in the Great West, or to extend our 
 Eastern cities, and finally, by teaching men to violate, for 
 the sake of present material comfort, the most solemn 
 obligations, and to disregard the commandments, " Thou 
 shalt not covet," and " Thou shalt not steal ? " 
 
i8 5 
 
 A WORKINGMAN'S ANSWER. 
 
 ON Saturday I received a note from the gentleman v»/ho 
 at our meeting on last Monday most zealously sus- 
 tained Mr. George's theories, in which he stated that I 
 had at that time not represented the workingmen's side of 
 the question, and that consequently my argument was un- 
 democratic. I considered that I had answered Mr. George 
 when I had shown that his proposal was unjust. 
 
 However, without admitting that the Democratic party is 
 exclusively the party of the workingmen, I intend this even- 
 mg to consider Mr. George's candidacy from the stand-point 
 of a workingman, and to ascertain for what reasons they 
 ought to support him. — I will assume that the justice of his 
 propositions is proven, and that the only question is one of 
 expediency, namely, what the workingmen would gain if his 
 theories as announced in his platform were put into practice. 
 
 The best expression of the present wishes of the working- 
 men that I know of, is to be found in the constitutions of 
 the various trades unions. One of the most prominent 
 unions is Typographical Union No. 6; § 3 of its Constitution 
 reads : M The objects of this union shall be the maintenance 
 of a fair rate of wages, the encouragement of good working- 
 men, and the employment of every means which may tend 
 to the elevation of printers in social life." The Constitution 
 of the Cigar Makers Union begins : " Whereas it is the duty 
 of every worker to unite with his fellow worker to secure a 
 fair compensation for his labor ; to elevate the condition of 
 
1 86 
 
 the lowest paid worker to the standard of the highest ; to 
 provide for the sick members and bury the dead." 
 
 The Furniture Workers Union has the following objects : 
 
 a) The maintenance and increase of wages, b) The 
 reduction of the hours of labor. c) The assistance 
 during strikes and lockouts, dl The assistance while 
 unemployed, e) The assistance during sickness, f) 
 The assistance in case of death, g) The assistance in 
 case of loss of tools, h) The rendering of legal 
 assistance in claims against employers, i) The in- 
 struction by lectures. 
 
 The Cigar Makers International Union of America is 
 formed to improve themselves : " By prevailing upon the 
 Legislature to secure first the prohibition of child labor 
 under 14 years of age ; the establishment of a normal day's 
 labor to consist of not more than 8 hours per day for all 
 classes ; the abolition of the truck system, tenement house 
 cigar manufacture, and the system of letting out by contract 
 the convict labor in prisons and reformatory institutions ; 
 the legalization of trade unions and the establishment of 
 bureaus of labor statistics." 
 
 To these objects in the main, no fair-minded citizen can 
 object ; let us see what Mr. George will do towards their 
 realization. 
 
 The practical change proposed in his platform is to tax 
 real estate without reference to the improvements, so that 
 no one could afford to hold unimproved land but would be 
 compelled to build immediately. Without stopping now to 
 consider the practicability of this scheme, let us assume that 
 it has been done, and that a large number of houses suited 
 for dwellings and manufactures and offices have been built, 
 so as to reduce rents throughout the city very materially, 
 or even to a mere nominal sum. What advantage would 
 that be to the workingmen ? 
 
18/ 
 
 I am an employee of a large corporation ; if the rent of 
 its various offices were reduced or entirely abolished, my 
 pay would in no way be increased, — very possibly I might 
 never hear of it ; I believe the men employed in any 
 business in this city would say the same thing. 
 
 But if the rent of my apartment were reduced very material- 
 ly, it would benefit me, if it was done in my case alone; but if 
 it were done throughout the city, very soon my employers 
 would say: "We hear you no longer pay rent; that is 
 probably so much of your salary ; we intend to reduce your 
 salary that much, and if you are not satisfied, we can now 
 get a man of equal ability for that pay,as other men in your 
 branch have also to pay no rents." Even if all employers 
 did not do this at once, some would certainly begin it, and 
 then the others would be forced to follow suit, or be under- 
 sold or driven out of the business. I believe the men em- 
 ployed in any trade or manufacture in this city would say 
 that this would surely happen. Morover, where would the 
 money come from with which these houses are to be built ? 
 Would it not be taken out of the trades and manufactures, 
 where it is now invested, because it receives a larger return, 
 and would not all these other trades and manufactures, and 
 the men employed therein suffer ? 
 
 Or if the large amount of money which it is expected will 
 be immediately raised by taxation were wisely expended for 
 beneficent public purposes, and heat and light were fur- 
 nished without charge to all citizens, would not employees 
 soon hear similar remarks about the saving which they were 
 now making in the matter of light and fuel, and would not 
 one employer after the other make a consequent reduc- 
 tion in wages, as stated above in the case if rents were 
 reduced ? 
 
 Would the workingmen not be in exactly the position in 
 which they are to-day ? Would not this money expected 
 for these public benefits also attract workingmen from 
 
188 
 
 other cities, and so leave this same old contest between 
 labor and capital? Would there not be the same necessity 
 for the Declaration of the Principles of the Knights of La- 
 bor of North America, beginning : ''The alarming develop- 
 ment and aggression of aggregated wealth, which, unless 
 checked, will inevitably lead to the pauperization and hope- 
 less degradation of the toiling masses, render it imperative, 
 if we desire to enjoy the blessings of life, that a check 
 should be placed upon its power and upon unjust accumula- 
 tion, and a system adopted which will secure to the laborer 
 the fruits of his toil " ? 
 
 Would not the fight against over-work, child-labor, the 
 truck-system, and all the acknowledged evils of the laissez- 
 faire system have to be begun again, just where they are 
 now ? 
 
 I submit therefore that this movement, as defined in their 
 platform, can not accomplish the ends which workingmen 
 desire and which would really benefit them; the amount of 
 their pay would continue to be regulated by the most un- 
 scrupulous and hard-hearted man among the class of their 
 employers. 
 
 But I believe that this movement will do more than this; 
 I believe that it will very seriously injure the real interests 
 of the workingmen and indefinitely postpone the realization 
 of all practical plans for the improvement of their condi- 
 tion. In the first place, they are wasting their energies in 
 electing an administrative officer, instead of trying to secure 
 representatives in the legislature, who would secure the 
 changes on our statute book, necessitated by our transition 
 from a purely agricultural state to one having large manu- 
 facturing interests. No one knows what ought to be pro- 
 posed in this matter so well as the workingmen themselves 
 and unless they send representatives, their just demands 
 will not be attended to. The same thing applies to our 
 local legislature, the Board of Aldermen; the workingmen 
 
1 89 
 
 have announced their intention of not paying attention to 
 these offices, but of concentrating their efforts on the 
 Mayor. It is already evident that both Aldermen and As- 
 semblymen are to be of the same class as in former years; 
 that they will be the tools of politicians and corporations, 
 as in former years ; and that the workingmen will get as 
 much benefit, as they have got in former years. But this is 
 not all the mischief : the demands which the workingmen 
 make for shorter hours, etc., can be conceded to them only 
 at a certain loss and sacrifice on the part of other classes of 
 the community. Hitherto their demands have met generally 
 with fair popular support; for instance the early closing 
 movement. But let the workingmen adhere to Mr. George's 
 theories and they will antagonize a very large class of the 
 people of this State, and drive them to unite with the em- 
 ployers, so that the demands of the workingmen will meet 
 with a very different reception, after a few campaigns such 
 as this promises to be. 
 
 That Mr. George's theories are not actually going to be 
 put into practice, every practical man knows; " the states- 
 manship of the plough," which, as Governor Seymour said, 
 guides this country, forbids it ; the whole movement is too 
 much against the American traditions; the Churches will 
 all be against it; the influence which a combination of em- 
 ployers and real estate owners would bring to bear, if once 
 aroused, with all their friends, would simply overwhelm the 
 trades-unions. Moreover, Mr. George's theories, as soon 
 as they are brought to light and their practical application 
 considered, will cause so many new theorists to spring up 
 with equally visionary plans, who will oppose each other, 
 so that all will cease to have attractions for any large num- 
 ber of citizens sufficiently strong to hold them together. 
 
 I do not therefore think that, admitting that the argu- 
 ment which I first advanced this evening were false, and 
 that the workingmen could realize benefits from this plan, 
 
190 
 
 that there is the remotest prospect of its being put into 
 operation. But I do think that it will immediately excite 
 hostility among a very large and important class and that 
 the real reforms needed by workingmen will thereby be de- 
 layed. 
 
 The experience of Europe during the last century shows 
 the certain futility of this movement. The first man to un- 
 dertake to put these theories into practice was Babceuf, at 
 the close of the first French Revolution ; Proudhon was the 
 first to undertake to justify it, and Considerant (in 1837), a 
 pupil of Fourier, modified the doctrine so that it should only 
 apply to land, and not to personal property. 
 
 -How closely Mr. George has followed these authors a 
 few citations, showing the main points of their theories, will 
 demonstrate. 
 
 To begin with the title page of Mr. George's first book, 
 which reads : " Progress and Poverty : an Inquiry into the 
 cause of industrial depressions, and of increase of want with 
 increase of wealth" ; the article cited in note A, of Mr. Con- 
 siderant's Socialism (published in 1849) is entitled: "Of 
 the causes of the increase of misery in proportion to the de- 
 velopment of riches." — This article states the proposition as 
 follows : " If there is a social phenomenon worthy of at- 
 tention, it is certainly that of the increase of misery among 
 the laboring classes in proportion to the progress of general 
 wealth, and that other phenomenon not less extraordinary 
 and always accompanying the latter, of this misery existing 
 most intensely among the most industrious and free nations, 
 like England, France etc." 
 
 Mr. George says in his Progress and Poverty, p. 7 : "It 
 is at last becoming evident that the enormous increase in 
 productive power has no tendency to extirpate poverty. 
 It is in the older and richer sections of the Union that pau- 
 perism and distress among the working classes are becoming 
 most painfully apparent." (p. 9.) 
 
igi 
 
 Mr. Considerant impressively says : " The Sphinx is the 
 people ; the terrible enigma is the problem of the times." 
 Mr. George says on yage 9 : "It is the riddle which the 
 Sphinx of fate puts to our civilization, and which not to 
 answer is to be destroyed." 
 
 In Considerant's other work, entitled " Destinee Sociale" 
 (1837) he says on page 250 : "It is then proved by facts 
 that the proletariat and pauperism increase in epochs of civi- 
 lization with population and more rapidly than it, and as 
 the direct cause of the growing progress of industry." — He 
 repeats the same statement in various forms, as often as 
 Mr. George does. — We see therefore that the problem which 
 these two writers propose, is the same. 
 
 As to the remedy, they also agree and Mr. Considerant 
 says, in his work of 1837 : " The whole land must be culti- 
 vated as the land of one man." In the work of Mr. Con- 
 siderant entitled "Socialism" he says on page 107 ; " Rent 
 of land is a feudal privilege which ought to go to rejoin its 
 elder brethren in the great ditch of justice of the Nations- 
 
 and Revolutions There are among Socialists those who 
 
 would derange nothing in society ; who do not call us to- 
 live in common, to abandon that which we have, to change 
 our manner of life for something we know not what . . 
 Suppose that these socialists should come to power and this- 
 should be then law." 
 
 Mr. George says on page 364 of Progress and Poverty : 
 " It is not necessary to confiscate land ; it is only necessary 
 to confiscate rent." 
 
 Mr. Considerant does not enter to any extent into an 
 attempt to show the justice of this appropriation of land by 
 the public ; so Mr. George has to take up Proudhon, for 
 this part of the argument, and repeats in various forms the 
 latters three arguments. 
 
 Firstly Mr. Proudhon says in his book on Property (I cite 
 from the translation published by Tucker, Princeton, Mass., 
 
192 
 
 1876) : " How can the supplies of nature, the wealth crea- 
 ted by Providence, become private property ? We want 
 to know by what right man has appropriated wealth which 
 he did not create, and which nature gave to him gratuitously? 
 Who made the land ? God. Then proprietor, retire." (p. 89). 
 Mr. George says in Social Problems (p. 278) : " What more 
 preposterous than the treatment of land as individual 
 property ... It is the creation of God." 
 
 Proudhon's second point is that universal consent gives no 
 justification to property, he says (p. 311 in Theorie de l'lm- 
 port) : " The earth furnishes to man the material, tools 
 and force. — Labor puts force in motion. — Labor alone is pro- 
 ductive. Now to recognize the right of territorial property 
 is to give up labor, since it is to relinguish the means of 
 labor." Mr. George says in the chapter on " Injustice of Pri- 
 vate Property in Land," in Progress and Poverty : " land on 
 which and from which all must live. The recognition of 
 private individual proprietorship of land is the denial of the 
 natural rights of other individuals. For as labor can not 
 produce without the use of land, the denial of the equal 
 right to the use of land is necessarily the denial of the right 
 of labor to its produce." 
 
 Proudhon's third argument is that " proscription (or long 
 possession) gives no title to property ; it is not based on a 
 just title ; past error is not binding on the future," p. 89. 
 
 Mr. George says on 307 of Progress and Poverty ; "Con- 
 sider for a moment the utter absurdity of the titles, by 
 which we permit it to be passed from John Doe to Richard 
 Roe . . . Everywhere not to a right which obliges, but to a 
 force which compels, and when a title rests but on force, no 
 complaint can be made when force annuls it." 
 
 Proudhon's conclusion is : " The earth cannot be appro- 
 priated," (p. 73 of French edition). — Mr. George says : 
 04 There is on earth no power which can rightfully make a 
 grant of exclusive ownership of land," (p. 304 of Progress 
 and Poverty). 
 
ip3 
 
 Proudhon then abuses owners, for example, citing a verse 
 which shows how first comes the contractors share, then 
 the laborers, then the capitalists and then : "I am the 
 proprietor. I take the whole," (p. 189). — Mr. George says in 
 Protection and Free Trade: "And the robber that takes 
 all that is left is private property in land," (p. 285). — The 
 number of these comparisons might be increased very 
 largely. Finally, in his picture of the results, Mr. George 
 returns to Considerant, and insists with him upon the great 
 advantages to individuals arising from this cooperation and 
 common ownership of all living in the commune, and as the 
 picture of a Utopia one is as beautiful as the other. We see 
 therefore that as to his title, problem, its solution, the 
 remedy of the evil and the result Mr. George has followed 
 Considerant, and as to the justification of the remedy 
 Proudhon. — Unfortunately Proudhon proves too much ; for 
 as I showed in my former paper, if Mr. George has demon- 
 strated that there should be no private property in land, 
 he has also demonstrated this as to personal property. — 
 Proudhon proclaimed this, and it was the chief difference 
 between him and Considerant. 
 
 If we delay for a moment to call in mind the resemblances 
 which I have pointed out to Proudhon and Considerant, — 
 and they can be greatly increased if any one will take the 
 trouble so to do, by comparing these books in the Astor 
 Library, — can we accept the generally received theory as 
 to George's intellectual capacity or of his extraordinary 
 devotion to humanity, or even of his phenomenal honesty ? 
 What must we think of those men who have compared his 
 doctrines to those of Christ ? Is it not an insult to our in- 
 telligence to dish up these warmed-up meats from which 
 Europe has long ago turned away in disgust, as the heaven- 
 born manna which alone can preserve the New World ? If 
 the ghosts of Messieurs Proudhon and Considerant were 
 allowed to sit on the stage at one of Mr. George's meet- 
 
194 
 
 ings, would not his remarks be often interrupted by their 
 indignant chestnut-bells ? 
 
 But to resume: What success had this theory in France ? 
 Babceuf s rude announcement of it was the closing episode 
 of the first French Revolution and made Napoleon I. pos- 
 sible ; the fear of it sustained the Restoration and the July 
 Monarchy ; Proudhon and Considerant were in the Assem- 
 bled of the 1848 Republic, and Considerant then published 
 his socialism above cited, and announced that in three years 
 the social-democratic republic would be in force; in far 
 less time the second Empire was established, as necessary 
 for the preservation of order. 
 
 Since then, these theories have in Europe passed from 
 the stage of practical politics and are only referred to by 
 historians as showing the steps by which modern socialism, 
 as advocated by Karl Marx and Lasalle arose. It is the 
 oblivion to which these older radical thorists have been 
 consigned by the modern communists themselves, which 
 induced the French bourgeoisie to support the present 
 Republic. If therefore this seed of dragons' teeth could not 
 sprout in France and has now rotted in the ground, we 
 need not fear that it will bear fruit in this much more 
 uncongenial clime. Nor need we fear that the people will 
 accept a despotism in order to escape it; the true propor- 
 tions of this movement will be known soon enough. But 
 we must fear that this movement will excite hostility 
 against the workingmen among a large class of our well- 
 to-do population, especially in our cities, and also that it 
 will induce this class to submit with excessive patience to 
 the increasing growth of the power of the monopolists and 
 politicians, for fear that any change in our old-fashioned 
 countrified government might be for the worse. 
 
 But this revival of worn-out Old-World theories is also 
 injurious to the workingmen, in turning them irom the pur- 
 suit of the theories of Lasalle and Karl Marx, many of 
 
195 
 
 which, all must recognize, have a certain amount of justice. 
 Those writers recognize the necessity of a historical devel- 
 opment and aim at improving the workingmen's condition 
 by introducing factory regulations, shorter hours, etc., as 
 our trades-unions' circulars above cited demanded. To 
 turn back the hands of the clock for forty years and take up 
 these impracticable chimeras, means an injury to the real 
 welfare of the workingmen, and of our whole people, which 
 it is difficult to under-estimate. 
 
 The dread which those theories excited in France, so as 
 to drive men to accept the First and Second Empire, may 
 also be a warning to us of the effect which even a moderate 
 success of this movement at the polls, would have upon 
 capital invested in this City and State. I fear that a vote 
 of even 20,000 will be sufficient to give a check to our indus- 
 tries, which are just now reviving under the influence of gen- 
 eral prosperity; failing trade and closing factories will be in 
 proportion to the success of this movement, and the only 
 real change in the condition of the working men. 
 
 There is another benefit which we derive from tracing 
 Mr. George's ideas to their source : When we see how 
 many of his theories he has evidently taken from Considerant, 
 who advocated the co-operative communes with all land in 
 common, we are able to understand many suggestions of 
 Mr. George, as being part of a more or less definite intention 
 of realizing some such scheme, and which ideas appear dis- 
 connected and unintelligible, if we consider solely his in- 
 tentions of abolishing rent as his one object, with which he 
 would be satisfied. 
 
 Thus, I was surprised to find Mr. George advocating the 
 increase of the power of our Board of Aldermen. He says, 
 in the interview published in the Sun of October 3 : "New 
 York (city) should have one legislative body that in local 
 affairs would have sovereign power." There was no demand 
 for this in the platform, nor so far as I know have the work- 
 
196 
 
 ingmen demanded it ; the whole tendency of legislation has 
 been to deprive this Board of power ; Mr. George does not 
 suggest any maaner of improving its character, — but only 
 wants it to have " sovereign power." — Without stopping to 
 dwell on the fact that if Mr. George were a real Democrat 
 he would not admit that any government was " sovereign " 
 over the people, I think the explanation for this strange 
 demand is that it is an essential part of Considerant's theory 
 of the co-operative commune. This absolute local govern- 
 ment is necessary for any scheme of communism; if all are to 
 enjoy equally, all must work equally, and this requires strict 
 supervision. It was the demand of the Paris communists; the 
 beautiful Utopia that makes Mr. George's book so attractive 
 cannot be realized without it. No matter how much he may 
 strive to keep it in the back-ground, he cannot hide the cloven 
 hoof. Thus he says on page 296 of Social Questions, that 
 " society may pass into a co-operative association," and on 
 page 410 of Progress and Poverty: "Government would 
 change its character, and would become the administration 
 of a great co-operative society. It would become merely 
 the agency by which the common property was administered 
 for the common benefit." This is only Considerant's com- 
 munal government ; how much official machinery would be 
 necessary in New York to realize Mr. George's plans, as set 
 out for example, on page 410 of Progress and Poverty: 
 "This revenue arising from the common property could be 
 applied to common benefit, as were the revenues of Sparta. 
 We might not establish public tables — they would become 
 unnecessary ; but we could establish public baths, museums, 
 libraries, gardens, lecture rooms, music and dancing halls, 
 theatres, universities, technical schools, shooting galleries, 
 play-grounds, gymnasiums, etc." Society attempts some of 
 these things now ; how does it realize them ? Had we not 
 better get our present undertakings in good working order, 
 before starting out on such unlimited extensions of the 
 system ? 
 
i 9 7 
 
 Moreover, this demand for one sovereign local govern- 
 ment, over the million and a half of people of this city, 
 and which is absolutely necessary for the realization of 
 half of Mr. George's schemes, presents the chief objection to 
 all that is hopeful in the modern labor movement. That 
 movement recognizes the necessity of trades unions, that 
 they have come to stay, that in their proyer development 
 and participation in public affairs lies great promise for the 
 welfare not only of the workingmen, but of the State; and 
 that these trade organizations should be entrusted with 
 powers and duties and form part of our body politic, as 
 the geographical divisions called States and Counties 
 made up the Union when we were purely an agricultural 
 community. 
 
 Now these trades unions have as much need for the demo- 
 cratic doctrine of wheels within wheels, and as little need 
 for a sovereign local government over them, as the States 
 have for a sovereign and therefore unlimited national gov- 
 ernment (see Mr. Bancroft's Plea for the Constitution,* and 
 this radical difference between trades unionists and socialists 
 has long been instinctively recognized in labor circles, and 
 the contest between the two has been for years going on 
 with varying success ; see the following citation on 
 page 602 of the Third Annual Report of the Bureau 
 of Labor Statistics of New York: "To confound the 
 trade union movement with the political movement of 
 the Socialists is a thorough mistake, the difference being 
 that while the trades unions are organized only for 
 the purpose of protection for their labor, adapting them- 
 selves at all times to circumstances and conditions as well 
 as to the surroundings, and being largely influenced thereby, 
 the socialistic movement aims at the entire reconstruction 
 of society upon their principles, is satisfied with nothing 
 
 See also : " Tendencies of the Republican Party," published by this Club 
 
198 
 
 less, ignores all possible reasonable objections, and dis- 
 parages trade organizations, recognizing them only as ob- 
 stacles in their path of progress." 
 
 Now, it is plain that Mr. George with his demand for a 
 sovereign, i. e. unlimited local government belongs to the 
 communist-socialistic school, — as every faithful desciple 
 of Proudhon and Considerant should ; and it is also for this 
 reason that I believe that workingmen, who believe in 
 trades unions, should oppose Mr. George. 
 
 Trades unions have no place in Mr. George's schemes ; 
 according to the index, they are not mentioned in Progress 
 and Poverty ; in Protection and Free Trade they are re- 
 ferred to three times, — two of which are bare mentions, and 
 the third (on pages 322 and 323) is as follows : " Something 
 can be done in this way for those within such organizations; 
 but it is after all very little This, those who are in- 
 clined to put faith in the power of trades-unionism are be- 
 ginning to see, aud the logic of events must more and more 
 lead them to see." — Mr. George therefore has no faith in 
 trades-unions. — Are the skilled workingmen then going to 
 allow their organizations to be used for this man's election ? 
 Have they not had enough experience with theorists, politi- 
 cians aud demagogues (often in the pay of employers) who 
 did not believe in their unions ? Among his supporters are 
 found men whose interests are identified with bodies which 
 have always opposed trades unions. A vote for Henry George 
 is a vote against the Trades Unions. 
 
 On the other hand, if the workingmen, as members of 
 their trades-unions, would make a demand on the Democra- 
 tic Party for recognition of their representatives in the 
 party's councils, they would before long, I am convinced, 
 receive due attention, and be able tew have an influence 
 on legislation and choice of officers proportionate to the 
 importance of their organizations. The demands of these 
 unions for recognition by the State, and for a certain 
 
199 
 
 amount of autonomy in their internal affairs, is justified by- 
 all the Democratic Fathers in their advocacy of State 
 Rights. * 
 
 Or else the workingmen could in local matters go into 
 politics by themselves and seek to gain the practical ob- 
 jects which their constitutions have so long demanded; for 
 this they should elect members of the Legislature, instead 
 of having their Central Committee, as it has to-day done, 
 prohibit the organizations to indorse or put forward candi- 
 dates. There is where the source of evil lies; in the reck- 
 less bad laws which the Legislatures pass. But if the work- 
 ingmen say they cannot elect Assemblymen, because they 
 are divided into so many districts that their strength is 
 wasted, then they should strive to abolish this unnatural 
 division into geographical election districts. But it is worse 
 than useless for workingmen to try to put these wild theorists 
 who can only alarm men of property into administrative 
 offices.* 
 
 It is the old story of that which happened in Rome, 
 where the wild pleas for the division of land by the Gracchi 
 drove the Romans to accept a plutocracy and finally the 
 Caesars. As above mentioned, it was the similar demand 
 for common land, which led to the overthrow of the first 
 and second French Republics. Can we not profit by their 
 experience ? 
 
 Can we not do these things better in America ? 
 
 This, I think, will be the turning point in American .his- 
 tory. No republic has ever yet passed from the condition 
 of an agricultural community to that of a state with large 
 cities, without being plagued by demagogues — especially 
 
 * Under the Consolidation Act of 1882 the men who assess land for taxation, 
 are sworn to value improved and unimproved land equally at its selling value. 
 What selling value has city property if the actual or possible improvements are 
 not considered ? 
 
200 
 
 those who demanded a division of land — until refuge was 
 taken in a depotism. 
 
 If we can introduce those trade organizations in a peace- 
 able and orderly manner into our body politic — a feat which 
 no state has yet accomplished — and satisfy their just de- 
 mands, I believe that we would have a state, which might 
 realize some of Considerant's beautiful aspirations, here in 
 America, although his French methods are impracticable. 
 America must find its own way. Let us remember what 
 Emerson said : 
 
 " We live in a new and exceptional age. America is 
 another name for Opportunity. Our whole history appears 
 like a last effort of the Divine Providence in behalf of the 
 human race." 
 
201 
 
 Progress and Justice; or, The Work for 
 Federalism. 
 
 Bismarck is reported to have said: "There was some 
 justification for Parisian communism." May it not then 
 be worth while for us to inquire whether there is not some 
 grievance, which caused over sixty thousand of our fellow 
 citizens at the last election to vote for the representative 
 of such wild theories as those of Henry George, evidently 
 merely as an indignant protest against the existing order 
 of things, in this " land of the free and home of the brave ? " 
 
 Anyone who looks back upon the last few years and 
 sees how rapidly this discontent has spread and organized 
 for political action, must realize that it is not a matter 
 which this generation can afford to disregard. Especially 
 is it incumbent upon anyone who may believe in the 
 principles set forth in my " Trade Organizations in 
 Politics," to consider whether in the light of recent oc- 
 curences its theories, favoring the development of trade, 
 business and professional organizations must not be 
 considered as dangerous, at this time and in our country. 
 
 I believe, however, that if we will patiently examine 
 this workingmen's movement, we will find in it, among 
 much that is reprehensible, many signs of promise, and 
 that we will realize that the great question is how to* 
 encourage the latter and repress the former, and that by 
 a courageous and charitable spirit the development of this 
 movement may be so guided as to produce the greatest 
 
202 
 
 benefits, not only to the workingmen, but to society at 
 large. 
 
 In the first place, no one need assume that this move- 
 ment is to grow indefinitely ; the differences of interest 
 which exist between the skilled and unskilled workingmen 
 are already making themselves felt in the contests between 
 the old trade unionists and the Knights of Labor. The 
 latter require a strong centralized organization, governing 
 all laborers engaged in occupations requiring little or no 
 skill, so as to keep the great army of unskilled labor from 
 migrating to any section where a strike may exist, and 
 taking up the employment which the strikers have 
 dropped; to render a strike of such laborers successful, the 
 unemployed men of the whole country must be controlled. 
 Skilled workingmen, on the other hand, need fear only 
 the competition of men who have devoted years to pre- 
 pare themselves for the trade; they therefore have but 
 little dread of competition from the great mass of day 
 laborers. The unskilled workingmen are consequently 
 called upon to contribute for the success of strikes in all 
 parts of the country, as they can only hope to improve 
 their own condition by raising that of all other unskilled 
 laborers. The carpenters or engineers, on the other hand, 
 while they have a much more direct interest in the 
 success of a strike in their own trade in any part of the 
 country, have but little concern as to the condition of 
 hod carriers or freight handlers. 
 
 The disputes in the United Labor Party are therefore 
 unavoidale and certain to increase, so that there is no 
 cause for excessive alarm. Moreover, as any communistic 
 movement nears apparent success, it is actuallv approach- 
 ing destruction ; for the reason that then its leaders must 
 unfold their plans, how their theories are to be practically 
 realized, and there is none that will obtain the approval 
 -of workingmen. Common enjoyment of the earth's prod 
 
203 
 
 ucts can exist only with their common production ; this 
 common production can be made fair only by the strictest 
 government supervision, and this is exactly what com- 
 munists object to. The International in Europe flour- 
 ished there but recently; it was so successful that its 
 members at last began discussing what they would do when 
 Government was actually in their hands; that discussion 
 broke up their organization and it is now no longer 
 heard of. 
 
 The study of history shows also that attempts to intro- 
 duce equality of property have all failed, and anyone who 
 appreciates the stability of legal institutions, and their 
 slow change even among distantly related races and in 
 different climes, will feel sure that we are not at the 
 utmost approaching anything except temporary disorders. 
 
 But this danger is one sufficiently serious to demand 
 the most careful consideration of all who feel an interest 
 in the country's welfare. Is it not possible to discover 
 and remove the cause of this discontent, ere it breaks out 
 in violence? That the condition of masses of our 
 fellow beings in our great American cities is most 
 wretched is undeniable. Their condition can not be 
 ascertained by comparing their food or wages with that 
 ot European workmen. Our climate is so exhilarating 
 and exhausting, the cold and heat are so extreme, that the 
 comforts required to make life here endurable much 
 exceed those needed in Europe. No one acquainted with 
 New York City in summer will deny that for about three 
 months the condition of operatives, who spend their days 
 in crowded factories and their nights in tenement houses, 
 is one which entails long and severe physical suffering, 
 and which renders mental and moral improvement ex- 
 tremely difficult; in the raw cold of our winter days and 
 nights, they are again exposed to severe strains upon 
 
204 
 
 their constitutions, by which many sicken or have their 
 lives shortened. 
 
 The progress of science has led to the discovery of 
 many means by which articles may be manufactured 
 more cheaply or with more attractive appearance, than 
 heretofore; but at the expense of the health of the 
 operatives, although the evil effects of their occupation 
 are often not immediately apparent. 
 
 In short, no one can pretend that the condition o£ the 
 working classes in our great cities is a satisfactory one. 
 But the aggravation of this condition consists in its being, 
 as a rule, permanent. Our city is full of rich men, who 
 were workingmen in their youth, and yet if you ask them 
 whether they could begin to-day as a workingman and 
 repeat their success, they would tell you that it could not 
 be done. No one has set forth the evils suffered by work- 
 ingmen and the present hopelessness of the^r fate, more 
 eloquently than Mr. George, and in my opinion his 
 description is not overdrawn as to our large cities. His 
 explanation is false and his remedy is vain, as I have tried, 
 to show. Is there another explanation of this evil, and is 
 there another remedy ? 
 
 I know that Mr. Mill is supposed to have settled this 
 question by the mysterious theories of " supply and de- 
 mand," " competition," etc., and to have shown that the 
 actual condition is the best possible and that legislation 
 can produce no real improvement; but there are some 
 considerations which this pessimistic school does not 
 sufficiently consider. 
 
 In my opinion anyone who makes inquiries among 
 workingmen and employers in our cities will find tha 
 Thornton in his work on " Labor," by which he forced 
 Mr. Mill to confess the inadequacy of the famed wage- 
 fund theory, is correct when he says (p. 101): "What 
 really does, within certain impassable limits regulate 
 
205 
 
 wages, is commonly, when the employed are content to 
 remain passive, the combination of the employers ; and 
 when these have (as they in practice do far more and 
 far oftener than they get credit for) fixed upon a higher 
 rate than they need have done, they can, of course, lower 
 it if they please. . . . Now, among keenly competing 
 •employers, there are never wanting some who are will- 
 ing to reduce wages so much as possible. . . . But 
 scarcely more true is it of Ireland, or of India, than of 
 England, that whatever has, at any time, been the mini- 
 mum of subsistence — supposed to be sufficient to enable 
 laborers to go on living as they had been accustomed to 
 live — that some minimum has been the measure of the 
 price of labor. Whenever and wherever masters have 
 had the framing of the scale of wages, this has been the 
 basis of their calculations (p. 147). . . . Instead of 
 suffering the rate of wages to be settled naturally 
 by competition, they endeavor by combination to 
 settle it arbitrarily (p. 80). But it is only very 
 rarely, and when labor is at once very scarce and 
 in very great request, that masters are tempted to 
 compete with each other. At all other times they 
 are in the habit of combining, instead of competing, 
 and it is their combination which then determines the 
 price of labor, and determines it arbitrarily. . . . Com- 
 bined masters really possess — whether they choose to 
 exercise or not — almost absolute power of control over 
 the wages of uncombined workmen. . . . Thus in a 
 normal state of things, . . . the price of labor is de- 
 termined not by supply and demand, which never deter- 
 mined the price of anything, nor yet generally by com- 
 petition, which generally determines the price of every- 
 thing else, but by combination among the masters" (pp. 
 83-85). Mr. Mill, in his reply to Mr. Thornton, in the 
 ' Fortnightly Review," in effect admitted the justice of 
 
2o6 
 
 the latter's criticism, to the considerable dismay of his 
 own scholars. He says, on page 690 : " In this higgling, 
 the laborer in an isolated condition, unable to hold out 
 even against a single employer — much more against the 
 tacit combination of employers — will, as a rule, find his 
 wages kept down at the lower limit." 
 
 Anyone who will take the trouble to inquire in actual 
 life, or to consult the Report of the Bureau of Labor 
 Statistics for 1886, will find that, in this State and in this 
 time, what Adam Smith said is true : " Masters are 
 always and everywhere in a sort of tacit but uniform 
 combination not to raise wages above their actual rate.'' 
 
 Furthermore, it appears to be true what Cairnes said, 
 in his " Leading Principles of Political Economy" : " What 
 we find in effect is not a whole population competing 
 indiscriminately for all occupations, but a series of indus- 
 trial layers, superposed on one another, within each of 
 which the various candidates for employment possess a 
 real and effective power of selection, while those occupy- 
 ing the several strata are for all purposes of effective 
 competition practically isolated from one another'' (p. 64). 
 
 Sir John Lubbock, in a recent article on the early 
 closing movement in " Good Words," said : " Happily, I 
 may say this is no question between shopkeepers and their 
 assistants. There is no such difference. I believe the 
 shopkeepers are almost as anxious to close as the assist- 
 ants themselves, Perhaps, then, it may be said, why not 
 leave the matter in their hands ? Because in almost every 
 case the arrangements for early closing have been ren- 
 dered nugatory by the action of some very small minority 
 among the shopkeepers. Over and over again the shop- 
 keepers in a given district have been anxious to close, and 
 have all agreed to do so with, perhaps, a single exception. 
 But that single exception is fatal. One after another the 
 
207 
 
 rest gradually open again, the whole thing breaks down 
 and thus a small minority tyrannize over the rest." 4 
 
 Bearing in mind these three propositions, namely, that 
 the rate of wages in every trade is mainly determined by 
 an open or secret combination of the employers, and that 
 the most unscrupulous employer in any trade can force 
 other employers to be equally oppressive to their em- 
 ployees, under, penalty of being driven out of the busi- 
 ness, and that workingmen in the trades requiring any 
 training are not able to go at will from one trade to 
 another — is it true that legislation ought and can do 
 nothing towards permanently improving the condition of 
 the workingmen ? Firstly, as to the " ought," the answer 
 of Mr. Mill and his followers is plain. Cairnes, in his work 
 above cited, says : " I am unaware of any rule of justice 
 applicable to the problem of distributing the produce of 
 industry" (p. 263). Thornton says in his book " On 
 Labor" : '> Either side is clearly at liberty to put forward 
 whatever claim it pleases. The only question is whether 
 it is strong enough to enforce its claim" (p. 301). Professor 
 Sumner says in his " What Social Classes Owe One 
 Another" : " Society does not need any care or supervision 
 (p. 119). . . . There is no injunction, no 'ought' in 
 political economy at all" (p. 156). 
 
 To counterbalance these opinions of the Manchester 
 school, I would refer to the writings of the modern Ger- 
 man political economists, who constitute the so-called 
 Professorial-Socialist school. Thus, Schmoller says in 
 his " Ueber einige Grundfragen" (p. 150): "Law and 
 humanity must not be banished even from political econ- 
 omy ;" and on page 90: "A great part of this injustice 
 arises because, in times of new economical development, 
 morality and law are at first ineffectual against the actual 
 power of the rich." These sentiments are re-echoed by 
 all the energetic writers of this school, and it is their 
 
208 
 
 theories which are being followed out in the present suc- 
 cessful German legislation for the regeneration of the 
 working classes. As Rae says of this school, in his " Con- 
 temporary Socialism" (p. 202) : " They said it was vain 
 for the Manchester party to deny that a social question 
 existed, and to maintain that the working classes were as 
 well oS as it was practical for economical arrangements 
 to make them. They declared there was much truth in 
 the charges which socialists were bringing against the 
 existing order of things, and that there was a decided 
 call upon all the powers of society — and, among others, 
 especially upon the State — to intervene with some re- 
 medial measures." 
 
 Even the writers of the Manchester school — while their 
 official programme denies the propriety of any inter- 
 ference with individuals in economical matters — let fall 
 many expressions entirely inconsistent with this claim. 
 Thus, Mr. Mill says in the article in the " Fortnightly 
 Review," for May, 1869, above cited: " Every opinion as 
 to the relative rights of laborers and employers involves, 
 expressly or tacitly, some theory of justice, and it cannot 
 be indifferent to know what theory" (p. 506). The 
 Report of the English Labor Law Commissioners, in 
 1867 (see " Davis' Labor Laws"), contains the following 
 passage : "All that, as it appears to us, the law has to do, 
 over and above any protection that map be required for 
 classes unable to protect themselves, such as women and 
 children, is to secure a fair field for the unrestricted 
 exercise of industrial competition." Finally, even Pro- 
 fessor Sumner, in the same book from which the heartless 
 principles above cited were taken, says : " The safety of 
 workmen from machinery, the ventilation and sanitary 
 arrangements required by factories, the special precau- 
 tions of certain processes, the hours of labor of women 
 and children, the limits of age for employed children, 
 
209 
 
 Sunday work, hours of labor — these, and other like mat- 
 ters, ought to be controlled by the men (workingmen) 
 themselves, through their organizations." 
 
 Surely, this programme of practical reforms ought to 
 be sufficient for the present to satisfy even ardent reform- 
 ers ; but is it not plainly inconsistent with the laissez-faire 
 doctrines, above cited, of the same eminent professor, as 
 well as with the teachings concerning personal liberty of 
 the founders of this school? The late Mr. Jevons, in his 
 work entitled " The State in Relation to Labor," con- 
 fesses that this main doctrine of the Manchester school is 
 a failure ; he says : " Evidently there must be cases where 
 it is incumbent on one citizen to guard against the danger 
 to other citizens. But even in the extreme case of the 
 adult man, experience unquestionably shows that men 
 from mere thoughtlessness or ignorance incur grave inju- 
 ries to health or limb which very little pressure from the 
 Legislature could avert with benefit to all parties " (p. 5). 
 " It is no doubt a gross interference with that metaphysical 
 entity, the liberty of the subject, to prevent a man from 
 working with phosphorus as he pleases ; but if it can be 
 shown by unquestionable statistics and the unimpeach- 
 able evidence of scientific men that such working with 
 phosphorus leads to a dreadful disease, easily preventable 
 by a small change of procedure, then I hold that the 
 Legislature is, prima facie justified in obliging the man to 
 make this small change. The liberty of the subject is 
 only the means towards an end " (p. 12.) And this emi- 
 nent writer finally confesses : " The question may well 
 arise indeed, whether, according to the doctrine here 
 upheld, there is really any place at all for rules and gen- 
 eral propositions '' (p. 17). 
 
 This confession of failure appears to be the final con- 
 clusion to which the Manchester school has come ; and 
 yet there must be some general principles by which all 
 
2IO 
 
 these particular cases are to be governed ; there must 
 remain a science of legislation on economic matters. 
 
 The fault which, as it seems to me, has led to the decay 
 of the Manchester school, is its indifference to the exer- 
 cise of the principles of justice between classes or groups 
 of men, or between the State and such classes or groups. 
 Thus, Professor Sumner says, on p. 160 of his above cited 
 work: "The relations of sympathy and sentiment are 
 essentially limited to two persons only, and they cannot 
 be made a basis for the relations of groups of persons, or 
 for discussion by any third party." But if it is my duty as 
 an individual not to trample on but to show compassion 
 to another individual, who may be suffering, is it not also 
 my duty to show compassion and not to trample upon 
 a number of individuals or class ? And is it not equally my 
 duty when acting not individually, but with a number of 
 others or in a class, to show the same spirit and not to 
 trample upon another individual or class ? All classes 
 combined, or the State, owe sympathy to an individual, 
 as evidenced by public charitable institutions, courts of 
 justice, etc. ; should not the same spirit be shown to a 
 number of individuals, or to class ? The State compels 
 one individual to show sympathy to another ; why may 
 it not insist on a number of individuals or a class showing 
 sympathy to an individual, or to a number of individuals 
 or class ? Why should it allow one class to destroy 
 another physically, morally and spiritually, when it does 
 not permit one individual so to destroy another ? Is not 
 the former, if anything, the greater wrong? 
 
 The position of the Manchester school differs in no way 
 from that ot the first man who said : " Am I my brother's 
 keeper ?" Christianity in making the love of neighbor, 
 as illustrated by the parable of the Good Samaritan, its 
 second great commandment, says that we are. 
 
 As I have tried to show in my paper on Federalism, the 
 
21 I 
 
 root of law is in this God-given feeling of sympathy, and 
 that the spirit which pervades it is love. 
 
 Sir Matthew Hale said : " Christianity is parcel of the 
 law of England." 
 
 If, therefore, we admit that the law can enforce the 
 exercise of sympathy between individuals, it must also, 
 in my opinion, be able to enforce such sympathy 
 between classes. 
 
 The great change which is now occurring in this 
 country, as it is being filled up, is the formation of 
 classes of men who do not, as formerly, go from one 
 occupation to another, but who remain for life in the 
 same pursuit of a living. In our political economy we 
 must therefore begin with the injunction in the song of 
 the herald-angels : " Peace on earth, good-will amongst 
 men ;" or, as St. Paul expands it in Epistle to the 
 Colossians, Ch. III., v. 2 : " Where there is neither Greek 
 nor Jew, circumcision, nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, 
 Scythian, bond nor free ; but Christ is all, and in all." 
 
 We should cast off the name of Christians if we believe 
 that in our business life, which comprises, probably, the 
 greater part of our energies, mutual consideration and 
 justice are to have no place. 
 
 Or, on merely patriotic grounds, if we assume 
 that a State is a being created to develop par- 
 ticularly certain faculties, or realize certain ideals, 
 must we not be willing to limit our absolute liberty, in 
 order to realize these ideals ? How could society other- 
 wise have been formed? In the words of Cobbett: 
 " There never yet was, and never will be, a nation perma- 
 nently great, consisting for greater part of wretched and 
 miserable families." 
 
 Moreover, the effect upon ourselves of consenting to, 
 or assisting in causing the debasement — physical, intel- 
 lectual or moral — of our fellow-creatures, must react 
 upon and lower our own moral qualities. 
 
212 
 
 Anyone, therefore, will probably easily admit that if it 
 be possible this justice should enter into our relations 
 with our fellow-beings in business life. The very numer- 
 ous laws contained in the statute books of this State, espe- 
 cially in the sanitary code, show that in fact we do recog- 
 nize this principle in isolated cases. It is part of the 
 police power of the State, which, as defined by our Court 
 of Appeals (98 New York, 98), " is very broad and com- 
 prehensive, and is exercised to promote the health, com- 
 fort, safety and welfare of society." 
 
 As to the theoretical desirability of the admission 
 of these higher principles of justice into business life, 
 there can probably be little doubt ; the only question is 
 how that can be rendered possible in the present state of 
 society ? 
 
 In my opinion, our views of what is just already play a 
 much larger part in business life than is generally ac- 
 knowledged by writers on political economy. Are not 
 the wages of the most unskilled laboring men fixed by the 
 amount of physical comforts which their employers think 
 it necessary to allow them, over and above the means 
 necessary for the bare support of life ? And from these 
 wages required to realize the lowest ideals of life, do not 
 wages grade upwards in various stages as the skill or 
 strength required in the work increases ? So that finally 
 the rate of wages is determined by the ideas of justice in 
 regard to compensation for the rudest forms of labor 
 among the employers ; and we have seen what an influ- 
 ence the most selfish of a class of employers have in 
 reducing wages. 
 
 Sir John Lubbock says in the above cited article on 
 the early closing movement : " It seems clear that nothing 
 but legislation can remedy the evil. Voluntary action 
 has been tried and failed over and over again, and the 
 almost unanimous opinion of the witnesses examined 
 
213 
 
 before the House of Commons committee was that it was 
 hopeless to expect any shortening of the hours in that 
 way. Such, then, is the present" position of affairs, and, 
 as I have said, tbe general feeling of the shopkeeping 
 community is in favor of legislation. Even as long ago 
 as 1873 the shopkeepers who came to me with reference 
 to the bill I then proposed expressed themselves in 
 favor of a general compulsory closing, I then thought 
 this was impossible. Only by degrees have I become 
 convinced how deep and general this feeling is." 
 
 The State can certainly regulate many evils if it 
 will. It does regulate them to a certain extent ; if the 
 programme of Professor Sumner as to factory laws, hours 
 of labor, etc., were carried out, we would probably be 
 going as far as the circumstances at present require. The 
 chief thing necessary at this time appears to me to be to 
 recognize that these so-called interferences with the lib- 
 erty of contract are justified in theory, and are not merely 
 to be considered by the richer classes as victories wrung 
 from them by ignorant masses acting against their own 
 interests. All classes should take a lively interest in the 
 adjustment ol these questions, in the belief that their 
 correct solution will afford a great and permanent good 
 to all. 
 
 We should recognize once for all the general principle 
 that no manufacture shall be carried on which, as a rule, 
 produces sickness or prematurely shortens the lives of the 
 individuals employed therein ; that no dwellings or work- 
 shops shall exist which do not possess the sanitary condi- 
 tions necessary to preserve the ordinary health of the 
 inmates. The effect of carrying this principle into prac- 
 tice would be of course to stop every kind of business in 
 which the employer could not or would not furnish the 
 employees salubrious working-rooms and pay them suffi- 
 cient to support themselves in a healthy and decent man- 
 
214 
 
 ner, in return for only so many hours oi labor as would 
 not overtax their strength, but allow them a fair, physical,, 
 mental and moral development. 
 
 According to the Massachusetts statistics of Labor Re- 
 port of 1880: "The advancement of the workingman in 
 an economic way, along with the best intellectual and 
 moral training, is the only sure method to improve his. 
 social education, opportunities and life " (p. 244). 
 
 As John Stuart Mill said : " Education is not compati- 
 ble with extreme poverty. It is impossible effectually to 
 teach an indigent population " (p. 202 of " Political 
 Economy "). 
 
 Before proceeding, however, to enumerate the bless- 
 ings which we all will acknowledge might flow from 
 such an improvement in the condition of workingmen, let 
 us examine the great objections which of course suggest 
 themselves to any one. The first is, that such an exten- 
 sion of the sanitary laws, tenement-house inspection, etc.,. 
 means the stopping of many business establishments 
 which can earn only sufficient profits to pay their em- 
 ployees their present low wages. The natural conse- 
 quence would be that these employees would be thrown 
 out of work, and that the supply of the articles which they 
 manufactured would decrease and the price thereof in- 
 crease. 
 
 Depriving these people of their wages would doubtless 
 be an evil, but is it a greater evil than allowing them to 
 work on at their present occupations, ruin their health 
 and become a burden on society ? If there is not work 
 enough for them in this locality, at wages which secure 
 them a decent living, there is work in other places ; or 
 even if emigration were impossible, it is very certain that 
 it would be a cheap price for society to pay to support 
 even a large number of individuals of this generation at 
 work on public undertakings, rather than to allow them 
 
215 
 
 to become each the fountain head of new misery and 
 crime, which always springs from degraded humanity. 
 The first English factory act was passed after an epidemic 
 had started from the overcrowding of children in fac- 
 tories. 
 
 Of course, the enforcement of these sanitary laws would 
 prevent the subsequent establishment of such poorly pay- 
 ing kinds of business, so that the burden above referred 
 to would at most have to be borne only once for all. 
 The saying is well known, " Abject poverty is the mother 
 of crime." There is a sum in dollars and cents, and, if 
 wages are below that, men are driven to crime and 
 women to shame. Crime is increasing at an alarming ratio. 
 According to Mr. Round, Secretary of the Prison Asso- 
 ciation of New York, in this city in 1850 the pro- 
 portion of criminals to the number of inhabitants was 1 
 in 3,000; in 1870, it was 1 in 1,021; in 1881, it was 1 in 
 837. According to the same authority, $480,000,000 are 
 annually paid to protect society from criminals. This 
 item of the expense to society to protect itself against its 
 internal foes is increasing too rapidly to be borne. As a 
 business matter, in order to save money, working men 
 and women must be put in better circumstances. The 
 same can be said of intemperance, the root of which lies 
 in overwork and underpay ; alcohol is the cheapest food 
 for giving temporary strength. 
 
 Next, let us consider the objection that the stopping 
 of these factories would raise the price of the commodi- 
 ties which they heretofore produced. These commodi- 
 ties would be either articles of luxury or of necessity. 
 If they were articles of luxury, the loss would fall upon 
 the rich, and, in my opinion, anyone who contemplates 
 the increase in luxury, during the last fifty years, will 
 conclude that a certain decrease in that direction can well 
 be borne. If, however, the manufactures were articles of 
 
2l6 
 
 necessity it is true that their price would rise, and that 
 this would bear hard particularly on the poor. But, if 
 the price of living of all workingmen were raised, while 
 the sanitary and other laws continued to be enforced, the 
 wages of workingmen would have to be raised in propor- 
 tion. So that the loss would again fall upon the wealthy 
 classes, and would lead them to diminish their expendi- 
 tures for luxury, which, as above observed, they can, in 
 my opinion, well afford to do, and, perhaps, most of all, 
 to their own profit. Moreover, self-interest directs the 
 community, merely for the sake of decreasing the price 
 of an article to a class of consumers, not to allow em- 
 ployers to reduce the wages of their employees, or to 
 force them to work under such unfavorable circum- 
 stances as to unfit them for profitable labor at an -early 
 age, and thus compel society to support them and their 
 families. 
 
 Of the advantages which would compensate all classes 
 for this sacrifice in artificial luxuries, it is needles to speak 
 in detail; in the words of Ruskin, we would have instead 
 of " cities in which the object of man is not life but labor ; 
 cities in which the streets are not the avenues for the pass- 
 ing processions of a happy people, but the drains for the 
 discharge of a tormented mob," cities " whose walls shall 
 be safety, and whose gates shall be praise." 
 
 Finally, however, it will occur to many, that we have in 
 late years in this country and abroad passed many laws 
 for the inspection of tenement houses, factories, etc., and 
 yet there has been no corresponding improvement in the 
 condition of the workingmen, if there has been any ; that 
 many of these laws remain dead letters or are used by 
 corrupt officials as the means of private emolument ; and 
 that consequently we have little reason to suppose that 
 the mere extension of this principle will produce any real 
 benefit to the workingmen or to society at large. In an- 
 
217 
 
 swer to this argument, I would refer to my former paper 
 on " Trade Organizations in Public Affairs or Federalism 
 in Cities," in which I have endeavored to show that the 
 great cause of the mal-administration of our municipal 
 affairs is our adherence to the antiquated and false sys- 
 tem of electing our city fathers, legislators and judges of 
 inferior courts from artificial geographical districts, in 
 which the gin-shop influence is certain to be paramount, 
 instead of from the city at large, where the men of all 
 classes might select those who are to make and to enforce 
 their laws according to their untrammeled wishes. So 
 long as this system of artificial divisions of cities remains, 
 with its corrupt ramifications, so long will any extension 
 of the powers of government, even in the interest of hu- 
 manity and justice, be failures. Consider for a moment 
 the character of the man who now occupies the position 
 of head of our Board of Health ; would not those laws 
 be differently enforced if the organizations of employees, 
 for whose protection they are intended, had some direct 
 influence in selecting this official ? Governor Seymour 
 well defined self-government (as cited in my paper above 
 referred to) as attempting " to distribute each particular 
 power to those who have the greatest interest in its wise 
 and faithful exercise." Any excessive demands of the 
 workingmen would certainly be met if these demands 
 were publicly discussed by the arguments of the repre- 
 sentatives of the employers and of all other interests in 
 the city or State, and would yield before the moral weight 
 of this united opinion ; especially as the various classes 
 of workingmen learned that they themselves were con- 
 sumers as well as producers ; and that an increase in the 
 wages of one class meant an increase in the price of the 
 article which that class produced. 
 
 No matter how far this principle of justice were car- 
 ried into economical matters, it would never produce 
 
218 
 
 ^equality of property. The past is not to be obliterated ; 
 different types of men possess different degrees of force 
 and intelligence ; the rise and fall of individuals and races 
 must continue ; but we can at least by this plan do much 
 to secure to all within our city and State and ultimately 
 within our nation, a much happier and safer life than they 
 lead at present, and as I believe, one that will make all 
 our citizens once more contented and patriotic. Human 
 hands may never build Jerusalem the Golden, but we Can 
 give all our fellow-citizens opportunity to live a healthy, 
 moral life here and to preDare themselves for a life in the 
 world to come. 
 
^ 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUEONTFTTAon, 
 
 STAM^DBE^^ 81 DATE 
 
 TH.S BOOK ON THE F A R TE FA D '^ RE T ° RCTUR N 
 WILL. INCREASE TO 50 CEN ?. o J HE PENAI "TY 
 DAY AND TO $[ om J ° N ™ E FO "*TH 
 OVERDUE. ° N ™ E SEVENTH DAY