OF THE 
 UNIVERSITY 
 or ILLINOIS 
 
 338.8 
 D377d 
 
Return this book on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. A 
 charge is made on all overdue 
 books. 
 
 University of Illinois Library 
 
 
 A, 
 
 M32 
 
De Leon-Berry 
 I Debate I 
 
 Solution of the Trust Problem 
 
 DANIEL DE LEON 
 
 Late Editor New York Weekly People, 
 Presenting Socialist Side 
 
 WILLIAM H. BERRY 
 
 Ex-State Treasurer of Pennsylvania, 
 Presenting Small Capitalist Side 
 
 PRICE lO CENTS 
 
 ISSUED BY THE NATIOIVAL EXECUTIVE 
 COMMITTEE SOCIALIST LiAJBOR PARTY 
 NEW YORK. 
 
Are You a Reader of the 
 
 Weekly People? 
 
 YOU ARE DEPENDENT 
 
 upon the capitalist class for a chance to earn a 
 living as long as you allow that class to retain its 
 autocratic hold on industry. If you would attain 
 
 THE RIGMT TO WORK 
 
 you must organize with the rest of the working 
 class on proper lines. What kind of organization 
 is needed, and what tactics should be pursued to 
 end the serf-like conditions in the sTiops and in- 
 dustrial plants of the United States is pointed out 
 and explained in 
 
 THE WEEKLY PEOPLE 
 
 45 ROSE STREET NEW YORK CITY 
 
 The Weekly People, being the Party-owned 
 mouthpiece of the Socialist Labor Party of Amer- 
 ica, aims at industrial democracy through the in- 
 tegral industrial union and revolutionary working 
 class political action. It is a complete Socialist 
 weekly paper, and sells at $i.oo a year, 50 cents 
 for six months, 25 cents for three months. A trial 
 subscription of seven weeks may be had for 15 
 cents. Send for a free sample copy. 
 
DAXI 1)1-: LKON. 
 
De Leon-Berry Debate 
 
 ON 
 
 Solution of the Trust Problem 
 
 Held before the University Extension Society, 
 Philadelphia, January 27, 1913. 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 Daniel De Leon, Late Editor of The People 
 and 
 
 IVm. H. Berry, Ex-State Treasurer of Penna. 
 
 Published By 
 
 NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEB, 
 SOCIALIST LABOR PARTY, 
 45 ROSE STREET, 
 
 NEW YORK CITY 
 1915 
 
That this [socially necessary labor time] is really 
 the cfoundatliion of the exdhangeable value of all 
 things, excepting those \v*hich cannot be increased 
 by human industry, is a doctrine of the utmost im- 
 portance in political economy; for from no 'source dio 
 (SO many errors, and so much difference of opinion 
 in that science proceed as from the vague ideas 
 whidh are attached to the word value. — (David 
 Ricardo. 
 
33^. 9 
 D377c/ 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 ^l_On page 7, line 15, the ward "presentation" should read 
 jiroblem." 
 
 3d 2.— X)n page 19, line 2 in the second speech of Daniel De Leon, 
 the word "Socialistic" should read "Socialist." 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The debate, the report of wthieh is contained in these pages, 
 was held ibefore the University Extension Society of Philadel- 
 phia on January 27, 1913. Tbe debate was reported steno- 
 graphically and is published without either of the participants I 
 having read or revised the manuscript. There are therefore 
 necessarily some rough places wMcfti appear, which otherwise 
 wouJd have been smoothed out. Such places, however, are very 
 few, and should interpose no difficulty to the reader. 
 
 The debate itself, w'hich was supposed to be on the "trust 
 problem," soon turned into a debate on Caipitalism versus So- 
 cialism, as it inevitably had to do. The trust problem is but 
 one of the many manifesltations of a social order whidh is se- 
 riously out of joint, and as none of the manifestations or social i 
 phenomena can be grasped without understanding the law of 
 value, the debate soon resolved itself into a debate ^on value, sup- 
 ply and demand, and the various corollaries. Mr. Berry, though 
 an able and iskilled debater, soon **dasihed his head against it," 
 [the law of value] to use an expression of De Leon''S. 
 
 As for the rest, the debate is interesting for the participation 
 of two ai>le and scholarly men, and it has interest beyond the 
 exigencies of the moment, since the battle will continue to rage, 
 with the "trust problem" more aggravated, with the condition 
 of the working class becoming worse and worse, and with that 
 class w'hich Mr. Berry typifies, the middle class, ibeing ground 
 into powder between these two millstones in society. 
 
 The boolklet is herewith commended to the thoughtful student 
 and reader. 
 
 The Publishers. 
 
De Leon-Berry Debate 
 
 CHAIRMAN'S ADDRESS. 
 STEWART WOOD. 
 
 The University Extension hias adopted this year the practice 
 of having debates on subjects of political and public interest, 
 something a little different from the lectures of former years, 
 and tonight presents to you in juxtaposition two subjects, both 
 of which are certainly live topics, those of Socialism and the 
 trust problem. 
 
 I can remember nearly forty years ago, when I was a young 
 man in Berlin, visiting some of the ^^revolutionists of the chair," 
 as they called the professorial Socialists of that time, and one 
 of them saying to me, "You will be having Socialism in America 
 soon." I was a little disposed to scoff at it. At that time So- 
 cialism, as it was understood in Europe, was a thing practically 
 unknown here. We did have a gentle kind of Socialists, who in 
 a way were very logical. They formed little communities of 
 their own, where they withdrew quietly from the world to lead 
 their gentle lives according to their own theories. Sudh were 
 the foHowers of Robert Owen, the Shaker Settlement, the Brook 
 Farm, and so on. Those examples will always prove and re- 
 main classical examples, both of some of the fine points in hu- 
 man nature to which Socialism does make an appeal, and also 
 of the practical difficulties whidh exist in human nature for 
 making it a success, and for wlhioh the Socialists will have to 
 find some remedy if their views are to prevail. 
 
 We have with us tonight a Socialist of a very different type 
 from those I spoike of as having existed in early days in Amer- 
 ica. He does not come to you with a torch or with dynamite, 
 but he does come bearing radical views of philosophic Socialism. 
 I take pleasure in introducing to you Mr. De Leon, of New York. 
 
2 
 
 DE LEON 'BERRY DEBATE. 
 
 DIRECT PRESENTATION. 
 DANIEL DE LEON. 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: — 
 
 The subject I was invited to discuss here tonight was the so* 
 lution of the trust problem, and as I am known to ibe a Socialist 
 I realized that I was invited to present the Socialist position, 
 which is the Socialist solution. I am not forgetful of the fact 
 that I am speaking here under the auspices of the University 
 Extension, and that my audience may be supposed to have en- 
 joyed the advantages of college training. We who have gone 
 through college are aware that words cannot be understood un- 
 less we go to their roots. It is with words and terms as with a 
 ship. The ship is anchored, but according to the streams and the 
 winds it may drift to the north or to the south of its anchorage, 
 to the east or to the west. By following the anchor we ascer- 
 tain where that ship is anchored. It is so with terms, especially 
 with so-called technical terms. ^ 
 
 The word "trust" is a technical term. It has a surface mani- 
 festation. It cannot be approaclhed, it cannot be understood, let 
 alone the solution therefor presented, unless we trace that word 
 down to the anchor w*hich the term is fastened to. I shall there- 
 fore invite your attention to an argument. I do not come with 
 rhetoric. I do not come with oratory. The times are serious, 
 very serious, and it is thought that is going to help us out. The 
 anchor on which the trust question is fastened is that law of po- 
 litical economy known as the law of value. I wish right here 
 to say that that law has 'been fought by all the elements of mod- 
 em capitalist society, and they ihave dashed their heads against 
 it. But at such critical moments ajs the Bryan campaign of 1896 
 it was to that law that they had to cling for refuge, and it was 
 a page from Socialist literature that furnished the excellent 
 speeches with which to overthrow the Bryanistic absurdity of 
 free coinage of silver regardless of international trade. 
 
 What, then, is that law? I see no blackboard here, and I shall 
 bave to make my illustration sihort. It must appeal to your 
 inemory. The law of value establishes that merchandise has a 
 
DE LEON 'BERRY DEBATE 
 
 3 
 
 value according to the amount of labor power crystallized in it 
 and socially necessary for its reproduction. That is inhesive, 
 and yet much depends upon the correct understanding of that 
 position, because that law is the social dynamo that is causing 
 the upheaval throughout the civilized world. To understand that 
 law, I shall give you an illustration. 
 
 Take yourselves back some hundred years when this country 
 began its independent career. Imagine a person weaving dothl 
 here. She wove cloth with an old-style loom, that is to say, old- 
 style compared with what we have today, a loom that they then 
 ^ad. You want to suppose that the person wove one yard of 
 cloth a week. That was doing pretty well. The labor socially 
 necessary to produce that yard of cloth was one weeik's labor, 
 and that week -s labor crystallized in that yard of cloth rendered 
 the yard exchangeable with any other commodity that required 
 an equal amount of socially necessary labor. You want to sup* 
 pose that it took just one week to produce ten bushels of po- 
 tatoes. You see the subject is a commonplace one, and it is well 
 for you to realize the beauty of these commonplace facts. Then 
 it follows from the law of value, that one yard of cloth was the 
 equivalent of ten bushels of potatoes in the market, and that one 
 yard exchanged for those ten bushels, and vice versa. 
 
 But the progress of machinery presently enabled some one to 
 produce two yards of cloth during one wedk. The oonsequence 
 was that the exchange value of the cloth was no longer one 
 week's labor but half a week's labor, or one yard of cloth was 
 equal no longer to ten bushels of potatoes but was equal to five 
 bushels. The exchange value being determined by the socially 
 necessary amount of labor crystallized in the production of those 
 commodities, rendered lower the value of the cloth; and the pro- 
 ducer of the cloth. Who before exchanged that one yard for ten 
 bu^els of potatoes, was compelled, if he wanted to have pota- 
 toes, to exchange his yard no longer for ten bushels but for five, 
 because no longer was the whole week socially necessary to pro- 
 duce it. Someone else was producing cloth in half the time. 
 
 To make a long story short, as the machine or the tool of pro- 
 
4 
 
 DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 duction improved, tte time came when during that week no long- 
 er one yard of cloth, no longer two yards of cloth, ibut lOOQ yards 
 of cloth were produced. The time necessary to produce potatoes 
 not (having changed, — and if it had it wouid come down to the 
 same thing,^ — ^the time necessary to produce 1000 yards of cloth 
 having been one week, it follows that 1000 yards of cloth are 
 equal in value to the ten (bushels of potatoes, so that he (or she) 
 who was producing with the old- style loom and could only bring 
 forth one yard during that week, had to limit himself to the one 
 one-thousandth part of one bushel a week, in other words, had 
 either to starve or throw the loom on the scrap heap and go out 
 and sell himself as a wage slave. That is the law of value. As 
 I said before, capitalism and its professors have been trying to 
 overthrow it, and wise they are to try to overthrow it, because 
 that is the central point that, once understood, all chimeras drop; 
 that, once understood, all halfway measures are appreciated at 
 their real value. 
 
 Under the social pot from which issues the trust there is this 
 law, and all of you Who have understood the comparison I have 
 just made will be ^ble to follow me when I come to that improv- 
 ed method of production Which is known as the trust today. 
 
 The trust must be stripped of all its accidental circumstances, 
 such things as watered stock, such things as agreements be- 
 tween gentlemen or non-gentlemen, such things as chicanery 
 and bribery of politicians. These are poultices that help the 
 thing along, but they lare not characteristics of the thing. To 
 understand the thing we must eliminate all these, and what we 
 then see in the trust is a contrivance of production which car- 
 ries out that evolution I mentioned before with regard to the 
 loom, and carries it to a state of perf ection that we may almost 
 consider final. The trust is that device, that tool of production, 
 which, incited by the law of value, enables production to be car- 
 ried on more and more plentifully, with less and less waste. The 
 trust, accordingly, is essentially a contrivance of production, a 
 tool of production. 
 
 How is that problem going to be met? Just as soon as that re- 
 
DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 S 
 
 markable tool presents itself, that gigantic tool that enables 
 production to be carried on witfi so mudi swiftness, witli so lit- 
 tle waste, just as soon a»s that tool presents itself on earth a new 
 issue also presents itself, or ratiher is seen. The question of the 
 history of the tool is civilization turned out. The tool of produc- 
 tion is the yard stick by which to measure the advance of man 
 from the earliest savagery to his present condition. The human, 
 •being is the only one thiat is bom toolless, and therefore help- 
 less. Every other animal is born with implements it needs to 
 grub its existence out of nature. The meanest spider has all it 
 needs. The smallest rat has all it needs. The eagle has his 
 beak, the tiger and lion their fangs and claws, the beaver that 
 remarkable tail of his. 
 
 Go through the whole gamut of animals and you will find that 
 each one of them is born supplied with the tool that it needs. 
 Man alone is bom toolless, and at that stage of his existence he 
 is the most helpless of all animals. He is the sport of nature. 
 Nature has her foot upon his neck, maikes him her toy, afflicts 
 him with drouth one day and drowns him with flood the next, 
 one day blesses him with abundance and the next afflicts him 
 with dearth. No animal goes through that experience. Man 
 does, and he rises from that by slow degrees in the measure 
 that he fashions the tools with which to fight nature. Vv^ith 
 his bare fingers at first he has to eke out his existence. Pres- 
 ently he places his ha,nds upon the tool, and v/ith the tool, per- 
 fecting it by little and little, he reaches that point which is the 
 point that civilization has advanced to, the point v4ien v/eal'tih 
 can be produced so abundantly and with so little toil that all the 
 citizens can enjoy the leisure with healthy exercise which only 
 affluence can afford. That being the case, that the tool is the 
 weapon for human freedom and the perfection of the tool is th^ 
 symbol of the capability of the human race for freedom, it can- 
 not be denied that the element of society which today has na 
 tool of production is no better off than our barbarian and sav- 
 age ancestors 25,000 years ago. 
 
 The worlking class today is toolless. Their tool is owned by 
 
6 
 
 DE LEON-BERRY DEBATE 
 
 the class that (has appropriated it, by historic methods that I 
 sl.all not here g'o into. At any rate, the history of the tool es- 
 ta^bliches this principle, that the tool is the means for human 
 •emancipation from the thrall of nature, and he who owns that 
 tool is a free man. He wlio does not is a slave, orig-inaUy of na- 
 ture and now of the class that does own it. When we see and 
 weigh that position, then we are enabled to approach the sub- 
 ject of the solution of the trust. We have here a g-iant that is 
 instinct with g'ood, and: yet, seeing that it raises such a rumpus, 
 it evidently does harm. How is that problem to be solved? 
 
 liight hero a number of propositions present themselves. I 
 shall take up only those that lecognize the significance of the 
 tool, that is, those propositions that somehow or another stand 
 planted upon the law of value. One proposition we will call the 
 proposition of love and affection and habits of thought. It sees 
 the trust redounding to the benefit of the few. It sees the mil- 
 lionaire heiresses multiplying and purchasing nobility for their 
 husbands, while the masses of the people are in deplorable and 
 increasingly deplorable salvery. That element sees that the po- 
 litical government is helpful to the trust. That element says, 
 '•'Sma^h the trust." It says, *^Let us return politics to the peo- 
 ple." Those wiho propose that solution do not understand the 
 meaning of a tool. If the trust were to be smashed it would 
 mean sending us back to that stage where the abundance of 
 wealth was not producible without excessive toil, w'here the 
 aibundance of wealth was not possible in quantities large enough 
 to afford well-being to all. Those Who propose to smash the 
 trust recognize the power of the tool, but do not understand its 
 mission. To those we say, the trust cannot be smashed be- 
 cause all the powers of civilization are making toward promot- 
 ing the operation of trusts. We say, even if the trust could be 
 smashed we should not smaslh it, because by smaslhing it we 
 vro^ild throw civilization back. 
 
 Another proposition is this, control the trusts. This element 
 recognizes that the trust is valuable, but it says, "It does do 
 eome misdhief. Let us legislate around it." Twenty years ago 
 
DE LEON 'BERRY DEBATE 
 
 7 
 
 when that proposition was first presented, we Socialists showed 
 that it was impracticable. Today no one should deny the im- 
 practicability thereof. To control a trust is like controlling a 
 tiger. To control a trust is to make believe, because the prac- 
 tical resiolt of all attempts to control the trust (has been to have 
 those laws broken. Attempts to control the trust resemble an 
 attempt to hold back a fiery horse by the tail, with the only re- 
 sult that the laws that are passed to control the horse are kick- 
 ed to splinters, and the splinters serve no other purpose than as 
 pastry for corporation lawyers to grow fat upon. 
 
 Now comes the third proposition. That comes from those who 
 realize that the trust must not be destroyed. It comes from 
 those who realize that the trust cannot be controlled. They pro- 
 pose to nationalize the trust, and that is the scheme that 'has tihe 
 abnormal name of State Socialism. The trust presentation 
 throws its light upon this development, that today has reached 
 that point where the political goverament must be overthrown^ 
 v/hen legislation cannot and must not be conducted by an organ- 
 ism that is separate and apart from the productive capability of 
 man. Congress, the President, and all our judges may die to- 
 rn orrov/ and not a wheel of production would stop running. That 
 sort of government is political government. 
 
 It is said that the solution of the trust lies in the overthrow 
 of the political government and the institution in place of the 
 political government of the industrial government, the govern- 
 ment made up of the representatives of the organized industries 
 of the nation, the wiping out of the state lines, and the institu- 
 tion in lieu of the state lines of the industries. Instead of hav- 
 ing the state of Pennsylvania we would 'have the industiy of 
 railroads, the industry of mines, the industry of weaving, the 
 industry of food production, and so forth; and the represent- 
 atives of those industries, representing the working people 
 in those industries, would constitute the government, and 
 that government would then own and control those instruments 
 of production that civilization needs. But State Socialism, Which 
 is justly called half-baked Socialism, would put into the hands 
 
DE LEON 'BERRY DEBATE 
 
 of the political State, the State Which consists of capitalists, tlie 
 management of industry. In other words, it would put in their 
 hands additional powers to tyrannize the people. 
 
 If I have any time left I wish to sum up in a few words. So- 
 cialism demands, as the only solution of the trust problem, the 
 overthrow of the political State and its substitution with the in-, 
 dustrial State. It demands this becau'se the trust should not if 
 it could, and could not if it would, be destroyed; and the trust 
 cannot be saved for the people unless the people own it and con- 
 trol it through those who work, and not through politicians, 
 whose only mission in civilization has been to keep the working 
 class in subjugation. 
 
 In cloising, I hope that my opponent, if he opposes this con- 
 clusion, will state whether he accepts the law of exchange- 
 value. If <he does not, why not? If he does, how can he deny the 
 inevit^bleness of the perfected tool of production? If he does 
 not deny that, (how will he explain that course of civilization 
 which Lewis H. Moirgan, the leading American writer on eth- 
 nology, has proclaimed the future of society; namely, that (social 
 institutions and social associations will overthrow the political 
 State and establish the industrial State. You have come to list- 
 en. I can assure you that no one will listen to my distinguished 
 opponent with greater attention than I, and as I have no hobby 
 to serve, and this one purpose: to promote that system of gov- 
 ernment that will enable man to have what belongs to him, that 
 will enable woman to enjoy her dignity, that will enaible child- 
 hood to enjoy its pleasures, if my distinguislhed opponent can 
 bring any point of reason to overthrow my position, no one will 
 be more thankful than I to hear it. 
 
 CHAIRMAN. 
 STEWART WOOD. 
 Ladies and gentlemen: — 
 
 You have undoubtedly listened with interest to this scholarly 
 statement of the views of the Socialist sdholars, and we will 
 now listen to a presentation from a gentleman w'ho has been a 
 
DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 9 
 
 captain of industry and is a captain of industry himself, and has 
 been operating under conditions of individual management of 
 industry. I need not introduce one to you who is your neighbor, 
 and wlho 'has played so conspicuous a paii; in restoring the self- 
 respect of Pennsylvanians v/hen they think of their state govern- 
 ment. I have the pleasure of introducing the Honorable Wil- 
 liam H. Berry. 
 
 FIRST PRESENTATION. 
 WILLIAM H. BERRY. 
 
 Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: — 
 
 I am extremely gratified to have had the opportunity of list- 
 ening to the presentation of t)he argument that my friend has 
 advanced. I am extremely sorry that I am compelled to differ 
 with him at the very outset. I would iike to go along with him 
 as far as I can, and I think I will begin at the back end of his 
 address, in order that I may go with 'him a while. I join with 
 him, and v/ith every Socialist wlho complains of the injustice pf 
 existing conditions. I am not here to maike any apology for the 
 rank and gross injusitice that is rife throughout our civilization, 
 but when it comes to the matter of presenting a remedy, a v/ay 
 out of those difficulties, I feel myself unaMe to follow the rea- 
 soning of any of the Socialists. I was in hopes I might find 
 something on the part of the brother wfho has just spoken that 
 would be essentially different from anything I had previously 
 heard. I have, however, been disappointed in t^at particular. 
 
 I want to preface my remarks by his statement. Mr. De Leon 
 assumes that commercial or exdhange value is determined by 
 the cost of production, by the labor concentrated in the produc- 
 tion of an article. I am compelled to deny that statement in 
 toto. The cost of production does not nov/, never did, and never 
 can determine exchange value. It never did, does not now, and 
 never can do it. The thing that determines exchange value is 
 the law of supply and demand. The amount, the quantity of a 
 product which is offered in the market in exchange for other 
 
lO 
 
 DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 things, as compared to the qaantlty of other things w^hich are 
 offered in exchange for it, will determine how much of one will 
 go for the other, absolutely regardless of wiiat it cost to produce 
 either one. Cost of production ultimately, in the long run, and 
 in those things which come to be of daily use, will have a con- 
 trolling influence upon the quantity of products, hut until it 
 does it is absolutely powerless to determine anything in regard 
 to exchange value. It must first work upon quantity before it 
 does anything at all with the value. That is in harmony with 
 the profoundest philosophy of human life. If it were not so, it 
 would not have persisted through all the ages. These things 
 which persist age through, age long, you may take for granted 
 are ingrained in the very system. The reason that that is true 
 is because the ideal man is a free man. Patrick Henry said, "I 
 do not know what course others may pursue, but as for me, give 
 me liberty or give me death." Put me off the planet if I can- 
 not be free. I never recited that old speech wthen I was a boy 
 that it did not go from center to circumference of my entire be- 
 ing. I believe it to be true, and man is impossible without free- 
 dom. 
 
 There is no merit or demerit possible in any action that is not 
 volition. I care not how exemplary one's conduct may be, if it 
 is not from choice there is no merit resident in it. I once ad- 
 dressed an audience of 1,500 men. The most exemplary conduct 
 I ever saw was practiced by them, universally, absolutely up to 
 date, every one of them in every particular. I could not find a 
 single fault with any of them. They were in the Eastern pen- 
 itentiary. There was no merit in anything they did. They did 
 it perforce. So I hold that in order that we may have a man at 
 all, we must have a free man, a man who makes choice. 
 
 Now, we come into tliis world, all of us. This world is the 
 environment, this land, these natural opportunities, are the en- 
 vironments of our existence. Two things, of course, are always 
 to be considered in the development of any living organism: 
 heredity and environment. I would like to take time to trace 
 the heredity of this race to where I believe it originated, in the 
 
DE LEON-BERRY DEBATE 
 
 II 
 
 niind of the Eternal God. I differentiate between a man and 
 any other creature, not on the ground of his being toolless when 
 he comes into the world, but on the ground that he has the 
 stamp of Deity placed upon him, in that he is a free agent and 
 shall determine for himself what he shall do and how he shall 
 do it. 
 
 But we come into this environment. Here are a lot of tasks. 
 In some places it is easier to work than it is in others. Some 
 tasks are very pleasant to some people, not always to every- 
 body. I know a fellow that would rather work around a plant, 
 fool around with a spade, dig among the worms and raise 
 flowers and vegetables, than do any otfiier thing on earth. I 
 would not. He has no competitor when it comes to me. I am 
 not bothering with his job. There are other jobis I would rather 
 do for nothing than to be paid for doing some jabs. Some things 
 are more excellent to some people than they are to others, so 
 that if we are to have free men, and if we are to )have men 
 who follow the impulse implanted by the Creator, if they shall 
 develop in full, we must let them choose. If this fefllow wants 
 to raise flowers, let him raise them. Bat if flower-raising loO'ks 
 good to one fellow it is very likely to look good to somebody 
 dse. If there is no irksome feature in the taisk, if it is clean, 
 wholesome, pleasant, a Whole lot of peoiple will likely choose 
 that occupation. On the contrary, there is another taf?k over 
 here that is anything but pleasant. It (has got to be done, but 
 it is hard work. It has nothing attractive about it. There is 
 more or less of dirt and discomfort necessarily associated with 
 it. Some fellows may choose it. Some fdlows may rather do 
 that than do the other, but most of us would not. So as a con- 
 sequence a great many people will choose the less irksome task, 
 and very few people will choose the more irksome task. 
 
 As a consequence, flowers come into the market in great 
 quantities, not in great abundance because they can raise a 
 flower quicker tha^. this fellow can wheel a wlheelbarrow of 
 stone. Not so. It is not the case at all. The labor involved 
 may be the same, but a whole lot of people want to do this par- 
 
12 
 
 DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 ticular worSc. They do it in abundance and come forward with 
 flowers in great abundance. This other thing over here, w^hich 
 is extremely necessary, but whidh involves irksome effort, comes 
 scarce, and as a natural, necessary, inevitable consequence, 
 flowers, no matter what they cost in the way of effort and time 
 to produce them, will exchange, a w'hoie lot of them for very 
 little of this other thing on the other side. That is the natural 
 process. If left to itself the easy job will alv/ays get the poor- 
 est pay. Tlhe hard job wM always g^et tlhe msost pay. That is 
 what oug/ht to happen, but I ought to be perfectly free to choose, 
 so far as I am concerned, whioh of those jobs I w^ill work at. 
 That ought to be left to me, not to you or anybody else. It 
 should be a matter for me to determine. That is one thing I in- 
 sist upon. I am going to choose my job. I v/ould rather starve 
 at certain occupations than be a millionaire in some others. I 
 insist upon it that I can only do my best work and only rise to 
 the highest possible leve'ls f ar me to attain w)hen I have cho-sen 
 congenial employment, no matter \rhat it is. 
 
 We have the trust problem confronting us. What is the matter 
 with the trusts ? I have no fault to find with the trust on ac- 
 count of its size; not at all. I ^have no fault to find v/ith the 
 trust on account of its efficiency; not at all. I am perfectly satis- 
 fied that up to a certain extent the assembling of large capital 
 and v/ldely co-ordinated effort into some one industry, results, 
 just as my friend here has said, in some very desirable and very 
 proper things. I would perhaps define it a little differently from 
 the way he does. I would call it more a manifestation of the 
 division of laibor, the specialization whioh g'oes on and marks it, 
 as he says, as the index of human advancement, not exactly and 
 solely the improvement of tools, but largely the improvement of 
 the skill and ability due to specialization and the direction of the 
 effort of the individual in some one direction. 
 
 If there is anything the matter with the trust, what is it ? 
 There is only one thing. There is only one dharacteristic of the 
 trii;;t that I think we want to try to get rid of, and that is the one 
 thing that strikes at the very heart of humanity, monopoly. That 
 
DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 is all. What is monopoly? Let me give you a definition. r»Ion- 
 opoly is anything in existence, man-made or natural, that pie- 
 vents the free flow of effort into any channel of production. 
 That is what it is and that is all it is, if by any process whatso- 
 ever it prevents the free flow of effort. I mean freedom to flow 
 to any channel of activity you j^lease. Wihat is its opposite ? 
 Competition. What is competition ? Tlhat is the thing that is at 
 the bottom of the trust proposition which I am opposed to, and 
 which I think the thoughtful mind of the time is determined to 
 eradicate. Monopoly, the miasma. It is the cankerworm that is 
 at the bottom of this entire situation. It is responsible for every 
 evil with which we are afflicted. 
 
 Let me in just a few minutes illustrate its operation. It has 
 its special field of operation in three particular directions. In 
 the first place, in land, using the term in the broad sense which 
 takes in all natural opportunities. Suppose, for instance, we get 
 before us a community that we can see all around. Crusoe alone 
 on his island, of course, is obliged to do everything for himself. 
 He is jack of all trades and master of none. He never knows 
 how to do anything well because he has so many things to do he 
 never becomes master of anything. In consequence, the hats he 
 makes are of no account. The shoes he makes are bunglesome 
 and bother him more than they do him good, many times. 
 
 Let one hundred men assemble with him on the island. Now 
 they specialize. Eadh takes up some one particular brandh of 
 production. One makes hats, another shoes, another coats, and 
 so on. By concentration of effort, by study of the particular 
 things of which he makes a life business, he becomes expert. 
 True, he improves his tool, too. The tools are a factor and a 
 large factor, but they are not the only factor. The improvement 
 of the man is the most important factor, in my judgment. I 
 have seen lots of tools. I was looking just the other day in 
 amazement at the Merganthaler type-^setting machine, and I 
 want to tell you it never set a type on earth and never will until! 
 there is a man there to handle It. There is a man involved in ev- 
 ery one of these propositions. No matter how complicated the? 
 
DE LEON 'BERRY DEBATE 
 
 tool is, there is a m^n, and hi^ development coi^es abant by his 
 specialized attention to some particular thing. He ibecomes skill- 
 ed. This man produces a hat in a day w5iich it took old Crusoe 
 a v/eek to make, and it is a far better hat than he ever had. This 
 man produces a pair of shoes in a day that it took Crusoe a v/eek 
 to make, and better shoes than Crusoe ever saw. But with the 
 specialization of labor comes in immediately the necessity of ex- 
 change of products. The s^hoemaker cannot wear shoes all over 
 him. Our feminine friends nowadays seem to be able to v/ear al- 
 most any old thing in the shape of a hat, but there is a limit even 
 to the p'ower of our lady friends to wear everything on earth 
 on their heads. He cannot clothe 'himself entirely with this par- 
 ticular thing, so he must exchange products with his neighbor. 
 
 I want to stop right here for a second and illustrate one of the 
 things which douibtless my friend will raise. He has not raised 
 it as yet, but every Socialist I ever heard talk does raise it; that is 
 the question of profit. I want to show you that this hat maker, 
 bringing a hat over to the shoemaker, will say, "Here, will you 
 trade even ?" E^oug'h said, they trade. The hatmaker going *back 
 with a pair of shoes, chuckles to his neig^hbor, 'Took at the shoes 
 I got. I got a pair of shoes here I could not have made in a week, 
 and got them for a ^at I made in a day. Look at the rake-off I 
 got on that deal." The shoemaiker, going home to his chum, 
 says, "Look at the hat I got, a good hat I could not 'have made in 
 a week. I got it for a pair of shoes I made in a day. Look how 
 I skinned that fellow on that deal, the tremendous profit." Both 
 of them got together and exchanged products. 
 
 Some Socialists seem to think one of the great evils against 
 which we laibor is profit taking. I do not. I want to tell you that 
 profit talking is the grandest thing in the proposition. I want 
 to tell you that civilization today, and all that beautifies the 
 earth today, is accumulated profit. Had there been no profit, 
 tliis building would not have been here. All that is accumulated 
 is profit, and it does not scare me after it gets in that positron. 
 Our Socialist friends call it capital, and get awfully scared when 
 they get to calling it that. I am not afraid of it at all. The only 
 
DE LEON 'BERRY DEBATE 
 
 trouble about it is that too few people own it. It is the segrega- 
 tion of it in the hands of a few that is doing damage. How has 
 it been done ? In almost every single instance through the op- 
 eration of monopoly somewhere in some shape or other. So that 
 when I am seeking a remedy for the trust question, I want to go 
 to the root of the matter and bring up monopoly. 
 
 'Suppose in the primitive community of ours, by some process 
 or other, the shoemakers got hold of the section of land that rais- 
 ed all the leather, and there could not be any leather raised any- 
 ijrhere else, and that society had been harnessed with some kind 
 of agreement that gave the owners of that land the title in fee, 
 so that they could say to everybody else, "Keep off Don't you 
 see that, the population growing, it would all have to concentrate 
 in the h^ and coat business and elsewhere. But the shoe busi- 
 ness would be cutting out the shoes in the old quantity, and, hats 
 coming out in double quantity, one pair of shoes would get two 
 hats. They would have the same labor, the same effort, but the 
 monopdy that surrounds this shoemaking industry, that prevents 
 the free flow of effort into that channel, simply banks up an ar- 
 tificial value by operating on the quantity, entirely indifferent 
 to the cost of production. 
 
 By that process, the monopolization of natursCl opportunity in 
 the first place, we have permitted a few of our people to absorb 
 all the profit of all our industry, while the great mass of our 
 people have very little, and we are fulminating against the trust 
 because of the name of it in some cases, and for various undi- 
 gested reasons, but at the bottom the one indictment we can 
 bring against the trust is that it prevents competition, for it is 
 not a trust in any hurtful sense until it can prevent competition, 
 and when it can then it has got us by the throat, and until it can 
 it is as harmless as we are. I propose that the monopoly in na- 
 tural opportunities shall be destroyed; not remedied, but abso- 
 lutely destroyed. I do not believe that title to a single square 
 inch of the face of God^s green earth can be justified anywhere 
 today. There is not a single title of record today that cannot be 
 traced back to gome pihysical giant that either murdered the man 
 
i6 
 
 DE LEON-BERRY DEBATE 
 
 who had it before, or drove him off of it, and kept other people 
 off by force, and took it and wrote the title to it in the blood of 
 his fellows. 
 
 Second, transportation. People cannot exchange their prod- 
 ucts unless they can get together. If there is a chasm between 
 the shoemaker and the hatmaker they cannot produce as special- 
 ists. They cannot do it. They cannot improve. Improvement 
 there is impossible. This man must go back and do everything, 
 and then he never does anything well. Suppose I am permitted 
 by the community to open a road and build a bridge across this 
 chasm, and then I am permitted to sit there and collect toll from 
 the fellow that crosses this way and the fellow that crosses that 
 way. I will get them coming and going, both of them. If I am 
 given a monopoly of transportation, unless there is free entry ol 
 competitive effort in the transportation of goods, the segrega- 
 tion of all the profits on all the industries of people that cross it 
 will finally land in the pockets of the toll-gate keeper. So that 
 I will direct your attention, second, to the evils of the transpor- 
 tation system. 
 
 There is no evil in one of these magnificent locomotives that 
 pull a hundred cars across the Rooky Mountains; nothing wrong 
 about that, nothing wrong about one thousand or ten thousand 
 miles of railway; nothing wrong at all about any of it except 
 monopoly. Whenever you get down to where the prevention of 
 competition enters then^ the devilment enters, so that your atten- 
 tion should be directed to the dissolution of the monopolistic fea- 
 tures of transportation, whatever they are. Open up competition 
 upon it. It is the one thing that wiH cure the .situation. There 
 is still another. This is one I wish 1 bad about an ftiour to talk 
 about. It is not the primary one in point of historic precedence. 
 It is not even secondary, "but While it is tertiary in point of his- 
 toric sequence, it is primary in point of momentary imminence. 
 
 I went into the Eastern penitentiary on the occasion 1 told you 
 about. They led me througih the outside gate and locked it. We 
 went on in. They let us througih the gate of the 'building, took 
 us throufiTh and looked it. We went on in. They took us to an 
 
 i 
 
DE LEON 'BERRY DEBATE 
 
 17 
 
 inner cell apartment, unlocked that, let us in and locked it be- 
 {hind us. There we were with a threefold lock between us and 
 liberty. Suppose we had begun to f ulminate and say, "Here, the 
 ishing that is troubling us here now is the outside gate. It is 
 troubling us. We are not going to get away until we open that 
 gate." Suppose we had said, "It is the gate to the main building 
 that is troubling us. We are never going to get out until we 
 open that." But we will never get to those gates until we unlock 
 the cell door first. The thing that is right next to us, the thing 
 that has got us in such an iron grip today, is the monopoly in 
 currency. That is the thing we are up against today. 
 
 I want to make this statement here and now, without fear of 
 successful contradiction, there is no unwillingly idle man on 
 God's green earth today that does not owe his present inability 
 to find woi^ at profitable wages, wages representing every par- 
 ticle of product that he himself produces, to the monopoly of cur- 
 rency that exists in this country today. I am prepared to de- 
 fend that proposition at length and show you very briefly how it 
 works. We come finally to changing these products around, and 
 pick out one 'of them as the most convenient for a medium of ex- 
 Change, the current commodity, so to speak. By and by we at- 
 tach the power of law to it, and say, "If you owe anybody any- 
 thing this is the tfhing that you have got to get in order to pay 
 it." The minute you do that you do not set up monopoly there, 
 fbut you make possible the most dangerous monopoly that con- 
 fronts the race. Why? Simply for this reason! When you have 
 done that you have set by law a monopoly which prevents the 
 free flow of effort into the production of this particular com- 
 modity, which alone in all the scope of our product is empower- 
 ed to cancel debt. That is, the only way you can get away from 
 a creditor is by coughing up the money. I do not care what else 
 you have got, get the money or you cannot get away from the 
 creditor. Whenever you make it difficult to produce the money, 
 then you make it difficult to get away from the creditor. Let us 
 see where that leads you, especially taking this great jump my 
 friend is obliged to take, down to the present time, where this 
 
i8 
 
 DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 great institution of currency has come to be one of the equival- 
 ents in every exchange. 
 
 One-half of the things that pass from hand to hand in the - 
 world is currency, and when that comes to pass and you are pro- 
 ducing a locomotive, for instance, it is very interesting to see. 
 Visit the Baldwin locomotive works. There is a magnificent 
 locomotive, weighing 150 tons, representing the laibor of probably 
 thousands of men. Probably a hundred thousand men in differ- 
 ent ways had something to do with the manufacture of that 
 great machine. There it was, ready to be put on the market. 
 There was not a man that had anything at all to do with it from 
 its very inception in the bowels of the earth as iron ore until its 
 final delivery into the hands of the engineer, but what got a 
 piece of money for his efforts. Laibor, money. Material, monej''. 
 Everything weighed against money in that proposition, so that 
 finally w^hen the locomotive was ready to be put on the market 
 it owed the Baldwin locomotive works a certain amount of 
 money, and that money must be secured for it or the locomotive 
 works cannot run. Anybody that has ever tried to run a factory 
 — I do not make locomotives, 'but I tell you I maJke mud-bricik, 
 and you cannot make such a simp'le thing as mud-brick without 
 paying money to somebody every time you turn over in bed. Ev- 
 ery time you have a brick made ^'^ou have to get a certain, 
 amount of money for that brick when you sell it, or you are go- 
 ing to the sheriff. I do not care what your business is. What 
 is it that determines the amount of money that I will secure 
 for the brick, or that Mr. Baldwin will secure for 
 the locomotive? Not the cost of making brick? Oh, my, no. Not 
 the cost of making the locomotive ? Oh, my, no, by no means, not 
 now or ever. 
 
 The thing that determines how mudh money will be exchang- 
 ed for the locomotive will depend entirely upon the numlber of 
 locomotives that are in the market offered for money, as com- 
 pared to the amount of money, on the other hand, that is offer- 
 ed for locomotives. That is what will determine how muc'h the 
 locomotive brings in the market. Then you discover, as every 
 
DE LEON^BERRY DEBATE 
 
 19 
 
 manufacturer in fiie knoWn world has discovered over and over 
 ag-ain, that if you let your people work all the time in the loco- 
 jnotive shop or in the bric^kyard or anywhere else, you will get 
 more of this kind of stock than that fellow is getting of Ihis, and 
 the first thing you know a locomotive costing you $20,000 to- 
 m^ke, you have to sell for $15,000. Then the sheriff looms up as 
 big as the Whole horizon. Your speed of money production 
 is determined by lav/, and when you have limited that the nec- 
 essity rests upon every man to limit the production of locomo- 
 tives and of everything else, and lays hack upon the whole race 
 the necessity of restraining effort, and >sets up something that 
 people miscall competition. They tell me that the people who» 
 stand around the gates of the locomotive works fighting one 
 another for the first chance to get in there and bidding against 
 one another to get the job at a less and less wage, are compet- 
 ing. No, no, no more like competition than day is like night. 
 That is war, arid war is hell and nothing but hell, and there is 
 more of it in that contest than there is in the clinch of armed 
 forces, and it is 'set up solely by reason of the presence of mon- 
 opoly. 
 
 SECOND SPEECH. 
 DANIEL DE LEON. 
 
 My audience will remember that I stated in the course of my 
 opening that the lav/ of value which Socialistic science has, is a 
 rock against which the capitalist forces have wisely addressed 
 their efforts. My distinguished opponent proved that proposi- 
 tion. I also stated that against that rock all opposition has dash- 
 ed its head. I think I can prove to you that my distinguished ad- 
 versary proved that point, too. 
 
 My distinguished adversary denied that law of value which 
 says that the amount of labor crystallized in a commodity estab- 
 lishes its exchange-value. He said exdhange-value is established 
 by supply and demand. Now listen, men and v/omen. If supply 
 and demand establish value it fallows, for instance, that if I pull 
 with my left hand with 40-pound force and with my rig'ht hand 
 
20 
 
 DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 with 10-pound force upon a pendulum, that pendulum will lean 
 toward the left hand. If I pull with my right hand with 50- 
 pound force and with my left hand with 20-pound force, the pen- 
 dulum will swing toward my right. Supply and demand means 
 that the larger the soipply in relation to the demand the lower 
 is the value, and the lower the sup'p'ly the higher is th»e vailue. In 
 other words, if the supply is 50 pounds, Which I take in my left, 
 and the demand is only 20, the value would he toward my left 
 Ihand. If toward my rig^ht hand the supply is 100 
 pounds and from my left side the demand is only 10; 
 the price would be so muah lower because the supply is so 
 muc^h higher. All right, but suppose supply and demand cancel 
 each other. Suppose the supply and the deman'd are even. What 
 becomes of value ? Does it vanish ? No. If I pull with 50-pound 
 force that pendulum with my right hand and pull it back with 
 10-pound force with my left hand, the pendulum will oscillate to 
 my right, but if with my right I pull with lO^pound force and 
 with my left I pull with 10-pound force, according to that rea- 
 soning the pendulum would fly into the air. No, the pendulum 
 will swing obedient to the law of gravity. The law of supply and 
 demand explains nothing at all because if the elements of sup- 
 ply and demand equal eadh other, wihat becomes of value ? That 
 value is dependent upon the amount of labor power that crystal- 
 lizes in it. I thirtk that point is made clear. 
 
 My distingui^ed friend said that monopoly is the trouble. He 
 said that monopoly means that the free flow of effort is prevent- 
 ed. I admit that, and I showed why — what it is that brings that 
 about, namely, that law of industry that produces all that improv- 
 ed machinery, which excludes the man who has not got it. He 
 said that competition is the remedy, that whatever promotes 
 competition will destroy that monopoly. He said there is no 
 trust until competition is prevented. Then he started to tell us 
 what were the causes of monopoly. He began with land. It is 
 true he mentioned railroads and it is true he mentioned money. 
 The money subject is one which needs a special address, but he 
 began with land monopoly and argued that if a person appro- 
 
DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 21 
 
 priates a certain portion of the earth that is the foundation of 
 all monopoly. According to him, after having made that as a 
 condition, money and railroads have not any rope left. K the 
 ownership of land is what produces monopoly, and if the owner 
 of that land can tell the other fellow to get off the earth, why 
 cannot the owner of that land tell the moneyed man and the rail- 
 road man to get off the earth? That is the single tax theory, a 
 theory which has to be taken separately and will be the subject 
 of an address. All I can do in the fifteen minutes left to me is 
 to puncture that bladder. I will show it to you. 
 
 I again repeat, I take it for granted most of you have had a 
 college education. You know the language, the importance of 
 language in determining certain facts and the significance 
 thereof. It is through philology alone, language, that we can 
 trace the stages of our progress. When our ancestors migTated 
 from Asia, one branch went into Italy and another went into 
 Germany. Philology tells us that. Philology may help in this 
 case to prevent this absurdity of the single tax from extending 
 any further. I say to you that there is nothing in that theory of 
 land being the source of monopoly. Conjure to yourselves some 
 of the leading Revolutionary Fathers. Conjure to yourself the 
 most eminent of them all, Benjamin Franklin. Conjure before 
 you the most brilliant, Thomas Jefferson. Conjure 'before you 
 the profoundest, James Madison. Ask them, "Did you hear that 
 so-and-so was land-poor?" Imagine the statement. They would 
 not know what that meant. They would say, **Man, you are 
 crazy. Land-poor is a contradiction of terms. He who has land 
 cannot be poor." That was the condition then. Today we have 
 the tetrm land-'poor, a term that show's that the thing exists, that 
 a man can have land and yet be poor as Job. Between the land 
 and natural opportunity lias arisen the tool of production, the 
 trust monopoly of production. Philology rig'ht here comes to our 
 assistance and tells us of this change in conditions, of that 
 change in conditions whidh existed at the time of the Revolu- 
 tionary Fathers, when, land being all that was necessary, the 
 term land^poor did not exist; whereas today, wSxen land is no 
 
22 
 
 DE LEON 'BERRY DEBATE 
 
 longer the foundation for monopoly, when between land and na* 
 
 turai opportunity has arisen the tool of production, that gigan- 
 tic, perfected contrivance called the trust, land has taken a back 
 seat. There was a time, according to the single taxers, when 
 vvhite parasols and elephants mad with pride went with the title 
 to land. Today we have white parasols and elephants mad with, 
 pride that are no longer in the possession of the landlord. They 
 are in the possession of the capitalist lord. He owns them, and 
 the landlord has passed the sceptre over to the capitalist who 
 owns the capital, and owning the capital, owns the land, because 
 without that capital the land is inaccessible to him, inaccessible 
 because of the law of exchange value that renders the labor of 
 him who has not the necessary capital unproductive. That much 
 for land monopoly. 
 
 As to the money monopoly, it falls together with the land 
 monopoly. We had Crusoe referred to, a favorite authority with 
 single taxers. I refer all of you, including my distinguished ad- 
 versary, to the other works of the author of "Robinson Crusoe," 
 namely Daniel Defoe. He wrote "Robinson Crusoe," but he also 
 wrote "Dilwoi^th." If I were a single taxer Crusoe would be the 
 last man I would mention, because he reminds us of Daniel De- 
 foe, and the mention of Daniel Defoe reminds us of his work 
 which knocks the single tax sky high. I refer you to his great 
 work, "Captain Jack." He v/as one of the grand men of Eng- 
 land and was sent over here under indenture, virtually a slave, 
 and had to work seven years for his master. But his master lov- 
 ed him and appreciated him and said to him one day, "Jack, you 
 have served me faithfully for a couple of years. I don't want to 
 have you to sen^e me any more. I have lots of land. Beyond is 
 all the land you v/ant. Go there and help yourself." The author 
 of Robinson Crusoe says Captain Jack fell upon his knees before 
 his master and said, "Master, what have I done to you that you 
 treat me like that? What can I do without the implements of 
 production? I cannot help myself." 
 
 Daniel Defoe is the m.an who knocked out the single tax. 
 He lived at a time when that vagary came up, and it was perfectly 
 
DE LEON-BERRY DEBATE 
 
 23j 
 
 logical it should com^ up, because right here I want to say to 
 you that taxation is a badge of servitude. He who taxes is mas- 
 ter. He \v<ho is taxed is slave. The feudal lords owned the land,, 
 consequently the land was not taxed. The movable property of 
 the bourgeois was taxed. When the bourgeois made a revolu- 
 tion they turned the tables on the feudal lords and said, "Our 
 property shall not be taxaible. Your land shall bear all taxes." 
 Take any given land as a pledge, free that man, and leave cap- 
 ital in the hands of the capitalists, and the capitalists will have 
 the whole sway. Listen to those who claim that land monopoly 
 is the foundation of all. Do you thinik when a farmer puts a 
 mortgage on his land he does so because he thinks a mortgage 
 is like a flower-pot ? No, it is the law of exchange-value that 
 renders it impossible for him to produce, with as little effort, as 
 plentifully as a fellow who has a reaper and other instruments 
 of production. As he is bankrupt, he goes cap in hand. He, at 
 one time the holder of the white parasol and elephant mad with 
 pride, goes to the banker. The banker looks him all over the 
 same as the feudal lord looked at the bourgeois. He asks him 
 many questions so as to make sure. When that landlord, the 
 owner of that foundation and groundwork of all monopoly, has 
 passed muster with the banker, then the banker puts another 
 rope around his neck and gets a mortgage whereby the banker 
 becomes really the owner of the land and the farmer becomes 
 his slave. He becomes a slave for the capital that the farmer 
 needs to produce with. 
 
 I think I covered the matter of money. I have here a memor- 
 andum w^idh I shall refer to for a moment. My friend said 
 profit-making is the grandest thing in creation. Every capital- 
 ist w^ill agree with that. The social revolutionist says, ^*Nay, 
 nay; it is a crime." It was a necessary crime. It was a crimo 
 which was incident to that development of the tool until v/e 
 reached the time when production was perfected by the trust. 
 What is profit? Profit is that amount of wealth wihidh the 
 wage slave yields over and above his market price. If the 
 workingman's market price is $1 a day then $1 he gets, and 
 
24 
 
 DE LEON 'BERRY DEBATE 
 
 I>roifit is everything that the capitalist can squeeze out of him 
 as use value. Profit means unpaid laibor. Profit means that 
 portion of wealth that humanity 'has sweated and whieh is found 
 in the pockets of the few. It means wholesale and legalized 
 theft, and (how anybody can invdke aid in support of such a thing 
 passes my understanding. 
 
 SECOND SPEECH. 
 WILLIAM H. BERRY. 
 
 I am very much interested in my brother's effort, especially 
 in this matter of profit. I want to pay attention, however, to 
 his illustration of the operation of the law of supply and de- 
 mand. There is nothing so illustrative or so apt as a good illus- 
 tration. The tug of war between two contending forces does not 
 illustrate the phenomena of supply and demand, at all. What 
 I widh to do is to give you now the real illustration of the law 
 of supply and demand. It is not an easy thing to do. There are 
 not very many operations that may be cited. That probably is 
 the reason my good brother has skipped them all. I know of but 
 one. It is the contention between the force of gravity on the 
 one hand, whidh tends to pull a balloon down, and tbe buoyancy 
 of the atmosphere on the other hand, which tends to raise it up. 
 As the altitude of the balloon increases, the buoyancy of the at- 
 mosplhere decreases by reason 'of the increasing rarity. Just so, 
 as the value of an article increases, the demand gradually de- 
 creases by reason of the inaccessibility, the inability of men to 
 compete for it, and if it were to rest in that position it does not 
 go up in the air even then. It has a point where the equilibri- 
 um between the contending forces of gravity on the one hand, 
 or supply, tends to pull it down, and the -buoyancy of the atmos- 
 phere, paralleling the force of demand, on the other hand, tends 
 to raise it up, and whenever they come to a balance there it 
 rests. Some things will range higher than others, but the fact 
 that they have a fixed place in the scale of values does not af- 
 firm for a minute that they are off the map. They are there 
 just the same. They are there resisting two contending forces. 
 
DE LEON-BERRY DEBATE 
 
 2S 
 
 This would even be true of a couple of teams pulling on a 
 weig'ht with equal force. The fact that the forces are equalized 
 does not take the weight off the map by any means. The weight 
 is rigiht there. The equilibrium of forces simply determines 
 where the weight will rest. If the force on one hand is stronger 
 than the other it will pull it over there, but the right place and 
 the best place to bring it is in a vertical movement, because we 
 usually think of things very valuable as being high. It is a mere 
 matter of thinking, so the parallel might better be taken that 
 way. The contention of the forces of supply and demand always 
 did and always will determine the question of value, and the dis- 
 tribution of profit is the result of the contending forces of sup- 
 ply and demand. 
 
 As to the mal-distribution of the profits of industry, whatev- 
 er my friend may say to the contrary, I think the profit upon 
 anything is the difference between what it cost to produce it 
 and what you get for it. That is the profit. The difference be- 
 tween what it costs you to make an article and what you get for 
 it is the profit, and if profits were equally distributed there 
 would be no trouble. The difficulty is that they are unequally 
 distributed. I want to tell you that ia man Who has a factory 
 and is not a landlord is in bad shape. The man who does not own 
 the ground his capital rests on is in bad shape. If there is m> 
 other ground to take it to the landlord will eat him up. That is 
 easy to see, but I want to talk about this mal-distribution of this 
 profit. That is the whole problem. It is the law of supply and 
 demand. In other words, it is the law of human freedom. 
 
 I want to tell you I would rather have some hard times and 
 be free than live in luxury a slave. I have not any use for the 
 slavery I see in the Socialist program. What is the trouible? 
 This man has a factory. I want to tell you something. He is 
 the most miserable of all men if he *has to go into a labor mar- 
 ket where the demand for labor is greater than the supply. Just 
 think a minute. I have got a dhoe factory. I want to hire men. 
 I go out into the market w'here there are two jobs hunting for 
 one man. Let that situation persist for any length of time ia 
 
26 
 
 DE LEON 'BERRY DEBATE 
 
 your locality, and the first thing you iknow the working man will 
 be making as much profit as the man that o^;ms the factory and 
 may<be a little more. In most cases today, even in this imper- 
 fect system, that is the case. I can cite you cases without num- 
 ber in wihidh the workman gets more than he produces day in 
 and day out for months together, and finally the sheriff takes 
 the factory not infrequently. Seventy-five per cent, of people 
 that go into productive enterprises get that handed to them be- 
 fore they are done with it. Seventy-five per cent, go to the 
 sheriff. Why ? Because the woi kingman gets more than he pro- 
 duces. When he fails to get it (and in the long run he does fail 
 to get it), he does not get his own by any means. When he does 
 fail to get it it is simply because the man who wants to hire him 
 goes into a congested labor market where the law of supply and 
 demand sets up conditions in which two men are hunting for one 
 job, in which case always and everywhere the workingman v/ill 
 get the worst end of the proposition. He is sure to get less than 
 is coming to him. 
 
 ^^^y is there an idle man ? That is the question. Most of the 
 Socialists who have discussed this question with me attempted 
 to tell US why. Mr. Kirkpatrick, I think, the last time he v/as 
 here, told us the workman does not get all that he produces be- 
 cause he does not get all that he produces, and he showed it to 
 us beyond peradventure that that v/as true. A man does not 
 get all he produces because he does not get all he produces. I 
 cannot see any sense in that and never could, Ibut I can see the 
 reason why the workingman is in a congested market, Why two 
 men are hunting for one job. Whenever a locomotive works 
 sees that the price of its locomotives is going down, there is on- 
 ly one thing for the locomotive man to do to save himself from 
 the sheriff^ and that is to shut down the locomotive factory and 
 stop making locomotives, stop building the product. That is 
 what he does, and why does he do it? Not because we do not 
 want locomotives. James G. Hill said not a great wlhile ago the 
 railroads of this country today need $5,000,000,000 for extension 
 of the railways of this nation. Thousands upon thousands of 
 
DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 27 
 
 iliocjomotives are in immediate demand in this nation today, yet 
 our locomotive makers dare not make them beyond a certain 
 speed. Why ? If they do the price goes down and the sheriff 
 takes the locomotive worlds-. That is the reason. 
 
 The land question is a fundamental question. The landlord is 
 on the job; don't think he is not. But I am not ihere to tell you 
 that the land question is the only question, by any means. I tried 
 to explain to you that it is only the outside gate. It is the gate 
 to the wall of the prison. You will never 'be free until you cor- 
 rect it. The gate that leads you into the prison yard and out af 
 the huiiding is the transportation question; but the cell door, th^ 
 door that has got you in its grip at this minute all over the 
 civilized world, is the currency monopoly. The money people 
 have got you tied down until you cannot get to the outside door. 
 The first thing you have to decide is, what are you going to do 
 with tliis currency question? It is nothing new. Five hundred 
 years before the dawn of the Christian era the Prophet Amos 
 called dovm the wrath of Jehovah upon Israel because they had 
 made the ephalh small and the shekel great. How had they 
 made the shekel great? By making it scarce, isetting up mon- 
 opoly around it. They caused the poor of the land to fail. How? 
 By making two of them beg for one job. The same old story. 
 It is as old as the race and just as potent today as it ever was. 
 
 Inch by inch the coils of this monopoly contract. The land- 
 lord even comes up to the banker. Why, even the landlord to- 
 day when he comes up to the banker has got his hands full. He 
 is up against it for fair, as the boys v/ould say, when he meets a 
 banker. I want to warn you tonight, rny friends. I went to a 
 moving picture show in Pittsburgh not a great while ago. I waa 
 not much interested in the moving pictures hut they had a fel- 
 low that swung a lariat. I am always interested in that. I came 
 from the Western country myself. He was the most expert ar-^ 
 tist with a rope that I ever saw. He stood his assistant on the 
 back end of the stage and swung the lariat over and put it 
 around his ankles and jerked it up, and then one half -hitch after 
 anothei' ran along. It flew over the assistant's head, like get 
 
28 
 
 DE LEON 'BERRY DEBATE 
 
 ting a fish hook on a line, one half -hitch after another until he 
 had every limb tied, and at last he wrapped it around his neck. 
 I tell you the question here is the use of the rope in this atmos- 
 phere of ours today* Hitch after hitch, half-hitcih after half- 
 hitdh, is coming and the final ringer they call tihe Aldrich Bill. 
 Look out for it. If they land that it is all up. Let them land 
 that final half Jhitch and the poor landlord and the poor manu- 
 facturer, no matter who it is, his name is Dennis. He is finish- 
 ed if ever you allow that last Wtch. 
 
 But what I want to get bac^k to, for all these tfliings are im- 
 material to me, is the proposition I started out with. Let me 
 tell you unless we can have free men we cannot lhave men at all. 
 I can see an inherent difficulty in the. Socialist program, neces- 
 sarily so. Grant that we shall own indiscriminately these in- 
 dustries. By some process or other you determine who shall 
 run them. Somebody has got to do it. You have got to let us 
 compete with one another for the opportunity to manage that 
 thing, by which process alone in my judgment can you ever de- 
 termine who is the best man to do it. The men best capable of 
 doing it are doing it today. The men at the head of these great 
 institutions got there, not in every case but in most cases, be- 
 cause they were the men of the hour. They got there by reason 
 of qualifications, through competitive methods. Sometimes they 
 did not, but after they got there they put it over us. How are 
 you going to get it ? You are going to get it in one of two 
 ways. You are either going to let us compete for 
 those jobs, or you are going to elect somebody at the liead of 
 the situation whose business it will be to say to me, ^*Berry, you 
 run that thing. Brother De Leon, you run that one." "But I 
 object." "Never mind, now. This has got to be run. There are 
 not enough of these. You come over here and run it." You 
 must either let me choose that or choose for me, one of the two. 
 
 That difficulty inheres in every fibre of the Socialist pro- 
 gram. As a practical method of operation, you must either let 
 me choose or dhoose for me, one of the two. If you let me 
 choose, that is competition. That is human freedom. If you 
 
DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 29 
 
 choose tot me that is slavery. 'I do not care who the chooser is. 
 I do not care whether I help to elect him or not. I am a slave 
 just the same. If there was any necessity for it I would submit 
 to it, but I insist there is no necessity. I insist that all we have 
 to do is to undo this monopoly that we have allowed to grow 
 thus far and set our industries free. If a man is down in a well 
 the vmY out is isp, not down. The further you dig down the 
 worse you get. Socialism leads you further down in this thing, 
 for wiiat is monopoly ? \Wat is the 'hurtful thing about it ? 
 Nothing but the infringement of human freedom, that is all. 
 Nothing but the slavery of man is involved in monopoly. That 
 we do not like. Monopoly is slavery to whatever extent it ex- 
 ists, and that is what we hate about it. When you begin to ex- 
 tend the system then you take away from every one of us the 
 very thing that made the civilization of which we are so proud 
 and Which is our boast. 
 
 THIRD SPEECH. 
 DANIEL DE LEON. 
 
 My distinguislied adversary denied my symbol of supply 
 and demand, that is, the opposing forces, and said the real com- 
 parison is the law of gravitation as it affects things up* and 
 down. I v/ill prove to you that that comparison of Ms will not 
 fit, for the reason that the law of gravitation is a permanent 
 thing, always there, always with the same force, whereas de- 
 mand is not always there with the same force, and supply is not 
 always there with the same force. Consequently, the thing that 
 puts value upon them must be a thing that is changeable. What 
 is changeable? Supply and demand, and I have showm with my 
 illustration that the forces which I imagined, are changeable. The 
 compaTiison of gravity will not hold water for the reason that 
 gravity is not a changeable force. It remains permanent. 
 
 Number 2. My distinguished adversary said that profit is the 
 difference betv/een the cost of production and what you get for 
 it. If that is true, then profit is cheatimg. K a thing costs me 
 $6 and I get $20 I 'have stuck the purchaser. That is not profit. 
 
30 
 
 DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 The man who makes profit does not cheat the purchaser. He re- 
 covers the value of the goods that he sold. The one who is cheat- 
 ed is the workman. He was not paid, and the capitalist gets 
 that swag. The oiiher definition of profit is typical of the cap- 
 italistic mind. The capitalist actually (believes that (Cheating is 
 what does it. No, some capitalists cheat, tbut society could not 
 last upon that basis. Capitalists give value for w*hat they get, 
 but the value they give for the money they get get is not the 
 value that they pay Lahor for. The wor'kman is cheated. The 
 workman does not get all his produce. Of course, not. The law 
 of exchange-value, whidh is an illustration of supply and de- 
 mand, only confirms the statement. That explains why the 
 worker does not get all that he produces. The socially 
 necessary tool of production is not his. That socially 
 necessary tool is in the hands of a private concern, and 
 it needs the tool which can produce as plentifully as 
 the trost; that is what is meant by the socially nec- 
 essary tool. Since he has not got that he has to go and sell 
 himself in wage slavery, and wage slavery means selling oneself 
 as a commodity. The workman today is nothing but a commodi- 
 ty, and he gets his price, which is determined by supply and de- 
 mand — the price, not the value. His value is vastly higher, but 
 his price is determined by supply and demand. The tool throwsi 
 more and more capitalists out of the capitalist class into' the 
 lower class. The supply becomes larger. The demand does not 
 rise in proportion, and the workman does not get what he pro- 
 
 We have been told Socialism is slavery and the workman 
 makes more than the capitalist. How could there be a capitalist 
 under Socialism? It is like telling us through the Revolutionary 
 days that there would be no freedom in America after King 
 George was kicked out, because the Revolutionary Fathers and 
 the citizens of these colonies would ibe trampled upon by the 
 British Crown. How can the British Crown trample after it is 
 kicked out? When the capitalist class has been aholished by ap- 
 propriation by the people of that which by rig'ht is theirs — ^that 
 which they cannot exist without except as slaves 'of the capital- 
 
DE LEON-BERRY DEBATE 
 
 ist class — then for the first time in creation a revolution takes 
 place in which the victorious class will not hang that class which 
 it overthrows, but in which it will enable that class to earn an 
 honest living by going to work. I realize there is nothing for the 
 capitalist. I realize it seems almost like servitude to him that 
 capital cuts no figure, but he will be given an opportunity. The 
 revolutionary class will do that. 
 
 When my distinguished adversary says many workmen get 
 more than the capitalist, I would like to know if he will accept 
 my amendment. Many a capitalist cannot continue to sikin his 
 workingmen of part of what they produce, although he is get^ 
 ting more. I admit it. That is so because that capitalist is pro- 
 ducing with tools inferior to other capitalists and he is ground 
 between the upper and nether millstones. The capitalist's tools 
 fail to produce as cheaply as those of the other capitalists, and 
 the result is that he cannot continue to exist. He goes into 
 bankruptcy, but it is not because the workman got more than 
 *he. There is no such capitalist in existence.. If you find any 
 Siuoh in Philadelphia my advice to you is to grab him, pinion 'him 
 and put him in a hall on exhibition. 
 
 We were told a good deal about money. My distinguished ad- 
 versary gave up his theory that land was the foundation of mon- 
 opoly. Instead of being the foundation it wais the back gate. I 
 congratulate him on the progress he has made. What is money? 
 I cannot go into that broad subject. Money is a necessary thing 
 under a social system that produces for sale and not for use. 
 Given that production for sale, with the law of value working 
 under it, and you must have money, and you kick against that 
 as a barricade. The ground and foundation of the theory whic^h 
 I mentioned was this private tool of production. Remove that 
 and there is no money anymore. Money vanishes absolutely, 
 such a thing as metallic money. We saw yesterday that about 
 $5,000,000 of gold coin bad to be Shipped bodily to the Argentine 
 Republic. Such a thing is evidence of the absurdity of our pres- 
 ent social -system. It is not gold used for t/he arts or sciences. 
 
32 
 
 DE LEON^BERRY DEBATE 
 
 It is ^old used for exchange, and exchange under this condition 
 has to be by means of money with all the evils my friend refer- 
 red to. Remove that method of production, overthrow the politi- 
 cal State, estaiblish the Co-operative Commonwealth or Indus- 
 trial Republic, and money collapses as completely as I would 
 drop to the center of the earth if this stage broke down and a 
 vacuum took its place, leaving me down below. There is no sense 
 in animadverting on money. Of course, it is bad, but how fool- 
 ish it is to scratch at a pimple that has broken out on the hand 
 that is getting more and more sore, instead of making the blood 
 healthy, so that the pimple will disappear. You can go on pick- 
 ing at that pimple as much as you like, you cannot pick it out. 
 Money is one of those pimples on the social body. 
 
 My opponent says unless we can have free men we can have 
 no men at all. That I accept. The question is, what is freedom? 
 Freedom is that condition of society in which a man can work 
 when he pleases, at what he pleases, and keep all that he pro- 
 duces. The great way to get that is to overthrow the political 
 State and establish the Socialist Industrial Co-operative Com- 
 monwealth. Today there can be no freedom. Money and the 
 banker are neces'sities of the capitalist State. Today men are 
 slaves because they produce more than they get. That is tha 
 condition of slavery, and of course, under those conditions we 
 have no men. That is why we have this condition of unrest in 
 the country. 
 
 The men at the head of institutions today we are told are men 
 who know best. I would like to know what man at the head of 
 an institution is -doing any work. I have looked into that ques- 
 tion. Very few of the institutions of the land that are worth 
 mentioning are not run by wage slaves. Some get pretty good 
 wages and others lower wages, but the men who own the insti- 
 tutions are not running anything. They are spending their time 
 in Europe with fast horses and faster women. They are v/ast- 
 ing their substance. They are not running the country or the 
 institutions. Those who do run the institutions are sm.all bour- 
 geois who a.re still trying to save themelves, but the big capital- 
 ist will take care of them. 
 
DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 33 
 
 As to his plan of Socialism, I cannot see any Socialism but as 
 I have described. I can assure you that if Socialism were the 
 kind of thing my distinguished friend perhaps thinks it is, the 
 thing v/hich he described, I would not advocate it. It is ail the 
 single tax theory we have heard so often, that under Socialism 
 the State will order me what ikind of handkerchiefs I shall use 
 to Od»1ow my patriotic nose with. Socialism is nothing of the sort. 
 Under Socialism the opportunity for work is there and no one 
 can live unless he works. People will go to work. A man will 
 be anxious to work two or three hours a day gladly if he is go- 
 ing to keep all that he produces. There will be no danger of 
 anybody dictating to him. He is going to dhoose for himself. 
 
 THIRD SPEECH. 
 WILLIAM H. BERRY. 
 
 I shall refer for a moment to what my distinguished oppon- 
 ent thinks is the exceedingly insignificant currency question. It 
 amuses me. I apprehend that when he will have amputated that 
 excrescence he will discover himself somewhat in the condition 
 of the young surgeon who had a very important case. The pa- 
 tient had a tumor,. and he performed an operation and removed 
 it, and he was hragging to his fellow professionals on the sub- 
 ject. He told them that the tumor weighed 120 pounds and the 
 patient only weighed 60 after the tumor was removed. He was 
 asked, "Did you save the patient?^' "Oh, no," he said, "I saved 
 the tumor." I rather fear after this cura:*ency proposition is 
 eliminated that you will discover that it is something more than 
 a mere experience. 
 
 If under the Socialistic system you are permitted to choose 
 your employment, you will undoubtedly find that the 
 easy jobs will be over-chosen and the product 
 will become greatly abundant, and that your fancy 
 notions of the labor value will disappear. Competition 
 will get its nose in the tent, and before you know it the whole 
 canvass inside your Socialistic system is gone if ever you let 
 fellows compete for a job. If you let me dhoose my occupation 
 
34 
 
 DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 I am going to choose the easy thing. You can depend on me for 
 tha,t. I will choose the soft thing. I think a whole lot of other 
 fellows will choose the soft thing, and just as sure as the soft 
 thing is over-chosen just that sure the soft thing will be over- 
 produced. Just that sure it will lose value in spite of everything 
 you can possiMy do or say. If you let that proposition into 
 your game at all it is absolutely gone down the winds. 
 
 I put this proposition. I put it to this audience once before. 
 I think I will do it again, it is so apt. My brother has five min- 
 utes in which he can refute it. Freedom is impossible under a 
 Socialistic system. We have got to have beef cattle. We are 
 going to get them in one of two ways. Either we are going to 
 let people who feel like it choose to raise cattle, or we are go- 
 ing to elect somebody by a 51 per cent vote whose 'business it 
 will be to pick out the people who shall raise cattle. I do not 
 care whidh it is>, but you are going to do one or the other. My 
 theory is that you must let us choose to raise cattle and take the 
 consequence if we overproduce and give cheap (beef once in a 
 while. That is my theory about it, for in that case you have 
 free men. If you do not you put a man who is built for a law- 
 yer in cattle raising. You dio all soirts of violence to 'everything 
 that is valuable in man. After you have the cattle raised you 
 have to have a butcher. You will get him one way or the other. 
 You will either elect a man with a 51 per cent vote whose busi- 
 ness it is to pick out butchers and say, '^We want ten butdhers. 
 Ten butchers is all v/e can have. You are a butcher or nothing," 
 or else you let us compete and have a whole lot of butchers — if 
 it is the thing we like to do, let us do it. We get butchering 
 cheap, and the cheapness will keep us away if we get too many. 
 
 After you get the butchers you have the problem of distribu- 
 tion before you just as big as ever. Who is going to get sirloin 
 and who is going to get inferior portions? You are going to de- 
 termine that in the same way you did the other. You have to do 
 it. There is no escape from it. You have either to elect a man 
 by a 51 per cent vote, whose business it will be to say, "It is 
 your day for shinbone, and. Brother De Leon, it is your day for 
 
DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 35 
 
 sirloin." Either you have got to do that or let us compete, and 
 then the fellow that will give the most for the sirloin will get it; 
 one of the two. I can see perfectly well that there is some ex- 
 travagance in that system. A friend said something to me the 
 other day. We were sitting on my porch and I think aibout sev- 
 en or eight milkmen went by in the course of an hour. He said, 
 '^There is an illustration. Under Socialism you would only have 
 one milkman who would come around here and serve everybody 
 on this street." I said, "Not if I could help it, you would not. 
 I want to dhoO'Se even my milkman. I do not want you to choose 
 him for me. I have a preference in milkmen and would rather 
 pay one man eight cents a quart than pay another man seven. I 
 know it costs more to have six or eight men come along there, 
 but I can beat cheapness to death. It is not cheapness we want, 
 it is freedom we want. That is the thing tbat develops men." 
 
 CLOSING SPEECH. 
 DANIEL DE LEON. 
 
 This debate has closed where some debates would have com- 
 menced. My distinguis'hed adversaiy ihas drawn a picture of 
 Socialism which is a caricature. All I can do is to throw out 
 just one hint. He tells us that the easy job will be over-chosen 
 and he v/ill choose the soft job. Do you know anybody who 
 chooses the hard job today? I do not. The difference between 
 the Socialist commonwealth and the present capitalistic com- 
 monwealth is that today the hardest jobs have to l)e chosen com- 
 pulsorily by those who need some kind <xf a job, and they get paid 
 in proportion to the supply of applicants for those jobs. Under 
 Socialism the principle is entirely different, but to give you the 
 fundamental principle for that would need ihalf an Qiour and I 
 have not got it, so I can only give you the concluding principle. 
 Under Socialism, if there is an over-supply, say of conductors 
 of cars, it would be an implication tliat there is less fibre spent, 
 less laJbor power consumed in condxicting a car, and the conse- 
 quence would be that the hours of those men would ihave to be 
 longer than the hours of Iflie men who applied for jobs that are 
 
36 
 
 DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 disaga^eable* It is the appIicatioTi of the law of exchange value 
 to whicih I referred at the beginning of my address, as the dyna- 
 mo under capitalist society. It is the application of that. There 
 is, and I orepeat it, nobody today looking gladly for a hard job. 
 People take whatever job is open to them. 
 
 My distinguis^hed friend referred to himself as a brickmaker. 
 He will allow me to say I diO not believe he chose brickmaking be- 
 cause he loved bricks. He chose brickmaking because he thought 
 he would make more money according to his theory, getting more 
 than 'he expended in getting it. I do not believe in a civilized 
 community a gentleman with his shape of head would adopt sudh 
 miserable work and spend his life upon making 'bricks. That can 
 be done in a few hours and he devote his talents to other things. 
 
 I refer to fhis often repeated caricature of Socialism, which 
 shows he does not grasp the law of exchange-value. He says, 
 first, that soft jobs will be over-crowded; secondly, the supply 
 will be excessive. That does not hold. I repeat it, in proportion 
 to the supply of labor for a certain thing you can tell Whether 
 much or little fibre is expended in its production, and the relative 
 supply for this, that and the other job establis)hes the numaber of 
 hours that are equivalent with this condition. Then we would 
 lhave long hours m^yhe for some on account of the work being 
 pleasant, and have short hours for others, but the hours of one 
 cannot exceed the necessary hours for physical exercise, for the 
 reason that the productivity of the Commonwealth will ?oe so 
 much larger. 
 
 I will use my closing minutes with a rapid survey of the posi- 
 tion. The proposition, the trusit proposition, the back gate or the 
 foundation of the land, and ail these various things, you cannot 
 approach and cannot understand unless you grasp the law of ex- 
 change-value. That law of exchange-value disables the man 
 who does not own the best machinery for his form -of work. That 
 determines the usefulness of the trust as the best implement 
 possible, and just as soon as the trust presents itself then the 
 decree of civilization is that the trust shall be saved, and that it 
 shall be saved in the only way it can be saved, namely, by bring- 
 
DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 37 
 
 ing sode^ty to that conidition from wihi<sh our ancestors mov^d 
 when they had to enter into the valley lof the shadow of death 
 of capitalism, leaving communism behind. 
 
 We have to rear that social system in wlhich the government 
 consists of the people wiho are dlirecting production instead of 
 the people whose sole worik must be to cheat the underlings un- 
 der them. We must Ihave a social system which outlines with 
 the truth, and only tha,t is true wihich fits all the facts, the fact 
 of the law of exchange-value, the fact of the necessity of the 
 most perfect tool, the fact that tha,t mosft perfect tool of today, 
 the trust, rings the knell of political government and ushers in 
 the government of representatives of industrial occupations, 
 rhat proposition fits all the facts, and as it fits all the facts the 
 Socialists work along that line. As far as I know, there is no 
 other movement that is making any progress. All others grow 
 like cows, tail down toward the earth. 
 
 THE OHAIRiMAN. 
 
 The debate between the speakers is mow closed. When we 
 came we expected to hear Socialism as (a cure for the trust. We 
 have heard very little about trusts and a great deal about ^So- 
 cialism pro and con. I rather thought the proposition might 
 have been announced that the formation of the trus^t was only a 
 step toward the introduction of Socialism. That is a proposition 
 which is quite open to debate, and wOi:ich is very interesting, but 
 it is too late to open that now. 
 
 According to the custom of these meetings, I will state that 
 it is mow open for any one to ask any relevant question of either 
 of the speakers, but in this we follow «a rule which I believe has 
 been announced by both speakers in their objection to monopoly, 
 so that no lady or gentleman is expected to ask more than one 
 question or to take more than two minutes in presenting the 
 question, and then the speaker will answer it. 
 
 A GENTLEMAN. I would like to ask Mr. Berry, wfhy sihould 
 the discipline of an industrial government be less desirable than 
 the discipline of the armies that have fougiht for political free- 
 
38 
 
 DE LEON'BERRY DEBATE 
 
 dom. 
 
 MR. BERRY. I presume discipline is a necesisity of all or- 
 ganizationis. This thougiht would lead me into a very large dis- 
 cusision if I were to follow it. I d!o not Ibelieve in armies at all. 
 I think the most ridiculous thing on the face lof the earth today 
 are those armies we ar-e mobilizing for various purposes. I be- 
 lieve that they could not be recruited if we had mionopoly elimin- 
 ated at the bottom, and a condition set up where the demand for 
 labor in productive enterprises would always and everywhere ex- 
 ceed the supply. Ylou could not hire a man to go to war if he 
 oould always do better at home than he can in war. Therefore, 
 I question the whole proposition of discipline. I know perfect- 
 ly well, as a manager of a productive enterprise, that a man who 
 oo-ordinates an enterprise must have control of it, but that con- 
 triol of it must be with free, independent men. Competition is 
 reprehensible only when it is of the jug-handle tjrpe, when it is 
 all on one side, when the employer does not have to compete* 
 and the empJoye does. When competition is like a loving cup 
 that we pass around at our various functions, and has a handle 
 on both sides of it, then there is nothing the matter with com- 
 petition, and then discipline is quite a different thing from 
 what ordinarily arises in one's mind in thinking aibout it. 
 
 A GENTLEMAN. How can a trust, or even Socialism, savei 
 the family or even the State? He was saying about there being 
 no money. 
 
 THE CHAIRMAN. To whom is the question addressed? 
 
 THE GENTLEMAN. To Professor De Leon. 
 
 MR. DE LEON. The question is, how can the trust or Social- 
 ism save the family or State ? I do not understand the question. 
 
 THE GENTLEMAN. You said wipe out state lines. 
 
 MR. DE LEON. Yes, wipe out state lines and establish in lieu 
 of state lines the industries, representatives of industry. How 
 will that save the family? 
 
 THE GENTLEMAN. They say Socialism Ibreaks up the fam- 
 ily. I always heard that it would lead to free love. They do not 
 believe in the Bi(ble. 
 
 MR. DE LEON, As far as I can judge, I think the capitalist 
 
DE LEON -BERRY DEBATE 
 
 39 
 
 is the one who breaks up the family. He« sends the husband to 
 look for a job anywhere. He throws the wife in the mar'ket. He 
 grabs children from the cradle. Socialism cannot be worse than 
 that. I do not understand that question. Today the family is 
 smashed by capitalistic conditiions under the private ownership 
 of the tool of production. Overthrow that. Have that which is 
 real Socialism, not State Socialism, — that is not Socialism at all. 
 Overthrow the capitalist sys,tem. Which means organize the in- 
 dustries of the country so that their representatives can meet 
 and make laws for production, and I do not believe there will be^ 
 any wife who will run away into a factory. I do not believe there 
 will 'be any man who will go out West looking for a job. I do not 
 believe there will be any more she-tov/ns in Massachusetts and 
 he-towns in Pennsylvania, a disgrace to civilization. 
 
 How Socialism would destroy the family ? It is one of the 
 slanders of capitalism. You might as well say Socialism will 
 produce ars^on or do anything else, — that men under Socialism 
 will walk on their heads. We have heard such things, but we 
 hear less and less of them. Socialism will save the family. To- 
 day the family does not exist de facta. Ladies will not think I 
 am rude when I say that 1flie best of capitalist 'society recognizes 
 that houses of prostitution cannot be destroyed because under 
 capitalism they are a necessity. 
 
 A GENTLEMAN. I would like to ask Mr. De Leon a ques- 
 tion. With reference to value, he isays that the amount of labor 
 in an article constitutes its value, or determines its value. I 
 would like to ask him whether if he built an ocean steamship on 
 the Rocky Mountains and another in the Delaware River, the one 
 on the Rocky Mountains, which presumably has required a great- 
 er amount of labor to construct than the lone in the Delaware 
 River, would be of greater value than the one in the river. 
 
 MR. DE LEON. If anybody is insane enough to build a steam- 
 boat there he deserves to get stranded on top of the mountain. 
 
 THE GENTLEMAN. The question is the amount of labor 
 power in the article. If the steamboat on the Rocky Mountains 
 required a greater amoimt of labor to produce, would that 
 steamboat then have greater value than the one in the river ? 
 
40 
 
 DE LEON-BERRY DEBATE 
 
 MR. DE LEON. No, that steamboat would have no value at 
 all for it is no oommodity. I said ttiat all commodities have 
 their value dependent upon the amount of social labor necessary 
 for their production. Your isteamboat on the Rocky Mountains, 
 by the very fact of its being built on top of the Rocky Moun- 
 tains, is excluded from the market, is excluded from the category 
 of commodities. It is a freak production, and freak productions 
 have no value. 
 
 THE GENTLEMAN. Then it follows the amount of labor has 
 nothing to do with the value 'of the article. 
 
 MR. DE LEON. Oh, no. If you mean that the amount of la- 
 bor, regardlesis of wihat it is expended on, has nothing to do with 
 value, I stated that myiself . I said the amount of Istbor socially 
 necessary, so that if a man were today to weave with an old- 
 style loom !he would produce about one yard of cloth a week, and 
 that yard of cloth is produced by an instrument that is rejected 
 by society. It is no longer socially necessary, but it is the an- 
 tediluvian labor which we lhave outgrown. To say, therefore, 
 that labor has nothing to do with it is to deny my definition. 
 The value of a commodity depends upon the amount of socially 
 necessary labor power to produce it. It means that the thing 
 muist be a commodity. A steam-boat on top of the Rocky Moun- 
 tains is no commodity. It means it must be produced by socially 
 necessary labor power. The man who spends a whole week iri 
 producing one yard of cloth is not ispending •socially necessary 
 labor, but wasting socially unnecessary laibor power. The thing 
 must be a commodity. It must have a market in which it is to- 
 ibe sold. I am pretty sure a steamiboat on top of the Rocky 
 Mountains has no market. 
 
De Leon-Carmody 
 
 Individualism vs Socialism 
 
 DANIEL DE LEON 
 
 De Leon, dn his inimitable fashion, trains his guns 
 on the "Individualism" heralded by the Capitalist 
 Class and its retainers, and exposes it in its true 
 colors. So effectively did he do it that his oppon- 
 ent abandoned the field completely, and instead of 
 debating "Individualism vs. Socialism,*' used his 
 time to attack Socialism as he conceived of it. The 
 question of confiscation is treated at length by both 
 debaters. 
 
 NEW YORK LABOR NEWS COMPANY 
 
 40 pp. PRICE 10 CENTS 
 
 45 ROSE STREET 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
Woman Under 
 Socialism 
 
 By August Bebel 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL GERMAN OF 
 THE THIRTY-THIRD EDITION BY DANIEL DE LEON. 
 
 The Woman Question is not a question by itself; it is a part 
 of the great social problem. Proceeding along this line, Bebel's 
 work is an exhaustive analysis of the economic position of 
 woman in the past and present. Despite the boasts of Capi- 
 talist Christianity the facts show that under Capitalism wo- 
 man, especially of the working class, is degraded and dwarfed 
 physically and mentally, while the word home is but a mock- 
 ery. From such condition of parenthood the child is stunted 
 before its birth, and the miasmas, bred from woman's economic 
 slavery, rise so high that even the gilded houses of the capi- 
 talist class are polluted. Under Socialism, woman, having 
 economic freedom equal with man, will develop mentally and 
 physically, and the mentally and physically stunted and dwarfed 
 children of the capitalist system will give way to a new race. 
 The blow that breaks the chains of economic slavery from 
 the workingman will free woman also. 
 
 Cloth, 400 Pages, Price $1.00 
 
 New York Labor News Co*, 
 
 45 ROSE STREET, NEW YORK. 
 
Woman's Suffrage 
 
 An Address Delivered by Daniel De Leon under the 
 Auspices of the Socialist Women of Greater New York, 
 at Cooper Union, New York City, May 8th, 1909. 
 
 A luminous lecture upon a timely subject and viewing that 
 subject from the lofty heights of historic perspective. History 
 alone can show WHY woman occupies today the position she 
 does and WHY she is now striving to emerge from that posi- 
 tion. 
 
 CHAPTER HEADS: 
 
 The Class Struggle 
 The Suffrage 
 Arguments of Antis 
 Arguments of Pros 
 Conclusions 
 
 A pamphlet of 48 pages that holds the interest from start 
 to finish. Good paper, good clear print, high-grade paper cover. 
 
 Price lO Cent^ 
 
VULGAR 
 ECONOMY 
 
 OR 
 
 A Critical Analyst of Marx Analyzed 
 
 By DANIEL DB LEON. 
 
 A work exposing: the false reasoning and sycophancy 
 of the official iJconomists of Capitalism, proving them 
 to be nothing but perverters of the science of Political 
 Economy, in the interest of their employers — the Cap- 
 italist Class. Contains also a few prefatory remarks on 
 the life of the author and the subject, and a fine pic- 
 ture of Daniel De Leon. 
 
 04 Pages, Paper Cover. 
 PRICE FIFTEEN CENTS 
 
 New York Labor News Company 
 
 45 Rose St., New YorK 
 
FIFTEEN 
 QUESTIONS 
 
 By Daniel De Leon. 
 
 FIFTEEN QUESTIONS is a series of articles 
 dealing with some of the economic and political prob- 
 lems of the day. It is presented in the form of an ac- 
 ceptance of he challenge by a Roman Catholic paper, 
 "The Visitor," Providence^ R. I. This paper pro- 
 pounded fifteen questions intended to silence the 
 advocates of Socialism. To what ex ent the paper 
 —or those of its followers who would have acted upon 
 its suggestions — succeeded, the reader will be in a po- 
 sition 10 judge best for himself. The book is written 
 in a clear lucid style and reveals an authorship of 
 highest rank. The author, the late Daniel De Leon, 
 was a scholar of unusual attainmen's and well qualified 
 to state the position of the Socialists.-— T/?^ Bookseller, 
 N ewsdeaJer and Stationer. 
 
 PRICE TWE VTY CENTS 
 
 New York Labor News Co., 
 
 1.- Rosi: stri<:i-:t, xi<:w vokk. 
 
I 
 
High Cost of Living 
 
 By Arnold Petersen 
 
 And 
 
 Money 
 
 By Daniel De Leon 
 
 An analysis of the problems of high prices, money and corre- 
 lated matters. Disposes of the various causes usually ad- 
 vanced by the apologists of capitalism to explain these prob- 
 lems. A demonstration of the s lundness of Marxian, 1. e.. 
 Socialist or Scientific Political Economy. 
 
 50 PAGBS, PAPER COVER 
 PRICE IB CENTS 
 
 NEW YORK LABOR NEWS CO. 
 
 4o ROSE STREET ]VEW YORK 
 
AS TO POLITICS. (A Symposium.) 
 
 BERGER'S HIT AND MISSES 
 
 BURNING QUESTION OF TRADES UNIONISM 
 
 DE LEON-BERRY DEBATE 
 
 DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE 
 
 *DE LEON-HARRIMAN DEBATE 
 
 FIFTEEN QUESTIONS 
 
 FLASHLIGHTS OF THE AMSTERDAM CONGRESS 
 FATHER GASSONIANA 
 MARX ON MALLOCK 
 MONEY 
 
 PREAMBLE OF THE INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF 
 
 THE WORLD 
 REFORM OR REVOLUTION 
 SOCIALISM vs. ANARCHISM 
 TWO PAGES FROM ROMAN HISTORY 
 THE TRUSTS 
 UNITY 
 
 VULGAR ECONOMY 
 WATSON ON THE GRIDIRON 
 WOMAN SUFFRAGE 
 WHAT MEANS THIS STRIKE? 
 
 ENGELS, FREDERICK: Development of Socialism from 
 
 Utopia to Science. 
 MARX, KARL: Eigfhteenth Bnimaire 
 LASSALLE, FERDINAND: Franz von Sickingen. 
 SUE, EUGENE: Mysteries of the People, 21 volumes. 
 KAUTSKY, KARL: The Working Class 
 
 The Capitalist Class 
 
 The Class Struggle 
 " " The Socialist Republic 
 
 BEBEL, AUGUST: Woman under Socialism. 
 
 *Out of print. 
 
 NEW YORK L.ABOR NEWS COMPANY 
 AS ROSE ST., NEW YORK CITY 
 
Price Ten Cents. 
 
 DeLeon - Carmody 
 I Debate 
 
 Individualism vs. Socialism 
 
 DANIEL DE LEON 
 
 Editor New York Daily People 
 
 THOMAS F. CARMODY 
 
 Attorney General State of New York 
 
 UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE PEOPLE'S FORUM 
 
 Stenographically Reported by Mr. Emmet W. Connors 
 Delivered at Proctor's Theatre, Troy, N. Y., April 14, 1912 
 
 ISSUKU BY THK X ACTIONAL EXECUTIVE 
 COMMITTEE SOCIALIST LiVBOU PARTY 
 
 FotirtH Edition 
 
Copyrig-hted 1912 
 Phoenix 
 
DANIEL DE LEON 
 
i 
 
FOKENOTICE. 
 
 What will become one of the most historical debates ever 
 delivered in this country is the one dealing with the sub- 
 jects covered in this pamphlet, and in interest is bound to 
 exceed in its far-reaching effect any effort ever presented 
 to the public on these most important topics. 
 
 Here we have Mr. Daniel De Leon, of New York City, 
 Editor of the Daily and Weekly People, representing So- 
 cialism, and Mr. Thomas E. Carmody, Attorney General 
 of the State of New YorTc, presenting the subject of In- 
 dividualism. 
 
 Heie are two contestants, champions of their presenta- 
 tion, holding opposite views on these subjects, and which 
 are now considered to be of the most intimate interest to 
 the welfare of humanity. 
 
 Two scholars of high attainment. Mr. De Leon with a 
 reputation which is world-wide on economics, politics and 
 l&w, and Mr. Carmody one of the best orators and students 
 of American politics and law. 
 
 These men, meeting in debate on these important topics, 
 the result of which is to produce a battle of the keenest in- 
 tellects, and the most startling, momentous intellectual bat- 
 tle since the Civil War. Why? Because the war had for 
 its object the release of four million slaves, while the pres- 
 ent war now going on in society between the classes, the 
 capitalist class and the proletariat or working class, means 
 the final abolition of the slave markets of the world, or 
 rather the abolition of the wage system and also, the aboli- 
 tion of the present forms of government in all countries 
 to be substituted by the co-operative or industrial common- 
 wealth, which in turn means Socialism. 
 
A complete stenographic account of this memorable meet- 
 ing has now been submitted for publication in a pamphlet 
 and is bound to reach a very wide distribution owing to its 
 value to the propagation of information concerning 
 Socialism. 
 
 No propaganda meeting will be successfully terminated 
 without offering for sale this pamphlet. 
 
 No militant Socialist or militant anti-Socialist should 
 be without the information herein treated. 
 
 Here is one paragraph of Mr. Carmody^s which clearly 
 ehows the close line which he has drawn : 
 
 ''Here is where I intend to nail Socialism to the cross 
 and keep it there. I want somebody to tell the laborer 
 who is working in the shoe factory, or whose boys and girls 
 are working for the purpose of earning an honest livelihood, 
 is there any remedy for that condition ? Where do you find 
 a remedy in that policy of Anarchy and confiscation, which 
 provides that public utilities shall be controlled by a com- 
 mon ownership, and that you acquire p 3 utilities by 
 confiscation 
 
 From Mr. De Leon's reply: 
 
 "A word, in connection with 'Confiscation' as to what 
 the Revolutionary Fathers did. I refer my distinguished 
 adversary to the fiscal history of (Jeorge Ill's troubles. The 
 colonists took vastly more than Mr. Carmody imagines. To 
 gauge how much they took, look at the subsequent famines 
 in India. Unable to keep its hands upon what it consid- 
 ered its legitimate property in the colonies, the British 
 Crown had to fall back upon the Hindoos to recoup itself. 
 Socialism does not, can not contemplate the 'confiscation* 
 of existing wealth, for the simple reason that the wealth 
 of Bociety to-day IS the property of the working class; they 
 
produced it. They will only be taking their own — just aa 
 the colonists did.'^ 
 
 In the publication of this debate it is fitting to make 
 mention of the work of the People^s Forum, of Troy, N. Y., 
 as an educational factor, through the dissemination of 
 knowledge on "present day problems/^ as inaugurated by 
 the Enquirer's Club of that city. 
 
 This was the first fonim of the kind started in this 
 country which operated under a platform which called 
 for lectures or talks on "present day problems'' ; the lec- 
 tures or talks to be followed by a discussion of the sub- 
 jects presented. 
 
 Its far-reaching effect is in directing the minds of the 
 people to the problems confronting the nation, which are 
 pressing for solution. The debate that is the subject of 
 this pamphlet is a fruit of the efforts of the Forum. 
 
 Particularly at this time are the subjects of Socialism, 
 as representing the incoming order of society, and Capi- 
 talism, as re-'-esenting the present order of our develop- 
 ment, of pax^nount interest. 
 
 Locals, Sections and other progressive organizations, as 
 well as all others who desire reliable information on a 
 subject that is the burning issue of the day, should place 
 their orders for same at the earliest possible moment. 
 
 Price to be at the mte of $64. per thousand. Single 
 copies, ten cents. This price does not xnclude postage 
 or express charges. 
 
 Address, 
 
 F. C. Phoenix, 
 
 Chairman, People's Forum, 
 Troy, N. Y. 
 
DE LEON-CAEMODY DEBATE. 
 
 Delivered at Proctor^s Theatre, Troy, N. Y., on Sunday 
 afternoon, April 14, 1912, at the closing session of the 
 People's Forum, under the auspices of the Enquirer^s Club. 
 Fred C. Phoenix, Chairman. Daniel De Leon, Editor, 
 Daily and Weehly People, of New York City, National 
 Organ of the Socialist Labor Party. Hon. Thomas P. 
 Carmody, Attorney General of the State of New Yorh 
 
DIKECT PRESENTATION. 
 DANIEL DE LEON. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 When the program was put in my hands a few hours 
 ago, and I noticed it was ^^Individualism vs. Socialism'^ 
 I thought the proper order of the debate should have been 
 that the representative of Anti-Socialism should speak first. 
 The title "Individualism vs. Socialism'^ implies the be- 
 lief that the term ^^^Individualism^^ needs no definition. I 
 ehall prove to you that this is an error. I shall begin, how- 
 ever, by stating, as I shall demonstrate in my closing 
 remarks, that we of the Socialist movement, hold that we 
 are the real promoters of Individualism, or Individuality, 
 in the country. I put that as my thesis, and that is what 
 I shall argue. 
 
 Let us look at the representatives of the ruling class 
 to-day. They are leading men ; they are leading statesmen. 
 I shall begin by quoting the present incumbent of the 
 presidential chair. President Taft admits that as things 
 are, they ought not to be in many respects. He admits 
 that opportunities are not equal to all. He proposes to 
 remedy them in a certain way. His leading opponent is still 
 more emphatic; I mean Colonel Eoosevelt. He, not only 
 contends that as things are to-day, they ought not to be; 
 not only does he say that opportunities are not equal, he 
 boldly asserts that opportunities are unequal, and that 
 there is no square deal in the country. I am not quoting 
 obscure persons. My distinguished opponent may per- 
 haps reject the utterances of two Eepublicans. Let me 
 now quote the views of representative men of his own, 
 the Democratic camp. A gentleman who has been three 
 
i DB LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 times honored with the presidential nomination, Mr. 
 Bryan, holds to the language of Roosevelt, or, rather, 
 Roosevelt holds his language on the subject that I have 
 mentioned. He says: '^The common people are being 
 thro\m down in the interest of plutocracy.^^ If Mr. Bryan 
 is not acceptable to my distinguished opponent, let me 
 quote Governor Woodrow Wilson of New Jersey, also a 
 iDemocrat. He says: ^^The days of small competition are 
 gone by, and we have to adjust the institutions of the 
 country in such a way that an equal opportunity can be 
 restored to the people. The doors of opportunity are 
 double-bolted.*^ If Governor Woodrow Wilson is not 
 quite acceptable, let me take another candidate, two of 
 them in a bunch, seeing they travel together. Champ 
 Clark and Underwood. As you will notice I am only 
 quoting presidential timber. Both say: *^The country is 
 taking a header towards destruction.** I am quoting from 
 Champ Clark's campaign speeches in Missouri and Illi- 
 nois, where the people stood by him in the primaries. He 
 etid: ^^We are steering towards a French Revolution on 
 tccount of the unequal opportunities that the majority of 
 Ihe people are being held to.** If Champ Clark and Un* 
 derwood, traveling in the same boat, are not acceptable to 
 my distinguished adversary, I shall quote Governor Jud- 
 Bon Harmon of Ohio, also a leading presidential candidate 
 on the Democratic side. In answer to Roosevelt's address 
 before the Columbus constitutional convention, he stated 
 that the conditions which Mr. Roosevelt complains of are 
 there, but they are not to be met by the measures which 
 lie proposes. In short, the situation is this: Prom the 
 mouths of these leading representatives of the present order 
 of things, we have the statement ihat existing condi- 
 
DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 7 
 
 tions do not promote the welfare of the majority of the 
 people. It matters not that they each propose different 
 methods, and that the measures that they propose are dif- 
 ferent from the methods of Socialism, or the Socialist 
 Labor Party in particular. It is enough that their diag- 
 nosis, and our diagnosis agree exactly as to present con- 
 ditions. However different their measures, they are agreed 
 among themselves that present social conditions are the 
 conditions of mass ill-being. 
 
 Before proceeding further along this line, let us be clear 
 upon the definition of the word ^^Individualism.'' As I 
 Btarted saying, the word seems to be a word of accepted 
 eignificance; but, in the language of Thomas Jefferson, 
 when society reaches the point that spells revolution, then 
 every single term is summoned to the bar of the people and 
 must be re-examined on the same principle that worn- 
 out coin is re-examined. I shall prove to you that the 
 word ^'Individualism'' as it is used by the men who are 
 against Socialism, is a word that no longer represents the 
 ^'coinage" that it once represented. It is a counterfeit, or 
 is found to have been worn out beyond all original sem- 
 blance. The essential thing is to define the word. 
 
 iWhat does ^^Individualismi" mean? "Individualism/* 
 means that state of things in man or woman that makes 
 him or her a strong individuality; that makes him or her 
 a strong man or a strong woman; that makes him a healthy 
 man and her a healthy woman. There is another term, 
 intimately connected with "Individuality," that I might 
 as well cover now. That is "survival of the fittest." That 
 phrase is much bandied about. We are told that we hare 
 the "survival of the fittest" now, and that that should be 
 enough to ehut the mouths of the Socialists. The ^'fiur- 
 
8 DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 vival of the fittest^' means the fittest for given conditions 
 
 — and the ^^fittesf' is not always the "best/' 
 
 The fittest in mud is the mud eel. No healthy man or 
 woman can live in mud, and, consequently, the fittest for 
 those conditions are the mud eels. To use the term in the 
 sense that opponents of Socialism do, is a travesty on "sur- 
 vival of the fittest/' The term means, he who is fittest 
 for a certain social condition, and the question comes back. 
 Are present social conditions such that they will develop 
 the highest and best type fit for our ideals of the twen- 
 tieth century? We Socialists say, No. And we prove it. 
 
 Take a forest. That forest consists of trees. It requires 
 individual fine trees to make a collectively fine forest. If 
 the trees are too close together they will interfere with their 
 individual growths. Under that condition of things you 
 will not have a good forest; you will have jungles. He 
 who, therefore, has the collective thing, a forest, in mind, 
 must have individually good trees in mind, and he who 
 understands what individually good trees mean, must nec- 
 essarily imply the collective thing, a good forest. But 
 trees are inanimate beings, let us treat with animate beings. 
 
 Let us take an army. An army depends upon the in- 
 dividuality of its soldiers. Unless each individual soldier 
 is properly trained in militarism, unless this individuality 
 of a soldier is properly instilled, the army is an impossi- 
 bility. The general would have a mob, and he would 
 be licked by the other army. What does this imply? 
 
 It implies that Individualism does not deny socialistic 
 or altruistic, or collectivistic requirements. For the very 
 reason that the soldiers must be individually well trained, 
 all of them must give up a certain portion of their in- 
 dividualism to the whole, without which there could be nQ 
 
DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. & 
 organization. Without altruism in the army, each soldier 
 would pull his own way, and you might have anything you 
 please, but an army you would not have. It requires in- 
 dividuality, plus the surrender of part of yourself, and that 
 is a point that Socialism teaches — ^man is a social being, 
 and the real capabilities of his individuality cannot de- 
 velop so long as he is not in society, merging part of his 
 individuality into the whole. 
 
 Now then, that being the goal to be attained — strong 
 individuality — an individuality wise enough to realize that 
 the acquired individuality will be as zero unless it is civil- 
 ized enough to yield part of itself to the whole ; — that being 
 the goal^ how does capitalism meet the requirements? 
 
 We charge modern society^ that is capitalism, with crush- 
 ing out individuality. Its methods do the opposite of 
 bringing about individuality. Its methods, taking the 
 illustration of the forest, bring about the jungle. Its 
 methods, taking the illustration of the army, bring about a 
 mob, and whenever you have a mob, you have the man on 
 horseback not far away — a circumstance that explains the 
 presence and existence of Colonel Roosevelt to-day in the 
 field. 
 
 Let me take a few illustrations, in widely opposite ends 
 of present society, to illustrate what capitalism does for in- 
 dividualism. It is fair treatment. Capitalism has had 
 the world to itself. Spokesmen of Capitalism admit, as 
 all those whom I have quoted do, that things are not the 
 way they ought to be. They have had society so long in 
 their hands that well may we hold them responsible for the 
 ills that they admit afflict society. 
 
 Take two illustrations from the extreme ends of the 
 
10 DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 social system, such as are conceivable only in a Democratic* 
 Bepublican-Capitalistic order of society. 
 
 Here is a shoe manufacturer. He employs we shall say 
 one hundred hands. He will not manufacture unless he 
 either has orders, or expects orders. Suppose he has re- 
 ceived orders for ten thousand pairs of shoes, or that he 
 expects orders for that amount. He has one hundred men 
 working. Suppose that each man, on an average, produces 
 one pair of shoes a day. That would mean that it would 
 take one hundred days to fill that order. What does capi- 
 talism do for the individuality, or individualism, of these 
 men? Does it encourage them to develop the best that 
 is in them so as to produce swifter, and swifter, in order 
 to accomplish what is desired with least waste of time? ] 
 No, Capitalism does the opposite. Suppose these one > 
 hundred men, who, on the average, produce one pair of 
 ehoes a day, and, therefore, have one hundred days of 
 work before them — suppose they put on steam and were to 
 produce two pairs of shoes a day on the average. That 
 would mean that within fifty days they would be out of j 
 work. If they put on still more steam and produce four 
 pairs of shoes a day on the average, it would mean that 
 within twenty-five days they would be out of work. If 
 itill they put on more steam, it means that all the sooner 
 they will be without bread. That is what the capitalist 
 evstem does for the individuality of these men. I hope our 
 friend, Mr. Carmody, will explain how the individuality 
 of these working men is promoted under a social system 
 that whips them with a whip of hunger. In what way 
 could those men be expected to develop the best that is in 
 them under such a system? What the capitalist system 
 does is to compel them to lag in their work as inuch a9 
 
DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 11 
 possible, so as not only not to shorten the period within 
 which they will be out of work, but so as to lengthen the 
 period in which they will have a chance to earn a living. J 
 That is what the capitalist system does for individualism'^ 
 with the mass of the workers. j 
 
 Take an illustration from the other extreme end of the^ 
 Bocial scale. Look at a large corporation. We know that 
 great efforts are heing put forth by large corporations to. 
 make it appear, statistically, that a large number of stock-,' 
 holders participate in these concerns. The New Yorkj 
 Central claims that it is now owned by something like; 
 twenty thousand stockholders. See! Why, they have in-| 
 creased the number of people that have — ^what? Have, 
 Bomething to say in the corporation ? Not at all. Twenty * 
 men in that, and similarly with all corporations, can out-^ 
 vote the others. Stockholding of that sort is a delusion.! 
 Those men who constitute the large number of stock- j 
 holders have not got one-hundredth part of the stock that; 
 is held by the leading corporators. Where does the in-; 
 dividuality of this large majority of stockholders come in?; 
 Can they hold up the minority? Not unless the minority) 
 tries to be too "clever^^ and runs foul of the criminal code. ^ 
 But if they can steer just this side of the criminal code, 
 no court will recognize the majority of the stockholders, 
 because the majority of the stockholders don't count, and 
 the minority can do as it pleases. It is not human beings 
 that count; it is stock; it is money! it is property — ^not 
 human individualism. ^ 
 
 I shall sum up these two illustrations with a third, to 
 ehow you how individualism is the last word that should be 
 in the mouth of a Eepublican or a Democratic upholder 
 of capitalism. Go to Eepublican meetings; go to Demo^ 
 
12 DE LEON'-CARMODY DEBATE, 
 
 cratic meetings; read Eepublican papers; read Democratic 
 papers; read them of all colors and all shades; whether 
 gold or sixteen to one standardists ; whether free trade or 
 protectionists; whether for revision upward or downward; 
 get all the shades and varieties of them^ and you will find 
 that upon one thing they are all agreed. What is that 
 thing? (Applause.) 
 
 Let me go back a moment. Remember the interroga- 
 tion 'mat is that thing T 
 
 There was a time in the history of this nation when 
 the citizen went to the polls as a man, and in a loud voice 
 proclaimed his political choice. There was a time in the 
 country^s history when the citizen^s individuality would 
 have spurned any move to demand a secret ballot. That 
 was the time in the nation^s history that carried individ- 
 uality with the ballot. Now, what is that point upon which 
 sU these capitalist elements agree to-day? However much 
 they may disagree in other respects, they all agree that, 
 without the secret ballot, we cannot have a free expression 
 of political convictions. Do you realize what that means ? 
 That is the point they have brought us to with their individ- 
 ualism. Their individualism is an individualism that has 
 turned the majority of our people into cowards. To-day 
 when we go into a sentinel box, the door closed behind us, we 
 cast our vote as though we were committing a burglarious 
 midnight crime. That is what your so-called individual- 
 ism has brought about. 
 
 The Socialist says that the present condition is not one 
 of individualism. Capitalism should begin by proving 
 that individualism has been promoted by it. I demand of 
 my distinguished opponent to show us how individualism 
 is promoted under the capitalist system ; and how, as the 
 
DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 13 
 
 stem of balloting shows^ individualism has not been ab- 
 solutely destroyed. Socialism says that individualism can- 
 not be promoted without your guaranteeing to every single 
 citizen not simply the ballot but also the opportunity to 
 work, in which the full fruit of what he produces will be 
 guaranteed to him. It is beside the subject of the debate 
 to prove that the smashing up of individuality by capital- 
 ism has gone on hand in hand with the plunder of the 
 working class. But, whether the workers were plundered 
 or not, we have this principle in the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence of the United States — Whenever a certain social 
 system has become hostile to the interests of the people, 
 it is the duty of the people to change it, regardless of how 
 that state of things came about. We charge capitalism 
 with being the destroyer of individualism. 
 
 Having a few more minutes time I want to give one 
 more painful illustration of this alleged individualism that 
 capitalism produces, and why it produces it. I wish to 
 refer to the houses of prostitution. Who, here in Troy, 
 does not know that there are such houses, where any man 
 can go any time he wants? Why is it the police do not 
 destroy them? Why is it the police do not uproot them? 
 Is it graft simply? Those houses of prostitution are pil- 
 lars of the present social system. Are they symbols of in- 
 dividuality ? 
 
 You have heard the song, the beautiful song sung on this 
 platform to-day. Here we have a beautiful contradiction 
 of capitalism. ^^Consider the lilies of the field, how they 
 toil not, neither do they spin, and yet Solomon in all his 
 glory was not arrayed as one of them.^^ And right on this 
 platform you are about to hear the gospel of Capitalist 
 'Individualism,^^ — do others or you will be done by them. 
 
14 DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 In my closing minute I want to give you still another 
 illustration of this contradiction of capitalist preaching 
 and practice. Look at the biggest capitalists in the coun- 
 try. They tell you that ^^roughing it^^ makes individualism, 
 and individuality. And yet they will write their last will 
 and testament in such a way that their wealth is left to 
 their dearest relatives. What for? If individualism is 
 developed by '^roughing It/^ they should withhold that 
 cash from those who are dear to them. Their last act on 
 earth gives a denial to their theory regarding individualism 
 being developed by ^^roughing it.'' (Applause.) 
 
DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 15 
 
 c 
 
 FIRST PEESENTATION. 
 MR. THOMAS F. CARMODY. 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 It is indeed a great pleasure to be permitted to take 
 part in a discussion that involves questions of such great 
 public interest before an audience of this character. It is 
 a great pleasure to have an adversary in that discussion a 
 recognized champion of the doctrines that he espouses. It 
 is a pleasure to have an audience that seems friendly 
 towards the speaker. As an audience that needs to have the 
 question of Socialism as against Individualism presented 
 fairly and fully, it in some measure at least applauds the 
 doctrines of Socialism. You have followed the discus- 
 sion of my distinguished ad*versary with sufficient interest 
 to know that it has consisted entirely, as Socialism does 
 consist, not in some remedies, but in attacks, not in pro- 
 viding remedies for evils but in an inventory of the evils, 
 most of which are natural to human institutions, and to 
 human nature. Whether the doctrines I stand for are 
 properly defined in the term Individualism or not, I want 
 you to clearly understand that it does mean that I oppose, 
 the party that I stand for opposes, and all parties oppose 
 (that deserve the name of party) the attack upon the 
 institutions upon which all parties build their power and 
 upon which individual liberty and opportunity must rest. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 I do not intend to let this debate take the current that 
 my distinguished adversary has marked out for it. I do 
 not intend this contest to rest upon an inventory of the 
 
16 DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE, 
 
 evils that exist in our political government, and I do not 
 intend by any specific analysis of particular evils to allow 
 the great principle that is at stake in this discussion, and 
 is involved in the contest which it invokes, and will be 
 one of the elements to be determined in the forthcoming 
 presidential contest, in any extent whatever; obscured or 
 clouded by specific references to matters that do not neces- 
 earily involve the merits of party doctrines. My distin- 
 guished adversary has stated with much eloquence that the 
 trouble is that individualism has been destroyed, and he 
 thereby has made one of the best arguments against Social- 
 ism that could possibly be presented. More than half of 
 his argument was devoted to pointing out the great indus- 
 trial army of the present time, wherein individual merit 
 has been destroyed, individual industry has been pre- 
 vented, and the men and women have become part of a 
 great machine in which opportunity has sunk to a dead 
 level of mechanical organization. What then (turning to 
 Mr. Delicon), tell this audience when you face them again, 
 will become under a form of government of which there 
 is no opportunity by law for individual merit or individual 
 industry ? 
 
 He has named every candidate for president now before 
 the people, and has pointed out that these men concede 
 that there are evils to be corrected, and if the time ever 
 comes when we do not concede that there are evils to be 
 corrected, and when we do not advocate something for their 
 correction, then safety, progress and opportunity in this 
 country are gone. The beauty and grandeur of American 
 institutions is that, when we find evils, when the people 
 understand there are evils, they find that they can be 
 eliminated by the ballot. 
 
DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 17 
 
 I find in this audience many undoubtedly who are 
 laboring men^ and who believe in the propaganda that has 
 been preached before you here this afternoon^ that with the 
 inequalities, the lack of opportunities possibly, probably 
 actual^ that you suffer, that there is something wrong with 
 the form of government under which they occur. The 
 Socialist will never discuss the remedy. That is what my 
 adversary has got to discuss before he leaves this platform. 
 I am not going to run away by telling you that things 
 are bad and that a tyrannical industrialism controls in our 
 business life. You might as well go out on the streets of 
 Troy and give vent to your anger because the weather does 
 not suit you, because it is too cold in winter, raining on 
 Sunday. 
 
 There are things that belong to this world of sin and 
 trouble. Socialism has pointed them out. It takes their 
 symptoms worse than any other class of people. I do not 
 believe that Socialism is very dangerous; it does not stay 
 long in any one pjace; I introduce in evidence Milwaukee 
 and Schenectady. 
 
 I believe that the industrial conditions need a remedy, 
 I believe that our industrial laws need revising, or en- 
 forcing. I am opposed to any industrial system, and so 
 are a majority of the American people who are not So- 
 cialists, to any industrial belief, that gives an opportunity 
 to some men to get more than they earn and other men to 
 earn more than they get. That industrial system that com- 
 pels the poor man to send his daughters and sons into 
 factories in order to drive away starvation; that does 
 not permit that they go to school and acquire educations 
 and become as they should be, educated; are elements to 
 be reckoned with in this civilization. 
 
18 DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 I oppose any influence that undertakes to tear up the 
 courts. I oppose all of the evils that he has pointed out. 
 I will not be put in a position, nor will I allow the cause I 
 speak for to be placed in a position of hostility to labor. 
 The proudest boast of every party in this State and in 
 every State is that the interests of labor are the dearest of 
 all interests to the political parties in this country. To 
 undertake to place the cause of individualism or to place 
 the great parties of this country against the interests of 
 labor is not true. The effort will miscarry. 
 
 Take this State, for instance. Get down to specific things. 
 This State has upon its statute books a law that provides 
 that in all public contracts in the State or municipalities, 
 there must be a clause inserted providing for eight hours 
 a day for labor. I made this statement before an audience 
 of Socialists not long since. A few days afterward I re- 
 ceived letters saying it was not true, and it is a fact that 
 Socialists deny, that the State has been legislating in their 
 interests^ but it is a fact that the laboi* interests of this 
 State have received from the Legislature that protection 
 which they are entitled to ; and a fifty-four hour law was 
 passed this last session extending to other places where 
 this law does not extend. In addition the State has a 
 factory inspection bureau to inspect factories and see that 
 laws are enforced, that only those arriving at the proper 
 age are employed, and that there is proper protection for 
 the life, limb and health of those who are employed. 
 You have a labor bureau, at the head of which is a com- 
 missioner of labor who is a union laborer. He has at his 
 control an army of inspectors who go throughout the 
 State to see that labor laws are enforced. Yet you are told 
 
DE LEDN-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 1^ 
 
 that the parties in this State and elsewhere were in a con- 
 spiracy against labor. 
 
 Now, I want to get to something which is of greater 
 importance. I want to establish as propositions right here, 
 that any party that stands against labor does not deserve 
 to live. (Applause.) I will say, furthermore, that any 
 party that does will not live. (Louder applause.) And 
 I will give you a third proposition — applaud this — that 
 any party that undertakes to fool labor by remedies other 
 than sound does not deserve to live. (Still louder applause 
 in which Mr. DeLeon joins.) 
 
 I want to give my adversary a little something to do. What 
 has Socialism got to say about this ? What are its remedies ? 
 They have pointed out the evils. It will not do very much 
 good for a doctor to come around to your house and tell 
 you how sick you are unless he can give you some medi- 
 cine to cure. I have their national platform here and 
 call your attention to one plank which is the basis of Social- 
 ism. The collective ownership of railroads, telegraph, 
 telephones, steamship lines and all other means of social 
 transportation and communication. They say there can 
 be no private title ; that whether called fee simple or other- 
 wise, must be subordinated to the public title. First is 
 collective ownership. That is the basic principle of So- 
 cialism. Without that remedy Socialism has no remedy. 
 If that be not a remedy, Socialism has no cause. Surely, 
 if it can not make practical this fundamental doctrine of 
 its creed, then it must cease to appeal to you^ or to any 
 other portion of our people for its support, unless they 
 find there an answer to the evils that they have diagnosed 
 as part of the ills of the body politic, then they have no 
 remedy and I am going to ask my adversary to tell what 
 
20 DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 has never yet been told to an American audience in public 
 
 that I have ever understood or heard or read. 
 
 In the first place how are they going to bring it about? 
 You have got railroads, telegraphs, telephones, and canals. 
 How are you going to get them? They are owned by 
 private individuals, they are operated by private individuals 
 as private property. How are they going to be acquired 
 by Socialism? Are you going to buy them out? This 
 is politics. This shows whether you get anywhere or not, 
 with Socialism. Where are you going to get the money to 
 buy them? Suppose you have got the money and sup- 
 pose you buy them and pay men for their property, then you 
 start in with a lot of millionaires. I am going to deal 
 with your proposition as you have defined it in the first 
 place. You believe in collective ownership. Then you 
 have got to extinguish private ownership. You have got 
 two ways to do it; you have to pay money for it, or you 
 have got to confiscate it. If you pay for it you start in 
 with a lot of millionaires. If you confiscate it where is 
 your Socialism? (Applause.) 
 
 I put this question to Socialists, and never got any 
 answer except confiscation, which means anarchy. If that 
 be the theory of Socialism, and that is the only one that 
 solves the situation^ then you have instead of a solvent of 
 human misery, the most tyrannical, powerful and deadly 
 attack on human liberty that was ever delivered from any 
 source since God said, ^Tjet there be light.'^ You must 
 have some way of making political this doctrine of public 
 ownership. 
 
 The present idea, the idea of individualism, is that the 
 business corporations must be made amenable to the law. 
 Nobody believes that they should tyrannize property rights. 
 
DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 21 
 
 liberty or interests; that you have the power and disposi- 
 tion if you will with your ballot to rectify and correct. 
 (Applause.) I will not permit any man to say before my 
 audience that the parties of this country are standing upon 
 the prostrate body of the laborer or citizen. I will not 
 allow any one to say, here or anywhere, that this country 
 is drifting or ever will drift over the common humanity 
 that is its pride or its glory. Individualism gives to your 
 man in the shoe factory, it gives to your man on the farm, 
 it gives to your man anywhere, opportunity if he has more 
 brains or industry than any one else has. It gives him 
 the opportunity to work it out. It has been the glory 
 of this country that its opportunities have made it what 
 it is and what our forefathers when they outlined the form 
 of government which is ours to-day, and thank God will 
 always be ours for we are grown patriotic enough to de- 
 fend it whenever attacked. It was based on the theory 
 that all men should have equal opportunities to earn what 
 they could and to have what they earned. If that does not 
 obtain to-day, then you have the power to go to the polls 
 and punish the party that does not permit it. But you have 
 not a remedy in anything that Socialism provides. I 
 want, during the remainder of this discussion for my ad- 
 versary, instead of pointing out those things upon which 
 we agree, I want him to give you the remedies which So- 
 cialism has. He has mentioned presidential candidates, 
 all of whom have pointed out evils he has dwelt upon. 
 There are many more, but none of those candidates for 
 president have advocated the theories he advocates. Every 
 one of them, Taft, Roosevelt, Wilson, Clark, every one of 
 them is against Socialism. While they see the evils, as 
 you see them, they see still that there are remedies under 
 
22 DE LEON-CARMODy DEBATE. 
 
 our laws and forms of government for these evils. (Bell 
 rings^ one minute before closing.) This discussion will 
 be of no importance whatever unless we are able to have 
 the practical politics of your theories and mine discussed 
 before this audience. I still insist as I sit down for the 
 first heat that when my adversary take the stand next time 
 that he will tell you how the evils he has pointed out are 
 to be met by the remedies which Socialism proposes. (Ap- 
 plause.) 
 
DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 2a 
 
 DANIEL DE LEON IN EEBUTTAL. 
 
 If a traveler from Mars had landed here when my dis- 
 tinguished adversary was speaking he would have been 
 justified in concluding that the debate was not on individ- 
 ualism. Yet that was the subject for debate. That was 
 The subject given to go by, and I mean no insult — but a 
 stump oration was delivered instead. That sort of rea- 
 soning will have to be given up by the old parties if they 
 are to keep the ear of the people. Anybody who knows 
 anything knows that the subject of Socialism is a broad 
 subject. I would not have accepted a debate on ^^Capitalism 
 vs. Socialism.^^ I would have accepted only some sub- 
 division of it, because in a few minutes you can only skim 
 the surface if you are going to take the broad subject of 
 Capitalism or Socialism. The subject for debate was that 
 one feature, Individualism, that issues out of the conflict 
 of Capitalism vs. Socialism^. 
 
 My distinguished adversary is a lawyer, and so am I. 
 He and those of you who are lawyers will understand me 
 when I say that he made a plea of confession and avoid- 
 ance. I have shown with the illustrations that I furnishefl 
 that Capitalism has made a mess of individualism. How 
 did my distinguished adversary meet the charge ? He ad- 
 mitted the correctness of the picture that I drew, and then 
 he charged me with not providing remedies — as though 
 lemedies were the subject of debate — and then he declared 
 the inventory of the evils that I drew up to be '^inherent in 
 things'^ — I suppose as inherent as the weather. That's the 
 pagan's view of things. 
 
24 DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 The pagan looked upon disease as something that could 
 not be overcome. He took the posture that the adversi- 
 ties which befell him were unavoidable^ and he bowed down 
 before them. We say they are not unavoidable. Even 
 against the weather — why, every man and woman protects 
 himself and herself against the weather. We have light- 
 ning rods; and we also have pagans to-day who think it 
 is against ^^the will of God^^ to see to it that lightning does 
 not strike our steeples. The pagan would consider the 
 hurricane a breath of God. We deny it. We say that it 
 is not a breath of God; it is a disturbance in nature and 
 we protect ourselves against it; and we see to it that it does 
 not create more disturbance than we can help. So with 
 these social ills. They are not inherent in things. The 
 plea of confession and avoidance was to admit all that I 
 said with regard to the crushing out of the individual- 
 ism of the people, and then to say: "It can not be helped, 
 you are Utopians, you are trying to change the Sun and the 
 'Moon.^^ (Laughter. ) 
 
 He asserts that these evils are inherent in human na- 
 ture. This "human nature'^ has also got to be defined, 
 What is human nature? Contemplate a young lady who 
 has a flea on her cheek — ^if the press, the politicians and 
 pulpiteers, tell her that that is a beauty spot, her human 
 nature will cause her to protect that flea. Her ignor- 
 ance of the facts is superinduced by the leaders of public 
 information. Let some one impart to that girl the knowl- 
 edge that the flea is not a beauty spot ; that it is a parasite 
 which sucks her blood, and will put a hole in that spot, 
 and spoil her complexion; then that same human nature 
 that at first caused her to protect that flea will now cause 
 her to take it between two nails and kill it. Human nature 
 
DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 25 
 
 is just what we bank upon. But we claim that human 
 nature is to-day misinformed and misdirected. 
 
 What will become of government under Socialism, which 
 ^Tbears man under the dead weight of Socialism and 
 Anarchy/^ according to my distinguished adversary ? That 
 is a further plea of confession and avoidance. But since 
 my adversary has abandoned the field, I am willing to 
 follow him up and throw a few hand grenades into the re- 
 treating and routed foe. 
 
 I regret such a distinguished official of this Empire 
 State should have committed the error of identifying So- 
 cialism with Anarchy. Eight here^ let me say that no- 
 body more so than the Socialist reverences the history of 
 this country, and recognizes the work done in the Kevolu- 
 tion. We are not Anarchists, and can look to the past 
 more proudly than many of those in these United States 
 who to-day wave the Eed, White and Blue. I regret that 
 the term was used, and that is putting it very mildly. 
 
 Where will human nature be, where will man be when 
 weighed down by Socialism ? I wish to remind my learned 
 friend of the language held by the Tories against the 
 Revolutionary Fathers when this country was fighting for 
 its freedom. You will find that their language against 
 the Jeffersons of those days was the identical language of 
 Attorney General Carmody to-day. (Applause.) What will 
 become of this country, the Tories asked, when it is buried 
 under the dead and levelling weight of Eepublicanism ? 
 And those Tories were wiped out at Yorktown and else- 
 where, and the Eepublic did arise. There is no differenco 
 in the nature of the attacks against the obtainers of our 
 bourgeois freedoms and the attacks used against Socialism 
 to-day. There will be no such thing as ^^a dead weight,'^ 
 
26 DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE, 
 
 for the simple reason that under Socialism man will 
 have the free choice of work, which he has not to-day, 
 and he will enjoy all that he produces. But that takes 
 us into the social economic question for which I have not 
 now the time. 
 
 My distinguished adversary says that he cannot get an 
 answer from any Socialist, and he hoped I would answer 
 him. I am going to be more courteous to him than he was 
 to me. He did not answer a single one of my questions. 
 There is a story told of Andrew Jackson, who, one day, 
 when President, and standing with his back before the 
 fire-place in the White House, heard a noise outside, and* 
 immediately the door of the room fl.ew open, and an old 
 acquaintance of Tennessee rushed in. ^^What are you doing 
 in Washington asked Jackson. ^^Do you know. Gen- 
 eral, what is going on in Tennessee ^^No.^^ ^They are 
 charging me with being a horse thief.^^ ^Tan they prove 
 it ?^ J ackson asked. The answer was : ^^That is the worst 
 of it, they have proved itP^ That is the worst of the fix 
 of our adversaries. The Socialist charges are proved, 
 
 I am asked ^^How are you going to cure the situation?'' 
 *^What are you going to do?'^ ^^Are you going to confis- 
 cated 
 
 I want my distinguished adversary to refresh his mind 
 upon the juridic meaning of the word ^"^confiscation.'* 
 Confiscation means the appropriation of property contrary 
 to the laws of an existing social system. Eevolutions, how- 
 ever, bring their own laws with them. Consequently, un- 
 der the laws of a Social Eevolution, that may be done legit- 
 imately, without the brand of ^^confiscation" which, under 
 the laws of the social system that the Revolution has sup- 
 planted, would be called confiscation. We have a striking 
 
DE LEON-OARMODY DEBATE. 2T 
 
 illustration of this fact in the language of one of the early 
 leaders of our country whom I hope Mr. Carmody will not 
 repudiate. When the Eevolutionary Fathers were asked: 
 ^^Are you going to confiscate these colonies it was no 
 less a man than J efferson who answered the ^^confiscatory" 
 charge: Whenever in the history of a people conditions 
 have become such that they have to be changed, changed 
 they shall be. ^^Confiscation/^ from the British viewpoint, 
 was at the root of this Eepublic. Like all Eevolutionary 
 governments, the Government of the United States was 
 born in revolution. It did not ^^confiscate'^ under the laws 
 of its own existence, whatever the name given to the act 
 by the social system and government which it overthrew. 
 The question is, ^^Do the requirements of the working 
 class demand a different state of society?" If the answer 
 is ^^Yes," then that appropriation is not confiscation at all. 
 I hope my distinguished adversary heard, and will remem- 
 ber my answer. The breath that denounces us as ^^confis- 
 cators," curiously enough, brands Thomas Jefferson, on 
 this platform, by a Democrat, as a ^^confiscator." 
 
 The words were put in my mouth that I claim that the 
 old parties are engaged in a conspiracy against the work- 
 ing class. I certainly hold no such view, and expressed 
 none. The class interests — ^the capitalistic class interests — 
 direct the conduct of the old parties; and that conduct is 
 upheld by the present capitalist system. That is not con- 
 spiracy, any more than it is conspiracy for centipedes to 
 bite. It is the nature of the beast. It has to do it. The 
 capitalist class could not do otherwise. It is the law of 
 its existence. Being the law of its existence, none but an 
 Anarchist would say that the old parties are in a conspir- 
 acy. They are in conspiracies, but not against the working 
 
28 
 
 DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 class. They are in conspiracies against one another; one 
 conspires against the others, and all against each; and 
 within the same party there are a lot of conspiratora 
 against one another. 
 
 There are various brands of Socialists we are told. Oh, 
 yes. It is a curious remark to be made^ on Sunday, of all 
 days. When you say that there are in existence several 
 shades of Socialism, so that you cannot tell what Socialism 
 means^ then^ by that same token, you declare that there 
 is no Christianity, because there are at least two hundred 
 end fifty varieties of Christianity. 
 
 There is nothing in the claim about there being so manj 
 varieties of Socialists, least of all is there any comfort in 
 it for capitalism. I recommend to my distinguished ad- 
 versary that he refresh his memory on the work of Jane 
 Grey Swissholm, the zealous Abolitionist woman. She 
 despaired at the sight of so many varieties of Abolition- 
 ists ; but, even when her despair was at its height, that hap-^ 
 pened that brought the Abolitionists all together, with the 
 consequence that the Copper-head and Bourbon slavehold- 
 ing Democracy came to grief at Appomattox. It is the law 
 of revolutions that their component elements disintegrate; 
 each then attracts its own special affinities ; until that hap- 
 pens that brings them all together into one mighty, irre- 
 sistible stream. There lies at the other end of this evolu- 
 tionary chain of our own generation, another Appomattox — 
 this time it is in store for Capitalism. To use a favorite 
 expression of Lincoln — the more black cats fight, all the 
 more numerous will be the black kittens. 
 
 We were told by Mr. Carmody that the Democratic party 
 loves labor. What do you mean by love of labor ? Do you 
 piean to give labor its independence? Surely not. Then 
 
DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 29 
 
 you don^t love labor. What is the use in saying that every 
 man shall have an equal chance, when capitalism is so 
 constructed that every one hasn^t an equal chance? When 
 they tell us they love labor, and I believe most of them are 
 sincere, they love labor in the same sense that human beinga 
 love their cattle. They are willing to do anything for 
 labor except get off the back of labor. 
 
 We were told that no party can live that is against labor 
 and we applauded that. Capitalist parties, Democratic and 
 Eepublican, while they are for labor in the sense that I 
 showed you, they are against labor, because they propose 
 to keep labor in wage slavery. No such party can any more 
 last in the United States. It is true that they will elect 
 their candidates, but not for much longer. 
 
 We are told that Socialism could never be. If Socialism 
 can never be, why these terrific onslaughts on it from the 
 pulpit and the press? If Socialism is an absurdity, why 
 not let the absurdity kill itself? A party which does not 
 intelligently stand for labor, and that means the emancipa- 
 tion of the working class, that party is doomed in the 
 United States, and the day of its doom is in sight. 
 
30 
 
 DE LEON-CAKMODY DEBATE. 
 
 MB. THOMAS F. CAEMODY IN REBUTTAL. 
 
 I don^t claim to be a prophet, but I can tell just what 
 a Socialist is going to do when he goes to his remedy. 
 Just what the speaker has done. Just what all advocates 
 of Socialism always do. They have but a very few words 
 to devote to an explanation of the remedies, while they have 
 a most beautiful vocabulary with which to describe the ills. 
 
 I told you that my distinguished adversary would not 
 tell you how they were going to carry into effect the most 
 important declaration of Socialism, viz : the acquisition of 
 public utilities. He sat down without telling you, except 
 to vaguely intimate that in this social revolution which 
 he anticipates, a means will be found such as we found in 
 the Eebellion when the slaves were freed, such as we found 
 in the Eevolution when the colonies struck down the hand 
 of foreign tyranny and erected a government of independ- 
 ence. While the charge that I made is denied that, carried 
 to iii logical conclusion, it meant Anarchy, he has admitted 
 that Socialism means Anarchy when it means confiscation 
 of property rights. Before I discuss that, I am going to 
 clear up some of the confusion in which he undertook to 
 involve the statements that I made in my preliminary re- 
 marks. 
 
 I did not say, and do not intend to say that there are 
 evils in our political system that may not be corrected. I 
 did say, if there be any question about my meaning, that 
 Buch evils as there are, and he has pointed out many fully 
 as well as I can; and I go the whole length in pointing 
 out some, the remedy for which lies with the people in 
 
DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 31 
 
 an intelligent application of the power of the ballot. (Ap- 
 plause.) Turbulent destruction of property rights has been 
 preached from this platform this afternoon, although in 
 covert language. 
 
 He says when I pointed out to you that there are evils 
 that exist in our public life and used the similitude of 
 the conditions of the weather, he gave you the facetious ex- 
 ample of the young lady with the beauty mark of the para- 
 site upon her cheek. We might just as well take that as 
 cnything else. What would Socialism do with that? The 
 doctrines which they apply to their public questions — ac- 
 cording to those doctrines they would cut off the young 
 lady's head and mangle her corpse. The trouble is that 
 their remedies are worse than the disease. 
 
 He undertook also to classify me with the Tories. Why, 
 he inadvertently made a very frank admission against hia 
 own theories of government. You will remember that the 
 Tory was the man who said the people were not able to 
 govern themselves. It was the party of J efferson and Ham- 
 ilton and Adams who raised upon the Atlantic shores the 
 banner of liberty, and they placed the powers of government 
 in the hands of the people. They gave them the right to 
 elect their public servants; they surrounded public office 
 with constitutional limitations, and lest in some moment of 
 frenzy the people might be led by the voice of the dema- 
 gogue, they placed around each department of government 
 environments of constitutional strength and power. They 
 gave you a legislative department to make the laws; they 
 gave you the power by the ballot to elect the men that 
 make the laws; they gave you an executive department to 
 enforce the laws. They gave you the ballot to elect the 
 men that enforce the laws. If those who enforce the laws 
 
32 DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE, 
 
 don^t enforce them justly, you have the power given you 
 in the Constitution of the nation and of the State, to cor- 
 rect every evil of that character. Don^t let us misconceive 
 or misconstrue what a Diemocratic form of government 
 means ; it means confidence in the people. If properly en- 
 forced, and if proper laws are passed, and if when passed 
 they are enforced, if honest men are placed in public office, 
 if dishonest men are driven from public offi'ce by the power 
 of the ballot, you will have honest laws honestly enforced. 
 I am not going to be placed in the position before this au- 
 dience or any other in defending unjust laws or entrenched 
 privilege. I scorn entrenched privilege everywhere, 
 whether it is seeking to destroy the duties of labor, whether 
 it is seeking to curb the currents of justice, whether it is 
 Geeking to destroy the heritage of labor which your fathers 
 gave to you, I would destroy it, and you have the power to 
 destroy it. It is not necessary in order to accomplish this 
 that you destroy the government with it or that you destroy 
 property rights. (Applause.) 
 
 Here is where I intend to nail Socialism to the cross and 
 keep it there. I want somebody to tell the laborer who is 
 working in the shoe factory, or whose boys or girls are 
 working for the purpose of earning an honest livelihood, 
 is there any remedy for that condition? Where do you 
 find a remedy in that policy of Anarchy and confiscation, 
 which provides that public utilities shall be controlled by a 
 common ownership and that you acquire public utilities by 
 confiscation? Is there anybody in this land that needs 
 to repel the doctrine of confiscation, that needs to repel 
 the idea of invasion of public rights or public liberty any 
 more than the poor laborer needs to repel it? Is there a 
 citizen under the Flag who needs more the protection of 
 
DE LEON-CAHMODY DEBATE. 
 
 33 
 
 the principle of equality before the law than the poor 
 laboring man? It is the only legacy you have; it is the 
 only protection you have. You should have it, and if you 
 donH have it, you have the power to get it by your ballots, 
 and it is not either confiscation or Anarchy. 
 
 I propounded that question in the beginning, knowing 
 that it would not be answered. This debate will end with* 
 out its being answered, but there will have to be an admis- 
 sion that it is not answered, except the covert one wliich 
 was given. Confiscation is Anarchy. 
 
 What is the force of the analogy of the colonies declar- 
 ing their independence ? They did not confiscate anything, 
 they did not confiscate any property; they took what they 
 declared in the Declaration of Independence was theirs. 
 (Tjoud applause in which Mr. De Leon joins^and from many 
 parts of the theatre, shouts of ''That's what the Socialists 
 will do.'') They did not confiscate the railroads or steam- 
 boats (laughter), I was thinking of that platform, — What 
 did they take? Did they take anybody's property? Did 
 they ? They didn't take a dollar ; they didn't take a dollar 
 of anybody's property ; they took their liberty which they 
 declared belonged to them. (Applause.) (Laughter.) 
 
 (Continuing.) You are a little too rapid in anticipating 
 my conclusions. There was not a dollar of anybody's prop- 
 erty confiscated. Property rights were held sacred ; the only 
 thing they demanded was that foreign tyranny of England 
 be removed from their necks. They demanded first, the 
 amelioration of their lands; that unjust tax laws be 
 amended or repealed; they demanded equal opportunities 
 to all men. They did not demand that there be confiscated 
 the public utilities. 
 
 We go now to the Rebellion, the Instances of what lin- 
 
34 DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 ooln did in striking the shackles from the slave. That 
 was done as an instance in the war of the Eebellion; it 
 was done as an act of necessity and for the purpose of doing 
 what the laws of this country said would be done from the 
 beginning — ^give liberty to all. It was accomplished at ft 
 time when it could be justified as a military necessity. 
 
 I ask you if you find in these two instances a support for 
 the theory of government in these days of opportunities — a 
 Bupport for the Socialist theory of government — in these 
 days when school houses are open to all ; and if you do not 
 get education you ought to unite with those demanding it. 
 
 You say you are going to start this party of yours by 
 confiscating public utilities, by taking away from the great 
 corporations their vested property rights. Do you know 
 what that means ? You are taking it away from the rich. 
 The stock in these corporations is pretty widely scattered ; 
 much of it is owned by small investors. You take the Troy 
 dam; you take the canals. (Laughter.) 
 
 I am rather ashamed to stand before an audience on a 
 Sunday afternoon in the city of Troy, a city of churches, 
 a city of homes, a city of virtue, a city of patriotism and 
 a city of intelligence, and have to apologize for any eulogy 
 that I make of law and order. I am ashamed that I have 
 to stand before an audience and apologize for lauding the 
 institutions of my country. I am ashamed that I may be 
 laughed at and scoffed at by men who enjoy what they 3o 
 not enjoy anywhere else, did not enjoy since the creation 
 was started, and do not enjoy anywhere else but here. (Ap- 
 plause.) 
 
 If that time has come, and if it is here, if we have got in 
 this campaign or if we have got to face in the future any 
 factor of our political existence that stands upon those doc- 
 
DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 35 
 
 trines, then you are the most dangerous factor that ever 
 stood beneath the Flag. The tyranny of life is nothing 
 compared with the tyranny of Anarchy. The tyranny of 
 entrenched privilege against which you complain is ideal 
 as against that tyranny that would level and destroy, de- 
 stroy the altar and the home, destroy equality and labor. 
 (Laughter.) I will say when you laugh at that, then the 
 only safety is in your numbers. Bear in mind that no 
 party will grow in this country and succeed which does not 
 cherish those doctrines that are planted in the heart of 
 every man^ that stand for law and order and for the rights 
 of others, and for opportunity. (Applause.) 
 
 Every man has got some chance himself, and if you have 
 not got it, unite yourselves with those who can give it to 
 you, if they deny it to you. 
 
 Don^t destroy because one of the ramparts of justice has 
 been stricken down. Don^t give up the citadel because 
 Benedict Arnold has sold out the cause. Don^t punish 
 the other patriots of the Eevolution because there are trai- 
 tors. Don^t denounce religion because there are false 
 prophets in the land. (Applause.) 
 
 (Continuing.) Mankind suffers from ills, but don't de- 
 stroy its opportunities. I plead here for those principles, 
 and I plead that you may understand them, that you may 
 examine them and that you may know what they mean 
 and what the creed that you plead means as applied to them. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 (Mr. Carmody then sits down with nine minutes of the 
 time allotted to him unconsumed.) 
 
30 
 
 DE) LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 DANIEL DE LEON, FINAL EEBUTTAL. 
 
 I regret to see the insistence of my distinguished adver- 
 sary upon ^^confiseation/^ I am surprised that he, a Demo- 
 crat, should do so. He is thereby repudiating Jefferson. 
 Jefferson's answer to the charge of ^^confiscation'' is the 
 Declaration of Independence — an ample answer. 
 
 I also regret to notice the confusion of thought on the 
 part of my distinguished adversary concerning the liberties 
 that ^^Jeflerson and Hamilton gave to our people." Does 
 not my distinguished adversary know that what Hamilton 
 wanted was not what Jefferson wanted and got; and does 
 he not know that the Democratic party has since thrown 
 Jefferson overboard and become Hamiltonian? 
 
 My distinguished adversary says we are the worst factors 
 in society. We are not afraid of such charges. That was 
 the charge that the patriciate of the old Eoman Empire 
 made against the early Christians; that was the charge 
 that the Eoman Catholic political hierachy later hurled at 
 the Protestants; that was exactly the charge that the 
 Democratic Bourbon Copperheads flung at the Abolition- 
 ists. We Socialists have not yet been tarred and feathered 
 and ridden on rails as the Abolitionists were. (Voice from 
 the audience: ^^What are they doing in California?") Be 
 not too hasty. The Socialist of America denies all affinity 
 with the element whose leading song has for its refrain: 
 '^Hallelujah, Hallelujah, I'm a bum!" Mere declamation 
 is not enough to prove that the Socialist is '^the worst 
 enemy in society.^' 
 
DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 37 
 
 My distinguished adversary insists that I have not an- 
 swered his questions. 
 
 I maintain that it is he that has abandoned the field. 
 If he desires to debate the subject of Socialism, I am ready. 
 Eight here I challenge him to debate on some specific sub- 
 ject concerning Socialism — ^^Confiscation/^ if he likes, or 
 the subject that ^^The political State, or Capitalism, must 
 now make room for the Industrial Government, or Social- 
 ism.^^ The question of Socialism requires a careful gath- 
 ering of facts, and close reasoning. Declamation will not 
 stead. 
 
 In the few minutes left to me I shall rapidly take up and 
 dispose of some of my distinguished adversary's last points. 
 
 My distinguished adversary said that my remedy for 
 that young lady with the flea on her cheek would be to 
 hack off her head. Indeed not! I distinctly said she 
 would take the parasite between her two nails and nip off 
 its life. Nor is that the treatment we have in store for 
 the capitalist class. We would give them a chance, for once 
 in their lives to earn an honest living. 
 
 My distinguished adversary said that confiscation is 
 Anarchy. I have already and amply covered the subject 
 of ^^confiscation.^' But as to "Anarchy,'^ what is Anarchy ? 
 A word upon that. Anarchy is that theory of society under 
 which man is a law unto himself. It is a theory of society 
 that denies the collectivity. It is a theory of society that 
 finds vastly more affinity with the Capitalist class than it 
 does with the Socialist. It is a theory of society that would 
 throw mankind back to the primitive state. It denies the 
 propriety of central government. He who speaks of So- 
 cialist policies as Anarchy should premise the statement 
 with a book on his theory of Anarchy. Such a man's 
 
38 DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 theory of Anarchy would be found absolutely at war with 
 all the teachings of political science. To say that Social- 
 ism is Anarchy is to fly in the face of political science. 
 
 A word, in connection with ^^Confiscation" as to what 
 the Eevolutionary Fathers did. I refer my distinguished 
 adversary to the fiscal history of George Ill's troubles. The 
 colonists took vastly more than Mr. Carmody imagines. To 
 gauge how much they took, look at the subsequent famines 
 in India. Unable to keep its hands upon what it consid- 
 ered its legitimate property in the colonies, the British 
 Crown had to fall back upon the Hindoos to recoup itself. 
 Socialism does not, cannot contemplate the "confiscation'^ 
 of existing wealth, for the simple reason that the wealth 
 of society to-day IS the property of the working class; they 
 produced it. They would be only "taking their own" — 
 just as the colonists did. 
 
 We are asked for a complete list of items of the Socialist 
 Eepublic. The same demand has been made before upon 
 great men upon great occasions — and with as little sense. 
 
 When Columbus proposed to start on his trip to discover 
 the eastern shores of Asia, there were people of my distin- 
 guished opponent's bent of mind who asked him where the 
 mountains, and the mouths of rivers, and the harbors would 
 lie. His answer was : "I do not know, and I do not care. 
 Wh t I do know is that the world being round, if I travel 
 westward I must strike land.^^ 
 
 If Columbus is too ancient in history, take Washington. 
 When he was fighting the battles of independence there 
 were Tory pamphleteers who pestered him and the other 
 Eevolutionary Fathers with questions upon the kind of 
 government they contemplated — ^was it to be a Venetian 
 Doge affair, a Dutch Eepublic of high Mightinesses, or 
 
DE LEON-CAaMODY DEBATE. 29 
 what ? Washington's answer was : ^Tirst lick the British/^ 
 
 Impossible for the capitalist system with its political 
 state to continue. The Goddess of Liberty cannot sit upon 
 bayonets. With a logic similar to that of Columbus's an- 
 swer, the Socialist says that the Co-operative Common- 
 wealth, or the Industrial Government is next in the order 
 of social systems. No more than Washington can we give 
 details in advance, and like Washington we say: First 
 lick the British of to-day. 
 
 We are told ^^the Courts are open to all/^ yet in these 
 days what is the cry that is going up from one end of the 
 country to the other ? — ^the cry of the ^^Eecall.^^ 
 
 We are told the doors of our schools are open — and rela- 
 tively fewer and fewer of the workers^ children can attend. 
 Their fathers earn too little to clothe and feed them for 
 school. 
 
 We are told to use the ballot. You bet we will ! 
 
 The Constitution of the United States was the first to 
 provide for its own amendment. The Consitution of the 
 United States thereby recognized, or, rather, legalized revo- 
 lution, to use the language of a celebrated man in this 
 country. In the language of Washington, our people hold 
 the government in the hollow of their hand. The facts 
 that I have adduced, the arguments that I have presented 
 demonstrate that the time has come for the oppressed in 
 this country to make use of that Constitution's amendment 
 clause, and put an end to the capitalist social system. As 
 Socialists, as men who stand upon the International prin- 
 ciples of Socialism, as men who recognize that the Political 
 State is rotten-ripe for overthrow, we organize the Indus- 
 trial Unions to seize the reins of future government, and 
 enforce the fiat of the ballot should the reactionists, the 
 
40 DE LEON-CARMODY DEBATE. 
 
 Bourbon-Copperheads of this generation, rise against it. 
 
 It is in the hands of the Socialists that the American 
 Flag is in the keeping of. It is the Socialists who are 
 to-day bracing themselves against the attempt, and who 
 will block the attempt to re-introduce despotism under the 
 folds of the Flag. 
 
 We certainly do propose to use the ballot for all that it 
 is worth. We are children of the Twentieth Century, and 
 as such we propose to deport ourselves. (Prolonged ap-^ 
 plause.) 
 
THE FULL SERIES OF 
 
 :: OR :: 
 
 History of a Proletarian Family 
 Across the Ages 
 
 By EUGENE SUE 
 
 Consisting of the Following Works: 
 
 THE GOLD SICKLE; or, Hena the Virgin of the Isle of Ser^ 
 THE BRASS BELL; or, The Chariot of Death. 
 THE IRON COLLAR; or, Faustina and Syomara. 
 THE SILVER CROSS; or, The Carpenter of Nazareth, 
 THE CASQUE'S LARK; or, Victoria, the Mother of the Camps. 
 THE PONIARD'S HILT; or, Karadeucq and Ronan. 
 THE BRANDING NEEDLE; or. The Monastery of Charolles. 
 THE ABBATIAL CROSIER; or, Bonadk and Septimine. 
 THE CARLOVINGIAN COINS; or, The Daughters of Oharle^ 
 magne. 
 
 THE IRON ARROW-HEAD; or, The Buckler Maiden. 
 THE INFANT'S SKULL; or. The End of the World. 
 THE PILGRIM'S SHELL; or, Fergan the Quarrymwn. 
 THE IRON PINCERS; or, Mylio and Karvel. 
 THE IRON TREVET; or, Jocelyn the Champion. 
 THE EXECUTIONER'S KNIFE; or, Joan of Arc. 
 THE POCKET BIBLE; or. Christian the Printer. 
 THE BLACKSMITH'S HAMMER; or, The Peasant Code, 
 TBE SWORD OF HONOR; or. The Foundation of the French 
 Repuhlic. 
 
 THE GALLEY SLAVE'S RING; or, The Family Lebrmn. 
 
 Published Uniform With This Volume By 
 
 THE NEW YORK LABOR NEWS CO. 
 
 45 Rose Street New York City 
 
THE FRANKLIN PRESS, 
 
 45 Rose St., New York 
 
THINGS SEEN AND THINGS NOT SEEN. By Frederick Bastiat 
 •eiits. The "Americana" says: "Nowhere will reason find a richer 
 ny of weapons available against Socialism than in the pamphlets 
 (ished by Bastiat between 1848 and 1850." Every anti-Socialist ought 
 ead this pamphlet again and again. 
 
 THINGS SEEN 
 
 and 
 
 THINGS NOT SEEN 
 
 From the French of 
 
 FREDERIC BASTIAT 
 
 Abridged from the Translation by DR. HODGSON in 1852 
 
 CASSELL AND COMPANY, LIMITED 
 London, New York, Toronto and Melbourne 
 
 1910 
 
COBDEN CLUB. 
 
 Address : — 
 
 CAXTON HOUSE, 
 
 WESTMINSTER* S.W. 
 
THINGS SEEN AND 
 
 THINGS NOT SEEN. 
 
 FROM THE FRENCH OF 
 
 FREDERIC BASTIAT, 
 
 Abridged from the Translation by 
 Dr, Hodgson 171 18^2. 
 
 CASSELL & COMPANY, Limited 
 
 LONDON, NEW YORK, TORONTO & MELBOURNE 
 
 1910 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Chapter I. The Broken Pane .... 5 
 
 II. The Cost of an Army ... 9 
 
 III. Government Expenditure . . 13 
 
 IV. Public Works 16 
 
 V. The Middleman 19 
 
 VI. Protection 26 
 
 VII. Machinery 34 
 
 VIII. State Credit 41 
 
J 
 
THINGS SEEN AND THINGS 
 NOT SEEN. 
 
 CHAPTER 1. 
 
 THE BROKEN PANE. 
 
 Have you ever witnessed the rage of the worthy 
 citizen Jacques Bonhomme,* when his rogue of a son 
 has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have 
 ever been present at this spectacle, assuredly you 
 must have observed that all the bystanders, were they 
 as many as thirty, made haste with one accord to 
 offer to the unfortunate owner this never varying 
 consolation, It is an ill wind that blows nobody 
 good. Such accidents do good to industry. Every 
 body must live. What would become of the glaziers, 
 if windows were never broken ? " 
 
 Now in this formula of condolence there is an 
 entire theory, which is the basis of the economic 
 errors of a large part of the world. 
 
 Supposing that six francs (five shillings) are re 
 
 * Jacques Bonhomme is to the French what John Bull is 
 to the English. 
 
 4 
 
6 
 
 quired to repair the damage, if it is meant that the 
 accident brings six francs to the glazier, and encour- 
 ages his industry to the extent of six francs, I grant 
 it readily : the reasoning is just. The glazier comes, 
 he finishes the job, he pockets six francs, rubs his 
 hands, and in his heart blesses the mischievous urchin. 
 This is what is seen. 
 
 But if, by way of inference, it be concluded, as it 
 is too often, that it is a good thing to break windows, 
 that it makes money circulate, that the result is an 
 encouragement to industry in general, I am obliged 
 to cry halt! Your theory stops at what is seen, it 
 takes no account of what is not seen. 
 
 It is not seen that since our citizen has spent six 
 francs on one thing, he cannot spend them on another. 
 It is not seen that if he had not had that pane of 
 glass to replace, he would have replaced, for example, 
 his shoes now down at heel, or would have placed 
 another book in his library. In short, he would have 
 made of those six francs some use which now he 
 cannot make. 
 
 Let us then look at the industry of the country 
 as a whole. 
 
 The pane of glass being broken, the industry of 
 the glazier is encouraged to the extent of six francs ; 
 that is what is seen. 
 
 If the window had not been broken, the industry 
 of the shoemaker (or some other) would have been 
 encouraged to the extent of six francs: this is what 
 is not seen. 
 
 And if one took into consideration what is not 
 seen, because it is a negative fact, as well as what is 
 
7 
 
 seen, because it is a positive fact, one would under- 
 stand that it is of no consequence whatever to indus- 
 try in general, or to the sum of national industry, 
 that windows should be broken or should not be 
 broken. 
 
 Let us now make the reckoning of Jacques Bon- 
 homme. 
 
 In the first case supposed, that of the broken pane, 
 he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less 
 than before, the enjoyment of a pane of glass. 
 
 In the second, that is, if the accident had not hap- 
 pened, he would have spent six francs in shoes, and 
 would have had at once the enjoyment of a pair of 
 shoes and that of a pane of glass. 
 
 Now, as Jacques Bonhomme forms part of society, 
 it must thence be concluded that, considered in its 
 totality, and the balance of its labours and enjoy- 
 ments being fairly struck, society has lost the value 
 of the broken pane. 
 
 Hence we arrive at these conclusions — 
 
 " Society loses the value of objects uselessly 
 destroyed." 
 
 " To break, to destroy, to dissipate, is not to 
 encourage the national industry.'' 
 " Destruction is not profit.'' 
 
 The reader must try to establish clearly that there 
 are not two persons only, but three in the little drama 
 to which I have called his attention. The first, 
 Jacques Bonhomme, represents the consumer reduced 
 by the breaking of the pane to one enjoyment instead 
 of two. The second, the glazier, is the producer 
 whose industry is encouraged by the accident. The 
 
8 
 
 third is the shoemaker (or any other craftsman), 
 whose industry is discouraged to the same extent by 
 the same cause. 
 
 It is the third person who is always kept in 
 the shade, and who, personifying what is not seeUy 
 is a necessary element in .the problem. It is he 
 who shows us how absurd it is to see a profit in a 
 destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that 
 it is not less absurd to see a profit in protection, 
 which is, after all, a form of destruction. Indeed, 
 if you go to the root of all the arguments which are 
 used in favour of restriction or protection, you will 
 find that they all resolve themselves into another 
 way of saying, " What would become of the glaziers, 
 if windows were never broken? " 
 
9 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE COST OF AN ARMY. 
 
 It is with a nation as with a man. When a nation 
 wishes to allow itself a satisfaction, it must consider 
 whether the satisfaction is worth what it costs. 
 Security is the greatest of national blessings. If, to 
 acquire it, it is necessary to organise a hundred thous- 
 and men, and to spend a hundred millions (of francs), 
 I have nothing to say. It is an enjoyment purchased 
 at the price of a sacrifice. 
 
 Let there be no mistake, then, as to the scope of 
 my position. 
 
 A member of Parliament proposes to disband a 
 hundred thousand men, in order to relieve the tax- 
 payers to the extent of one hundred milHon of 
 francs. 
 
 The taxpayers may reply : — " These hundred 
 thousand men, and these hundred millions, are indis- 
 pensable to the national security ; it is a sacrifice, 
 but without this sacrifice France would be torn by 
 factions, or invaded by a foreign enemy." To this 
 argument I have nothing to oppose. It may be true 
 or false in fact, but it involves no heresy in economic 
 theory. The heresy begins with the attempt to re- 
 present the sacrifice as an advantage, because it 
 profits some one. 
 
lO 
 
 Yet the moment such a proposition is made some 
 one will exclaim, " Disband a hundred thousand men ! 
 are you serious ? What will become of them ? How 
 will they subsist ? Will it be by labour ? But do you 
 not know that labour everywhere wants employment 
 — that every occupation is overstocked? Would you 
 throw them into the market, to increase competition 
 and to depress wages? At a time when it is so 
 difficult to earn the humblest livelihood, is it not 
 fortunate that the State gives bread to a hundred 
 thousand men? Consider, besides, that the army 
 consumes wine, clothes, arms — that it thus creates 
 activity in the workshops in the gai'rison towns ; and 
 that it is, in a word, the providence of the numberless 
 persons who live by supplying its wants. Do you 
 not shudder at the thought of annihilating this 
 immense industrial movement ? " 
 
 This argument, it will be seen, leaves on one side 
 the necessities of the service, and attempts to justify 
 the maintenance of a hundred thousand soldiers on 
 alleged economic considerations. It is these con- 
 siderations only that I have to refute. 
 
 A hundred thousand soldiers and all the work- 
 people and tradesmen who supply their wants are 
 supported by means of the hundred million francs 
 subscribed by the taxpayers. This is what is seen. 
 
 But the hundred millions, being taken from the 
 pockets of the taxpayers, cease to support these tax- 
 payers and those who supply their wants : this is 
 what is not seen. Make the calculation, put down 
 the figures, and tell me where is the profit for the 
 nation as a whol^. 
 
XI 
 
 On my side, I will tell you where the loss is ; and 
 for simplicity's sake, instead of speaking of a hundred 
 thousand men and of a hundred million of francs, let 
 us reason on one man and a thousand francs. 
 
 Let us take the village of A. The recruiting 
 sergeants make their round, and carry off a man. The 
 tax-gatherers make their round also, and carry off 
 a thousand francs. The man and the money are 
 transported to Metz, the money keeps the man for a 
 year in barracks. If you look only at Metz you will 
 see an advantage ; but if you cast your eyes to 
 the village of A. you will think otherwise ; for, unless 
 you are blind, you will see that this village has lost 
 a labourer, and has lost the thousand francs which 
 he would have earned by his labour, and has lost the 
 activity which, by the outlay of those thousand francs, 
 he would have diffused around him. 
 
 At the first glance, it would seem that the two 
 cases exactly balance ; that what before passed in 
 the village of A. now passes at Metz, and that is 
 all. But the loss is in this. In the village a man 
 dug and worked ; he was a labourer : at Metz, 
 he goes through his facings — eyes right, eyes left ; he 
 is a soldier. The money and its circulation are the 
 same in the two cases ; but in the one -case there are 
 three hundred days of useful labour, in the other 
 three hundred days of useless labour, always on the 
 supposition that a part of the army could be dis- 
 banded without risk to national security. 
 
 Now, let us consider the proposed disbanding. 
 You point to an increase of a hundred thousand 
 labourers, increased competition, and the lowering 
 
effect of that on the rate of wages. That is what 
 yoii see. 
 
 But here cornes what you do not see. You do 
 not see that to disband one hundred thousand soldiers 
 is not to annihilate a hundred million francs, but to 
 restore them to the taxpayers. You do not see that 
 by thus throwing a hundred thousand labourers on 
 the market, you throw, by the very same act, into the 
 market the hundred millions destined to pay their 
 labour ; that, consequently, the same measure which 
 increases the supply of labour increases also the 
 demand for it ; whence it follows that your fall of 
 wages is an illusion. Before, as after, the disbanding, 
 there are in the country a hundred million francs, 
 corresponding to a hundred thousand men. But 
 before the disbanding the country gave the hundred 
 millions to the hundred thousand men for doing 
 nothing ; after ^ it gives the same amount of money 
 to the same number of men for doing something. I 
 repeat that whether a taxpayer gives his money to a 
 soldier in exchange for nothing, or to a labourer in 
 exchange for something, all the ulterior consequences 
 as to the circulation of the money are the same ; 
 only, in the second case, the taxpayer receives some- 
 thing, in the first he receives nothing. Therefore, if 
 the soldiers are not required for national security, 
 their maintenance is pure loss to the nation. 
 
 Let those who think otherwise answer this ques- 
 tion : — If you can add to the wealth of the nation by 
 maintaining soldiers, why not enlist the whole 
 population ? 
 
13 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE. 
 
 Have you never happened to hear it said, " Govern- 
 ment expenditure is a fertiHsing dew? See how 
 many families it supports, and how many industries 
 it benefits." 
 
 This is only another example of what I have 
 explained before. 
 
 When a Government servant spends for his profit 
 five francs more, that implies that a taxpayer spends 
 for his profit five francs less. But the outlay of the 
 functionary is seen, because it is made ; whilst that 
 of the taxpayer is not seen, because it is prevented 
 from being made. 
 
 What is very certain is, that when Jacques Bon- 
 homme pays five francs to the tax-gatherer, he 
 receives nothing in return. When, by-and-by, a func- 
 tionary who spends those five francs returns them to 
 Jacques Bonhomme, it is in exchange for an equal 
 value in corn or in labour. The net result is for 
 Jacques Bonhomme a loss of five francs. 
 
 It is very true that frequently, most frequently 
 if you will, the functionary renders Jacques Bon- 
 homme an equivalent service. In this case, there is 
 
no loss on either side, but only exchange. My argu- 
 ment, however, does not at all apply to useful func- 
 tions. What I say is this: if you wish to create an 
 office, prove its usefulness ; prove that the services^ 
 which it renders to Jacques Bonhomme are an 
 equivalent for what it costs him. But do not urge 
 that the mere employment of the functionary 
 encourages industry. 
 
 When Jacques Bonhomme gives five francs to a 
 functionary in return for a service really useful, the 
 transaction is similar to giving five francs to a shoe- 
 maker for a pair of shoes. Both sides are quits. 
 But when Jacques Bonhomme gives five francs to a 
 functionary to receive no service in return, or even 
 to receive annoyance, it is as if he gave them to a 
 robber. It is of no use to say that the functionary 
 will spend these five francs to the great advantage of 
 the national industry ; the robber would have done 
 as much. Jacques Bonhomme would have done as 
 much himself if he had not met on the road either of 
 those robbers, the legal or the extra-legal. 
 
 Let me take a case. I am about to arrange with 
 a ditcher to have a trench made in my field, at a 
 cost of five francs. At the moment of concluding 
 my bargain the tax-gatherer takes my five francs, and 
 forwards them to the Minister of the Interior ; my 
 bargain is broken off, but Monsieur the Minister will 
 add a dish to his dinner. Upon this you dare to 
 affirm that this official outlay is an increase of the 
 national industry! Do you not understand that 
 there is here only a displacement of satisfaction and 
 of labour? A minister has his table better furnished, 
 
IS 
 
 it is true ; but a farmer has his field worse drained, 
 and that is not less true. A Parisian cook has 
 gained five francs, I grant you ; but grant me 
 that a provincial ditcher has missed gaining five 
 francs. All that can be said is, that the official dish 
 and the cook contented are what is seen ; the marshy 
 field, and the ditcher without work, are what is not 
 seen. 
 
 Good heavens ! What a labour to prove, with 
 ^political economy, that two and two make four; and 
 if one succeed in this attempt, you cry, " It is so clear, 
 that it is tiresome." And afterwards you vote as if 
 nothing had been proved at all. 
 
i6 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 PUBLIC WORKS. 
 
 Nothing is more natural than that a nation, when 
 convinced that a great undertaking would be of ser- 
 vice to the community, should execute it by means of 
 a contribution raised from the community. But I 
 lose patience, I confess, when I hear alleged in sup- 
 port of such a resolution this economic absurdity — 
 " It is, besides, a means of creating employment for 
 the workmen." 
 
 The State makes a road, builds a palace, improves 
 a street, digs a canal ; it thus gives employment to 
 certain workmen — that is what is seen ; but it deprives 
 of employment certain other workmen — this is what 
 is not seen. 
 
 Take a road in course of execution. A thousand 
 workmen come every morning, go away every even- 
 ing, receive their wages — that is certain. If the road 
 had not been decreed, if the funds had not been voted, 
 those worthy people would not have found in that 
 place either work or v/ages. This also is certain. 
 
 But is this all? Must not the State organise the 
 receipt as well as the outlay.^ Must it not send its 
 tax-gatherers abroad, and lay its taxpayers under 
 contribution ? 
 
17 
 
 Let us then study the question in its twofold 
 bearing. While we mark the destination which the 
 State gives to the milHons voted, let us not neglect 
 to mark the destination which the taxpayers would 
 have given — and can no longer give — to those same 
 millions. You will then understand that a public 
 enterprise is a medal, with two sides. On one appears 
 a workman employed, with this device — Wkat is seen ; 
 on the other, a workman unemployed, with this device 
 — What is not seen. 
 
 The sophism which I combat in this treatise is so 
 much the more dangerous, when applied to public 
 works, that it serves to justify enterprises the most 
 foolish, and prodigality the most wanton. When a 
 railway or a bridge has a real utility, it is enough to 
 appeal to that utility ; but if one cannot, what is done ? 
 Recourse is had to that mystification — " Employment 
 must be provided for the workmen.*' 
 
 Therefore, orders are given to make and unmake 
 terraces in the Champ de Mars. The great Napoleon, 
 it is well known, thought that he performed a philan- 
 thropic act in employing men to dig pits and fill them 
 up again. He used also to say : " What signifies the 
 result ; we must consider only the wealth diffused 
 among the working classes? 
 
 Let us go to the bottom of the question. It is 
 money that deceives us. To demand money from all 
 the citizens for a common work, is in reality to demand 
 their labour : for each one of them obtains by labour 
 the sum which he has to pay in taxes. Now, it is 
 quite intelligible that all the citizens should unite to 
 accomplish, by their common labour, a work useful 
 
 B 
 
i8 
 
 to all: their reward would be in the results of the 
 work itself. But that they should be required to 
 make roads where no one will pass, to build palaces 
 which no one will inhabit, and all this under pretext 
 of procuring for them work, is an absurdity, and they 
 would have good reason to reply — " This work is of 
 no use to us ; we prefer to w^ork on our own account." 
 
 The process, which consists in making the citizens 
 contribute in money and not in Iq^bour, does not in 
 the least change the general result : only, by the latter 
 proceeding, the loss would be shared by all. By the 
 former, those whom the State employs escape their 
 share of the loss, by adding it to that which their 
 fellow- citizens have already to undergo. 
 
 There is an article of the constitution to this 
 effect : — Society favours and encourages the develop- 
 ment of industry, by establishing, by means of the 
 State, of the departments and the communes, public 
 works suitable for occupying the hands unemployed." 
 
 As a temporary measure, in a time of crisis, during 
 a severe winter, this intervention on the part of the 
 taxpayer may have good effect. It acts in the same 
 way as an insurance office. It adds nothing to work 
 or to wages, but it takes the work and wages of 
 ordinary times, to bestow them, with loss it is true, 
 on periods of difficulty. 
 
 As a permanent, general, systematic measure, it 
 is nothing but a ruinous mystification, an impossibility, 
 a contradiction which shows a little stimulated labour 
 which is seen, and hides much prevented labour whieh 
 is not seen. 
 
19 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE MIDDLEMAN. 
 
 Society is the sum of the services which men render 
 to each other wilhngly, or on compulsion, that is to 
 say, of -public services, and of private services. 
 
 The first, imposed and regulated by the law, which 
 it is not always easy to change when it ought to be 
 changed, may with it long survive their first utility, 
 and still preserve the name of public services, even 
 when they are no longer services at all, even when 
 tliey are only public vexations. The second are 
 within the domain of the individual will and responsi- 
 bility. Everyone gives and receives what he will, 
 what he can, after full debate. They have always 
 in their favour the presumption of real utility, exactly 
 measured by their comparative value. 
 
 It is for this reason that the former are so often 
 struck motionless, while the latter obey the law of 
 progress. The exaggerated development of public 
 services, by the loss of force which it involves, tends 
 to constitute in the heart of society a fatal canker. 
 Yet many modern sects are so blind to this evil that 
 they are always seeking to extend " State enter- 
 prise." 
 
 These sects protest strongly against what they call 
 middlemen. They would willingly suppress the capi- 
 
20 
 
 talist, the banker, the speculator, the contractor, the 
 retailer, and the merchant, accusing them of inter- 
 posing between production and consumption, in orde^ 
 to levy contributions on both, without rendering any 
 vahie in return. Or rather they would transfer to 
 the State the work which these middlemen accom- 
 pHsh, for that work could not be suppressed. 
 
 The sophism of the socialists on this point consists 
 in showing to the public what it pays to middlemen 
 in exchange for their services, and in hiding from 
 them what they would have to pay to the State. It 
 is always the struggle between what strikes the eye 
 and what appears only to the mind, between what 
 is seen and what is not seen. 
 
 It was especially in 1847, and on occasion of the 
 scarcity, that the socialist schools endeavoured with 
 success to make their fatal theory current among the 
 people. They knew well that the most absurd doc- 
 trine has always some chance of disciples among men 
 who suffer; malesuada fames T ("Hunger which 
 persuades to evil.") 
 
 Then by the aid of great phrases — " one man 
 making profit by the ruin of another, speculation on 
 hunger, monopoly" — they strove to calumniate com- 
 merce and to hide its benefits. 
 
 Why, said they, leave to merchants the care of 
 bringing food from the Crimea and the United States ? 
 Why does not the State organise a service for supply 
 and storing of provisions? The State would sell to 
 the people at cost price; the poor would be freed 
 from the tribute which they now pay to commerce. 
 
 The tribute which the people pay to commerce, 
 
21 
 
 that is what is seen. The tribute wj;iich the people 
 would pay to the State, or its agents, on the socialist 
 system, that is what is not seen. 
 
 In what consists this pretended tribute which the 
 people pay to commerce? In this — that two men 
 render a reciprocal service, in all liberty, under the 
 influence of competition, and at a price settled by 
 debate. 
 
 When the hungry stomach is at Paris, and when 
 the corn that can satisfy it is at Odessa, the suffering 
 cannot cease unless the corn and the stomach meet. 
 There are three ways of effecting this meeting: — 
 1st, the hungry men may themselves go to seek the 
 corn ; 2nd, they may employ those who make this 
 their business ; 3rd, they may contribute from their 
 means and charge public functionaries with the 
 operation. 
 
 Of these three ways, which is the most advan- 
 tageous ? 
 
 Men have always voluntarily chosen the second, 
 at all times, in all countries, and I confess that this 
 fact alone suffices, in my eyes, to place the presump- 
 tion on that side. My mind refuses to admit that the 
 whole human race are deceived in a matter which 
 touches them so nearly. 
 
 Let us examine, nevertheless. 
 
 That thirty-six milHons of French citizens should 
 go to seek at Odessa the corn which they need is 
 evidently impossible. The first way, therefore, may 
 be set aside. The consumers, not being able to act by 
 themselves, arc obliged to have recourse to middle- 
 men, whether functionaries or merchants. 
 
Let us here remark, however, that the first way 
 would be the most natural. In truth, it is for him 
 who is hungry to go to seek his corn. It is a labour 
 which concerns him ; it is a service which he owes 
 to himself. If another man by any title whatsoever 
 renders him this service and takes this trouble for 
 him, that other has a right to compensation. I say 
 this now to show that the services of middlemen 
 deserve remuneration. 
 
 In any case recourse must be had to what the 
 socialists term a parasite. I ask which of the two, 
 the merchant or the functionary, is the less exacting 
 parasite ? 
 
 Merchants — middlemen if you will — are led by 
 interest to study the seasons, to learn day by day 
 the state of crops, to collect information from all 
 quarters of the globe, to foresee wants and to take 
 precautions for their supply. They have ships 
 ready, correspondents everywhere, and their im- 
 mediate interest is to buy as cheaply as possible, 
 to economise on all the details of the operation, 
 and to attain the greatest results with the least 
 effort. It is not only French merchants, but the 
 merchants of the whole world who are engaged 
 in supplying P'rance w^th provisions in the day of 
 need ; and if interest leads them irresistibly to per- 
 form the task at the least expense to themselves, their 
 competition with each other leads them, not less irre- 
 sistibly, to give the consumers the advantage of the 
 economies they have effected. The corn arrives. It 
 is the interest of the merchants to sell it as soon as 
 possible to avoid risks, to realise their funds, 
 
23 
 
 and begin anew if occasion permit. Guided 
 by comparison of prices, they distribute food 
 over the whole surface of the country, be- 
 ginning always at the dearest point, that is to say, 
 where the want is most keenly felt. It is not then 
 possible to imagine an organisation better calculated 
 for the interest of those who want food ; and the 
 beauty of this organisation, unperceived by the social- 
 ists, results precisely from its being free. Of course, 
 the consumer is obliged to repay to the merchants 
 their cost of transport, shipments, storage, commis- 
 sion, etc. ; but on what system would it not be neces- 
 sary for the man who eats the corn to repay the 
 expenses incurred in bringing it within his reach? 
 It is necessary, besides, to pay a remuneration for 
 the service rendered ; but the amount of that re- 
 muneration is reduced to the miniminn possible by 
 competition. 
 
 Suppose the State were to take the place of 
 independent merchants, what would be the result? 
 Where would be the saving to the pubhc? Would 
 fewer ships be required, fewer sailors, fewer ship- 
 ments, less storage, or would payment for all these 
 things be dispensed with? Would it be in the mer- 
 chants' profit? But would your delegates and func- 
 tionaries go to Odessa for nothing? Would they 
 undertake the voyage and the labour on the principle 
 of fraternity ? Must they not live ? Must not their 
 lime be paid for ? And do you think that this would 
 not exceed a thousand times the two or three per 
 cent, that the merchant gains — a rate to which he is 
 ready to bind himself? 
 
24 
 
 And then, think of the difficulty of raising so 
 many taxes, of distributing so much food. Think of 
 the injustice, of the abuse, inseparable from such an 
 enterprise. Think of the responsibility which would 
 weigh on the government. 
 
 The socialists do not see that society, under the 
 influence of freedom, is a true association of human 
 beings for their common good. 
 
 Let us illustrate this by an example. 
 
 That a man may, on rising, be able to put on a 
 coat, land must have been enclosed, cleared, drained, 
 ploughed, sov/n with a certain sort of vegetable ; 
 flocks must have been fed ; their wool must have been 
 shorn, spun, woven, dried, and converted into cloth ; 
 this cloth must have been cut, stitched, made into 
 clothing. And this series of operations implies a 
 multitude of others ; for it supposes the use of agri- 
 cultural implements, sheepfolds, manufactories, coal, 
 machines, vehicles, etc. 
 
 If society were not really an association, the man 
 who wants a coat would be obliged to labour alone, 
 and by himself to accomplish the innumerable acts 
 of this series, from the first stroke of the mattock, 
 with which it begins, to the last stroke of the needle, 
 with which it ends. 
 
 But thanks to the sociability which is the distinc- 
 tive character of our species, these operations are 
 distributed among a multitude of labourers, and it is 
 to be noted that the larger the consumption becomes, 
 the greater is the subdivision of labour, for when con- 
 sumption is large, each special operation can be 
 made the work of a special industry. If, for example, 
 
25 
 
 in the course of the operation, transport becomes 
 sufficiently important to occupy one person, spinning 
 a second, weaving a third, why should the first be 
 regarded as more a parasite than the two others? 
 Must not the transport be effected? Does not 
 he who effects it devote to it time and labour? 
 Does he not spare the time and labour of his 
 associates? Is not this exactly what those do 
 for him ? Is not the remuneration of all — that 
 is their share of the product — equally subject 
 to the law of supply and demand? Is not this 
 division of labour effected for the common good? 
 What need is there, under pretext of organisation, 
 to destroy these voluntary arrangements? Does an 
 association cease to be an association because each 
 person enters and quits it freely, chooses his place in 
 it, judges and stipulates for himself on his own 
 responsibility, and brings to his share of the common 
 work the stimulus and guarantee of his personal 
 interest ? 
 
26 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 PROTECTION. 
 
 Mr. Prohibitor employed his time and his capital 
 in converting into iron the mineral on his estates. 
 As nature had been more liberal towards the Belgians, 
 they supplied iron to the French cheaper than Mr. 
 Prohibitor could do, that is to say, the French people 
 could obtain a given quantity of iron with less 
 labour, by purchasing it from the Flemings instead 
 of purchasing it from Mr. Prohibitor. Guided by 
 their interest, the French people did not complain 
 of this ; but every day witnessed a multitude of 
 nailers, smiths, cartwrights, machinists, farriers, and 
 workmen, on their way, personally, or represented by 
 middlemen, to provide themselves in Belgium with 
 the iron they wanted. This very much displeased 
 Mr. Prohibitor. 
 
 At first he thought of stopping this abuse by his 
 own strength. This was, indeed, the fairest plan, as 
 he alone suffered. I will take my musket, he said 
 to himself, I will stick four pistols in my belt, I 
 will fill my cartridge-box, I will gird on my trusty 
 sword, and thus equipped, I will make for the fron- 
 tier ; and there, the first smith, nailer, farrier, 
 
27 
 
 machinist, or locksmith that may present himseit, 
 with the object of buying Belgian iron instead of 
 mine, I will kill him in order to teach him how to 
 live 
 
 At the moment of setting out, Mr. Prohibitor made 
 some reflections which tempered a little his warlike 
 ardour. He said to himself: — In the first place, it is 
 not absolutely impossible that my fellow-country- 
 men, who are buyers of Belgian iron, may take my 
 doings amiss, and instead of allowing me to kill them, 
 may kill me. In the second place, even if I were to 
 take with me all my servants, we could not guard all 
 the passages. Finally, the proceeding would cost 
 me very dear, dearer than the result is worth. 
 
 Mr. Prohibitor was sorrowfully about to resign 
 himself to being simply free like everyone else, when 
 a bright thought flashed across his brain. 
 
 He remembered that at Paris there is a great 
 manufactory of laws. What is a law ? he said to him- 
 self. It is a measure to which, when once decreed, 
 be it good or bad, all are obliged to conform. For 
 the execution of a law, a public force is organised, 
 and to constitute the said public force, men and money 
 are taken from the nation. 
 
 If, then, I obtained from the great Parisian law- 
 factory a little law to this effect — " Belgian iron is 
 prohibited " — I should obtain the following results : 
 - — The Government would, instead of the few servants 
 whom I wished to send to the frontier, send twenty 
 thousand sons of my refractory blacksmiths, lock- 
 smiths, nailers, farriers, artisans, machinists, and 
 labourers. Next, in order to keep in good conditioi] 
 
28 
 
 of health and spirits these 20,000 custom-house 
 guards, Government would distribute among them 
 25 millions of francs, taken from those same black- 
 smiths, nailers, artisans, and labourers. The guard 
 would be more effective ; it would cost me nothing ; 
 I should not be exposed to the brutality of hagglers 
 about price ; I should sell my iron on my own 
 terms ; and I should enjoy the sweet satisfaction 
 of seeing our great nation ingloriously mystified. 
 That would teach it to proclaim itself incessantly 
 the precursor and promoter of all progress in Europe. 
 The game will be exciting, and is well worth the 
 attempt. 
 
 Mr. Prohibitor repaired accordingly to the manu- 
 factory of laws. I may, some other time, tell the 
 story of his secret negotiations ; but at present I will 
 speak only of his ostensible proceedings. He ad- 
 dressed to the honourable lawmakers the following 
 considerations : — 
 
 " Belgian iron is sold in France at ten francs, and 
 this obliges me to sell mine at the same price. I 
 should greatly prefer to sell mine at fifteen, and I 
 cannot on account of this Belgian iron, which may 
 heaven confound. Construct a law which shall say, 
 ' Belgian iron shall no longer enter France.* Imme- 
 diately I raise my price five francs, and see the conse- 
 quences. 
 
 For every cwt. of iron that I shall sell to the 
 public, instead of receiving ten francs, I shall receive 
 fifteen ; I shall become rich all the sooner ; I will 
 enlarge my works, I will employ more workmen. My 
 workmen and I will expend more, to the great advan- 
 
29 
 
 tage of all who supply us for many leagues round. 
 These, too, having a greater demand for their pro- 
 ducts, will give greater employment to industry, and 
 by degrees activity will be diffused through the whole 
 country. This blessed five franc piece which you will 
 drop into my pocket will, like a stone thrown into 
 a lake, spread to a distance an infinite number of 
 concentric circles." 
 
 Charmed by this discourse, enchanted to learn that 
 it was so easy by legislation to increase the wealth of 
 a nation, the fabricators of laws voted for protection. 
 Why speak of labour and economy? they said. What 
 avail those toilsome means of augmenting the national 
 riches when an Act of Parliament suffices ?* 
 
 And, in fact, the law had all the consequences 
 announced by Mr. Prohibitor ; only it had others also, 
 for, to do him justice, he had made not a false 
 reasoning, but an incomplete reasoning. In demanding 
 a privilege, he had pointed out the effects which are 
 seen, leaving in the shade those which are not seeii. 
 It is for us to repair this defect of observation, in- 
 voluntary or designed. 
 
 The five francs thus directed by legislation into 
 the pocket of Mr. Prohibitor undoubtedly constitute 
 an advantage for him and for those whose labour he 
 
 • For reasons which it would require long explanation to 
 render intelligible, the translator has thought it right to 
 depart considerably from the original in the rest of this 
 chapter. While he regards the change he has ventured to 
 make as due at once to the subject, and to the author him- 
 self (whose other works are the best comment upon this), it 
 seems due to the reader that this intimation should be made. 
 
3^ 
 
 employs. And if the new law had brought that five 
 francs down from the moon, these good effects would 
 not have been counterbalanced by any compensating 
 bad effects. Unhappily, it is not from the moon that 
 the mysterious five-franc piece proceeds, but in truth 
 from the pockets of a smith, a nailer, a cartwright, a 
 farrier, a labourer, a builder, in a word, from the 
 pocket of Jacques Bonhomme himself, who has to 
 pay fifteen francs for exactly the same quantity oi 
 iron for which he used to pay ten francs. At the first 
 glance, it must be perceived that the question is thus 
 greatly changed, for, very clearly, the profit of Mr. 
 Prohibitor is compensated by the loss of Jacques 
 Bonhomme, and all that Mr. Prohibitor will be able 
 to do with those five francs for the encouragement of 
 national industry, Jacques Bonhomme would have 
 done himself. He could have thrown the stone into 
 the lake just as well as Mr. Prohibitor, and there 
 would have been just as many concentric circles. 
 
 Let us first see what the position was before the 
 issuing of the supposed law. Jacques Bonhomme 
 is possessed of 15 francs, the reward of his labour. 
 What does he do with these 1 5 francs ? Mr. Pro- 
 hibitor being obliged by Belgian competition to sell 
 his iron at ten francs, Jacques Bonhomme buys from 
 him a cwt. of iron for that sum, and still retains five 
 francs. He does not throw them away, but ( and this 
 is what is not seen) he transfers them to some branch 
 of industry in exchange for some enjoyment — for 
 example, to a bookseller, for " Bossuet's Discourse 
 on Universal History.'' Thus the national industry 
 is encouraged to tlie full extent of 15 francs. 
 
31 
 
 namely, lo francs which go to the iron-master and 5 
 francs which go to the bookseller. In addition, 
 Jacques Bonhomme obtains for his 15 francs two 
 objects of satisfaction, namely, first, a cwt. of iron, and 
 second, a book. 
 
 But it wiirte said : — " You assume that Jacques 
 Bonhomme buys the iron from Mr. Prohibitor. Were 
 he, however, to buy the Belgian iron, would not the 
 French national industry lose precisely what the 
 Belgian national industry gained ? " The answer is 
 easy : — " Not so ; the Belgian will not give his iron 
 for nothing (though if he did, would that be a 
 calamity for Frenchmen who wanted the iron?) He 
 demands an equivalent. What is that equivalent to 
 be ? All exchange is of commodity against com- 
 modity. Thus, either directly in the form of 
 French goods, or indirectly in the form of money, 
 which has been obtained, as only it can, by the 
 previous sale of French goods, the Belgian receives 
 in exchange for his iron, precisely as does Mr. Pro- 
 hibitor, some product of French industry. In the 
 one case, as in the other, the national industry is 
 equally encouraged." 
 
 Next, suppose that the law has been passed. 
 What, then, is the condition of Jacques Bonhomme? 
 What is that of the nationgil industry ? Jacques Bon- 
 homme, who pays his fifteen francs to Mr. Prohibitor 
 in exchange for a cwt. of iron, has no more than the 
 enjoyment of that cwt. of iron. He loses five francs. 
 Who gains them? Certainly not the national in- 
 dustry. For, after the law, as before, the national 
 industry can at jnost (with a reserve to be yet made) 
 
32 
 
 be encouraged only to the extent of fifteen francs 
 — five of which, in the one case, are employed by 
 Jacques Bonhomme for his own satisfaction, and in 
 the other, transferred to Mr. Prohibitor for his. 
 It is Mr. Prohibitor who alone gains the five francs 
 that Jacques Bonhomme loses. 
 
 Thus what is not seen at least balances what is 
 seen; only there remains, as residue of the opera- 
 tion, an injustice — and, alas ! an injustice perpetrated 
 by the law. 
 
 But this is not all. A multitude of preventive 
 officers must be maintained, not in any useful, or 
 even harmless employment, but for the sole purpose 
 of forbidding the passage of Belgian iron across the 
 French frontier. Even if the cost were borne by 
 Mr. Prohibitor, for whose sole advantage the exclusion 
 is enforced, this would be a loss. The cost, however, 
 is borne, not by Mr. Prohibitor, but by the community, 
 who thus (in addition to the loss of the industry 
 of all these officers) suffer doubly: first, in the en- 
 hanced price of iron ; second, in the taxes levied 
 in order to enforce this very enhancement. There 
 is a twofold injustice, and to Jacques Bonhomme a 
 twofold loss. And even if his first loss, caused by 
 the advanced price of iron, were exactly compensated 
 (waiving the question of injustice) by the increased 
 gain of Mr. Prohibitor — the second, at least, is pure, 
 uncompensated loss to Jacques Bonhomme and to 
 the whole French nation. This again is what is not 
 seen, though surely it is important that it should be 
 seen. And, be it once for all observed, that what is 
 true of absolute prohibition, is true, in degree, of 
 
33 
 
 protection in every form, however modified, and under 
 whatever plausible name it may assume. 
 
 The violence which Mr. Prohibitor himself em- 
 ploys at the frontier, or which he causes the law to 
 employ for him, may be judged very differently in 
 its moral aspect. There are persons who think that 
 spoliation loses all its immorality provided it be legal. 
 For my part, I can imagine no circumstance of 
 greater aggravation. But, however that may be, 
 certain it is that the economic results are always bad. 
 Turn the matter over how you wdll, but look keenly, 
 steadily, and you will see that no good issues from 
 spoliation, legal or illegal. To use violence is not 
 to produce, it is to destroy. Alas ! if violence were 
 production, this France of ours would be much richer 
 than she is ! 
 
 c 
 
34 
 
 CHAPTER VIL 
 
 MACHINERY. 
 
 *^ Curse on machines ! every year their power, con- 
 tinually progressive, consigns to pauperism millions 
 of workmen, by depriving them of work, consequently 
 of wages, consequently of bread ! Curse on 
 machines ! " 
 
 This is the cry raised by vulgar prejudice. 
 
 But to curse machines, is to curse the intelligence 
 of man ! I am amazed that any man should be found 
 to hold such a doctrine. 
 
 For, were it true, what is its inevitable conse- 
 quence? That activity, well-being, riches, happiness, 
 are possible only among nations stupid, mentally 
 torpid, to whom God has not given the fatal gift of 
 thought, of observation, of combination, of invention, 
 so as to obtain the greatest results with the smallest 
 means. On the other hand, rags, miserable hovels, 
 poverty, famine, are the inevitable portion of every 
 nation which seeks and finds, in iron, in fire, in wind, 
 in electricity, in magnetism, the laws of chemistry 
 and of mechanics — in a word, which finds in the forces 
 of nature a supplement to its own force. 
 
 This is not all: if this doctrine is true — as all men 
 think and invent — as all, in fact, from the first to the 
 
35 
 
 last, and at every moment of their existence, seek to 
 gain the co-operation of nature's forces, to make more 
 with less, to reduce their own manual labour, or that 
 of others for which they pay, to attain the greatest 
 possible sum of satisfaction with the least possible 
 sum of toil— it must be concluded that humanity at 
 large is drawn towards its decline precisely by that 
 intelligent aspiration towards progress which impels 
 each of its members. 
 
 Hence we ought to find the inhabitants of Lanca- 
 shire flying from that land of machinery to seek 
 work in Ireland, where machinery is less used 
 . There is, evidently, in this mass of contradictions 
 something which shocks and warns us that the 
 problem contains some element of solution not yet 
 sufficiently evolved. 
 
 The whole mystery is in this: behind what is seen 
 lies what is not seen. I will endeavour to bring it to 
 the light. My demonstration can be only a repetition 
 of the foregoing, for the problem is virtually the same. 
 
 It is an inclination natural to all men, if they are 
 not hindered by violence, to seek cheapness*— that 
 is to say, what with equal satisfaction saves them 
 labour — whether that cheapness comes from a skilful 
 foreign producer, or from a skilinX mechanical 
 producer, 
 
 ^Bastiat has remarked in another of his works that the 
 word ckeafness has no precise equivalent in French. Its 
 substitute is hon marche^ i.e. good market. A cheap market 
 is, consequently, a good market, i.e. for the buyers ; but that 
 means the whole community ; for if each man sells one sort 
 of article, and is so far interested in its dearne.ss, all men 
 
36 
 
 The theoretic objection brought against this ten- 
 dency is the same in the two cases. In one case as 
 in the other, it is reproached with having reduced 
 so many labourers to idleness. Now, to render 
 labour not inactivCy but free and at disposal, is pre- 
 cisely the scope and result of this inclination. Hence, 
 in both cases also, it is opposed by the same practical 
 obstacle — violence. The legislator prohibits foreign 
 competition, and discourages mechanical competition. 
 For what other means can there be to arrest an 
 inclination natural to all men but to deprive them of 
 their liberty? 
 
 In many countries, it is true, the legislator strikes 
 with the arm of law only one of those two sorts of 
 competition, and contents himself with lamenting the 
 other. But this only proves that in those countries 
 the legislator is inconsistent. 
 
 This need not surprise us. In a wrong course, 
 men are always inconsistent ; otherwise humanity 
 
 buy many sorts of articles, as many as possible, and are 
 consequently interested in their cheapness. The praise of 
 dearnesS; in which protectionists are insane or impudent 
 enough to indulge, is thus in contradiction to universal ex- 
 perience and conviction, as expressed in the very structure of 
 one of the richest and most refined languages in the world. 
 But Bastiat was not aware that the English cheap is only an 
 abbreviated form of the same circumlocution as the French 
 ton marche. Cheap — (r/f^^-man ; chop, i.e., exchange; 
 Ger. kauffen; Scot, coff ; Fr. a-r^^^-ter (acheter). Cheap- 
 side, etc., etc.,) means only purchase, and the full phrase is 
 good-cheap, which is still retained as a proper name. In 
 process of time the adjective has been dropped, the noun 
 having absorbed its meaning into its own. — Translator, 1852. 
 
. 37 
 
 would perish. Never have we seen, and never shall 
 we see, a false principle pushed to its full length. 
 I have elsewhere said : Inconsistency is the limit of 
 absurdity. I might have added: It is at the same 
 time its proof. 
 
 Let us come to our demonstration ; it shall not be 
 long. Jacques Bonhomme had two francs, which he 
 paid to two workmen whom he employed. 
 
 But he one day devises an arrangement of cords 
 and weights, which abridges the labour by half. 
 
 He then obtains the same satisfaction as before, 
 saves a franc, and discharges a workman. 
 
 He discharges a workman ; this is what is seen. 
 
 And men seeing only that, exclaim : " See how 
 misery follows civilisation, see how fatal liberty is to 
 equality! The human mind has made a conquest, 
 and immediately a workman falls for ever into the 
 gulf of pauperism. It may be, however, that Jacques 
 Bonhomme will continue to employ the two workmen, 
 but he will not give them more than half a franc 
 each, for they will compete with each other, and offer 
 their labour on lower terms. It is thus that the rich 
 become always richer, and the poor always poorer. 
 Society must be re-constructed." 
 
 Admirable conclusion, and worthy of the premises. 
 
 Happily, premises and conclusion are both false, 
 because behind the half of the phenomenon which 
 is seen, there is the other half which is not seen. 
 
 People do not see the franc saved by Jacques 
 Bonhomme, and the necessary effects of that saving. 
 
 Since, in consequence of his invention, Jacques 
 Bonhomme spends now only one franc on manual 
 
53 
 
 labour, in the pursuit of a given satisfaction, another 
 tranc is left to him. 
 
 If then, there is in the world a workman who 
 offers his hands unemployed, there is also in the world 
 a capitalist who offers his franc unemployed. These 
 two elements meet and combine. 
 
 And it is clear as day that between the offer and 
 the demand of labour, between the offer and the 
 demand of wages, the relation is nowise changed. 
 
 The invention, and one workman, paid with the 
 first franc, now do the work which formerly two 
 workmen accomplished. 
 
 The second workman, paid with the second franc, 
 accomplishes a new work. 
 
 What, then, is there changed in the world ? There 
 is a national satisfaction the more ; in other terms, 
 the invention is a gratuitous conquest, a gratuitous 
 profit for humanity. 
 
 From the form which I have given to my demon- 
 stration, some might draw this consequence : " It is 
 the capitalist who receives all the advantage of 
 machines. The class who live by wages, even if 
 their loss by the introduction of machinery is only 
 momentary, never profit by it, since, . according to 
 your own statement, machines displace a portion of 
 national labour without diminishing the total, but 
 also without increasing it." 
 
 It does not enter into the plan of this little work 
 to solve all objections. Its sole aim is to combat 
 a vulgar prejudice, very dangerous, and very widely 
 spread I wished to prove that a new machine places 
 at disposal a certain number of hands, only by plac- 
 
39 
 
 ing also and irresistibly at disposal the remuneration 
 which pays them. Those hands and that remuneration 
 combine to produce what it was impossible to produce 
 before the invention ; whence it follows, that the 
 machine gives as its definitive result an increase of 
 satisfaction, with an equal anwimt of labour. 
 
 Who obtains this surplus of satisfaction? Yes, it 
 is at first the capitalist, the inventor, who successfully 
 employs the machine, and it is the reward of his 
 genius and his boldness. In this case, as we have 
 seen, he realises on the cost of production a saving, 
 which, in whatever way it may be expended (and 
 expended it always is), employs just as many hands 
 as the machine has set free. 
 
 But soon competition forces him to lower the price 
 of the article he sells in the proportion of that very 
 saving. 
 
 And then it is no longer the inventor who receives 
 the benefit of the invention ; it is the purchaser of 
 the product, the consumer, the public, including the 
 workmen — in a word, it is humanity. 
 
 And what is not seen is, that the saving, thus 
 gained for all the consumers, enables them to give 
 employment to other labour to the full extent to which 
 the machine has displaced labour in the particular 
 industry concerned. 
 
 Thus, returning to the previous example : Jacques 
 Bonhomme obtains a product by spending two francs 
 in wages. Thanks to his invention, manual labour 
 costs him now only one franc. So long as he sells 
 the product at the same price, there is a workman the 
 fewer employed in making that special product — 
 
40 
 
 that IS what is seen ; but there is a workman the more 
 employed by the franc which Jacques Bonhomme 
 has saved — that is what is not seen. 
 
 When, by the natural course of things, Jacques 
 Bonhomme is compelled to lower by a franc the price 
 of the product, then he no longer realises a saving — 
 then he no longer disposes of a franc to obtain from 
 the national labour a new production. But, in this 
 respect, his customer is put in his place, and that 
 customer is humanity. Whoever buys the product 
 pays for it a franc the less, saves a franc, and can 
 therefore afford to buy something else, or to lend his 
 franc to some other person who wants to buy some 
 other thing. This, a gain , is what is not seen. 
 
 Thus all industries are indissolubly allied. They 
 form a vast whole, of which all the parts communicate 
 by secret channels. An economy effected on one is 
 profitable to all. The grand result is, let it be well 
 understood, that never is this economy effected at the 
 cost of labour and of w^ages. 
 
41 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 STATE CREDIT. 
 
 At all times, but especially' of late years, the notion 
 has prevailed of rendering riches universal by making 
 credit universal. 
 
 I do not think that I exaggerate when I say, that 
 since the revolution of February (1848) the Parisian 
 press has sent forth more than ten thousand pamphlets 
 proclaiming this solution of the social problem. 
 
 This solution, alas! is based on a mere optical 
 illusion, if, indeed, an illusion can be called a base. 
 
 At the outset, coined money is confounded with 
 commodities, then paper money is confounded with 
 coined money, and out of this twofold confusion a 
 reality is pretended to be evolved. 
 
 It is absolutely necessary, in this question, to for- 
 get money, gold, silver, or paper, bank bills, and all 
 the other instruments, by means of which com- 
 modities pass from hand to hand, in order to see only 
 the products themselves, which are the veritable sub- 
 ject matter of all loans. 
 
 For, when a labourer borrows 50 francs to buy a 
 plough, it is not in reality 50 francs that are lent to 
 him, it is the plough. 
 
4^ 
 
 And when a merchant borrows 20,000 francs to 
 buy a house, it is not 20,000 francs that he owes, it 
 is the house. 
 
 The money in these cases serves only to facilitate 
 arrangements among the several parties. 
 
 Peter may not be disposed to lend his plough, 
 and James may be disposed to lend his money. What, 
 then, does WilHam do ? He borrows the money from 
 James, and with this money he buys Peter's plough. 
 
 Eut, in truth, no one borrows money for money's 
 sake. Money is borrowed with a view to obtain 
 commodities. 
 
 Now, in no country can more commodities be 
 transmitted from hand to hand than that country 
 possesses. 
 
 Whatever be the amount of metal or of paper 
 money in circulation, the whole number of borrowers 
 cannot receive more ploughs, houses, utensils, pro- 
 visions, raw materials, than the whole number of 
 lenders can supply. 
 
 For, let us hold firm by this obvious principle, 
 that every borrower supposes a lender, and that every 
 act of borrowing implies a loan. 
 
 This point fixed, what good can institutions of 
 credit effect ? They can facilitate, for borrowers and 
 lenders, the means of finding each other, and coming 
 to agreement. But what they cannot do is to increase 
 instantaneously the mass of objects borrowed and 
 lent. 
 
 To effect the wishes of our reformers, however, 
 it would be necessary for them to have this power- 
 since they aim at nothing less than to place ploughs, 
 
43 
 
 houses, utensils, provisions, raw materials, in the hands 
 of all who desire them. 
 
 And for this purpose, what is their device ? 
 
 To give to loans the guarantee of the State. 
 
 Let us sound the depths of this question, for there 
 is in it something which is seeUy and something also 
 which is not seen. Let us try to see both. 
 
 Suppose that there is only one plough in the 
 world, and that two labourers try to obtain it. 
 
 Peter possesses the only plough in France at 
 disposal. John and James wish to borrow it. John, 
 by his honesty, by his good conduct, and good char- 
 acter, offers guarantees. He is trusted, he has credit, 
 James does not inspire confidence, or he inspires less. 
 Naturally it happens that Peter lends his plough to 
 John. 
 
 But suppose the State interferes and says to 
 Peter, " Lend your plough to James, and I will guar- 
 antee your being paid ; and this guarantee is worth 
 more than that of John, for he has only his own 
 means to answer to his engagements, while I (though 
 I have nothing of my own, it is true) dispose of the 
 means of all the taxpayers ; and it is with their 
 money that, in case of need, I will pay you principal 
 and interest." 
 
 In consequence, Peter lends his plough to James : 
 this is what is seen. 
 
 And the socialists rub their hands and say, " Sed 
 how our plan has succeeded ! Thanks to the inter- 
 vention of the State, poor James has a plough. He 
 will be no longer obliged to dig the ground ; he is 
 now on the road to fortune. It is a good thing for 
 
44 
 
 him, and a profit for the nation, taken in the 
 mass.'' 
 
 Alas, no! gentlemen, it is not a profit for the 
 nation, for here comes what is not seen. 
 
 It is not seen that the plough is in the hands of 
 James only because it is not in the hands of John. 
 // is not seen that if James ploughs instead of digging, 
 John will be obliged to dig instead of ploughing ; 
 and that, consequently, what was considered as an 
 increase of loan is in truth only a displacement of 
 loan. 
 
 Besides, it is not seen that this displacement in- 
 volves a serious twofold injustice. Injustice towards 
 John, who sees himself deprived of the credit which 
 he had merited and acquired by his honesty and 
 industry. Injustice towards the ratepayers, who are 
 made liable to pay a debt which concerns them not. 
 
 Will it be said that the government offers to John 
 the same facilities as to James? But, since there is 
 only one plo6gh at disposal, two cannot be lent. The 
 argument always returns to the implied assertion that, 
 thanks to the intervention of the State, there will be 
 more borrowings than there can be lendings, for the 
 plough here represents the mass of capitals at dis- 
 posal. 
 
 I have reduced, it is true, the operation to its 
 simplest expression ; but try, by the same touchstone, 
 the most complicated institutions of credit that a 
 government can devise, and you will be convinced 
 that they can have this result only — to displace 
 credit, not to increase it. In a given country, and 
 at a given time, there is only a certain sum of avail- 
 
45 
 
 able capital, and it all finds employment for itself. 
 By guaranteeing men who are of themselves in- 
 solvent, the State may, indeed, increase the number 
 of those who seek to borrow, and may thus raise the 
 rate of interest (always to the injury of the taxpayer), 
 but what it cannot do is to increase the number of 
 lenders, and the total amount of loans. 
 
 The same consideration applies as already pointed 
 out in a previous chapter, to direct expenditure by 
 the State. If, for example, fifty millions are expended 
 by the State they cannot be expended by the in- 
 dividual taxpayer, as otherwise they would have been. 
 From all the good attributed to the public expendi- 
 ture effected, must then be deducted all the 
 evil of private expenditure prevented ; unless, 
 indeed, it be said that Jacques Bonhomme would 
 have made no use of the five-franc pieces he had 
 earned, and of which the State robs him ; an absurd 
 assertion, for he would not have taken the trouble 
 to earn them, had he not hoped for the satisfaction 
 of employing them. He would have repaired the 
 fence of his garden, and he can no longer do so ; 
 this is what is not seen. He would have spread his 
 field with marl, and he can no longer do so ; this is 
 what is not seen. He would have added a story to 
 his cottage, and he can do so no longer ; this is what 
 is not seen. He would have increased his stock ol 
 implements ; he can do so no longer ; this is what 
 is not seen. He would have fed himself better, 
 clothed himself better, obtained better instruction for 
 his son ; he would have added to his daughter's dowry, 
 and none of these things is he now able to do ; 
 
46 
 
 this is what is not seen. He would have joined a 
 mutual benefit society; he can no longer do so; 
 this is what is not seen. These are the enjoyments 
 which are taken from him. In addition, the gar- 
 dener, the carpenter, the smith, the tailor, the village 
 schoolmaster, whose labour he would have encour- 
 aged, have all suffered an injury — this is still what 
 is not seen. 
 
 The only object which I have in view is to make 
 the reader understand, that in all public expenditure, 
 and in all employment of State credit behind the 
 apparent good there is an evil more difficult to dis- 
 cern. So far as in me lies, I would accustom him to 
 see the one as well as the other, and to take both 
 into account. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 Printed by Ca»sell and Company, La Belle Sauvage, London, E.G. 
 
! 
 
 COBDEN CLUB LEAFLETS. 
 
 158. My Sentiments on the Fiscal Question. By Alfred 
 
 Morris. 4 pp. 
 
 159. Retaliation— Is It Feasible? By Sydney Buxton, M.P. 8pp 
 
 163. Imports and Exports. By Russell Rea, M.P. 4 pp. 
 
 164. Engineering and Free Trade. By George Barnes. 4 pp. 
 
 165. The Candlemakers' Petition. After Bastiat. 4 pp. 
 
 166. Cobden on Armaments and Expenditure. 8 pp. 
 
 167. Cobden on International Peace. 8 pp. 
 169. Mr. Chamberlain and Agriculture. 12 pp. 
 
 171. Foreign and Colonial Tariff Barriers. 2 pp. 
 
 172. Why Foreign Nations h^ve gone back to Protection. 
 
 By J. S. Mann. 12 pp. 
 
 175. Five Cardinal Diagrams of Free Trade. Price id. 
 
 Retrenchment and Finance : Memorandum of the Cobden 
 Club in view of the Budget Discussions for the year 1906-1907. 
 
 Fiscal Preference, An Appeal from Members of the Imperial 
 Parliament to the Electors of the Commonwealth of Australia. 
 
 176. Australian Preference. 8 pp. 
 
 177. Report of the Import Duties Commission of 1840. 8 pp. 
 
 178. Tariff ** Reform" and the Unemployed. 4 pp. 
 
 179. Is our Free Trade System the Cause of Capital leaving 
 
 the Country ? 2 pp. 
 
 180. The Boot Industry and the American Dumper; By 
 
 W. A. Wilson. 4 pp. 
 
 181. The Building Trade and Tariff Reform. 4 pp. 
 
 182. Free Trade v. Protection: Correspondence between 
 
 Mr. W. H. Lever, M.P., and one of his constituents. 
 
 183. The Tariff Handicap. By Alfred Morris. 4 pp. 
 
Recent Cobden Club 
 Publications. 
 
 Report of the Proceedings of the International Free Trade 
 Congress, 1908. 5s. Cheap Edition, is. 
 
 Tariff Makers: Their Alms and Methods. A Sequel to Fact 
 V, Fiction. By Lord Eversley, is. 
 
 Fallacies of Protection, being Bastiat's ''Sophismes Econo* 
 miques." Translated by Dr. Stirling, with an introductory 
 note by the Rt. Hon. H. H. Asquith, M.P. 
 
 The West of England Woollen Industry under Protection 
 and under Free Tradet By Dorothy M. Hunter. Price 6d. 
 
 Budget and Tariff Compared Price id 
 
 Things Seen and Things Not Seen. Translated from the French 
 of F. Bastiat. Price id. 
 
 Fact versus Fiction: The Cobden Club's Reply to Mr. 
 Chamberlain. Price id. 
 
 Shipping and Free Trade. By Russell Rea, M.P. Price 3d. 
 
 The Lessons of History on Free Trade and Protection, By 
 
 Sir Spencer Walpole. Price 2d* 
 
 Free Trade. By Lord Avebury. 3d. 
 
 insular Free Trade, ^Theory and Experience. By Russell 
 Rea, M P. 6d. 
 
 The Case against Protection . By E. Cozens Cooke. 3d. 
 
 The "Scientific" Tariff. An Examination and Exposure. 
 3d. 
 
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 
 of 
 
 CHARLES H. BETTS 
 
 Delivered before the Annual Convention 
 of the New York Press Association at the 
 Onondaga Hotel, Syracuse, June 4, 1914 
 
 THE LYONS REPUBLICAN 
 Lyons, New York 
 
Presidential Address of Charles H. Betts, delivered before the 
 annual convention of the New York Press Association at 
 Syracuse, N. Y., June 4, 1914. 
 
 Members of the New York Press Association: 
 
 I want to take this opportunity to say that I am in favor of 
 votes for women. I am in favor of intellectual liberty and polit- 
 ical equality. I know of no reason why talents and capabilities 
 should be suppressed and hidden under a bushel simply because 
 they happen to be possessed by a woman. 
 
 One of the main arguments urged against extending the fran- 
 chise to women is the one to the effect that because women can- 
 not go to war, therefore, they should not be permitted to vote. 
 This sounds plausible on the face of it unless you stop to think. 
 When your gray matter gets to work you will then be able to dis- 
 cover that if there were no women there would be no soldiers. 
 You will also discover that it is quite as important to supply a 
 soldier as to be one. If you keep on thinking and supplement 
 your thinking by a little intelligent reflection you will finally 
 arrive at the correct conclusion that every hero who ever stood 
 or fell in the ranks of an army was his mother's substitute. 
 
 The Yellow Age 
 
 Literature is the expression of a nation's life, the shadow of 
 the people's character, therefore, the trashy literature of our 
 time is evidence of mental if not moral deterioration. 
 
 It is a matter of regret that the future historians will be com- 
 pelled to characterize this as the yellow age. 
 
 We are living in the age of yellow journals, of yellow 
 magazines and of yellow dogs. This trio of yellows hold the 
 center of the stage with demagogues as end men, and they are 
 conducting the most spectacular vaudeville ever witnessed by the 
 world. Throughout all of our present day literature, especially 
 the large sensational newspapers and magazines and much of the 
 light fiction, there is the saffron tint and all through our politics, 
 the nation over, goes scurrying to and fro, the yellow dog. 
 
4 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 
 
 It matters not whether it is the sanctimonious editor of the 
 Ladies' Home Journal discussing the science of eugenics, the no- 
 toriety seeking editor of Collier s Weekly attacking patent medi- 
 cines, the uplift editor of Harper s Weekly discussing the desira- 
 biHty of easy divorces, or the editors of sensational newspapers 
 and magazines publishing the private letters of public men se- 
 cured from literary thieves and purchased perjurers, they are all 
 animated by one and the same spirit and they are all tinged with 
 yellow. 
 
 The motive back of all this sensationalism is greed and the 
 object graft. It is all done to increase circulation and add to cash 
 receipts by inflaming passion and appealing to morbid curiosity. 
 While denouncing corruption and graft in politics these papers 
 and magazines become the leaders of graft by corrupting the 
 public mind in order to get the people's money. 
 
 Many of them indulge in fiendish attacks, with an utter dis- 
 regard of truth, not only upon the character and reputation of 
 our public men but upon our representative government and 
 American institutions. They collect scandal and pile up false- 
 hoods for the express purpose of coining them into cash and then 
 they circulate them in the name of virtue and reform. There is 
 and there can be no lower or more despicable calling. 
 
 The latest acquisition of this style of journalism is the moral 
 and political bankrupt who turns informer, liar and character 
 assassin for a consideration. The editorial scavengers who have 
 inaugurated this system of journalism have put themselves on 
 the same level with the purchased perjurers, the same as the 
 bribe -giver is as guilty as the bribe-taker. 
 
 There ought to be a federal law enacted making it a crime 
 punishable by imprisonment to steal the private letters of a public 
 man and it should be made equally a crime to publish such letters 
 except when they form a part of a court record or a part of the ^ 
 record of an investigation. If the ablest statesmen and lawyers 
 of this country and Europe honestly and conscientiously differ 
 in regard to the interpretation of a section of a treaty drawn by 
 experts ; if the best legal talent is divided so as to give a directly 
 opposite interpretation to such an instrument, how easy it must 
 be to misconstrue and misrepresent the private letters of a public 
 man. 
 
STATE PRESS CONVENTION 
 
 5 
 
 I want to express my admiration for the thousands of decent 
 and honestly conducted newspapers in the country that are 
 steadily and conscientiously furnishing the public with reliable 
 news and accurate information and are intelligently commenting 
 upon and fairly discussing public questions and the conduct of 
 public men. They are doing a grand work and they are a leading, 
 creative and constructive force in carrying forward the cause of 
 good government and advancing the progress and civilization of 
 the world. But on the other hand I have nothing but contempt 
 for the sensational, muck-rake newspapers and magazines which 
 for the most part are echoes of ignorance, vehicles of malice, and 
 manufacturers of falsehoods. They are the corrupters of the 
 public mind, the debauchers of public morals and the destroyers 
 of business prosperity. They are a disgrace to the profession and 
 a curse to the age and to humanity. 
 
 Is mankind advancing? In science, in discovery, in invention, 
 in benevolence and in charity, yes. In literature and in states- 
 manship, emphatically No ! The classical literature of the past 
 is succeeded by the trashy literature of the present and as for 
 statesmanship, where are the American Washingtons, Hamiltons, 
 Websters and Lincolns? They live oiily in the memory of man. 
 
 The Duty of an Editor 
 
 T want to say a few words in regard to what I conceive to be 
 the duty of an editor. There is a wide difference of opinion on 
 this subject. 
 
 In these days of commercialism, in these days of large circula- 
 tion obtained by catering to sensationalism, the general and per- 
 haps the popular view relative to the conducting of a newspaper 
 is that it should be conducted on a strictly commercial basis. 
 This seems to be a tendency of che times and it is a most dan- 
 gerous tendency. It is a tendency which if not checked will 
 eventually result in the demoralization of society and the ruin of 
 the Republic. When the public press substitutes cash for ideals of 
 unselfish service to the public and when it prostitutes patriotism 
 for circulation, the Republic is on the edge of chaos and red- 
 handed anarchy lurks just around the corner. 
 
 It is for this reason that I wish to impress upon you the im- 
 portance of giving this subject serious consideration. We, as 
 
6 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 
 
 editors, should look higher than the cash register and should 
 remember our obligations to our country and to humanity. We 
 cannot escape the responsibility of our position. We are either the 
 informers or the misinformers of the people. We are the mould- 
 ers of public opinion to a greater extent than we often realize. 
 It is this fact that should make us pause and think seriously of 
 our responsibility and our duty. 
 
 So far as I can see the editor who conducts his newspaper 
 solely for the money there is in it places himself on the same low 
 level as the political boss who goes into politics for the express 
 purpose of ''working for his own pocket book all the time.'' 
 There is no difference and there can be no moral distinction be- 
 tween the purely commercial editor and the purely commercial 
 politician. And yet it often happens that it is the commercial 
 editor who cries out the loudest against the commercial politician. 
 In fact, his cry against the political boss is nine times out of ten 
 inspired by his own ambition to take the place of the boss. The 
 volume and intensity of his cry is a reflection of his own mind 
 and betrays his purpose. His attack is usually made upon the com- 
 mercial politician because he sees a prospect of the politician se- 
 curing the very graft that he is after. This is the reason that the 
 commercial editor becomes so excited. You can always get a 
 line on the intensity of his appetite for graft by the noise he 
 makes and the same things is true relative to the political dema- 
 gogue. They are two of a kind. They are the twin brothers of 
 the commercial political boss. 
 
 The commercial editor, the commercial political boss and the 
 office-seeking demagogue are the trinity of evils that menace the 
 stability of our institutions and threaten the overthrow of the 
 Republic. 
 
 I am glad to find in a speech delivered by Melville E. Stone, 
 the able manager of the Associated Press, my own sentiments on 
 this subject clearly and admirably expressed. In his speech de- 
 livered at the Columbia School of Journalism, Mr. Stone said: 
 
 Finally by the adoption of the first amendment to the Federal Con- 
 stitution it was provided that there should never be anything done to 
 abridge the freedom of speech or the freedom of the press in this 
 country. 
 
STATE PRESS CONVENTION 
 
 7 
 
 Our fathers at the beginning recognized thus early how essential 
 this right of speech and right of printing was to our American liberty. 
 But it carries with it a reciprocal responsibility which if we be at all 
 fair minded, we must recognize. A distinguished Russian has spoken 
 of the despotism of the printed phrase — and it is undeniably true that 
 a thing in print is far more pregnant of possibilities than the same 
 thing in ordinary speech — *'To us, men have committed much, and of 
 us they will ask the more." We are bound to do something more than 
 to print and sell newspapers for profit. We owe a duty to our country, 
 which is larger than that we owe to our counting rooms, and this I 
 conceive to be the first lesson which should and ought to be taught 
 to anyone having in mind the pursuit of this business of American 
 journalism. If we are to do nothing more than to furnish mere enter- 
 tainment for the public, then we fall to the level of the lowest pan- 
 derer. 
 
 It is refreshing to read these sentiments expressed by the 
 head of one of the greatest newsgathering bureaus in the world. 
 It gives us hope that the time is at hand for a reaction to set in 
 against the mad craze for sensationalism and commercialism. 
 This hope is increased by the stirring appeal made by Mr. Stone 
 to the publishers of the country to banish from their columns, 
 as far as possible, sensational news. He quotes approvingly 
 from an address delivered by Fisher Ames, one of the Revolu- 
 tionary fathers, as follows : 
 
 Every horrid story in a newspaper produces a shock; but, after 
 some time, this shock lessens. At length, such stories are so far from 
 giving pain that they rather raise curiosity and we desire nothing so 
 much as the particulars of terrible tragedies. 
 
 Now, Messrs. Printers, I pray the whole honorable craft to banish 
 as many murders and horrid accidents, and monstrous births, and 
 prodigies from their gazettes as their readers will permit them, and 
 by degrees to coax them back to contemplate life and manners; to 
 consider common events with some common sense; and to study 
 nature where she can be known, rather than in those of her ways 
 where she really is, or is represented to be inexplicable. 
 
 Strange events are facts, and as such should be mentioned but with 
 brevity and in a cursory manner. They afford no ground for popular 
 reasoning or instructions; and, therefore, the horrid details that make 
 each particular hair stiffen and stand upright on the reader's head 
 
8 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 
 
 ought not to be given. In short, they must be mentioned; but sensible 
 printers and sensible readers will think that way of mentioning them 
 the best that impresses them least on the public attention, and that 
 hurries them on the most swiftly to be forgotten. 
 
 In commenting upon this, Mr. Stone says : 
 I am impressed that this address could have been delivered with 
 greater profit in this very hour. 
 
 Mr. Stone then goes on to say that the American people 
 are ''news mad." He might have added that many of the news- 
 papers are scandal crazy. He calls attention to the fact that the 
 editors of today do not compare with the editors of 70 years 
 ago, that many of them when they have filled their columns with 
 a mass of the details of sensational news sit back with self-com- 
 placency and imagine they are masters of the craft. And then 
 he adds : 
 
 The self-constituted leaders and enlighteners of the people — what 
 are they doing? Standing still, lost in self-admiration, while the hosts 
 march by? Are they even doing as well as that? Is it not a fact that 
 the editors of seventy years ago were, as a rule, better informed in 
 law, politics, government and history than those of today? The 
 statesmen and lawyers and political students who used to do editorial 
 work for ambition or intellectual pleasure have ceased to frequent the 
 newspaper offices. 
 
 Mr. Stone tells the exact truth and I advise every editor of 
 this country to procure a copy of his admirable address and read 
 it carefully. He realizes, as every thoughtful student of history 
 must realize, that we are headed for the political insane asylum 
 largely due to the misinformation furnished the public by editors 
 of newspapers. One of the chief assets of the sensational news- 
 paper is the self -exploiting political demagogue. He keeps the 
 first page supplied with headlines. The greatest circulation 
 boomers are the criminaL and the political demagogues. 
 
 It is the editor's duty to study and investigate all important 
 questions which relate to the improvement of conditions and the 
 welfare of his country. It is his duty to make the study and re- 
 search necessary to obtain accurate information on such ques- 
 tions and then give that information to the people without fear 
 or favor. The editor should be the real teacher, the true edu- 
 
STATE PRESS CONVENTION 
 
 9 
 
 cator. He should inform and enlighten his own mind so that 
 he can inform and enlighten the people. When he has arrived 
 at a conclusion that he believes to be right, he should announce 
 that conclusion without reeard to consequences. Tf he does not 
 do so he is not honest with himself and he is not honest with the 
 public for he cheats the people out of the benefit of his honest 
 judgment v;hich it is their right to have. 
 
 The editor who has not the courage to challenge and fight 
 uninformed clamour is not worth a fig to his profession or to 
 his country. It is his duty to follow the example of the true 
 statesman and point out the mistakes and errors of the multitude 
 and give the people the truth, give them correct information when 
 he sees they are acting on false information. If he does not do so 
 he is not the friend of the people for he is not honest with them 
 and he places himself on a level with the political demagogue. 
 If the editor pursues this course, however, he will make enemies. 
 But it is his duty to make enemies. It is his duty to make friends 
 and enemies and to have them both strong and both selected He 
 cannot fight the battle of the right without making enemies of 
 those who are fighting the battle of the wrong. He must either 
 fight wrong or compromise with it. A brazen falsehood and a 
 timid truth are the parents of compromise. 
 
 Public Sentiment 
 
 We hear a great deal in these days about public sentiment. 
 Everybody is afraid of public sentiment. It is public sentiment 
 that makes cowards of us all and yet there is not one man in ten 
 thousand who has any correct idea of what public sentiment 
 really is. 
 
 This is the reason we are all the time having legislation and 
 conducting the government on what the people do not know 
 instead of on what their representatives do know. This is what 
 is constantly clogging the machinery of government with ignor- 
 ance and incompetency. It is this everLsting craze to bow down, 
 worship and follow public sentiment without regard to whether 
 the sentiment is informed, uninformed or misinformed; without 
 any regard to whether the sentiment is right or wrong, which has 
 resulted in filling our statute books with abortive laws and is 
 creating a deplorable situation in which the hands and feet of the 
 
10 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 
 
 people are being tied with red tape, their pocket books are being 
 robbed by additional taxation and prosperous business concerns 
 are being choked to death by fool legislation. 
 
 How can we have intelligent legislation and good govern- 
 ment in response to uninformed or misinformed sentiment? We 
 can only have good legislation and good government by acting on 
 correct information in response to informed, enlightened public 
 sentiment. This is exactly what we are not doing. We are 
 substituting the noise of clamour for the light of reason. The 
 time has come when we must begin to discriminate between in- 
 formed and uninformed public sentiment, between true and false 
 public sentiment, if we ever expect to improve conditions and 
 secure intelligent legislation and good government. 
 
 The unfortunate part of the situation is that nearly all poli- 
 ticians are cowards and many public men are slaves to their own 
 selfish ambitions. They are like the Missouri Congressman who 
 said: 
 
 I find it a great deal easier to do wrong than to explain to my 
 constituents why I did right. 
 
 The greatest evil in public life is cowardice. We are having 
 government by cov/ardly weathercocks. All you have to do is 
 to make a little noise and you can, at any time, send the cowardly 
 politicians and the timid public officers scurrying to the cyclone 
 cellar. The editors of yellow journals have discovered this and so 
 they manage to create the noise and then they drive the cowardly 
 representatives of the people in any direction they want them to 
 go. This explains why we are having legislation and govern- 
 ment in response to ignorant headlines. The guidance of the 
 intelligent, experienced and patriotic statesman has been cast 
 aside for the guidance of the ignorant editor, whose only qualifi- 
 cation to lead is the fact that he possesses a keen nose for scandal, 
 bright eyes for headlines and ears attuned only to noise. 
 
 The question is, what is public sentiment? Is it the ignorant, 
 unreasoning clamour of the street inspired by sensational head- 
 lines? Or is it that wide, well informed, intelligent, sane senti- 
 ment inspired by knowledge which pervades every community 
 and modestly declines to express itself upon the street through 
 the ever open mouth of credulity? 
 
STATE PRESS CONVENTION 
 
 11 
 
 There is a vast difference between healthy, informed, en- 
 lightened public sentiment and curious, ignorant, public clamour. 
 The first is like heaven's refreshing rain and life-giving sun- 
 shine ; the second is like earth's dust and refuse in a whirlwind. 
 This difference, however, will never be discovered by cowardly 
 politicians and office seeking demagogues whose sole ambition it 
 is to take care of themselves at the public expense. They are 
 ready to be blown in any direction by every passing breeze. They 
 are ready to enter any port that will insure them temporary 
 safety. 
 
 One man with an empty head and a loose tongue talking on 
 the streets will make more noise and more apparent public senti- 
 ment than 500 sane, intelligent, thinking citizens who do not 
 agree with him but remain silent. 
 
 Burke expressed this idea beautifully when he said : 
 
 Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field 
 ring with their importunate chink, while thousands of great cattle 
 reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are 
 silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the 
 only inhabitants of the field. 
 
 We are apt to mistake uninformed surface clamour for en- 
 lightened public sentiment. The false clamour of today becomes 
 the passing vapor of tomorrow. Clamour is based upon error, 
 emotion and hysteria, while true public sentiment is based upon 
 accurate information, ripe deliberation and intelligent reflection. 
 The question is which kind of sentiment should guide and control 
 our legislation and government? 
 
 We are now passing through a transition period. We are 
 in the throes of a bloodless revolution. It is at such times as 
 this when the demagogues flock to the front and become the tem- 
 porary leaders of the people. It has been so in all history. 
 
 When the people are excited; when they are easily swayed 
 by passion, it is the political demagogue who comes forth and 
 swears that their ignorance is wisdom and that their prejudice 
 is patriotism. Not because he loves the people but because he 
 loves position and power and is willing to deceive and fool the 
 people in order to obtain a public office even if he is obliged to 
 sacrifice his manhood by advocating measures against his own 
 honest convictions. 
 
12 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 
 
 It is fortunate for the world that statesmen are cast in a 
 different mould. In times of excitement and hysteria it is only 
 the statesman who stands erect. It is he who refuses to kneel. 
 It is he who expresses his honest thoughts. It is he who points 
 out the errors and mistakes of the multitude and tries to educate 
 and enlighten the people by telling them the truth. Not because 
 he loves himself but because he loves and serves the right and 
 because he is the real friend of the people and insists on serving 
 their true interests even against their will. Clamour may threaten 
 him, the ignorant may denounce him, the yellow journals may at- 
 tack him, but the statesman, the real reformer, cannot be driven 
 from conviction's field. 
 
 The patriotic statesman is always patient and long suffering. 
 He can afford to wait. He knows that passion will cool, that , 
 clamour will pass away, that ignorance will be swept aside by { 
 increasing knowledge and that in the end enlightened public senti- 
 ment will prevail. 
 
 When that time comes, as it surely will come and as it always 
 has come, he knows that his position will be vindicated and that 
 upon his brow will be placed the laurel wreath while the cow- 
 ardly demagogues who cringe and crawl and who sacrifice their 
 honest convictions upon the altar of fear and misrepresent the 
 real interests of the people to obtain an ofifice will finally be driven 
 back to private life by the whip of public scorn. 
 
 Speaking of two ancient demagogues, Aristotle said : 
 
 Both of these persons were subsequently condemned to death; 
 for the people, even if they are deceived for a time, in the end gen- 
 erally come to detest those who beguile them into an unworthy action. 
 
 The Menace of Socialism 
 
 We are living in a very large world filled to overflowing with 
 all kinds of conflicting theories and it is no easy task for any 
 man to pick out the true from the false, the sound from the un- 
 sound. It requires patient study, thorough investigation and 
 endless x"esearch to arrive at correct conclusions on important 
 public and governmental questions. 
 
 One of the most attractive and at the same time one of the 
 most dangerous doctrines of our time and one that is fast be- 
 coming popular is the theory of Socialism. It is a plausible 
 
STATE PRESS CONVENTION 
 
 i; 
 
 theory. It is a seductive theory because it appeals to our senti 
 ment instead of our sense, to our emotion instead of our reason 
 and this accounts for its wide popularity. 
 
 The theory of Socialism reduced to the last analysis means 
 that the individual exists for the state and not the state for the 
 individual. In other words that the passengers exist for the sake 
 of the ship and not the ship for the sake of the passengers. 
 Therefore, Socialists contend that the interest of the individual 
 must be sunk in the interest of the community This theory is 
 based on the sophism that you can raise up and improve man- 
 kind in the mass, when the fact is you can only raise up and im- 
 prove the mass by first elevating and improving the individuals 
 who compose the mass. The theory of Socialism if put into 
 operation would result in an intolerable form of slavery. Each 
 individual would be the slave of the state which in the end would 
 mean that each individual would be the slave of the politicians 
 who controlled the state. Let it be remembered that under So- 
 cialism we would have exactly the same human nature to deal 
 with and exactly the same people to deal with that we have now. 
 The trouble with Socialism is that by submerging the individual 
 in the community it would destroy ambition, kill individual 
 initiative and result in the fossilization of society. 
 
 Socialism without the introduction into it of absolute state 
 authority would result in chaos and anarchy and with such au- 
 thority it would be the most damnable kind of slavery. 
 
 As Lord Acton has well said : 
 
 Under Democratic Socialism what the slave is in the hands of 
 his master, the individual citizen would be in the hands of the com- 
 munity. 
 
 The whole aim of Socialism is to take the tools of production 
 out of the hands of the competent who are now successfully 
 directing the work of production and put them in the hands of 
 the incompetent. Civic chaos, political anarchy and industrial 
 bedlam would be the result. 
 
 We are fond of saying that all men are created free and 
 equal, when as a matter of fact there are only two periods in life 
 when men are equal. The first is when they enter this world 
 throup-h the g"ntf^ of ei'ernitv and "h^ ^ccr^^^H v,-h-^'^ 'hi v l^^rr/e 
 
14 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 
 
 this world through the same gate. Between the two eternities 
 all men are unequal because nature has made them so. 
 
 Nature distributes her gifts with a secret and subtle hand 
 and we can no more change nature's distribution of talent, wis- 
 dom and virtue by law than we can change her distribution of 
 physical form and beauty. 
 
 There is equal voice only among the dumb; 
 
 Equal minds only among the fools ; 
 
 Equal success only among the failures, 
 
 And equal strength only among the dead. 
 
 All that any man can ask of the government is to give him 
 equal protection and equal opportunity and then his success or 
 failure will depend upon himself. 
 
 Representative vs. Direct Democracy 
 
 A pure or direct democracy is one in which the people try to 
 administer the government directly themselves without the aid of 
 any secondary means. The result is government by collective 
 ignorance characterized by noise and disorder. This was the form 
 of democracy that led to the ruin of all the ancient Republics. 
 
 A representative democracy is one in which the people con- 
 duct the government through chosen representatives selected on 
 accoimt of their ability and fitness to do the particular thing the 
 ipeople want done. The result is government by selected intelli- 
 gence characterized by maturity, stability and order. This is the 
 [form of democracy that has made America the greatest nation in 
 'the civilized world. 
 
 I wish right here to call your attention to the diflference 
 between the people's will and the people's way. The people's 
 will should prevail. But how should it prevail? Should it 
 prevail through channels of intelligence and order or through 
 channels of ignorance and disorder. This is the important point 
 and it constitutes the difference between a representative democ- 
 racy and a pure democracy. 
 
 A pure democracy means government through the channels of 
 ignorance and disorder. A representative democracy means 
 government through the channels of intelligence and order. 
 
STATE PRESS CONVENTION 
 
 15 
 
 Let me illustrate the difference between the people's will and 
 the people's way. Suppose you should will to build a house. Let 
 us suppose you want a new house and you have the money to pay 
 for it. Your will should prevail. But how, directly or indirectly? 
 Can you build the house yourself? Not by any means. The 
 first thing you must do is to secure an architect to draw the plans 
 and specifications to carry out your will. Do you not see that 
 your will is one thing and your way is another? You cannot draw 
 the plans, not because you are not intelligent, but because you 
 have not studied that particular branch of science and have not 
 the necessary information on the subject. Therefore you must 
 employ a representative to act for you who has the technical 
 knowledge to carry your will into effect. In order to build your 
 house according to the plans and specifications you must then 
 hire as your representatives carpenters, masons, plumbers and 
 decorators. In other words, if you want a good house you must 
 act through representatives who have the necessary information 
 and technical knowledge to build a good house. 
 
 Well, the people, if they want good government, must do 
 exactly the same thing. They must employ as representatives 
 intelligent and capable men. They cannot act for themselves in 
 conducting legislation and government any more than you can 
 act for yourself in building a house. If an individual cannot act 
 directly for himself in carrying out his will, it is simply impos- 
 sible for the public to do so. 
 
 There is no such thing as mass initiative, mass thought and 
 mass action. All initiative, thought and action must be individual. 
 It is impossible for the public to initiate anything. It can only 
 endorse or condemn proposals initiated by individuals or repre- 
 sentatives. Therefore the fundamental idea of a pure or direct 
 democracy is a phantom of the mind. 
 
 It was the discovery of these facts, after a long and bloody 
 struggle through history in which direct democracies, time and 
 again, degenerated convulsively into monarchies that resulted in 
 giving birth to the American system of representative democracy. 
 
 The fathers of the Republic had all the experience and wis- 
 dom of the ages to guide them when they framed our federal 
 constitution and founded this Republic and their work was the 
 
16 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 
 
 greatest governmental achievement of enlightened statesman- 
 ship in any age and a great forward step in the advancement of 
 civilization. The statesmen of the Revolutionary period knew 
 that a pure or direct democracy had proved a failure in all his- 
 tory. 
 
 They knew that the ancients had never discovered a workable 
 system of government between the extremes of a pure democracy 
 which was a failure and an aristocracy or a monarchy, both of 
 which curtailed individual liberty and deprived the great mass 
 of the people of a controlling voice in the affairs of their govern- 
 ment. 
 
 They knew that an aristocracy and a monarchy had stability 
 and reliability but was a tyranny, and so they aimed to found a 
 government which had all the good features of a democracy, 
 which left the final control of the government in the hands of the 
 people, but which at the same time possessed the efficiency and 
 stability of a monarchy, and so they planned to make the people 
 themselves the monarch, with certain necessary checks, balances 
 and limitations, the same to be fixed in a written constitution. 
 They accomplished this result by engrafting representation upon 
 democracy. 
 
 This was a new form of government unknown to the ancients 
 and the fathers of the Republic were the first practical exponents 
 of a perfected system of representative democracy. They were 
 a galaxy of the greatest statesmen ever assembled at a given time 
 to frame a constitution and found a government. 
 
 Gladstone summed up the verdict of enlightened statesman- 
 ship on their work when he said: 
 
 The American Constitution is the most wonderful work ever 
 struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man. 
 
 In his recent work, "The State and the Citizen," Lord Sel- 
 borne points out the superiority of the American Constitution 
 over all others by reason of its stability and permanence and then 
 he says : 
 
 But in England we remain without definite safeguards in our Con- 
 stitution. The gravest of our constitutional laws can be altered as 
 
 I 
 
STATE PRESS CONVENTION 
 
 17 
 
 easily as the dog tax, while much of the Constitution is so uncertain 
 and indefinite that there is the strongest temptation for politicians to 
 change it at any moment of political excitement. 
 
 The statesmen of the Revokitionary period understood all 
 about this old system of a pure democracy which is now brought 
 forward as a new form of government and as a panacea for all 
 our ills. 
 
 Let me call your attention to the remarks of just one states- 
 man upon this subject. In the debate in ihe Massachusetts Siace 
 Convention which ratified the federal constitution, Fisher Ames, 
 one of the greatest statesmen of the Revolutionary period who in 
 his time was called the ''Burke of America," said: 
 
 Much has been said about the people divesting themselves of 
 power, vvhen they delegate it to representatives; and that all repre- 
 sentation is to their disadvantage, because it is but an image, a copy, 
 fainter and more imperfect than the original, the people, in whom the 
 light of pov/er is primary and unborrowed, which is only reflected by 
 their delegates. 
 
 I cannot agree to either of these opinions. The representation of 
 the people is something more than the people. I know, sir, but one 
 purpose which the people can effect without delegation, and that is to 
 destroy a government. That they cannot erect a government, is 
 evinced by our being assembled here on their behalf. The people 
 must govern by a majority, with whom all power resides. But how 
 is the sense of this majority to be obtained. It has been said that a 
 pure democracy is the best government for a small people who as- 
 semble in person. It is of small consequence to discuss it, as it would 
 be inapplicable to the great country we inhabit. It may be of some 
 use in this argument, however, to consider, that it would be very 
 burdensome, subject to faction and violence; decisions v/ould often 
 be made by surprise, in the precipitancy of passion, by men who 
 either understand nothing or care nothing about the subject: or by 
 interested men, or those who vote for their own indemnity. It would 
 be a government not by laws, but by men. 
 
 Such were the paltry democracies of Greece and Asia Minor, so 
 much extolled, and so often proposed as a model for our imitation. I 
 desire to be thankful that our people are not under any temptation to 
 adopt the advice. I think it will not be denied that the people are 
 gainers by the election of representatives. They may destroy, but 
 
18 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 
 
 they cannot exercise, the powers of government in person, but by 
 thir servants they govern; they do not renounce their power; they do 
 not sacrifice their rights; they become the true sovereigns of the 
 country when they delegate that power, which they cannot use them- 
 selves to their trustees. 
 
 In discussing the importance of constitutional representative 
 government to protect the rights of individuals and the rights of 
 the minority, Ames said: 
 
 I know, sir, that the people talk about the liberty of nature, and 
 assert that we divest ourselves of a portion of it when we enter into 
 society. This is declamation against matter of fact. We cannot live 
 without society; and as to liberty, how can I be said to enjoy that 
 which another may take from me when he pleases? The liberty of 
 one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as 
 on the due restraint upon the liberties of others. Without such re- 
 straint, there can be no liberty. 
 
 Lord Acton, one of the most learned men of all time, has well 
 said : 
 
 The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is 
 really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities. 
 
 Let me call your attention to a fact which is always over- 
 looked by impractical political reformers. No constitutional 
 provision, no law, no system of primaries will ever help the 
 people to secure good government unless they use the election 
 machinery provided. They must themselves be responsible for 
 the election of honest, intelligent and fit representatives. Such 
 representatives can only be selected when the people take a suffi- 
 cient interest in politics to obtain reliable and accurate informa- 
 tion in regard to the qualifications of candidates. They must 
 first ascertain the fitness of candidates for the duties they will be 
 called upon to discharge and then they must supplement this with 
 sufficient energy and activity to go to the primaries and vote for 
 the best candidates. This process of selecting candidates can 
 be operated better under the open caucus and convention system 
 than under any other system ever invented by the wit of man. 
 Not only this but it can be operated at a much less expense to 
 both the candidates and the people. 
 
 The only way the people can secure good government is by 
 
STATE PRESS CONVENTION 
 
 19 
 
 taking enough interest in politics and public affairs to correctly 
 inform themselves relative to the ability and fitness of candidates. 
 In addition to this they must have the energy and civic zeal to 
 go to the primaries and select such candidates for public office. 
 This is all that it is necessary for the people to do under our 
 enlightened representative system to secure the best results and 
 obtain the best government. 
 
 But if the people will not do this, if they are indifferent, if 
 they are absorbed in their own private affairs and neglect their 
 civic duties and allow inefficient and incompetent men to be nom- 
 inated and elected it is not the fault of the system but it is the 
 fault of the people themselves. You cannot remedy this fault in 
 the people by destroying their government. You cannot remedy 
 this fault in the people by breaking do vn our enlightened system 
 of representative democracy. Those who are trying to do this 
 are the architects of disaster. Their scheme of a pure or 
 direct democracy has been a failure in all history. It is a political 
 fallacy that has deluged the earth with blood. The advocates of 
 this doctrine make the absurd contention that the only way to 
 secure good government is to go out upon the streets, collect 
 hungry ignorance and set it upon the throne. Could anything be 
 more ridiculous or absurd? 
 
 The advocates of this system may be divided into three classes : 
 
 First, political novices ; second, crack-brained political the- 
 orists ; third, office-seeking demagogues. 
 
 The first two classes are entitled to our sympathy, the latter 
 class should have our contempt. Their whole aim is to flatter 
 ignorance in order to secure its support for public office, believ- 
 ing that it is in the majority. They may be right from a selfish 
 standpoint but they are traitors to American institutions and to 
 our enlightened representative democracy which is the best sys- 
 tem of government ever instituted among men. 
 
 What this country needs is education in the fundamental 
 principles of government. The people have had no education 
 upon this subject since the Civil War. But few statesmen in the 
 country have read the American Constitution in the past twenty- 
 five years. There has been no occasion for it until recently. Not 
 until 1892 was there any man or set of men in this country who 
 had the audacity to attack the virtues of our representative de- 
 
20 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 
 
 mocracy. The first attack was made in 1892 by the National 
 Sociahst Labor party in its platform in the following words: 
 
 First Demand: The people to have the right to propose laws and 
 vote upon all measures of importance according to the referendum 
 principle. 
 
 In this election Simon Wing, the Socialist labor candidate for 
 president, received in the whole country in round numbers, 21,000 
 votes. 
 
 The next attack made upon our system of government w^as 
 made in the national platform of the Populist party in 1896, as 
 follows : 
 
 We favor the system of direct legislation through the initiative 
 and referendum. 
 
 It will be remembered that the Populist or People's party, now 
 defunct, endorsed Bryan's candidacy for president in 1896 and he 
 accepted the nomination upon that platform. He saw in the 
 revival of this old discarded system of a pure democracy an 
 opportunity to flatter and fool the people. He immediately 
 seized upon it and set up the cry, 'T.et the people rule " He at 
 once became the imitator and echo of the demagogues of the an- 
 cient democracies. Since that time there has been a spirited 
 rivalry between the demagogues of all parties to see who could 
 go the farthest towards breaking down our representative democ- 
 racy and reviving the old discarded form of mobocracy. 
 
 It was William Jennings Bryan, the original ''big noise,'' 
 (Roosevelt is the carbon copy) who declared that this system of 
 government was the divine method of restoring the rule of the 
 people. Since that time the political skirt-dancers of all parties 
 have been parrot-like repeating the refrain until it became the 
 chief slogan of the Big Bull Moose at Armageddon. 
 
 From whence came this cry, ''Let the people rule." It orig- 
 inated in the breast of our primitive ancestors. The first Simian 
 hypocrite who amused himself swinging on his tail in the branches 
 of trees was the first demagogue who set up this cry, and it has 
 been the favorite slogan of ofiice-seeking demagogues and gal- 
 lery-playing hypocrites in all ages. It is the first subterfuge of the 
 office-seeker and the last refuge of the bankrupt politician. 
 
STATE PRESS CONVENTION 
 
 21 
 
 If we want to learn about a pure or direct democracy we must 
 go back to ancient times — back to the Athenian democracy. If 
 we want to know the truth about it we must turn our attention 
 from the cheap demagogues of our day and go back and study 
 a pure democracy in the light of history. Aristotle has given us 
 a vivid picture of the rise and fall of democracies. 
 
 Athens was the pride and glory of the ancient world. She 
 excelled in education, culture, art and literature, and was the 
 intellectual center of the world. But, let it be remembered, that 
 Athens was a small city, and when she was at the zenith of her 
 power and fame she was flourishing under the middle deliber- 
 ative forms of democracy described by z\ristotle. When she 
 threw ofif the restrait of constitution and of law, and substituted 
 in their place passion, noise, confusion and hysteria and was led 
 by demagogues her decline and ruin rapidly followed. When she 
 had a deliberative form of democracy and followed the lead of 
 such statesmen as Pericles and when the masses were swayed by 
 his superior intelligence, judgment and statesmanship then Athens 
 flourished, because Pericles was her great and trusted representa- 
 tive. But what happened to Athens when Pericles and statesmen 
 of his character were relegated to the rear, as we are now rele- 
 gating statesmen to the rear, when the demagogues of Athens 
 came forward, as the demagogues in this country are now coming 
 forward? Her prosperity was blighted, her intellectual light was 
 extinguished, her glory faded into a memory. 
 
 Under the Athenian pure democracy the people killed their 
 best and most successful generals, they plundered the rich until 
 the rich were compelled to conspire with the public enemy, and 
 they finally crowned their guilt with the martyrdom of Socrates. 
 It was John Jay, who speaking of a pure democracy, said: 
 
 If every Athenian citizen had been a Socrates, every Athenian 
 assembly would still have been a mob. 
 
 The most famous recall case in history was when the mob 
 recalled the decision of Pilate and forced the crucifixion of 
 Christ. 
 
 What is the mob? When passion wrests the scepter from 
 reason the people become the mob. When reason is restored the 
 mob again becomes the people. 
 
22 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 
 
 The fathers of this Republic invented representative govern- 
 ment to put reason upon the throne and keep it there. Their wis- 
 dom and statesmanship has never been excelled. 
 
 So long as we have manhood suffrage, so long as we balance 
 the head of the illiterate against the head of the intelligent and 
 educated, so long as we balance the head of the fool against the 
 head of the political sage and philosopher, so long as we balance 
 the head of the criminal against the head of the minister of the 
 gospel, so long as we balance the empty head of the boy of 
 twenty-one against the head of the trained statesman with half a 
 century of accumulated experience and wisdom, just so long 
 must we have legislation and government by representatives — by 
 representatives chosen on account of their experience, character 
 and ability, as well as their training, fitness and skill for the par- 
 ticular duties which they will be called upon to perform. These 
 representatives must be selected by the masses, who, if it were 
 not physically impossible for them to assemble and act for them- 
 selves, which it is, have neither the training, the knowledge or 
 the capacity, to engage in the complicated and technical conduct 
 of the details of legislation and of government. 
 
 Let us make no mistake about it. This country is facing the 
 greatest crisis since the Civil War. Our representative institu- 
 tions are in danger. Masked treason is striking at the heart of 
 our federal constitution. The recall of judicial decisions is the 
 most dangerous proposal presented in this country since secession 
 reared its ugly head to dismember the Union. It is a treacherous 
 blow at the heart of our institutions. It threatens the inde- 
 pendence of the judiciary. Its whole aim is the destruction of 
 that citadel of liberty. After destroying the judicial establish- 
 ment it is then proposed to make the confusion of the multitude 
 the final interpreter of the law and the passion of the populace the 
 final arbiter of justice. No more ridiculous and dangerous pro- 
 posal ever emanated from a demented ambition since civilization 
 banished political barbarism. 
 
 In the present crisis it is just as important that every patriot 
 should respond to the defense of our representative institutions 
 and fight for the preservation of our constitution as it was for 
 them to rush to the defense of the Union when it was attacked 
 by secession and treason. The danger of the present is as great 
 
STATE PRESS CONVENTION 
 
 23 
 
 as the danger of the past. It is not so apparent to the average 
 citizen, but it is just as apparent to the student of history. It 
 will require all the intelligence, the patience and the wisdom of 
 the American people together with the highest statesmanship of 
 our country to solve the great problems which now confront us. 
 
 Government founded on law, order, and progress will be 
 supported by every patriot, but government by hysteria, tumult 
 and anarchy will be supported by every office-seeking demagogue. 
 The demand of the hour is : 
 
 "God give us men; a time like this demands 
 
 Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands; 
 
 Men whom the lust of office does not kill; 
 
 Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy; 
 
 Men who possess opinions and a will; 
 
 Men who have honor — men who will not lie; 
 
 Men who can stand before a demagogue. 
 
 And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking! 
 
 Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog 
 
 In public duty and in private thinking." 
 
INPIVmUALISM 
 
 The 
 
 Solution 
 
 of our 
 
 Economic 
 Problems 
 
 JOSEPH JORDAN DEVNEY 
 
 Price 
 
 25 
 Cents 
 
INDIVIDUALISM 
 
 THE SOLUTION 
 
 OF OUR 
 
 ECONOMIC PROBLEMS 
 
 By JOSEPH JORDAN DEVNEY 
 
 Published by 
 The Individualist Publishing Company 
 
'HERE must be for 
 
 which is the best. *** 
 
 It is the order which ought 
 to exist for the greatest 
 happiness of the human race. 
 God knows it, and desires its 
 adoption. It is for man to 
 discover and establish it." — 
 Laveleye. 
 
 Copyright, 1912, by 
 JOSEPH JORDAN DEVNEY 
 Cleveland 
 International copyright secured 
 
Introdudion 
 
 The more we learn of the ancients, the greater our respect 
 for their abihty and the firmer our conviction that there is '*nothing 
 new under the sun." 
 
 After having conceived the idea outlined in this booklet 
 and concluded after months of theorizing and study of modern 
 conditions that it was the real solution of our economic problems, 
 I began to search history for support and had the extreme satis- 
 faction of discovering that it had proven strikingly effective in 
 numerous instances in Greece and Rome in correcting conditions 
 not dissimilar to our own. It was indeed a source of encourage- 
 ment to learn that the principle had the endorsement of such men 
 as Solon, Plato, Aristotle, Pliny, Livy, and numerous others 
 whose achievements were such that their fame has withstood the 
 ravages of 2,000 years. 
 
 I have left the main text little influenced by historical re- 
 searches, preferring to argue the validity of the principle by con- 
 sidering modern conditions as far as possible, leaving the weight 
 of history as a fitting close. 
 
 This booklet, having been written in spare time snatched 
 from a life in which the struggle for the material is by no means 
 an incidental factor in these days of *'the high cost of living,*' 
 lacks both finish and development. But the germ at least is here, 
 and if it should meet with a sufficiently encouraging reception as 
 to suggest an **encore/* the shortcomings can to some extent be 
 overcome in a later edition. 
 
Contents 
 
 Page 
 
 Introduction __ 3 
 
 Synopsis 5 
 
 Causes of Present Conditions 8 
 
 What of the Future? 21 
 
 Solutions Offered 24 
 
 THE Solution ..36 
 
 Results of Individualism 39 
 
 Objections Anticipated and Answered 48 
 
 Justice of the Principle -__56 
 
 Program for Materializing 59 
 
 The Testimony of History __ 63 
 
 Application for Membership 67 
 
Synopsis 
 
 CONDITION: It is generally admitted that our present 
 economic state of affairs is by no means satisfactory. 
 
 CAUSE: There is too great a disparity in the distribution 
 of wealth. Men being unequal in their ability to accumulate 
 riches, and no limit having been placed on the amount which any 
 individual may acquire, some have been able to amass hundreds 
 of millions of dollars' worth of wealth, while others, less capable 
 and less fortunate, are forced to struggle with poverty. Some 
 men, therefore, have too much wealth while others have not 
 enough. 
 
 SOLUTION: Limit each individual to as much commer- 
 cial property as will insure him or her all of the necessaries of 
 life, and at least a reasonable amount of legitimate luxuries. 
 
 In our country and time I proj)ose $100,000 for each man, 
 woman and child as the amount which would amply provide 
 these. This would permit a family consisting of a father, mother 
 and eight children to own one million dollars* worth of commer- 
 cial property. 
 
 In addition to restricting each individual to that amount of 
 commercial property, I would permit each to have an unlimited 
 amount of non-commercial property, such as a home, food, fuel, 
 clothing, jewelry, furniture, art, horses, automobiles, etc. 
 
 MEANS OF ACCOMPLISHING: By forming a So- 
 ciety to (a) demonstrate the justice of the principle and induce as 
 many as possible to carry out its spirit voluntarily; (b) induce 
 employers of labor to share profits with their employees on a merit 
 basis without any features which smack of peonage ; (c) promote 
 the enactment of income and inheritance tax laws and other laws 
 which will tend to prevent further centralization of wealth, and 
 
(d) ultimately secure such amendment to the Federal Constitution 
 as will give the people a reasonable time in which to dispose of 
 their surplus, and at the expiration of that time require the gov- 
 ernment to take the surplus from any who had not complied, put 
 it into the National Treasury, use it for current expenses, thus 
 reducing taxes and giving everyone the benefit. 
 
 RESULT: By thus limiting each individual, the less for- 
 tunate and capable would be able to acquire sufficient to live in 
 decency and comfort as becomes human beings, which hundreds 
 of thousands are unable to do today. At the same time, it would 
 work injustice to no one, the maximum allowed being sufficient 
 for any individual, as will be demonstrated later. 
 
 NAME: This proposed system of economics is called "In- 
 dividualism.'* The name originally suggested itself as the solution 
 both in theory and practice is diametrically opposed to Socialism. 
 There is absolutely nothing communistic about it. Each person 
 would be put on his individual merits. No one would get any- 
 thing for which he did not work; but those who did work would 
 be able to reap just rewards from their labors. 
 
 Sft 9^ Sfi 
 
 WEIGH THE EVIDENCE.— It would be too much to 
 expect any but those who may have been thinking along the same 
 lines to admit at once that the solution proposed is sound, effective 
 and not too radical to be practical, and that the results as stated 
 would follow its adoption. Therefore, unless you have given this 
 plan exhaustive consideration, it is not asking too much to request 
 that you read the arguments pro and con and then draw your con- 
 clusion. 
 
 Suppose twenty years ago some one had said to you, 
 **Thompson, I have been studying aeronautics a long time and 
 have constructed a machine in which I can ride through the air," 
 or **I have invented an instrument by which I can telegraph a 
 thousand miles without the aid of wires," or **I have invented a 
 vehicle which, with proper development, will propel itself 1 00 miles 
 an hour." You probably would have doubted him and even 
 
laughed at him. And yet all these things have become realities 
 and are now commonplace. So don't decry this solution without 
 a hearing. It is a simple remedy, and yet too far-reaching to be 
 grasped from a few paragraphs. 
 
 I now propose to show what caused some of the conditions 
 which exist, offer my solution of them in detail and endeavor to 
 prove conclusively that its adoption would result in a radical im- 
 provement of conditions. 
 
Causes of Present Conditions 
 
 Avarice has been characteristic of the human race from the 
 beginning. In all ages there have been certain people possessed 
 with an insatiable greed to accumulate as much wealth as possible 
 by any methods. The failure of society to limit individual accu- 
 mulations has lead to the ruination of nations as well as individuals. 
 Aristotle says, * 'Inequality is the source of all revolutions." Au- 
 gust Boeckh, in his exhaustive work on the Political Economy of 
 Athenians, declares that war between the rich and the poor de- 
 stroyed Greece. Pliny, Varro, Mace, Laveleye and numerous 
 other writers, both ancient and modern, testify that the unequal dis- 
 tribution of wealth was the cause of the ruin of the Roman Em- 
 pire. 
 
 And look at the world today. Mexico in revolt because 
 sixteen millions of people are working for a few hundred land- 
 owners. Ireland just emerging from 300 years of oppression and 
 intolerable conditions, because a few men owned the land and 
 five million worked to support them. England and Russia and 
 Italy and other nations, including our own United States, are 
 suffering from the unequal distribution of wealth. 
 
 History is simply repeating itself, and until society lessens the 
 breach between the prince and the pauper by restricting individuals 
 to a certain amount of wealth, history is going to continue to re- 
 peat itself. The rise and fall of nations will go on as before. 
 
 Three causes have contributed to permit the centralization of 
 wealth in this country probably with greater rapidity than in any 
 other at any time. They are as follows: 
 
 (1) NATURAL RESOURCES.— Being a compara- 
 tively new nation with almost unlimited natural resources, wealth 
 has been produced with marvelous rapidity, and those who have 
 
been able to monopolize the means of production have been able to 
 acquire the lion's share of it. Think of the vast fortunes which have 
 been made out of oil, gas, iron ore, coal, copper, silver, gold and 
 other valuable deposits w^hich the Creator spent ages to put in 
 Nature's store house for the benefit of ALL mankind. 
 
 (2) IMPROVED MACHINERY.— Wonderfully im- 
 proved machinery has displaced manual labor and enabled those 
 in control of it to reap the benefits which formerly were distributed 
 among many. Here is just one instance in the iron industry which 
 I mention as I happen to be personally familiar with it: In 1900, 
 870 men, were employed on the L. S. & M. S. Ry. docks at Ash- 
 tabula, Ohio, to handle about 2,500,000 tons of ore during the 
 season. A few years ago, machinery was installed to take the 
 place of labor, and in 1911 nearly twice as much ore was handled 
 by about 250 men. Therefore, one man in 1911 was able to do 
 as much as seven men did eleven years before. And the increase 
 in wages of those still employed is scarcely sufficient to offset the 
 higher cost of living. 
 
 The 600 men who were thus displaced had to seek employ- 
 ment elsewhere and compete with laborers in other lines. They 
 received no benefits of the improvements — these went to the cap- 
 italists. 
 
 We would not have the world stand still, we want improve- 
 ments and progress, but there can be no real progress unless it af- 
 fects all the people favorably. There is certainly something vitally 
 wrong with that system of wealth distribution which results in 
 inventions and improvements enriching a few while taking away 
 the means of livelihood from many. 
 
 Our much boasted progress becomes a travesty when upon 
 analyzing we find that we have been very apt in devising 
 schemes to save labor, but have not taken the precaution to insure 
 that humanity as a whole shall be benefited thereby. Under such 
 a system, improvements and labor-saving devices make for retro- 
 gression in the conditions of humanity. 
 
 (3) CORPORATIONS.— The other m.eans which has 
 
permitted the rapid centralization of wealth is the development of 
 corporations, through which many strong men have been able to 
 unite their brains and energies and co-operate to their own ad- 
 vantage and to the disadvantage of others. 
 
 Corporations probably have been the most powerful agent 
 in the centralization of wealth. They have enabled a few men 
 to prevent a just and equitable distribution of the natural resources 
 of the country and the benefits of improved machinery. I shall, 
 therefore, discuss them at length for these reasons, and for most 
 important of all, that by limiting private ownership they can be 
 utilized to aid working out the economic salvation of ALL the 
 people. 
 
 FORMER BUSINESS METHODS.— Until a half cen- 
 tury or so ago, it was usually customary for men to engage in 
 business as individuals or partners. Death was the leveler which 
 helped to keep wealth distributed. A man might make a million 
 dollars or several millions, his son might preserve the fortune in- 
 tact and even increase it, but some place along the chain of de- 
 scendants a weak link would be struck, disintegration would take 
 place and the fortune would be dissipated and distributed. 
 
 ADVENT OF CORPORATIONS.— When corpora- 
 tions came into vogue conditions changed. An artificial person 
 with perpetual life, created by law, replaced the individual, and 
 death was no longer the balance wheel of wealth. 
 
 In the first place, it requires several persons to incorporate 
 a company, and in large enterprises there are usually several 
 strong men in control. If one dies, the corporation does not dis- 
 solve as in the case of a partnership; the stock of the deceased 
 simply passes to other persons, and usually some one who has been 
 active in the affairs of the company steps into the vacated place. 
 Then, with the assistance of the other cogs in the wheel, the busi- 
 ness goes on as before, increasing or diminishing according to the 
 relative ability of the new personnel in charge. Thus a corpora- 
 tion has far greater assurance of continuing its existence and be- 
 
coming a powerful factor in its particular field than has an indi- 
 vidual. 
 
 Because of the numerous advantages of doing business 
 through corporations, they have become so popular, that now 
 practically all business, both large and small, is conducted through 
 them. 
 
 BIRTH OF TRUSTS.— Trusts were the natural out- 
 growth of corporations. Men found that individual firms operating 
 in the same field could combine their interests in one large corpora- 
 tion and by stifling competition and gaining control of the means 
 of production in that line, far greater profits could be made. 
 
 After a few such combinations were formed, those operating 
 in other lines were quick to grasp the advantages to be secured by 
 combining interests in their respective lines, and trusts, or com- 
 binations, were formed so rapidly that today there are few ave- 
 nues of commerce or industry which are not under their control. 
 
 The legitimate advantages of corporations are numerous, but 
 because of their artificial nature, they offer to unscrupulous men 
 means of doing many unjust acts which individuals cannot do. 
 Among these are the following: 
 
 WATERED STOCK.— One of the evils which can be 
 committed through corporations is to filch money from people 
 through watered stock. For example, it is a matter of common 
 knowledge that hundreds of millions of dollars n>orth of water was 
 poured into the United States Steel Corporation when it was 
 formed. Mr. Carnegie admitted to the Stanley Investigating Com- 
 mittee that the Carnegie Co. was watered even on the basis 
 of its earnings when an option was given on it in 1 898 for $320,- 
 000,000. Yet two and a half years later this was sold to the 
 United States Seel Corporation for $420,000,000. Mr. Car- 
 negie even said he understood later that he could have secured an- 
 other $100,000,000 if he had asked. The Commissioner of 
 Corporations valued the ore lands secured by the corporation at 
 $100,000,000, yet the steel trust put them in at $700,000,- 
 000. The owner of a mill in Ohio purchased bv the steel trust 
 
told me personally that he was paid three times what it was worth. 
 From these facts and other evidence extant it seems conservative 
 to say that this trust was watered to the extent of at least $800,- 
 000.000. 
 
 Alfred Henry Lewis, in the April, 1912, edition of The 
 World To-Day, gives a few other conspicuous examples of 
 watered stock. He says: 
 
 **The tobacco trust, formed upon an aggregate plant value 
 of less than $500,000, issued stocks and bonds for $25,000,000. 
 The Georgia Central Railroad possessed an actual investment 
 value of $3,500,000. Morganization watered' it to $52,000,- 
 000. The ship trust based its bond and stock issues of $71 .000,- 
 000 upon properties not worth $5,000,000. The street railways 
 of Manhattan Island show bond and stock issues aggregating 
 $375,000,000. They cost— new— under $75,000,000. The 
 steel trust, in a recent year, supported a bond and stock situation, 
 the gold-brick total of which was $1,436,722,135. Four-fifths 
 was 'water.' The story of any one of these gold bricks is the story 
 of the sugar gold brick and those one thousand and one other gold 
 bricks, which the Grand Central Petes and Hungry Joes of Wall 
 Street are handing mankind every day. 
 
 **In the old Red Sea pirate times. Kidd. Avery, Singleton 
 and their black flag fellows found harborage on the Madagascar 
 coast. New Jersey — Trenton — has been for two decades the 
 Madagascar of the trusts. In one year at the Trenton yards, pi- 
 rate companies were launched with a total bond and stock issue 
 of more than $6,000,000,000. Only $500,000,000 of this 
 was honestly founded; the balance ($5,500,000,000) was over- 
 capitalization — 'water' — gold bricks." 
 
 FREEZING OUT STOCKHOLDERS.— After making 
 millions by unloading watered stock onto the people, the morgan- 
 izers have another pet scheme for getting back that same stock at 
 a much lower price than they sold it to them. Through manipula- 
 tion in the stock markets, the market value of the stock is ham- 
 mered down far below the price it has been sold to the people. 
 Accepting as truth the lies told about the conditions of their com- 
 pany, many of those not on the "inside" believe their stock to be 
 worth no more than the market quotation and they sell. This 
 
stock is bought by the manipulators who sold it to them in the first 
 place at a high price, and who now have pulled off the infamous 
 deal to freeze them out. It is the rich who are on the **inside" 
 and win, and usually the middle classes who sell and are fleeced. 
 Thus the breach between the classes widens. 
 
 Considered without a bit of dispassion, it is simply amazing 
 that the government of ninety millions of people will permit its 
 citizens to be buncoed out of billions of dollars by the unscrupulous 
 means of watered stock and the freeze-out. 
 
 CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT AVOIDABLE.— Cor- 
 porations offer a bulwark behind which men can commit felonies 
 with impunity which they could not do as individuals. They may 
 break laws and be punished only with fines which they can well 
 afford to pay. 
 
 DEBAUCHING THE GOVERNMENT.— Through 
 malicious "business practices" such as those just described, the 
 trust promoters are able to become so rich and powerful that they 
 even make the government itself serve to still further plunder the 
 people — and they get away with it. They secure the nomination 
 and election of as many favorable legislators as they can, and 
 bribe a sufficient number more to pass laws which will enable them 
 to do what they desire and still "keep within the law"; they se- 
 cure the passage of tariff and other laws which enable them to 
 make hundreds of millions at the expense of the people; they se- 
 cure the election or appointment of judges who will render de- 
 cisions favorable to them; they secure the election of as many 
 executives as possible who will not enforce the laws against them. 
 
 THE TWO-EDGED SWORD.— Aside from debauch- 
 ing the government and exploiting the people out of billions of 
 dollars through watered stock and tricky stock juggling, the trusts 
 have two other effective methods of exploitation which are so far- 
 reaching that they can with one or the other, and in hundreds 
 of thousands of cases with both, make every man, woman and 
 child pay tribute to them. 
 
 The theorv of trusts, as advertised by their promoters, is 
 
beautiful. It is claimed that by combining kindred interests, goods 
 can be produced and sold more cheaply, hence monopolies are 
 good for the people. But the actual practice of the trusts is the 
 worst possible thing for the people. The trusts wield a two-edged 
 sword, the sharp sting of which few escape. They cut down 
 wages on one side to cheapen the cost of production, and raise 
 the selling prices on their commodities. Instead of the people get- 
 ting the benefits of the economy, they are paid less for their work 
 and charged more for what they buy — and the trusts pocket the 
 swag. 
 
 KILLING COMPETITION.— The methods employed 
 by trusts in annihilating competition are nothing short of a public 
 scandal. The inhuman deeds to which men have stooped to take 
 advantage of their fellow men are almost unbelievable. It has 
 been a war to the death with no quarter, there has been no restraint 
 in gaining their end. 
 
 When men are stirred to the point that they are willing to 
 lay down their lives if necessary for a principle and make war 
 upon each other, they respect and observe a code of rules in the 
 name of humanity. But in the strife for wealth which has taken 
 place in this country during the past thirty years, there has been 
 absolutely and positively NO restraint in the methods used. No 
 means have been too unfair, no weapon has been too inhuman, no 
 deed has been too foul in this war of greed. 
 
 And when we consider that this struggle was not for any 
 principle, was not conducted for the benefit of humanity, but to 
 satisfy the lust of men for gold, and that those conspired against 
 had done nothing more offensive than to be in business endeavor- 
 ing to make a living, or because they refused to join in forming 
 monopolies by which wages could be reduced and prices increased, 
 it is surprising, to say the least, that in this enlightened age such 
 deeds could be perpetrated with impunity. Impunity! Why, we 
 almost bend the knee to these Captains of Infamy. 
 
 And now that these financial pirates have succeeded in elimin- 
 atinj? comoetition to a neclimble auantitv and have nlarpdjJwn^L. 
 
selves in a position where they are making milHons, there are 
 people who are willing to protect them in their foully gotten gains. 
 
 TRUSTS' EFFECT ON LABOR.— Whenever a trust 
 gains control of a large part of any industry, among its first steps 
 is to reduce the number of employees. In many lines the num- 
 ber of workers who can be eliminated is considerable. For in- 
 stance, under competition, in lines in which it is necessary to em- 
 ploy salesmen, each firm has a number of men on the road to 
 push their particular brands of goods. When these interests combine 
 and competition ceases, a less number of salesmen are required. 
 If the articles are staple, the dealers must have them, and as they 
 can buy only from the trusts they will send their orders direct in- 
 stead of waiting to be sold by salesmen. 
 
 In many lines it is not possible to dispense with salesmen al- 
 together as the trade must be visited from time to time. But where 
 competition is wholly or nearly eliminated, it does not require 
 high class salesmen to do the work of **order taking," so lower 
 priced men are employed. In the industrial as well as commercial 
 lines, this policy is pursued. 
 
 The effect of throwing thousands of men out of employment 
 through capitalistic combinations and the introduction of improved 
 machinery, results in putting the working people into keener com- 
 petition with each other to the detriment of all. 
 
 DESTROYING LABOR UNIONS.— After cutting 
 down the force of employees as far as possible and filling the places 
 of those who must be used with as cheap men as they can, the 
 next step, and the one which will receive particular attention 
 from now on, is to reduce wages of employees. This has not 
 been done to a marked degree yet by the trusts as a whole 
 because it has hardly been reached in the evolution. An industry 
 must be almost entirely monopolized before it is wise or safe to 
 do this. As yet, the trusts have not quite as good a strangle hold 
 on the people as they want. But they are getting that hold and 
 the time is not far distant when the wage conditions in this 
 country are going to be far worse than they are today. The trust 
 
masters have demonstrated that they will stop at nothing to make 
 money. 
 
 Another reason the trusts have not made greater reductions in 
 wages is that they can, during the evolutionary period, make as 
 great profits as they dare by increasing prices of their products. 
 The people will not revolt so quickly at increased prices as they 
 will at a cut in wages. 
 
 The first preparatory act towards cutting wages is to destroy 
 the unity of the men. As an organized force they can fight a re- 
 duction, but as individuals they are helpless — hence all unions are 
 throttled as fast as is convenient and expedient. This accomplished 
 the cutting of wages is then a comparatively easy process. The 
 fight lies between the power of organized wealth on one side and 
 single individuals on the other. It is like pitting a whole army 
 against a lone soldier. And the tragedy of it is, we stand for it! 
 
 Mr. Louis D. Brandeis made this statement January 30th, 
 1912, to the Stanley Committee, appointed by Congress to in- 
 vestigate the steel trust: 
 
 **This is the situation in regard to wages: As compared to 
 the period to which you refer, Mr. Young — that is, going back 
 15 or 20 years, going back before the elimination of the trade 
 union from the Carnegie plant at Homestead — there has been a 
 reduction, and a marked reduction, in the rate of wages, in the 
 actual rate of wages paid skilled labor. That varies according to 
 to various kinds of labor from a very slight percentage to as high 
 as 30 or 40 per cent." 
 
 **The second position is that there has been a constant ten- 
 dency, a perfectly natural tendency, to reduce the number of 
 skilled men relatively in the industry, so that the men who receive 
 relatively high wages are a very much smaller proportion of the 
 whole than they were in the 20 years to which you refer." 
 
 HIGH COST OF LIVING.— The most powerful factor 
 of the many which the trusts have for making millions is through 
 the high prices they are able to command. They cannot sell 
 everyone watered stock, nor bamboozle everyone into disposing 
 of it for a fraction of what it is worth; neither can they reach 
 
everyone through low wages, but they can and do get something 
 from every human being in the country who buys anything to eat, 
 wear or use in his business, profession or home. 
 
 Aside from the modicum of cost incident to deHveries be- 
 cause of the advent of the telephone — which those who are hold- 
 ing us up endeavor to make the real scapegoat for present con- 
 ditions — the high cost of living is almost entirely due to the trusts 
 and their far-reaching influence. The price of thousands of ar- 
 ticles have been arbitraril}) raised by means of pools, combinations, 
 secret agreements and other stealthy and unlawful methods which 
 their perpetrators dare not commit openly, but which they bum 
 the evidence of, lie about and even deny under oath. 
 
 Here is a far-reaching larv. Arbitrarily increasing and 
 maintaining the price of one important article in any line serves to 
 raise the price of kindred articles whether or not they are con- 
 trolled by the trusts, therefore, the trusts are not only responsible 
 for the prices they raise, but for other high prices as well. For 
 instance, the meat trust became so strong that it was able to in- 
 crease the price of beef and pork. This naturally increased the 
 price of other meats produced by farmers who were not connected 
 with the trust. For example, if the price of beef increased 5 cents 
 a pound, farmers saw that the profitable thing for them to do was 
 to produce beef. Many of them did and there was a shortage of 
 mutton and other meats. The law of supply and demand then 
 increased the price of these meats. 
 
 The general increase in the price of meats lessened the de- 
 mand for them temporarily, as people turned more to cereals and 
 vegetable products for their foods. But the farmers were now 
 raising stock, consequently the supply of earth productions being 
 smaller and the demand being larger, the price of vegetables and 
 cereals increased. Thus the original increase in beef was alone 
 sufficient to increase the price of all food stuff. The abstinence 
 from meat was only temporary, and as the packers controlled 
 enough of the supply to maintain the high prices, the people finally 
 
surrendered to the inevitable and paid them — and they are doing 
 it yet. 
 
 These same processes operated to increase the prices in other 
 Hnes in which any main article was controlled by a trust and its 
 price arbitrarily raised. 
 
 In an effort to make it appear that high prices are not the 
 result of monopoly methods, the trusts have coined the euphonious 
 argument that our trouble is not due to the high cost of living, 
 but to the cost of high living. Let us analyse the merits of this 
 statement. 
 
 Some economists are not willing to admit that our standard 
 of living has increased in the past half century. Possibly it has, 
 but it certainly has not kept pace with the increase of wealth 
 of the country nor with the increased earning power of the pro- 
 ducers. There has been such an unequal distribution of wealth 
 that the people at large have not received anything like their just 
 share of the benefits of our progress, and a continuation of this 
 inequality must inevitably result in a lowering of the standard of 
 living of all except the rich as time goes on. 
 
 As a basis for a standard of living we must take into con- 
 sideration both the increase in wealth and earning power of the 
 people. 
 
 In 1850 the per capita wealth in the United States was 
 $307. Today it is about $1,300* an increase of over 300 per 
 cent. This certainly proves that we are entitled to a much higher 
 standard than we had 60 years ago. 
 
 Regarding the earning power of workers, everyone must ad- 
 mit that improved machinery and methods have increased the pro- 
 ductiveness of labor many, many fold, but wages have not in- 
 creased accordingly. 
 
 Let us consider the best paid large class of workers today, 
 the railroad men. They receive higher wages than they did in 
 1850, but not in proportion to the greater results they are produc- 
 ing. The invention of the air brake reduced the number of brake- 
 men required, and the larger engines, better road beds and gen- 
 
eral equipment enable several times larger loads to be drawn. It 
 is true the men are working a less number of hours, but this is 
 offset by the fact that their trains make much better time and they 
 have far greater responsibilities. It is also a fact that freight rates 
 have dropped, but the volume of business has increased many fold. 
 Careful investigation seems to indicate that the wages now received 
 have about twice the purchasing power, but the men are pro- 
 ducing twenty-five times the results, therefore it is patent that even 
 this best paid class of workers are not getting anything like the 
 increase they should. 
 
 Let us consider a few other lines: Years ago men carried 
 mortar and bricks up ladders on their shoulders. Today that is 
 done by machinery and one engineer will now do as much work 
 as several men did formerly. Sixty years ago letters were written 
 by hand. Now a boy with a machine can turn out thousands in 
 a day. A linotype operator can set several times as much type 
 as men formerly did by hand. 
 
 Farming implements have been developed to the point that 
 one man can cultivate a much larger acreage than he was able 
 when the work was done by hand. Edwin L. Barker, of the In- 
 ternational Harvester Company, claims that it takes ten minutes' 
 labor now to raise a bushel of wheat, but it took five days' labor 
 to do it 2,000 years ago. This is an increase of over 300 times 
 in efficiency. 
 
 The advent of the telegraph and telephone and improved 
 postal service have increased efficiency of production and the ex- 
 pedition of business to a wonderful extent. 
 
 We have noted that the introduction of ore-handling machines 
 permits one man to do as much now as seven men did eleven years 
 ago, but if we go back to the seventies, when the ore was wheeled 
 out in barrows, we find that one man now can accomplish as 
 much as 1 00 men did then. 
 
 It is unnecessary to multiply examples. Everyone recognizes 
 the progress that has been made. There is probably no industry in 
 which improved machinery, methods and facilities have not at 
 
least doubled the efficiency of producers and there are some in 
 which one person can do more than 1 00 did before. It is difficult 
 to get satisfactory statistics on the increased productiveness among 
 all workers, but it is certainly conservative to say that the average 
 man produces five times as much today as he did sixty years ago. 
 
 In view of this fact and the fact that our per capita wealth 
 has increased over 300 per cent, it follows that if there had been 
 a fair and just distribution of wealth, our standard of living 
 should have increased from 300 to 400 per cent in the past sixty 
 years. 
 
 Dare even the predatory interests claim that such is the 
 case? Certainly not, and their argument that our trouble today is 
 due to the cost of high living rather than the high cost of living 
 is not valid. It is a sophism invented to divert attention from 
 the real cause, which is that the producers are not getting their 
 just share of what they are earning. The distribution of wealth 
 is inequitable. 
 
What of the Future? 
 
 The savage never thinks of the morrow, the civilized do, and 
 when we consider the present unfair conditions and unequal op- 
 portunities we naturally ask: **What of the future?" 
 
 When we see a few men at the head of great trusts, in- 
 trenched behind their fortresses of gold, not satisfied with more 
 millions than they or their children or their children's children can 
 need, still laying siege to the people and making them pay tribute, 
 we ask: "What of the future?'* 
 
 When we see men spurred on by their insatiable greed for 
 gold, corrupting our public officials that they may * 'legally" 
 plunder the people and keep out of jail, we are forced to ask: 
 ''What of the future?" 
 
 When we see the incentive taken from young men to go into 
 business, work hard and build up a profitable trade because they 
 feci that it would be but a few years until some trust would 
 gobble up the fruits of their sweaty days and sleepless nights, we 
 ask: "What of the future?" 
 
 When we see the business of the wealthiest nation on the 
 globe paralysed, hundreds of thousands idle, the cost of living in- 
 creasing, and the great Captains of Infamy daily laying plans 
 to widen still further the financial breach between themselves and 
 the poor, we are not acting as civilized beings unless we consider 
 seriously the future. 
 
 Continuation of our present system of wealth distribution 
 must make conditions worse. Every day the employees of the 
 trusts work, a few millionaires are greatly enriched and the work- 
 ers become relatively poorer. 
 
 COMBINING THE TRUSTS.— The trusts are still in 
 the eYolutionary state. The next logical step in centralization 
 
is a combination of the trusts themselves. This is inevitable in 
 the evolution of the monopoly idea. Unless something inter- 
 venes, a combination will be effected not many years hence which 
 will result in one great trust instead of the present horde. Indeed 
 it is not impossible to conceive an international trust wielding a 
 world-wide influence. When either of these events take place, 
 the solution will lay not in the ballot, but in the bullet, and God 
 forbid that the world should ever witness such a spectacle! 
 
 If present conditions continue, we can foresee a condition 
 not unlike that which existed in the Roman Empire at the time 
 of L. Marcus Phillipus, when 2,000 people owned all of the 
 land. Business enterprise and industry were at a standstill. 
 There was little or no work for freemen. In self protection the 
 rich built great amphitheaters like the Coliseum in order to divert 
 the minds of the people from their unjust condition, and they 
 fed them at public expense to prevent a revolution. 
 
 OLD AGE PENSIONS.— History is already repeating 
 itself in England. She is paying thousands of pounds annually 
 in old age pensions. That is simply another form of the pacifica- 
 tion measures used by the Roman patricians to keep the plebeians 
 from uprising against them. The only difference is that in Rome 
 they gave food direct, in England they are giving money to buy 
 the food. 
 
 England is doing a humane act in taking care of its poor, 
 but the old age pension is no real solution. It is paternalism 
 which must continue to breed paupers. What the people rvant 
 and ought to have is not charity, hut a chance. Let England 
 or any other nation enact laws enabling those willing to work 
 and save, to receive a just return for their labors, and a nation 
 of thrifty, independent citizens will grow up, few of whom 
 will need charity from the state or individuals when they get old. 
 The poorhouses will be inhabited only by the lazy and unfor- 
 tunate — a few of whom we will always have to take care of. 
 But even the number of these can be reduced by compulsory 
 insurance. 
 
There are thousands of beneficiaries of England's paternal- 
 ism who would be independent to-day if they had received what 
 they had earned. 
 
 So long as England or any other nation permits concentra- 
 tion of wealth beyond the danger line, so long will she have to 
 take care of her people through money taken from her coffers 
 or let them starve. An English writer has studied conditions 
 in London for years asserts that a million people are existing 
 there on less than enough to buy the necessaries of life. Thou- 
 sands upon thousands have no work at all and are being fed by 
 public and private charities. The next step, as in Rome, is to 
 provide entertainment to divert their minds, and we need not be 
 surprised to read any day of free moving picture shows being 
 established for this purpose. 
 
 England is traveling the Roman road. And there are others 
 in her wake. She is simply in advance of us. We are now ad- 
 vocating old age pensions. We are now furnishing text books 
 free to the poor at the expense of the State, and private charity 
 is feeding and clothing thousands. Leading educators and others 
 are advocating that the State provide free meals, free eyeglasses, 
 free medical and dental care. Some even go so far as to advo- 
 cate free street car rides to and from school. 
 
 I am in favor of everything that will help the children, I 
 certainly want to see them well fed and clothed, and I think the 
 State should pay for medical inspection and insist that the children 
 get the treatment they need. But I am equally firm in the belief 
 that the parents should pay the bills. If a man brings children 
 into the world and will not work to provide the necessaries of 
 life for them, he ought to be made to do it. If he is willing to work, 
 but can't get employment, then I am in favor of the State bearing 
 his burden till he can. But we are not the nation of freemen 
 we boast of being unless we take the necessary action to make 
 it possible for every man to earn a livelihood for himself and 
 family, and thus remove the necessity for this paternalism. Unless 
 we do, shall the State not next be paying rent that those children 
 may have shelter? And furnishing fuel to keep them warm, and 
 lights that they may study, and who can say where this paternal- 
 ism would end? 
 
 The fact is we are destined not only to reach England's 
 stage, but to surpass it unless we act and remove the cause of 
 poverty instead of relieving the pangs of present hunger. A loaf 
 
of bread rvill satisfy a man today, but he will need another to- 
 morrow. Give him a chance to earn that loaf today and he can 
 buy it tomorrow. 
 
 Solutions Offered 
 
 So oppressive have conditions become that people on every 
 hand are endeavoring to solve the problem of living. Their 
 efforts are highly commendable and in some cases they aid a 
 limited number of people, but I have yet to see a solution offered 
 which its most ardent advocates can conscientiously claim will 
 strike the shackles from the economically enslaved everywhere. 
 The possible exception for such a claim is Socialism, which will 
 be exposed in due course. 
 
 From various sources comes the proposal to right things 
 by fixing a minimum wage scale by law. Supp)ose that were 
 done, what guarantee would a man have that he could get even 
 one day's work in a year at any wage? And what assurance 
 would he have that prices of food, clothing and shelter would 
 not increase in proportion to his wages? 
 
 THE STARVATION METHOD.— There is formed 
 in Cleveland at one time or another the **No-Meat Club" or the 
 "Thirty Cent Egg Club," the members of which pledge them- 
 selves to eat no meat or eggs until the price is reduced. This 
 may secure lower prices on these foods temporarily, but not per- 
 manently. If the price is reduced, the people begin to eat the 
 boycotted article again. The price goes up to its former level — 
 I or higher to offset the loss. Then there must be another abstinence 
 to secure another reduction. But why should the people be re- 
 quired to go without meat, eggs, or any other food to be able 
 to buy them at a fair price? 
 
 ELIMINATING THE MIDDLEMAN.— The Mayor 
 of Indianapolis buys potatoes and sells them direct to consumers 
 below the market price. That helps a few people save a little 
 on potatoes. But could this system be extended to include every- 
 K thing needed, it would not guarantee us the opportunity to make 
 
money to buy potatoes or anything else, no matter how cheap. 
 It would simply eliminate the middleman whom we need. We 
 are willing to pay him a reasonable amount for service and could 
 well afford to do so if we were getting a fair share of what we 
 earned. But if our unjust system of wealth distribution causes 
 us to eliminate the middleman in order to continue to pay tribute 
 to the moneyed interests, then we are retrograding, we are forced 
 back to barter as in days of old. 
 
 Another effort to get relief is through co-operative societies 
 which are organized to buy food and other necessaries. These 
 at best can only avoid in a limited degree the middleman's profit 
 and they give no guarantee of an income. They do not remove 
 the fundamental cause of the trouble. 
 
 I am for regulating the all combination in restraint of trade, 
 whether they be formed by three grocers in a village or by a 
 score of multi-millionaires in Wall street, who seek to control the 
 world supply of any commodity. But efforts to correct condi- 
 tions will be futile if we regulate or even eliminate those three 
 grocers — the middlemen, without controlling those higher up. The 
 latter in hundreds of cases already control the source of supply, 
 and they have themselves eliminated thousands of independent 
 middlemen, but we have no relief. We will never get relief 
 until we remove the source of our trouble. 
 
 POLITICAL REFORMS.— The Initiative, Referendum, 
 Recall, Short Ballot, Commission Plan of Government, and sim- 
 ilar schemes are being enacted throughout the country. While 
 these are for political reforms principally they aid somewhat in 
 economic reform. I believe in them, but they certainly are not 
 sufficient to cope with the great problems which confront us. 
 They are all right as remedies for such troubles as would in the 
 human system correspond to boils, colds, and croup, but they 
 certainly would not cure organic troubles like heart disease. 
 
 WOMAN'S SUFFRAGE.— I look upon the movement 
 for woman's suffrage as a protest against existing conditions. As 
 one of my friends expresses it, she does not care to vote but she 
 
does want an improvement in the status of affairs so her children 
 will have better opportunities than are afforded today. She feels 
 that if men will not take the necessary steps to correct evils it is 
 incumbent upon the women to see what they can do. 
 
 This motive is certainly commendable, and one can have 
 no objection to women voting provided that without unsexing 
 them it would improve conditions. I feel that women could exer- 
 cise the same intelligence in voting as men, but I'm not persuaded 
 that an Utopian condition would be the immediate result of their 
 being granted the right of franchise. To bring about that re- 
 sult, we must have better laws and better executives. 
 
 I believe that if women spent the same time and energy 
 endeavoring to bring about reform that they are now in trying to 
 get the right of suffrage, they would accomplish as much good 
 for humanity in the end and raise the standard of womanhood 
 at the same time. I sincerely hope the time is not far distant 
 when conditions will be so improved that conscientious, progressive 
 women will not feel the necessity or desire to vote. 
 
 When women have the right of suffrage they will naturally 
 seek office, and every movement in this direction is an influence 
 which leads them away from their home duties. Speed the time 
 when the pendulum will swing back and there will be a recession 
 of women from the marts of men toward the home where woman 
 can wield her greatest influence and rise to her highest sphere. 
 To me, woman attains her greatest glory, she occupies her noblest 
 position in the place intended for her by the All- Wise Creator 
 of the Universe — as Queen of the Home. 
 
 CARNEGIE'S WIDOW FUND.— Carnegie's endow- 
 ment of $25,000,000 to provide for needy widows is commend- 
 able. But it solves nothing except present hunger. If the hus- 
 bands of many of the widows who will benefit by this fund had 
 been properly compensated for their labor, their widows would 
 not be humiliated subjects of charity today. It's the same as 
 the case of England already mentioned. 
 
LABOR UNIONS. — Labor unions are about the only 
 effective bulwark to-day between wealth and pauperism. Their 
 existence serves measurably to keep up the wage standard to the 
 benefit of unaffiliated as well as associated workers. But labor 
 leaders themselves admit that even though labor and capital are 
 able to agree on terms, this would not really solve the economic 
 problem. They realize that capital has the power of controlling 
 prices of commodities and can get back any increase in wages 
 twofold. 
 
 But unless the power of trusts are checked, even this fortress 
 is doomed, for monopolies destroy unions just as fast as they are 
 able. Their policy is to permit nothing to exist which stands 
 in the way of doing as they please in the accumulation of wealth. 
 
 Under our present system of combinations of capital on one 
 side and combinations of employees on the other, both striving 
 to get advantage over the other, an unwholesome condition exists. 
 As a matter of fact their interests are interdependent, and under 
 a just system of profit sharing, such as would result from Individ- 
 ualism, both sides would work together to mutual advantage. 
 
 Since capitalists are permitted to combine for mutual ad- 
 vantage, workers must in justice be accorded the same right. It 
 is not fair to ask an individual employee to deal with a great 
 trust. Labor unions can never become a menace like trusts. The 
 rich have sufficient funds to provide the necessaries of life for 
 themselves and their dependents and they can hold out indefinitely 
 in case of strike. But the means of labor are limited and in case 
 of strike a time comes when they have to give in. Therefore, 
 until a better system of wealth distribution can be materialized 
 which will give capital and labor an incentive to work for their 
 mutual interests, labor should not be discriminated against by the 
 courts as they have been in the past. 
 
 REGULATION. — ^A few years ago the wail of unwhole- 
 some conditions came only from the poor. To-day we hear the 
 pitiful cry for a new deal going up from the rich also. This is 
 
a peculiar condition which will be interesting to analyze that we 
 may determine the cause. 
 
 During the past three decades enormous fortunes have been 
 accumulated with great rapidity through stock jobbing, bunko 
 deals, trusts, pools, combinations, secret rebates, and kindred 
 means. The wealthy have pursued a **public be dammed*' policy. 
 They have had, relatively speaking, no consideration for the 
 peoples' rights. They have taken every possible means which 
 could be devised to filch money from them and stay out of jail. 
 And to prevent the latter inconvenience, it is notorious that they 
 have bought legislators, big and httle, and have had favorable 
 laws passed which would permit them to **obey the law** and 
 still continue their pilfering. Even the judiciary has not been 
 sacred to them. In hundreds of cases men have been raised to 
 the bench, not to administer justice, but to bar it. 
 
 But, to use a trite saying, '*they reckoned without their 
 host.*' Something happened which was not on their program. 
 Without being effusive, we can say that the American people 
 have still enough good red blood in their veins that they will not 
 stand for everything. There is a limit, and a few years ago the 
 worm turned. A new deal was demanded and lately we have 
 been enjoying a wave of reform. So strong has the demand for 
 new conditions gone up from the people that those in power have 
 seen the handwriting on the wall and acted accordingly. 
 
 Prosecutors have become busy, the money pirates have been 
 haled into court, and they are now begging for mercy. On Jan. 
 10, 1912, Andrew Carnegie, appearing before the Stanley Steel 
 Investigating Committee at Washington, in discussing the Stand- 
 ard Oil and tobacco decisions, said: 
 
 **The offenders in general (there may be exceptions) so 
 far under the Supreme Court decision should be gently dealt with 
 if they can plead misunderstanding of the law." 
 
 My, how the mighty are fallen! How humiliating it must 
 be for the elect to beg for mercy from just ordinary, everyday 
 human beingi. 
 
This same cry is going from the Captains of Infamy every- 
 where — **We didn't know we were doing wrong." But deep 
 down in their hearts they are saying to themselves, and to each 
 other — only to each other — in regard to the Sherman Anti-Trust 
 Law, *'We didn't know it was loaded." 
 
 These men who are **in bad" now want to let bygones be 
 bygones. They are willing to be forgiven for their little mis- 
 chievous stunts of combining billions of dollars of capital in 
 direct violation of the law, stifling competition and robbing the 
 people of hundreds of millions by means of watered stock, freeze- 
 outs, and other little tricks of the trade. They would now like 
 to be **gently dealt with." And they would like, if you please, 
 Mr. People, they would like a * 'Commission" appointed, a Com- 
 mission of **business men," not impractical fellows like lawyers, 
 but a bunch of good fellows like themselves, who could read over 
 the laws and see what they really do mean, and then tell them 
 just what they could do and what they couldn't. A Commission 
 that should, to use Mr. Carnegie's words, ''examine all details, 
 ascertain cost of production, adding to this such amount as in its 
 judgment will yield a fair or even a liberal return upon capital 
 when skillfully invested and properly managed. The maximum 
 selling price to consumers to be fixed by the court, based upon 
 the average cost price of production in well managed up-to-date 
 works." 
 
 Of course we would naturally expect the most worthy ''Com- 
 mission" to base their calculations on the steel trust, for instance, 
 on $1,400,000,000 capital and bonds — overlooking the fact 
 that something like $800,000,000 of it is water. Why cer- 
 tainly. The merest courtesy would demand that. 
 
 Now, what is this move? Is it a square deal or a frame- 
 up? Well, I confess my inability to read minds and I can't say 
 for sure, but I can and do have an opinion and it is simply 
 this: 
 
 The leopard doesn't change its spots and I am firmly con- 
 vinced that the men who control "big business" — **the system" — 
 
have not become conscience stricken and overflowing with remorse 
 simply because they have found themselves momentarily in a tight 
 place. It isn't reasonable to believe it. They still want to 
 control affairs as much or more than they did before, and they 
 are simply playing for time until the ire and vigilance of the 
 people have subsided and they can get a new strangle hold upon 
 them. 
 
 ''Regulation of trusts" a remedy? In the light of ex- 
 perience, to attempt to regulate trusts without curbing the power 
 of the individuals behind them would be as foolish and futile as 
 to attempt to reach the North Pole in a duck suit and a straw 
 hat. 
 
 Away back in 1 887 the Interstate Commerce Act was 
 passed as a direct result of the exposure of the scandalous prac- 
 tice of the Standard Oil Company in not only getting rebates 
 from railroads on its own shipments, but on its competitors' ship- 
 ments as well. And we know what terrible things that Interstate 
 Commerce Commission has done to the Standard Oil and all 
 other corporations in the past quarter of a century. 
 
 And, by the way, we have noticed the dire results of the 
 terrible solar plexus blow recently dealt the Standard Oil by the 
 Supreme Court. That Company has been busy since * 'cutting 
 melons" in the shape of millions of dollars and distributing 
 them among its stockholders. One would naturally infer from 
 this that it was not going to take so much capital to conduct its 
 business under the new plan, but on second consideration it seems 
 that this money is to be retaken from the people, as its prices 
 have gone up. The excuse given is that it costs more to operate 
 under the new scheme. Oh, well, we have known for a long 
 time that it is pretty hard to slip one over on John D. His trust 
 seems to have a well defined, time honored policy that the people 
 stand all its losses and the company makes all its profits. 
 
 In the past twenty-two years, since the Sherman Anti-Trust 
 Law was passed by Congress and hundreds of other laws to 
 prevent pools and combinations in restraint of trade have been 
 
enacted by the various States, practically all of the great trusts 
 have had their birth and growth. A veritable horde of Franken- 
 steins, big and little, have grown up under laws enacted to stifle 
 them. 
 
 The men who formed the great trusts are now begging to 
 be **regulated.*' Since they have wilfully defied the law in the 
 past, what assurance have we that they will respect it in the future? 
 And since the law was unable to prevent them from combining 
 while operating individual companies, how in the name of com- 
 mon sense is it going to regulate their actions now that they have 
 combined and are therefore infinitely more able to resist? 
 
 Furthermore, if these men are sincere in their desire to do 
 what is right and just, why should they ask or desire laws to 
 regulate their actions? Is it possible that they have lost control 
 over themselves? Have they become like a man who, for in- 
 stance, has committed many foul deeds and wants to reform, but 
 is afraid he cannot control himself, so he goes to the authorities 
 and asks to be locked up so he can commit no more wrong? 
 
 Men of Troy, beware the wooden horse, ** Regulation." 
 Should you draw it within your gates, hidden within its vitals 
 will be found that trust formed instrument, **The Commission," 
 whose baleful, insidious, destructive power will crush the life of 
 your women and children and destroy the penates of your fire- 
 sides. 
 
 Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan with a dozen others, con- 
 trol the destinies of the ninety odd millions of people who inhabit 
 these United States. Our boasted republic of freemen is con- 
 trolled by an oligarchy whose untold wealth and the dominating 
 influence which it gives them is more powerful than a standing 
 army. They hold the sinews of war. There is only one way 
 to **regulate" them and that is to shear them of their power as 
 the Philistines did Sampson of old. I believe we should do 
 what we can to regulate the trusts, but to make this effective we 
 must regulate the individual. Until the units of society are re- 
 duced in their financial strength, until they can be made amenable 
 
to the law, there can be no effective regulation of their combina- 
 tions. Properly regulate the individuals and the regulation of 
 the trusts will be a comparatively easy matter. 
 
 GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP.— Another remedy 
 proposed is public ownership. Those who advocate this means 
 of besting the trusts thereby admit the inability of the govern- 
 ment to control the creatures which have grown up under its 
 protection. This is a sad commentary on our boasted system 
 of government, and while I admit that we are virtually governed 
 by an oligarchy today, I am not willing to admit that the people 
 have not the power to so change their laws that they will again 
 become supreme. 
 
 I am sure that if the wealth accumulations of each in- 
 dividual are limited to what he should justly have, that it will 
 not be necessary for the government to go into the coal mining 
 business in Alaska to compete with the coal barons who are hold- 
 ing up the people of the Northwest for exhorbitant prices; that 
 it will not be necessary for the government to take over the 
 eighteen billion dollars' worth of railroads in this country in order 
 that just rates and conditions may be secured for the producer 
 and consumer, or do many of the other things which the public 
 ownership enthusiasts propose. 
 
 Let us see what would happen if those who believe in gov- 
 ernment ownership were to carry out their program. In the first 
 place, if the government started in to compete with private enter- 
 prise to keep down prices and keep up wagfc«, it would have 
 to compete with every trust in the country. This would neces- 
 sitate buying from 40% to 50% of each industry controlled by 
 a trust. It would, in most instances, have to buy from the trusts 
 themselves. The trusts owners would then have billions of dol- 
 lars of capital realized from the sale of property to the govern- 
 ment, besides still owning approximately half the business of the 
 country. Since they practically run the government now they 
 would be infinitely more powerful to do so then. And our last 
 state would be worse than the first. 
 
INDIVIDUALISM VS. SOCIALISM.— Socialism is 
 one of the many evils which have resulted from the world's inane 
 policy of permitting human avarice to go unrestrained. It has 
 attained more or less popularity for the following reasons: 
 
 (a) Because it has been intensely advertised; (b) because, 
 like a free lunch, it offers something for nothing, and (c) 
 because the people are so thoroughly disgusted with existing con- 
 ditions that, like a drowning man who grasps at a straw, they 
 are willing to accept even a dream in the hope that it will turn 
 out to be a reality. 
 
 I have great respect for the intentions of many who sub- 
 scribe to its doctrines. I believe them to be sincere, but mis- 
 guided men and women who are anxious to do something to 
 better the status of humanity, and have been lured to Socialism 
 by its social reform program, the aims and ends of which all 
 humanitarians endorse. But Socialism is subtle and insidious. 
 Its evils lie beneath its cloak of social reform. Its ultimate 
 program is so enervating, impractical, selfish, anarchistic and vile 
 that when its decent, well meaning advocates learn what it actually 
 is they forsake it forthwith. 
 
 Let us see from the writings and speeches of its leaders 
 what its program really is, and what would result from its adop- 
 tion. At the same time we will compare it with Individualism 
 and note that one is the direct antithesis of the other. 
 
 ENERVATING. — Socialism would centralize all owner- 
 ship and power as far as possible in the government. The people 
 would become mere cogs in a great machine. The routine and 
 lack of independent action would dwarf them much as an orphan 
 asylum does its inmates. Individualism would leave ownership 
 of property and power with the people as far as possible and 
 practical. This would put each one on his own merits, thereby 
 developing the race. People would have even more of an oppor- 
 tunity for independent effort than under our present Liberalism, 
 for hundreds of thousands are now dominated bv trusts which 
 
make working conditions similar to what they would be under 
 Socialism. 
 
 Socialism would lower the standard of intelligence and 
 decrease energy because all workers would be compensated equally 
 according to the number of hours they worked, irrespective of 
 the kind or amount of work they did. This would remove the 
 incentive to self improvement and individual effort. Under In- 
 dividualism the standard would be raised as workers would be 
 compensated according to both the quality and quantity of their 
 work. 
 
 IMPRACTICAL. — Socialism is impractical because it 
 proposes to treat all men as equals in their earning capacity. 
 They are not equal in this respect and no set of human laws can 
 make them so. Individualism is practical because it recognizes 
 the inequality of men in their ability to accumulate wealth, and 
 would permit each to exercise his ability 100 times beyond the 
 average. 
 
 Socialism is impractical because its success would require 
 each person to work for the common good. This is an ideal 
 condition which we would all like to bring about, but in dealing 
 with human nature we must take it as it is and not as we wish 
 it were. Individualism recognizes that people are more or less 
 selfish, and it would take advantage of that by making it an 
 incentive for them to help each other in order to help themselves ; 
 for example, by sharing profits as will be explained at length 
 later. Those who were thoroughly selfish would be curbed from 
 carrying their passion for money making to a point where it could 
 injure others as now. 
 
 Centralization of wealth is always dangerous, as it gives 
 a few strong men a better opportunity of getting control of it 
 than they would have if ownership were well distributed among 
 many individuals. Therefore on this point Individualism is far 
 better than any form of communism. 
 
 ANARCHISTIC— Socialists advocate a Red Revolution 
 if necessary to establish their system of philosophy. Individual- 
 
ism would establish itself not through violence, but through the 
 legal procedure prescribed in the basic law of the Nation. 
 
 ATHEISTIC. — Socialism would destroy Christianity if it 
 could. Here are two of several extracts taken from The Com- 
 mon Cause, February, 1912, which show just where the leaders 
 of this movement stand: 
 
 '*It is our duty as Socialists to root out the faith in God 
 with all our zeal, nor is any one worthy the name who does not 
 consecrate himself to the spread of atheism." — Wilhelm Leib- 
 knecht in Materialist Basis of Histor]). 
 
 ** Christianity is the enemy of liberty and civilization. It 
 has kept mankind in slavery and oppression. The Church and 
 State have always fraternally united to exploit the people. Chris- 
 tianity and Socialism are like fire and water." — August Bebel in 
 Vorrvarts. 
 
 Socialism would not only attempt to destroy Christianity, 
 but the sacredness of the family as well, by making the marriage 
 contract one of convenience. A man and woman being permitted 
 to dissolve the bond at pleasure without civil or religious sanc- 
 tion. Individualism anticipates no change in respect to the mar- 
 riage laws. 
 
 Free love is commonly advocated by Socialists, and one prom- 
 inent writer whom I have read makes the nauseating suggestion 
 that the time will come when young people may gratify their 
 passions without shame. 
 
 And this is but an inkling of the foul vileness of Socialism 
 which, under the cloak of **social reform," has crept into our 
 midst; whose deadly poison has inoculated more than a million 
 of our people. Were it possible that Socialism should become 
 powerful enough to put its tenets into force, we would have a 
 condition a thousand times worse than under our present Liberal- 
 ism. 
 
 Socialism is like an ugly sore on a man's face. A doctor 
 may come, look at it, and declare that it should not be there. 
 But though he talk a year against it, and do nothing to remove 
 the cause, it will remain there still; it will increase its deadly in- 
 
fluence, and finally end the life of the patient. Liberalism is 
 fostering Socialism, we must eradicate the former from our 
 economic system or take the consequences of the latter. 
 
 (To learn what Socialism really is see The Common Came, 
 New York City, or Socialism: The Nation of Fatherless Chil- 
 dren, by David Goldstein, Boston.) 
 
 The Solution 
 
 As stated at the outset, our economic troubles are due 
 primarily to the fact that some people have too much wealth, 
 others too little. My solution is to limit each individual to $ 1 00,- 
 000 of commercial property, permitting him to retain in addition 
 an unlimited amount of non-commercial property. 
 
 By * 'commercial property" I mean all wealth except that 
 which is owned and used for personal shelter, food, clothing, 
 pleasure, luxury, charitable and religious purposes. Under this 
 arrangement therefore, each individual could have: 
 
 (1) An aggregate of $100,000 of commercial property, 
 such as money, notes, stocks, bonds, machinery, boats, and im- 
 proved or vacant land used or held for private gain, rented or 
 otherwise ; 
 
 (2) An unlimited amount of non-commercial property 
 held for personal use, such as a homestead, including any amount 
 of land actually used for homestead purposes, food, fuel, furniture, 
 clothing, fine art, jewelry, automobiles, etc., used for pleasure. 
 
 Under this arrangement a pope, bishop, rabbi, congrega- 
 tion, rehgious order, or any strictly eleemosynary or educational 
 institution not conducted for profit could have an unlimited amount 
 of church or institutional property, as that would not come under 
 the head of '^commercial property.*' 
 
 IS THE LIMIT HIGH ENOUGH?— I think ever\)one 
 will admit that it would not be well if one person owned all the 
 money in the world, therefore there must be some amount between 
 
nothing and everything to which each individual ought to be lim- 
 ited. But we have become so accustomed to think of men pos- 
 sessing millions, and even hundreds of millions, that the question 
 naturally arises, **Is the proposed limit high enough?*' 
 
 In considering this it should be borne in mind that the limita- 
 tion is put on the individuaU not on a family. Women and chil- 
 dren could each have as much as men. 
 
 The legitimate uses of wealth are as follows: To provide 
 (1) the necessaries of life; (2) a surplus for the **rainy day'*; 
 (3) for religion, charity and other benevolences; (4) bequests 
 for dependents, and (5) luxuries. Let us see if the amount per- 
 mitted to be held is not more than sufficient to amply provide for 
 all these legitimate uses of wealth. 
 
 To the rich the cost of actual necessaries of life are not 
 great, relatively considered. They include food, clothing and 
 shelter. A person can eat only three meals a day — safely, he 
 can wear only one suit of clothes at a time — comfortably, and he 
 needs only one roof to sleep under. For a family of five, the 
 following amounts would be ample: Food, $1,500; clothing, 
 $1,000; rent $1,500. If the head of a family of five, worth 
 in toto $500,000, worked, his salary ought to be at least $2,000. 
 Four per cent net on $500,000 would provide an income of 
 $20,000, making the total income for the family $22,000. The 
 limit would therefore provide for the necessaries and leave a sur- 
 plus of $18,000, which must be disposed of. And $18,000 a 
 year for a family ought to be ample for recreation, religion, 
 charities, luxuries, etc. 
 
 The individual income on $ 1 00,000 capital would be 
 ample provision against old age or other non-producing periods 
 of life. Insurance could be carried to provide for these exigen- 
 cies also. 
 
 At the death of any member of the family his $100,000 
 would be available for bequests. 
 
 This analysis shows that the limit is ample for each in- 
 dividual to provide for his own uses and do something for his 
 
fellow man — but not sufficient to permit him to do much against 
 him. , _ j : 
 
 Let us consider the limit from another angle, the superior 
 earning power of one person over another. If all individuals 
 were equal in this respect and had the same opportunities, they 
 would each possess an equal share of the wealth of the country. 
 But since some people are more capable than others, and willing 
 to work harder to earn and make greater sacrifices to save, they 
 should be permitted to have more than the average. 
 
 The per capita wealth being $1,300, and our limit being 
 $100,000 plus an unhmited amount of non-commercial property, 
 which could amount to $30,000, this would permit one person 
 to have at least $ 1 30,000 commercial and non-commercial prop- 
 erty combined, or 1 00 times as much as the average. 
 
 If all men had approximately even opportunities, would 
 one man be more than 1 00 times stronger than the average? Con- 
 sider it on a physical basis. Can one man shovel more coal than 
 100 men? Can one carpenter drive more nails than 100 others? 
 Can one mason lay more bricks than 100 others? Obviously 
 not; therefore, on a purely physical basis, the limit is high. 
 
 Mental ability is more difficult to measure. Can a lawyer 
 or a doctor or a salesman do 100 times as much as the average 
 man? 
 
 The immense fortunes in this country, as we know, have 
 been made through laws which favor the rich at the expense of 
 the poor, through illegal combinations of capital which permit 
 the cutting of wages and the arbitrary increase of prices, through 
 the sale of watered stock, through the freezing out of stockhold- 
 ers, and numerous other unjust means and measures. In respect 
 to crookedness and injustice, I am willing to admit that some 
 men are more than a hundred times as adept as the average, and 
 this is the trait in human nature which Individualism would curb. 
 
 There is one other feature to consider. Can one person be 
 100 times more saving than the average man? Suppose 100 
 men are earning $100 a month each. A few will spend more 
 than that and run into debt, others will spend just that, but it is 
 
conservative to say that at least half will save an average of $ 1 0 
 each. The 50 will therefore save $500. As this is 5 times as 
 much as any one of them makes, it is obvious that one person 
 cannot save as much as even a small per cent of 100 average 
 earners. 
 
 In view of the above I feel that the limit is just, ample and 
 even liberal from every standpoint. 
 
 Results of Individualism 
 
 Individualism is not a panacea which is guaranteed per se 
 to cure all the ills that ** flesh is heir to," but it would remove the 
 fundamental cause of present conditions, and thereby permit many 
 wholesome reforms to be accomplished. There would be no 
 great power behind the throne as now to thwart the will and in- 
 terests of the people. 
 
 Individualism is not warranted to make the lazy lively, nor 
 to make the spendthrifts save their money, but it would give those 
 who are anxious to work and lay up something for the future a 
 chance to do so. It would help humanity materially, mentally 
 and morally as I shall proceed to demonstrate. 
 
 MINIMIZE POVERTY.— Since Individualism would 
 result in a more equal distribution of wealth, it would necessarily 
 minimize poverty. TTiere is a limited amount of wealth in any 
 country. If a few men get control of most of it, the others must 
 necessarily have relatively less. And if the centralization con- 
 tinues far enough, the time comes when some people have so much 
 wealth that they can enjoy every possible luxury and still not 
 consume even a fraction of their incomes, while others have lo 
 struggle along on the edge of starvation. 
 
 That is the condition we have reached. A few American 
 citizens own HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars' worth 
 of property each. And yet there are tens of thousands of other 
 American citizens who would not realize enough to pay their 
 
grocer and landlord, if the furniture and clothing of the whole 
 family were sold. 
 
 This winter I went into a **home" in this city and found 
 this condition, which is typical of thousands of others: A father, 
 who had been unable to secure work for several weeks, a mother 
 sitting on a box by a kitchen stove, containing but a meager fire, 
 trying to keep warm a ten days' old baby, bom in below zero 
 Tveather; three small boys — one without shoes or stockings, an- 
 other with mittens and cap to aid the spark of fire help keep him 
 warm. These 6 American citizens possessed, collectively (with 
 3 months' rent unpaid), about $8 worth of junk furniture and 
 clothing, and 2 potatoes. The latter being the remains of what 
 had been supplied them by the city. 
 
 And the combined wealth of two men in this country ex- 
 ceeds ONE BILLION DOLLARS! Look at the line of 
 figures— $ 1 ,000,000,000.00. 
 
 Under Individualism there would be just as much wealth 
 as before, but there would be no Carnegie, who could GIVE 
 AWAY TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS to per- 
 petuate his name, while an able-bodied man who was willing to 
 work could not have more than 2 potatoes to keep his family 
 of six from starving. 
 
 The per capita wealth in the United States, figuring ninety 
 millions of people and one hundred and twenty billions of dollars' 
 worth of value, is about $1 ,300 each. If Rockefeller has $800,- 
 000,000, as reputed, he has over SIX HUNDRED THOU- 
 SAND TIMES as much as the average person in the United 
 States; he could give every man, woman and child in the city 
 of Cleveland $1,000 each and still have practically $240,000,- 
 000 left; by giving away $5,000 a minute^ working 8 hours a 
 day, it would require, to dispose of his wealth, 333 DAYS! 
 
 But wait, my friends, be not alarmed at such an incon- 
 ceivable aggregation of afFluence. Remember, Congress in Wash- 
 ington is on the job. Our representatives are looking after us 
 "back home." They are seeing that we are going to get a square 
 
deal. Yea, e'en now they are wrestling with the mighty prob- 
 lem of coining a half-cent piece so our wives can grab up the 
 comer grocer's bargains. With such wise and judicious masters 
 at the helm of the Ship of State, what need we fear for the 
 future? Let John D. revel in his Eight Hundred Millions; if 
 this question be decided in favor of us. The People, we shall 
 soon be able to jingle a new, bright half -cent piece against the 
 night key in our jeans, and then we'll all be happy. Hats off I 
 say to those noble patriots who have the keen vision to see the 
 crux of the high cost of living, and solve it by that master stroke 
 of statesmanship — TTie Half-Cent. With that formidable weapon 
 in David's sling, the John D.s and other Goliaths had better 
 seek refuge in the woods forthwith! We'll buy a half-cent's 
 worth of oil or potatoes and let the remainder perish on their 
 hands. The half-cent will solve the high cost of living — -NOT. 
 
 Under Individualism there could be no Rockefeller wallow- 
 ing in this mass of wealth while millions of just as honest Ameri- 
 can citizens have to figure down to the half-cent; while the 
 mothers of the 6-year-old infants drag them along the streets at 
 dawn to labor all day in mills, as is done in hundreds of cases in 
 this country today. 
 
 Under Individualism there would be no trust-made mag- 
 nates who could give their wives pearl necklaces which cost 
 $500,000, or even $200,000, while thousands and thousands 
 of their fellow countrymen did not have enough clothing to pre- 
 vent them suffering from the rigors of zero weather. 
 
 Under Individualism there would be no favored few who 
 could amass hundreds of millions by means of tariff protection 
 and underpaid labor which brought about living conditions so 
 inhuman and intolerable that it caused a Homestead strike, the 
 horror of which, after 20 years, is still deeply impressed upon 
 the memory, or a coal strike, or a McKeesport, Lawrence, or 
 others of more recent memory. 
 
 MINIMIZE TRUST EVILS.— Individualism would re- 
 duce the insidious influence of trusts, or huge combinations of 
 
capital, by eliminating watered stock, destroying the incentive to 
 filch both the employee and the consumer, and aiding both direct- 
 ly and indirectly in restoring competition. While doing this the 
 Igitimate usefulness of great corporations would not be impaired, 
 and our commercial supremacy would be as marked as now. 
 
 EVAPORATE WATERED STOCK.— Individualism 
 would automatically squeeze water out of stocks of the great 
 corporations. A man who had in excess of the limit would 
 naturally list his stock at its true value when The Readjustment 
 took place. 
 
 RESTORE COMPETITION.— A great many men have 
 been forced unwillingly either to amalgamate with the trusts or 
 be ruined. They are capable men of independent temperament 
 and prefer to be at the head of small business enterprises of their 
 own than to be nobodies in great corporations. As soon, there- 
 fore, as the greedy multi-millionaires are shorn of the power and 
 incentive to crush competition at any cost, just so soon will these 
 independents re-establish themselves in business. 
 
 A NEW BUSINESS POLICY.— Under Individualism 
 we could still have as large corporations as now but there would 
 be different motives behind their owners. The minority stock- 
 holders would have far greater consideration. They would have 
 a real voice in the election of directors, and I have enough con- 
 fidence in the people to believe that if the control of any company 
 was divided with tolerable equality among a large number of 
 people they would not permit the Two Edged Sword used 
 against the wage earner on one side and the consumer on the 
 other. 
 
 MORE STEADY EMPLOYMENT.— Individualism 
 would make employment of labor more steady. That is almost 
 as important to the laboring classes as high wages, many never 
 having been trained to save for the rainy day. If the annual 
 income of a man was limited to $1,200 a year, no matter how 
 much he worked, it would be better for him and his family to 
 
make $100 a month for 12 months than $200 a month for 6 
 months and be idle the rest of the time. 
 
 Mr. Louis D. Brandeis of Boston, in testifying before the 
 Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce in December, 1911, 
 stated that for nearly four years the plants of the United States 
 Steel Corporation were operated at little more than two-thirds 
 their capacity. The company is so large that it cannot keep all 
 the men employed all the time. Under Individualism there would 
 be no incentive to have a company so big that it could not keep 
 all its plants in operation. Under our present Liberalism, if a 
 miUionaire can keep half, or even a quarter, of his wealth bring- 
 ing in an income all the time; he does not have to worry about 
 getting along. But if a man were limited to $ 1 00,000 he would 
 endeavor to keep all of it working all the time. 
 
 When companies are too large, they not only cannot keep 
 their plants in operation continuously, but they cannot maintain 
 the quality of their product. This also has been demonstrated in 
 the case of the steel trust, as evidenced by the greatly increased 
 number of railroad wrecks during the past ten years. 
 
 The fact that an employer of labor were limited in his hold- 
 ings would also cause him to take such steps as would insure his 
 retaining the maximum amount and secure a good income there- 
 from. Therefore, instead of getting all the work he could out 
 of his employees and giving them as little as possible in return, 
 it would be to his advantage to aid them in every way he could. 
 Their prosperity would insure his prosperity. Here are some of 
 the steps he would find it to his interest to take: 
 
 ( 1 ) INCREASE WAGES— To pay as high wages as 
 he could afford in order to attract and retain the most reliable and 
 most skilled men in his line of work. 
 
 (2) SHARE PROFITS— To share profits with his 
 employees on a merit basis and thus induce them to put forth 
 their best efforts. 
 
(3) IMPROVE WORKING CONDITIONS— To 
 improve the working conditions of his employees to increase their 
 efficiency and insure their loyalty. 
 
 If some employers were so selfish that they would not vol- 
 untarily make these concessions or were so short sighted that they 
 could not see it was to their interest to do so, they would be com- 
 pelled to in order to save themselves. Suppose there were three 
 machine shops in a town, each employing 1 00 men. If the owner 
 of one, to insure the retention of his maximum limit of capital and 
 derive a good income therefrom, increased the wages of his men, 
 gave them a share of the profits and improved their working con- 
 ditions, and the proprietors of the other two shops failed to do 
 likewise, their men would naturally apply to the up-to-date man for 
 work. He then would be in a position to select the best workers 
 in that industry in the town. This will give him a great advantage 
 over his competitors, and they would be compelled to follow suit 
 in self protection. 
 
 Practically the same process would militate to raise the wages 
 of workers whose employers were not directly affected by the 
 new order. Suppose a lawyer was paying his stenographer $50 
 per month. If he were not so affluent as to find it necessary 
 to increase his stenographer's salary to help rid himself of his 
 surplus income, he might not voluntarily do so. But if the 
 factories in his town raised the salaries of their stenographers, he 
 would then have to do likewise or his stenographer would get a 
 job with one of them and he would have to take an inferior 
 worker at $50 per month. A similar adjustment would take 
 place in every department of effort. Individualism would there- 
 fore make for equalization all along the line. 
 
 But the lawyer and others similarly affected could well af- 
 ford to meet the increase as their net income would increase. Those 
 who now have wealth in excess of what they need and should 
 have are the only ones whose incomes would be decreased under 
 Individualism. 
 
 WOULD INCREASE CONSERVATISM.— Present 
 opportunities for making great fortunes quickly through stock 
 
jobbing and gambling in the markets tend to make gamblers. The 
 new order of affairs would prevent this to a large degree. Fur- 
 thermore, it would aid materially in making the people more con- 
 servative. 
 
 When men did business as individuals or as partners, they 
 were personally liable for debts and were necessarily conserva- 
 tive. Today a corporation can gamble any amount in the busi- 
 ness world and if it loses, its stockholders cannot be held for 
 more than the face of their stock. If the amount of wealth which 
 a person could own were limited, it would largely remove the 
 incentive for him to take a chance on making **a big winner," be- 
 cause he could not retain it if he were successful. Furthermore, 
 he could not so well afford to take a chance of losing. 
 
 In addition to all the above, men would further discount 
 their chance of loss by resorting more extensively to insurance. 
 Fire, life, actident and sick insurance are common now. These 
 forms would not only become more popular and general but 
 other forms would come in vogue also. For example, farmers would 
 insure against drouth and failure of crops. Southern horticul- 
 turists and agriculturists would insure their orange groves and 
 other perishables against frost. Most people would insure their 
 property against tornadoes. Business men would insure against 
 losses incident to their particular lines, etc., and every extension 
 of insurance would help to maintain a fair distribution of wealth. 
 
 RAISE STANDARD OF LIVING.— Individualism 
 would raise the standard of living of the poor, the head of the 
 house having an opportunity to earn a larger income because of 
 more steady employment and increased wages. Those who were 
 able and willing to work and husband their earnings could have 
 all the necessaries and at least some of the luxuries of life. 
 
 LESSEN CHILD AND WOMAN LABOR.— Child 
 labor could be abolished and fewer girls and women would be 
 required to work in proportion as the opportunity of fathers to 
 earn were increased. If this were done without a more equitable 
 distribution of wealth than we have at present, the standard of 
 
living must necessarily decrease. Therefore, in order to do away 
 with child and woman labor we must increase the earning power 
 of fathers, husbands and brothers. 
 
 BETTER EDUCATION.— More children could be 
 sent to school longer, and a larger percentage could have the 
 benefit of a college education. 
 
 RECREATION AND SELF-IMPROVEMENT.— 
 Shorter hours of labor would permit wage earners more time for 
 self improvement, recreation, family enjoyment, social and re- 
 ligious service. 
 
 INCREASE OF INDIVIDUAL EFFICIENCY.— 
 Individualism offers the best possible incentive to human develop- 
 ment because merit would be a material factor in compensation. 
 Under the union labor system of today the wages of all journey- 
 men in an industry are virtually the same. Under Individualism 
 individual efficiency would count in every occupation, since part 
 of the compensation would come from profits distributed on a merit 
 basis. 
 
 INCREASE MARRIAGES.— On account of the high 
 cost of living many young men nowadays fail to get married. 
 They realize their inability to give a wife the same standard of 
 living which she now enjoys. Many young women now earn 
 as good salaries as men, and the youth knows that if he marries 
 such a girl there will be but one income where there were two 
 before, hence he hesitates about taking the step. With a less 
 number of young women working and the men earning larger 
 wages, the present financial barrier would be removed. 
 
 MORAL EFFECT. — Extremes breed crime. The very 
 rich become so avaricious that they commit crimes and do in- 
 justices to their fellowmen that they may make more money. 
 Furthermore, they become so engrossed in their race for wealth 
 that they fail to consider the future life. Extreme poverty is 
 responsible for many petty crimes, both of omission and of com- 
 mission. Since Individualism would reduce swollen fortunes and 
 
minimize poverty it would produce a wholesome moral effect 
 accordingly. 
 
 CHECK WHITE SLAVERY.— One of the most bale- 
 ful results of poverty is white slavery. Many girls and young 
 J women are now easy victims of the so-called white slave traffic 
 C^since their incomes are so small as to prevent in many cases their 
 earning enough to give them the standard of living they desire. 
 Individualism would, of course, not in itself abolish this evil, but 
 it would at least remove one of the causes of it. 
 
 CHECK RACE SUICIDE.— There would be an incen- 
 tive to those ambitious to be rich to have a large family, so they 
 could continue their accumulations and still keep the wealth 
 within the immediate family circle. 
 
 A NEW IDEAL.— The need of the world today is A 
 New Ideal. In playing the great Game of Grab, in the Struggle 
 for the Material, the people are developing their baser instead of 
 their higher qualities. We are not all Christians, but we are all 
 human, and the ideal to which we can universally subscribe, 
 whether Pagan, Infidel, Jew, Protestant, Catholic, or other be- 
 lief, is what Christ called the second great commandment — the 
 Love of our Neighbor. We can all work for The Cause of 
 Humanity. 
 
Objections Anticipated and 
 Answered 
 
 While Individualism would benefit everyone, a few thousand 
 would have to dispose of a surplus when The Readjustment came, 
 and many of these naturally will be against its adoption. Being 
 the ones in control of affairs, they will have an opportunity to 
 voice their objections so as to make it seem as if they came from 
 a much larger number. Here are some of the objections which 
 will be made: 
 
 EFFECT ON INCENTIVE.— Among the first objec- 
 tions which will be advanced is that it would destroy incentive 
 to earn and save. A careful analysis shows that it would not 
 destroy legitimate effort one iota, but on the whole would in- 
 crease this incentive to a marvelous extent. It certainly would 
 curb selfish men from carrying out schemes by which they could 
 make hundreds of millions, but think of the hundreds and hun- 
 dreds of thousands of people in whom it would put new heart and 
 life because they would now have enough to eat and wear, and 
 they would feel there was a place for them in the great plan of 
 life. 
 
 One man said this: **Suppose a man were an inventive 
 genius and invented a few good devices which were valuable 
 to mankind and made his limit, he would have no incentive to 
 continue inventing and the world would lose the value of his 
 genius." 
 
 Let us consider probably the best known, most prolific and 
 most useful inventor in the world, Edison, and see what would 
 probably happen in his case. I presume Mr. Edison has so 
 much wealth that he would have to dispose of some of it to come 
 viiliin the limit, but is it reasonable to suppose that because he 
 
could add no more to his fortune he would stop inventing? I 
 have not the honor of a personal acquaintance with him, but my 
 guess is that this certainly would not stop him. Inventing to him 
 is life. The mere making of money k a secondary consideration. 
 He is doing something for humanity. He gets personal satisfac- 
 tion out of his improvements. Under an Individualistic regime, 
 Edison, undoubtedly, would go on inventing as long as he could. 
 He has an ideal in life which is something else than the sordid 
 desire to make money. 
 
 Edison is merely a type. Even now many eminent physi- 
 cians and surgeons, when they discover something which will 
 benefit the human race, at once give it to the whole world to use 
 free. They don't get it patented to make money on. Their 
 hearts are in their work, not in the money they can make from it. 
 Individualism certainly would not stop their incentive. 
 
 But how about the business man? What wpuld he do when 
 he had reached his limit? 
 
 There are several situations here to consider. I talked with 
 a man recently who had made a fortune in the iron business. A 
 few years ago the steel trust scared him into selHng, and offering 
 him three times what his plant was worth, he accepted and re- 
 tired. He **loafed" a couple of years, but found time weighing 
 heavily on his hands, so he took a job as superintendent for an 
 independent mill at a moderate salary. He is now helping the 
 other fellow get along and is perfectly satisfied. 
 
 CURBING THE SELFISH.— Suppose a man did not 
 want to retire or work for someone else, but preferred to con- 
 tinue conducting the business he has spent his life at. There is 
 absolutely nothing in the plan of Individualism which would pre- 
 vent him from continuing in business. If he were an employer 
 of labor and so absolutely selfish that he would not share profits 
 with his men, his earnings ought to be curbed so as to give some- 
 one else a chance who would be more considerate of those less 
 fortunate and capable. But even this selfish fellow could go on 
 making as much as he could providing he used the surplus in such 
 
a way that he would not accumulate more than the limit of com- 
 mercial property. He could spend it in travel and luxuries, or in 
 acquiring a splendid home and other non-commercial property. 
 And yet there would be a natural limit to this. Under most 
 favorable conditions, mammoth incomes like those today would be 
 absolutely impossible. Furthermore, taxation on non-commercial 
 property would in itself serve to limit its accumulations beyond a 
 reasonable amount. 
 
 DEVELOPING MANHOOD.— But how nicely it 
 would work with the man who was not entirely selfish. When 
 he had acquired the limit for himself, his wife, each of his chil- 
 dren, and anyone else to whom he took a fancy, it would be 
 natural for him to consider next those who had helped him gain 
 that position of independence. He would establish a system of 
 profit sharing in his mill, factory, store or office, thereby disposing 
 of his surplus. And think how that would develop in him the 
 highest qualities in mankind — the helping of others. If Individ- 
 ualism did nothing else but develop real men out of the present 
 crop of selfish money-mad maniacs it would be worth while. 
 
 Those who have tried it realize that the only real happiness 
 in this life comes from service — doing something for others, and 
 the best kind of service is that which helps men to help them- 
 selves. There is no more pitiful spectacle in the world than the 
 selfish miser who lives for self alone. 
 
 Suppose a lawyer, doctor or other professional man, who is 
 not an employer of labor, acquired the limit and was still capable 
 of making $20,000 or $30,000 a year from his practice, what 
 could he do? 
 
 If he were of the selfish type he could do as proposed for 
 the selfish fellow above. If the other, he could do something for 
 humanity, work just as hard, and get more out of life than before. 
 Let him serve his clients or patients for more modest fees if he 
 desired, let him give his surplus income to religious or charitable 
 institutions, let him pay for the education of some worthy young 
 men and women. My God, let him do something for humanity! 
 
And think of the opportunities for public, as well as social 
 service. What a great world this would be if the strong men, 
 the men who have demonstrated their ability to make good in the 
 business and professional world, should turn their energies to 
 public service. What a glorious example we had here in Cleve- 
 land in the person of Tom L. Johnson, who devoted ten years 
 of his life to the people's interests. He was called everything 
 which embodied selfishness, insincerity and crookedness, because 
 he was almost a pioneer in this line. Many people could not be- 
 lieve that a millionaire could give up his race for wealth and work 
 for the interests of others at a comparatively small salary. Tom 
 L. Johnson paved the way for others and left a lasting monument 
 which will endure in the hearts of the people. 
 
 That system of economics must be commendable which 
 would cause men who have the ability to make millions to turn 
 their efforts to doing something for their fellow men, instead of 
 scheming against them! Under Individualism the incentive would 
 be to develop the best there is in men; under our present liberal- 
 ism the incentive is for them to do their worst. 
 
 INCREASE EFFICIENCY OF LABOR.— Now let 
 us consider what effect Individualism would have upon those mil- 
 lions of workers who have less than the limit. Our present policy 
 of no-limit, get-all-you-can, is essentially selfish; the policy of 
 employers is to get as much out of their employees as possible 
 and give them as little as need be in return. The employees, 
 reflecting this spirit, pursue in many instances the policy of getting 
 all they can and giving less than they might in return. Therefore, 
 capital and labor under our present system are antagonistic. 
 
 Suppose Individualism should become effective. The rela- 
 tions of capital and labor would cease to be antagonistic and be- 
 come reciprocal instead. We have seen that for various reasons 
 it would be to the employers' interest to share profits with their 
 employees on a merit system. This would make it to the advan- 
 tage of the employed to put forth more energy, become more 
 skilled, take greater care with their work, and put forth their 
 
best efforts in the interests of their employers. What a great 
 advantage to have such harmonious relations. Strikes, boycotts 
 and lockouts would be minimized, and the co-operation and har- 
 mony between employers and employees would be greatly in- 
 creased to the benefit of all. 
 
 Thus we see that the increased incentive for honest effort 
 to the millions of workers would outweigh immeasurably any curb- 
 ing of unjust effort upon the part of the few. 
 
 EFFECT ON COMMERCE.— Some will object that 
 Individualism would destroy our commercial advantage over other 
 nations. This is a specious objection. In the first place the 
 principle underlying Individualism is not only applicable to our 
 country, but to the whole world, and there is no reason why it 
 would not materialize in other nations as quickly as here. 
 
 But suppose we were the first to adopt it, we would really 
 be in a better position to compete for foreign business than now; 
 ( 1 ) our labor would become more skilled and put forth greater 
 energy than before for the reasons already stated; (2) there 
 would be no watered stock on which dividends must be made, 
 therefore we could sell as cheap or cheaper and the people at 
 large would receive as much benefit as now. 
 
 And by the way, where does our great advantage in the 
 markets of the world rest now? In many cases, right upon the 
 shoulders of the American citizens. Hundreds of articles are 
 manufactured by the sweat of American labor, shipped to foreign 
 countries and sold for less than we can buy them right here at 
 home. Surely we have a fine advantage in the markets of the 
 world, but the people of this country are bearing the burden and 
 the money barons are reaping the benefit. 
 
 THE AMENDMENT.— Some legal lights will advance 
 the objection that such a change as we propose would not be 
 constitutional. If they will throw off their superficiality for the 
 nonce, they will remember that the Federal Constitution provides 
 for its own amendment; that the people are supreme and can 
 change the basic law of the nation as they see fit; that fifteen 
 
amendments have already been made in the instrument which 
 proves that it can be changed. 
 
 TAKING MONEY ABROAD.— It will be argued that 
 many, especially the multi-millionaires, instead of submitting to 
 The Readjustment, would expatriate themselves, to Canada, for 
 instance. In the light of analysis, this objection fades into in- 
 significance. In the event that Canada did not adopt Individual- 
 ism before we did, let us see what would happen. 
 
 In the first place, Mr. Millionaire or Billionaire could not 
 take the land, and we would still have three million square miles 
 of soil left after he had gone, also all the oil, gas, coal, lead, 
 zinc, iron, silver, gold, and other base and precious elements in 
 it. Neither could he take the improvements, the factories, great 
 buildings, dwellings, pavements, bridges and other fixtures. So 
 we would still have our places to live and work when he was 
 with us no more. 
 
 What could he take? Money, jewelry, furniture and art 
 (and the law might even prevent the latter as European nations 
 do now, if deemed advisable). How much money could he 
 take? All he could get together, of course, but he would have 
 a hard time getting even a few millions together with which to 
 hike. If he had property worth a million, he would have to sell 
 it to some other millionaire who was going to stay. But no mil- 
 lionaire who was going to remain would buy it because he would 
 have no use for it after he had bought it, as he would either have 
 to divide it among others in blocks of not to exceed $100,000 
 or have it taken from him by the government. 
 
 Nevertheless, every millionaire who didn't like the way we 
 were doing things, and therefore decided to leave us, would be 
 able to **scrape together" at least some cash. Suppose the total 
 aggregated the enormous sum of a half a billion dollars; that 
 wouldn't break us. It would not be one 250th part of the wealth 
 of this nation. Our money per capita being about $32, even if 
 they carried it ALL off, 97^^% of our wealth would still re- 
 
worth of precious metals in our rock-ribbed districts, our mints 
 would still be in working order, and the Government at Wash- 
 ington could get busy and give orders for the manufacture of 
 more money. 
 
 There is another phase of this exodus feature worth men- 
 tioning. If the United States adopted Individualism before 
 Canada, the latter would undoubtedly follow suit, and many of 
 the wandering millionaires would doubtless then return. 
 
 HIDING THE SURPLUS.— The objection will not be 
 overlooked that some people would not comply with the law, but 
 would retain more than $100,000 of commercial property. That 
 is undoubtedly true. There are people breaking laws every day 
 and the}^ will probably continue to do so. But in this case they 
 would not be able to injure others as they are at present. 
 
 If it were discovered any time that a person did retain more 
 than the limit, the State would take the surplus and exact a 
 penalty, just as it does now when a man does not make full re- 
 turns for taxes. 
 
 Methods, of course, would have to be adopted to prevent 
 as far as possible the hiding of surplus. All stock, bonds and 
 mortgages could be required listed, and if dummy names were 
 used it would be possible to run these down as addresses would 
 have to be given. If stock were distributed among different people 
 to hold that would not hurt, as it is the distribution of wealth 
 we are aiming to accomplish. 
 
 The same reasoning applies here as in the case of taking 
 wealth from the country. Practically our entire wealth is tangible 
 and could be made accountable. Money from which no interest 
 could be secured would be the principal wealth which could be 
 hidden. 
 
 Suppose some who converted their surplus into money had 
 $100,000 or $200,000 or $300,000 so hid away in safety 
 deposit vaults or elsewhere, the owners dare not use much over 
 $100,000 in their business or it would become apparent to the 
 public and officials and be taken from them. Therefore, they 
 
could not become a menace to their fellow men in preventing 
 them from getting a living to which they are justly entitled. 
 
 Admitting that there would be some who would not obey 
 the spirit or letter of the law, nevertheless the morals of the rich 
 under the new regime would be greatly improved. No human 
 law can make angels of men. There is a higher law which must 
 be invoked for that. But under Individualism there would be 
 many people working to make men, who now are bending their 
 energies to make money, 
 
 RICH THE PROBLEM. NOT THE POOR.— In this 
 whole discussion of possible objections, the wholesome thought 
 stands out clearly that under the proposed regime the problem 
 would be, **What to do with our rich?" not **What to do with 
 the poor?" as is now the case. We also know that the rich 
 are usually well able to take care of themselves; that they 
 are greatly in the minority, and that the unquestioned justice of 
 government is the greatest good to the greatest number. 
 
Justice of the Principle 
 
 A fundamental principle of law, accepted by everyone ex- 
 cept anarchists, is that as members of society we must give up 
 certain rights which we could exercise if we lived apart from it. 
 
 If a man who owned a steam boiler made his home in a 
 country inhabited only by himself he might carry 300 lbs. of 
 steam on it, and there would be no one to molest or restrain him. 
 He would be a law unto himself. But if he moved it to any 
 place where people lived he would then be a member of society 
 and would be governed by its laws. 
 
 The law provides that an inspector shall test each boiler, 
 determine what pressure can be carried on it without danger of 
 explosion and set its safety valve so the steam will "blow off'* 
 when the limit is reached. If the inspector found, upon testing 
 this hypothetical boiler, that to carry 300 lbs. of steam on it 
 was dangerous, its owner would not be permitted to do so. The 
 safety valve would be set at 75 lbs. or whatever the safety mark 
 was. He would be limited for the benefit of society. 
 
 Everyone admits that the law which thus limits a man's 
 personal liberty is just. Let us examine a case in which we use 
 money instead of steam and we will see that the same principle 
 applies with equal force. 
 
 Suppose a boat should be wrecked upon an hitherto undis- 
 covered island and only one of the crew survive. He might be- 
 come owner of that entire island, and though it were stored with 
 precious metals worth billions, that would make no difference to 
 society. His wealth would not be a menace to it, he not being 
 a part of it. 
 
 But if he should hail a passing ship, bring his vast fortune 
 into society and use it to make himself still richer at the expense 
 of his fellow men, whom he ground down to the condition that 
 
 66 
 
they could not buy the necessities of life, he would be an enemy 
 of society, and the State would have just as divine a right to curb 
 his power to injure others as it did the other man from carrying 
 300 lbs. of steam on his boiler. 
 
 OTHER PRECEDENTS.— As a further evidence of 
 the justice of the principle of limited ownership let us cite some 
 laws which are among the statutes. 
 
 We make it a crime punishable by imprisonment for one 
 person to do personal violence to another, or even threaten to. 
 Are we not therefore justified in restraining men from acquiring 
 so much wealth that they make their fellow men suffer the pangs 
 of hunger and cold? 
 
 Every State regulates by law the rate of interest which can 
 be collected for the use of money. 
 
 The Federal Government lays a tax on the incomes of all 
 corporations whose net earnings are over $5,000 per annum, and 
 an amendment to the Federal Constitution is now pending which, 
 if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States, will 
 permit the taxation of incomes of individuals. 
 
 Some States lay a heavy tax on inheritances. 
 
 If these laws and similar restraints which we put on mem- 
 bers of society are just, there would be nothing unjust in limiting 
 ownership. In fact, unless we do, we are permitting great in- 
 justice against a large part of our people. It is not only the 
 privilege, but the duty of society to protect the weak from the 
 injustice of the strong. 
 
 History clearly establishes the fact that for thousands of 
 years throughout the world members of society who have been 
 possessed of great wealth have frequently been menaces to society. 
 No human being can conceive the sufferings of humanity which 
 have resulted from their machinations. To-day we have a con- 
 dition which portends as great evils as any we can read of in 
 history. 
 
 Throughout this bountiful land, whose crops are so plenti- 
 ful that millions of bushels of its products are exported annually 
 
 67 
 
to other countries, thousands of people have not enough to eat; 
 throughout this land of wealth, whose bowels are ladened with 
 incalculable stores of coal, gas and oil, hundreds of thousands 
 of its inhabitants have not sufficient fuel to keep them warm 
 in winter; throughout this land of industry, with brains and ma- 
 chinery capable of competing with the labor of any country, hun- 
 dreds of thousands of honest, willing, deserving men are search- 
 ing for work in vain. 
 
 Those who are responsible for these intolerable conditions 
 are nothing short of enemies of society, and simple justice demands 
 that their power be curbed. 
 
Program for Materializing 
 
 Hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world 
 know from personal experience and observation that affairs are 
 unjust, and that they will continue to get worse unless action is 
 taken to correct them. Indeed, one can scarcely meet a person 
 who has not a desire to do something to better conditions. Many 
 are giving charity and doing noble welfare work, but they realize 
 that this is simply relieving present needs, and that it is not help- 
 ing much for the future. While this should be continued, a con- 
 centrated action which will strike at and remove the cause of much 
 want and distress is certainly highly desirable. 
 
 The body politic has been attacked with a deadly disease 
 and eruptions have appeared on the surface. While it is a 
 good work to put salve on these sores and thus help to relieve 
 the sufferings of the patient, yet if we are going to save the pa- 
 tient's life we must cure the disease itself. When that is done 
 the sores will automatically disappear. 
 
 INDIVIDUALISM EFFECTIVE AND PRAC- 
 TICAL. — A concentrated effort should be made to apply the 
 remedy of Individualism, ( 1 ) because it is a positive cure and 
 (2) because it is perfectly feasible. 
 
 The advent of the corporation, though largely responsible 
 for our condition today, is the very thing which makes the 
 materialization of Individualism possible. The airship had to 
 wait the invention of the gas engine, and limited ownership in our 
 age of large business and complex conditions had to await the 
 invention of the corporation. Now that we have the one, we 
 can have the other. 
 
 But no matter how practical or effective a plan may or 
 might be, it will accomplish nothing unless materialized. The 
 first logical and most effective step to vitalize Individualism is to 
 
get an organized force behind it. Therefore, I propose the forma- 
 tion of a society to be composed of those who believe in the 
 principle of limited ownership and are willing to assist in securing 
 its adoption. 
 
 A PROPOSED PROGRAM.— A commendable fea- 
 ture of the solution is that much can be done toward realizing the 
 benefits of it ere the keystone can be placed in position. The 
 following program would aid greatly both in relieving the economic 
 situation and hastening the ratification of the desired amend- 
 ment: 
 
 ( 1 ) Campaign for disciples among all classes. 
 
 (2) Induce labor to advocate profit sharing. 
 
 (3) Induce political parties to declare for limited owner- 
 ship in their platforms. 
 
 (4) Secure the passage of income tax and inheritance tax 
 laws, also other regulatory and restrictive laws which will tend 
 to prevent further centralization of wealth and make for a more 
 equitable distribution of it. 
 
 (5) Finally, secure such amendment to the Federal Con- 
 stitution as will limit the amount of wealth which any individual 
 may own. 
 
 CAMPAIGN OF EDUCATION.— There are at least 
 some rich men who, upon being shown the justice of the limited 
 ownership principle, could be induced to acquiesce to it and act 
 upon it voluntarily. The fact that Dr. Pearson of Chicago dis- 
 tributed his fortune of $7,000,000 before his recent death is an 
 encouraging instance of what others might be induced to do. 
 Among the first efforts of the Society therefore should be a cam- 
 paign to convert as many as possible to the principle. Every time 
 a man who possessed in excess of the limit agreed to dispose of 
 the surplus, and did so, the cause of humanity would be advanced. 
 
 ASSISTANCE OF LABOR.— Both organized and un- 
 organized labor should be urged to try to induce their employers 
 to share profits with them. A minimum wage scale should be 
 
ers according to their efficiency, as determined by the quality and 
 quantity of their results. 
 
 Profit sharing should not be of the brand used by the steel 
 trust which gives the employer an unjust hold on or power over 
 men. It should be such as will foster loyalty and make for more 
 harmonious relations between employer and employee. 
 
 POLITICAL PARTIES.— The formation of a new 
 political party should be unnecessary to secure real reform. We 
 need two great parties to balance each other, but there is no cry- 
 ing need for another. There are plenty of progressives in both 
 parties. If a good percentage of these could be formed into a 
 non-partisan society they could work as a unit for reform through 
 that, and by still retaining allegiance to their respective parties 
 exert a leavening influence in each. When the people want any 
 reform and make a strong enough demand for it, they get it. And 
 when the great parties see there is a demand for limited owner- 
 ship it will be incorporated in their platforms. 
 
 INCOME AND INHERITANCE TAXES, both State 
 and Federal, increasing rapidly in proportion to the amounts 
 involved, should be advocated and their enactment urged. Also 
 laws which will regulate and restrict the unjust actions of trusts, 
 pools and combinations in restraint of trade, both great and small, 
 and other progressive laws which will keep the power in the 
 hands of the people. 
 
 SECURING THE AMENDMENT.— While much can 
 be accomplished by the foregoing factors, The Amendment should 
 ever be looked forward to and worked for as the desideratum. 
 This should be hastened further by endeavoring to nominate and 
 elect candidates to Congress who endorse the principle which un- 
 derlies Individualism. 
 
 If the idea possesses the merit which so many forceful 
 arguments indicate, and which history proves that it does, enough 
 members of both branches of Congress will be elected eventually 
 to pass The Amendment Resolution. It will then have to be 
 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States — and 
 when that is done The Readjustment will take place. 
 
 The provision for this should contain at least these vital 
 features: 
 
 (a) A reasonable time, say a year, should be given for 
 each individual to adjust his affairs and dispose of his surplus 
 wealth. He should be permitted to give it to his wife, children 
 or friends, to divide it among his employees on a merit basis or 
 any basis he chose, or to give it to religious, eleemosynary or 
 educational institutions, or to dispose of it in any other legitimate 
 way he wished. 
 
 (b) At the expiration of the stipulated time, if any be 
 found who had not complied with the law, the surplus over the 
 limit should be taken by the Government, put into the public 
 treasury and used to pay the running expenses of the Government, 
 thus reducing taxes and giving everyone the benefit. 
 
 It will be readily seen that this plan for The Readjustment 
 does not at any point anticipate the summary taking property from 
 one person and giving it to another. No one would get anything 
 for which he did not labor any more than he does at present 
 (except in case it should be given him voluntarily by an individual 
 in disposing of his surplus). 
 
The Testimony of History 
 
 There are a good many conservative people everywhere who 
 look askance at new and untried theories of government. They 
 serve a purpose — they act as a sort of balance wheel to that class 
 who formerly were known as **radicals" or "cranks/* but who 
 now seem to be coming into their own, being styled by the more 
 respectable title of * 'progressives,*' while the formerly so-called 
 •'conservatives** are now known by the somewhat stigmatic title 
 of ''reactionaries.** 
 
 For the benefit of all classes, however, it is a matter of 
 considerable satisfaction to be able to cite the fact that limited 
 ownership is neither new or untried, but was employed more than 
 2^000 years ago with most beneficial results. 
 
 There are numerous instances in ancient history of the period- 
 ical distribution of wealth. According to Aristotle, Phileas of 
 Chalcedon, deeming property to be the turning point of all revolu- 
 tions, was the first to affirm that the citizens of a State ought to 
 have equal possessions. We learn from the Old Testament that 
 there was a redistribution of wealth every half century, in the 
 Jubilee year. Emile De Laveleye, in his splendid book. Primitive 
 Property^, points out numerous instances among the old Germans, 
 Celts and others, in which an effort was made to maintain mate- 
 rial equality by frequent redistributions and other means. 
 
 While all this is interesting to a certain degree, it is not 
 altogether relevant to our purpose, since we do not beheve in an 
 exactly equal distribution of wealth, but in a sufficient balance to 
 equalize Opportunity. We are, therefore, deeply concerned about 
 the instances in which a Hmit above the per capita wealth has been 
 set and the consequences thereof. 
 
 LIMITED OWNERSHIP IN GREECE.^olon, who 
 it conceded to be one of the greatest constructive statesmen of all 
 
time, seems to have been the first of whom we have authentic 
 information to limit accumulations. He did this about the year 
 594 B. C. when he gave Athens a new constitution. The sub- 
 sequent history of Greece contains many instances in which the 
 restricting law was enforced with beneficial results, and when 
 Liberalism was in vogue dire effects ensued. In summing up 
 his chapter on ''Property in Greece," Laveleye says: 
 
 **In the other Greek republics we find the same economic 
 evolution as at Sparta — the concentration of landed property, the 
 advance of inequahty, cultivation by slaves, whose number is 
 continually increasing, and finally depopulation. When Greece 
 became a Roman province it was transformed into a desert, where 
 the flocks wandered at will, and wild beasts lurked in the ruins 
 of temples and cities. At the end of the first century of our era, 
 the population was so reduced that the whole of Greece could 
 hardly produce 3,000 fully armed warriors, the number which 
 Megara alone sent to the battle of Platea. Equality was the 
 basis of Greek democracies; inequality was their ruin." 
 
 RESULTS IN ROME.— The Licinian laws prohibited 
 anyone from pasturing more than a certain number of cattle or 
 from possessing more than 500 jugera (about 375 acres) of pub- 
 lic lands. The surplus of anyone owning more than that was dis- 
 tributed among the poor. The results which attended the enact- 
 ment of these laws are given by M. Laboulaye in his Des lois 
 Agraires chez les Romains, as follows: 
 
 *'The century which follows the Licinian laws is the one 
 in which the soldiers of Rome seem inexhaustible. Varro, Pliny 
 and Columella continually refer to these great days of the Re- 
 public as the time when Italy was really powerful by the richness 
 of its soil and the number and prosperity of its inhabitants. The 
 law of the five hundred jugera is always quoted by them with 
 admiration, as being the first which recognized the evil, and sought 
 to remedy it by retarding the formation of those vast domains, 
 or latifundia, which depopulated Italy, and after Italy the whole 
 empire." 
 
 The "latifundia," or great estates, of Rome were made 
 ix>ssible by favorable laws, or in some instances, the non-enforce- 
 ment of laws, and in that respect their growth was not unlike 
 
the development of immense fortunes of today. The great number 
 of slaves which were owned was another factor in their evolution. 
 In the time of Augustus one man owned over 4,000 slaves. In 
 lieu of actual slaves today those of great wealth have the trusts 
 by means of which they can derive practically the same results, 
 being in a position to regain nearly all the wages paid through 
 their power to regulate prices. In fact, they have a little the 
 better of the Roman magnates, as they are not only able to make 
 profits on their employees, but on the public at large as well. An- 
 other similarity between the formation of the latifundia and the 
 trusts is in the killing of competition. Where freemen owned land 
 they were sometimes bought out, but often driven out. Human 
 nature does not seem to change much as the centuries roll on. 
 
 The Licinian laws were enforced and abrogated alternately 
 over a long period, according as the ''party" in power favored 
 the people or the predatory interests, and "according to M. 
 Mace," says Laveleye, "agrarian laws, that is to say, the dis- 
 tribution of public land among the citizens, produced the best 
 results every time they were really carried into execution ; and the 
 aristocracy, by their opposition to them, caused alike their own 
 ruin and that of the empire." 
 
 So strikingly does Laveleye describe the needs of the present 
 from a study of the past that I cannot refrain from quoting his 
 closing words on Roman property: 
 
 "The concentration of property in a few hands, by multi- 
 plying the number of slaves, dried up the natural source of wealth, 
 free and responsible labour; and by destroying the sturdy race of 
 proprietor cultivators, at once excellent soldiers and good citizens, 
 who had given Rome the empire of the world, it destroyed the 
 foundation of republican institutions. Latifundia perdidere 
 Italiam, (Vast estates destroyed Rome. — Pliny) the irremediable 
 fall of the Roman Empire justifies the phrase, which re-echoes 
 through the centuries as a warning to modern societies. The 
 French Revolution, and most continental legislation, has been 
 inspired with the feeling which dictated the Licinian laws and 
 those of the Gracchi. It endeavoured to create a nation of pro- 
 prietors; such had been the actual result of primitive communities. 
 
 65 
 
To-day, in presence of the democratic movement by which we 
 are impelled, and of the equaHsing tendencies which agitate the 
 labouring classes, the one means of averting disaster and saving 
 liberty, is to seek an organization, which may confer property on 
 all citizens able to labour ." 
 
 Such is the conclusion of a modern historian after an ex- 
 haustive study of ancient conditions. And it is at least a remark- 
 able coincidence that another writer, after studying modern con- 
 ditions and tendencies, should have evolved the same solution as a 
 corrective measure. 
 
 Since our trouble today is due to the same fundamental 
 cause as in the case of Greece and Rome, and since human 
 nature is the same now as then it must necessarily follow that the 
 same principle properly modified to meet modern conditions would 
 be as effective now as it was 2,000 years ago. 
 
 If when M. Laveleye wrote his book some thirty years ago 
 he had formed an organization which would have materialized 
 his conclusion, the condition of his France and other countries 
 might be different today. If we fail to do what he neglected I 
 doubt not but the time will come when historians will be recording 
 the fact that the modem latifundia destroyed our republic. 
 
 The time has come when the people should take a united 
 stand against the machinations and those who are rapidly under- 
 mining the foundations of our government by destroying the op- 
 portunities of its citizens to enjoy **life, liberty and the pursuit of 
 happiness.*' The Declaration of Independence unequivocally 
 states, **That whenever any form of government becomes destruc- 
 tive to these ends, it is the right of people to alter or abolish it." 
 There is no desire or need to abolish our government, but there is 
 vital need to alter it as provided by the Constitution itself. 
 
 If, in view of the many arguments for limited ownership as 
 applied to modern conditions set forth in this modest booklet 
 and the remarkable testimony of history cited in support of it, 
 you are convinced that action should be taken in this country as 
 soon as may be to restore opportunity to all citizens by curbing 
 the money power of individuals, you are invited to become a 
 member of the proposed militant force for Our Country and 
 Humanity— THE INDIVIDUALIST SOCIETY.