The progressive movement : a non-partisan, comprehensive discussion of current tendencies in American politics

Front matter

THE CITIZEN'S LIBRARY OF ECONOMICS, POLITICS AND SOCIOLOGY— NEW SERIES

Edited by RICHARD T. ELY, Ph.D., LL.D. Professor of Political Economy in the University of Wisconsin

THE CITIZEN'S LIBRARY OF

Preface

So much, attention has been given to the rise and development of the Progressive party in the United States that there has been a tendency to overlook the larger and more fundamental movement of which it is a part. Although this movement had struck its roots far back in the past and was already vigorous and growing when the campaign of 1912 began, the sudden, meteoric appearance of the new party, the striking personality of its candidate for President, and the wide variety of issues raised, thrust the movement itself into the background. The result has been a confusion of the party with the movement, a belief that they advocate precisely the same principles, and a conviction that they must stand or fall together.

The progressive movement is broader than the Progressive party and, in fact, than any single party. It is the embodiment and expression of fundamental measures and principles of reform that have been advocated for many years by all political parties. Although differences in name, in the specific reforms advocated, and in the emphasis placed upon them, have obscured the identity of the movement, the underlying purposes and ideals of the progressive elements of all parties for the past quarter of a century have been essentially the same. To make clear this universal character of the progressive movement is one of the objects for which this book has been written.

vii

Tiii PEEFACE

To accomplish that object, a brief survey of the conditions surrounding the formation of the federal and early state constitutions is given, together with an account of the political, social, and economic factors that have made the rise of the progressive movement natural and inevitable. The breadth and extent of the move ment are indicated partly by showing the large place it has filled and now fills in each of the important political parties, and partly by explaining in detail the issues and reforms of the movement as they apply to the nation, the state, and the city.

The second object of the book is to give form and definiteness to a movement which is, in the minds of many, confused and chaotic. Unquestionably the great majority of voters in this country are dissatisfied with existing political and social conditions and desire to see a change. Yet the friends of progress are frequently the enemies of each other, largely through lack of mutual understanding and a failure to realize that they stand for practically the same fundamental things. The movement has. therefore, been carefully defined as having three distinct phases, and on the basis of these three phases the important reforms advocated by progressive leaders in the different parties have been classified and correlated. Although it would be impossible to discuss all these measures exhaustively without losing the perspective of the book, prominent reforms such as mothers' pensions, the minimum wage, preferential voting, and the city manager plan, have received sufficient attention to enable the reader to know what they are. the extent to which they have been adopted, and the arguments co mm only advanced for and against each.

The point of view throughout has been non-partisan, but the spirit of treatment, it must be said, has been sympathetic. Xo one can study the progressive move-

PREFACE ix

ment, no one can read the lives of its pioneers and advocates without feeling its strength and vitality and realizing that it is a potent force in our political and social life. War and business depression may divert the attention of people from progressive reforms for a time. But, sooner or later, that attention will return, more earnest and more intense, and the principles of the movement will receive a new emphasis and a wider application.

Benjamin P. De Witt.

Elmhurst, N. Y., February 3, 1915.

r

PAKT I

THE OKIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PKOGKESSIVE MOVEMENT

CHAPTEK I

THE MEANING AND HISTORY OF THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT

The term "progressive movement" has been so widely used, so much discussed, and so differently interpreted that any exposition of its meaning and principles, to be adequate, must be prefaced by careful definition. To some — comparatively few — the progressive movement stands for the attempt of one man, disappointed in his efforts to control his political party, to found another and return himself to power. To others, who are willing to concede that the movement is not confined to a single leader, it represents the efforts of a small body of self-seeking politicians to gain position and influence by making capital of a movement that is temporarily popular. To others, the movement expresses the effort of a few sincere but misguided enthusiasts to carry out an impossible and chimerical program of social reform through government and legislation. Some believe that the movement is partisan, limited to the party that bears its name; others believe that it is broader than any single party and that its supporters are found in political parties everywhere. Some believe it is new, fleeting, and evanescent, destined to disappear quickly from our political life ; others hold that it is permanent, deep-seated, and fundamental, involving a modification and readjustment of our political theories and institutions.

Whatever difference of opinion may exist concerning the meaning of the progressive movement, every thinking man and woman must be convinced that the nation to-day is passing through a severe political crisis. After a period of unprecedented industrial and commercial expansion, during which time little or no attention has been given to the problems of government, the people have suddenly realized that government is not functioning properly and that radical changes are needed. [Manifestations of this excitement and unrest are seen on every hand. Men write of a new democracy 1 and a new freedom. 2 In 1912 the vote of the Socialist party — the party of protest against existing conditions — almost reached the million mark; and in the same year a new political party, appealing to new ideals and new standards, polled four million votes. The Democratic party in the nation, after a stormy convention, nominated and elected as President, in 1912. a leader who insists upon high standards of public service; and the Republican party, chastened by defeat. and forced to recognize the present political tendencies, has already set about the work of party regeneration in many states. Everywhere there are evidences that the nation has passed into a new political era.

In this widespread political agitation that at first sight seems so incoherent and chaotic, there may be distinguished upon examination and analysis three tendencies. The first of these tendencies is found in the insistence by the best men in all political parties that special, minority, and corrupt influence in government — national, state, and city — be removed; the second tendency is found in the demand that the structure or machinery of government, which has hitherto

1 Weyl, IJi€ New Democracy, 'Wilson, The New Freedom.

been admirably adapted to control by the few, be so changed and modified that it will be more difficult for the few, and easier for the many, to control; and, finally, the third tendency is found in the rapidly growing conviction that the functions of government at present are too restricted and that they must be increased and extended to relieve social and economic distress. These three tendencies with varying emphasis are seen to-day in the platform and program of every political party ; they are manifested in the political changes and reforms that are advocated and made in the nation, the states, and the cities ; and, because of their universality and definiteness, they may be said to constitute the real progressive movement.

To understand the origin and development of the progressive movement, it is necessary to consider briefly the circumstances surrounding the formation of the federal constitution in 1787. The men who framed that constitution had to decide two questions: first, how many and what functions government, as opposed to the individual, should be allowed to exercise; and, secondly, what power should control the exercise of these functions.

Now, at the time our federal constitution was adopted, there were at least three reasons why the people desired as little interference as possible by the government in the affairs of the individual. In the first place, the colonists had just finished a war with England, a war which it is ordinarily supposed was justified as a protest against taxation without representation, but which was rather a desire to get rid of a government that was becoming irksome. The colonists appealed to the inherent right of man to be free. After emerging from a long and severe struggle to rid themselves of one government, they were not in the mood to impose upon

(J THE PEOGRESS1TE MOVEMENT

tlieriiselves another. They had had enough government; they would see now what the individual could do.

A second reason for limiting the powers of the government is to be found in the political theory prevalent at that time. Eousseau 1 had proclaimed the superiority of the individual over the state and attempted to explain how the state received its power originally. Man was originally, according to Eousseau. in a state of nature. He was free in all respects. Necessity compelled him to yield his individual liberty to the state, but even then he and his fellows were entitled to absolute control of the state. The theory of Rousseau became widely popular. The individual was apotheosized. In America, Paine wrote "Common Sense"' and "The Eights of ^ian/ ? both imbued with the doctrine of Rousseau. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, with its insistence on individual liberties. Of Jefferson's opinion on the extension of the powers of the state, one of his biographers says : "He could hardly bring himself to declare that the people should govern, because lie had a lurking notion that there should be no government at all. 'The rights of man." the favorite slang phrase of the day. signified to his mind an almost entire absence of governmental control. ' ? 2 The political philosophy of the day was laissez-faire.

A third and final reason why men restricted the powers of the state was the needlessness of governmental interference. In most cases, the individual could take care of himself. The men in the country at that time were the boldest and most self-reliant that Europe had contained. They would have scoffed at the idea of having any superior power tell them how long they ought

1 In Ms Control Social.

3 Morse, Thomas Jefferson, p. 111. The italics are mine.

to work and what pay they ought to receive. Then, too, social and economic conditions allowed individual action. In 1790 only six cities had 8,000, and only two, 25,000 inhabitants. Land was plentiful; the great West with all its opportunities for wealth-making was unexplored. ~No wonder the colonists felt confident in their own ability to take care of themselves ; no wonder they despised government and felt within them the thrill and inspiration of a new freedom.

When we approach the second important question which the colonists had to decide ; i. e., by whom the exercise of governmental functions should be controlled, we find no end of confusion. The colonists, we have seen, decided that government, as opposed to the individual, should exercise as few functions as possible. When they came to decide into what hands the exercise of these few governmental powers should be placed, two possibilities offered themselves. One was to place the people, in a fairly broad sense, in control ; the other was to place in power a small minority which, protected from the clamor of the people by numerous checks and balances, would govern in the interests of the best citizens. There is no reason why men should divide on this second question exactly as they do on the first. A man may believe in extending the power of the state over many functions now exercised exclusively by the individual and still be opposed to allowing a majority of the people to direct the exercise of those functions. Germany to-day is perhaps the most paternalistic of nations; it is far from being the most democratic. And the men back in 1787 did not divide in the same way on both questions nor lay equal emphasis upon them. Hamilton believed in the rule of the minority, and yet he did not advocate and in fact could not advocate (because there was no need) any great extension of gov-

8 THE PBOGBESSIYE MOVE^IENT

erninental powers. Jefferson believed that the peopleshould be given control and yet believed that in an ideal state there would be no government at all. So far as restricting government to the exercise of a few functions is concerned, Hamilton and Jefferson were not very far apart: so far as the method of exercising the functions necessarily assumed by government is concerned, they were as far apart as the pole.?. In a word, in ITS 7. most men agreed in opposing any extension of the functions of government : they differed in their views as to the way in which the necessary modicum of government should be controlled.

The subject has been much beclouded because of the fact that in ITS 7 a new government was being formed. The colonies sent delegates to a convention to determine what governmental functions should be exercised by the new government. The questions that arose in that convention were not questions of the extension or restriction of the powers of government. They were questions cd the extension or restriction of the powers of a particular government. They were questions concerning the division of powers between a government about to be formed and governments already existing. When we speak of Alexander Hamilton as favoring a strong government we do not mean that Hamilton wished to allow the state to control matters up to that time controlled by individuals ; we mean that Hamilton wished to take power from the separate colonies and confer it upon a central government. Hamilton's plan for a national government ''"embodied two ideas which were its cardinal features and which went to the very heart of the whole matter. The republic of Hamilton was to be an aristocratic as distinguished from a democratic republic, and the power of the separate states was to be exec-

MEANING AND HISTOEY 9

tually crippled." * Of the three great compromises of the constitution, between agricultural and commercial stages, between large and small states, and between free and slave states, not one concerned the question of extending the influence of government generally.

The fight, then, in the constitutional convention was not over the extension of the functions of government, but over the method of controlling the functions to be exercised. On this point, there was great diversity of opinion. Of the three forms of government, the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the democracy, the last found the least favor. ". . . The fathers of the American Federal Republic . . . over and over again betray their regret that the only government which it was possible for them to establish was one which promised so little stability" 2 (i.e., a democracy). Hamilton favored a king, and most of the others favored some sort of aristocracy. a The evidence is overwhelming that the men who sat in that convention had no faith in the wisdom or political capacity of the people." 3 Jefferson, the prophet of the people, was not even there. The convention turned out a constitution calculated to give to a select minority the guidance of the destinies of the nation.

The federal constitution, therefore, provides for a government which shall touch the life of the individual at as few points as possible and which shall be dominated by a minority. The government then formed for the nation reflected the existing state governments as far as the extension of the powers of the state is concerned. It was not a true reflection, however, of the sentiment of the mass of people in the states as to the

1 Lodge, Alexander Hamilton, p. 61.

2 Maine, Progress of Popular Government, p. 71. "Smith, Spirit of American Government, p. 32.

method of control. Democracy was much more in evidence in the separate states than it could be under the elaborate system of checks and balances of the federal constitution. '"'Had the decision been left to what is now called 'the voice of the people/' that is, to the mass of the citizens all over the country, voting at the polls, the voice of the people would probably have pronounced against the Constitution . . ." *

Although the state governments were more democratic than the federal government, their democracy was not above suspicion. It was at best a diluted democracy, of the sort of which Periclean Athens was proud. Throughout the thirteen colonies there were thousands of slaves ; most of the colonies imposed some property qualifications before granting the suffrage; in some colonies, profession of some religion was essential to holding office. 2 The quality of the democracy in the states is revealed fairly well by a glance at some of the early constitutions. That of Massachusetts, adopted in 1780, in its preamble, states that ''the body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals : it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good." The same constitution provides that "every male inhabitant of twenty-one years of age and upwards, having a freehold estate within the commonwealth, of the annual income of three pounds, or any estate of the value of sixty pounds, shall have a right to give in his vote for the senators for the district of which he is an inhabitant.'' 3 The same qualifications had to be met by voters for representa-

^•Bryce, American Commonwealth. Vol. I, p. 26. z McMaster 3 With the Fathers, p. 72.

3 In Chap. I, Sec. 2, Art. 2.

MEANING AND HISTORY H

tives and governor. In the constitution of North Carolina, the statement is made "that all political power is vested in and derived from the people only." * The people are somewhat narrowly defined, however, as those who are possessed of a freehold of fifty acres of land and those who have paid public taxes. In most of the early state constitutions, there are similar inconsistent provisions which declare that the state is governed by the people and that the people are those who own property or pay taxes.

When the United States, then, began its career as a nation, the federal constitution, the state constitutions, and even the people themselves were opposed to any extension of the powers of government over the individual. General sentiment favored a minimum of government. As to who should control that minimum, opinion differed. A few favored control by a select minority. These few accomplished their aim as far as the federal government was concerned by introducing into the constitution checks and balances which made popular control impossible. Most men, however, favored a rather broad popular control ; and they made their influence felt in the state constitutions by providing for a fair measure of democracy.

Nothing indicates more clearly that the framers of the federal constitution did not believe that the functions of government were going to be extended to any great extent than their failure to provide for political parties. They feared factions and parties, but they thought that they had effectually guarded against them. Like the proverbial ostrich, they stuck their heads in the sand and refused to see the approaching danger. The parties soon came ; men did not look upon the government with the same disinterestedness that the Fa-

12 THE PEOGRESSIVE MOVEMENT

thers had hoped for. They meant to use the government. The plans for using the government were for a long time indefinite and unorganized. For the most part, men were interested in gaining a place of honor and profit with now and then a chance to "make a haul."

The first party to come into power was the Federalist. Its leader was Hamilton and its ranks contained Washington, Adams, and Marshall. It is often said that the Federalists stood for an extension of the functions of government and a larger control of the individual. Such statements are only partly true. At that time there was little need for much governmental interference in private affairs. There was great need of strengthening the central government, and to that end the Federalists bent most of their efforts. The Federalists, however, firmly believed in the domination of government by the few rather than by the many. The decisions of John ^Marshall as chief justice of the Supreme Court did more to intrench property and vested interests behind the bulwarks of law than any other single factor. Two things, then, the Federalists particularly emphasized: that the central government should be strong and that it should be controlled in the interests of the few.

The Republican-Democrats, or Democrats, who came into power in 1801, and retained control of the government with slight interruptions 1 until the Civil War, opposed the tendency to strengthen the national government and in fact opposed all government. To them government was a necessary evil, and the less there was of it the better. They therefore fought the central bank and the protective tariff and advocated non-interference in the question of slavery. Although the Democrats of this period believed in non-use of government to relieve

MEANING AND HISTOBY 13

the individual, ^hey perfected one profitable use to which government might be put. Under Jackson, the spoils system, until that time a mere seed in a fertile soil, broke through and grew to enormous proportions, giving shade under its luxuriant foliage to the weary and oppressed mob of officeholders. The Democrats, then, tried to curtail federal powers, and in fact all governmental powers, and sought to give the masses rather than the classes control.

In 1856, slavery was the chief question before the country. The tariff, the currency, and all other questions sank into insignificance as the people tremblingly sought the solution of a problem that threatened speedy national disruption. The Democrats supported a policy of non-interference by the national authority, squatter sovereignty. On the ashes of the Whig party, burned and charred by fiery internal dissensions, arose the Republican party, a party pledged to the control of slavery by federal enactment. The Civil War came* Lincoln stretched the federal authority to limits before unheard of and undreamed of. The seceding states were drawn back into the Union by force; millions of slaves were freed by presidential proclamation; federal authority was supreme.

At the close of the war, the Democratic party, the party that advocated limited federal powers, lay prostrate, discredited, the party of rebellion. The Republicans, unmolested, began to build up a strong party organization. All things were favorable to the preemption of the government. The temptation was not long in coming. It had come before the war even. Railroads sprang up all over the country; industrial corporations of Brobdingnagian proportions put in their appearance. Strong men were behind the railroads and the corporations ; they were also behind the Republican party. Here was an opportunity to extend the powers of government — to use government. Here was a government designed by its makers to be controlled by a wealthy minority. The wealthy minority were not slow in seizing the opportunity. Land grants, franchise steals, favorable court decisions, supple politicians, appeared in a bewildering array. Long before the country realized it, the government was being used — not in the interests of the many, but in the interests of the few.

Meanwhile, the same complex conditions that were bringing wealth to the magnate and the railroad king were bringing difficult social and economic problems to the masses of people. Mushroom cities sprang up over night ; thousands who had worked independently before now worked as units in a complex organization. The individual could not hope to compete with the wealthy corporation which employed him; and his particular product was almost worthless apart from the use to which the corporation might put it. Men became economic slaves. Corporations could make them work twelve, fifteen, or even eighteen hours a day; could place them in factories poorly lighted and poorly ventilated; could reduce wages to a minimum; could, in short, control them. Slowly, Americans realized that they were not free.

Instinctively, men turned to each other for support. They did not at first turn to the government for relief. They were still under the delusion that the government was a dispassionate, fair arbiter ; and that was what they desired it to be. The workmen of the country tried to fight their own fight. They formed labor unions and attempted to force all those engaged in a certain craft to join. Capitalists had joined together: labor would join together, too ; and united labor would oppose a solid front to united capital.

But the fight was too unequal. Capital, wealth, and the corporations did not play fair. The government was theirs and they used it with deadly effect. They secured what their opponents bitterly called government by injunction; they had laws limiting the number of hours a day a man might work declared unconstitutional; they fought factory regulation. Meanwhile, they strengthened their own resources. Stolen franchises were ratified; inflated capitalization was given legal confirmation ; the tariff was adjusted to meet their needs.

The idea that permanent relief from oppressive conditions could be obtained only through governmental intervention slowly gained ground. Those who proposed the idea at first were called revolutionists and socialists and were regarded as visionaries. Soon, however, the government was appealed to in various ways to change existing conditions. Railroads could be curbed by commissions, the tariff could be lowered, corporations could be dissolved, incomes could be taxed. The people were under the delusion that they owned the government; they had used it little: now, they thought, it would have to succor them. Government and legislation would bring in the millennium.

Singularly enough, the government was not sensitive to popular appeal. Sometimes, indeed, it openly defied the people. For a long time, the people could not realize what had happened — the people could not understand that their government had passed beyond their control* They came to the government which they had made, intending to use it, and they found that it was already in use.

The people paused in their search for remedial legislation to discover what was wrong with their government. They found that the government was run in strict accordance with the famous cV'ctirrn attributed to Andrew Jackson, "To the victor belong the spoils." Incompetent, self-seeking, venal politicians were directing the affairs of the country. The people began to study the origin, history, and effect of the spoils system. They found that the spoils system had not always existed. The revolutionary presidents made honesty, capability, and fidelity the tests of fitness. "With Jackson's administration in 1S30, the deluge of the spoils system burst over our national politics." x As time went on and the number of offices increased, the system grew worse. Startling disclosures of dishonesty were made in Grant's administration. Some of the President's secretaries were found guilty of bribery and corruption. General Babcock, the President's private secretary, narrowly escaped conviction on the charge of corruptly aiding the TVhisky Eing to avoid the payment of revenues. It was proved that Belknap, Secretary of TTar. had received a portion of an annual payment of from six to twelve thousand dollars of bribe money given by a post trader at Fort Sill to retain his place. 2 The people clamored for reform. In response to the popular cry for civil service reform, based upon the belief that much of the corruption in government had its basis in the spoils system. President Grant in IS 71 appointed a commission to investigate the subject. A second commission was appointed in IS S3. Backed by popular sentiment, these and succeeding commissions placed under the protection of civil service hundreds of thousands of government employees.

The search for the source of special influence in government soon passed from individual corruption in

1 Curtis. Speech on Spoils Svstem, Harper's Encyclopaedia of United States History. Vol. 2.

2 Hart, The American Nation — A History, Vol. 22, pp. 2S1 et seq.

other direction?.. Eailroads began to be searchingly investigated. T t was time attention was directed toward the railroads and their relation to special influence in government. "The progress of the construction of railroads in the United States was comparatively slow until assistance was granted by Congress. This was given under the form of donations of the public lands, for the first time, in 1850." * The first of these grants of land was made to the Illinois Central, and embraced 2,595,- 053 acres. Between 1850 and 1870 the total area granted to roads through the various states exceeded 60,000,000 acres. In addition to these grants, extensive grants were made later to the three Pacific railroads. These latter amounted to 135,000,000 acres or about 200,000 square miles.

The mania for building railroads and granting lands abated somewhat about 1875, and people began to direct their attention to the control of the roads already in existence. As far back as 1852 we find a provision in the platform of a minor political party, the Free Soil Democrats, "that the public lands of the United States belong to the people, and should not be sold to individuals nor granted to corporations." These protests continued until finally all the important parties joined in the protest against any further grants. In a convention of the National Association of Transportation and Commerce held in Chicago in 1875, the vice-president of the association in his opening address emphasized the need of inquiring "whether there is less danger in leaving the property and industrial interests of the people thus wholly at the mercy of a few men who recognize no responsibility but to their stockholders and no principle of action but personal and corporate aggrandizement, than in adding somewhat to the power