The vital question

Front matter

OR

How To Get Real Democracy In The United States

By WILLIAM N. OSGOOD

Introduction

AT the time I am putting this question, What can you do? to both the reader and myself, to establish a genuine and permanent democracy, our beloved nation has been forced into the most terrible and gigantic war of all history. Most willingly and heartily do we offer our vast resources, moral and physical, in aid of justice and an outraged humanity. As one man we are convinced that militarism and desire of conquest for mere glory and acquisition must be destroyed. We are determined that the foes of genuine popular government must be so chastened by an aroused civilization that their deeds shall not again encumber and mar the pages of history.

Democracy in some perfected and refined form is as certain to color the future policies of all great nations, as militarism and autocracy are to be crushed by the present world conflict.

The writer assumes from present indications that the war will soon end, and that truth and right according to our vision will prevail. While the war lasts, our supreme duty will be to do all in our power to preserve the integrity of our country.

Nevertheless, it may be opportune to observe that in time of war prepare for peace. Enforce war while it lasts by all the enginery and contrivances of war, but do not neglect to prepare the way for the permanent blessings of peace for our people after the war.

Therefore, assuming that the victory for humanity is assured by the grand concerted action of the liberty-loving nations of the world, let me repeat the question, What can you do, — what can the American people do, to make real democracy permanent?

This question which has intensely presented itself to every thoughtful and patriotic citizen during the war, becomes vastly more difficult to answer during the approaching time of peace. In time of war, the answer at once suggests itself to sacrifice body and possessions for the preservation of our country and its institutions. While one may be willing to do even this in time of peace for the welfare of his fellow men and of future generations, still, he would be unwilling to make such a sacrifice rashly and unwisely, uninformed' as to the nature and extent of service thereby rendered.

Thousands, yes, millions of persons in the United States are anxious to render valuable service to their fellow-men and women, in the amelioration of their economic and social conditions, and yet do not know just what to do, or how to proceed.

It is not enough to tell such persons that government for, by and of the people is the best government. That means little to them without further elucidation. You may tell them they have that kind of government now. They may not deny it, but they know you are not speaking the truth. They read the newspapers and the magazines and they know that the country is not in fact governed by the people, but by those who have acquired special privileges, and are busily engaged in devising refined methods for exploiting the public. To the question, what can we do? we are told to do nothing, and that everything will work out all right in the end. It is about time that the persons asking the question should answer it themselves, and insist upon an accounting by those who are responsible for present economic conditions.

In a state of peace, what each can do in rendering valuable service to his fellow-men can best be determined by his vocation in life. If he is a preacher he can serve them best by caring for their spiritual welfare.

It would be demanding too much of such a person to expect him to tell his parishioners how to love their neighbors as themselves. That perhaps requires too much worldly knowledge and experience and should be left to others. I once heard a celebrated divine preach for one full hour upon the two great commandments. He spent forty-five minutes upon the first and fifteen minutes upon the second. He made no attempt to tell how to love our neighbors. This must sooner or later be answered by laymen if unanswerable by the preacher.

The great problem of civilization, comprehensively stated, is how to increase the opportunity for all men and women to improve their religious, economic, social and even artistic well-being. The world has become too commercial and materialistic. It should become more creative and productive of those things that elevate the soul, educate the mind and heart, improve the general and physical condition of the citizen.

A monetary cast or class is being too rapidly formed in this land of ours. What a man possesses of this world's goods too commonly determines his standing in the community. "How much is he worth?" is becoming of vastly more importance than "What is he?" or "What does he believe and know and what are his sentiments and capabilities in relation to lightening the burdens of his neighbors?"

What each can best do after due consideration and introspection must be decided by himself.

It may be argued with force that it is in vain for an individual to attempt the solution of great political and economic questions, acting alone, and that it would be folly to expect any tangible results while so acting. Such an individual should first of all assist in organizing those about him, who sincerely desire to render valuable service to their fellow-men.

Public opinion when ascertained is the great dom-

IO THE VITAL QUESTION

inating power in our political life, and is vastly more important than any form of governmental machinery. Public opinion is formed by various forces, such as the press }> public meetings, and various other educative influences. The potency of public opinion, when crystallized, is wonderfully effective. Public opinion, for illustration, for a long time told President Wilson to keep us out of the war, and, like a true representative and a servant of the people, and not a self-appointed leader, he bowed to its mandate and deferred a declaration of war. Almost in a day public opinion changed, because the people, unable longer to endure the outrages and insults heaped upon their country, loudly demanded war. The President obeyed the behest of public opinion with alacrity, besought the assistance of Congress, and war was promptly declared. In a democracy there can be no higher mandate than that of public opinion, a real public opinion, not an imaginary or fanciful one, but one that is based upon mature and deliberate consideration by the people as a whole. It must, of course, be so overwhelming in its manifestation that it cannot be mistaken or misinterpreted, and such manifestations not infrequently in the past have happened when we refused to debate further about the subject matters involved.

Assistance in moulding and forming public opinion becomes, therefore, an exceedingly valuable public service whose consequences may be far-reaching even if indiscernible. When the individual citizen asks what he can do towards forming public opinion, the answer may be given that he should do all he can to organize those who hold the same convictions concerning public welfare that he does, and above all strive to convince them of the urgent necessity of political action, in order to secure the enactment into law of those measures which will give greater freedom and^protection of opportunity in the various activities of life, and curb the

THE VITAL QUESTION n

power of those who would appropriate or destroy opportunity.

Public opinion is to be first won. Then the task o£ securing concrete action by the governing powers becomes an easy one. The first service, therefore, to be performed by each of us is to do all in his or her power to enlighten the electorate concerning the most important public questions, and then through concerted action, by means of proper organizations, compel action by the law-making department of our government.

The following pages contain the writer's contribution as to what can be done in the forming of public opinion. He will first deal with some of the specific subjects for political, social and economic improvement, and will then suggest a plan of organization, which may be employed in bringing together in any locality those who hold similar sentiments and views upon matters of public concern.

CHAPTER I. The People's Cause, or the So-Called Labor Problem

It is certain, that rule by the people in varying degrees of perfection is bound at the close of the war to be extended more and more widely throughout the world. The battle now being fought in the conflict of arms is but a battle between democracy on the one side, and autocracy and militarism upon the other. At the termination of that war the nations of the earth, as never before, will engage in intense but friendly rivalry to prove that democracy can be based upon foundations more enduring and just than those of imperialism, and be in the long run even more efficient and economical than those of a potent autocracy.

Popular government in the future will be more than a mere form of government. Its essence, justice and equal opportunity to live and to enjoy life, will find expression in concrete remedies and laws. Its machinery must be workable and results must prove its wisdom and prosperity, all things considered, over all other forms of government.

We in the United States, as individual citizens, should discharge the great and peculiar duty we owe to mankind, to make our so-called experiment in democracy so successful that it will be studied and copied by other nations. We have already done much in the direction of popular government but there still remains much for us to do. Our mistakes and failures of the past must be corrected. We must pay more serious attention to the welfare of all useful and desirable persons in the community, and to the abolition of special privilege. The old threadbare phrases "equal rights for all and special privileges to none" must be literally reduced to concrete law, and not used merely to adorn speech.

Kossuth, the justly famous Hungarian exile, who, two generations ago, thrilled American audiences with his impassioned oratory in behalf of liberty, said shortly before his death, "It is clear that the social, industrial question surmounts all others. Society is sick of a malady that defies cure. The progress of civilization has given the great mass of people desires which were once confined to the few, and each workingman today regards as necessaries what his predecessor considered luxuries. So-called socialism will not cure the sickness. The weak will always go down before the strong. Monarchy will not cure the malady. Monarchy is going down all over the world, and republicanism is coming up. The monarchical principle is not extending itself, while the principle of republicanism is gaining ground, as the recent change of government in Brazil shows. But republicanism will not cure the malady, for is there not in America the nearest possible approach to a real republic, with an enfranchised democracy, free education and popular institutions? Still America has this social malady. There seems to be no remedy. Meanwhile the earth will continue to revolve, and some day the present population may be swept from its surface, and a new race more capable of a new civilization may appear." This was said by Kossuth before the destruction of the South African republics by Great Britain, and the acquisition and control of the Philippines by the United States, and the spread of popular ideas of government in China, and I may add the Great War of 1914, in which, sad to relate, his native land was upon the side of imperialism.

Such was the sombre and melancholy view of this great patriot and champion of human rights, It is not

I 4 THE VITAL QUESTION

to be wondered at, that even Kossuth in the eventide of his life should have been discouraged because of the ignorance of men, and their indisposition to organize and to devise and apply the proper remedies for eradicating the final vestiges of tyranny and oppression, that had their birth in the dark ages. When he lamented that there was no cure for these wrongs, we must remember that he was about passing from the stage of life, and that where he left off others as able and conscientious stand ready to begin, with full faith that many steps forward in the grand march of human progress are about to be taken.

Force alone should not dictate governmental policy. Might cannot make right. It matters little whether the force used is the physical force of absolute despotism, or whether it is the refined mental force of men who are skilful in inventing schemes for the corruption of legislatures.

The struggle which manifests itself today in the United States is the old story attired in new language. It is the old battle of the people against a privileged few. In ancient times, the contest was between the people and absolute kings, feudal lords, a titled nobility, or a military dictatorship. The power against which the people must now wage battle is an aristocracy of monopolists, or plutocracy, if you choose. Wealth and luxury are excellent things in themselves, yet we do not want a select few exclusively to enjoy and control them. The more of the good things of this life each one has to a certain extent, the better it is, or ought to be for the general welfare.

The first step to be taken is to place man where he belongs, above mere riches. Do not legislate first for the dollar and then for the man. The inanimate and feelingless dollar ought never to occupy a position higher than the being who hopes for immortality. Neither should man be subjected to the same law as the inferior animals — that the weak must yield to the strong.

Any aristocracy of wealth, title, office or military power cannot long receive the sanction of the American people. All such are repugnant to the true spirit of our institutions. Any power or aristocracy which has for its end the invasion of our political or industrial liberty, will sooner or later be destroyed by a justly indignant people. The only aristocracy which the American people will ever respect or long tolerate is a true aristocracy, composed of the best citizens of the nation, best in intellect, best in heart, and unswervingly devoted to the real advancement and progress of the entire community.

The people's contest is not to be permanently waged between labor and capital, between which there is arid can be no natural antagonism, but by a coalition of labor and legitimate capital against a common enemy — monopoly. By this I mean monopoly of franchises and functions that properly belong to the people, and also monopoly of every other kind and description, that tends to obstruct and impede the free and fair play of those natural economic laws which if left alone would bring prosperity, and plenty to all prudent and industrious persons.

In order to discuss intelligently the relationship of labor and capital to each other, it is necessary to agree at the outset, if possible, upon correct definitions of laborers and capitalists. Who are laborers and who are capitalists? My answer is that over ninety per cent, of our population are both laborers and capitalists. They differ from each other only in degree.

After some reflection, I have arrived at the conclusion that everyone engaged in a useful occupation is a laborer amd a capitalist. It makes no difference whether a man projects a vast railroad system across the continent, erects houses, builds bridges, engineers l6 THE VITAL QUESTION

canals, tunnels mountains, illuminates cities, surveys the bottom of the ocean for naval warfare or for the purpose of marrying the two hemispheres with bands of iron, preaches, teaches, sells dry goods or flour, or digs gravel, he is, in the true sense a laborer so long as his occupation is honorable and useful in adding to the comforts of his fellowmen. The man who contributes the most good to mankind is he, who is the most useful, and he is in strictness the greatest laborer. No greater labor can be performed than is sometimes performed by self-sacrificing men and women, who are ready and willing to spend their fortunes and their lives in the cause of humanity. Who can be greater laborers than Wilberforce, Garrison, Phillips, Sumner, Lincoln, Tolstoi and the rest who were impelled by the sublimest motives of self-sacrifice, and those noble men and women of our times who stand ready to devote their fortunes and their lives to the uplifting of humanity and the securing of social, economic and industrial justice? The person who leads a useless life, like a gambler is not a laborer in any good sense, whether he gambles in legislative grants, in gilded halls of luxury at Monte Carlo, or in the secluded haunts of vice and infamy.

On the other hand, everyone engaged in a useful occupation is also, in a measure, a capitalist. One may possess many millions of dollars, while another may have only the breakfast in his stomach, or the dinner in his pail, or the hoe in his hands — yet both are capitalists. The one merely has more capital or wealth stored up or reserved than the other. The one may receive as wages a thousand dollars an hour the year around, and the other may receive only ninety cents or a dollar for ten or eleven hours' work and find employment but a part of the year — yet both are laborers — only one gets more than he earns, and the other gets less, or has no chance to earn what he ought to earn, or even the skill or ability to find or make opportunities for himself.

The tyranny which we should at all times and places be prepared to denounce is the tyranny of the big laborer over the small laborer, the tyranny of the big- capitalist or monopolist with special privileges over the small capitalist, the tyranny of the millionaire over the laborer with only the breakfast in his stomach for his capital, the tyranny of the large and lordly owners of thousands of acres of fertile land with untold treasures both above and below its surface, over the struggling small farmers and producers of the country, the tyranny of the large and extensive manufacturers over the small manufacturers, the tyranny of the princely merchants over the shopkeepers of small means; in fine, the tyranny of every name and nature which holds mere wealth in higher esteem than men — which holds the railroads, the magnificent edifices of our cities, or the stately ships as greater in importance than the image of God. Man made all these from materials supplied by nature. Can the created be greater than the creator? Can manufactured articles be greater than the owner of the hands which fashioned them?

One of the principal obstacles to a speedy solution of the labor problem, so called, is the popular misconception as to who are the laborers. The clerk at the counter, the banker at his desk; the merchant in his store, do not consider themselves laborers. The labor problem they do not think concerns them in the least. A graver blunder could not be made. The labor problem is but another expression for the people's problem. As I said before, everyone engaged in a useful occupation is a laborer, and is equally interested in a correct solution of our problem, whatever his social of vocational position may be.

We often pride ourselves upon the representative character of our government, as though every class in the community were fairly represented in it. The theory of our form of government is excellent. Yet, are the actual producers, the useful citizens or laborers and moderate owners of capital justly represented in our legislative bodies? Are the middle classes, for example, adequately represented in the upper branch of Congress? Why do the people not rush in large numbers to Congress and demand special legislation? Their enemies do. Is it not because they think they can attend to and manage their own affairs quite well without any assistance from the government? But what takes place in their absence from the halls of legislation? Hydra-headed monopoly, ever on the alert, crawls in. The railroad magnates, the iron and coal barons, the princely owners of vast portions of the soil, form a clamorous horde of genuine paupers and mendicants for special favors. They infest the halls of "legislation with their insatiable demands for recognition and plunder. They are not greedy or selfish. Oh, no ! They merely want to obtain public assistance in conducting their private businesses so that they may assume guardianship over the dear people, as though the people could not take care of themselves if others would only let them alone. When any class of our citizens besiege our representatives, the theoretical* servants of the people, and secure from them power which enables them to rob us, we feel tempted to say that a people who will tamely submit to such treachery on the part of their representatives, ought to be robbed and enslaved. It requires no prophet to declare that they will continue to be robbed and enslaved, as long as they neglect to organize themselves, and elect as leaders those who believe in real and genuine popular government.

Jay Gould said, "If labor and capital are left to themselves, they will bring about a satisfactory adjustment." A most wise observation if they are left to themselves. That is the identical thing we are fighting for. And when we shall succeed in bringing about the free and normal relations of labor and capital, our task will be accomplished. But when large and excessive capital secures special privileges unto itself, to levy unjust taxes and exact unjust tribute from the people; when it secures valuable corporate franchises without paying the people for them and then charges the people excessively for using their own property; when it obtains corruptly through legislative action lands of immense value without rendering any equivalent for the same; when monopolies in general are permitted to wield sufficient power and strength to crush out any formidable rivals, even to starving an honest inventor and forcing him through expensive and long litigation, and, perhaps, for a mere trifle, to part with the fruits of long and weary days and nights of severe toil and study; when trusts, combinations and immense aggregations of capital are allowed to shut up mills and throw thousands of employees out of work without notice, then, Mr. Gould, labor and capital are not left to themselves.

In a word, the aim of labor, or of the people, just as you prefer, should be to ascertain the most efficacious means of increasing the burdens of dangerous monopolies, and decreasing the burdens of the industrious poor and those in moderate circumstances. For it is a notorious fact that those of special privilege escape bearing the public burdens they ought to bear, and that the poor bear directly and indirectly more than their just share of those burdens. We must embarrass the monopolist and encourage and assist the honest, thrifty and industrious man who is battling for an existence to gain a mastery over the reasonable comforts and even reasonable luxuries of life.

Upon this great issue of the age we must take sides. The logic of events so compels us. There is no escape. Either we must serve the monopolist or the common people. We cannot serve both masters, for either we "will hate the one and love the other, or else will hold to the one, and despise the other."

Is there any doubt of the existence of a people's cause, or a labor problem, when men and women greedily grasp the charitable wages that are handed them by the captains of industry who think they are conferring a rich boon upon humanity by giving employment to any one? Why should men and women be. compelled to rush like so many animals jostling each other to seize an opportunity to support life, just as though God and nature gave life and neglected to provide amply for its maintenance? Why should it be necessary for wives and children to enter our unwholesome factories and compete with men? If they are forced by poverty and want to do the same work as men by means of some labor-saving machine, why in the namei of fair play shouldn't they receive the wages of men? Why should children of tender years be obliged to compete with their fathers and therefore reduce the fathers' wages, when they ought to be at school or romping in the fields? This system is doubly censurable, for wherever it is tolerated, the combined earnings of the father, mother and children are scarcely adequate to support the family, and in but few instances exceed the wages which should be paid to an ablebodied and industrious man working eight hours a day.

The first task to which we should devote ourselves, is, to awaken, more and more public thought and interest in our cause. This can be done only through persistent and united effort. No matter how much men may differ in regard to remedies, let them all turn their footsteps in the same direction and march forward together. The common destination is the land of Truth. Let there be no stragglers, no deserters. Let all drown individual opinions and differences in the undisputed conclusion that all monopoly, or special privilege, is an implacable foe that must not only be defeated but annihilated. It should not be treated with. No compromise, should be the answer to all overtures of monopoly.

CHAPTER II. Direct Legislation

The strong need no champions. Monopolies need no friends. They are independent, self-reliant, and often defiant, being conscious of their strength. One hundred millions of dollars are naturally strong, because naturally organized. The interest of each dollar is identical with the interest of every other dollar, and they work together in obedience to an inexorable law. One hundred millions of liberty loving people with independent and individual interests are naturally disorganized and consequently weak under present conditions. It is only when their few common and collective rights are assailed or threatened, that they artificially organize, so to speak, and seek to overthrow their oppressors. When the liberties of the American people are endangered by any power, we must expect sooner or later to witness some organized action on their part against such a power. That such action is about to be taken is evidenced on every hand.

In the present chapter, I shall attempt to show that direct legislation by the people, the initiative, the referendum and the recall, is consistent with the true spirit of our institutions and affords the best, and perhaps the only means for successfully coping with the enemies of the public welfare.

"I do not love the word people," said Bacon the philosopher. "The public be blanked," exclaims Vanderbilt, the practical business man. Democracy cannot exist anywhere in the world, according to Machiavelli, and the despairing Kossuth, whose words are quoted above.

A United States Senator said, not many years ago, "I am not afraid to say to the American people that} it is dangerous to trust any great power of government to their direct or inconsiderate control."

On the other hand, nature cast Jefferson, Lincoln and Phillips in a different mould, and they never hesitated to express unbounded confidence in the people's ability to manage their own affairs.

Mr. Gladstone declared in 1892: "The classes of leisure, the educated classes, the titled and wealthy classes have always been in the wrong."

John Morley has written: "The best part of the working classes are most fitted for political influence in the community."

"Everybody is cleverer than anybody," said Talleyrand. Paul preached "of one blood are all people." Abraham Lincoln was a sincere believer in the people. Contrast his position with the United States Senator who is obliged to summon all his courage so as to be in a condition to say: "I am not afraid to tell the people that I do not trust them." Theodore Parker in one of his addresses made use of the following language: "Democracy is direct self- government over all the people, for all the people, by all the people." A copy of this address, according to Mr. Coffin, fell into the hands of Mr. Lincoln long before he was thought of as a presidential candidate, and Mr. Lincoln drew a heavy pencil mark around the above sentence of Mr. Parker's, which he subsequently paraphrased in his brief but immortal oration at Gettysburg.

Thus, we have two kinds of men of unquestioned eminence and ability holding diametrically opposed views concerning the people. Which is right? Which is wrong? This problem has troubled those who have gone before us and must be solved by us. The political tendency of the times is unquestionably towards a bestowal of greater power upon the people.

I start with this proposition, that if a person believes in the people he will favor direct legislation by them; and if he distrusts them he will oppose their direct control of the laws.

Let me ask those who distrust the people and their ability to govern themselves, when have the people ever betrayed themselves when numerically strong or voluntarily placed themselves in any position from which they might not extricate themselves and correct their mistakes? When did they ever rebel against themselves? Have the great revolutions by the people been against themselves? Have they overturned governments because they possessed too much power or because they were granted too few political privileges and immunities? Were they not at such times demanding more power? It is absurd to claim that the people, any more than individuals, would wittingly act against their own interests. De Tocqueville wrote: "Extreme democracy prevents the dangers of democracy."