part in the plan of nature.
The Socialist is usually an unfortunate or misled individual. He has
probably suffered from reverses or unfortunate environment. He has
perhaps been roughly or cruelly handled. Perhaps he cannot get on
satisfactorily, or his ambitions have been disappointed. He is then in a
condition of discontent ready to swallow Socialistic—or any
other—sophistries which hold out the delusive promise of relief.
Socialism attaches too little importance to the fact that men are made
with an infinite variety of tastes, abilities, and capacities. No two
are precisely alike, and it is utter folly for poor, weak man to
undertake to equalize these differences. All progress in history has
been made through struggle and sacrifice; and Socialism, no matter how
beneficent its intentions, cannot change the inscrutable laws of nature
or humanity. All natural laws have their reverse side. Gravitation,
which keeps us firm on our feet so long as we are on solid ground,
knocks us to pieces if we attempt to walk off a housetop or over the
opening of a pit. It is not the natural law, but the attempt to ignore
it, that gives us trouble.
I most emphatically assert that we cannot get rid of competition, any
more than we can get rid of the law of gravitation.
The American inventor, mechanic, farmer, merchant, and financier, and
the worker in every profession, are, every one of them, proud,
respectively, of their skill, knowledge, and ability. Their ambition is
to excel—to produce the most and best. Experience, enterprise, and
courage create opportune conditions most favorable to the State and
Nation and to themselves. Each vies with his fellow man in producing the
best results, and is always willing to tackle any obstacle—no matter how
formidable—that stands in the way of success. In his whole compendium
and entire makeup, there is no such word as fail. He aids, by his
untiring and individual energy and effort, in making his country the
greatest in the whole agricultural, industrial, and financial world. He
reaps the reward of industry and accomplishment, and his home is blessed
with bounty; and he knows that his children have equal opportunity with
himself to learn and to achieve.
Shall he be asked to tolerate, or consider, the sacrifice of all these
things, so dear to him, for Socialism?
Shall he be led to believe in a foreign plan or system of government
that degrades skill, eliminates acquisition and thrift, and ignores
genius? I cannot think so!
These are the very qualities and attributes that he prizes so highly, as
essential to the prosperity of the home and nation. He knows (or should
know) that to do so would be to deaden and relinquish those God-given
qualities of heart and brain that have helped to make him and his
country what they are to-day.
He knows (what the nations of the world concede) that the American
people are the most prosperous of all on the face of the globe; and that
this high and commanding position has been attained under existing
conditions, and through the operation of our admirable system of
government.
Whatever, therefore, may be the pretexts used to make him dissatisfied
with his lot, his own experience tells him every day that the
Constitution under which he lives is a glorious one, and so implanted in
the hearts of the American people as to be impregnable against the
assaults of Socialism.
At the same time, he is appreciative of the fact that it is not in the
nature of things to expect in this world blessings pure and unmixed; but
he is thankful for the superior good that he enjoys under our beneficent
democratic form of government.
A state of Socialism in the United States would tend to drive all our
men of superior ability, skill, and power out of the country. The strong
would quickly seek other fields where the qualities which they possess
would have a free chance and an open field. They would promptly desert a
country that offered nothing better than a dismal dead level, with no
means of achievement in sight, and the nation would quickly fall into a
state of miserable inertia or decay. Our forefathers came to this
country to establish religious freedom; they next fought for political
freedom; afterwards they sacrificed a million lives for race freedom;
and now we, their successors, with such glorious traditions behind us,
must stand for industrial and social freedom. For, in the final
analysis, Socialism can stop at nothing short of industrial slavery and
political bondage. Great achievements would be impossible under it.
Having shown the force and importance of individual initiative and
independence and the necessity for the spur of competition to bring
about the best results in human welfare and achievement, I now turn to
the rather concrete branch of the subject, known as Municipal Ownership.
Naturally, a proposition involving the placing of the ownership and
operation of our railroads, telegraph lines, plants for supplying light
and surface transportation, and conducting manufactories and business,
is one of such vital concern to all of us as to arouse our keenest
interest.
It is a part and parcel of the Socialistic plan of government, and, to a
very great extent, the arguments and illustrations presented in my
treatment of Socialism, generally, are of direct application to
Municipal Ownership.
I would term it the entering wedge of Socialism, adroitly resorted to by
its advocates. These Socialists well know the temper of the American
people toward their propaganda and wild project, and at the same time
they recognize the peculiar trait of character disclosed by Americans in
their curiosity and liking for anything new. Hence, they grossly
exaggerate the shortcomings and ills that exist in our body politic as
constituted; and, at the same time, extol, in an extravagant manner, the
superior conditions that would follow the taking of a small portion of
the Socialist’s infallible cure.
Municipal Ownership, as far as I have been able to observe, is also a
pure and simple political move to secure votes for aspirants for office,
and it is used for this purpose, regardless of any other question. It is
one of those planks that we often see inserted by parties in their
platform, to stand upon, to attract and gather in the votes. So
Socialism has its uses—for them.
I will admit that there are many economists who have presented a
friendly side to the Socialistic theories involved, and have prepared
able and extended articles in their endeavor to support or uphold such
theories (either in whole or in part); and it would be unjust to include
them in the same category with politicians and Socialists. However, if
that statesman was only half right who, in speaking of the tariff, said
that the question was a business one, and that a condition and not a
theory confronted us, then I feel that I am right in saying that “Public
Ownership” is a practical business question entirely—and not a
theoretical one.
There are so many logical and unanswerable reasons against this
Socialistic proposition that I feel it incumbent upon me to enlarge only
upon the practical ones, that I know more about, than upon those of the
theoretical group.
The experience of years has demonstrated that at the present time all
business enterprises require rare ability and experience, if not genius,
to ensure success.
Great financiers and successful men have devoted their lives to the
study and practice of their trade and business.
How is it possible, then, for municipalities to expect such
qualifications from officers whose term of office is for one or two
years, or during the tenure in office of a political party?
[Illustration:
From stereograph. Copyright, 1907, by Underwood & Underwood, N. Y.
THOMAS F. RYAN.
]
In the economy of commerce and its daily conduct and operation, there
are numerous divisions or departments, each one of which can only be
understood, appreciated, and conducted by men of special training and
fitness—who have given years of application thereto—and it is only by
their watchful care and expert management of each of these divisions
that a possible success is derived or business made to pay.
The smallest neglect, the merest indifference to details, or the
inattention that always accompanies abstraction by something else—taking
one’s mind off his business—upsets the whole system, and means waste
instead of saving economy, loss in place of profit, and inevitable
failure as the result. That this is true there is not the slightest
doubt, and would be readily confirmed by the leaders of every industry.
Animated by a desire to make the best possible showing, for use at the
next election, a false economy would be exercised under Municipal
Ownership, and no attention would be paid to obtaining useful new
inventions; and needed improvements and extensions would, likewise, be
ignored.
On the other hand, under private ownership, the best professional talent
is employed, at salaries unheard of in public office; and all the latest
inventions and improvements are at once utilized, giving the public
up-to-date service.
The active, modern business man, keenly alive to the requirements
necessary to ensure profit and success, perceives at a glance the evils
and mischievous results that would infect everything carried on under
this Socialistic plan. And as John Stuart Mill well says: “The mischief
begins when, instead of calling forth the activity of individuals, the
municipality substitutes its own activity for theirs.”
No serious attempt has ever been made to show the possibility of
securing and retaining, under some rule of municipal civil service, or
otherwise, the best men to assume the burden of management and
responsibility. As already explained, it would be practically impossible
to secure the best men, and no system of civil service has yet been
formulated, intended and able to provide for their retention.
In this connection, a fitting illustration is the case of Colonel
Waring, who instituted and maintained the best street-cleaning system we
have ever seen. His work was simply marvelous, and he made New York City
a model of cleanliness.
No one ever questioned his ability or integrity; yet, while at the very
zenith of his success, he was asked to resign, and obliged to leave the
city employment to make room for the choice of a new city
administration.
The defects and fallacies of Municipal Ownership which I have described
permeate all government ownership. Official reports and statistics
furnish convincing proofs and conclusive evidence of the failure of this
system as conducted abroad, and more signal loss and damage—in an
incalculable degree—would surely follow its adoption here. Just in
proportion as our interests and enterprises are the greatest and most
successful, as compared with other nations, would be the immensity of
our depreciation and collapse.
The United States is so different from other nations in its political
system that this fact alone precludes serious consideration of our
adoption of this imported Socialistic hobby and political heresy. It is
also a country whose every chapter of growth, progress, and prosperity
is a continuous narrative of individual efforts of its citizens. They,
naturally, prize individuality as they do independence itself, and have
every reason to believe that the present system of government is the
best for them, and that this land of Individualism is no place for
Socialism.
Imagine New York under Municipal Ownership of our public utilities! We
should then have fastened upon us a more colossal and more corrupt
Tammany than even existed in Tweed’s times. Graft would thrive beyond
all dreams of avarice. Let us take a lesson from England in this
respect, where public ownership has been tried on a larger scale and
under more favorable conditions than elsewhere. In a few instances the
running of street railways or city lighting plants has been successful,
but exceptions do not always prove the rule, and the conditions under
which these enterprises have been operated there must be taken into
consideration. English cities are comparatively free of political
corruption, and are, moreover, often served by men of high character,
wealth, and ability—men having a strong sense of civic duty, who deem it
an honor to give their community efficient service. Unfortunately, we
have not yet developed a class of this sort in the United States;
perhaps in due time we shall; but, until then, the experiment of
Municipal Ownership had better be indefinitely postponed. A weak point
of Municipal Ownership has usually been the financial end of the
business concerning which the public has been poorly informed. Many of
these enterprises in English cities have proved unprofitable. The
accounts have been juggled, and expenses that should be charged against
the plant were often transferred to city accounts. Not a few of the
English cities have so run into debt as to injure their credit and
impair the sale of their securities. Already, the British taxpayer is
beginning to complain about the costliness of these Municipal Ownership
schemes, and a decided reaction against them is setting in. The London
County Council has launched heavily into these ventures, many of which
have proved losing ventures, and some prominent experts have gone so far
as to predict that London will be bankrupt before long, unless present
tendencies are reversed. If Municipal Ownership has failed under the
highly favorable conditions which exist in England, how can it succeed
here? Again, the English telegraph system operated by the British
Government does not compare with the private systems of the United
States, either in efficiency or cheapness, and England with its public
telephones is very far behind the United States in efficiency and cost.
London does not begin to have the number of telephones per capita that
New York can claim. American railroads under private ownership perform
the best and cheapest service in the world.
If any further argument were needed to convince you that the United
States is no place for Socialism, its root or branches, it may be found
in the radical and quite amusing change of front shown by Major
Dalrymple, of Glasgow, upon the occasion of his visit to this country.
He came here at the request of Major Dunne, of Chicago, and the
Municipal Ownership League of New York, to aid the forces of Socialism
in their efforts in behalf of Municipal Ownership. He was the great
Apostle of that doctrine in Glasgow, and the very man, in their opinion,
to convert our people to that system.
Upon his arrival here, he was greeted with great éclat by the League of
this city, and gave out an interview in which he spoke as follows:
“I see no reason why any city in this country should not be able to own
its street railways, and to run them with as much success as we have
achieved at Glasgow. I admit that the proposition is a much larger one
than the one we had to tackle, but at the bottom it is the same.”
This was before he knew our country and its institutions. After an
extended stay here, he prepared for his homeward journey, but before
sailing, he was again interviewed, and to the surprise and discomfiture
of the Socialists, he retracted all that he had said before in favor of
Municipal Ownership, in the following language:
“To put street railways, gasworks, telephone companies, etc., under
Municipal Ownership would be to create a political machine in every
large city that would be simply impregnable. These political machines
are already strong enough, with their control of policemen, firemen, and
other office holders.
“If, in addition to this, they could control the thousands of men
employed in the great public utility corporations, the political
machines would have a power that could not be overthrown. I came to this
country a believer in public ownership. What I have seen here, and I
have studied the situation carefully, makes me realize that private
ownership, under proper conditions, is far better for the citizens of
American cities.”
[Illustration:
From stereograph. Copyright, 1906, by Underwood & Underwood, N. Y.
JOHN W. GATES.
]
The New York papers aptly called this “The conversion of the Scot”; and
this blunt and honest admission coming from their own authority, that
Municipal Ownership in this country was wholly impracticable, stunned
and paralyzed its agitators, and caused many of its adherents to leave
the ranks of Socialism.
Mr. James Bryce, the worthy newly appointed English Ambassador to this
country, pointed out some twenty years ago, in his “American
Commonwealth,” how the then future of the United States sometimes
presented itself to the mind as a struggle between two forces—the one
beneficent, the other malign; the one striving to speed the nation to a
port of safety before the storm arrives, the other to retard its
progress, so that the tempest may be upon it before the port is reached.
He further expressed concern as to whether the progress then discernible
toward a wiser public opinion and a higher standard of public life would
succeed in bringing the mass of the people up to a high level, or
whether the masses would yield to the temptation to abuse their power
and seek violent and vain and useless remedies—like Socialism—for the
evils which would affect us.
This able statesman predicted that the question would be decided early
in the present century, and would be evidenced by the condition of
progress and prosperity brought about by the people in the meantime.
When the Ambassador was recently welcomed to our shores, the answer to
this question concerning us, asked by him so long ago, was found
awaiting him.
It was spoken clearly and loudly by our teeming products of agriculture
and mining, and echoed in thunder tones by our mammoth shops and
factories of industry, and it was seen shining in the happy faces of our
busy and prosperous people.
Upon the golden page of to-day in our splendid history will stand out
the assuring fact that this surpassingly successful state of things has
not blossomed and come forth under the blighting shade of the deadly
Upas tree of Socialism, but that it has all been developed by and
through Individualism.
In conclusion, let me impress upon you that Individualism in the United
States has stood all tests—especially the crucial tests of time and
experience—and it points with pride and satisfaction to the great
developments secured for the American people under the bright and
beneficent rays of our admirable Constitution and Republican form of
government.
And if the aim of all government is to ensure prosperity to the country,
and happiness to the people it controls, the unrivaled excellence of
Individualism may fairly be judged by its magnificent results.
* * * * *
Edwin Markham, Esq., the Author and Poet, being agreed upon by both
parties to the debate, presided at the meeting.
At the close of the above address the chairman addressed the 5,000
assemblage as follows:
“LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I hope you have enjoyed listening to Mr.
Clews’s very able address as much as I have. He swept the entire
horizon and has left nothing more to be said on his side.”
Mr. Markham then introduced Professor Kirkpatrick, to combat Mr. Clews’s
arguments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------