Fifty years in Wall Street
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER LXXVII.
GREAT WEALTH AND SOCIAL UNREST.[5]
Footnote 5:
An address delivered by Henry Clews at the Thirty-fourth Annual
Assembly of the Chautauqua Institution at Chautauqua, N. Y., July 29,
1907.
_Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen_:
I think that you will agree with me when I say that there is nothing
more commendable and that augurs better for the future of the
institutions of our country—our great American Republic—than the
interest shown by all classes in the important sociological questions of
the day. The general willingness of our citizens to solve the serious
problems involved by rationally debating them, and allowing careful
consideration and calm judgment to lead the way to honest conviction, is
one of the good signs of the times.
We are progressive in spirit as well as in our practical achievements,
and, in many respects, we have set the pace for other nations.
At one time, we know, capitalists and leaders of industry too often
either wholly ignored the discontent or appeals of the laboring people
in their employ, or subject to their influence, or, if appreciating the
causes of their discontent, showed no disposition whatever to right
their wrongs, or even to define their own views and position, or make
any attempt to defend their own side of the case.
This was the attitude of Capital toward Labor in former times that I may
liken to the Dark Ages. It was, of course, radically wrong and unjust.
The refusal, or, at least, the unwillingness, of Capital to recognize
the fact that there are two sides to every case was not only oppressive,
but often led to costly and destructive strikes, and, doubtless, in a
measure, retarded development and progress in industrial and other human
affairs. But now Capital is showing more readiness to meet Labor on the
same platform of discussion; and in keeping with this opening of the
door to fair and full two-sided discussion is the general tendency of
legislation to improve the condition of the masses, and the Chautauqua
Institution in holding this Convention to consider the question of
Social Unrest is entitled to great credit for the performance of a most
laudable service in the interest of education and progress and the
uplifting of humanity. It is sowing the seeds of future advancement and
greatness in those directions.
The fact that Social Unrest exists, and moreover is very prevalent, not
only here but throughout the world, cannot be denied. Thus, in Russia,
just emerging from the throes of a deadly and costly war, the spirit of
discontent and Nihilism is rampant, and in France the Terrorists are
gaining in numbers and clamoring for their rights, while Austria and
Germany are greatly disturbed by the constant persistence of the violent
and revolutionary Socialists in railing against society and government
as they now exist. In Great Britain, too, the Socialists have stirred
the people to uneasiness by the loud threats, and rule or ruin alarms,
that they are sounding.
While this unrest and discontent are especially great in foreign
countries, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that these exist in the
United States—though not in such large proportions as in Europe.
Moreover, they are largely of a different kind and quality.
But it is not well for us to give undue recognition to the Socialistic
outcries in this country, for by so doing we might encourage and
aggravate a condition that, to my mind, is an equal menace to both
Capital and Labor—the two great living forces of our national life. We
may increase an evil by magnifying it.
Too much appreciation and regard cannot, however, possibly be shown to
that spirit of unrest existing among us, which leads to individual
betterment and national development, and which is especially
characteristic of the American people.
Ever since the blazing torch of civilization threw its bright light upon
the world, it has been the paramount disposition of man to add to his
possessions and to aspire to higher and better conditions. In this he is
distinguished from savages and the lower orders of animal life, which
have no perception of what we call ambition and achievement.
Man being endowed with a mind, it is through the exercise of his mental
faculties that he is made restless under unsatisfactory conditions; and
civilized man is fired with a desire for improvement, and particularly
to improve his own fortunes and position by increasing his possessions,
and acquiring distinction, or reputation in his business. This is well,
so long as it does not degenerate into graft, or the misuse of other
people’s money.
It is this unrest and this aspiration that constitute the great
incentive to human progress, and that have given us our cultivated
fields and teeming harvests, endowed and multiplied our noble edifices
of learning and religion, built our large and splendid cities and homes,
our great bridges and other engineering works, and our vast factories
and other busy hives of industry. This is laudable ambition that
stimulates national development.
We must, however, be careful to draw a plain line of demarcation between
that unrest I have described, and which springs from an appreciation of
the solidity and soundness of our foundation and aspires to build
thereon so as to realize the highest ideals of perfection and
success—and that misguided or malicious unrest and discontent incited by
Socialism. This is really at enmity with all civilized forms of
government and all measures of advancement in the right direction, and
seeks their overthrow and utter destruction.
The spirit of unrest that I have commended, and which I have termed an
American type, is not noisy and clamorous in its nature, and it
manifests itself mostly through organizations of labor, in demands for
adequate or increased compensation, or the fixing of a stated reasonable
number of hours to constitute a day’s work. With these purposes, and the
aims of Labor-Unions generally, I want to state that I am in the fullest
accord. The laborer is worthy of his hire, as the Bible says.
But it is not from this source that the wail and cry of Social Unrest
comes. No, “The shallows murmur, while the depths are dumb,” and it is
from the other and Socialistic class that we hear the government and its
institutions decried, and capital and commerce attacked, and the spirit
of competition and achievement assailed. I say, Down with these
assassins of good government, these assailants of law and order!
True, we see Labor strikes in some places; but these are incidents that
have not been uncommon at any time in the past, and are not marked or
significant enough now to form a particular feature of the prevailing
Social Unrest. We have not yet reached the Millennium!
But whence comes the Socialist’s expression of unrest and discontent,
and what is it based on? It reminds me of Don Quixote, and the fight
against a windmill.
What is the sum and substance of the Socialists’ grievance? They see
only evil in what is really good government, and none are so blind as
those who will not see.
They claim to be dissatisfied with the existing order of things. But
what remedies that are not revolutionary do they prescribe for the cure
of existing social and political ills? The fact is that many Socialists
at heart are anarchists!
In almost every instance you will find among the rabble at a Socialist
meeting some honest but mistaken theorists, who plausibly find fault not
only with the conduct of our government, but with the very form of our
government itself, and picture, under the delusion they cherish, an
utterly impossible Utopia where—
“The people all are blessed
And the weary all have rest.”
These visionaries are reinforced by pretended reformers and professional
agitators, often of great persuasive powers, who appeal strongly to the
passions and prejudices of the ignorant people of various nationalities
who are made to imagine that they are still down-trodden. Here, in my
opinion, lies a real menace and danger—that of these people being
carried away by the power and passion of such appeals, the inflammatory
utterances of reckless demagogues and firebrands. They are the public
enemies we have most need to guard against.
The path of safety lies in standing ready to discuss every proposition
which they advance, and then refute, with cool reasoning and argument,
the fallacy and falsity of their position and the destructive doctrines