Page images
PDF
EPUB

the whole social structure, excepting the immutable laws of matter and of force, there is nothing so inflexible as written laws. Common law, customs, habits, fashion, all undergo incessant adjustment to contacts with surrounding things; even prejudices are perceptibly modified by changed conditions; but statutes are the same to-day, to-morrow, and for everlasting-or, strictly speaking, until the sluggish action of the legislative body sees fit to modify or repeal them, which amounts to about the same thing."

Mr. Crosby concludes: "The advocates of State control propose to abolish the unceasing and infinitely flexible force-competition, and to put in its place the sleepiest and most inflexible force of the whole social body-legislative-made laws. If this were done can any man compute the loss?

[ocr errors]

THE CAUSE OF STRIKES.

R. ARTHUR A. FREEMAN concludes an ar

66

[ocr errors]

in America," appearing in the Engineering Magazine, with the firm conviction "that these labor conflicts cannot be due to the conspiring body of a few selfish agitators, but must be inevitably the results of the system of free industries." He finds since 1886 that labor organizations have lost considerable ground, and that to-day even the most powerful unions find it impossible to get their demands by great strikes and "tie-ups," but he has also discovered that the dangers and evils of collisions between employers and workmen are greater now than they ever were. • The old trades-unionist had no sympathy whatever with State socialistic notions, and was careful to disavow his responsibility for revolutionary attacks on the fundamental principles of industrial society. He merely insisted on what seemed to him 'a fair day's wage for a fair day's work,' and repudiated the radical programme of expropriation and abolition of private enterprise. He had no quarrel with free competition, property, profits, or the right of the employer to be his own master. He claimed the right to strike, to boycott, and to act in concert with his fellows; but he did not, theoretically, go any greater length. He occasionally resorted to violence, but this was done in the heat and excitement of struggle, and no justification was ever attempted of any destruction of property or interference with liberty. To-day, however, a totally different spirit pervades and controls the world of organized labor. The new unionism' has virtually espoused the State socialistic doctrine that free competition and private enterprise are incompatible with the interests of labor, and strikes are regarded as the preliminary encounters which hasten the inevitable final conflict between capital and labor. The more desperate the situation, the greater the danger of violence and reckless disregard of bounds set by justice or law. It behooves us, therefore, to give earnest consideration to the labor problem,' and by securing to labor its due, deprive it of all excuse for aggression. To avert State socialism, it is necessary to establish economic justice and equal freedom."

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

years between 1884 and 1889. The secret of the failure of "boom" towns is attributed to "the fact that promoters and investors discounted the future while deliberately closing their eyes to the present. They disregarded the common rules of business with a persistence and blind obstinacy truly marvelous. Never stopping to reason, they plunged into a sea strewn with half covered reefs of financial ruin, and allowed the wind of excitement and enthusiasm to blow them about at will, and when they finally struck a rock and were wrecked, they blamed not themselves, their greed, or their blind impetuosity, but the town, its overestimated resources, and everything else which failed to meet their hopes, forgetting that the facts were before them all the time."

DISREGARD OF BUSINESS PRINCIPLES.

"As

In the opinion of Mr. Fleming, 90 per cent. of the towns "boomed " in the Southern States, which have proved failures, would now be in a healthy and prosperous condition had they been started and carried on in the manner usual in business enterprises. it is," he says, "the collapse of the boom' together with the past three years of financial depression has dealt them a serious blow from which they have been slow to recover. A movement for the better started some time ago, but it has been slow, very quiet and very earnest. Big factories and works have changed hands, the new owners securing them for a small part of the original cost and starting with a limited force, producing only as much as can readily and profitably be disposed of. This movement is general, and is the precursor of a substantial industrial growth which will soon be beyond the reach of 'booms' or any other undue inflation of values."

Mr. Fleming asserts that there have been few towns boomed in which some real merit did not exist, and believes that had the promoters been willing to go to work on a legitimate basis, great good would have resulted where there is now ruin. 66 "The reason why these boom towns have failed to succeed according to the expectations of the promoters will be apparent after a moment's consideration of the conditions necessary for the growth of a town. Basing its prosperity upon its possibilities as a manufacturing centre and granting that it possesses all the resources and railway facilities necessary for such purpose, it must secure the establishment of various manufacturing enterprises. These will need many employees, who will buy provisions, household goods, clothing and the various necessaries of life from stores. In this way the basis of mercantile business is established. To carry on the business banks are necessary for convenience and safety in handling money. Thus the financial end is founded. This is the theory of boom towns, but it is too nearly elysian to be found in practice. In the first place, the enterprises secured were not altogether adapted to the par

ticular resources of the place and those which were not had a small chance of succeeding, and those which were so suited were almost invariably started on such an extensive scale and so hampered with enormous capitalization bonds and debts that in a financial sense alone their continuance was doubtful.,"

THE MISSION OF THE POPULIST PARTY.

IN the North American Review, Senator Peffer, of Kansas, sets forth "The Mission of the Populist Party."

DEMANDS OF THE PARTY.

He summarizes as follows the demands of the party :

"1. An exclusively national currency in amount amply sufficient for all the uses for which money is needed by the people, to consist of gold and silver coined on equal terms, and government paper, each and all legal tender in payment of debts of whatever nature or amount, receivable for taxes and all public

dues.

"2. That rates of interest for the use of money be reduced to the level of average net profits in productive

industries.

"3. That the means of public transportation be brought under public control, to the end that carriage shall not cost more than it is reasonably worth, and that charges may be made uniform.

"4. That large private land holdings be discouraged by law."

The charge made against Populists that they favor paternalism in government is refuted by Senator Peffer. "They only demand," he says, "that popular functions shall be exercised by public agents, and that soveriegn power shall not be delegated to private persons or corporations having only private interests to serve. They would popularize government to the end that it may accomplish the work for which it was established-to serve the people, all the people, not only a few." If it be paternalism, he asks, to require the government to look after any of the private interests of the people, why do we not drive from our grounds as a tramp the postman who delivers our mail?

THE ONLY PARTY IN FAVOR OF GOOD MONEY.

Senator Peffer declares that the Populist party is the only party that honestly favors good money. "Democrats and Republicans alike declare their purpose to make all dollars equally good and to maintain the parity between them, and the recent act of Congress repealing the purchasing clause of the Sherman law contains a similar declaration; but when an amendment was proposed to the bill in the Senate to make good the platform promises by incorporating them in the law, there were not enough Senators in favor of it to secure a yea and nay vote on the amendment. We have seven different kinds of money, and only one of them is good, according to the determination of the Treasury officials-gold coin; and Republicans and Democrats are agreed on continuing that

policy; while Populists demand gold, silver and paper money, all equally full legal tender. "It is evident," Senator Peffer continues, "that we must have more money, and Congress alone is authorized to prepare it. Populists demand not only a sufficiency of money, but a reduction of interest rates at least as low as the general level of the people's savings. They aver that with interest at present legal and actual rates, an increase in the volume of money in the country would be of little permanent benefit, for bankers and brokers would control its circulation, just as they do now. But with interest charges reduced to three or two per cent. the business of the money lender would be no more profitable than that of the farmer-and why should it be?

GOVERNMENT RAILROADS.

The

"While the Populist party favors government ownership and control of railroads, it wisely leaves for future consideration the means by which such ownership and control can best be brought about. The conditions which seem to make necessary such a change in our transportation system preclude all probability of its ever being practicable, if it were desirable, to purchase the existing railway lines. total capitalization of railroads in the United States in 1890 was put at $9,871,378,389-nearly ten thousand million dollars. It would be putting the figures high to say that the roads are worth one-half the amount of their capital stock. This leaves a fictitious value of $5,000,000,000 which the people must maintain for the roads by transportation charges twice as high as they would be if the capitalization were only half as much. It is the excessive capitalization which the people have to maintain that they complain about. It would be an unbusinesslike proceeding for the people to purchase roads when they could build better ones just where and when they are needed for less than half the money that would be required to clear these companies' books. It is conceded that none of the highly capitalized railroad corporations expect to pay their debts. If they can keep even on interest account they do 'well, and that is all they are trying to do. While charges have been greatly reduced, they are still based on capitalization, and courts have held that the companies are entitled to reasonable profits on their investment. The people have but one safe remedy-to construct their own roads as needed, and then they will own and control' them.

6

[ocr errors]

"This is not a new doctrine. A select committee of the Senate of the United States, at the head of which was Hon. William Windom, then a Senator and afterward Secretary of the Treasury, appointed in December, 1872, reported among other recommendations one proposing the construction of a government freight railway,' for the purpose of effectively regulating interstate commerce. A government freight railway would have no capitalization, no debt, bonded or otherwise; its charges would be only what it would cost to handle the traffic and keep the road in repair. That would reduce cost of carriage to a minimum, and nothing else will."

IN

DO WE PAY OUR OFFICIALS ENOUGH?

N the American Journal of Politics, Mr. Charles Robinson argues to show that we are stingy to the last degree in the allotment of cash remuneration to our powers that be. He thinks that this is perhaps most decidedly the case with our ambassadors, and that $17,000 per year for a first class diplomatic representative is a pittance which will allow only the richest men to take such positions. The establishments which these gentlemen have to keep up to do credit to us cost far more than this amount of money. Mr. Robinson tells us that the French Ambassador to England has a salary of $60,000 and still his necessary expenses encroach upon his private fortune, while Sir Julian Pauncefote, British Ambassador at Washington, gets $30,000 a year and a house free. This writer thinks that it is no uncommon thing for our ministers to be put to an actual expense per year of $100,000, and if that is the case, we can well believe his statement that the appointment to an embassy is a most costly luxury.

Not only with foreign representatives but also with our home officials are we, according to Mr. Robinson, niggardly to an unwise degree. He doesn't think $8,000 a year sufficient for a cabinet officer who is expected to live at the rate of $20,000 a year or more.

AS COMPARED WITH ENGLAND.

"As a matter of fact, most of the best talent, as well as the stanchest integrity, is to be found among men of small means. The consensus of opinion seems to be overwhelming that the pay of our cabinet ministers should be largely increased, and it is to be hoped that when Congress comes to deal with the subject it will show a generous disposition. The English secretaries of state get $25,000 a year each, and, after serving five years, are entitled to a pension of $10,000 a year for life. Indeed, many of the undersecretaries and clerks in the English departments receive larger salaries than our cabinet officers. During the last session of Congress a bill was passed cutting down the salaries of the assistant secretaries from $4,500 to $3,500. This is certainly a move in the wrong direction. So again, while our attorney and solicitorgeneral only get $8,000 and $7,000 salary respectively, the English law officers of the same rank receive $35,000 and $30,000 a year, and until this year were permitted to continue their private practice. Under pressure from Mr. Gladstone, however, they have relinquished that privilege, but they still receive in addition to the salary, fees for contentious business.

COULD OUR BEST LAWYERS BE JUDGES?

Mr. Robinson thinks it is rather too much to expect our lawyers of the first class, who have practices worth $50,000 a year or more, to elect to become judges at one-twelfth such an income, and he thinks that many prominent lights of the legal profession are debarred from doing public service because they cannot afford it.

"Imagine Mr. Choate, Mr. Parsons or Mr. Coudert throwing up their private practice for a judgeship

with a salary about equal to that paid some of their own clerks !

[ocr errors]

The judges of the United States Supreme Court receive but $10,000 a year, while the salary of the Chief Justice of the United States, our highest judicial officer, is only $10,500. Not long since it was rumored that Chief Justice Fuller intended resigning in order to accept the position of counsel to an Illinois railroad company, at a salary which would enable him to leave something to his family in the event of his death. The possibility of such a rumor being true is a national disgrace. The salary of the Lord Chief Justice of England is $40,000 a year, while the Lord Chancellor receives $50.000 a year while in office and a pension of $25,000 for life. The lords of appeal receive $30,000 a year, and all the other judges get $25,000. No matter how high a position a man attains at the English bar, his ambition is a seat on the bench. What a change would come over the judiciary if the leaders of our bar could only be induced and encouraged to accept office! This can only be done by a liberal increase in the salaries now paid to our judges. It is the same story all through the bluebook. The United States commissioner of education only gets $3,000 a year. In England the same officer receives $10,000. Our patent commissioner gets $2,500 a year less than the English commissioner, whose province is so much smaller. The commander-inchief of the British army gets $33,000 a year; the general commanding the United States army receives nothing in addition to his salary as major-general, which is only $7,500. So again, a rear admiral in England receives $13,600; with us he gets $6,000 when at sea and $5,000 when on shore duty. The speaker of the House of Commons gets $25,000 a year and a house free; the deputy speaker gets $12,500, and the clerk of the house gets $10,000, while the clerk of the House of Lords gets $15,000. The secretary of our Senate, which is the equivalent position here, receives but $6,000, and the clerk of the House of Representatives gets $5,000. The speaker and the president pro tem of the United States Senate get the same as the vice-president, $8,000, which is only $3,000 in addition to their salaries."

HOW TO FIND THE MONEY FOR OLD AGE

MR.

PENSIONS.

R. M.Q. HOLYOAKE reinforces, in the Humanitarian, his favorite scheme for "the taxation of pleasure," with a view to providing the funds requisite for old age pensions. He proposes to lay a tax of one penny in the shilling on every ticket for admission to the theatres, race meetings, and other places of amusement. He quotes a number of favorable opinions he has received, among others, from the late Lord Iddesleigh, the late Lord Addington, the Earl of Meath, the Bishop of London, Lord Compton, Mr. Herbert Glandstone, Mr. Thomas Burt and Rev. H. Price Hughes. He urges as the advantage of such taxes that they fall on the surplus money of the people; on unproductive labor, and would hardly be felt at all.

THE MANNERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. USTIN MCCARTHY, in the North American Review, attempts to convey to the American mind a clear understanding of the ways of the House of Lords and House of Commons.

The chief distinction he draws between the House of Commons and other political assemblies of representative men is that the House of Commons alone has the practice of not providing seats enough for its members to sit down in. "You may be elected to the House of Commons by an overwhelming majority of voters. Your return may be recognized as valid and certain beyond the possibility of petition or adverse decision from the judges who deal with questions of electoral law. You may have been formally introduced to the House of Commons by two political comrades, one walking at either side. You may, thus escorted, have walked up the floor of the House to the table where the gowned and wigged clerks are sitting just under the august throne of Mr. Speaker. You may have handed in the certificate of your election. You may have signed the roll. I wonder why one's hand shakes as he signs that roll. I have signed it, I think, six times at successive elections, and my hand always quivered in the process. You may have sworn the prescribed oath and shaken the Speaker's hand of formal welcome. And yet have you found a seat in the House of Commons? Nothing of the kind. You are a member of the House, to be sure, just as much as Mr. Gladstone is-but have you got a seat in the House? No, you have not-at least, you have not got a place to sit down in.

The House of Commons has some six hundred and seventy members, and it has seats for little more than half the number. Even if we take into account the members' galleries, which run along two sides of the chamber, there still is not nearly room enough for all the men who are entitled to take their places in the House of Commons. What are the members to do who have not got seats? They are to do the best they can-to do anything they like short of taking seats in the House. They may crowd the bar-I do not mean any place of refreshment, although they may crowd that bar, too, if they please; I mean they may stand below the line which is supposed to represent the brass bar that can, when occasion requires, be drawn out from either side, and so conjoined as to represent the division between some petitioner, or some alleged offender, and the House of Commons itself. They may stay in the newspaper room or the tea room; they may fall asleep in the library; they may walk on the terrace; they may lounge in the smoking room, but they cannot sit in the House. As in England there are so many superfluous women who could not possibly find husbands here, under our present matrimonial system, so in the House of Commons there are so many members who cannot possibly find seats. The struggle for seats from day to day is a curious and interesting competition, of which, so far as I know, the English House of Commons has an absolute monopoly.

"In every other parliamentary assembly that I know of, each member has his assigned and recognized place, which he holds until the end, either of the session or of the parliament. In most other parliaments that I know of, each member has a desk to write on while the House is carrying on its debate. In the House of Commons there is no desk for any member, and the rule is that no man is to write a line or take a note or read a book or a newspaper in the debating chamber itself, except for the actual purposes of that debate. You may take a note of something said in the speech of a man to which you propose to reply You may hold in your hand a cutting from a newspaper containing an account of some facts by which you propose to strengthen your reply. But you must not write an ordinary letter or glance for your own amusement at a book or a newspaper. If you venture to do anything of the kind you have the Sergeant-at-Arms down upon you at once with gentle but firm admonition.

"I have never quite understood why the House of Commons should be considered a highly orderly assembly. I never, during my long acquaintance with the House of Commons, could understand where its title to be considered an orderly and decorous legislative assembly came in. The recent riotfor it was nothing short of a riot during the short time it lasted-in the House of Commons, was mainly caused by the fact that men were pent up so closely together that the movement of one man from his place suggested to another man that he who first sought to push his way through must have had it in his mind to assault somebody. But without considering the recent riot the House of Commons is almost the noisest and rudest legislative assembly with which I have any manner of personal acquaintance.

Mr. T. P. O'Connor's Account.

A vivid and valuable description of "The House of Commons: Its Structure, Rules, and Habits," is contributed to Harper's by Mr. T. P. O'Connor, M.P. It is an interesting instance of what may be termed the comparative study of legislatures. Beginning with the attendance at prayers, Mr. O'Connor explains Mr. Labouchere's regular and "pious attention" to the chaplain's ministrations on the ground of his wanting to secure his favorite seat, and "the rule is inflexible that a seat can be held only for one night, and that then it shall be won by attendance at prayers." The cry of "Speaker, Speaker," which heralds that official's entry into the House, is described as "a shout which has a strange indefinable effect, however often heard, and stirs the blood somewhat as the dreams of De Quincey were moved by the recollection of the Roman consul passing over the Appian Way. It sounds like a reminiscence and momentary embodiment of all the fierce struggle, oratorial triumphs, tragic and world-shaking events which are associated with the history of the august Parliament of Great Britain."

DESK OR NO DESK.

On this question Mr. O'Connor pronounces a trifle unexpectedly : "A striking difference between the House of Commons and the legislatures of America is that the House of Commons has no desks for its members. They sit close beside each other, with nothing but the back of the next bench in front of them. There is a small receptacle in front where one can lay a few papers, but, as a rule, the ordinary member of the House of Commons has nowhere to hold his papers save in his hands-that is, while he is in the House.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

.

"The first thing that struck me in the House of Representatives when I visited it was the much larger attendance there than in the House of Commons. Except at certain hours of the evening, when the business is rather exciting, the attendance in the House of Commons is very small, not usually as many as the quorum of forty; whereas in Washington the greater number of the members are usually presentat least throughout a good portion of the day.

"The second thing that struck me at Washington was the amount of noise. It seemed to me impossible that any man could speak amid the din by which he was surrounded. There is as much noise in the House of Representatives, whenever even a good speaker is addressing it, as there is in Westminster when everyone is engaged in putting down a bore. This is largely due to the fact that the members in Washington are busy with their correspondence, and therefore can distract their attention from the speaker..

"On the whole I prefer our system; and so, I believe, do some of the leading men of the American Congress. I had a conversation with Mr. Reed while he was Speaker of the House of Representatives, and I understood him to say that he thought the abolition of the desk would lead to a reform in the methods of the House of Representatives. The absence of the desk certainly concentrates the attention of the House on the speaking, and in that way makes speaking more actual and debating more real."

"RESPONSIVE AS AN ÆOLIAN HARP."

After observing that "though there is ample accommodation for dining in the House of Commons, very few people avail themselves of it," most members liking to get a breath of fresher air than that of the House of Commons, and the diner-out being still a power in London, Mr. O'Connor confesses that though "the House of Commons is a very sober assembly, there are not always wanting indications of the enjoyment of the evening meal and its accompaniments."

To "question-time". - an institution of which he strongly approves-"there is nothing in an American legislature to correspond," members of the American being excluded from both Houses of Congress. "There is nothing which gives a more perfect idea of the vast extent and the strangely heteregeneous composition of the British dominion and British gov

[ocr errors][merged small]

66

'There is an idea among those unacquainted with the House of Commons, and acquainted with the general sombreness and reserve of the English character, that the House of Commons is an extremely quiet and decorous assembly. The very reverse is the case. It is boisterous, noisy and as responsive as an Æolian harp to every passing mood."

"THAT LITTLE WORD HEAR, HEAR."

Mr. O'Connor confesses that meetings in England and Scotland, consisting in the majority of Englishmen or Scotchmen, are "much more enthusiastic " than his Irish-American audiences. "Indeed, it is only after considerable experience that the speaker from Europe gets accustomed to the coldness of American audiences. At first it is most depressing and disheartening. There are many reasons for this feeling, but I believe one of the chief of them is the absence of that little word 'Hear, hear!'"

666

Hear, hear!' is the one form of expressing emotion which the House of Commons knows."

WHO WOULD BE A WHIP?

Of the whips Mr. O'Connor has much to say that is gratifying to British self-esteem. "To Americans, with whom interest in politics is largely circumscribed, nothing can be much more astonishing than the class of men who are willing to perform certain political duties in England. Of all occupations, one would suppose that of whip would be the very last which would be coveted by any man in the possession of his senses, and not driven to the acceptance of a hard lot by the eternal want of pence. For here are some of the duties of senior whip: He has to read all the newspapers every morning, and give an idea of their contents to the leader of the House of Commons. This means that he must rise pretty early. He has then to see the wire pullers, and have a consultation about the selection of a candidate for a constituency. It may be that he has to settle one of those nasty little disputes which arise even in the best-regulated parties. He has to attend to the demand of his party for speakers to assist at some open-air or indoor demonstration. . . . He has not only to be present when the House meets; he has also to remain there until the very last division has been taken, and finally he has to move that the House adjourn."

Yet "this office, with all its anxieties, is eagerly sought by all kinds of people." Lord Richard Grosvenor, whose high rank and wealth is dwelt upon by Mr. O'Connor, was whip in the specially trying years 1880-1885. Mr. O'Connor does not think that he "could give a better illustration of the difference between the way in which the rich in England and in America look upon political life and political office."

« PreviousContinue »