Page images
PDF
EPUB

not a question of whether or not the laborers have, among their millions, men of sufficient natural capacity. No doubt they have; and if all the present employers of labor should die childless during the course of the next few years, we may be certain enough that, under the present condition of things, laborers would be found who would gradually take their places and supply us with a new generation of employers, capitalists, and millionaires. The question is not whether such men would be forthcoming under present conditions, but whether they could be induced to come forward under entirely changed conditions. Hitherto the only inducements worth taking account of, that have ever incited men to direct and to organize labor for productive purposes, have been the hope and the possibility of securing for themselves whatever special product their ability has been instrumental in producing. But the essential idea of all the leaders of the labor movement has been to take away these inducements, or to make them as small as possible. It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate success of this movement must depend on whether society could, under such conditions, still secure the kind of ability spoken of.

Now, one of the most important morals that have been drawn from the growing successes of unionism, has been that this kind of ability could be so secured. We are urged to look at the characters and careers of the men by whom labor is now being organized. It is pointed out to us that the motives which actuate these men are not personal gain and the accumulation of capital. They give to the common cause exceptional ability, and yet they neither claim nor expect any exceptional reward. The ability required to organize a great strike is not less than the ability required to organize a great industry; and if facts prove that, without any interested expectations, men can be got to do the one, what doubt, it is asked, can there be that we shall get men, on the same condition, to do the other? The fallacy of this argument is what I am here endeavoring to emphasize. On the surface it is eminently plausible; but the more it is examined, the more clearly we shall see not only that it does not prove what it is supposed to prove, but that its entire tendency is to prove the exact opposite.

In the first place, to repeat what I have said already, the leaders of the labor movement have not, in that capacity, been leaders of labor. That, however, is by no means the whole of the case. A more important feature of it is that no man who has been successful as a leader of labor has ever been found among the leaders of the labor movement. To put the matter in a plainer and more brutal way, no man who has been successful in increasing production has ever been found among those who are working to redistribute the product; and conversely, not one of the men who are working to redistribute the product has ever shown himself capable of assisting in increasing production. To this broad rule there may perhaps be some isolated exceptions, but as a broad rule it is indubitably true. Outside of a circle of foolish and half-sincere sentimentalists, where do we find any of the opponents of capital among men who have inherited it? Or-and this is a yet more pertinent question—where do we find any of the opponents of capital among men who have the ability to make it? And by the ability to make it we mean a very simple thing-we mean the ability to direct labor to advantage. The leaders of the labor movement have, as a class, been men absolutely without that quality; and without wishing to call in question the sincerity of their philanthropy, the fact remains that their desire to divide the wealth of the world among their fellows has had for its basis an utter incapacity to add anything to that wealth themselves.

And now let us deal with the fact, which I have no wish to question, that these men have been so far disinterested that they have, in spite of their exceptional efforts, not aimed at securing any exceptional pecuniary reward. That may be perfectly true; but though there may have been no pecuniary reward to stimulate them, there have been rewards of a kind equally selfish. There has been in many cases the satisfaction of a grudge, owed to society because they have not been able to succeed in it; and, above all, there has been the intoxication of power and notoriety suddenly placed within the reach of men who would otherwise live and fret in uneventful, helpless obscurity. There is no greater mistake than to imagine that men whose sole road to success lies in attacking wealth, are for that reason less disinterested,

less greedy of personal distinction, than the men whose road to success lies in acquiring or creating wealth. Indeed, a study of human nature in general, and of modern industrial history in par ticular, proves that in a society where there are no special rewards, there will be no exercise of any special ability. It proves, further, that between the ability and the reward there is always some connection in kind, and that, while anger or ambition or enthusiasm may lead a man to secure many things for his fellowmen, one reward only will lead him to produce wealth for them, and that is the possession of a large proportion of the wealth produced. The recent progress of industrial events, therefore, has no tendency to throw any doubt on the belief that the possession of private property, the enjoyment of interest, and the dictatorship-however limited-exercised over labor by the men to whom the profits will go, or by their representatives, form essential conditions not only of the production of wealth, but of the prosperity of labor itself.

We must not, however, blind ourselves to the other side. History is teaching us that laborers may be organized in two ways: first, as a producing body; secondly, as a resisting or self-protecting body. In the latter capacity they may be able to govern themselves, but in the first they must be always governed by others. The conclusion is that in the very nature of things it is impossible for either party to gain a complete victory. It is obvious that the capitalist cannot exist without the laborer. A deeper and more dispassionate study of human nature will in time convince even our most ardent social reformers that the laborer will never progress except with the progress of the capitalist. The names of things and the forms of things may change; but the essential facts of the case, being facts of human nature, will always remain the same, till human nature is metamorphosed. W. H. MALLOCK.

RAILWAY PASSENGER RATES.

THE average amount received by railroads in the United States for carrying a passenger one mile, is two and one sixth cents. In England it is a little less; probably about two cents. In France it is not quite a cent and a half; in Belgium and in Germany about a cent and a quarter. In Austria, before the recent changes in the tariff, it was a little more than a cent and a half; at present it is probably only about a cent. In British India it is less than six tenths of a cent. These are the actual amounts received. The results have been obtained, wherever possible, by dividing the total passenger earnings by the number of miles traveled by passengers. In England, where statistics of passenger mileage are not given, we are compelled to rely on estimates. The nominal rates of fare are almost always higher than the average of actual receipts, owing to excursion and commutation business. The difference between actual and nominal rates is usually from 10 to 20 per cent. Why are passenger rates so much lower in continental Europe than in England or in America? Can we hope for a change in this respect, and for a reduction in the cost of passenger travel to the standard of France and Germany? What conditions must be fulfilled to make such a reduction possible? These are questions which are being asked everywhere, especially since the recent reductions in Austria and Hungary have attracted more wide-spread attention to the subject. Let us try to answer them in order.

The first obvious reason for the difference in fares is a difference in the kind of service rendered. Continental Europe pays two thirds as much as America or England and gets an inferior article. India pays still less and gets still less. The difference is seen both in quality and in quantity of service. In India express trains rarely run at a greater speed than 25 miles an hour. In Germany and France their speed ranges from 25 to 35 miles

an hour, and only in exceptional instances is more than 40 miles an hour. In the United States and in England the maximum speed rises as high as 50or, in exceptional instances, 60 miles an hour. With regard to the comfort of the cars in different countries, there is more room for difference of opinion; but there can be no doubt that the average traveler in the United States, or even in the English third-class car, fares better than he would in the corresponding class on continental railroads, and infinitely better than the bulk of travelers in British India. No rates, however low, would induce an American to be content with Austrian third-class accommodation, or to tolerate that which is furnished to the average Hindoo traveler.

There is a second reason, of even greater importance, though it is less obvious at first sight. This is the difference in the number of trains. Taking into account density of population and amount of travel, Europe has more trains than India, and America or England more than continental Europe. If there are 500 travelers daily who wish to use a certain line in India, the authorities give them but one or two trains a day. They are thus able to secure very large train loads; and as the train, rather than the passenger, is the unit for many items of expense, the sacrifice of public convenience in the matter of hours of travel is a source of economy for the railroad. For a given number of people who can use railroads, Austria provides more trains than India, Germany more than Austria, England more than Germany, and the United States more than England. Each concession to the public convenience in this matter involves a loss which must be paid for somewhere.

Our railroad men are fully awake to the economy of large train loads. They would be ready to make great reductions in charge if large loads could thereby be secured. In freight business they have carried this policy out to the fullest extent. A ton of freight can be forwarded at almost any time of day or of night with comparatively little inconvenience to the shipper. The railroads can thus make train loads to suit themselves; and it is a significant fact that American freight-train loads are larger than those of Europe, while American freight rates are decidedly lower. Where the railroad men have had power

« PreviousContinue »