Social Civics

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Social Civics
Author: Munro, William Bennett
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Social Civics" ***

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcriber’s Note:

This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.
Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_. Boldface type
is delimited with the ‘=’ character as =Boldface=.

Footnotes have been moved to follow the paragraphs in which they are
referenced.

The many marginal notes usually appeared at the beginning of a
paragraph. These are given here on a separate line as

[Sidenote: A topic.]

Where the notes are in mid-paragraph, they are merely interpolated in
the text [Sidenote: Inline] at an appropriate point.

There are a number of diagrams that cannot be directly rendered in this
version. An attempt has been made for each to retain the information
conveyed. For instance, the chart of the various municipal offices
facing p. 205 has been rendered here as an indented list.

All illustrations, charts, tables and graphs are accompanied by a
separate explanatory page, either preceding or following. Neither are
included in the pagination. They have been moved to the nearest logical
paragraph break, and demarcated by horizontal rules, which do not appear
in the text. A chart, “The Commission Plan”, facing p. 195, is missing
from the list of Maps, Charts, and Diagrams.

Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please
see the transcriber’s note at the end of this text for details regarding
the handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.

SOCIAL CIVICS

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Books by WILLIAM BENNETT MUNRO │
│ │
│ THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES │
│ THE GOVERNMENT OF AMERICAN CITIES │
│ THE GOVERNMENT OF EUROPEAN CITIES │
│ PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUSTICE

By Edward Simmons

This frontispiece is a reproduction of a famous
mural decoration in the New York Criminal Court
House.

The background is the doorway of the criminal court
room. Justice stands before the entrance holding in
one hand the conventional scales as a token of
impartiality, and in the other hand a globe to
symbolize the world. Over her left shoulder is
draped the national flag. Condemnation and Acquittal
are typified by the two children, one of whom holds
a sword, the other the dove of peace.

It has been usual to prefigure the Goddess of
Justice with her eyes bandaged, in token of her
immunity from outside influence. Mr. Simmons,
however, has here portrayed Justice with her eyes
uncovered, because he believed that “Justice should
have her eyes wide open—particularly in New York
City”.

The artist’s wife and two children were the models
for this painting.

[Illustration:

JUSTICE. By Edward Simmons

_Copyright by Edward Simmons. From a Copley Print,
copyright by Curtis & Cameron, Boston.
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOCIAL CIVICS

WILLIAM BENNETT MUNRO

PROFESSOR OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY

AND

CHARLES EUGENE OZANNE

TEACHER OF CIVICS
IN THE CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL, CLEVELAND, OHIO

NEW YORK
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1922

_All rights reserved_

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

---

Set up and electrotyped. Published June, 1922

PREFACE

Many excellent textbooks are already available for the teaching of
civics. Why should another be added to the number? Wherein does this
book differ from the rest? What are its outstanding features?

_The Plan._ This book covers a wider range than most texts. It includes
not only a survey of governmental framework and functions, but many
topics which are ordinarily spoken of as questions in economics,
sociology, and international relations. The propriety of including such
topics scarcely requires a defensive argument nowadays, for the old
lines of demarcation in the social sciences are rapidly breaking down.
The problems of our complex modern civilization pay no heed to technical
boundaries. They are the joint product of political, social, and
economic forces. No one can get a grasp of them if he lets his mind run
on a single track. A well-organized course in civics, or in the problems
of democracy, should acquaint the student with the great institutions,
relations, and principles which dominate the life of the community. To
accomplish this end it should carry him as far afield as need be.

_The Method._ Nevertheless, the main theme of this book is American
government. No matter what the topic under discussion, the authors have
tried to link it up with the drift and purposes of governmental action
and policy. This intimate and continuous connection between public
problems and public policy is the central concept of the book; it is the
thread which holds the various chapters together. There are many winding
roads in the broad domain of the social sciences, but sooner or later
they all lead through the realm of government.

The authors have not tried to discuss every possible phase of their
subject. Questions of outstanding importance have been given the right
of way; minor matters have been relegated to the footnotes or omitted
altogether. Those who desire enlightenment upon the odds and ends of
government or economics can get it from an encyclopedia. The primary aim
has been to get the facts hitched up to principles, and to set the
principles in their right perspective. For this reason considerable
space has been given to problems which, although international in their
scope, are of profound importance to the people of the United States.

_The Arrangement._ No two textbook writers seem able to agree as to the
proper order in which material should be arranged. But the sequence of
the chapters is not, after all, a matter of much importance. No one
feels under any obligation to finish the Book of Deuteronomy before
beginning to read the Acts of the Apostles. The teacher who prefers to
start with the civic activities rather than with the organization of
government should have no hesitation in doing so. In this book, at any
rate, each of the larger divisions of the subject is treated
independently, and does not depend upon the others. Some schools devote
a half year to civics, and a half year to economics. Material adapted to
such an arrangement can be obtained by a slight transposition of the
chapters.[1]

_The Supplementary Material._ More than a hundred pages are devoted to
lists of general references, group problems, short studies, questions,
and topics for debate. It is not anticipated, of course, that any
teacher can find time to use them all; but the endeavor has been made to
afford ample variety for selection. Among the general references are
included not only a few of the most authoritative and most recent
publications, but also some elementary books which can ordinarily be
found in the smaller school and public libraries. The group problems are
intended to be of special service to those teachers who use the “project
method” of instruction; but in any event the practice of setting groups
of pupils to work upon problems of a comprehensive character is a good
one for every teacher to pursue at times. Some of these group problems
are “projects” in the strict sense of the term; others are merely
research topics of an elementary sort. Some involve field work; some do
not. The questions are not designed to be tests of memory, but to
provide a basis for socialized recitations, to provoke discussion, and
to encourage among the pupils the habit of forming their own opinions.
The numerous and varied topics for debate have been inserted with the
idea of lending encouragement to one of the most effective methods of
promoting interest in public problems.

_The Point of View._ In dealing with controverted questions, of which
there are a great many in the field of civics, the authors have tried to
hold the scales justly, and to give both sides a fair hearing. It may be
that they have not in all cases succeeded; if so, they can only plead
the unconscious partisanship to which all human flesh is heir. In any
event these chapters have been written with a sincere desire to promote
a more intelligent citizenship, with an abiding faith in the merits of
American government, and with the conviction that the people of the
United States will prove abundantly capable of solving their manifold
problems by the traditional process of reconciling liberty with law.

_The Illustrations._ Apart from a number of diagrams, the illustrative
material has been drawn from the masterpieces of American mural art.
They symbolize what is best in our civilization; they may serve to give
pupils a passing acquaintance with a few creative works of enduring
value; and they have some artistic merit, which most textbook
illustrations have not. For the selection of these illustrations and for
the explanatory legends which accompany them, I am indebted to my wife.

_A Word of Acknowledgment._ To Mr. Ozanne this book owes a large part of
whatever value it may possess. He has had a great deal to do with the
arrangement of materials and the methods of presentation. Every page has
had his repeated scrutiny. It is to me a great pleasure to have had, in
this work, the close co-operation of one who possesses not only a
mastery of the subject but a rare proficiency in classroom methods.

WILLIAM BENNETT MUNRO.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY,
February 22, 1922.

CONTENTS

PAGE

PREFACE v

PART I

THE AMERICAN ENVIRONMENT

CHAPTER

I. HUMAN SOCIETY 1

II. THE PEOPLE, RACES, AND RACIAL PROBLEMS OF THE UNITED 19
STATES

III. ECONOMIC FACTORS AND ORGANIZATION 37

PART II

THE ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT

THE FOUNDATIONS OF GOVERNMENT

IV. THE NATURE AND FORMS OF GOVERNMENT 62

V. THE CITIZEN: HIS RIGHTS AND DUTIES 78

VI. POPULAR CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT 94

THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM

VII. SUFFRAGE AND ELECTIONS 118

VIII. PARTY ORGANIZATION AND PRACTICAL POLITICS 145

LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT

IX. COUNTIES AND RURAL COMMUNITIES 166

X. CITY GOVERNMENT 182

XI. MUNICIPAL PROBLEMS OF TODAY 203

XII. STATE GOVERNMENT IN OUTLINE 226

NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

XIII. THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION 246

XIV. CONGRESS AT WORK 266

XV. THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CABINET 286

XVI. THE COURTS AND THE LAW 308

PART III

THE CIVIC ACTIVITIES

ECONOMIC

XVII. NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION 326

XVIII. THE AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS 339

XIX. THE ENCOURAGEMENT AND REGULATION OF COMMERCE 356

XX. THE ORGANIZATION AND CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 383

XXI. LABOR AND LABOR PROBLEMS 400

XXII. CURRENCY, BANKING, AND CREDIT 424

XXIII. TAXATION AND PUBLIC FINANCE 450

XXIV. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PUBLIC OWNERSHIP 474

SOCIAL

XXV. EDUCATION 492

XXVI. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SANITATION 514

XXVII. POOR-RELIEF, CORRECTION, AND OTHER WELFARE PROBLEMS 540

INTERNATIONAL

XXVIII. THE NATIONAL DEFENCE 563

XXIX. FOREIGN RELATIONS 587

XXX. THE UNITED STATES AS A WORLD POWER 606

XXXI. THE UNITED STATES AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 625

XXXII. POLITICAL AND SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION 646

APPENDIX

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 665

INDEX

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Justice. By _Edward Simmons_ _Frontispiece_

PAGE

The Family. By _Charles Sprague Pearce_ Facing 12

The Melting Pot. By _Vesper L. George_ ” 33

Thrift and Prosperity. By _Frederick Dielman_ ” 50

Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. By _Edward Simmons_ ” 78

Government. By _Elihu Vedder_ ” 118

Good Administration. By _Elihu Vedder_ ” 145

Washington at the Constitutional Convention. By ” 255
_Violet Oakley_

Science Revealing the Treasures of the Earth. By ” 329
_Edwin A. Abbey_

The Spirit of Vulcan. By _Edwin A. Abbey_ ” 383

The Crowning of Labor. By _John W. Alexander_ ” 400

The Evolution of the Book. By _John W. Alexander_ ” 492

Justice and Mercy. By _A. R. Willett_ ” 554

The Spirit of Light. By _Edwin A. Abbey_ ” 606

The Graduate. By _Edwin H. Blashfield_ ” 646

LIST OF MAPS, CHARTS, AND DIAGRAMS

PAGE
The Center of Population Facing 21
The Growth of American Cities ” 183
The City Manager Plan ” 197
Municipal Administrative Departments ” 205
Traffic Zones ” 210
Simplified State Administration ” 241
Land Regions of the United States ” 340
The Relation of Money and Prices ” 443
The National Debt, 1860-1920 ” 467
The Control of Education ” 500
The Rise of Prices in War Time ” 582

SOCIAL CIVICS

CHAPTER I
HUMAN SOCIETY

_The purpose of this chapter is to explain why human beings have
come together into a society, to point out some of the chief
influences which affect their action in organized groups, and to
show that government is the greatest of the agencies through which
human co-operative action is maintained today._

[Sidenote: The supremacy of man.]

=Man’s Place on the Earth.=—The present organization of society finds
its explanation in the nature of man. Man is by nature a social being;
he possesses intelligence and the capacity to organize. Among living
creatures man is by no means the first in physical power—he is neither
so strong as the lion nor so fleet as the reindeer. But he dominates the
earth because he more than makes up, by his mental and moral
superiority, for whatever may be lacking in physical prowess. We do not
know when mankind first began to assert its mastery over all other forms
of life on the earth, but it was a very long time ago. Man’s superior
intelligence gave him a start, and his capacity for organization enabled
him to clinch the victory. Today he is supreme on land, at sea, and in
the air.

[Sidenote: Evolution.]

=The Principle of Development.=—Human society did not come into
existence all at once; it has grown to its present form through the slow
process of time. Everywhere we see the principle of development at
work—among individuals and among institutions. Everything is still in a
continual process of change and this has unquestionably been the case
for many thousands of years. Or to put it in another way, new forms of
life and institutions are continually being evolved from older forms.

[Sidenote: Darwin and his work.]

To understand this principle of continual change and development it is
necessary to know something about the doctrine of evolution. This
doctrine is commonly associated with the name of Charles Darwin, for
although many others had hinted at the idea, he was the first to set it
forth accompanied by scientific evidence.[2] Darwin’s theory has been
much misunderstood; in the illiterate mind it is often summed up by
saying that “Man is descended from the monkey”. But Darwin did not say
anything of the kind, neither did he ever deny the existence of God as
the controlling factor in the life of the universe. Darwin’s theory of
evolution asserted that all forms of life now on earth have sprung from
a few simple, primitive types, and that human life is an evolution from
one of these earlier forms. Human institutions, likewise, did not arise
instantaneously but developed from simple and primitive beginnings into
their complex structure of today.

[Sidenote: Soundness of Darwin’s theory.]

The evidence upon which the doctrine of evolution rests is too extensive
and too technical to be even summarized here but it is regarded as
trustworthy by most scientists.[3] For fifty years it has been studied,
discussed, and tested by scholars with the result that educated men are
now disposed to accept the doctrine so far as its main principles are
concerned although they differ about various details.

It is astonishing how little we know, after all, about the beginnings of
things. We do not know when or how life began upon the earth. We do not
know the exact origin of man. But we do know that all forms of life and
institutions have grown; they were not created in the shape we now have
them. All the general laws of life which apply to plants and animals
apply also to man. Alike they are born, they are nourished, they mature,
and they produce descendants like themselves.

[Sidenote: The principle of “natural selection” and the struggle for
existence.]

The method of evolution, according to Darwin’s theory is based upon the
principle of _natural selection_. It is a well-known law of nature that
“like begets like”, in other words that offspring resemble the
parent-stock although there may be some individual differences. If it
were not so, a definite species would never be perpetuated. All forms of
life, moreover, reproduce themselves more or less abundantly. It is said
that the progeny of a single starfish exceeds half a million per year.
Even the elephants, which are the slowest breeding of all animals,
produce a sufficiently numerous offspring to over-run the whole of
Africa if every young elephant grew to maturity.

But nowhere does the entire progeny of any organisms, whether plants,
animals, or human beings, survive to full growth. If every acorn became
an oak tree, there would in time be no room for anything else on the
surface of the earth. If every tadpole grew to be a frog, there would be
no room for anything else in the waters of the earth. All life, however,
is a struggle for existence, a relentless competition for air, sunshine,
moisture, and soil on the part of plants, and for food and shelter on
the part of animals. The further down we go in the scale of life the
more bitter this struggle for existence becomes; small animals eat up
the plants; large animals feed on the smaller ones. Higher in the scale,
the struggle is not so keen, and among mankind it is the least strenuous
of all.

In this struggle for existence, what plants and animals survive? The
answer is that those which are best fitted to their environment continue
to exist and to reproduce themselves, while those which are more poorly
adapted to their environment fall out of the race and disappear.
[Sidenote: The survival of the fittest.] In other words natural
selection or the survival of the fittest was thought by Darwin to be the
principle which determines the course of evolution. The unfit perish and
the fit survive, everything depending upon the relative success of the
organism in adapting itself to the conditions under which it is
endeavoring to live. The clumsy mastodon became extinct; his bones are
now relics in museums; but the horse, being fleet of foot, managed to
survive. The fit organisms,—plants or animals or human beings,—have
survived and have perpetuated the species. They gave to their offspring
the traits or qualities which enabled themselves to survive. In that way
each generation of organisms became a little better fitted to its
environment than the generation which went before. This is a slow
process for human beings, of course, for it takes twenty years or more
to produce a new generation of men, whereas new generations of birds,
reptiles, and lower animals appear every few months. The principle of
natural selection, moreover, does not fully account for the form which
evolution has taken. Other factors have also been at work, but
scientists are not yet agreed as to their nature or importance.[4]

[Sidenote: Natural selection as applied to the human race.]

Now how does the human race figure in all this? Mankind has also been
at all times under the necessity of adapting itself to its
environment, and in the early stages of human history those who did
not successfully adapt themselves went to an early grave. During
century after century natural selection and the other factors
strengthened the race. As the race grew stronger in intelligence, man
undertook to subdue his environment rather than to be subdued by it,
and in considerable measure he succeeded. He discovered the art of
kindling a fire and made this element his servant in conquering the
cold. He domesticated wild animals, made them provide him with milk
and meat, and compelled them to carry his burdens. Step by step he
mastered the natural conditions which surrounded him. This he did by
his ability to work with his fellow-men. Through this power of
co-operation he created group organizations—society, the state, and
government.

[Sidenote: Today the strong assist the weak.]

The struggle for existence among men is not now, therefore, as it was in
primitive days, a life-and-death competition for food and shelter.
Individuals have come to recognize each other’s rights and to seek even
their own advantage by co-operation rather than by strife. The
association of individuals in the family and the community serves to
preserve the weak whom a keen struggle for existence would eliminate.
Our whole system of poor-relief, hospitals, and care for the defective
is based upon the idea of giving a fair chance to those who otherwise
would be crowded out of the struggle for existence altogether. The
competition today is not so much between individuals as among groups,
small or large, including competition between whole nations of men.

[Sidenote: The relative influence of inheritance and environment.]

=The Factors in Social Progress.=—Two factors have greatly influenced
the course of social evolution or social progress. These factors are
_inheritance_ and _environment_. By inheritance we mean the qualities,
physical and mental, which each generation inherits from the generation
preceding. By environment we mean the general surroundings, physical and
social, in which the people live. Mankind influences these surroundings
to a considerable extent and moulds them to his own needs, but in turn
is also influenced by them. Everything that is characteristic of man is
the result of these two forces, inheritance and environment. In some
things the first is more important, in others the second. For example,
under normal conditions the height of a man or woman is determined
almost altogether by inheritance, for no one by taking thought can add a
cubit to his stature. Intelligence, likewise, is to a large degree an
inherited quality. But morals, manners, education, and personal habits
are determined much more largely by environment than by inheritance.

[Sidenote: Which is the more potent influence?]

The respective influences of inheritance and environment cannot,
however, be in all cases clearly separated. Both often work to produce
the same result, as when a person who inherits a strong body and a sound
mind is fortunate enough to be placed in an environment where both body
and mind are developed by out-of-door life and a good education.
Sometimes they work in opposite directions, as when a child starts life
with a strong physique and good natural intelligence, but grows up in a
crowded tenement amid sordid conditions which weaken the one and fail to
afford scope for the other. We cannot say, therefore, that one factor is
always stronger or weaker than the other. The social progress of the
race is promoted by improving both influences. Environment especially
can be improved by human effort. Man’s control of his inheritance is not
nearly so complete, but everything that conduces to the betterment of
health or education and promotes a higher morality is a step towards
improving its influence.

[Sidenote: The two forms of inheritance.]

=Physical and Social Inheritance.=—The influence of inheritance is
exerted from two quarters which may be distinguished by calling them
_physical_ and _social_. [Sidenote: (_a_) Physical.] By the former we
mean the influence exerted upon human beings by the bodily and mental
traits which are handed down to them by their own parents. Not all the
characteristics of parents are transmitted to their children but mainly
those which the parents themselves have inherited. Traits or qualities
which have been acquired by the parents during their own lives do not
ordinarily descend to their children.[5] Parents who are born
feeble-minded will in all probability have feeble-minded children; but
parents who acquire through education a high degree of learning and
culture cannot transmit any of this to their children by inheritance.
There is no royal road to learning. Some of us are born with better or
worse possibilities than others, but we are all born illiterate.

[Sidenote: (_b_) Social.]

The other form of inherited influence is called our social heritage
because it represents the whole accumulation of knowledge, habits, and
expedients which have come down to us by the social process of teaching
and learning. Each generation of mankind is enormously dependent upon
its social inheritance; without it everything that we now call
civilization would collapse in a very short time. Each generation takes
over all the knowledge possessed by the one which went before; each
generation adds something to this stock of knowledge, habits, and
expedients for the benefit of the generation which comes after it. Each
generation, if it is to live happily, must adapt this social inheritance
to its own particular needs.

[Sidenote: The two kinds of environment:]

=Physical and Social Environment.=—The other great influence is that of
environment. By physical environment we mean the conditions of nature
and society in which man lives, moves, and has his being. Physical
environment includes the geographic, climatic, and other natural
conditions which surround the people. [Sidenote: (_a_) Physical.] These
conditions have an important influence upon the trend of human
development and they are not, for the most part, under man’s control.
Man must adapt himself and his ways of life to them. In cold climates he
must wear warm clothing, provide artificial heat in houses, and consume
warmth-giving food. Groups of men must everywhere mould their
occupations to the character of the soil, the natural resources, and the
other conditions of the physical environment in which they live. It is
because of differences in physical environment that the Southern states
developed cotton-culture on a large scale and employed slave labor,
while the Northern states gave their attention to farming and industry
with free labor.

Physical environment, moreover, determines in some measure the relations
of the various races with their neighbors. Men will be influenced by
neighboring groups of men in so far as physical features make
intercourse easy or difficult. A race of men who live on a distant
island, or in any other shut-off region, will not be so easily
influenced by neighboring races as if they dwelt in the midst of a
fertile plain. To some extent, as has been said, man is able to overcome
the difficulties which physical environment sets in the face of
progress. If there is inadequate rainfall, he may devise a system of
irrigation and carry on certain forms of agriculture as successfully as
though rainfall were abundant. By means of railroads, steamships, and
electric or radio communication he can be in constant contact with other
men who are separated from him by physical obstructions. But however
much the conditions of nature may be controlled, they still exert a
great influence upon human progress.

[Sidenote: (_b_) Social.]

The social environment is quite a different thing. By it we mean the
conditions altogether apart from geographic or natural features, which
influence the daily life of mankind. We include within social
environment such things as family life, the schools, the churches, the
organization and methods of industry, the form of government—everything
that society develops in the way of institutions. Many of these, as has
been pointed out, are natural growths, but the mind of man has also had
a large part in shaping their course.

[Sidenote: How customs and laws create a social environment.]

Most of the things we do, whether as a body of people or as individuals,
are merely the result of custom or general habit. Why do men have their
hair cut short while women let their hair grow long? Why do people wear
black when they are in mourning? In some countries they wear white. The
answer is merely that every nation, through long-continued habit,
develops its own ways of doing things and keeps on doing things in that
way regardless of any present reason. Orientals, when they eat their
meals, squat on the floor; Europeans and Americans seat themselves at
the table. Aryans shake hands when they meet; the Esquimos hold their
hands high above their heads as a token of greeting. The gentleman of
today, when he greets a lady on the street, raises his hat. This is not
a particularly graceful custom, nor is it in rainy weather an altogether
hygienic one; but it has been in vogue among the people of western
Europe for many centuries. It goes back to the days of chivalry when the
armored knight raised his visor to show his countenance and disclose his
identity.

Primitive races are governed largely by customs, and not until a race
has shown itself amenable to the influence of custom is it prepared to
be governed by laws. Laws differ from customs in that they have a
definite sanction, in other words are enforced by some official
authority. The institutions and practices which make up the social
environment may be the outcome of long-standing custom, like the system
of trial by jury, for example; or they may be brought into existence by
law, as, for instance, the admission of women to suffrage or the
establishment of national prohibition. The avowed purpose of all human
institutions is to promote the greatest good of the greatest number, in
other words to provide the best social environment.

=Some Important Social Forces.=—The basis of custom is habit. Customs,
in other words, are habits which extend [Sidenote: Two important social
forces: habit and imitation.] to the whole community and receive its
approval. We do not always realize how great a part _habit_ plays in our
daily lives.[6] Without it the day’s work could not be done. By habit we
walk, eat, dress ourselves, and perform many other common acts. Just
think how long it would take a novice to put the various parts of a
watch together; but the watchmaker, being habituated to the task, can do
it in an hour. The foundation of habit is _imitation_. One man does a
thing successfully; others follow his lead; a habit develops and a
general practice or custom may be the ultimate outcome. The influence of
custom is usually conservative, for when a custom is once firmly
established it does not easily give way. Take the custom of smoking
tobacco, for example. Europeans found it in vogue among the Indians when
they first came to America; they adopted it and have kept it up for more
than four hundred years. Sometimes, however, the habit or custom is only
of short duration, in which case we commonly call it a fashion. Fashions
come and go. A century ago men used snuff and women powdered their hair;
but these things have wholly passed out of fashion today.

=The Course of Social Progress.=—Having considered the various social
factors and forces (development, inheritance, environment, custom, and
so on) we are now in a position to ask and to answer the following
question: In accordance with what principle has human society developed?

There was a time when even educated people imagined that such
organizations as the state were planned in advance, that individuals
merely came together in prehistoric days and agreed after calm
deliberation to establish a civil government. That, of course, was an
absurd idea. Today we realize that one step in social organization led
gradually to another, that institutions were not created but evolved,
that various social factors and forces exerted an influence upon their
development, and that the strongest institutions survived while the
weaker disappeared.

[Sidenote: Institutions that have succumbed in the struggle for
existence.]

In the course of human history associations of every type have come into
existence; many still continue to flourish while others merely abode
their little hour and went their way. The organizations which we have
today, including the family, the school, the church, the community, the
state, are among those that have survived. Those that succumbed during
the long journey down the ages would make a formidable list. Who ever
hears nowadays of the totem-kin, the clan, or the gens? Where do we now
find tribunes, praetors, augurs, and triumvirates? Absolute monarchy, as
a form of government, once held sway over most of the world. But
democratic government entered into competition with it, and as there was
not room enough for both, one crowded the other off the stage. The great
mediaeval institution of feudalism dominated the rural life of Europe
for more than five hundred years, but the last relics of feudal tenure
have practically all been swept away. The trade guilds of the olden
days, the orders of nobility, the crowns and coronets, the soothsayers
and the alchemists—all of them have disappeared or are rapidly
disappearing. The beaches of history are strewn with the wrecks of
social and political institutions. Some others, like the hereditary
peerages of a few European countries, are barely able to keep afloat.
The institutions which survive and flourish are the ones that have been
found best fitted to survive.

[Sidenote: Importance of the family.]

=The Fundamental Social Group.=—In human society the foundation-group is
the family. Human beings are social by nature; the motive which draws
people together is so universal that we call it a natural instinct.
Individuals do not live in isolation. Nobody leads the hermit type of
life if he can avoid it. Robinson Crusoe was not on his little island
because he wanted to be there. Even among the least civilized races of
men, among savage tribes, there is a grouping of men, women, and
children on the basis of blood relationship. The family, as a unit, is
older than either the state or the community. It is the foundation upon
which other groups and organizations have been built, hence it is
rightly called the “social microcosm” or basis of society.

[Sidenote: The function of the family.]

The primary function of the family is to keep the human race in
existence. Its first duty is the rearing of children so that a new
generation may take the place of the old. Other duties that belong to
the family may be handed over to the school (the duty of secular
education) or to the church (the duty of religious instruction); but the
primary function of the family, that of perpetuating the race, is one
which cannot be transferred.

The whole stream of human life flows through the family organization.
The same virtues which make for harmony in the household,—obedience,
co-operation, loyalty, and service,—are the ones which mark good
citizenship; therefore the home is the primary school of all the civic
virtues. For this reason the collapse of the home and of home life would
be nothing short of a human catastrophe.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Illustration:

THE FAMILY. By Charles Sprague Pearce
_From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis & Cameron, Boston.
Reproduced by permission._
]

THE FAMILY

By Charles Sprague Pearce

From the mural painting in the entrance pavilion of
the North Hall, Library of Congress.

This is the ancient family. The father has just
returned from hunting. The mother holds up the baby
to welcome him and his little daughter throws
her arms about him. On the benches of stone at
either side of the group sit the grandmother and
grandfather, the latter with the air of a patriarch.
By his side lies a scroll. Three generations are
placed together in the idyllic environment of which
the poets have so often written.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: The clan.]

=Other Social Groups.=—Out of the family grew the clan, or group of
families united by ties of kinships. In early days the clan was a
wandering group, like the gipsy bands of today; but ultimately each clan
settled upon the land and became a community. In these communities men
became trained in manual labor; they developed customs and the rudiments
of a village government.

Then came the next stage—several village communities joined together for
defence against their mutual enemies. A loose confederation at first,
this group of communities in time became a state, usually with a
chieftain or a monarch at its head. In other cases a single village
community grew in size to such an extent that it became a city state,
like Athens or Sparta. The most notable example of this development is
afforded by ancient Rome, where a small community grew into a World
Empire. The family, the clan, the community, the confederation of
communities, the state, and, ultimately, the nation—that is the general
course of political evolution, although this line of development was not
in all cases exactly followed.

But the evolution was not confined to political institutions alone.
Social and economic groups and institutions developed also. A variety of
needs called forth one institution after another, the church, the
school, the club, the industrial organization. Each has its own function
in organized society.

[Sidenote: Government is the guiding hand.]

=The Rôle of Government.=—The dominating factor in the social and
economic life of today, however, is the political community (nation,
state, and municipality), acting through the agency which we call
government. Government is the great co-ordinating factor. Day by day we
are looking more and more to government for leadership, for regulation,
and for supervision in all our greater social and economic activities.
In the field of social and economic effort, all roads lead through
government—it is the clearing house of our greater problems. Whether the
problem be one of banking, commerce, poor-relief, labor, or defence we
must reckon with the hand of government as one of the strongest among
constructive and harmonizing factors. Government is the focal point in
all civic relations. It provides a thread which winds its way along
every main line of civic activity. That has been particularly noticeable
in European countries; but it is now true of America as well. The
greatest of our socializing agencies is government.

[Sidenote: America’s emphasis on individualism.]

=Individual Liberty and Social Control.=—In the United States strong
emphasis has always been laid upon individual freedom, and rightly so,
because the encouragement of individual initiative is essential to
progress in a new country. The exploitation of vast natural resources
required that men should be given encouragement to pioneer, and should
not be held down by too much governmental interference. “That government
is best which interferes the least” was the common notion. Stress was
laid upon the prosperity of the individual rather than upon the welfare
of the whole people. This doctrine of extreme individualism undoubtedly
served a useful purpose in the days when the country’s biggest problem
was to increase production and gain for itself a place among the strong
nations of the world.

[Sidenote: The influence of the frontier.]

To a considerable extent this emphasis upon individualism was due to the
influence of the frontier. From the first settlement of the country down
to about 1880 the American people were engaged in the task of marching
steadily westward, conquering the wilderness as they went. This
mastering of a great domain demanded qualities of enterprise,
initiative, and individual courage. It developed men’s confidence in
their own power and made them reliant upon their own efforts. In old
countries the natural tendency is for the individual to look to the
public authorities for leadership, guidance, and supervision; on the
great American frontier the pioneers had to hew their own way. They
preceded the state and the community. This emphasis upon individual
initiative remained as the frontier rolled west and profoundly affected
the whole social temper of the country.

[Sidenote: The nature and scope of social control.]

In time a reaction came. Social control developed. The more thickly
populated a country becomes, the more complicated do the relations of
individuals grow, and the greater is the need for general restraint.
Social control, however, is not merely negative in its purpose. Its
object is not simply to restrain individuals in their freedom of action
but to encourage them in the thing which the general welfare demands.
The government is the chief agency through which social control is
exercised, but it is by no means the only one. Religious, fraternal,
professional, and benevolent organizations do a good deal in the same
general direction. Their function is to promote collective interests as
distinguished from the interests of individuals; they protect the
collective interests against the avarice or selfishness of individuals.
The government exercises social control by means of laws and
administrative orders; other organizations exercise it by their own
rules or by customs which the members obey.

[Sidenote: The limits of social control.]

There is always a danger, of course, that social control may proceed too
far. It is not the object of government and of social organizations to
run all men in the same mould, making them mere automatons without
individuality or initiative. Government should aim to give sufficient
scope for every individual to use his abilities in the best possible
way. Control over the acts and discretion of individuals is justified
only where such control promotes, in the long run, the well-being of the
greatest number of individuals. The state is not an end in itself.
Society is not an end in itself. The individual is the end. Society and
the state are merely means to the promotion of the general welfare and
the welfare of the individual. Their activities in the way of exercising
social control should go no further than this.

General References

C. H. COOLEY, _Social Organization_, pp. 3-22;

H. G. WELLS, _Outline of History_, Vol. I, pp. 3-103;

C. A. ELLWOOD, _Sociology and Modern Social Problems_, pp. 7-59;

F. S. CHAPIN, _Social Evolution_, pp. 3-101;

VERNON KELLOGG, _Darwinism Today_, pp. 10-57; 129-157;

J. A. THOMSON, _Darwinism and Human Life_, pp. 181-237;

D. S. JORDAN and V. L. KELLOGG, _Evolution and Animal Life_, pp. 1-56;

T. N. CARVER, _Sociology and Social Progress_, pp. 174-270;

E. A. ROSS, _Social Control_, pp. 1-105.

Group Problems

=1. How far should society control the conduct of individuals?= Why
social control is exercised. The extent of social control in older
countries,—Great Britain, France, and Germany. Its growth in America.
Causes of this growth. The point at which it ceases to be justified.
Illustrations. Effects of too much emphasis on individualism. Effects of
too much social restraint. Relation of social control to socialism.
=References=: E. A. ROSS, _Social Control_, pp. 49-76; H. G. WELLS, _New
Worlds for Old_, pp. 1-55; T. N. CARVER, _Sociology and Social
Progress_, pp. 788-808; _Ibid, Principles of National Economy_, pp.
740-749.

=2. What is progress? References=: F. S. MARVIN, _Progress and History_,
pp. 8-10; JOHN DEWEY “Progress” in _International Journal of Ethics_,
xxvi, 312-318 (1916); JAMES BRYCE, _Essays and Addresses in War Time_,
pp. 84-102 (War and Progress); GEORGE NASMYTH, _Social Progress and the
Darwinian Theory_.

Short Studies

1. =The past in the present.= H. R. BURCH and S. H. PATTERSON, _American
Social Problems_, pp. 33-43.

2. =The beginnings of civilization.= H. G. WELLS, _Outline of History_,
Vol. I, pp. 183-208.

3. =Earlier forms of the family.= C. A. ELLWOOD, _Sociology and Modern
Social Problems_, pp. 108-130.

4. =The development of the tribe into the community.= J. Q. DEALEY, _The
State and Government_, pp. 24-45.

5. =The American family as an economic unit.= MARY K. SIMKHOVITCH, _The
City Worker’s World_, pp. 1-21.

6. =The relation of leisure to family life.= FLORENCE KELLEY, _Some
Ethical Gains through Legislation_, pp. 105-125.

7. =The influence of environment.= F. S. CHAPIN, _Social Evolution_, pp.
121-170.

8. =Habit.= WILLIAM JAMES, _Psychology_, I, pp. 104-127.

9. =The influence of frontier conditions upon the development of
American society.= F. J. TURNER, _The Frontier in American History_, pp.
1-38.

10. =Individualism.= HERBERT SPENCER, _Social Statics_, pp. 100-136; C.
W. ELIOT, _The Conflict between Individualism and Collectivism in a
Democracy_, pp. 1-42.

Questions

1. How would you define “society”? Is it an organism? What resemblances
to an organism does it bear?

2. Explain the following terms: instinct; impulse; natural selection;
social inheritance; social environment; habit; custom; fashion; mob
mind; institution; social control. Give examples of each.

3. How has physical environment affected the ideas of the American
people in relation to (_a_) national defence; (_b_) form of government;
(_c_) social control? How has the physical environment of England
affected the ideas of the English people on the same matters?

4. What racial characteristics do you find most strongly marked in the
(_a_) Scotch; (_b_) Irish; (_c_) Scandinavians; (_d_) Italians; (_e_)
Jews; (_f_) Japanese?

5. Name any institutions, other than those given in the text, which have
served mankind for a time and been discarded.

6. Can you think of any customs which are universal throughout the
world? Any which prevail in the United States but not elsewhere? Any
which prevail in some parts of the United States but not in others?

7. Do Americans in general pay too much deference to custom? Is there
any ground for the European idea that there is “too much uniformity” in
American life?

8. Are crowds likely to be more conservative or more radical than the
individuals who compose them? Give your reasons. What is the difference
between a mob, a crowd, a meeting, and a deliberative assembly?

9. The family, as an organization, differs not only in size but in
nature, from all other social organizations such as the community, the
state and the nation. Show how this is.

10. In what ways would society suffer if the family as a social unit
were broken down?

11. To what extent has society the right to regulate, as a measure of
self-protection, the institution of marriage?

12. Why have we laid emphasis upon individualism in this country?
Explain why this stress is being steadily diminished.

13. Should social control be exercised over (_a_) the methods of
agriculture; (_b_) the marketing of timber; (_c_) the production and
sale of tobacco; (_d_) the rates charged by electric lighting companies;
(_e_) the price of bread at retail bakeries; (_f_) the hours of labor
for men; (_g_) the hours of labor for women; (_h_) the kind of pictures
shown in theaters; (_i_) the diet of the people; (_j_) the hours at
which young people may be on the streets after dark; (_k_) the religious
beliefs of the people? Tell why or why not in each case. Is a greater
degree of social control justified over certain classes of the
population than over others? Is it justified at certain times and not at
others?

14. If society exercises too little control over the individual, what
evils result? If it exercises too much control, what are the
consequences (_a_) upon the individual; (_b_) upon society itself?

Topics for Debate

1. Physical environment has had a more important influence than racial
characteristics in determining the establishment and maintenance of
democratic institutions in the United States.

2. Thomas Jefferson was right when he said “That government is best
which governs least”.

3. Society is under obligation to ensure every industrious man a decent
living.

-----

Footnote 1:

For example, by covering Chapters i, ii, iv-xvi, xxviii-xxix, in the
first term and Chapters iii, xvii-xxvii, xxx-xxxii in the second.

Footnote 2:

Charles Darwin, a distinguished English student of biology, was born
in 1809, and died in 1882. His theory was set forth in two famous
books, _The Origin of Species_ and _The Descent of Man_.

Footnote 3:

The most interesting general account of the beginnings of life and the
ancestry of man is that given in H. G. Wells’ _Outline of History_,
Vol. I, pp. 3-103. A brief summary of the evidence on which the
doctrine of evolution rests may be conveniently found in H. R. Burch
and S. H. Patterson, American Social Problems, pp. 12-32.

Footnote 4:

For a discussion of these other factors see Vernon Kellogg, _Darwinism
Today_.

Footnote 5:

There has been much discussion among scientists as to whether acquired
characteristics can be transmitted at all. The best opinion seems to
be against such transmission, but some biologists still hold to the
belief that transmission is possible, particularly in the lower
organisms. For a further discussion see W. E. Castle, _Genetics and
Eugenics_, pp. 26-27.

Footnote 6:

One of the best things ever written is the chapter on “Habit” in
William James’s _Psychology_. No one will regret the time spent in
reading it.

CHAPTER II
THE PEOPLE, RACES, AND RACIAL PROBLEMS OF
THE UNITED STATES

_The purpose of this chapter is to explain how the population of the
United States has grown, how it is distributed, the varied races of
which it is composed, and the racial problems which immigration has
created._

[Sidenote: How the national population has grown.]

=We, the People of the United States.=—The national constitution begins
with the words: “We, the People of the United States”. But who are the
people? No one cares to carry a lot of figures in his head and most
people think that statistics are uninteresting; but there are some
figures which everyone ought to know and, moreover, there are some
statistics which are far from being dry or tedious. The figures relating
to the population of the United States, its growth and distribution, are
interesting because they portray something that the world has never seen
before and probably will never see again,—a country doubling its
population four times in just about a single century. That is what the
United States did in the hundred years from 1790 to 1890. In 1790 the
entire population was less than four millions. (There are more people in
the single city of New York today, and almost as many in Chicago.) The
population had doubled in 1813, and had doubled again in 1838, when it
passed sixteen million. In 1864, only twenty-four years later, it had
doubled once more (32,000,000). It passed the sixty-four million mark in
1891, and in all probability will double for the fifth time about the
year 1940. In 1920, when the last national census was taken the
population had passed 105,000,000.

[Sidenote: Will this increase continue? If so, with what results?]

Now if you will take the data at the foot of the page and work the
calculation to the year 2000 (allowing for the gradual slackening of the
increase) what will the population of the United States be then?[7] It
will be around three hundred millions, which is more than the white
population of the entire world today. Even so the country would not be
nearly so thickly populated as some European countries now are. Today
there are in the United States about thirty-five persons to the square
mile. But there are 700 to the square mile in England and 658 per square
mile in Belgium, which are two of the most thickly-populated of all
countries at the present time.[8] Three hundred million people in the
United States, if the figure should reach that total at the end of the
twentieth century, would be less than one hundred per square mile. There
would still be six acres of ground for every man, woman and child in the
country. Whether there would be a sufficient food supply to support so
large a population is another question and one which is not so easily
answered.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CENTER OF POPULATION

The way in which the center of population has been
steadily moving westward is indicated by this map.
It will be noted that in its journey to the west it
has held closely to the 39th parallel of latitude.
The median point, on the other hand, has remained
practically fixed during the last thirty years.

The location of the median point is determined as
follows: Take the parallel of latitude which divides
the country in such manner that half the population
is north of that parallel and half is south of it;
similarly, take the meridian of longitude which
divides the country in such manner that half the
population is east of it and half is west of it; the
intersection of this parallel and this meridian is
called the median point.

[Illustration:

CENTRE OF POPULATION
AT EACH CENSUS: 1790 TO 1920

MEDIAN POINT
1880 TO 1920

☆ CENTER OF POPULATION Δ MEDIAN POINT
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: Some areas are more densely populated than others.]

=How the National Population is Distributed.=—The people of the United
States are very unevenly distributed over the face of the country. Great
areas, particularly in the West, have only a few persons to the square
mile, while the crowded sections of the largest cities have many
hundreds to the acre. Even the rural areas of some states are thickly
settled while in others the people are few and far between. Rhode Island
is nearly as densely populated as Belgium, having about 566 people to
the square mile while many states of the Western mountain region have
only seven or eight inhabitants per square mile of territory. The
reasons for this uneven distribution are chiefly geographical. The
states which have grown most rapidly in population are not necessarily
the oldest states but the ones which have the greatest natural
advantages in the way of fertile soil, or mineral resources, or harbors
and waterways, or favorable climate. People make their homes in those
regions where they can best make a living.

[Sidenote: Climate affects the density of population.]

Favorable climatic conditions exert a strong influence in attracting
population. It is an interesting fact, often noted by students of
history, that whereas civilization developed earliest in the tropical
and semi-tropical zones it has everywhere made its greatest advance in
the regions of moderate temperatures and rainfall. Taking the broad
strip of country which lies between the thirty-seventh and the
forty-fifth parallels of latitude, it will be found that nearly
four-fifths of the entire population is concentrated within this
mid-latitude area of the United States. And this is the area which, in
all probability, will continue to be the most thickly settled.

[Sidenote: The center of population in 1920.]

The center of population in 1920 was at Whitehall, Owen County, Indiana,
a little town of forty-three inhabitants which burst into prominence
overnight when the census bureau announced it as the pivot of the
nation. By the center of population is meant the point which the
greatest number of people could reach with the least amount of travel.
This point, at each successive census, has been steadily moving westward
following very closely the thirty-ninth parallel of latitude. In 1790 it
was at Baltimore, in 1840 in West Virginia, in 1880 in Ohio, and since
1890 it has been moving westward across Indiana.[9] The center of
population is a long way from the center of area, the latter being in
Northern Kansas not far from the Nebraska border.

=The Drift of Population to the Cities.=—The distribution of the people
has also been influenced by the growth of large cities. In 1790 there
were only five communities with populations exceeding 8000, namely New
York, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, and Charleston. Taken altogether
they had only 130,000 inhabitants, that is to say only one person in
every thirty lived in these towns. But so rapidly did the various towns
and cities spring up all over the country that by the time of the Civil
War there were nearly 150 with populations above 8000, and today there
are nearly a thousand. Not a single American city had 70,000 population
in 1790; today there are more than a hundred such cities.

[Sidenote: The chief causes of city growth.]

This remarkable drift of population into the towns and cities, which
began early in the nineteenth century and has continued ever since,
shows no signs of slackening. It is due to many causes, including the
great demand for industrial labor in the cities, the attractiveness of
city life to the young men and women of the country districts (see p.
351), and the tendency of the immigrants to locate in the crowded
centers. Wherever industry and commerce thrive, there cities will be
built and will grow. Half the population of the United States is now
living in towns and cities of over 2500 population. If the drift to the
cities continues at its present rate of progress, ninety per cent of the
people will be living in the cities and towns by 1980 and only ten per
cent in the country districts. That is already the case in England.[10]
One Englishman in every seven lives in London. That seems to be a very
striking fact until we remember that one American in every ten lives in
New York, Chicago, or Philadelphia. New York City has nearly six
millions now; in fifty years, at its present rate of growth, it will be
an urban giant of fifteen millions or more.

[Sidenote: Why most immigrants go to the cities.]

Why do the immigrants go to the cities rather than to the country
districts? The chief reason is that most immigrants come to the United
States to find work, and work is most easily found in the large cities.
The great majority of immigrants have learned no trade before they come
to America, hence they must seek jobs which require no great amount of
skill or training. Another reason is that the immigrants want to be near
others who speak their own language. In every large city these foreign
colonies or settlements are created—Italian, Polish, Jewish, and so on.
The newcomer naturally prefers to live in one of these colonies until he
learns the English language, but having become accustomed to the city he
rarely leaves it. Among the many millions of immigrants who have come to
America during the past fifty years the great majority have gone to the
cities, particularly to the large cities. New York City, for example,
contains today more than two million people who were not born in this
country. Nevertheless, the cities have not been built up by the
immigrant alone. Large numbers of native Americans have left the rural
districts and have helped to swell the population of the urban centers.

=The Ebb and Flow of Immigration.=—The United States has been the
melting-pot of the nations. No other country has ever welcomed to its
shores so many millions of people from all parts of the earth. One
hundred years ago there were relatively few foreign-born persons in the
country. But waves of immigration soon began to come and the number of
incoming aliens, which was less than ten thousand in 1790, rose to more
than four hundred thousand in some of the years preceding the Civil War.
The immigrants during this period were for the most part from England,
Ireland, and Germany. During the Civil War the influx subsided, but when
the war was over it quickly began to swell once more and it continued,
with various ups and downs, to the outbreak of the World War in 1914.

[Sidenote: Where the immigrants have come from.]

In some years, during this period since 1865 the number of immigrants
has been as low as 200,000; in other years it has run above a million.
Nearly every European race has been represented in this influx, although
some have come in much larger numbers than others. Down to about 1880
most of the newcomers were from Ireland, England, Scotland, Germany, the
Scandinavian countries, and the other regions of Northern Europe. But
since that date the source of immigration has been steadily shifting.
During the past forty years a much larger proportion has been coming
from Italy, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Greece, and some of the smaller
countries.[11] This has brought in many millions of people who are not
of Celtic or Teutonic stock.

[Sidenote: Effects of the war on immigration.]

Upon the outbreak of the great European conflict in 1914 the flow of
immigration subsided quickly and while the war lasted it practically
ceased altogether. This was due in part to the reluctance of European
countries to let their people leave, and in part due to the lack of
shipping, since all available vessels were engaged in carrying troops,
munitions, and supplies. Immediately after the close of hostilities,
however, the exodus from Europe recommenced, and in the year 1920 the
figures of immigration once more rose into the hundreds of thousands. In
spite of the strict regulations imposed by the United States government,
enormous numbers of people in Poland, Italy, Hungary, and various other
countries began applying for permission to migrate. The American
consular offices in Europe were besieged by long lines of people waiting
all day for passports to the Promised Land. In the face of this
threatened flood Congress felt impelled to place all immigration under
strict limitation, as will be explained a few paragraphs later.

During the hundred years from 1820 to 1920 it is estimated that more
than thirty million immigrants reached the United States, which is the
largest migration in history.[12] It is true that considerable numbers
of these immigrants eventually drifted back to their native lands but
the larger portion of them remained permanently here.

[Sidenote: The various factors which have caused Europeans to leave
their own countries.]

=Causes of Immigration.=—The causes of immigration to this country are
manifold. First in importance among them is the economic attractiveness
of the United States. Cheap land, equal opportunities, the ease with
which any industrious man or woman can make a living—these are the
magnets which drew millions of people across the Atlantic during the
nineteenth century. But there were other causes, namely, the existence
in various parts of Europe of conditions which encouraged the people to
emigrate. Religious persecution was one of the first things that drove
men or women to America. It brought the Pilgrims to Massachusetts in the
early days, the Quakers to Pennsylvania, and the English Catholics to
Maryland. Political oppression in the middle years of the nineteenth
century sent several million Germans to the United States, particularly
to the Middle West. Oppression, both religious and political, has been
instrumental in driving the Jews across the seas. Overcrowding in both
the cities and the rural regions of Europe and the consequent inability
of the people to obtain lands of their own, has been responsible for
much of the drift to America. The exhaustion of the soil in Ireland, the
crop failures and consequent famines there, have led to the migrations
of the Irish, although dissatisfaction with political conditions has
also been a factor in this case. To a considerable extent, moreover,
immigration has been assisted by those aliens who were already settled
in this country. Immigrants arrived in this country and by hard work
soon became prosperous. Then they sent passage-money to their friends
and relatives until whole groups of families were enabled to come to
America in this way. The steamship companies, too, have advertised the
attractions of America in all parts of Europe; they have kept agents at
work in many countries, and have been an important factor in promoting
immigration.

[Sidenote: The economic factors have been the most important.]

Nevertheless the underlying causes of immigration are economic.
Immigrants come in greater numbers when prosperity reigns in America
than in periods of business depression. This indicates that high wages
and plenty of employment are the things which have the greatest
influence in bringing them here. The democratic institutions of America
have played their part, no doubt, and the relative social equality which
exists among the people of the United States has been an attraction to
those who are denied such equality in their own homelands. But the
equality of economic opportunity, the open career, the chance of making
a good living and even a fortune—these, after all, have been and still
are the impelling forces.

[Sidenote: How the immigrant has affected American life.]

=The Effects of Immigration.=—A large immigration is certain to have
far-reaching effects, particularly if the newcomers be of a widely
different race. It has assuredly had far-reaching effects in the United
States. Take the importation of the negroes as the most conspicuous
example. The coming of several hundred thousand persons of African
blood, during the years preceding 1808, has resulted in placing a
colored population of more than ten millions in the heart of a white
man’s country, with all the social, economic, and political problems
that this situation implies. It influenced the agricultural system of
the Southern states, provided the underlying causes of the Civil War,
and has profoundly affected the politics of the United States down to
the present day. The problem presented by the immigration of the various
European races has been altogether different because these races can be
assimilated whereas the negroes can not. Even so, the European
immigration has presented its own problems and the coming of these many
millions has had profound effects upon every branch of American life.

[Sidenote: The making of a composite race.]

=Social Effects.=—The social effects are chiefly in the way of
introducing natural traits or qualities which were not in the American
people during the early period. Immigration has resulted in making a
cosmopolitan population which is not uniform in temperament or tastes,
and can be made uniform only by the long-continued process of
assimilation. This lack of uniformity is in some ways an advantage, not
a defect. It may give us, in the long run, a more vigorous population
than could ever be had from the development of a single strain. Whether
the new composite race which ultimately emerges from the melting-pot
will be superior or inferior to the original stock is something which
only the future can tell. One disappointing feature is to be found in
the fact that many of these immigrants are inferior to the average
native-born American in physique, in mentality, and in moral fibre. It
is sometimes asserted that the immigrant population is responsible for
more than its due proportion of crime but no satisfactory evidence has
yet been brought forward to prove this statement. It is a fact, however,
that poverty and illiteracy are more common among the foreign-born than
among the native white population. It is quite likely that the new
environment will do much to remedy this condition and that the second
generation, through the work of the public schools, may measure up to
the native-born. These public schools are the most potent of all forces
in the work of Americanization. It is upon them that we must depend to
make the ultimate social effects of assimilation beneficial to the
country.

[Sidenote: Immigration in its relation to industry and labor.]

=Economic Effects.=—Immigration has had important economic results. It
has kept the labor market well supplied and throughout the last
three-quarters of a century has aided the great industrial expansion of
the country. American industry and commerce could not have grown to such
proportions without the man-power which has been obtained in such
enormous quantities from Europe. We have used great numbers of aliens in
building the railroads of the country, in mines and steel mills, in
workshops and factories. On the other hand the flood of immigration has
at times proved too strong. It has on occasions served to produce an
over-supply of labor and this, in turn, has caused wages to fall. Labor
leaders claim that the steady stream of immigrants has prevented the
rise in the American workman’s standard of living which otherwise would
have taken place. Organized labor would like to place a protective duty
upon immigrants. If the newcomers could be scattered evenly over the
whole country instead of being concentrated in the urban areas, this
danger of glutting the labor supply would be very small. In any case, as
has already been pointed out, the situation tends to adjust itself,
because immigration always falls off when business depression causes a
slackening in the demand for labor.

[Sidenote: Ways in which the immigrant has influenced American
politics.]

=Political Effects.=—The exact political effects of immigration are hard
to determine. It is to be remembered that most of our immigrants have
come from countries where they were given no political opportunities, or
almost none. Prior to their arrival in the United States they have had
no experience with democratic institutions. Yet we have freely offered
them, after five years of residence, the privilege of becoming citizens
and voters. The rest of the world has always looked upon this as a very
dangerous experiment in democratic government; nevertheless its results
have not been at all disastrous. True enough, the newcomers have often
been exploited by unscrupulous politicians and they have sometimes
allowed themselves to be misled into supporting incompetent or corrupt
candidates, especially in the large cities. But the alien immigrant is
not wholly or even chiefly responsible for the bad government that we
have had from time to time in various parts of the country. Some of the
worst political abuses have flourished in states and cities where the
proportion of foreign-born citizens is relatively small. Political
reformers rail at the iniquities of “foreign-born bosses”, but the fact
is that most of our notorious political bosses have been native-born.
Notwithstanding the admission of many million aliens to all the rights
of American citizenship it can be fairly claimed that American
government in its various branches, national, state, and local, is just
as honest and efficient as that of any other country.

[Sidenote: The gradual stiffening of the regulations.]

=The Restriction of Immigration.=—Until about forty years ago there were
practically no restrictions upon the coming of aliens to the United
States, but in 1882 laws were passed by Congress to exclude paupers,
criminals, and the insane. All laborers of the Mongolian race were also
debarred. Three years later, in 1885, it was provided that no immigrant
of any race should be admitted to the United States if under contract to
perform labor in this country. And from this date to the present the
restrictions have gradually been tightened. In 1917 Congress established
a literacy test for all immigrants over sixteen years of age, and in
1921 it made further provision that the number of immigrants admitted
each year from any European country should not exceed three per cent of
the natives of that country already in the United States, as shown by
the census figures of 1910. A tax of eight dollars per person is now
imposed upon every immigrant.

[Sidenote: Should immigration be altogether forbidden?]

There are some who believe that it would be wise to prohibit immigration
altogether, at any rate until conditions in both Europe and America
become more settled. They argue that we already have as many aliens as
we can Americanize for some time; that immigration at the present time
increases unemployment, and that the quality of immigrants is now
considerably below what it used to be. On the other hand it is urged
that the industrial growth of the United States requires a larger supply
of labor than can be provided without immigration and that by providing
proper facilities for selection we can make sure of getting only the
right type of immigrant.

=Our Racial Problems.=—We have several serious racial problems in this
country including the problem of the European immigrants in the East
(particularly in the cities), the negroes in the South, and the Japanese
on the Pacific slope. The large percentage of European immigrants in the
Eastern cities has already been mentioned, and the problems which their
presence in these cities creates have been alluded to. The European
immigrant can be assimilated, but the process takes time because a large
part of it must be accomplished through education. If the immigrants
could be persuaded to scatter over the country instead of congregating
in the cities with their fellow-immigrants, the problem of making real
Americans out of them in a short time would be simplified.

[Sidenote: Extent of the negro population.]

=The Negroes.=—The problem of the negro is older and more difficult
still. They are of a race so far removed from the white population of
the United States that there is no hope of their ever being assimilated.
They were brought here by the tens of thousands without any adequate
appreciation of the problem which their presence would eventually
create, and they form an unmeltable mass in the melting-pot of American
society. At the outbreak of the Civil War the colored population of the
United States, most of whom were then slaves, numbered less than five
millions, or about one-tenth of the total population of the entire
country. Now they number about ten millions. In other words the negroes
have a little more than doubled in sixty years. This is a much slower
rate of natural increase than has been made during the same sixty years
by the white population. A high death rate, especially in the cities, is
mainly responsible for this.

[Sidenote: Economic status of the negro.]

The chief home of the negro is still, as it has been from the beginning,
in the South. Nearly nine-tenths of the colored population of the United
States lives below the Mason and Dixon line, particularly in the great
agricultural plain which stretches from Virginia southwestward to Texas.
In two states, Mississippi and South Carolina, the blacks outnumber the
whites; in three others, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, they almost
equal them. Most of the Southern negroes live in the rural districts and
are engaged in the cultivation of the soil; those who have made their
way to the Northern states, more than a million in all, live chiefly in
the cities. During the past few years the negroes have been coming
northward in greater numbers.

[Sidenote: Can the negro problem be solved?]

The problem of the negro has many phases, political, social, and
economic. The political problem arises from the fact that although the
negroes are guaranteed by the constitution the right to vote they are by
one means or another debarred from voting in practically all the
Southern states. The economic problems have been due, in the main, to
the lack of educational facilities for the negro, and particularly to
the absence of opportunities for vocational education. This defect is
now being remedied to some extent by the spread of vocational schools,
of which Tuskegee and Hampton Institute are the best-known examples. The
social separation between the white and colored races, especially in the
Southern states, is as absolute as ever it was and there is no reason to
think that this separation will ever be broken down. When two races in
the same community must live their lives entirely apart there is bound
to be some mutual suspicion and distrust. In any case the negro problem,
in its various phases, must be solved by the white population of the
Southern states if it is to be solved at all.

[Sidenote: The “gentlemen’s agreement”.]

=The Japanese on the Pacific Slope.=—Some years ago the influx of
Japanese into the states of the Pacific slope gave rise to the fear that
the Far West would soon have a great racial problem on its hands if this
immigration were allowed to go on unchecked. One of these states,
California, enacted laws designed to prevent the owning or leasing of
land by Japanese and pressure was brought upon Congress with a view to
having the Japanese shut out of the country altogether. In the end,
through diplomatic negotiations, a “gentlemen’s agreement” was concluded
between the American and Japanese governments by which the latter
promised to grant no more passports enabling its citizens to emigrate to
the United States, except in the case of merchants, students and others
whose residence in this country would be temporary. The Japanese
government has lived up to the letter of this agreement, but this has
not prevented a good many Japanese coming into the United States under
one subterfuge or another. The Western states are determined that their
territory shall remain a “white man’s country”; on the other hand the
Japanese government is not willing to agree by formal treaty to the
exclusion of its own people from any other country. As a great and
powerful nation, civilized and progressive, Japan feels that such a
treaty would be a humiliation. So there the matter rests at present.
Japanese are not forbidden to enter the United States; we are merely
depending upon the informal promise of the Japanese government to keep
them from coming here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE MELTING POT

By Vesper L. George

From a mural painting in the McClain High School,
Greenfield, Ohio.

From the giant steamship at the left comes a
procession which includes men, women, and children
of many races. Each immigrant, whether Greek or
Russian, Jew or Gentile, brings some gift of art or
skill to lay at the feet of America, his new
motherland. The Melting Pot is not a huge cauldron
into which all individuality is to be poured so that
it may become a homogeneous and commonplace mass,
but a crucible in which the gold of character and
personality is to be discovered and refined for the
enrichment of all.

To the right are the sons and daughters of these
immigrants. They have become successful in the
trades and professions; they and their children have
gained education; they are contributing their share
to the wealth, government, defence, and prosperity
of the nation. The picture embodies a spirit of true
Americanism.

[Illustration:

THE MELTING POT. By Vesper L. George

_Copyright by Vesper L. George. From a Copley Print, copyright by
Curtis & Cameron, Boston. Reproduced by permission._

_On the Pillar to the left the words Equality and Liberty indicate
what the immigrants seek in America. On the Pillar to the right the
words Opportunity and Prosperity indicate what they find. On the
pedestal are graven the stirring words which Paul addressed to the
men of Athens nearly nineteen hundred years ago._
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

=Americanization.=—Among the European immigrants now in the United
States there are many thousands who cannot speak the English language,
who have never become citizens, know nothing about the way in which
American government is carried on, and have no comprehension of American
political or social ideals. This situation was not fully appreciated
until the outbreak of the World War. During the past few years an
earnest attempt has been made both by the public educational authorities
and by private organizations to Americanize these people by helping them
to learn the language, to obtain a knowledge of American history, to
become naturalized, and to acquire a proper conception of what American
democracy implies. This does not mean, of course, that we desire all
people, of whatever race, to possess the same temperamental traits, or
hold the same opinions, or have the same point of view. Diversity in
individual qualities, physical, mental, and moral, is not undesirable
provided the differences are not so great as to prevent the various
elements from adequately understanding one another. By Americanization
we do not mean, therefore, that every newcomer to this country should
submerge his individuality in the general mass, discard his own
inherited traits, and put on a veneer of Americanism. Rather it implies
that those who are the children of the soil, the native-born, should
exemplify the Golden Rule towards the stranger who comes within our
gates and should endeavor to show him, by actions as well as words, the
meaning of good citizenship in a democracy.

General References

T. N. CARVER, _Principles of National Economy_, pp. 123-140;

J. R. COMMONS, _Races and Immigrants in America_, pp. 1-38; 63-106;

J. W. JENKS and W. JETT LAUCK, _The Immigration Problem_, pp. 1-39;
40-66;

MARY ANTIN, _The Promised Land_, pp. 180-240;

EDWARD A. STEINER, _On the Trail of the Immigrant_, pp. 292-333;

PETER ROBERTS, _The New Immigration_, pp. 124-172; 173-199;

E. A. ROSS, _The Old World in the New_, pp. 228-281, and passim;

BOOKER T. WASHINGTON, _Up From Slavery_, pp. 1-62;

L. H. GULICK, _The American-Japanese Problem_, pp. 3-27; 118-183.

Group Problems

=1. Should immigration be further restricted?= The history of
immigration. What the immigrants have done for the United States.
Economic, social, and political disadvantages of immigration. The
present restrictions. Figures showing the probable influx of immigrants
under the percentage system during the next ten years. What further
restrictions would improve the quality of immigration? How might these
restrictions be enforced? Could the selection be made at the port of
sailing? Conclusions. References: P. F. HALL, _Immigration_, pp.
121-138; J. W. JENKS and W. J. LAUCK, _The Immigration Problem_, pp.
135-197; E. A. ROSS, _The Old World in the New_, pp. 282-304; PETER
ROBERTS, _The New Immigration_, pp. 341-359; Debaters’ Handbook Series,
_Immigration_, pp. 69-81; 148-163 (arguments on both sides); F. J.
WARNE, _The Tide of Immigration_, pp. 313-361.

=2. The foreign-born population of your own community.= Take some such
book as F. A. BUSHEE’S _Ethnic Factors in the Population of Boston_, or
H. B. WOOLSTON’S _Study of the Population of Manhattanville_, or ROBERT
A. WOODS’ _Americans in Process_, and note the plan followed in studying
the characteristics of foreign-born groups. Some excellent suggestions
can be had from CAROL ARONOVICI’S booklet _Knowing One’s Own Community_.
Apply this plan to a survey of your own town or city. Some data can be
had from the national and state census reports in the case of larger
cities; in smaller communities the material must be gathered by field
work.

=3. An effective program of Americanization.= References: F. S.
BOGARDUS, _Americanization_, pp. 186-225; PETER ROBERTS, _The Problem of
Americanization_, especially pp. 45-108.

Short Studies

1. =The economic effects of immigration.= E. A. ROSS, _The Old World in
the New_, pp. 195-227.

2. =The immigrant in American politics.= M. K. SIMKHOVITCH, _The City
Worker’s World_, pp. 181-209; P. F. HALL, _Immigration_, pp. 183-198; R.
A. WOODS, _Americans in Process_, pp. 147-189.

3. =The German immigrant.= A. B. FAUST, _The German Element in the
United States_, pp. 357-390.

4. =The Italian immigrant.= R. F. FOERSTER, _The Italian Immigration of
Our Times_, pp. 374-411.

5. =The Slavic immigrant.= E. G. BALCH, _Our Slavic Fellow Citizens_,
pp. 349-377.

6. =Our treatment of the immigrant.= JACOB A. RIIS, _The Making of an
American_, pp. 58-100; E. A. STEINER, _From Alien to Citizen_, pp.
53-71; 122-168.

7. =Immigrant life in the large cities.= R. A. WOODS, _The City
Wilderness_, pp. 33-57; _Ibid., Americans in Process_, pp. 104-146.

8. =The economic problems of the negro.= BOOKER T. WASHINGTON, _The
Future of the Negro_, pp. 42-66; CARL KELSEY, _The Negro Farmer_, pp.
22-28, and _passim_.

9. =The problem of the Japanese on the Pacific coast.= L. H. GULICK,
_The American-Japanese Problem_, pp. 3-27; H. A. MILLIS, _The Japanese
Problem in the United States_, pp. 152-196.

10. =As others see us.= HUGO MUENSTERBERG, _The Americans_, pp. 229-254.

Questions

1. What has been the relative rate of increase of population in your own
state during the last two decades? Has the rate been more or less rapid
than that of the nation as a whole? To what features is the difference
due? What racial elements are strong in the population of your state and
in what industries are each of these elements chiefly engaged?

2. What have been the impelling causes of immigration from (_a_)
Germany; (_b_) Ireland; (_c_) Italy; (_d_) Russia?

3. Give four reasons why most immigrants settle in the cities.

4. Explain the principal effects of immigration upon (_a_) the growth of
industry; (_b_) the scale of wages; (_c_) municipal politics; (_d_) the
public school system (including evening schools, etc.).

5. Which races are the most difficult to assimilate and why?

6. Make some definite suggestions as to how the conditions of the negro
race can be made more tolerable in this country.

7. Should Japanese as well as Chinese be excluded by law from
immigrating to the United States? Give your reasons.

8. What mistakes are we most likely to make in our zeal for the
Americanization of non-English speaking immigrants?

Topics for Debate

1. The period of residence required for the naturalization of aliens
should be extended to more than five years.

2. Aliens ought to be debarred from employment on national, state, and
municipal work.

3. The national government should take jurisdiction over and prevent all
racial discrimination by the state.

-----

Footnote 7:

The following table shows the increase, by decades, in round figures:

1790— 3,900,000 1840— 17,000,000 1890— 62,900,000
1800— 5,300,000 1850— 23,100,000 1900— 75,900,000
1810— 7,200,000 1860— 31,400,000 1910— 91,900,000
1820— 9,600,000 1870— 38,500,000 1920—105,000,000
1830— 12,800,000 1880— 50,000,000

From this it will be seen that the ratio of increase is declining. The
population increased about one-third in each decade from 1790 to 1860;
by about one-fourth in each decade from 1860 to 1890; by about
one-fifth in the two decades from 1890 to 1910; and by less than
one-sixth in the decade from 1910 to 1920.

Footnote 8:

It is customary to think of India and China as very densely populated;
but both have fewer than 225 inhabitants to the square mile.

Footnote 9:

A map showing the progress of the center from East to West will be
found facing this page.

Footnote 10:

Mr. H. G. Wells, in his interesting book entitled _When the Sleeper
Wakes_, gives a picture of what the world will be like if all its
inhabitants live in cities, and the country workers are carried back
and forth by rapid transit.

Footnote 11:

In 1880, for example, only about four per cent of the immigrants were
Italians while about thirty per cent were Germans; in 1910 the
Italians had risen to more than twenty per cent while the German
immigrants had declined to less than five per cent.

Footnote 12:

From 1783 to 1820 it is estimated that not more than 250,000
immigrants came to the United States. P. F. Hall, _Immigration_, p. 4.
The total population in 1820 was ten millions.

CHAPTER III
ECONOMIC FACTORS AND ORGANIZATION

_The purpose of this chapter is to show how wealth is created and
how it is distributed among the people._

[Sidenote: Primitive needs and modern needs.]

=The Economic Needs of Man.=—The most elementary needs of human beings
are for food, clothing, and shelter. Until these are satisfied no higher
needs can develop. In the lowest stages of barbarism men are content
with the satisfaction of these elementary needs alone; but as they
obtain a greater mastery over nature and are able to supply these wants
more easily, other and higher wants arise within them. As men and women
become more intelligent and more refined, they grow discontented with
the primitive and coarser kinds of food; they seek more presentable
clothing than the skins of wild animals; they replace their rude huts
with substantial houses of wood. Step by step, as the human race has
advanced in civilization, its needs have become more numerous and more
varied. Purely material requirements being satisfied, other and higher
demands arise. The spiritual and social aspirations make their
appearance. As mankind passes each stage in civilization it finds,
through the growing control over nature, that purely material wants can
be satisfied with less and less exertion. Men gain their daily bread
today with infinitely less effort than in primitive times. The chief
reason is that they have learned to act collectively in mastering the
forces of nature; in other words they have achieved a high degree of
economic organization.

[Sidenote: How the economic motives promote progress.]

=The Economic Motives.=—Self-preservation is the first law of nature.
The primeval instinct in man is to look out for himself, to protect
himself from hunger, thirst, and hardship. This, for the moment, is
more important to him than the satisfaction of his social and civic
needs. Hence the economic motive, the instinct which prompts him to
seek the means of getting a living, is extremely strong. This instinct
the lower animals possess as well, but it does not carry them beyond
the satisfaction of elementary wants. The birds of the air and the
beasts of the fields have never enlarged or raised the scale of their
needs beyond the simple requirements of food, drink, and shelter. No
matter how easily obtainable these become they make no progress to
anything higher. But mankind, endowed with superior mental faculties
and a spiritual nature, does not rest content with the easy earning of
a livelihood. The economic motive prompts men and women to move on, to
achieve wealth, to procure luxuries, and to gain such happiness as the
possession of worldly goods can bring. This economic motive, deeply
implanted in humanity, has been a great incentive to progress in
civilization,—probably the greatest of all incentives.

[Sidenote: The altruistic motive.]

Let it not be assumed, however, that because the economic motive is
strong in man he is an altogether selfish creature. There is also an
altruistic motive which impels him to help his fellow-men, even at
personal sacrifice. Men desire to gain wealth for themselves, but having
gained enough and to spare, they frequently devote much of it to the
assistance of those who have not been so fortunate. The higher our
civilization the more marked does this spirit of altruism or economic
unselfishness become.

[Sidenote: Economic goods.]

=The Subject-Matter of Economics.=—The study of economics does not
concern itself with all the possible wants and aspirations of men. It
deals only with the production, distribution, and consumption of those
things which satisfy man’s desire for (_a_) material objects and (_b_)
personal services. In other words economics is a subject which concerns
itself with the production, distribution, and consumption of _economic
goods_, a term which includes material possessions known as wealth and
also such personal services as have an economic value. Not all things of
a material sort are economic goods; air and sunlight, for example, being
free to all, require no effort on the part of man to obtain. They are
called free goods. We apply the term economic goods only to such things
and services as satisfy human wants and are not to be had free.
Requiring effort to produce, these economic goods are limited in supply
and hence have a value in exchange for other goods. For this reason they
are commonly spoken of as _wealth_. Certain personal services, those of
the physician, the lawyer, the foreman, the laborer, also have an
economic value in that they are limited in supply, satisfy material
wants, and can be exchanged for tangible goods. These services form a
part of the economic activities of society, a very important part. So
the study of economics includes these personal services as well.

[Sidenote: Present and future economic goods.]

=The Consumption of Wealth.=—All economic goods are produced for the
purpose of being used. This use is what the economist calls
_consumption_. Some economic goods are in finished form, ready for
immediate consumption at any time; others are in the form of raw
materials or half-finished products not yet ready to be used. Hence we
distinguish between present and future economic goods. Economic
organization strives to manage matters so that a sufficient supply of
economic goods will reach their finished form in time to fill the
demands that arise. This demand on the part of the consumers determines
the methods and amount of production. If there is no demand for a
particular kind of economic goods, these goods will not be intentionally
produced. On the other hand a vigorous demand will encourage production
and speed up the process of distribution.

[Sidenote: Demand and supply.]

So we get back, in the end, to the proposition with which we started,
that the purpose of economic activity and organization is to supply
human needs. Where the need is felt, the demand arises. When the demand
arises, the agencies of supply, namely production and distribution,
usually respond. One of the great tasks of economic organization,
therefore, is to estimate the probable demand and so influence
production and distribution that the supply will neither be excessive
nor fall short. If there is an over-supply of any commodity, prices
normally will fall. That means that goods may bring less than it costs
to produce and to distribute them. One reason for the organization of
industry on a large scale under great corporations is that supply can
thus be kept closer to demand. At any rate the consumer, by his greater
or smaller demand, virtually determines all activities of production and
distribution. He is the pivot of the whole economic system.

[Sidenote: The factors in demand.]

Whether the demand on the part of the consumer will be larger or smaller
depends on three factors. The first is the utility of the goods to him.
Economic goods do not have the same utility to all men at all times. The
utility of ice on a warm summer day may be considerable; in midwinter it
is next to nothing. The utility of eye-glasses to short-sighted men is
great; to men of normal sight they have no utility at all. Economic
goods may, therefore have a greater or smaller utility depending upon
the place, the time, and the consumer. Bear in mind, moreover, that each
consumer matches the utility of one commodity with the utility of other
commodities which he finds available, and his demand follows the
direction of the greater utility. A second factor in demand is the price
of the goods. When the price goes up, the demand ordinarily will go
down, because some customers will decide that the utility of their money
is greater than that of the goods at the increased price. Finally,
demand depends in part upon the purchasing power or wealth of the
consumers. In prosperous times, when people have plenty of income, the
utility of goods seems greater than the utility of money; in times of
depression and low incomes the reverse is true. The interaction of these
three factors determines the demand.

[Sidenote: What production means.]

=Economic Production.=—Production is the general term applied to all the
processes whereby economic goods are adapted to the satisfaction of
human wants. We are often told that no man can either create or destroy
a single atom of matter. Strictly speaking, therefore, production does
not mean the _creation_ of economic goods but the _utilization_ of
materials in such a way that they may satisfy the consumers’ demands.
This utilization may involve changing their form, as where iron is made
into tools or wool into cloth. The miner who takes coal out of the
earth; the farmer who makes two blades of grass grow where one grew
before; the mason who hews the stone for the building; the baker who
makes flour into bread; the manufacturer who takes leather and turns it
into shoes—all are engaged in production. So, also, are such workers as
statesmen, judges, lawyers, physicians, and teachers. They may not
directly produce commodities but their services are essential to the
smooth working of the processes of production. The only workers who do
not deserve to be called productive laborers are thieves, swindlers,
counterfeiters, and other parasites. They often work harder than would
suffice to earn them an honest living; but their labor is not
productive. They live on what others produce.

[Sidenote: Natural resources, labor, capital, organization, and
government.]

=The Factors in Production.=—There are five factors in production;
namely, (1) natural resources (including land); (2) labor; (3) capital;
(4) organization and management; (5) government. Natural resources,
without the application of labor to them, do not go far in satisfying
human wants. Men cannot live on soil, climate, rainfall, and minerals.
Nor can labor and natural resources, when one is applied to the other,
succeed in producing all the economic goods which people in an advanced
stage of civilization require. Capital is also essential—capital in the
form of machinery, or in the form of money to support labor during the
process of production. These three things, natural resources, labor, and
capital must be brought together, furthermore, and kept working in
unison. This is where organization, the fourth factor in production,
comes in. It borrows the capital, buys the raw materials, sets the labor
to work, and markets the products. Government is not commonly looked
upon as a factor in production, but it ought to be. Without the
protection and regulation which government affords we could not carry on
production at high efficiency. It is government that assures to labor,
capital, and organization their rightful shares in the joint production
and thus affords them the incentive to do their best.

[Sidenote: Land and its resources.]

=Nature’s Contributions to Production.=—Nature contributes to the
production of economic goods such things as land, timber, waterways for
transportation, minerals, coal and oil, the motive power of steam,—in a
word nature provides all the materials and the environment of
production. Hence it is fundamentally the most important of all the
factors. If one studies the history of those nations which have become
great in various periods in history, it will be found that the basis of
their material greatness was in practically every case the bounty of
nature. Civilization made its first advance in the fertile valleys of
the Euphrates and the Nile. Its progress since the dawn of history has
been conditioned by man’s success in discovering and using natural
resources.

Among the contributions of nature to production some, such as land, can
be brought under private ownership. So long as land was plentiful and
population scanty there was no occasion for private property in land.
When Caesar first came into contact with the Teutonic tribes he found
that land was not held in private ownership. Everyone took what he
wanted; when the land seemed to be growing exhausted the whole tribe
moved on to some other region. But as these tribes grew in number and
unoccupied land became less plentiful, common ownership gave way to
private ownership. The Anglo-Saxons had reached this stage before they
migrated to England.

[Sidenote: Rent.]

Land held in private ownership can be bought, sold, and leased. When it
is leased, the owner receives for its use a payment known as rent. Rent
may be defined as the return which is obtained by the owner of any form
of natural resource. This includes not only land but mines,
water-powers, trout-streams, and so forth. The return which is received
for the use of unimproved land is usually called _ground rent_, while
the return which results from improvements such as buildings upon the
land, fences, and drains is called _improvement rent_. Strictly
speaking, this is not rent, but a return upon invested capital. The
amount of ground rent paid for any piece of land depends upon its
relative fertility, if it is to be used for agriculture, and its
location. Location alone determines the ground rent of land in towns and
cities.

[Sidenote: What is labor?]

=Labor as a Factor in Production.=—What is labor? Is all muscular and
mental exertion entitled to be called labor? Mountain climbing involves
the most severe sort of bodily effort. Tourists do it for pleasure and
guides do it for pay. Is it labor in one case and not in the other? Some
men play chess for recreation; others make a living out of it; in either
case there is strenuous mental exertion involved. So where does labor
begin and end?

No exact answer can be given to that question. One man’s play is another
man’s labor,—gardening, fishing, acting on the stage, for example. But
economists usually define labor as “human exertion or effort directed
toward the creation of economic goods”. This includes mental as well as
physical exertion. All who are engaged in the production of material
things or personal services for the satisfaction of human wants are
engaged in productive labor.

[Sidenote: The economic importance of labor.]

Labor, of course, is of great economic importance. The natural resources
of the American continent were as great three hundred years ago as they
are today; yet they were practically useless in satisfying human wants
because the red man would not and could not bestow his labor upon them.
It remained for the white man to transform natural resources into
economic goods. This he has done not only by the use of muscular
exertion but by the application of intelligence. Labor is never an end
in itself; it is always a means to an end, and this end is the
satisfaction of human demands.

[Sidenote: The simple and complex forms of division of labor.]

=Division of Labor.=—In applying their labor to natural resources men
soon found that the best results could be obtained by apportioning
different tasks to different workers. This is called the _division of
labor_ and it has been one of the great factors in the progress of
production. In its simpler form, division of labor merely meant that
each workman confined himself to a simple occupation and carried through
all the processes of production in that particular trade. The
cloth-maker, the shoemaker, the implement-maker performed all the work
of making cloth, shoes, or implements from start to finish. This simple
division of labor was practiced in very early times. But as the world
moved forward a more complex division of labor developed and this is
particularly a feature of modern production. In this development the
individual worker is assigned to make only a part of a commodity. The
making of cloth is no longer a trade, but embodies a series of
trades—that of the wool-carder, the spinner, the weaver, the fuller, the
dyer, and the finisher. In the modern shoe factory one employee cuts the
sole, another trims it, a third turns the heels, a fourth sews the
uppers to the sole, and so on. There are more than twenty distinct
operations in the making of a factory shoe, each requiring special skill
on the part of the worker.

In the time of the Roman empire it is said that only thirty-seven
different trades and professions were in existence. Today the number
runs into the thousands. It would be practically impossible to make a
list of them all. This is the age of specialists. Men no longer call
themselves shoemakers but cutters, lasters, welters, sole-makers. Even
in the engineering profession we have electrical engineers, civil
engineers, mechanical engineers, locomotive engineers, stationary
engineers, mining engineers, marine engineers, and chemical engineers.

=Advantages and Disadvantages of Division of Labor.=—Division of labor
has brought many economic advantages. It enables the worker, by constant
practice at a single operation, to acquire skill and dexterity. It
enables almost every worker to find some task that he is able to do and
for which he has a special liking or aptitude. It stimulates the
invention of new processes and methods by reducing each operation to the
simplest possible form, at which point it can often be taken over by
machinery.

But the elaborate division of labor which marks modern industry also has
its defects. It increases the monotony and irksomeness of labor. It
prevents the development of all-round craftsmen, men who can turn their
hands to a variety of things. Hence when a worker in modern industry
loses his regular employment it is difficult for him to change to
anything else. Confining men and women to a single, simple task day
after day and year after year tends to narrow them; it certainly does
not conduce to the extension of their intelligence. No great inspiration
comes from his work to the man who spends his life in making the
nineteenth part of a pin.[13] Division of labor has come to stay,
however, and in spite of all these disadvantages the world is on the
whole far better for its coming. It has made the production of goods so
much easier that to give it up now would carry the world back to
primitive conditions and lower the standard of living.

Our aim should be to utilize all its advantages while reducing its evils
to the minimum. This we may hope to do by several methods; for example,
by reducing the daily hours of labor, by promoting vocational education,
by the restriction of child employment, by a better organization of the
labor market (see p. 418), and by providing wholesome recreation for the
workers.

[Sidenote: Labor is a service.]

=Is Labor a Commodity?=—Labor, as a factor in production, receives its
return in the form of wages. A generation ago it was customary to speak
of labor as a commodity and to say that the worker “sold his labor” for
wages. But labor is not a commodity. The seller of goods parts company
with them when he makes a sale; the worker is inseparable from his work.
The man who sells shoes cares not who wears them; but it makes some
difference to the shoe-worker how and where and for whom he labors. No
commodity, moreover, is so perishable as labor. The labor of one day
will not keep for sale the next. Hence sales of labor, if we call them
such, are in the nature of forced sales. In the case of nearly all
commodities, again, the supply can be diminished by stopping production,
thereby preventing a drastic fall in price. But the supply of labor
cannot be so easily cut down. The analogy between labor and commodities
is a poor analogy and it is much better to speak of labor as a personal
service. Workers contract with employers for the giving of this service
and should receive, in return, not only wages but various assurances as
to the conditions under which the service is to be rendered. The
Congress of the United States, in the Clayton Act of 1914, declared that
“the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce”
and that an organization of workers was not to be regarded, therefore,
as a “combination in restraint of trade.”

[Sidenote: The factors which cause wages to rise and fall.]

=Wages.=—The wages of labor depend fundamentally upon demand and supply.
But as the supply of labor is not susceptible to a quick and unlimited
increase or reduction, wages depend principally upon demand. When there
is an increased demand for economic goods, due to factors which have
already been explained (see p. 40), the quest for labor becomes more
keen on the part of employers; better terms are offered to the worker;
in other words wages go up and the conditions of labor are improved.
When the demand for economic goods diminishes the contrary takes place,
but in this case the decline in the rate of wages does not, as a rule,
keep exact pace with the decrease in demand. Organizations of labor
strive to keep wages up and often succeed, temporarily at least, in
doing so. During the years 1918-1920, when the demand for economic goods
expanded greatly, the wages of labor in the United States went up
promptly all along the line. When the turn in the tide came, about the
middle of 1920, wages began to fall slowly and their descent has been
very gradual. Wages, thus, incline to follow the general course of
prices but they show this tendency more clearly when prices are going up
than when they are coming down. This is altogether natural, for higher
wages conduce to a better standard of living, and when such better
standard has been achieved there is objection to any lowering of it.

[Sidenote: Nominal and real wages.]

This suggests that a distinction ought to be drawn between _nominal_ and
_real_ wages. Wages, of course, are not an end in themselves; they are
merely a means which enables the worker to satisfy his wants. The real
utility of wages depends, therefore, upon what they will purchase, and
this, again, depends upon the general level of prices. Even if wages,
reckoned in dollars, go up fifty per cent, the worker is no better off
if the general level of prices also goes up fifty per cent. A worker’s
nominal wages are what he receives in dollars; his real wages are
reckoned in terms of purchasing-power. The rate of wages should always
be studied, therefore, in connection with prices. An increase or
decrease in nominal wages may mean much or it may mean very little.

[Sidenote: The minimum wage level.]

There is a limit below which real wages cannot fall. This is the point
at which the worker can manage to maintain himself and his family. Just
where this point is, stated in terms of money, no one can say. It varies
in different parts of the country. Before the World War the statistics
showed that half the adult male workers in this country were earning
less than six hundred dollars a year, yet the standard of living among
American workmen was higher than that of the workers in any other
country. Today it is probable that these same workers are earning more
than a thousand dollars. This does not mean, necessarily, that the
standard of living has risen, for the amount of nominal wages needed to
maintain the pre-war standard is greater because of the rise in prices.

[Sidenote: How capital arose.]

=Capital.=—Capital is the third factor in production. In primitive
industry the application of labor to natural resources produced direct
and almost immediate results. The savages who gathered nuts and caught
fish with their hands, for example, gained the fruits of their efforts
at once. But these direct methods of satisfying their wants did not
carry mankind very far. It soon became apparent that men could produce
economic goods more easily and more abundantly by indirect methods, that
is by the use of tools, implements, machinery, and other labor-saving
devices. These made possible the utilization of minerals and other
natural resources which could never have been made to serve the wants of
man without using the appliances of indirect production. So, as
civilization developed, production came to be spread over a considerable
period of time, until today it often happens that a whole year
intervenes between the first step in production and the sale of the
finished article. Consider the articles of daily use, clothes, shoes,
furniture, books, and realize how vast has been the series of operations
necessary to produce each of them! Many workers have contributed their
share, and each of these has had to receive his wages long before the
goods passed into the hands of the ultimate consumer.

[Sidenote: What it includes.]

Now the factor which has enabled production to become indirect and
long-spread-out is capital. Capital consists of all the intermediate
things which men use in producing economic goods. It includes buildings,
materials, machinery, and the money which pays the wages of the workers.
The use of capital saves labor by enabling a given amount of it to
achieve vastly better results than would be the case if capital did not
exist. Capital is really stored-up labor in the form of economic goods
which have been produced but not consumed. In other words it is the
result of saving. If everything that the world produces were at once
consumed, there would be no capital.

[Sidenote: How the rate of interest is determined.]

=Interest on Capital.=—Interest is the return paid to the owner of
capital for its part in production. It is his recompense for saving his
economic goods instead of consuming them. Productive capital is
frequently in the form of material things but its value is reckoned in
terms of money and a certain per cent per annum is paid on this value in
the form of interest. Were it not so, there would be no strong
inducement for men to save, and capital would not be forthcoming. The
rate of interest depends, in a general way, upon the interaction of
demand and supply. If the demand for capital exceeds the supply, the
rate of interest will ordinarily go up, and _vice-versa_. But this does
not always take place because capital is sometimes obtained at a fixed
rate for a long period, and this rate, whatever it is, remains the same
for the duration of such period.

[Sidenote: Why organization is essential.]

=Organization and Management as a Factor in Production.=—When labor and
capital are brought into play upon natural resources the production of
economic goods is the outcome. But these three factors are in separate
hands and have to be brought into co-operation. Owners of lands, mines,
and forests control the natural resources; another class possesses the
capital; a third is in a position to furnish the labor. Organization
brings all three into joint action for the production of wealth.

[Sidenote: The forms of organization.]

This organization may take any one of several forms. The simplest form
of organization is represented by the individual employer, the man who
borrows capital (or provides it from his own savings), purchases the raw
materials, and hires labor to be applied to it. He is an organizer of
the productive process. This system of single employers was nearly
universal in the earlier stages of industry and trade. Next comes the
partnership. Two or more men assume the task of bringing natural
resources, capital, and labor together. The partners divide the work and
jointly assume all responsibilities of loss. Finally, and most common in
large-scale production nowadays, there is the joint stock company or
business corporation in which many persons participate. Each contributes
to the organization and takes a proportionate share of the risk.[14] The
nature and work of these corporations are explained in a later chapter.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Illustration:

THRIFT AND PROSPERITY. By Frederick Dielman.

_Copyright by Frederick Dielman. From a Copley Print, copyright by
Curtis & Cameron, Boston. Reproduced by permission._
]

THRIFT AND PROSPERITY

By Frederick Dielman

From a mosaic picture in the Albany Savings Bank,
Albany, N.Y.

A mosaic is a decoration formed out of small pieces
of natural stone or enamel, of various colors, set
in cement. This decoration measures fourteen feet by
seven and one-half, the figures being somewhat
larger than life size.

Under a fruit tree in a landscape suggesting
grain fields and meadows, is a group of figures.
The central and principal figure, the mistress
of a household with her distaff and spindle,
typifies industry and good management; behind
her on either side among the hollyhocks are
beehives—the conventional emblems of industry
and saving.

In the foreground on the left, a woman with a sheaf
of wheat at her feet and a sickle in her hand turns
toward the keeper of the flocks and herds. At the
right, a kneeling maiden lays a basket of fruit near
the sheaf of wheat, while a stalwart man, adze in
hand, bares his arm for work. All these figures
symbolize the different branches of agriculture. The
children and the young animals typify the way in
which each young generation is nourished by the
industry and thrift of its elders.

The whole impression of this picture is one of
industry, prosperity, thrift, and—by reason of these
three—happiness.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: The nature of profits.]

=Profits.=—The return received by the organizers and managers of
productive enterprises is commonly known as profit. The amount of their
profit depends upon the degree of success with which they can produce
goods for less than the selling price. Every employer or organizer
assumes a considerable amount of risk. He obligates himself to pay
definite amounts for the use of capital, materials, and labor no matter
what the value of the finished products. If this value be less than the
cost of production, he loses; if it be more, he gains. Losses, if
continued, mean bankruptcy. Gains are profits and, if continued, make
him rich. It will be seen, therefore, that the employers or organizers
of production take more risk than those who supply the materials, the
capital, or the labor. [Sidenote: What determines the rate of profits.]
Their success, in other words their rate of profits, depends in general
upon the degree of managing and organizing ability which they display;
but it sometimes happens that profits will be high in all branches of
production for a time irrespective of the employer’s skill. The price of
the finished product may rise without an immediate and proportionate
increase in the cost of materials, interest, and wages. This situation,
while it continues, affords an opportunity for abnormal profits or
“profiteering” as it is often called. Abnormal profits may also be due
to the existence of a monopoly in a particular form of production.

[Sidenote: The economic importance of government.]

=Government as a Factor in Production.=—It has not been customary to
speak of government as one of the essential factors in production, but a
few moments’ reflection will show that its part in the process of
industry and trade is very important. To begin with, the government
determines what forms of production may be carried on and by what
methods. It forbids certain forms, such as the making of intoxicants,
and strictly limits others, such as the manufacture of narcotics. It
gives to some individuals and corporations the exclusive right to
produce certain articles under patents. It determines the forms of
business organizations, the responsibilities of employers, the rules
relating to partnership, and the powers of corporations. It sets a limit
upon the rate of interest by means of usury laws and through its banks
may virtually control the rate (see p. 438). The government, moreover,
makes rules for the conservation of natural resources and to some extent
fixes the relation between the employer and his workers. At times it
even fixes prices. It provides courts and commissions for the settlement
of disputes affecting production. Finally, the whole system of private
property rests upon the support of the government.

[Sidenote: Taxes as an element in cost.]

What return does the government get for these services to production?
Offhand, one might say that the government receives its return in taxes.
In a sense this is true, for taxes, like interest, wages, and profits,
must be paid from the selling price of goods. Taxes, indeed, must be
provided for before profits can be determined. But it is not usual, nor
is it accurate, to speak of taxes as a reward or return for services
which the government renders. Revenue in the form of taxation is
essential in order that a government may function properly, yet there is
no close relation between the rate of taxation and the amount of service
given. This whole question of taxation, in theory and in practice, will
be discussed further on.

SOME ESSENTIAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES

[Sidenote: The way in which each factor in production obtains its
share.]

=Exchange.=—It has been shown that several factors in production are
each entitled to their share. This share is reckoned in terms of money
because every producer gets his own return in terms of money. In other
words goods are exchanged for money, and money in turn is exchanged for
other goods or service. This mechanism of exchange engages the energy of
a great many individuals and institutions, such as wholesalers,
retailers, brokers, and banks. Economic goods would have relatively
little value if they could not be translated into money and thus
distributed from hand to hand. No one, as a rule, can live and flourish
by consuming exactly what he produces and nothing else. He must use his
share in what he produces as purchasing-power to secure whatever best
satisfies his own wants. Money is the lubricant which facilitates this;
in a word, it is the medium of exchange.

[Sidenote: Definition of value.]

=Value and Price.=—Exchange takes place on a basis of relative values.
He who sells goods or services receives something of assumed equal value
in return. But what is value? The term value is employed in two
different senses, value in use and value in exchange. By the former we
mean the intrinsic utility of a thing. Air and sunlight, for example,
have a high value in use; they are indispensable to life in fact; but
they have no value in exchange. When the economist speaks of value he
means value in exchange or market value, that is to say the ratio in
which one commodity or service will exchange for other commodities. If a
ton of coal can be exchanged for a large quantity of cloth, or food, or
labor, its value is high; if it can be exchanged for only small amounts
of these other commodities, its value is said to be low.

[Sidenote: Definition of price.]

But price is quite another thing. The price of a commodity is the ratio
at which it will exchange, not for all other goods and services but for
one specific thing, namely, money. Price is value expressed in terms of
the medium of exchange. We habitually translate our economic goods into
terms of money before we buy or sell them. A general rise or fall in
prices is quite possible, for this is merely another way of saying that
money will buy less or more of all other things. It is immaterial
whether we say that prices have gone up or that money has gone down; we
mean exactly the same thing.

[Sidenote: What determines the level of prices?]

=Competition and Monopoly.=—Exchange is conducted, for the most part,
under free competition. Buyers give as little as they can in money for
goods; sellers get as much as they can. When goods bring higher prices,
more will be produced until prices are forced down again; if prices
fall, production will decline until the reduction in supply serves to
bring them up again. This is the theory of free competition. In
practice, however, it does not always work so automatically. Some
things, such as diamonds and platinum, cannot be produced in unlimited
quantities no matter how much labor, capital, and organization we may
apply. Other things are _legal_ monopolies, or patented articles, which
can be produced by only one concern and are not subject to the direct
influence of competition. Still others are _natural_ monopolies due to
the fact that from the nature of things only one concern can produce the
goods or render the service. A telephone company, for example, has a
natural monopoly. Competition involves a complete duplication of the
service. It means that many subscribers have to put two telephones in
their stores or homes in order to get into full touch with other users
of telephones. The net cost of telephone service to customers cannot be
reduced in this way. Finally, some things are the subject of artificial
monopoly, that is to say, they are produced or distributed under
arrangements which restrict or eliminate competition (see pp. 386-388).

[Sidenote: The effects of monopoly.]

All these forms of monopoly interfere with free competition and they
cover a great many of the things which are in common use by the
people.[15] Recent investigations have shown that the number of
commodities which are either wholly or in large part controlled by
monopolistic combines is larger than people commonly realize. A certain
amount of legal monopoly is essential in order to encourage research and
invention.[16] Men will not strive to invent new machines and appliances
if the invention at once becomes common property. Natural monopolies
arise from the essential nature of things and it is difficult to see how
most of them can ever be avoided. We cannot very well have two competing
street railways on the same street, for example. There would then be
little room in the street for anything else. Artificial monopolies are
often objectionable because they enable a few persons or corporations to
obtain excessive prices from the public; but even an artificial monopoly
can in some cases be advantageous. Occasionally some corporation, by
producing things on a very large scale, is able to do it so cheaply that
small producers are driven out of business. The large concern then finds
that it has become a monopoly, but so long as it does not arbitrarily
raise prices the public is not injured by the mere fact that a monopoly
exists.

[Sidenote: The principle of freedom in economic relations]

=Freedom of Contract.=—An outstanding characteristic of modern economic
organization is the encouragement of private enterprise through freedom
of contract. By the laws of the land the worker is not forced to take
employment from anybody; he may contract with whomsoever he pleases. He
may even join with other workers in a union and make a collective
bargain, that is, a group of workers, large or small, may contract with
one or more employees or with a group of employers. The employer, on his
side, is not forced to hire anybody; he also has freedom of contract. It
is true, of course, that this legal theory of individual freedom does
not find complete exemplification in actual practice. The right of the
wage-earner to bargain collectively is not everywhere conceded by
employers; the right of the employer to hire non-union men is not
everywhere conceded by the unions (see p. 406). The landlord is not
obliged to rent his house, nor the tenant to stay against his will. Both
are bound by the terms of their contract and no more. Buying and selling
are conducted with similar freedom. All this affords a great spur to
private initiative. Everyone depends for his own prosperity and
advancement upon the skill with which he can use his freedom. A
well-known English writer, Sir Henry Maine, once declared that the
progress of civilization has been a movement _from status to contract_.
He meant that in primitive times all men had their careers virtually
determined for them by the station in which they were born. The child of
a noble became a nobleman; the child of a peasant remained a peasant
through life. In modern economic society the individual’s own efforts,
exerted through his freedom to contract with others for his own
advantage, count far more heavily in determining his ultimate station in
life.

[Sidenote: Why the institution of private property is maintained.]

=Private Property.=—Freedom of contract would prove a poor incentive to
progress were it not accompanied by a provision whereby industrious men
can enjoy the fruits of their labor and thrift. Hence we guarantee to
every man not only the right to earn but the right to save, for future
enjoyment, a portion of his earnings. These savings become his property
and within certain limits he may use them as he pleases. He may utilize
his savings during his own lifetime or leave them to his children when
he dies. Savings may take the form of private property in land and
buildings, or movable goods, or such investments as bonds, stocks,
mortgages, and bank deposits. Property in land and buildings is commonly
known as _real_ property or real estate. All other forms of property are
called _personal_ property. Sometimes we distinguish between two kinds
of personal property, _tangible_, which includes all goods and chattels,
and _intangible_, which comprises stocks, bonds, mortgages, notes,
deposits, and other obligations.

The institution of private property is the basis of our whole economic
system. No nation has ever enjoyed industrial prosperity for any length
of time without recognizing the right of private property. Destroy this
right and you take away what now constitutes the chief incentive to
labor, saving, and industrial efficiency. Under a socialistic system,
which would either abolish or largely curtail this right of private
property, it is argued that other incentives would take the place of the
motive now furnished by private property and that men would keep on
working and organizing even if private property were entirely abolished;
but this is a large question and its discussion must be relegated to a
later chapter.

[Sidenote: The right of private property is subject to restrictions.]

In any case most men are now agreed that the right of private property
cannot be left unfettered; it must be guarded against abuse. Society
cannot wisely permit it to stand as an obstacle to the general interest.
Even the right of private property, therefore, must bend to the good of
the community. Men are allowed to own property because their doing so
promotes the well-being of the whole people; the right should not go
further than that. It is for this reason that we place various
restrictions upon the right of private property, restrictions in the
interest of the public health, or for protection against fire, or for
the preservation of public morals. No one has the right to own and
maintain property that constitutes a public nuisance, such as an
unsanitary tenement house, for example, or a building that forms a fire
trap. The right of private property is entitled to respect only in so
far as it is exercised in keeping with its prime purpose, which is to
advance the interests of the whole people by giving each individual a
sufficient incentive to work and to save.

General References

H. C. ADAMS, _Description of Industry_, pp. 3-117; F. W. TAUSSIG,
_Principles of Economics_, Vol. I, pp. 1-110; H. R. SEAGER,
_Introduction to Economics_, 4th ed., pp. 1-121; R. T. ELY, _Outlines of
Economics_, 3rd ed., pp. 1-98; C. J. BULLOCK, _Introduction to the Study
of Economics_, pp. 115-179; 375-431; H. R. BURCH, _American Economic
Life_, pp. 1-37; 71-80; 315-335; T. N. CARVER, _Principles of National
Economy_, pp. 3-46.

Group Problems

=1. The effects of division of labor and the ways in which we may retain
its advantages while reducing its detrimental effects.= How division of
labor arose. The extent to which it is now carried in industry. Its
physical effects. Social, political, and economic effects. Its value.
How its defects can be overcome. The reduction of hours in certain
industries. Vocational education for the worker. The restriction of
child labor. The better organization of the labor market. Recreation for
the workers after work-hours. The merits and practical difficulties of
each plan. References: F. W. TAUSSIG, _Principles of Economics_, Vol. I,
pp. 30-48; _Thirteenth annual report of the United States Commissioner
of Labor on Hand and Machine Labor_ (for illustrative material); H. R.
SEAGER, _Introduction to Economics_, pp. 153-158; R. T. ELY, _The
Evolution of Industrial Society_, pp. 398-424. See also the references
given at end of chapters XX-XXI in this book.

=2. The justification of private property. References:= L. C. MARSHALL,
_Readings in Industrial Society_, pp. 144-223; 947-988; JOHN M. MECKLIN,
_Introduction to Social Ethics_, pp. 302-322; F. A. CLEVELAND and JOSEPH
SCHAFER, _Democracy in Reconstruction_, pp. 69-95; HERBERT SPENCER,
_Social Statics_, pp. 62-65.

Short Studies

1. =Our chief economic wants.= L. C. MARSHALL, _Readings in Industrial
Society_, pp. 9-15; 270-277; 828-833; C. J. BULLOCK, _Introduction to
the Study of Economics_, pp. 79-87.

2. =Economic ideals.= H. R. BURCH, _American Economic Life_, pp. 17-27.

3. =Is labor a commodity?= C. J. BULLOCK, _Introduction to the Study of
Economics_, pp. 432-436.

4. =The relation of wages to the standard of living.= H. R. BURCH,
_American Economic Life_, pp. 47-56; J. H. HAMMOND and J. W. JENKS,
_Great American Issues_, pp. 83-96.

5. =How capital is accumulated.= R. T. ELY, _Outlines of Economics_, pp.
116-130.

6. =The place of capital in modern agriculture, industry, and commerce.=
L. C. MARSHALL, _Readings in Industrial Society_, pp. 154-212.

7. =Natural monopolies.= C. J. BULLOCK, _Introduction to the Study of
Economics_, pp. 309-324.

8. =Freedom of contract.= L. C. MARSHALL, _Readings in Industrial
Society_, pp. 570-574.

9. =Thrift as a national asset.= F. A. CLEVELAND and JOSEPH SCHAFER,
_Democracy in Reconstruction_, pp. 244-262.

10. =The place of luxury in economic life.= T. N. CARVER, _Principles of
National Economy_, pp. 584-597.

Questions

1. Make a list of the chief human wants that existed a thousand years
ago. Also a list of the principal human wants of the United States
today. Name the ones that are freely satisfied by nature.

2. What is meant by “economic goods”? Which of the following things are
economic goods, and which are not: a phonograph record; opium; the
sunken Lusitania; a silver dollar; a Liberty bond; electricity; Mr.
Bryan’s skill as an orator; desert land in the middle of Africa; weeds
in a wheat field; a wide acquaintance among business men; a ten dollar
bill; a public park; a band concert; keen eyesight; a cask of rum? Give
your reasons in each case.

3. Give some examples of the production of economic goods (_a_) without
the use of labor or capital; (_b_) with labor but without capital; (_c_)
with capital but without labor.

4. Explain what one would mean by speaking of the “productive
consumption of wealth”. Give some examples.

5. Is division of labor carried as far in agriculture as in industry?
Are the evils of division of labor as great in country districts as in
towns and cities? What remedies would you suggest to counterbalance the
monotony of industrial labor?

6. Which of the various productive factors are most important in (_a_)
sheep raising; (_b_) banking; (_c_) the coining of money; (_d_) training
a brass band; (_e_) selling newspapers on the street?

7. How would you estimate the ground rent of a piece of land, situated
on the main business street of a large city, with a store built upon it?

8. Would an increase in the price of wheat lead to a rise in the general
rate of rental paid for farm land or would a rise in the general rate of
rental cause the price of wheat to go up?

9. Why is there more capital in the United States than in China although
the population of China is three times as large?

10. If all payment of interest were forbidden by law, would people
continue to save? If not, why does saving sometimes increase when the
rate of interest goes down?

11. Why are each of the following paid a high or a low rate of
remuneration as the case may be: (_a_) a locomotive engineer; (_b_) a
hod carrier; (_c_) a movie actor; (_d_) a member of the state
legislature; (_e_) a steeple jack; (_f_) a corporation lawyer?

12. To what different things may a fall in wages be due? A fall in
profits? If all large production could be eliminated, would we be worse
or better off?

13. If all men were of equal business ability and had the same
opportunities, would there be any business profits?

14. What are the advantages of a corporation as compared with a
partnership?

15. In what ways is democracy likely to enhance production to a greater
degree than despotism?

16. Can you think of something possessing value but not utility? Utility
but not value? Both value and utility but having no price?

17. What is meant by the saying that “competition is the life of trade”?

18. Make a list of all the natural monopolies that you can remember. How
may the evils of legal and artificial monopolies be lessened?

19. How is freedom of contract related to the institution of private
property? Do you think you would look forward to greater or less
happiness in life if all private property were now to be abolished?

20. Which of the following are proper limitations on the freedom of
contract or the right of private property: (_a_) a rule that billboards
must not be built of wood; (_b_) a provision that no one shall buy or
sell explosives without a license; (_c_) a regulation that no owner of a
city lot shall build on it any building costing less than ten thousand
dollars; (_d_) a requirement that no one sell cigarettes to persons
under sixteen years of age?

Topics for Debate

1. Labor contributes more than management to national prosperity.

2. High prices are an advantage (or a disadvantage) to the workers of
the United States.

3. Every earner of income should be required to save a certain portion
of his earnings each year, thus making all men capitalists as well as
workers.

CHAPTER IV
THE NATURE AND FORMS OF GOVERNMENT

_The purpose of this chapter is to explain what government is, how
it originated, why people obey it, and what its functions are._

[Sidenote: Various uses of the word “state”.]

=What is the State?=—The word “state” is so short and simple that
everybody is assumed to know just what it means. And in a general way
everyone does know what it means. But it is used in more than one sense
and with a good deal of latitude. When we speak, for example, of the
“newly-created states of Europe” we mean Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and
Jugo-Slavia. The term “state”, so used, designates a country with an
independent political existence. But we also speak of “the states of the
Union”, by which we mean merely the political divisions of a single
country. Then, again, one frequently encounters such expressions as “a
statesman who served the state” or “state control of railroads”, or “the
relations between Church and State”. To what does the term in such cases
refer? Here the expression is used in a generic sense to include
politically organized society, and those who so use it are thinking more
particularly of the political agencies through which organized society
acts.

[Sidenote: A general definition.]

A simple definition will cover all these uses of the term. A state is a
body of people, possessing a definite territory, and politically
organized. Territory is essential. The Jews for many centuries did not
constitute a state because they had no territory of their own. Now they
are once more in the way of obtaining a national homeland. Population is
also essential. The territory around the South Pole does not form a
state because it is uninhabited. And a political organization, a
government, is the third essential. The territory which is now the
United States did not form a state before the first European settlers
reached it, for, although it was inhabited, the savages who roamed over
its vast expanses were not politically organized. They had, for the most
part, neither government nor laws. Persons, territory, and
organization—these are the essential attributes of a state.

=The Government and why we obey it.=—By the government we mean the
various officials and bodies by whom the people are ruled. By the
government the will of the state is carried out. But why should people
obey a government? We obey the rules of voluntary organizations because
we are free to join them or not; but no individual is free to disobey
the laws or to remain aloof from the control of his government. By what
right does the government take money from us in taxes, call upon us for
service in war, compel us to adjust all our controversies in its courts,
and insist that we obey its laws?

[Sidenote: The divine right doctrine.]

Two theories have been offered to justify the government’s right to the
obedience of the people. The first is known as the theory of divine
right. According to this idea all governmental authority was originally
bestowed upon the rulers by the Creator. And having received their
authority from God, the rulers were not responsible to the people. This
theory of governmental authority is very old, as old as the Ten
Commandments and probably older. It was argued that kings ruled and
princes governed by divine right because “the powers that be are
ordained of God”. This doctrine of the divine right of rulers was
maintained throughout the mediaeval period and was put forth by the
Stuart kings of England as a justification of their despotic rule.[17]

[Sidenote: The “consent of the governed”.]

The other theory, which is that government has its foundation in the
“consent of the governed”, appeared in the writings of the English
philosopher, John Locke, during the seventeenth century and was
incorporated into the Declaration of Independence about one hundred
years later. When the Stuart dynasty was finally expelled from the
throne of England, the new sovereigns were declared to be rulers
“according to the desire and resolution of parliament”, in other words
by the consent of the English people through their representatives.
Since the beginning of the nineteenth century the theory that government
rests on the consent of the governed has been accepted in all democratic
countries.

[Sidenote: What the consent of the governed implies.]

Now if we hold this doctrine to be sound, as most men do today, it
follows that when people establish a government by their own consent,
they are under obligation to submit to its authority. Every right
imposes a duty. The right to frame a constitution and to adopt it as the
basis of a new government carries the duty of supporting the
constitution and upholding the hands of those who exercise authority
under it. The people who claim the right to make the laws must be ready
to obey these laws when they are made. When men and women by their own
consent establish a government they do this because they expect to
obtain some advantages such as security, peace, and order. In return for
these advantages they must expect to yield obedience, pay taxes, adjust
their differences in the courts, and do whatever else a government
reasonably requires.

[Sidenote: The social contract theory.]

=How Government Began.=—But admitting that government rests on the
consent of the governed, how was this consent obtained, and how did the
first government come into existence? Here, again, there are two
theories as to what happened. The first is that the state and government
originated in a “social contract”. Primitive men, living in a condition
of political chaos, made a general covenant, by which they created a
sovereign power to rule them. This idea is as old as the days of Plato,
but it did not take strong hold on the minds of men until a few
centuries ago. It was put forward by Thomas Hobbes in England to defend
absolutism, his argument being that to dethrone a king was to break the
contract upon which the state had been founded. On the other hand it was
used by John Locke to prove that the people of England had a right to
dethrone a monarch if the monarch failed to abide by the terms of the
social contract, and those who compare certain passages in Locke’s book
with the Declaration of Independence will see that the framers of that
daring document were much influenced by his assertions. Even in America
the contract theory took a strong hold. The Mayflower pilgrims, lying
off the rock-bound shores of New England, drew up and signed a formal
document wherein they solemnly covenanted and combined themselves into a
“civil body politic”. The doctrine found frequent expression in the
writings of Jefferson and Madison; but while it afforded an excellent
basis for arguments in defence of revolutions against despotism the
theory that the state had its origin in a social contract has long since
been abandoned as unhistorical. It assumes that primitive men were free
and equal individuals subject to no paternal authority, whereas, as a
matter of history, freedom and equality among men arose only after
states had been formed.

[Sidenote: The theory of political evolution.]

The true explanation of how government began is to be found by applying
to the study of political science the methods of biology. We do not know
exactly where or when the first government came into existence, but we
do know that all political institutions are the result of a gradual
evolution or development.

We have already seen that the earliest social unit is the family—a small
group of individuals bound together by intimate ties. But the family was
but one unit in a larger group, the clan, made up of families assumed to
be descended from a common ancestor. The various clans united to form
the tribe which, as an organization, rested upon a common race,
language, and religion. These tribes, although at first roving bodies,
wandering from place to place, at length acquired some definite
territory and settled permanently there. The beginnings of a state were
then at hand and with the state, or even before it, came government. In
all probability that is the process through which the earliest
governments came into being,—a process extending through many
generations. The tribal chiefs became kings and passed on the kingship
to their sons. As time went on the kings gathered greater power until
despotism became the customary form of government in most countries of
the world. It was not until near the end of the eighteenth century that
the world began to shake off the despotic authority of kings and to
establish governments based upon the consent of the people.

[Sidenote: Aristotle’s classification.]

=The Classification of Governments.=—During this long evolution from the
early tribal organizations down to the complex governments of the
present day many forms of rule have been tried in various countries.
Even in ancient Greece the philosopher Aristotle was able to divide
states into six classes, three of which he called _normal_ types and
three _perverted_. Where political power was lodged in the hands of a
single individual, he called the state a monarchy; where it was lodged
with a few men he called it an aristocracy; and where it was vested in
many hands he called it a democracy. Each of these normal types had its
corresponding perversion or travesty. A perverted monarchy he termed
despotism; a perverted aristocracy he termed oligarchy; and a perverted
democracy he called a demagogism or state ruled by mob methods. This
method of classifying states is of little value today and would be in
many ways misleading.

[Sidenote: Monarchies and republics.]

Modern states are more commonly classed as _monarchies_ and _republics_.
The former includes those in which the chief executive officer of the
state—be he king, emperor, or other potentate—holds his position by
hereditary right; the latter includes those in which he is selected in
some other way. But even this classification is not very enlightening.
It does not tell us anything definite about the degree of actual control
which the people of a state exercise over their government. In some
monarchies like Great Britain the power of the people, exercised through
their representatives, is very great; in some republics, in China for
example, this power is very slight. The term republic is nowadays far
from being synonymous with democracy; nor is the term monarchy
incompatible with it. Various so-termed republics of Central and South
America have been in fact little more than military despotisms.

[Sidenote: National and federal states.]

Another classification, much more useful, is that which separates
_national_ from _federal_ states. By the former term we mean a unified
state with a single government which reaches down directly to the
citizen. Great Britain is a _national_ state with a monarchical form of
government; France is also a national state with a republican form of
government. A _federal_ state, on the other hand, is an agglomeration of
smaller states, each of which retains its own government but with a
central government possessing certain powers over them all. The German
empire, a few years ago, was an example of a federal state under a
monarchical form of government, while the United States affords an
illustration of federalism with republican institutions. This
classification is worth while, for it tells us something tangible about
the states so classified. When we say that a state is of the federal
type we imply that it has two spheres of government within it; that is
has a written constitution defining these spheres; that the upper house
of its parliament or legislature in some way represents the component
units of the federation and that it has, in all probability, some
powerful arbiter such as a supreme court to decide conflicts of
authority between the nation and its component parts. Practically all
federal states, at any rate, have these political characteristics. One
cannot imagine a successful federal state without a written
constitution, without division of political powers, without some
existing authority to decide between the respective claims of the whole
and its parts.

[Sidenote: True and false democracies.]

But the most important thing that a student of government ought to know
about any state is whether it merely possesses the forms of democracy or
whether the people in fact control the government. Nearly all
present-day states have the external forms of democracy, that is to say,
they have representative legislatures or parliaments which bulk large in
the general scheme of government. But as to the actualities of
democracy, the extent to which these representative bodies really direct
and control the affairs of state, there is a considerable difference
among the nations. A classification of states from this point of view
can be made only after a careful study of their actual governments. It
is not the form of government which makes a democracy, but the way in
which popular control of public affairs is actually secured and
sustained.

[Sidenote: The spread of democracy.]

=Is Democracy the Best Form of Government?=—During the past few years
democracy has been rapidly gaining ground. The governments of Germany,
Austria, Hungary, Poland, and other countries have been reconstructed in
such way as to give them, outwardly at any rate, the rank of democratic
states. But in spite of this phenomenal progress, which came on the
heels of the World War, it remains a fact that more than half the
population of the world is still living under systems of government
which the people do not control. The world has not yet been made safe
for democracy, nor half of it.

This suggests the question whether democracy is the best form of
government for all races and under all circumstances. Is it best for
backward races, for races only partly civilized? Is it the best system
for people who have had very little political experience, such as the
Egyptians, the Chinese, and the Filipinos? Are we quite certain, in
fact, that it is the best form of government for fully civilized
mankind? Most people have always felt sure that democracy is the nearest
approach to an ideal form of government, but if you ask their reasons
for this belief, you will frequently find that they have never thought
of any reasons. Democracy has been and is being severely criticized by
various writers who declare that it merely places political power in the
hands of the ignorant and unthinking masses, that it leads to
wastefulness, extravagance, and corruption, that it fosters incompetence
in public office, and that it results in woeful misgovernment.[18]

Now it is quite true that democracy does all this in some cases, but
however grave the indictment may be, the friends of democracy can always
answer: “What better alternative do you offer?” The great Italian
statesman, Cavour, once remarked that, whatever faults it might have, a
legislative chamber was better than a king’s antechamber. The
justification of democracy is that it ensures, not necessarily the best
government, or even good government; but the sort of government the
people earn for themselves. A stream does not rise higher than its
source. Nor can a representative government reach any higher level than
that on which the people maintain it. It will reflect the intelligence,
honesty, and patriotism of the governed. That is one reason why we
should not apply to backward races the same principles of government
which we apply to more civilized people. Democracy is the best form of
government for those who are able to govern themselves, but this does
not include all the people of the earth by any means.

[Sidenote: How a government fulfils its purpose.]

=The Purpose of Government.=—Having seen how governments originated,
what forms they have assumed, and why they ought to be obeyed, it may be
well to ask ourselves: What is the purpose of government? What ends does
it serve?

The purpose of government is to promote the interests of each by
promoting the interests of all. This end it seeks to attain in various
ways. It protects the whole body of its people against external
aggression, against foreign invasion. It also in this connection
maintains the rights and liberties of its citizens against wrongful
interference on the part of foreign states or citizens. It is for this
purpose that armies and navies are maintained. The government safeguards
its own citizens from injustice at the hands of one another. This it
does by laws which define the relations of individuals to one another,
and of one group of individuals to other groups. These laws prescribe
the relations of husband and wife, of parent and child, of landlord and
tenant, of employer and employee, of office-holder and citizen—they
define and regulate every person’s rights and duties towards others. In
order that we may exercise our rights and perform our duties we must
first know what they are. The state, through its laws, tells us. Through
its courts, moreover, it applies such pressure upon reluctant
individuals as may be necessary to make these rights and duties real. In
a word, government exists to enforce rights and to secure liberty.

[Sidenote: Relation of government to individual rights.]

Were every individual immune from the jurisdiction of any superior
authority, and free to do as he pleased, he would have to accord every
other individual the same immunity and the same freedom. He would then
have no rights that anyone else would be bound to respect. He would have
no liberty that others could not, by force, take away from him. He would
have no security against violence to his person or property. The
strength of his own strong arm would be his only protection. What a
condition of chaos, injustice, bloodshed, and anarchy that would be!

[Sidenote: The constructive work of government.]

Not all the government’s work, however, takes the form of protection and
regulation. Its functions are constructive as well. Through its various
departments it actively promotes the general interest and thereby the
interests of each citizen. It not only protects the public health by
regulations and restrictions; it fosters and promotes things that help
to raise the general standards of health among the people. It does not
merely make rules to prevent ships from colliding with one another; it
sets out buoys and beacons, builds lighthouses, and maintains
life-saving stations. It does not merely protect agriculture by
regulations to prevent the spread of noxious weeds and pests; it
actively assists the improvement of agriculture by means of experiment
stations and the distribution of educational literature. The government,
indeed, is the greatest of all the agencies through which society
undertakes its tasks of using the resources of nature to the best
advantage, eliminating friction and waste, adjusting the conflicting
claims of individuals, and giving to each and all an equal opportunity.

[Sidenote: The citizen’s obligations to his government.]

From all this it ought to be apparent that the state and its government
are the agencies through which the individual obtains rights,
protection, assistance, and liberty. But neither rights nor liberty can
be achieved without incurring an obligation in return. To the state,
which secures us rights and liberties, we owe the duty of patriotism.
Patriotism is not a mere sentiment. It is a concrete expression, by
thought, word, and act, of the citizen’s respect for the state to which
he belongs. It should be based upon recognition of the fact that without
the security, the justice, and the freedom which the state provides,
life would not be worth living. Patriotism is a mixture of pride,
gratitude, and faith,—pride in the great community to which a man
belongs, gratitude for what it is doing, and faith in what it may do for
posterity.

[Sidenote: The limits of governmental action.]

=How Far should Governments Go?=—One of the live questions of the
present day concerns the extent to which the government ought to go in
trying to fulfil these various purposes. Should it merely make laws,
coin money, establish post offices, maintain an army, or should it
actively engage in such activities as operating the railroads, the coal
mines, and even the factories of the country? On the one hand there are
those who take an individualistic or _laissez-faire_ attitude towards
governmental policy and maintain that the government should interfere as
little as possible with the daily life of the people. It should confine
itself, the individualist claims, to political matters purely, leaving
economic affairs entirely alone. At the other extreme are the
socialists, who believe that the government ought to step in and
directly control all important agencies of production. It should own all
the land, the public utilities such as railroads and telegraph lines,
the mines, and all the agencies of production (pp. 481-488).

Both individualism and socialism represent extremes; most men take a
midway stand as regards the proper functions of government. The greatest
good of the greatest number among the people cannot be secured unless
the government interferes to some extent with the free play of economic
forces. It must prevent gross injustice wherever gross injustice
appears. No government fulfils its highest aim unless it becomes an
ever-active force in making our common life more human and more fruitful
in the good will of class toward class and of man toward man. On the
other hand it must take care not to invade the field of private
enterprise so far as to take upon itself greater burdens than can be
properly carried.

Too much government is as bad as too little. In a democracy, where
public officials are chosen by popular vote, often with little reference
to their personal ability, there are obvious limits to what a government
can do and do well. The individualist starts with the assumption that
governments are always inefficient when they meddle in affairs of
everyday life. The socialist, on the other hand, assumes that
governments can always secure better results than private enterprise in
any field of economic activity. The truth, as usual, lies between the
extremes. To fix a rigid line between the two sets of functions, as one
would draw the boundary of two countries on a map, is impossible. To
attempt this would be to forget that civilization is ever moving on,
bringing new social needs in its train. Every proposal to extend the
functions of government must be determined on its own merits and not
upon the basis of its conformance to any rule.

[Sidenote: Government as a science.]

=The World a Great Laboratory for Experiments in Government.=—Everywhere
throughout the world the process of experiment in forms of government is
going on, twenty-four hours a day, in ceaseless round. And it has been
going on for more than two thousand years. Every experiment in political
organization that the human mind can suggest has had, or is having, its
trial somewhere. During the past few years we have seen earth’s proud
empires pass away and new republics rise in their stead, just as two
thousand years ago the great Roman republic collapsed and an empire took
its place. The astronomer who scans the heavens with his telescope
commands no such laboratory of endless experiment and sees no such
continuous panorama of change as the student who watches with naked eye
the political activities of his fellow-men. That is what makes the study
of government, when carefully pursued, the most interesting and most
instructive of all studies. “On earth”, as the poet Pope has said,
“there is nothing great but man”. And it is in his organized activities
that man shows himself at his best.

General References

JAMES BRYCE, _Modern Democracies_, especially Vol. I, pp. 24-50; II, pp.
335-610;

WOODROW WILSON, _The State_, pp. 1-68;

J. Q. DEALY, _The State and Government_, pp. 119-181;

J. W. GARNER, _Introduction to Political Science_, pp. 86-204;

STEPHEN LEACOCK, _Elements of Political Science_, pp. 3-51; 141-153;

_Cyclopedia of American Government_. (See under State Government, Social
Compact Theory, Separation of Powers, etc.).

Group Problems

1. =To what extent should the government engage in business?= The
original functions of government. Growth of governmental activities.
Extent of governmental enterprises in European countries. Government
enterprises in America. Effects of government enterprises on private
initiative. Effects on the government itself. Relation of government
activities to the maintenance of democracy. Conclusions. =References=:
J. W. GARNER, _Introduction to Political Science_, pp. 273-310; WOODROW
WILSON, _The State_, pp. 41-57; STEPHEN LEACOCK, _Elements of Political
Science_, pp. 386-409; J. G. BROOKS, _The Social Unrest_, pp. 46-67.

2. =The faults of democratic government. References= E. L. GODKIN, _The
Unforeseen Tendencies of Democracy_, pp. 96-144; EMILE FAGUET, _The Cult
of Incompetence_, pp. 12-36; A. M. KALES, _Unpopular Government in the
United States_, pp. 21-90; ALLEYNE IRELAND, _Democracy and the Human
Equation_, pp. 80-118; A. B. CRUIKSHANK, _Popular Misgovernment in the
United States_, pp. 1-27.

3. =The merits of democratic government. References=: C. W. ELIOT,
_American Contributions to Civilization_, pp. 1-102; JAMES BRYCE,
_Modern Democracies_, especially, Vol. II, pp. 527-610; J. Q. DEALEY,
_The State and Government_, pp. 338-353.

Short Studies

1. =What end does the state serve?= WOODROW WILSON, _The State_, pp.
58-68.

2. =The stages in the development of government.= J. Q. DEALEY, _The
State and Government_, pp. 24-45.

3. =The divine right of kings.= R. G. GETTELL, _Readings in Political
Science_, pp. 118-120; _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. I, p.
605.

4. =The Mayflower compact.= WILLIAM MACDONALD, _Documentary Source Book
of American History_, p. 19; EDWARD CHANNING, _History of the United
States_, Vol. I, pp. 308-310.

5. =Does federalism mean weak government?= A. V. DICEY, _The Law of the
Constitution_, pp. 162-172; JAMES BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol.
I, pp. 334-341.

6. =The system of checks and balances.= W. B. MUNRO, _The Government of
the United States_, pp. 47-52; _The Federalist_, No. 47.

7. =The meaning of self-government.= P. L. KAYE, _Readings in Civil
Government_, pp. 15-21.

8. =The relation of government to economic life.= S. P. ORTH, _Readings
in the Relation of Government to Property and Industry_, pp. 25-38.

9. =The first principles of democracy.= F. A. CLEVELAND and JOSEPH
SCHAFER, _Democracy in Reconstruction_, pp. 48-66.

10. =Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy.= A. C. MCLAUGHLIN, _Steps in
the Development of American Democracy_, pp. 78-116.

11. =The outlook for democracy in America.= F. A. CLEVELAND, _Organized
Democracy_, pp. 438-448.

12. =The economic functions of government.= C. J. BULLOCK, _Introduction
to the Study of Economics_, pp. 478-492.

Questions

1. What is the difference between a state and society? Is India a state?
Are the Esquimos a state? Are pirates citizens or subjects of a state?
Did the Mayflower Pilgrims constitute a state before they touched land?

2. Has the doctrine of evolution affected our ideas concerning the
origin of government? Are there any primitive types of government in the
world today?

3. Give some examples of the “constructive work of government” besides
those mentioned in the text.

4. Why are ancient classifications of government practically useless
today? When you say that the United States is a _federal democratic
republic_ what ideas do you intend to convey in each of the three
italicized words?

5. Do you believe that the plan of government now existing in the United
States would be suitable for (_a_) the British Empire; (_b_) China;
(_c_) Switzerland; (_d_) Canada? Tell why or why not in each case.

6. Make up lists of the functions which properly belong to national,
state, and local governments respectively. Give your reasons for placing
such things as “education”, “fire-protection”, “public health”,
“criminal law”, “conservation of natural resources”, and “regulation of
commerce” in one or the other list.

7. James Madison once said that the concentration of legislative,
executive, and judicial powers in the same hands would be “the very
definition of tyranny”. What did he mean? Was he right? Does the same
danger exist today?

8. Arrange the mandatory functions of government in what you believe to
be their order of importance and give reasons for your arrangement.

9. Can you name any characteristics of American government other than
those given in the text? Do the following things distinguish American
government from other governments: woman suffrage, an elective
president, the absence of an hereditary nobility, two-chambered
legislatures, a supreme court?

10. In what ways may direct government be better than representative
government and in what respects not so good? (Consider such general
problems as ensuring responsiveness to the will of the people,
deliberation, the absence of corruption, educational value, and
expense.)

11. What did President Wilson mean when he said that the world must be
made “safe for democracy”? Can the world be safe for democracy while
great and powerful monarchies remain? What changes in addition to the
dethronement of the Kaiser did Americans consider essential in order to
make Germany a democracy?

12. Argue against the proposition that the study of government is the
study of a science.

Topics for Debate

1. Written constitutions have been a hindrance rather than a help to the
development of American democracy.

2. Andrew Jackson was more of a _democrat_ than Thomas Jefferson.

3. It is not right under any circumstances to subject a people to
government without their own consent. #/

CHAPTER V
THE CITIZEN, HIS RIGHTS AND DUTIES

_The purpose of this chapter is to explain who are citizens, what
their rights and duties are, and how training for citizenship is
obtained._

[Sidenote: The old systems of oppression.]

=What Civil Liberty Means.=—One of the best ways to get an appreciation
or what civil liberty means is to read any book which describes the life
of the French people before the Revolution. In those days men could be
arrested without any reason, thrown into jail for months or years
without trial, and their property confiscated. No one could travel from
one part of the country to another without permission. There was no
freedom of religion, no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press.
Nothing could be printed without a license from the authorities. The
farmer who brought his produce into town had to pay a toll on it. The
workman, in order to follow his trade, was required to join a guild and
pay a fee. The amount of taxes which every farmer or workman had to pay
depended upon the will of the tax-collectors, who made a profit out of
the taxes. Soldiers were billeted or boarded in the homes of the people
and the king paid nothing for it. The masses of the people toiled hard
in order that princes and noblemen might live in luxury. That was the
Bourbon despotism of old France.

Things are very different in France today under a republican form of
government; they are different everywhere throughout Europe and America.
Despotic rule has given way to government by the people, and government
by the people has brought civil liberty.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Illustration:

LIBERTY, FRATERNITY, EQUALITY. By Edward Simmons

_Copyright by Edward Simmons. From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis
& Cameron, Boston. Reproduced by permission._
]

LIBERTY, FRATERNITY, EQUALITY

By Edward Simmons

In the New York Criminal Court House.

This mural decoration is placed above the pen in
which the prisoners are kept. Equality, holding
a globe and compasses, displays a sternness and
rigor which Fraternity, with a kindly grip of
the arm, is seeking to soften. Liberty, to the
right, has broken the chain which held him down,
in spirit as well as in body. These three words,
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, formed the motto
of the French Revolution, and they have been the
slogan of militant democracy ever since.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This civil liberty, as it exists in the United States, includes the
following rights:

[Sidenote: The general rights of citizens.]

1. To travel freely from place to place on any lawful errand, and
everywhere to be accorded the equal protection of the laws. The citizen
of New York who goes to California is not an alien there. He is entitled
to all the privileges which belong to an American citizen.

2. To own property, make contracts, and engage in any lawful trade or
labor.

3. To enjoy freedom of worship, freedom of speech, and freedom from
arbitrary arrest.

4. To have a fair trial when accused of any crime; to be protected in
the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and not to be deprived of
them without due process of law.

=Civil Rights were Won by Hard Struggles.=—Now these rights did not
descend upon mankind like manna from the skies. They were gained for the
people by prolonged struggles extending over many centuries. Thousands
of men, at various times in history, gave their lives in order that
these rights might be established. If you were writing a history of
civil liberty among English-speaking people, you would have to go back
at least seven hundred years to the days of Magna Carta, when King John
of England was forced to surrender in that famous document many of the
arbitrary powers which he had claimed the right to exercise. There, on
the historic field of Runnymede, the sullen king promised among other
things that no free man should be imprisoned or fined or outlawed or
otherwise penalized “save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the
law of the land”. The winning of the Great Charter was merely the first
encounter in a long series of conflicts between the kings and the people
of England. Step by step the people wrested from the Crown the right to
control taxation, to punish royal officials for wrong-doing, to be
supreme in the making of laws, and even to change their entire form of
government should they so desire. It was a long and grim struggle,
hard-fought all the way.

“Lance and torch and tumult, steel and grey-goose wing
Wrenched it, inch and ell and all, slowly from the King”.

[Sidenote: The beginnings of civil liberty in America.]

The men who founded the American colonies brought these rights across
the Atlantic with them. In the new soil civic liberty grew and nourished
even better than in the old, so much so that Englishmen at home soon
became concerned over the strong emphasis which the colonies were
placing upon the civil rights of the individual. The gap between the
colonies and Great Britain steadily widened in this respect,—leading in
the end to the Declaration of Independence, which asserted the civil
rights of men to be natural and inalienable. When independence had been
established, after a long and difficult struggle, it is not surprising
that the people of the thirteen states should decide to write the
principles of civil liberty into their new state constitutions. They
took this means of demonstrating their conviction that the fundamental
rights of the citizen ought to be inscribed in a solemn document beyond
the power of legislatures to change. It would be absurd to think,
however, that civil liberty exists in the United States merely because a
list of civil rights is written into the constitutions of the states and
the nation. In the last analysis civil rights depend for their
maintenance and enforcement upon a realization of their value by the
whole people and the willingness of every citizen to grant to others the
rights which he claims for himself.

[Sidenote: Citizenship and allegiance.]

=Who are Citizens?=—The proudest boast of the Roman, in the days when
Rome dominated the world was _Civis Romanus sum_: “I am a Roman
citizen”. By this saying he meant that he was entitled to the protection
of the most powerful country on earth. Cicero, in one of his orations,
declared that these three words would protect any Roman citizen no
matter where he went, even among savage tribes. A Roman citizen was one
who owed allegiance to Rome. An American citizen is one who owes
allegiance to the United States.[19] Every man, woman, and child in
every part of the world bears a relation to some government, and this
relation we call allegiance. There is no such thing, in the eyes of the
law, as “a man without a country”. [Sidenote: Citizenship by birth.]
This allegiance, or citizenship, is acquired in the great majority of
cases by birth. The constitution of the United States declares that “all
persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside”. This means that every child born in this country
and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen, no matter who his parents
happen to be.[20]

[Sidenote: Citizenship by naturalization.]

The other method of acquiring citizenship is by naturalization.
Naturalization is the process by which an alien renounces his original
allegiance and swears allegiance to another country. All white aliens,
and those of African blood, are entitled to become citizens of the
United States by naturalization if they fulfil the legal requirements.
The chief requirement is that the alien who seeks to be naturalized must
have been continuously a resident of the United States for at least five
years. He must also be able to read and write, must have some knowledge
of American institutions, must be of good character, and must not be a
disbeliever in organized government. [Sidenote: The process in
naturalization.] The process of individual naturalization involves two
steps, first a formal declaration of intent to become a citizen, and,
second, the taking of final letters of citizenship. At least two years,
and not more than seven years, must elapse between these two steps. The
work of granting citizenship by naturalization is in the hands of such
regular courts as are designated by law for this purpose. Applications
must be on prescribed forms; evidence as to residence has to be
presented; and the oath of allegiance to the United States must be
taken. Many thousands of aliens are admitted to citizenship in this way
every year.[21] The naturalization of a husband also naturalizes his
wife without any action on her part. The naturalization of a father
makes all his minor children citizens.

=Can a Man have Double Citizenship?=—Is it possible for anyone to be a
citizen of two countries at once? Until recent years it was the practice
of some European countries to claim that when their citizens emigrated
and became naturalized elsewhere they still retained their original
allegiance. Germany, for example, maintained that German emigrants to
the United States did not lose their German citizenship by becoming
naturalized here. If they subsequently returned to Germany, even for a
short time, they were treated as German citizens, required to serve in
the army and to perform the other obligations of German citizenship.
This situation created a great deal of friction because the naturalized
citizens were in the habit of calling upon the United States to protect
them against their own original governments. All this has now been
straightened out by treaties between the United States and foreign
governments in which the latter have conceded the right of emigrants to
become naturalized in the United States and by so doing to renounce
their original citizenship. The United States, for its part, also
concedes the right of any American citizen to become naturalized in a
foreign country, thereby renouncing his allegiance as an American
citizen. These treaties sometimes provide, however, that if an
individual who has been naturalized in the United States goes back to
his native country and remains there a certain length of time, he shall
be deemed to have given up his American citizenship.

[Sidenote: The specific duties of citizens.]

=The Obligations of Citizenship.=—Many people seem to think that
citizenship involves only rights. They rarely place much emphasis upon
the _duties_ which citizenship involves. A government protects its
citizens both at home and abroad; it secures them all the benefits of
civil liberty. In return it lays on them the duty of obedience and the
obligation of service. It is the duty of every good citizen to know his
country’s history, to honor its flag, and to be true to its ideals. This
does not mean that he should despise or dislike people who are not of
his own race or allegiance. All men are brothers. Above all nations is
humanity. Yet no one can be a friend of mankind unless he is, first of
all, a friend of his own land.

It is also the duty of the citizen to know his country’s laws and to
obey them. No one knows all the laws, or needs to know them all, for
very few of them touch the daily life of any one individual. He should
know the laws in so far as he comes into contact with them. The merchant
must know the laws relating to business; there is no need for him to
learn the legal rules relating to the practice of medicine, for example.
The physician, on his part, must know the law in so far as it relates to
his own profession, but does not need to inform himself concerning the
laws which relate to the buying and selling of goods. Laws are made in
the common interest and if ignorance of the law were permitted to be an
excuse for disobedience, the whole system of government would soon break
down.

Finally, it is the duty of the citizen to serve his government when
called upon. This may take the form of military service in time of war,
or service in public office, or service on a jury. All these various
forms of service may involve great personal sacrifice; but a country
worth having is a country worth serving, and it is only through service
on the part of its citizens that a free government can be maintained.

=Training for Citizenship in the Schools.=—Training for citizenship
begins in the home and in the schools. The purpose of the school is not
merely to impart information. That is a small part of its work. Its main
function is to afford the sort of mental and moral training that will
enable every pupil to achieve the durable satisfactions of life,—to make
a good living, to be of high service to others, and to leave the world a
little better by reason of his having lived in it. Many of the best
fruits of education are not found listed on the school program.
Orderliness is one of them. Industry is another. Responsibility for
doing daily tasks well is a third. There are no special courses in these
things. They are part and parcel of the whole process of education. No
one should make the mistake of supposing that the schools train for
citizenship through instruction in American history, civics, and
economics alone. The whole organization of the school, its entire
program of studies, its assemblies, its discipline, its insistence on
punctuality, its organized athletics and other activities,—all these
things afford lessons in co-operation, responsibility, service, and
government.

[Sidenote: How the public schools teach democracy.]

The public school is a miniature democracy. It is free and open to all.
Its pupils have equal privileges and equal responsibilities. It makes no
distinction of race, creed, or wealth. The children of rich and poor
parents sit side by side and are given the same opportunities. Every
pupil who enrolls in a public school gets the same start and his
advancement depends upon his own efforts. In the course of time some
will lead and others fall behind, just as men and women do in the
outside world. Wherever individuals, young or old, are gathered
together, some will forge ahead of the rest by virtue of their natural
ability, their superior industry, or their qualities of leadership.
School experience should impress this great fact of democratic life upon
every pupil’s mind. The pupil who imagines that he can be regularly
behind in his studies, neglectful of his opportunities, unable to
command the respect of his teachers or his fellows in the school, and
yet hope to become a leader in the outside world is making a grave
mistake. It is not thus that the leaders of men are trained. The useful
citizen does not become so in a day or a year. He begins to develop his
qualities while he is young.[22]

=Training for Citizenship on the Playground.=—Recreation and play, when
properly carried on, afford not only exercise and amusement, but
education as well. Some useful lessons which cannot well be taught in
the class-room are learned by participation in organized athletics.
Everyone realizes, for example, that play in which there is no
leadership, no observance of rules, and no system, is a very poor sort
of play. It may give physical exercise in plenty, yet it satisfies
nobody. Anarchy on the playground is no more satisfying than anarchy in
any other branch of human activity. Hence, whenever a group of young men
or young women go to the athletic field, their first step is to organize
into teams or sides. Each team has its captain whose directions are to
be obeyed, not because he is an autocrat, but because the team cannot
hope to win unless it is provided with leadership. When play begins it
is conducted according to rules which everyone is supposed to know and
observe. If the contest is important, an umpire is selected to act as
arbitrator on questions involving an infraction of the rules. Now all
this is merely _government_ on a small scale. The element of leadership,
the team-play, the rules, the practice of obeying the umpire—these
things should suggest to us that officials, laws, government, and courts
also make for the best interests of the individual in the great
interplay of life.

[Sidenote: The spirit that rules the playground.]

What is it that secures co-operation, obedience, and good temper on the
playground? Is it the fear of punishment? No, it is the same force which
in organized society secures obedience to law and respect for the rights
of others, namely, the influence of public opinion. Public opinion, in
other words an inherent sense of fair play among the players, is what
really rules the playground. Bullying or meanness in any form results in
unpopularity. The player who sulks, who shirks his part in the game, or
who selfishly seeks his own way at all times is not preparing himself
rightly to win the confidence and respect of his fellow-citizens in
later life. On the other hand the boy or girl who gains on the
playground a reputation for fairness, good temper, and a readiness to
act in harmony with others is developing those qualities of character
which enable men and women to achieve success in any field of adult
activity. The Duke of Wellington once declared that the battle of
Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton,—a famous boys’ school in
England. What he meant was that this victory was won not by military
skill alone, but by those qualities of discipline and bull-dog tenacity
which the officers of his army had developed on the school athletic
fields in their boyhood days. Peace hath her victories not less renowned
than war. Good citizens as well as good soldiers can be trained on the
playgrounds of every community.[23]

[Sidenote: College education and citizenship.]

=Training for Citizenship in Later Life.=—Civic education is not
completed when one graduates from school. A man’s whole life is a
process of education, a process that is never finished until he dies. So
the work of self-improvement should not be interrupted at any stage. If
the pupil goes to college, it will be found that there the same
qualities of obedience, industry, and respect for the rights of others
will determine whether he stands high or low in the estimation of his
equals. In the college as in the school, everyone starts upon the same
plane with equal opportunities. The college also is an organization with
officials in authority, with rules, and with a vigilant public opinion
among its students. Compared with the school it rises a step nearer to
the ways of the world, giving its students greater latitude but also
placing more responsibility upon them. Its organized athletics develop
the same qualities as are encouraged upon the school playground; its
various other student activities help to make young men and women more
versatile and broader in their interests. Colleges try to make scholars;
they also endeavor to develop habits of industry in their students and
to impress upon them the duty of service to their fellow-men. On the
whole the colleges have succeeded in these things. It is significant
that the great majority of the nation’s leaders, in every branch of
life, are men and women who have had a college education.

Not all high school graduates, however, go to college. The majority go
directly out into the world as wage earners or home makers. They enter
the ranks of our great economic society and seek to move onward to the
top. For the most part all must begin at the bottom, or very near it. A
high school or college education does not relieve anyone from the
necessity of starting on a low rung of the ladder in his chosen trade or
profession. Neither the school nor the college can teach the actual
process of earning a living. This must be learned by direct contact with
the affairs of the world. But the school and the college can so prepare
young citizens that they will climb faster by virtue of the mental
training they have obtained and the habits of industry they have
acquired.

[Sidenote: Public service is a duty of the citizen.]

=Citizenship and Service.=—To make one’s own way successfully in the
world is a laudable ambition, but no one can be and remain a good
citizen if he devotes his entire time and thought to his own
self-advancement. It is well to be diligent in business and faithful to
the immediate duty in hand, but no inspiring career has ever been built
upon foundations of selfishness. If everyone is engrossed in his own
affairs, there will be none to serve and aid the state. On the other
hand a very small amount of public service freely and cheerfully given
by every citizen, results in great benefits to the community which
receives this service, and to the individuals who give it as well. In
this sense, as in all others, it is more blessed to give than to
receive.

[Sidenote: How this service may be rendered.]

The ways of service are manifold. Every community has its civic and
welfare organizations whose aim is the general good. They draw their
members and their active workers from among those citizens who are
public spirited. Boards of trade and chambers of commerce devote
themselves to advancing the economic interests of the community.
Municipal improvement leagues, citizens’ associations, men’s clubs, and
women’s societies are to be found in every large town or city; they have
various aims but all are guided by the same general aspiration, which is
to better the environment in which the people live. The opportunities
for women have been greatly increased by giving them the same
responsibilities as men in all public activities. There are
organizations for the care of the poor, for visiting the sick, and for
the prevention of cruelty in all its forms. All depend for the
effectiveness of their work, and even for their very existence, upon the
degree of interest given to them by public-spirited citizens. There is
no one so poor or so busy that he can give no money, no time, and no
sympathy to any public cause. The citizen who centers all his interest
upon his own personal affairs is not only missing one of the durable
satisfactions of life but is giving himself a schooling in selfishness.
He is not a good citizen in the proper sense of the term.

[Sidenote: The value of experience in public office.]

Service in public office is the best training for good citizenship,
although not all men and women can have this form of civic education.
Yet everyone has a right to aspire to it, and ought to welcome the
opportunity of such service if it comes. It does not usually come
unearned. Like most other opportunities, this one knocks at the doors of
those who have earned their right to it. Men and women who have
displayed no evidence of public spirit are rarely called upon to let
their names go on the ballot. The first step to honorable public office
is taken when one joins a civic or welfare organization and shows
ability to work with and for others. Thus a man’s acquaintance, or a
woman’s acquaintance, gradually broadens; the confidence of others is
gained; and in time the hand of the public beckons to those who have
demonstrated their spirit of service.

Public office is a public trust. The proffer of its opportunities to any
man or woman is a high compliment. Election to public office is the
highest honor a democratic community can bestow. As a means of becoming
well versed in public affairs and in the practical problems of
government there is no training which surpasses it.

General References

EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the United States_, pp. 73-80;

W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the United States_, pp. 71-87;

J. A. WOODBURN and T. F. MORAN, _The Citizen and the Republic_, pp.
1-31;

S. W. MCCALL, _The Liberty of Citizenship_, pp. 1-31;

JAMES BRYCE, _The Hindrances to Good Citizenship_, especially pp. 43-74;

F. A. CLEVELAND, _Organized Democracy_, pp. 80-129;

S. E. BALDWIN, _The Relations of Education to Citizenship_, pp. 27-54;

W. H. TAFT, _Four Aspects of Civic Duty_, pp. 3-34.

Group Problems

=1. How aliens are naturalized.= The requirements. Who are excluded?
Steps in naturalization procedure, the papers, witnesses, oaths, fees,
etc., required. The tests which applicants must take. How aliens can
best be encouraged to become naturalized. What is being done to secure
the naturalization of aliens in your own community? =References=:
_Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. II, pp. 497-498; W. B. MUNRO,
_Government of American Cities_, pp. 107-111; H. M. BECK, _Aliens’ Text
Book on Citizenship_, especially pp. 9-26; PETER ROBERTS, _The Problem
of Americanization_, pp. 109-129; U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF
NATURALIZATION, _Syllabus of the Naturalization Law_ (pamphlet).

=2. Education in its relations to good citizenship.= =References=:
IRVING KING, _Education for Social Efficiency_, pp. 90-176; JAMES BRYCE,
_The Hindrances to Good Citizenship_, pp. 33-42; S. E. BALDWIN, _The
Relations of Education to Citizenship_, pp. 1-26.

=3. The civic organizations of your community.= One or more
organizations, such as Chambers of Commerce, Boards of Trade, Citizens’
Associations, Men’s Clubs, Women’s Clubs, Civic Leagues, Local
Improvement Associations, City Clubs, Reform Associations, Family
Welfare Societies, etc., etc., may be found in every large community.
Their aims and activities may be studied in their annual reports and by
personal interviews with their officers.

Short Studies

1. =First steps in civil liberty.= JAMES H. TUFTS, _Our Democracy_, pp.
101-116.

2. =What are the “privileges and immunities” of citizens?= ARNOLD J.
LIEN, _Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States_,
especially pp. 31-68.

3. =Expatriation.= G. B. DAVIS, _Elements of International Law_, pp.
143-151; W. E. HALE, _International Law_ (4th ed.), pp. 239-255.

4. =Freedom of speech and of the press.= _Cyclopedia of American
Government_, pp. 57-58; T. M. COOLEY, _Constitutional Limitations_, pp.
596-638.

5. =Freedom of worship.= JAMES BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol. II,
pp. 763-771; C. W. ELIOT, _American Contributions to Civilization_, pp.
18-21.

6. =The rights of the citizen against the government.= F. A. CLEVELAND,
_Organized Democracy_, pp. 80-96.

7. =The right to fair judicial process.= EMLIN MCCLAIN, _Constitutional
Law of the United States_, pp. 315-332.

8. =How the hindrances to good citizenship may be removed.= S. E.
BALDWIN, _The Relation of Education to Citizenship_, pp. 27-54.

9. =The playground as a place of education for citizenship.= JOSEPH LEE,
_Play in Education_, pp. 360-391.

10. =How the business man can help his community.= HENRY BRUÈRE, _The
New City Government_, pp. 384-400.

11. =How women can serve their community.= MARY R. BEARD, _Woman’s Work
in Municipalities_, especially pp. 319-337.

12. =May the obstacles to good citizenship be overcome?= JAMES BRYCE,
_The Hindrances to Good Citizenship_, pp. 105-134.

13. =School government as a training for citizenship.= _U. S. Bureau of
Education Bulletin No. 8_ (1915), pp. 7-31; IRVING KING, _Education for
Social Efficiency_, pp. 158-176.

Questions

1. What is the difference between the following: citizens, subjects,
nationals, residents, denizens, aliens?

2. What is meant by the expression to “swear allegiance”? To “forswear
allegiance”? Repeat the oath of allegiance. When is the oath taken (_a_)
by aliens; (_b_) by citizens?

3. Are the following American citizens by birth: (_a_) a boy born
abroad, of alien parentage, whose parents came to the United States and
were naturalized after he was over twenty-one years of age; (_b_)
children of Chinese parents, born in the United States; (_c_) children
of American parents, born in the Philippines; (_d_) children of Porto
Rican parents, born in Europe since 1917?

4. Name four important civic rights. Arrange in each case a set of facts
which would constitute a violation of a civic right.

5. The constitution provides that the people shall have the right to
assemble peaceably. Would it be a violation of this right to require
that a permit from the police must be had in order to hold any meeting
in the streets or in the public parks?

6. Discuss the extent to which the public school is a “miniature
democracy”. Is it organized like a democratic government? To what extent
and under what circumstances can school pupils be entrusted with
self-government or given a share in the maintenance of discipline?

7. To what extent can public opinion be relied upon to enforce the rules
(_a_) in athletics; (_b_) in the class-rooms; (_c_) in business; (_d_)
in government? Would laws be effective if there were no penalties but
the censure of public opinion to enforce them? If not, why not?

8. What is the value of a high school or college education in training
young men and women (_a_) to make a living; (_b_) to become leaders;
(_c_) to help their fellow-citizens; (_d_) to hold public office?
Towards which of these things does education contribute the most?

9. Can any one be a good citizen without knowing how government is
carried on? Without knowing American history? Without belonging to any
social or civic organization? Without voting at elections? Without being
at all interested in social or political questions?

Topics for Debate

1. No one who is not a citizen should be permitted to become a voter.

2. The obligation of military service ought to be imposed upon aliens as
well as upon citizens.

3. The teaching of civics should be made compulsory in all grammar and
high schools.

-----

Footnote 13:

The monotony of labor, however, is to some extent a matter of
temperament. Some workers find even routine tasks interesting because
they are constantly trying to attain greater expertness at the
particular job. Others find work of a very varied character to be
monotonous.

Footnote 14:

There are two other forms of productive organization, neither of them
very common. One is the co-operative association, with or without
capital stock; the other is the organization of production under the
direct management of the public authorities. The organization of the
postal service is an example.

Footnote 15:

The Lockwood Committee, which made its investigations during 1920 in
New York, found that excessive costs of building construction were due
in considerable measure to the existence of artificial monopolies
among producers of building materials.

Footnote 16:

It has been suggested that instead of giving inventors the exclusive
right to make and sell their appliances, this right should be given to
everybody with a provision that a fixed rate of royalty should be paid
to the inventor. This would afford an incentive to the inventor while
preventing the creation of legal monopolies.

Footnote 17:

The doctrine of the divine right of rulers was based upon certain
Biblical texts, particularly Romans xiii, 1-7, and was put forth in
the Middle Ages to support the secular rulers against the Church. The
Bourbon kings of France, especially Louis XIV, asserted it, as well as
the Stuart kings of England. The House of Hohenzollern in Germany
maintained the doctrine, and the former Kaiser on more than one
occasion alluded to himself as a ruler by divine right. Those who are
interested in pursuing this topic further will find a great deal about
it in J. N. Figgis, _The Divine Right of Kings_ (London, 1896) and in
_The Political Writings of James I_ (ed. C. H. McIlwain, Cambridge,
1915).

Footnote 18:

For example, E. L. Godkin, _Unforeseen Tendencies of Democracy_ (N.
Y., 1898), p. 46; Emile Faguet, _The Cult of Incompetence_ (N. Y.,
1911), pp. 35-36; A. M. Kales, _Unpopular Government in the United
States_ (Chicago, 1914); A. B. Cruikshank, _Popular Misgovernment in
the United States_ (N. Y., 1920), and Alleyne Ireland, _Democracy and
the Human Equation_ (N. Y., 1921), pp. 75-79.

Footnote 19:

Corporations, as well as individuals, are citizens in the eyes of the
law. The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey is a citizen of New Jersey
and as such is entitled to all the “privileges and immunities of
citizens of the United States”.

Footnote 20:

Some children although born in the United States are not subject to
American jurisdiction. The children of a foreign ambassador, serving
in the United States, are for this reason not citizens, even though
born here. Children born on board a foreign warship in an American
harbor are not deemed to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the
United States. But with a few unimportant exceptions of this sort all
persons born in the United States are born within its jurisdiction,
and hence are citizens by birth.

One may be an American citizen by birth, moreover, without having been
born in the United States. The children of American parents, even
though born outside the territory of the United States, have the right
to claim this citizenship. Children of American parents, born on the
high seas, or on American war vessels in foreign ports, or children of
American ambassadors born abroad, are citizens of the United States by
virtue of their parentage. Children of American parents, born on
foreign soil, have the right to choose between American citizenship
and citizenship of the country in which they were born.

Footnote 21:

On rather rare occasions a large body of people, not citizens by
birth, have become citizens of the United States by what is called
collective naturalization. When Louisiana (1803), Florida (1819) and
Alaska (1867) were acquired, for example, the treaties which provided
for their acquisition stipulated that all inhabitants of these
territories should be admitted to American citizenship without
becoming individually naturalized. On the other hand, when Porto Rico
and the Philippine Islands were ceded to us by Spain in 1898 there was
no such provision. In the case of the Porto Ricans, citizenship was
conferred by an act of Congress in 1917; in the case of the Filipinos
the full status of American citizenship has not yet been granted. The
Filipinos are called “nationals” of the United States, which means
that they have the protection of the federal government, but are not
entitled to all the other privileges and immunities of citizenship as
provided in the constitution. Collective naturalization may thus be
provided for by treaty or granted by act of Congress.

Footnote 22:

The leisure hours of pupils may also be utilized to secure excellent
lessons in good citizenship. Unfortunately they are not always so
used. Many of the recreations which are now popular with the young
people of the United States afford neither physical exercise nor
mental inspiration, neither do they conduce to the strengthening of
character.

Footnote 23:

Attention should be called to the inducement which in some schools is
given to broad civic training by awarding to pupils a rank which is
based upon proficiency in all their activities, scholarship,
athletics, debating, good influence upon others, qualities of
leadership, and so on. Student self-government may also be used in
schools to afford training in the fundamentals of good citizenship.

CHAPTER VI
POPULAR CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT

_The purpose of this chapter is to explain how the people, both
directly and indirectly, control all branches of government in the
United States._

PUBLIC OPINION AND REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT

[Sidenote: The ultimate sovereignty of the people.]

=How the People Rule.=—In free governments the will of the people
prevails in the decision of all important matters. This does not mean,
of course, that the people decide every question directly, but merely
that when a substantial majority of them have reached a decision upon
any point their will prevails through one channel or another. The wishes
of the American people have at times been thwarted by their government;
but in the long run, when the people have made up their minds, their
will has brushed aside every obstacle and has become the supreme law of
the land. This popular control of American government is exerted in four
ways, namely, by the pressure of public opinion upon all officials, by
the periodic election of representatives, by direct law-making through
the initiative and referendum, and by the action of the people in
amending their state constitutions.

The pressure of public opinion is continuous, and it is exerted in
various ways. The government cannot proceed very far in defiance of it.
The election of representatives, on the other hand, takes place at
stated intervals, and in the period between elections the people do not
have direct control over those whom they elect. But where provision for
the initiative and referendum exists, the people may frame and enact
laws without the intervention of their representatives and thus may
exercise direct control. Finally, the ultimate agency of popular
sovereignty is the power of the people to amend their constitutions. So
far as the state constitutions are concerned they accept or reject
proposed changes by their own votes; in the case of the national
constitution they act through their representatives in Congress and in
the state legislatures. By these four methods of control we maintain
what is known as the sovereignty of the people.

[Sidenote: What is public opinion?]

=Popular Rule through Public Opinion.=—We hear a good deal nowadays
about public opinion. What is it? How is it ascertained? How does it
make itself felt? In general, public opinion is the term which we apply
to the predominating sentiment among the people. Public opinion is the
sum-total of opinions held by individuals. It is not merely the
snap-judgment of the majority, however, because _intensity_ of belief is
a factor which counts in determining it. Public opinion is a composite
of numbers and intensity. A majority of the people may hold a certain
belief upon any public question; but if they hold it lightly, without
attaching much importance to it, we do not speak of their sentiment as
public opinion. It is only when sentiment attains the earnestness of
conviction that the term public opinion can be properly applied to it.

[Sidenote: The channels through which it makes itself felt.]

Public opinion, in this sense, is continually exerting pressure upon all
branches of government in the United States. It finds expression through
the editorial columns of newspapers, through resolutions adopted by
societies and organizations, through letters from voters to their
representatives in Congress and in the legislatures, and through the
conversation of people wherever they are gathered together. The
representatives of the people are ever on the alert to discern the drift
of public opinion.[24] They desire to keep in touch with it. A capable
representative always keeps his hand upon the public pulse. When public
opinion undergoes a change, the attitude of the government swings with
it, slowly perhaps, but inevitably. Public opinion is not easy to
ascertain exactly, for it cannot be measured by any process of
arithmetic. Some men are better at gauging it than others. One of the
attributes of a successful politician is his ability to estimate public
opinion accurately. When we say, therefore, that we have “government by
public opinion”, we mean that those who are in authority are influenced
and guided by it.

[Sidenote: Government by representatives.]

=Popular Rule through Representatives.=—Although public opinion exerts a
guiding influence upon the course of government, the actual work of
making the laws and putting them into operation must be performed, for
the most part, by individuals selected for this purpose, that is by
elective or appointive officers. We say “elective or appointive” because
these are the two ways in which officers of government may be chosen;
they may be elected by popular vote, or they may be appointed by some
authority which, in turn, has been elected by the people. The members of
all legislative bodies in the United States (Congress, the state
legislatures, city and town councils) are directly elected by the
people. The chief executive officers in the nation, state, and city
(President, governors, and mayors) are chosen in the same way.[25] In
many states it is also the custom to choose some other executive
officers, such as the attorney-general, state auditors, superintendent
of education, as well as the judges and prosecuting attorneys by direct
popular election. Subordinate officers of administration, on the other
hand, are for the most part appointed. In the national government all
officials of administration subordinate to the President are appointed
by him, likewise all judges and court officers. In the state and local
governments, some subordinate officers are elected but most of them are
appointed by the governor, the county commissioners, or the mayor, as
the case may be.

[Sidenote: When we should elect and when appoint.]

=Election or Appointment, Which is Better?=—We often encounter the
question: Which is the better plan of securing good men in public
office—to elect them or to have them appointed? The answer to this
question depends upon what we expect the officials to do. If the
function of the official is to _represent_ the people in deciding
questions of general policy as in the case of a congressman, a state
legislator, or a municipal councilman, the people ought to choose him.
It is the right and the duty of the people to choose their own
representatives. If they did not do so, we should not have
“representative” government. But if the function of the official is not
to decide questions of general policy but to do work which requires
skill and experience, it is better to make the office appointive. The
rule, in brief, may be stated as follows: When you want representation,
elect; when you want skill or experience, appoint. Some difficulty
arises, however, in the case of officials who are expected both to
represent the people and to perform functions which require expertness.
Take, for example, the state treasurer or the state auditor. These
officials represent the financial interests of the people; they are also
called upon to perform functions which require skill and experience.
Officials in this dual class are in some states elected; in others they
are appointed by the governor. Whether we ought to use one method or the
other depends upon where we place the emphasis—upon representation or
upon administrative efficiency. Account should also be taken of the fact
that if too many officials are elected the ballot will be long and
complicated. In that case some poorly-qualified candidates are likely to
be chosen because voters will not go through a long list carefully (see
p. 132).

[Sidenote: Should a representative obey his own conscience or the will
of the voters?]

=The Function of a Representative.=—The function of a representative, as
the term implies, is to represent. But how is he to be guided in the
performance of this function? Is it the duty of a representative in
Congress or in a state legislature to reflect the public opinion of his
district whether he personally agrees with it or not? Should he obey the
dictates of his own conscience and follow his own view of what the
public welfare demands, or should he disregard these things and consider
only the opinions of those voters who elected him? Let us suppose, for
example, that a congressman personally believes in free trade. He is
absolutely convinced, let us assume, that this is the only right policy.
But he also knows, let us say, that the voters of his district are
overwhelmingly in favor of high protective duties because they believe
that wages will be higher if foreign goods are shut out. What is the
duty of this congressman when called upon to vote for or against a
protective tariff? Which should control—his own conviction or the
opinions of those who elected him as their representative?

[Sidenote: Edmund Burke’s views.]

Many years ago the eminent Irish orator and statesman, Edmund Burke,
gave his opinion on this matter in a speech to the voters of Bristol,
whom he represented in the British House of Commons. A representative,
according to Burke, ought to give due weight to the opinions of those
who elected him, but he ought not to sacrifice his own best judgment to
any man or to any group of men. It is the function of a representative
to master all the details of public problems, which the people of his
district cannot be expected to do, and to make his decision accordingly.
“I maintained your interests against your opinions,” he said to the
voters of Bristol in defending his actions. “A representative worthy of
you ought to be a person of stability. I am to look, indeed, to your
opinions, but to such opinions as you and I must have five years hence.
I am not to look to the flash of the day.”

Public officials in the United States do not usually talk that way. They
dilate upon the wisdom of the people, and profess their own readiness to
conform to whatever the people demand. They are prone to forget that a
representative in Congress or in a state legislature does not represent
his own district alone. He is in effect a representative of the whole
people in nation or state. It is poor patriotism to sacrifice the best
interests of the whole to the desires of any single community. At the
same time when public opinion is strong and clear, we expect the
representatives of the people to hearken to it. When it is vague or in
doubt, the representative must depend upon his own judgment. If a
representative cannot, because of his own conscientious belief, do what
the people expect him to do, his duty is to resign. Representatives,
however, do not often resign for this or any other reason.

THE APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS.

=Methods of Appointment.=—There are three ways of making appointments.
First, appointments may be made by some high executive officer, such as
the President or the governor of a state, subject to the confirmation of
a legislative body. Second, they may be made by the executive without
the advice and consent of anyone else. Third, they may be made under
civil service rules by a competitive examination.[26]

[Sidenote: The merits and defects of confirmation.]

=Appointments with Confirmation.=—In the national government practically
all appointments of high importance, including heads of departments,
ambassadors, judges, and so on, are made by the President subject to the
consent of the Senate. The President nominates, but the final
appointment depends upon confirmation by a majority of the senators (see
p. 270). So in state government the appointment of higher administrative
officials is usually shared by the governor and the upper chamber of the
state legislature. In the larger cities it has been the custom to
require confirmation of the mayor’s appointments by the city council or
the upper branch of it; but this requirement is now being generally
abandoned. The purpose of requiring confirmation is to prevent too great
a growth in power on the part of the chief executive; its effect has
been to divide responsibility and it has resulted, very often, in poor
appointments. It is good policy, in local and state government at least,
to insist that the responsibility for appointments shall be centralized
and not divided. In the national government, where the appointing power
is of such enormous importance, and might, if unchecked, be so easily
used to perpetuate a President in office, the safeguard of confirmation
is more easily justified.

=Appointments without Confirmation.=—The practice of permitting a chief
executive to make appointments without confirmation began in the large
cities. New York made the start, many years ago, by allowing the mayor
to appoint the heads of the city departments on his own responsibility.
Since then the plan has spread widely and in some cases the states have
given the governor a similar power. In other cases the confirmation has
become, for the most part, a matter of routine, the understanding being
that the governor has the real responsibility and hence should be left
free to make his own selections.

THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM.

[Sidenote: Giving the offices to politicians.]

=Patronage and Partisanship.=—When appointments are made by an executive
officer, with or without confirmation, or by a legislative body, there
is always a danger that partisan motives will influence the selection.
Nearly all executive and legislative officers are themselves partisan.
They are themselves nominated, in most cases, by party conventions or
primaries; they are elected with the aid of party workers; and they are
therefore under obligation to help the party interest in any reasonable
way. Now it has been commonly believed that one effective way of helping
a party organization is to appoint prominent and active members of the
party to public office, thus giving a reward for their work in the
party’s behalf. Men who have helped a President or a governor to gain
the party nomination and get elected do not usually allow these
officials to forget their obligations when appointments are to be made.
The appointing power, in other words, may be used as a means of
bestowing “patronage”, or rewards for party service and it has been so
used in all branches of American government.

=Rise of the Spoils System.=—In the earlier days of the Republic it was
the custom to make appointments with little or no reference to party
politics.[27] But with the election of Andrew Jackson officials were
removed in large numbers to provide patronage for the leaders of the
victorious political party. Jackson’s supporters frankly enunciated the
doctrine that “to the victors belong the spoils”, hence the practice of
displacing one set of officials and filling the vacant posts with
another set became known as the “spoils system”. From this time to 1883,
a full half-century, it was customary to remove large numbers of
administrative officials whenever a new President came in. The notion
spread that offices ought to be passed around; that four years was long
enough for anyone to be on the public payroll, and that in a democracy
everyone ought to have his share of the patronage.

=The Iniquities of the Spoils System.=—This doctrine, although it was
for more than fifty years accepted by public opinion in the United
States, rested upon a false conception of democratic government. It
assumed the interests of the political party to be more important than
efficiency in the government service. It assumed that administrative
work could be well-enough performed by men who had no qualifications in
the way of education or experience—nothing but a record of party
service. The spoils system regarded public office in nation, state, and
city as mere booty for the victorious hordes after an election, whereas
public office is “a public trust”, as Grover Cleveland once quite
rightly said. It is a privilege and a responsibility; not a right or a
reward. No man has a right to hold public office merely because he
belongs to the winning party. He has a right only when he is qualified
to perform the functions which the tenure of public office involves.

[Sidenote: Results of the spoils system.]

Being based upon a false doctrine the spoils system was pernicious in
its results. It filled the administrative offices of the land with party
henchmen who were incompetent to perform the difficult work of
administration; it resulted in such frequent changes of officials that a
man no sooner learned the duties of his position than he was removed to
make room for someone else; it debased the whole tone of the public
service. It spread from the national government to the states and from
the states to the cities, making the government service everywhere less
efficient than private enterprise. Presidents, senators, and
representatives were forced to spend a large portion of their time in
listening to the pleas of office-seekers. Even Lincoln, in the dark days
of the Civil War, could not escape the deluge of applicants for
appointments.[28] Not everyone who sought office could be appointed, of
course, and where refusals were made they often caused much bitterness.
The seriousness of the whole situation was strongly impressed upon the
public mind in 1881, when President Garfield was shot by a man whose
request for an appointment had been refused.

=The Rise of the Civil Service System.=—Popular aversion to the spoils
system ultimately moved Congress to pass the Civil Service Act of 1883.
Although this statute has been several times amended and its provisions
broadened, it still remains the basis of the merit system as applied to
federal appointments. Briefly, it provides for a Civil Service
Commission of three persons appointed by the President with the
confirmation of the Senate. It gives the President power to classify the
various subordinate offices, with the provision that all offices so
classified must thereafter be filled by competitive examinations. When
the law went into force only about fourteen thousand positions were
placed in the classified service but the list has been steadily widened
until today more than three hundred thousand positions in the employ of
the national government are filled by examination. These examinations
are conducted by the Civil Service Commission.

[Sidenote: The spread of civil service.]

From the national government the civil service system spread to many of
the states and cities where it has steadily made progress although it is
yet far from being universally established. More than half the states
are even yet without civil service laws. In the larger cities the
adoption of the merit system had been more general; nearly all of them
have now established it in one form or other. The system of patronage is
everywhere losing its hold although the politicians often fight hard to
retain it. From the present outlook it is only a question of time until
all administrative offices except the very highest will be filled under
civil service rules.

[Sidenote: The nature of civil service tests.]

=How the Merit System Works.=—The actual operation of the civil service
or merit system is as follows: Whenever a classified position is to be
filled, the appointing officer calls upon the Civil Service Commission
to send him the names of suitable persons. If the commission has
recently held competitions for a similar position, it may have names on
hand. For example, if the appointment is to the position of mail-clerk,
stenographer, postman, or policeman, there is no delay in sending in the
names because examinations for these posts, owing to the steady demand,
are held frequently. But if some unusual position is to be filled, such
as that of chemist in the city’s water department, it is usually
necessary to hold a special competition. Public announcement is made;
applications are received; examination papers are made out; the tests
are taken by the various applicants, and the results are figured out.
Then the Civil Service Commission certifies to the appointing officer
the names which are highest on the list, usually the three highest, and
the appointment is made from among these names.

[Sidenote: They are practical in their nature.]

Do not imagine, however, that a civil service competition takes the form
of examinations like those given in school or college. The questions
relate to the work which the applicant will have to do. Candidates for
appointment as stenographers are given a practical test to determine
whether they can take dictation rapidly, read it accurately, and write
it out neatly with a typewriter. Civil service tests for policemen take
the form of a physical examination, questions on elementary law, and on
the duties of a policeman. There are different examinations for each
kind of position. The examiners study what qualifications a position
demands and then devise a set of examinations which will test these
qualifications. The Civil Service Commission does not make the
appointments; it merely certifies the names of those who stand highest.
From these names the appointing officer usually selects the first on the
list, but in some cases he is permitted to choose any one of the first
three names.

=Value of the Merit System.=—The merit system does not always succeed in
picking out the best among those who apply for a vacant position. No
system of competitive tests is infallible. Even school examinations do
not always prove who is the best scholar. But they come nearer doing so
than any other method. Civil service tests do succeed in weeding out the
unfit. They protect the public service against the appointment of
officials who are clearly incompetent and have no qualifications except
political influence. If the civil service system does not always select
the best it certainly enables us to avoid the worst, which is something
that the spoils system never did.

[Sidenote: The democratic character of the civil service system.]

The civil service system is democratic. It gives everyone an equal
chance. It matters not who the candidates are, whether rich or poor,
Republicans or Democrats, with friends or without friends—all have an
equal opportunity. Merit is the only thing that counts. And it is the
only thing that ought to count in filling public positions. It is true
that the candidate with an education usually has an advantage in
answering civil service questions; but does not education help a man or
woman in every branch of life? In a country where education is free can
we call a system of appointment “undemocratic” because it gives the
educated candidate an advantage? Under the merit system men and women
_win_ appointments; they do not receive appointments by favor. They hold
their posts during good behavior and are protected against dismissal
without cause. The cause must be specific and stated in writing. This
being done, the appointing officer usually has the right to dismiss a
subordinate and this right is necessary to the maintenance of proper
discipline. Under the civil service system, however, dismissals are not
frequent.[29]

DIRECT LEGISLATION BY THE PEOPLE

[Sidenote: Some definitions.]

=The Initiative and Referendum: What they are.=—The machinery of direct
legislation consists of two political devices which usually go together
and are known as the initiative and referendum. By the initiative is
meant the right of a stated percentage of voters in any state or other
political division to propose a law and to require that if this proposal
is not forthwith adopted by the regular law-making authorities it shall
be submitted to the people for their decision at the polls. The
initiative usually covers constitutional amendments as well as laws. To
put it in less technical language, if anyone believes that a new law or
ordinance should be passed, he draws up the law or ordinance in such
form as he desires; then he gets a certain number of voters to sign a
petition asking for its passage. If the legislature enacts it, well and
good; if it does not enact it the question whether the law will be
adopted goes on the ballot for the voters to decide.

The referendum, on the other hand, is an arrangement whereby a measure
already passed by the legislature or city council may, under certain
conditions, be withheld from going into effect until the people have had
an opportunity to accept or reject it at the polls. The conditions
usually are that a certain number of voters shall present a petition
asking that the measure be withheld from going into force. The
referendum, as a rule, cannot be invoked in the case of emergency
measures.

=Their Progress in America.=—It is only about a quarter of a century
since the initiative and referendum, in this form, made their appearance
in America, the first state to establish them being South Dakota in
1898.[30] Other states soon took up the idea and today nearly half the
entire number of states have made provision for direct legislation in
one form or another.[31] [Sidenote: Spread of direct legislation.] From
the states the movement spread to the cities, a large number of which
now have provisions for the initiative and referendum inserted in their
charters. The extension of the system to the national government, by
means of an amendment to the constitution, is now being urged by some
organizations, including the American Federation of Labor.

[Sidenote: Reasons for this rapid extension.]

How is the rapid spread of this movement for direct legislation in the
United States to be accounted for? Two reasons for it, at least, may be
given. One is the decline of popular confidence in lawmaking by
legislators. The work of the legislatures in many of the states, and of
the city councils in most of the cities, has been unsatisfactory to the
people on a good many occasions. It has given vogue to the idea that the
people themselves could not do much worse and might do a great deal
better. The second reason may be found in the habit of waiving
responsibility which many legislatures and city councils have acquired
in recent years. When difficult questions come before legislatures, the
legislators frequently find an easy solution, so far as they themselves
are concerned, by “putting the matter directly up to the people”. In
other words they agree to place the questions on the ballot at the next
election. In many states this practice of passing measures with a
“referendum clause” has become very common. It has paved the way for
direct legislation on a wider scale.

=The Initiative and Referendum in Practice.=—In actual practice the
initiative and referendum do not provide a simple and easy means of
making laws. Their use is hedged about by all sorts of formalities and
conditions. In no two states are these conditions exactly alike, but in
a general way the practical workings of direct legislation are somewhat
as follows:

[Sidenote: The petition.]

As the first step, those who desire a new law make a draft of it in
writing. Then they write out a brief petition to accompany it and obtain
as many signatures as they can. The usual requirement is that a certain
percentage of the qualified voters must sign the petition before it will
be accepted by the authorities. These signatures are secured by holding
meetings, or by a house-to-house canvass, or by placing copies of the
petition in banks, stores, and other public places where voters can sign
them. When enough signatures have been obtained, the petition,
accompanied by the draft of the proposed law, is presented to the proper
official at the state Capitol or city hall and this official checks the
names with a copy of the voters’ list. [Sidenote: The scrutiny.] If he
finds that all the requirements have been fulfilled, he endorses on the
petition a statement to this effect and makes provision for placing the
question on the ballot at the next election or, in some cases, at a
special election held for the purpose. Meanwhile, the legislature or
city council may enact the measure, in which case the question need not
be placed on the ballot. [Sidenote: The voting.] To inform the voters
concerning the various initiative measures which are to be voted on,
some states have provided that a pamphlet shall be prepared and mailed
to every voter previous to the election. These pamphlets contain the
texts of the proposed laws and also, in some cases, a summary of the
arguments for and against each proposal. At the election the voters mark
their ballots with a cross opposite the words Yes or No and the proposed
law is adopted or rejected in accordance with the will of the majority.

In the case of the referendum a petition is also drawn up and a
designated number of signatures obtained. When enough signatures have
been secured, usually the same number as is required for the initiative,
the petition is presented, checked up, and certified in the same way.
The law in question, although duly enacted by the legislature, is then
withheld from going into effect until the voters ratify it at an
election.

In some states the initiative and referendum have been used quite
freely; in others hardly at all. In Oregon, during the decade 1906-1916,
no fewer than ninety-one measures were submitted to the voters at five
elections; in Massachusetts only four measures have been initiated by
petition in five years. Much greater use has been made of direct
legislation in the Far West than in the East.

[Sidenote: The arguments in favor.]

=Merits of Direct Legislation.=—The reputed merits of the initiative and
referendum may be summed up under four heads. 1. _It makes government
more democratic._ In legislatures the influence of some class, section,
or partisan element among the people has often determined the nature of
the laws. By the use of direct legislation the whole people can make
their will effective. 2. _It has an educative value._ People who are
called upon to vote upon measures will learn something about them before
going to the polls. When the legislators alone make the laws, the
individual voter takes no interest in the lawmaking. But when the
questions go on the ballot there is a general public discussion of the
arguments for and against. In this way the whole body of the voters
becomes informed on public problems. 3. _It gives the ordinary citizen a
chance to make his influence felt._ The legislature, in doing its work,
does not hear much from the plain man who attends to his own business.
It hears chiefly from the “vested interests”, the corporations, and
capitalists on the one hand, or from labor organizations or the farmers
on the other. It is also subjected to pressure by politicians and party
leaders. But a considerable part of the population is made up of men and
women who are neither capitalists, union workers, nor politicians.
Direct legislation gives this silent section of the electorate a chance.
4. _It keeps legislative bodies on their good behavior._ The initiative
and referendum are not intended to supplant lawmaking by legislatures.
Most of the laws will continue to be made by the old process. Direct
legislation is merely a remedy in the hands of the people for use when
the regular lawmaking bodies fail to carry out the popular will. Knowing
that the voters have this weapon ready for use, the legislators are more
careful about what they do. They know that an appeal may be taken to the
voters and their own decisions overturned. This is an incentive to
better work on their part. Hence the initiative and referendum will
really strengthen rather than destroy our system of representative
government.

[Sidenote: The arguments against.]

=Defects of Direct Legislation.=—But there are arguments on the other
side as well; and these also can be arranged under four headings. 1.
_Direct legislation weakens the civil rights of the individual._ These
rights are embodied in the state constitutions for the purpose of
preserving them. But if a majority of the voters can change these
constitutions at any time, there is no longer any distinction between
constitutions and laws. This means that there is no special protection
for the rights of property, for free speech, or for freedom of worship.
A majority can ride rough-shod over a minority at any time. 2. _Direct
legislation is usually the work of a majority in name only._ Not more
than eighty per cent of the people regularly cast their ballots on
election day; the proportion is often much smaller. Of those who go to
the polls many do not vote on all the questions. The result is that
measures are frequently ratified by the votes of only thirty or forty
per cent of the whole electorate, in other words by a distinct minority.
The alleged “rule of the majority” thus becomes a fiction, not a fact.
3. _Direct legislation results in appeals to public prejudice and leads
to demagogism._ When measures are submitted to the people the discussion
is not confined to the merits of the proposed laws. The supporters and
opponents alike appeal to the prejudice and the self-interest of the
voters. The demagogue uses his opportunity to the fullest extent, thus
inflaming bitterness between different classes among the people. There
is no opportunity for calm deliberation or compromise as in the
legislative halls. The voters can only say Yes or No. They must take the
measure as it stands or reject it entirely. As a rule, moreover, the man
who is ready to say Yes or No to any public question can be set down as
one who has given very little thought to the subject. 4. _Direct
legislation tends to break down the whole system of representative
government._ It divides the responsibility for lawmaking, encourages the
election of less efficient representatives, and places upon the people a
task which they cannot intelligently perform. The voters will not, and
cannot, fully inform themselves about the merits and defects of ten,
twenty, or thirty different questions on the ballot. It is absurd, the
opponents of direct legislation declare, to submit a long list of
questions to the voters when thousands of these voters are not even able
to read or write.[32]

[Sidenote: Which are the stronger?]

=The Relative Weight of these Arguments.=—The fore-going paragraphs give
the arguments, both for and against direct legislation, as they are
commonly put forth by the two sides. The supporters of direct
legislation are inclined to magnify its merits; the opponents are
equally prone to overstate its defects. Due allowance should be made for
this in weighing their respective arguments. Direct legislation has not
put an end to the power of political bosses or destroyed the party
system or made all the laws righteous. On the other hand it has not led
to lawmaking by demagogues or impaired the fundamental rights of the
citizen. Laws passed by means of the initiative and referendum have
been, on the whole, no better and no worse than laws passed by
legislatures. The strong probability is, if one may venture a
prediction, that less use of direct legislation will be made as time
goes on. This does not mean, however, that the system will be valueless.
It still remains a highly important weapon of last resort which the
people can use if they need it. At any rate no one need hesitate to make
up his own mind as to the relative merits and defects of the initiative
and referendum, for he will find himself in pretty good company
whichever side he takes.

=The Recall.=—The recall is the right of a designated number of voters
to demand the immediate removal of any elective officeholder and to have
their demand submitted to the voters for decision. A petition for
removal is drawn up and circulated for signatures; when enough
signatures have been obtained it is presented to the proper authorities
who thereupon hold an election to decide the matter. The petition
usually states the reasons for demanding the officeholder’s removal
before the expiration of his term. If a majority of those who vote on
the question are in favor of the removal, the officeholder vacates his
post at once; if they reject the demand for a recall, he continues in
office. Provision for the recall was first established in Los Angeles
(1903), and during the past twenty years it has been adopted in many
cities in different parts of the country. Ten states have also provided
for the recall of elective state officers. Several city officials have
been removed at recall elections, but only one state officer has yet
been ousted from office by this procedure.[33]

The purpose of the recall is to ensure the complete and continual
responsibility of public officials to the people who have elected them.
It enables the establishment of longer terms of office without incurring
the danger of autocracy on the part of officeholders. On the other hand,
the recall is a weapon which may easily be perverted to wrongful use. If
attempts were made to oust an officeholder whenever his work gives
offence to any influential element among the voters, the recall
procedure would soon become an intolerable nuisance in that it would be
continually bringing the people to the polls. It would likewise deter
independent and capable men from accepting office at all. But as a
matter of fact the recall has not been widely used. For the most part
the people have held it in reserve for emergencies. It is like a
fire-escape on the outside of a building, not to be used at all under
ordinary circumstances, but exceedingly valuable when an emergency
comes.

General References

JAMES BRYCE, _Modern Democracies_, Vol. I, pp. 151-164 (Public Opinion);
Vol. II, pp. 417-434 (Direct Legislation by the People);

A. L. LOWELL, _Public Opinion and Popular Government_, pp. 113-232
(Methods of Expressing Public Opinion);

A. B. HART, _Actual Government_, pp. 270-273 (Appointing Power); 276-294
(Civil Service);

W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the United States_, pp. 501-521 (Direct
Legislation and the Recall);

E. M. PHELPS (editor), _Initiative and Referendum_ (Debaters’ Handbook
Series);

DELOS F. WILCOX, _Government by All the People_ (The Arguments in
Favor), pp. 104-128; 149-163;

ARNOLD B. HALL, _Popular Government_ (The Arguments Against), pp.
120-143.

Group Problems

1. =What is public opinion?= How is it formed? Influence of the press.
News columns and editorials. The press and propaganda. Influence of
advertisers. The large measure of independence in the press. Resolutions
of organizations. Communications to legislators. Relative importance of
the various channels of public opinion. =References=: A. V. DICEY, _The
Relations between Law and Public Opinion in England_, pp. 17-47; JAMES
BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol. II, pp. 251-266; _Ibid._, _Modern
Democracies_, Vol. I, pp. 92-110; 151-164; A. L. LOWELL, _Public Opinion
and Popular Government_, pp. 4-56; G. H. PAYNE, _History of Journalism
in the United States_, pp. 347-359 and _passim_; ARNOLD B. HALL,
_Popular Government_, pp. 25-44; WALTER LIPPMAN, _Liberty and the News_,
_passim_.

2. =The initiative and referendum in their practical workings.=
=References=: J. D. BARNETT, _The Operation of the Initiative,
Referendum and Recall in Oregon_, pp. 101-125; Illinois Constitutional
Convention (1920), _Bulletins_, No. 2; Massachusetts Constitutional
Convention (1917-1918), _Bulletins_, No. 6; A. L. LOWELL, _Public
Opinion and Popular Government_, pp. 169-239; D. F. WILCOX, _Government
by All the People_, pp. 229-320; ARNOLD B. HALL, _Popular Government_,
pp. 120-143.

3. =The civil service system: its progress, aims, and methods.=
=References=: A. B. HART, _Actual Government_, pp. 276-294; C. A. BEARD,
_American Government and Politics_, pp. 222-230; P. S. REINSCH,
_Readings in American Federal Government_, pp. 683-702; W. B. MUNRO,
_Government of American Cities_, pp. 271-290; C. R. FISH, _The Civil
Service and the Patronage_, _passim_; J. T. YOUNG, _The New American
Government and its Work_, pp. 592-608.

Short Studies

1. =The responsibility of public officials.= F. A. CLEVELAND, _Organized
Democracy_, pp. 394-409.

2. =The function of a representative.= J. W. JENKS, _Principles of
Politics_, pp. 77-84; J. S. MILL, _On Representative Government_
(Everyman’s Library), pp. 202-218; 228-241.

3. =The election vs. the appointment of public officials.= JOHN M.
MATHEWS, _Principles of American State Administration_, pp. 173-190.

4. =The spoils system.= JAMES BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol. II,
pp. 136-145; JAMES A. WOODBURN, _Political Parties and Party Problems_,
pp. 254-265. See also W. D. FOULKE, _Fighting the Spoilsmen_, _passim_.

5. =Training for public service.= W. H. ALLEN, _Training for the Public
Service_, pp. 164-200.

6. =How civil service tests are given.= L. F. FULD, _Police
Administration_, pp. 75-97.

7. =The public service as a profession.= A. L. LOWELL, _Public Opinion
and Popular Government_, pp. 264-305; W. H. ALLEN, _Training for the
Public Service_, pp. 164-181; E. A. FITZPATRICK, _Experts in City
Government_, pp. 71-104.

8. =The recall of public officers.= ARNOLD B. HALL, _Popular
Government_, pp. 203-241.

Questions

1. How many “organs” of public opinion can you name? How does each exert
an influence? Which one do you consider the most influential?

2. Is public opinion always the sentiment of the majority? If it is not,
explain why. Give a concrete illustration.

3. Do you agree with Edmund Burke’s ideas as to the proper function of a
representative?

4. When the question of woman suffrage was before the United States
Senate, and only one additional vote was needed to pass it, a certain
senator declared that while he was personally in favor of granting the
suffrage to women the people of his own state had just voted against the
proposal and he therefore felt bound to follow their judgment. Was he
right or wrong in taking that attitude?

5. Make a list of the administrative officers of your state and
community, indicating which ones should be elected and which appointed.
Can you think of any proper exceptions to the rule that all
administrative offices requiring skill or experience should be filled by
appointment?

6. What arguments were put forward in behalf of the spoils system?

7. What sort of civil service tests ought to be applied in selecting
persons for the following positions: truck-and-ladder driver in the fire
department; gardener in the public park service; bookkeeper in the
office of the state treasurer; member of the United States life-saving
service; railway-mail clerk; analyst of food and drugs; inspector of
wires and lamps; woman police officer; probation officer; draftsman in
the state highway department.

8. In a city of 100,000 population what positions would you exempt from
civil service rules?

9. Is _good government_ more important than _popular government_? Can a
government be both _democratic_ and _efficient_? Do you regard
appointments by competition as _undemocratic_? Why or why not?

10. Work out a plan by which promotions in the police department could
be made under the merit system (consider the possibility of giving
credits for punctuality, acts of courage, number of arrests, etc., and
of making deductions for neglect of duty, etc.).

11. What is the strongest argument for direct legislation and what is
the weakest? Which argument on the other side impresses you the most and
which the least?

12. Is it more dangerous to subject judges to the possibility of recall
than other officials?

Topics for Debate

1. A congressman should obey his conscience rather than his constituents
when he cannot obey both.

2. Heads of state and city administrative departments should be chosen
under civil service rules.

3. The initiative and referendum should be extended to national
lawmaking.

CHAPTER VII
SUFFRAGE AND ELECTIONS

_The purpose of this chapter is to explain who have the right to
vote, how the voters nominate public officials, and how elections
are held._

SUFFRAGE

[Sidenote: Direct and indirect popular control.]

=How the Voters Control the Government.=—A democratic government is one
in which the people, acting directly or through their representatives,
control the course of public affairs. This control may be exercised, as
has been pointed out, in either one of two ways. It may be exercised
directly, that is, by the use of the initiative and referendum. The
proposal for a law comes from a designated number of voters, and the
adoption or rejection of the proposal is decided by a majority of the
voters at the polls.

It is easy to see, however, that the people cannot perform the entire
work of government in this direct way. There are too many laws to be
made, too many details of administration to be handled, and too many
disputes to be adjusted. So most of the work of government is carried on
by persons who are chosen by the voters for this purpose or who are
appointed to office by the representatives of the people. Elective
officials, as a rule, have authority to determine matters of general
policy in nation, state, or municipality, while appointive officials,
for the most part, carry out the policy thus determined upon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Illustration:

GOVERNMENT. By Elihu Vedder

_From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis & Cameron, Boston.
Reproduced by permission._
]

GOVERNMENT

By Elihu Vedder

From a mural decoration in the Library of Congress.

Mr. Vedder portrays Government as a mature woman in
the fullness of her strength. She is seated upon a
bench of hewn marble, which is supported by the
figures of two lions—all emblematic of strength and
power. Behind is an oak tree, which typifies slow,
deep-rooted growth. In symbolic pictures the ballot
box is usually represented as an urn. Here the
marble bench rests upon urn-shaped vases. In the
lions’ mouths are mooring-rings to remind us that
the ship of state must not drift aimlessly but
should be moored to strength.

In her left hand Government grasps a golden sceptre
(the Golden Rule) to signify that all her actions
are based upon respect for the rights of others; her
right hand holds a tablet upon which is graven a
notable epigram from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.
On either side of Government are two genii or
mythical figures. One holds a bridle which typifies
restraint, discipline, and order—the bulwark of
effective government. The other supports an
unsheathed sword, emblematic of defence and justice.

In this picture, therefore, the author prefigures
the outstanding marks of a successful free
government—strength; fairness, democracy, restraint,
security, and justice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

=The Citizen and the Voter.=—Government by the people does not, of
course, mean government by all the people. [Sidenote: Not all citizens
are voters.]In every country there are many persons who are not
competent to exercise a share in the government. Very young persons, for
example, do not have maturity of judgment, which a share in government
requires. Insane persons, prisoners in jails, aliens, and others are
also, for obvious reasons, usually debarred from the privilege of
voting. It is not to be assumed that everyone who is a citizen is also a
voter. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject
to American jurisdiction are citizens no matter what their ages or
mental capacity may be, but not all are voters. The voters are those
upon whom the privilege of voting has been conferred by law. In the
United States they comprise a large proportion of the adults but they do
not form a majority of the entire population. Out of a national
population of about one hundred and five millions the voters of the
United States number about thirty-five millions. This number is quite
large enough to ensure an adequately representative government.

[Sidenote: The gradual widening of the suffrage]

=Development of the Suffrage.=—Voting is a privilege and duty rather
than a right. In the earlier states of American history the privilege of
voting was restricted to property-owners and taxpayers. This condition
of affairs, moreover, continued for a considerable period after the
Revolutionary War. One by one, however, the various states began to
abolish their restrictions and by the middle of the nineteenth century
the principle of manhood suffrage had become firmly established so far
as the white population was concerned. The struggle for the extension of
the suffrage to men who did not own property was a prolonged and bitter
contest in which the opponents of manhood suffrage vainly argued that
the extension would put all political leadership into the hands of noisy
agitators and would end in the ruin of orderly government. But manhood
suffrage ultimately triumphed because the country came to the conclusion
that the structure of democratic government could be made more secure by
broadening the base upon which it rests.

[Sidenote: The rights of the negro.]

=Negro Suffrage.=—In the Southern states prior to the Civil War colored
men were excluded from voting at all elections. But with the
emancipation of the slaves the question of guaranteeing the suffrage to
colored men had to be faced. By the terms of the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments to the national constitution no state is permitted
to withhold voting rights from any man on account of his color; if it
does so, the constitution provides that such state shall have its number
of representatives in Congress reduced. As a matter of fact, however,
there has always been a very strong sentiment among the white population
of the Southern states in opposition to political equality on the part
of the colored element, and this has prevented the enforcement of the
guarantees contained in the constitution.

[Sidenote: How negroes are excluded from voting.]

By various devices the Southern states have for the most part excluded
negroes from suffrage. One of these is the requirement that all voters
shall be able to read and write. If this provision were impartially
applied to the white and the colored population alike; if all illiterate
persons irrespective of color were excluded, this action would be
entirely justified. But the aim of the South is to eliminate the negro
as a voter whether he is illiterate or not.[34] The attitude of the
white population in the South is not difficult to understand. In the
days immediately following the Civil War the colored men were given the
ballot in all the Southern states, and the results were disastrous.
Unfit men were elected to office, public money was spent wastefully, and
government was badly conducted in all these states under the domination
of the colored voters. As a result the white population took the control
once more into its own hands and has kept it there. But this can
scarcely be regarded as a final solution of the problem. No political
problem can be solved in this country in defiance of the constitution.
Many Southerners realize this and are endeavoring to find some solution
which will be for the best interests of the negro while protecting the
white man’s political supremacy. The negro question is particularly the
Southerner’s problem; he knows the colored race as no Northerner can;
and if he cannot settle it justly and wisely, no man can.

[Sidenote: The extension of the suffrage to women.]

=The Nineteenth Amendment.=—It is now more than fifty years since women
first began to claim, in this country, the right to equal political
privileges with men. Those who supported this claim argued that women
were quite competent to assume an active share in government and that in
some branches of public administration (such as the management of
schools and the enforcement of the laws regulating child labor) women
have an even greater interest than men. Women were required to pay taxes
and it was urged that on this account they were entitled to
representation. On the other hand the extension of the suffrage to women
was opposed on the ground that it would tend to weaken the interest of
women in the home, thus impairing the strength of the family as a social
unit, and also that women would not use the ballot wisely. They would be
influenced by their sympathies and emotions rather than by their
judgment, it was predicted, and would bring an element of instability
into public policy. Another objection commonly raised was that with
twice as many voters the cost of holding elections would be doubled. But
despite these objections the movement for woman suffrage made gradual
headway in one state after another and finally, in 1920, it was made
compulsory upon the entire country by the provisions of the Nineteenth
Amendment.[35]

[Sidenote: Citizenship, age, and residence.]

=Present Qualifications for Voting.=—Each state decides who shall not
vote. Each state has entire freedom to do as it thinks best in this
matter subject only to the provisions of the national constitution,
which stipulate that the privilege of voting shall not be denied to any
citizen by reason of sex, or because of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude. There is no reason, therefore, why the
qualifications for voting should be the same in all parts of the
country, and as a matter of fact they differ a little from state to
state. At present the restrictions relate mainly to age, citizenship,
and residence, but sometimes also to literacy and taxpaying. In every
state the privilege of voting is restricted to persons who are
twenty-one years of age or over. As for the residence requirement it
varies considerably in different states, running usually from six months
to a year. It is imposed in order to make sure that those who vote in
any community shall be somewhat acquainted with its affairs. In most of
the states none but citizens are permitted to vote, but in two or three
states the privilege is extended to those aliens who have declared their
intention of becoming citizens.

=Educational Tests for Voters.=—Educational qualifications for voting,
in one form or another, exist in nearly one-third of the states.[36] In
some the requirement is that anyone who desires to be enrolled as a
voter shall be able to write his name and also to read aloud any clause
taken at random from the state constitution. Exemptions from this test
are always granted to persons who by mere reason of physical disability
are unable to read or write.

Several of the Southern states have provided additional exemptions which
result in excusing from the test all white persons who are unable to
read and write while strictly applying the requirement to all colored
applicants. [Sidenote: How educational tests are applied.] Various
methods are employed to this end. In one case the provision is that no
one may be registered as a voter unless he can read any clause in the
state constitution or “give a reasonable interpretation thereof”. The
white officials in charge of the registration then decide, in their own
discretion, whether the interpretation is reasonable or not. In some
other states the attempt has been made by what is commonly known as the
“grandfather clause” to excuse from the literacy test all persons who
had the right to vote before 1867, and all descendants of such persons.
As there were no colored voters in any of the Southern states prior to
this date the “grandfather clause” virtually establishes a racial
discrimination which the Supreme Court, a few years ago, declared to be
unconstitutional.

=Is an Educational Test Desirable?=—In the majority of the states men
and women are permitted to vote even though unable to read or write. The
question is often asked whether this practice is wise. Would it be
better to insist on an elementary educational qualification everywhere,
or is it desirable that in a democracy no distinction be made between
those who can read and those who cannot?

[Sidenote: The arguments for and against educational tests.]

On the one hand it is argued that men and women who have never had the
advantages of a grammar school education may nevertheless be good,
patriotic citizens, and indeed may be better informed upon questions of
government and politics than some who have had far greater educational
advantages. People are not required to read and write before they are
permitted to own property or compelled to pay taxes. Men who could
neither read nor write were drafted to serve in the army during the war.
If, then, we compel illiterate persons to perform the duties of
citizenship, ought we not to grant its privileges to them as well? But
there is something to be said on the other side of this question. Bear
in mind that we provide free public elementary education for everyone in
the United States. The privilege of learning to read and write is not
the privilege of a single class; it is within the reach of everyone. We
no longer allow aliens to enter the United States unless they can read
and write, nor can any illiterate person become naturalized. Under these
circumstances is it unreasonable to require an elementary educational
test for voting? It may be true that persons who are unable to read are
able to mark a certain type of ballot without spoiling it, but they can
hardly hope to exercise an intelligent choice as among individual
candidates on the ballot; they are unable to use any ballot which does
not arrange the names of candidates in straight party columns and they
cannot vote upon referendum questions except by mere guess-work. If we
are regularly going to submit questions to the voters at the polls for
their decision, should not the voting lists be confined to those who are
at least able to read the questions?

=Tax-Paying Qualifications for Voting.=—In a few states the male
suffrage is restricted to persons who have been assessed for a poll tax.
Massachusetts has such a provision and enforces it strictly. Some
Southern states also impose this qualification, partly, no doubt,
because it is effective in debarring large numbers of colored men who
are remiss in paying their annual poll taxes. There is a difference, of
course, between a taxpaying qualification and a property qualification.
Many people pay taxes, income and poll taxes, for example, without
owning any property. Nowhere in the United States is the ownership of
property a requirement for voting at national elections.

[Sidenote: The requirements vary from state to state.]

These, then, are the general and special qualifications. It will be
observed that since each state prescribes its own requirements, no two
of them establish the same qualifications, or, if they do, it is merely
by accident. It is not strictly true that every adult citizen of the
United States has the privilege of voting; but it is approximately true.
Those who are excluded by the residence, educational, or tax paying
qualifications (apart from colored citizens in the Southern states) form
a relatively small fraction of the total adult citizenship, probably
less than ten per cent.[37]

[Sidenote: The registrars of voters.]

=How Voters are Registered.=—In order to obtain a ballot on election day
it is necessary that one’s name shall be on the voters’ list. This list
is prepared by officials designated for this purpose in every community
or district. These officials are commonly known as registrars of voters.
Whoever desires to be enrolled must appear before these registrars and
usually must make a sworn statement as to age, citizenship, residence,
and other qualifications. If there is an educational test, it is applied
by the registrars. The printed lists of enrolled voters are then posted
for public inspection.[38] In some states a new voters’ list is compiled
every year, and it thus becomes necessary for everyone to register
annually. In others it is the practice to keep a voter’s name on the
list so long as he continues to pay poll taxes.[39] But in any case the
only way a voter can be sure of having his name on the list at every
election is to give this matter his personal attention. In the eyes of
the law voting is a privilege, not a right, and the voter is responsible
for seeing that he obtains his privilege.

NOMINATIONS

[Sidenote: The chief purpose of nominations.]

=Why Nominations are Essential.=—The choice of elective public officials
usually involves two steps—the nomination and the election. Nominations
may be made, and they are sometimes made, by a caucus or by a convention
of delegates. More often, however, they are made by the voters at a
preliminary election or primary. But the question may fairly be asked:
Why have nominations at all? Why not give the voters blank ballots and
let them write in whatever names they please? Apart from the fact that
many voters (in states which impose no educational test) would not be
able to write, there is the objection that so many different persons
would be voted for that no one would have anything like a majority. In
order to ensure that those who are elected will represent the choice of
a substantial body of the voters and if possible an actual majority, it
is desirable that there be some way of eliminating all but the stronger
candidates. That is why we provide for formal nominations.

=History of Nominating Methods.=—During the past hundred years or more
we have tried a variety of nominating methods. First came the caucus,
sometimes a gathering of legislators and sometimes of voters, brought
together to select a candidate. [Sidenote: The convention method.] The
caucus gave place, in time, to the _convention_, which is a body of
delegates chosen by the voters of each locality. To this day the
convention remains the mechanism by which nominations are in some cases
made. But the convention method, for a variety of reasons, did not prove
satisfactory and it has been replaced, throughout the greater portion of
the United States, by the system of nomination at a primary election.

[Sidenote: Different forms of primary.]

=The Primary.=—The primary, in our electoral system corresponds to the
“qualifying trials” in athletic contests. Its purpose is to see that the
race is confined to the swift. It eliminates those who have no chance to
win. Those who desire to be candidates for any public office present
their names on nomination papers, each of which must bear the signatures
of so many qualified voters—say twenty-five or fifty. The names of the
candidates are placed on a ballot, and a primary election is held some
time before the regular election. But the details of primary elections
differ somewhat from state to state. An _open primary_ is one at which
voters are not restricted to the ballot or column of their own party,
but may exercise entire freedom of choice among all the names on the
primary ballot. In some states there are party primaries or _closed
primaries_. This means that none may vote at the primary except those
who are members of a political party.[40] Each party may hold its
primary on a different date, in which case it is called a _separate
primary_; or both parties may hold their primaries together, in which
case we call it a _joint primary_. At a joint primary there may be a
separate ballot for the voters of each party or there may be a single
ballot which contains the names of different party candidates in
parallel columns. In some cities and towns another form, the
_non-partisan primary_, is provided, in which case the ballot bears no
party designations at all. The procedure at a primary election is like
that of a regular election, with printed ballots, ballot boxes, and
regular officials in charge of the polls.

[Sidenote: Advantages of the primary.]

=Merits and Defects of the Primary.=—As a method of making nominations
the primary, whether closed, open, or non-partisan, has both merits and
defects. It is better than the convention in that it places nominations
directly in the hands of the voters, thus making it more difficult for
party bosses to dictate who the candidates shall be. Conventions
consisting of a relatively small number of delegates, many of them
officeholders, can be manipulated by wire-pulling politicians.
Nominations made by conventions have frequently been, for that reason,
very unsatisfactory to the rank and file of the voters. The primary
gives an opportunity to the man or woman who is popular with the voters
although not popular with the politicians. It tends to break down some
of the worst abuses of the party system.

[Sidenote: Objections to it.]

On the other hand there are some practical objections to the primary as
a method of making nominations and a vigorous fight is now being waged
to abolish it. A primary means an additional election with all the
attendant campaigning and expense. The total vote cast at a primary is
often small; hence the candidate who gains the nomination may or may not
be the real choice of his party.[41] The primary puts a burden upon
those who seek to gain elective public office, for they must virtually
fight and win two successive battles at the polls. To do this takes so
much time that men and women who have business of their own to attend to
are often deterred from becoming candidates. The field of political
activity thus tends to become monopolized by professional politicians
who have nothing else to do. The primary contests are so bitter at times
that they create dissensions in the party ranks and weaken the party at
the ensuing election. The use of the primary has not enabled us to get
rid of political bosses; it has merely made them work a great deal
harder to retain control.

[Sidenote: A new development.]

In some states the political parties have adopted the practice of
holding an “informal” convention some few weeks before the date of the
primary. This convention, which is composed of unofficial delegates,
makes recommendations as to the candidates who ought to be voted for by
members of the party at the primary. Members of the party are free, of
course, to do as they please at the primary, but the recommendations
made by an “informal” convention, in view of the fact that they are
largely the work of acknowledged party leaders, carry a good deal of
weight.

[Sidenote: This means a further complication.]

One result of the primary system has been, therefore, to complicate our
electoral machinery. If the practice of holding informal conventions
becomes general, there will be four steps which a party will have to
take in order to put its candidates in office, first the informal
convention, then the primary, then the official convention which drafts
the platform, and finally the election. Surely it should be possible to
elect our public officials under some less complicated arrangement than
this.[42]

ELECTIONS

[Sidenote: The election day.]

=How an Election is Held.=—The date on which an election is held is
fixed by law. National elections always take place on the Tuesday
following the first Monday in November.[43] State elections are usually,
although not always, held on the same date. Local elections take place
on such dates as the state laws or city charters provide. It is usually
thought best that local elections shall not be held on the same day as
the state or national elections because of a desire to keep national and
state politics out of local affairs. When national, state, and local
elections are held on the same day the tendency is for the voters to
focus their whole attention on national and state issues, giving very
little attention to the problems of their own communities. The names of
candidates for the local offices are away down near the bottom of the
ballot where they appear relatively unimportant. Separate elections
involve additional expense, however, and increase the number of times a
voter has to come to the polls.[44]

[Sidenote: Polling places and poll officers.]

The voting is done at polling places, one or more of which are located
in each precinct. The precinct is a small division of the county, town,
or city; as a rule it does not contain more than four or five hundred
voters. The polling place is in charge of officials, commonly known as
poll-wardens or inspectors, who are appointed by the state or local
authorities. They are assisted by clerks. The duty of these various
officials is to open the poll, give ballots to persons who are
registered and to no others, count the votes after the poll is closed,
and report the results to the authorities who are in charge of the
elections. They are responsible for the lawful and honest conduct of the
polling. Each party is also allowed to have one or more “watchers” at
the polling place and these watchers have the right to challenge any
person whom they believe to be an impostor. When anyone is challenged he
may take oath that he is entitled to vote, in which case he will be
given a ballot; but such ballots are counted separately. When a voter
receives a ballot, his name is checked off the voters’ list. Various
stalls or booths are provided, into one of which the voter then goes and
marks his ballot privately. Having finished marking it he folds the
ballot and hands it to one of the polling officials who, in the presence
of the voter, deposits it in the ballot box. Polls are kept open during
designated hours, usually from six or seven o’clock in the morning until
five or six o’clock in the afternoon.

[Sidenote: History of balloting.]

=The Ballot.=—The history of the ballot in the United States is
interesting. [Sidenote: 1. Oral voting.] Originally all votes were given
orally. The voter came to the polling place, stated his choice aloud and
the poll officials wrote it down. The objection to this plan was that it
precluded secrecy and left the voters open to intimidation. Then paper
ballots came into use, each party providing ballots for its own members.
[Sidenote: 2. The party ballot.] Outside the polling place, at each
election, stood a group of party workers each armed with a handful of
ballots, which were distributed to the voters as they came. This method
also was objectionable. [Sidenote: Objections to the party ballot.] It
encouraged the voting of a “straight party ticket”, in other words it
took for granted that everyone wished to vote for the entire slate of
party candidates without exception. If the voter desired to do
otherwise, it was necessary for him to scratch out the unacceptable
names and write others in. Most voters would not go to this trouble.
This method of balloting was not secret, because a voter could be
watched from the time he received his ballot outside the polling place
until he deposited it in the box. This was an encouragement to bribery
and intimidation. It also facilitated fraud at elections since there was
no limit upon the number of ballots printed by the parties and it was
not difficult for dishonest voters or corrupt officials to slip extra
ballots into the box. This abuse, known as “stuffing” the ballot box
could only be prevented by having all the ballots officially printed.
When a definite number of official ballots is given to each polling
place every ballot must be accounted for.

[Sidenote: 3. The Australian ballot.]

In nearly all the states, therefore, an official ballot is now used.
This is commonly known as the Australian ballot. Usually the names of
all the candidates are printed in parallel columns, each party having a
column of its own, with the name and insignia of the party at the top.
Immediately below the insignia is a circle in which the voter, by
marking a cross, may record his vote for every one of the candidates in
the entire column. The voter who does this is said to vote a “straight
ticket”. But if he desires to vote for some of the candidates in the
column of one party and for some in the column of another party, he
leaves the circle unmarked and places a cross after such individual
names as he may choose. This is called voting a “split ticket”. In some
states there are no party columns; the names of the candidates are
printed on the ballot in alphabetical order, each name followed by a
party designation. In a few large cities, such as Boston and Cleveland,
the party designation is omitted. Here the voter must pick and choose
individually. The party-column arrangement encourages the voting of
straight tickets; the alphabetical plan does not.[45]

[Sidenote: Evils of the long ballot.]

=The Short Ballot.=—Throughout the United States the number of elective
offices steadily increased during the nineteenth century. The result was
that ballots gradually became longer until in some cases the voters
found themselves confronted with sheets of paper containing a hundred
names or even more. It proved exceedingly difficult to use proper
discrimination among so many names and hence there arose an agitation
for simplifying the ballot by reducing the number of positions to be
filled by election. In a democratic government all officials who have
authority to decide questions of general policy—the President, senators,
representatives, governors, assemblymen, mayors, councilors, and the
like—ought to be chosen by popular vote. But there are many other
officials, such as state auditors, county clerks, and superintendents of
schools, whose duties are chiefly administrative. These officials carry
out a policy which is laid down for them by law, and it is contended
that they should not be elected but appointed. If all such officials
were made appointive, the size of the ballot would be considerably
reduced, and the voters could concentrate their attention upon a smaller
number of names.

A ballot is not an effective instrument of popular government unless it
is simple enough for the average voter to use intelligently. When a
ballot is so long, so complicated, and so unwieldy that the voter is
tempted by sheer exhaustion into voting a straight party ticket, then
the party leaders, and not the people, are really choosing the officers
of government. The movement for a “short ballot” aims to make government
more truly democratic, not less so.

[Sidenote: Defects of the ordinary ballot.]

=The Preferential Ballot.=—Another defect of the ordinary ballot is that
it allows the voter to indicate only a single choice for each office. If
there are five candidates for the office of mayor, let us say, the voter
may mark his ballot for one of them only. He is not permitted to
indicate who would be his second choice, or his third choice among the
five. Whichever candidate gets the largest number of first choices among
the voters is the winner, although he may be the choice of a small
minority. To prevent this likelihood of election by a minority when
there are several candidates in the field for a single office a system
of “preferential voting” is sometimes used.

[Sidenote: How the preferential system works.]

Where the preferential ballot is in use, as it is in several American
cities, the voters are asked to indicate, in columns provided for this
purpose, not only their first but their second and third choices and
even their further choices among the various candidates. The names of
those candidates whom the voter does not want to support are left
unmarked. When preferential ballots are counted, any candidate who has a
clear majority of first choices is declared elected. But if no candidate
obtains a majority of first choices, the second choices are added to the
first choices and if the two totals combined give what would be a
majority of first-choice votes, the candidate who received them is
declared elected. In like manner the third choices are resorted to if
necessary.[46] The candidate elected by the preferential system is
practically always the choice of a majority among the voters, not the
first choice of a majority always, but one whom a majority have
indicated their willingness to support. The chief practical objection to
the preferential ballot is that many voters do not take the trouble to
mark their second and third choices.

[Sidenote: The problem of minority representation.]

=Proportional Representation.=[47]—Preferential voting should be
distinguished from proportional representation, which is a plan of
choosing legislative bodies in such a way that all considerable groups
of voters will be represented in proportion to their own numbers.
Whenever several representatives are elected on the same ballot it
usually happens that one political party secures them all. So many
voters adhere to the “straight ticket” that the entire party slate wins.
The minority party, even though it may comprise nearly half the voters,
in such cases obtains no representation at all. This, of course, does
not give us a true system of representative government; hence various
plans have been put forward for securing to “each considerable party or
group of opinion” a representation corresponding to its numerical
strength among the voters. The best known among these is the Hare Plan,
which has been used in several foreign countries and, during recent
years, in a few American cities.[48]

[Sidenote: The Hare plan explained.]

This system of proportional representation is somewhat complicated but
may be concisely described as follows: First, the names of all
candidates are printed alphabetically on the ballot and the voter
indicates his choices by marking the figure 1 after the name of his
first choice, the figure 2 after the name of his second choice, and so
on. Then, when the polls are closed, the election officers compute the
number of votes needed to elect a candidate and this is called “the
quota”. This they do by dividing into the total number of votes cast the
number of places to be filled, plus one, and then adding one to the
quotient. For example, let us suppose that 10,000 votes have been cast
and that there are seven candidates to be elected. Ten thousand divided
by eight (seven plus one) is 1250 and any candidate who receives 1251
first-choice votes is declared elected. If such candidate, however, has
more votes than enough to fill his quota, the surplus votes are
distributed in accordance with the indicated second-choices among
candidates whose quotas have not been filled. If enough candidates are
not elected by this process, the candidate with the smallest number of
first choices is then dropped and his votes are distributed in the same
way. This process of elimination and distribution goes on until enough
candidates have filled their quotas or until the successive eliminations
have left no more than enough to fill the vacant positions. This plan is
not a model of simplicity, of course, but it is not so difficult to
understand as one might at first glance imagine, nor in its actual
workings does it present any serious complications. What the voter has
to do is simple enough. In so far as there are any difficulties they
arise in connection with counting the ballots, not in marking them. The
plan is workable and the attainment of proportional representation in
all our legislative bodies would be a great gain.

[Sidenote: Majorities and pluralities.]

=Counting the Votes.=—When the polls are closed the ballots are counted
by the officials of the polling place in accordance with whatever plan
is used. With ordinary ballots the counting does not take very long; if
preferential ballots are used, or if a system of proportional
representation is in vogue, the counting takes a good deal longer. When
a candidate receives more than one-half of all the polled votes, he is
declared to have a _majority_; when he merely obtains more votes than
the next highest candidate he is said to have a _plurality_. In the
United States, at nearly all elections, a plurality is sufficient. When
the counting is finished the result is certified to the proper higher
officials. A recount can usually be had at the demand of any candidate,
and recounts often take place when the result is close.

[Sidenote: Types of corruption.]

=Corrupt Practices at Elections.=—All elections afford some opportunity
for corrupt practices and various safeguards are provided against their
occurrence. _Personation_ is the offence of voting under a name which is
not your own. Voters who have died since the lists were compiled, or who
are absent, are sometimes impersonated by men who have no right to vote
at all. Vigilance on the part of the election officers helps to prevent
personation although the officials can hardly be expected to know
everyone who comes to the polls. _Repeating_ is the offence of voting
twice at the same election. To do this a voter must first, by fraudulent
means, become enrolled as a voter in two or more precincts or districts.
_Ballot-box stuffing_ is the practice of putting in the box ballots
which have no right to be there. With the Australian ballot the practice
is very infrequent. _Ballot-switching_ is the placing of marks on the
ballots, surreptitiously, while the ballots are being counted. A
dishonest official, with a small piece of lead under his fingernail, has
sometimes been able to spoil or to “switch” ballots by marking
additional crosses on them during the process of counting.
_Intimidation_ is the offence of influencing a voter’s action by threats
or wrongful pressure. _Bribery_, of course, is self-explanatory. All
these practices involve moral turpitude and are forbidden under severe
penalties. They have now become relatively uncommon at American
elections.[49]

=Absent Voting.=—It frequently happens, in the nature of things, that
many voters cannot conveniently be in their home districts on election
day. Soldiers and sailors, commercial travelers, railway conductors,
engineers and trainmen, fishermen, students in universities are obvious
examples. It has been estimated that in Massachusetts the number of
voters who are necessarily absent from their homes on election day
averages about thirty thousand. Many others, in order to cast their
ballots, are put to considerable expense and inconvenience. Now it has
seemed desirable, in many of the states, to make some provision whereby
those voters may cast their ballots without being actually at the polls
on election day. The usual arrangement is that a voter who expects to be
absent on election day must apply, some time before the election date,
to a designated official for a ballot. This ballot is then marked by the
voter and sealed in an envelope. The envelope is attested before a
notary public and deposited with an election official who sees that it
is counted when other ballots are counted. In some states the blank
ballot is sent by mail to absent voters who request it, and after being
marked the ballot is returned by mail before the election day. The chief
objection to absent voting is that it gives an opportunity for fraud,
but in practice this has not proved to be a serious objection.

=Compulsory Voting.=—Compulsory voting does not exist anywhere in the
United States at the present time although it has been frequently
proposed. Voting has been made compulsory, however, with legal penalties
for failure to vote, in several foreign countries, notably in Belgium,
in Spain, and in New Zealand. The usual procedure is to impose a fine
upon every voter who, without good excuse, stays away from the polls on
election day, or, for repeated absences, to strike his name off the
voters’ list altogether.

[Sidenote: The arguments for compulsory voting.]

Compulsory voting rests upon the argument that, in a democracy, the
right to vote imposes a duty to vote. The citizen must serve on a jury
in time of peace and in the army during war whether he likes these forms
of public service or not. Why, then, should he be allowed to shirk his
duty to vote, a duty which must be performed if democratic government is
to survive? If one voter has the right to stay away from the polls,
every other voter has the same right. And if all followed this policy,
we could not maintain a “representative” form of government. But there
is another side to the question. The voter who goes to the polls because
he will be fined if he stays away will not cast his ballot with much
discrimination, intelligence, or patriotism. [Sidenote: Are they valid?]
Would the votes of such men be worth counting? Would they contribute
anything to the cause of good government? Moreover, it has been
demonstrated by foreign experience that while you can compel a voter to
go to the polls and drop a ballot in the box you cannot compel him to
mark his ballot properly, for he marks it in secret. In one of the Swiss
cities some years ago it was found that the chief result of compulsory
voting was to induce many hundreds of reluctant voters to drop blank
ballots in the box. It can well be argued that voting is a duty, but it
is a duty which ought to be performed from motives of patriotism and not
from dread of the penalties. Most citizens do not require compulsion and
it is questionable whether forcing others to vote would, in the long
run, serve any useful purpose.

[Sidenote: The merits and defects of voting machines.]

=Voting by Machine.=—In some cities of the United States the experiment
of permitting the voter to record his choice by means of a voting
machine has been tried with varying degrees of success. A voting machine
is constructed upon much the same principles as a cash register. The
keys bear the names of the various candidates and the voter merely steps
behind a curtain where he presses one key after another just as he would
mark crosses on a printed ballot. The mechanism is so arranged that a
voter cannot press two keys which register for the same office. The
voting machine plan has some distinct advantages in that it does away
entirely with the trouble and expense of printing ballots; it eliminates
spoiled ballots, it precludes all chance of tampering with the votes,
and it ensures an accurate count. On the other hand the machines are
expensive both to install and to maintain, particularly when several
machines are needed for each polling place. Moreover, like all other
complicated mechanisms, they get out of order, and when they do this on
election day it makes a bad mess of things. It is doubtful whether they
will ever supplant the printed ballot plan of voting.

=Summary.=—In order that any systems of popular voting shall be
permanently successful it is necessary that the ballot shall be simple,
intelligible, and secret. It must not be so long as to bewilder the
voter of average intelligence, and it ought to give the voter a
reasonable chance to “split” his ballot without running a serious risk
of spoiling it. A short ballot is a far more effective instrument of
democracy than a long ballot. Another essential is that the polling
place shall be adequately safeguarded against fraudulent practices of
any sort and that the counting of votes shall be conducted with absolute
honesty. Any corrupt practice in connection with elections is a blow at
the very heart of democracy. We hear a good deal, from time to time,
about unfairness, fraud, and corruption at elections in the United
States, particularly at elections in the larger cities. While these
things occur now and then they are much less frequent than they used to
be. American elections, taking them as a whole, are conducted with as
much fairness and honesty as the elections which are held in any other
country. Rival parties and candidates try hard to win; they seize every
opportunity to gain political advantages over their opponents, and in so
doing often travel very close to the line which separates right from
wrong; but on the whole they try to keep within the letter of the
election laws. Transgressions of the law may bring some temporary
success but in the long run they do not pay, and the politicians know
it.

General References

F. A. CLEVELAND, _Organized Democracy_, pp. 130-191;

P. O. RAY, _Political Parties and Practical Politics_, pp. 109-164;
298-321;

W. B. MUNRO, _The Government of American Cities_, pp. 102-152;

C. L. JONES, _Readings on Parties and Elections_, pp. 212-250;

A. N. HOLCOMBE, _State Government in the United States_, pp. 143-164;

K. H. PORTER, _A History of Suffrage in the United States_, pp. 20-46
and _passim_;

W. W. WILLOUGHBY and LINDSAY ROGERS, _Introduction to the Problem of
Government_, pp. 107-126 (Popular Government).

Group Problems

1. =The direct primary: is it a success?= Earlier methods of nomination.
Evils of the caucus and convention. Why the direct primary was
established. The different types of primary. Effect of the primary on
the party system. Has it curbed the power of the bosses? Cost of the
primary system. Percentage of votes polled at primaries. Has the primary
secured better candidates? Can it be improved? Probable effects of the
pre-primary informal convention. If not the primary, what then?
=References=: C. E. MERRIAM, _Primary Elections_, pp. 117-132; 133-176;
F. W. DALLINGER, _Nominations for Elective Office in the United States_,
pp. 95-126; R. S. BOOTS, _The Direct Primary in New Jersey_, _passim_;
F. A. CLEVELAND, _Organized Democracy_, pp. 228-242; A. N. HOLCOMBE,
_State Government in the United States_, pp. 182-204; C. G. HAINES and
BERTHA HAINES, _Principles and Problems of Government_, pp. 137-150; C.
L. JONES, _Readings on Parties and Elections_, pp. 53-79; P. O. RAY,
_Political Parties and Practical Politics_, pp. 140-164; A. B. HALL,
_Popular Government_, pp. 45-97.

2. =How can the ballot be improved?= =References=: E. C. EVANS, _History
of the Australian Ballot in the United States_, pp. 17-47; R. S. CHILDS,
_Short Ballot Principles_, _passim_; F. A. CLEVELAND, _Organized
Democracy_, pp. 262-272; C. A. BEARD, _American Government and
Politics_, pp. 474-487; P. S. REINSCH, _Readings on American Federal
Government_, pp. 364-383; C. G. HAINES and BERTHA HAINES, _Principles
and Problems of Government_, pp. 151-166; A. B. HALL, _Popular
Government_, pp. 242-269; _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. I,
pp. 100-104.

3. =Proportional representation in theory and in practice.=
=References=: J. R. COMMONS, _Proportional Representation_, pp. 99-131;
W. W. WILLOUGHBY and LINDSAY ROGERS, _Introduction to the Problem of
Government_, pp. 263-275 (also Appendix iii); Massachusetts
Constitutional Convention, 1917-1918, _Bulletins_, No. 28 (Proportional
Representation); American Proportional Representation League,
_Pamphlets_, especially Nos. 6 and 8. (The headquarters of the League
are at Haverford, Pa., and material relating to proportional
representation can be had on application.)

Short Studies

1. =The gradual extension of the suffrage in the United States.= F. A.
CLEVELAND, _Organized Democracy_, pp. 130-150.

2. =Who have the right to vote in European countries?= F. A. OGG, _The
Governments of Europe_ (see index).

3. =Qualifications for voting in the different states.= _World Almanac_,
1918.

4. =How American elections are conducted.= A. N. HOLCOMBE, _State
Government in the United States_, pp. 205-239.

5. =How voters are enrolled.= F. A. CLEVELAND, _Organized Democracy_,
pp. 220-227.

6. =The preferential ballot.= Massachusetts Constitutional Convention,
1917-1918, _Bulletins_, No. 27 (Preferential Voting). (See also
_National Municipal Review_, Vol. I, pp. 386-400, July, 1912.)

7. =The short ballot.= R. S. CHILDS, _Short Ballot Principles_,
especially pp. 21-30; P. S. REINSCH, _Readings on American State
Government_, pp. 372-383.

8. =Compulsory voting.= Massachusetts Constitutional Convention,
1917-1918, _Bulletins_, No. 24 (Compulsory Voting).

9. =Corrupt practices at elections.= C. L. JONES, _Readings on Parties
and Elections_, pp. 202-302.

10. Are elections =as fairly conducted in the United States as in other
countries=? CHARLES SEYMOUR and DONALD O. FRARY, _How the World Votes_
(see index).

Questions

1. Is the right to vote a _natural right_ or merely a _privilege_
conferred by the state?

2. Who have the right to vote at elections in your state? Who are
excluded? In order to vote, how long must one reside in your state? Your
county? Your precinct?

3. Who enrolls voters in your community? When and where do they enroll
voters? What evidence must you supply in order to be enrolled?

4. Make a diagram of a polling place showing its interior arrangement,
the booths in which voters mark their ballots, the location of the
ballot box, etc.

5. What are the different forms of primary and which form do you think
is the best (_a_) for state nominations; (_b_) for local nominations?

6. What effects would the use of the short ballot have upon (_a_) the
efficiency of government; (_b_) popular interest at elections; (_c_) the
quality of the officials chosen?

7. Explain the difference between _preferential voting_, _proportional
representation_, _limited voting_, and _cumulative voting_.

8. Explain the difference between _corrupt_ and _illegal_ practices at
elections. Make a list of each.

9. What are some of the reasons why so many voters stay away from the
polls on election day? Are the following excuses valid: “I do not
approve of either political party”; “My vote doesn’t count for
anything”; “I am too busy”; “I am not interested in politics”; “It is a
rainy day and I might catch cold”; “I have an engagement to play golf”;
“The polling place is too far away”; “I do not think any of the
candidates worth voting for”?

10. What are some of the practical objections to making voting
compulsory?

Topics for Debate

1. There should be an educational test for voting.

2. The failure to vote, in the absence of a valid excuse, should be
punished by some appropriate penalty.

3. There should be a limit on the amount of money that may be legally
spent by candidates in election campaigns.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOOD ADMINISTRATION

By Elihu Vedder

From a mural decoration in the Library of Congress.

Good Administration, with benign countenance, sits
upon her throne, a perfect arch above her head.
As the strength of an arch depends upon all its
parts equally, so the maintenance of a strong
and efficient administration depends upon the
co-operation of all elements among the people. In
her right hand Good Administration holds evenly the
scales of justice; her left hand rests upon a
quartered shield to indicate the fair balance of all
parties and classes. On her lap is the book of the
law. At her feet, on either side, is an urn. Into
one of these urns a maiden is winnowing wheat drawn
from the waving fields in the background. The people
also, in choosing their public officials, should
winnow well. Into the other urn an eager youth, with
books of knowledge under his left arm, is casting
his ballot.

Mr. Vedder has also executed for the Library of
Congress a companion figure portraying Corrupt
Administration. She holds the scales, unevenly
balanced, in her left hand. A seeker of special
favors is placing a bag of gold in the scales; he
has seized the book of the law and upset the ballot
urn.

[Illustration:

GOOD ADMINISTRATION. By Elihu Vedder

_From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis & Cameron, Boston.
Reproduced by permission._
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER VIII
POLITICAL PARTIES AND PRACTICAL POLITICS

_The purpose of this chapter is to describe how political parties
are organized, what they do, and how they do it._

[Sidenote: Parties are natural groups.]

=Why Political Parties are Formed.=—Whenever people are in control of
their government, political parties are certain to be formed. No popular
government has long continued anywhere in the world without political
parties. The reason for this is that whenever any group of people find
that they have the same opinions or the same interests they desire to
act together. If people are interested in music they organize an
orchestra or a choral society and arrange concerts. If men are
interested in trade, they organize themselves into a board of trade to
promote their mutual interests. Workmen associate themselves together in
labor unions; boys who are interested in athletics organize clubs; men
who have been in the military and naval service associate themselves
together in the American Legion, and so it goes. People who have the
same opinions, desires, ideas, and interests tend to group themselves
together, which is a perfectly natural thing for them to do.

Now large numbers of men and women have identical _political_ opinions
(or think they have) and this community of interest draws them together
into groups. Such groups we call political parties. The Republican party
is made up of men and women who believe in certain political principles
which are set forth in the party platform; the Democratic party is made
up of those who hold a different set of opinions. Whenever a large body
of people wish the government to do something which is not already being
done they soon find that the best way to achieve their end is to
organize.[50]

[Sidenote: Their first aim is to win elections.]

=The Aims of Political Parties.=—Every political party has two aims. The
first is to get control of the government; the second is to carry out
its own policy by means of this control. To do this they must nominate
candidates for office, raise funds for carrying on a campaign, and work
to elect their men. It is only by electing their own candidates for
office that they can accomplish the ends for which they are organized.
An army does not exist merely to teach men drill or discipline. Its
chief aim is to win victories. Drill and discipline are merely a means
to this end. So with a political party. Its organization, leaders,
campaign work, and all other activities have one purpose in mind,
namely, to win victories at the polls. Then, when the party has elected
its candidates and obtained control of the government it can carry its
program into effect. Occasionally a party secures its chief aim without
gaining control of the government, as the Prohibition party did in 1920.

[Sidenote: But the aim of a political party is not altogether selfish.]

=Definition of a Political Party.=—Having seen why political parties are
formed and what they aim to do we are now in a position to frame a
definition. A political party is a group of men and women who think
alike on public questions and have joined themselves together in order
to gain control of the government so that they can carry their opinions
into practice. The aim of a party is not always selfish, however, as
this definition might imply. Most members of a political party believe
that in endeavoring to get control of the government they are promoting
the public interest. Their aim is to bring into operation certain
policies which they believe will benefit the whole people. The
Democratic party urged a revision of tariff ten years ago because its
members believed that lower duties on imports would help the United
States as a whole and not because the Democrats, as distinct from the
Republicans, would derive the whole advantage. The Republicans, for
their part, have favored high duties on imports because they believe
that American industry ought to be protected against foreign
competition. Both parties seek to promote the general interest, but in
different ways.

[Sidenote: Habit is an important factor in party strength.]

=Party Divisions Tend to Become Permanent.=—Parties are originally
formed to promote a particular policy, but when they have gained control
of the government and have put their program into practice they do not
go out of existence. They continue, and people remain members of the
party, largely from force of habit. Each party takes up new ideas, gains
some new members and loses some old ones. The mill keeps on turning
although new forms of grist are brought to be ground and new workmen
guide the wheels. Men and women who reach voting age join one or another
of the parties, sometimes because they are influenced by its principles,
more often because their parents have belonged to that party. Thus it
happens that over long periods of time a party may remain strong among
the people in one section of the country and weak in another. The reason
is not that the party’s policy at the moment happens to be popular in
one area and unpopular in the other. Habit influences people in politics
as in everything else. When a man has voted several times with one
political party he is not likely to desert it even though the party’s
program changes. Not only that but his sons and daughters will probably
join the same political party. Pennsylvania has gone Republican at every
national election for more than sixty years although a wholly new set of
voters has grown up; Texas on the other hand has never failed to support
the Democratic ticket for just as long a period. The whole of the “Solid
South”, in fact, goes Democratic with unfailing regularity, and has done
so ever since the Reconstruction. A political party thus retains a
strong hold upon large bodies of voters, old and new, even though it may
change its policies from time to time.

[Sidenote: The active work of parties.]

=The Functions of Political Parties.=—Could we get along without
parties? Perhaps we could, but American government would have to be
carried on very differently if parties did not exist. If you watch an
election campaign, you will notice that several things happen in the
course of it. First, there is a great deal of public discussion about
candidates. Then, some time before the election, candidates are
nominated. Platforms are drawn up stating the things which each
candidate favors. The candidates, together with other speakers, go out
and make addresses; pamphlets are distributed broadcast giving reasons
why people should vote for one candidate or the other; meetings and
rallies are held in halls and on the street corners; the newspapers
print the arguments on the respective sides; the people are worked up to
a white heat of enthusiasm; and finally, on the day of election, the
issue is decided.

Now how would all this be done if there were no political parties?
Candidates cannot be nominated without organized effort; platforms do
not make themselves; the people cannot be stirred to an active interest
on one side or the other except by a vigorous campaign; without parties,
indeed, an election would be a very dull and uninteresting affair.

[Sidenote: Parties perform three important functions:]

The conclusion is, therefore, that political parties have various
definite functions to perform, and these may be summarized under three
heads. [Sidenote: 1. They nominate candidates and frame platforms.]
First, they nominate candidates and tell the people about them. This
information is given in their platforms, of which more will be said a
little later. [Sidenote: They rouse interest among the voters.] Second,
they rouse public interest by their rallies, their pamphlets, circulars,
articles in newspapers, and posters, as well as by personal canvassing.
This rousing of the voter is very important, because most men and women
are chiefly concerned with their own business and personal affairs. Even
after all these methods of getting them interested have been used it
will be found that two or three voters out of every ten have failed to
go to the polls on election day. What would happen if there were no
rallies, circulars, canvassers, and all the rest? In that case most of
the voters would probably manifest no interest at all, and the election
would be decided by a small portion of the people. [Sidenote: 3. They
bring the various branches of government into harmony.] Third, the
parties provide a chain which holds the various officers of the
government to a joint responsibility. We elect a great many public
officers to perform different functions. Members of the legislature are
elected to make laws; governors and other state officers to administer
these laws; and judges to help enforce them. To get the best results all
three groups of public officials must work in harmony. But if each were
elected independently and without any reference to the others, there
would be little chance of their working together. When they do work
together it is because they have been elected to carry out a common
policy. This is the chain which holds them together—allegiance to the
same political party. If every public official followed his own ideas,
we should have one set of men making the laws and another set of men
throwing obstacles in the way of their enforcement.[51]

If there were no political parties, something else would have to be
organized to take their place. The things which the party does must be
done somehow. We cannot have democratic government unless candidates are
nominated, platforms framed, public interest aroused, and officials
encouraged to work together in a common cause. Political parties do not
always perform these functions well, but what sort of organization would
be likely to manage them any better?

[Sidenote: The political “factions” of early days.]

=When and How did Political Parties Begin?=—It is difficult to say how
or when political parties originated. Someone once remarked that even at
the time of the Flood there were two political parties, namely, the
Deluvians and the Antedeluvians. John Adams declared that “parties began
with human nature”. In a sense he was right. Anyone who has read Roman
history will remember the long and bitter struggle between the
patricians and the plebeians. The Guelphs and Ghibellines of the Middle
Ages were political parties although their rivalry often assumed the
form of open warfare. The Cavaliers and Roundheads of Cromwell’s time
armed themselves and fought for the control of the government with
muskets and sabres, not with ballots. They were parties, dynastic
parties. But the violent conflict of parties eventually gave way to
orderly contests at the polls, and men found that they could belong to
different political parties without thereby becoming personal enemies of
one another. So Whigs and Tories arose in England before the American
Revolution, and corresponding groups were to be found in the thirteen
American colonies.

[Sidenote: The first American parties.]

But the real history of political parties in the United States did not
begin until after the adoption of the constitution, when Hamilton and
Jefferson became leaders of opposing elements among the people. Hamilton
and his followers, the Federalists, desired to strengthen the central
government; Jefferson and his supporters, calling themselves
Democratic-Republicans, desired to keep the central government weak and
to place the balance of power in the hands of the states. In the end
Jefferson’s party obtained the upper hand, but by having things too much
its own way finally lost its solidarity and split into several factions.
Party politics gave way for a time to personal politics, the voters
ranging themselves behind leaders rather than principles; but presently
the various factions consolidated into two parties known as Whigs and
Democrats. The Whig party eventually went to pieces and in its place
arose the Republican organization which elected Lincoln in 1860. Since
that date the Democrats and Republicans have continued to be the two
leading parties.

[Sidenote: The distinction between principles, policies, and issues.]

=What the Leading Political Parties Stand for.=—The general ideas upon
which the members of a political party agree are incorporated into its
platform and are commonly known as the party’s _principles_. For
example, a party may pledge itself to the principle of promoting foreign
trade, or conserving the natural resources of the country, or keeping
aloof from the affairs of Europe. The methods by which these principles
are to be carried into effect constitute the party’s _policy_. The
principle of promoting foreign trade, to take an example, may be carried
into effect by lending money or credit to exporters, as was done after
the World War. But the different parties do not usually agree upon
either principles or policy, and this divergence gives rise to party
_issues_ or points of conflict between the parties.

It is not easy to set forth in concise form the principal issues. During
the campaign of 1916 the attitude of the United States towards the great
European conflict was the pivot of attention; in 1920 the question
whether America should or should not enter the League of Nations crowded
most of the other issues into the background. The main planks in party
platform change from one election to another.[52] During the past twenty
years the platforms of both parties have dealt with a wide variety of
matters; but the disagreement between the two parties has not always
been clean-cut and in some cases it has left the voter little to choose
between them. On some matters the two leading platforms are openly
opposed; on others they are very much alike, and on some others, again,
they are so ambiguous that it is difficult to tell just where they
differ. As a practical matter it is not always wise to take an
absolutely definite stand in the party platform, for conditions may
change and by so doing place the party in the position of having pledged
something which ought not, in view of the changed conditions, to be
carried out.

=The Minor Parties.=—Americans, on the whole, have accepted the
two-party system. The great majority of voters are either Republicans or
Democrats. Nevertheless the platforms of these two parties never suit
all the people and the result is that minor parties, or “third” parties
as they are sometimes called, come into existence from time to time.
During the past hundred years a dozen or more of these minor parties
have been formed but with two or three exceptions they have soon melted
away.[53] These exceptions are the Prohibition party, which was
organized in 1872 for the purpose of securing the complete suppression
of the liquor traffic in the United States. The adoption of the
Eighteenth Amendment gave this party the chief thing that it had been
contending for, but it has not yet gone out of existence. The Socialist
party is the other example of a “third party” which has continued to be
active for a considerable period.

[Sidenote: Why “third parties” rarely survive.]

In the United States minor parties do not usually live long. Very few of
them survive a dozen years. There are reasons for this. In the first
place the Democrats and Republicans are constantly adapting their
platforms to the needs of the country. When any movement among the
people becomes strong enough, one of the leading parties takes it up. If
large numbers of voters, for example, should desire the abolition of
divorces, one of the political parties would soon put an “anti-divorce
plank” in its platform, and would thereby prevent any new party from
making much headway on that particular issue. In the second place the
American voters, taking them as a whole, have become accustomed to the
two-party system. Very few of them are willing to forsake the old party
organizations without strong reasons for doing so. When they do,
temporarily, as a great many Republicans did in 1912 and a great many
Democrats in 1920, they usually drift back again before very long. A new
party, moreover, is difficult to organize and expensive to maintain. It
has no chance to win the election and most people do not care to belong
to an organization which never wins. So the easiest way to get new
things adopted in public policy is to persuade one of the leading
parties to champion them.

[Sidenote: The Socialist platform.]

=The Socialist Party.=—Among the “third parties” which exist at the
present day the Socialist party is the strongest. It has a program
widely different from that of either the Republicans or the Democrats.
The Socialist party is organized to promote the public ownership of
railroads, telegraphs, telephones, mines, forests, factories, and all
other such economic instrumentalities. In addition to its economic
program the Socialist party advocates the adoption of various political
changes such as the abolition of the United States Senate, the election
of all judges for short terms, and the abolition of the Supreme Court’s
power to declare laws unconstitutional. In point of strength at the
polls the Socialist party stands far below either of the two leading
parties. It is much weaker in the United States than in the various
countries of Europe.

[Sidenote: Is “independence” a virtue?]

=The Voter’s Relation to Parties.=—So long as political parties are
essential in representative government, and so long as they perform
useful functions, it is the duty of every citizen to affiliate with some
political party if he can honestly do so. There are times, of course,
when the voter of independent views cannot honestly support any of the
existing parties. On this point every voter must make his or her own
individual decision. There is no inherent virtue in being an
“independent”; for if every voter persisted in assuming that attitude,
there would be no political parties at all, and democracy would in the
long run suffer rather than gain as a result. Most voters, as a matter
of fact, belong to one of the leading parties and support the candidates
of this party at every election. They are commonly called the regular
members of the party. But membership in a political party does not mean
that one is under obligation to support that party under all
circumstances. It is possible to belong to a political party and yet
retain a reasonable degree of independence. A political party gains,
indeed, by having in its ranks a sprinkling of men and women who know
their own minds on political questions and will not tamely follow
wherever the party chiefs may lead.

[Sidenote: The need of party leadership and discipline.]

Let us remember, however, that a political party, like an army, requires
discipline and leadership for its success. If every soldier insisted on
following his own inclinations rather than the advice or orders of his
officers, he would never be on the winning side in any battles. So, if
every voter declines to be led by anyone’s counsel but his own, there
will be no unity of party effort and no real triumph of one set of
principles over another. To secure any substantial improvement in
government, large groups of men and women must pull together. This means
that they must have a platform, an organization, and capable leaders,
which is equivalent to saying that they must act as a political party.

[Sidenote: The citizen’s duty.]

=Parties are What the People Make Them.=—The choice of a political party
is one of the means by which the citizen in a democracy exercises his
sovereign power. A political party is merely what its members make it.
No chain is stronger than the links which compose it; and no political
party ever represents a higher grade of intelligence or patriotism than
its members provide. If a political party becomes selfish or corrupt,
the remedy lies in the hands of the people. Honest men and women will
then desert that party; it will fail to win elections, and ultimately go
to pieces. On the other hand if a political party is honest in its
principles, wise in its policy, patriotic in its ideals, and progressive
in its sympathies, it will draw recruits from among the thousands of men
and women who reach voting age each year. It will grow in strength. The
voter can best display his zeal as a citizen by joining a party and
helping to make it a power for good.

[Sidenote: Organization helps to win victories.]

=The Need for Party Organization.=—Organization is the watchword of
every political party. Without organization there is no chance to win
elections and put the party’s policies into operation. Very little is
ever achieved in this world without coöperation. However competent an
individual may be, there are limits to what he can do. It is not the
brilliant player that wins the game, but the well-trained team. Napoleon
Bonaparte once said that organization and discipline counted for
seventy-five per cent of victory. These things are quite as important in
politics as in war.

Organization, in party politics, involves three things, leadership,
coöperation, and money. No party is well-organized unless it possesses
all three. For this reason every strong political party uses care in
selecting its leaders, builds up a system of party conventions and party
committees, and raises campaign funds to pay the necessary expenses of
its work.

=Local Party Organization.=—Let us see how this organization is
effected. Beginning at the bottom each party has its local committees.
These committees are generally chosen by the voters of the party at the
primary elections, and they have charge of the party interests in the
town or township, county or district, as the case may be. In the large
cities there is a committee for each ward and a general committee
covering the whole city. These local committees arrange for political
meetings in their own neighborhood and help to bring out the voters on
election day. They work in harmony with the state committee.

=State Party Organization.=—Next come the state organizations. The party
organization in the states consists of a state central committee and a
state convention. [Sidenote: The state committee.] The members of the
state committee are sometimes elected by the voters in the various
congressional or state senatorial districts; sometimes they are named by
the county conventions, and occasionally they are chosen by the state
convention. The committee’s functions are to issue the call for
conventions (or in some states for primaries), to raise and spend the
campaign funds in state elections, to arrange the plans for the state
campaign, and to supervise so far as practicable the work of the local
committees. [Sidenote: The state convention.] The state convention is
made up of a large body of delegates who are directly elected by the
party voters or chosen by the district or county conventions. It meets a
short time prior to each state election and one of its chief duties is
to prepare the party’s platform.[54] Each political party holds its own
convention.

[Sidenote: The national convention.]

=National Party Organization.=—In the early years of the Republic,
candidates for the presidency were nominated by congressional caucuses,
that is, by meetings of the party’s representatives in Congress. But
this method was discarded about 1824 and in due course national party
conventions were called to make these nominations. At present these
national conventions meet every four years, during the summer preceding
the presidential election. Republicans, Democrats, Prohibitionists, and
Socialists all hold their own conventions. In the case of the two
leading parties the conventions are made up of delegates from every
state and territory, these delegates being directly chosen at primaries
or named by the state conventions. The national conventions choose the
candidates for the presidency and the vice presidency. They also frame
the party platforms, this work being done through committees.

[Sidenote: The national committee.]

The chief permanent organ of each party is a national committee made up
of one member from each state, who is either chosen by the voters at the
primary election or selected by the delegates from the state to the
national convention. The national committee chooses its own chairman,
who has general charge of the party’s interests in the campaign; but in
making its choice the national committee usually defers to the wishes of
the party’s presidential candidate.

=How the National Party Convention does its Work.=—The national party
conventions usually meet in some large city, such as Chicago, St. Louis,
Baltimore, or San Francisco. [Sidenote: The convention hall.] An
enormous auditorium is needed for the gathering because a national
convention consists of nearly a thousand delegates and an equal number
of alternates. Among bodies which have to do with government the
national party convention is the largest in the world. The delegates are
seated by alphabetical order of the states, Alabama first and Wyoming
last, each state having its delegates grouped together. Large placards
or banners show where each state is placed. [Sidenote: What a national
convention is like.] The delegates are arranged in the front part of the
hall, the alternates in the rear. Whenever a delegate leaves the
auditorium an alternate goes forward to sit in his place. The galleries
are filled with spectators and there is a huge bustle going on all the
time. It is hard for the speakers to make themselves heard, as only a
thunder-voiced orator can make his words rise above the din which goes
on continually. At times, when a popular candidate appears, there is a
general pandemonium. A band starts around the aisles, playing as it
goes. Delegates fall in behind the band, cheering and shouting. For half
an hour, perhaps longer, this racket continues. Then the noise subsides
and the convention gets back to its work—until the next commotion
begins.

[Sidenote: The balloting.]

After various names have been proposed, the convention begins to ballot.
If no candidate receives a sufficient majority, another ballot is taken.
In the Republican convention the successful candidate must get a
majority of all the delegates; in the Democratic convention the
requirement is two thirds. When there are several candidates in the
running, many ballotings are sometimes required. Day after day the
voting goes on, if necessary, until somebody wins.[55] The weaker
candidates drop out; the stronger ones keep gaining, until finally the
fight narrows down to two or three and the victor emerges. Then the
tired delegates rush through the remaining business and start for home.

[Sidenote: Reasons for the existence of machines.]

=The Party Machine.=—The active workers in these conventions and
committees make up what is called the “machine”. It is called a machine
because all its parts work smoothly together in the effort to obtain the
desired result, which is to win the election. There are party
organizations in other countries, but party “machines” exist only in the
United States. Various reasons account for this. One is the frequency of
elections, which creates a class of professional politicians. There are
more elections in the United States than in any other country. Another
reason is the organizing power of the American people, and the zeal with
which they throw themselves into an election campaign. The practice of
giving the appointive offices to leaders of the victorious party also
has something to do with it. Many men give their time and energy to
electioneering because they expect to get favors in return.

The function of the “machine” is to serve the party, and through the
party to serve the people. But the “machine” often goes beyond this
purpose. [Sidenote: How they lead to abuses.] Its leaders, finding
themselves in control of great power, are tempted to use it for their
own personal profit and advantage. They become arbitrary, dictating what
shall go into the party platform and who shall be nominated. The party
leader who does this becomes a party “boss”, and when groups of bosses
control the party they are commonly known as “rings”.

[Sidenote: What is a “boss”?]

=Rings and Bosses.=—The “boss” in politics is just like any other kind
of boss. His will is law, so far as all his underlings are concerned.
The difference between a party leader and a party boss is that the
leader is chosen by the free action of the party and exercises his
functions openly, while the boss usurps the control of his party and
utilizes it for his own ends without assuming any open responsibility.
[Sidenote: Why bosses are dangerous.] The leader leads and the boss
drives. Party leaders are necessary to good party organization, but the
party “boss” is a menace to the best interests of the party and to the
cause of honest government. Great power must sometimes be placed in the
hands of one man; but care should be taken that every man who wields
great power in a democracy is made responsible for the use of this
authority. Power, when checked by responsibility, is not dangerous. A
party “boss” is dangerous because he has the power and abuses it. He
controls a great “machine” without being accountable to anybody even
when he directs it against the public interest. He gives favors to his
friends and the public pays the bills.

[Sidenote: How “rings” are formed.]

Rings are groups of bosses and are more dangerous because they are
stronger. Four or five unscrupulous men working together are stronger
than one working alone. So when bosses unite, they are often able to
nominate whomsoever they please and to secure the election of
incompetent or supine men. Rings and bosses operate largely in city and
state government because the opportunity to gain control there is much
greater than in national affairs. The smaller the election district, the
more chance the boss has for making himself the master of it. The people
as a whole cannot spend much time over politics; the boss is always at
work, from one end of the year to the other. He makes friends with
everybody who can help him. He is always ready to do favors. Then, when
election day comes, he expects his friends to stand by him.[56]

[Sidenote: Party revenue.]

=How Parties are Financed.=—The work which political parties do, such as
holding conventions, framing platforms, and conducting a campaign
requires a great deal of money. Expenses that are necessary and quite
legitimate have to be met. No organization can hold together on an empty
pocketbook. So money has to be obtained, and the only way of raising it
is by voluntary contributions, for the political parties have no right
to tax anyone. Where does the money come from? It comes largely from
members of the party who respond to the call for subscriptions sent out
by their leaders. People who are well-to-do often give considerable sums
although party leaders feel that it is not good policy to accept very
large contributions from any one man because this may give rise to a
suspicion that the subscriber hopes to get some political favor in
return. The party leaders prefer to obtain the essential funds from a
great multitude of small donors who prove their loyalty to the party in
this way. [Sidenote: Party expenditures.] A national campaign costs each
of the chief parties a large sum, several million dollars nowadays.[57]
State and local campaigns cost a great deal less. The money is spent for
the publication and mailing of campaign literature, for the traveling
expenses of speakers, for hire of meeting-places, and for a great many
other things which go to make up an election campaign.[58] The speakers
and the party workers usually give their services freely, but the party
must furnish the money to defray their expenses.

=The Reform of Party Organization.=—It will be seen, therefore, that
although political parties are necessary and useful organizations in a
democracy, they often develop serious abuses when left free from
official control. For this reason the organization and work of the
political parties should be regulated by provisions of law. Such
provisions have already done much to eliminate boss rule and to improve
the party system. Some people feel that political parties ought to be
abolished altogether but that suggestion is impractical. The abolition
of parties would not make government any more democratic, or more
honest, or more efficient. The work which the parties now perform must
be performed by some organizations of voters, somehow, and if parties
were abolished something similar under a different name would have to be
created to do this work. [Sidenote: Parties must not be abolished but
improved.] What we need is not the abolition of parties but the
improvement of party organization and party methods. Realizing that
parties can be useful we should give them scope for usefulness but
restrict their opportunities for evil. This is what the laws are now
doing. They aim to make party leaders responsible, to make party
nominations fair, and to make party finance honest.

General References

P. ORMAN RAY, _Political Parties and Practical Politics_, pp. 3-12;

A. LAWRENCE LOWELL, _Public Opinion and Popular Government_, pp. 57-85;

JAMES A. WOODBURN, _Political Parties and Party Problems in the United
States_, pp. 465-470;

M. OSTROGORSKI, _Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties_,
pp. 225-281;

W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the United States_, pp. 312-356;

MOORFIELD STOREY, _Problems of Today_, pp. 1-53;

W. W. WILLOUGHBY and LINDSAY ROGERS, _Introduction to the Problem of
Government_, pp. 127-150.

Group Problems

=1. The political doctrines of leading American statesmen=: Hamilton,
John Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Calhoun, Clay, and Webster.
=References=: _Cyclopedia of American Government_, _passim_; C. E.
MERRIAM, _American Political Theories_ (see index).

=2. Minor political parties—their rise and fall.= =References=: JAMES A.
WOODBURN, _Political Parties and Party Problems_, pp. 133-148; P. ORMAN
RAY, _Political Parties and Practical Politics_, pp. 40-68; F. E.
HAYNES, _Third Party Movements Since the Civil War_, pp. 221-260; E. B.
STANWOOD, _History of the Presidency_, _passim_.

=3. The organization of political parties in a typical state of the
Union.= JESSE MACY, _Party Organization and Machinery_, pp. 96-132;
JAMES BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol. II, pp. 76-81; W. B. MUNRO,
_Government of the United States_, pp. 483-487.

=4. The national party conventions.= C. A. BEARD, _American Government
and Politics_, pp. 166-172; P. S. REINSCH, _Readings on American Federal
Government_, pp. 826-845; P. ORMAN RAY, _Political Parties_, pp.
145-167; J. A. WOODBURN, _Political Parties_, pp. 165-214; F. W.
DALLINGER, _Nominations for Elective Office_, pp. 74-92; C. L. JONES,
_Readings on Parties and Elections_, pp. 80-105; T. H. MCKEE, _National
Conventions and Platforms_, _passim_; E. B. STANWOOD, _History of the
Presidency_, _passim_.

=5. The platforms of the various parties in 1920: an analysis and
comparison.= _World Almanac_ (1921). Also the _Campaign Text Books_
issued by the party organizations.

Short Studies

1. =Campaign methods.= P. O. RAY, _Political Parties_, pp. 255-267.

2. =Party loyalty and political independence.= J. A. WOODBURN,
_Political Parties_, pp. 295-303.

3. =The Progressive Party: its history and platform.= S. J.
DUNCAN-CLARK, _The Progressive Movement_, _passim_.

4. =Tammany Hall.= GUSTAVUS MYERS, _History of Tammany Hall_, pp.
267-298; _Encyclopedia Americana_, Vol. XXVI, pp. 235-237.

5. =The boss as a personality.= M. OSTROGORSKI, _Democracy and Political
Parties_, pp. 250-263.

6. =The Tweed Ring.= J. F. RHODES, _History of the United States_, Vol.
VI, pp. 392-411.

7. =How the machine works.= THEODORE ROOSEVELT, _Autobiography_, pp.
61-101; 144-184; 185-222.

8. =The nationalizing influence of parties.= HENRY J. FORD, _Rise and
Growth of American Politics_, pp. 150-161.

9. =Municipal political parties.= M. R. MALTBIE, in _Proceedings_,
National Municipal League, VI, pp. 226_ff._

10. =The reform of party organization.= F. A. CLEVELAND, _Organized
Democracy_, pp. 228-261.

Questions

1. Can you improve the definition of a political party given in this
chapter?

2. Among the various functions of political parties which do you
consider the most important, and why?

3. Why do political parties refrain at times from making their platform
pledges more definite? What new proposal would you like to see inserted
in a party platform?

4. Account for the fact that constitutional questions played a more
important part in American politics prior to 1860 than since that date.

5. Give brief sketches of the Federalist, Democratic-Republican, and
Whig parties and their work before the Civil War.

6. Explain why the “mortality rate” among “third parties” has been so
high. Account for the fact that some of these parties have survived a
considerable period of time while others have not.

7. Make an outline showing the type of party organization used in your
own state.

8. Prepare a list of things for which money can be legally expended by
political parties during an election campaign.

9. If you were a voter, to which political party would you belong? Give
your reasons.

10. What are the important points to be emphasized in discussing the
reform of party organization? Name some reforms which you think would be
advantageous.

Topics for Debate

1. Municipal elections should be conducted on party lines.

2. The campaign expenses of presidential candidates should be paid from
the national treasury.

3. A three-party system would be preferable in this country to the
present two-party organization.

CHAPTER IX
COUNTIES AND RURAL COMMUNITIES

_The purpose of this chapter is to show how the counties, towns, and
villages of the United States are governed, who their local
officials are, and what they do._

[Sidenote: The division of governmental functions.]

=What Local Government Is.=—The functions performed by governments fall
into two divisions. First, there are functions which relate mainly to
the life and activities of the neighborhood, such as police
administration, fire protection, the cleaning of streets, and the care
of the poor. These things can best be managed by the local authorities.
Second, there are functions of a more general character which relate to
the life and activities of the entire state or nation, such as the
regulation of the railroads, the coining of money, the maintenance of
post offices, and the control of corporations. These functions we have
committed, accordingly, to the state and national governments. In
earlier days, before industry and commerce developed so greatly, local
functions were the more numerous; but as population grows the whole
country tends to become one great community, hence many functions
formerly performed by the local authorities are being taken over by the
states and the nation. It is impossible to lay down any rule as to what
functions are local and what functions are general. A few years ago each
town and village made its own regulations concerning the speed limit for
automobiles; to-day that matter has been taken over almost everywhere by
the state authorities.

[Sidenote: Local government in the colonies.]

=The Beginnings of Local Government in the United States.=—Local
government is the oldest branch of government; both the state and the
national government have grown out of it. When colonists first came from
England to Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay they settled on small farms
and built their houses within short distances of one another. In
Virginia, on the other hand, the colonists took up large plantations for
the growing of tobacco and cotton; their homes were spread over a wide
area. Because of the difference in the manner of settlement the New
England colonists organized themselves into _towns_ (or townships) while
the Southern colonists created larger units of local government known as
_counties_. From the Atlantic seaboard these two types of local
administration—township and county government—have spread out over the
rest of the country. In the course of this spread they have been
considerably altered from their original forms.

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

[Sidenote: Nature of the county.]

=The County.=—Every state in the Union is now divided into counties.[59]
The division is made by the state legislature, but when county
boundaries are once fixed they are seldom changed thereafter. In the
older states the counties are often small; in the newer states they
sometimes cover several hundred square miles.[60] Counties, like cities,
are public corporations, that is to say they have the right to own
property, to raise taxes, to borrow money, and to make contracts. They
may sue and be sued in the courts. But counties have no inalienable
rights of their own. All their powers are derived from the state. They
are merely political divisions of the state, created for the more
convenient administration of local affairs. In a few states the people
of each county are permitted to select and establish such form of county
government as they may choose, but as a rule the state legislature
prescribes a uniform type of county government for all the counties
within the state.

=The County Officers.=—The chief governmental authority of the county is
the county board, the members of which are usually known as
commissioners or supervisors. These members are either directly elected
by the voters of the county or sent as representatives from the
townships. County boards may have only three members or as many as
fifteen—each state has its own regulations on this point. The board has
its headquarters at the county seat, where the county courthouse is
located.

[Sidenote: County functions.]

The functions of the county board may be summarized under six heads. 1.
_Financial._ Most county boards have the right to levy county taxes and
to make appropriations for expenditure. They have authority from the
state legislature to borrow money on the county’s credit. This borrowing
power is exercised in order to construct county roads, build bridges, or
provide county buildings. 2. _Highways and bridges._ In many states all
the main highways are designated as state or county roads. The towns and
townships are responsible for the construction of minor highways only.
The state roads are built by state highway commissions or some such
body; the county roads are constructed and maintained by the county
board. In some states these county roads are numerous; in others they
are very few. Main bridges, which connect two cities, towns, or
townships, are also built and maintained by the county board. 3. _Public
buildings._ Every county requires certain public buildings, including a
courthouse, a county jail, a registry of deeds, a county poorhouse, and
sometimes a county hospital. These buildings are erected and managed by
the county board. 4. _Poor-relief and correction._ The function of
providing public poor-relief is to some extent performed by the state
and municipal authorities but a good deal of the responsibility still
rests upon the county boards. 5. _Elections._ In most states of the West
and South the county board has charge of the local arrangements for
state and national elections. It designates the polling places, appoints
the election officers, and provides the ballots. The county, in most of
the states, serves as the unit for the selection of senators and
assemblymen in the state legislature. 6. _Miscellaneous._ Finally, the
county boards have sundry other functions. Occasionally they grant
charters of incorporation to companies. In some states they construct
irrigation works and arrange for the abolition of grade crossings on
railroads. They often help in the selection of jurors and have authority
to grant certain licenses.

[Sidenote: The faults of county government.]

=Have County Boards been Satisfactory?=—The work of the county boards
has not received much public attention in most of the states until the
last few years. The county has been called “the jungle of American
politics” because the masses of the people know so little about what is
going on in the offices of the county authorities. On the whole county
government has not been conspicuously bad, but it has been far from what
it ought to be. American counties, as a rule, have been more honestly
and more economically governed than American cities. The fundamental
objection to the existing system of county government is that it places
in the hands of an elective body, the members of which are usually
chosen for purely political reasons, the performance of many difficult
_executive_ functions. The management of finances, construction of
roads, bridges, and public buildings, the proper treatment of the poor,
the sick, and the insane are all tasks which require ability, skill, and
experience. Elective county supervisors cannot reasonably be expected to
perform them well, and this is especially the case when the nominations
and elections are dominated by professional politicians.

=The County Manager Plan.=—In view of the large amount of executive
work, requiring skill and experience, which is imposed upon the county
boards, and especially in consideration of the fact that this executive
work is steadily growing, it has been proposed that the boards should
confine themselves to matters of general policy, leaving to a county
manager the entire work of actual administration. In a few counties this
proposal has been adopted. The county manager, a trained and highly-paid
official, is appointed by the county board to purchase all materials and
supplies, to hire labor, to prepare contracts for the construction of
public buildings, and to attend to all the details which arise in
connection with the board’s work. In this way, by concentrating
authority in a single hand, a great deal of waste and inefficiency is
avoided. The plan is in harmony with the principle that responsibility
for purely executive work, particularly when it is of a technical
character, should be entrusted to men who have special qualifications
for performing it (see pp. 197-198).

[Sidenote: County courts.]

=The County as a Judicial Area.=—In the administration of justice the
county plays an important part. County courts exist in nearly all the
states, and although they form an integral part of the state judiciary
they have jurisdiction over such matters within the county as the laws
may provide. Both the organization and the jurisdiction of the county
courts differ greatly from state to state. In some states each county
has its own judge; in others there is one judge for a group of counties.
This judge holds sessions in one county after another. The county court
usually hears appeals from the local courts and has original
jurisdiction in cases where a jury is in order. The probating of wills
is in most cases a function of the county court. Appeals from its
decisions may usually be carried to the higher tribunals of the state.

[Sidenote: His functions.]

=The Sheriff.=—Every county has a peace officer known as the sheriff,
usually elected by the voters of the county. He is the chief guardian of
the law and the right-arm of the county court. Historically this is the
oldest office in the country. It goes back to the time of William the
Conqueror or earlier, when the shire-reeve was the agent of the king in
keeping law and order. Sheriffs have the right to appoint
deputy-sheriffs whose duty it is to help preserve the public peace, to
make arrests, and to serve court papers. Sometimes the sheriff and his
deputies are paid regular salaries, but more often they obtain their
remuneration from fees. The sheriff is the custodian of prisoners in the
county jail; he summons the jurors to the court sessions and carries out
all the judgments rendered by the court.

[Sidenote: Work of the grand jury.]

=The Prosecuting Attorney.=—Attached to every county court there is a
legal officer who is commonly known as the prosecuting attorney or
county attorney, usually elected by the people.[61] His chief duty is to
conduct prosecutions before the county court. He investigates crimes,
prepares the evidence, and usually lays the case, first of all, before a
body known as the grand jury. This jury, as will later be explained, is
selected by lot from among the voters of the county. It does not go into
the question of guilt or innocence, but merely determines whether an
accused person should be placed on trial before a trial jury in a county
court. In some states it is not necessary for the prosecuting attorney
to lay the case before the grand jury; he may merely file a sworn
declaration, called an information or complaint, stating his belief that
there is sufficient ground for placing the accused person on trial.
Prosecuting attorneys everywhere have a good deal of discretion in the
way of discontinuing or “nol-prossing” criminal cases.[62]

=Other County Officers.=—There are various other officers connected with
county government. The county assessors go about the county and assess
or value property for purposes of taxation. The county treasurer
receives the taxes and pays the county’s bills. The county auditors
inspect the financial accounts of all county officers. The registrar of
deeds or recorder keeps books in which all deeds and mortgages on land
are entered.[63] [Sidenote: The coroner.] The county coroner has the
duty of holding an investigation or inquest whenever a death takes place
under circumstances which excite suspicion of crime. For this purpose he
summons a coroner’s jury of citizens to determine the facts. They do not
determine guilt or innocence, but may recommend that a suspected person
be arrested and held for trial. In some states the office of coroner has
been abolished and its functions given to an appointive official known
as the medical examiner, who is always a physician. In many counties
there is a county superintendent of schools whose duties are indicated
by his title. Practically all these officers are elected, usually for a
short term of years.

[Sidenote: The selection of county employees.]

=Civil Service Reform in Counties.=—Besides the foregoing officers there
are, in the service of county government, large numbers of subordinate
officials and employees, including deputy-sheriffs, attendants in the
jail and poorhouse, foremen on road construction, clerks in the county
offices, and so on. All of these are still chosen, in most counties,
under the spoils system. Positions on the county pay roll are given
almost everywhere the reward of party or personal service. The merit
system of selecting subordinate officials by competitive examination has
made little or no progress in the counties of the United States although
there is no good reason why it should not be used there as well as in
the municipal, state, and national service. The county remains the last
fortress of the spoils system because the people as a whole have not
been fully awakened to the importance of its work and because the
political influences which control county government have heretofore
been strong enough to prevent the loss of patronage which the
introduction of the merit system would entail.

[Sidenote: Relations of county and city.]

=The Metropolitan Counties.=—Special problems of county government arise
whenever a large city spreads itself over a whole county or even over a
very large portion of it. The growth of great municipal centers during
recent years has changed many American counties from rural into urban or
metropolitan areas. Examples are to be found in New York City which
includes five counties within the city limits. The city of Philadelphia
includes the whole of Philadelphia county; Suffolk county is almost
entirely covered by the city of Boston, and the city of Cleveland
contains nine tenths of the population of Cuyahoga county. The cities
are largely independent of the counties within which they are located,
but the functions of city and county government run close together at
many points. For example the sheriff of the county and the police
commissioner or police chief of the city are both responsible for the
maintenance of law and order. The result is, quite often, a duplication
of work and a waste of money. It has been proposed that the city and
county governments, in the case of metropolitan counties, should be
substantially combined to prevent this duplication. To some extent this
has been done, as in the case of St. Louis, Baltimore, Boston, and San
Francisco. In other large cities various plans for entire or partial
unification are under way.

[Sidenote: Desirable changes in county organization.]

=The Reform of County Government.=—For the improvement of county
government throughout the country three important changes in present
organization and methods seem to be needed. [Sidenote: 1. A centralized
executive.] In the first place some provision should be made for the
better handling of executive work. As matters now stand there is no
county official corresponding to the President, the governor, and the
mayor in national, state, and city government respectively.
Responsibility is scattered into too many hands. It ought to be
centralized in a county manager or some other single administrative
official. [Sidenote: 2. A shorter ballot.] Second, the number of
elective county officers should be reduced. There is no sound reason why
treasurers, auditors, and superintendents of schools should be appointed
in cities (as is usually the case), but elected in counties. The
practice of electing so many administrative officers makes the ballot
long and cumbersome; it also leads to the choice of men who have no
qualifications other than popularity. What is even worse, it encourages
frequent changes in the incumbents of these offices and thus interferes
with the efficient management of the county’s business. [Sidenote: 3.
The merit system.] Finally, the merit system could be advantageously
extended to include all subordinate county positions.

TOWNS AND TOWNSHIPS

[Sidenote: The various units of local government.]

=The Areas of Community Government.=—For purposes of local
administration the counties are divided into towns, townships, or county
districts, but whenever any portion of the county becomes thickly
settled it is usually organized as an incorporated village, an
incorporated town, a borough, or a city. It will be seen, therefore,
that there are at least seven different units of community government in
the United States, not to speak of the special districts which exist in
some individual states. The reason for this great diversity is to be
found in the fact that the American system of local government has grown
up gradually and in each state independently. In most European countries
the system of local government is uniform; in the United States it is
not. Each state has its own system and in no two states are these
systems exactly alike. For this reason only the broad outline of the
subject can be presented; the details must be studied in the localities
concerned.

[Sidenote: The town meeting.]

=The New England Town.=—Among the areas of community government the New
England town is the oldest and the most interesting. It is not always,
or even usually, a thickly-settled place. These towns differ greatly
both in size and in population; they are usually quite irregular in
shape and may contain anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand
people. The New England town does not possess a charter of incorporation
but it has the usual corporate powers (see p. 177). The chief governing
organ of the New England town is the town meeting, an assembly of all
the voters, both men and women. This town meeting is called together at
least once a year and often three or four times. It elects the town
officers, votes the appropriations, and decides all questions of general
policy. Sometimes the town meeting lasts all day; occasionally it
continues even longer. Every citizen has the right to a voice and a
vote.

[Sidenote: The selectmen.]

During the interval between the town meetings the affairs of the town
are managed by a board of selectmen, composed of three or five members,
elected by the voters. The selectmen prepare the business for the town
meeting and carry out its decisions. The larger towns also maintain
various other boards, such as a school board, a water board, and a board
of health, the members being in all cases elected at the town meeting.
Other town officials include a town clerk, a treasurer, an auditor, and
a superintendent of schools.

[Sidenote: Recent changes in the system.]

When towns grow large the town meeting becomes unwieldy and the system
of administration by numerous boards fails to work smoothly. For this
reason some New England towns have recently adopted a “limited town
meeting” system, by which the voters of the town elect delegates to
represent them in the town meeting. A few towns have also abolished the
various administrative boards and have placed town administration in
charge of a town manager appointed by the selectmen.[64]

=The Township.=—In the great group of Central and Middle Western states,
ranging from New York and Pennsylvania to Nebraska and the Dakotas, the
principal area of community government is the township, although it is
sometimes called the town. In the older states these townships (or
towns) are of irregular shape; in several of the newer states the
so-called “congressional” townships were laid out in uniform blocks, six
miles square. In some of the states, both old and new, the towns or
townships have town meetings, as in New England, but nowhere outside of
New England have these meetings attained any great importance. Their
chief function in the Central and Middle Western states is to elect the
town or township officers. The work of township (or town) administration
is carried on either by a board of trustees or by a single official
commonly known as a supervisor. There are also various subordinate
officials, all of whom are usually elected by the voters.

=The County Districts.=—In most states of the South and Far West there
are no townships. The county remains the principal area of local
government, but for the management of various community affairs the
county is divided into districts. There are school districts, road
districts, and election districts, for example. Each district has its
own elective officers who are in charge of the function for which the
district was established.

[Sidenote: Incorporated towns, boroughs, and villages.]

=The Incorporated Communities.=—The vitality of townships and district
government has been weakened by the practice of incorporating as a
village, town, borough, or city, any portion of the area which becomes
thickly settled. The laws of the various states usually provide that
whenever any part of a community becomes sufficiently populous a
designated number of the inhabitants may petition for incorporation. The
question is then submitted to a vote, and if the vote is favorable, a
charter of incorporation is granted. A certain minimum of population is
required; usually from two to three hundred in the case of a village,
one to three thousand in the case of a town, and more than three
thousand in the case of a city. These figures vary from state to state.
In some Western states the minimum for incorporation for a city is only
a few hundred. In any event when the place becomes incorporated as a
village, town, borough, or city it becomes separate, for administrative
purposes, from the township or district to which it belonged and sets up
a local government of its own. The nature of this government, the
officials, and the scope of their powers are all fixed by the laws of
the state. There are more than 15,000 incorporated villages, towns,
boroughs, and cities in the United States, nearly three fourths of them
being places of less than 2500 population.

[Sidenote: The advantages.]

=The Merits and Defects of the Local Government System.=—The most marked
feature of the American system of local government, when surveyed as a
whole, is its decentralization. Nothing is uniform throughout the
country; each state follows its own plan, and everywhere a large measure
of home rule in local affairs is granted. Contrast this with the system
of local government in the French Republic for example, where all
communities, whether large or small, are governed in exactly the same
way and strictly controlled by the central authorities in Paris. The
American system has the advantage of allowing each section of the
country to adopt whatever scheme best suits its own particular needs. It
also facilitates the making of experiments in local government and
through these experiments we learn better ways of doing things. The
large measure of local home rule brings community government close to
the people, giving them control over it and responsibility for it. It
fosters initiative and tends to develop a wholesome rivalry in good
work. Local government is a fine school for the teaching of democracy.

[Sidenote: The defects.]

On the other hand the American system has its defects. So many areas of
local government have been created in some of the states that the people
are over-governed. The multiplication of local offices has led to
wastefulness. Local home rule, moreover, has in some cases been a
synonym for local misrule. The result is that we have required, during
recent years, an increase in the amount of control exercised over the
government of the local communities by state and county authorities.
Townships, towns, and villages are areas of government established to
meet local needs, but they are also the channels through which the state
authorities carry on a portion of their work. This latter phase of local
self-government should not be overlooked.

General References

EVERETT KIMBALL, _State and Local Government_, pp. 309-344;

CHARLES A. BEARD, _American Government and Politics_, pp. 638-705;
_Ibid._, _Readings in American Government and Politics_, pp. 556-566;

JAMES BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol. I, pp. 596-616;

W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the United States_, pp. 535-571;

H. G. JAMES, _Local Government in the United States_, especially pp.
254-299;

JOHN A. FAIRLIE, _Local Government in Counties, Towns and Villages_,
especially pp. 57-140; American Academy of Political and Social Science,
_County Government_, pp. 81-111; _Cyclopedia of American Government_
(see under _County, Towns_ and _Townships, Borough_).

Group Problems

=1. Should the county-manager plan be adopted?= With what county
functions do you now come into contact? How important to you and to your
home is the work of the county officials in the matter of road-building,
the maintenance of prisons, the care of the poor, the registration of
deeds, and the supervision of schools? Are any of these things now
mismanaged and, if so, in what way can the situation be improved? The
present multiplication of county authorities. Duties of each. How these
duties are performed. The cause of waste or inefficiency. What the
county-manager system aims to do. Comparison of the city-manager and the
county-manager plans. =References=: H. G. JAMES, _Local Government in
the United States_, pp. 425-451; JOHN A. FAIRLIE, _Local Government in
Counties, Towns and Villages_, pp. 75-94; H. G. GILBERTSON, _The
County_, pp. 151-180; “_County Government_” in the Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. XLVII (May,
1913); National Short Ballot Organization, _Documents on County
Government_; C. C. MAXEY, _County Government_, pp. 45-62.

=2. How town government can be improved.= =References=: H. G. JAMES,
_Local Government in the United States_, pp. 254-283; C. S. BIRD, _Town
Planning for Small Communities_, pp. 311-340; _Cyclopedia of American
Government_ (see under _Towns_ and _Townships_); Annual Reports of Town
Officers.

=3. What your township officials do.= =References=: JOHN A. FAIRLIE,
_Local Government in Counties, Towns and Villages_, pp. 164-181; H. G.
JAMES, _Local Government in the United States_, pp. 268-283; JOHN FISKE,
_Civil Government in the United States_, pp. 89-95; EVERETT KIMBALL,
_State and Local Government_, pp. 333-344; Annual Reports of Township
Supervisor or Chairman.

Short Studies

1. =The importance of local government in a democracy.= A. DE
TOCQUEVILLE, _Democracy in America_, Vol. I, pp. 74-87.

2. =French and English methods of local government.= H. G. JAMES, _Local
Government in the United States_, pp. 1-65.

3. =The county board.= JOHN A. FAIRLIE, _Local Government in Counties,
Towns and Villages_, pp. 75-94; EVERETT KIMBALL, _State and Local
Government_, pp. 317-332.

4. =Politics in county government.= H. S. GILBERTSON, _The County_, pp.
43-65.

5. =Where the county’s money goes.= H. G. JAMES, _Local Government in
the United States_, pp. 232-250.

6. =City and county consolidation.= _Ibid._, pp. 437-448.

7. =A New England town meeting.= JOHN FISKE, _Civil Government in the
United States_, pp. 16-34.

8. =The enforcement of the state laws in rural communities.= J. M.
MATHEWS, _Principles of American State Administration_, pp. 430-462.

9. =How good planning helps the small town.= C. S. BIRD, _Town Planning
for Small Communities_, pp. 1-19; 76-99.

10. =Home rule for counties.= H. S. GILBERTSON, _The County_, pp.
207-250.

11. =The government of an urban county.= Cook County, Board of
Commissioners, _A Study of Cook County_, pp. 5-21.

12. =The county courts.= J. W. SMITH, _Training for Citizenship_, pp.
185-197; American Academy of Political and Social Science, _County
Government_, pp. 120-133; Illinois Constitutional Convention, 1920,
_Bulletins_, No. 11, pp. 905-925 (Local Government in Chicago and Cook
County).

Questions

1. Why do we need a system of local government? Suppose all the areas of
local government were to be abolished and the management of local
affairs taken over by the state, what advantages and disadvantages would
result?

2. To what extent does the constitution of your state restrict the
freedom of the state legislature in interfering with local government?
Are these restrictions too great? Why should not counties and towns be
given complete home rule?

3. Name the qualifications which a good sheriff ought to have. An
efficient coroner.

4. Why do we need a registry of deeds? If deeds were not registered what
difficulties would be encountered? Is a deed invalid if not registered?

5. If counties were to be abolished, which of their present functions
would you transfer to the state and which to the townships, towns, or
villages?

6. Why is it thought desirable that when places become thickly-settled
they should be given separate incorporation?

7. Explain how local government serves as a school for democracy.

8. What ought to be the minimum limit of population for an incorporated
village, an incorporated town, a city?

Topics for Debate

1. All county administrative officials, except the highest, should be
chosen by civil service rules.

2. City and county government should be consolidated in cities like
Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Los Angeles.

-----

Footnote 24:

In doing this they do not take editorials, resolutions, and letters
too seriously. Some newspapers merely reflect the opinion of their
owners, not public opinion. Societies often adopt resolutions without
hearing both sides of the case. Congressmen sometimes receive several
hundred letters in a single day, most of them saying exactly the same
thing, which means that they have all been inspired from the same
quarter.

Footnote 25:

The President of the United States is to all intents and purposes
chosen directly by the voters although as a matter of form the choice
is made indirectly (see pp. 288-290).

Footnote 26:

The appointment of officials is sometimes made by legislative bodies,
although this plan is not common. In a few states the judges are named
by the legislature. In some others the legislature elects the state
treasurer, the secretary of state, the comptroller, or the auditor.
Where the commission form of city government has been adopted all
appointments are made by the commission. The general theory of
American government is, however, that the choosing of administrative
and judicial officers should not be vested in the hands of a
legislative body. It is regarded as undesirable that the body which
enacts the laws should have anything directly to do with the selection
of those officers who enforce or apply the laws. But this principle
ought not to be applied inflexibly; there are good reasons at times
for making exceptions to it.

Footnote 27:

Washington was not a party man and cared very little about the
political views of men whom he appointed to public office. His
immediate successors, Adams and Jefferson, did not preserve this
strict impartiality; on the other hand, they were disinclined to treat
public office as a mere means of rewarding their own supporters. They
did not remove office-holders in order to make room for their own
political friends.

Footnote 28:

The story is often told, and it may well be true, that at a critical
time in the war a visitor to the White House remarked to Lincoln that
the responsibilities of the great struggle must be a heavy burden upon
his shoulders. “No,” replied the President, “it is not the war that is
giving me the greatest worry at this moment. It is the problem of
filling that postmastership at Little Rapids, Indiana.”

Footnote 29:

No method of appointment will secure the best results, however, unless
it is accompanied by a fair system of promotions. This has not yet
been arranged for on any large scale. Appointments are to a large
extent based upon merit, but promotions are still determined, in many
cases, by personal or party favoritism. Rarely is there any
examination or other test to decide who will be promoted when a
vacancy occurs higher up. It is desirable, therefore, that the merit
system of appointment should be supplemented by a merit system of
promotions. Many capable young men and women will not enter the public
service today because there is no certain chance of promotion on the
basis of ability and industry. A merit plan of promotion would help to
attract better candidates. The public treasury, moreover, ought to
provide pensions for those who retire by reason of old age after many
years of faithful service. Some large private institutions are now
doing this. The nation, state, and city ought to adopt the same
practice, not only because it is the humane way of treating aged
employees but because it would make the public service more attractive
as a career.

Footnote 30:

In a sense, however, the terms initiative and referendum are merely
new names for very old institutions. The right of petition, which is
the foundation of the initiative, has always existed in the United
States. The referendum, in other words the submission of questions
directly to the people, is as old as the New England town meeting;
indeed it goes back to the time of ancient Athens. All early
democracy, in fact, was direct democracy; the people decided things
without legislatures. But as communities grew in size this system of
direct democracy became impractical; hence they resorted to
representative government. Now, when representative government fails
to satisfy, we go back again in a roundabout way to the old method.

Footnote 31:

Only five of these states, however, lie east of the Mississippi River.
Why is it that so many of these new movements, political and economic,
originate somewhere in the West? Direct legislation, the recall, woman
suffrage, popular election of senators, free silver, the single tax,
Populism, the Non-partisan League,—the list would be a considerable
one if given in full. It is often said that the growth of industrial
communities, with large bodies of propertyless workers, tends to
promote radicalism; but the West is still predominantly agricultural.
What new political or economic movements have had their origin in
industrial states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, or Pennsylvania
during the past twenty-five years?

Footnote 32:

Here are some of the matters submitted to the voters of a certain
Western city at one election: to pension firemen; to grant a street
railway franchise; to abolish grade crossings; to exempt certain city
officers from being citizens of the United States; to define the
powers of the municipal court; to exempt certain officers from the
civil service rules; to regulate the sale of bonds; to change the
method of passing ordinances; to allow the city to acquire property
outside the city limits, etc. Is the average voter likely, or
unlikely, to know much about things of this sort?

Footnote 33:

In 1921 the voters of North Dakota recalled Governor Frazier from
office before the expiry of his term.

Footnote 34:

See p. 31.

Footnote 35:

In England full suffrage has been granted only to women who are thirty
years of age or over. This was purposely done in order that the male
voters should be in the majority.

Footnote 36:

New York State in 1921 joined the list of states which impose the
literacy test.

Footnote 37:

Various classes of people, although qualified by citizenship, age, and
residence, are debarred from voting on other grounds. Among these are
insane persons, criminals, and, in some states, those who have been
convicted of bribery or other serious offences against the election
laws. In some states, also, soldiers of the regular army and enlisted
men of the navy are denied the right to register as voters on the
ground that they are not really residents but merely representatives
of the national government temporarily quartered within the state
boundaries. Civil officials of the national government are not
debarred.

Footnote 38:

This gives the party workers an opportunity to investigate all
suspicious names on the list and be ready for action when election day
comes.

Footnote 39:

Sometimes annual registration is required in the cities but not in
small towns or rural districts. In Ohio there is an annual
registration in cities of over 100,000 population; a registration
every four years in smaller cities, and no general registration at all
in the rural districts. In the latter the same list is used year after
year with such individual changes as may be necessary.

Footnote 40:

In most cases they take the voter’s say-so as sufficient proof of his
party allegiance.

Footnote 41:

At the New York state primaries of September, 1920, the candidate who
won the Democratic nomination for governor received fewer than 200,000
votes; at the November election he received more than a million, and
yet was not elected.

Footnote 42:

In a few cities, for example in Boston, there are no primaries before
the municipal elections. Candidates for the office of mayor may be
nominated by presenting a petition signed by not fewer than 5000
qualified voters; candidates for the city council must have at least
2500 signatures.

Footnote 43:

This roundabout way of fixing the election date is used in order to
make certain that the election shall not take place on the first day
of the month, a time when those who work in banks, offices, etc., are
particularly busy.

Footnote 44:

It is sometimes arranged that local elections shall take place in the
odd years, while national and state elections come in the even years.

Footnote 45:

A ward boss in a certain American city some time ago was urging his
followers to vote the “straight ticket”, but knowing that some of them
could not read and recalling the fact that the figure of an eagle
stood at the top of his party column, he bellowed at them “Now when
you go to the polls put your cross right under that chicken with the
short legs”.

Footnote 46:

For a further discussion, with additional data, see C. A. Beard,
_American Government and Politics_, p. 673.

Footnote 47:

Proportional representation should also be distinguished from _limited
voting_ and _cumulative voting_. Under the limited voting plan a voter
is permitted to mark his ballot only for some smaller number of
candidates than there are places to be filled. For example, if seven
councilmen are to be chosen by the electorate of the city at large,
each voter might be permitted to vote for not more than four. The
outcome would very likely be that the strongest party would elect four
councilmen and the next strongest three. This gives a certain amount
of _minority_ representation, but does not ensure proportional
representation. _Cumulative voting_ is an arrangement under which each
voter is given as many votes as there are candidates to be elected but
is permitted to allot all or any of his votes as he pleases. Thus, if
three assemblymen are to be elected, the voter will have three votes.
He may give all three votes to one candidate; or two votes to one
candidate and one vote to another; or one vote to each of three
candidates. This plan also gives reasonable assurance of minority
representation, because the weaker party will concentrate its votes
upon one candidate, but the usual outcome is that the majority,
whatever its strength, will have twice as many representatives as the
minority. It does not, therefore, ensure proportional representation.
This plan has been used in Illinois.

Footnote 48:

In Ashtabula (Ohio), Boulder (Colorado), West Hartford (Connecticut),
and Sacramento (California). Cleveland, the fifth largest city in the
United States, adopted in 1921 a new city charter in which provision
is made for using proportional representation at council elections.
The first election under the new plan will be held in the autumn of
1923.

Footnote 49:

Various other things, not in themselves wrong, have been made illegal
by statute because they are regarded as contrary to good public policy
in that they tend to render an election undignified, or unfair, or
unnecessarily expensive. Canvassing and distribution of campaign
literature is forbidden within a certain radius of the polling place.
Campaign advertisements must not be printed in some states unless they
bear the name and address of a qualified voter. Candidates are
required to file with the proper authorities a statement of their
campaign expenses and it is illegal to spend more than a prescribed
sum even for purely legitimate purposes, such as the hiring of halls
and the printing of posters. The purpose of these provisions is not
only to render the election a dignified affair, as becomes an exercise
of popular sovereignty, but to give every candidate, rich or poor, as
nearly equal a chance as the laws can ensure. These regulations are
sometimes evaded, it is true, but on the whole they are well respected
both by party organizations and by candidates. In Senator Newberry’s
case the United States Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not
limit the campaign expenses of candidates for election to the Senate
or the House. Control of these elections rests with the several
states.

Footnote 50:

They try to persuade the existing parties into helping them gain their
object; if they fail in this, they frequently organize a new party.
Thus the Liberty and Free Soil parties were organized to abolish
slavery; the Prohibition party to get rid of the liquor traffic, and
the Progressive party to put through various political and economic
changes which the older parties would not father.

Footnote 51:

That, indeed, is what does actually happen at times in spite of the
party system. A President, elected by one political party, negotiates
a treaty; a Senate controlled by the other political party declines to
ratify it. A governor insists that pledges made by him during the
election campaign shall be carried out; but the legislature (having a
majority of the opposite faith) declines to pass the necessary laws. A
mayor tries to make an appointment, and his political opponents in the
city council refuse confirmation. Such things happen now and then. As
a general rule, however, when a political party gains control of one
branch of the government it gains control of the other too.

Footnote 52:

There have been some critical issues at different times in American
history, such as nullification, slavery, secession, reconstruction,
green-backs, free silver, the regulation of trusts, imperialism, the
league of nations, and so on. Most of the leading issues in recent
years have been economic in character; they have been concerned with
such matters as the railroads, the merchant marine, the regulation of
industry, immigration, relations with Mexico, banking reorganization,
the extension of aid to agriculture, conservation, budget methods, and
international trade.

Footnote 53:

This is quite a contrast with what has happened in France, Germany,
Italy, and the other countries of Continental Europe. In these
countries there are several parties and they continue in existence for
long periods of time. No two parties ever manage to get the field of
politics largely to themselves. It is significant that the two-party
system has flourished in the English-speaking countries, that is, in
Great Britain, the British colonies, and the United States. Everywhere
else there are from three or four to a dozen parties. Why should there
be this difference?

Footnote 54:

Until recent years the state convention also had the function of
nominating the party candidates for state officers, but in most of the
states this prerogative has been taken away from the convention and
the nominations are made by the party voters at state-wide direct
primaries. In the others the nominations are still made by the
conventions. Even where the primary is used, however, it is sometimes
the practice of a convention to adopt an “unofficial” slate of
candidates which it recommends to the voters for their endorsement at
the primary (see p. 129).

Footnote 55:

At the Republican national convention of 1880 it took thirty-six
ballots to nominate Mr. Garfield. In 1912, at the Democratic national
convention, Woodrow Wilson was not nominated until the forty-sixth
ballot. Sometimes the very first ballot results in nominating the
candidate as happened with Mr. Wilson in 1916. How many ballots were
taken before the nomination of Mr. Harding at Chicago in June, 1920,
and before the nomination of his opponent, Mr. Cox, at San Francisco,
a few weeks later?

Footnote 56:

Rings and bosses are not American inventions. Pericles was a political
boss, and a very successful one in his day. There were bosses in
ancient Rome; they could even get together and form a ring (they
called it a triumvirate). Simon de Montfort, the so-called “father of
the House of Commons”, was a boss and a rather skilful one at that.
Pitt, the younger, was a boss of the first order, a corrupt one, too.
In America we have had many political bosses from Aaron Burr down, but
most of them have operated in state and city politics. There is no
national party boss; the field is too large for any one man to
control. Perhaps the most notable of all American bosses was William
M. Tweed, who dominated the politics of New York City a half century
ago. “He was an American by birth, a chairmaker by trade, a good
fellow by nature, a politician by circumstances, a boss by natural
process of evolution, and a grafter by choice.” As the boss of his
party he sold nominations openly, assessed public officeholders for
contributions to his campaign funds, gave out contracts to his
friends, looted the city treasury, and finally went to jail. New
York’s experience with Tweed cost the city about fifty million dollars
in less than five years.

Footnote 57:

The campaign fund of the Republican party, when it elected Abraham
Lincoln in 1860, was a little over $100,000. The amount raised by the
Republicans for the campaign of 1920 was about $4,000,000. The
Democratic campaign fund was considerably smaller, but it also ran
into the millions. The laws provide that the treasurers of these funds
must publish, before the election, the names of all contributors who
give more than $100, and after the election must file a statement of
all moneys expended. Corporations are forbidden to contribute to any
federal campaign fund.

Footnote 58:

These costs mount up quickly. A torchlight procession in a large city
costs several thousand dollars. To send a single circular, with a
one-cent stamp on the envelope, to every registered voter in a city
the size of Boston costs for printing, stationery, stamps, and labor
about $10,000. Some large halls cost $500 per night, yet halls for
meetings have to be hired night after night during the latter part of
the campaign.

Footnote 59:

In Louisiana, however, the counties are known as parishes.

Footnote 60:

The largest county in the United States is San Bernardino county,
California, which covers more than 2000 square miles. The smallest is
Bristol county, R. I., with about 25 square miles. Cook county, which
includes Chicago, has the biggest population and Cochran county,
Texas, with less than 100 people, has the smallest.

Footnote 61:

In some states he is known as the district attorney, state’s attorney,
or county solicitor.

Footnote 62:

To discontinue a prosecution the prosecuting attorney files in court a
statement known as a _nolle prosequi_, indicating that he does not
wish to press the case to trial. The right to do this gives the
official a great deal of power, which has been in some cases abused.

Footnote 63:

A deed is a document by which one person conveys land to another. It
is the duty of the purchaser to make sure that his deed is valid and
that the seller has a good title to the land which he sells. This he
can ascertain by examining the records in the registry of deeds. In
some states a plan known as the Torrens System is in operation.
Intending purchasers submit their deeds to the registration official,
who examines them. If he finds that the title is good, he registers
the deed and thereafter the title may not be questioned. Where the
Torrens System is not in operation a purchaser can get his title
insured by paying a premium to a title insurance company.

Footnote 64:

There is a widespread impression that the government of the New
England towns, being a close approach to a direct democracy, has been
a great and consistent success. These towns have been pictured by some
writers as little Utopias, free from state interference, and
privileged to manage their own affairs in their own way. Unhappily
this portrayal does not square with the facts. Small agricultural
communities, such as the New England towns used to be, can manage
their local affairs satisfactorily under almost any form of
government. But when population grows, and factories come in, and
local activities are multiplied—then the problems of a town are akin
to those of a city and have to be handled in the same way.

CHAPTER X
CITY GOVERNMENT

_The purpose of this chapter is to explain who the city authorities
are and what they do._

[Sidenote: To be a city a place must have a charter.]

=What is a City?=—The poet Cowper once said that “God made the country
and man made the town”, a remark which was not intended to flatter the
cities. Nor is there any reason why life in a crowded community should
particularly appeal to poets although it may have a strong fascination
for more worldly-minded men. A large body of people living closely
together, a place of busy streets and tall buildings, a huge, noisy,
jostling throng—that is the customary notion of an American city, and on
the whole it is not far wide of the facts. Not all cities, however, are
big, busy, and congested. In the entire United States there are today
about a thousand places which call themselves cities, yet more than half
of them are places of less than fifteen thousand people. In
Massachusetts no place can become a city until it has at least ten
thousand people; but in Oklahoma the figure is two thousand and in
Kansas only two hundred. A city may be anything, therefore, from a rural
hamlet with only a few hundred people to a great metropolitan community
with several millions. Size or population are not the things that
determine cityhood. A place is a city if it has been so incorporated and
possesses a city charter. So far as its government is concerned, it
cannot be called a city, no matter how populous it may be, unless it has
been given a charter by authority of the state.[65] In the West the
practice has been to grant such charters to relatively small places; in
the East the requirements are more strict.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE GROWTH OF AMERICAN CITIES

The table and diagram on the reverse of this page
will serve to make clear the phenomenal growth of
American cities during the past hundred and thirty
years. In 1820 only one person in twenty lived
in cities and towns of over 8,000 population;
today nine persons in every twenty live in these
communities. The population of the whole country has
been growing steadily during the past hundred
years; but the cities have been increasing even
more rapidly. These figures should be studied in
connection with the discussion on pages 184-186.

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ —POPULATION IN PLACES OF 8,000 INHABITANTS OR MORE: │
│ 1790-1920. │
╞═══════╤════════════╦════════════════════════════════════╡
│ │ ║PLACES OF 8,000 INHABITANTS OR MORE.│
│ │ ║ —————————————————————————————————— │
│CENSUS │ Total ║Population. │Number of │Per cent of │
│ YEAR. │Population. ║ │ places. │ total │
│ │ ║ │ │population. │
├───────┼────────────╫────────────┼──────────┼────────────┤
│1920 │ 105,710,620║ 46,307,640│ 924│ 43.8│
│1910 │ 91,972,256║ 35,570,334│ 768│ 38.7│
│1900 │ 75,994,575║ 25,018,335│ 547│ 32.9│
│1890 │ 62,947,714║ 18,244,239│ 445│ 29.0│
│1880 │ 50,155,783║ 11,365,698│ 285│ 22.7│
│1870 │ 38,558,371║ 8,071,875│ 226│ 20.9│
│1860 │ 31,443,321║ 5,072,256│ 141│ 16.1│
│1850 │ 23,191,876║ 2,897,586│ 85│ 12.5│
│1840 │ 17,069,453║ 1,453,994│ 44│ 8.5│
│1830 │ 12,866,020║ 864,509│ 26│ 6.7│
│1820 │ 9,638,453║ 475,135│ 13│ 4.9│
│1810 │ 7,239,881║ 356,920│ 11│ 4.9│
│1800 │ 5,308,483║ 210,873│ 6│ 4.0│
│1790 │ 3,929,214║ 131,472│ 6│ 3.3│
└───────┴────────────╨────────────┴──────────┴────────────┘

[Illustration:

POPULATION IN PLACES OF 8,000 INHABITANTS OR MORE AT
EACH CENSUS: 1790-1920.]
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: Why American cities have grown so rapidly.]

=The Phenomenal Growth of Cities.=—The remarkable drift of population
into the cities has already been pointed out. It is one of the most
striking social facts in American history during the past hundred
years.[66] In the days when the national constitution was framed there
were only eight or ten places that could be called cities and even these
were, with one or two exceptions, nothing but good-sized towns. New
York, the largest of them, had a population of less than 50,000; it has
grown a hundred-fold since that time. In Washington’s day no country had
as many as fifty cities and the largest city in the world, London, had
less than a million people. The cities counted for very little in the
early days of the Republic; they then contained less than five per cent
of the national population. During the course of the nineteenth century,
however, cities sprang into existence everywhere; a large part of the
immigration poured into them; the development of industry and commerce
built them up; and today about half the people of the United States
reside in cities of all sizes. There are now more cities in America than
in any other country and more large cities. We have twelve great centers
with populations exceeding half a million,[67] while the entire British
empire (including India, Canada, and Australia) has only ten; Germany
has only four and France has only two. At the present rate of progress
the United States in 1950 will probably contain more large cities than
all the rest of the world put together. The causes of this remarkable
growth have been indicated elsewhere and there is no need to repeat
them. Factories, railroads, and steamships have been the great factors
in this urban expansion.

[Sidenote: Some features of city life:]

=Effects of City Growth upon the National Life.=—The growth of large
cities has had profound effects upon American life and temperament. It
has changed the whole character of the country, its problems and its
habits of mind. A century ago the United States was predominantly an
agricultural land; the great majority of the people were engaged in
earning their living from the soil. They had the same occupation and
common interests. [Sidenote: 1. Diversity of occupation.] But with the
growth of industries in cities the occupations of the people have become
diversified, and no bond of common vocation holds the population
together. The city-worker in the shops and factories is employed at a
specialized task which the division of labor assigns to him (see pp.
44-46); he develops expertness at this one task and depends upon others
for everything else. The farmer supplies many of his own wants, but the
industrial worker depends almost wholly upon others. [Sidenote: 2. The
absence of strong home ties.] Among the rural population there is a
large property-owning class, men who own their farms and homes; but in
the cities, particularly in the larger cities, the great majority of the
people live in homes that are owned by others. In New York City seven
families out of every eight live in rented houses or apartments; in
Boston four out of every five. This tends to make the population
restless; the people are constantly moving about from one job to another
and from one home to another; they do not acquire a strong attachment to
any neighborhood, as is the case in rural districts. One result of this
is that people in the crowded centers know little about their neighbors,
and strange as it may seem, the crowded sections of the large cities are
in some respects the most lonely places in the world.[68]

[Sidenote: 3. The docility of the people.]

The tendency of the city population is to become absorbed in its daily
work, to depend upon the newspapers for its opinions and to display
marked docility in obeying its leaders. The people of the cities depend
upon official or professional organizations for pretty nearly
everything: if disorder breaks out, they expect the police to attend to
it; when they want recreation, they expect the city authorities to
provide it (by furnishing parks, playgrounds, band concerts,
neighborhood dances, and so on); the functions of the home are largely
given over to the school, the club, and the social organizations. The
city is thought to be radical; but it is radical only in spots. Its
population as a whole tends to be conservative (see p. 108, footnote).

[Sidenote: 4. A place of extremes.]

The city is a place where extremes meet. Great wealth and abject poverty
exist in the cities side by side; in the rural districts there is a
closer approach to a common level. The same is true if we compare city
and country from the standpoint of education, earning-power, obedience
to law, respect for government, or any other social feature. The city
runs to extremes; it contains both the highest erudition and the most
utter ignorance; it has earners of enormous incomes and plenty of people
who can earn no incomes at all; it has reactionaries in one quarter and
anarchists in another—a strange social mosaic when you study it and very
much in contrast with the general uniformity of the rural area.

[Sidenote: 5. A place of leadership.]

Nevertheless, along nearly all lines of activity the cities lead the
nation. To say that half the people live in cities does not tell the
whole story. The influence which this half exerts is greater than its
numerical strength implies. The cities are the headquarters of those who
direct the great industries, the transportation systems, and the banking
interests of the country. The newspapers of the great cities influence
the moulding of public opinion the country over. The political power of
the cities, their influence upon every phase of public policy is very
great. Hence the character and the spirit of the cities will go far to
determine the national characteristics of the future.

[Sidenote: The city charter.]

=The City and the State.=—The inhabitants of a city are a corporate body
with certain legal rights and privileges. These rights are granted to
them by the state in their city charter.[69] The charter is a document
having the force of law; it enumerates the powers of the city, tells
what form of government the inhabitants shall have, and determines the
duties of the various city officials. In the larger cities it is a very
long document covering a hundred printed pages or more.

[Sidenote: 1. The general charter plan.]

How are these charters framed and under what arrangements are they
granted to cities? Three or four different plans are in vogue. In some
states the legislature has passed a general law relating to cities, and
their charters are all alike in accordance with the provisions of this
law. The difficulty with this plan is that cities differ greatly in size
and in the nature of their problems. The charter that suits one may not
fit another. A seaport city, for example, needs a harbor commission with
power to license pilots and regulate the anchoring-places of ships; but
it is absurd to require, for the sake of uniformity, that inland cities
shall also have harbor boards. To render this general charter system
more flexible, therefore, some states have adopted the expedient of
dividing cities, according to their size, into three or four classes and
giving a uniform charter to all cities in the same class.[70]

[Sidenote: 2. The special charter plan.]

A more common method is to deal with each city as a special case, giving
it a charter by special act of the legislature, the result of this plan
being that no two cities of the state are governed in exactly the same
way. The special charter system has the merit of adapting the form of
government to the immediate needs of each particular city; but it places
a great burden upon the legislature, for whenever any city desires an
amendment to its charter a special legislative act is necessary. The
system also encourages the legislature to interfere in city affairs,
making changes in city charters on its own initiative without any
request from the citizens. This is particularly objectionable because so
many members of the legislature come from rural districts and
consequently have little or no knowledge of the city’s problems.

[Sidenote: 3. Home rule charters.]

=Municipal Home Rule.=—In order to diminish this interference by the
legislature many states have made provision for municipal home rule.
This is a plan whereby cities make their own charters just as states
frame their own constitutions. The methods by which they do this vary
somewhat from state to state but everywhere the main idea is the same.
The voters of the city elect a charter commission, or board of
freeholders as it is sometimes called. This miniature constitutional
convention, made up of perhaps fifteen or twenty members, proceeds to
draw up the provisions of a new city charter. When their work is
finished they submit it to the people of the city at an election and if
the people approve it, the charter goes into effect. In some states
there are certain formalities to be gone through after the people have
voted, but the important thing is that each city obtains, sooner or
later, whatever sort of charter its voters desire. In this way the city
becomes supreme in the handling of its own local affairs.

[Sidenote: Difficulties connected with the home rule system.]

But the principle of municipal home rule is subject to some important
practical limitations, most of which can be indicated by asking the
question “What are _local_ affairs?” Where is the line to be drawn
between things which concern only the inhabitants of the city and those
which affect the interests of the whole state. At first glance it might
seem as though the care of streets, the maintenance of police, the
provision of a water-supply system, and the control of education were
matters of local concern, which each city ought to handle as its
citizens deem best.

But are any of them strictly local in nature? The main streets of the
city are arteries of traffic which link up with the state highways; were
it not for the speed-limit signs, it would be difficult to tell where
one class of streets ends and the other begins. The city police enforce
the state laws and it is hardly plausible to urge that the state
legislature shall have no control over the enforcement of its own
statutes. The work of the city police is not, therefore, a matter of
strictly local concern. So it is with health regulation, water supply,
education, poor-relief, and many other municipal functions. The state
cannot allow the children of any community to grow illiterate; it cannot
afford to take the risk of an epidemic through the defective care of the
public health in some negligent city; and it cannot fairly be expected
to stand by idly when a city neglects the sick or the poor because its
taxpayers wish to save money. Municipal home rule, if it were permitted
to cover all these things, would be another name for local chaos. The
relations between a city and the surrounding country are so intimate,
and each depends so much upon the other, that no rigid line of
separation between local and general interests can be drawn. To make
every city a little sovereign republic, wrapped up in its own local
affairs and subject to no control from outside, would not promote the
common interests of the whole people.

[Sidenote: Difference between the theory and the practice of home rule.]

Municipal home rule means in practice, therefore, that cities shall be
free to frame their own charters and to determine for themselves their
form of municipal government provided they do not infringe upon the
general laws of the state or detract from the authority of the state
officials. This is a very broad limitation and leaves the city a
comparatively narrow field of self-determination. Nevertheless, in spite
of this limitation the home rule system has substantial advantages. It
relieves the legislature from having to do with a multitude of local
matters at every session; it helps to separate municipal from state
politics; and it encourages the people of the city to take an active
interest in the making of their own charters.[71]

[Sidenote: The older form of municipal organization.]

=The Organization of City Government.=—Twenty-five years ago the general
plan of city government, as established by these charters, was fairly
uniform throughout the country. Charters were granted in different ways;
their provisions varied in many details; but the main framework of city
government which they set up had everywhere the same general features.
This was the mayor-and-council type of government, its chief feature
being a division of powers between the mayor, who performed executive
functions, and the council, which served as a municipal legislature. In
other words the cities were governed on the same principle as the nation
and the states. Even today most of the larger cities retain this plan.

[Sidenote: The newer forms.]

During the opening years of the twentieth century, however, a new plan
of city government came to the front and spread with great rapidity
through many sections of the country. This is known as the commission
system of government. Instead of dividing powers between a mayor and
council it combines them all in the hands of a small elective board.
This plan of government now prevails in several hundred American cities,
but most of them are small places.

Out of the commission plan has grown a third scheme of city government
during the past few years. This is called the city manager plan. It
gives to an elective commission or small council the general supervision
of city affairs, but entrusts to a professional administrator, or city
manager, the immediate charge of the actual work.

Let us look at these three types of city government a little more
closely.

=The Mayor-and-Council Plan.=—Among the fifty largest cities of the
United States, the mayor-and-council system of government exists in all
but twelve. Despite the spread of the other two plans, therefore, it is
still the prevailing type of government in the more important
communities. [Sidenote: Position and powers of the mayor.] The mayor,
under this system, is the city’s chief official. He is elected by the
people, usually for a two-year or four-year term, and the election
campaign is in most cities conducted on a party basis. Occasionally men
of high ability have served as mayors in various cities, but far more
frequently the position has gone to active politicians who can be relied
upon to use the powers and patronage of the office in promoting the
interests of the party.[72] The authority of the mayor is in general
like that exercised by the governor in state affairs. He makes
appointments (which in some cases require confirmation by the council);
and he may veto ordinances or resolutions passed by the council. In some
cities he has the exclusive right to propose expenditures and in some
others his assent is necessary in all municipal contracts. He represents
the city on all occasions of ceremony and is the “first citizen” of the
community. City charters usually provide that the mayor shall be
responsible for the general observance of the laws and the maintenance
of order. In a few cities he presides at meetings of the council but for
the most part he does not have this duty. When he desires to address the
council he does so by message or written communication.

[Sidenote: The city’s administrative officials.]

=The Heads of Departments.=—It is impossible, of course, for any one
official to manage directly all branches of city administration; hence
the mayor is assisted in this work by various officials and boards, such
as the superintendent of streets, the head of the police department, the
water board, and the board of health. [Sidenote: Commissioners _vs._
boards.] In the larger cities the tendency now is to put each department
of administration in charge of a single commissioner rather than a board
because the members of a board are too prone to disagree among
themselves and delay business. In the smaller cities the board system is
still widely used, partly because it is less expensive. When a single
official is given charge of a department (such as police, fire
protection, or streets) he must devote his whole time to it and hence
has to be paid a good salary; but members of a board can divide the work
among themselves, each giving only part-time to it, and serving without
any pay. It is questionable, however, if this policy means any saving in
the long run. When a city attains a population of twenty, thirty, or
forty thousand its administrative work grows to a point where it
requires close and skilled attention in order to prevent extravagance
and waste.

In behalf of the board system it is sometimes argued that it gives
political parties a chance to be represented, whereas a single official
represents the controlling party only. But there is no good reason why
departments which have purely business functions to perform should be
influenced by party considerations at all. The board system has some
distinct advantages when applied to such departments as schools, public
libraries, poor-relief, or city planning, where discussion and
deliberation are desirable; but it does not work well in such
departments as police, fire protection, and streets, for these are
branches of work which demand quick decisions and firm action. There is
no more reason for placing a board in charge of the city’s police than
for putting a board of generals in command of an army.

[Sidenote: How organized.]

=The City Council.=—The city council a generation ago was usually made
up of two branches; today it is almost everywhere composed of one
chamber only. A single chamber is quite enough for all that the council
now has to do. [Sidenote: Election by wards and election at large.] Its
members are elected, sometimes by wards, sometimes at large. The
objection to the ward system is that it encourages the election of
inferior men and inspires them, when elected, to strive for the
interests of their own particular wards rather than for the welfare of
the city as a whole. When councilmen are elected at large, on the other
hand, the dominant political party is likely to elect its entire slate
and control the whole council, thus allowing the minority no
representation at all. In some cities an endeavor has been made to meet
these objections by having the council chosen in part under each plan,
some councilmen from wards and some at large.[73]

[Sidenote: Its powers.]

The council enacts the local laws or ordinances and appropriates
whatever money is needed to carry on the city’s affairs. No expenditures
can be made without its approval and its consent is almost always needed
before municipal debts can be incurred. Its authority was large in
earlier days when it controlled through its committees the management of
the various city departments; but with the steady growth of the mayor’s
authority the powers of the council have been diminished. It is a
legislative body, and in city government there is relatively little
legislative work to be done. The state laws cover almost everything of
importance.

[Sidenote: Defects of the mayor-and-council plan.]

The chief defect of the mayor-and-council plan is its unwieldiness.
There are too many separate authorities. Power and responsibility are
scattered into too many hands. When things go wrong the council blames
the mayor; the mayor blames the council; the voters do not know who is
at fault. Time is wasted and money is misspent because independent
authorities fail to agree. The political bosses take advantage of this
situation to gain their own ends by helping one side or the other. The
citizen who tries to find out the real facts has a hard time of it. It
is like threading his way through a jungle. When he has a complaint to
make he is often referred from one official to another until he loses
patience. In the largest cities the mayor-and-council plan does not
operate so badly, because the methods of conducting business are more
definitely prescribed and the mayor is given so much power that he
cannot well evade the responsibility. It is in the smaller communities
that this plan of government obtains the least satisfactory results.

[Sidenote: How commission government began.]

=The Commission Plan.=—Twenty-five years ago it seemed impossible to
secure any substantial improvement in the administration of American
cities. Foreign observers spoke of city government as a “conspicuous
failure”, and there was a good deal of basis for that statement. People
realized that city government had become cumbrous and top-heavy. They
saw that the system of checks and balances, whatever its merits in state
and national government, was not working well in the cities. Yet they
had grown so accustomed to the complicated network of officials, boards,
and councils that they hesitated to sweep the whole thing away in order
to put some simple form of government in its place. So things drifted
along until 1901, when the city of Galveston, driven to heroic measures
as the result of a catastrophe, installed an entirely new scheme of
government known as the commission plan.[74] The success of this
experiment was so marked that other cities became interested and
followed Galveston’s example, until today the commission plan has been
established in nearly four hundred municipalities, scattered all over
the country.[75]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE COMMISSION PLAN

The way in which the various branches of municipal
administration are apportioned among members of
the city commission is shown by the diagram on the
other side of this page. The final administrative
authority, however, is not vested with these
commissioners (or councilmen as they are sometimes
called). It rests with the commission or council
as a body. All the lines of administrative
responsibility converge inward, which is what they
ought to do in any well-organized government.
Above the commission or council stands the
electorate, the whole body of voters, which can
exercise ultimate control over the whole city
government by means of the initiative, referendum,
and recall.

[Illustration]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: What the plan involves.]

The commission plan is simplicity itself. The people elect a board or
commission of five members. This commission has entire control of the
city government in all its branches with the exception of schools, which
are usually left in charge of a school board. They pass the ordinances,
vote appropriations, make appointments, and award contracts. For
purposes of actual management the city’s administrative work is divided
into five general departments (public works, public welfare, public
finance, public safety, and public health, or some other such division)
and one of the commissioners takes immediate charge of each. The final
authority in all matters, however, remains with the commission as a
whole.

[Sidenote: Advantages of the commission system.]

=Its Merits and Defects.=—The outstanding feature of this scheme is that
it lodges all power and responsibility in one place. There is no
division of authority, no checks and balances, no complicated network of
officials, boards, councils, and committees. The commission meets every
day; does its business publicly; takes full responsibility for its
actions, and when it makes decisions sees that they are promptly carried
out. The plan is so simple that any citizen can understand it. It is
truly democratic in that the voters are enabled to enforce
responsibility when taxes are too heavy or public funds are wasted. The
commission plan tends to bring better men into office and affords them
greater opportunities for the exercise of their abilities.

[Sidenote: Reputed defects of commission government.]

The objection is made that the commission plan, by giving so much
authority to a few men, may prove to be dangerous and result in
establishing an oligarchy. But the commissioners, like mayors and
councils, are chosen by the people and cannot remain long in office
unless the people re-elect them. Moreover, most cities that use the
commission plan have established the initiative, referendum, and recall
(see p. 107) as additional safeguards.

And so it is with the complaint that a commission of five members is not
large enough to be representative of all classes among the people. Good
representation is not merely a matter of numbers. Large bodies, in fact,
can be easily handled by bosses. Congress with more than five hundred
members has sometimes failed to reflect public opinion; the President on
occasions has done this much better. Five men can find out what the
people want just as well as fifty, and they are more likely to try.
Quite as much to the point—they are in a better position to carry out
the people’s wishes when the time comes.

[Sidenote: The most serious fault.]

There is one serious defect in the commission plan, however, and it is
this: The control of the various city departments is not brought to a
single center but is parceled out into five separate hands. Each
commissioner looks after a certain portion of the city’s business; no
one is supreme over them all. The commission as a whole is supreme, it
is true, but it must trust its own individual members to handle their
own branches of work. In other words, the commission plan establishes a
five-headed executive; it leaves room for disagreements among the
commissioners on a three-against-two basis, and does not make some one
man responsible for getting a dollar’s worth of value for every hundred
cents expended. Dividing the responsibility among five men is better, of
course, than dividing it among fifty or sixty, as the mayor-and-council
plan does; but putting it all upon the shoulders of one man is more
effective still.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CITY-MANAGER PLAN

The diagram which is printed on the reverse of
this page will make clear the analogy between the
organization of a business corporation and that of a
city in which the city-manager plan of government is
followed. The people of the city correspond to the
stockholders of the corporation in that they possess
the ultimate power. This power is exercised in the
one case through a board of directors, in the other
through a council or commission. Administrative
authority, however, in both cases devolves upon a
manager, who, in turn, appoints and removes his
subordinates. All the activities of corporate
business and of city-manager government are linked
together or correlated at a single administrative
center.

This diagram should be studied in connection with
the discussion on pages 203-206.

A COMPARISON

THE FACTORY THE CITY

STOCKHOLDERS PEOPLE
Vote Initiative, Referendum,
Recall, Protest

DIRECTORS \ / COMMISSIONERS
—Popular control—

GENERAL ——Centralized authority—— CITY
MANAGER MANAGER

Appoints Appoints
and discharges Correlated activities and discharges
Department heads —— Department heads
/ \
ENGINEERING LAW
MAKING PUBLIC SERVICES
RECORDING PUBLIC WELFARE
SELLING PUBLIC SAFETY
WELFARE FINANCE

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: Position and powers of the manager.]

=The City-Manager Plan.=—In keeping with the principle, therefore, that
some one official ought to have direct charge of the city’s
administrative work, the city-manager plan has been devised. Under this
plan the commission (or a small elective council) continues in full
control, but its members do not divide the various functions among
themselves. Instead they appoint a well-paid, expert official to act as
general manager and he takes charge of all the city departments. The
city administration, under this arrangement, is conducted like that of
any ordinary business corporation. The commission or council serves as a
board of directors; the city manager becomes, as it were, a general
superintendent.[76] In selecting its manager a city often goes outside
its own limits; usually it chooses a man who is an engineer by
profession because so much of the work is of a technical nature. When
the manager is appointed he plans the work to be done, estimates the
cost, awards the contracts, purchases the materials, and hires the
labor. The city-manager plan has been adopted by more than a hundred
cities, but only a few are large communities.[77]

[Sidenote: Merits of the plan.]

This scheme of city government has all the advantages of the commission
plan and some of its defects. The detailed work falls on the city
manager who is qualified to do it. There is a single, responsible head
of the administration. When a citizen has any complaint to make, he
knows exactly where to go. In all these respects it is an ideal
arrangement. [Sidenote: Two practical questions.] But there are two
practical questions connected with the plan which only the future can
answer. [Sidenote: 1. Will the cities pay adequate salaries?] In the
first place will cities be willing to pay the high salaries which they
must pay in order to obtain the services of thoroughly competent
managers? Men who are capable of handling the affairs of a great
corporation, which a city is, cannot be secured without paying them the
market price for their skill and experience. Private corporations pay
high salaries to their general managers, and the cities, if they want
the right men, must do likewise. But public opinion in most American
cities is inclined to balk at high salaries. People who have to work
hard for their own living do not see why anyone should get a salary of
eight or ten thousand dollars a year from the city, and particularly
they do not see why such a large salary should go to an outsider. In
consequence many cities are striving to get good managers at low
salaries, which is a very difficult if not an impossible thing to do.
The sentiment which strongly favors appointing a “local man” as city
manager is also likely to work harmfully. Local appointments in the long
run are almost certain to be influenced by local politics.

[Sidenote: 2. Is the plan applicable to very large cities?]

A second limitation concerns the applicability of the city-manager plan
to very large communities. A competent official can take charge of the
entire administration in a place of fifty or one hundred thousand
people. But how about a city of a million? Would the task be too big?
This is a question which cannot yet be answered, because no very large
city has yet tried the plan. It is pointed out that giant business
enterprises, with operations extending into many countries, are
sometimes managed by one capable man who ensures success by a careful
selection of his subordinates. Until the experiment is made we are not
safe in assuming that the city-manager scheme can be advantageously
adopted by all communities of whatever size.

=The Future of City Government.=—What the final solution of the problem
will be we cannot yet tell. The new plans of city government which have
been described in the foregoing pages may be merely a prelude to
something still newer. But at any rate the cities are making headway.
They are simplifying their governments, making them more responsive to
public opinion and better fitted to do the work which has to be done.
American city government is no longer a conspicuous failure.
Misgovernment and waste have not wholly or even largely disappeared, it
is true; but conditions are far better today than they were twenty-five
years ago. The people have awakened; they are no longer misled by
promises and excuses but are insisting upon knowing the facts. The
crooked methods of a generation ago would not be tolerated today. The
present task is to hold what we have thus gained and add to it. That is
a duty which belongs to every citizen whatever his age, occupation, or
party allegiance. The world is becoming a world of cities, and he who
helps to make his home city a better place is performing one of the
highest duties of patriotism.

General References

F. J. GOODNOW and F. G. BATES, _Municipal Government_, pp. 3-43;

W. B. MUNRO, _The Government of American Cities_, pp. 80-101;

C. A. BEARD, _American Government and Politics_, pp. 578-602; _Ibid._,
_Readings in American Government and Politics_, pp. 509-534;

H. G. JAMES, _Local Government in the United States_, pp. 300-357;

T. S. CHANG, _History and Analysis of the Commission and City Manager
Plans of Municipal Government_, pp. 75-96;

HENRY BRUÈRE, _The New City Government_, pp. 171-204;

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, _Commission Government
and the City-Manager Plans_, revised edition, pp. 49-77;

EVERETT KIMBALL, _State and Municipal Government_, pp. 345-453.

Group Problems

=1. The charter of your own city= (or some nearby city). Study the main
types of city charter. Examine the procedure by which your city charter
was adopted; make a summary of its chief provisions; compare these with
the main provisions in the charter of some other comparable city; point
out what seem to be the chief merits and defects; state your conclusions
as to desirable changes, and explain how these may be secured.
=References=: NATHAN MATTHEWS, _Municipal Charters_, pp. 97-163; H. G.
JAMES, _Applied City Government_, pp. 39-53; H. A. TOULMIN, _The City
Manager_, pp. 170-193; NATIONAL MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, _Municipal Program_
(ed. C. R. Woodruff), _passim_. (Copies of the city charter can always
be found in the public library and in all but the larger cities may
usually be had from the office of the city clerk.)

=2. The city-manager plan: what are its merits and its limitations?=
=References=: H. A. TOULMIN, _The City Manager_, pp. 73-97; C. E.
RIGHTOR, _The City Manager in Dayton_, pp. 31-56; E. C. MABIE, _Selected
Articles on the City Manager Plan of Municipal Government_, _passim_
(Debaters’ Handbook series); T. S. CHANG, _History and Analysis of the
Commission and City Manager Plans of Municipal Government_, pp. 158-220;
NATIONAL MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, _The Story of the City Manager Plan_
(pamphlet); The Year Book of the City Managers’ Association and the
National Municipal Review also contain recent material.

Short Studies

1. =Characteristics of city populations.= W. B. MUNRO, _The Government
of American Cities_, pp. 29-52.

2. =The city and the state.= C. A. BEARD, _American City Government_,
pp. 31-51.

3. =The city charter.= H. G. JAMES, _Local Government in the United
States_, pp. 304-311.

4. =The position and powers of the mayor.= W. B. MUNRO, _The Government
of American Cities_, pp. 207-237; R. M. STORY, _The American Municipal
Executive_, _passim_.

5. =The mayor as a human being.= BRAND WHITLOCK, _Forty Years of It_,
especially pp. 205-236.

6. =The most striking mayor of his day.= TOM L. JOHNSON, _My Story_, pp.
108-143; CARL LORENZ, _Tom L. Johnson_, pp. 21-66.

7. =The city council.= F. J. GOODNOW and F. G. BATES, _Municipal
Government_, pp. 179-229.

8. =Parties and politics in city government.= W. B. MUNRO, _The
Government of American Cities_, pp. 153-179.

9. =The selection and training of city administrators.= HENRY BRUÈRE,
_The New City Government_, pp. 335-361.

10. =How our cities have improved during the past twenty years.= W. B.
MUNRO, _Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration_, pp. 1-29.

Questions

1. If you compare a city of 100,000 people with a rural district of the
same population, which would have (_a_) the larger income per capita;
(_b_) the larger proportion of property owners; (_c_) the greater number
of illiterates; (_d_) the greater number of criminals? Give reasons for
your answer in each case.

2. Compare a city charter with a state constitution, pointing out
wherein they are similar and wherein they are different.

3. Name some branches of administration which you think ought to be
wholly under the jurisdiction of the city and free from state
interference.

4. Which do you think is the better, municipal home rule or the optional
charter plan? Why do you think so?

5. In mayor-and-council cities what are the principal powers and duties
of the mayor? What are the chief functions of the city council?

6. State which of the following officials ought to be appointed by the
mayor and which of them elected by the people, giving your reasons in
each case: superintendent of streets, chief or commissioner of police,
head of the fire department, city treasurer, overseers of the poor,
members of the school board, public library trustees.

7. “A city’s affairs are of the nature of business, not of government.”
Is this statement absolutely correct? Why or why not?

8. “The commission plan embodied both a protest and a policy.” Against
what was it a protest? To what extent does it avoid the defects of the
mayor-and-council plan?

9. What are the practical difficulties connected with the city-manager
plan? Do you believe that preference should be given to a “local man” in
choosing the manager? The salary of the mayor in a medium-sized city is
usually not more than $5000. Should a city manager be paid more?

10. Explain what training and personal qualities a city manager ought to
have.

Topics for Debate

1. The head of the police department in large cities (over 100,000
population) should be appointed by the governor.

2. The city-manager plan is better than the mayor-and-council or
commission form of government for cities under 100,000 population.

3. Home rule should be granted to cities in every state.

4. The members of the city council should be chosen from the city at
large rather than from wards.

CHAPTER XI
MUNICIPAL PROBLEMS OF TODAY

_The purpose of this chapter is to point out some of the difficult
things which our cities have to do and to discuss the various ways
of doing them._

[Sidenote: The city’s annual report.]

=Government or Business: Which is it?=—At the close of each year the
city authorities issue a printed volume, its pages well packed with
figures of all sorts and interspersed with a good deal of very dry
reading matter. This is called the annual report; it contains a
statement of revenues and expenditures compiled by the auditor, a
summary of what each department has done during the year, and a great
many other facts about the work of the city officials. Very few people
ever read these annual reports, and not many would understand them if
they did. But any thoughtful man or woman who takes the trouble to look
through one of these publications from cover to cover would be tempted
to ask the question: Why do they call such things _government_? They are
not government in any sense, nothing but _business_. Here is an account
of how streets have been paved, water purified and distributed to the
people, school buildings constructed, supplies purchased, contracts
awarded, labor employed, money collected and money paid out—why do they
call these things government when they are simply business operations
and nothing else? The problems that arise in connection with them are
business problems; the methods needed are business methods; the
organization best fitted to do the work is a business organization.

[Sidenote: Most of the city’s work is _business_.]

Now there is a good deal to be said for this point of view. A large part
of the work which the city officials perform is of a business rather
than a governmental nature. Making laws and enforcing them is a
relatively small portion of their task. The great majority of city
officials and employees are engaged in rendering social and economic
services—such as teaching in schools, caring for the public health,
building streets, inspecting markets, attending to the water supply,
putting out fires, and making out tax bills; all of which tasks are
quite different in nature from the work which legislatures or governors
or courts perform. It is work which, in order to be effective, must be
done in accordance with the methods of everyday business with emphasis
on intelligence, punctuality, and honesty.

[Sidenote: But not all of it can be managed according to business
principles.]

Nevertheless we should be careful not to press this point too far. The
aim of all organized business is to secure a profit, but the purpose of
city administration is to promote the well-being of the citizens. It
must be conducted in compliance with the desires of the voters, whatever
these desires may be, and must give them what they want. Business can
sometimes be managed without any heed to public opinion, but municipal
administration cannot. The science of municipal government is, to a
considerable extent, that of keeping the people satisfied. The voters
must have what they want and they do not always want what some expert
may deem to be the best or the cheapest. Government by the best people
is not necessarily the best government. There is no denying that
business methods can be advantageously applied to city administration at
many points (particularly in the awarding of contracts and the buying of
supplies), but it does not follow that such departments as poor-relief,
correction, and public health should be managed according to exactly the
same principles as a railroad or a cotton factory. Success or failure in
these departments cannot always be measured in terms of dollars and
cents. The administration must be sympathetic and humane; it avails
little to save a little money if the saving entails a great deal of
human misery. The strict rules of business may easily be pressed too
far.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS

The accompanying diagram indicates the way in
which the administrative work of a large American
city such as Boston is distributed among various
officials and departments. It will be noted that
there were, in 1920, some forty departments under
the control of the mayor. Some consolidation has
since been made, but the number of departments is
still larger in Boston than in any other city.

This chart should be referred to in connection with
_Group Problem No. 1_ (page 223).

[Illustration:

COMMONWEALTH
OF
MASSACHUSETTS
]

APPOINTMENTS BY GOVERNOR
Judiciary
Finance Commission
Civil Service Commission
Met. District Commission
P.W Dept. Division of Highways
Medical Examiner

Licensing Board
Police Commissioner
Pilot Commission
Division of Waterways
Dept. of Pub. Utilities
State Fire Marshal

ELECTORATE
CITY COUNCIL (9)
City Messenger
Clerk of Committees
City Clerk
MAYOR (4 Years)
Park & Recreation Department
Consumptive Hospital Department
Hospital Department
Examiner for Bldg. Licenses
Public Buildings Department
Institutions Registration Dept.
Weights & Measures Department
Vessels & Ballast Department
Penal Institutions Department
Overseers of the Poor
Children’s Institutions Dept.
Soldiers Relief Department
Infirmary Department
Sinking Fund Department
Auditing Department
Treasury Department
Public Works Department
Bridges & Ferries
Collecting Department
Registry Department
Water Division
City Planning Board
Highway Division
Cemetery Department
Assessing Department
Library Department
Election Department
Sewer, Street Cleaning Div.
Supply Department
Lamps
Market Department
Paving
Printing Department
Statistics Department
Art Department
School House Department
Transit Department
Budget Department
Health Department
Board of Appeals
Building Department
Law Department
City Record
Fire Department
Statistics Department
Boston & Cambridge Bridge Comm.
Street Laying Out Department
Regulation of Traffic

---

GENERAL DRAFTING CO. INC., N.Y.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: One reason for waste in city administration.]

=The Need for Better Co-operation among City Departments.=—The greatest
obstacle to satisfactory work on the part of city officials is the
absence of close co-operation among the various city departments. Some
heads of departments are elected; some are appointed. Even when they are
all chosen in the same way they often fail to work in complete harmony.
Each department is jealous of its own functions and anxious to follow
its own policy.[78]

[Sidenote: Some examples.]

Each desires all the credit when things go right and wants none of the
blame when things go wrong. The various departments, when unpleasant or
unpopular tasks have to be performed, often try to put the
responsibility on someone else. They have become very proficient in what
is colloquially known as “passing the buck”. The result is that team
play is usually lacking, and friction is not at all uncommon. How
frequently we see examples of this failure to save the city’s money by
co-operation! The street department puts down a new pavement; but the
surface is scarcely dry before the water department proceeds to tear it
up in order to lay new mains, or the sewer department sends its men
along to dig a new manhole, or the gas and electric light employees come
with picks and shovels to make excavations in it. Why not do all this
before the new pavement goes down? In the city of Boston nearly ten
thousand excavations are made in the streets during a single year. Some
of these are unavoidable, no doubt, but many of them are simply the
result of poor planning or no planning at all.

Or, take another illustration. Many city departments require materials
and supplies of the same sort. Coal, for example, is needed in police
stations, fire stations, the schools, the city hall, and all other
public buildings. Why not get together, buy it all in one large order at
wholesale prices, pay spot cash, and secure a discount, instead of
having each department purchase its own supplies in relatively small
quantities from local dealers? The answer is that each department,
jealous of its own independence, usually goes ahead in all its
activities without informing the others or consulting them. The
situation is not nearly so bad nowadays as it was twenty or more years
ago but there is still plenty of room for more effective
co-operation.[79]

CITY PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS

[Sidenote: The lack of planning.]

=City Planning.=—A second defect in American city administration has
been the lack of careful planning. The mayor and other city officials
serve in office for short terms and their main concern is to do whatever
happens to be urgent at the time, leaving the more difficult problems
for their successors. Much of their work thus becomes makeshift in
character,—a street is widened, a temporary schoolhouse is erected, a
fire engine is bought, and a few new sewers put in—but no comprehensive
plan for street improvement or schoolhouse construction or the
motorization of fire apparatus or sewage disposal is usually made and
followed. Public buildings are often badly placed because political
influences rather than public convenience determines their location. The
congestion of traffic on the down-town streets, the lack of parks and
open spaces in certain sections of the city, the unsightliness due to
the myriad of poles, wires, signs, and billboards in many of the city’s
thoroughfares—these things are all due in large measure to the absence
of planning.

[Sidenote: European cities are better planned.]

Many cities take little or no thought for the morrow. They expect to
grow bigger and busier, but they give small thought to the impending
problems which growth is bound to bring. European cities have been far
ahead in this respect. If Paris is outwardly the most attractive city in
the world, it is because the authorities, more than seventy years ago,
set out to make it so. The best-built city in the United States is
Washington, the streets and parks of which were all planned before a
single building was erected.[80]

[Sidenote: The broad scope of city planning.]

=What City Planning Includes.=—City planning is the science of designing
cities, or parts of cities, so that they may be better places for people
to live in. It includes the arranging of streets, the locating of public
buildings, the providing of parks and playgrounds, the devising of a
proper transportation system, and the regulating of private property in
such way as to promote the best interests of the whole community. It is,
therefore, or ought to be, the center or focus of all the city’s
activities, each one of which should be carried on in harmony with the
general plan. It is only in this way that a great waste of the city’s
money and serious inconvenience to all classes of citizens can be
prevented.

Although city planning is not a new art it is only within recent years
that American cities have given much attention to it. For many decades
the cities and their suburbs were allowed to grow haphazard. What was
once a country highway became a village road, then the main street of a
town, and finally the chief business thoroughfare of a large city. To
have widened it in early days would have been cheap and easy; but when a
city has grown up on both sides of it the project becomes too expensive.
Lack of planning is responsible for much of the traffic congestion with
which the cities are wrestling nowadays.

[Sidenote: The great importance of streets.]

=The Streets.=—The streets are very important factors in the daily life
of every community, far more so than we commonly realize. They are the
city’s arteries. On their surface they carry vehicles of every sort.
Their surface also affords locations for lamp posts, telephone poles,
hydrants, and many other instrumentalities of public service. Underneath
the street surface are sewers, water mains, gas pipes, and conduits;
overhead are wires and signs and balconies. The streets give access to
the shops and houses; they are likewise the principal channels for light
and air, both of which are essential to life in the buildings alongside.
Nearly every form of public service depends upon the streets; without
them private property would have little or no value. About one-third of
all the land in the city is occupied by the streets, so that proper
street planning becomes a matter of great importance to the
community.[81]

[Sidenote: The layout of streets.]

In most American cities the streets are laid out in rectangular form,
with long, broad avenues running one way and narrower cross-streets the
other. This means that each intersects the other at right angles and the
city blocks become squares like those of a checker-board. This plan has
been widely used in America because it takes less land for streets than
any other plan would require and it makes all building lots of
convenient rectangular shape.[82] The chief objection to this gridiron
plan is that it makes traffic more congested at the junction of
important thoroughfares. It also gives a sameness to the appearance of
all the streets and hampers the development of architectural variety.
European visitors often comment on this. Street after street in the
shopping or residential districts all look alike to the stranger; all
have been laid out with a pencil and ruler, the same widths (or nearly
the same); every lot of land is of the same size; and the long rows of
houses seem to be all of the same type. In the cities of Europe, on the
other hand, the streets are more often curved or winding; some are very
broad and some very narrow, so that each street has its own
individuality. To some extent American cities are now laying out
diagonal and winding streets in their newer suburbs on the principle
that picturesqueness ought to be combined with utility.

[Sidenote: The old and the newer methods of determining widths.]

=How Wide Ought a Street to be?=—Until very recent years in all American
cities, and even yet in some of them, the practice has been to lay out
streets in widths of forty, sixty, or eighty feet,—always using
multiples of ten. This is a mere rule-of-thumb method and bears no
direct relation to the needs of traffic. The downtown streets of the
older cities are, for the most part, too narrow; in the newer suburbs
they are often a good deal wider than they need be. “But what harm is
done by having more street space than is necessary?” it may be asked.
Well, every square foot of street space costs money; it has to be paved,
kept in repair, cleaned, and lighted. The proper policy in laying out
streets is to adapt their width to the probable needs of future traffic.
This cannot always be done with mathematical accuracy, because the
density of traffic changes from decade to decade; but with careful study
a fairly dependable estimate can usually be made.

[Sidenote: The traffic “zones”.]

The best practice nowadays is to fix the width of new streets in terms
of _traffic zones_, not merely in multiples of ten feet. A stream of
traffic—motor cars, trucks, and other vehicles following one
another—requires a certain sluiceway or zone to move in. This zone is
ordinarily reckoned as ten feet in width. A zone of parked vehicles
alongside the curb uses about eight feet. In order to allow full parking
privileges and still have space for two streams of traffic to flow along
easily (one in each direction) a street should be thirty-six feet in
width from curb to curb. Anything less than this usually means that
parking must be restricted or the thoroughfare must be made a one-way
street. Anything more than this is useless unless a full zone of ten
feet is added, and it is of relatively little value unless two
additional zones are put on.[83]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Illustration:

For 4 lines of traffic
All moving

|—13’—|———40’———|—13’—|
|————--———66’—————————|

For 6 lines of traffic
4 moving & 2 standing

|—15’—|—————56’—-———|—15’—|
|———————————86’————-——————|

For 8 lines of traffic
6 moving & 2 standing

|—22’—|———————76’———————|—22’—|
|————————————120’—————————————|
]

The normal roadway width is based on an allowance of 10 feet for each
line of moving vehicles and 8 feet for each line of standing vehicles.

Where space is absolutely limited this unit allowance may be reduced to
9 feet for moving and 7 feet for standing vehicles.

The sidewalk width above suggested may be increased or reduced to meet
special requirements as to pedestrian traffic or special demands for a
tree and lawn strip.

TRAFFIC ZONES

The congestion of traffic in the downtown streets of
our large cities is due to four causes: (a) the
increased number of vehicles, (b) the different
rates of speed at which different types of vehicles
desire to move (horse-drawn vehicles, street cars,
motor trucks, trucks, motor cars, motorcycles,
etc.), (c) the inadequate width and faulty
arrangement of streets due to the lack of planning,
and (d) the improper driving and parking of
vehicles.

The older streets cannot now be widened except at
very great expense because the private property
which fronts on them is so valuable. But new streets
can be planned to take care of future traffic
growth. No city street should be laid out with less
than fifty-six feet between curb and curb. The
sidewalk space varies with the width of the street,
as the accompanying diagram shows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: Types of pavement.]

=Street Pavements.=—Apart from good planning and adequate width, the
usefulness of a street depends to a considerable extent on its paving.
The qualities of an ideal pavement are easy enough to specify, but not
so easy to secure. To reach perfection a street pavement should be cheap
to construct, durable, easy to repair, easy to keep clean, smooth, safe
for traffic, noiseless, and attractive in appearance. Unfortunately
there is no type of pavement possessing all these qualities. A pavement
of granite blocks will last for many years under heavy traffic, but it
is expensive to build, noisy, and hard to keep clean. The asphalt
pavement is cheaper, cleaner, and easier to drive upon; but it is
slippery in wet weather and breaks down very quickly when heavy traffic
is allowed on it. Wood blocks have come into favor in many cities during
recent years because they are believed to make a pavement which is
sufficiently strong to stand the burden now placed on the streets by
truck traffic and yet afford a surface which is easy to drive over, not
difficult to keep clean, and relatively noiseless. There is no one best
form of pavement for all sections of the city.[84] It would be absurd to
lay asphalt in the dock and shipping districts where the streets are
filled with five-ton trucks, and just as absurd to put a granite-block
surface on the streets of fine residential districts. The nature of the
pavement should be adapted to neighborhood conditions.

[Sidenote: The contract and direct labor systems.]

When the pavement has been selected it can be laid in either of two
ways—by contract or by city labor. Most pavements have been built by
contract. The city officials prepare the plans, and call for bids;
paving contractors submit their figures, and the contract is supposed to
go to the one whose bid is the lowest. That, however, is not what always
happens. Contracts for street paving have often been awarded, on one
pretext or another, to contractors who were able to exert political
influence.[85] In some cities the work is done by regular employees of
the street department, the city buying its own materials. This plan is
usually more expensive and it is not very practicable when a city wants
a great deal of work done in a hurry; on the other hand it results, as a
rule, in getting pavement of a better quality. Contract work, too often,
is done hastily and proves defective. Direct construction by the city’s
own labor force is slower, and more expensive, but usually more durable.

=Parks and Recreation Grounds.=—Public parks are of two types, first the
large open spaces which cover many acres and can be used by the whole
city, and second, the small areas which are provided for use by a single
neighborhood only. Every large city has parks of both types. The
old-style park which served more for ornament than for use, is now out
of favor. Cities are placing more stress on grounds which can be used
for athletic games or for other forms of recreation. In all communities
which have the advantage of being located on the ocean, on a lake, or on
a river, the water-front is a highly desirable addition to the available
recreation spaces. Suitable bathing beaches in particular ought to be
acquired by the cities for free use by the people. The development of
street railway and motor transportation has lessened the pressure upon
the downtown parks by making it more easy for the people to get out into
the country.

[Sidenote: The various classes of public buildings:]

=Public Buildings.=—From the standpoint of suitable location the public
buildings of a city may be divided into three classes. [Sidenote: 1.
Those which need central locations.] First, there are those public
buildings which ought to be centrally located so that they may be easily
reached from every part of the community. This class includes the
post-office, the city hall, the court house, and the public library. In
a few cities these buildings, or most of them, have been brought
together in a civic center; but as a rule they are scattered here and
there all over the community, wherever they may chance to have been
placed in obedience to the influences or whims of the moment. The
desirability of bringing them together, both as a matter of good
planning and for the public convenience, is easy to realize.

[Sidenote: 2. Those which must be scattered.]

Second, there are many public buildings which must be located in
different parts of the city rather than at a single center. These
include the fire engine houses, police stations, elementary schools, and
branch libraries. They must necessarily be scattered, but this does not
mean that planning is superfluous. Very often in the past these
buildings have been located at inconvenient points because political
influence rather than the public interest has determined the choice of a
location. When a prominent politician has land to sell at a fancy price
the city is usually a good customer. There is no good reason why police
and fire stations should not, as a rule, be housed under the same roof.
There is no good reason why the school, the playground, and the branch
library should not be placed upon the same plot of ground, yet rarely
are these three places of instruction and recreation within sight of one
another. Haphazard location and slipshod construction have resulted in
large amounts of needless expense in the case of public buildings.

[Sidenote: 3. Those which need special locations.]

Third, there are certain public buildings which have to be placed in
special locations. Public baths, for example, go to the water’s edge,
wherever it is. The hospital should be situated outside the zone of
heavy traffic and continuous noise. The city prison, the poorhouse, the
garbage disposal plant, and the other waifs among public
buildings—nobody wants their company. They are not welcome in any
neighborhood, yet they must be placed somewhere. Timely planning would
help to solve this problem by securing convenient and spacious tracts of
land before the city grows so large that all the available sites are
occupied, but most of our cities give no thought to such questions until
the problem becomes very urgent.

[Sidenote: The private citizen and the “City Beautiful”.]

=Regulating Private Property.=—No matter what the city authorities may
do in the way of planning streets properly, and expending great care
upon public buildings, the outward attractiveness of a community depends
to a large extent upon the good taste and civic pride of its individual
inhabitants. Within reasonable bounds a man can erect anything he
pleases upon his own land. He may build something which is a notable
adornment or, on the other hand, something which is an architectural
eyesore to the whole neighborhood. He may keep his grounds and dwelling
in perfect order, everything spick and span. Or he may let them go into
ramshackle, the house unpainted, the lawn grown up in weeds, and signs
of neglect apparent everywhere. Each section of the city is as its
people make it. It is absurd for men and women to clamor for fine parks,
monumental public buildings, and brilliantly-lighted streets if they do
not obey the precept that civic pride, like charity, ought to begin at
home.

[Sidenote: The billboard nuisance.]

One of the worst offenders against civic beauty and good taste is the
flaming billboard which stares from every vacant lot into the faces of
the passers-by. For the most part billboards serve no very useful
purpose. The advertising which they carry ought to be given to the
newspapers, which reach a far wider circle of people and are actively
engaged in promoting the best interests of the community. These
billboards often mar what would otherwise be an attractive avenue or
landscape.[86] The cities of Continental Europe virtually prohibit them
altogether. It is not possible to do that in the United States because
of constitutional restrictions which protect private property; but
billboards can be restricted by law and some American cities have
adopted the policy of so restricting them.[87] It is also possible to
levy taxes upon them and thus to make billboard advertising less
profitable.

=The Municipal Utilities.=—In addition to streets, parks, and public
buildings every city maintains various other physical utilities. These
include, in some cases, bridges, docks, markets, ferries, and so on.
More important, however, are the so-called _utilities_, the water supply
and the sewerage system. Both of these are intimately connected with the
public health and can better be dealt with when we come to that general
topic. Some cities own and operate their lighting plants, and in a few
cases their street railways. But lighting and transportation are still,
for the most part, in private hands and they present problems of such
importance that they need a chapter to themselves (see pp. 474-481).

[Sidenote: Beginning of the police system.]

=Police Protection.=—The practice of maintaining in cities a body of
professional, uniformed policemen who give their full time to the work
of preserving law and order is less than a hundred years old. Until well
into the nineteenth century the work of protecting life and property was
performed by untrained constables and watchmen (in England and America),
or by squads of soldiers (in most of the larger cities of Continental
Europe).[88] London, in 1829, was the first city to install a regular
police force, and this action met with great popular opposition. It was
regarded as a step in the direction of tyranny.[89] But regular
policemen proved to be so much better, as guardians of law and order,
than the untrained constable in citizen’s clothes, that other cities
followed the example of London and eventually the system was established
in the United States, the first city to adopt the new plan being New
York. Although New York was at that time a city of over 300,000
population the work of policing was largely performed by elective
constables and by citizen watchmen until 1844.

[Sidenote: Police organization today.]

During the past three-quarters of a century the system of municipal
police has been steadily improved. The police are organized on what is
practically a military model, with a commissioner or chief in command.
Under him are deputies at headquarters, captains and lieutenants in
charge of stations, sergeants and patrolmen, who do the work of
investigating, making arrests, handling traffic, and patrolling the
streets. The patrolmen in most American cities are now selected by civil
service tests; they have regular hours on and off duty, and are subject
to strict discipline. The large cities have established training schools
in which newly-appointed policemen receive instruction for a month or
more before they are sent to do regular duty. The number of policemen in
all large cities has had to be greatly increased during recent years
because of the growing need for traffic officers. A considerable
proportion of the whole force is now assigned to this duty at certain
hours of the day. Policewomen are now being appointed in most of the
larger cities because there are various forms of duty which it is
believed they can perform more effectively than men.

[Sidenote: State constabularies.]

Police protection, until recent years, has been largely confined to the
cities and towns; the rural districts have had to depend upon civilian
constables and the sheriff’s deputies. Some states, however, have now
established bodies known as state constabularies, the members of which
patrol the country roads and perform the usual functions of police in
cities. Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, and other states have
undertaken to give the rural districts adequate protection in this way.
The men are equipped with motorcycles and are thus enabled to cover
large areas of territory in the course of a day. The constabulary is
under the control of the governor and may be used in any portion of the
state. The establishment of these state police forces has been opposed
by the labor organizations which fear that they may be used to coerce
strikers during labor controversies.

[Sidenote: Our enormous annual losses by fire.]

=Fire Prevention.=—The annual loss by fire in the United States is
larger than that of all European countries put together. Chicago and
Paris are cities of about the same size; but the yearly fire-losses in
the former are four or five times that of the latter. Whether New York
has a larger population than London is still a disputed question but
there is no dispute about which has the larger number of fires. New York
City holds the world’s record in fire-losses, seven or eight million
dollars per annum.

In every part of the United States the losses are enormous year after
year. It has been estimated that they amount to half a million dollars
per day, taking the country as a whole. If all the buildings burned in
the United States during a single year were placed side by side they
would form an unbroken street from Chicago to New York. The loss of life
in these fires is also appalling; it amounts to about three thousand per
year. What are the reasons for this situation; why is it so much worse
than in other countries?

[Sidenote: Reasons for this heavy loss.]

There are two reasons for it; one of them we cannot control, the other
we can. We cannot easily alter the fact that most of the buildings,
whether in the cities or the rural districts of the United States, have
been built of inflammable materials. Lumber has been cheap and it has
been used lavishly. In Europe most buildings are of brick or stone.[90]
With the depletion of the timber supply in America and the increased
price of lumber fewer frame buildings will be constructed in the United
States as time goes on. The other reason for our large fire-losses is
one which can be controlled. It is summed up in a single
word—carelessness. To some extent this carelessness is the fault of the
public authorities; to a larger extent it is the fault of private
individuals.

[Sidenote: Public prevention measures.]

The public authorities have not been sufficiently active in framing and
enforcing measures for the prevention of fires. They have allowed
certain neighborhoods to become veritable fire-traps, liable to be wiped
out by a conflagration at any moment. During the past few years the
state and city officials have been coming to realize the importance of
prevention, however, and the laws relating to fire hazards have been
growing more strict. Special rules are now applied to theaters,
factories, garages, tenements, and other buildings in which fires are
liable to result in the loss of life. Special fire prevention officials
have been appointed in some of the larger communities; their duty is to
inspect all buildings in which fires are likely to occur and to enforce
the fire prevention rules. An endeavor has also been made to educate the
people to the need of exercising greater care. This is done by
distributing circulars and by instruction in the schools.

[Sidenote: The chief causes of fires.]

The great majority of fires are the result of some individual’s
carelessness. Rubbish is left lying about near the cellar furnace;
matches are placed where children can reach them; kerosene or gasoline
is used to light the kitchen fire; chimneys are allowed to go unrepaired
and uncleaned; ends of cigarettes are thrown on the floor or into the
waste basket—individual carelessness may take many forms. But every fire
is the same size when it starts and a trivial accident may cause the
destruction of a whole city. Fire departments are necessary and they
should be kept up to the highest efficiency, with well-trained men and
motorized apparatus; but dollar for dollar the money spent in prevention
brings far more return than expenditures for putting out fires after
they occur.

The work of fighting fires is spectacular and makes an impression on the
people; there is nothing spectacular about _fire prevention_, hence it
obtains far less attention from the average individual. Newspapers
devote great headlines to the bravery of the fireman who carries
somebody down the sheer wall of a high building in the midst of roaring
flames and blinding smoke, but the man who quietly builds his tenement
so that no such rescue will ever be necessary—he gets no headlines at
all. For this the newspapers are of course not to blame; they merely
follow the trend of popular interest.

=The City’s Share in Health and Welfare Work.=—Many functions which
formerly devolved wholly upon the city government have now been taken
over to some extent by the state authorities. The state makes the
general regulations and prescribes how things shall be done, but the
city officials still remain largely responsible for putting the
regulations into effect. [Sidenote: The broadening field of municipal
activity.] This is true of public health protection, public utilities,
poor-relief, correction, sanitation, and education, all of which are
dealt with in later chapters of this book. No clear separation between
state and local activities can be made nowadays, the two overlap and are
intermixed. The city still retains, however, almost complete
responsibility for the care of its streets, for street lighting, for the
maintenance of parks, and for the provision of recreation. But whether
it acts merely as the agent of the state or entirely on its own behalf
the city’s functions are being broadened year by year. It is expected to
do more and more for the social welfare of its people.

[Sidenote: A typical example.]

Compare the American city of today with its prototype of seventy-five
years ago. In 1845, for example, Boston was a city of more than 40,000
people. It had no paved streets, not one. There was no public water
supply; the people brought enough for their daily needs from
neighborhood wells. A few sewers had been built, wooden drains they
were, and only in the more thickly-settled portions of the city.
Provision for the care of the public health was altogether lacking;
there was no regular police force and only a volunteer bucket-brigade to
put out fires. Public playgrounds were unknown; so were public baths,
neighborhood centers, band concerts, branch libraries, electric street
lights, trolley cars, subways, and the long list of things which come
within the range of municipal enterprise today. Those were days of
intense individualism when welfare work was left almost wholly to
private auspices. Now the city has become a leader in almost every form
of social and economic activity. This socializing of urban life has gone
on, and still goes on, without attracting much attention, but it is one
of the most far-reaching developments of the past century.

[Sidenote: The problem of making both ends meet.]

=Where will the Cities Get the Money?=—This expansion in municipal
activities has brought with it an incessant need for more money—more
money for streets, parks, playgrounds, schools, poor-relief, recreation,
pensions, and for a dozen other things. Cities have many hard problems,
but the hardest of all is that of making both ends meet. New enterprises
mean new expenditures, and even the older activities keep steadily
costing more.

[Sidenote: The effect of high taxes.]

Now it might be surmised that this problem of ways and means would be an
easy one to solve. “Just raise the tax rate and get more money” someone
may suggest. That betrays the existence of a very common impression,
namely, that city tax rates have the sky as their limit. But the fact is
quite otherwise. In most cases, to be sure, there is no legal limitation
upon the amount of taxes which the city officials can exact from the
people; the limit is a purely practical one. Most of the city’s revenue
comes from taxes upon real property—on lands and buildings (see pp.
445-446). By raising the tax rate on such property additional revenue
can be secured up to a certain point. But when the tax rate keeps on
increasing year after year it finally reaches a level where it becomes
an obstacle to the erection of new buildings; it deters new industries
from coming to the city; it causes rents to rise and acts as a brake
upon the expansion of business. Under such conditions the value of
property stops rising and may even decline, so that further increases in
the tax rate do not yield a proportionate revenue. The people, moreover,
grow restive under the soaring tax rate on their homes; they manifest
their displeasure by turning the elective city officials out of office
and installing others who pledge themselves to cut the expenses down.
Such pledges, as a matter of fact, can rarely be kept. Considerable
economies are undoubtedly practicable in the government of all American
cities without exception; but the big outlays are bound to go on
increasing so long as the people keep making demands for more and better
services.

[Sidenote: Newer sources of revenue.]

If more revenue must be had, how can it be best obtained? Taxes on
property have now reached a point in many cities where they can hardly
go much higher. Taxes on incomes are already levied by the nation and by
some of the states; the cities can hardly look forward to laying a heavy
tax on top of these. Some cities, notably Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and
St. Louis are imposing business taxes—so much per year on every lawyer,
doctor, merchant, dealer, broker, and so on, the rate varying in each
case. Chicago obtains a considerable income from a wheel tax imposed on
all automobiles which use the city streets. Everywhere the quest for new
sources of revenue is being carried on earnestly but not with any great
measure of success. One serious difficulty lies in the fact that some of
the more lucrative sources have already been tapped by the national and
state governments. Congress and the state legislatures are keenly on the
scent for new revenues; wherever the opportunity appears, they seize it.
In this way the range from which the cities may draw their income is
gradually being narrowed. It can fairly be said, therefore, that the
problem of paying its way is the most difficult of all the problems
which confront the American city at the present time.

General References

C. A. BEARD, _American Government and Politics_, pp. 603-637; _Ibid._,
_Readings_, pp. 535-555;

W. B. MUNRO, _Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration_, pp.
30-73 (City Planning); 74-121 (Streets); 260-313 (Police
Administration);

H. G. JAMES, _Municipal Functions_, pp. 1-24;

F. J. GOODNOW and F. C. BATES, _Municipal Government_, pp. 316-396;

F. C. HOWE, _The Modern City and its Problems_, pp. 34-75;

EVERETT KIMBALL, _State and Municipal Government_, pp. 454-550.

Group Problems

=1. Make a plan of administrative organization which will include the
undermentioned municipal functions.= Provide as few departments as
possible without putting unrelated functions into the same department.
Each department should include all functions which are actually related
and none which are not related to its main work. Consider, for example,
such questions as these: Should playgrounds be included in the school
department or combined with parks in some other department? Where does
poor-relief belong, in a department by itself or along with health or
with prisons and correction? Where should we place the public library?
If you desire to include all these functions within seven or eight
departments, the public library cannot have a department all to itself.
Where should it go? Think over carefully the proper placing of such
things as the inspection of weights and measures, auditing, pensions,
printing, assessments and collection of taxes, billboards, care of
hydrants, censorship of amusements, charities and poor-relief, child
welfare, collection and disposal of ashes, excess condemnation, food and
milk inspection, free employment bureaus, free legal aid, grade-crossing
elimination, hospital administration, housing laws and their
enforcement, licensing, limitation of building heights, management of
bridges and ferries, municipal accounts, municipal budget making,
municipal concerts, municipal courts, municipal purchasing, parks and
playgrounds, paving, playground administration, prevention of
incendiarism, prisons, protection of life and property, public lighting,
public recreation, public water supply, registration of voters, garbage
collection and disposal, regulation of explosives, regulation of the
location of buildings, sewerage and sewage disposal, sinking funds,
smoke prevention, snow removal, street construction, street widening,
supervision of lodging houses, tree planting, vocational and industrial
education, zoning.

=2. Select three or four cities of approximately the same size as your
own and compare the cost of public safety= (police and fire department
expenditures) on each of the following bases: (_a_) per capita; (_b_)
per square mile of territory; (_c_) per $1000 assessed valuation. (The
data for all cities having over 30,000 population can be found in the
_U. S. Bureau of the Census: Financial Statistics of Cities_ [latest
edition].)

=3. What we get for our city taxes.= Make up from your own community’s
latest annual report a table showing the per capita cost for each form
of public service (streets, parks, schools, poor-relief, etc.). The
figures in the auditor’s report divided by the population will give you
the items. When your table is completed illustrate it by drawing a
circle with sectors to represent the division of expenditure.

Short Studies

1. =City planning: its scope and importance.= W. B. MUNRO, _Principles
and Methods of Municipal Administration_, pp. 30-37.

2. =The city’s streets.= C. A. BEARD, _American City Government_, pp.
212-260.

3. =The organization of a city police force.= RAYMOND FOSDICK, _European
Police Systems_, pp. 99-148; E. D. GRAPEr, _American Police
Administration_, _passim_; RAYMOND FOSDICK, _American Police Systems_,
pp. 188-216.

4. =How the public can help the police.= ARTHUR WOODS, _Policeman and
Public_, pp. 162-178.

5. =What fire prevention means.= E. F. CROKER, _Fire Prevention_, pp.
1-37.

6. =The city’s work for the social welfare.= H. G. JAMES, _Municipal
Functions_, pp. 150-185.

7. =City parks and boulevards.= CHARLES ZUEBLIN, _American Municipal
Progress_, pp. 241-275.

8. =The city’s part in health protection.= HENRY BRUÈRE, _The New City
Government_, pp. 314-334.

9. =Municipal recreation.= C. A. BEARD, _American City Government_, pp.
334-355; JOHN NOLEN, _City Planning_, pp. 139-158.

10. =Raising and spending the city’s money.= W. B. MUNRO, _Principles
and Methods of Municipal Administration_, pp. 403-478.

Questions

1. Make in parallel columns a list of municipal functions which you
would classify as (_a_) political; (_b_) social; (_c_) economic or
business functions.

2. Can you give, from your own observation, any examples of the needless
expense or public inconvenience due to the failure of city departments
to co-operate properly?

3. Take any atlas which contains the street plans of the larger cities
and point out examples of the following: (_a_) gridiron or checkerboard
planning; (_b_) diagonal avenues; (_c_) radial streets; (_d_) informal
layout of streets.

4. Select some portion of your own city which seems to you to be well
planned and some section which seems to be poorly planned. Give reasons
for your selections.

5. Make a sketch plan for a residential suburb about one mile square on
level ground with a small river, two hundred feet wide, running from
east to west through it. Each building lot is to contain, on the
average, about 20,000 square feet with access to both a street and an
alley. Make provision for one double track street railway, conveniently
located. Indicate appropriate locations for a one-acre park, an
elementary school, a playground, a branch of the public library, a
police station, a fire engine station, a bridge, a bath house, and an
athletic field.

6. What is the geographical center of your community? The center of
population? The center of access, that is, the point which, by reason of
traffic facilities can be most quickly and easily reached by the largest
number of people? If a civic center were being established, where ought
it to be placed and why?

7. In the largest cities there are about 20 policemen for every 10,000
people, in smaller cities only 10 or 12. Why is this? Is the number of
arrests made by a policeman an indication of his efficiency? Scandals
are frequent in the police departments of large cities and this is
sometimes explained by saying that the police are exposed to more
temptations than any other city officials. Discuss this explanation.

8. What in your opinion are the most common causes of fires? Many
schools set apart one day in the year as _Fire Prevention Day_. Make
some suggestions concerning a suitable program for this occasion.

9. Can you think of any sources of revenue not now utilized by cities
which might be drawn upon to meet an urgent need without arousing a
great deal of opposition from the people?

10. What civic organizations in your community are helping the public
officials to solve their problems? Give an account of the purposes and
work of each.

Topics for Debate

1. A maximum limit should be imposed by the state law upon the tax rates
of cities.

2. City employees, including policemen and firemen, should (or should
not) have the right to join a labor organization.

3. All public work should be done by contract (or by the city’s own
employees).

CHAPTER XII
STATE GOVERNMENT IN OUTLINE

_The purpose of this chapter is to explain the relation of the
states to the nation, to show how the state governments are
organized, and what services they render the people._

[Sidenote: Place of the states in the nation.]

=The Sovereign States.=—It is customary to speak of the American
Republic as made up of “sovereign states”, but unless this expression is
clearly explained it is apt to be misleading. On July 4th, 1776, the
thirteen colonies became free and independent states, each entitled to
frame its own plan of government. These new states were subject to no
restrictions except the very mild ones which, by adopting the Articles
of Confederation, they had agreed to place upon themselves. They were
very jealous of their independence and disinclined to surrender any of
their powers, even to create a unified nation. For this reason, when the
national constitution was framed in 1787, the states reserved to
themselves all powers not conveyed to the new federal government by the
provisions of that document. It was intended that the preponderance of
power should rest with the states, that most of the work of government
should be performed by them, and that the first interest of the citizen
should be in the affairs of his own state.

[Sidenote: Relative strength of the national and the state governments.]

But scarcely had the new federal government become established when it
began to gather strength. By a series of decisions the Supreme Court
gave a liberal interpretation to the powers of Congress as set forth in
the constitution, each decision widening the authority of the central
government. The state governments did not look with favor upon this
development; but on the whole the people of the country approved it.
Little by little the nation forged ahead of the states in its hold upon
the interest and loyalty of the people. The Civil War was an important
factor in all this, for the real issue in that conflict concerned the
respective rights of the federal and the state governments. The union
came out of the war much stronger than before and for the last sixty
years it has kept gaining. Today people think of themselves as citizens
of the United States, rather than as citizens of a particular state;
their first interest is in matters of national government; they look to
the nation for the solution of all the great problems and are disposed
to give the national government even broader powers, as recent
amendments to the constitution have shown.[91] In theory the place of
the states in the nation is almost exactly what it was a hundred and
thirty years ago; they still remain sovereign in name; but in actual
fact their relative authority has been greatly diminished.

[Sidenote: Present importance of state government.]

Nevertheless the forty-eight states are even yet very from being mere
administrative divisions as are the counties of England or the
departments in France. In these two countries the government is highly
centralized; all power emanates from London or from Paris. In America
the forty-eight state capitals are still the location of important
governmental powers and in all probability will continue to be. This
decentralization in government sometimes leads to friction and
controversy; but it has the advantage of keeping the people in more
direct control of their local affairs.

[Sidenote: Territories made into states.]

=How States are Admitted.=—In addition to the thirteen original states
there was territory enough in 1787 for the creation of many more. All
the land east of the Mississippi had been surrendered by Great Britain
and although much of this was claimed by the states along the Atlantic
seaboard they finally agreed to turn it all over to Congress. The
national government thereupon made provision for governing this
territory and expressly stipulated that it should be given rights of
statehood whenever the growth of population might warrant that step. A
little later the Louisiana territory was purchased; then Florida, and
from time to time during the next fifty years additional areas were
obtained in the Southwest, Northwest, and West. In every case these
areas were administered by territorial governments under the authority
of Congress, but always with the stipulation that the territories would
become states as soon as they had obtained a sufficient population.

We do not commonly think of the United States as a colonizing power, in
the sense that Great Britain has been such, nevertheless the whole
history of the American people has been a chronicle of colonization.
From the Alleghenies to the Pacific ocean the march of settlement went
steadily on for nearly a hundred years; lands were thrown open to
settlers; territories were formed; and in the end each territory became
a state.

[Sidenote: Steps in admission to statehood.]

The makers of the federal constitution had no idea, of course, that the
union would ever become so large, but they did foresee that some day
there would be more than thirteen states. Hence, they made provision in
the constitution that new states might be admitted from time to time at
the discretion of Congress. In keeping with this provision the usual
first step is the sending of a petition to Congress from the people of
the territory which seeks to be admitted. If Congress regards this
petition with favor it passes an Enabling Act, which authorizes the
people of the territory to draw up a tentative state constitution. This
document, having been framed and ratified at the polls by the people of
the territory, is then submitted to Congress. If Congress finds the
constitution satisfactory, it may then, by resolution, declare the
territory to be a state. Congress has been generous in granting full
statehood to the home territories, in some cases even before they had
acquired large populations, and this attitude has been wise. It has
welded the country together as no other policy could have unified it.

=The Newer Territories.=—Down to 1867, therefore, the problem of
territorial government was not difficult and it was always handled
satisfactorily. [Sidenote: How the territories were governed.] Each
territory was administered by a governor, who was appointed by the
President, and by a territorial legislature which was elected by the
people. Laws passed by the territorial legislature were subject to
disapproval by Congress, but this right was seldom exercised. The people
of the territories quickly showed their capacity to govern themselves
and Congress let them alone. But after the Civil War and particularly
after the Spanish War, territorial problems of a new sort arose.
[Sidenote: The new insular territories.] In 1867 the United States
purchased Alaska from Russia; in 1898 Porto Rico and the Philippines
were acquired from Spain; in the same year Hawaii was annexed, and
during the past quarter of a century other distant possessions (Samoa,
the Panama Canal Zone, and the Virgin Islands) have been added.

[Sidenote: Can they be admitted as states?]

These acquisitions differ from the old territories in two respects; they
are outside the regular national boundaries (in some cases far outside),
and they contain for the most part populations which have not had much
experience in self-government.[92] All have been given some form of
territorial government; but the question is: Can they be ultimately
admitted as states of the union? If they should be so admitted, they
must be given exactly the same rights as all the other states. There is
no such thing as partial or qualified admission. If Porto Rico or Hawaii
should be admitted to statehood they will have exactly the same status
as New York or Pennsylvania.

[Sidenote: Future of these islands.]

Three courses are open. First, these territories may be admitted in due
course to full rights of statehood. In the case of Alaska, Hawaii, and
Porto Rico this policy may be the one adopted if their populations are
deemed to be large enough. Second, the existing form of territorial
government may be continued indefinitely. This means that they would
have a large measure of control over their own local affairs but not
full control in the sense that the states have it. Third, they might be
given their independence with a guarantee of American protection from
outside enemies. In the case of the Philippines this is virtually what
has been promised; but independence is not to be given until the islands
prove entirely capable of governing themselves.[93] Apart from the
Philippines none of these territories is asking for independence.[94]

=The State Constitutions.=—It has been pointed out that before any
territory is admitted as a state it must frame a constitution.
[Sidenote: State constitutional conventions.] This constitution is
drawn, as a rule, by a constitutional convention composed of delegates
elected by the people. Such a convention is called when a state enters
the union and again whenever a general revision of the original document
seems to be desirable. As a rule there is an interval of ten years or
more between such conventions and sometimes an interval of thirty or
forty years.[95] Due to differences in the growth and progress of the
state a constitution may become out-of-date in one more rapidly than in
another. If only slight alterations in the constitution are needed, it
is not necessary or usual to call a convention. Individual amendments,
as will be shown presently, can be made more easily.

=What these Constitutions Contain.=—These state constitutions are rather
long documents, much longer than the constitution of the United States.
In early days they were much shorter, but the state governments perform
far more numerous functions today than they did fifty years ago. It has
become the tendency, moreover, in recent years to cover many things in
constitutions which formerly were left to be dealt with by acts of the
legislature. This has meant a great lengthening of constitutional
provisions.

In general a state constitution sets forth the form of government,
prescribes the powers and duties of state officers, prohibits the
legislature from doing certain things (such as changing the state
capitol, for example), and guarantees certain fundamental rights to the
citizens. But this is not all. Some of them contain long provisions
relating to the powers of local governments, the pay of officials, the
borrowing of money, and the regulation of banks. Putting such details
into the state constitution is an unwise policy because constitutional
provisions are difficult to change, whereas these various matters need
to be dealt with somewhat differently from time to time.

[Sidenote: The two methods of amendment.]

=How State Constitutions are Amended.=—There are two common ways of
amending a state constitution. The first, which exists in nearly all the
states, is by concurrent action of the legislature and the people. The
legislature takes the first step by proposing the amendment; then the
people at the polls accept or reject the proposal.[96] The other way is
by action of the people alone. By means of the initiative, as already
described, the people may propose an amendment, have it put on the
ballot, and accept or reject it as they desire. This method of amending
the constitution is used in less than half the states and even there it
is not employed with great frequency. The great majority of the
amendments to state constitutions (scores of them are made every year in
the country as a whole) are made by the first-named plan.

[Sidenote: The states have the residuum of powers.]

=The Powers of the States.=—Some years ago a foreign student of
government, desiring to find out what powers belonged to the legislature
of Massachusetts, took a copy of the state constitution and began
reading it carefully. Much to his surprise he found that it contained no
list of the powers which the legislature might exercise but merely
stated some things which the legislature must not do. The reason for
this, of course, is simple enough. The states retain all the powers
which they have not given to the national government. The way to find
out whether a state possesses a certain power is to look in the
constitution of the United States. If the power is there given
exclusively to Congress or prohibited to the states, then the state
legislature cannot exercise it. But if the power is not mentioned in the
national constitution, either expressly or by implication, then the
state legislatures have it.

On this basis a certain division of powers is made between the nation
and the states. The general principles on which the division is made are
easy enough to understand, but the exact distribution of powers is
something that can only be mastered by studying it. Even lawyers do not
always get hold of it accurately and newspapers are constantly making
mistakes because they fail to realize just where the boundaries of the
various governmental powers begin and end. So let us try to condense the
matter into a nutshell, or, to be more accurate, into four nutshells as
follows:

1. _Some powers belong exclusively to the nation._ These include the
power to declare war, to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, to
coin money, to establish post offices, and so on. No share in the
management of these things belongs to the state governments.

2. _Some powers belong concurrently both to the nation and the states._
Both the nation and the states, each within its own sphere, have the
power to tax, to borrow money, to charter banks, to promote education,
and to do many other things. These are called concurrent powers because
the national and state authorities may both exercise them at the same
time.

3. _Some powers are prohibited to the nation and some are prohibited to
the states._ The national and state governments, for example, are
forbidden to pass any bill of attainder, to grant titles of nobility, or
to take private property for public use without compensation. The
states, in addition, are forbidden to make treaties, coin money, or levy
tariff duties. There are various other prohibitions upon both the nation
or the states, as will be seen by reading carefully the provisions of
the national constitution.[97]

4. _All other governmental powers are reserved to the states._ Every
power which does not fall within the foregoing three classes belongs to
the several states exclusively. This is not only in accordance with the
theory of the national constitution as a grant of powers but it is
expressly stated in the Tenth Amendment.[98]

[Sidenote: Features which are similar in all the states.]

=The General Similarity of State Governments.=—No two states, among the
forty-eight, are governed alike. A description of state government in
Massachusetts would not fit Illinois, much less Idaho or Nevada. On the
other hand no two states are governed very differently; in all the
essential features they conform to a single type. They all have
constitutions; every state has an elective legislature of two chambers;
each has an elective governor; and they all have state courts. In all
the states there is universal suffrage (save for the exclusion of
negroes in the South); the secret ballot is used throughout the country;
the same political parties are in existence everywhere from the Atlantic
to the Pacific; and the principal laws are essentially the same. The
citizen who moves from one state to another finds the difference so
slight that it is hardly noticeable. It is not worth while, therefore,
to spend any time in studying the points of difference between the
government of one state and that of another. State government everywhere
has now been reduced to a type which is uniform for all practical
purposes.

[Sidenote: Organization of the state legislature.]

=The State Legislature.=—Every state has a legislature which is the
paramount branch of the state government. It makes the laws, levies the
state taxes, appropriates money for the management of state
administration, and decides all questions of public policy. This
legislature is composed of two chambers, which have substantially
concurrent lawmaking powers. The upper chamber, commonly called the
Senate, is the smaller of the two; its members are elected by counties
or senatorial districts, usually for a term of two or four years. The
lower chamber, which is variously known as the Assembly, or House of
Representatives, or House of Delegates, is much the larger body; its
members are also elected from counties or parts of counties. Nominations
are made either by conventions or by a primary; the latter is now the
more common method except in the Southern states. Sessions of the
legislature are held every alternate year except in a few states where
they are held annually.

[Sidenote: The legislature’s powers.]

The powers of the state legislature are in actual operation very broad.
They comprise the whole field of lawmaking except in so far as it has
been restricted by the national constitution or by the constitution of
the state itself. The state laws come closer to the life of the
individual than do those of the nation.[99] They make provision for the
registration of a child’s birth; they determine the age at which he must
go to school; they establish the schools and fix the qualifications of
the teachers. When the boy becomes a man he will find that the state
laws regulate his profession or business. The state laws enable him to
marry, to accumulate property, to vote, and to hold office. When he dies
the state laws regulate the transmission of his property to his heirs.
Thus from birth to death the citizen comes almost daily into contact
with the lawmaking authority of the state. These laws determine most of
the taxes that he pays; they safeguard his life, health, and property;
they punish him when he does wrong; and they provide for his maintenance
if he becomes poor or crippled or insane. Where the federal government
touches the citizen once, the state government touches him a dozen
times. The average citizen does not always appreciate this fact.

[Sidenote: The process of state legislation.]

The consent of both chambers of the state legislature is necessary to
the making of laws. The process of lawmaking is very much like that used
in Congress (see pp. 275-278). Bills are introduced, referred to
committees, reported back to the legislature, and voted on by each
chamber.[100] Disagreements between the two chambers are adjusted by a
conference committee. The rules of procedure are very complicated and
new members of a state legislature often have some difficulty in
understanding them. The purpose of the rules is threefold: To expedite
business, to ensure the careful consideration of each measure, and to
protect the rights of the minority party in the legislature. Despite the
rules, however, legislative business is often unduly delayed; at other
times measures are hustled through without proper consideration, and the
rights of the minority are frequently over-ridden.[101] This is done by
suspending the rules or by merely disregarding them.

[Sidenote: The governor.]

=The State Executive.=—The executive branch of the state government is
made up of the governor and the heads of the various state departments.
The governor is elected by the people for a term of two or four years.
His powers are extensive. He is charged with the general supervision
over the enforcement of the laws and the conduct of administrative
affairs. He makes most of the important appointments to state
administrative offices, the chief exceptions being the heads of state
departments and the judges of the state courts, both of whom are in most
cases elected by the people. The governor’s appointments, before they
become effective, usually require confirmation by the upper branch of
the state legislature or by an elective executive council. Where the
civil service system is in force, moreover, it places a limit on the
governor’s discretion in appointments. The governor also possesses the
veto power over acts of the state legislature, but this may be
over-ridden, as a rule, by a two-thirds vote of both chambers. In all
essential features the veto power of the governor is much like that of
the President. The power to pardon offenders convicted in the state
courts likewise belongs to the governor in most states; in some states,
however, he must obtain the concurrence of a pardoning-board or some
other authority, and in a few states the entire power of pardon is given
to a special board. The governor is commander-in-chief of the state
militia and may call it out for service in emergencies. Like the
President the governor is removable from office by impeachment.

[Sidenote: Officials and boards.]

For carrying on its administrative work the state has, in addition to
the governor, a considerable number of administrative officials and
boards. These include the secretary of state, who keeps the official
records; the treasurer; the auditor; the attorney-general, who conducts
the legal affairs of the state; the state superintendent or commissioner
of education; together with state boards of health, charity, public
works, public utilities, and so on. The titles and functions of these
various boards differ greatly from state to state. In Massachusetts
there are only twenty-one state departments; in New York there are more
than one hundred. Everywhere the number displays a tendency to increase,
for the functions of the state are everywhere broadening. The officials
and members of boards who perform all this administrative work are
sometimes elected but more often they are appointed by the governor.

=The State Courts: Their Organization.=—In each state there are three
gradations in the judiciary, and sometimes four. First, there are local
courts, presided over by justices of the peace, or police justices.
These courts try cases of minor importance. When persons charged with
serious offences are brought before them, the offenders are held for
trial by the next higher court. These next higher courts are known as
county or district or superior courts. They are empowered to conduct
jury trials; they have prosecuting attorneys at their service; they have
a wider range of jurisdiction to try important cases, and their
decisions are usually final so far as the _facts_ of the case are
concerned. Finally, there is in each state a supreme court (sometimes
called the Court of Errors) which hears appeals, chiefly on disputed
points of _law_, from the courts below. This court is composed of from
five to fifteen judges (the number is fixed by law in each state), and
it has the last word in all cases save where an appeal may be taken to
the Supreme Court of the United States.[102]

[Sidenote: The election _vs_. the appointment of judges.]

=The Selection and Removal of Judges.=—In more than three-fourths of the
states the judges of these various courts are elected by the people. In
the rest they are either appointed by the governor or chosen by the
state legislature. One plan cannot be said, in general terms, to be
better than the other. Good judges have been secured by all three
methods of selection, and poor ones too. It is worth noting, however,
that the judges of all the federal courts are appointed for life and
that they are men of fine quality.[103] It is everywhere conceded that
the courts ought to be kept out of party politics and this is much
easier if the judges are appointed for life or for long terms than if
they are chosen by the people for short terms. But whether appointed or
elected it is desirable that judges, so long as their work is
satisfactory, should be kept in office. If judges are denied
reappointment or re-election because their decisions do not prove
popular with those who are influential in politics, it will be very hard
to get men of ability and integrity to accept judicial positions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

SIMPLIFIED STATE ADMINISTRATION

Several states have simplified their administrative
machinery during recent years by reducing the number
of state departments. Illinois is one of these. Its
plan of administrative organization, as shown on the
reverse of this page, is simple enough for any voter
to understand. This contrasts with the situation in
New York State, where there are more than a hundred
administrative departments.

(ILLINOIS)

VOTERS OF THE STATE

Attorney General TERM: 4 YRS. CONST.
Auditor of Public Accounts TERM: 4 YRS. CONST.
Secretary of State TERM: 4 YRS. CONST.

Governor TERM: 4 YRS. CONST.
Civil Service Commission 3 MEMBERS TERM: 6 YEARS STAT.
Dept. of Finance
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Labor
Dept. of Mines and Minerals
Dept. of Public Works and Buildings
Dept. of Public Welfare
Dept. of Public Health
Dept. of Trade and Commerce
Dept. of Registration and Education

Lieutenant Governor
TERM: 4 YRS. CONST.

Treasurer
TERM: 2 YRS. CONST.

Supt. of Public Instruction
TERM: 4 YRS. CONST.

Trustees University of Illinois
9 ELEC. MEMBERS
TERM: 6 YRS. STAT.
GENERAL DRAFTING CO. INC. N.Y.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: The present weakness.]

=The Need of Reform in State Administration.=—There are two distinct
weaknesses in state administration at the present day. One results from
the fact that the functions of the state have been enormously expanded
during the past fifty years while the administrative machinery has not
kept pace. The state has taken over new duties in the field of public
health, the regulation of industry, the administration of prisons, the
control of public utilities, and many other matters. In each case it has
merely set up one more department or bureau or board until the whole
organization has become top-heavy. State administration, in other words,
is now divided into too many compartments. The other weakness arises
from the fact that these various departments are not all responsible to
the governor or to any central head. Some officials and boards are
appointed; some are elected. Some hold office for long terms, some for
short. The governor bears the responsibility for the proper conduct of
state administration, yet the work is done by officials who are not
required to obey his instructions.[104] He is like a general who is
expected to win battles without having officers who will obey his
commands. The result is not only a good deal of friction but a waste of
time, money, and patience. Several states have felt the need of
reforming this condition and have proceeded to make changes in their
administrative organization. These changes involve a reduction in the
number of departments and the placing of them all under the general
control of the governor.[105] In the national administration all
departments are responsible to the President. The same principle ought
to be applied in state administration.

[Sidenote: Can the system of commission government be applied to the
states?]

=The Proposed Reconstruction of State Government.=—The system of state
government, as it now stands, is not obtaining satisfactory results. The
state legislatures have declined in popular confidence during the past
generation; men of inferior quality are frequently elected to them; the
work of lawmaking is influenced too much by party considerations; the
administrative departments are too numerous in most of the states and
often fail to do their work efficiently. State taxes are everywhere
going up rapidly and state debts are increasing. Various plans for a
radical reconstruction in state government have been proposed in order
to remedy these defects. One proposal is that the two-chambered
legislature should be abolished and a single small body of
representatives put in its place. It is argued that if fewer legislators
were elected better men would be chosen and that the process of
lawmaking would thereby be improved. Some have even gone so far as to
urge that we should establish commission government for states as well
as for cities. State government, they argue, has become so complicated
that it now needs a smaller number of capable men giving their undivided
attention to it. A two-chambered legislature, which meets for a few
months every second year, cannot handle the business effectively.
Nevertheless the people have become thoroughly accustomed to
double-chambered legislatures, and where the proposal to establish a
single chamber has been submitted to them (as in Oregon) they have
rejected it.

[Sidenote: Should the governor’s powers be increased?]

Another plan proposes the vesting of larger powers in the hands of the
governor, giving him the initiative in financial matters and making all
the state administrative departments responsible to him. Today the drift
is very strongly in this direction. Already, in some states, the
governor is a more important factor than the legislature, and this is
strangely in contrast with the situation as it was a hundred years or
more ago. James Madison, in his time, spoke of the governors as “little
more than ciphers” and declared that the legislatures were omnipotent.
In our day this has entirely changed, or is changing. The balance of
power is steadily swinging from the legislative to the executive branch.

General References

C. A. BEARD, _American Government and Politics_, pp. 428-577; _Ibid._,
_Readings in American Government and Politics_, pp. 391-508;

EVERETT KIMBALL, _State and Municipal Government_, pp. 131-308;

W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the United States_, pp. 389-459;

A. N. HOLCOMBE, _State Government in the United States_, pp. 240-393;

J. T. YOUNG, _The New American Government and Its Work_, pp. 298-341;

WOODROW WILSON, _The State_, pp. 315-336;

P. S. REINSCH, _Readings in American Federal Government_, pp. 222-239;

J. M. MATHEWS, _Principles of American State Administration_, pp.
25-214;

W. W. WILLOUGHBY and LINDSAY ROGERS, _Introduction to the Problem of
Government_, pp. 407-429.

Group Problems

=1. A revision of your state constitution.= Make a tabulation of the
more important provisions in your state constitution, under the
following heads: 1. Organization of the legislature. 2. Powers of the
governor. 3. Relations between the governor and the legislature. 4.
Organization of the state departments. 5. Control of state finances.
Compare these in parallel columns with the corresponding provisions in
the model state constitution of the National Municipal League. Discuss
the relative merits of each provision. =References=: National Municipal
Review, Vol. IX, No. 11, pp. 711-715, November, 1920. Copies of the
state constitution may usually be had on application to the Secretary of
State at the State Capitol. The state constitution is also published in
the handbook or manual which is supplied to members of the legislature.
For general discussions of the subject, see C. G. HAINES and BERTHA H.
HAINES, _Principles and Problems of American Government_, pp. 321-338;
423-440; W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the United States_, pp. 522-534; J.
M. MATHEWS, _Principles of American State Administration_, pp. 499-516;
A. N. HOLCOMBE, _State Government in the United States_, pp. 106-142;
Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, 1917-1918, _Bulletins_, Nos. 2,
4, 10, 15, 29 and 35; New York State Constitutional Convention, 1915,
_Index Digest of State Constitutions_, _passim_.

=2. What we get for our state expenditures.= =References=: United States
Bureau of the Census, _Financial Statistics of States_ (issued annually
since 1918); W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the United States_, pp.
445-472; R. T. ELY, _Taxation in American States and Cities_, pp. 13-24;
J. M. MATHEWS, _Principles of American State Administration_, pp.
296-400.

=3. Can the procedure in state legislatures be simplified?=
=References=: P. S. REINSCH, _American Legislatures and Legislative
Methods_, pp. 126-158; H. W. DODDS, _The Procedure of State
Legislatures_, pp. 36-62; A. N. HOLCOMBE, _State Government in the
United States_, pp. 253-279; H. M. ROBERT, _Rules of Order_, _passim_.

Short Studies

1. =The place of the states in the nation.= W. B. MUNRO, _Government of
the United States_, pp. 389-403.

2. =The organization and procedure of constitutional conventions.=
Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, 1917-1918, _Bulletins_, No. 1
(The Procedure of Constitutional Conventions).

3. =Committees and committee work in state legislatures.= P. S. REINSCH,
_American Legislatures and Legislative Methods_, pp. 159-182.

4. =The growth of executive power in state government.= J. M. MATHEWS,
_Principles of American State Administration_, pp. 25-133.

5. =The drift of legislation in recent years.= F. J. STIMSON, _Popular
Lawmaking_, pp. 117-123.

6. =Reasons for the popular distrust of state legislatures.= JAMES T.
YOUNG, _The New American Government and Its Work_, pp. 643-651.

7. =How state administration has been simplified.= C. G. HAINES and
BERTHA M. HAINES, _Principles and Problems of Government_, pp. 323-338.

8. =The government of the Philippines.= DEAN C. WORCESTER, _The
Philippines, Past and Present_, Vol. I, pp. 325-407; Vol. II, pp.
768-791.

9. =The appointment and removal of judges.= S. E. BALDWIN, _The American
Judiciary_, pp. 311-343; A. M. KALES, _Unpopular Government in the
United States_, pp. 225-251.

10. =Plans for the reconstruction of state government.= W. B. MUNRO,
_Government of the United States_, pp. 522-534; A. M. KALES, _Unpopular
Government in the United States_, pp. 166-180.

Questions

1. The national constitution provides that the United States shall
guarantee to each state a _republican_ form of government. What does
that mean? Would a state government be un-republican if it (_a_) raised
the voting age to thirty years; (_b_) abolished the legislature and gave
all lawmaking powers to an appointive board of five; (_c_) gave up the
system of trial by jury in the state courts; (_d_) abolished private
property?

2. If you were redistributing the respective powers of the national and
state governments today where would you place (_a_) marriage and
divorce; (_b_) education; (_c_) the regulation of child labor; (_d_) the
chartering of banks; (_e_) the punishment of counterfeiting; (_f_) the
protection of foreigners in the United States; (_g_) the punishment of
persons for lynching; (_h_) the control of the national guard?

3. Go through your state constitution and check off four or five
provisions which you think might better be left to be dealt with by the
laws.

4. How may your state constitution be amended? What amendments have been
made within the last ten years and by which method? Are amendments, in
your opinion, too easy or too difficult to make?

5. If every state is entirely free to determine its own form of
government why are they all so much alike?

6. Make a list of all the steps in the passage of a law from its
introduction in the legislature to its final enactment. Does the
governor give any reason when he vetoes a bill? Should he be required to
do so?

7. Put each of the following offices at the head of a column and insert
under each a list of matters with which the officials have to do: Board
of Public Works; Commissioner of Corrections; Public Utilities
Commission; Fish and Game Bureau; Board of Labor and Industries;
Industrial Accident Board; Department of Social Welfare; Board of
Agriculture; Attorney-General; Civil Service Commission.

8. Make a list of all the activities in which your state government is
engaged where it acts in the capacity of (_a_) a business man or
corporation; (_b_) an arbiter between parties; (_c_) a benevolent
agency. In which of these does it meet competition from private
individuals?

9. Make a chart showing the organization of the courts in your state,
the number of judges in each, and the general jurisdiction of each
court.

Topics for Debate

1. The commission plan of government, as it now exists in many cities,
should be applied to the states.

2. The United States should not acquire any territory which cannot
ultimately be admitted as a state.

3. Which is the better plan of choosing Supreme Court judges: (_a_)
appointment for life by the governor (Massachusetts), or, (_b_) election
every six years by the people (Illinois)?

CHAPTER XIII
THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION

_The purpose of this chapter is to explain how the constitution was
framed, how it has developed, and how it can be changed._

[Sidenote: _E pluribus unum._]

=The Achievement of Union.=—The greatest achievement of the American
people has been the welding of separate states into a single nation. To
have brought into a permanent federation thirteen relatively small
communities, containing less than four million people in all, may not
seem to us to have been a remarkable feat. These thirteen communities
had won their independence together in a common war; they were inhabited
for the most part by people of the same race, speaking the same
language, and accustomed to the same laws. Why should there have been
any difficulty in getting them to form a union in order to provide for
the common defence and promote the general welfare? Is not unification a
natural process?

Well, if the gathering of different states into a single permanent union
is an easy matter, why did not the warring cities of Ancient Greece
unite? Why did they persist in their disunion, and through disunion
ultimately fall a prey to their common enemy? The whole of Attica was
smaller than the single state of South Carolina. Why did not the various
states of Central America, or of South America, form a union after they
had won their independence from Spain? How different the history of
these Latin-American countries would have been during the past hundred
years if they had established a federal union like that of the United
States!

The forming of the American union was not an easy task. It was brought
about by dint of hard work, patience, a rare display of public spirit on
the part of the leaders in the several states, and the common sense of
the masses of the people. If the men and women of 1787 had regarded
themselves alone and given no thought to posterity; if they had placed
the immediate interests of the individual states above the ultimate
well-being of the whole; if they had allowed themselves to be moved by
prejudice rather than by patriotism, the American union would not have
been formed.

[Sidenote: Obstacles in the way of union.]

=Why the Task was Difficult.=—The thirteen colonies were founded
independently. Some of them grew out of trading-company operations.
Others were founded by men and women who left their homes in the old
country to escape religious persecution. Others, again, owed their
beginnings to wealthy men who obtained large grants of land from the
English crown in order to establish settlements. Founded in different
ways, these various colonies had from the outset very little community
of interest. Each had its own government and these governments differed
somewhat from one another. The people did not travel about from one
colony to another, for transportation was crude and traveling was
difficult. From Massachusetts to Georgia seemed a much longer distance
in 1787 than a journey across the entire continent seems today. Each
colony, moreover, was primarily interested in its own problems and gave
little thought to outside affairs except when dangers threatened. It is
true that the colonies also had some things in common, but the forces
which tended to keep them apart were far stronger than those which
tended to bring them together.

[Sidenote: Early attempts at federation.]

For this reason the first attempts at union resulted in no permanent
federation. As early as 1643 the four principal New England settlements
united themselves into a league of friendship known as the New England
Federation, but this union went out of existence after the danger of
Indian attacks had passed away. William Penn, in 1696, proposed a
general union of all the colonies but nothing came of his suggestion. At
various times during the next sixty years conferences were called and
the matter discussed, the most important being the Albany Congress of
1754, at which a plan of union was framed in detail. Local jealousies,
however, always proved too strong until the impending quarrel with the
mother country showed the necessity of united action.

[Sidenote: The Revolution as a unifying force.]

=How the War paved the Way for Union.=—The attempt of the English
government to tax the colonies without their consent brought home to
them, for the first time, the fact that they were all in the same boat.
If they should attempt to resist these taxes individually, they would be
coerced one by one. For this reason they hastened to consult with one
another and in due course sent delegates to a Continental Congress which
handled the common interests of the colonies during the war. The stress
and strain of the war made unity essential for the time being, but it
did not produce an organic union. The colonies were united in declaring
their independence, but this declaration did not create a union of new
states.

=The Declaration of Independence.=—The Declaration of Independence is
one of the most famous documents in all history. Drawn by Thomas
Jefferson it is at once a statement of political principles and a
recital of the colonial grievances. Four outstanding political
principles are set forth in the following words:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.”

“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these
ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.”

“That governments long established should not be changed for light
or transient causes.”

[Sidenote: Importance of the Declaration.]

The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land and never has
been; its text is not legally binding upon Congress, the legislatures,
or the courts. It is an assertion of fundamental principles. It did not
create a united nation, save in sentiment. By the declaration thirteen
new sovereign states were established, each with the right to determine
its own form of government. From a governmental standpoint these
thirteen communities were less united after the declaration than they
had been before it. Prior to 1776 there had been a single sovereign;
after that date there were thirteen. But although the Declaration of
Independence did not make any provision for the union of the several
states it is none the less an immortal document because it boldly
asserted principles that were new to the world. In 1776 there was very
little democracy anywhere. The four truths above mentioned are
commonplace today; but one hundred and fifty years ago they were a
challenge to revolution in all despotic countries. In our time the
greater part of the civilized world has come to accept them as the only
sound basis of democratic government. The declaration, therefore, is not
merely a landmark in the history of American democracy; it marks the
beginning of a great epoch in the history of human freedom.

=The Articles of Confederation.=—Having given their pledge to common
principles and having stood shoulder to shoulder through the dark hours
of a hard-fought war, it might be thought that these thirteen states
would have seen clearly the wisdom of welding themselves into a single,
united nation. But they were not yet ready to drop their jealousies or
abate their zeal for individual independence. The best they were willing
to do, for the time being, was to give their assent to a plan for a
loose confederation, something that was little better than an offensive
and defensive alliance. [Sidenote: Provisions of the articles.] This
plan, drawn up by the Continental Congress in 1777, was embodied in the
Articles of Confederation and sent to the several states to be ratified.
It met with very little enthusiasm, and not until 1781 was it accepted
by all the states. In truth, these Articles did not deserve much
enthusiasm, for they provided an unworkable form of federal government.
A Congress composed of a single chamber made up of delegates from the
states was the sole organ of the Confederation. No provision was made
for an executive or for a system of courts. In the Congress of the
Confederation all the states, large and small, were given equal voting
powers; the delegates were appointed by the states, paid by the states,
and subject to recall at any time by the states. The people, as such,
were given no direct share in the government; on the other hand the
central government could not deal directly with the people, it could act
only through the states.

[Sidenote: Weakness of the Confederation.]

The states were so jealous of their own sovereignty and independence
that they withheld from the government of the Confederation most of the
essential powers which a government must have in order to do its work.
They gave it no power to tax and hence no certain means of procuring a
revenue. They gave it no power to borrow money save with the assent of
nine states. They gave it no power to regulate trade. The Articles of
Confederation, although drawn and adopted in the midst of a war, gave
the Congress no power to summon men into the army. When it needed troops
it could only call upon the states to supply them. Sometimes the states
responded to these calls, but more often they did not, and in the latter
case the Congress had no way of enforcing its demands for men. Under the
circumstances it is amazing that the government of the Confederation
managed to carry on the war and bring it to a successful conclusion.

[Sidenote: The critical period.]

=The Drift to Anarchy after the War.=—Despite the utter weakness of the
Confederation the war continued to be a unifying force so long as it
lasted. In the face of a common danger and with a common goal ahead of
them the states kept their jealousies in the background. But as soon as
the war was over the bickerings began in earnest. Each state began to
look upon its own interests as the thing of greatest importance; each
sought to gain advantages at the expense of its neighbors. Each was at
liberty to impose its own tariff and to regulate trade at its own ports.
So they began to quarrel among themselves over trading privileges and
over disputed boundaries until a civil war seemed to be quite within the
bounds of possibility.

[Sidenote: Impotence of the Congress.]

Why did not the Congress of the Confederation intervene to prevent this
drift to anarchy? The Congress would gladly have done so but it had no
power. It had no authority to intervene in disputes between the states,
or even to prevent war among them. It had no army of its own, no money
to raise an army. Some of the states, now that the war was over, took so
little interest in the Confederation that they stopped sending delegates
to the Congress altogether. Time and again it was found impossible to
get a quorum in order to do business. The utter weakness of the Congress
was tragically displayed in 1783 when it was driven out of its quarters
at Philadelphia by a mob of soldiers clamoring for their pay.

[Sidenote: The economic disorder.]

The whole country was in a bad way. During the war a huge debt had been
created, and Congress now found itself with no money to pay interest on
it. Millions in paper money had been issued, but nowhere was there any
gold to redeem them. Prices had been high during the war, as prices
always are during war time. When the war ended there was a general fall
in prices with the result that the farmers got less for their products
and became discontented. Farmers, in those days, formed ninety per cent
of the population and they completely controlled the legislatures of the
various states. They clamored for relief from the effects of the decline
in prices, called for the issue of more paper money, for high tariffs,
and for measures that would lessen the burden of mortgages on their
lands. In some of the states there was open rioting and disorder. These
years have been well called the “critical period” of American history.
It looked for a time as though independence was to be merely a prelude
to anarchy.

[Sidenote: The leaders in despair.]

No wonder the leaders of the people were discouraged and alarmed.
Washington was in despair. “I am mortified beyond expression”, he wrote,
“when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that
ever dawned upon any country.... I am lost in amazement when I behold
what intrigue, ignorance, and jealousy are capable of effecting.... It
is but the other day that we were shedding our blood to obtain the
constitutions under which we now live—constitutions of our own choice
and making—and now we are unsheathing the sword to overturn them....
What a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are
incapable of governing ourselves!” These are bitter words, but the
condition of the country quite justified them. Sensible men in all the
states shared this alarm and felt that what had been won during the war
might easily be lost, for if the states should fall to fighting among
themselves, it would be very easy for Europe to take a hand in the fray
and divide the spoils. The fate of Poland was fresh in the minds of
those who had read history.

[Sidenote: A Constitutional Convention called.]

=The Triumph of Public Spirit over Selfishness.=—But presently there
came a rift in the clouds. The four million people who formed the
population of the thirteen states, despite their sectional prejudices,
were possessed of common sense and patriotism. They were blessed,
moreover, with as fine a group of leaders as ever carried a young nation
through troublous years. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison,
Hamilton, and the others of this notable galaxy held different views as
to the best means of bringing order out of chaos; but they were ready,
when the time came, to sink these personal differences in order that
some effective form of central government might be established. They
lent the weight of their great influence, therefore, to a movement for
revising the Articles of Confederation in such a way that a better union
of the thirteen states might be achieved. In truth it was a difficult
task to induce the states to move towards unity, for they were all
headed in exactly the opposite direction. But by the exercise of tact
and patience, and after discouraging delays, twelve of the states
finally sent delegates to a convention that was called to meet at
Philadelphia in 1787 to see what could be done. If the states had been
asked to join in the making of an entirely new constitution and the
establishing of a real federal union, there is no doubt that some of
them would have declined. The convention was called to consider changes
in the Articles of Confederation. But when the delegates set to work
they soon found that no patchwork performance would ever solve the
problem of welding the American people into a unified nation. So they
proceeded to make an entirely new covenant containing provision for a
real central government endowed with adequate powers.

=The Constitutional Convention: Its Members.=—In the convention there
were fifty-five delegates representing twelve states. Some states sent
six or seven delegates; others only two or three. The number did not
matter much, for each state had one vote on all questions. The delegates
were never all present at any one time; some of them came and soon went
away; others kept coming and going; but the majority stayed right
through the summer and attended the meetings regularly. The convention
met in the old brick state house in Philadelphia, the building in which
the Declaration of Independence had been signed eleven years before. It
met behind closed doors and the delegates agreed that they would not
tell what was going on. Day after day, from May to September, they
wrestled with the problem of framing a new constitution and although
their differences of opinion often seemed impossible to adjust, the
convention finally managed to draft a document which a majority of the
delegates were willing to sign.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION OF 1787

By Violet Oakley

This picture is in the Pennsylvania State Capitol at
Harrisburg.

It portrays the Fathers of the Republic at their
great work of framing the national constitution.
Washington, the presiding officer of the convention,
is appealing to his colleagues with the notable
words which encircle the top of the picture. Around
and below him are Benjamin Franklin, James Madison,
William Paterson, James Dickinson, Edmund Randolph,
Robert Morris, and Gouverneur Morris, all of them in
quaint costumes of the later eighteenth century.

The picture is symbolic of America’s great
aspiration—Let us raise a standard to which the
honest can repair!

[Illustration:

WASHINGTON AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

By Violet Oakley

_Copyright by Violet Oakley. From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis
& Cameron, Boston. Reproduced by permission._
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: The Fathers of the Republic.]

The men who took a prominent part in this convention performed a service
of such value and permanence that their names can never be forgotten.
Washington, who headed the delegation from Virginia, was chosen by the
convention to be its presiding officer. This debarred him from taking an
active part in the discussions on the floor, but his great personal
influence was on many occasions exerted in the interests of harmony.
Benjamin Franklin, the wisest man of his time, was the senior member of
the Pennsylvania delegation. His broad knowledge of men and affairs,
gained through a long life of more than eighty years, made him one of
the most valuable members. Then there was James Madison, still a young
man but already a thorough scholar in matters of government. Among all
the delegates Madison ranked first in point of active helpfulness and
fully earned the distinction which posterity has given him as the Father
of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, of New York, young and
brilliant, with plenty of imagination and strong political opinions, was
the orator of the convention; but oratory did not carry far with the
delegates. They listened with rapt attention to Hamilton’s impassioned
speeches and applauded him generously at the end; but when the question
was put to a vote he sometimes got nobody’s vote but his own. Arguments
counted for more than eloquence in this gathering. Among the delegates
of ability and prominence were Robert Morris and James Wilson, of
Pennsylvania, the former a wizard in financial matters, the latter a
hard-headed Scotchman of great political sense; Roger Sherman, the
shoemaker-statesman, of Connecticut; the two Pinckneys, of South
Carolina, John Dickinson, of Delaware, and a dozen others whose names
were known throughout the nation in their day. They were not all of the
same mind on political questions, not by any means; some were
conservative and some were radical; some looked far into the future and
others only to the needs of the hour; some were always willing to
compromise and others were not ready to compromise at all; but taken as
a whole they formed an able, well-balanced group of men, fairly
reflecting the intelligence and patriotism of their time.[106]

[Sidenote: The obstacles and the compromises.]

=How the Convention Solved its Difficulties.=—In a body made up of men
who held such widely-differing opinions it was inevitable that bitter
controversies should arise. And that is what happened. Delegates from
the smaller states disagreed with the delegates from the larger states
on the question whether, under the new constitution, the voting power of
the states should be equal, as it had been under the Articles of
Confederation. Delegates from the North clashed with delegates from the
South on the question of giving the new government power to regulate
trade; for the South did not want export taxes placed upon tobacco,
cotton, and the other plantation staples. The divergence of opinion was
often very wide, and on one occasion the convention almost broke off its
proceedings because there seemed to be no hope that any agreement could
be reached. But patience and public spirit finally prevailed on all
points and by means of one compromise after another the convention
managed to finish its work without splitting its ranks wide open.[107]

[Sidenote: The constitution drafted.]

When all the main features had been agreed upon they were put together
into a constitution which thirty-nine of the delegates were willing to
sign. Of the others, some were absent; some refused to put their names
to it. Even among those who signed it there were many who did so without
the least enthusiasm. The provisions of the new constitution were not
what any individual delegate wanted, but merely what a majority could be
induced to agree upon. What influenced the delegates most of all was the
fact that everyone knew the existing situation to be bad; the new
constitution, whatever its defects, was sure to be an improvement. The
immediate thing was to get the states headed towards the center and not
towards the circumference of a circle. This being accomplished, the
leaders of the convention believed the future might be trusted to take
care of itself. It was in this broad and patriotic spirit that
thirty-nine men appended their names to what the English statesman,
Gladstone, once called “the greatest achievement ever struck off in a
given time by the hand and brain of man”,—the constitution of the United
States.

[Sidenote: Ratification by the states.]

=The Final Step.=—But by signing their names to this document the
members of the convention did not make it the law of the land. Before
the constitution could go into force it must be submitted to the states
and adopted by them. And there was grave danger that several of the
states would reject it. Public sentiment seemed to be about evenly
divided; the small farmers were largely opposed to accepting the new
government, while the people of the towns and the large property-owners
were in favor of it. [Sidenote: The Federalist.] Some of those who had
been leaders in the convention, notably Hamilton and Madison, organized
a campaign to influence public opinion in favor of the new constitution,
in the course of which they wrote numerous letters to the newspapers
explaining and defending the various provisions. These letters were
subsequently compiled into book form and published under the title of
_The Federalist_. Even today they form an admirable exposition of what
the various provisions of the constitution express and imply. In the end
the campaign for ratification was successful and notwithstanding strong
opposition in some of the states all were finally induced to accept the
constitution. This being accomplished the Congress of the Confederation
dissolved and in 1789 the new federal government came into office with
New York City as the temporary capital.[108]

[Sidenote: A notable document.]

=The Constitution as a Whole.=—The constitution of the United States as
framed by the convention is a relatively short document. It is printed
in the back of this book and can be read in about twenty minutes. It is
the oldest and the shortest among republican constitutions in the great
countries of the world. Napoleon Bonaparte once said that a good
constitution should be “short and obscure”, short, so that people would
not have to waste time in reading it, and obscure so that rulers could
interpret it in any way they chose. The constitution of the United
States fulfils the first of Napoleon’s requirements but not the second.
It is a remarkably clear document, well-arranged, saying in a few words
exactly what it means, and couched in admirable English. Let anyone read
the first six lines of it, for example, and see if he can put the
purposes of a free government into fewer and more telling words. It is
the supreme law of the land, the last word on all questions of American
government. No one can claim to know how the affairs of the United
States are administered without mastering, at least in a general way,
the contents of the constitution.

[Sidenote: Factors in the development of the constitution:]

=How the Constitution has Developed.=—But the constitution today is not
what it was a hundred and twenty-odd years ago. Were that the case, it
would be sadly out of touch with the needs of the nation. To be
satisfactory a constitution must be capable of steady expansion and
development; it must be able to keep step with political, social, and
economic progress. This the constitution of the United States has been
able to do through various agencies of development, usage, judicial
interpretation, and amendment. Established for thirteen states
containing four million people it has been expanded to cover the needs
of nearly four times as many states and more than twenty-five times as
many people. Framed in days of stage coaches and sailing ships,
hand-industry and primitive methods of agriculture, it has carried
through into the days of airships and tractors, giant factories and
miracles of industry. It is endowed with dynamic qualities.

[Sidenote: 1. Usage.]

Let us look a little more closely at these agencies of development.
Usage is one of them. Alongside the written document there have grown up
many practices which have practically the strength of written
provisions. Take the method of electing the President, for example.
Indirect election is provided in the constitution; by usage the election
has become direct. The constitution provides that the President shall
make appointments with the “advice and consent” of the Senate; but as a
matter of usage its advice is never asked and its consent, in some
cases, is never refused (see p. 298). The constitution says not a word
about the Cabinet, but by usage a Cabinet system has grown up in the
United States as in England. Nor does it say a word about political
parties, nevertheless usage has given them a large part in government.
These illustrations could be multiplied. Why does no President seek a
third term? Why does a President usually consult individual
representatives before making local appointments? Why are non-residents
in a congressional district practically never elected to represent it?
Usage answers these and many other questions.

[Sidenote: 2. Interpretation.]

The constitution has also been modified by decisions of the courts. The
courts cannot change a single word in the constitution; they merely
interpret its meaning. Their function is =jus dicere, non dare= (to
interpret the law, not to make it), as the saying goes. But the fact
remains that changes in the meaning of words are equivalent for all
practical purposes to changes in the words themselves. The Supreme
Court, in a long series of decisions, has greatly expanded the powers of
the national government by the interpretation of words and clauses in
the written constitution. It has decided that the power to borrow money
includes the power to establish banks, that the power to regulate
commerce includes the power to fix railroad rates, that the power to
establish post-offices includes the power to punish those who use the
mails for a fraudulent purpose, and so on. It has been the function of
the court to make the words spell out new meanings to fit new
situations. One cannot today obtain an adequate knowledge of what these
words and phrases mean by merely reading the document; it is necessary
to go through the decisions of the Supreme Court and find out just how
this great tribunal has interpreted them.

[Sidenote: 3. Statutes.]

The constitution has been developed by law. Many things were left in
general terms in order that the details might be settled by Congress or
by the state legislature. Nothing is said in the constitution about the
organization or procedure of the federal courts. All this has been built
up by laws. Nor is anything said about the method of nominating
congressmen, or the form of the ballot, or the duties of election
officials. That, too, is arranged by law. Much of what we call the
machinery of American government today rests upon ordinary laws which
can be changed by Congress or the state legislatures at any time.

[Sidenote: 4. Amendments.]

Finally, the constitution can be changed, and on nineteen matters has
been changed by amending it. The constitution provides four possible
methods of making and ratifying amendments,—two of initiating and two of
ratifying. These various ways are stated in the document (Article V)
more briefly and more clearly than they can be recapitulated here. But
every one of the amendments thus far made has been proposed and adopted
in one and the same way, namely, proposal by Congress and ratification
by three-fourths of the state legislatures. [Sidenote: Method of making
amendments.] The other plan of proposing amendments, that is by calling
a constitutional convention, would open the gates for a general revision
or for the submission of an entirely new constitution, which is
something that public opinion has not yet seemed to favor. If, however,
Congress should at any time endeavor to thwart the will of the people by
declining to propose an amendment strongly demanded by public opinion
its hand could be forced by resort to the convention method.

[Sidenote: Nature of the nineteen amendments.]

=The Nineteen Amendments.=—Of the nineteen amendments which have been
made since the constitution went into force, the first ten were added in
1791. When the convention of 1787 finished its work and sent the
document to the states for their approval there was a chorus of protest
because no Bill of Rights had been included. “Where are there in this
document”, the objectors cried out, “any provisions guaranteeing us free
speech, trial by jury, freedom of the press, and the other securities
against oppression?” The reply was that the people needed no guarantees
against their own government but only against governments imposed upon
them from outside. But this explanation did not satisfy, and assurance
was given that if the constitution were adopted in its original form a
Bill of Rights would be added. The first ten amendments represent the
keeping of that pledge. The last of these amendments is of particular
importance in explicitly proclaiming that all powers not given to the
national government by the constitution, or prohibited to the states,
are reserved to the states, respectively, and to the people.

The latest nine amendments require little comment although some are of
great importance. Three of them, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and
fifteenth, were needed to make permanent the results of the Civil War.
One of these, the fourteenth, contains provisions, relating to the
rights of citizens, which have been given a wide application and have
been the cause of a great deal of litigation before the Supreme Court.
Intended to protect the negro they have been used, in large measure, to
secure for business corporations the equal protection of the laws. As
for the negro he has gained very little from amendments which were
primarily made for his benefit. The fifteenth amendment was intended to
secure him the right to vote; but in many of the states it has not
succeeded in doing so. The two latest amendments, namely, the
eighteenth, which established national prohibition, and the nineteenth,
which provides for woman suffrage, have both been ratified since the
World War.

Twenty years ago it was commonly urged that the process of amending the
constitution ought to be made easier. It was pointed out in those days
that no amendment had been made for more than a generation. But the
adoption of four amendments during the past ten years seems to indicate
that when the people demand an amendment the process of getting it is
not too difficult. In each of these instances there was a strong popular
demand.

=Why Men Honor the Constitution.=—Americans have a great respect for the
constitution of their country even though many of them would like to see
some changes made in it. And why should they not honor it? Its reign has
been long in the land. No king ever ruled his people so long or kept
faith with them so well. Under it the country has waxed great and
prosperous; the government which it established has become increasingly
democratic in form and in spirit; it has grown strong enough to protect
its citizens at home and abroad, and it has become the model upon which
several other governments of the world have been patterned.

It is easy enough to pick flaws in the constitution of the United
States—or in the constitution of any country for that matter—but where
are the Washingtons, Madisons, and Hamiltons of today whom we would
trust with the task of making a better one? During the past few years a
dozen countries of the world have framed new republican
constitutions,—Germany, Austria, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and so on.
They have had the experience of an additional century to draw upon and
the combined political wisdom of the world at their disposal. Is there
any constitution in this list which the rank and file of the American
people would prefer to their own? You can pick a line out of
Shakespeare, here and there, and improve upon it. But when it comes to
improving upon the whole of Shakespeare’s work,—ah, that is quite a
different proposition.

General References

JAMES BRYCE, _The American Commonwealth_, Vol. I, pp. 15-31; 360-410
(Abridged Edition, pp. 224-284);

CHARLES A. BEARD, _American Government and Politics_, 3d edition, pp.
1-77; _Ibid._, _Readings in American Government and Politics_, pp. 1-69;
_Ibid._, _History of the United States_, pp. 139-161;

EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the United States_, pp. 1-46;

W. B. MUNRO, _The Government of the United States_, pp. 1-70; _Ibid._,
_Selections from the Federalist_, pp. 1-17; 56-86;

MAX FARRAND, _The Framing of the Constitution of the United States_,
especially pp. 42-67.

Group Problems

=1. The means of securing co-operation among states and men as
illustrated by the American government before, during, and after the
Revolution.= The obstacles to union. The cohesive forces. The influence
and nature of leadership. Historical analogies in other parts of the
world. The problem of forming a league of states compared with that of
forming a league of nations. =References=: WOODROW WILSON, _The State_,
pp. 267-298; JOHN FISKE, _The Critical Period_, pp. 50-89; MAX FARRAND,
_The Framing of the Constitution_, pp. 65-112; A. C. MCLAUGHLIN,
_Confederation and the Constitution_, pp. 35-52.

=2. The Declaration of Independence: its origin, its importance, and an
analysis of its political principles.= =References=: C. H. VAN TYNE,
_The American Revolution_, pp. 50-87; JOHN FISKE, _The American
Revolution_, Vol. I, pp. 147-197; _The Madison Papers_, Vol. I, pp.
19-27; H. FRIEDENWALD, _The Declaration of Independence, an
Interpretation and Analysis_, pp. 121-151.

=3. From what sources did the framers of the constitution borrow their
ideas?= =References=: C. E. STEVENS, _The Sources of the Constitution_,
pp. 35-116; J. H. ROBINSON, _The Original and Derived Features of the
Constitution_, pp. 203-210; S. G. FISHER, _The Evolution of the
Constitution_, pp. 11-25.

=4. How the constitution has developed.= =References=: JAMES BRYCE, _The
American Commonwealth_, Vol. I, pp. 360-410; W. B. MUNRO, _Government of
the United States_, pp. 57-70; C. G. TIEDEMAN, _The Unwritten
Constitution of the United States_, pp. 16-53.

Short Studies

1. =The spirit of America.= WOODROW WILSON, _History of the American
People_, Vol. II, pp. 98-126.

2. =How England controlled the Colonies.= G. C. LEWIS, _The Government
of Dependencies_, pp. 189-240.

3. =The New England Confederation.= EDWARD CHANNING, _History of the
United States_, Vol. I, pp. 414-436.

4. =The Stamp Act.= EDWARD CHANNING, _History of the United States_,
Vol. III, pp. 46-79.

5. =The Articles of Confederation.= C. H. VAN TYNE, _The American
Revolution_, pp. 175-202.

6. =The weakness of the Confederation.= JOHN FISKE, _The Critical Period
of American History_, pp. 90-133.

7. =The personnel of the constitutional convention.= MAX FARRAND, _The
Framing of the Constitution of the United States_, pp. 14-41.

8. =The difficulties which confronted the convention.= _The Federalist_,
No. XXXVI; (in W. B. MUNRO, _Selections from the Federalist_, pp.
109-116; also in C. A. BEARD, _Readings on American Government and
Politics_, pp. 44-47).

9. =Contemporary objections to the constitution.= A. C. MCLAUGHLIN,
_Confederation and the Constitution_, pp. 277-281; 287-288; P. L. FORD,
_Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States_, especially pp.
3-23.

10. =The political ideas of the Fathers.= H. J. FORD, _Rise and Growth
of American Politics_, pp. 17-34.

11. =Outstanding features of the constitution as a document.= W. B.
MUNRO, _Government of the United States_, pp. 44-56.

12 =How amendments are made.= C. A. BEARD, _Readings in American
Government and Politics_, pp. 56-61.

Questions

1. Show how the form of government established by England in the
American colonies compares with the form of government maintained by the
United States in Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto Rico today.

2. In what respects did the colonies differ from one another and in what
respects were they pretty much alike?

3. Make a critical examination of the four great political principles
enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. How would you apply them
today in the case of (_a_) Ireland; (_b_) the Philippines; (_c_) India?

4. Name the chief weaknesses of the Confederation.

5. Who is commonly called the “Father of the Constitution”? Does he
deserve this title, and if so, why?

6. Read the constitution carefully and then answer the following
questions, “yes” or “no,” pointing out the provision on which you base
your answer: (_a_) Must the Vice President be a natural-born citizen?
(_b_) May an American citizen accept a foreign order of nobility? (_c_)
May any one who is not a citizen vote at presidential elections? (_d_)
May Congress pass a law impairing the obligations of contracts? (_e_)
May the President and Vice President both be residents of the same
state? (_f_) May the President pardon a person convicted of treason? May
he pardon a federal official convicted of bribery?

7. What did you find in the constitution that you did not expect to find
there? What did you expect and fail to find? What seems to you to be the
most important section of the whole document?

8. Explain the procedure by which the constitution may be amended.
Classify the nineteen amendments into four groups and give a general
title to each group.

9. Give some examples of constitutional development (_a_) by law; (_b_)
by usage; (_c_) by judicial interpretation.

10. If we were to revise the entire constitution today what changes
would probably be made?

Topics for Debate

1. A national convention should be called to revise the constitution.

2. The process of amending the constitution should be made easier.

CHAPTER XIV
CONGRESS AT WORK

_The purpose of this chapter is to explain how the nation’s laws are
made._

[Sidenote: The reason for two chambers:]

=Congress.=—The lawmaking branch of the national government is made up
of two chambers, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The
Congress of the Confederation consisted of one chamber only; but the
members of the constitutional convention were strongly impressed with
the desirability of establishing a bicameral legislative body. There is
a story that Thomas Jefferson, who believed a single chamber to be
sufficient, was engaged in a friendly argument with Washington on this
matter shortly after the constitution had been completed. The two were
taking tea together and Jefferson, following a common practice of the
time, poured some of his tea from his cup into the saucer. “Why do you
do that?” asked the Father of his Country. “To cool it”, replied
Jefferson. “Quite so”, added Washington, “and the Senate is to be the
saucer into which the laws which come hot from the House of
Representatives will be poured to cool.” That story may or may not be
true; but it gives a clue to the principal reason why there are two
branches of Congress instead of one. There is some significance,
moreover, in the fact that every state of the Union, and every foreign
country, has a legislature or parliament of two chambers.

[Sidenote: 1. To provide a safeguard.]

The bicameral system is commonly justified on two grounds. In the first
place, it is believed to afford a safeguard against hasty and unwise
legislation. A single chamber might be moved by a passing wave of
prejudice or enthusiasm to take action without sufficient reflection.
When all measures have to be considered by two legislative bodies, this
danger is not nearly so great. One chamber serves as a check on the
other. [Sidenote: 2. To permit two types of representation.] A second
reason is found in the desirability of having the lawmakers chosen in
different ways, some by small districts and some by large districts,
some for long terms and some for short terms. A good lawmaking body
should be thoroughly representative; it should represent the whole
country and all parts of the country; it should be kept in close touch
with public opinion by frequent elections, but the entire body of
lawmakers ought not to be changed at short intervals, for there would
then be no steadiness of policy. The framers of the constitution tried
to meet all these requirements by providing for a Senate, whose members
should be chosen by the states for six-year terms, and a House of
Representatives, made up of members elected by the people every two
years.[109] The former represents the states on a basis of equality; the
other affords them representation according to their respective
populations.

[Sidenote: Method of choosing senators.]

=The Senate: Its Organization.=—In the constitution, as originally
adopted, it was provided that each state should have two senators,
elected “by the legislature thereof”. For more than a hundred years that
method of election was followed. The two houses of the state legislature
chose the senators. But this plan became unpopular and in 1913 the
constitution was amended to provide that the senators should be chosen
in each state by popular vote. The term remains fixed at six years, but
one-third of the senators retire every second year.[110] Every state,
large or small, has two senators. Nevada, with only 80,000 population
has equal representation in the Senate with New York, which has above
ten million people. Proportionally, New York ought to have about two
hundred and fifty senators. This may seem to be unfair to the larger
states, but it was a necessary concession to the smaller states at the
time the union was formed. [Sidenote: The principle of equality.]
Population, moreover, is not the only thing that should be taken into
consideration. A state may be large in area, with great natural
resources and a splendid future before it, and yet be very thinly
settled. The Senate was created to represent the states as such, and all
the states are equal in rights, if they are not equal in area or
population. At any rate the provision for equal representation is in the
constitution and if you read the provision, you will see that it cannot
be easily changed (Article V, last clause).

[Sidenote: The Senate’s procedure.]

The Senate holds regular sessions each year at Washington. It may be
called in special session, even when the House of Representatives is not
sitting. This is because the Senate has some special powers apart from
those which it shares equally with the lower house. It makes its own
rules of procedure, decides any disputes as to the qualifications of its
own members, and has power, by a two-thirds vote, to expel any senator
from its membership. Most of the Senate’s routine work is done by
committees, the members of which are assigned every second year by an
unofficial “Committee on Committees” subject to the approval of the
whole chamber. There are about thirty of these committees, but many of
them are of small importance. The more important are those which deal
with revenue measures, appropriations, foreign relations, and interstate
commerce. Each committee has its own chairman.

=The Senate: Its Exclusive Powers.=—The Senate has three special powers
in which the House of Representatives possesses no share. These powers
relate to impeachments, the confirming of appointments, and the
ratification of treaties.

[Sidenote: 1. Trial of impeachments.]

The Senate, as the constitution declares, has “the sole power to try all
impeachments”. The procedure known as impeachment is of English origin
and goes back to mediaeval times when the only way of holding a king to
account was to impeach and punish his advisors. The framers of the
American constitution regarded impeachment as a useful means of checking
any arbitrary use of executive power and they, therefore, made provision
that “the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the
United States” should be subject to impeachment before the Senate in
case of wrong-doing. The term “civil officers” includes members of the
cabinet, judges, ambassadors, even postmasters; but it does not include
the members of either branch of Congress nor, of course, does it include
either state or local officeholders. Civil officers of the United States
can be impeached only for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors”; and if convicted can be punished only to the extent of
being removed from office as well as disqualified from ever holding any
federal position again. They cannot be put to death, or imprisoned, or
fined.

When it is desired to impeach any civil officer, the charges against him
are laid before the Senate by the House of Representatives. The Senate
sets a date for hearing the case; the evidence is presented; and the
Senate then frames its verdict behind closed doors.[111] A two-thirds
majority is necessary for a conviction.[112]

[Sidenote: 2. Confirmation of appointments.]

All the more important appointments made by the President require the
confirmation of the Senate. The President sends to the presiding officer
of the Senate the names of his proposed appointees and the Senate
thereupon refers them to the appropriate committees for consideration.
When the committees make their report the Senate then votes to confirm
or reject. A bare majority, not a two-thirds vote, suffices. Rejections
take place at times, but the great majority of the President’s
nominations are confirmed without delay. The Senate understands that the
chief responsibility for selecting federal officers rests with the
executive branch of the government and that confirmation should not be
refused without good reason. There is, however, a practice known as
“senatorial courtesy”, which has frequently led to the rejection of
names proposed by the President. According to this custom the Senate
will not confirm the appointment of any local officer, such as
postmaster or internal revenue officer, unless the person named for the
appointment is satisfactory to the senator or senators from the state
concerned, provided, of course, that these senators are of the same
political party as the President himself. Or, to put it more concretely,
if a Republican President nominates as internal revenue officer at
Philadelphia someone who is not approved by the Republican Senators from
Pennsylvania, the Republican majority in the Senate will not permit the
appointment to be confirmed. This unwritten rule of senatorial courtesy
has been enforced at some times and not at others. Some presidents have
been able to persuade the Senate to disregard it; but in general it is a
custom which ties the hands of all presidents to a considerable extent.
When the Senate is not in session, the President is free to make
appointments at his own discretion. These are known as “recess
appointments” and are temporary only. If the Senate, at its next
session, fails to confirm them, these recess appointments lapse and the
appointees get no pay for the time they may have served.

[Sidenote: 3. Ratification of treaties.]

All treaties between the United States and other countries must be
approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate before they can go into
effect. This gives the Senate an important influence in the control and
direction of foreign affairs because the relations between the United
States and other countries are fixed, to a considerable extent, by
treaties. The whole subject of treaties and foreign relations is so
complicated, however, that it may best be reserved for study in a later
chapter.

[Sidenote: Powers which are jointly exercised with the House.]

=The Senate: Its Concurrent Powers.=—In all other matters, apart from
impeachments, appointments, and treaties, the Senate has concurrent
power with the House of Representatives. There is a provision in the
constitution to the effect that all bills for raising revenue must
“originate” in the House of Representatives, but that the Senate may
amend such bills as it pleases. This is a partial reproduction of an
ancient rule in the unwritten constitution of Great Britain which gives
the House of Commons the initiative in all financial matters. By usage,
also, all bills for spending money originate in the lower house. But the
Senate, as a practical matter, uses its amending power so freely that it
can virtually originate measures of either sort whenever it desires to
do so. When a bill comes up from the lower chamber it can strike out
virtually the whole measure, put a new bill in its place, and send this
back to the House of Representatives. In matters which do not relate to
revenue or expenditure the powers of the two chambers are precisely the
same both in theory and in practice.

[Sidenote: How the size of the House is determined.]

=The House of Representatives: Its Organization.=—The House of
Representatives is nearly five times as large as the Senate, having 435
members at the present time. It is much too large for the effective
debating of measures.[113] Every ten years, after the population of each
state has been determined by the census bureau, Congress by law fixes
the total membership of the House for the ensuing decade. Dividing this
figure into the total population of the country gives a “ratio of
representation”, that is the uniform quota of population which is
entitled to one representative. For example, if the population of the
country is one hundred millions and the membership of the House is fixed
at 400, the ratio would be one representative for every 250,000 people.
Having found this ratio, it is a simple matter to determine how many
representatives each state shall have. New York, with ten million
people, would be allotted forty congressmen; Maine, with seven hundred
and fifty thousand people, would get only three. Nevada, Wyoming and
Delaware would not get any, if the ratio were strictly applied, but the
constitution requires that every state, no matter what its population,
shall be given at least one representative in the House. When the quota
to which each state is entitled has been figured the several states
proceed, through their legislatures, to lay out congressional districts
and from each such district one congressman is chosen at the next
election.

[Sidenote: Congressional districts.]

This work of “redistricting” the state gave rise at an early date to a
practice commonly known as “gerrymandering”.[114] The national laws
require that all congressional districts within a state shall be
approximately equal in population and that they shall be composed of
contiguous territory. Apart from these restrictions, the state
legislatures are free to map out the districts as they see fit and they
do this, very frequently, with an eye to gaining advantage for the
political party which happens to control the legislature. By adding one
county or town and taking off another, always with party motives in
mind, it is possible to “gerrymander” a district into such form that the
candidate of the favored party will have an advantage over his opponent.
True enough, these gerrymandered congressional districts, when drawn on
the map, often look like a lizard or a starfish, but there is nothing in
the constitution or the laws of the United States which requires
congressional districts to be uniform in shape.

[Sidenote: The method of choosing congressmen.]

=How Representatives are Chosen.=—Every second year elections are held
in all the congressional districts of the country and one congressman is
chosen from each. Each state determines how the nominations are made and
is responsible for conducting the election. The qualifications for
voting are the same as those established at state elections. There is no
legal requirement that a representative must be a resident of the
district which elects him; it is enough that he be a resident of the
state in which the district is located. But as a matter of practice
congressmen are nearly always residents of their districts. American
usage in this respect differs from that of some other countries,
particularly Great Britain, where members of the House of Commons are
frequently chosen from districts in which they do not reside. [Sidenote:
The residence requirement.] The advantage of this plan is that a capable
statesman can secure a seat in the lawmaking body even though his own
home district may be one which the opposite party controls. In the
United States, on the other hand, if a capable man belonging to the
Democratic party happens to live in a strongly Republican district,
there is practically no chance of his ever being a member of the
national House of Representatives no matter how strong his personal
qualifications may be. One congressional district, moreover, especially
in the residential portion of a large city, may have many capable men
living in it. But only one of them, under American usage, can sit in the
House. The argument that, in order to know the needs of his district, a
congressman must actually live in it, is on everyone’s tongue, but it
deserves no considerable weight. The first duty of a congressman is to
promote the interests of the whole people and not merely those of his
own district.

=The Speaker and the Committees.=—The House of Representatives elects
its own presiding officer, who is known as the Speaker. He has general
charge of the proceedings and until a few years ago appointed all the
committees. All questions of procedure are decided by him and he
determines which member of the House shall be “recognized”, that is,
permitted to speak, when several members desire to have the floor. The
Speaker is always a prominent member of the majority party and usually
one of its leaders. He has a considerable influence on the work of the
House.

In a body of more than four hundred members, it stands to reason that a
great deal of the business must be done by committees. There are now
nearly sixty of these committees, the most important being those on
rules, appropriations, ways and means, interstate and foreign commerce,
post-offices, military affairs, naval affairs, and agriculture.
[Sidenote: The committees: how selected.] Since 1910 these committees
have been appointed by a complicated plan which places the selection in
the hands of the whole House.[115] The majority party in the House
obtains a majority on each important committee.

[Sidenote: Stages in the making of a law:]

=The Process of Lawmaking.=—The work of the committees may best be
explained by describing the various stages through which a bill passes
before it becomes a law. [Sidenote: 1. Introduction of bill.] In the
first place, any member of the House may introduce a bill (which is a
draft of a proposed law) either for himself or for someone else. He does
this by writing his name on the back of the bill and dropping it into a
large basket at the Speaker’s table. During the course of each session
many thousand bills are placed in this “hopper” as it is called. One of
the Speaker’s assistants takes each bill from the basket and refers it
to the proper committee. If the bill relates to taxation it goes to the
Ways and Means Committee; if it relates to railroads it goes to the
Committee on Foreign and Interstate Commerce. Every bill goes to some
committee before the House looks at it.

[Sidenote: 2. Consideration by a committee.]

When the various committees receive their bills they place them on a
list for consideration and each is taken up in order unless the
committee decides to give some bills the right of way. Hearings on the
important measures are then held. The members of the committee meet in
their committee room and listen to the arguments of those who desire to
support or oppose the bill. Any citizen has the right to appear and be
heard. Sometimes, in the case of some important bills, such as a tariff
measure, the hearings may continue for several days or even for weeks.
The committee hearings, however, are usually held in the mornings only,
for the House is in session during the afternoons. When the hearings are
concluded the committee decides what action it will take. It may
recommend to the House that the bill ought to be passed, either with or
without changes. Sometimes a committee completely redrafts a bill and
reports it to the House in the entirely new form. But in the great
majority of cases the committees feel unfavorably towards the bills and
make no report or recommendation on these bills at all. [Sidenote: How
bills are killed in committee.] Such measures are merely “killed in
committee” and never get before the House. The House can, of course,
require any committee to send up a bill; but this it hardly ever does.
Most of the bills introduced by congressmen are put to death in this
way; in fact more than eighty per cent of them never survive the
committee stage.[116] One committee acquired such a reputation for
slaughtering bills that its committee room was nicknamed the
“legislative morgue”.

[Sidenote: 3. The committee’s report.]

But let us suppose that a bill is favorably regarded by a committee and
duly reported to the House. What happens next? It is placed on one of
the calendars or lists; printed copies are made; and when its turn
comes, it is laid before the House. A debate on the bill may take place,
amendments may be proposed, and votes taken.

[Sidenote: 4. Consideration in the House.]

In considering measures, the House often sits as a Committee of the
Whole. This merely means that the entire membership forms a great
committee, but there are some important differences between the House in
Committee of the Whole and the regular session. In Committee of the
Whole the Speaker does not preside (but calls some member to the chair);
the strict rules of procedure do not apply; one hundred members form a
quorum (in regular session a majority of the members are needed to
furnish a quorum) and there are no roll calls. In a word, the system
enables the House to do business with less formality. [Sidenote: 5.
Bills are then sent to the other chamber.] At any rate if the measure
safely passes the House, it is engrossed on parchment, signed by the
speaker, and sent up to the Senate where it goes through the whole
procedure of committee hearings and discussion on the floor.[117]

[Sidenote: 6. The executive approval.]

Having passed the Senate it is signed by the presiding officer of that
body and is then sent to the President for his signature. The President,
as will be shown a little later, may sign it, veto it, or allow it to
become a law without his signature.

[Sidenote: Conference committees.]

If one chamber amends a measure, and the other chamber agrees to the
amendment, the bill also goes directly to the President. But what
happens in case either the Senate or the House make amendments to which
the other chamber does not agree? That is just what very frequently
occurs. In such cases a conference committee is appointed, made up as a
rule of three members from each chamber. These conferees meet and try to
reach a common ground by compromise. Then, when they have agreed, they
report to their respective chambers and the latter must accept or reject
the conference report without further amendment.

[Sidenote: The value of experience in Congress.]

=Some Tricks of the Lawmaker’s Trade.=—Lawmaking is a skilled
profession; it takes the average congressman most of his first term to
learn just how it is done. He must acquire a knowledge of the rules,
written and unwritten, the traditions, and what may rightly be called
the “tricks of the trade”. Ability as an orator does not count for much,
particularly in the House. The house chamber is a big, noisy place where
only a leather-lunged speaker can make himself clearly heard.
Congressmen, moreover, do not take kindly to long speeches; they expect
members of the House to say what they have to say in five or ten
minutes. If a congressman desires to make an impression upon the voters
of his home district by sending them accounts of his able speeches in
their behalf, he can usually obtain from the House, by unanimous
consent, permission to have his speech printed at the public expense and
distributed without its ever having been delivered on the floor of the
chamber at all. When long speeches are made it is usually to waste the
time of Congress and prevent the passage of some measure to which the
speakers are opposed.[118]

[Sidenote: Filibusters.]

Attempts to talk a measure to death are known as “filibusters”. Both
chambers are now able to put an end to filibusters by applying rules
which shut off further debate when a specified majority of the members
so desire; but in the old days, before these rules were adopted,
senators sometimes kept the floor hour after hour all day and all night
long, talking on every irrelevant matter, reading long extracts from
books, and employing all their ingenuity to lengthen the debate. The
proceedings in the Senate are often interesting; but the visitor to the
House gallery is likely to be disappointed if he goes with the
expectation of hearing some good speech-making. The real work of the
House is done in committee.

[Sidenote: Classification of congressional powers.]

=The Powers of Congress.=—The powers of Congress, as the lawmaking
branch of the national government, are set forth in eighteen clauses of
the federal constitution. Hence it is customary to speak of the
“eighteen powers of Congress”, although there are in fact more than
eighteen separate powers, as anyone will find if he takes the trouble to
count them. These powers may be conveniently grouped together under
eight heads: (1) _financial_, the power to levy taxes and to borrow
money; (2) _commercial_, the power to regulate commerce with foreign
nations and among the several states; (3) _military_, the power to
declare war, to raise and support armies, to maintain a navy, and to
provide for organizing, arming, and calling forth the state militia; (4)
_monetary_, the power to coin money, to regulate the value thereof, and
to protect the currency against counterfeiting; (5) _postal_, the power
to establish post-offices and post roads; (6) _judicial_, the power to
constitute tribunals subordinate to the Supreme Court; (7)
_miscellaneous_, including powers in relation to bankruptcy,
naturalization, patents, copyrights, and the government of the national
capital; (8) _supplementary_, the power to make all laws which may be
found “necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing
powers”. This is a rather tedious classification of congressional
powers, but the section which enumerates these powers is, by all odds,
the most important part of the whole constitution and no one can claim
to know much about the government of the United States unless he
understands, at least in a general way, what these eighteen clauses
express and imply.

[Sidenote: Express and implied powers.]

It will be noted that all the powers except the last are _express_
powers, that is, they are conveyed to Congress in so many words. The
last is a grant of _implied_ authority, in other words it is a provision
for supplementing the express powers. Where Congress has the express
right to tax, to borrow, to regulate interstate commerce, to raise and
support armies, or to coin money, it has the implied right to make
whatever laws may be “necessary and proper” to carry its express powers
into full operation. Having the express power to borrow money, Congress
may therefore establish a system of banks if this is needed to render
more easy the operations of borrowing. Having the express power to
support armies, it may place almost any sort of restriction upon
industry in war time. By the implied powers clause of the constitution
the authority of Congress is given great elasticity.

=Are the Powers of Congress Broad Enough?=—If the words of the
constitution had been strictly interpreted, the powers of Congress would
now be too narrow for the work which a strong national government must
perform. It is easy to understand why the framers of the constitution
were cautious about conferring broad powers upon the new government.
They were anxious that no legislative despotism should be built up in
America. But as time passed the express powers of Congress have been
steadily widened by the process of interpreting them broadly so that
today the real authority of Congress is much greater than one would
suspect from a mere reading of the constitution. For all practical
purposes they are broad enough although it is probably true that if the
constitution were to be redrawn tomorrow, the authority of the national
government would be increased. Nearly all the amendments proposed in
recent years have been in the direction of expanding the powers of
Congress.

[Sidenote: The handicaps to good work.]

=The Efficiency of Congress.=—In comparison with the other great
parliaments and legislatures of the world, the Congress of the United
States does its work fairly well. It is rather too large in membership,
and the House of Representatives would probably gain in efficiency if it
were reduced in size. Another handicap to good work arises from the
enormous grist of measures which comes forward at every session.
Congress is always under constant pressure for time. Many millions are
often voted in a single hour and it is impossible for the congressmen to
go carefully through the long list of financial items. Until very
recently, the absence of a budget system afforded an incentive to
extravagance; but this defect has now been remedied.[119]

[Sidenote: The lack of leadership.]

Congress also lacks leadership. In European countries every parliament
and legislature has a recognized leader, usually called the prime
minister. He or his colleagues present the business and carry it
through.[120] There is nothing of this sort in either the Senate or the
House of Representatives. It is true that each political party has a
floor leader, but he has not effective control over his followers. The
chairmen of the various committees also supply a certain measure of
leadership, but their work is not unified. [Sidenote: The lobby.]
Mention should also be made of the pressure which is applied to
individual members of Congress by the lobbyists. These lobbyists are
hired workers, usually lawyers, who are paid to help get measures
through, or in some cases to prevent the passage of certain laws. They
are employed by corporations, or by labor organizations, or by anyone
who is deeply concerned in measures pending before Congress. They use
every form of persuasion in their efforts to have congressmen see their
side of the case. The “lobby” has been placed under various restrictions
in recent years, but it is still an influential factor.

[Sidenote: The influence of small groups in Congress.]

=The Congressional Oligarchies.=—We are in the habit of assuming that
the power in national lawmaking rests with the 531 men who constitute
the Senate and the House of Representatives; but the dominating
influence is in reality exercised by a relatively small group of men in
both chambers. The chairmen of important committees and certain others
of long congressional experience are the men whose influence counts. The
rest follow their lead for the most part. Important measures, moreover,
are often discussed in a caucus of the majority party, and the action of
the caucus is considered binding on all who attend it. A member in
either chamber, especially a new member, who displays a disposition to
be wholly independent, and to disregard the advice of his party leaders
or the decisions of his party caucus is not likely to get many favors
for himself or for his district. The senator or representative who
desires to be effective finds it necessary, therefore, to help others
with their plans whether he approves them heartily or not, in order that
he may be, in turn, helped with his own. It is almost always true that a
group of thirty or forty members, on the majority side, can secure the
passage of measures which they desire and can prevent the passage of
measures to which they are opposed.[121] In this respect the Congress of
the United States does not differ much from legislative bodies the world
over. Large deliberative bodies are invariably prone to follow the lead
of some relatively small group in their own membership; otherwise they
would never make headway, and the larger the chamber the more likely is
this to be true.

General References

JAMES BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol. I, pp. 97-208;

WOODROW WILSON, _Congressional Government_, pp. 58-129;

C. A. BEARD, _American Government and Politics_, pp. 231-293; _Ibid._,
_Readings on American Government and Politics_, pp. 214-271;

EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the United States_, pp.
308-378;

W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the United States_, pp. 146-218;

S. W. MCCALL, _The Business of Congress_, pp. 43-84;

LYNN HAINES, _Your Congress_, pp. 67-109.

Group Problems

=1. Is it desirable to restrict the present powers of the Senate in
relation to treaties?= Reasons for giving the Senate special powers in
relation to treaties. The meaning of “advice and consent”. Washington’s
attitude and experience. The action of the Senate on important treaties
during the past hundred years. The practical difficulty of obtaining a
two-thirds majority. Confirmation as a barrier to secret diplomacy.
=References=: RALSTON HAYDEN, _The Senate and Treaties_, pp. 169-195; H.
C. LODGE, _The Senate of the United States_, pp. 1-31; EVERETT KIMBALL,
_National Government of the United States_, pp. 549-551; 573; S. B.
CRANDALL, _Treaties: Their Making and Enforcement_, pp. 67-92;
_Congressional Record_, 1919-1922.

=2. The personnel of Congress.= =References=: Types of men elected.
Their occupations at home. Their legislative experience. Are there too
many lawyers? Length of service. How the personnel might be improved.
(Material for this study may be had in the _Congressional Directory_,
and in the various autobiographical works such as JAMES G. BLAINE’S
_Twenty Years in Congress_; CHAMP CLARK’S _Autobiography_, etc.)

=3. The merits and faults of the committee system.= =References=: JAMES
BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol. I, pp. 156-166; S. W. MCCALL, _The
Business of Congress_, pp. 43-60; L. G. MCCONACHIE, _Congressional
Committees_, pp. 58-86; EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the
United States_, pp. 344-356; P. S. REINSCH, _Readings on American
Federal Government_, pp. 257-264.

Short Studies

1. =The old and the new method of choosing Senators.= GEORGE H. HAYNES,
_The Election of Senators_, pp. 36-129.

2. =The procedure in impeachments.= W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the
United States_, pp. 168-173.

3. =The Speaker of the House.= C. A. BEARD, _American Government and
Politics_, pp. 280-289; M. P. FOLLETT, _The Speaker of the House of
Representatives_, pp. 296-330.

4. =The rights of minorities.= F. A. CLEVELAND and JOSEPH SCHAFER,
_Democracy in Reconstruction_, pp. 446-467.

5. =The general powers of Congress.= W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the
United States_, pp. 208-218.

6. =How Congress legislates.= EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of
the United States_, pp. 350-356; P. S. REINSCH, _Readings on American
Federal Government_, pp. 290-296.

7. =An Englishman’s observation on the work of Congress.= JAMES BRYCE,
_American Commonwealth_, Vol. I, pp. 191-208.

8. =The rules of the House and Senate.= EVERETT KIMBALL, _National
Government of the United States_, pp. 333-344.

9. =Obstruction in Congress.= S. W. MCCALL, _The Business of Congress_,
pp. 85-92.

10. =Party organizations in Congress.= W. W. WILLOUGHBY and LINDSAY
ROGERS, _Introduction to the Problem of Government_, pp. 334-351.

11. =The lobby.= P. S. REINSCH, _American Legislatures and Legislative
Methods_, pp. 228-298.

12. =The Library of Congress.= F. J. HASKIN, _American Government_, pp.
287-288.

Questions

1. Do the merits of the double-chamber system outweigh the objections?
Why should the members of the two chambers be chosen by different
methods? Name at least three different methods of selecting
representatives.

2. What is the present value of equal representation of the states in
the Senate? What legal and practical obstacles are there to changing
this system?

3. Look up and explain the following terms which are commonly used in
Congress: executive session; morning hour; union calendar; ranking
member; filibuster; leave to print; pigeon-holing a bill; pork barrel;
rider.

4. What are the practical difficulties which arise when the Senate
declines to confirm appointments proposed by the President?

5. Explain the difference between an impeachment and a bill of
attainder.

6. The Senate usually exercises more influence than the House in matters
of lawmaking. Can you give reasons why this should be so?

7. Tell how congressional districts are mapped out. Mark on an outline
map the districts in your state. Have any of them been gerrymandered?

8. The chairmanships of committees usually go to senior members. Do you
think this a wise or unwise practice?

9. What would be gained, and what would be lost by lengthening to four
years the term for which representatives are chosen?

10. Two women, Miss Rankin of Montana and Miss Robertson of Oklahoma,
have sat in Congress. What are the arguments for and against electing
women in future?

11. Members of the House of Representatives receive salaries of $7500
per year. Is this too much or too little? Give your reasons.

12. Congressmen are entitled to the free use of the mails. (This is
called the _franking_ privilege.) Some years ago one senator sent nearly
750,000 copies of his speeches through the mails free. Do you believe
this privilege should be withdrawn or retained?

13. Should the rules of the House provide for unlimited debate?

14. Can you suggest any practical way in which the work of Congress
might be improved?

Topics for Debate

1. The English practice of choosing non-resident representatives is
advantageous and should be adopted in the United States.

2. The states should be represented in the Senate according to their
respective populations.

3. The provision relating to a reduction in representation, whenever
citizens are excluded from voting (see Amendment XIV) should be
enforced.

CHAPTER XV
THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CABINET

_The purpose of this chapter is to explain how the President of the
United States is chosen, what his powers are, and what functions his
cabinet performs._

THE PRESIDENT

[Sidenote: The notable Presidents.]

=The Man and the Office.=—Forty years ago, an eminent English writer on
American government spoke of the presidency as the greatest secular
office in the world “to which anyone can rise by his own merits”.[122]
In view of this fact, he asked, how does it come that the position is
not more frequently filled by great and striking men? There have been
twenty-nine presidents since the constitution went into force in 1788.
Of these at least three, Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln have won an
assured place in world history. Five or six (including Adams, Jackson,
Grant, Cleveland, and Roosevelt) displayed during their respective terms
of office some qualities which marked them as men of uncommon force or
ability. Three others are still living and their achievements cannot yet
be fairly estimated. But taking all these together, and even adding a
few more for good measure, would it not still be a fair statement to say
that at least half the presidents have been men whose names would be
entirely forgotten nowadays were it not for the fact that they occupied
the presidential chair?

Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Webster, John Marshall, Henry Clay, and John
C. Calhoun are great and striking figures in American history although
they never reached the presidency; on the other hand the nation has, at
various times, bestowed its highest honor upon men of commonplace
qualities. This, of course, was not what the Fathers of the Republic
expected. It was their anticipation that the presidential office would
always be filled by men of “pre-eminent ability and virtue”.

Why has this expectation been in part disappointed? That is a question
which can only be answered by a study of the methods by which presidents
are chosen, the relations between the office and the party system, and
the duties that presidents are required to perform.

[Sidenote: Why the plan of indirect election was adopted.]

=How the President is Chosen.=—The Articles of Confederation did not
provide for a President; executive functions were performed by
committees of the Congress. But this plan was found to be altogether
unsatisfactory and the framers of the constitution decided in 1787 that
the new federal government ought to have a single executive head. How to
choose this head, however, was a problem which gave them great
difficulty and they debated it for a long time. They did not approve a
plan of election by direct popular vote, for they feared that this might
result in the choice of men who were personally popular but had no other
qualifications. Their study of ancient and mediaeval republics made them
averse to choosing the head of the nation by direct popular vote. They
were not prepared to trust the people; in those days the risk seemed too
great. On the other hand they did not desire to have the President
chosen by Congress because this would give Congress control of the
office, whereas their aim was to make the presidency a check upon
Congress. So they finally decided upon the expedient of direct election
by means of an electoral college.[123]

[Sidenote: The presidential electors.]

=The Original Plan of Election.=—Stated briefly the plan which they
agreed upon and inserted in the constitution was as follows: Each state
shall choose, in such manner as its legislature may determine, a number
of electors equal to the state’s combined quota of senators and
representatives in Congress. A state having, for example, two senators
and twelve representatives, is entitled to fourteen electors. On a
definite date, once in four years, the electors meet in their respective
states and give in writing their votes for President and Vice President.
These votes are sealed up, sent to Washington, counted, and announced.
This plan did not contemplate that nominations should be made in
advance, or that political parties should have anything to do with the
election, or that the various states, in choosing their electors, should
pledge them to vote for any particular candidate. It was expected that
the electors would meet, discuss the merits of all the available men for
the position, and give their votes accordingly.

[Sidenote: How the plan worked in the earlier elections.]

=The Actual Methods of Election Today.=—At the first two elections this
plan was followed. There were no nominations and no campaign preceding
the election. But at the election of 1796 it was well understood, even
before the electors met, that the contest would be between John Adams
and Thomas Jefferson. And as time went on the actual practice drifted
further away from the original plan of free choice by unpledged
electors. Political parties grew up; the electors were chosen with the
definite understanding that they would vote for a particular party
candidate, and their share in the election became purely nominal. In
1804 some changes were made in the method of election but they did not
affect the general plan or the current practice. Gradually the people
took into their own hands the function of choosing the President;
everywhere the state legislatures turned the work of choosing the
electors over to them, so that the presidential elections became, in
everything but name and form, direct elections by the people.[124]

[Sidenote: Five steps in the choosing of a President:]

In the choice of a President there are now five steps, but only two of
these are of any practical importance. First, each political party
nominates its candidate at a national convention, as already
described.[125] [Sidenote: 1. The nomination of candidates.] Second, in
each state the political parties nominate, either by primaries or state
conventions, their respective slates or groups of electors. [Sidenote:
2. The nomination of electors.] Third, the voters on election day decide
which group of electors shall be given the formal function of electing
the President. This the voters do on the Tuesday following the first
Monday in November every fourth year. [Sidenote: 3. The polling.] Each
voter marks his ballot for a group of electors but what he really does
is to indicate his preference for one of the candidates already
nominated at the party conventions. This means, of course, that one or
the other group of electors is chosen as a whole and the state’s vote
cast solidly. It rarely happens, for example, that a state casts ten
electoral votes for one candidate and five for another; if it has
fifteen votes they all go to one candidate. For this reason it sometimes
happens that a candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes
although not a majority of the popular votes, taking the country as a
whole. [Sidenote: 4. The action of the electors.] Fourth, the electors
meet in their respective states and cast their votes. Fifth, these votes
are opened in Washington and counted in the presence of Congress.
[Sidenote: 5. Counting the votes.] Among these five steps the first and
third are the important ones. The last step is nothing but a formality
unless it appears that no candidate has received a majority. In case
this happens the House of Representatives proceeds to choose a President
from among the three candidates who have stood highest. In the case of
the Vice President the choice rests with the Senate.[126]

[Sidenote: The “availability” of candidates.]

=Factors which Influence Presidential Nominations and Elections.=—As
matters have worked out it is not possible for anyone to be elected
President without first obtaining a nomination from one of the two
leading political parties. The party organizations and the party
conventions are influenced by groups of political leaders and these
leaders are often more interested in a man’s strength as a candidate
than in his personal qualifications for the work which a President has
to do. The consequence is that candidates have sometimes been nominated
by party conventions because they were compromises on whom opposing
factions of the party could agree, or because they could be counted upon
to carry some important state at the polls, or for some other reason
having nothing to do with the executive capacity of the individual
concerned.

[Sidenote: “Dark horses”]

A big national convention, comprising more than a thousand delegates,
cannot be expected to do its work with calm deliberation or to weigh
carefully the personal qualifications of all those who seek to be
nominated. If there is a prolonged contest between two or three strong
candidates, no one of whom can obtain the requisite number of votes in
the convention, the delegates in their impatience are likely to turn to
a “dark horse”, that is to someone less prominent on whom there is a
chance of agreement.[127] This has often happened.

The real work of nominating candidates is not done on the floor of the
convention. The plans are laid and put into operation by groups of
leaders in private conferences, the delegates following these leaders
when called upon. And the fact that a candidate possesses “great and
striking qualities” does not always commend him to these party leaders.
On most occasions they are likely to prefer a man who, if elected, will
work in harmony with the party organization rather than take the reins
of office wholly into his own hands.[128] By various combinations of
circumstances, therefore, men of mediocre quality have sometimes been
nominated.

[Sidenote: The election may turn upon various things.]

=Narrowness of the People’s Choice.=—A nomination by one of the two
leading parties is in some cases almost equivalent to election. There
are times, of course, when the election turns chiefly upon the merits of
the two leading candidates; but more often the result is determined by
other factors entirely. Each candidate embodies the strength of his
party as well as his own, and each political party is for various
reasons stronger in some years than in others. When a party has been in
power for a term of years the people usually grow disgruntled with its
policy and refuse to support the candidate of that party at the next
election no matter how capable he may be. There is every reason to
believe that the Democratic candidate was doomed to defeat in 1920 no
matter who he might have been. When one political party remains in power
for eight or twelve years it makes many enemies; people find fault on
one score or another and decide that they will vote for a change. Even a
strong candidate in such circumstances has very little hope of winning.

Public opinion is a very fickle thing. It exalts a public man as a hero
today and execrates him tomorrow. It is strong for one policy this year
and often veers around to something quite different a year or two later.
Men are borne into the presidential office on this surging tide,
sometimes without much reference to their individual qualifications.
They are nominated because they are acceptable to the party leaders, or
because they come from some strong and doubtful state, or because they
are agreed upon by compromise, or for any one of a dozen other reasons.
The capacity of the man is not always, and indeed not usually, the chief
factor in determining a presidential nomination.[129] Under the
circumstances the wonder is that the country has obtained, in the
presidential office, such a high general level of personal capacity and
character.

[Sidenote: Presidential powers:]

=Powers of the President.=—The actual powers of the President are
greater than those of any other ruler in the world, whether hereditary
or elective. He is the chief engineer of a great mechanism which
controls an army, raises several billion dollars a year in taxes,
enforces laws, regulates commerce, and employs the full time of more
than half a million public officials. Congress makes the laws, it is
true; but were it not for the President and those whom he appoints, the
laws would not be enforced. Congress decides what taxes shall be levied;
but the President and his subordinates collect them. Congress
appropriates money out of the treasury; but the executive branch of the
government, of which the President is the head, spends the money. The
President, in other words, is the nation’s chief executive—he is charged
with the duty of executing the laws. This is a large responsibility and
a good deal of the work is necessarily entrusted to subordinates whom
the President appoints.

[Sidenote: 1. Appointments.]

The appointing power is, then, an important phase of the President’s
authority. He names all the higher officials of the Government subject
to confirmation by the Senate as has already been explained. He has the
power to remove any national official. In the case of minor officials he
may, and usually does, depend upon the advice of senators or congressmen
both as regards appointments and removals; but in the case of all high
officers these things must have the President’s personal attention.
Naturally they take a great deal of his time.

[Sidenote: 2. The executive veto.]

In relation to Congress the President has the right to make
recommendations and to veto any measure which he does not approve. These
recommendations he may make either by written message or by appearing
before Congress in person. The veto power places a powerful weapon in
the President’s hands. Every bill or resolution which passes both Houses
of Congress must be laid before the President. If he approves, he signs
it. If not, he is entitled, at any time within ten days, to return the
bill or resolution without his signature, giving his reasons for the
refusal to sign. [Sidenote: Scope of the veto power.] When the President
vetoes a measure in this way Congress reconsiders it and a vote is then
taken to determine whether the action of the President shall be
sustained or overridden. If two-thirds of the members present in both
the Senate and the House vote to override the veto, the measure becomes
effective; if less than two-thirds so vote, the measure becomes null.

[Sidenote: The “pocket veto”.]

But suppose the President neither signs nor vetoes the measure within
ten days after it is sent to him, what then? The constitution provides
that in such case the measure shall become a law. If Congress adjourns
before the ten-day period has expired, however, the bill does not become
a law. It is not necessary for a President to veto any measure that may
come to him during the ten days immediately preceding the adjournment of
Congress. If he does not approve the measure, he merely withholds his
signature and it dies on his table. This is known as the “pocket veto”.

[Sidenote: Its use and abuse.]

The veto power has been used very little by some presidents and a great
deal by others. During the first forty years of the Republic only nine
bills were vetoed. But during the past forty years presidential vetoes
have been very common. When a measure has been vetoed there is great
difficulty, as a rule, in obtaining the necessary two-thirds vote to
override the veto; but vetoes, nevertheless, are occasionally overcome.
The use of the veto, although it is an exercise of executive power,
makes the President a vital factor in legislation. Under ordinary
circumstances he can defeat any measure that is not acceptable to
him.[130] There are exceptions to this rule, to be sure, but it is valid
in the main.

[Sidenote: 3. The conduct of foreign relations.]

Although the power of appointment and the veto power in normal times the
two chief sources of the President’s authority, he has others of
considerable importance. He conducts relations with foreign governments
and negotiates all treaties. Treaties do not become valid, however,
until ratified by the Senate. He decides whether ambassadors and other
diplomats sent to Washington from other countries shall be formally
recognized. He has power to pardon offenders sentenced in the federal
courts. He is commander-in-chief of the military and naval forces. All
these functions are vested in the President by the constitution and the
laws.

[Sidenote: 4. Other powers.]

Other powers have been acquired by usage, for example, the right to have
a large voice in controlling the policy of the political party to which
the President belongs. The President is a party man, a party leader. He
is elected on a party platform. The people expect the President to carry
out the pledges which this platform contains. To do this the President
finds it necessary at times to take the initiative in securing the
passage of laws by Congress and also to bring influence to bear upon the
members of both Houses. Strictly speaking, the President has no formal
share in the making of the laws; but as a matter of usage he has a
highly-important influence upon legislation.

=Succession to the Presidency.=—In case the President should die, or
resign, or be removed by impeachment, or be otherwise incapable of
performing his duties, the Vice President succeeds. In the absence of
the Vice President it has been provided by law that the members of the
cabinet, beginning with the Secretary of State, have the right of
succession according to the seniority of their offices.[131] No
President has ever resigned or been removed from office. On several
occasions, however, a Vice President has succeeded by reason of a
President’s death. Some presidents have been seriously ill during their
terms of office, and President Wilson was absent in France for several
months during 1918-1919; but in no case has the Vice President been
called upon to exercise the presidential functions.

[Sidenote: The Vice President.]

The office of Vice President, apart from the right of succession which
it carries, is not of much importance. In selecting their candidates for
the office the two leading political parties have usually given very
little thought to the problem of getting the most capable man. By the
time the great task of nominating a candidate for the presidency has
been finished, the delegates are in a mood to get home. They will not
spend hours and days taking ballot after ballot for the second place on
the ticket. Apart from presiding in the Senate the Vice President has no
regular official duties, but there is the ever-present chance that he
may have to step into the chief executive position. For that reason the
work of selecting candidates ought to be done more carefully than has
usually been the case.

THE CABINET

[Sidenote: The whole cabinet system rests on usage.]

=The Cabinet.=—The constitution makes no definite provision for a
cabinet. Its framers expected that the President would appoint
subordinates to assist him in the performance of his numerous functions
and they made allusion to these officials; but there was no anticipation
that the officials in charge of the various departments would be formed
into an organized branch of the government. So the cabinet rests upon
usage, not upon the constitution or the laws. The same is true of the
cabinet in England. It has no legal status, exercises no formal powers,
keeps no records, and has no fixed membership. The prime minister
selects, for membership in the cabinet, whomsoever he pleases, the only
restrictions being that they shall have seats in parliament and that the
cabinet as a whole shall have the support of a majority in the House of
Commons. The President of the United States has an even wider range of
choice in the selection of his cabinet. He is not bound to choose a
group of men who control a majority in either branch of Congress. His
cabinet may be as large or as small as he chooses to make it. By usage,
however, the American cabinet consists of the heads of the national
administrative departments, these departments having been at various
times established by law.[132] There are now ten such departments and
hence ten members of the cabinet. The ten departments are as follows:
State, Treasury, War, Navy, Post-Office, Interior, Justice, Agriculture,
Commerce, and Labor. The head of each is appointed by the President with
the confirmation of the Senate; but for more than eighty years this
confirmation has never been refused. The heads of departments are
responsible to the President alone and may be dismissed by him at any
time. They are not permitted to have seats in either the Senate or House
of Representatives.

[Sidenote: The cabinet’s functions:]

=The Functions of the Cabinet.=—In describing the functions of the
cabinet it is advisable to make, at the outset, a distinction between
those duties which are performed by the cabinet as a whole, and those
which pertain to the members of the cabinet individually, as heads of
their own departments.

[Sidenote: 1. As a body.]

The cabinet as a whole has no legal authority.[133] It is merely a group
of high officials which the President calls together once or twice a
week to discuss such matters as he chooses to lay before it, or matters
which he permits individual members to bring up. The President may
follow its advice or he may not. He does not need the approval of the
cabinet for any of his actions. At the same time it has become the
custom to consult the cabinet on practically all important questions of
general policy and to give considerable weight to the cabinet’s advice.
How much this weight will be depends, in large measure, upon the
temperament and attitude of the President himself.[134]

Meetings of the cabinet are not public; no records are kept or printed.
Nobody knows what goes on at the meetings of the cabinet except those
who are present. It is a point of honor among the members that no one
will disclose the proceedings to outsiders. Thus the cabinet always
presents an outward appearance of being unanimous. If any member cannot
work in harmony with the President or with his fellow-members, he is
expected to resign.

[Sidenote: 2. As individuals.]

More vital than the functions of the cabinet as a whole are those which
its members perform, as individuals, as heads of their departments.
Every member of the cabinet, as has been mentioned, is the head of a
department, and as such is given charge of some branch of the
government’s work, subject at all times, however, to the direction of
the President. The functions of each department are indicated, in a
general way, by their respective titles.[135] These duties are so
numerous and so varied that the various departments are divided into
bureaus, each bureau having charge of a certain division of the work. On
all routine matters the head of the department has practically
independent authority, but questions of general policy and those which
affect more than one department are either discussed at cabinet meetings
or taken to the President for his decision.[136]

=Should the Cabinet be Enlarged?=—Proposals are now under consideration
for enlarging the cabinet by the creation of a department of education
and a department of public health. It is contended, and perhaps rightly,
that the work of the national government in these two fields is
sufficiently important to warrant their being placed upon the same
footing as agriculture, labor, and commerce. As an alternative it has
been suggested that education and public health might be combined into a
single department of public welfare; but the objection to this is that
the two things have no close relation to each other. There is a feeling,
moreover, that the cabinet should not be made much larger than it now
is. If every request for the creation of a new department were granted,
the cabinet would soon become too cumbrous for the effective performance
of its advisory functions.

=American and English Cabinet Systems Compared.=—The cabinet system in
the United States is like that of England in some respects and different
in others. These similarities and contrasts may be made clear by putting
them in parallel columns.

SIMILARITIES

1. The American cabinet system 1. The English cabinet system also
rests on custom or usage. rests on usage, having no basis
in the laws of England.

2. Members of the American cabinet 2. Members of the English cabinet
are chosen by the chief are selected in the name of the
executive—the President. nominal chief executive—the king,
by the actual chief executive—the
prime minister.

3. Members of the American cabinet 3. Members of the English cabinet
are heads of departments. are also heads of departments;
but in England not all heads of
departments become members of the
cabinet.

4. The American cabinet advises the 4. The English cabinet, through the
President. prime minister, advises the king.

CONTRASTS

1. Members of the American cabinet 1. Members of the English cabinet
are not permitted to sit in must be members of parliament.
Congress.

2. Members of the American cabinet 2. Members of the English cabinet
are responsible to the President are responsible to the House of
only; they do not have to resign Commons and must resign whenever
if they fail to retain the they lose the support of a
confidence of Congress. majority of that chamber.

3. The American cabinet does not 3. The English cabinet is the
prepare business for Congress nor “great standing committee” of
assume any formal initiative in parliament, preparing all
law-making. important measures for its
consideration and assuming a
definite leadership in the making
of laws.

[Sidenote: Merits and defects of each plan.]

=Which is the Better Plan?=—The relative merits of the American and
English cabinet systems have been much discussed by writers in both
countries. The American plan enables the executive branch of the
government to retain its independence and thus prevents the lodging of
too much power in the hands of Congress. The English system makes the
House of Commons the supreme governing organ of the realm, with no legal
checks upon its omnipotence. It affords, moreover, a degree of
leadership in legislation which the American plan fails to provide. The
American system, on the other hand gives the individual member of
Congress greater scope for independent action in that he is not
confronted, at the beginning of each session, with a cut-and-dried
program arranged in advance by the cabinet.

No one can say that either system is of itself better than the other. As
well might it be argued that an elephant is stronger than a whale. The
strength of each depends upon its environment. The American cabinet
system fits into the American scheme of government; the English system
would not do this unless our whole plan of government were greatly
changed.

[Sidenote: The arguments in favor.]

=Should Members of the Cabinet Sit in Congress?=—The chief defect of the
American cabinet system, as thoughtful men now realize, is the fact that
while members of the cabinet and members of Congress are deeply
interested in the same work, they are kept at arm’s length apart.
Members of the cabinet have information of great value to Congress; and
Congress is usually desirous of knowing their opinions on public
questions. On the other hand the work of the various departments, over
which members of the cabinet have supervision, depends largely upon the
action of Congress. Congress votes them the money which they spend and
makes the laws under which they spend it. Why not bring the two bodies
into closer contact by permitting members of the cabinet to sit and
speak, but not to vote, in both houses of Congress? This has frequently
been proposed and it could be accomplished, if Congress so desired, by a
change in the rules.

[Sidenote: The arguments against.]

There are practical objections, however, to any such arrangement. It
would greatly increase the President’s influence over the work of
Congress by giving him ten agents—usually men of ability and
experience—in each chamber. They would have no votes, it is true; but
their argumentative powers would count. The President would doubtless
select as members of his cabinet persons who, by their abilities and
logic, could exert a strong influence upon the lawmaking bodies. It is
also pointed out as an objection that members of the cabinet already
have enough to do in attending to the affairs of their own departments.
Were they to spend their time in attending sessions of the Senate and
the House, they could not give adequate supervision to their other work,
and the administrative branch of the government would suffer in
consequence. When Congress now desires information or an expression of
opinion from any member of the cabinet, moreover, it is always possible
to obtain what it wants by inviting him to appear before a congressional
committee. This partly serves the purpose which would be attained by
giving members of the cabinet the right to sit and speak in Congress.

General References

JAMES BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol. I, pp. 38-96;

WOODROW WILSON, _Congressional Government_, pp. 242-293; _Ibid._,
_Constitutional Government in the United States_, pp. 54-81;

W. H. TAFT, _Our Chief Magistrate and His Powers_, especially pp. 1-28;

C. A. BEARD, _American Government and Politics_, pp. 166-230; _Ibid._,
_Readings in American Government and Politics_, pp. 154-213;

EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the United States_, pp.
140-270;

JAMES T. YOUNG, _The New American Government and Its Work_, pp. 10-44;

W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the United States_, pp. 88-145;

P. S. REINSCH, _Readings on American Federal Government_, pp. 1-78;

W. W. WILLOUGHBY and LINDSAY ROGERS, _Introduction to the Problem of
Government_, pp. 178-195; 323-333.

Group Problems

=1. The actual steps in the election of a President.= The original plan
of election. What the framers of the constitution intended. The early
elections. Growth of a nominating system. The caucus. The convention.
Presidential primaries. Factors affecting the nomination. Doubtful
states. Functions of the electors today. Counting the electoral votes.
The part of Congress in presidential elections. Suggested changes in the
system. Should the electoral college be abolished? =References=: MAX
FARRAND, _The Framing of the Constitution_, pp. 160-175; _The
Federalist_, No. LXVII; J. H. DOUGHERTY, _The Electoral System of the
United States_, pp. 13-31; E. B. STANWOOD, _History of the Presidency_,
pp. 1-19; C. A. BEARD, _Readings in American Government and Politics_,
pp. 154-163; EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the United
States_, pp. 140-167; ARNOLD B. HALL, _Popular Government_, pp. 98-119
(The Presidential Primary).

=2. The increased powers of the President in war time.= =References=:
_The Federalist_, No. 74; W. F. WILLOUGHBY, _Government Organization in
War Time and After_, pp. 1-21; W. B. WEEDEN, _War Government_, pp.
319-358; W. WHITING, _War Powers under the Constitution_, pp. 66-83;
EMLIN MCCLAIN, _Constitutional Law in the United States_, pp. 201-212;
P. S. REINSCH, _Readings on American Federal Government_, pp. 22-31;
ALLEN JOHNSON, _Readings in American Constitutional Law_, pp. 474-481;
EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the United States_, pp.
188-194.

=3. The American and English cabinet systems.= =References=: JAMES
BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol. I, pp. 85-96; JOHN A. FAIRLIE,
_National Administration_, pp. 54-69; C. G. HAINES and B. M. HAINES,
_Principles and Problems of Government_, pp. 259-279; H. B. LEARNED,
_The President’s Cabinet_, pp. 9-43; JESSE MACY and J. W. GANNAWAY,
_Comparative Free Government_, pp. 81-95; 395-402; 421-446.

Short Studies

1. =The personality of Presidents.= T. F. MORAN, _American Presidents_,
pp. 9-115.

2. =Why great men are not elected.= JAMES BRYCE, _American
Commonwealth_, Vol. I, pp. 69-76.

3. =The Hayes-Tilden contested election of 1876.= E. B. STANWOOD,
_History of the Presidency_, pp. 356-393.

4. =The President’s veto power.= ALLEN JOHNSON, _Readings in American
Constitutional History_, pp. 370-379; E. C. MASON, _The Veto Power_, pp.
24-140; H. J. FORD, _Rise and Growth of American Politics_, pp. 175-187.

5. =The President’s control of foreign relations.= E. S. CORWIN, _The
President’s Control of Foreign Relations_, pp. 84-125; ALLEN JOHNSON,
_Readings in American Constitutional History_, pp. 393-404.

6. =The President’s appointing power.= EVERETT KIMBALL, _National
Government of the United States_, pp. 181-188; L. M. SALMON, “The
Appointing Power of the President”, in _American Historical Association,
Annual Report (1899)_, Vol. I, pp. 67-86.

7. =The President as a party leader.= C. L. JONES, _Readings on Parties
and Elections_, pp. 205-211; JESSE MACY, _Party Organization and
Machinery_, pp. 25-42.

8. =Daily life in the White House.= BENJAMIN HARRISON, _This Country of
Ours_, pp. 159-180.

9. =How a cabinet is formed.= H. B. LEARNED, _History of the President’s
Cabinet_, pp. 110-134.

10. =The cabinet’s relation to the President.= EVERETT KIMBALL,
_National Government of the United States_, pp. 207-217.

11. =Is there need for a readjustment between the executive and
legislative branches of the government?= F. A. CLEVELAND and JOSEPH
SCHAFER, _Democracy in Reconstruction_, pp. 423-445.

12. =The actual work of the administrative departments.= F. J. HASKIN,
_American Government_, pp. 14-26 (The State Department); 27-39 (The
Treasury Department); 78-90 (The Department of the Interior).

Questions

1. Study carefully Article II, Sections 2-7, also Amendment XII, of the
constitution, and then answer these questions: (_a_) In what respects
was the method of election changed by this amendment? (_b_) In case no
candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes how is the
President chosen? The Vice President? Explain how it would be possible
to have a President from one party and a Vice President from another.
(_c_) If a retiring President or Vice President, immediately after
election in November, should desire to have his successor take office at
once, without waiting for the regular inauguration date in March, how
could this be done?

2. Explain how a candidate for the presidency may obtain a majority of
the people’s votes at the polls and yet not be elected. (This has
happened on more than one occasion.) Do you think it a fair arrangement?

3. What are the qualifications for the presidency: (_a_) legal
requirements; (_b_) practical requirements? Compare them with those for
the vice presidency under both heads.

4. Make a list of the qualities which you think a President ought to
possess, placing them in order of their importance. Name the President
whom you would regard as having each of these qualities in the highest
degree. What qualities do you associate with the names of Madison,
Jackson, Buchanan, Cleveland, Roosevelt?

5. Explain the veto and the pocket veto. Would you be in favor of
abolishing either? Ought the opinion of a single man to prevail against
the decisions of a majority of the senators and representatives?

6. Ought the President to give up all connection with his party on
assuming office and be a non-partisan, representing all the people?

7. Explain why the President has so much greater power in war time than
in time of peace.

8. Do you think that a President, in choosing members of his cabinet,
should be guided by any of the following motives and, if so, how much
weight should he give to them: (_a_) to have all parts of the country
represented in the cabinet; (_b_) to obtain men of long political
experience; (_c_) to reward those who have supported him; (_d_) to
strengthen himself for re-election; (_e_) to give representation to both
the radical and conservative elements?

9. Since the Attorney-General is always a lawyer, the Secretary of
Agriculture usually a farmer, and the Secretary of Labor usually a
member of a labor union, why should not the Secretary of War be a
soldier and the Secretary of the Navy a sailor?

10. Look up in the _Congressional Directory_ and tell what department
has jurisdiction over the following matters: consular service, pensions,
the mint, animal industry, child labor law enforcement, education,
forestry, the census, Indian affairs, lighthouses, rural free delivery,
relations with the Philippine Islands, inspection of drugs, payment of
interest on Liberty Bonds, naturalization, passports, dredging of
harbors.

Topics for Debate

1. The President should be ineligible for re-election.

2. The following new departments should be created and given
representation in the cabinet: (_a_) Public Health; (_b_) Education;
(_c_) Public Welfare.

3. Members of the cabinet should be permitted to speak, but not to vote,
in Congress.

-----

Footnote 65:

In some of the New England states there are places of twenty, thirty,
or even forty thousand people which are still governed as towns. (See
p. 175.)

Footnote 66:

See the chart facing this page.

Footnote 67:

According to the census of 1920 these twelve cities are as follows:
New York, 5,612,151; Chicago, 2,701,212; Philadelphia, 1,823,158;
Detroit, 993,737; Cleveland, 796,836; St. Louis, 772,897; Boston,
747,923; Baltimore, 733,826; Pittsburgh, 588,193; Los Angeles,
575,410; San Francisco, 508,410; Buffalo, 505,875.

Footnote 68:

If you make your home in a rural community, you will become acquainted
with most of your neighbors within a week; you will know all about
them, and (if they can find it out) they will know all about you. But
if you go as a stranger to live in a city apartment, with only thin
walls separating you from your neighbors, you may remain there for
months or even for years without becoming acquainted with any of them.
You may not even know your neighbor’s name, save for seeing it on his
door. Neighborliness is a trait of human nature which disappears in
the great cities. In the city a man’s friends are not his neighbors as
a rule, but persons of his own occupation or interests who may live a
considerable distance away. This is an important difference, for it
means that townships and villages have a unity which the wards and
districts of large cities do not possess.

Footnote 69:

The shortest city charter ever granted is the charter of London, given
by William the Conqueror in 1066. It contains exactly sixty-six words.
The longest is the present charter of New York City, which fills a
closely-printed book of 1478 pages.

Footnote 70:

It was understood that by applying a general charter law or municipal
code to all the cities of a state, or to all the cities of a certain
class, the legislature would be discouraged from enacting special laws
for particular cities. But that is not what resulted. Legislatures
adopted the plan of passing laws which were _general in form_ but
which by the nature of their provisions could apply to some one city
alone. For example: The Ohio legislature on one occasion provided that
“Any city of the first class, having a population of more than
150,000, wherein a public avenue of not less than 100 feet in width is
now projected, to be known as Gilbert Avenue, is hereby authorized to
issue bonds, etc.” This law, on its face, applied to all cities of the
first class; in reality it gave special privileges to one particular
city.

Footnote 71:

A few states, although unwilling to grant municipal home rule, have
gone part way in that direction by establishing what is known as the
Optional Charter system. The legislature, under this plan, draws up
several different types of charter. A city may by popular vote adopt
any one of these but is not permitted to make a special charter for
itself. The merit of this plan is that it allows a city a considerable
amount of choice without opening the door for all manner of rash local
experiments, many of which bring controversy and lawsuits because they
run foul of the state constitution or laws. The various optional
charters are so framed as to be in harmony with the general laws of
the state. This plan is used in New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia.
Ohio has both the home rule and the optional charter system; in
addition there is a general charter law for such cities as do not take
advantage of the other opportunities.

Footnote 72:

Surprisingly few mayors have ever gone any higher in the public life
of the state or nation. Most mayors, when they finish their terms,
drop but of sight. There are some exceptions, of course, the most
noteworthy being Grover Cleveland, who served as mayor of Buffalo
before he was elected governor of New York and, later, President of
the United States. Before becoming Secretary of War in President
Wilson’s cabinet, Newton D. Baker served two terms as mayor of
Cleveland, and Brand Whitlock was thrice mayor of Toledo before he
became minister to Belgium. A few other mayors have become governors,
ambassadors, or members of Congress; but when we remind ourselves that
nearly 400 men have held the office of mayor in the fifty largest
cities of the United States since 1900, we may well wonder what became
of all the rest. Apparently the office of mayor is not a good
political stepping-stone. Is the fault with the office or with the men
who usually occupy it?

Footnote 73:

The objection may also be overcome by using the system of proportional
representation described on pp. 134-136.

Footnote 74:

In September, 1900, a tidal wave swept in from the Gulf of Mexico and
destroyed about a third of the city. Galveston was already
overburdened with debt, and by this disaster, which wrecked much city
property, became practically bankrupt. The leading citizens came
together and decided that radical measures would have to be taken.
They, therefore, petitioned the Texas legislature to abolish the old
city government, placing entire charge of all municipal affairs in the
hands of five trustees or commissioners. The legislature complied and
the new plan went into effect in 1901.

Footnote 75:

The largest of these cities are Buffalo, New Orleans, and St. Paul.
Among the 400 commission-governed cities there are only fifteen with
populations exceeding 100,000. The plan has proved most popular in
places of small and medium size.

Footnote 76:

See the diagram which faces p. 198.

Footnote 77:

The plan originated in Sumter, N. C., but the first large city to
adopt it was Dayton, Ohio, about ten years ago. In the autumn of 1921
Cleveland adopted a city-manager charter which will go into effect in
January, 1924.

Footnote 78:

For an example of the way in which the city’s administrative work is
divided, see the diagram facing this page.

Footnote 79:

Some cities have established a central purchasing office which buys
all supplies of every sort, thus securing a concentration of the work.
A considerable saving is made in this way. But in most cities each
department still does its own buying.

Footnote 80:

More than a hundred and twenty-five years ago, when it was decided to
build the nation’s capital on the shores of the Potomac, President
Washington sent to France for Major L’Enfant, an engineer who had
served in the American army during the Revolution, and entrusted to
him the task of laying out the new city. L’Enfant took great pains to
provide for wide streets; he designated the location of the important
public buildings (such as the Capitol and the White House) and left
plenty of open spaces in his plan.

Footnote 81:

In Washington, thanks to L’Enfant’s sagacious planning, the streets
occupy about one-half the entire area.

Footnote 82:

This plan also renders it easy to find one’s way about, and this is
particularly true when the streets are known by numbers rather than by
names.

Footnote 83:

See the illustrative diagram facing this page.

Footnote 84:

PAVEMENTS ARRANGED IN THEIR APPROXIMATE ORDER OF DESIRABILITY FROM
DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Economy Economy Durability Cleanli- Noiseless- Safety
in in ness ness
construction Repair
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Macadam Granite Granite Asphalt Wood Granite
Asphalt Brick Wood Brick Macadam Macadam
Brick Wood Brick Wood Brick Brick
Wood Asphalt Asphalt Granite Asphalt Wood
Granite Macadam Macadam Macadam Granite Asphalt
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Footnote 85:

A common pretext is to allege that the lowest bidder is not a reliable
contractor, or that he underpays his workmen, or that on some previous
contract he failed to do a good job. Any such excuse is good enough
for city officials who desire to favor their own friends at the public
expense. City charters sometimes provide that contracts must be given
to the lowest bidder, but a hard-and-fast requirement of this kind may
sometimes lead to difficulties.

Footnote 86:

The unsightliness of the billboards is not their only objectionable
feature. Unless they are firmly anchored in the ground they are often
blown down by heavy winds; they afford places of concealment for
footpads; and they become the nucleus of a rubbish heap. Land is
rented for billboard space which otherwise would be improved and built
upon. Billboard space is given over very largely to the advertising of
non-essentials. If you will make a survey of say fifty billboards in
your own community, you will find that by far the greater portion of
the space is given to advertising luxuries. Local merchants use
billboard advertising very little. Outside concerns take most of their
surface.

Footnote 87:

Restrictions may legally be placed upon private property in the
interest of the public safety, health, or morals. But people cannot be
prohibited from using their own private property in ways which merely
offend the public taste.

Footnote 88:

The watchmen were very unreliable. In London it was said that most of
them spent the greater part of the night in the ale-houses while
thieves prowled around in the streets. In order to keep the watchmen
on their patrols it became the custom to have them call out the hours
as they went along. These watchmen’s cries, “Three o’clock, a misty
morning”, etc., were a quaint feature of London life a hundred years
ago.

Footnote 89:

Sir Robert Peel, who established the first regular police force in
England, made himself very unpopular for a time by this step. The
members of the new police force, by way of ridicule, were called
“peelers” and “bobbies”, and these nicknames persist in England to the
present day. They wore (and still wear) blue coats with copper
buttons, for which reason the London youngsters also referred to the
policeman as “the copper”. In America we have shortened it to “the
cop”.

Footnote 90:

In Berlin, for example, 98 per cent of the buildings are of brick,
stone, concrete, or other fire-resisting material. In the average
American city such buildings do not usually form more than 25 per cent
of the total.

Footnote 91:

Take the income-tax amendment, for example; or the prohibition
amendment. Both of them show a popular willingness to place great
powers in the hands of the federal government. The people would not
have agreed to direct election of senators a hundred years ago; but
they did it in 1913.

Footnote 92:

Hawaii and Alaska are both governed in the same way, and exactly like
one of the old territories. Porto Rico has a slightly different form
of government, in that certain high officials besides the governor are
appointed by the President. The government of the Philippines differs
still further in that the higher administrative officials are
appointed by the governor who, in turn, is named by the President.

Footnote 93:

During 1921 a study of Philippine conditions was made, at President
Harding’s request, by Major-General Leonard Wood and the Hon. W.
Cameron Forbes, former governor-general of the islands. These two
eminent investigators, after a careful survey, found much to say in
praise of the Filipinos; but their general conclusion was that the
islanders needed further training in self-government under American
supervision before they could wisely be given complete independence.
The entire text of the Wood-Forbes report is printed in The Times
“Current History” (January, 1922), pp. 678-694.

Footnote 94:

An area which is neither a state nor a territory, a zone nor an
insular possession remains to be mentioned. This is Washington, or the
District of Columbia as it is officially called, the home of the
nation’s government. It has neither mayor nor aldermen. The government
of the District is in the hands of three commissioners appointed by
the President, one of them being an officer of the army. These three
commissioners carry on all the work of municipal administration.

Footnote 95:

In some states, in Ohio, for example, the question of calling a
constitutional convention must be voted upon every twenty years.

Footnote 96:

In some states the legislature, in proposing an amendment, must pass
it in two successive sessions, or by a two-thirds vote, or must
conform to some other special requirement.

Footnote 97:

See especially Art. I, Sec. 9; and Amendments I-XV, XIX.

Footnote 98:

These four propositions may perhaps be made more understandable by the
accompanying table, which does not purport to be a complete
enumeration but only an illustration of the way in which the
propositions work out.

══════════════╤══════════════╤══════════════╤══════════════╤══════════════
EXCLUSIVELY │ CONCURRENT │ PROHIBITIONS │ PROHIBITIONS │ EXCLUSIVELY
NATIONAL │ POWERS │ UPON THE │ UPON THE │ STATE POWERS
POWERS │ │ NATION │ STATES │
──────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────
To conduct │To tax. │To abridge │To keep troops│To make and
foreign af- │ │ freedom of │ or ships of │ enforce the
fairs. │To borrow │ worship or │ war in time │ ordinary
│ money. │ of the press │ of peace. │ civil and
To raise and │ │ or of assemb-│ │ criminal
support ar- │To promote │ ly or of pet-│To entry into │ laws.
mies. │ education. │ ition. │ any treaty. │
│ │ │ │To establish
To maintain a │To encourage │To deny any │To coin money │ and control
Navy. │ agriculture. │ of the other │ or issue │ local govern-
│ │ privileges │ bills of │ ment.
To regulate │To charter │ enumerated │ credit. │
foreign and │ banks and │ in the Bill │ │To conduct
interstate │ other corpor-│ of Rights │To pass any │ elections.
commerce. │ ations. │ (see Amend- │ law impair- │
│ │ ments I-X). │ ing the law │To regulate
To coin │To enforce the│ │ of contracts.│ commerce
money. │ Eighteenth │To permit │ │ and industry
│ Amendment. │ slavery in │To lay any │ within the
To establish │ │ any territory│ tax or duties│ state.
a postal │To establish │ within the │ on imports. │
service. │ and maintain │ national jur-│ │To protect the
│ courts. │ isdiction. │To abridge │ life, health,
To grant pat- │ │ │ the privi- │ and morals of
ents and │ │To abridge │ leges or im- │ the people
copyrights. │ │ the suffrage │ munities of │ (the “police
│ │ of citizens │ citizens of │ power”).
To admit new │ │ on account │ the United │
states. │ │ of sex. │ States, or │
│ │ │ deprive them │
│ │To give │ of life, lib-│
│ │ prefer- │ │
│ │ ence to one │ erty, or pro-│
│ │ state over │ perty without│
│ │ another in │ due process │
│ │ matters of │ of law or de-│
│ │ commerce. │ ny to persons│
│ │ │ within their │
│ │ │ jurisdiction │
│ │ │ the equal │
│ │ │ protection of│
│ │ │ the laws. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │To abridge the│
│ │ │ voting rights│
│ │ │ of citizens │
│ │ │ on │
│ │ │ account of │
│ │ │ race, color, │
│ │ │ previous │
│ │ │ condition of │
│ │ │ servitude, or│
│ │ │ sex. │
│ │--------------│--------------│
│ │To pass any bill of attainder│
│ │ or _ex post facto_ law. To │
│ │ grant letters of nobility. │
│ │ To levy duties on exports. │
══════════════╧══════════════╧═════════════════════════════╧══════════════

Footnote 99:

A wide range of authority is included, for example, within the term
“police power”, which is the power of the state to take measures for
protecting the safety, health, and morals of the people.

Footnote 100:

Any member of the legislature may introduce a bill, but not many of
them know how to draft one properly. That is not surprising, for state
legislatures are not made up of lawyers alone but of farmers,
shop-keepers, and other plain citizens who have had no previous
experience in lawmaking. In order to help the members of the
legislature some states have established _legislative reference
bureaus_ in charge of expert bill-drafters. These bureaus keep on file
all the latest information concerning what is being done in other
states, including copies of laws which have been passed there. At the
request of any member the bureau officials will prepare a bill
embodying the member’s ideas.

Footnote 101:

A good deal of the trouble is due to party leaders and to lobbyists
who plague the members into voting for measures or against them.
Lobbyists are paid agents of corporations, labor organizations,
women’s leagues, reform associations, granges, and so on, who hang
around the lobby and argue with the legislators, trying to influence
their action by persuasion or threats as may seem likely to be most
effective. At any state capitol one may count these lobbyists by the
dozen.

Footnote 102:

In New York State the Supreme Court, paradoxically, is not supreme.
Final authority among the state courts rests with a still higher
court, known as the Court of Appeals.

Footnote 103:

The jurisdiction of the federal courts is explained on pp. 311-313.
All other cases besides those named in the constitution come within
the authority of the state courts.

Footnote 104:

When a governor instructs these elective officials to do something,
they frequently refuse. In one case a state treasurer kept large sums
of money in banks which the governor and other high state officials
believed to be unsafe. They urged him to withdraw these funds, but the
treasurer declined to do so. A little later two of these banks were
closed by order of the bank commissioner and half a million dollars of
the state’s money was tied up.

Footnote 105:

See the diagram facing this page.

Footnote 106:

There were some notable absences. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were
not there; both were serving their country as diplomatic
representatives abroad, the one in France and the other in England.
Nor was John Hancock, whose flashing signature first meets the eye
among the signers of the Declaration. Neither was Patrick Henry
present, for he was strongly opposed to the convention’s being held at
all and declined to be a delegate from Virginia.

Footnote 107:

Three of these compromises, commonly known as “The Great Compromises”,
stand out prominently and are fully described in all books of American
history, so that they do not need to be given in detail here. There
were compromises on many minor points as well.

Footnote 108:

North Carolina did not ratify, however, until 1789, and Rhode Island
not until 1790.

Footnote 109:

A congressman who is elected in November does not take his seat until
a year from the following December. This is because, although elected
in November, his term does not begin until the ensuing fourth of
March. By that time the winter session is over. Thus it happens that
men who are defeated at the polls often continue to make the nation’s
laws.

Footnote 110:

No one is eligible for election to the Senate unless he is at least
thirty years of age. He must also have been a citizen of the United
States for at least nine years and at the time of his election an
inhabitant of the state from which he is chosen. The governor of the
state may be empowered by the legislature to fill any vacancy which
may occur through the death or resignation of a senator, this
temporary appointment to be valid until a senatorial election is held.

Footnote 111:

The Vice President of the United States presides over the Senate when
trying impeachments, as at other times; but when the President is
being impeached the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as
temporary presiding officer. Who would preside in case the Vice
President were impeached? The constitution does not say. Presumably
the president _pro tempore_ of the Senate would preside.

Footnote 112:

Nine civil officers of the United States have been impeached at one
time or another during the past hundred and twenty-five years. The
most notable case was that of President Andrew Johnson in 1868. He was
charged by the House of Representatives with having violated the laws
relating to appointments (particularly the Tenure of Office Act), but
was acquitted. The Senate voted thirty-five to nineteen for his
conviction, but this was one vote short of the necessary two-thirds
majority.

Footnote 113:

Despite the desirability of keeping the membership down, there is a
constant temptation to increase it in order that no state shall have
fewer representatives than it has become accustomed to having.

Footnote 114:

When Elbridge Gerry was governor of Massachusetts in 1812, the state
legislature rearranged the congressional districts in such a way that
one of them had a dragon-like appearance. The boundaries of this
district had been marked on a map in a local newspaper office. Gilbert
Stuart, the famous painter, happened to come in and with his pencil
added a head, wings, and claws to the figure. “That will do for a
Salamander,” he said. “Better say a Gerry-mander,” replied the editor,
and the outlandish name, thus accidentally coined, passed into the
English language.

Footnote 115:

The plan at present (1922) is as follows: the Republican members of
the House from each state select one of their members to represent
them in choosing the committees. This representative from each state
becomes a member of the Committee on Committees and at meetings of
this committee casts a vote equal to the number of Republican
Representatives from his state. This Committee on Committees selects
the Republican members of the various committees. A caucus of the
Democratic members of the House, sometimes through the medium of a
Committee on Committees, selects the Democratic members of the
Committees. Then the House as a whole accepts the joint list.

Footnote 116:

On many bills the committees do not even hold hearings; if they did,
they would never get through with their work. Measures by the hundred
are introduced each year by congressmen simply to please people in
their districts and without the slightest expectation that they will
ever be passed.

Footnote 117:

When bills are introduced in the Senate, they are considered there
first and then sent down to the House. Except in the case of bills
relating to revenue and expenditure any measure may be introduced in
either chamber.

Footnote 118:

Another way to delay business is to keep continually asking for
roll-calls to see if a quorum is present. Calling the names of 435
members takes a lot of time. Some years ago a bill was introduced to
provide for the installation of electric apparatus by means of which
every member could register “Yes”, “No”, or “Present” by merely
pressing a button at his seat. On the wall there were to be electric
bulbs set opposite each congressman’s name. Pressing the button would
indicate the congressman’s answer to a roll call by flashing a red or
white or blue light on the wall. Congress did not adopt the plan.

Footnote 119:

See pp. 463-465.

Footnote 120:

On the question whether members of the American cabinet should sit in
Congress, see p. 302.

Footnote 121:

During the past year or two a group of congressmen, both senators and
representatives, from the agricultural states has been voting solidly
and without regard to party affiliations on many important measures.
This group is known as the “agricultural bloc”. Its avowed aim is to
see that the interests of the farmers are properly safeguarded in all
legislation. For a brief discussion of this topic from a different
angle, see p. 350.

Footnote 122:

JAMES BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol. I, Ch. VII.

Footnote 123:

When the constitution was finally drawn and made public many features
of it were strongly criticized, but nowhere was there any objection to
this method of electing the President. Everyone seemed to feel that
this method of choice by an electoral college was an admirable one.
Yet curiously enough it turned out to be one of the poorest things
that the convention did. It has completely failed to work out as the
convention intended. Direct popular election, which the constitution
endeavors to avoid, is exactly what we have. The convention, moreover,
placed no limit upon the number of terms which a President might have.
But Washington set the example by declining a third consecutive term
and no President since his time has ever served three terms. From time
to time it has been suggested that the President’s term should be
lengthened to six years and that he should then be made ineligible for
re-election, just as, in some of our larger cities, the mayor is
ineligible to succeed himself. This suggestion, however, has never
found much favor.

Footnote 124:

If the original plan were now followed, this is about what would
happen: After the presidential election in November the people and the
newspapers would be discussing the probable attitude of the electors,
wondering whom they would choose and making various suggestions to
them. Some electors would be announcing their preferences; others
would be keeping silent. With great interest we should await the
meetings of the electors in January; the newspaper reporters would
crowd outside the door to gain the first inkling of their decisions in
each state; the returns would come in one by one from the forty-eight
state capitals and would be figured up with breathless interest. But
what actually does happen is very different from this. On the evening
of the presidential election the fight is all over. Nobody knows, and
nobody cares who the electors are. We only know that a majority of
them will vote for the Republican or for the Democratic candidate when
the time comes. In January they meet, almost unnoticed, cast their
votes as a matter of form, and get a small paragraph somewhere on the
inside pages of the newspapers.

Footnote 125:

See p. 158.

Footnote 126:

The House votes by states; the Senate by individual members. See
Amendment XII. In 1800 there was a tie, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron
Burr, each having an equal number of votes. The House of
Representatives decided the tie by electing Jefferson. Then the
Twelfth Amendment was adopted. In 1824 no candidate received a
majority, and on this occasion the House chose John Quincy Adams as
President. The system worked thereafter without mishap for over fifty
years, but in 1876 there was a serious muddle because twenty-two
electoral voters were in dispute, namely, the votes of Oregon,
Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida. From each of these states two
sets of electors claimed to have been chosen. The controversy was
decided by a special commission of fifteen members, five from the
Senate, five from the House, and five from the Supreme Court. By a
vote of 8 to 7 this commission decided in favor of Rutherford B. Hayes
and he became President.

Footnote 127:

In the Republican national convention of 1920, for example, General
Leonard Wood and Governor Lowden polled the largest number of votes on
the first ballot. Senator Hiram Johnson of California was third and
Senator Harding of Ohio was fourth. But neither of the two leading
candidates could obtain a majority although ballot after ballot was
taken. Finally, when the delegates were becoming tired and impatient,
some of their leaders came together and agreed to unite on Senator
Harding. They advised their supporters to swing over to him and on a
subsequent ballot he was nominated.

Footnote 128:

The delegates sometimes resent this attitude on the part of the
leaders. They may make a strenuous fight in the convention or they may
bolt altogether. Thus, in 1912, the leaders of the Republican
convention decided to renominate President Taft and, after a hard
fight, managed to get a majority of the delegates recorded in his
favor. But a very strong minority desired to nominate ex-President
Roosevelt, who was believed to be far more acceptable to the rank and
file of the party throughout the country. When they failed in the
convention they left the hall, formed a new party, and nominated
Colonel Roosevelt as the Progressive candidate. But this merely split
the Republican ranks wide open and made certain the success of the
Democrats at the forthcoming election.

Footnote 129:

During the past fifty years there have been eleven presidents. Of
these, six came from Ohio and three from New York. One came from
Indiana (but was a native of Ohio), and one from New Jersey. Only four
states, therefore, have contributed occupants to the presidential
office during half a century.

Footnote 130:

England is a monarchy and the United States a republic, yet the
English monarch has no veto power like that of the President. By usage
the king must sign every bill that is laid before him. Someone has
said that the king of England would be under obligations to sign his
own death warrant if parliament should send it up to him. The
President of the United States is given his far-reaching power to
override the wishes of a majority in Congress because he is an
elective officer and in the exercise of his veto acts for the people,
not for himself.

Footnote 131:

When Mr. Harding was elected in November, 1920, President Wilson was
slowly recovering from a severe illness. Great problems were awaiting
attention and by many it was deemed unfortunate that the newly-elected
President could not take hold of them for four months. So Mr. Bryan
suggested that Mr. Harding should be appointed Secretary of State and
that thereafter the President and Vice President should resign. This,
under the rules of succession, would have enabled Mr. Harding to take
office at once. But the suggestion was not accepted.

Footnote 132:

On assuming office in 1921 President Harding invited the Vice
President to attend all meetings of the cabinet.

Footnote 133:

When President Wilson was ill in 1920 the Secretary of State, Mr.
Robert Lansing, called the cabinet together to discuss some urgent
matters of business. In due course the President heard of this action
and resented it. In a letter to the Secretary of State he called
attention to the fact that without the President there was nothing
that the cabinet could legally do.

Footnote 134:

President Lincoln, for example, did not consult the cabinet in the
framing of the Emancipation Proclamation; he merely read it to the
cabinet after it was finished. General Grant treated his cabinet as
though it was merely his general staff with the function of carrying
out orders rather than giving advice. President Roosevelt usually had
his own mind made up on matters of policy, and the members of his
cabinet, although they differed from him in temperament, did not often
differ from him in opinion. President Wilson, in choosing his cabinet,
made it a point to get men whose minds ran along with his own. On the
other hand, President Hayes, President Harrison, and President
McKinley were considerably guided by the advice of their cabinets and
consulted them freely.

Footnote 135:

The State Department deals chiefly with foreign and diplomatic affairs
as well as with relations between the nation and the states; it also
promulgates the laws passed by Congress. The Department of the
Treasury collects the revenues, pays the government’s bills, attends
to the borrowing of money when necessary, issues the currency, and has
general supervision over the national banks. The War Department has
charge of the armed forces, the land fortifications, the purchase of
munitions, and the whole upkeep of the army. The Department of the
Interior has functions of a very miscellaneous nature, so much so that
it has been jocularly called the “department of things in general”. It
has charge of national parks and forests, patents, pensions, the
geological survey, and various other things which have little relation
to one another. The Postmaster-General assumes the oversight of the
entire postal service. The Department of Justice has an
Attorney-General at its head. He is the government’s chief legal
advisor and represents it in all legal controversies. The Navy
Department has charge of all the nation’s armed forces afloat. The
Department of Agriculture has to do with the promotion of agricultural
interests throughout the country (see pp. 346-348). The Department of
Labor has charge of immigration, naturalization, and the execution of
the federal laws relating to labor. The Department of Commerce is
concerned with the development of foreign and domestic trade, the
inspection of steamboats, the publication of consular reports (see pp.
373-374), and so forth.

Footnote 136:

In addition to the ten regular departments there are other branches of
the national administration whose heads are not members of the
cabinet. These include such bodies as the Interstate Commerce
Commission (p. 364), the Federal Trade Commission (p. 391), the Civil
Service Commission (p. 103), the Tariff Commission (p. 370), besides
various bureaus of one kind or another. Members of these boards and
heads of the independent bureaus are all appointed by the President,
responsible to him, and removable by him.

CHAPTER XVI
THE COURTS, THE LAW, AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE.

_The purpose of this chapter is to show how the courts are organized
and what systems of law they administer._

THE COURTS

[Sidenote: The supreme justices.]

=The Highest Court in the Land.=—Visitors to the Capitol at Washington
on any week day from October to June are usually interested to see a
group of nine distinguished-looking men, robed in silk gowns, passing at
noon through the long corridor into a room where a clerk begins to call
out, “Oyez! Oyez!”[137] This is the Supreme Court of the United States,
the highest court in the land and the most powerful tribunal in the
world. It consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices, all
of them appointed for life by the President with the consent of the
Senate. They cannot be removed from office except by impeachment. The
court holds its sessions in the chamber which was used by the Senate in
the days when that body was small. The justices sit in a row, the chief
justice in the center, with four associates on each side of him. There
is no jury, and for the most part the court simply hears the arguments
of attorneys on points of law in cases which have been appealed. The
sessions begin at twelve o’clock, and continue, with a brief
interruption for luncheon, until late in the afternoon. Every Saturday
morning the court meets behind closed doors to agree upon its decisions
and on Mondays the decisions are publicly announced. These nine justices
are the supreme guardians of the constitution, entrusted with the duty
of seeing that its provisions are duly respected by all officials of
government from the President and Congress down to the humblest
officeholder. Their mandate is binding upon everyone within the
jurisdiction of the United States.[138]

[Sidenote: The power to declare laws unconstitutional.]

=The Supreme Court’s Power.=—Congress, as has been pointed out, is the
lawmaking branch of the federal government. With the approval of the
President its power to enact laws, within the limits prescribed by the
constitution, is complete and final. The state legislatures are the
lawmaking organs of state government and with the approval of the
governors the authority of the state legislatures to make laws within
limits prescribed by the national and state constitutions is also
complete and final. Yet the Supreme Court, by a majority vote of its
nine justices, may nullify laws passed by either Congress or the state
legislatures. It has done so on many occasions. Why have we given to
this small group of men, appointed for life, the power to set aside the
action of the people’s representatives?

[Sidenote: Reason for this authority.]

The answer is this: American government, both in the nation and in the
states, rests upon certain fundamental rules which are embodied in
written constitutions. These rules determine, among other things, the
powers and functions of government officers and bodies, including
Congress and the legislatures. They have been placed in the national and
state constitutions with the intent that they shall be obeyed, and if
they were not obeyed one branch of the government would be encroaching
upon the powers of the other. But how can powerful bodies like Congress
and the state legislatures be held to the obedience of rules laid down
in the national constitution? The Supreme Court performs this duty by
declaring “unconstitutional” any law which, in its judgment, violates
the provisions of that document. The constitution, for example, provides
that Congress shall pass no bill of attainder. If Congress should enact
a measure of that kind, the court would nullify it. The constitution
stipulates that no state shall make any law impairing the obligations of
contract. If any state legislature should enact such a law, the Supreme
Court would declare it to be unconstitutional and void.

[Sidenote: Limitations upon the discretion of the court.]

Now this does not mean that the justices of the Supreme Court have the
right to veto any measure at their discretion. They have nothing to do
with the merits of a measure, nothing to do with the question whether it
has been wisely passed. The only issue they decide is whether a law
conforms to the provisions of the constitution. If they find that it
does not, they have authority to set it aside. And so long as government
is based upon written constitutions there must be some body with power
to decide whether a law is constitutional or not. Every branch of the
government is under a natural temptation to extend its own authority.
State legislatures would like to have a share in regulating the trunk
railroads; Congress would like to decide how much money may be spent by
candidates for senatorial nominations. Both of them have tried to extend
their authority in these directions during the past few years although
the constitution does not warrant their so doing. We must have some
body, therefore, endowed with the right to say to all public officials
and legislative bodies: “Thus far shall you go and no further; here is
the point where your authority, under the constitution, comes to an
end.”

[Sidenote: The Supreme Court’s power is essential.]

It is quite true that decisions of the Supreme Court are sometimes
unpopular. People who are eager for humanitarian reforms, when they see
the Supreme Court annulling measures which Congress has passed to
protect women or children, or the weak or the poor, are in the habit of
crying out that the court is an obstacle to progress and that its power
to declare laws unconstitutional should be taken away. They overlook the
fact that if there were no supreme tribunal to keep Congress within its
constitutional limits, it would be easy for Congress, step by step, to
take away all the powers now possessed by the states and to centralize
at Washington the entire government of the country. Under a federal
system of government, with powers divided between the nation and the
states as they are in this country, disputes as to where a particular
power belongs are sure to arise. How could we devise a more satisfactory
plan of deciding these disputes than by referring them to an impartial
body of nine men chosen for life from among the ablest jurists of the
land? Do we propose to abolish the powers of juries because they
sometimes render unpopular verdicts? People sometimes question the
wisdom of the Supreme Court, but no one has ever doubted its
integrity.[139]

[Sidenote: Scope of the federal courts’ jurisdiction.]

=How Cases Come Before the Federal Courts.=—The authority to try cases
is divided by the national constitution into two parts, and each part is
assigned to two separate systems of courts. Certain classes of cases are
named in the national constitution as falling within “the judicial power
of the United States” and these cases are tried in the federal courts.
All other classes of cases (and this includes the great majority of
legal disputes) are left to the state courts. The controversies named in
the national constitution as matters for trial in the federal courts are
those which it did not seem wise to let the various state courts decide,
for example, cases arising out of treaties made by the United States, or
controversies between two states, or between citizens of different
states. This is a wise arrangement, for if the state courts could say
the last word on the interpretation of treaties, the nation might easily
find itself forced into trouble with foreign countries. If cases between
citizens of different states were tried in the courts of either state,
there would be a temptation for these courts to favor their own
citizens. Even the rule which requires that cases affecting ambassadors
shall be heard in the federal courts has a good reason, for the United
States guarantees to all foreign ambassadors the privileges of
international law and must be in a position to see that these guarantees
are respected. The entire list of cases over which federal courts have
jurisdiction is so clearly set forth in the constitution that there is
no need for repeating it here.[140]

[Sidenote: How jurisdiction is determined.]

When any dispute arises between individuals or corporations the lawyers
who bring the suit determine whether the matter is one for the federal
or the state courts to hear. This they do by considering whether the
controversy comes within any of the classes named in the constitutional
provision just mentioned. If they find that it does, the suit is usually
commenced in the federal courts; otherwise it is begun in the state
courts. Most suits begin in the lowest court, and, if the decision is
not satisfactory, can be carried on appeal to the higher federal or
state courts as the case may be, until finally a very small proportion
of them reach the Supreme Court.[141] But not all cases which are heard
in the lower federal courts, or in the state courts, can be brought up
to the Supreme Court of the United States. If that were permitted, the
Supreme Court would never be able to handle all the business which would
come before it. From the lower federal courts only cases of great
importance can be brought to it, and from the state courts only
controversies in which some provision of the national constitution is
involved.

=The Lower Federal Courts.=—The lower federal courts are called district
and circuit courts. The country is divided into about one hundred
judicial districts, in each of which there is a United States district
court with a judge, a marshall, and a district attorney, all appointed
by the President. Next above these courts are the circuit courts of
appeals. There are nine of these courts, each having jurisdiction within
a certain section of the country. A circuit court of appeals has from
two to four judges, appointed by the President, and also has its own
court officials. These courts derive their name from the fact that they
go “on circuit”, that is, they move about from one large city to another
within their respective sections of the country holding sessions in
each. In most cases they have final jurisdiction.[142]

THE LAW

=What is Meant by the Law.=—Having outlined the organization and
jurisdiction of the federal courts, the question next arises: What
branches of law do American courts administer? We often speak of the
courts as administering “justice ”, and it is no doubt true that their
decisions usually@ possess the quality of justice; but what the courts
really administer is _the law_. The law may be just or unjust, and it is
very difficult, if not impossible, for any court to wring justice out of
an unjust law. Where injustice is done, the law and not the court is in
most cases to blame.

[Sidenote: How the common law developed.]

=The Common Law.=—Speaking broadly the system of jurisprudence which
American courts administer is made up of three branches, known as common
law, statutory law, and equity. Of these the common law is made up of
various time-honored usages, some of which go back many hundreds of
years. The common law began its growth in mediaeval England when there
were very few written rules, and the courts found it necessary to decide
cases in accordance with the usages or customs of the people. Gradually
these decisions became uniform, one court following the example of
another, until this body of usages interpreted by judicial decision
became “common” or universal throughout the whole realm of England
although it had never been so established by any action of parliament.
Thus the rule developed that no man should be compelled to testify
against himself, that mere hearsay should not (with certain exceptions)
be received as evidence, that all witnesses should be put upon oath,
that questions of fact should be decided by juries, that agreements to
restrain trade in an unreasonable manner were punishable, and so
on.[143] During several centuries a great body of legal rules developed
in this way and the system of common law was brought by the English
colonists to America, where it speedily took root and was administered
by the colonial courts.[144] After the Revolution it was continued and
it still remains the groundwork of the law in all the states except
Louisiana. Of course it has been gradually modified during the past
hundred or more years by court decisions and by statutes, and it still
keeps on changing.

=Statutory Law.=—Second, there is statutory law. This is law made by
definite action of the people or their representatives. Constitutions
are in effect statutory law, supreme statutory law. Laws enacted by the
people through the initiative and referendum are statutory law.
[Sidenote: Statutes.] Most statutory law, however, consists of laws made
by Congress, by the state legislatures, by city councils, and by other
regular lawmaking bodies.[145] These enactments supplement or alter the
common law. Until a statute is passed affecting any question, the common
law prevails. Whenever a statute conflicts with a provision of the
common law, the statute prevails. But when ordinary statutes conflict
with the constitution, the constitution prevails. Enormous numbers of
statutes are enacted each year by Congress and the legislatures of the
forty-eight states. They now form the larger part of the whole system of
law.

=The Need for Greater Uniformity in Statute Law.=—In many matters of
business the fact that the statutes are different in every one of the
forty-eight states is a great disadvantage. When wholesale dealers sell
goods on credit to merchants in far-off states they want to know just
what the laws provide in the matter of collecting debts. The only way to
do this is to enquire into the statutes of each state where goods are
sold. So it is with wills, contracts, notes, and so on. In some states a
will must have three witnesses; in others only two. The man who endorses
a note in one state assumes greater liabilities than are assumed by
endorsers somewhere else. To remedy this situation there is a strong
movement to secure uniformity among all the states in the case of
certain important statutes (for example, the statutes relating to
sales). A commission of eminent lawyers has been at work for years
preparing uniform laws on various subjects and some of these have been
adopted by the legislatures of many states. A uniform statute relating
to negotiable instruments (notes, bills of exchange, etc.) has now been
adopted by more than forty states, and a uniform sales act by about a
dozen of them.

=Equity.=—Finally, there is the branch of jurisprudence known as equity.
People think of this word as implying something that is more just than
the law, something which has its roots in the conscience of the judge
rather than in the statute books. But equity as actually administered in
the courts is made up of formal rules which the judges apply in certain
cases without having much discretion in the matter. The rules of equity
are written in books just like the rules of law, and they are about as
precise.

[Sidenote: The origin of equity.]

The origin of these rules is an interesting story which cannot be
narrated here save in the briefest way. In early England there grew up,
side by side with the common law, a set of unwritten rules administered
by the chancellor, who was called the “keeper of the king’s conscience”
and to whom people could appeal for relief when they felt that they had
not received justice in the courts of common law. At the outset the
chancellor, whose office eventually grew into a Court of Chancery,
decided every case on its own merits; but in due course all cases of the
same kind came to be decided in the same way, and thus a set of rules or
principles was gradually formulated. With further growth these rules of
chancery or equity were gathered together, arranged logically, put into
written form, applied by the English courts, brought to America in
colonial days, retained after the Revolution, and they continue in force
at the present time.

The differences between law and equity are too technical to be explained
here; even lawyers sometimes fail to understand them thoroughly.[146]
Cases in equity often result in the issue of injunctions and the issue
of these injunctions in labor disputes has given rise to much complaint.
(See pp. 407-408.) Both equity and law are usually administered by the
same courts.[147]

JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

=The Jury System.=—When a legal dispute arises between individuals or
corporations, or when some offence is charged against a person, there
are usually two questions to be decided. The first question is: What are
the facts? What actually took place? The second question is: What does
the law provide with reference to these facts? If you charge someone
with having done you a wrong, it is not enough to prove your charge; you
must also convince the court that common law, or statutory law, or
equity gives you the right to redress. The first question in most
important cases, both criminal and civil, is decided by a jury; the
second question by a judge.

[Sidenote: How the grand jury is chosen.]

=The Grand Jury.=—There are two kinds of juries, both of which are
selected in much the same way, but their functions are quite different.
The first is called the grand jury. It is a body of men, varying from
seven to twenty-three in number, chosen by lot from among the qualified
voters of the county or district, and charged with the duty of
investigating whether crimes have been committed. Evidence is presented
to it by the prosecuting attorney, or the grand jury may make
investigations on its own behalf. [Sidenote: Its work.] It conducts an
investigation, not a trial. If it decides by a majority vote that there
are reasonable grounds for placing any person on trial, it submits to
the court a true bill or indictment. If it believes that any conditions
within the county or district are wrong and ought to be remedied, it
submits to the court a statement of these conditions, which is called a
presentment. When a person is indicted by a grand jury, this does not
mean that he has been proved guilty but merely that, in the grand jury’s
opinion, he ought to be placed on trial. The grand jury does not hear
the accused person’s side of the case. Its purpose is to protect
individuals from being put to the inconvenience and humiliation of a
public trial unless there are reasonable grounds for doing this.[148]

[Sidenote: How the trial jury is chosen.]

=The Trial Jury.=—The other jury is known as the trial jury or petit
jury and practically always consists of twelve persons. The method of
selecting a trial jury is, in general, as follows: Some public official
who is entrusted by the law with this duty makes a list of the persons
who are liable for jury service. This list is usually compiled from the
roll of voters, leaving off all persons (such as lawyers, physicians,
public officials, and so on) who are exempted by law from jury duty.
From this list a certain number of names, perhaps fifty to a hundred,
are then selected, usually by lot. These individuals are thereupon
summoned to court, where they form what is known as the jury panel. One
by one their names are called in court and the lawyers on either side of
the case are given an opportunity to state their objections.[149] When
twelve persons have been found to whom there is no objection from either
side, these twelve constitute the jury and proceed to hear the facts of
the case. [Sidenote: Its work.] The trial jury, however, may hear only
such evidence as the judge permits it to hear, for the question whether
any item of evidence can be permitted is a question of law. The value of
the evidence, after the judge has allowed the jury to hear it, is for
the jury to determine.

[Sidenote: Jury procedure.]

The usual procedure in a jury trial, therefore, is this: When the jury
has been chosen and sworn to decide the issue fairly, the prosecuting
attorney (or, in a civil case, the counsel for the plaintiff) states
briefly to the court what he intends to prove. Then the witnesses for
the prosecution, or for the plaintiff, are called, put upon oath, and
questioned. As each witness finishes his direct testimony the
defendant’s counsel takes him in hand for cross-examination. The purpose
of this cross-examination is to test the witness, to see if he is
telling the truth, or to induce him to say things which will weaken his
original testimony.[150] When the witnesses for the prosecution have
finished, the witnesses for the defendant are called and they likewise
are cross-examined by the other side. After all the testimony is
concluded the counsel on both sides make addresses to the jury, the
judge explains to the jurymen the points of law bearing on the case, and
the jury retires to consider its verdict. This it does in secret,
remaining in a room which no one is allowed to enter or leave.

[Sidenote: Second jeopardy.]

In criminal cases the verdict must be unanimous one way or the other; if
not, the case has to be tried all over again.[151] In civil cases
unanimous verdicts are required in some states but not in others. The
verdict, whatever it may be, is reported in open court and is ordinarily
conclusive. In some cases, however, the presiding judge is empowered to
set a unanimous verdict aside and to order a new trial.[152] Where an
accused person is found not guilty by the unanimous verdict of a jury he
may never, under any circumstances, be placed on trial for the same
offence again.[153] If he is found guilty, on the other hand, he has in
most cases the right to appeal, on points of law, to a higher court.

=Value of the Jury System.=—The jury system has great value but also
some serious defects. Its value consists in assuring to everyone a fair
determination of the facts by an impartial body of his neighbors, each
one of whom is sworn to decide without fear or favor. It is a great
safeguard against the tyranny of judges and public officials. On the
other hand it makes judicial administration expensive (for the jurymen
have to be paid); it results in making trials much longer than if the
evidence were heard by a judge alone; and the requirement that verdicts
shall be unanimous often results in no verdict at all. Exemptions from
jury service have been given too freely, so that juries are sometimes
made up of men who serve because they have no other work to do. The
others are either exempted by law or ask to be excused by the court.
Prolonged trials and close confinement make jury service a burden which
many people try to evade. In serious cases the jurymen are sometimes not
permitted to visit their homes for weeks at a time; they sleep in the
courthouse, have their meals under the watchful eye of the sheriff, and
are not permitted to read the newspapers while the trial lasts.
Occasionally we have witnessed the absurd spectacle of a jury kept under
guard while the prisoner was out on bail. Yet with all its faults the
jury system affords a safer method of trying criminal cases than trial
by a judge alone. On the other hand the use of jury trials in civil
cases, particularly where the matters in dispute are not of great
importance, tends to delay the work of the courts. It has been suggested
that all such cases ought to be tried by the judge alone.

=The Law’s Delays.=—Much complaint is heard nowadays because lawsuits
are so long and involve so much expense. The courts are often so
overwhelmed with cases that a lawsuit which is brought today cannot be
tried for many months. The privilege of appealing from the decisions of
lower courts is so widely granted, moreover, that when lawsuits are once
begun they may not be ended for years. The claim is often made that all
this gives a great advantage to the rich man or the large corporation as
against the ordinary individual who cannot afford the expense involved
in prolonged litigation. Lawsuits require the hiring of lawyers by both
sides and the assistance of lawyers is costly. Judicial procedure can be
much simplified, and it ought to be. It probably would be simplified
were it not for lawyers. Lawyers profit by the law’s delays; the more
lawsuits and the more prolonged they are, the more profitable it is for
them. And lawyers form a large element in the legislatures which make
the laws relating to court procedure. This is not to imply, however,
that lawyers on the whole fail to promote the interests of justice. They
do perform great services in this respect. The ends of justice would be
far less perfectly served were it not for lawyers.

[Sidenote: Reasons for these delays.]

The main reason for the slowness with which justice is administered in
the United States can be found in the great (and perhaps unnecessary)
amount of care which is taken to assure every individual his legal
rights. This has multiplied appeals, encouraged technicalities, and
given the courts far too much to do. The right to be given a full and
fair trial, to have a jury in most cases, to appeal, and to have due
process of law with all that this implies—these are rights which the
constitution guarantees and which we greatly value. Valuable they are,
no doubt, but they make the course of justice slower in the United
States than in other countries where these constitutional safeguards do
not exist. A famous Prussian king, Frederick the Great, once ordered
that every lawsuit should be brought to an end within a year. Despots
can make their courts move quickly in this way; but nothing of the sort
is possible in a democracy.

[Sidenote: Keep the courts incorruptible.]

Yet the courts are, when all is said and done, the most important among
the institutions of free government. Corruption and incompetence in
legislatures, or in the executive branch of the government, are serious
evils when they exist, to be sure; but when incompetence and corruption
invade the judiciary they reach to the very heart of the Republic. The
Great Charter of 1215 provided that “justice should not be sold,
delayed, or denied to any man”. That is a principle which must be
maintained at all costs.

General References

C. A. BEARD, _American Government and Politics_, pp. 294-314; _Ibid._,
_Readings in American Government and Politics_, pp. 273-290; 488-508;

EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the United States_, pp.
379-422;

JAMES T. YOUNG, _The New American Government and Its Work_, pp. 275-297;

W. B. MUNRO, _The Government of the United States_, pp. 342-371;

S. E. BALDWIN, _The American Judiciary_, especially pp. 3-124;

J. C. GRAY, _The Nature and Sources of the Law_, pp. 84-112.

Group Problems

=1. What can be done to improve the work of the courts?= Present
organization of the courts. How cases are brought. Figures concerning
the number of cases. How far are the courts behind in their work? Causes
of congestion. Has the jury system anything to do with it? The right to
new trials. The right of appeal. Other factors which make for delay. The
expensiveness of lawsuits. Justice and the poor. Proposed reforms in
judicial procedure. Conclusions. =References=: S. E. BALDWIN, _The
American Judiciary_, pp. 197-251; 365-373; C. A. BEARD, _Readings in
American Government and Politics_, pp. 500-508; R. H. SMITH, _Justice
and the Poor_, pp. 3-34; C. G. HAINES and BERTHA HAINES, _Principles and
Problems of Government_, pp. 367-402; American Bar Association, _Report
on the Reform of Judicial Procedure_ (in Journal of the American Bar
Association, Vol. VI, pp. 509-527, July, 1920); See also _The Cleveland
Survey_, 1921.

=2. The Supreme Court of the United States and its place in the American
scheme of Government.= =References=: W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the
United States_, pp. 357-371; P. S. REINSCH, _Readings on American
Federal Government_, pp. 703-720; C. A. BEARD, _Readings in American
Government and Politics_, pp. 288-290; W. W. WILLOUGHBY, _The Supreme
Court of the United States_, pp. 22-42.

Short Studies

1. =The Supreme Court at work.= F. J. HASKIN, _American Government_, pp.
325-336.

2. =The practice of declaring laws invalid.= C. G. HAINES, _The American
Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy_, pp. 173-184; E. S. CORWIN, _The
Doctrine of Judicial Review_, pp. 1-44.

3. =The influence of Supreme Court decisions.= P. S. REINSCH, _Readings
on American Federal Government_, pp. 706-716.

4. =Law: its nature and development.= WOODROW WILSON, _The State_, pp.
69-93.

5. =The common law.= J. C. CARTER, _Law: Its Origin and Growth_, pp.
167-190; J. C. GRAY, _The Nature and Sources of the Law_, pp. 82-108;
266-292; SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK, _The Genius of the Common Law_, pp.
1-26.

6. =Trial by jury.= S. E. BALDWIN, _The American Judiciary_, pp.
184-196.

7. =Criminal procedure.= _Ibid._, pp. 226-251.

8. =The law’s delays.= C. A. BEARD, _Readings in American Government and
Politics_, pp. 500-505.

9. =Justice and the poor.= R. H. SMITH, _Justice and the Poor_, pp.
41-59.

10. =The courts and democracy.= J. H. TUFTS, _Our Democracy_, pp.
255-267.

Questions

1. Is it essential that a country with a government like that of the
United States should have some body vested with the power to declare
laws unconstitutional? Why or why not?

2. Under what circumstances might a murder case come to the Supreme
Court?

3. Tell in each case whether the following controversies would come up
in the federal or the state courts and give your reasons: (_a_) a man
charged with murder on an American ship at sea; (_b_) a suit between the
Standard Oil Company of New Jersey and the Ford Motor Company of
Michigan; (_c_) a suit brought by Nicholas Nickleby, a citizen of
Illinois, against the State of New York; (_d_) a charge of embezzlement
brought against the cashier of a national bank; (_e_) a complaint
against a railroad conductor for assaulting a passenger at a railroad
station in Pennsylvania; (_f_) a charge against a foreign ambassador;
(_g_) a suit brought by a citizen of Massachusetts against a citizen of
California for non-payment of a note.

4. What are the subordinate federal courts? How are they organized? How
are judges appointed and for what terms? How are they removed?

5. Describe all the steps in a criminal trial by jury, from arrest to
conviction.

6. Explain the following terms, using a dictionary where needed:
plaintiff; jury panel; venireman; demurrer; second jeopardy; appellate
jurisdiction; writ of habeas corpus; affidavit; cross-examination;
peremptory challenge; counsel for the defendant.

7. Why should not every voter be required to do jury service when his
turn comes? What classes of citizens are exempted in your state? Do you
think that these exemptions are justified? Is it right that women should
be called on for jury service? Are there any cases in which they should
not serve?

8. To what extent should the right of appeal be limited?

9. If a person is found not guilty and a few days later confesses that
he actually did commit the crime with which he was charged, he cannot be
placed on trial again. Do you think this is right? Why does this rule
exist?

10. What suggestions can you make for the prevention of existing delays
in the administration of justice?

Topics for Debate

1. The power of the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional
should be taken away.

2. Trial by jury should be abolished in civil cases.

3. The loser in a law suit should not be compelled to pay all the
winner’s costs, including his lawyer’s fees.

-----

Footnote 137:

This is old French for _Hear Ye! Hear Ye!_ The custom of opening a
court session with these words goes back to the time of the
Plantagenets in English history.

Footnote 138:

It may be well to explain briefly some of the terms commonly used in
connection with the law and the courts. The parties to a suit at law
are usually known as the _plaintiff_ and the _defendant_. A _criminal
case_ is one in which some crime is charged; in a _civil case_, the
issue concerns the private rights of individuals (for example, when a
man is sued for debt). A court has _original_ jurisdiction where cases
come before it in the first instance without having already been heard
by some other court; it has _appellate_ jurisdiction when cases come
up from some other court on appeal.

Footnote 139:

In more than one hundred and thirty years only one Supreme Court
justice has been impeached and he was acquitted. The charges in this
case, moreover, did not reflect upon the integrity of the judge.

Footnote 140:

Article III, Section 1.

Footnote 141:

A few cases come directly before the Supreme Court, for example, suits
between two states of the Union; but the great majority of cases come
up on appeal, or on writ of error, which is a method of appeal.

Footnote 142:

There are, in addition, some special federal courts, such as the court
of claims, the courts which try cases in the District of Columbia, and
the courts of the insular possessions.

Footnote 143:

These rules were gathered together and put into written form by
various commentators, chief among whom were Glanvil, Bracton, Coke,
Littleton, and Blackstone. Blackstone’s _Commentaries on the Common
Law of England_, compiled before the American Revolution, is still the
standard work, known to every lawyer.

Footnote 144:

The colonists looked upon the common law as a bulwark of individual
freedom. Edmund Burke, in one of his speeches, mentioned as a
significant indication of the colonists’ familiarity with the common
law the fact that almost as many copies of Blackstone had been sold in
America as in England. The Declaration of Rights adopted by the First
Continental Congress in 1774 spoke of the colonies as entitled to all
the provisions of the common law.

Footnote 145:

Where may these laws be found? Statutes passed by Congress are printed
in the Statutes-at-Large, one or more volumes for each session. State
statutes are printed in volumes known as Session Laws, or simply as
Laws of Pennsylvania or Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts. From time
to time, usually every ten years, these state laws are revised,
rearranged, and consolidated into one general compilation, usually
published as the Revised Statutes or Revised Laws. A similar
publication is issued periodically containing the revised national
statutes. City councils enact legislation by means of ordinances,
which are put together in a volume of Revised Ordinances. When all the
national or state laws relating to a certain subject (for example,
criminal law, or civil procedure, or municipal affairs, etc.) are
brought together into one compilation this is usually known as a code.
Thus we speak of the Criminal Code or the Code of Civil Procedure or
the Municipal Code.

Footnote 146:

In general, equity applies only to certain classes of civil actions
and never to criminal cases; its procedure is simple; a jury is not
ordinarily summoned to hear the facts; evidence in writing may be
submitted; judgment is given by the issue of an order or decree and
not by awarding a certain sum in damages. A further explanation may be
found in the _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. I, pp. 673-675.

Footnote 147:

Courts of law, in addition to awarding punishment in criminal cases
and damages in civil cases are empowered to issue _writs_. Writs are
orders or decrees commanding certain things to be done or left undone.
They are addressed to other courts, or to public officials, or to
individuals. The best-known of these writs is the writ of _habeas
corpus_, an order issued to a jailor or other custodian commanding him
to produce a person in court and show why he is held in custody. If
the court finds that the person is wrongfully held in custody it
orders his release. Another common writ is the writ of mandate
(_mandamus_) issued to public officials to compel them to perform some
duty which is imposed upon them by law. A _writ of error_ is issued in
order to carry a case from a lower to a higher court.

Footnote 148:

In some county courts the grand jury is not now used (see p. 172).

Footnote 149:

These objections are called _challenges_. The judge decides whether
they are well-founded. Both sides are usually allowed a certain number
of _peremptory challenges_, that is, objections for which no reason at
all need be given.

Footnote 150:

There are two or three things which you ought to remember when going
on the witness stand. Tell what you know about the case simply and
briefly; tell only what you actually know, not what you think, or what
somebody told you. Don’t venture your own opinion unless you are asked
for it. When you are being cross-examined, think over every question
before you answer it. If you answer everything quickly and without
thought you will probably fall into a trap and appear to be
contradicting yourself. The opposing lawyer is playing a game of chess
with you. Watch his moves and take your own time in making yours. If
you make any slip, correct it there and then; don’t let it pass with
the idea that it will never be noticed. The witness stand is a place
where a man needs to have his wits about him.

Footnote 151:

If the case is not very serious the prosecuting attorney sometimes
recommends that there be no further trial and the accused person is
then freed.

Footnote 152:

For example, where the jury has disregarded the judge’s instructions
on points of law or where the jurymen have reached their verdict in
some improper way.

Footnote 153:

A prisoner was once charged with setting fire to his own home and
burning it down, thus causing the death of his father and mother. The
prosecuting attorney first put him on trial for the murder of his
father; but the jury acquitted him. Another jury was then summoned and
the attempt was made to place him on trial for the murder of his
mother. The prisoner’s counsel argued that this was placing him on
trial the second time (or in second jeopardy as it is called) for the
_same offence_. The prosecuting attorney argued that it was a
_different offence_, the murder of a different person. Which was
right?

CHAPTER XVII
NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION

_The purpose of this chapter is to show what nature has done for the
United States, and to explain the relation between national
prosperity and natural resources._

[Sidenote: The source of America’s greatness:]

=The Things that Make a Nation Great.=—Three things have contributed
greatly to the upbuilding of the American nation. The first is the wide
extent, the richness, and the varied character of American territory.
The United States is not only a vast country, surpassed in area by very
few other countries of the world, but it possesses great natural
advantages. [Sidenote: 1. The land and its resources.] It contains, as
will be seen presently, extensive regions which are well-suited for
almost every form of human activity, including agriculture in all its
branches, manufacture, mining, forestry, transportation, and trade. It
is abundantly provided with natural harbors and waterways. In soil and
climate there is great variety. No other country of the world can
produce so many different things under such favorable conditions.

[Sidenote: 2. The initiative and industry of its people.]

But it is not enough that a country shall have natural resources. It
must have a people with initiative and industry to develop them. The
American people have spent three centuries at the task of making the
land yield its increase and they have much to show for it. Originally,
for the most part, of Anglo-Saxon stock, the population has been
enriched by the addition of immigrants from every country of the old
world. This mingling of many races into one people has given the nation
vigor and versatility. It has helped to develop among the American
people that alert and progressive spirit which is one of their most
valued characteristics; it has also given strength to democratic ideals.

[Sidenote: 3. The national deals.]

The enduring greatness of a nation does not depend, however, upon its
material achievements alone. It cannot be measured by figures of
population and wealth. What a nation contributes to the progress and
permanence of civilization depends not only upon its economic prosperity
but in an even greater degree upon its spiritual and intellectual
strength. This vast land, so richly endowed by nature and with its
riches so fully utilized by man, has won and can retain its foremost
place among the nations of the world by promoting justice and
contentment among its people, upholding the reign of law, diffusing
education among all, and holding true to the ideals of democratic
government.

[Sidenote: Importance of the soil.]

=The Land.=—Soil is the fundamental resource of any country. Its
fertility determines, in large measure, the size of the population that
can be supported. It is probable that more than thirty per cent of the
American people are today engaged in earning their living from the soil;
at any rate the whole population is in one way or another dependent upon
it. From the soil comes almost our entire food supply.

[Sidenote: The land of the country is privately owned.]

Outside the original thirteen states practically the entire area of the
country has been at some period in the hands of the national government
as part of the public domain.[154] By far the greater part of it,
however, has been sold or granted into private ownership. In the course
of this disposal many corporations and individuals managed to obtain
large tracts of land for very little outlay, because careful attention
was not always given to the administration of the land laws;
nevertheless the policy of selling land cheaply and giving it free to
settlers helped to build up the great Western territories. Out of a
public domain which at one time or another included nearly two-thirds of
the entire United States only six hundred million acres now remain in
the federal government’s hands. Most of this is desert, mountain land,
or land that is otherwise unfit for cultivation.

=The Need of Conservation.=—So long as land remained plentiful and
natural resources seemed to be abundant, very little thought was given
to the possibility that some day both of these things would become
scarce. The land in some parts of the country was exhausted by wasteful
methods of cultivation and then abandoned. [Sidenote: Some examples of
wasted wealth.] There are thousands of abandoned farms in the New
England states. Coal, iron, and copper were mined in ways that permitted
enormous wastage. Through negligence much of our forest wealth was
destroyed by fire. By the beginning of the twentieth century it began to
dawn upon the people that the natural resources of the country were
rapidly melting away, that practically all the good land was gone, while
the natural resources in the way of coal and timber were being so
wastefully used that they would both be exhausted within relatively few
decades unless something were done to conserve them. Accordingly a
movement for the conservation of natural resources was started and since
1900 it has made considerable progress both in securing the passage of
laws and in the education of the public to the urgency of the situation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCIENCE REVEALING THE TREASURES
OF THE EARTH

By Edwin A. Abbey

From a mural painting in the Pennsylvania State
Capitol at Harrisburg.

In this picture the artist portrays an open coal
mine into which several mine-workers are descending.
They are stalwart, young, artless pioneers, eager
for discovery. They impart dramatic energy and
realism to the picture.

Science is pointing the way. She is accompanied by
Fortune, the latter blindfolded and tiptoeing on her
wheel. Grasping Fortune’s right hand is Abundance,
with an overflowing cornucopia, or horn of plenty,
on her shoulder. These mythological figures lend the
picture its symbolism.

The artist portrays a great truth. Human labor,
wisely guided by science, has found fortune and
abundance in the mines and quarries of the earth.

[Illustration:

SCIENCE REVEALING THE TREASURES OF THE EARTH. By Edwin A. Abbey

_Copyright by Edwin A. Abbey. From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis
& Cameron, Boston. Reproduced by permission._]
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: Conservation means three things:]

=What Conservation Means.=—Conservation means three things: [Sidenote:
1. Retention.] First, that public lands still in the hands of the nation
and the states shall not be thoughtlessly turned over to private
corporations and individuals for their own profit, but shall be
administered so far as practicable by the public authorities for the
benefit of the whole country; second, [Sidenote: 1. Retention.]that such
portions of our timber, coal, oil, and mineral resources as have already
passed into private hands shall be so regulated by law as to prevent
their wasteful exploitation; and [Sidenote: 3. Replacement.]third, that
the government shall do its best to encourage the replacement of such
natural resources as can be replaced (for example, by the reforesting of
land and the restocking of lakes with fish).

[Sidenote: Coal and iron.]

=The Mines.=—No country can ever become great in industry unless it has
ready access to minerals, especially iron and coal. It was the
possession of iron and coal in great quantities that served to make
England during the nineteenth century the industrial leader of Europe.
Various regions of the United States possess these great stores of
mineral wealth and have made good use of them. There is one great
difference between mineral resources and other natural resources,
namely, that when minerals are once taken from the earth there is no way
of renewing them. Soil can be replenished, and forests regrown; but
minerals form an endowment which, when once drawn from the bowels of the
earth, can never be replaced. Hence the urgent need for a policy of
conserving these important sources of national wealth. Coal and iron,
while they are the natural resources upon which the growth of industry
mainly depends, are not the only forms of wealth drawn from below the
surface of the ground in this country. [Sidenote: Other minerals.] In
the mining of silver and gold the United States is one of the foremost
among the various producing countries. Copper, lead, oil, zinc,
aluminum, quicksilver, and other natural materials are also taken from
the earth in large quantities each year.

[Sidenote: The earlier practice.]

=The Conservation of Coal, Oil, and Minerals.=—Until about fifty years
ago, land containing coal or other mineral resources was sold and
granted by the government like any other lands. The individual or
corporation became the owner of whatever wealth might happen to lie
beneath the surface. In this way an enormous amount of wealth was
practically given away. It was not until a few years ago that the
government decided to reserve for itself all coal and minerals which
might be discovered in lands given to settlers. [Sidenote: The present
coal situation.] But this action came too late, for most of the
coal-bearing lands had already passed into private ownership. By its
failure to take due thought for the morrow the government had sold, for
a few dollars per acre, what might have been a source of enormous
revenue. If the practice of reserving the right to all coal, oil, and
minerals in granted lands had been adopted in 1810 instead of in 1910
the value of these rights today would be greater than the entire
national debt.

A large and steady supply of coal is of the utmost value to industry; in
fact modern industry depends upon it. Yet when coal is once taken out
and burned it cannot be replaced; there is only so much of it in the
country and when that is gone there will be no more. It took nature many
millions of years to produce the coal that is there now. At the present
rate of increase in yearly consumption all the coal that is known to
exist in the United States will be gone in about one hundred and fifty
years. Some saving can be made by the use of oil and water power. Some
economies in mining and in the use of coal are also possible. But these
will hardly avail to prevent the ultimate exhaustion of the supply. At
best we can only set that day a bit further off.

[Sidenote: Conservation of oil.]

Speaking of oil, the amount of crude petroleum or fuel oil now actually
known to be available in the United States will be exhausted in less
than fifty years if the present rate of consumption is maintained. There
is every likelihood that this rate of consumption will be increased
owing to the greater use of gasoline and kerosene for motor power. Large
quantities of oil, however, are, available in Mexico. Within recent
years it has been hoped that, with the progress of mechanical
appliances, it will be practicable to obtain oil from shale rock.

[Sidenote: The wastage of our forest wealth.]

=The Forests.=—When the first European settlers came to America, the
colonists depended heavily upon the forests. From the woods they
obtained timber for their houses and barns, wood for fuel and, by
hunting, a considerable part of their food supply. In all stages of
civilization men have depended upon the forests to satisfy many of their
diversified wants. Nowadays steel has taken the place of timber in the
construction of buildings and ships; coal and oil have largely replaced
wood as fuel; the days when men subsisted by hunting are past; and
mankind is no longer so heavily dependent upon the forests as in the
olden days. Yet the forests of America are still a great source of
wealth even though the timber resources have been heavily drawn upon
during the past hundred years. This is one of the natural resources
which has been wastefully used and it is only in recent years that
attention has been given to conserving what is left of it. The forests
are needed, not only as a source of timber supply, but in order to
preserve the fertility of the soil and to retain in it the moisture
which is otherwise evaporated or run off.

[Sidenote: The earlier practice.]

=The Conservation of Timber.=—In the days when so much of the land was
covered with timber the chief concern was to get it out of the way so
that the ground could be used for agriculture. No one seemed to realize
that the day would ever come when forest land would be more valuable
than corn land. Before 1878 the national government sold off many
million acres of valuable forest land at low prices to individuals and
corporations and they, in turn, used it in whatever ways would yield the
largest profit to themselves. [Sidenote: The Timber and Stone Act,
1878.] By the Timber and Stone Act of 1878, however, it was provided
that only a limited area of government land containing timber or stone
could be sold to any one person or corporation and then only at a higher
price than agricultural land. But even this did not prove a sufficient
measure of waste-prevention, and in 1891 Congress adopted the policy of
withdrawing large areas of government forest land from the market
altogether. [Sidenote: Forest reserves.] These tracts were set aside as
national forest reservations and today there are about one hundred and
fifty million acres set apart to ensure the country’s future supply of
timber. The national government is also permitted to buy from private
owners forest lands in the watersheds of navigable streams in order to
protect the natural flow in such waterways. The administration of all
the forest reservations is in the hands of the United States Forest
Service, which forms part of the Department of Agriculture.

[Sidenote: Forest policy of the states.]

The area of timber land owned by the states, by corporations, and by
individuals is very much greater than that contained in the national
reservations. It is here, moreover, that the greatest amount of waste is
taking place. Forest fires, most of which are due to carelessness, burn
up enormous quantities of timber every year. The states which still
possess considerable forest resources, such as New York, Minnesota, and
California, are also adopting the policy of creating reservations and
everywhere more effective measures are being taken to prevent
destruction by forest fires. These measures include the maintenance of
fire patrols, the construction of fire-breaks on the ridges of hills,
the clearing out of underbrush, and the stricter supervision of camping
parties.

Timber, fortunately, is a natural resource which can be replaced. Lands
which have been cut-over can be reforested and used to supply timber for
future generations. Large trees take a long time to mature, however, and
the lands which are being planted with seedlings today will not be
yielding material for the sawmill until the middle of the twentieth
century has faded into the past. Both the national and state governments
are now reforesting on a large scale. To some extent private
corporations and individuals have followed their lead.

[Sidenote: Harbors, lakes, and waterways.]

=Other Natural Resources.=—All the nation’s wealth does not come,
however, from the fields, the mines, and the forests. In fisheries
America leads the entire world. The harbors and the waterways of the
country are as important to commerce as the soil is to agriculture. No
other country is better provided with natural harbors, lakes, and
navigable rivers than the United States. All the largest cities are
located upon them, and were it not for the waterways, we would not have
the great cities. Run over in your mind the ten or fifteen largest
cities of the United States and see if you can name any that are not
situated on one of the oceans, the Great Lakes, the great navigable
rivers, or on the Gulf of Mexico. It is not a mere accident that none of
the great industrial centers are without facilities for trade by water.
Geography, not man, determines for the most part the situation of all
great industrial communities. Water power is another natural heritage.
[Sidenote: Water power.] From the giant Niagara to the smallest
cataract, thousands of these water powers have been harnessed and made
to function as the servant of man, running factories and generating
electricity. Water power does the work of coal.[155] Its presence has
often determined the location of large industries.

[Sidenote: How geography determines a nation’s progress.]

=Geography and the Future.=—From what has been said in the last four
sections it will thus be seen that natural resources are a great factor
in determining the progress and prosperity of a nation. [Sidenote: The
energy of man cannot replace the bounty of nature.] No amount of
intelligence and industry on the part of the people will ensure rapid
economic progress if they occupy a country which lacks a fertile soil,
is devoid of minerals, possesses no forests or fisheries, and is
deficient in natural harbors and waterways. Man can do much, but his
powers are limited without the aid of nature. Animals and plants can be
carried from one part of the world to another and made to thrive in
their new environment; but mineral resources were laid down many
millions of years ago in certain definite places and there they have
stayed. A country which has no mineral resources cannot create them by
the genius or industry of its people. On the other hand, if great
natural resources are at hand, progress becomes merely a question of
applying human intelligence and industry to these resources. The rise of
the American nation to its present position, therefore, is not
surprising, although it has taken a relatively short period of time. It
is the joint result of nature’s bounty and man’s efficiency. To which of
these we owe the larger share of the nation’s progress no one can say.
If the country had lacked either, it could not have progressed in any
such measure during the past three hundred years.

[Sidenote: Natural resources and national power.]

The same things have been true of other countries. England, during the
greater part of the nineteenth century, was the leading industrial
country of the world. This was unquestionably due not only to the
enterprise of Englishmen but to the great natural resources of the
country in coal and iron. When Germany defeated France in 1870 she took
away from the French certain territories which were rich in minerals.
With the aid of these materials Germany in the course of fifty years was
able to become a great industrial power. Now, as the result of the World
War, the French have recovered these territories and we may look for a
marked revival in the industries of France. During the peace
negotiations more importance was attached to small areas of coal and
mineral lands than to whole provinces of agricultural land.

As the mineral resources of older countries become exhausted it is
altogether likely that industrial supremacy will pass with them. New
countries, which today have unexplored possibilities in coal and iron,
will then have their turn in industrial prominence. Who knows where the
balance of industrial power will be lodged a hundred years hence. China,
for aught we know, may be the chief manufacturing country of the world
in the twenty-first century. If we knew exactly how long the natural
resources of Europe and America will hold out, and if we knew also just
how much mineral wealth there is in the Far East, we could predict these
things with reasonable certainty.

[Sidenote: How geography will influence the future progress of America.]

Certain it is, at any rate, that the past history of America has been
determined, in no small degree, by geographical conditions. The same
factors are likely to influence the future. The country is becoming less
agricultural, less dependent upon the soil. As it becomes more
industrial our dependence upon its other natural resources, upon coal,
iron, oil, copper, timber, and water power must necessarily increase.
The commerce of the country keeps on growing, and with this growth the
reliance of the nation upon its harbors and waterways will inevitably
become greater. As population expands there will be a heavier demand
upon the food supply and the time will doubtless come when the United
States will have no food for export. Indeed the day may arrive when
agricultural products will have to be imported from outside. All this
points to the need for emphasis upon conservation. It means that we
should avoid all wastage of natural resources. The fertility of the soil
should be preserved by scientific methods of agriculture. The mineral
wealth of the country should be utilized in such a way as to give the
greatest advantage over the longest period of time. We must reforest our
unused lands. Harbors and waterways should be developed to aid commerce.
If these things are done, America can face the future with confidence.

General References

GREGORY, KELLER, and BISHOP, _Physical and Commercial Geography of the
United States_, pp. 252-350;

A. P. BRIGHAM, _Geographic Influences in American History_, especially
pp. 70-104;

E. C. SEMPLE, _Influences of Geographic Environment_, pp. 51-71;

O. W. PRICE, _The Land We Live In_, pp. 99-138;

N. S. SHALER, _Man and the Earth_, pp. 1-19;

C. R. VAN HISE, _The Conservation of Natural Resources in the United
States_, especially pp. 263-306;

T. N. CARVER, _Sociology and Social Progress_, pp. 174-270 (The
Influence Exerted by Physical Laws over the Organization of Society and
the Character of Individuals, by T. H. BUCKLE); _Ibid._, _Principles of
National Economy_, pp. 3-14; 123-152;

C. A. BEARD, _American Government and Politics_, pp. 405-416; _Ibid._,
_Readings in American Government and Politics_, pp. 368-374;

P. S. REINSCH, _Readings in American Federal Government_, pp. 538-589;

M. H. GREGORY, _Checking the Waste_, pp. 42-85;

ISAAC LIPPINCOTT, _Economic Development of the United States_, pp.
149-182.

ISAIAH BOWMAN, _The New World: Problems in Political Geography_ (see
index).

Group Problems

=1. The civilization of the future as determined by the exhaustion and
development of natural resources.= When European and American resources
in coal, oil, and iron give out, what substitutes can be used and to
what extent? What countries have the resources to enable them to forge
ahead when that time comes? Show the connection between industrial
progress and each type of natural wealth. Consider whether there is any
way in which a country may keep its industrial supremacy despite the
exhaustion of natural wealth. =References=: _Encyclopedia Britannica_;
_Statesman’s Year Book_; GREGORY, KELLER, and BISHOP, _Physical and
Commercial Geography_, especially pp. 252-350; 384-394; C. R. VAN HISE,
_The Conservation of Natural Resources in the United States_, especially
pp. 359-379; H. T. BUCKLE, _History of Civilization in England_, Vol. I
(1868 edition), pp. 39-151; ISAIAH BOWMAN, _The New World_, _passim_.

=2. Conservation and its apostles, especially President Roosevelt.=
=References=: H. R. BURCH, _American Economic Life_, pp. 101-108; C. R.
VAN HISE, _The Conservation of Natural Resources in the United Stales_,
pp. 1-14; 359-379; ELY, HESS, LEITH, and CARVER, _Foundations of
National Prosperity_, pp. 19-20; GIFFORD PINCHOT, _The Fight for
Conservation_, pp. 40-70; THEODORE ROOSEVELT, _Autobiography_, pp.
408-436.

=3. The coal industry: its past, present, and future.= =References=: W.
J. NICOLLS, _The Story of American Coal_; PETER ROBERTS, _The Anthracite
Coal Industry_, pp. 3-16; 212-227; ELY, HESS, LEITH, and CARVER, _The
Foundations of National Prosperity_, pp. 191-209.

Short Studies

1. =The relation of human progress to geographic conditions.= GREGORY,
KELLER, and BISHOP, _Physical and Commercial Geography_, pp. 126-179; T.
H. BUCKLE, _History of Civilization_, I, pp. 174-270.

2. =What are the fundamental factors in national prosperity?= T. N.
CARVER, _Principles of National Economy_, pp. 3-15; ISAAC LIPPINCOTT,
_Economic Development of the United States_, pp. 14-34.

3. =American forest reservations.= H. D. BOERKER, _Our National
Forests_, pp. 170-232; O. W. PRICE, _The Land We Live In_, pp. 65-98;
ERNEST BRUNCKEN, _North American Forests and Forestry_ (1900), pp.
161-182; U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, _Circulars_.

4. =The oil situation.= DAVID WHITE, in the _Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science_ (May, 1920); C. R. VAN HISE,
_The Conservation of Natural Resources in the United States_, pp. 47-61.

5. =The growth of the iron and steel industry.= H. N. CASSON, _The
Romance of Steel_, pp. 1-26; 72-100; J. R. SMITH, _The Story of Iron and
Steel_, pp. 108-126; ANDREW CARNEGIE, _Autobiography_, pp. 130-197.

6. =The conservation of water power.= C. R. VAN HISE, _Conservation of
Natural Resources in the United States_, pp. 144-161.

7. =The conservation of iron and copper.= ELY, HESS, LEITH, and CARVER,
_Foundations of National Prosperity_, pp. 210-231.

8. =The settlement and use of the national domain.= ALBERT SHAW,
_Political Problems of American Development_, pp. 87-115.

9. =The homestead system.= C. R. VAN HISE, _Conservation of Natural
Resources in the United States_, pp. 279-287; G. M. STEPHENSON, _The
Political History of the Public Lands_, pp. 190-245.

10. =The reclamation of desert and swamp lands.= H. R. BURCH, _American
Economic Life_, pp. 93-99.

Questions

1. Mark on an outline map the chief geographical divisions of the United
States. State the chief characteristics of each.

2. Locate on the map the chief agricultural areas, the chief mining
districts, the chief industrial centers, and the chief harbors of the
United States.

3. Why do the great railroads of the United States run east and west
rather than north and south?

4. Do you approve of granting free lands to bona fide settlers? Under
what restrictions?

5. Mark on the map the location of (_a_) the principal coal areas; (_b_)
the principal oil-bearing areas; (_c_) the national forests.

6. Show what natural resources are utilized in the building of a house,
from cellar to garret, and tell what section of the United States is the
largest center of production for (_a_) oak timber; (_b_) glass; (_c_)
steel beams; (_d_) electric wire; (_e_) sewer pipe.

7. Name the harbors of the United States in the order of their (_a_)
natural advantages; (_b_) commercial importance.

8. Compare the general geographical advantages of North and South
America. To what extent has the difference in the relative economic
progress of the two continents been due to geographical differences?

9. Which do you regard as the more urgent need at the present day: the
conservation of timber or of coal or of oil? Give your reasons.

10. Compare the relative geographical advantages of the following
cities: Pittsburgh, Detroit, Atlanta, San Francisco, Baltimore.

Topics for Debate

1. The United States should adopt a rental system for all public lands
on which there are mineral resources or water powers.

2. The United States should insist upon free access to foreign natural
resources (for example, in Mexico).

CHAPTER XVIII
THE AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS

_The purpose of this chapter is to show the large part which
agriculture plays in the life of the country and to discuss briefly
some of the problems of agriculture today._

=Importance of American Agriculture.=—Agriculture has always been the
most important single industry in the United States. [Sidenote: The
crops in earlier days.] It was at one time practically the sole
occupation of the people; even today it directly or indirectly engages
the attention of more than half the adult male workers of the country.
In colonial days the chief task of the people was to raise a food supply
sufficient for themselves. Corn was their principal crop, the colonists
having learned from the Indians the methods of cultivating it. Corn had
the advantage of being well suited to the soil and climate; besides it
grows well even in partially cleared land. But in colonial days and even
for a time after the Revolution the country did not produce much grain
beyond its own needs. The production of large quantities for export came
with the opening up of the great agricultural areas of the West.

[Sidenote: 1. Mixed farming.]

=Types of Agricultural Activity.=—American agriculture has developed,
during the past three hundred years, in five or six different
directions. The earliest settlers in the northern colonies devoted
themselves to general or mixed farming, in other words to the raising of
grain, hay, and cattle on the same tract of land. This was because the
environment and needs of the northern region alike favored this method.
Mixed farming has continued to be the mainstay of agriculture east of
the Alleghenies; in some measure it has spread to other parts of the
country as well.

[Sidenote: 2. Staple or plantation farming.]

A second type of agriculture, almost from the very outset, made progress
in the South. This involved the raising of certain staple products, such
as rice, tobacco, sugar, and cotton on large plantations. The soil,
climate, and general environment of the southern colonies all lent
themselves to this type of agriculture and it eventually spread itself
over the whole region. Cotton in time out-stripped the other staples and
became king of the whole South. This was largely because the invention
of the cotton gin, an appliance for removing the seeds from the fibre,
greatly reduced the cost of preparing cotton for the market. The
scarcity of free labor to work these great plantations led to the
importation of negro slaves and the institution of slavery had a
profound effect upon the subsequent course of American history. Since
the emancipation of the negroes, the plantation system has remained
although many of the larger tracts have been broken up into small
holdings.

[Sidenote: 3. Cereal growing.]

The opening of the Middle West and Mississippi Valley brought in a third
form of agricultural activity, namely, the production of cereals (such
as corn, wheat, oats, rye, and barley) on great tracts of prairie land.
This form of agricultural production received a great impetus from the
invention of labor-saving machinery, notably the power-reaper. The
region of extensive cereal production today includes the Middle West,
the Northwest, and the Mississippi Valley, making the richest
grain-growing area in the world.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Illustration:

_LAND REGIONS
OF THE
UNITED STATES._
]

LAND REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES

The great geographical regions of the United States
are indicated by this map. Starting from the East we
have the Atlantic Plains and, just behind them, the
Eastern Plateaus running north and south. Then
come the Appalachian Mountains and the Allegheny
Plateaus, followed, still further westward, by the
Lake Plains, the Prairie Plains, and the Great
Plains. Southward, fringing the Gulf of Mexico, are
the Gulf Plains. To the far west are three great
land regions, namely, the Rocky Mountain area, the
Western Plateaus, and the Pacific Slope.

This map should be used in connection with Question
1 (page 354).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: 4. Cattle raising.]

As the frontier rolled westward to the foothills of the Rocky Mountains
a fourth type of agriculture—using the term in its wider sense—began to
make rapid strides. This was the stock-raising industry, the production
of horned cattle and sheep on large tracts of grazing land or ranches.
This branch of agricultural activity has made its greatest progress in
the Middle Southwest and upon the upland states just east of the Rockies
(Montana, Wyoming, etc.). Cattle are raised on the ranches, then shipped
to the corn belt where they are fattened before being sent to the
abattoirs at St. Louis and Chicago.[156]

[Sidenote: Miscellaneous activities.]

Other branches of agriculture which have developed largely within the
past half century are dairying, market gardening, and fruit growing.
These activities are not confined to any one section of the country but
to a considerable extent are carried on everywhere. Dairying and market
gardening have made most progress within convenient distance of the
large cities, although improved transportation facilities in the way of
air-cooled and refrigerator cars now permit the shipment of dairy and
garden produce over long distances.

From all this it can be seen that when one speaks of the interests of
agriculture a great many different things are included. The agriculture
of the United States is diversified to an extent that is found in no
other country.

[Sidenote: Size of the various crops.]

=The Value of American Agricultural Products.=—The largest cereal crop
produced in the United states is corn; the total in some years runs as
high as three billion bushels. This is more than twice the amount of
corn grown in all the rest of the world. Oats come next, with about one
and one-half billion bushels in the best years, and wheat third, with a
round billion or thereabouts. Cotton is the largest staple crop, with an
annual yield of from ten to fifteen billion bales, each bale containing
five hundred pounds. Of this nearly half is exported. More than twelve
million cattle are received each year at the great abattoirs, besides an
equal number of sheep and twice as many hogs.

The value of this enormous agricultural production, if stated in dollars
and cents, would be misleading because prices change from year to year;
the fluctuations are often considerable within a very short period of
time.[157] But in any case the contribution which agriculture makes to
the yearly income of the nation is enormous. Upon it the national
prosperity depends in a very great measure.

[Sidenote: How the war stimulated American food production.]

=American Agriculture and the War.=—American agriculture had a very
important part in winning the World War. As this great struggle
progressed the task of providing food for the Allied armies and for the
civilian populations became month by month more difficult. Men were
drawn off the farms of Europe to fight and the fields went uncultivated;
practically the whole of Belgium and a considerable part of France were
in the hands of the enemy; no supplies could be drawn from remote parts
of the world such as Australia, South America, or the Far East because
the available ships were needed to carry troops and munitions; so the
American farmer had to speed up production in order to save the
situation. When America entered the war the Allies had practically
reached the end of their resources in foodstuffs; their populations were
living under a rigid system of food rationing. Under the stimulation of
this great emergency American agriculture rose to the occasion and the
increased production of foodstuffs, together with the savings which were
made through the observance of “wheatless” and “meatless” days enabled
the United States not only to maintain an army of two million soldiers
in France but to contribute largely to the food supplies of the Allied
armies and civilian populations as well. The supply trains which fed the
American army in France (and never on a single day did they fail to
reach the front), started from Kansas City and Chicago, not from Brest
or Havre. The American farmer was the great factor in this service of
supply.

[Sidenote: An example of _increasing returns_.]

=A Peculiarity of Agricultural Production—The Law of Diminishing
Returns.=—There is one fundamental feature in which agriculture differs
from industry. In industry, as a rule, the more labor and capital you
apply the greater the amount of the produce. Many industries, indeed,
are so constituted that by applying additional capital and labor you
obtain more than proportionate returns. Take the book-binding industry,
for example. A small shop, employing three men, might bind and stamp two
hundred books per day at a cost of twenty cents per book. But a large
establishment, employing a hundred workers with modern machinery can
easily put through many thousand books at half the cost per volume. A
manufacturer, if he is wise, finds out what branches of his business are
most profitable. Then he applies more capital and labor in that
direction so as to increase his earnings, and devotes less attention to
the things which cannot be made so profitably. This is known as
production under the _law of increasing returns_.

But in agriculture the situation is quite different. Any farmer or
ranchman will tell you, if you ask him, that some of his land is better
than the rest and yields him greater profit for the capital and labor
applied to it. But if you thereupon suggest to him that he should devote
all his attention to this particular piece of land, and neglect the
rest, he would think very poorly of your intelligence. [Sidenote: An
illustration of _decreasing returns_.] And rightly so, for if he applied
more labor and capital to his best land, he would not be sure of getting
a crop-increase in proportion; on the contrary, he would be quite safe
in saying that, after a certain point, his extra labor and capital would
bring him _less_ than proportionate returns. An investment of ten
dollars per acre may result in a crop of fifteen bushels per acre. It is
very doubtful whether by applying twenty dollars worth of capital and
labor to the land this yield could be doubled and it is quite certain
that it could not be trebled by spending thirty dollars per acre on the
land. In other words, agriculture is carried on, for the most part,
under the _law of diminishing returns_, which may be briefly defined by
saying that, “if at any given time, the amount of labor and capital
applied to agricultural land is increased beyond a certain point, the
increased investment will yield less than proportionate returns”. If
this were not the case, no one would ever cultivate the poorer lands. We
would raise our entire crops from the most fertile tracts. The point at
which the returns will begin to diminish can never be exactly fixed, for
improvements in the methods of agriculture may place it further ahead.
These improved methods also bring into cultivation lands which otherwise
would not be utilized.

=Another Peculiarity of Agriculture—Limitations on Division of
Labor.=—In one other fundamental feature there is a difference between
agriculture and industry. In industry, as will be seen presently, the
individual worker confines his attention to one operation in the process
of production. He does not make a shoe, but only part of a shoe. But in
agriculture, this division of labor cannot be carried so far. [Sidenote:
Why division of labor does not apply to agriculture.] The workers
engaged in agriculture cannot be ploughmen, sowers, reapers, or
threshers only; they must take a hand at all these things when the time
comes. This is because the tasks connected with agriculture change with
the seasons. Agricultural labor must, therefore, be much more versatile
than labor employed in large-scale industry. Most industries, moreover,
are able to run along at an even pace throughout the year, affording
steady employment to a fixed number of workers. But in most forms of
agriculture, the amount of labor required is much greater at some
seasons of the year than at others, thus giving the farmer a labor
problem of great difficulty to contend with.

[Sidenote: The chemical elements in soil.]

=The Exhaustion of the Soil.=—The agricultural production of the country
depends upon the fertility of the soil. Agricultural soil contains
various chemical properties which are exhausted by long-continued
cropping, particularly if only one type of produce is grown. These
chemical elements are, more particularly, nitrogen, phosphorus, and
potash. Some crops draw chiefly upon one of these chemical elements and
some upon the others. Wheat and corn take large amounts of nitrogen from
the soil, while potatoes draw a larger proportion of potash. The
exhaustion of the soil is prevented in two ways, first by rotation of
crops and, second, by the use of fertilizers. Rotation of crops involves
the growing of different products in successive years, such as wheat,
potatoes, and hay. It is not always practicable. [Sidenote:
Fertilization.] Fertilization involves the putting of chemical elements
back into the soil. It may be effected by the use of natural manure or
artificial fertilizers or by ploughing under the soil a green cover
crop. Land retains its fertility to the degree that chemical elements
are conserved in it.

=The Effects of Agricultural Improvements.=—During the past half century
great progress has been made in all the processes of agriculture. The
methods of treating the soil, the types of grain and other produce
grown, the machinery available for use in agriculture, and the general
intelligence with which the lands are cultivated—all have vastly
improved since our grandfathers’ day. [Sidenote: The increased yield of
the soil.] The results are apparent in an increased production. At the
time of the Civil War the yield of wheat throughout the United States
averaged only nine to ten bushels per acre; today it is nearly double
that figure. Good farms and good farmers are now producing twenty-five
bushels of wheat to the acre, sixty bushels of corn, or six hundred
pounds of cotton. Similar progress has been made in the raising of
cattle and in dairying. This has been accomplished by the selection and
breeding of improved stock.

Year by year this improvement continues and it is certain that we have
not yet nearly reached the limit of possibilities. On the highly
fertilized lands of some European countries the wheat yield is as high
as thirty or even forty bushels to the acre. In the case of root crops,
fertilization of the land is an extremely important factor in
production. [Sidenote: Our future possibilities.] One of the great
present-day needs of American agriculture is a better and cheaper supply
of nitrates for fertilizing the land and this has directed attention to
the possibility of manufacturing nitrates in this country instead of
importing them from abroad.[158]

=The United States Department of Agriculture.=—To assist the
agricultural interests of the country a Commissioner [Sidenote: How the
national government helps the farmer.]of Agriculture was appointed by
the national government in 1862, and seven years later this office was
expanded into a Department of Agriculture, with a member of the cabinet
at its head. The work of this department at the present day covers a
wide range. Its more important activities, carried on through various
bureaus, may be summarized as follows: The Bureau of Plant Industry
studies new agricultural methods, endeavors to find improved varieties
of grain and plants, conducts research work on soil fertility, and
devises measures for the extermination of noxious weeds. It has combed
the whole world for new grains and plants likely to thrive in this
country. Its agents go about the country giving talks and demonstrations
to the farmers with a view to educating them in all these matters. The
Bureau of Animal Industry makes investigations into improved methods of
breeding and raising live stock; it studies the problem of preventing
communicable diseases among animals, and has charge of federal meat
inspection. The Bureau of Entomology gathers and publishes information
concerning insects which do harm to crops and cattle. It suggests
methods of exterminating each form of insect pest. In this it has a
giant task, for the ravages of insects like the gypsy moth and orange
thrip are still costing the country millions of dollars per year. The
work of the United States Forest Service, which is in this department,
has already been mentioned. The Weather Bureau’s work is also well
known. It gathers information concerning the weather in all sections of
the country and sends out timely forecasts of probable storms,
heat-waves, frosts, and rainfall for the benefit of agriculture and
navigation. Other bureaus make chemical analyses of soil, water, and
foods, and compile all manner of agricultural statistics. The Department
of Agriculture also maintains, in different parts of the country, sixty
experiment stations, at which new methods are fully tried out before
being recommended.

It will be seen that by far the greater portion of the department’s work
is scientific and educational. Its educational work is carried on not
only by speakers and demonstrators who go about the country, but by the
issue of bulletins and an annual volume known as the department’s Year
Book. This volume, which may be had free of cost, contains more useful
information on agricultural topics than any other book of its sort.

[Sidenote: How the state governments help the farmer.]

=State Encouragement of Agriculture.=—The encouragement of agriculture
has not been left entirely to the national authorities. Most of the
states also maintain departments of agriculture in charge of boards or
commissioners. In most of the states, moreover, state colleges of
agriculture have been established, and these may be attended, usually
without the payment of tuition fees, by any qualified resident of the
state. Short courses of instruction are given in various branches of
agriculture for those who can spend but a few weeks or months at these
agricultural colleges; extension work is carried on and scientific
investigations made. This work has been, to some extent, assisted by
grants of land and money from the national government. The chief
individual factor in bringing both the federal and state agricultural
authorities into touch with the farmers and cattle raisers is the county
agent. He addresses them at their meetings, advises them on all
agricultural matters, and helps them to form agricultural clubs.

=The Problem of Agricultural Credits.=—In agriculture, as in industry
and commerce, a considerable amount of capital is needed. It takes
capital to buy land, to improve it, to obtain machinery and live stock,
to purchase seed, and to pay expenses during the period between seedtime
and harvest. Until recently the agriculturist has been at a
disadvantage, as compared with the manufacturer, in securing this
capital. The banking system of the country was organized mainly to
assist the operations of industry and commerce; there were no special
banks to assist agriculture. [Sidenote: The Federal Farm Loan Banks.] In
1916, however, a system of Farm Loan Banks was established. There are
now twelve such banks situated in as many regions of the country. Their
function is to loan money on the security of agricultural or grazing
land at reasonable rates of interest, the loans to be repaid in
installments over a term of years. This has placed agriculture on an
equality with all other forms of production as regards loans based on
the security of land; but for loans upon the security of cattle, crops,
and other personal property, the agriculturist must still depend upon
the regular banking institutions.

[Sidenote: “Seasonal” character of agriculture.]

=The Problem of Agricultural Labor.=—Mention has already been made of
the fact that agriculture is a “seasonal” occupation to a very large
extent. It is an occupation, moreover, in which the workers cannot at
all times call eight hours a full day’s work. At the busy seasons of
seedtime and harvest the day of the farmer and his helpers is from
before sunrise until after sunset. As a result of these features the
securing of a sufficient labor force at the busy seasons is an
agricultural problem of great and constantly-recurring difficulty. Time
and again it has happened that valuable crops have gone to waste because
men could not be hired to harvest them. During the war years the
scarcity of labor was especially acute and the wages of farm workers
went up very rapidly. It is believed that this problem of getting
sufficient labor might be solved by some organized action such as the
United States government took during 1917-1918, recruiting labor in the
cities, moving them from section to section in accordance with the
demand, and effecting a more even distribution of the available workers.

=Farmers’ Organizations.=—It is harder for farmers to organize than for
men in most other occupations. They live apart from one another; they
are not dependent upon one another to the same extent that townsmen are;
and their manner of life tends to make them individually self-reliant.
In organizing they have, therefore, been much less active than workers
in industry and commerce. Nevertheless there are many farmers’
associations in the United States at the present time and their
membership is steadily increasing. Some of them are co-operative bodies,
organized for the buying, selling, or manufacture of products. Others
are agricultural societies formed for the purpose of holding fairs and
meetings.

[Sidenote: The Grange and the Farmers’ Alliance.]

Two farmers’ organizations of a fraternal and social nature have spread
all over the country. The first is the Patrons of Husbandry, more
commonly known as the Grange. The other is the National Farmers’
Alliance. Between them these two organizations include several million
members. Their main purpose is to promote the social and economic
interests of the agricultural population, but they are also, on some
occasions, active in politics. Farmers’ Institutes, which are being held
under the joint auspices of the national and state agricultural
departments in all sections of the country have also contributed to the
facilities for popular education and recreation. These institutes are
attended by more than two million persons per year.

[Sidenote: The agricultural “bloc.”]

=The Farmer in Politics.=—While the farmers of the United States do not
possess a political organization of their own they are able through the
various bodies mentioned in the preceding paragraph and through other
associations to exercise a very important influence upon the action of
the government. Many senators and representatives come from sections of
the country where the farmers constitute an important element among the
voters and on matters affecting the interests of agriculture these
legislators usually stand together. In recent years this group of
congressmen from the agricultural areas has been commonly known as the
“agricultural bloc”; they do not form an actual majority in Congress,
but they have usually had enough strength to get what they want. At the
session of 1921 they obtained a tariff duty on wheat, which is in effect
a tax on bread, and any political organization which can put a tax on
bread must be powerful indeed. The farmers’ lobby at Washington is
exceedingly strong.

Attempts have been made to unite the farmers in the rural districts with
the workers in the cities into a regular political party. At the
presidential election of 1920 a so-termed Farmer-Labor ticket was placed
in the field, but it did not muster much strength. A combination of
these two elements, if it could be effective, would be all-powerful. It
is very doubtful, however, if any such political combination can be
really made. The interests of the two elements are too far apart. The
farmers are producers of food; the city workers are consumers. One wants
prices to stay high; the other wants them to come down. It will be
difficult to get two such groups to come together and to stay together.

[Sidenote: The rural exodus.]

=The Special Problems of Rural Communities.=—One of the chief problems
of every rural community is to keep its young men and women from
migrating to the cities and towns. In many parts of the country the
agricultural population is steadily declining by reason of the constant
exodus to the towns, and wherever population decreases there is usually
a fall in the value of land.[159] Thereupon the community ceases to move
forward; the lands are neglected; methods of agriculture fail to keep
pace with the times, and the whole region takes on a shabby appearance.

Now the chief reason why young men and women leave the rural districts
for the cities is to be found in the outward attractiveness of city
life. This attractiveness is really not so great as it appears to be;
but it is the appearances that often count. Rural comforts and
conveniences have been all too few in the past; the hours of labor have
been long and the work often disagreeable; the dearth of social
recreations has also been a factor in making rural life seem monotonous
to youth. These drawbacks, however, are not essential and permanent
features of rural life. The balance of advantage which towns and cities
have heretofore possessed is in fact being steadily reduced by the
advent of things which greatly enhance the attractiveness of life in
rural communities. [Sidenote: The increasing attractions of rural life.]
The motor car, the paved roads, the parcels post and rural mail
delivery, the extension of telephone service and electric lighting into
the country, the tractor and other labor-saving devices, the
organization of societies and clubs among the young people of the rural
areas, the improvement and centralization of rural schools—all these are
having influence. The application of scientific principles to
agriculture, moreover, has made it a skilled occupation, not a common
industry. Routine farming by rule-of-thumb methods is not very
interesting and not very profitable; but scientific farming is both. For
these various reasons the exodus from the farms is not likely to be as
great in the future as it has been in the past. This is a fortunate
circumstance for, as President Roosevelt once declared, our whole
civilization rests upon the attractiveness as well as the prosperity of
rural life.

General References

H. R. BURCH, _American Economic Life_, pp. 209-232;

H. C. TAYLOR, _Agricultural Economics_, pp. 13-30;

G. F. WARREN, _Elements of Agriculture_, pp. 372-398;

SIR HORACE PLUNKETT, _The Rural Life Problem of the United States_, pp.
59-82;

JOHN PHELAN, _Readings in Rural Sociology_, pp. 162-183;

K. L. BUTTERFIELD, _The Farmer and the New Day_, pp. 1-29;

E. G. NOURSE, _Agricultural Economics_, pp. 210-223;

A. H. BENSON and G. H. BETTS, _Agriculture and the Farming Business_,
pp. 1-12;

S. J. BUCK, _The Agrarian Crusade_, pp. 111-141.

Group Problems

=1. How the national and state departments of agriculture help the
farmer in your state.= =References=: J. E. BOYLE, _Agricultural
Economics_, pp. 312-327; L. H. BAILEY, _The State and the Farmer_, pp.
89-111; E. G. NOURSE, _Agricultural Economics_, pp. 553-565.

=2. Making country life more attractive.= =References=: C. J. GALPIN,
_Rural Life_, pp. 212-260; J. M. GILLETTE, _Constructive Rural
Sociology_, pp. 168-199; L. H. BAILEY, _The Country Life Movement_;
University of Virginia, Alumni Bulletins, _Rural Life Conferences_,
_passim_; _Report of the Country Life Commission_.

=3. The farmer in politics.= =References=: S. J. BUCK, _The Granger
Movement_, pp. 34-39; 80-122; F. L. MCVEY, _The Populist Movement_, in
American Economic Association, Economic Studies, Vol. I, No. 3 (August,
1896), pp. 131-209.

=4. Who owns the farms in the United States?= =References=: H. C.
TAYLOR, _Agricultural Economics_, pp. 238-269; P. L. VOGT, _Introduction
to Rural Sociology_, pp. 61-100; T. N. CARVER, _Selected Readings in
Rural Economics_, pp. 498-546; E. G. NOURSE, _Agricultural Economics_,
pp. 665-673; WILLIAM KENT, _Land Tenure and Public Policy_, pp. 213-225.

Short Studies

1. =The farm population of the United States.= P. L. VOGT, _Introduction
to Rural Sociology_, pp. 120-145; L. H. BAILEY, _The Country Life
Movement_, pp. 31-60.

2. =The rural school and the rural community.= IRVING KING, _Education
for Social Efficiency_, pp. 21-42; E. P. CUBBERLEY, _Rural Life and
Education_, pp. 163-176; 226-255; MABEL CARNEY, _Country Life and the
Country School_, pp. 133-148.

3. =The grange.= S. J. BUCK, _The Granger Movement_, pp. 279-301; MABEL
CARNEY, _Country Life and the Country School_, pp. 72-89.

4. =The non-partisan league.= ANDREW A. BRUCE, _The Non-Partisan
League_, _passim_; HERBERT GASTON, _The Non-Partisan League_, pp.
269-283.

5. =Community life in the country.= C. J. GALPIN, _Rural Life_, pp.
176-211; L. H. BAILEY, _The Country Life Movement_, pp. 97-133; T. N.
CARVER, _Rural Economics_, pp. 334-382.

6. =The farmer of the Middle West.= JOHN PHELAN, _Readings in Rural
Sociology_, pp. 27-44.

7. =The South and the negro farmer.= _Ibid._, pp. 46-72.

8. =The New England farmer.= _Ibid._, pp. 1-25.

9. =The farmer of the Rocky Mountain states.= W. E. SMYTHE, _The
Conquest of Arid America_, pp. 19-30; 150-163; F. I. ANDERSON, _The
Farmer of Tomorrow_, pp. 98-140.

10. =Marketing farm products.= E. G. NOURSE, _Agricultural Economics_,
pp. 524-540; F. W. CARD, _Farm Management_, pp. 109-138; T. N. CARVER,
_Selected Readings in Rural Economics_, pp. 769-782; H. C. TAYLOR,
_Agricultural Economics_, pp. 352-365.

11. =Women’s place on the farm.= C. J. GALPIN, _Rural Life_, pp.
101-117; JOHN PHELAN, _Readings in Rural Sociology_, pp. 313-324; P.
DEVUYST, _Woman’s Place in Rural Economy_, pp. 23-42.

12. =Rural credits.= J. B. MORMAN, _The Place of Agriculture in
Reconstruction_, pp. 310-347; E. G. NOURSE, _Agricultural Economics_,
pp. 712-723; 789-795; M. T. HERRICK, _Rural Credits_, pp. 439-455.

13. =Agriculture and reconstruction.= J. B. MORMAN, _The Place of
Agriculture in Reconstruction_, pp. 146-180.

Questions

1. Name the various types of agricultural activity and indicate on the
map where they are chiefly carried on.

2. Place the following agricultural products in the order of their
relative annual value (referring to the _World Almanac_ for such
information as is not given in the text); wood, cotton, rice, wheat,
cattle, corn, sheep, sugar, tobacco.

3. Explain fully the law of diminishing returns as applied to
agricultural land. Name some of its effects.

4. What are the chief chemical elements in agricultural soil? How are
they saved from exhaustion? What is the order of crop-rotation practiced
in your district and why is this order chosen? Explain how the
“cover-crop” system helps the soil.

5. List, in what seems to you to be their order of importance, the
services rendered by the National Department of Agriculture.

6. How are Farm Loan Banks financed? What functions do they perform?

7. Find out how a Grange is organized, what officers it has, and what
members do at their meetings.

8. The government assures to the owners of the railroads a minimum
return on their invested capital (see p. 367). Should it guarantee the
farmer a minimum price for his products?

9. Do you believe that the farmers are justified in organizing a “bloc”
in Congress to promote their own interests? If the industrial workers,
the shopkeepers, the manufacturers and so forth were to do likewise, how
would this affect the party system?

10. Explain how the attractiveness of rural life has been increased in
recent years.

Topics for Debate

1. The national government should (_a_) directly engage in improved
road-building for the benefit of agricultural areas; or (_b_) assist the
states by grants of money for this purpose; or (_c_) leave the matter
entirely to the states and communities.

2. Farmers and cattlemen should be permitted to form organizations in
order to prevent competition and keep up the prices of their products,
although such agreements among manufacturers are forbidden.

CHAPTER XIX
THE ENCOURAGEMENT AND REGULATION OF
COMMERCE.

_The purpose of this chapter is to explain what commerce is, how it
is regulated, and what the government does to promote it._

[Sidenote: Who are engaged in commerce.]

=The Purposes of Commerce.=—The people of the world spend a large part
of their energy in supplying their material wants, including food,
clothing, and shelter. We commonly think of the farmer and the
manufacturer as the ones chiefly engaged in this task, but if you stop
to think of it you will quickly realize that the farmers could not feed
the world nor could the manufacturers clothe it without the aid of
another important class, which includes merchants, traders,
transportation workers—in a word, all who are engaged in commerce. The
purpose of commerce is not to create things but to put economic goods
into the hands of those who need them. It places commodities where they
are wanted at the time when they are wanted. [Sidenote: Commerce
produces values.] In this sense commerce is a great producer, a producer
of values. It fetches the raw material from the mines or agricultural
areas to the industries. It brings the products of the factories to the
merchant and from the merchant to the homes of the people. It helps to
adjust the supply to the demand. Without commerce there would be an
abundance of things in one place and a shortage in another. Commercial
organization permits every part of the country, and indeed every part of
the civilized world, to produce the things which it is best fitted to
produce and to use these things in buying goods made elsewhere. Florida
grows oranges and Massachusetts makes shoes, but through channels of
commerce each secures what it needs from the products of the other.

[Sidenote: Commerce in its earliest forms.]

=The Development of Commerce.=—Now although the advantages of commerce
are so easy to realize, the commercial system of the modern world took
many centuries to develop. Primitive people did not have many wants and
all of them they supplied by their own exertions. Each little group of
people, each tribe or village, met its own needs. Then trade between
different villages and tribes began. It grew slowly in the early ages
because there were no easy means of transporting goods, and because
neighboring tribes were so often hostile to each other. This early trade
was conducted by barter, the direct exchange of one article for another,
there being no general use of money as a medium of exchange.

As time went on the area of trade widened until it covered whole
countries, and finally expanded into international trade or commerce
between different countries. [Sidenote: Inventions which have helped
commerce to grow.] This widening kept step with improvements in the
methods of transportation from pack-horse to wagon, from wagon to
railroad, and from sailing vessel to steamship. The expansion of trade
was also aided by the growth of strong governments which protected the
trader and made the paths of commerce safe. Likewise the general use of
money facilitated the operations of trade; so did the creation of a
system of commercial credit. Without railroads and steamships, law and
order, money and credit, it would not be possible to carry on commerce
as we have it today. If the world can feed and clothe and shelter an
enormously greater population than it could two hundred years ago this
is not because the people work harder; it is because they work more
intelligently and because they have created that gigantic system of
economic co-operation which we call commerce.

[Sidenote: Commerce includes exchange.]

=The Scope of Commerce.=—It is an error to suppose that commerce is
concerned only with the transportation of goods. Its scope is far wider.
Commerce includes not only the moving of goods but the whole process of
buying and selling. Wholesalers, jobbers, retailers, together with all
those who work for them are engaged in commerce. Not only are the
steamship lines, the railroads, and the motor trucks entitled to be
called agencies of commerce, but the telegraph and telephone systems as
well. The pipe lines which carry oil from the depths of the earth to the
great cities are instrumentalities of commerce; so are the gas mains in
the streets, the subways, and the street cars. The postal service,
likewise, is one of the most important factors in expediting commercial
transactions.

[Sidenote: It depends upon currency and credit.]

Commerce cannot be carried on, at least in any large measure, without
currency and credit. Hence the whole system of money and banking links
itself up closely with commercial organization. Goods are bought on
credit by the wholesaler, and sold on credit to the retail merchant who,
in turn, often sells on credit to his customers. The banks and other
credit institutions provide the money to carry on these operations of
trade. So when one takes all these things into account it will be seen
that a considerable proportion of the people are engaged in one or
another of the various branches of commerce.

[Sidenote: Local, interstate, and international commerce.]

=The Three Fields of Commerce.=—In order to clarify the relations of
government to commerce it is necessary, at the outset, to distinguish
between three fields or types of commerce. The first is _local or
intra-state_ commerce, which comprises all the trading operations
carried on within the boundaries of a single state. Goods produced in
Pittsburgh and marketed in Philadelphia are said to be within the sphere
of local or intra-state commerce. As such they are wholly within the
jurisdiction of the state of Pennsylvania. In the second place there is
a large amount of commerce which, originating in one state, crosses into
another. Shoes made in Massachusetts are shipped to Indiana; cotton
grown in Georgia is sent to New York to be manufactured. This is called
_national or inter-state_ commerce and it is under the jurisdiction of
the federal government. Finally, trade is carried on between the United
States and foreign countries and this is known as _international_
commerce. It also is subject to regulation by the federal government.

[Sidenote: The state governments control local commerce.]

=Local Commerce.=—Each state makes provision for the encouragement and
regulation of commerce within its own territory. The communities and the
state provide the improved roads which are essential for trade between
country and town. The development of motor cars, motor trucks, and
suburban trolley lines has greatly increased the facility with which
this trade can be carried on. Each state, again, has control over the
street railways, short-line railroads, and other channels of commerce
within its own borders. This control is exercised through provisions of
laws made by the state legislatures, but the enforcement of these
regulations is usually placed in the hands of one or more boards,
commonly known as public service commissions (see pp. 480-481). It is
the duty of these commissions to see that the rates charged are
reasonable and that adequate service is rendered. The jurisdiction of
the state authorities, it should be repeated, does not extend over any
commercial operations which are not strictly local; if the commerce
concerns more than a single state it can be regulated only by the
national government.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE RAILROADS

[Sidenote: Interstate commerce in early days.]

=Interstate Commerce.=—During the years which immediately followed the
Revolutionary War the several states were free to make their own
regulations for the encouragement and control of commerce. Accordingly
they began to compete with one another for trade, each trying to
increase its own prosperity at the expense of the others. This led to
ill-feeling, of course, and finally to retaliation. One state would
offer inducements to bring vessels into its ports; the others, in
self-defence, held out even greater inducements. This rivalry soon got
to the point where it looked as if some of the states might come to
blows.[160] So, when the framers of the national constitution met at
Philadelphia in 1787, they gave particular attention to the problem of
ending this unwholesome rivalry by placing the regulation of all
interstate and foreign commerce under a single, central authority.

[Sidenote: The constitution places interstate commerce under federal
control.]

The national constitution, therefore, transferred this regulating power
from the states to Congress, by vesting in it the power “to regulate
commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with
the Indian tribes”. This is a very important provision in the supreme
law of the land, and it has had a far-reaching influence in building up
the commerce of the United States. One can realize what might have
happened if every state had been left at liberty to put duties upon
goods imported from other states and to bestow all sorts of advantages
upon its own merchants. Under such an arrangement a closely-knit,
unified country would have been impossible, for freedom of trade within
a nation is an indispensable factor in bringing the whole people into
close and friendly relations. The adoption of this clause in the
national constitution meant that all trade, from one end of the land to
the other, could be carried on freely, without let or hindrance, subject
only to such uniform regulations as Congress might provide.

[Sidenote: This control is now very extensive.]

In the days when the national constitution was adopted, the carriers of
commerce were few and primitive. Trade between different states was
conducted by wagon and sailing vessels; there were no railroads,
steamships, street cars, motor trucks, telegraphs, telephones, or
parcels post. The cost of transporting goods was so great that it did
not pay to ship them far. Goods were made almost wholly for the local
market. But when the constitution endowed Congress with the power “to
regulate commerce” it gave to this body a right which has been
sufficiently broad to cover all the great developments of the past
hundred years. Whatever comes within the term “commerce”, no matter
howsoever carried on, is within the purview of Congress if it concerns
more than a single state.

A large part of the commerce of the United States today does concern
more than a single state. The great railroads traverse several states,
sometimes a dozen or more of them. Goods sent from New York to Los
Angeles pass through ten or twelve states on their journey. Even street
car lines sometimes cross the state boundaries. To the trader a state
boundary means nothing; it is only a mark on the map. Trade moves
wherever the chance of profit appears. It pays no attention to political
divisions within the country.

[Sidenote: What interstate commerce includes.]

Interstate commerce, then, includes all agencies of trade among the
states: steamships, sailing vessels, railroads, street railways, motor
trucks, telegraphs, telephone systems, oil pipelines, power lines, and
all passengers, goods, messages, or anything else carried by them. All
persons who have to do with such things are engaged in interstate
commerce. But interstate commerce does not include the manufacture of
goods in any state, even though they be intended for sale in other
states. Commerce does not begin until the product is finished and
started on its way. Once started on their way, with a destination in
another state, the goods pass under the supervision of the national
government. Passengers traveling from Chicago to St. Louis, or goods
shipped from one of these cities to the other, or messages exchanged
between them by telegraph, for example, are under the supervision of the
national government from start to finish. Illinois and Missouri have
nothing to do with them.

[Sidenote: Railroads and steamships were at first not regulated.]

=How Interstate Commerce is Regulated.=—For many years after the
constitution was adopted there was no need for the regulation of
interstate commerce because so little of it was carried on. Not until
the era of steamships and railroads did commerce develop to a point
where any strict regulation was necessary. The earliest railroads,
moreover, were short lines constructed and operated wholly within single
states. They were built by corporations under charters granted by the
states. Frequently these charters were given for an indefinite term, and
they placed no limits upon the rates which the railroad might charge for
the transportation of passengers and goods. The chief concern of the
people in those days was to get railroads built. As time went on,
however, the state authorities became more strict in granting charters
for the construction of railroads and, finally, most of them established
commissions to protect passengers and shippers from unreasonable rates.

Meanwhile, however, another development was going on, namely, the
consolidation of these small railroads into trunk lines or long
stretches of railway. The reason for this consolidation was the
opportunity to make larger earnings from through traffic and at the same
time to give better service. The opening-up of the West led to the
building of new trunk lines and to further consolidations, especially
during the years immediately following the Civil War. In this way single
railroads spread themselves far outside the territory of a single state;
their tracks ran into many states. [Sidenote: But this freedom from
control was abused.] The corporations controlling such trunk lines
became big and powerful. They fixed rates to suit themselves and often
favored one section of the country at the expense of others, or gave to
large shippers an undue advantage over the smaller.[161] Where there was
but one railroad in any district everyone was at its mercy. Exorbitant
rates could be charged. On the other hand, where there were competing
lines between two cities the rivalry of the roads often forced the rates
down to a point where goods were carried at a loss. Sometimes the
competing roads, realizing the folly of this competition, formed a
“pool” or agreement to share the traffic proportionately, and then each
put up its rates to a high level. These practices were inimical to the
best interests of commerce. They gave rise to so much complaint that
Congress eventually responded by placing the interstate railroads under
government regulation. This it did by the Interstate Commerce Act of
1887.

[Sidenote: The beginnings of federal regulation.]

=The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.=—By the provisions of this act and
the various amendments which have been made to it during the past
thirty-five years, all corporations engaged in interstate commerce
(which includes not only railroad companies, but express, sleeping car,
telegraph, and telephone companies) must maintain reasonable rates; must
make these rates public; and must not discriminate in favor of any
locality or shipper. The formation of “pools” is illegal; the granting
of free passes to other than railroad officials is forbidden; and all
the important activities of the railroads are subject to governmental
supervision. These various provisions were not all enacted in 1887. The
legislation of that date merely made a substantial beginning. Several
amending laws, passed from time to time during the past thirty-five
years, have steadily extended the scope of regulation and have also
endeavored to secure greater safety in the operation of the railroads.

[Sidenote: Organization and work of the I. C. C.]

=The Interstate Commerce Commission.=—Congress realized in 1887 that it
was not enough to pass a regulatory law; it must also provide some means
of enforcing the regulations. So a board, known as the Interstate
Commerce Commission, was established and it has now become one of the
most powerful regulating bodies in the world. At the outset it had five
members; now it has eleven. They are appointed by the President. The
commission’s function is, in general, to see that the national laws
relating to carriers of interstate commerce are strictly observed. It
fixes the maximum rates, hears complaints, adjusts disagreements, and
prevents discrimination. In the case of the railroads its powers have
recently been widened by the provisions of the Transportation Act of
1920, as will be seen presently.

[Sidenote: Methods by which railroads consolidated.]

=Railroad Consolidation and the Sherman Act.=—There are at least three
ways in which railroad consolidations have been effected in the United
States. The first and simplest method has been outright purchase, one
railroad buying up another. The second is by lease, one road leasing
another for a long term of years, thus becoming the virtual owner. The
third is by forming what is commonly called a “holding company” which
steps in and takes the controlling ownership of both roads. In this case
neither road buys or leases the other, but both put themselves into the
control of a new corporation which proceeds to have the lines operated
as though they formed a single road. The objection to these
consolidations is that, in many cases, they stifle competition and
create a monopoly.

[Sidenote: The Sherman Act.]

So Congress in 1890 enacted the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, a measure which
although it was not primarily aimed at the railroads, prohibited all
combinations in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states.
[Sidenote: The Northern Securities Case.] For several years, however,
this law was left unenforced, but in 1904 it was invoked in the Northern
Securities Case to dissolve a combination of two great railroads, the
Northern Pacific and the Great Northern, both of which had passed into
the control of a holding company. The Supreme Court held the
consolidation to be illegal and ordered that the roads should be
restored to a competitive basis. The same process was applied to various
other roads which had been merged in the years following 1890 and a
general “unscrambling of omelets” took place.

Railroad competition, however, is often wasteful and actually results in
higher rates. To consolidate two or more small railroads into a larger
one may actually cheapen rather than increase the cost of
transportation. The practical problem is to permit consolidation in such
cases while preventing it in others. This was what the Supreme Court was
endeavoring to do by a flexible enforcement of the Anti-Trust Act when
the World War broke out and created new problems.

[Sidenote: Government operation of the railroads,1917-1920.]

=The Railroads in War Time.=—In 1917, when the United States entered the
war, it seemed advisable that Congress should place in the hands of the
President a wide range of authority in connection with the mobilization
and transportation of troops and war supplies. By virtue of these powers
President Wilson, in the closing days of the same year, took over the
operation of all the important railroads in the country and placed them
in charge of a director-general appointed by himself. The question of
compensating the owners of the railroads was settled by providing that
they should receive an annual payment equal to the average net earnings
of the three preceding years. It was also stipulated that the railroads
should be given back to their owners in as good physical condition as
when they were taken over, this return to be made within twenty-one
months after the close of the war.

[Sidenote: How this plan worked.]

During the whole of the years 1918-1919 the railroads were operated by
the government. From the standpoint of profit-making, government
operation did not prove a success. The cost of labor and materials rose
enormously during the war and continued to rise after the fighting
ended. But passenger and freight rates were not proportionally
increased, hence there was a large deficit which had to be paid out of
the government treasury. The service given to the public by the
railroads while they were operated by the government, moreover, was not
very satisfactory; although in partial explanation of this it must be
remembered that the carrying of troops and supplies during 1918 placed a
great strain upon the whole transportation system.

[Sidenote: The Plumb Plan.]

But if government operation was not altogether satisfactory to
passengers and shippers, it was popular with the railroad employees.
They were much more generously treated under government operation than
they had been when the roads were in private hands. Some of their
leaders accordingly brought forward a plan which proposed that the roads
should not be handed back to private operation but should be purchased
by the government and managed by joint boards representing the
government, the employees, and the public. This proposal was commonly
known as the Plumb Plan. It had the support not only of the railroad
brotherhoods, or organizations of railroad employees, but of other labor
bodies as well. Congress, however, did not fall in with this scheme and
decided to deal with the railroads in an altogether different way.

[Sidenote: The return of the railroads to private operation.]

=The Transportation Act of 1920.=—The railroads were returned to private
operation in the spring of 1920 under the provisions of the
Transportation Act. This legislation gave the Interstate Commerce
Commission complete authority over the fixing of railroad rates but
stipulated that they should be high enough to enable the railroads in
each section of the country to earn a net income of five and one-half
per cent on their valuation and a further amount, not to exceed one-half
of one per cent for improvements at the discretion of the commission for
two years from March 1, 1921.[162] The act contained two new and very
important provisions. [Sidenote: The Railway Labor Board.] It stipulated
that a Railway Labor Board should be established, consisting of nine
members appointed by the President. This board has the function of
adjusting disputes between the railroads and their employees concerning
wages or conditions of labor.[163] It also contained provisions allowing
the consolidation of railroads in each section of the country with the
consent of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

[Sidenote: The importance of the railroads to industry.]

=The Future of the Railroads.=—The railroads are the commercial arteries
of the nation. Some idea of their importance may be gained from the fact
that the railroads of the United States carry a billion passengers each
year and nearly two billion tons of freight. Their mileage is greater
than that of the railroads in the whole of Europe. If all the tracks of
American railroads were placed end to end, they would girdle the earth
eight or ten times. They represent a huge investment of capital—nearly
twenty billions—or nearly as much as the entire national debt. It is
true that a good deal of our commerce is now carried on by steamships,
canal boats, motor trucks, and electric railways, but we still place
greater dependence upon the railroads than upon all these other carriers
put together. Reasonable freight rates and good service are essential to
the progress of industry. This being the case, it is imperative that
there should be governmental control in the interests of passengers and
shippers. On the other hand the railroads, to perform their service
adequately, must be assured a sufficient revenue and given due scope for
the exercise of private initiative.

[Sidenote: Motor competition.]

The railroads have been compelled, in recent years, to face a new form
of competition, that of motor cars and motor trucks. These have a great
advantage in that they use highways which have been built entirely at
the public expense, whereas the railroads have to buy the land on which
their tracks are laid and pay the cost of maintaining their roadbed. The
use of the public highways for freight-carrying by heavy motor trucks
imposes a heavy cost upon the taxpayer for the repair of roads.[164]

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND TARIFF POLICY

[Sidenote: The beginnings of American foreign trade.]

=International Commerce: Its Beginnings.=—Before the Revolution a
considerable amount of trade was carried on between the American
colonies and various European countries, chiefly Great Britain. After
the winning of independence this foreign commerce began to grow rapidly
because the hindrances that had formerly been imposed upon it were now
removed. Moreover, the Napoleonic wars in Europe brought about an
enormous increase in the demand for American foodstuffs. These wars
retarded agriculture in Europe and forced the various countries to
import supplies from overseas. American shipping developed greatly
during the period 1790-1805, but it thereafter received a set-back owing
to the blockades and the Embargo Act of 1807, followed a few years later
by a four-years’ war with England.

=Tariff Policy.=—During the period immediately preceding the framing of
the constitution each of the thirteen states was free to regulate its
own commercial relations. Each determined for itself whether it would
permit imports to come in freely from other states and other countries
or whether it would impose duties on such imports. [Sidenote: The
constitution empowers Congress to regulate foreign trade.] This
arrangement proved altogether unsatisfactory and the constitution gave
to Congress complete authority to control commerce with foreign
countries and among the states. This action was taken primarily to
afford Congress an adequate revenue in the way of taxes on imports,
although it was also designed to put an end to undue commercial rivalry
among the states themselves. In 1792, therefore, Congress passed our
first tariff law, a measure designed mainly to bring forth income for
the new federal government but also to afford protection to American
industries. [Sidenote: This is done by tariffs.] This act of 1792 marks
the beginning of a long line of tariff measures, some imposing high
duties on imports and some setting these duties at lower rates.[165]

[Sidenote: The Tariff Commission.]

The making of the tariff is in the hands of Congress but the function of
studying the industrial needs of the country is entrusted to a Tariff
Commission of six members appointed by the President. This commission is
empowered to make recommendations to Congress, but Congress is under no
obligation to follow its advice nor has it usually done so. Tariff rates
are fixed, for the most part, in obedience to political pressure.

[Sidenote: The case for protection.]

=The Argument for Protective Tariffs.=—Why should American industry be
given protection by tariff duties against foreign competition? The
answer to this question was first given by Alexander Hamilton in his
famous _Report on Manufactures_ (1790) and it has been elaborated by
many writers since Hamilton’s time. [Sidenote: 1. It develops young
industries.] The chief arguments in favor of protection are that it
helps home industry, develops a home market, raises wages and keeps them
high, provides employment for a country’s own workmen, and makes a
country independent of others. Protection, it is claimed, helps new
industries or “infant industries” to get on their feet. These new
industries, if not shielded against the pressure of foreign competition
in their early stages would be unable to make headway, but if given
adequate protection for a time they ultimately get well established and
add to the nation’s industrial strength. This industrial growth, it is
argued, helps the farmer by creating a home market for his agricultural
produce. The growth of industry creates large cities and these centers
of population form the farmer’s best market.

[Sidenote: 2. It keeps wages up.]

Those who favor the policy of protection also argue that if high duties
were not imposed upon imports from other countries, the wages of the
American workman would fall and many would be out of employment. Until
recent years the general rate of wages in European countries has been
much lower than in the United States, but since the World War the
disparity has not been so great. The lower wages of labor in Europe have
enabled goods to be produced more cheaply there than in America, and
were it not for the protective tariff, the United States would be
flooded with these products of underpaid European workers. In the end
the American scale of wages would be forced down to the same level—so
the protectionists argue.

[Sidenote: 3. It promotes an all-around economic development.]

Finally, there is the nationalist argument for protection. To be strong
and independent a country ought to have an all-around economic
development. Its people ought not to devote their entire energies to
agriculture alone. All branches of economic life ought to be fostered
together. A country should aim to provide, so far as possible, for all
its own needs; it should not be dependent on other countries for its
food supply, its manufactured goods, or its shipping. It is difficult
for a country to reach this condition of affairs in any case, and even a
near approach to it can only be achieved by the artificial nurture of
the weaker economic activities, which is what the protective tariff
endeavors to supply.

[Sidenote: The case against protection:]

=The Argument for Free Trade.=—Although the foregoing arguments for
protection have carried great weight in the United States during the
past fifty years there are many Americans who believe that trade with
foreign countries ought to be free from all tariff duties, or, at any
rate, free from all duties except such as may be needed to provide a
revenue. [Sidenote: 1. It creates artificial economic conditions.] Those
who believe in “free trade”, or in a “tariff for revenue only” make the
point that every country ought to devote itself to those industries
which it can carry on most advantageously and should not try to produce
for itself the things which can more cheaply be imported from other
countries. Protection, they claim, merely diverts capital and labor into
industries for which a country is not naturally adapted, and thus makes
production expensive. [Sidenote: 2. It keeps prices up.] It keeps wages
up by keeping prices up, and thus deprives the workman of the advantage
which high wages are supposed to bring. [Sidenote: 3. It fosters
industrial monopolies.] The policy of protection is also criticised on
the ground that it fosters the creation of great industrial
combinations, leads to the establishment of monopolies, and encourages
corruption in politics by giving particular industries a financial
interest in governmental action. The free traders believe that there is
no more reason for protective duties upon trade between different
nations than there is for similar duties upon trade among the several
states of the Union.

[Sidenote: Why foreign trade is important.]

=The Encouragement of Foreign Commerce.=—The work of the national
government is not confined to the regulation and restriction of
commerce; it is concerned with the encouragement and promotion of trade
as well. This promotion of foreign trade is an important branch of the
government’s work because the prosperity of the United States depends to
a considerable extent upon its commerce with other countries. America
produces a large surplus of grain, meat, cotton, and other merchandise
which must be marketed abroad. On the other hand there are many
commodities, such as sugar, tea, coffee, rubber, and silk which cannot
be produced in sufficient quantities here and hence must be imported.
The aim of the government is to help our exporters find the best foreign
markets for their goods and to facilitate the acquisition of such
foreign products as the country requires. This help is rendered in
various ways, by making commercial treaties with foreign countries, by
maintaining a consular service, by giving encouragement to American
shipping, and by the creation of a Department of Commerce in the
national administration.[166]

=Commercial Treaties.=—From time to time the United States has
established, by treaty, commercial relations with other countries. These
treaties are made for the mutual advantage of both parties. They usually
provide that citizens of each country may carry on trade with one
another subject to the established tariffs, and that there shall be no
governmental discrimination against such trade.[167] They allow each
country to maintain consuls in the territory of the other. On a few
occasions the United States has concluded reciprocity treaties providing
for reciprocal free trade, in whole or in part, with other countries. An
arrangement of this sort was made with Canada in 1854 but was brought to
an end twelve years later.

=The Consular Service.=—Commerce with foreign countries is assisted and
facilitated by the consular service. The United States maintains consuls
in all important foreign countries and these countries, in turn, send
their consuls here. There are several classes of officials in the
consular service; the more important are consuls-general, consuls, and
consular agents. Consuls-general are stationed at the larger foreign
ports and exercise a general supervision over consuls in their
respective districts. Consuls and consular agents are maintained in less
important foreign centers of trade. [Sidenote: How consuls are
appointed.] All members of the American consular service are appointed
by the President, but since 1906 the selections have been made by
competitive examinations for the lower grades and by promotion for the
higher.

[Sidenote: Their duties.]

Members of the consular service gather information concerning trade
opportunities and send this information to Washington where it is
printed and distributed to American merchants and manufacturers. Consuls
verify the invoices of goods shipped to the United States so as to avoid
delay at the custom house. They assist American citizens who may be
traveling abroad, particularly those who go abroad to buy merchandise.
In a word they are the sentinels of American foreign commerce.

Until 1906 the American consular service was not highly efficient
because the appointment of consuls was usually made on political
grounds. Men who had rendered service in party politics were often given
important consular positions although possessed of no real
qualifications for the work which they were expected to do. Moreover,
whenever a change of administration took place in Washington many
consuls were removed from office and new ones appointed. This injured
the service by preventing the development of experienced officials.
Since 1906 the situation has greatly improved because appointments and
promotions have been made upon a basis of merit alone.

=The Merchant Marine.=—In order that a country may build up a profitable
foreign trade it should have vessels of its own in which to carry
exports and imports. Trade that depends entirely upon the use of foreign
vessels is insecure, because the outbreak of war between two or more
foreign countries may keep these ships at home. So the development of
American maritime commerce has seemed to make desirable the maintenance
of a merchant fleet under the American flag. [Sidenote: Early American
shipping.] Since the Revolution there has always been such a fleet;
sometimes it has been large, but more often it has been small.[168]
After 1915, when the German submarine campaign resulted in the wholesale
sinking of British and French merchant vessels, the demand for ships
became acute. [Sidenote: The building of ships during the war.] American
shipyards once more grew busy and expanded rapidly. In 1916, moreover,
Congress passed a Shipping Act, designed to foster the growth of the
merchant marine, and when the United States entered the war in 1917 an
Emergency Fleet Corporation was created to build a great flotilla of
vessels at the public cost and a Shipping Board to operate them. The
work was not completed when the war came to an end, nevertheless several
hundred vessels were added to the list of America’s ocean carriers. As a
result of these efforts the merchant marine of the United States is once
more the second largest in the world; but the problem now is to keep
these ships busy. Foreign trade began to fall off after the American
forces had been brought back from Europe and hundreds of the new ships
have remained tied up in American harbors. Some have been sold to
private companies; others have been operated by private companies under
lease; still others are being operated directly by the Shipping
Board.[169]

=The Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.=—The progress of foreign
commerce depends not only upon ships and ports but upon the possession
of accurate knowledge concerning the course of markets and prices
abroad. Data on such matters are gathered, as has been pointed out, by
the American consular service. [Sidenote: Statistics of trade—their
value.] This is supplemented, however, by statistics collected for the
Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce at Washington, an office which
is maintained to provide American business men with accurate and
up-to-date information concerning every branch of foreign commerce. The
bureau collects and translates the tariff laws of foreign countries,
makes investigations into the cost of producing goods both in America
and abroad, and studies all possible methods of making American foreign
trade more profitable. It affords a good illustration of the way in
which the government, without itself engaging in trade, may assist the
private enterprises of the people.

=Future of Foreign Commerce.=—Ocean transportation has made enormous
strides forward during the past twenty years. [Sidenote: What new
inventions may do for trade.] Wireless communication now enables ships
to keep in touch with each other and with the shore, thus making
navigation safer. It has been demonstrated by naval experiments that
great ships can be steered and their machinery controlled by radio
apparatus in the hands of men several hundred miles away. Then there is
the airship and the airplane, in both of which it has been shown to be
possible to cross the Atlantic far above the surface without a stop. It
seems to be beyond doubt that air carriers will, even within our own
generation, be used to carry mail overseas as they are now being used on
land, and probably passengers as well. The day may come when goods,
also, will be ferried through the air from continent to continent in
less than a single day. The march of invention in this as in other
fields is so rapid that no one can tell today what the morrow may bring
forth.[170] But of one thing we may be hopeful: that even as the era of
rail transportation served to bring all parts of the country into more
intimate relation, so may it come to pass that the world of the future
will find all its distant parts brought into more friendly contact by
the development of these twentieth-century miracles of rapid transit.

=Commerce and Peace.=—Commerce between countries helps to promote
international good-feeling and friendship. It is true that commercial
rivalries have sometimes inspired international jealousy and have even
paved the way to war; but legitimate trade, honestly carried on between
nations, is far more likely to prove a means of drawing them together.
From their commercial intercourse nations derive mutual profit. By
trading with one another they learn to understand each other. Isolation
makes for suspicion and war. World commerce makes for peace.

General References

H. G. SELFRIDGE, _The Romance of Commerce_, pp. 230-239; 318-349;

C. F. CARTER, _When Railroads Were New_, pp. 33-74;

E. R. JOHNSON and F. W. VAN METRE, _Principles of Railroad
Transportation_, pp. 492-534;

CLIVE DAY, _A History of Commerce_, pp. 485-517; 564-579;

E. R. JOHNSON, _American Railway Transportation_, 2d ed., pp. 52-68;
367-385;

ISAAC LIPPINCOTT, _Economic Development of the United States_, pp.
520-549; 611-634;

F. W. TAUSSIG, _Principles of Economics_, Vol. I, pp. 508-545
(Protection and Free Trade); Vol. II, pp. 363-396 (Railway Problems);

JAMES T. YOUNG, _The New American Government and Its Work_, pp. 119-140
(The Regulation of Commerce); 187-202 (Federal Power Over Interstate
Commerce);

W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the United States_, pp. 246-264 (The
Commerce Power);

H. R. BURCH, _American Economic Life_, pp. 273-296;

C. R. VAN HISE, _Concentration and Control_, pp. 4-34; 170-192;

I. L. SHARFMAN, _The American Railroad Problem_, pp. 100-186.

Group Problems

=1. The problem of American railroads—government operation—the Plumb
plan—the Transportation Act—what of the future?= The growth of American
railroads. Railroad consolidation. Development of government
supervision. The Interstate Commerce Commission and its work. Why
railroads were not permitted to consolidate. The government’s experience
with the railroads, 1917-1920. The Adamson law. Government operation.
Labor problems under government operation. The Plumb plan. Why it was
not adopted. The provisions of the Transportation Act (Esch-Cummins
law). Difficulties now being encountered by the railroads. Proposed
consolidations. The outlook for railroad transportation. =References=:
JOHN MOODY, _The Railroad Builders_, pp. 211-241; J. J. HILL, _Highways
of Progress_, pp. 114-139; C. F. CARTER, _When the Railroads Were New_,
pp. 226-258; E. R. JOHNSON and F. W. VAN METRE, _Principles of Railroad
Transportation_, pp. 564-577; W. Z. RIPLEY, _Railroads, Rates and
Regulation_, pp. 441-455; 457-521; OTTO H. KAHN, _Our Economic
Problems_, pp. 67-118; I. L. SHARFMAN, _The Railroad Problem_, pp.
382-464.

=2. What is commerce and how is it regulated?= =References=: _The
Federalist_, Nos. 7, 11, 12, 22, 42; JOHN FISKE, _Critical Period of
American History_, pp. 134-162; C. A. BEARD, _Readings in American
Government and Politics_, pp. 343-358; EVERETT KIMBALL, _National
Government of the United States_, pp. 480-520; O. W. KNAUTH, _The Policy
of the United States towards Industrial Monopoly_, pp. 66-92; L. H.
HANEY, _Business Organization and Combination_, pp. 383-414; 419-437
(The Sherman Act); A. H. WALKER, _History of the Sherman Law_, _passim_.

=3. The American Merchant Marine.= How can it be developed?
=References=: CLIVE DAY, _History of Commerce_, pp. 481-483; 492-494;
513-515; 545-546; N. S. SHALER, _The United States_, Vol. I, pp.
538-558; W. W. BATES, _American Navigation_, pp. 234-299; 335-350; W. L.
MARVIN, _The American Merchant Marine_, _passim_.

=4. How the tariff has helped the nation as a whole.= =References=: F.
W. TAUSSIG, _Tariff History of the United States_, pp. 194-229; D. R.
DEWEY, _Financial History of the United States_, pp. 80-84; 161-164;
176-196; 237-238; 249-251; 262-266; 438-439; 463-464 and _passim_; IDA
M. TARBELL, _The Tariff in Our Times_, pp. 294-330; E. STANWOOD,
_American Tariff Controversies_, Vol. II, pp. 243-295; E. R. JOHNSON,
_Ocean and Inland Water Transportation_, pp. 257-310; _Cyclopedia of
American Government_, Vol. III, pp. 476-481.

=5. Our consular service: its present value and future development.=
=References=: P. S. REINSCH, _Readings on American Federal Government_,
pp. 651-675; C. L. JONES, _The Consular Service of the United States:
Its History and Activities_, _passim_; F. VAN DYNE, _Our Foreign
Service_, pp. 117-177; 217-284; F. J. HASKIN, _The American Government_,
pp. 14-26; GAILLARD HUNT, _The Department of State_, pp. 331-349; A. H.
WASHBURN, “Some Evils of Our Consular Service,” in _Atlantic Monthly_,
Vol. LXXIV, pp. 241-252.

Short Studies

1. =The commerce of colonial America.= GEORGE L. BEER, _The Commercial
Policy of England toward the American Colonies_, especially pp. 66-90;
J. R. H. MOORE, _Industrial History of the American People_, pp.
163-208.

2. =The commercial relations of the states under the Confederation.=
JOHN FISKE, _The Critical Period of American History_, pp. 134-162.

3. =The embargo and non-intercourse policy of the years 1807-1811.=
EDWARD CHANNING, _History of the United States_, Vol. IV, pp. 379-400;
415; 421.

4. =The clipper ships.= A. H. CLARK, _The Clipper Ship Era_, pp.
173-194; R. D. PAINE, _The Old Merchant Marine_, pp. 154-184.

5. =Some great railroad builders.= JOHN MOODY, _The Railroad Builders_,
pp. 165-178 (James J. Hill); 193-210 (E. H. Harriman).

6. =Railroads and land grants.= E. L. BOGART, _Economic History of the
United States_, pp. 348-360; J. B. SANBORN, _Congressional Grants of
Land in Aid of Railways_, pp. 62-75.

7. =Railroad rate discrimination.= W. Z. RIPLEY, _Railroads, Rates and
Regulation_, pp. 195-209.

8. =The work of the Interstate Commerce Commission.= P. S. REINSCH,
_Readings on American Federal Government_, pp. 517-527.

9. =The Sherman Act and the Northern Securities Case.= JAMES T. YOUNG,
_The New American Government and Its Work_, pp. 141-164.

10. =Our foreign trade today.= J. H. HAMMOND and J. W. JENKS, _Great
American Issues_, pp. 195-209.

11. =The effects of the tariff on trade.= F. W. TAUSSIG, _Some Aspects
of the Tariff_, pp. 3-49; J. H. HAMMOND and J. W. JENKS, _Great American
Issues_, pp. 174-194.

12. =Our river and lake commerce.= G. S. CALLENDER, _Economic History of
the United States_, pp. 313-326.

13. =International trade.= H. R. BURCH, _American Economic Life_, pp.
372-384.

14. =The Panama Canal.= F. A. OGG, _National Progress_, pp. 266-277; P.
L. HAWORTH, _The United States in Our Own Times_, pp. 300-309; F. J.
HASKIN, _American Government_, pp. 209-220.

15. =The Shipping Board and Emergency Fleet Corporation.= W. F.
WILLOUGHBY, _Government Organization in War Time and After_, pp.
121-165.

16. =American commerce during the World War.= F. A. CLEVELAND and JOSEPH
SCHAFER, _Democracy in Reconstruction_, pp. 397-419.

17. =Government operation of the Railroads.= 1918-1920. I. L. SHARFMAN,
_The American Railroad Problem_, pp. 100-131.

Questions

1. Explain the various ways in which a bushel of wheat could be
transported from Albany to New York City in 1750; in 1850; in 1920.
State the approximate time required in each case.

2. What commercial functions are now performed by wholesalers, jobbers,
retailers, agents, brokers, and money-lenders, respectively.

3. Apportion the following into three columns according to whether they
figure, for the most part, in the local, the interstate, or the foreign
commerce of the United States: bread, tea, oranges, milk, spices,
firewood, brick, dyestuffs, automobiles, shoes, paper, tin, jute,
gravel, glass, straw, potash, poultry.

4. Name the successive stages in the development of agencies for the
transportation of (_a_) passengers; (_b_) goods; (_c_) information.
State their relative merits in regard to speed, dependability, and cost.

5. What objections would there be to giving Congress authority over
_local_ commerce? Will the new agencies of transportation increase the
power of Congress or of the local authorities?

6. Is there in your state a commission with authority over local
commerce? How is it appointed and what are its powers?

7. What sort of cases come before the Interstate Commerce Commission?
The Railway Labor Board? Give an example in each case.

8. Among the various arguments for protection which one appears to be
the strongest? Which seems the strongest argument for free trade? Can
you suggest any argument on either side in addition to those given in
the text?

9. Make a list of the reasons why the United States should have a large
merchant marine, putting them in the order of their importance. Should
the government sell or operate its ships?

10. If you were planning to fit yourself for the consular service, what
subjects would you study? Show how each study would be of help to you in
performing your duties as a consul. Why are appointments to the consular
service made by competitive examination?

11. Explain what is meant by the following statements and give
illustrations: “Trade follows the flag”; “Commerce makes for peace”;
“Trade rivalries lead to war”; “Commerce does not create goods but
values”.

12. During the World War, and for a time thereafter, the exports of the
United States greatly exceeded the imports. What effects do you think
this had (_a_) upon prices in this country; (_b_) upon our stock of
gold; (_c_) upon tariff policy?

13. Suggest any ways, not already utilized, in which the national
government could help the development of (_a_) interstate commerce;
(_b_) foreign commerce.

Subjects for Debate

1. The national government should own and operate the railways.

2. Our protective policy has benefited (or injured) the farmer.

3. The national government should operate its own ships even if it must
operate them at a loss.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE SPIRIT OF VULCAN

By Edwin A. Abbey

From a mural decoration in the Pennsylvania State
Capitol at Harrisburg.

In this crowded and clanging hive of industry,
where no semblance of order appears visible to the
onlooker, Vulcan sits aloft on the clouds of smoke
and steam directing the actions and energies of the
workers to a common end. It is the co-operation
of the toilers, the guidance of their skill and
strength, that makes their work productive. Like a
mentor the mythical patron of industry, Vulcan,
presides over the busy centers of human toil.

The general impression which the artist has sought
to convey is that of industry reaching its results,
not through the unguided work of individuals, but by
mutual effort under wise and kindly direction.

[Illustration:

THE SPIRIT OF VULCAN. By Edwin A. Abbey

_Copyright by Edwin A. Abbey. From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis
& Cameron, Boston. Reproduced by permission._
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER XX
THE ORGANIZATION AND CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

_The purpose of this chapter is to explain how American industry is
organized and how the government has endeavored to regulate this
organization in the public interest._

[Sidenote: The broad scope of industry.]

=What is Industry?=—Industry comprises the whole process of converting
raw materials into finished products. It includes the production of
goods by hand in the workshops, and by machinery in the factories.
Agriculture, mining, and forestry furnish the raw materials; industry
works them up; commerce distributes them. In its widest sense industry
includes not only manufacturing, as we ordinarily understand the term,
but mining, lumbering, the fisheries, shipbuilding, and many other great
branches of economic activity. It engages the attention of more than
one-third of the American workers and is steadily growing to greater
relative importance. The United States is now entitled to be called one
of the great “industrial” nations of the world. As such its people have
many difficult problems to face, including such things as the proper
organization and control of industry, the improvement of conditions
under which it is carried on, and, most difficult of all, the
maintenance of good relations between industrial labor and industrial
management.

=The Old Industry and the New.=—One hundred and fifty years ago
practically all industry was carried on by hand. The making of cloth was
a home activity; the yarn was spun by hand and woven into fabric on the
hand-loom. Shoes were made—soles, heels, and uppers—by the village
cobbler. The local blacksmith made such agricultural implements as there
were. Large factories did not exist. But with the application of steam
power to industry all this began to change. Steam power began to be
utilized in American industry right after the War of Independence; it
was not widely used at the outset, but in the course of time it
completely revolutionized the methods of industry throughout the world.
It supplanted hand methods almost altogether, drove the village
industries out of existence, and introduced factory production on a
large scale. Factories containing machinery operated by steam power
could produce cloth, shoes, implements, and almost every other sort of
manufactured commodity more cheaply than they could be made by
hand-industry in the homes or in small shops. So the factory system
spread over the length and breadth of the land, drawing large
investments of capital into its vortex, giving rise to great industrial
corporations, creating a new labor class, fostering the growth of great
cities, and compelling the government to take a hand in the regulation
of industry. [Sidenote: The Industrial Revolution in America.] This
great transformation in industry, which covered the course of the
nineteenth century, is known as the Industrial Revolution, and a
gigantic revolution it was. Nothing in modern times has exerted a more
profound or far-reaching influence upon the general course of
civilization. The factory is the symbol of a new economic order. It has
been said, and rightly, that three things,—steam, steel, and
credit,—have revolutionized industry during the past hundred years.

=Industrial Organization of Today.=—In the days of hand-industry men
needed no large amounts of capital in order to engage in the production
of goods. The tools used in hand-industry were not expensive; nor was it
necessary to buy raw materials in large quantities. The things that the
workman produced, moreover, were sold almost as soon as they were made.
[Sidenote: The use of capital.] With the advent of the factory system,
however, capital in large amounts became essential because buildings and
machinery, both of which are costly, had to be provided. Large stocks of
materials must also be kept on hand, and workmen have to be paid before
the goods manufactured by them are sold. So, whereas one man of
relatively small wealth could carry on an industry under the old system,
the combined resources of many men are required under the new. This need
of combining the contributions of many persons into a large capital fund
has given rise to the modern industrial corporation.

[Sidenote: Corporate organization.]

American industry of today is carried on for the most part, therefore,
by corporations or companies. An industrial corporation or company is a
group of persons, each of whom contributes a portion of the capital
needed to carry on the business. These contributors receive shares in
the corporation proportionate to the amounts of money which they invest.
The man who contributes one hundred dollars becomes the owner of one
share; the man who invests a thousand dollars receives ten shares.[171]
An industrial corporation with a capital of a million dollars is able to
allot among its stockholders ten thousand shares of the par value of one
hundred dollars each. It may have only a few shareholders, or it may
have a great many. These shareholders, be they many or few, control the
management of the business. They elect each year a board of directors,
who, in turn, appoint the officers and managers. The latter purchase the
raw materials, engage the workmen, supervise their labor, sell the
finished goods, and distribute the profits among the shareholders in the
form of a dividend declared upon each share. Every corporation has as
its legal basis a charter, which is a document issued by the
governmental authorities, usually by the state. This charter states the
purpose of the corporation and authorizes it to do business. Charters of
corporations may be revoked if the powers conferred by the charter are
misused.

[Sidenote: Ways of avoiding industrial competition]

=Industrial Agreements and Pools.=—With large numbers of industrial
corporations engaged in the same line of business it is inevitable that
they should compete with one another for the sale of their respective
products. This competition, quite naturally, tends to keep prices down,
because each corporation does its best to get trade by underselling its
rivals. But competition which forces down prices also results in
reducing profits, and the industrial corporations often find that higher
profits can be earned for their shareholders if some arrangement is made
to limit this competition. Thus it came to pass that the men who
controlled large corporations in the same line of business got together
and made informal agreements not to compete in such way as to force
prices down. [Sidenote: Gentlemen’s agreements.] These “gentlemen’s
agreements”, so-called because they had no legal force but merely rested
upon the honor of the various corporations, usually provided that a
certain scale of prices would be maintained and that no concern would
sell its products below this stipulated scale.

[Sidenote: Pools.]

These agreements, however, were not altogether satisfactory to the
corporations. At the fixed scale of prices some companies, by reason of
special advantages, were able to make large profits while others earned
very little and became dissatisfied. Hence a new method, commonly known
as _pooling_ was devised to give every corporation its fair share in the
earnings of the entire trade. Under this plan each company was allotted
a certain territory within which it might sell its products without
competition on the part of the others. Then, at the end of the year, the
profits of all the companies were put into a “pool” or common fund and
so distributed that no company would have a higher rate of earnings than
the others. This was an ingenious method of ensuring substantial profits
to each corporation, no matter how well or how badly it was managed.
Incidentally, it deprived the public of the benefits which would have
come to it, in reduced prices, if competition had been freely carried
on. For this reason the practice of “pooling” was soon forbidden by law
as an unreasonable restraint of trade.

[Sidenote: Trusts.]

=Trusts, Holding Companies, and Mergers.=—Not to be balked in this way
the corporations devised a new plan for checking competition. This took
the form of a trust. Corporations agreed to place their shares in the
hands of trustees and these trustees, by virtue of holding the shares,
controlled the business of all.[172] Through this control the trustees
were able to make sure that no price-cutting would result from
competition among the various companies comprised within the trust.
[Sidenote: Holding companies.] Another plan, not widely different, was
to organize a “holding company”, in other words a large corporation to
hold all the shares of the smaller corporations not merely in trust but
as the actual owner.[173] [Sidenote: Mergers.] Finally in some cases,
the smaller companies were merged or consolidated outright into a single
giant corporation. In such instances the smaller concerns passed out of
existence and their former owners received shares in the new
corporation.

[Sidenote: Combinations stifle competition.]

=Why Industrial Combinations are Objectionable.=—The chief objection to
all these combinations, whether by informal agreement, pooling, trusts,
holding companies, mergers is that they seek to restrain trade, to
create monopolies, and to prevent the public from obtaining the
advantages in the way of reduced prices and better quality which arise
from free competition. So long as free competition exists the rise of
prices is automatically checked. But when competition is stifled by
monopoly, the public gets fleeced. When a monopoly is once created,
moreover, free competition is difficult to establish again. The reason
for this is that when anyone enters the monopolized line of business the
holders of the monopoly cut their prices temporarily below the
profit-making point and thus make it impossible for the new competitor
to continue. Then, when they have driven him out of business, they put
prices up once more.

[Sidenote: The value of large-scale production.]

On the other hand we must not lose sight of the fact that large-scale
production is more economical than production in small quantities, and
that large-scale production almost inevitably leads to industrial
combinations. Most manufactured commodities are produced under what
economists call “the law of increasing returns”, that is to say the
larger the quantity produced, the smaller the cost per article. There is
a great deal of overlapping and waste when goods are manufactured in
small independent shops or factories. Large industrial combinations can
obtain capital more easily; they can buy raw materials in larger
quantities and at better prices; they are in a position to secure and
use modern machinery; and they can create better facilities for selling
their goods. Large-scale production also permits a profitable use of
by-products, such as coke in the manufacture of gas or scraps of leather
in the making of shoes. Where industries are small these by-products are
not sufficient to make their sale worth while; but large-scale
industries realize considerable sums from the sale of their by-products.
From almost every point of view the large manufacturing establishments
have a great advantage, and if we were to insist that all industry be
carried on in small concerns, the public would be the loser in the end.
Large-scale production is not in itself to be frowned upon but rather
encouraged. The trouble arises from the misuse of the power over prices
which results from _monopoly_, and this misuse of power is what the laws
are endeavoring to prevent.

[Sidenote: Federal and state control.]

=The Legal Control of Industrial Corporations.=—The right to exercise
control over industrial corporations, and thereby to protect the public
against extortion, rests partly with the states and partly with the
national government. Most corporations are created by state charters and
this gives the state authority over them. So long, therefore, as a
corporation confines its business within the limits of the state in
which its charter was obtained, the national government has no control
over it. But most large corporations, such as steel and oil companies,
woolen and cotton companies, carry on their business in more than one
state. They have factories scattered over several states. They buy
materials in one state, manufacture them in another, and sell the
products in a third. Wherever this is the case the national government
does have authority over them, for the constitution gives to Congress
the power “to regulate commerce among the several states”.

=Industrial Corporations and the Sherman Law.=—To understand the
relation of the laws to combinations and monopolies it is necessary to
go back a little way into legal history. [Sidenote: The common law rule
against combinations in restraint of trade.] By the common law of
England, which was introduced into the colonies before the Revolution
and became the basis of the American legal system, it was provided that
combinations were illegal when formed to restrain trade _unreasonably_.
This was the prevailing legal doctrine in the United States for a
hundred years after the formation of the Union, but it did not suffice
to prevent the steady growth of monopolies. In 1890, therefore, Congress
decided to draw the line more strictly and to this end enacted the
Sherman Anti-Trust Law, which declared every contract or combination, in
the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or
commerce among the several states, to be illegal. [Sidenote: The rule in
the Sherman Law.] No distinction was made by the words of this law
between reasonable and unreasonable restraint of trade; the Sherman Law
simply forbade all trade-restraining combinations in interstate
business. It applied to railroads and industries alike, but it was not
enforced widely until 1904, when the Supreme Court applied its
provisions in the Northern Securities Case (see p. 365).

This decision caused a great stirring among the dry bones of corporate
industry. Many combinations and mergers had been formed in all parts of
the country during the closing years of the nineteenth century, and it
was argued that to tear these combinations apart would be exceedingly
difficult. But the government proceeded against other consolidations,
notably the Standard Oil Company and the American Tobacco Company, and
secured their dissolution as well.[174] [Sidenote: The rule of reason.]
In these latter cases, however, the Supreme Court gave hope for a less
drastic interpretation of the Sherman Law by avowing its intention to
decide each future case in accordance with the “rule of reason”. In
other words the court stated its belief that the Sherman Law was not
intended to break up all combinations, good, bad, and indifferent, but
only those which were contrary to the public interest. By this dictum
the Supreme Court re-established in effect the old common law principle
that a combination may be legal or illegal according as its purpose is
reasonable or unreasonable. And such is the law of the land today.[175]

=The Practice of Price-Fixing.=—Meanwhile some new abuses on the part of
various large industrial corporations had arisen. Many manufacturers
began the habit of dictating to retail merchants the prices at which
goods should be sold. If a merchant refused to maintain these prices and
sold goods at lower figures, the manufacturer would thereupon decline to
supply him with any more merchandise. This was an effective way of
bringing a merchant to terms, particularly in the case of patented
articles which are made by only one firm and which cannot be obtained
from anyone else. [Sidenote: The Clayton Act.] Here, again, the of the
Clayton Act intervened by forbidding price discriminations wherever the
effect of such action tends to lessen competition or to create a
monopoly. The Clayton Act also prohibited manufacturers and wholesalers
from dictating to retail merchants the sort of goods they may sell. The
makers of a particular brand of flour, for example, are not permitted to
say to the merchant: “You must sell our brand only, otherwise we will
not sell to you.”

=The Federal Trade Commission.=—The foregoing statutes, the Sherman and
Clayton Acts, are examples of our attempt to regulate industry by law.
The trouble with regulation by law, however, is its stiffness. Laws are
hard and fast while the scope and methods of modern business are
continually and rapidly changing. A law which is sufficient to meet one
problem today proves quite inadequate to cope with another problem
tomorrow. The strictest legal provisions, moreover, can usually be
circumvented or evaded by some new device. Accordingly, the national
government has reached the conclusion that it is better to have the laws
lay down the general principles of industrial regulation, leaving the
details to be applied by an administrative board or commission. In
conformity with this idea Congress in 1914 authorized the establishment
of a Federal Trade Commission, the duty of which is to investigate all
complaints regarding unfair methods of competition in interstate
commerce (except in the case of banks and railroads) and to order that
such unfair methods, if found to be in existence, shall be
discontinued.[176] Decisions of the Federal Trade Commission are reached
after a hearing at which both sides may be represented. The commission
is also given power to compile and publish information concerning the
organization, management, and policy of any industrial corporation
engaged in interstate trade. Since 1914 it has rendered signal service
in protecting the business men of the country, and the general public as
well, against economic injustice.

=The Control of Industrial Corporations by the States.=—What has been
said in the preceding pages relates only to corporations which are
engaged in interstate business. This includes most of the largest
industrial concerns. Smaller corporations which keep their operations
within the bounds of a single state, are not subject to the provisions
of the Sherman or Clayton Acts, neither do they come within the
jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission. This does not mean,
however, that the smaller industrial corporations are exempt from
regulation altogether. Most of the states have their own anti-trust laws
and their own legal regulations to prevent the growth of local
monopolies. These rules differ from state to state; in some they are
much more strict than in others. State regulation is beset with serious
difficulties everywhere because in all the states industries are to some
extent carried on by corporations which have obtained their charters
from some other state and thus cannot be fully controlled except by the
national government.

=The Greatest Problem of Modern Industry.=—The most difficult industrial
problems of today, however, are not connected with the question of
government control. So far as the protection of the public against
combinations and monopolies is concerned the government is bound to be,
in the long run, successful in its efforts although even the strictest
laws can work no miracle over night. Far more perplexing is the problem
of determining the proper relations between industrial employers on the
one hand and industrial workmen on the other. Although labor is a great
and essential factor in industry it has hitherto had practically no
direct voice in determining the conditions under which industry shall be
carried on.

Taking American industry as a whole, labor has had no share in ownership
or management. [Sidenote: The human relation in industry.] The relation
of the worker to industry has been strictly that of a hired employee who
does his job, takes his pay, and calls the account square. But of late
years it has been becoming apparent that this relation does not satisfy
the workman altogether and that he does not regard wages alone as a
sufficient recompense for his share in industrial production. His
leaders are asking, in some cases, for a share in the profits, for a
voice in determining the conditions of labor and, ultimately, for some
share in the management.

[Sidenote: The representation of the workers.]

=Industrial Democracy.=—In some large industrial concerns representation
has already been given to the workers. They are permitted and encouraged
to select a committee from among themselves whose function it is to take
up with the management, in an official way, all questions of wages,
hours of labor, discipline, and conditions of work. In case of
disagreement between the committee and the management impartial arbiters
are called in. Thus the employees are given a fair share in the
settlement of all matters affecting their work and welfare.

The success of such schemes will depend, of course, upon the degree of
fairness which both sides display in conference. Just as the success of
political democracy depends upon the exercise of tolerance on the part
of those to whom power is given, so in any form of industrial democracy
the abuse of power, whether by employers or workmen, will surely spell
failure. It is essential to the well-being of the nation that the
workers in industry shall receive their rightful share from the earnings
of industry, that they shall have just conditions of employment and be
treated like men. But it is also essential that the management of
industry shall not be subjected to unreasonable demands and that a
system of production which the world has spent a century in building up
shall not be broken down until something well tried and tested by
experience can be put in its place.

=Profit Sharing as a Step toward Industrial Harmony.=—One of the ways
suggested for ensuring to the workman his full share in the earnings of
industry is known as profit sharing. The usual provision is that after
the current rates of interest, wages, and salaries are paid the surplus
earnings shall be divided between the employers and the workers on some
fair basis determined in advance. But the amount which goes to the
workers is not necessarily paid in cash. Either in part or in whole it
may be given to them in the form of shares in the business and on these
shares they receive thereafter the regular rate of earnings.

It was hoped that an arrangement of this sort would bring the employer
and his workers more closely together. Profit sharing, indeed, was at
one time proclaimed to be a solution of the whole labor problem. But on
the whole it has not fulfilled expectations. For this there are several
reasons. [Sidenote: Why profit sharing has not made great headway.] Some
workers did their best, others scamped their work; but all shared alike.
The employers did not find that labor responded with increased
efficiency when a share of profits was given. The workers, on their
part, found that profits sometimes declined greatly in spite of their
hardest efforts. Bad judgment on the part of the management would offset
hard work on the part of the men. Not having access to the books and
figures the workers often suspected that their rightful share of the
profits was being withheld from them. The trade unions, moreover, looked
askance at the whole proposal and insisted, among other things, that no
one who was not a member of the union should be a profit-sharer. So the
movement has slackened, although it still has some strong advocates and
seems to be losing none of the ground that it has gained.

=Other Remedies for Industrial Unrest.=—Several other remedies for
industrial unrest have been suggested, and some of them are being given
a trial. The relations of labor to industry constitute a large and
difficult problem, however, and cannot be made clear in a single
paragraph. They are, in fact, of sufficient importance to have a chapter
to themselves.

[Sidenote: Industrial opportunities.]

=Industry and the Individual.=—The opportunities for capable young men
and women in industry were never greater than they are today. The
operations of industry have become so complex that they afford openings
for every type of individual skill and proficiency. The management of
American business is no longer conducted by hit-or-miss methods;
everything is worked out with scientific precision in buying materials,
merchandising, manufacturing, marketing, and financing. American
industry in all its branches is hiring brains as well as muscle.

[Sidenote: The choice of a vocation]

The success of the young man or woman who goes from school into industry
depends in the first instance upon a wise selection at the start.
Different types of industrial work call for altogether different tastes
and abilities on the part of the individual. Some individuals are of a
distinctly mechanical temperament; their interests run to machinery and
the processes of working with material things. Others have no interest
at all in that direction; but they may be tactful in dealing with other
people, able to use their imaginations, with perhaps a penchant for
figures. Others, again, have none of these qualities but are punctual,
industrious, and can always be depended upon to carry out instructions
to the letter. American industry has openings which exactly fit
individuals of all temperaments and capacities; the big problem is to
bring the man and the opportunity into touch with each other. A square
peg will not go into a round hole; no amount of patience will put it
there. But there are many square pegs trying to fit themselves into the
round holes of industrial employment today because so many young men and
women have taken the first job offered to them without reference to its
real suitability. These first jobs very often lead up a blind alley. The
time spent in them by thousands of young men and women is time wasted.

[Sidenote: Vocational guidance.]

It is to help eliminate this enormous waste of human effort that
facilities for vocational guidance are now provided by a great many
schools. But no vocational counsellor can properly plan the start in
life without assistance from the boy or girl immediately concerned. It
is the duty of everyone to make a personal study of the opportunities
which the various forms of industry afford, to reflect upon his own
tastes, abilities, and ambitions, and to look at the problem as one of
supreme importance to himself. A right start is half the victory.[177]

General References

R. T. ELY, _Outlines of Economics_, pp. 26-62 (The New Industrial
System);

W. Z. RIPLEY, _Trusts, Pools, and Corporations_, pp. 78-96; 703-734;

F. W. TAUSSIG, _Principles of Economics_, Vol. II, pp. 419-442
(Industrial Combinations);

F. A. OGG, _National Progress_, pp. 58-75 (The Legal Control of
Industrial Combinations);

L. H. HANEY, _Business Organization and Combination_, pp. 81-116;

E. D. DURAND, _The Trust Problem_, pp. 9-30;

J. R. COMMONS, _Labor and Administration_, pp. 120-148;

F. A. FETTER, _Modern Economic Problems_, pp. 427-457;

ISAAC LIPPINCOTT, _Economic Development of the United States_, pp.
469-490. See also U. S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS: _Abstract of the Census of
Manufacturers_, 1914, ch. vi, vii.

Group Problems

=1. The advantages and defects of large industrial organizations.=
Advantages of large-scale production. Are large organizations essential
to large-scale production? Large industrial organizations and monopoly.
Some examples. The distinction between “good trusts” and “bad trusts”.
Can large organizations be effectively regulated? Summary of merits and
defects. =References=: F. W. TAUSSIG, _Principles of Economics_, Vol.
II, pp. 419-442; L. H. HANEY, _Business Organization and Combination_,
pp. 365-382; E. D. DURAND, _The Trust Problem_, pp. 60-85; W. Z. RIPLEY,
_Trusts, Pools, and Corporations_, pp. 324-355; J. T. YOUNG, _The New
American Government and Its Work_, pp. 141-186; JOHN MOODY, _The Truth
about the Trusts_, pp. 102-132; E. S. MEADE, _Trust Finance_, pp.
193-217; THEODORE ROOSEVELT, _Autobiography_, pp. 476-515.

=2. The position of women in industry—past, present, and future.=
=References=: EDITH ABBOTT, _Women in Industry_, especially pp. 1-9;
215-245; 307-323; T. S. ADAMS and H. L. SUMNER, _Labor Problems_, pp.
19-67; J. A. HOBSON, _Evolution of Modern Capitalism_, pp. 290-321; JOHN
MITCHELL, _Organized Labor_, pp. 131-141; B. L. HUTCHINS, _Women in
Modern Industry_, pp. 239-265.

Short Studies

1. =The far-reaching effects of machine industry.= L. C. MARSHALL and L.
C. LYON, _Our Economic Organization_, pp. 106-126.

2. =Evils of the factory system.= W. C. TAYLOR, _The Modern Factory
System_, pp. 177-227.

3. =The power of Congress to regulate corporations.= S. P. ORTH,
_Readings on the Relation of Government to Prosperity and Industry_, pp.
208-220.

4. =Roosevelt and the trusts.= F. A. OGG, _National Progress_, pp.
40-75; THEODORE ROOSEVELT, _Autobiography_, pp. 476-515; OTTO H. KAHN,
_Our Economic Problems_, pp. 317-322.

5. =The Clayton Act.= JAMES T. YOUNG, _The New American Government and
Its Work_, pp. 173-178.

6. =The work of the Federal Trade Commission.= W. H. S. STEVENS, _Unfair
Competition_, pp. 217-244.

7. =Politics and big business.= J. G. BROOKS, _The Social Unrest_, pp.
46-67.

8. =Competition and big business.= J. H. HAMMOND and J. W. JENKS, _Great
American Issues_, pp. 160-173.

9. =Profit sharing in industry.= T. S. ADAMS and HELEN SUMNER, _Labor
Problems_, pp. 333-378.

10. =The contribution of American industry to the winning of the war.=
W. F. WILLOUGHBY, _Government Organization in War Time and After_, pp.
67-120.

Questions

1. Show why the rise of the factory system is entitled to be called a
“revolution.” Are people better or worse off as a result?

2. “Machinery has made life more varied,” “Machinery has reduced life to
routine.” With which of these statements do you agree and why?

3. Make a diagram showing how a corporation is organized. If you owned
one or more shares in a corporation, what would be your rights? Your
duties? Your risks? What is meant by the statement that a corporation
has “legal immortality”?

4. What is the difference between a pool, a trust, a holding company,
and a merger? Is it better to forbid these things or to regulate them?

5. Why is it that the Chicago meat-packing concerns have been able to
sell dressed meat to marketmen in the towns of the Eastern states more
cheaply than it can be procured and slaughtered locally?

6. Explain what President Roosevelt meant when he said that there are
good trusts and bad trusts. What service can a good trust perform? What
harm can a bad trust do?

7. What are the chief provisions of the Sherman Law? The Clayton Act?

8. Show how regulation by a commission is likely to be more effective
than regulation by law.

9. In determining a choice of a vocation what considerations are you
going to keep in view? What tests have you applied to make sure that you
know your own tastes and abilities? Have you made yourself acquainted
with the industrial opportunities? See foot note on p. 397.

10. To what extent should the workers share in the management of
industry?

Topics for Debate

1. The Sherman Law should be repealed.

2. The government should have the power to fix maximum prices in the
case of all goods produced by industrial organizations which possess a
monopoly.

-----

Footnote 154:

After the Revolution the different states claimed vast tracts of
western lands but they ultimately surrendered these claims to the
national government. The lands were surveyed and offered for sale at
low prices. Many years later Congress adopted the homestead system by
which actual settlers might get lands for almost nothing.

Footnote 155:

It is said that if all the available water power of the United States
were put to use, it would take the place of all the coal that is now
being used in supplying industries with power. “White coal” it is
called, and there is an abundance of it.

Footnote 156:

In early days the slaughtering of cattle was done locally, but the use
of refrigerator cars has led to the centralizing of the meat industry
at a few great centers.

Footnote 157:

We have had a striking illustration of this in recent years. During
the World War the prices of all agricultural products rose enormously
and they continued high for a short time after the war came to an end.
Then they dropped quickly to a low level and by so doing left the
American farmer in a hard situation. Labor and supplies cost him
nearly as much in 1921 as in 1919, while he received in some cases
only half as much for the products of his land.

Footnote 158:

A large part of our nitrate supply comes from Chile, but owing to the
lack of shipping during the war not much could be brought from that
quarter. The United States government built a huge nitrate-making
plant at Muscle Shoals, Ala., but it did not get into operation before
the close of the war. It has now been offered for sale to private
capitalists. There has been some discussion of the possibility of
making nitrates by the electric fixation of the nitrogen which is in
the air, using water power to generate the electric power cheaply. It
is an interesting fact that certain types of bacteria gather nitrogen
from the air at the roots of leguminous plants (peas, beans, alfalfa,
etc.), and in order to ensure the presence of these bacteria the seed
is frequently inoculated before planting.

Footnote 159:

An investigation of the exodus from Ohio farms a few years ago showed
that as many as 60,000 men and boys left the rural districts in a
single year, while fewer than 9000 went from the cities and towns to
the farms.

Footnote 160:

There is a somewhat similar situation in Europe today. The various new
states which were created at the close of the war all have their
tariffs, their rivalries, and their jealousies.

Footnote 161:

They did it, sometimes, in this way: Suppose A and B are towns of
about equal size and about the same distance from Chicago, or that A
is a little further away.

────────────● A
/
Chicago ●──────
╲
─────────● B

A railroad desiring to build up A and make it an important industrial
center would merely give it lower freight rates to and from the
western metropolis, despite the greater distance.

Footnote 162:

The act further provides that all net profits above the rate of six
per cent upon the valuation of the railroads, as fixed by the
Interstate Commerce Commission, shall be divided in equal shares
between the railroads and the government. The share received by the
government is to go into a fund for the benefit of those railroads
which are not able to earn the normal net income.

Footnote 163:

Of the nine members three are representatives of the railroad owners,
three of the railroad employees, and three of the public. This board
has its headquarters at Chicago, which by reason of its location may
properly be termed the railroad capital of the country. When the board
hears both sides in a labor dispute it makes its recommendations but
has no power to enforce these recommendations. It is believed,
however, that the pressure of public opinion will give sufficient
force to its decisions.

Footnote 164:

Canal transportation, which declined after the railroads were built,
seems now to be gaining a new lease of life. The State of New York is
improving the Erie Canal and proposals have been made to enlarge the
canals between the Great Lakes and the Gulf of St. Lawrence so as to
permit through traffic from Europe to the Lake ports.

Footnote 165:

The general course of American tariff policy may be marked off into
four main periods. The first, which extended from 1792 to the close of
the War of 1812, was a period of relatively low tariff duties. The
duties levied during these years did not greatly hamper imports. While
the United States and England were at war, however, some new
industries were established in America, and it was deemed advisable to
afford these new industries protection against English competition
when the war was over. Accordingly, a more strongly protective policy
was adopted in 1816, and this action ushers in the second period,
which lasted till about 1842. During the earlier part of this interval
the duties on imported manufactures remained relatively high. The high
duties created strong opposition, however, especially in the Southern
states, and in time a reaction took place with the result that the
rates were gradually lowered to a general level of about twenty per
cent in 1842. From this date until the outbreak of the Civil War the
duties remained low, so that the third period saw the virtual
abandonment of protection in favor of a tariff for revenue only. Then
the outbreak of the Civil War changed the situation. The need of a
great increase in revenue became imperative, and high duties on
imports seemed to be a ready way of obtaining national funds. A series
of tariff measures put the rates higher and higher. When the war was
over the high rates for the most part remained and they have remained
relatively high throughout the fourth period, which carries us to the
present day. Since 1865 many tariff measures have been passed by
Congress; some have raised the duties, while others have lowered them.
In 1913 duties were considerably reduced by the Democrats; in 1921
they were put up again by the Republicans. The question of tariff
rates has been an issue at many national elections. But, with all its
ups and downs, the tariff has remained _protective_ both in its
purpose and effect.

Footnote 166:

In 1920 Congress enacted two important measures to aid the revival of
foreign trade. One of these measures relieved foreign trade from some
of the anti-trust restrictions; the other authorized the lending of
government funds to exporters.

Footnote 167:

Many of the commercial treaties which the United States has concluded
with other countries contain what is known as the “most favored nation
clause”. This is a provision that if either of the treaty-making
countries should grant to a third nation any special trading
privilege, this same privilege shall at once accrue to the other
treaty-making country. For example, if the United States and Brazil
conclude a commercial treaty containing the “most favored nation
clause” and Brazil should subsequently grant to Mexico the privilege
of shipping oil into Brazil without payment of duty, the United States
would become forthwith entitled to the same privilege or favor.

Footnote 168:

In the days of wooden vessels, propelled by sail, America had natural
advantages in shipbuilding, particularly in the abundant supply of
ship-timber. Many such vessels were built and the once-famous American
“clipper ships” carried our commerce to all parts of the world. During
the period from 1815 to 1860 the American merchant marine reached its
zenith in size and prosperity. In 1860 it was second to that of Great
Britain and served not only to carry the entire commerce of the United
States but the trade of other countries as well. The Civil War
interfered greatly with the progress of American shipbuilding,
however, and with the advent of iron vessels, propelled by steam, the
United States began to drop behind in the construction of ships for
ocean service. European countries, particularly Great Britain, forged
far ahead during the period from 1865 to 1900. Of the tonnage which
cleared for foreign countries from the seaports of the United States
in 1900 less than one-fifth was American. This decline in the size of
the merchant marine inspired the government of the United States to
stimulate the construction of ships by the grant of subsidies, but no
great success attended these efforts. The shipbuilding industry did
not make renewed progress until it received a great impetus from the
World War.

Footnote 169:

As a means of facilitating commerce the national government also
maintains various aids to navigation. It provides lighthouses, buoys,
landmarks, and lifesaving stations. It has made surveys of the coasts
and furnishes charts for the use of navigators. It trains and licenses
pilots and makes rules to ensure the safety of vessels entering or
leaving American ports. Much money has also been spent by the national
government in the deepening and improvement of harbors. Mention should
likewise be made of the greatest enterprise ever undertaken by any
country for the promotion of maritime commerce, namely, the building
of the Panama Canal, which connects two oceans and cost the United
States more than three hundred and fifty million dollars.

Footnote 170:

In illustration of this it may be mentioned that in all the years from
1000 A. D. to 1750 A. D. there were only three inventions of
remarkable value or interest; namely, printing, gunpowder, and the
steam engine. But what of the period since 1750? The railroad, the
steamship, the telegraph, the cable, the telephone, radio
communication, the electric light, the electric motor and the trolley,
the submarine, the airplane, the cinematograph, the phonograph, the
internal combustion engine and motor vehicles of all kinds, the X-ray,
and so on. These, moreover, are only the landmarks of _mechanical_
progress, which is a relatively small item in the sum-total of human
advance.

Footnote 171:

The customary par value of a share is one hundred dollars, but it may
be fifty, ten, or five dollars. Occasionally shares of no par value
are issued.

Footnote 172:

The stockholders in the original corporation received “trust
certificates” in place of their shares.

Footnote 173:

During the presidential campaign of 1896 there was a good deal of
popular outcry over the asserted failure of the government to “curb
the trusts”. When Mark Hanna, chairman of the Republican National
Committee, replied, “There are no trusts”, he was laughed at from one
end of the country to the other. But he was right, for most of the
trusts had been converted into holding companies.

Footnote 174:

In the long run this action did not amount to much, however, for the
companies reorganized in a way which kept them within the letter of
the law.

Footnote 175:

In order to evade the provisions of the Sherman Act many large
corporations resorted to the plan of “interlocking directorates”.
While forming no combination, merger, or holding company, they merely
arranged that the various companies should elect the same men to their
respective boards of directors, thus placing control of the companies
in the hands of the same group of men. To put an end to this practice
Congress in 1914 enacted the Clayton Act, which provided, among other
things, that no person may serve as a director in two or more large
competitive interstate corporations except banks and railroads, these
latter being under separate regulations.

Footnote 176:

The Federal Trade Commission is made up of five members, each
appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate,
for a term of seven years.

Footnote 177:

For those who are willing to look at the matter in this light, bearing
in mind the old adage concerning the kindliness of fate to those who
help themselves, the following helpful books are suggested: FREDERICK
J. ALLEN, _A Guide to the Study of Occupations_ (Cambridge, 1921). A
survey of all the best literature on the subject. FREDERIC M. GILES
and I. K. GILES, _Vocational Civics_ (N. Y., 1920). A brief,
interesting account of the opportunities in different occupations.

CHAPTER XXI
LABOR AND LABOR PROBLEMS

_The purpose of this chapter is to describe the organization,
rights, claims, and problems of the American wage-earner._

[Sidenote: Hand-industry created no labor problem.]

=Labor in the Old and the New Industrial Order.=—So long as the system
of hand-industry was in existence there was no sharp division of
employers and laborers into two separate classes. The employer was
himself a workman at the loom, the bench, or the forge. He might have as
helpers a couple of apprentices who were learning the trade, and perhaps
a journeyman or two; but rarely were there more than a half dozen men or
women employed in a single establishment. The apprentices and
journeymen, moreover, expected in due course to set up in business for
themselves. There was no hard-and-fast labor class, and no labor problem
as we have it at the present day. The employer and his helpers worked
together, often lived together; no great gulf separated them in wealth,
education, or social position.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Illustration:

THE CROWNING OF LABOR. By John W. Alexander

_From a Thistle Print, copyright by the Detroit Publishing Company.
Reproduced by permission._
]

THE CROWNING OF LABOR

By John W. Alexander

This picture forms one of the panels in a series of
mural decorations, representing the achievements of
labor, at the head of the great staircase in the
Museum of the Carnegie Institute at Pittsburgh.

Pittsburgh, a great industrial community, is
depicted as a knight in steel armor, emblematic of
strength and power. Labor having reached its highest
expression in the prosperous industrial community,
the city is being crowned with a laurel wreath and
heralded by the winged figures which have arisen out
of the smoke and steam. The whole picture is
symbolic of the immense energy which is guided by
labor into productive channels.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: Labor problems came with the Industrial Revolution.]

The advent of steam power, factories, and clanging machinery changed all
this. The number of employers diminished; the number of employees
increased. Hundreds and even thousands of workmen were brought together
into great brick factories, working long hours, destined to be laborers
throughout their entire lives, with no hope of ever being anything else.
With this new organization of industry the relation of the employer to
his helpers was completely changed. The old personal relation
disappeared; the employer no longer possessed even a passing
acquaintance with his men.[178] The new relation was simply one of
dollars and cents. He gave them so much wages; they gave him so much
work. Being only one among a hundred, or one among several hundred, the
individual employee lost his industrial independence. Whether he liked
his work or not there was little for him to do but take the wages that
were offered; he could no longer leave his employer and set up in
business for himself as he could in the older days of hand-industry. The
Industrial Revolution thus brought into being a new labor class, new
conditions of labor, and a new labor problem.

=Why Labor Organizes.=—Organizations of workmen, now commonly known as
trade unions or labor unions, were not in existence prior to the
Industrial Revolution. There was no need for such associations then. But
when the workers found that as individuals they could not bargain with
their employers on terms of equality, they naturally sought to achieve
this position of equality by combining together into groups or unions.
The original purpose of a labor organization, therefore, was to enable
its members to act unitedly in the interest of the worker, making a
_collective_ bargain with the employers. [Sidenote: The aims of labor
organizations.] By this process of collective bargaining they aim to
secure fair wages, reasonable hours of work, sanitary conditions in
factories, and security against dismissal except for proper cause. In
addition to seeking these advantages the labor organizations try to
promote the social and intellectual interests of their own members.[179]
They have supported the policy of free, public, education and have urged
the prohibition of child labor in order that the children of the workers
may be kept at school. They have advocated wholesome forms of public
recreation, particularly the establishment of play-grounds. In a word
the policy of organized labor is to support every movement which aims to
make the worker self-respecting and independent while opposing
everything that tends to reduce him to the ranks of a mere cog in the
great industrial mechanism.[180]

[Sidenote: Unions and federations.]

=Organization Methods.=—Trade unions are composed of the wage-earners in
a particular trade or occupation.[181] A local union is formed among the
wage-earners of each city or town. These unions, usually called
“locals”, hold regular meetings, elect their own officers, and collect
small monthly dues from each member. In the earlier stages of the labor
movement these local unions were not federated into any national body,
but in 1866 the National Labor Union was formed by uniting many of the
local associations. This national organization became too much involved
in politics, however, and soon went to pieces. In its place arose
another national organization known as the Knights of Labor, which
gained considerable strength during the twenty years from 1870 to 1890.
The Knights of Labor did not attempt to federate the local unions but
took individual members directly into their own ranks. In the end the
organization became involved in several unsuccessful strikes and
gradually weakened, although even today it still maintains a nominal
existence. Since 1890 the most important national organization in labor
circles has been the American Federation of Labor. Meanwhile, however,
the unions in particular trades (such as garment workers, mine workers,
railroad trainmen, etc.) had begun to affiliate into individual national
unions of their own. State and city federations had also been formed,
made up of all the unions in a given state or city. All this made more
easy the rise of a giant national federation.

[Sidenote: How the A. F. of L. is organized.]

=The American Federation of Labor.=—The American Federation was
organized in 1881 but at first its growth was slow. Today it claims a
membership of about four million workers. It is a federal organization
comprising various national unions in particular trades, state
federations of labor, city federations, and a large number of directly
affiliated unions. Directly or indirectly the American Federation of
Labor has brought into affiliation nearly thirty thousand local
organizations throughout the United States and Canada. Every year it
holds a convention made up of delegates from the component
organizations, and this convention determines the Federation’s policy.
The annual convention also elects the Federation’s general officers. The
Federation has no compulsory authority of its own but merely exercises
such powers as the organizations of which it is composed may concede to
it. Its chief function is to bring representatives of unions together
once a year for the discussion of common problems, to secure general
agreement upon a common program, to give the labor movement greater
strength through united action, and to represent the interests of labor
before the public authorities.

[Sidenote: The demands of “organized labor”.]

=The Federation’s Program.=—The Federation’s program comprises both
economic and political aspirations. Among the former are included the
demand for a rate of wages in all trades sufficient to enable the worker
to live and bring up his family in accordance with “American standards
of living”; the establishment of an eight-hour workday in all
occupations, with a half holiday on Saturdays; the prohibition of paid
labor by children under sixteen years of age; the more effective
inspection of workshops, factories, and mines in order that proper
sanitary conditions may be ensured and industrial accidents prevented;
and the establishment of a system of social insurance against sickness,
disability, accident, and old age. Among the political changes advocated
by the Federation are the nation-wide use of the initiative, referendum,
and recall; the election of a President by direct popular vote; the
restriction of the Supreme Court’s right to declare laws
unconstitutional; the prohibition of injunctions in labor disputes; and
the extension of government control over railroads. The Federation also
urges that greater attention be given to vocational training in the
schools. It should be understood that the foregoing program is not fixed
and inflexible; it may be changed by the annual convention at any time
and is being constantly modified.[182]

[Sidenote: The radical element in labor’s ranks.]

=Revolutionary Labor Organizations.=—In recent years it has become
apparent that the relatively moderate program and the strictly peaceful
methods of the American Federation do not satisfy the more radical
elements in its own ranks. Repeated attempts have been made at the
annual convention to displace Mr. Gompers, the head of the Federation,
in favor of some leader with more radical views, but thus far these
attempts have failed. In some of the labor organizations the radicals
have from time to time got out of hand and have gone on strike in
defiance of their leaders. Strikes of this sort are commonly known as
“outlaw strikes”.

[Sidenote: The I. W. W.—its history and aims.]

But more particularly the drift to radicalism in labor’s ranks has been
shown by the organization and progress of the Industrial Workers of the
World (the I. W. W.), which aims to supplant the American Federation of
Labor and to combine all the workers of the country into “one big
union”. The history of the I. W. W. goes back to 1898, but it gained
little strength as an organization until about 1910. Estimates as to the
extent of its present membership are uncertain. The program of the I. W.
W. includes the abolition of all capitalism, the control of all industry
by the workers, and the union of workers throughout the world. The I. W.
W. opposes the making of agreements with employers and is at war with
the whole existing economic system. It favors the overthrow of the
present system of government and the establishment of a proletarian
dictatorship.

[Sidenote: What “collective bargaining” means.]

=Methods and Policies of Labor: Collective Bargaining.=—The prime
purpose of the regular labor organizations, as has been said, is to
enable the workers to bargain with the employers upon equal terms. Where
the unions have acquired strength, therefore, they insist that all
agreements as to wages, hours, and conditions of labor shall be made by
the employer on the one hand and the officers of the unions on the
other. That is to say they insist that the members of the union shall
deal with the employers collectively, not individually, and that the
employers shall agree to this method of determining all labor questions.
The unions insist upon collective bargaining because they believe it to
be the only way in which the workers can be prevented from competing
among themselves and thus reducing the rate of wages below a reasonable
minimum. The labor of today cannot be sold tomorrow. If it is not sold
today, it perishes and brings the worker no return. This inexorable fact
places the workman in a position where, if left without protection, he
would have to accept whatever terms are offered him. Many large
employers of labor throughout the country have accepted the principle of
collective bargaining, but many others decline to do so on the ground
that it interferes with freedom of contract and restricts employment to
the members of labor unions. Collective bargains between employers and
workmen are made at joint conferences between the representatives of
both sides, and the matters agreed upon at these conferences are
embodied in trade agreements, which usually run for a term of months or
years.

[Sidenote: The theory and practice of strikes.]

=The Right to Strike.=—The chief weapon in the hands of organized labor
is the right to strike. A strike is a “concerted withdrawal from work by
a part or all of the employees in an establishment, or several
establishments, to enforce a demand on the part of the employees”.
Strikes are called by officials of the unions when it appears that the
demands of the workers cannot be enforced in any other way. This can be
done, as a rule, only after a vote of the members has been taken, and in
most cases the approval of the national officers of the union must also
be secured. While the men are “on strike” it is customary to grant them
a small daily allowance for the support of themselves and their
families. This is paid out of the treasury of the union where funds have
been accumulated from monthly membership fees paid by the men.
[Sidenote: Picketing] When a strike is called, “pickets” are stationed
near the factory or plant against which the strike is being conducted.
These pickets or watchers are furnished from among the strikers; their
purpose is to intercept “strike-breakers” or persons who may be going to
take the places of the strikers, and to persuade them against doing
this. So long as picketing is conducted peacefully and no intimidation
or violence is practiced, the laws do not, as a rule, interfere.

[Sidenote: Boycotts.]

In addition to picketing, the strikers often persuade members of other
unions to “boycott” the products of the establishment against which the
strike is being conducted, in other words to refuse to transport
materials for it or to buy from merchants any of its manufactures. It is
becoming the general practice of organized labor to buy no goods which
do not bear the “union label”, which is a sticker or tag certifying that
the merchandise was made by members of a union.

[Sidenote: How the employer strikes back.]

=Lockouts and Blacklists.=—But if the worker has his weapons, so has the
employer. When the employer believes the demands of his workmen to be
excessive he can shut down the establishment and lock the workers out.
Then, if he can find men and women to work for him on more favorable
terms, he takes them into his employ and starts up again. Lockouts are
not now as common as they used to be. Another weapon of the employer is
the blacklist, which contains the names of workmen who have been
prominent in fomenting labor troubles and who are, accordingly, regarded
by the employers as undesirable. This list is circulated by the
employers from one to another and no workman whose name is on it will be
given employment. When a worker’s name goes in the blacklist it means
that he has the greatest difficulty in finding employment in his own
trade anywhere.

[Sidenote: Labor and the courts.]

=The Use of Injunctions in Labor Disputes.=—A much-discussed question
affecting the interests of labor relates to the use of injunctions in
controversies between employers and workmen. An injunction is a writ or
order issued by a court of equity. It commands a person or a corporation
to do something, or not to do something. A court, for example, may by
the issue of an injunction order an employer to reinstate a workman who
has been wrongfully dismissed, or it may forbid the calling of a strike
by the officers of a union if such action involves the breach of an
agreement with the employer. [Sidenote: Contempt of court.] Anyone who
disobeys an injunction is guilty of “contempt of court” and in most
cases may be clapped into jail without formal trial by a jury. Members
of labor organizations feel that injunctions are frequently used in the
interest of the employers. The American Federation of Labor has strongly
opposed the use of injunctions in labor disputes so long as men are not
given a trial by a jury before being adjudged in contempt of court. The
Clayton Act of 1914 provided that, in the federal courts, alleged
violations of an injunction issued in connection with labor
controversies should be determined by a jury trial. In the courts of
most of the states, on the other hand, no such provision has yet been
made and there is strong opposition to making it. Many people believe
that labor is asking a special privilege in demanding that controversies
in which it is especially interested shall have an exemption from the
usual process of the courts.

=The Closed Shop and the Open Shop.=—The most hotly-debated question in
the whole range of labor problems today concerns the policy of the open
versus the closed shop. Shall all shops and factories be closed to those
who are not members of the union? Shall non-union men be virtually
required to join the union or be refused employment unless they do? Or
shall shops and factories be open to all competent workers no matter
whether they belong to the union or not? A closed shop, so-called, is a
factory or other industrial plant in which none but members of a labor
union are employed.[183] An open shop is one in which the employer makes
no distinction between those who are members of the union and those who
are not. The unions insist upon the closed shop as the only way of
maintaining the effectiveness of their organizations and of upholding
the principles of collective bargaining. They believe it to be
impracticable to have union men and non-union men working efficiently,
side by side, in the same establishment. Many employers, on the other
hand, maintain the open shop because they believe it is essential to
proper discipline and gives every workman an equal opportunity. They
believe that it is the inalienable right of every American to work for
whom he pleases, on such terms as he pleases, without the necessity of
joining any organization. Hence they have adopted the habit of calling
the open shop system the “American plan” of industrial organization. In
those trades where practically all the workers have become unionized the
controversy over the open or closed shop does not usually arise; it is
chiefly in those trades where a substantial proportion of the workers
are not organized.

[Sidenote: The amicable settlement of labor disputes.]

=Conciliation and Arbitration.=—The frequency of strikes and lockouts
has been diminished in recent years by an increasing resort to the
settlement of industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration. By
conciliation is meant the action of some public authority, usually a
state board, in tendering its assistance to smooth out the difficulty
and effect a settlement. This assistance both sides often accept,
although they are under no obligation to do so. By arbitration is meant
an agreement to submit the dispute to some one man or group of men, and
to abide by whatever decision may be rendered. An arbitration board is
commonly made up of three members, one chosen by the employers, one by
the workers, and a third mutually agreed upon as neutral. Some states
maintain official boards of arbitration to which industrial disputes may
be referred at any time by consent of the disputants. Even in cases
where they are not called upon to arbitrate disputes these boards
usually have the right to investigate the questions at issue and to make
known their findings for the information of the public.

[Sidenote: Industrial courts.]

=Compulsory Arbitration—The Kansas Plan.=—Although the compulsory
arbitration of industrial disputes has existed for some years in a few
other countries[184] it has not been looked upon with favor by labor
leaders in the United States. These leaders feel that compulsory
arbitration would take from the worker his most effective weapon—the
right to strike at an opportune time. In 1919, however, the legislature
of Kansas passed a law establishing in that state an Industrial Court,
with judges appointed by the governor.[185] This court is empowered to
fix rules, regulations, and practices for the operation of essential
industries.[186] All industrial disputes, of whatever sort in these
essential industries, must be submitted to it, and its decisions are
binding upon employers and employees alike. If either side declines to
accept the award, the state government is empowered to take over the
industry and operate it until the controversy is settled. The Kansas law
substitutes adjudication before a state tribunal for the usual method of
redress by strikes and lockouts. It is based upon the doctrine that
neither capital nor labor has the right to carry on industrial warfare
at the expense of the public and that essential industries must be kept
in operation because the whole community depends on them. The law has
been held to be constitutional, but it is still bitterly opposed by the
leaders of organized labor.

[Sidenote: Are the laws unfriendly to labor?]

=Labor and the Law.=—It is often alleged that the laws of the land are
largely on the side of the employer. This may have been true of the
common law which grew up in the days of hand-industry, but the statutes
passed by Congress and by the state legislatures during recent years
have done a great deal to ensure the just and humane treatment of the
American worker. These laws have been concerned with such matters as the
prevention of industrial accidents and the establishment of workmen’s
compensation, the limitation of the hours of labor for women, the
prohibition of child labor, and the establishment of minimum wages in
certain industries. In addition the laws have made provision for proper
sanitary conditions in shops and factories, and have eliminated many of
the abuses which grew up in the earlier days of the factory system. The
general tendency of American legislation during the past twenty-five
years has been in the direction of protecting the workman in all cases
where he cannot be counted upon to protect himself.

[Sidenote: The old plan of dealing with injured workmen.]

=Industrial Accidents and Employers’ Liability.=—The use of high-powered
and complicated machinery in modern times has greatly increased the
danger of accident to the workers. By the terms of the common law an
employer was obliged to grant compensation to any workman who met with
an accident because of defects in the machinery or because of any other
negligence on the employer’s part. But he was not obliged to grant
compensation when the accident was due to the employee’s own negligence
or to the negligence of a fellow-employee. In any event the only way in
which an injured workman could get compensation, in case the employer
declined to give it, was by bringing a suit in the courts, an expensive
and uncertain method. This meant that large numbers of the workers who
were disabled every year by accidents were left without any means of
support for themselves and their families. It availed very little to say
that they were themselves to blame for their plight, or that some
fellow-employee was to blame. Placing the blame did not save the worker
or his family from starvation. A great amount of hardship and suffering
was caused in past generations by putting so much of the burden upon the
hapless employee.

[Sidenote: Why we have changed it.]

When machines break down the employer has to pay the cost of replacing
or repairing them. He, in turn, adds this expense to his cost of
production and in this way passes it to the public which buys his
product. But men break down as well as machines. Every great industry
has many human accidents each year. No matter how well the machinery is
guarded or how careful the workmen may be, accidents are inevitable. An
enormous amount of attention has been given to making railroad-operation
safe by means of automatic couplers, air-brakes, electric signals,
interlocking switches, and so on, yet it is said that one railroad
employee is killed or injured each year for every mile of trackage
operated. Why not, therefore, require the employer, and through him, the
consumers of the finished products, to pay for what is an inevitable
item in the cost of transportation and manufacture? The answer to this
question is that it should be done, and in most of the states it is now
being done, through the medium of workmen’s compensation laws.

[Sidenote: The new plan.]

=Workmen’s Compensation.=—The usual arrangement established by workmen’s
compensation laws is as follows: Every injured worker is entitled to
compensation, according to the extent of his injury, no matter how the
accident may have been caused. If the accident results in the death of
the workman, his dependents are entitled to compensation. The amount of
the compensation is either fixed by law, or adjusted to the amount of
wages which the employee has been receiving, or determined by a state
board. It is paid in installments, so much per week for a set period of
time. In addition, an injured workman receives medical attention without
any expense to himself. The employer usually arranges with a liability
insurance company or with the state insurance department to pay this
compensation in return for an annual premium which he remits to the
company or to the insurance department as the case may be. The cost of
the insurance, in other words the amount of the annual premium, becomes
one of the regular expenses of conducting business, like taxes, fire
insurance, or interest. If the employer does not arrange for
liability-insurance, he must pay the compensation from his own pocket.
These workmen’s compensation laws have been of incalculable service to
the employees; at the same time the cost to the public, in the way of
higher prices, has been so small as to be almost unnoticeable.

[Sidenote: The need for special laws to regulate the employment of
women.]

=Limitations on the Working Hours of Women in Industry.=—The various
industries of the United States now employ several million women, and
the special protection of the laws has been extended to them in various
directions. The reason for this is that women cannot work long hours
without detriment to their physical welfare, and any break-down in the
physical well-being of several million women would result in a serious
injury to the physique of the whole race. Women in industry, moreover,
are not as well able to protect their own interest as men are and for
that reason also the laws have intervened in their behalf. Most of these
laws have been directed towards limiting the hours of labor for women to
a certain maximum per week, forbidding work at night, and improving the
conditions under which women are employed. Factories, for example, have
been required in some states to provide rest rooms, and stores are under
obligation to furnish seats for the use of saleswomen whenever they are
not busy at the counters. It may be urged that women, like men, should
have the right to work as many hours as they please; but the general
welfare of society is paramount to the rights of any class, whether of
men or women. It is the duty of society to protect itself against
anything that tends to break down its physical or moral well-being.

[Sidenote: The old iniquities of child labor.]

=Child Labor.=—In the early days of the factory system children of
twelve, ten, or even seven years were put to work for long hours under
frightful conditions. Underpaid and underfed, deprived of schooling,
they grew up to be physically and intellectually unfit and developed
into inferior citizens.[187] Child labor was thought to be cheap, and
from the employer’s point of view it was; but in the long run society
found it to be incalculably expensive. Unrestricted child labor
increased the number of illiterates, promoted the spread of disease and
crime, augmented poverty, and bred discontent. The child is the father
of the man; and as our children are cared for so will the future manhood
and womanhood of the nation be. No fewer than two million persons under
fifteen years of age are engaged in some form of wage-earning occupation
in the United States today. Since they are unable to protect themselves
against overwork and underpayment, the state must see to it that they
are treated by their employers with consideration and humanity.

[Sidenote: Child labor laws of today.]

The laws relating to child labor differ considerably in the various
states; in some the provisions are much stricter than in others. In
general the tendency is to prohibit the regular employment of children
under fourteen years of age. Many of the states forbid the employment of
persons under sixteen years of age in night work or in certain dangerous
occupations, such as mining. The hours of labor for persons under
sixteen are also limited in some states to not exceeding eight per day.
Many other provisions restricting child labor are now in force, and year
by year new limitations are being added.[188] In 1916 Congress undertook
to place a general restriction on child labor throughout the entire
country by passing a law which forbade the transportation and sale in
interstate commerce of any goods made in whole or in part by children
under a designated age-limit. The Supreme Court of the United States
held this law to be unconstitutional, however, declaring that the
authority to regulate commerce among the states does not empower
Congress to control the conditions of industry within the state
boundaries. Congress has since placed a ban upon child labor in another
way, namely, by providing that the profits of these industries which
employ children shall be taxed more heavily than the profits of those
concerns which do not.[189]

[Sidenote: The arguments for minimum wage laws.]

=Minimum Wage Laws.=—Investigations into the subject made some years ago
disclosed the fact that not only were women and children frequently
overworked in industries but that they were often underpaid as well. One
reason for this underpayment was that many of the women and children
workers lived at home and did not need to be entirely self-supporting.
They merely contributed to the general family earnings. They were thus
in a position to work for smaller wages than if they were entirely
self-dependent. But there were also many thousands of women and children
who had to support themselves entirely from their own earnings and to
these the low rate of wages meant hardship and suffering. It meant
undernourishment, physical break-down, and premature old age. It led to
pauperism and immorality. So the laws have once more intervened to
protect the well-being of the race against the fruits of industrial
injustice by providing that the wages of women and children in industry
shall not fall below a certain minimum.

[Sidenote: Nature of these laws.]

Many of the states have put these minimum wage laws upon their statute
books. Sometimes the minimum rate of wages is fixed in the law; more
often it is determined in the case of each industry by a state board
after an investigation. The minimum rate is set at such a point as will
enable the wage-earner to be self-supporting. Here, again, the basic
principle is that the actual cost of production, including the cost of
protecting society against things detrimental to it, should be paid by
the public which buys the goods. [Sidenote: Some practical
difficulties.] One practical difficulty connected with the minimum wage
plan is that it tends to throw the less efficient employees out of work
altogether. The employer who is forced by law to pay a fixed minimum in
wages, no matter how unskillful the worker may be, will promptly dismiss
all those who do not give him, in work, the worth of their wages. If a
minimum wage is established in all industries, where will the least
skillful find employment?

[Sidenote: Causes of unemployment.]

=The Problem of Unemployment.=—The greatest of all economic wastes today
is that which results from unemployment. The ideal condition would be to
have everybody employed all the time. If that could be accomplished we
could produce a great deal more each year at lower cost. Unemployment
means that idle men must use what other workers are producing. But it is
not possible to do away with unemployment altogether. Some trades are
seasonal in character, that is to say, busy at one period of the year
and slack during others. In northern regions the building trades,
bricklaying, outdoor carpentry, and so on, are in this category. The
larger part of the unemployment, however, is due to other than seasonal
causes. It is due rather to trade depressions which from time to time
cause the shutting down of industrial establishments and it is caused in
some degree by the lack of careful planning on the part of the employer.
The number of unemployed workers throughout the country varies greatly
from time to time. It may be as low as five per cent or as high as forty
per cent of the entire number.

[Sidenote: Some suggested remedies.]

Various plans for lessening the evils of unemployment have been
suggested, but they all present some practical difficulties. Better
vocational training would reduce the number of unskilled workers; and it
is the unskilled who contribute most largely to the ranks of the
unemployed. The establishment of public employment offices has done
something to bring workers into touch with available jobs. It is
proposed that we have a more careful planning of state and municipal
improvements so that the heaviest demand for labor on public works would
come at times when unemployment is most prevalent—this, it is urged,
would help alleviate the trouble even though it might not go very far in
solving the whole problem. Much would be accomplished by the better
organization of industrial production and by some scheme of co-operation
among employers which would enable workers to be transferred from one
industry to another. Great practical obstacles are in the way of doing
this on a large scale.

[Sidenote: How progress toward a solution of the problem is being made.]

Some large concerns have already adopted the plan of setting aside each
week a certain percentage of the total pay roll as an unemployment
reserve. Then, whenever workers are temporarily out of employment
through the slackening of business and not through any fault of their
own, a certain weekly wage is paid to them from this reserve. Something
will also be accomplished in the way of reducing unemployment by better
vocational guidance, for young men and women often go into employments
which afford no chance of promotion and which they subsequently find to
be unsuited to their tastes. Many large industries now bestow great care
upon the selection of new employees. All applicants are dealt with
through a special official known as the employment manager, whose
function it is to make reasonably sure that the applicant is fitted for
the position. Foremen and bosses are not allowed to discharge employees
at will. The complaints must first be referred for investigation to the
employment manager’s office. This plan will also help alleviate
unemployment if it becomes general.

[Sidenote: Unemployment insurance.]

Unemployment insurance has been tried in a few European countries and
has been advocated in America. This plan contemplates that each employer
shall contribute to a fund from which a stated wage scale shall be paid
to those who remain out of work through no fault of their own, or that
the government shall provide such a fund from the proceeds of taxes. It
is easy to see that a scheme of this sort might be seriously abused, yet
so long as the problem of unemployment remains serious we must strive to
find some way of solving it.

=Old-Age Pensions.=—Most wage-earners do not save enough to provide for
themselves in old age. The result is that after long years of toil they
are dependent upon their children, or must eke out a precarious
existence by doing odd jobs, or must be supported by the public
poor-relief funds. [Sidenote: The experience of Great Britain and
Germany.] This is not a desirable state of affairs and in some European
countries, notably in Great Britain and in Germany, systems of old-age
pensions for workers have been established. In Germany the worker pays a
small amount each week into the fund; the employer pays an equal amount
and the government pays the rest. In Great Britain the employers and the
government pay it all. Every wage-earner, on reaching old age, receives
a small weekly allowance for the rest of his days.[190] The cost of an
old-age pension system is enormous, but in the long run it is likely to
represent real economy. Sooner or later the system will probably be
established in this country; the only question is whether, when it
comes, the wage-earner should be required to pay a regular contribution
during the years in which he is able to do full work.

[Sidenote: The patriotism of American labor.]

=American Labor and the War.=—Among the various factors which helped to
win the World War the loyalty and enthusiasm of American labor should be
accorded a high place. War always creates a great shortage of workers,
partly because so many able-bodied men are taken into the army and
partly because of the tremendous need for workers in munition plants and
other war industries. During war, therefore, the labor organizations are
always in a position to make demands which cannot well be refused. It is
quite true that American labor took advantage of its opportunities
during the World War; but so did the employers. The wages of labor rose
everywhere, as did the profits of industry. Nevertheless it can fairly
be said that labor co-operated with the government at all the essential
points and produced the uninterrupted flow of materials which was needed
to ensure victory. Certain it is that without this co-operation on the
part of labor the United States could not have figured so prominently in
deciding the ultimate issue of the great conflict.

General References

ISAAC LIPPINCOTT, _Economic Development of the United States_, pp.
491-511;

R. T. ELY, _The Labor Movement in America_, pp. 34-91 (Growth and
Present Conditions of Labor Organizations);

T. S. ADAMS and H. L. SUMNER, _Labor Problems_, pp. 461-501 (Labor
Laws);

F. T. CARLTON, _Organized Labor in American History_, pp. 11-44 (Epochs
in the History of Organized Labor); pp. 169-197 (Labor Parties); pp.
198-225 (Ideals of the Wage Earner);

R. F. HOXIE, _Trade Unionism in the United States_, pp. 254-275
(Collective Bargaining);

JOHN R. COMMONS and J. B. ANDREWS, _Principles of American Labor
Legislation_, pp. 35-90 (Individual Bargaining);

SAMUEL GOMPERS, _American Labor and the War_, _passim_.

Group Problems

=1. The origin, growth, and aims of labor organizations.= The
organization of industry before the Industrial Revolution. Rise of the
factory system. Creation of a labor class. Early conditions of factory
employment. Beginnings of labor organizations. Early attitude of the law
and the courts. Growth of labor organizations during the past half
century. Central organizations and national bodies. Present-day aims of
labor organizations—economic, social, and political. Specific features
of organized labor’s program. Labor as a factor in politics. The
movements for industrial democracy. =References=: T.S. ADAMS and H.L.
SUMNER, _Labor Problems_, pp. 214-279; SIDNEY WEBB, _History of Trade
Unionism_, pp. 1-56; 431-541; MARY BEARD, _Short History of the American
Labor Movement_, pp. 47-79; F. T. CARLTON, _Organized Labor in American
History_, pp. 11-44; 198-225; R. F. HOXIE, _History of Trade Unionism in
the United States_, pp. 211-252 (The Law in Relation to Labor); JOHN R.
COMMONS (editor), _History of Labor in the United States_, _passim_; R.
T. ELY, _The Labor Movement in America_, pp. 34-91; P. F. BRISSENDEN,
_History of the I. W. W._, pp. 83-112 (The I. W. W. _vs._ the A. F. of
L.).

=2. The American Federation of Labor: its history, aims, and
achievements.= =References=: SAMUEL GOMPERS, _American Labor and the
War_, pp. 186-196; JOHN MITCHELL, _Organized Labor_, pp. 397-406; F. T.
CARLTON, _History and Problems of Organized Labor_, pp. 75-82; MARY R.
BEARD, _Short History of the American Labor Movement_, pp. 86-149; G. G.
GROAT, _Organized Labor in America_, pp. 82-99; HELEN MAROT, _American
Labor Unions_, pp. 11-28.

=3. The arbitration of industrial disputes.= =References=: T. S. ADAMS
and HELEN SUMNER, _Labor Problems_, pp. 295-332; SIDNEY WEBB,
_Industrial Democracy_, pp. 222-246; N. P. GILMAN, _Methods of
Industrial Peace_, pp. 301-345; R. T. ELY, _The Evolution of Industrial
Society_, pp. 374-397; JOHN MITCHELL, _Organized Labor_, pp. 337-346; F.
W. TAUSSIG, _Principles of Economics_, Vol. II, pp. 303-322.

=4. The general principles of labor legislation.= =References=: W. S.
JEVONS, _The State in Relation to Labor_, pp. 1-32; F. W. TAUSSIG,
_Principles of Economics_, Vol. II, pp. 285-302; JOHN R. COMMONS and J.
B. ANDREWS, _Principles of Labor Legislation_, pp. 1-34; H. S. PERSON,
_Labor Laws and Their Enforcement_, _passim_.

Short Studies

1. =The four epochs in the history of organized labor.= F. T. CARLTON,
_Organized Labor in American History_, pp. 11-44.

2. =Labor and politics.= F. T. CARLTON, _History and Problems of
Organized Labor_, pp. 169-197.

3. =The Knights of Labor: why they failed.= MARY R. BEARD, _Short
History of the American Labor Movement_, pp. 116-126.

4. =The right to strike.= JOHN MITCHELL, _Organized Labor_, pp. 299-323.

5. =Collective bargaining.= _Final Report of the U. S. Industrial
Commission_, pp. 843-847.

6. =The use of injunctions in labor disputes.= G. L. BOLEN, _Getting a
Living_, pp. 548-580; J. R. COMMONS, _Trade Unionism and Labor
Problems_, pp. 156-163.

7. =The Kansas plan.= H. J. ALLEN, _The Party of the Third Part_, pp.
16-91.

8. =Workmen’s compensation.= JOHN R. COMMONS and J. B. ANDREWS,
_Principles of American Labor Legislation_, pp. 356-385. See also the
publications on this subject issued by the National Industrial
Conference Board.

9. =Women and children in industry.= T. S. ADAMS and H. L. SUMNER,
_Labor Problems_, pp. 19-67.

10. =The problem of unemployment.= E. T. TOWNE, _Social Problems_, pp.
140-159; W. H. BEVERIDGE, _Unemployment_, 3d ed., pp. 1-15 (Great
Britain).

11. =Profit sharing as a solution of industrial problems.= T. S. ADAMS
and H. L. SUMNER, _Labor Problems_, pp. 333-378.

12. =Old age pensions.= W. H. DAWSON, _Social Insurance_, pp. 128-165;
F. W. LEWIS, _State Insurance_, pp. 148-170.

Questions

1. Explain why labor organizations came into existence during the
nineteenth century. On the whole have they been a benefit to industry or
not? Give your reasons.

2. Give some reasons for expecting trade unions to be stronger in
certain employments than in others. In which of the following
employments would you expect the unions to be strong, and in which would
you expect them to be weak: (_a_) railroading; (_b_) domestic service;
(_c_) school teaching; (_d_) farming; (_e_) mining; (_f_) steel-making?
Give reasons for your expectations in each case.

3. With what points in the program of the American Federation of Labor
do you agree and with what ones do you disagree?

4. The closed shop is sometimes criticised as being “un-American” and
the open shop has been called the “American plan”. What does this mean?

5. Are there any employments, public or private, in which strikes should
not be permitted?

6. Why should the consumer pay the costs of all industrial accidents?
Explain how he does so where workmen’s compensation acts have been
passed.

7. In your opinion would the legislature be justified in limiting to
eight hours per day the labor of (_a_) women in candy factories; (_b_)
men who work on farms; (_c_) men who work in coal mines; (_d_)
physicians; (_e_) waitresses in hotels; (_f_) female servants; (_g_)
members of the fire-protection service in cities; (_h_) motormen on
street cars? Give your reasons in each case.

8. Give your views as to the minimum age at which any person should be
permitted to engage in regular employment for wages. At what age should
employment in night work be permitted? Should persons under fourteen
years of age be allowed to work for wages after school hours, on
Saturdays, and during vacations?

9. A girl of sixteen has graduated from grammar school and could obtain
a position as clerk in a millinery store at eight dollars a week. She is
living at home and does not have to support herself. But the minimum
wage for clerks in stores happens to be ten dollars per week and the
owner will not pay so much. Is there any injustice here?

10. How can the evil of unemployment be reduced? What abuses might arise
in connection with unemployment insurance? Who pays the cost of
unemployment now? Argue whether we should or should not place industrial
unemployment on the same basis as industrial accidents.

Topics for Debate

1. The demand for collective bargaining is (or is not) justified.

2. A plan of old-age pensions, like that now maintained in Great
Britain, should be established in the United States.

CHAPTER XXII
CURRENCY, BANKING, AND CREDIT

_The purpose of this chapter is to explain what money is, what
purposes it serves, how banks conduct their business, and how credit
facilitates trade._

[Sidenote: Money supplants barter.]

=The Origin of Money.=—The use of money is one of the marks of
civilization. In primitive communities money was unknown. Buying and
selling was by barter, the exchange of one commodity for another. The
man with too much corn exchanged corn for cattle or for a boat or for
skins with which to clothe himself. But exchange by barter is a slow and
clumsy method because it means that two persons must be found each of
whom wants exactly what the other has to sell, a thing which does not
easily happen. With the growth of trade, accordingly, it became
necessary to find a _medium of exchange_, in other words some single
commodity which is so readily exchangeable for all other commodities
that it can be used to facilitate buying and selling. Some of the
Indians of North America used the ends of shells, or wampum, for this
purpose. The early colonists in Virginia chose tobacco as a temporary
medium of exchange, it being in universal demand. People accepted
tobacco in exchange for things which they wished to sell, and gave
tobacco for things which they desired to buy. This was not because they
wanted tobacco for their own use but because of all commodities in the
colony tobacco was the most easy to exchange for other things at a
moment’s notice. No ordinary form of merchandise, however, makes an
entirely satisfactory medium of exchange and all of them in time gave
way to the precious metals, gold and silver, which are now everywhere
used for this purpose.[191]

[Sidenote: Money as a standard of value and a measure of deferred
payments.]

=The Functions which Money Serves.=—Money, however, serves not only as a
medium of exchange but as a standard of value and a measure for future
payments. Money is the common denominator by means of which we express
the value of different commodities. If money were not in existence, how
could we state the value of anything? It would be of little avail to say
that a suit of clothes is worth ten hats, for this would merely beg the
question: How much is a hat worth? Money performs the function of
providing a uniform scale into which all values can be translated. When
we say, therefore, that a suit of clothes is worth forty dollars and
that hats are worth four dollars apiece we are measuring both
commodities according to the same standard of value. Money also
facilitates the use of credit by providing a measure for deferred
payments. People cannot well agree to indefinite future obligations;
they must know exactly what a debt amounts to. The use of money enables
men to borrow today with the understanding that they will repay the same
amount at some future date.

[Sidenote: The qualities which money must have:]

=Characteristics of Money.=—Gold and silver are best adapted to
facilitate exchange because they possess, in high degree, certain
qualities which money must have in order to fulfil its functions
properly. What are these qualities? [Sidenote: 1. Value.] To serve
acceptably as money a substance must have, in the first place, some
value in itself; it must therefore have utility as a basis of value. A
worthless substance, which nobody wants, would not do. [Sidenote: 2.
Stability.] Second, it must not only have value but stability of value.
To serve efficiently as money a metal must not be subject to wide and
frequent fluctuations in what it is worth. A substance which might be
worth much today and little tomorrow would not be satisfactory. Gold and
silver, being produced in limited quantities, are more nearly stable in
value than any other metals, gold being particularly so. [Sidenote: 3.
Convenience.] Third, the metal used as money must possess relatively
high value in proportion to its bulk so that it can be easily passed
from hand to hand. There was a tradition in ancient Greece that Lycurgus
compelled the Lacedaemonians to use iron money in order that its weight
might deter them from overmuch trading. If iron were used as currency
today a dime would weigh more than a pound.[192] In a word the metal
used as money must be portable, easy to carry around. [Sidenote: 4.
Durability.] Fourth, it must be relatively indestructible, not subject
to rapid decay or rusting. Gold and silver satisfy this requirement, for
time does not destroy their value nor do they suffer much wear and tear
through handling. It is believed that some of the gold which is in the
coinage of European countries today served as money in the time of the
Romans. [Sidenote: 5. Uniformity.] Fifth, it must be homogeneous, that
is, it must not vary in quality, otherwise equal amounts of it would not
have the same value. In order that we may reckon things in terms of
money the units must be equal and similar so that twice one will always
make two. If we were to use diamonds as money, it would not always
happen that two stones would be worth exactly twice as much as one.
[Sidenote: 6. Divisibility.] Sixth, it must be easily divisible without
loss of value, for we need small units of money as well as large ones.
One great difficulty which primitive people found in using the skins of
animals as money was that they could not be cut into portions without
destroying their value altogether. Nobody would take, for example, a
quarter of a skin in payment for a basketful of corn. But gold and
silver can be divided at will and yet retain an exactly proportionate
value. [Sidenote: 7. Cognizability.] Finally, it must be a metal or
other substance the genuineness of which can be easily determined. If
every person who receives money had to scrutinize, weigh, and test it,
the processes of trade would be intolerably delayed.[193] Gold and
silver may not themselves be readily cognizable by the uninitiated, but
they are easy to stamp into coins with a stamp or design and this
impression cannot be easily counterfeited. The various countries of the
world adopted gold and silver as their chief media of exchange because
these metals fulfil in the largest degree the foregoing requirements.
For small units of currency nickel and bronze are utilized because
subsidiary coins of gold and silver would be too small.

[Sidenote: Gold is the American standard of values.]

=The Coinage of the United States.=—In the United States gold is the
standard of values. This does not mean that gold is circulated from hand
to hand in every transaction, but merely that all economic values are
expressed in terms of gold coin. The actual payments may be made in
paper notes, or in silver, nickel, or copper coins. The monetary system
of the United States is based upon the decimal system, which was adopted
in 1784 at the suggestion of Thomas Jefferson. This means that we reckon
in fractions and multiples of ten—ten cents one dime, ten dimes one
dollar, and ten dollars one eagle. For convenience there are also
additional coins, such as nickels, quarter dollars, half dollars, and
half-eagles. No gold dollars are now coined, as they were found to be
too small for convenience.[194] The mint has also ceased coining quarter
eagles but continues to make five, ten, and twenty dollar gold pieces
although these coins remain for the most part in the banks where they
are held as reserves. Very little gold coin is in circulation anywhere
in the world today. The coining of money is wholly within the
jurisdiction of the national government; no state is allowed to make or
issue coins. [Sidenote: The United States mints.] The making of coins
takes place at four mints, which are located at Philadelphia, New
Orleans, Denver, and San Francisco.[195] If you look at the reverse side
of a recently minted coin, you will find, near the base, a small letter
indicating the mint at which the coin was struck; if there is no such
letter, the coin was minted at Philadelphia.

[Sidenote: The ratio between gold and silver.]

=The Controversy over Bimetallism.=—In 1792, when the first American
mint was established, Congress provided by law that there should be two
monetary units, the gold dollar and the silver dollar—the ratio between
the two, in terms of weight, being fixed at fifteen to one. Any person
bringing gold or silver bullion to the mint was entitled to have it made
into coins at this ratio, which corresponded to the relative market
value of the two [Sidenote: In 1792.]metals in 1792. Silver eventually
cheapened in relation to gold, however, and in time only silver bullion
came to be coined. [Sidenote: In 1834.] So Congress in 1834 reduced the
weight of the gold dollar and made the ratio sixteen to one. This, in
turn, proved to be an under-valuation of silver, and no silver now came
to the mint to be coined.[196] [Sidenote: In 1873.] In 1873, after
silver dollars had practically dropped out of circulation Congress
abolished the free coinage of silver altogether.[197] Presently,
however, there was a popular demand for a resumption of silver coinage
and the minting of silver dollars was recommenced,[198] [Sidenote: In
1893.]but only on a limited scale; and in 1893 it was once more
abandoned.[199]

This action on the part of Congress raised a great hue and cry in
certain sections of the country, especially in the South and West. Free
coinage of silver was desired not only by owners of mines who had silver
to sell but by large numbers of farmers who believed that gold was
becoming too scarce to serve as the sole standard of value. Scarcity of
gold meant scarcity of money, and scarcity of money meant low prices for
wheat. If money were plentiful, prices would go higher, and the way to
get more money was to coin into dollars all the silver that would come
to the mint. That was the farmers’ argument.

=The “Cross of Gold” Campaign.=—The leaders of the Democratic party took
advantage of this widespread agricultural grievance. At the national
convention of that party, held at Chicago in the summer of 1896, Mr. W.
J. Bryan swept the delegates off their feet with his denunciation of the
“few financial magnates who corner the money of the world” and his plea
for the poor man’s dollar. “You shall not press upon the brow of labor
this crown of thorns”, he declaimed. “You shall not crucify mankind upon
a cross of gold.” The delegates, amid tumultuous cheering and
enthusiasm, thereupon nominated the young orator from Nebraska as their
candidate for President and made the free coinage of silver at a ratio
of “sixteen to one” a fundamental part of the Democratic platform in the
election campaign. But Bryan was overwhelmingly defeated and the clamor
for free silver soon subsided. [Sidenote: Final settlement of the
question in 1900.] In 1900 Congress passed the Currency Act, which
declared gold to be the sole standard and directed the secretary of the
treasury to maintain all other forms of currency at a parity with gold.
This means that every silver dollar, whether the silver which it
contains be worth a dollar or not, is guaranteed by the national
government to be worth a gold dollar.

[Sidenote: Our early experience with paper currency.]

=Paper Money.=—Our experience with paper money goes back to colonial
days when bills of credit were issued by Massachusetts to pay the costs
of the expedition against Quebec in 1690. But no great amounts were
issued until the Revolutionary War; then the various state governments
as well as the Continental Congress printed and issued notes to the par
value of nearly half a billion dollars. In the earlier years of the war
this paper currency circulated at its face value although there was no
gold or silver reserve behind it; but as the struggle dragged on and
notes by the million kept being issued they began to depreciate until
eventually this continental paper currency was worth only a fraction of
a cent per dollar. Hence the origin of the slang expression “not worth a
continental”. The notes for the most part were never redeemed; they
merely became worthless and passed out of circulation.

[Sidenote: What the constitution provides as regards paper money.]

Naturally this experience made the people averse to paper money and when
the constitution of the United States was framed it contained a
provision that “no state shall emit bills of credit (or) make anything
but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts”. It was strongly
urged that the national government should also be prohibited from
issuing paper money, but in the end it was decided not to make any
express prohibition, so the constitution is silent as regards the
authority of the national government to emit bills of credit. It neither
gives this power nor denies it. In due course, however, Congress
authorized the issue of legal-tender notes or greenbacks, and the
Supreme Court upheld its right to do this on the ground that the
constitution expressly gives Congress the power to borrow money and that
the issue of paper money is a reasonable method of borrowing. But
although the national government has itself the legal right to issue
paper money, either with or without a reserve behind it, most of the
paper money now in circulation is issued by the federal reserve board or
by the federal reserve banks under authority granted by Congress.

[Sidenote: The seven kinds of paper money in use.]

=Paper Notes now in Circulation.=—There are several kinds of paper notes
now in circulation.[200] These include silver certificates, gold
certificates, treasury notes, and greenbacks issued directly by the
national government, national bank notes, federal reserve notes, and
federal reserve bank notes. The provisions for the redemption of these
different types of paper money vary greatly, and each is protected by a
different reserve, but in actual fact the holder of any unit of paper
money can obtain gold for it if he so desires. This is true even of the
silver certificates which, strictly speaking, are redeemable only in
silver dollars. The arrangements under which the national banks, the
federal reserve banks, and the federal reserve board are permitted to
issue paper money will be discussed presently.

[Sidenote: Paper money has some advantages in convenience and
cheapness.]

Why do we have paper money? Chiefly because it is, in many respects,
more convenient for use than metallic money. In large amounts it is not
so bulky as silver or gold would be. There is also the advantage that
when paper money wears out it can be cheaply replaced. If gold coins
were continually in circulation from hand to hand, they would gradually
wear down and the monetary loss would be considerable. Hence it is
better to keep the gold in the bank vaults and circulate the paper,
which represents gold, in its stead. But a sound system of paper money
should always provide for the redemption of the notes, which means that
the notes should have an adequate reserve behind them. This reserve
should be in gold or in the equivalent of gold. [Sidenote: Inconvertible
paper money.] Unredeemable paper money, issued without an adequate
reserve behind it, leads practically always to depreciation and thereby
to heavy losses on the part of the people who have taken the money in
good faith. That was what happened in the case of the assignats of the
French Revolution, the continental currency in the American Revolution,
and the paper money of several European countries during the World
War.[201] It is folly to try to finance a war or any other national
enterprise by issuing fiat currency, as it is called, which is paper
currency with only the word of the government and no substantial reserve
behind it. Better tax the people outright than make them take money as
legal tender which is not worth what it purports to be.[202]

[Sidenote: Why not abolish money?]

Radicals sometimes say: “Let us do away with money altogether”. Instead
of money, they say, we might use “labor checks”, each check representing
a given amount of labor. One hour of labor, let us say, would then be
the standard of value instead of 23.2 grains of gold. This arrangement,
however, would not abolish money, but only change the nature of the
basis upon which the value of money is calculated. The labor checks
would be money in every sense of the word. There is only one way to
abolish money and that is to go back to barter.

THE BANKING SYSTEM

[Sidenote: Banks serve:]

=What Functions do Banks Perform?=—Banks are established and maintained
to satisfy certain needs which arise wherever men carry on extensive
trade with one another. [Sidenote: 1. As institutions of deposit.]] In
the first place when money is accumulated by people in the course of
their business some safe place is needed to keep it. Banks, therefore,
serve as institutions of deposit. [Sidenote: 2. As agencies for loaning
money.] In the second place, as business develops, it becomes necessary
for people to borrow money. Banks facilitate this borrowing. Their two
primary functions are to receive deposits and to make loans. But in
order that they may perform these two primary functions to the best
advantage the banks have assumed other subsidiary functions as well.
[Sidenote: 3. Sometimes also as issuers of paper money.] Frequently they
issue bank notes, or the bank’s own promises to pay, for use in general
circulation. [Sidenote: 4. To transfer funds from one place to another.]
They sell drafts or bills of exchange, thus enabling people to transfer
funds from one city or country to another without the trouble and risk
of sending the actual money. As a rule they provide safe-deposit vaults
in which customers, on payment of a small sum, are permitted to keep
their valuables. These vaults are fire-proof and burglar-proof. Banks
also collect money which may be due to a customer from someone
elsewhere. They help the national and state governments to sell their
bonds. Frequently they act as trustees, holding property for children
until they grow up or for other persons who are unable to look after the
property for themselves. Without banks it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to carry on the operations of modern business.

=The Early American Banking System.=—The national constitution contains
no mention of banks or banking. Hence it was assumed that the power to
charter banks would rest with the states. The states assumed this
authority but the national government desired to exercise it also, and
during the first thirty years of its existence established two great
banks, both of which became unpopular and ultimately went out of
existence. The first Bank of the United States, established in 1791,
ceased to do business in 1811; the second bank, chartered in 1816,
incurred the wrath of President Andrew Jackson and went to the wall in
1836.[203] From this date to the Civil War the state banks, of which a
large number were established in all parts of the country, had the field
to themselves.

=The National Banking Act of 1863.=—During the Civil War, however, the
national government encountered great difficulty in raising funds. When
it issued bonds the people would not buy them readily. The state banks
showed very little interest in marketing them. So Congress, in this
emergency, decided to establish a system of national banks in order to
facilitate the sale of war bonds. The National Banking Act, passed in
that year, laid a heavy tax upon the paper money of all state banks,
with intent to drive this currency out of circulation. It then provided
that any bank chartered by the national government might issue untaxed
paper money provided it bought United States bonds to a designated
amount and deposited these bonds in Washington as security. In other
words the Act of 1863 aimed to provide a uniform system of bank notes
throughout the country, these notes to be backed by government bonds.
The plan worked well and its main provisions have been retained to this
day.

[Sidenote: Present organization of the national banks.]

National banks are owned by private individuals who subscribe the
capital stock. These stockholders, or shareholders, elect the bank’s
officers, who in turn manage the business. The profits go to the
shareholders in the form of annual dividends. Each national bank must
buy a designated amount of United States bonds and these bonds are
deposited in Washington. In return the bank receives an equal amount of
paper notes, with its own name engraved thereon, and these notes the
bank pays out over its counters, thus putting them in general
circulation. If the bank should become insolvent, the government would
redeem the notes since it holds the bonds as security. [Sidenote: Their
functions.] The national banks receive money on deposit, make loans, and
perform the various other banking functions. They are strictly regulated
by national law; they must make periodic reports and are frequently
inspected by officials from Washington. [Sidenote: Their reserves.] One
requirement is that they shall always maintain a certain “reserve” so
that they may be in a position to make all payments which may be called
for by their customers. The supervision of the national banks is in the
hands of an official known as the Comptroller of the Currency, who is
appointed by the President.

[Sidenote: State banks and trust companies.]

In addition to the national banks there are state banks and trust
companies throughout the country operating under state charters. These
institutions do not issue paper money but perform all the other banking
functions.[204] Their business is regulated by the laws of the state in
which they are located and they are supervised by state officials. The
laws relating to state banks and trust companies differ considerably
from state to state.

[Sidenote: Defects of the national banking system due to the
concentration of reserves and lack of flexibility.]

=The Federal Reserve Banks.=—Although the national banking system worked
pretty well for fifty years after its establishment, certain defects
came to be recognized. One of these defects, in actual practice, was the
necessity of always keeping available a “reserve” amounting to a certain
percentage of each bank’s total deposits. It was not necessary to keep
this reserve in the bank’s own vaults; a part of it might be placed upon
deposit in larger banks where it would draw interest. As matters turned
out, a considerable portion of the reserves was usually deposited with
large banks in New York City. In times when business was good and money
plentiful, this arrangement worked very well, but when periods of
business depression arrived and money became scarce every small bank
naturally drew upon its reserve deposits in the larger banks, which
found difficulty in paying them all at the same time. Moreover, it was
found from experience that during times of business prosperity the
country needed a large increase in paper money while the national
banking system, as established in 1863, proved too rigid to meet the
business needs of the country.

[Sidenote: How the Federal Reserve system remedies these defects.]

In 1913, accordingly, Congress made provision for the establishment of a
Federal Reserve system which does not displace but supplements the
operations of the national banks. By an act passed in that year
provision was made for the establishment of twelve federal reserve
districts, with a federal reserve bank in each. The capital stock of
each federal reserve bank is contributed by national or state banks
within the districts, these contributors being then known as “member
banks”. The national government also subscribes a part of the capital
stock when necessary. [Sidenote: The Federal Reserve Board.] Each
federal reserve bank is controlled by officials, some of whom are
elected by the member banks and some appointed by the national
government through a body known as the Federal Reserve Board. This board
is composed of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Comptroller of the
Currency, and five other members appointed by the President.

[Sidenote: Functions of the Federal Reserve Banks.]

These federal reserve institutions are bankers’ banks. They do business
with banks only, not with individuals. They receive deposits from banks
and lend money to banks. The member banks now keep with them a portion
of their reserves. In this way the reserves are mobilized at twelve
different financial centers where they can be readily drawn upon.[205]
The Federal Reserve Board has authority to increase or decrease the
percentage of reserves which the member banks are required to maintain,
thus giving the reserve system a large degree of flexibility. Whenever a
member bank needs additional paper money for circulation it goes to the
federal reserve bank of its district and deposits any sound
“collateral”, that is to say, any acceptable security, and receives
federal reserve notes of like value in return. This collateral may be in
the form of government bonds or it may be, and more often is,
“commercial paper”. [Sidenote: How they give flexibility to the whole
banking system of the country.] By commercial paper is meant the notes
or other obligations of corporations and individuals which have been
given to the member banks in return for loans made to such corporations
and individuals. The federal reserve banks are authorized to issue
_federal reserve notes_, to an unlimited extent on the security of this
collateral provided they also keep a gold reserve amounting to forty per
cent of the total notes issued. In addition they are empowered to issue
_federal reserve bank notes_ secured by United States bonds in the same
way as national bank notes are secured. It is expected that in time the
national bank notes will go out of existence altogether, their place
being taken by these federal reserve bank notes.

[Sidenote: Value of the Federal Reserve system.]

Since their establishment in 1913 the work of these federal reserve
banks has been of great value. They have enabled the banking operations
of the country to expand and contract in accordance with changes in
business conditions, thus obviating serious danger of financial panics.
In helping the government to float the various Liberty Loans they
rendered great service. There is no doubt that the system has improved
and strengthened the banking facilities of the country.[206] This will
appear more clearly when the relations of banking and credit are
discussed a few pages further on.

[Sidenote: Commercial and savings banks distinguished.]

=The Practical Operations of Banking.=—There are some elementary things
connected with the practical operations of banking which everyone ought
to know. Generally speaking, there are two kinds of banks, commercial
banks and savings banks; or, in some cases the same bank may have two
departments, a commercial department and a savings department. Both
commercial and savings banks receive deposits; the former may or may not
pay interest according to the amount of the deposit and the length of
time it is left in the bank; the latter always pay interest if money is
left on deposit a prescribed length of time. When money is deposited in
a commercial bank the depositor is said to have an “account” and he may
issue checks up to the amount of his deposit. [Sidenote: Bank checks.] A
check is an order, addressed to the bank, and calling for the payment of
a designated sum. This check may be cashed at the bank on which it is
drawn, or the person who receives it may have it cashed at the bank
where he has his account. Banks cash checks for their own customers no
matter what bank the checks happen to be drawn upon.

One result of this is that every bank at the close of each day’s
business will have on hand a large number of checks drawn against other
banks. [Sidenote: The clearing house system.] It receives payment on
these checks through the medium of the “clearing house”, an institution
which is maintained by the banks in every large city. To the nearest
clearing house a clerk takes each morning all the checks on other banks
that have come in during the previous day. These are sorted out and
exchanged for checks drawn on the bank itself which are held by other
banks. Whatever difference there happens to be is paid in cash.

[Sidenote: How bank loans are made.]

When any person desires to borrow money from a bank he gives his note,
which is a promise to repay the bank at a designated time. The bank may
ask the borrower to obtain an endorsement upon his note, that is, to
have some responsible person put his name on the back of it, which means
that the endorser assumes liability for the amount of the note if it is
not paid by the maker on time. Or the bank may ask the borrower to
deposit “collateral” as security for the payment of the note. This
collateral may be in the form of bonds, stocks, mortgages, or any other
intangible property that has sufficient value. The bank holds this
collateral until the loan is repaid.

[Sidenote: The process of “discounting.”]

When a bank lends money and takes a man’s note, with or without
collateral, it is said to discount the note. It gives the borrower the
face value of his note less the interest, whatever it is, calculated at
the current rate. Thus if the rate is six per cent and the person gives
his note for one thousand dollars payable in six months, the bank would
hand him $970 in money. Business men obtain large sums of money from the
banks by getting their notes discounted; they borrow money in this way
to buy goods and then pay off their notes when the goods are sold. Such
notes are called “commercial paper”.

[Sidenote: “Rediscounting.”]

Now the federal reserve banks help the member banks by “rediscounting”
this commercial paper for them. Suppose a small bank has loaned on notes
all the money it has to spare. Then it receives applications from its
customers for more loans. What does it do? It takes a bundle of business
men’s notes, or commercial paper, from its vaults and sends this to the
nearest federal reserve bank. The latter does just what the member bank
did in the first instance; it deducts the discount at current rates and
gives the balance to the member bank in money, that is, in federal
reserve notes. The member banks are enabled, in this way, to loan a
great deal more money than would be the case if there were no way of
getting their commercial paper “rediscounted”.

[Sidenote: How the banks transfer funds.]

Drafts or bills of exchange are used to make payments at distant points.
If a person lives in San Francisco and wishes to pay a small bill in New
York, he will probably go to the post office and buy a postal money
order; but if the amount is large, he may find it more convenient and
cheaper to go to a bank in San Francisco and buy a draft on some New
York bank. This draft he then sends to New York in payment of his bill.
A draft payable in a foreign country is usually called a bill of
exchange. From any American bank one can buy a bill of exchange payable
in Paris, Madras, Hong Kong, or elsewhere. When the money of one country
is worth more than that of another, as is the case throughout the world
at the present time, allowance is made for this difference. Bills of
exchange are “cleared” through the great clearing houses in London or
New York, and any balances are paid by the shipment of gold.

THE CREDIT SYSTEM

[Sidenote: The five chief instruments of credit.]

=What is Credit?=—Credit is simply the giving and taking of promises in
place of money. The most common form is “book credit”, which means that
wholesalers and retail merchants give out goods with nothing but charge
accounts on their books to show for it. These accounts are merely the
records of credit which has been extended to customers. But in many
transactions something more than a book record is desired, in which case
the person giving the credit may ask for a “promissory note”. This is a
written promise to pay a designated sum either on demand or at a
definite date. Bank checks are also instruments of credit; so are drafts
and bills of exchange. Anything that expresses or implies a promise to
pay a sum of money is an evidence of credit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE RELATION OF MONEY AND PRICES

The general relation between the amount of money in
circulation and the course of prices is shown by the
two statistical diagrams on the other side of this
page.

It will be noticed that per capita circulation began
to decline in 1921. Prices also commenced to fall
during that year, and if the table of prices were
extended to cover the last year or two it would show
the price-lines moving downward. The data for
continuing the lines of the lower diagram may be
found in the publications of the United States
Bureau of Labor Statistics.

MONEY IN CIRCULATION PER CAPITA (_Figures for first day of month_)

══════╤══════╤══════╤══════╤══════╤══════╤══════╤══════╤══════╤══════
1913│ 1914│ 1915│ 1916│ 1917│ 1918│ 1919│ 1920│ 1921│Month
──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────
$34.72│$35.11│$35.50│$38.48│$43.00│$48.76│$55.70│$55.89│$59.12│Jan.
34.71│ 35.00│ 34.84│ 38.67│ 43.50│ 47.23│ 53.58│ 54.94│ 57.19│Feb.
34.56│ 35.04│ 34.55│ 38.54│ 44.26│ 48.37│ 53.76│ 56.16│ 57.73│Mar.
34.46│ 34.99│ 34.74│ 38.41│ 45.34│ 49.70│ 54.56│ 56.30│ 56.60│Apr.
34.56│ 35.20│ 34.78│ 38.28│ 45.61│ 50.37│ 54.64│ 56.44│ 56.31│May
34.54│ 35.19│ 35.07│ 38.36│ 45.49│ 49.63│ 54.29│ 57.42│ 55.43│June
34.64│ 34.53│ 35.59│ 39.23│ 46.57│ 50.86│ 54.28│ 57.18│ 53.42│July
34.44│ 33.96│ 35.33│ 39.00│ 46.53│ 52.44│ 54.40│ 57.43│ 53.00│Aug.
34.48│ 35.03│ 35.89│ 39.59│ 45.96│ 52.95│ 54.03│ 58.22│ 52.41│Sept.
34.80│ 37.15│ 36.88│ 40.62│ 46.10│ 54.47│ 54.58│ 58.95│ 52.45│Oct.
34.90│ 37.31│ 37.51│ 41.18│ 47.03│ 55.84│ 54.63│ 59.77│ 52.71│Nov.
35.03│ 36.40│ 38.04│ 41.73│ 48.50│ 56.23│ 55.65│ 59.41│ │Dec.
──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────
34.65│ 35.41│ 35.73│ 39.34│ 45.66│ 51.40│ 54.51│ 57.34│ .....│Average
34.62│ 35.32│ 35.51│ 39.12│ 45.40│ 50.96│ 54.41│ 57.15│ 55.12│11
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │mos.
──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────

COURSE OF WHOLESALE AND RETAIL PRICES[207] IN THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY, 1913, TO MAY, 1920

[Average Prices, 1913 = 100]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

=The Relation of Credit to Money.=—A large part of the world’s business
is done on credit. If all debts had to be paid tomorrow, there would not
be enough money in the world to pay one cent on the dollar. But all
debts do not fall due at once, and a huge credit system is able to stand
with comparative safety upon a relatively small amount of gold.
[Sidenote: There is a limit to the expansion of credit.] There is a
limit, however, to the expansion of credit and this limit is roughly
determined by the amount of gold available to be held as a reserve.
Hence it is that when the volume of gold increases, credit usually
expands also. With their reserves full to overflowing the banks are more
ready to lend money on notes, and the rate of discount goes down.
Conversely, as the volume of gold declines, credit usually contracts.
The rate of discount then goes up and business men find it harder to
borrow money upon commercial paper. In the one case we speak of an
inflation or expansion in money and credit; in the other we speak of a
contraction or deflation.

=Credit and Prices.=—The general level of prices depends upon the value
of money. The price of a thing is merely its value expressed in terms of
money. To say that prices have gone up is to say exactly the same thing
as that the value of money has gone down.[208] The general level of
prices, to put the matter in another way, is determined by the _demand_
for goods on the one hand and the _supply_ of goods on the other. The
demand for goods, however, is represented by the amount of gold currency
available plus the amount of credit which is built upon this gold. The
credit, as has been seen, bears a definite relation to the gold.
[Sidenote: How the general level of prices is determined.] Hence it can
fairly be said that the amount of gold is an index of demand for goods
or services. So, if the supply of goods remains approximately the same,
any large increase in the available amount of gold would send prices up;
and conversely, if the supply of goods is greatly increased, while the
available amount of gold remains approximately the same, prices would go
down.

[Sidenote: The quantity theory of money and prices.]

This is the so-called quantity theory of the relation between money,
credit, and prices and it holds good in a general way although it does
not work out as simply as it reads. The adjustment of supply and demand
sometimes takes place very slowly. The volume of credit which can be
built upon a given reserve of gold is not absolutely fixed, moreover; in
some circumstances it may be more extensive than in others. [Sidenote:
Defects of the quantity theory as shown by recent experience.] During
the World War, for example, credit ran away from the gold reserve in all
the European countries. Enormous amounts of paper money were issued with
very little gold in reserve to protect them. Due to reduced production,
the supply of ordinary goods sharply declined. A combination of these
two things, inflation of credit (_i. e._, potential demand for goods)
and decreased production, sent prices sky-high.[209] In the United
States credit was also inflated during the war and prices went up,
though not to the same extent as in Europe. Since 1920 the process of
“deflating” credit has been going on. This process of deflation is
guided by the federal reserve banks, which are able to contract the
volume of credit by charging higher rates for rediscount.

=The Advantages and Dangers of Credit.=—It is probable that at least
two-thirds of the buying and selling in the world is done on credit.
Nearly all large transactions are put through by the use of credit for
short or long terms. Credit affords many advantages to modern industry
and commerce; without it, indeed, our whole economic system would break
down. [Sidenote: Four functions which credit permits.] A few of these
advantages may be mentioned: (_a_) It economizes the use of gold and
silver, by doing away with the necessity of passing gold and silver coin
from hand to hand at every transaction. (_b_) It enables large payments
to be made at distant points without an actual shipment of metallic
money. (_c_) It permits men to engage in business operations beyond
their own means by borrowing capital and using it productively. (_d_) It
enables people to invest their savings (by depositing in savings banks,
lending money on mortgages, buying bonds or stocks, etc.) so as to
secure a profitable rate of interest without great risk.

[Sidenote: Credit may also harm.]

But there are also some disadvantages. The credit system often
encourages extravagance in that people are tempted to buy goods which
they eventually find it hard to pay for; it tends to encourage
speculation which frequently results in heavy losses; and it sometimes
enables promoters to obtain capital when there is little or no chance of
their being successful. By strict governmental supervision, however, the
advantages can be retained and most of the dangers eliminated.

=The Stock Exchange.=—A word should be said about the place where
instruments of credit are most commonly bought and sold, namely, the
stock exchange. As its name implies, this is a market in which men buy
and sell stocks, bonds, and other securities.[210] There is a stock
exchange in every large city. The buying and selling is done through
brokers, who are members of the exchange and who receive a small
commission for their work, this commission being paid by the persons for
whom they buy or sell. A broker, at your request, will buy or sell on
the exchange any security that is listed there. The amount of the
purchase may be paid in full, or, if the buyer desires, a partial
payment of five, ten, or twenty per cent may be made. [Sidenote: Trading
on margin.] This is called “buying on margin”. The current prices of all
securities are kept posted on the exchange; they go up and down from day
to day in keeping with market conditions. Shrewd investors try to buy
when prices are low and to sell when prices are high, but in this they
are not always successful. Many fortunes have been made—and lost—on the
stock exchange.

General References

F. W. TAUSSIG, _Principles of Economics_, Vol. I, pp. 227-235 (Coinage);
236-251 (Quantity of Money and Prices); 265-273 (Bimetallism); 348-359
(Banking Operations); 375-385 (The Banking System of the United States);

ISAAC LIPPINCOTT, _Economic Development of the United States_, pp.
550-580;

H. R. BURCH, _American Economic Life_, pp. 336-371;

W. A. SCOTT, _Money and Banking_, pp. 1-116;

W. S. JEVONS, _Money and the Mechanism of Exchange_, pp. 3-41;

MARSHALL, WRIGHT, and FIELD, _Materials for the Study of Elementary
Economics_, pp. 443-546;

C. J. BULLOCK, _Introduction to the Study of Economics_, pp. 224-246;

D. R. DEWEY, _Financial History of the United States_, especially pp.
383-413;

EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the United States_, pp.
460-479;

HORACE WHITE, _Money and Banking_ (5th edition), _passim_;

F. A. FETTER, _Modern Economic Problems_, pp. 31-163.

Group Problems

=1. How money and credit are related to prices.= The meaning of
“prices”. The quantity theory of money. Relation of money to credit.
Reserves for paper money. Bank reserves. Discounting and rediscounting.
How inflation of money and credit affects prices. Index numbers.
American experience during the years 1914-1921. =References=: F. W.
TAUSSIG, _Principles of Economics_, Vol. I, pp. 427-445; C. J. BULLOCK,
_Introduction to the Study of Economics_, pp. 242-278; IRVING FISHER,
_The Purchasing Power of Money_, pp. 8-32; _Ibid._, _Stabilizing the
Dollar_, pp. 1-12; J. A. HOBSON, _Gold, Prices, and Wages_, _passim_;
DAVID KINLEY, _Money_, pp. 199-223.

=2. The American banking system=: how it is organized and how it
functions. D. R. DEWEY, _Financial History of the United States_, pp.
320-328; 383-390; F. W. TAUSSIG, _Principles of Economics_, Vol. I, pp.
375-399; C. F. DUNBAR, _Theory and History of Banking_, pp. 132-153; C.
A. CONANT, _A History of Modern Banks of Issue_, pp. 396-447; E. W.
KEMMERER, _The A, B, C of the Federal Reserve System_, pp. 28-65; H. P.
WILLIS, _The Federal Reserve System_, _passim_; A. B. HEPBURN, _History
of the Currency and Coinage of the United States_, pp. 411-418; 511-544.

=3. The controversy over free silver and its lessons for the future.= D.
R. DEWEY, _Financial History of the United States_, pp. 101-104;
210-212; 403-413; 436-437; 468; F. W. TAUSSIG, _Principles of
Economics_, Vol. I, pp. 265-273; J. L. LAUGHLIN, _History of Bimetallism
in the United States_, especially pp. 266-280.

Short Studies

1. =The early history of money.= W. S. JEVONS, _Money and the Mechanism
of Exchange_, pp. 19-30; DAVID KINLEY, _Money_, pp. 14-26.

2. =The quantity theory of money.= F. W. TAUSSIG, _Principles of
Economics_, Vol. I, pp. 236-251.

3. =American and foreign banking systems compared.= E. R. A. SELIGMAN,
_Principles of Economics_, pp. 524-550; or F. W. TAUSSIG, _Principles of
Economics_, Vol. I, pp. 360-385.

4. =Can the dollar be stabilized?= MARSHALL, WRIGHT, and FIELD,
_Materials for the Study of Elementary Economics_, pp. 474-483; IRVING
FISHER, _Stabilizing the Dollar_, especially pp. 12-30.

5. =The free-silver campaign of 1896.= C. A. BEARD, _Contemporary
American History_, pp. 164-198; D. R. DEWEY, _National Problems_, pp.
220-237; 314-328.

6. =Banking operations and accounts.= C. F. DUNBAR, _History and Theory
of Banking_, pp. 20-38.

7. =American institutions for saving and investment.= F. A. FETTER,
_Modern Economic Problems_, pp. 146-166.

8. =Financial panics.= F. W. TAUSSIG, _Principles of Economics_, Vol. I,
pp. 400-426.

9. =The high cost of living.= J. H. HAMMOND and J. W. JENKS, _Great
American Issues_, pp. 143-159.

10. =Economic crises.= T. N. CARVER, _Principles of National Economy_,
pp. 427-442.

Questions

1. Are the qualities of money given in this book in the order of their
importance? If not, rearrange them so. Can you think of any other
essential qualities? What objections would there be to the use of
platinum as money? Pearls? Porcelain?

2. Gold dollars are not coined in the United States at all. How is it,
then, that the gold dollar can be the legal standard of value?

3. Name all the different kinds of money that are circulated in the
United States (including paper money) and tell when the issue of each
kind was first authorized. Examine the money you have with you. Tell
where each coin was minted. In the case of bills what is the security
behind each? Can you detect counterfeit bills? How?

4. Why was the action of Congress in demonetizing silver called “the
crime of 1873”?

5. At the Democratic National Convention of 1890 Mr. Bryan said: “You
shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.” Explain in full what he
meant. Was there any good reason for believing that the free coinage of
silver at a ratio of sixteen to one would (_a_) increase prices; (_b_)
give relief to the debtor class; (_c_) benefit the wage earner?

6. Explain the process by which, under a dual system of coinage, the
metal which is over-valued at the mint will drive the other out of
circulation. Is it correct to say that “cheap money drives out dear
money”?

7. If you were engaged in business as a manufacturer, name all the
different dealings that you might have with a bank.

8. Explain what is meant by each of the following terms: demand note;
endorser; trustee; commercial paper; rate of discount; rediscounting;
collateral; deflation; coupon bond; preferred stock; broker; buying
stock on margin.

9. Show how the volume of credit helps to determine prices and how the
volume of credit is related to the amount of gold coin in hand. Why does
the quantity theory of money not work out with mathematical accuracy in
practice?

10. Does the argument in McCulloch _vs._ Maryland impress you as
logical? Does the decision mean that officials of national banks and of
federal reserve banks are exempt from state taxes? Does it mean that
when a national bank occupies a leased building the landlord pays no
taxes to the city?

Topics for Debate

1. All banking institutions should be brought under the supervision of
the federal government.

2. A “compensated” dollar (adjusted to the general level of prices)
should be established as a measure of deferred payments.

3. The national and state governments should guarantee depositors
against loss in all banks chartered by the nation and the states,
respectively.

-----

Footnote 178:

The employer, in fact, was often a corporation with neither body nor
soul. The factories were in charge of managers whose function was to
earn profits, not to look after the well-being of the employees.

Footnote 179:

In America the unions also serve as schools of citizenship. They
gather together into their membership men and women of all races and
creeds, and they encourage their members to become American citizens.

Footnote 180:

The labor union movement began in England because it was there that
the Industrial Revolution first brought in the factory system. At the
outset the formation of unions was bitterly opposed by the employers
and laws were enacted declaring such organizations to be illegal. In
the closing years of the eighteenth century any English worker who
joined an organization, in order to secure better wages or fewer hours
of labor, was liable to be arrested and punished by the courts. In due
course the labor organization movement spread to America, where also
it encountered strong opposition during the first half of the
nineteenth century. Attempts to secure better wages by forming labor
associations were held to be conspiracies in restraint of trade and
those who openly took part in the organization movement were
frequently imprisoned. After 1830, however, the opposition began to
grow less intense and by 1870 it had become generally recognized that
labor organizations were here to stay. In one state after another they
began to receive legal recognition and today the right of the workers
to organize for the promotion of their own interests is not denied in
any part of the country.

Footnote 181:

Most writers use the term “trade union” to include only such labor
organizations as are composed of men and women who work in the same
trade or occupation; but some employ the term to include all labor
organizations whose object is collective action in the interest of
their members.

Footnote 182:

Although this program does not contain anything that savors of
violence, or of arbitrary control of industry by the workers, or of
dictatorial methods towards the public it sometimes happens that
individual labor organizations or their leaders are guilty of these
things. While professing disapproval of violence, the labor leaders
have on occasions (though not as a rule) tolerated it. Labor leaders,
moreover, in some cases have exacted money from employers under threat
of calling men off their jobs; the Brindell case in New York City is a
recent illustration. On some notable occasions labor leaders have been
convicted and sent to jail for resorting to organized terrorism
against employers. All this, however, does not condemn the program of
labor organizations as a whole. No body of men, particularly when it
numbers several million members, can in fairness be judged by the
wrongful acts of a few.

Footnote 183:

It should be borne in mind that not everyone who desires to work at a
particular trade is entitled to membership in the trade union. He must
apply for admission to membership and the initiation fee for
membership is often as high as a hundred dollars or more. Moreover, he
must satisfy the union that he is properly skilled in the trade, if
the trade requires skill. Some unions, commonly called “open unions,”
take in practically all who apply; but these unions exist, for the
most part, in unskilled trades only.

Footnote 184:

In New Zealand, for example. For a time it was looked upon as a great
success in that country, but in recent years it has not prevented
numerous strikes.

Footnote 185:

This was the sequel to a strike on the part of the Kansas coal miners,
which threatened to leave the people without fuel for the winter. When
the strikers refused to return to work a call was sent out for
volunteers and men of all occupations came forward to work in the
mines. When the emergency was past the legislature decided that the
rights of the public ought to be protected in the future against both
employers and workmen.

Footnote 186:

These include all industries affecting food, clothing, fuel, and
transportation.

Footnote 187:

“The children were kept working for fourteen, and even sixteen, hours
a day; they were beaten for the slightest mistake or offence; and
sometimes they were tortured by the overseers, who would tie them to a
beam close over the whirling machines by way of teaching them to hold
their feet up, or would rivet irons on their ankles and hips to teach
them not to try to run away. Locked in the factory while they worked,
and in neighboring barracks while they slept, these pitiful martyrs
were as absolutely abandoned by their kind as though they had been
adult convicts on the way to Botany Bay, or negro slaves on the middle
passage.” G. H. PERRIS, _The Industrial History of Modern England_, p.
207.

Footnote 188:

Congress has established a Bureau of Child Welfare in the Department
of Labor with the duty of encouraging the enactment of laws to protect
children.

Footnote 189:

The Supreme Court has decided that this action also is
unconstitutional.

Footnote 190:

ROBINSON and BEARD, _Outlines of European History_, II, 640.

Footnote 191:

Many sorts of merchandise have been used as money at one time or
another. In early times cattle often served as the standard of value.
This was undoubtedly the case among our Indo-European ancestors, as is
shown by the survival of certain words in the English language at the
present time. The word “pecuniary,” for example, comes from the Latin
“pecunia,” meaning money, which is in turn from “pecus,” cattle. The
word “fee” is merely a rendition of the old German word “Vieh,” which
also means cattle.

Footnote 192:

The Chinese use copper money, which they call “cash.” The coins have a
hole in the center so that they can be carried on a string like beads.

Footnote 193:

That was what had to be done in the old days before gold and silver
were stamped into coins of known weight and fineness. You remember the
Scriptural story of the patriarch Abraham’s weighing out the four
hundred shekels of silver to pay the sons of Heth for Sarah’s grave.
If not, read it in Genesis, xxiii, 2-19.

Footnote 194:

The weight of the gold dollar, as fixed by law, is 23.2 grains of pure
gold.

Footnote 195:

Anyone may take gold to these mints and have it coined. Pure gold
would be too soft for use as money, however; so an alloy of silver is
mixed with it. The mixed metals are then heated and rolled into
strips. These strips are next put into a stamping machine which forms
them into so many little gold cakes, ready to be placed in another
machine which stamps an impression upon them. In the case of gold and
silver coins the edges are “milled” to prevent their being clipped or
scraped by dishonest people. In the United States this is in the form
of a raised and serrated edge; in European countries an inscription is
often printed on the edges of the coins. The German twenty-mark piece
before the war had the legend, “Gott mit uns,” in this form. The
silver, nickel, and copper for American currency is bought by the mint
and made into coins at a profit. This profit is called seigniorage and
it is sufficient to make all the mints self-supporting. The amount of
metal in a nickel, for instance, costs only a fraction of five cents.
When coins are lost or destroyed—by shipwreck, fire, etc.—the
government is just so much to the good, and a great many coins are
permanently lost or destroyed every year.

Footnote 196:

With a dual system of coinage the ratio at the mint must be exactly
that of the open market, otherwise the metal which the mint overvalues
is the only one which will come in to be coined. If mine-owners who
produce silver, for example, can get more gold in exchange for it in
the open market than they can get dollars for it at the mint, they
will naturally exchange it in the open market. But it is difficult to
keep the legal ratio in exact accord with the market value because the
latter fluctuates somewhat from year to year.

Footnote 197:

In this same year a severe commercial panic took place and the action
of the government in demonetizing silver was blamed for it. Hence the
frequent reference in later years to “the crime of 1873.”

Footnote 198:

Provision for the coinage of silver on a limited scale was made by the
Bland Act (1878) and the Sherman Act (1890). These acts merely
provided that the Treasury should buy so much silver each year and
coin it, a very different thing from free coinage.

Footnote 199:

Curiously enough there was another financial panic in 1893; but this
had nothing whatever to do with the stoppage of silver coining.

Footnote 200:

The paper money is made at the Bureau of Engraving in Washington, not
at the mints. Every working day in the year this Bureau turns out a
million dollars or more in notes. A special kind of paper, made by a
secret process, is used, and in the manufacture of this paper small
strands of red silk are imbedded in the fabric. The notes are printed
from mechanical copies of engraved plates, the originals of which are
made by hand. It takes several expert engravers a whole year or more
to make one of these originals, with its portrait, seal, symbols, and
myriad of fine lines. All these precautions are taken to prevent
counterfeiting. On its way through the presses the bills are counted
and checked many times to make sure that none go astray or are
pocketed by employees. So carefully is this done that only once in the
last twenty years has a single bill been unaccounted for. When a paper
note is permanently lost or destroyed after being issued Uncle Sam is
very much the gainer, for it costs him, on the average, only about one
cent to print a dollar bill. If the bill is only torn or partly
destroyed, the government will redeem it. Full face value is given if
at least three-fifths of the original bill is presented, or half the
face value if two-fifths is handed in. If less than two-fifths of the
bill is presented, it will not be redeemed except by proving the
circumstances under which the rest of the bill was destroyed. When
bills get dirty or worn the banks send them back to the Treasury. Some
years ago the practice was to burn them in the furnace; but there was
a rumor that charred pieces of the bills were in the habit of flying
off through the chimney to be found by people who presented them for
redemption. Now the worn money is put into a macerator or chewing
machine, which masticates them to a pulp at the rate of about a
million dollars a mouthful.

Footnote 201:

The German paper mark, for example, depreciated to less than
one-fiftieth of its face value in gold; the Austrian crown depreciated
even more. Even more striking has been the depreciation of the Russian
paper rouble which has fallen more than a thousand-fold.

Footnote 202:

Money which, according to law, must be accepted in payment of debts,
is called legal tender. Gold coin, silver dollars, and certain notes
are legal tender up to any amount. Half dollars, quarters, and dimes
must be accepted in payment up to the amount of ten dollars. Nickels
and pennies are legal tender to the amount of twenty-five cents only.

Footnote 203:

The establishment of this second bank led to the raising of a very
important constitutional question. The constitution, as has been said,
contains not a word about banks. Hence the power to establish banks
might be assumed to remain entirely with the states in view of the
rule that powers not delegated to the nation by the constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people. Congress having gone ahead, however,
and established a bank, the State of Maryland proceeded to levy a tax
on the bank’s paper money. This tax the cashier of the Baltimore
branch of the bank, McCulloch, refused to pay, whereupon he was held
liable by the courts of Maryland and appealed to the Supreme Court.
The latter tribunal went into the whole issue thoroughly and rendered
one of the most important legal decisions ever given in this country.

The decision in McCulloch _vs._ Maryland was that Congress, having
been given by the constitution the express power to collect taxes, to
borrow money, and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers,” was thereby
vested with implied authority to establish banks as a means of
facilitating the collection of taxes or the borrowing of money. This
being so, the Supreme Court decided, no state can be permitted to
interfere with an instrumentality through which the national
government is legally carrying on its work. They must not interfere by
taxation or otherwise. “The power to tax involves the power to
destroy,” declared Chief Justice Marshall in rendering this decision.
If the states could tax one agency employed by the national government
in the execution of its powers, the chief justice explained, they
could tax every other one. They could tax the post office, the custom
houses, the forts, the ships of war. By taxing these things heavily
enough they could cripple the national government and eventually drive
it out of existence altogether. The court was unanimous in affirming
that Congress had the right to establish banks and that with such
action no state could interfere.

Footnote 204:

Trust companies were established to act as trustees or guardians of
funds belonging to widows, orphans, and others who could not look out
for their own investments. Then they began the practice of accepting
deposits from others and paying interest on these deposits, whereas
national banks and most of the regular state banks usually paid no
interest to their depositors. Gradually the trust companies became
banks in every sense of the term, and they have gradually increased in
number during recent years. As a rule they can do a wider range of
business than is permitted to national or state banks.

Footnote 205:

The locations of these twelve federal reserve banks are as follows:
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago,
St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas, and San Francisco.

Footnote 206:

A further addition to the banking facilities of the United States was
made in 1916, when Congress inaugurated the federal farm loan bank
system. This is under the control of a federal farm loan board
composed of the Secretary of the Treasury and four other persons
appointed by the President. Two systems of lending money on mortgages
are provided under the supervision of this board, one working through
twelve farm land banks situated in different parts of the country and
the other through joint stock land banks. Provision is also made for
the forming of farm loan associations composed of farmers who wish to
borrow money on the security of their lands. See also p. 348.

Footnote 207:

Retail prices represent prices of the principal articles of Food;
wholesale prices include articles of all kinds.

Figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Footnote 208:

For this reason it is often said that gold is not a good measure of
deferred payments. For example, if somebody were to give you a note
for a thousand dollars, payable five years from now in gold coin, the
amount of goods which you will be able to buy with the proceeds of
this note when it is paid may be much greater, or much less, than what
you could buy today. Thus you would get your money back, but it would
not have the same purchasing power, and purchasing power is what
counts. To determine the actual purchasing power of gold at different
dates, figures known as “index numbers” are compiled by various
economic organizations. Index numbers are compiled in this way: Take a
certain amount of various things which are in common use, say a barrel
of flour, ten pounds of butter, a bushel of potatoes, so much steel,
leather, lumber, and other commodities,—make the list long enough to
cover the general range of prices. Add together the current prices of
these things today and you have an index number. Ten years from now,
if you take exactly the same amounts of exactly the same commodities
and add together the prices, you will have another index number. By
comparing them you can say that the purchasing power of money has gone
up or gone down, as the case may be. The index number more than
doubled during the years 1914 to 1919; that is to say, the purchasing
power of money was cut in two.

Footnote 209:

People are in the habit of thinking that the high cost of living is
due largely to “profiteering” and monopoly. To some extent, no doubt,
this is true. But the three most important factors in the high cost of
living are: (_a_) the inflation of money and credit; (_b_) decreased
production; and (_c_) heavy taxes. It is these things that give the
profiteers and monopolists their opportunity.

Footnote 210:

Bonds are promises to pay a certain principal sum at the expiry of a
certain term of years. They are issued by governments and by business
corporations. They bear interest annually or semi-annually. In the
case of registered bonds the name of the bondholder is inscribed on
the books of the government or company and a check for the interest is
sent to him. Coupon bonds, on the other hand, are payable to bearer
and small tickets or coupons must be cut off by the holder and
presented on each interest date. Stocks are merely shares in a
business corporation and do not carry an obligation to pay a definite
sum at any given time. There are two kinds of stock, preferred and
common. The preferred stock is entitled to a stated dividend; the
common stock takes what is left of the net profits if there are any.

Bonds, as a rule, yield a smaller return than preferred stock, because
the security is better. The man who holds common stock takes the
greatest risk of all and for this reason expects the largest rate of
dividend. When you invest money the income which you get from it is
proportioned to the risk which you take. An absolutely safe investment
like government bonds brings in only four or five per cent annually;
the preferred stock of railroads or industrial corporations may yield
six or seven per cent; the common stock of some companies pays as high
as eight or ten per cent. When you find that an investment promises a
large income you may be sure that the risk is proportionately large.
All sorts of “get rich quick” schemes are placed before the public by
promoters who promise high rates on “safe” investments. Such
investments are not safe; if they were, the banks and large
capitalists would put their money into them. To protect the public
from these frauds, some states have passed “blue-sky laws,” which
require that every stock-selling concern shall be investigated by the
state authorities before it is allowed to take money from the people.

CHAPTER XXIII
TAXATION AND PUBLIC FINANCE

_The purpose of this chapter is to explain what taxes are, how they
are levied, and how they are spent._

[Sidenote: Taxation per capita.]

=The Cost of Government.=—The cost of maintaining the national
government and all its activities is now about four billion dollars per
year, in other words about forty dollars per annum for every man, woman,
and child in the country. The cost of maintaining state and local
government varies in different parts of the country, but it would be
safe enough to put it down as three billion dollars more, or thirty
dollars per head. In round figures, therefore, the average tax payment
every year for each individual in the United States is at least seventy
dollars.[211]

[Sidenote: The extent of the burden upon the income-earner.]

Bear in mind, however, that only a small part of the whole population is
earning the income which enables these taxes to be paid. When we
eliminate all the children, all the women who are not employed in any
income-earning occupation, all the public officials who are paid out of
taxes, all the delinquents, cripples, paupers, unemployed, and so
on—when we subtract all these from the total it will be found that only
one person in five is an actual income-earner. From the earnings of
these twenty million people the entire seven billions in taxes must be
paid; there is no other source from which the taxes can come. A little
mental arithmetic will readily demonstrate, therefore, _that every
income-earner in the United States pays, on the average, at least $350
per year in taxes of one sort or another, in other words about a dollar
a day_.[212]

[Sidenote: Everyone is a taxpayer, directly or indirectly.]

=Who Pays the Taxes?=—“Oh yes”, someone will say, “but most people earn
small incomes and pay no taxes at all, or almost none. The heavy taxes
are paid by wealthy men and women who own property and have large
incomes.” That is misleading. People who own property and earn large
incomes are the ones who actually hand the collector his tax-money, to
be sure; but they merely give him, for the most part, money which they
have collected from others. The owner of an apartment house collects
taxes from his tenants in the form of rent; the storekeeper collects
taxes in the price of his goods; the lawyer and the doctor collect taxes
when they charge fees. Taxes are an element in the cost of everything,
an element just as certain as interest, wages, or profit. Everyone who
rents a house, buys goods, or hires any form of service pays taxes. If
you analyze the various items which make up the price of a suit of
clothes, for example, you will find that they usually come in this order
of importance; wages, cost of materials, taxes, profits, interest.[213]
The chief factors which make up the rent of a house are interest, taxes,
and profits in the order named. Hence it is that while landlords,
merchants, manufacturers, and others make the direct payment of taxes to
the government, they in turn pass the burden to tenants and
consumers.[214]

[Sidenote: The way in which taxes are shifted.]

=The Incidence of Taxation.=—Taxes, therefore, do not usually stay where
they are levied. They are shifted from one shoulder to another until
they finally reach someone, usually the ultimate consumer, who cannot
unload the burden upon anybody else. This ultimate resting-place of a
tax is called its _incidence_, and an important thing about any tax is
to discover just what its incidence is; for the justice or injustice of
taxation depends upon the ability of the actual taxpayer to bear the
burden and not upon the wealth of the ostensible taxpayer. If the
government were to levy a tax of one cent per loaf upon bread, there
would be a storm of protest because everybody would recognize it as a
direct tax upon one of the necessities of life. But a tariff duty on
wheat, or a property tax on flour mills or bakeries, is just as
certainly a tax on bread and is paid ultimately by those who buy it. The
chief difference is that in the latter case the payment is made by the
consumer without his knowing it.

[Sidenote: Relation of taxes to rents and prices.]

Most people pay taxes unknowingly. Their taxes are concealed in rents or
prices, and they complain bitterly that these things are high. It does
not occur to the average American wage-earner that if taxes were lower,
rents and prices would be lower, and that if there were no taxes, it
would be exactly the equivalent to finding every morning, on coming down
to breakfast, a crisp, new dollar-bill on his plate. Demagogues tell us
that trusts, and profiteers, and other forms of organized avarice are
responsible for high prices; but one of the biggest factors in the
high-cost-of-living is the high-cost-of-government.

[Sidenote: If waste were avoided the tax burden would be diminished.]

If this enormous flow from the nation’s earnings into the public coffers
were wholly, or even largely, used to promote and encourage production,
it would not be so bad. Much of it is wasted, or spent without adequate
return. This takes place because the people do not keep close watch on
the officials whom they elect to public office and do not hold them to a
strict accountability when public money is squandered. More than a
hundred years ago the most eminent of American jurists, Chief Justice
John Marshall, pointed out that “the power to tax involves the power to
destroy”. He was right; the power to tax is the most far-reaching power
that any government can possess. By the use of the taxing power a
government can take from the people what they would otherwise save, thus
preventing the increase of the nation’s wealth and ultimately breaking
down its prosperity.

[Sidenote: Taxes are:]

=How Taxes Differ from other Payments.=—Taxes differ from most other
payments in two respects. [Sidenote: (_a_) compulsory.] First, they are
compulsory. No one need pay interest, rent, wages, or prices unless he
bargains to do so; but the payment of taxes is not the result of any
bargain. Taxes are levied without any reference to the initiative or
wishes of the individuals upon whom they may fall, except, of course, in
so far as these individuals by their votes may have an influence in
determining the general taxing policy of the government. [Sidenote:
(_b_) levied without reference to service rendered.] Second, taxes are
not payments made to the government by individuals and corporations in
return for services rendered. The man who rides a hundred miles on a
railroad pays twice as much as one who goes half that distance, because
he gets twice as much for his money. But the man who pays a thousand
dollars in taxes does not get twice as much in benefits from the
government as the one who pays only five hundred dollars.

[Sidenote: The basis of taxation is ability to pay.]

Nearly all payments that we make are in the form of a _quid pro quo_;
they are in proportion to the benefits which we receive. This is the
case in payments for all forms of goods or services—the one great
exception is the payment of taxes. Taxes have no direct relation to
benefit; those who pay very little in taxes, either directly or
indirectly, sometimes receive a large return in the form of public
services. Take for example the taxes that support the public schools.
The fact that a wealthy man has no children, or prefers to send his
children to a private school, does not relieve him of the obligation to
pay his full share of what public education costs the community. On the
other hand, a man whose contribution in taxes is very small may send a
dozen children, one after another, through the public schools without
any extra cost.

[Sidenote: Why taxes cannot be adjusted to service.]

It would not be possible to base taxation upon service, because there is
no way of knowing how much benefit each individual receives from the
government’s work. Do some individuals, for example, obtain more benefit
than others from the maintenance of law and order or do all derive
benefit alike? Who gets the greater benefit from clean streets, the rich
man who drives his motor car over them, or the poor man whose children
use the streets as a playground? Taxes could not be adjusted to benefit.
Even if they could be so proportioned, it would be unwise to do so. The
general interest requires that everyone should enjoy the benefits of
police protection, the public schools, the parks, the playgrounds
whether they are able to pay for them or not.[215] So taxes are levied
in order to pay for these things, not on a basis of individual benefit,
but simply by putting the heaviest burden in the first instance upon
those who are best able to pay it, letting them shift it if they can.

=Principles upon which Taxes are Levied.=—How is the ability of
individuals to pay taxes estimated? It is done by taking some such thing
as property or income as the basis. Those who have more property or
income are called upon to contribute more than those who have less.
[Sidenote: The basic principles of taxation according to Adam Smith.]
About a hundred and fifty years ago a famous writer on economics, Adam
Smith, laid down four principles to which all taxation should conform.
These maxims of taxation are now everywhere recognized as valid and are
worth remembering. Briefly stated, they are as follows: People should be
taxed according to their ability to pay; all taxes should be definite
and not uncertain or arbitrary; they ought to be levied at the time and
in the manner which causes the least inconvenience to the people; and
they should be so contrived as to take out of the pockets of the people
as little as possible over what is needed by the public treasury. Those
who make the tax laws do not always heed these maxims, and taxes are
sometimes levied on the principle of getting the most money with the
least trouble.[216]

[Sidenote: Taxes on property.]

=Local Taxes.=—The greater portion of the taxation levied by cities,
counties, towns, and villages is in the form of taxes on property. This
is a direct tax and as a rule it is levied on all private property, of
whatever sort, at a uniform rate of so much per thousand dollars of
valuation. [Sidenote: The general property tax.] A tax levied in this
uniform way on all private property is called a _general property tax_.
In some states, however, provision has been made for classifying the
various kinds of property and taxing each kind at a different rate.
Property is first classified into two divisions, real property, and
personal property.[217] Real property (or real estate) consists of land,
buildings, and other fixtures established on the land; personal property
consists of, first, tangible things of a movable nature such as
household furniture, machinery, merchandise; and second, intangibles
such as bonds, mortgages, and bank deposits. [Sidenote: The classified
property tax.] Where there is a classified property tax, each of these
three forms (real property, tangibles, and intangibles) is taxed at a
different rate. One reason for taxing them at different rates is that
real estate requires a great deal more in the way of public services
(for example, in paved streets, water supply, sewerage, etc.); another
reason is that while real property cannot evade taxation intangibles can
usually do so when the tax is too heavy.[218] If the rate of taxation on
intangibles is lowered, the temptation to evade is not so great. It will
usually be found that more money will come into the public treasury from
a moderate rate of taxes on stocks and bonds than from an oppressively
high rate.

[Sidenote: Other local taxes.]

A few communities also obtain some revenue from another direct tax, the
poll tax, which amounts to one or two dollars per year on each adult. In
some cities franchise taxes are laid upon public service companies (such
as gas, electric lighting, and street railway companies). The proceeds
from these sources do not form any large proportion of the total
revenue.

[Sidenote: Assessments for purposes of taxation.]

All collecting of taxes is preceded by a formal step known as
assessment. No tax can be legally collected unless it has been assessed
in ways prescribed by law. Property of all kinds is valued for taxation
by officials known as assessors. Usually they are county or city
officials, sometimes appointed, sometimes elected. They re-value
property at stated intervals and set their assessment at what they
believe to be the market value (unless they are instructed to assess at
a percentage of the market value as is the case in some states). Income
taxes, corporation taxes, and inheritance taxes are assessed by the tax
officials on the basis of sworn statements made to them by the
taxpayers.

[Sidenote: Special assessments.]

In the case of such public improvements as sewers, street pavements, and
sidewalks it is the custom in many cities to levy a special assessment
upon the owners of the property that is benefited. These special
assessments are levied in proportion to the benefit received; they are
not taxes in the ordinary sense. [Sidenote: Taking property for public
use.] When the nation or state or city requires land for public
improvements it has the right to acquire it from the owner, even though
he be unwilling to sell. The public authorities, by their right of
eminent domain, can take land or other property for public use at any
time, but must give the owner just compensation. If the amount of
compensation cannot be agreed upon between the government and the
private owner, it is fixed by the courts.

[Sidenote: The sources of state revenue.]

=State Taxes.=—The states obtain their revenue in various ways. One
common method is by requiring the cities, counties, or towns to pay over
to the state a certain fraction of the sums which they collect on
property. Thus, when the citizen gets his bill for local taxes he finds
it itemized—so much for state taxes, so much for county taxes, and so
much for city or town taxes. Most of the states also levy taxes on
corporations, including railways, telephone companies, insurance
companies, and banks. These taxes may be calculated upon capital or net
earnings or deposits or upon some other basis. A few states tax
inheritances and a few levy a state income tax. Taxes on inheritances
are usually progressive, that is, the rate is higher in the case of
large inherited fortunes. State income taxes are levied upon the net
earnings of individuals or partnerships, a certain minimum income being
left exempt. Most of the states have other miscellaneous sources of
revenue, some of them important, as, for example, the annual license
fees imposed upon all owners of motor vehicles.

[Sidenote: Income and excess profits taxes.]

=National Taxes.=—The national government, by reason of its need for
larger revenues in recent years, has resorted to many forms of taxation.
At the present time the principal sources of national revenue are the
taxes on the incomes of corporations and individuals, the customs
duties, the excises, and the inheritance taxes. The national income
taxes are levied upon the net earnings of all individuals, partnerships,
and corporations above a certain minimum. The rate of taxation, in the
case of individual incomes, is progressive—a normal tax is laid upon all
incomes up to a certain figure and surtaxes are levied upon incomes
above this amount.[219] Under the original provisions of the
constitution, the national government could not levy _direct_ taxes
unless it apportioned them among the several states according to their
population, and according to a decision of the Supreme Court in 1894 an
income tax is a direct tax.[220] But the Sixteenth Amendment, adopted in
1913, now gives the national government authority to tax incomes “from
whatever source derived” without the necessity of apportionment among
the states. Once a year every person or corporation earning a net income
above the prescribed minimum must make a sworn statement setting forth
the exact amount of such earnings, and upon this “income tax return” the
legal rate is assessed.

[Sidenote: Duties on imports.]

Duties on imports still yield a large revenue, as they have done every
year since 1790. No duties may be laid upon _exports_, such duties being
forbidden by the constitution. This is in some respects unfortunate,
because duties on exports go into the price of the exported goods and
thus fall upon the foreign consumer. A tariff on exports (such as
lumber, coal, and ore) would not only yield a considerable revenue but
would help to conserve the natural wealth of the United States. The
excises are levied upon tobacco, theatre tickets, and other things which
are rated as luxuries.[221] The national government also levies an
inheritance tax, the rate of the tax depending upon the value of the
property inherited. These various taxes bring in between three and four
billion dollars per year.

[Sidenote: Taxes for revenue and taxes for regulation.]

=The Two Purposes of Taxation.=—The main object of all taxation is to
produce a revenue. But this is not the only object. Taxation may also be
used to bring about such social reforms as the nation or the community
may deem desirable, and taxes are sometimes adjusted to this end. For
example, the manufacture of goods by the use of child labor can be
checked by placing a heavy excise tax upon such products.[222] It is
believed that the growth of large fortunes can be checked by the
imposition of heavy surtaxes on large incomes and on inheritances; the
present national taxes on incomes and inheritances have been framed with
this end in view to some extent. In other words the system of taxation
can be used and is being used in some measure to secure such economic
and social readjustments as Congress and the state legislatures think
desirable. The question is: How far should the law-making bodies go in
this direction? Many people believe that “swollen fortunes” are an evil
in a democratic society and that all earnings above a certain point
should belong to the community. Others feel that heavy surtaxes place a
damper upon ambition, that they lessen the amount of money saved by the
whole people, thus reducing the amount of capital available for
industry, and that they give the government large sums which are spent
wastefully.[223]

[Sidenote: Taxation and class prejudice.]

=Tax Exemptions and Extravagance.=—When taxation is regarded as a means
not only of raising a revenue but also of redistributing wealth it takes
on grave possibilities of abuse. The majority among the voters can
always find reasons for increasing the burdens on the minority; the
wage-earners urge that more taxes ought to be placed on the rich and
insist that they themselves be exempted from taxation upon their
incomes. The chief evil in all this is not the injustice to the rich,
for they usually manage to shift the burden down the line till it comes
back upon the wage-earner; the unfortunate part of it is that the masses
of the people, proceeding under the delusion that they pay none of the
taxes, are quite unconcerned when they see large sums of money being
collected by the government and spent wastefully. They do not realize
that it is _their_ money; that they earned every cent of it before the
government obtained it to spend. If they could be induced to see matters
in this light, they would never permit their representatives in
Congress, in the state legislatures, and in city councils to throw money
around with such a lavish hand. Tax exemptions and extravagance are twin
brothers.

[Sidenote: The single tax.]

=Proposed Reforms in Taxation.=—Various new forms of taxation are
proposed from time to time. Many years ago a well-known American social
reformer, Henry George, advocated the placing of all property taxes on
land alone, allowing buildings and personal property to go untaxed
altogether. His argument was that the high value of land in cities and
towns is created by the community, not by the owner. Vacant land in the
downtown portion of a large city is sometimes worth many hundred dollars
per foot. What gives it this high value? Not the owner, for he has done
nothing to improve it. The growth of the city round about this land has
made it valuable. This “unearned increment” of value, therefore, Henry
George proposed that the community should take by levying a very heavy
tax upon it.[224]

[Sidenote: Objections to the single tax.]

The single tax proposition, as above outlined, has many earnest
advocates; but it has made very little progress as a practical policy in
this country. The objection commonly raised against the proposal is that
it would be an outright confiscation of a certain form of private
property, namely, vacant land; that the single tax on the site value of
improved land, like taxes on buildings used for industrial or mercantile
purposes, would merely be shifted to the tenant and by him transferred
in the form of higher prices to the consumer; and that the amount
derived from the single tax would not yield enough to relieve the people
from paying other forms of taxation.

[Sidenote: The proposed sales tax.]

More recently a good deal of discussion has taken place concerning the
desirability of a general tax on sales at a uniform rate. It is argued
that such a tax would fall directly and proportionately on all the
people; that it would be so small as to have only the slightest effect
upon prices; that it would be easy to collect and hard to evade. Such a
sales tax at one per cent would probably yield nearly a billion dollars
per year to the national treasury. On the other hand the objection is
made that a tax of this sort would be a real hardship upon masses of the
people who have small incomes and would be felt much less severely by
the well-to-do.[225]

[Sidenote: How money is appropriated.]

=The Spending of Public Money.=—When taxes are collected they go into
the public treasury of the nation, state, or community. Once in the
treasury the money cannot be spent until it has been finally
_appropriated_ by Congress, by the state legislature, by the county
board, by the city council, or by whatever body possesses the power to
make appropriations. Appropriations are usually made once a year in the
form of a budget, and the manner of making a budget is as follows: On or
before a given date the various administrative departments (such as the
parks department in cities or the departments of highways in states)
make their estimates of expenditure for the next twelve months. Along
with this, for purposes of comparison, a statement of probable revenue
from taxes and other sources is prepared by the financial officers of
the state or local government.

[Sidenote: The estimates.]

The estimates are put together and submitted to the mayor, the governor,
or some other designated officer, who transmits them to the council or
legislature as the case may be. The lawmaking body then considers the
estimates, item by item, and finally votes the entire list after making
such changes as it finds desirable. This budget, in cities and states,
usually requires the approval of the mayor or the governor and may be
vetoed like other measures. In some states the governor may veto
individual items in the budget while letting the others stand, but as a
rule he is required to accept or reject the appropriation bill as a
whole. The general tendency is to give the executive branch of the state
and local governments larger powers in budget-making so that the
responsibility for any extravagance may be better centralized.

[Sidenote: The older method of making appropriations, in Congress.]

=The National Budget System.=—Until 1921 the national government made
its large annual expenditures without any regular budget system at all.
Each department (war, navy, agriculture, and so on) prepared its
estimates and sent them to the Secretary of the Treasury, who presented
them to the President for transmission to Congress with whatever
recommendations he might choose to make. In addition to this every
senator and representative had the right to propose appropriations, and
hundreds of such proposals were made in Congress at every session. The
practice, prior to 1921, was to refer all the departmental estimates and
all the individual proposals to various committees. All estimates and
bills for army expenditures went to the Committee on Military Affairs;
all such measures relating to the postal service went to the Committee
on Post-Offices, and so on. Eight or nine committees each took a hand in
considering these proposals to spend money; each did its work without
reference to what the other committees were doing; and each made its own
recommendations to Congress.[226]

[Sidenote: Results of this method.]

The result of this procedure was that no general plan for keeping down
the expense could ever be effectively put into force, there being too
many independent committees to deal with. In 1921, however, Congress
passed an act providing for the establishment of a national budget
system and the rules of both chambers in Congress were altered so as to
carry the new plan into effect. [Sidenote: The new budget system.] The
departmental estimates now go to an official in the Treasury Department
known as the Director. He puts them together into a budget and with the
President’s approval submits them to the House of Representatives. Here
they are considered by a single large committee, known as the
Appropriations Committee, and all proposals of expenditure made by
individual congressmen (after they have been approved by the committees
directly concerned) are also submitted to this committee. The latter
then lays before the House a complete budget or plan of expenditures for
the ensuing fiscal year. When this budget, with or without changes,
passes the House, it is forwarded to the Senate, where it is likewise
considered by a single committee. After it has been passed by the Senate
it goes to the President for his approval. The President cannot veto
individual items in the budget but must accept or reject it as a whole.
This is a serious handicap because the rejection of the entire budget
would leave the departments without funds with which to carry on their
work. The great advantage of the new budget system is that it enables
Congress to make a comprehensive plan of expenditure for the year and
thus to hold the expenses within the estimated revenues.

[Sidenote: Is it necessary for governments to borrow?]

=Public Debts: Why Governments Borrow Money.=—Nearly all nations,
states, counties, cities, and even villages have debts. Why do they find
it necessary to borrow money? Why should they not, like wise
individuals, adopt a pay-as-you-go policy? The reason is that such a
policy would be very unfair to the present taxpayers. Suppose, for
example, that a town or city builds a new high school. The building will
cost a great deal of money and may reasonably be expected to serve its
purpose for twenty, thirty, or even forty years. Now there are two ways
in which the community can defray the cost: It can levy a heavy tax rate
upon the property of the people at once, doubling or trebling the usual
tax rate if necessary, and thereby obtaining the money with which to pay
cash for the school. Or, on the other hand, it may borrow the money and
arrange that this amount (with interest) shall be repaid in annual
installments over twenty or more years, thus spreading the burden over
the whole period in which the building fulfils its purpose.

[Sidenote: Proper and improper borrowing.]

Which of these is the fairer method? The latter plan has the merit of
placing the burden upon all those who get the benefit; but it has the
defect of saddling the taxpayers of the future with a debt which they
have had no share in creating. Governments, however, are much more
concerned with the present than with the future, for it is the present
taxpayer who decides the elections. Wherever practicable, therefore,
they endeavor to finance public improvements by selling bonds rather
than by increasing the present tax rates. State roads, public buildings,
bridges, and other costly enterprises are financed by borrowing. The
construction of the Panama Canal by the national government was not paid
for at the time; the money with which to build it was borrowed by
issuing long-term bonds. Governments sometimes go further and borrow
money to make good a shortage in current expenses. This is an unwise
policy; not one honest word can be said in favor of it. Current expenses
should be paid from the taxes of today, not from the taxes of ten years
hence. When a government borrows money to pay current expenses it
usually defends its action by saying that the people approved it at the
polls. Of course the people will usually approve things of this sort.
When you ask a man whether he prefers to pay for a thing himself or let
somebody else pay for it, there is little doubt what his answer will be.

War is the greatest cause of borrowing. During the Civil War the United
States government borrowed about three billion dollars, most of which
was repaid within thirty years. During and immediately after the World
War it secured, by the issue of Liberty Bonds and Victory Notes, about
twenty-six billion dollars, all of which becomes repayable at various
dates before 1950.[227]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE NATIONAL DEBT

1860-1920

The largest additions to the national debt of the
United States were made during the years 1861-1865,
and the years 1917-1919. During the former of these
two periods the debt rose from less than fifty
millions to nearly three billions; during the years
1917-1919 it increased from one to twenty-seven
billions or thereabouts. By using the logarithmic or
proportional scale for comparing these two periods
it will be seen that the ratio of increase was less
in the later period than in the earlier.

It will be noticed that although the national debt
was much reduced during the twenty-five years which
followed the Civil War, it never dropped anywhere
near its pre-war level. The enormous debt which we
piled up during the World War is already being
reduced. Will it ever be cut to the level of 1916?

[Illustration:

THE NATIONAL DEBT
1860-1920
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: Long- and short-term loans.]

=How Borrowing Takes Place.=—When governments decide to borrow money
there are two ways of doing it. If the money is needed for a short time
only, for example, to pay expenses until the taxes come in, it can be
borrowed from the banks on short-term notes. The national government,
for its short-term borrowing, issues treasury notes, running for a year
or less. These bear interest and are sold to the banks which re-sell
them to private investors. But if the money is needed for a longer
period, the usual plan is to issue bonds. These bonds, as already
pointed out (p. 445) are promises to pay, and the government pledges its
credit to repay them promptly when they mature, with interest every year
or every half-year meanwhile. National, state, and local bonds are for
the most part exempt from taxation.[228]

[Sidenote: How the war increased the national debt.]

=The Burden of the Public Debt Today.=—The borrowing power of the
national government is not limited by any provision of the constitution.
Congress may borrow money up to any amount. The national debt today is
about twenty-three billion dollars, as against only one billion before
the war. The yearly interest on the present debt, in fact, is about as
large as the whole of the old debt. Arrangements are being made,
however, to lessen this interest-burden by obtaining interest payments
from foreign countries upon the loans made to them by the United States
during the war.

[Sidenote: Debt limits.]

In the case of the states and cities the power to borrow money is not
unlimited. The state constitutions usually contain provisions as to how
much money may be borrowed and for what purposes. Sometimes they provide
that state debts may not be created except by vote of the people. Cities
are also, in most cases, bound by debt limits which are fixed by the
state constitution or by state laws. The limit, as a rule, is flexible;
it enables the city to borrow money up to a certain percentage of its
assessed valuation, so that when the value of property goes up the
borrowing power becomes enlarged. State and city debts have been
increasing at a rapid rate; on the whole more rapidly than population or
wealth.[229] The tendency is to put a large share of the burden on the
shoulders of the next generation. It is right that future taxpayers
should bear their share, as has been said; but they should not be called
upon to do more than that.[230] It is probably within bounds to say that
thirty to forty cents out of every dollar which we pay in taxes today
goes for interest and debt repayments. Before long, if we keep on, half
the taxes will go to pay for past obligations. The large cities are the
worst offenders; some of them are mortgaging the future at an alarming
rate. Stricter laws relating to local borrowing are needed, but more
essential still is the awakening of public opinion to the realities of
the situation.

=How Public Debts are Repaid.=—When bonds are issued by the public
authorities some provision ought to be made for paying them at maturity;
but this is not always done. [Sidenote: Refunding.] The national debt,
when portions of it become due, is sometimes refunded, that is, paid off
by issuing new bonds. [Sidenote: Sinking funds.] In the states and
municipalities the usual plan has been to establish a sinking fund when
the bonds are issued, and then to pay a certain installment into this
fund out of each year’s taxes. By this process the sinking fund grows
year by year until it is sufficient to pay off the bonds when they
become due. [Sidenote: Serial issues.] A better plan is to issue the
bonds in such form that they will fall due serially, that is, one or
more bonds coming due in each successive year of the loan period. Then,
instead of creating a sinking fund to pay off the whole debt at one
time, the bonds are paid off one by one. The serial bond plan does away
with the necessity of holding large sums in hand awaiting the maturity
of the debt, and thus diminishes the risk of loss through poor
investment or corruption.

=Are Public Debts a Public Evil?=—Alexander Hamilton, who was Secretary
of the Treasury in Washington’s first cabinet, propounded the doctrine
that a public debt, if not too large, is a source of strength to the
government. He argued that when government bonds are widely held by the
people, all those who own the bonds are interested in the stability and
prosperity of the nation. Other noted financiers at various times have
contradicted Hamilton and have declared all public debts to be public
evils in that they impose burdens on the people without giving them
anything tangible to show for it. But the truth is that public debts do
not fall entirely in either class. They are benefits in one sense and
evils in another. The power to borrow, like any other power, may be used
wisely or unwisely. In times of great emergency, or for public
improvements of permanent value, money may very properly be obtained by
borrowing; always provided, however, that arrangements are made to pay
off the debts within a reasonable time. The evil comes when governments
borrow money in order to pay current expenses or to defray the cost of
improvements which are not needed, and when they complacently allow the
debt to pile up, year after year, with no thought of reducing it.
“Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof”, it is said; but we can
also make the evil sufficient unto the future as well.

General References

C. A. BEARD, _American Government and Politics_, pp. 358-378; _Ibid._,
_Readings in American Government and Politics_, pp. 323-342;

F. W. TAUSSIG, _Principles of Economics_, Vol. II, pp. 483-561;

EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the United States_, pp.
445-479;

W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the United States_, pp. 233-245; _Ibid._,
_Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration_, pp. 403-478
(Municipal Finance);

C. F. BASTABLE, _Public Finance_, pp. 261-280;

E. R. A. SELIGMAN, _Essays in Taxation_ (9th edition), pp. 66-99 (The
Single Tax);

C. J. BULLOCK, _Selected Readings in Public Finance_, pp. 39-49;
143-157; _Ibid._, _Introduction to the Study of Economics_, pp. 493-520;

C. C. PLEHN, _Introduction to Public Finance_, pp. 310-327;

American Academy of Political and Social Science, _Taxation and Public
Expenditures_, pp. 1-283 (Annals, Vol. XCV, May, 1921).

Group Problems

=1. Should the present rate of national income taxes and surtaxes be
raised or lowered?= The Income Tax Law of 1913. The increase in rates
during the war. The changes made in 1921. Are the present exemptions
fair? How do the surtaxes operate? Are they shifted by the taxpayers to
others? How? The flow of investments into non-taxables. Examples. Is a
progressive rate justifiable in order to promote a greater approach to
equality in net incomes? Conclusions. =References=: C. C. PLEHN,
_Introduction to Public Finance_, 4th ed., pp. 270-309; G. N. WILSON,
_The Income Tax_, pp. 1-11; F. R. FAIRCHILD, _Federal Taxation of Income
and Profits_ (American Economic Review, Vol. XI, No. 1, Supplement, pp.
148-159); R. M. HAIG, _The Federal Income Tax_, pp. 1-25; J. A. HOBSON,
_Taxation in the New State_, pp. 95-110; American Academy of Political
and Social Science, _Taxation and Public Expenditure_, pp. 180-187
(Annals, Vol. XCV, May, 1921).

=2. How public budgets are made.= H. J. FORD, _The Cost of Our National
Government_, pp. 11-21; S. G. LOWRIE, _The Budget_, pp. 11-30; F. A.
CLEVELAND, _Chapters on Municipal Administration and Accounting_, pp.
67-81; _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. I, pp. 181-184;
Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, 1917-1918, _Bulletins_, No. 2
(State Budget Systems in the United States); American Academy of
Political and Social Science, _Public Budgets_, pp. 36-46 (Annals, Vol.
LXII, No. 151); _Ibid._, _Taxation and Public Expenditure_, pp. 228-250
(Annals, Vol. XCV, May, 1921); U. S. Bureau of the Census, _Financial
Statistics of States_; _Financial Statistics of Cities_. (Each is
published annually.)

=3. A study of the per capita cost of selected administrative
departments in your own state or community compared with those of other
states or communities.= (Adequate data for this study can be found in
two annual publications of the U. S. Census Bureau, namely, _Financial
Statistics of States_, and _Financial Statistics of Cities_. For an
example of such a study, in brief form, see W. B. MUNRO, _Principles and
Methods of Municipal Administration_, p. 457.)

Short Studies

1. =The principles underlying taxation.= F. W. TAUSSIG, _Principles of
Economics_, Vol. II, pp. 483-496.

2. =The power of Congress to tax.= W. B. MUNRO, _The Government of the
United States_, pp. 221-227.

3. =Income taxes in foreign countries.= E. R. A. SELIGMAN, _The Income
Tax_ (2d ed.), England, pp. 167-218; France, pp. 273-328; Germany, pp.
223-272.

4. =How the Civil War was financed.= D. R. DEWEY, _Financial History of
the United States_, pp. 298-333.

5. =The mobilization of American finances during the World War.= W. F.
WILLOUGHBY, _Government Organization in War Time and After_, pp. 50-66;
E. R. A. SELIGMAN, _Essays in Taxation_ (9th ed.), pp. 750-782.

6. =Excises as a source of revenue.= C. J. BULLOCK, _Selected Readings
in Public Finance_, pp. 449-472.

7. =The general property tax.= F. W. TAUSSIG, _Principles of Economics_,
Vol. II, pp. 528-549.

8. =The tariff as a source of revenue.= C. J. BULLOCK, _Selected
Readings in Public Finance_, pp. 425-448.

9. =The single tax.= E. R. A. SELIGMAN, _Essays in Taxation_, pp. 66-99.

10. =The wastefulness of the old appropriation system.= P. S. REINSCH,
_Readings on American Federal Government_, pp. 355-361.

11. =State debts and debt limits.= Massachusetts Constitutional
Convention, 1917-1918, _Bulletins_, No. 15 (Constitutional Restrictions
on State Debts).

12. =Municipal debts and debt limits.= _Ibid._, No. 14 (Constitutional
Restrictions on Municipal Indebtedness).

13. =Methods of borrowing: sinking funds vs. serial bonds.= _Ibid._, No.
21 (Methods of Borrowing: Sinking Funds _vs._ Serial Bonds).

14. =The classification of property for taxation.= _Ibid._, No. 20
(Classification of Property for Purposes of Taxation).

15. =The new national budget system.= F. A. CLEVELAND and A. E. BUCK,
_The Budget and Responsible Government_, pp. 371-381.

Questions

1. Show how taxes are related to the cost of living. What forms of
taxation are most closely related to it?

2. Can you add any other principles of taxation to those laid down by
Adam Smith?

3. Select from the constitution all the provisions which relate to
taxation and put them together in this form: “Congress may impose any
sort of taxation except that——and that——and that, etc.”

4. What is the incidence of (_a_) import duties; (_b_) export duties;
(_c_) a tax on vacant land; (_d_) a tax on a factory; (_e_) a normal tax
on incomes; (_f_) a poll tax; (_g_) a tax on inheritances; (_h_) a tax
on the profits of theatres; (_i_) a tax on motor trucks?

5. Is it right that income from government bonds should be exempt from
taxation?

6. Which of the following taxes is the wage-earner likely to feel the
least, and why: tariff duties, a property tax, income taxes, a sales
tax, a poll tax?

7. Should different forms of property (land, buildings, household
furniture, stocks, bonds, automobiles, etc.) be taxed at different
rates? Should factories be taxed at a different rate from homes? If all
men are equal in the eyes of the law, why should they be taxed at
different rates?

8. It cost only a billion dollars a year to run the government before
the war. Interest on the debt now amounts to nearly another billion. But
the government is spending about four billions. Why is this? Now that
the war is over, why is it not possible (apart from interest on the war
debt) to get back to the old scale of expenditures?

9. What are the chief defects in our present system of raising public
revenues? What improvements can you suggest? Would you favor a sales
tax? Do you believe that Congress was unwise in abolishing the tax on
excess profits?

10. Enumerate all the different forms of taxation that any one man may
have to pay in the United States at the present day.

11. How is the budget prepared and passed in your state? Compare the
relative influence of the governor with that of the legislature in
determining what the state government spends.

12. Explain treasury notes; refunding; debt limit; surtaxes; net debt;
progressive taxation; sinking fund; serial bonds; special assessments.

13. Two cities of about the same size may have approximately equal
amounts of net debt yet one may be in a much better financial position
than the other. Account for this.

14. When Chief Justice Marshall said: “The power to tax involves the
power to destroy”, what did he mean? Should the power to tax be used to
secure a more nearly equal distribution of wealth and net annual incomes
among the people?

Topics for Debate

1. The salaries of government officials should be taxed like the incomes
of private individuals.

2. No man’s income should be twice taxed (once by the nation and once by
the state).

3. Property should be taxed by a uniform rule and should not be
classified for taxation.

4. No debt limits should be fixed for cities by state law, cities being
allowed to decide for themselves how much they shall borrow.

5. Assessors should be appointive state officials and should not be
elected by the voters of cities, counties, or towns.

-----

Footnote 211:

If anything, this estimate is probably too low. In 1921 the tax
commissioner of Massachusetts estimated the tax burden in that state
to be $117 per capita.

Footnote 212:

The cities spend a great deal more than the rural districts and the
per capita burden there is consequently much heavier.

Footnote 213:

In the case of some heavily-taxed forms of merchandise, such as
tobacco, more than half the price is made up of taxes.

Footnote 214:

There are some cases, of course, in which the tax cannot be shifted;
for example, taxes on vacant or unimproved land, or taxes on fixed
incomes and salaries. But all this is a small element in the total tax
bill.

Footnote 215:

Many public services which are now paid for out of the general taxes
were at one time supported by charging only those who made use of
them. Many of the first macadam roads were built by private companies,
which collected a few cents in toll from every person using them. Toll
bridges were not uncommon a generation ago and they still exist in
some places. Fees were charged in many places by the schools, so much
per pupil. Before regular police forces were established, well-to-do
people hired watchmen to patrol the streets around their property, the
poorer sections of the city being left without any protection at all.

Footnote 216:

The French statesman, Colbert, chief minister of Louis XIV, once said
that the art of taxing the people was like that of plucking a goose,
namely, to get the largest amount of feathers with the least amount of
squawking. There is more truth than fiction in that remark.

Footnote 217:

In a general way the distinction between _real_ and _personal_
property is simple enough, but the exact line between the two is not
as a practical matter so easy to draw. For example: Is grain growing
in the field real or personal property? Which is it after it is cut by
the reaper? To which class do the trees in the forest belong (_a_)
before they are cut down, (_b_) after they have been felled? Would it
be correct to say that cattle grazing in the field are converting real
estate into personal property?

Footnote 218:

Real estate is in plain sight and cannot be concealed from the taxing
authorities; but stocks, bonds, notes, and so forth, are kept in a
safe where no one sees them but the owner. There is no way of knowing
how much taxable wealth a man has hidden away unless he is honest
enough to tell. In some states the plan of taxing intangibles has been
given up altogether on the ground that such taxes are too easy to
evade. As a substitute these states impose a tax on _the income_ from
intangibles and require every person to make, once a year, a sworn
statement of such income.

Footnote 219:

The exemptions, allowances, and rates change from time to time. The
existing rules can be found in the latest edition of the _World
Almanac_. They cannot be briefly stated without serious danger of
inaccuracy.

Footnote 220:

See _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. III, p. 492. The court
held that a tax on land was a direct tax; that a tax on the income
from land was in effect a tax on land, and hence also a direct tax.

Footnote 221:

During the years 1918-1921 these excises were also laid on railway
tickets, telegrams, and sales at soda fountains. The excess profits
tax, which also brought in a large revenue during the years 1918-1922
was levied upon all business profits above a designated standard.

Footnote 222:

Every state undoubtedly has power to lay such a tax. There is some
doubt whether the national government also possesses it, because a tax
on the products of labor is in reality a means of regulating the
conditions of labor, and the constitution gives the national
government no authority to regulate the conditions of labor; such
authority belongs to the states. The question whether the national
government can levy a tax on the products of child labor is now
pending before the Supreme Court. See also p. 415.

Footnote 223:

People who have large fortunes may invest them in non-taxable
investments, such as state and municipal bonds, thus evading the heavy
surtaxes on incomes.

Footnote 224:

Henry George advocated that on all land a tax should be levied equal
to the full amount of its ground rent (see p. 43) and that all other
taxes should be abolished. This, in effect, would do away with the
private ownership of land, making the government the real owner. Mr.
George endeavored to prove that nearly all our economic troubles are
due to the private ownership of land and land monopoly. “What I
therefore propose”, he said, “as the simple yet sovereign remedy which
will raise wages, increase the earnings of capital, extirpate
pauperism, abolish poverty, give remunerative employment to whoever
wishes it, afford free scope to human powers, lessen crime, elevate
morals and taste and intelligence, purify government and carry
civilization to yet nobler heights, is—to appropriate rent by
taxation.” _Progress and Poverty_, Book VIII, Ch. ii. This is a good
example of the extravagant and Utopian hopes held out by reformers who
are carried away by a single idea. If earth could be changed into
heaven by merely taxing one thing instead of another, the
transformation would have been made long ago.

Footnote 225:

President Harding, early in 1922, suggested the imposition of a sales
tax as a practicable method of obtaining money with which to pay a
bonus to veterans of the World War.

Footnote 226:

It was the custom to take such individual measures as were approved by
the various committees and put them all together into what was called
an “omnibus bill”, providing for many millions of dollars to be spent
upon the erection of new post-offices, the dredging of harbors, and so
on. In these bills every congressman expected to get something for his
district, whether there was need or not. Such grants of money were
commonly known as “pork barrel” appropriations. One way of keeping
congressmen in Washington until the very last day of the session was
to hold back these appropriations until just before adjournment. Every
senator and representative would then stay at his post lest by some
mishap his particular item might be dropped out.

Footnote 227:

About ten billion dollars of this total was loaned by the United
States to England, France, and other countries to help them carry on
the war (see pp. 613-614).

Footnote 228:

There are some exceptions. The income from the first issue of Liberty
Bonds is entirely exempt from national taxation; the income from the
other issues is exempt up to a certain amount for a designated period
of years. All the bonds issued by the national government are exempt
from state and local taxation. Bonds issued by states, counties,
cities, and other municipalities are exempt from national taxation;
they may or may not be exempt from state and local taxes, depending
usually upon where the owner resides. For example, if a man owns bonds
issued by the city of San Francisco and resides in California, the
income from these bonds is exempt from state and local taxes; but if
the owner resides in some other state which has an income tax, the
income is taxable.

Footnote 229:

The debt of New York state is about one hundred and thirty-five
millions; no other state has a debt half as large. A few states have
no debts at all. The total net debt of the counties, cities, towns,
villages, and other communities is nearly five billions. It would be
conservative to say that the total public indebtedness of the American
people today is about twenty-eight billions. From this may be
subtracted, of course, the ten billions owed to the United States by
other countries. But even allowing for this, the debt is about $700
per family.

Footnote 230:

It is a sound rule of public finance that bonds ought not to run for a
longer period than the estimated life of a public improvement. For
example, if a new street pavement is estimated to be good for twenty
years, the bonds should all be repayable within that term. Very often,
however, the taxpayers of American cities have been paying off paving
bonds long after the pavements have completely worn out.

CHAPTER XXIV
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PUBLIC OWNERSHIP

_The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the nature of public
utilities, the various methods of regulating them, and the question
whether they ought to be owned by the government._

[Sidenote: Ordinary business is regulated by competition.]

=The Problem.=—In the case of most ordinary business enterprises the
factor which secures reasonable prices and good service to the customer
is competition. The customer who finds that prices are high or that
service is poor at one grocery store stops trading there and goes
somewhere else. The merchant who finds one bank unsatisfactory moves his
account to another bank. The wholesale dealer, if one factory does not
send him goods promptly, or charges him too much, gives his future
orders to some other factory. Stores, banks, and factories are in
competition with other establishments of their own kind; in order to get
business they are constantly trying to outstrip their competitors by
lowering prices and improving service. In this sense “competition is the
life of trade”. The rivalry of those who have goods or services to sell
is in itself enough to afford the public protection.

=Natural Monopolies.=—But there are certain lines of business in which
no real competition exists because they are monopolies. Monopolies, as
has already been pointed out, are of three different types, natural,
legal, or artificial (see p. 54); and all public service enterprises
(railroads, telegraphs, telephones, lighting plants, etc.) fall within
the first of these classes—they are _natural_ monopolies. We call them
public services or public utilities; but this is not merely because they
are of great importance to the public. Bread and meat are also of vast
public importance but we do not refer to the bakery and the meat market
as public services. [Sidenote: But public utilities are natural
monopolies.] Telephones, telegraphs, street railways are called public
services or public utilities because they are monopolies by nature. The
citizen has no alternative by reason of competition. If he wants to go
from one place to another, he cannot usually find two lines of railroad,
or if so, their rates are the same. If the rates for electric lighting
are exorbitant, he cannot tell the company that he will buy electric
light from someone else, for he is dealing with the only concern from
which electric light can be obtained in that particular locality. The
man who lives in Omaha can send to Chicago and buy his shoes there if he
finds that prices and quality are not satisfactory in his own city; but
he cannot get his telephone service or his electric light in that way.
He is absolutely dependent on local service and, as a rule, on one local
service alone.

[Sidenote: Their nature excludes competition.]

=Public Utilities do not Compete.=—Why do we say that these public
utilities are monopolies by nature? It is because their business, from
the way in which it is carried on, virtually excludes competition. It
would be physically possible to have two rival street railway companies
operating on the same street, two gas companies, and two electric
lighting companies; but imagine the congestion and inconvenience this
would cause! Moreover, it would practically double the amount of fixed
capital needed to provide the service and this would mean higher prices
to the public in the end.[231] In years gone by many cities tried the
plan of setting two public service companies in competition with one
another, and in a few cities competing telephone companies still exist;
but the competition is rarely in earnest and scarcely ever lasts very
long. The rival public service companies, finding that competition is
not profitable, presently form a combination and raise their rates. The
controlling fact is that light, power, transportation, and communication
(whether by telegraph, telephone, or post) can be more cheaply served by
a monopoly than by competing companies. There can be, in fact, _no
effective competition between public utilities operating in the same
area_.

=Being Monopolies They Must be Regulated.=—Now if public utilities are
monopolies by nature, and can never be anything else, it is essential
that the government shall exercise, in one way or another, sufficient
control over them to restrain them from abusing their power. [Sidenote:
Public utilities use public property.] This is all the more easy to do
because public utilities, unlike ordinary industrial or mercantile
concerns, must come to the state or city government for certain
privileges which they find necessary in order to carry on their
business. Every public utility finds it essential to use property which
belongs to the whole people. A railroad must run its tracks across the
highway; a gas company must lay its pipes beneath the pavements; an
electric lighting company must put some of its poles in the streets; a
street railway company, as its name implies, must make large use of the
public thoroughfares. Moreover, they all desire the right to take
whatever private property they may need for their terminals, power
houses, tanks, and so on. This is a right which only the government can
give.[232] So the public service companies, from the fact that they must
ask privileges from the government, render themselves amenable to
governmental control. It is not so with ordinary industrial monopolies
such as the making of steel or sugar or tobacco. [Sidenote: They also
use the right of eminent domain.] They do not, as a rule, ask for legal
privileges of any kind; they do not need permanent rights in the public
highways or demand that they be allowed to exercise the right to eminent
domain; hence they are not so easily brought under public regulation.

=How the Regulation is Effected.=—In order to use the streets or any
other public property, an individual or corporation must first obtain
official permission. The merchant who puts a sign out from his building
over the highway, the barber who sets his familiar red-and-white pole in
the sidewalk, the contractor who blocks the public passage way when he
is putting up a building—all must first get the city’s permission.
[Sidenote: Permits and franchises.] This is given by the city officials
in the form of a license or permit. But the public service company must
have a general permit covering rights in a great many streets and
holding good for a number of years. [Sidenote: Definition of a
franchise.] This general permission, which does not differ from an
individual permit except in its broader scope and longer duration, is
called a _franchise_. A franchise is merely a grant of the right to use
public property (the streets, particularly) either in perpetuity or for
a term of years and subject to certain conditions. Before any public
service company can begin operations it must first secure a franchise
from the state, city, town, or township as the case may be. The company
secures the rights and the government imposes the conditions.

[Sidenote: The old-type franchise.]

=Franchises, Past and Present.=—It was formerly the custom of states and
cities to grant franchises for long terms of years without imposing
strict conditions for the protection of the people. The reason for this
was, in part, the strong desire of the community to get the service at
once. When electric street railways first came into use, replacing the
old horse-cars, they were regarded as a godsend to the suburban
districts. There was a great popular clamor to have the horse-car lines
electrified as quickly as possible. So the companies that were willing
to provide this improved service obtained, in many cases, very liberal
franchises running for long terms and without strict conditions. These
were days, moreover, when city councilmen and state legislators often
proved susceptible to corrupt influences. Valuable privileges in many
cities were bartered away for next to nothing by dishonest or
incompetent officials. How many million dollars in franchises have been
practically given away by American states and cities during the past
generation no one has ever been able to calculate. Certain it is, at any
rate, that hundreds of private fortunes were made from these one-sided
bargains.

[Sidenote: The newer methods.]

But public opinion, in due course, became aroused to the injustice of
this free-and-easy method, and laws were passed forbidding the grant of
franchise privileges for longer than a designated term of years, or
without first giving the opponents of the grant an opportunity to be
heard.[233] In some cases the laws forbade the granting of any franchise
without the consent of the people at the polls. Provisions were also
made to ensure that in return for their privileges the companies should
pay a share of their annual profits into the city treasury.[234]
Finally, it became the practice to stipulate in the franchise that the
rates charged by the company, the quality of the service, and various
other features affecting the interests of the citizens, should be
subject to public regulation. Franchises are still granted by
legislatures and municipal councils but with much greater care than
formerly.

[Sidenote: Regulation by the terms of a franchise is not enough.]

=Administrative Regulation.=—In spite of these various restrictions,
however, it soon became apparent that a sufficiently close regulation of
public utilities could not be maintained by merely inserting various
conditions in their franchises. Franchises are granted for ten, twenty,
or even fifty years, and conditions greatly change within this period. A
provision in the franchise relating to the quality of gas, or the rate
of fare on street railways, or the candle-power of electric lamps may be
framed carefully to cover the needs of today, but no one can foresee
what will be needed five or ten years hence. Progress is continually
being made in the mechanism of public utilities as in all other branches
of industry. If regulation is to be effective, it must keep moving
forward as new devices and methods come into use. A franchise has the
defect of being a closed bargain. It stands still while the things which
it tries to regulate keep marching on. No written document, furthermore,
is self-enforcing, and unless some machinery is provided to make the
companies live up to their agreements there are always loopholes through
which they can evade the restrictions.

[Sidenote: It must be supplemented.]

In order to make the regulation of public utilities flexible and
effective, therefore, it has become the practice to supplement the terms
of franchises by a system of administrative regulation. Besides
inserting a long list of conditions in the franchise the government now
stipulates, as a rule, that the rates and the quality of service shall
be fixed from time to time, in accordance with existing conditions, by a
body of officials commonly known as a public service commission which is
supposed to deal fairly with all parties.

[Sidenote: State and municipal commissions.]

=Public Service Commissions.=—Public service commissions are in some
cases maintained by the cities; but more often they are state-appointed
bodies. There are two reasons which make it desirable that the
regulation of public utilities should be in the hands of the state
rather than under the control of the cities. In the first place the
jurisdiction of the city officials does not extend beyond the city
limits, whereas public service companies often do a considerable part of
their business outside. It is not uncommon, for example, to find the
same street railway, electric lighting, and telephone company operating
in several neighboring communities.[235] Municipal regulation, in such
cases, would subject the company to different rules in each community.

There is a second reason, namely, that public regulation is always
expensive. A public service commission must have skilled investigators
to assist it in deciding the technical questions which arise, and these
experts are costly to employ. Large cities can afford it, but in the
case of small communities it is better to have a single state commission
perform the functions of regulation for them all. In this way, moreover,
the regulations can be made uniform. Public service commissions consist
of three or five members; in cities they are appointed as a rule by the
mayor; in states they are usually appointed by the governor; but in some
states they are elected by popular vote. Appointment is now regarded as
the more satisfactory method.

[Sidenote: Work of these commissions.]

The work of a public service commission covers a wide range. Its chief
function is to see that the companies live up to the terms of their
franchises and obey the laws relating to public utilities. It hears
complaints from city officials and citizens, investigates these
complaints, obtains the company’s side of the case, and makes such
decision as the matter seems to require. It prevents discriminations in
favor of one community against another, and insists that equally good
service be given to all; it requires financial reports from the various
companies and often has power to fix the maximum rates which they may
charge. In some states it is the practice to grant “indeterminate”
franchises, or franchises which run for no stated term of years, coupled
with the provision that the franchise may be canceled at any time by
order of the public service commission if the company does not comply
with the conditions. It can easily be seen, therefore, that public
service commissions have a degree of authority which can readily be
abused unless the commissioners are fair-minded and absolutely honest
men. Their position is like that of judges, in a sense, for their
function is to hold evenly the scales of justice between the companies
on the one hand and the public on the other. Fairness is the essence of
successful regulation.

[Sidenote: Has regulation been satisfactory?]

=Public Ownership.=—By the methods which have been described in the
foregoing pages the government has been able to protect, fairly well, on
the whole, the interests of the public. Railroads, telegraph companies,
electric lighting plants, and other similar corporations are no longer
able to do as they please. On the contrary their owners are inclined to
feel that public regulation has gone too far and has become oppressive.
Yet regulation has not always been satisfactory to the public. The
complaint is often made that members of public service commissions are
chosen for political reasons and that their work, in such cases, is
neither effective nor impartial. The success of regulation has varied in
different parts of the country. In some states it has been satisfactory
to both sides; in others it has satisfied neither.

[Sidenote: Would public ownership be better?]

Because regulation has not proved successful in all cases the proposal
is sometimes made that the utilities should be taken over and operated
by the government itself. Those who support this policy of public
ownership believe that the national government should take over the
railroads, telegraphs, and telephone lines, while the states and the
cities should become owners of all the street railways, gas companies,
and electric lighting concerns. These utilities should then be publicly
managed, they argue, just as the postal service is now conducted by the
national government, or as water supplies are now provided by the
cities.[236]

[Sidenote: Public ownership overseas.]

=European Experience in Public Ownership.=—It is pointed out, in this
connection, that the policy of public ownership has been widely followed
in various European countries, particularly in Great Britain, France,
and Germany. In Germany the railroads have been for many years owned and
operated by the government. In all three countries the telegraphs are
government-owned, and are operated in connection with the post-offices.
The telephone service is also in public hands. Gas and electric lighting
plants are to some extent owned by companies in various European cities,
but the majority of them have been taken over by the municipal
authorities. Even the street railways have been passing under municipal
ownership. Many European cities, moreover, not only operate these
various public services but conduct other municipal enterprises, such as
abattoirs, bakeries, theatres, savings banks, and even pawnshops as
well.[237]

[Sidenote: American experience has been less extensive.]

=Public Ownership in America.=—In the United States the policy of public
ownership has not been nearly so popular. The railroads, telegraphs, and
telephones are owned and operated by private companies. They were
managed by the national government for a time during the war, but when
the emergency ended they were returned to their owners. Among the larger
cities of the United States only five or six own and operate their gas
plants; about twenty have municipal ownership of electric lighting
plants.[238] Street railway lines are owned by the city in only three or
four instances; but in several other communities they are being operated
by the public authorities under leases from the owners.[239] When one
bears in mind that the total number of public utilities in the United
States runs up into the thousands it will be seen that the policy of
public ownership has had a relatively small and slow development on this
side of the Atlantic.

=Arguments for Public Ownership.=—The chief arguments in favor of public
ownership in the United States may be briefly set forth as follows:
[Sidenote: 1. Regulation has failed.] First, all public utilities, being
natural monopolies, require a stricter measure of regulation than can
ever be provided by any form of public supervision. So long as these
utilities remain in private hands there will be a continual effort to
evade public regulation and this effort will usually be successful
because rich and powerful companies are exceedingly difficult to control
under a democratic form of government. “We have tried regulation”, the
advocates of public ownership say, “and it has not been satisfactory.
Therefore, let us try the only other alternative, which is to buy out
the companies altogether.” [Sidenote: 2. Lower rates and better
service.] Second, under public ownership the people would obtain lower
rates and better service. This would be possible because the government
could procure capital more cheaply than private companies and thus make
a substantial saving in interest.[240] It would not be seeking for
profits, but would strive to give service at actual cost. If the
government owned all the utilities, moreover, it could buy supplies and
materials in large quantities and hence at lower prices. Each street
railway company now buys rails, cars, cables, coal, and so on for
itself. If a state owned all the street railways within its territory,
it would purchase these things on a much larger scale. [Sidenote: 3.
More just to labor.] Third, public ownership means a fairer and better
treatment of the employees. Wages, as a rule, are higher in public than
in private employment (assuming the same degree of training and skill);
the hours of labor are not so long (since the eight-hour day is now
generally recognized in public employment); and there is better
protection against arbitrary dismissal. For these reasons labor
organizations usually favor public ownership. [Sidenote: 4. The effect
on politics.] Fourth, the public service companies have had a
detrimental influence upon American politics. They are seekers of public
privileges, and in their zeal to obtain favors are under strong
temptation to work in a quiet way for the election of public officials
who will be friendly to them. They form a part of what Mr. Elihu Root
once spoke of as the “invisible government”. Through their paid agents
and lobbyists they try to influence the action of legislatures and city
councils in ways which are to their own financial advantage but
detrimental to the public interest. The abolition of all franchises and
the direct public ownership of all utilities would remove, it is
asserted, a corrupting influence from American politics. These are the
chief arguments used by the advocates of public ownership.

=The Arguments Against Public Ownership.=—But there is much to be said
on the other side. [Sidenote: 1. More costly to the public.] First, it
is claimed that public ownership, by reason of higher wages and less
efficient management, would prove to be far more expensive than private
enterprise, and that in the long run the increased cost would have to be
paid by the people. This higher cost might take the form of higher rates
for the service or it might come out of the general taxes; but it would
fall on the public in either case. When the national government operated
the railroads during the war it kept the freight and passenger rates
low; the result was a deficit amounting to about a billion dollars,
which had to be made good out of the public treasury. The taxpayers
carried a burden which should have been borne by the shippers and
passengers. [Sidenote: 2. Means retention of obsolete methods.] Second,
public ownership would mean poor service; the utilities would not keep
up with modern methods; the public would be put to great inconvenience
by reason of incompetent management. Private companies are alert, on the
look-out for new economies, and always ready to adopt improved methods.
The incentive to all this is their desire to make greater profits. They
do not hesitate to spend money upon improvements if by so doing they can
obtain more business and increase their earnings.[241] Remove this
incentive, as is done when the government operates a public utility, and
everybody takes his job easily. [Sidenote: 3. Would not improve
political conditions.] Third, municipal ownership would merely
substitute the influence of organized labor for that of organized
capital in politics. The nation, states, and cities would have an
enormous number of officials and employees on their respective pay
rolls. The employees would also be voters. They would stand solidly for
whichever political party offered them better wages, fewer hours of
labor, and other advantages. The interests of the public would have
scant consideration in the face of organized political pressure from
this huge array of government workers. Even today the city employees are
an important factor in municipal politics. What would they be if their
numbers were doubled or trebled? The railroad employees of the country
number many hundred thousand. Count in their wives (who are also
voters), their relatives and friends, the voters whom they can
personally influence, and you will see that they would form no
negligible factor in national politics. [Sidenote: 4. European
experience not applicable.] Fourth, although public ownership has been
moderately successful in European countries where the governments are
highly centralized it does not follow that it would have the same
success in this country. In the United States, where government is
conducted on a democratic basis, with short terms of office and strong
partisan forces at work, with the spoils system still flourishing in
many states and cities, public ownership would result in gross
mismanagement and extravagance. If the government is to engage in
business it should first put itself on a business basis. Before it
undertakes to operate the railroads or the telephone service it should
introduce efficiency into its own governmental functions.

[Sidenote: Weight of the foregoing arguments.]

=Summary.=—In balancing these various arguments, one against the other,
and in comparing the relative merits of public regulation with those of
public ownership, much depends upon local conditions. It cannot be said
that either policy is the better one at all times, in all communities,
for all utilities, and under all circumstances. Where public regulation
has been satisfactory there is a good deal to be said for the policy of
letting well enough alone. Where the policy of regulation has not been
successful the arguments for trying the experiment of public ownership
become stronger. It ought to be remarked, however, that if local
conditions are such as to make regulation a failure they are not likely
to make public ownership a success. A state or community which cannot
hold capital under effective control is not likely to be much more
successful in its dealings with a large body of public employees. No
great weight should be attached to the fact that public ownership has
succeeded in one city or failed in another. The success or failure of
public ownership, as a policy, cannot be fairly judged from this or that
adventure in it, any more than we can judge the outcome of a campaign
from the winning or losing of a single skirmish. Banks sometimes fail,
yet our banking system is sound. Speculators occasionally succeed, and
make fortunes, but that does not prove speculation to be a profitable
form of business.

So far as can be judged from the figures of profit and loss, public
ownership is less economical than private management. The community
which owns and operates a street railway or a lighting plant or any
other public utility will not make a profit, in most cases, unless it
charges higher rates than would be charged by a private company. The
books may show a profit, but this is because not all expenses which
ought to be charged to the plant are put down; they are saddled upon the
taxpayer in some roundabout way. Public ownership cannot be justified as
a matter of pennies and dimes. [Sidenote: The question is not one of
profit and loss alone.] But profit and loss are not the only things to
be considered. The question as to which plan is better for the public is
much more than a question of surplus or deficit. The fair treatment of
labor, the reliability of the service, the removal of sinister political
influences—these should be reckoned with as well. And that is where
people with different points of view fail to agree. The advisability of
public ownership is an intensely practical issue which cannot be solved
by appealing to any set rules or principles. It is entirely logical for
one to favor public ownership of the water supply while opposing its
extension to the street railway. One is closely related to the public
health; the other is not. In a well-governed community, where the
service rendered by a private company has proved to be unsatisfactory,
the policy of public ownership may be entirely justified. This does not
mean, however, that the people of boss-ridden cities, with the spoils
system in full operation, should take over public services which are
doing well enough under private management. Conditions, not theories,
should determine which is the wise policy.

=Guild Operation.=—In recent years another alternative to private
ownership has been put forth. It is known as guild ownership. Knowing
that many people are disinclined toward public ownership because they
fear that it would merely mean the mismanagement of the public services
by politicians, some labor leaders have proposed that the utilities
should be owned and operated by the organized employees. In brief they
suggest that the government should supply the capital (receiving
interest on it, of course,) and that the employees should operate the
utilities through officials chosen by them, or chosen by themselves and
the government jointly. The Plumb plan, put forward in 1919 as a
solution of the railroad problem, was a proposal of this nature. Some
advocates of guild operation believe in applying this policy not only to
public utilities but to all industries.

General References

F. W. TAUSSIG, _Principles of Economics_, Vol. II, pp. 397-418;

CLYDE L. KING, _The Regulation of Municipal Utilities_, pp. 3-55;

H. G. JAMES, _Municipal Functions_, pp. 246-281 (Public Utilities); pp.
282-295 (Municipal Ownership);

Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, 1917-1918, _Bulletins_, No. 22
(Municipal Ownership in the United States);

E. M. PHELPS (editor), _Government Ownership of Railroads_ (Debaters’
Handbook Series). Contains material on both sides of the question. See
also K. B. JUDSON (editor), _Government Ownership of Telegraphs and
Telephones_, and J. E. JOHNSON, _Municipal Ownership_, in the same
series;

F. C. HOWE, _The Modern City and its Problems_, pp. 149-164.

Group Problems

=1. Government ownership of telegraphs and telephones.= History of the
wire services. How the telegraph and telephone companies are organized.
Present methods of regulation by the national, state, and local
authorities. Public ownership of telegraphs and telephones in Europe.
The results of European experience. American experience during the war.
Summary and conclusions. =References=: K. B. JUDSON (editor),
_Government Ownership of Telegraphs and Telephones_ (Debaters’ Handbook
Series); A. N. HOLCOMBE, _Government Ownership of Telephones in Europe_,
pp. 441-463; H. R. MEYER, _Public Ownership and the Telephone of Great
Britain_, pp. 239-268; W. W. WILLOUGHBY, _Government Organization in War
Time_, pp. 191-198.

=2. State regulation of public utilities.= =References=: H. G. JAMES,
_Municipal Functions_, pp. 246-281; C. L. KING, _Regulation of Municipal
Utilities_, pp. 253-263; G. P. JONES, _State Versus Local Regulation_,
in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, LIII
(May, 1914), pp. 94-107; _Proceedings of the Conference of American
Mayors_, 1915, pp. 123-162; H. M. POLLOCK and H. S. MORGAN, _Modern
Cities_, pp. 225-249.

=3. Municipal ownership in Europe.= =References=: G. B. SHAW, _The
Common Sense of Municipal Trading_, pp. 17-42; LEONARD DARWIN,
_Municipal Ownership_, pp. 33-66; DOUGLAS KNOOP, _Principles and Methods
of Municipal Trading_, pp. 95-106; F. C. HOWE, _European Cities at
Work_, pp. 37-67; YVES GUYOT, _Where and Why Public Ownership Has
Failed_, pp. 55-71; W. H. DAWSON, _Municipal Life and Government in
Germany_, pp. 208-259; C. D. THOMPSON, _Municipal Ownership_, pp. 15-25;
_National Civic Federation Report_ (1907), Part I, Vol. I, pp. 261-302.

Short Studies

1. =Franchises.= _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. II, pp.
44-48.

2. =A model street railway franchise.= C. L. KING, _Regulation of
Municipal Utilities_, pp. 165-181.

3. =Gas and electric lighting franchises.= W. B. MUNRO, _Principles and
Methods of Municipal Administration_, pp. 247-257.

4. =Germany’s experience in public ownership.= W. H. DAWSON, _Municipal
Life and Government in Germany_, pp. 208-259.

5. =Great Britain’s experience in public ownership.= DOUGLAS KNOOP,
_Principles and Methods of Municipal Trading_, pp. 306-365.

6. =Municipal ownership in the United States.= Massachusetts
Constitutional Convention, 1917-1918, _Bulletin_, No. 22; National Civic
Federation, _Shall the Government Own and Operate the Railroads, the
Telegraph and Telephone Systems? The Affirmative Side_; _Ibid._, _The
Negative Side_.

7. =Guild ownership.= G. D. H. COLE, _Guild Socialism_, pp. 42-77.

8. =Public service commissions.= S. P. ORTH, _Readings on the Relation
of Government to Industry_, pp. 308-343.

9. =The danger of giving government too much to do.= OTTO H. KAHN,
_American Economic Problems_, pp. 235-275.

10. =The Plumb plan.= Public Ownership League, _Bulletin_, No. 12, pp.
86-100; _Ibid._, _Bulletin_, No. 14, pp. 59-74; 127-130.

Questions

1. Name all the principal public service industries of the present day.
Would you say that the following are public utilities: abattoirs; grain
elevators; coal mines; pipe lines for conveying oil from city to city;
wireless telegraph establishments; airships carrying passengers;
automobiles; taxicabs; jitney busses; hotels; steamships; docks; banks;
hospitals? Why or why not in each case?

2. Make a definition of public utilities which will square with your
answer to the previous question.

3. If a merchant should install an electric generator to provide light
for his own store, would he be then engaged in a public service and
would he require a franchise? If he desired to sell current to his
neighbors (without crossing a street) would he then require a franchise?
Give your reasons.

4. Certain industries are particularly suited to public management (for
example, the postal service and water supply). Name some others. Why are
they suited?

5. What provisions should be made in a street railway franchise as
regards term, fares, service, contributions by the company to the public
treasury, disposal of the plant when the franchise expires, and
regulation during the franchise term?

6. Can you give any reasons why the government should carry mail but not
telegrams? Parcels by post but not by express?

7. Name some reasons why the effective regulation of public utilities is
difficult.

8. What public utilities are operated in your city? By what companies?
When do their franchises expire? Who regulates them? Would any of them
be better managed under public ownership?

9. Which of the arguments for municipal ownership seem to you to be the
strongest, and why? Which of the arguments against?

10. Would it be consistent for an Englishman to favor municipal
ownership of street railways in London but to oppose it in New York
after becoming a resident there?

Topics for Debate

1. Street railways should be (_a_) owned and operated by private
companies, or (_b_) owned by private companies and operated by the
government, or (_c_) owned and operated by the government.

2. Guild operation should be applied to all public utilities.

-----

Footnote 231:

The cost of any public service is made up largely of two items,
overhead charges and running expenses. In the case of electric light
the overhead charges include interest on the capital invested in power
houses, machinery, wires and poles, conduits; also such things as
insurance, taxes, and rentals, which go on whether the plant produces
much or little. Running expenses include the cost of labor, coal,
supplies, etc., and these things, of course, vary with the amount of
business done. Overhead charges often make up half the cost of
producing electric current; so if you double the overhead, the price
to the consumer would go up, not down.

Footnote 232:

Public service companies, when the government gives them the power to
take private property by right of eminent domain must pay just
compensation for what they take. The government could not give a
company power to take private property without compensation, for it
does not itself possess that power.

Footnote 233:

Franchises were often granted in _perpetuity_. When the laws forbade
the granting of perpetual franchises the attempt was sometimes made to
evade this restriction by granting them for 999 years. Sometimes the
grant of a franchise was put through the board of aldermen or the city
council without any notice being given to the public. Loud protests
then followed, but they availed little after the grant had been made.

Footnote 234:

These payments are arranged in a variety of ways. Sometimes a gas
company pays the city so much per year for every mile of gas-mains or
so much per million cubic feet of gas sold. Street railway companies
occasionally pay so much each year per mile of track. More commonly
the payment is based upon gross earnings or upon the value of the
company’s capital stock, or upon the estimated value of its franchise.
In some instances the franchise is sold to the highest bidder, that is
the company which offers to pay most for the privilege of using the
streets gets it.

Footnote 235:

The street railway system of Boston, for example, operates in more
than twenty other cities and towns. A single telephone company
sometimes controls the telephone service in all the cities and towns
of the state or even in several states.

Footnote 236:

Fifty years ago these water supplies were usually controlled by
private companies operating under franchises. Today there are very few
public water-supply companies in the country. Among the sixty-five
cities of over 100,000 population there are only six which do not have
municipal ownership of this service.

Footnote 237:

The city of Glasgow, in Scotland, is sometimes cited as an example of
a community which has gone the longest distance in the way of
municipal ownership. The citizen of Glasgow, it is said, may be born
in a municipal tenement, be fed on milk from the municipal dairy
(which is warmed on a municipal gas stove), be transported to school
on municipal tramcars, and when he dies be carried off in a municipal
hearse to the municipal cemetery.

Footnote 238:

There are about thirty municipal gas plants and several hundred
municipal electric lighting plants in the United States; but the great
majority of them are in small communities.

Footnote 239:

There are municipal street railways in San Francisco, Seattle, and New
Orleans. Public operation of street railways, without public
ownership, is the policy of Boston and several other cities. These
street railways are operated on a _service-at-cost_ plan. The
government of the state or city takes over the street railway,
appoints officials to manage it, and charges whatever fares are
necessary to pay the expenses of operation (including whatever rate of
interest is to be paid to the owners of the street railway). When
wages go up, fares go up. In some cases service-at-cost has been
proved to be a costly plan. When wages went up during and after the
war, fares rose correspondingly. But although wages have come down
since 1920 in private employments, they have not been reduced to the
same extent on publicly-owned street railways, hence the fares remain
where they were. To be fair to the public, the system ought to work
both ways.

Footnote 240:

The national, state, and municipal governments can borrow money at
five per cent or less; the companies have to pay six or seven per cent
under present conditions.

Footnote 241:

Notice the way in which gas and electric lighting companies try to
increase their business by selling gas stoves, electric irons, and
other appliances at low figures and on the installment plan. Telephone
companies place public pay-stations in every nook and corner to pick
up a few extra nickels and dimes. Telegraph companies give special
rates on night letters to get messages which would be sent by mail if
the regular rates were charged. Can you imagine the post-office
keeping open at night in order to obtain more business?

CHAPTER XXV
EDUCATION

_The purpose of this chapter is to explain why education is made
compulsory, how the schools are managed, what they cost, and what
they are trying to do._

[Sidenote: In a democracy education is essential.]

=Education and Democracy.=—No matter where one may go, in any part of
the world, it will be found that political democracy and public
education tend to keep pace with each other. In despotisms one will
rarely find a system of universal, free, public education; or, if it is
found, one can be sure that the despotism will not last very long.
Education is the friend of democracy and the foe of despotism. Indeed it
can fairly be said that without a system of public education no
democracy can be sure of its own permanence. This is because the
maintenance of democratic government depends upon the ability of the
people to think straight and to see things clearly. The more political
freedom you give a people the greater is their opportunity for abusing
it.

[Sidenote: Free government depends on intelligence.]

In a real democracy the only safeguard is the common sense of the
people, and a system of free, public education will do more for the
diffusion of common sense among the people than anything else can do. It
is unsafe to place the ballot in the hands of people without giving them
the opportunity to acquire that degree of enlightenment which is
necessary to enable them to use the ballot intelligently. The voter who
cannot read a newspaper or understand the public questions which he is
called upon to decide is a poor foundation upon which to build a
government. More than fifty years ago, when England practically adopted
manhood suffrage, some of the old-fashioned statesmen bemoaned the fact
that the multitudes of the people would be “masters” of the government.
“Well, then”, said a certain member of Parliament, “educate your
masters!” That is the only way to keep a democratic government honest,
intelligent, orderly, and capable.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Illustration:

THE EVOLUTION OF THE BOOK. By John W. Alexander

_From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis & Cameron, Boston.
Reproduced by permission._
]

THE EVOLUTION OF THE BOOK

By John W. Alexander

These three mural paintings are in the East Corridor
of the Library of Congress.

The first depicts the spread of knowledge by oral
tradition. A seer, or wise man, narrates by word of
mouth to his tribesmen the story of the race. This
was, in earliest times, the only way of imparting
knowledge. Then, after many centuries, came the
making of manuscript books on parchment. The monks
of the Middle Ages, as shown in the central picture,
spent much of their time in the laborious task of
making books—each letter being printed by hand.
Finally came the invention of printing. In the third
picture Gutenburg, the inventor, is inspecting one
of the pages just completed by the primitive press
which the boy is turning by hand.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: If so, why are intelligent men sometimes corrupt in
politics?]

But someone may interpose to ask this embarrassing question: If
education helps to make people more intelligent in political matters,
why is it that well-educated and intelligent people are often found
among corrupt and selfish politicians, and that even college graduates
sometimes become notorious political bosses? The answer is that in this,
as in other things, a general truth does not cease to be a general truth
because there are exceptions to it. Many well-educated men are unable to
earn a living, but would any sensible person argue that education, as a
general rule, renders no aid toward the gaining of a livelihood? As well
might one urge that newspapers render no service in disseminating the
truth because some of them occasionally print lies. It is quite true
that men are not politically wise in exact proportion to the extent of
their education. The man or woman who is only a grammar school graduate
may have more political wisdom than the most finished scholar in the
land. But this does not impair the fundamental truth that knowledge is
preferable to ignorance in all countries, at all times, and in every
field of human activity.

[Sidenote: The general purpose of education.]

=Education and Personal Efficiency.=—To make men and women intelligent
in matters of government is not, however, the only purpose of education.
The general prosperity of the country depends, in the long run, upon the
individual ability of its citizens. Every individual who proves able to
earn his own living, establish a home, bring up a family, and by his
savings add something to the nation’s capital is a contributor to the
national prosperity. Every individual who fails to make his own way and
becomes dependent, either in whole or in part, upon the efforts of
others, is a drag upon the community. In its own interest, therefore, it
is the duty of the whole people to see that everyone is not only enabled
but encouraged to become personally efficient, able to make his own way
in the world, and capable of pulling his own weight in that many-oared
boat which carries the progress of society along.

[Sidenote: The specific purposes of education:]

=The Purpose and Value of Education.=—The purpose of education therefore
is three-fold. [Sidenote: 1. Economic.] First, it aims to give young men
and women the sort of training which will enable them to earn a living.
This is a primary and fundamental purpose, because earning a living is
one of life’s great problems. But it is not the only purpose of
education; an educational system would be very defective if it confined
itself to this and nothing more. [Sidenote: 2. Personal.] The second
purpose of education is to develop the personality of the individual,
his own resources and mentality, so that he may enjoy those durable
satisfactions of life which are not directly connected with the work of
earning a livelihood. The enjoyment which men and women derive from life
is not entirely dependent upon the amount of their incomes; one need
only to look about the community to realize that this is so. Even a
large fortune does not of itself guarantee happiness. To live a full and
contented life it is necessary to know what is going on in the world, to
appreciate its significance, and to understand the many things which, to
the uneducated man or woman, are hidden mysteries. Education helps an
individual to know himself, to know what is going on around him, to
understand the motives which govern the actions of his fellow-men, and
to adjust himself to the environment in which he lives. Knowledge is
power. It is power in the hands of everyone who possesses it. [Sidenote:
3. Social.] The third purpose of education, the social purpose, is also
of great importance. Education aims to train the individual so that he
may better serve his fellow-men. Democracy, as has been said, rests upon
the intelligence of the people. A democratic government exacts from its
citizens a sort of service which education alone can teach them to
give.[242]

[Sidenote: The illiteracy of bygone days.]

=The Growth of Public Education.=—For many centuries in the history of
the world the masses of the people were afforded no opportunity for even
the elements of education. Not one person in ten thousand could read or
write. Even kings on the throne were illiterate. There is a well-known
picture of King John, with a crown on his head and a quill pen in his
hand, signing the Great Charter. It is an altogether fanciful picture,
because John Plantagenet could not write a single word, not even his own
name. No copy of Magna Carta or any other document has ever been found
with his signature on it. The only persons who could read or write in
those days were the monks and other officers of the Church together with
a very few laymen who were educated by them. Even after the invention of
printing, education spread slowly and it was not until the nineteenth
century that the desirability of providing free schools for the masses
of the people came to be generally recognized. Prior to that time
education was almost everywhere regarded as a luxury to be bought and
paid for by the relatively few individuals who could afford it.

[Sidenote: The first American schools.]

In the United States free education goes back to colonial days. As early
as 1647 the colony of Massachusetts Bay provided that a schoolmaster
should be appointed and paid out of the taxes in every town of more than
fifty families and that this schoolmaster should teach all the children
“to write and reade”; but this example was not generally followed in the
other colonies. It has been estimated that not more than half the
population in the colonial days could read and write. The proportion of
illiteracy among women was especially large because very little
provision was made for educating girls. Even after the Revolution the
system of free, public schools spread slowly and not until the middle of
the nineteenth century did it cover the greater portion of the country.
Since the Civil War, however, the policy of making education not only
free but compulsory has been adopted in virtually every part of the
United States. The total enrolment in the public schools is now more
than twenty-two millions, and the cost of educating the vast array of
young citizens is considerably over a billion dollars a year.

[Sidenote: The function of the state in education.]

=The Control and Management of Education.=—As the national constitution
gives the federal government no power to control education the
responsibility rests with the several states. Every state has
established a system of free, public education, but the methods of
control and management differ greatly from one state to another. Some
states have centralized the management of the schools in the hands of
the state authorities; others leave this very largely to the school
officials of the counties, cities, or districts. Everywhere there is a
state department of education, with a board or a superintendent in
charge, some states having both. The local educational unit may be the
city, town, township, school district, or (especially in the Southern
states) the county. A school board, usually elected, erects the school
buildings, chooses a school superintendent, appoints principals and
teachers (on the recommendation of the superintendent), and appropriates
money for the support of the schools. The detailed work of managing the
schools rests primarily upon the superintendent.[243]

[Sidenote: Where should the chief control be lodged?]

=Central vs. Local Control of Schools.=—To what extent should the public
schools be under the control of the state authorities? Is it advisable
that local school boards should be left free to manage the schools as
they think best, without interference from the state? These are
questions upon which the opinions of educators differ. It is argued that
the school board, in every city, town, or township knows best the needs
of its own community and hence ought to be given a free hand in meeting
these needs. This policy, moreover, affords each school a chance to try
experiments and it is through experiments that progress in education, as
in everything else, is usually made. On the other hand it is logical to
assert that if the state laws make education compulsory and if the state
treasury grants money to local schools it is the right of the state to
see that the money is properly spent. If every city, town, and village
were left free to manage its schools without any central control there
would be no uniformity in the subjects taught, in the qualifications of
teachers, or in the organization of the schools. It would be difficult
in that case for a pupil to transfer from one school to another, outside
the same community, without finding himself a misfit in the new
institution. A certain amount of central control seems therefore to be
desirable, but it is not for the best interests of education that every
school throughout the state should be conducted in exactly the same way.
A system of that sort tends to deaden the whole process of education.
There is a great deal to be said for home rule in education, provided
there is a sufficient amount of state supervision to keep the schools up
to a proper standard.

[Sidenote: Keeping the schools out of politics.]

=School Boards and Politics.=—It is generally agreed that party politics
should have no place in the management of the public schools. There may
be justification for party politics in lawmaking bodies; but in school
boards there is none. There is an efficient way of managing the schools
and an inefficient way; but there is no such thing as a Republican way
or a Democratic way. Yet elections to school boards are, in many
communities, contested upon party lines. Men and women are nominated and
elected, very often, because they belong to one or the other political
party, not because they have good judgment or a deep interest in school
affairs. In this, however, public sentiment is gradually changing. In
many places the school board elections have become non-partisan; party
designations have been taken off the ballots, and it matters little
which party a candidate belongs to. Why should it? What relation is
there between a man’s views on the tariff or the league of nations and
his ability to serve his own neighbors acceptably as a member of a local
school board? There is no visible relation. Taking the schools out of
politics means that the taxpayers get greater value for the money which
is spent in maintaining the schools, that all questions are decided upon
their merits and not by political favoritism, and that every pupil gets
the benefit of better schools, better teachers, and better educational
methods.

=Educational Work of the National Government.=—The national government,
as has already been pointed out, possesses no formal powers with respect
to education in the states. Nevertheless it has done a good deal to
promote the interests of public education by publishing the results of
investigations into educational problems, and by rendering advisory
assistance to the state authorities. [Sidenote: The national Bureau of
Education.] It maintains a Bureau of Education which is now within the
jurisdiction of the Interior Department. At the head of this bureau is a
Commissioner of Education appointed by the President. The functions of
the bureau are almost wholly of an informal character; it collects data
for the use of educators and publishes this material in annual reports
and bulletins.[244] There has been a strong movement to make this bureau
a regular Department of Education, with a member of the cabinet at its
head, and to increase its powers considerably; but this movement has not
yet been successful.

=Federal Aid to Education.=—Within the last few years there has been a
good deal of controversy, both in Congress and outside, over a proposal
to appropriate further funds from the national treasury for the
promotion of general education in the states, particularly in those
states where the common school system needs toning up. [Sidenote: The
Towner-Sterling Bill: its merits and defects.] This proposal is embodied
in a measure which has been before Congress for some time but upon which
no favorable action has yet been taken.[245] In favor of the measure it
is argued that public elementary education is a national necessity and
that if any state cannot raise sufficient money to keep its common
schools up to a proper standard the interests of the whole nation will
suffer in the end. There is just as much reason, and more, it is
asserted, for federal aid to state schools as for such aid to state
roads. On the other hand it is objected that the policy of large federal
subsidies to education would involve the taxing of the populous and
thriving states of the East, the Middle West, and the Pacific Slope for
the benefit of those other states, especially in the South, where the
school system has heretofore been backward through lack of funds. Most
of the federal government’s income is provided by the taxpayers of
states like New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Massachusetts.
But in these states the public school system has already been brought up
to a standard where there is no urgent need for federal assistance. The
chief gainers under the new plan would be the states which contribute
very little of the revenue. In other words, we should be taxing some
states for the benefit of others. A somewhat more weighty objection, to
some minds, is found in the possibility that if the national government
begins the practice of making large annual grants to the states for
educational purposes it may, in due course, undertake to exercise
control over the public school systems of the entire country. When a
government grants money for any purpose it has an undeniable right to
make sure that the money is being properly spent. To do this it must
create some system of inspection. Inspection leads to supervision, and
supervision sooner or later merges into actual control. It is feared in
some quarters that this would be the ultimate outcome of federal aid to
common school education on any large scale.

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ┌─────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ THE PUBLIC │ │
│ └────────────┬────────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ┌─────────┴──────────┐ │
│ ┌──────────┤ BOARD OF EDUCATION ├─────────┐ │
│ │ └─────────┬──────────┘ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│┌───┴───┐ ┌───────┴────────┐ ┌────┴────┐ │
││ CLERK │ ┌───┤ SUPERINTENDENT │ │ COUNSEL │ │
│└───────┘ │ └────┬──┬──┬─────┘ └─────────┘ │
│ ┌─────┴─────┐ │ │ │ │
│ │ SECRETARY │ │ │ │ │
│ └───────────┘ │ │ │ │
│ ┌───────────────┘ │ └─────────────────┐ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ ┌─────┴──────┐ │ │
│ │ ┌─────────┤ PRINCIPALS ├─────────┐ │ │
│┌─────┴──┴──┐ └─────┬──────┘ ┌──┴───┴──────┐│
││ ENGINEERS │ │ │ SUPERVISORS ││
││ JANITORS │ │ └──┬───┬──────┘│
│└─────┬──┬──┘ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ ┌─────────┴─────────┐ │ │ │
│ │ └─────┤ TEACHERS ├──────┘ │ │
│ │ └─────────┬─────────┘ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ ┌────┴──────────────────┴────────────────────┴─────┐ │
│ │ PUPILS │ │
│ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

HURON PLAN OF SCHOOL ORGANIZATION

THE CONTROL OF EDUCATION

This diagram illustrates a common type of municipal
school administration. The voters choose a Board of
Education, or School Board. This body, in turn,
appoints a Superintendent of Schools who has
supervision over all matters of school management.
In some cities the members of the Board of Education
are appointed by the mayor. In the larger
municipalities there are, as a rule, one or more
assistant superintendents.

Make a similar chart showing the organization of the
school system in your own community.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: A series of present-day questions.]

=Some Problems of School Organization.=—Several problems of great
importance are engaging the attention of the school authorities at the
present time. The more conspicuous among them may be indicated by a
series of questions which are under discussion wherever educators come
together, but which are also of direct interest to the pupils and to the
community. To what age should school attendance be made compulsory? How
can pupils be kept from leaving school before they have received a
sufficient amount of education? How should the school course be divided?
Should we have junior high schools and junior colleges as well as
regular high schools and regular colleges? How may the training of
teachers be improved? Can the work of the schools be brought into closer
and better contact with the resources of the public library? Is it
possible to use the school plant, after school hours, for various forms
of community service? Can greater use be made of the school plant during
the school day? And where are we going to get the money with which to
carry on all these new enterprises if we ultimately agree that they are
desirable? This list of questions may seem to contain some that are not
related to one another, but they all point to different aspects of the
same great problem and may be summed up in the one broad query: What
changes in school organization will better enable education to fulfil
its three-fold purpose?

[Sidenote: Compulsory school attendance.]

=The School Age.=—To what age should attendance be made compulsory? In
most of the states this age is now fixed at fourteen years (or grammar
school graduation) although some Southern states still maintain the
twelve-year limit. Many believe that even the fourteen-year limit is not
high enough and are urging that it be raised. In some states a step in
this direction has been taken by requiring that all persons under
sixteen years of age who engage in any form of wage-earning employment
must either present a certificate of graduation from grammar school or
must attend continuation classes for so many hours per week. More urgent
than any raising of the school age, however, is the need for more
strictly enforcing the rules which now exist. In some communities the
present age limit of fourteen years is not insisted upon, with the
result that many thousands in the backward rural sections and in the
crowded districts of cities are growing up in illiteracy. Whatever the
age limit it ought to be enforced to the letter.[246]

[Sidenote: The present school divisions.]

=Re-arranging the School Divisions.=—But we should not depend wholly
upon the stern arm of the law for the solution of a problem like that of
keeping pupils at school. When normal boys and girls strongly dislike
going to school, when they stay away at every opportunity and leave
school as soon as they can, we may well suspect that there is something
wrong with the school system itself. Graduation from grammar school has
hitherto been looked upon as the natural point at which to break off.
The majority of pupils leave the schools at that stage; only a minority
go on with the regular school course. Our whole system of school
divisions has therefore brought it about that there is no logical
breaking-off point between the ages of thirteen or fourteen on the one
hand (grammar school graduation) and seventeen or eighteen (high school
graduation) on the other. It is believed by many educators, moreover,
that the last two grades of the grammar schools have not been so
organized as to awaken in the average pupil a desire to go further. The
upper grades of grammar schools do not differ essentially in their
methods of instruction from the lower grades although the much greater
maturity of the pupils would seem to warrant the use of different
methods.

[Sidenote: The junior high school system.]

To improve this situation it is now proposed to divide the school course
into three parts by establishing junior high schools, and many
communities have already adopted this plan. The junior high school as
usually organized takes the last two grades of the grammar school, adds
on the first year or the first two years of the regular high school
course, and thus provides a three-year or a four-year program which
carries pupils through to the ages of fifteen or sixteen. The methods of
instruction are those of the regular high school.[247] This plan is said
to have two marked advantages: it induces pupils to continue their
schooling one or two years longer, and it gives them a type of
instruction which is better suited to their age and interests. Objection
is sometimes raised against the junior high school system on the ground
that it involves the introduction of elective studies and hence may
result in the neglecting of fundamentals. It may also result in bringing
all the customary social and athletic diversions of the high school into
the lives of younger pupils. Whether this is an advantage or a defect
may be regarded as an open question.

[Sidenote: The junior college.]

What becomes of the regular high school if its first year or two years
are lopped off? There are two alternatives. It may become simply a
senior high school with a three-year or a two-year course, or it may add
on two additional years covering work which has hitherto been done by
freshmen and sophomores in colleges, thus providing what has come to be
known as a junior college course. Where this policy is pursued the pupil
can be carried two years beyond the old high school graduation and
enabled, on entering a college or university, to obtain a degree in less
than the usual time. All this involves a considerable increase in the
expense of maintaining the school system, of course; but it also
increases the service rendered to the community.

=The Training of Teachers.=—In the last analysis the success of
education depends upon the teacher. Suitable buildings, a well-planned
curriculum, good text books, all contribute their share towards the
efficiency of a school; but these are inanimate things. Without capable
teachers they are of little avail. Now effective teaching requires two
attainments on the part of the teacher, a knowledge of the subject and
ability to impart this knowledge to others. Both of these things are
essential and both are in large measure the result of training.
[Sidenote: Normal schools.] It is for this reason that all the states
maintain normal schools in which prospective teachers are trained in the
art of giving instruction. For teachers who are already in service many
of these normal schools provide courses during the afternoon and evening
hours so that teachers may keep abreast of the most modern methods in
education. [Sidenote: Extension courses.] The universities also provide
extension courses and summer instruction with the same end in view. All
this is highly desirable and should be carried even further. We are
inclined to spend our school appropriations on buildings, books,
supplies, and facilities for the pupils and to feel that the community
discharges its full obligation to the teachers when it pays them
salaries that are by no means proportionate to the importance of the
work in which they are engaged. But human knowledge is moving forward at
a rapid pace and anyone who does not keep close on its trail is sure to
be left far behind. Unless the teachers are afforded the opportunity of
keeping in touch with everything that is new it is difficult to see how
their instruction can keep pace with the times.

=The School and the Public Library.=—The public library is an
institution of great educational value and its relation to the schools
ought to be more intimate than is usually the case. Too often the public
library is merely an ornate building with a miscellaneous assortment of
books (mostly fiction) on its shelves. It is regarded as a place for
adult readers primarily. But the way to enlarge this circle of adult
readers is to bring them into touch with the resources of the library
when they are young, and the public schools are the natural channels
through which this can be accomplished.

[Sidenote: How the public library can help the schools.]

In well-managed public libraries this is now being done. Many of them
have established juvenile departments in which an expert carefully
chooses books that are likely to interest the young. Reading lists of
interesting and timely subjects are also kept posted; the pupils in the
schools are encouraged to use the library in connection with their
studies; illustrated lectures are provided in the late afternoon hours
and on Saturdays, and the whole atmosphere of the library becomes one of
welcome to readers of every age. It should not be thought, however, that
all public libraries are rendering this degree of service. Many of them
are unprogressive in these things.

[Sidenote: The school as a neighborhood center.]

=Wider Use of the Schools.=—Under ordinary conditions, how many hours of
use does a community obtain from its school buildings in the course of a
year? Five hours per day, five days per week for about forty weeks in
the year. That makes a total of about a thousand hours—a year contains
more than eight times as many. When used for school purposes only,
school buildings are empty seven-eighths of the time. But the cost of
maintenance (interest, care, etc.) goes on all the time just the same.
These buildings are admirably suited for many after-school purposes;
they are centrally-located, well heated and ventilated, clean and
commodious. Why not make use of them outside of school hours? The answer
to this query is that many cities are now making use of them for evening
classes, for public meetings, and neighborhood recreation. The high
schools in many cities have become evening social centers for the
section in which they are located. This means that the classrooms,
assembly hall, and gymnasium are opened for lectures, entertainments,
games, and dances, all under the supervision of officials (usually
teachers) who are appointed and paid by the school board. The complaint
is sometimes made that this wider use of the school plant is not
education in the customary sense, but recreation or amusement, and that
the taxpayers should not be required to pay for adult amusement under
color of supporting a public school system. There is some force in this
contention, but so long as the work is of value to the community, and
worth what it costs, the particular heading under which the money is
expended does not matter a great deal. These evening activities are
placed in charge of the school authorities as a matter of convenience
and not because they are exclusively of an educational character.

=The Gary System.=—Do we make sufficient use of the school facilities
within the available school hours of the day? The usual school program
does not cover more than five hours, although there are eight hours
between eight in the morning and four in the afternoon. [Sidenote:
Schools on an eight-hour basis.] In Gary, Indiana, a few years ago the
school authorities decided that schooling, like labor, should be put
upon an eight-hours-a-day basis. Pupils were therefore kept at school
from eight until four, spending half their time in the classrooms and
the other half at vocational work or at organized play. In this way the
classrooms were made to accommodate twice the customary number of
pupils. The Gary plan was based on the idea that even as regards their
play the school can be of service to pupils and that time spent in
learning something useful should be substituted for time spent in
roaming the streets. Especial emphasis is placed by the Gary plan upon
letting each pupil follow his own line of interests both in the
classroom and in the vocational work. But the system has not, on the
whole, proved popular elsewhere with either parents or pupils. The labor
organizations also dislike it, suspecting that the plan is a capitalist
scheme for getting the children of the worker more rapidly into the
shops and factories.

[Sidenote: The old curriculum.]

=Vocational Education.=—The foregoing topics do not exhaust the list of
things which educators are earnestly considering today. There is also
the important question as to what should be taught in the schools and
how it should be taught. For some years the whole curriculum of the
public schools has been in process of change. The training of the
old-time American school was in large measure literary and intellectual,
without any direct relation to the present or future interests of
pupils. It came to us from a past generation, when education was the
prerogative of the well-to-do alone, the privilege of the leisure class,
designed to give culture and erudition. But inasmuch as nearly ninety
per cent of all the pupils in the public school go directly into some
form of industrial or mercantile employment (not into the learned
professions) it can readily be seen that a school program of strictly
cultural studies does not satisfy the real needs of the community. Hence
the demand for vocational education, for such study and practice as will
connect the pupil directly with his future life work.[248]

[Sidenote: The new curriculum.]

In response to the demand for vocational studies the old school
curriculum has undergone a striking change. Today it is the disposition
of educators to challenge every subject to demonstrate its value. A
subject which cannot demonstrate that it helps to fulfil some one of the
recognized purposes of education is given a subordinate place in the
curriculum or taken out altogether. In keeping with this attitude the
vocational studies have come into great prominence during the past
twenty years or more, for they are regarded as connecting the pupil with
his future life-work. Shopwork, millinery, sewing, cooking, stenography,
mechanical drawing, and a dozen other branches of vocational work have
been brought into the school program. They are crowding the older high
school studies, particularly the classical languages, into the
background. Special schools of commerce and industry have been provided
in many of the large cities, and special schools of agriculture in the
rural districts.[249]

No sensible person should regret that the schools have moved in this new
direction; the only question is how far they ought to go. If the only
purpose of education were to teach the art of earning a living it would
be another matter; but do purely vocational studies afford sufficient
scope for the attainment of the other educational purposes? Man does not
live by bread alone. The cultural studies have their value although this
is often overlooked because it does not appear in plain sight to the
naked eye. Even in the vocational school there should be a proper
balance between the definitely vocational studies and the so-called
cultural subjects.

=The Newer Methods of School Instruction.=—Forty or fifty years ago all
American education, in schools and colleges, was on a prescribed basis.
Definite subjects were laid down to be studied and everybody studied
them. But the plan of allowing students to choose some or all of their
studies was adopted by the colleges and in due course this elective
system worked its way down into the schools.

[Sidenote: The elective system.]

There is a good deal to be said in favor of the elective system; it
permits a choice of work in accordance with individual interests and
capacities. After all, the school is created for the pupil, not the
pupil for the school. The _pupil_ is the true unit of instruction, not
the _subject_. On the other hand the elective system may be carried to
extremes; in some colleges that was the case and it has now been found
necessary to put restrictions on the plan. A system of free and unguided
electives leads to a patchwork education, desultory in character and
without depth. It is all right to know a little about everything; but it
is even more important to know some one thing well. Certain subjects
form the groundwork of knowledge, and to go ahead with others before
first mastering them is like building the roof of a house before you
have dug the foundation or erected the walls. Without a grounding in the
great languages, the English language particularly, and a fair
proficiency in mathematics, history, and the elements of science no one
is entitled to call himself an educated man.

[Sidenote: The socialized recitation.]

The classroom methods have also changed considerably in the last
generation, and they have changed for the better. The older methods
sought to drill facts into the pupil’s mind and resulted, very often, in
merely over-stocking his memory. Today the aim is to utilize, wherever
possible, a method of approach through the interests of the individual
and to show him how every shred of knowledge fits into the whole fabric.
The old methods of classroom instruction laid the entire emphasis upon
individual study and recitations; today much greater emphasis is being
placed upon group activity, which includes group discussions, group
investigations, and group reports. This does not mean, however, that the
individual pupil carries less responsibility than under the older
system. It still remains true that there is no royal road to knowledge
and no system of rapid transit either. No system can make an educated
individual without self-effort. Education is one of the very few things
in the world which _anyone can obtain_ but which _no one can give
away_.[250]

=Financing the Schools.=—All new educational enterprises mean increased
expenses. Public education in the United States has become enormously
more expensive during the past twenty years. The newer methods of school
organization and instruction, the wider use of the schools, the
extension of vocational education, the providing of free text books, the
progress of health work in the schools, the establishment of evening
schools, continuation schools, vacation schools—all these things have
caused the cost to keep mounting year after year. [Sidenote: A billion
dollars a year for education.] The public schools of the United States
now cost the taxpayer more than a billion dollars per annum. That is
twice what they cost ten years ago. If the expenses double once more in
the next decade, where will the money come from? Practically all of it
is now obtained by taxation; but taxation spreads itself out through
rents and prices upon the whole people as has already been shown. A
billion a year seems to be a large sum. It is a large sum but, strange
to say, it is less than the American people spend every year for
tobacco. Money for the schools, it is safe to predict, will be
forthcoming when people understand what education means to individuals
and to the nation. If present sources of revenue will not stand the
strain others must be found. There is no more profitable way in which
the nation can invest its wealth.

General References

E. P. CUBBERLY, _Public School Administration_, pp. 3-65;

S. T. DUTTON and DAVID SNEDDEN, _The Administration of Public Education
in the United States_, pp. 25-95;

F. J. GOODNOW and F. J. BATES, _Municipal Government_, pp. 335-354
(Educational Administration);

A. J. INGLIS, _Principles of Secondary Education_, pp. 340-383;

JOHN A. FAIRLIE, _Local Government in Counties, Towns, and Villages_,
pp. 215-224;

W. E. CHANCELLOR, _Our City Schools_, pp. 25-77;

W. B. MUNRO, _Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration_, pp.
356-402;

GEORGE F. SWAIN, _How to Study_, pp. 1-21;

The Annual Reports of the United States Commissioner of Education, the
Bulletins of the United States Bureau of Education, and the Annual
Reports of the State Superintendents of Education contain much useful
information.

Group Problems

=1. The purpose, progress, value, and limitations of vocational
education.= The old curriculum, its merits and defects. The rise of
manual training. Its value. Beginnings of industrial education. Its
progress. Its scope. Its place in the school system. Its relation to
industry and the attitude of industry toward it. The attitude of
organized labor. Limitations on the scope of vocational education.
=References=: P. H. HANUS, _Beginnings in Industrial Education_, pp.
3-27; DAVID SNEDDEN, _Vocational Education_, pp. 1-104; MEYER
BLOOMFIELD, _The School and the Start in Life_ (United States Bureau of
Education, _Bulletin_, 1914, No. 4, pp. 117-133); S. T. DUTTON and DAVID
SNEDDEN, _The Administration of Public Education in the United States_,
pp. 404-425; IRVING KING, _Social Aspects of Education_, pp. 144-176; A.
H. LEAKE, _Industrial Education, its Problems, Methods, and Dangers_,
pp. 3-39; United States Senate and House Committees on Agriculture,
_Vocational Education_ (Report of Hearings, 1912). See also the
Proceedings of the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial
(Vocational) Education (published annually).

=2. How far should the state control the public schools?= =References=:
S. T. DUTTON and DAVID SNEDDEN, _The Administration of Public Education
in the United States_, pp. 41-72; E. C. ELLIOTT, _State School Systems_
(U. S. Bureau of Education, _Bulletin_, 1910, No. 2, pp. 31-68); A. C.
PERRY, _Outlines of School Administration_, pp. 16-28; J. M. MATHEWS,
_Principles of American State Administration_, pp. 296-334.

=3. The school as a social center.= =References=: _Irving King_,
_Education for Social Efficiency_, pp. 262-279; C. A. PERRY, _The Wider
Use of the School Plant_, pp. 3-16; 335-380; E. J. WARD, _The Social
Center_, pp. 302-314; National Society for the Study of Education,
_Tenth Yearbook_ (1913), Part I, pp. 1-69.

Short Studies

1. =The social aim of education.= IRVING KING, _Education for Social
Efficiency_, pp. 11-20.

2. =The organization and functions of school boards.= W. B. MUNRO,
_Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration_, pp. 359-372.

3. =How teachers are appointed.= F. W. BALLOU, _The Appointment of
Teachers in Cities_, pp. 8-41.

4. =Vocational guidance.= IRVING KING, _Education for Social
Efficiency_, pp. 177-205.

5. =How schoolhouses should be constructed.= F. B. DRESSLAR, American
School Houses (U. S. Bureau of Education, _Bulletin_, 1910, No. 5, pp.
17-38 and _passim_).

6. =The Gary system.= General Education Board, New York City. _The Gary
Schools, a General Account_, pp. 17-72.

7. =Has popular education failed in America?= C. W. ELIOT, _American
Contributions to Civilization_, pp. 203-236.

8. =The educational lessons of the war.= F. A. CLEVELAND and JOSEPH
SCHAFER, _Democracy in Reconstruction_, pp. 212-243.

9. =Education and economic success.= J. ELLIS BARKER, _Economic
Statesmanship_, pp. 143-179.

Questions

1. Explain why public education is necessary for the preservation of
popular rights and liberties.

2. If democracy and public education usually go together, why is it that
Germany had an excellent system of public education and yet remained an
autocracy down to 1918?

3. Do the laws of your state provide for compulsory school attendance?
If so, between what ages? What is your opinion as to the proper age
limits?

4. Explain the organization and functions of your state board (or
department) of education and your local school board.

5. Give a summary of what the federal government is now doing for
education. Do you believe that it ought to do more? If so, what?

6. How are funds for school purposes raised in your community? On what
basis does the state make its contribution?

7. What suggestions can you make for keeping the schools out of
politics?

8. Do you believe that teachers should be appointed under civil-service
rules?

9. Do you approve or disapprove of the Gary system? Give your reasons.

10. Make some suggestions for bringing the school and the public library
into closer relations.

Topics for Debate

1. The Towner-Sterling Bill should be passed by Congress.

2. School discipline should be placed in charge of a student council.

3. The age limit of compulsory school attendance should be raised to
sixteen years.

-----

Footnote 242:

By naming these three purposes of education, first, second, and third,
it is not intended to imply that this is their order of importance.
Some would put service to the community first of all. Over one of the
main gates at Harvard University, through which the students pass out
into the world after they have been graduated, is this timely
inscription: “Depart to serve thy country and thy kind.”

Footnote 243:

The laws and the practice differ greatly from state to state, and
sometimes from one community to another. It would be futile to attempt
the task of presenting here even the most important variations. Those
who desire to know exactly how the schools are controlled and managed
in different parts of the country will find full information in S. T.
Dutton and David Snedden, _The Administration of Public Education in
the United States_.

Footnote 244:

In 1917 Congress provided that each year a grant from the federal
treasury should be made to the several states in order to encourage
vocational education. This money is distributed among the states on
condition that each shall contribute an equal amount, the distribution
being made, not by the Bureau of Education, but by a body known as the
Federal Board for Vocational Education. This board is made up of seven
persons, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor, the
Commissioner of Education and three other persons appointed by the
President. A considerable part of its work for the present is
connected with the providing of vocational training for American
soldiers and sailors who were disabled in the World War.

Footnote 245:

The Smith-Towner Bill, now the Towner-Sterling Bill.

Footnote 246:

According to the census figures only one person in fifteen (above
school age) is unable to write; but the experience of army officers
with drafted men during the war showed that the proportion must be a
great deal larger. The census enumerators take a man’s word for it;
the army authorities at the various camps applied an actual test. They
found that about one man in every five was unable to write a simple
letter of a dozen lines.

Footnote 247:

The essential differences between grammar school and high school
instruction are these: the work of the grammar school grades is
practically all prescribed; in the high school there are some elective
studies; in the grammar school grades one teacher gives the
instruction in all the subjects, whereas in the high schools the
various subjects are taught by different teachers, each one a
specialist.

Footnote 248:

A proper system of vocational education involves three things: (_a_) a
broad and practical foundation in elementary education of the ordinary
type; (_b_) a study of the social and civic forces which control the
life of the people; and (_c_) definite training in some particular
vocation or trade. In order to help the pupil choose his life work
more intelligently, many schools have made provision for vocational
guidance. A vocational director or counsellor studies the special
aptitudes and abilities of each pupil, points out what opportunities
are open, and advises as to the best means of training for the work
selected.

Footnote 249:

The demand for vocational education has come from several sources:
namely, from parents who believe that education ought to be directly
related to earning-power; from teachers who are convinced that there
is little or no educational value in drilling pupils in studies which
do not interest them; from the general public which thinks the schools
would render a larger social service in training pupils to vocational
efficiency; and from enterprising employers who see in this form of
education a chance to get a supply of trained workers without having
to break them in as apprentices. Organized labor at first looked with
suspicion upon the movement, but is now more favorably disposed toward
it. Vocational education should be clearly distinguished from manual
training, which is merely a general education in the principles of
skilful hand work without regard to any particular vocation or trade.
Vocational education does not turn out a fully-trained worker, but
only one who has practically finished the apprentice stage.

Footnote 250:

There is a current notion that those who stand highest in their
studies at school or in college usually do poorly when they get out
into the world, and that those who take a prominent part in school or
college activities, even though their scholarship be very poor, are
the ones who rise to the top in later life. The evidence is all to the
contrary. Every investigation that has ever been made into this matter
indicates that in the vast majority of cases the boy who does well at
school does well in his college studies if he goes to college; and
that students who stand high in their college studies are much more
likely to succeed in later life than those who stand low. Three great
Eastern universities, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, gave the nation
three successive Presidents during the years 1901-1921, Roosevelt,
Taft, and Wilson. Nobody thought it worth while to mention that each
of the three was a scholar of high rank at graduation; but if anyone
of them had been graduated near the bottom of the list, we should have
heard comment in plenty. The exceptions are too often singled out for
notice; the instances that prove the rule are so numerous that they
pass unobserved.

CHAPTER XXVI
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SANITATION

_The purpose of this chapter is to point out what things endanger
the public health and what means are taken to safeguard the people
against them._

[Sidenote: Health and efficiency.]

=A Highly Important Matter.=—Nothing among all the activities of modern
government is more important than the care of the public health. Its
importance cannot be measured in dollars and cents or in figures of any
kind. The health of the individual is the greatest of all factors in
personal efficiency; no man, woman, or child can do the best work in any
field of activity if hampered by disease, however slight. The health of
the community is likewise essential to its progress and prosperity.
Health protection, accordingly, is not a matter which can safely be left
to everyone’s discretion. Some people would realize the necessity of
safeguarding themselves and their families against disease; but others
would not, and their neglect would entail danger to the whole community.
Some people would know how to avoid ill-health, so far as it can be
avoided; but others would not possess this knowledge and would suffer
for lack of it.[251] A man’s religious or political belief may be his
own personal concern; but his ideas of cleanliness and disease
prevention are not. People who lay themselves open to disease constitute
a danger to all those around them. In earlier days, when the population
was scattered and not brought into contact the need for social control
of the public health was less imperative. Today, when millions of people
live in crowded cities where they come hourly into contact with one
another the safeguarding of the public health constitutes a governmental
task of the first importance and magnitude.

=Old and New Ideas Concerning Health Protection.=—No science has made
greater progress during the past hundred years than the science of
preventive medicine. In early times all diseases were looked upon as due
to the same cause, namely, the anger of the gods for some misdoing on
the part of the individual or the community.[252] The usual course, when
a pestilence came upon the people, was to go through ceremonies and
offer sacrifices in order that this anger might be appeased.

[Sidenote: The great plagues of olden days.]

Great plagues swept over Europe almost unchecked for a thousand years.
In every community there were healers and medicine-men, who claimed to
possess magic arts in dealing with all human ailments but, as a grim
truth, nobody had the remotest idea as to what brought these epidemics,
or how they were spread, or what might be done to prevent them. It is
said that the Black Death in the fourteenth century carried off
one-third of all the people in England. Whole towns were swept out of
existence. Knowledge concerning the nature of disease and the methods of
preventing it developed very slowly for many centuries, because many
superstitions had to be broken down, and only within quite modern times
did health protection reach the stage where it could properly be called
a science.

[Sidenote: The germ theory of disease.]

Health protection did not attain a scientific basis, in fact, until the
germ theory of disease was worked out and accepted. This theory, which
is simple enough in its elementary principles, completely reconstructed
the ideas of the human race concerning the causes and methods of
preventing bodily ailments. It provided a complete explanation for many
things which had been looked upon as utter mysteries. The wonder is that
the world spent so many centuries in discovering it. Even in the days of
the Roman Empire intelligent men suspected that there was some
connection between filth and pestilence; but just what this connection
was they never were able to trace out satisfactorily, nor did anyone
manage to do it for more than fifteen hundred years after them.[253] How
long it has sometimes taken the world to move from one step in knowledge
to the next!

[Sidenote: Explanation of this theory.]

=The Causes of Disease and Infection.=—The germ theory of disease may be
concisely stated in this way: Innumerable small organisms (known as
microbes, bacteria, bacilli, or germs) exist in the air, and in or upon
nearly all substances. These organisms or germs are so small that they
are invisible to the eye unless a powerful microscope is used. They are
so small that thousands of them can assemble on the head of a pin or in
the smallest drop of water. [Sidenote: Harmless bacteria.] Most of them
are harmless; and some of them render useful service. Without the aid of
these little organisms we could not make cheese or vinegar. On the other
hand nearly all organic decay, of whatever sort, is caused by the action
of bacteria. When apples rot, or milk grows sour, or butter becomes
rancid, it is all due to bacterial action. Bacteria multiply with
extraordinary rapidity wherever the temperature and other conditions are
favorable; most species increase by division, that is, one
micro-organism divides itself into two, these two into four, and so on
by geometrical progression. As successive divisions often take place
within a few hours it is easy to see how a very few germs today may
number millions tomorrow. Under the microscope most of the different
species can be identified, for they assume varying shapes and display a
variety of characteristics.

[Sidenote: Harmful bacteria.]

But although most of these diminutive organisms are harmless, many of
them are what scientists call _pathogenic_ germs, in other words, they
are a menace to health when they gain access to the human body. The
human body, in fact, is the most favorable environment for these
disease-bearing bacilli, and most of them can live but a short time
outside of it. Access may be gained in various ways, but principally
through the food and drink we consume, or through the bites of
germ-carrying insects. The bacteria, when they gain lodgment in the
tissues of the body, often multiply with great rapidity, creating
poisonous substances, and thus increase the normal bodily temperature—a
condition which we speak of as fever. When the body is strong and
vigorous, it can sometimes overcome and throw off the effects of this
bacterial action, for the human blood, under normal conditions,
possesses powers of resistance to pathogenic germs; but when people are
frail or exhausted, this power of resistance is greatly diminished and
the bacilli are enabled to gain the upper hand.

=Water-Borne Diseases—Typhoid Fever.=—One way in which pathogenic
bacilli gain access to the human body and produce disease may be
illustrated by the case of typhoid fever. Fifty years ago this disease
was one of the most common in all countries; today it has been almost
entirely eradicated in civilized lands. Both armies in the Civil War
lost thousands of men through its ravages, but in the American army
during the World War there were only a few cases. Accurate knowledge of
the way in which typhoid is transmitted has given mankind an almost
complete mastery over this scourge of many centuries.

[Sidenote: The causes of typhoid and the remedies.]

Typhoid is caused by a germ which is most commonly found in polluted
water, but sometimes makes its way into milk through the use of water in
washing cans and utensils. It does not come from bad ventilation, sewer
gas, ash piles, or exposure to cold, as some people imagine. The typhoid
bacilli, being taken into the stomach with water, milk, or any other
contaminated nourishment, find their way into the intestines and cause
inflammation there, thus producing a fevered condition. If the sewage
from hospitals and homes where there are typhoid patients is not
carefully guarded, it gets into lakes, rivers, or wells, polluting them
and spreading the disease. The elimination of typhoid is, therefore,
very largely a problem of protecting the water supply against contact
with human sewage. This is one reason why progressive communities are
giving so much attention and spending so much money upon modern methods
of sewage disposal and upon the rigorous protection of their public
water supplies. An epidemic of typhoid is always the outcome of
somebody’s ignorance or neglect. It has been suggested, with a good deal
of force, that for every such epidemic somebody ought to be put in jail.

=Insect-Borne Diseases.=—Another way in which disease-bearing bacilli
obtain access to the human blood is through the bites of insects.
[Sidenote: The scourge of yellow fever.] Fifty years ago yellow fever
was the great scourge of all tropical countries. When the French built a
railway across the Isthmus of Panama in 1885 it is said that the work
cost one life for every tie in the road, so great were the ravages of
yellow fever among the laborers. But the United States, twenty-odd years
later, succeeded in digging a canal across the Isthmus without the loss
of a single life from this disease. Under Spanish rule, Cuba was never
free from yellow fever; the island has been free from it since the
Americans cleaned it up.

[Sidenote: The war upon insects.]

The change has been brought about by the discovery that the germs of
yellow fever are carried by a certain species of mosquito which
transmits the infection from a diseased person to others. The
cleaning-up of stagnant pools in which the mosquitoes breed, and the
careful screening of doors and windows has practically eliminated the
disease wherever these measures have been taken. Substantially the same
thing is true of the disease known as malaria so far as causes and
remedies are concerned. Typhus, a fever which has long been the
pestilence of backward countries, is transmitted from person to person
by the common body-louse or “cootie”. Cities, armies, and even whole
countries have been set free from this plague by delousing operations,
that is by the wholesale disinfection of clothing and persons.[254]
Bubonic plague, the Black Death of the Middle Ages, which has swept over
Asia and portions of Europe so many times, is transmitted by rat fleas.
Other diseases besides yellow fever, typhus, and bubonic are known to be
spread by insects, and still others are believed to be. The common
house-fly is undoubtedly a carrier of typhoid germs from filth and
sewage to the water, milk, and food supplies in homes and stores. The
world would be far better off if the whole category of disease-carrying
insects, mosquitoes, lice, fleas, and flies, could be made as extinct as
the dodo.

=The Wide Range of Disease and Causes.=—Not all diseases, of course, are
caused by polluted food and drink or by the transmission of insect-borne
bacilli. Some are undoubtedly caused by pathogenic germs whose methods
of infection we do not yet know. There are various theories as to what
carried influenza from one end of the world to the other during 1918 but
none of them satisfactorily explain all that happened. The epidemic in
one case broke out upon a sailing ship, far off at sea, six weeks after
it had left port. So disease still has its mysteries, yet unsolved.
[Sidenote: Things which cause and spread disease.] We know, however,
that many ailments are either directly caused or are facilitated by poor
nourishment, bad ventilation, lack of cleanliness, physical exhaustion,
and lax attention to personal hygiene. Some are due also, in whole or in
part, to certain forms or conditions of work, and are commonly known as
occupational or industrial diseases. Such, for example, is lead
poisoning in paint factories; such also is the illness which often
overcomes men working in tunnels and other places where compressed air
is used. The spread of tuberculosis, the great white plague of today, is
undoubtedly due in some measure to dust and bad ventilation. The
relations between diseases and occupations have not received careful
study until recent years, but it is believed that we shall ultimately
find the causes of many human ailments in the conditions under which
some forms of industry are carried on.

[Sidenote: Industry and ill health.]

=Hygiene of Factories and Workshops.=—Because of the unsanitary
conditions which have been found by investigation to exist in workshops
and factories, particularly in the large cities, various states have
made laws and regulations to protect the health of employees in such
establishments. Some trades, such as the making of poisonous phosphorous
matches, have been prohibited altogether. Others, by reason of their
danger to the health of the workers, have been subjected to strict
regulation. The “sweat-shops” or tenement rooms in which women and
children formerly worked long hours for a mere pittance, crowded
together with almost no ventilation—these industrial dungeons have been
legislated out of existence almost everywhere. Workshops and factories
must now be commodious, well-lighted, clean, and properly ventilated.
Adequate sanitary equipment must be provided. It is the duty of the
state factory inspectors to see that all these requirements are
fulfilled.

=The Prevention of Disease—Individual Precautions.=—Without the
co-operation of individuals no government can maintain a high standard
of health among the people. All that the public authorities may do will
prove inadequate unless individuals themselves, young and old,
understand and observe the means of disease-prevention. [Sidenote:
Physical fitness.] Physical fitness is one of the greatest blessings any
man or woman can have, and it is largely the product of strict attention
to the upbuilding of the body in early years. Theodore Roosevelt was a
frail, sickly lad in his boyhood days. He realized, as he explains in
his autobiography, that he could never make a marked success in life
without building up his physical vigor, so he set about doing it, and by
the time he had reached full manhood he was a model of physical
ruggedness. How did he manage it? Regular habits, out-of-door life,
prompt attention to minor ailments, a zest for every form of wholesome
sport,—these things transformed a weakly youth into the sturdiest man
that ever sat in the presidential chair.

There is no need to lay down any definite rules as to how the young men
and women of America may gain and maintain a high standard of health and
bodily vigor. Common sense will suggest most of them. The besetting sin
of youth is its prodigality, the wasting of strength that should be
saved for years to come, and the failure to realize that an individual’s
health at the age of forty or fifty depends very largely upon what use
is made of health opportunities during the years from fifteen to
twenty-five. The glory of a young man is his strength; he does not
usually let his mind run ahead to the day when he will be neither young
nor strong. No investment that young people can make will pay higher
dividends than that which is represented by the time, the thought, and
the care spent upon the task of keeping well in early years.

[Sidenote: Quarantine.]

=The Prevention of Communicable Diseases: Quarantine and
Disinfection.=—First among the measures taken by the public authorities
to prevent the spread of communicable diseases are the quarantine
regulations which are enforced at all the seaports under the authority
of the national government. Day and night throughout the year, the
health officers stand guard at these ports to see that no
disease-bearing persons are permitted to land. Vessels leaving foreign
harbors for the United States must secure a bill-of-health from the
American consul before they sail; and the first person who goes on board
an incoming vessel after it takes on its pilot is the quarantine
officer. This official permits no passengers to be landed until he has
made sure that there are no persons afflicted with communicable disease
aboard. If there are any such cases, the passengers are held until the
danger is past. The various states and cities also maintain systems of
health-inspection and quarantine. Certain diseases (including
tuberculosis, smallpox, typhoid, scarlet fever, pneumonia, whooping
cough, diphtheria, measles, mumps, and so forth) must be promptly
reported to the local health authorities. The local health regulations
require that in case of the more readily communicable diseases the house
be placarded. In extreme cases, the patients may be removed to an
isolation hospital.

[Sidenote: Disinfection.]

After the illness has terminated, the regulations usually provide that
the premises shall be disinfected under the supervision of an official
from the health department. Every state, as well as every city and town,
maintains general regulations relating to quarantine and disinfection,
these being enforced by the state health authorities. For the most part,
however, this work is supervisory, the detailed enforcement of the rules
being left to the health officers of the various communities, although
in the case of epidemics, involving several municipalities, the state
health authorities usually assume direct control. Similarly, when
epidemics spread or threaten to spread from one state to another, the
national health authorities step in.[255]

=Vaccination and Inoculation.=—The practice of vaccinating and
inoculating healthy persons as a safeguard against disease has been used
for more than a century. Vaccination consists in introducing vaccine
into the blood of a healthy person, usually by making an abrasion of the
skin. The vaccine is obtained from health laboratories, where it is
produced from the blood of artificially-infected cattle. Inoculation of
the human blood is also widely used nowadays in order to prevent or to
mitigate diphtheria, typhoid, pneumonia, and rabies. All members of the
American expeditionary forces during the World War were given the
anti-typhoid inoculation. It consisted of injecting into the blood a
quantity of dead or greatly-weakened typhoid bacilli. They were not
sufficient to produce the disease but they were enough to set the
resisting-powers of the blood in motion so that the latter would be
fully developed to meet a real infection if it should come.

[Sidenote: Should vaccination be compulsory?]

Vaccination against smallpox is compulsory in several of the states and
in many communities, although there is a good deal of objection to it
among certain sections of the people. If smallpox were completely wiped
off the face of the earth there would be no need for universal
vaccination; but so long as numerous cases exist, as they still do in
many countries, compulsory vaccination is likely to prove a justifiable
measure of public safety.

[Sidenote: Importance of the milk supply.]

=Milk Inspection.=—Among all the foods of humanity, milk is probably the
most important. It is the chief nutrition of children until they reach
school age, and sometimes even longer. It forms a large factor in the
diet of invalids. Even in the daily fare of robust adults, it is an item
of no small importance. Yet no article of everyday commerce is more
easily contaminated, and in the case of no other article are the results
of pollution likely to be so serious. For when the germs of disease get
into milk, they multiply with appalling rapidity and they go directly
into the diet of those who have the least power to withstand infection,
the children and invalids of the community.

[Sidenote: The danger of pollution.]

From its source on the farms milk passes through several hands before
reaching the consumer, and at each of these points may be contaminated.
Careless milking, the storing of milk in unsanitary places or in unclean
utensils, the lack of adequate precautions in transporting or delivering
the milk—any of these things may result in pollution. Strict rules and
frequent inspection help to safeguard the milk supply at the source and
during its journey to the consumer, but the problem of careful
inspection is rendered difficult by the fact that the milk supplies of
large cities are now drawn from a wide area outside the municipal
limits. New York City, for example, obtains its supply of nearly two
million quarts per day from about forty-five thousand farms scattered
throughout eight different states.

[Sidenote: Milk and the infant death rate.]

It is easy to appreciate the difficulties involved in the supervision of
the milk supply under such conditions. Nevertheless, this supervision is
being carried on in all large communities and it has resulted in a
marked lowering of the infant death rate. Infant mortality and the milk
supply are closely related, in fact it can fairly be said that the rate
of the one depends in a large measure upon the purity of the other. The
establishment of milk-distribution stations in large cities has been of
considerable value in enabling the people of the crowded sections to
obtain pure milk at reasonable prices.

=The Inspection of Food.=—The marketing of impure or adulterated food is
everywhere forbidden by the laws and the health regulations, but until
comparatively recent years these rules were not always strictly
enforced. One reason for this is to be found in the fact that many
articles of food are subjects of interstate commerce, produced in one
state to be sold in another, and hence are not easily made amenable to
local control. [Sidenote: The Food and Drugs Act, 1906.] In 1906,
however, Congress passed a comprehensive law known as the Food and Drugs
Act, by the terms of which the national government assumed the duty of
eliminating impure food from general commerce. This act prohibited the
adulteration of food and drugs; it made provision for the inspection of
meats at the great packing plants; it required that all packages of food
and drugs shall be branded correctly and that when artificial
preservatives are used, the label shall state the fact. All impure,
adulterated, or wrongly-branded articles are excluded from interstate
commerce under the provisions of this law.

[Sidenote: State inspection of food.]

The supervision of the national government does not extend, however, to
articles of food which are produced, distributed, and sold within the
territory of a single state. As regards such articles, the task of
protecting the public against impurity and adulteration rests with the
state and local health officers. These officers perform their work by
frequent inspection at places where food is produced and sold. Makers
and vendors of impure or adulterated foods are prosecuted in the
ordinary courts.

=The Drug Evil.=—The indiscriminate and unchecked sale of narcotic drugs
(morphine, opium, etc.) in past years led to serious evils. Persons who
regularly use any of these narcotic drugs become slaves to the habit;
they are unable to get along without daily use of them, and in the end
become physical wrecks. The drug habit became, a few years ago, such a
widespread public evil that the national government took the manufacture
and sale of these narcotics under its own supervision. Such drugs cannot
now be bought or sold except under strict regulations which involve the
written request of a qualified physician. Nevertheless a good deal of
trade in narcotics is still carried on through illicit channels.

[Sidenote: Prohibition as a health measure.]

=Prohibition of the Liquor Traffic.=—The relation of the liquor traffic
to the public health is a matter upon which men have not entirely
agreed; but it is a well-recognized fact that the general use of
intoxicating liquors led in many cases to poverty, and poverty in turn
brought under-nourishment and disease in its train. The action of the
states in adopting the Eighteenth Amendment, by which the manufacture,
transportation, and sale of all intoxicants is forbidden, may therefore
be looked upon as a step which, in the long run, will conduce to the
betterment of the public health. The excessive use of alcohol impaired
the physical vigor of many thousands among the population and rendered
them less capable of resisting disease. The statistics of hospitals
during the period that has intervened since prohibition went into effect
show that, from a health standpoint, the Eighteenth Amendment has had a
beneficial effect.

=Waste Disposal and Sewerage.=—Every community produces each day a large
amount of waste which must be collected and disposed of in a sanitary
manner if the interests of the public health are to be fully protected.
Some of this waste contains little or no element of danger—ashes, waste
paper, and rubbish of all sorts, for example. The removal of this
material is a matter of public convenience rather than of public health
protection. As a rule it is drawn away and either used for filling marsh
land or incinerated. [Sidenote: Garbage.] Another form of waste is
garbage, which includes the discarded material from markets, bakeries,
hotels, restaurants, and private dwellings. This garbage decomposes
quickly and must be gathered at frequent intervals. In some communities
the garbage is disposed of by incineration; in others it is sold to
farmers for feeding swine; a few cities utilize it in reduction plants,
where the grease and oil is extracted for commercial use.

[Sidenote: Sewage.]

Sewage, which includes both surface water and the liquid waste from
places of human abode, is by far the most dangerous waste of all.
Although it is more than ninety-nine per cent water, every ounce
contains the possibility of spreading disease. [Sidenote: Older methods
of disposal.] This effluvia, which passes through the sewers and drains,
was at one time everywhere disposed of by turning it into the ocean,
lakes, or rivers. Even yet many cities of the United States get rid of
their sewage in that way. The method is not objectionable in the case of
ocean discharge, provided the outfall sewer is carried a sufficient
distance from the shore, although even in such cases some of the sewage
may be borne landward by the incoming tides to pollute the shellfish
beds and the beaches. The sewage of many cities along the Great Lakes is
discharged into these extensive bodies of fresh water where the amount
of dilution is so great that no serious harm results, provided no water
for human consumption is drawn from the immediate neighborhood of the
discharge points. The time will doubtless come, however, when the
increasing volume of sewage will compel these cities to adopt other
methods of disposal. The discharge of untreated sewage into rivers and
small streams is now generally regarded as a public nuisance, and the
abandonment of the practice is being required by the laws wherever
practicable. Many cities, however, yet resort to this method.

[Sidenote: Modern sewage systems.]

Modern, scientific methods of sewage disposal have taken several
different forms. A common plan is to conduct the sewage into huge
reservoirs, basins, or tanks, where the solids are allowed to settle and
form a sludge while the liquid is run off into the ocean or a lake or a
river. The settling process is sometimes hastened by the use of
chemicals. This does not free the waterways from danger but it is a good
deal less objectionable than the practice of turning untreated sewage
into them. Some cities pump the sewage upon filter beds (tracts of land
which have been dug out and filled with slag or other porous
substances). A few use their sewage for the irrigation of dry farming
lands. No particular plan of sewage disposal can be regarded as the best
under all circumstances. Local conditions differ from one community to
another, and each case requires special study. Ordinarily a large town
or city will produce nearly two hundred gallons of sewage per day for
every man, woman, and child in its population. This means an enormous
total in the course of a year and the problem of handling it safely,
without excessive expense, is often a difficult one. It may well be
repeated, however, that so far as the public health is concerned, sewage
is the most dangerous substance known to man, and its safe disposal is
one of the most important problems of the government in every civilized
community.

=The Protection of the Public Water Supply.=—The great importance of an
adequate and safe water supply is something which hardly requires a long
argument. In the rural districts and in small villages the neighboring
wells and springs may be utilized, but in large communities, especially
those having numerous industries, a public supply must be provided.
[Sidenote: How much water is needed?] It is customarily figured that
large towns and cities require approximately and on the average one
hundred gallons of water per capita every day in the year. Half-a-ton of
water per day per person! What is done with it all? Not all of it, of
course, is used for human consumption. By far the greater part is
utilized for public, industrial, and general sanitary purposes.
Sprinkling parks and lawns, putting out fires, flushing sewers—all these
activities require large amounts of water. Factories, laundries,
railroads, and other such establishments make heavy demands on the total
supply. So does the modern sanitary equipment which is now being
installed almost everywhere in hotels, stores, and houses. The amount of
water required for human consumption is very small compared with the
quantities used in these other ways.

The first essential of a satisfactory water supply, therefore, is that
it be adequate, which means that large cities must often go a long
distance in order to obtain water in sufficient quantities. [Sidenote:
Sources of supply.] New York City derives a large part of its water from
the Catskill Mountains; Los Angeles brings its entire supply from the
Sierra Nevadas, more than two hundred and fifty miles away.[256] Many
other cities obtain their water close at hand: Chicago, for example,
draws from Lake Michigan, and Cleveland from Lake Erie. Adequacy,
however, is not the only consideration. For use in the industries, water
must be clear in color and not too hard. When it is turbid or hard, it
has to be clarified and softened by storage and the use of chemicals.
The relative purity of the water, its freedom from pollution, is the
most important consideration of all.

[Sidenote: The treatment of water for human use.]

There are various ways of making sure that water is fit for human
consumption. One way is to secure the supply from a source which is by
nature free from pollution, from deep-driven wells or from mountain
lakes which are above the level of probable contamination. Water
supplies drawn from very large bodies of water, like the Great Lakes,
are normally safe enough if the intake is set far out from shore,
because the diluting power of these vast water areas is sufficient to
render harmless even a considerable amount of pollution by sewage
discharge. Where a water supply of sufficient natural purity cannot be
had within reasonable distance the only safe plan is to subject the
water to such length of storage, or to such mechanical or chemical
treatment as will ensure its fitness for use. The storage of water in a
reservoir, exposed to the light and air, will render it safe, under
normal conditions. The length of time required for this purpose will
depend, of course, upon the quality of the water which is put into the
reservoir. A period of three months is ordinarily regarded as sufficient
where the raw water has not been badly contaminated. The mechanical
treatment of water is commonly known as filtration, and there are
several forms of public water-filtration plants now in use by American
cities. The simplest is the system of slow sand filters in which the
water is treated by allowing it to percolate slowly through a bed of
sand and crushed stone, thereby becoming rid of noxious bacteria. A more
complicated method involves the use of rapid sand filters in which the
raw water is forced through filterbeds of crushed stone under
pressure.[257]

=Smoke Abatement.=—Pure air is another essential to the maintenance of
the public health. Rural parts of the country encounter no difficulty on
this score, but the larger cities are now finding it necessary to
protect the air which their citizens have to breathe. In these days of
smoke-belching industry, the very atmosphere of the large city is laden
with a menace to health and cleanliness. An investigation made in New
York some years ago disclosed the fact that sulphur dioxide (a poisonous
gas) was being discharged into the air by the smokestacks and chimneys
of the city at an appalling rate. The elementary student of chemistry
can well testify that SO_{2} is not a substance that human beings thrive
upon. And apart from the menace to health there is the heavy damage done
by soot-laden atmosphere to the furnishings of houses and the contents
of shops. Hence the agitation in the large cities for an abatement of
this smoke nuisance and the establishment of regulations which now, in
many places, require the use of mechanical smoke consumers by all large
industries. The enforcement of this requirement is not at all difficult,
because any violation is visible to the naked eye.

[Sidenote: Overcrowding and disease.]

=The Housing of the People.=—By the homes of a town or city you may
judge its people. The proper housing of the population has a close
relation to many things, but to none is this relation closer than to the
public health. When the people are herded together in tenements, with
dark and narrow hallways, with rooms badly ventilated and often without
sunlight, we have a fertile soil for the spread of tuberculosis. More
than ten thousand persons die each year in the tenement districts of New
York City from the Great White Plague alone. The children who grow up in
congested quarters, moreover, go out into the world handicapped in both
body and soul. Their powers of resistance to disease are often seriously
impaired by the crowding, poor ventilation, and lack of proper sanitary
arrangements. An investigation of housing conditions made in New York
City over twenty years ago led to the enactment of a comprehensive
Tenement House Law (1901) in order to prevent overcrowding, and the main
provisions of this law have since been copied by most of the larger
cities of the country.[258]

[Sidenote: Housing experiments abroad.]

In some European cities, notably Glasgow and London, many municipal
tenements have been erected. Crowded slums have been demolished and
model houses, each accommodating one or more families, have been erected
in their place by the use of public money. These tenements are then
rented to workers at reasonable rates. This plan has not yet been tried
on any large scale in the United States nor would it be likely to prove
very satisfactory so long as city administration, in all its branches,
is conducted so wastefully as it is in America today. During the World
War, however, the federal government built many hundreds of workmen’s
dwellings in different parts of the country, particularly in the
neighborhood of the great shipbuilding plants. After the war they were
sold to private buyers.

It is often urged that instead of building model tenements in crowded
sections, the authorities of large cities ought to promote the growth of
suburbs by giving them good transportation facilities, and by promptly
supplying these suburban districts with sewers, water supply, gas,
electricity, and paved roads. People who go to the suburbs not only have
more room, but they are much more likely in the course of time, to own
their homes. [Sidenote: The importance of owning a home.] Home-owning is
a practice which ought to be encouraged, not only for reasons of health
and recreation, but to steady the political temper of the people as
well. The man who owns a piece of the earth’s surface, with a house on
it that he calls his home, is not often a believer in violence or
revolution. A great deal of honest sentiment clusters about the American
home, but very little can ever attach to three or four rooms in a
tenement house.

=Other Measures of Public Health Protection.=—The foregoing list does
not exhaust the various measures taken by the authorities of the nation,
state, and city for the protection of the public health. The laws and
regulations which now prohibit the use of public drinking-cups on
trains, in schools, and in other public places may be mentioned. The
common cup has been, in the past, an active spreader of infection. Its
use ought to be forbidden everywhere. Measures for the elimination of
mosquitoes and house-flies have been taken by all the more progressive
states and cities with aid at many points from the national government.
The statement has been made, upon what seems to be good authority, that
mosquitoes, flies, and other insect pests are directly or indirectly
responsible for a hundred thousand deaths in the United States every
year. Whatever their number, these deaths are preventable, because a
diligent campaign will suffice to banish both flies and mosquitoes from
any part of the country. The medical inspection of children in the
schools is another health measure of great importance. In many of the
larger cities this inspection includes all school children, of whatever
age, and is made at frequent intervals. It permits the early detection
of symptoms and thus allows remedies to be applied promptly. It has done
a great deal to protect the schools against the frequent outbreak of
epidemics.

=How Health Measures are Enforced.=—The duty of enforcing measures for
the protection of the public health rests first of all upon the local
health officers. [Sidenote: Local boards of health.] The laws of most
states now require that a board of health or some similar authority
shall be maintained in every township, village, town, and city. One of
the members of this board of health must usually be a physician. In
large towns and cities a qualified health officer, who is always a
physician, is employed on part time or full time. The local boards of
health and the health officers have charge of quarantine and
disinfection, the inspection of food and milk, and the enforcement of
sanitary regulations. They also grant permits for the maintenance of
slaughter-houses and other establishments which have a direct or
indirect relation to the public health.

[Sidenote: State health officers.]

In practically all the states, moreover, there is a State Department of
Health. This department is usually under the supervision of a State
Board of Health, but in a few states a single health commissioner has
been placed in charge. The powers and duties of these state departments
vary a good deal throughout the country, but in a general way they
assist the local health authorities, especially when an epidemic
threatens to spread beyond local control. A good deal of their work is
advisory in character.

[Sidenote: The United States Public Health Service]

The United States Public Health Service was established in 1912,
although health work had been carried on by the national government
through other agencies prior to that date. It is, rather strangely, a
bureau of the Treasury Department. The Public Health Service has charge
of the port quarantine system; its assistance may be obtained by the
states at any time in coping with epidemics; and it maintains
well-equipped research laboratories for the study of all questions
affecting the public health. It is believed by many physicians that the
work of this bureau is so important that it ought to be made a regular
department of the national administration with a member of the cabinet
at its head.[259]

[Sidenote: What the schools can do.]

=Education and the Public Health.=—The basis of successful public health
work is the education of people in hygiene and sanitation. If the people
can be brought to realize the transcendent importance of the work, their
co-operation will be given cheerfully. Where the health regulations are
now disobeyed it is largely because their value to the individual, as
well as to the community, has not been made clear. An effective method
of educating the public is by means of health exhibits which
demonstrate, with the aid of pictures, especially motion pictures, the
value of proper hygienic conditions in the workshop and the home. But
the ultimate education of the whole people in this field, as in all
others, must be primarily the work of the schools. It is easier to teach
hygiene and sanitation to children than to grown-ups. Adults have
acquired habits of life and attitudes of mind which are hard to alter.
Hence the education of children in all that relates to clean living,
wholesome food, modern sanitation, and the avoidance of disease should
be part of the regular work in schools throughout the country. Upon this
will depend, in no small degree, the future physical well-being of the
nation.

General References

H. G. JAMES, _Municipal Functions_, pp. 68-92;

HOLLIS GODFREY, _The Health of the City_, especially pp. 1-29;

W. H. ALLEN, _Civics and Health_, pp. 3-32;

_Cyclopedia of American Government_, see under _Health_, _Contagious
Diseases_, _Quarantine_, _Tenement House Regulation_, etc.;

W. B. MUNRO, _Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration_, pp.
122-166 (Water Supply); pp. 167-210 (Sewerage and Sanitation);

H. B. WOOD, _Sanitation Practically Applied_, especially pp. 205-232
(Pure Foods); pp. 233-277 (Clean Milk);

IRVING FISHER and L. B. FISK, _How to Live_, pp. 119-168;

WALTER CAMP, _Keeping Fit All the Way_, pp. 3-41;

CHARLES BASKERVILLE, _Municipal Chemistry_, pp. 1-19;

MILTON J. ROSENAU, _Preventive Medicine and Hygiene_, pp. 716-745;

W. T. SEDGWICK, _Principles of Sanitary Science and the Public Health_,
pp. 89-107;

E. B. HOAG and L. M. TERMAN, _Health Work in the Schools_, pp. 133-191.

Group Problems

=1. How can the spread of communicable diseases be prevented?= Are the
vital statistics of your community carefully and promptly compiled? The
local health authorities,—who are they and what are their functions?
What control is exercised over the agencies which spread disease?
Examine the status of each in your own community. =References=: MILTON
J. ROSENAU, _Preventive Medicine and Hygiene_, pp. 134-158; H. B. WOOD,
_Sanitation Practically Applied_, pp. 66-152; WOODS HUTCHINSON,
_Preventable Diseases_, pp. 83-122; HOLLIS GODFREY, _The Health of the
City_, pp. 158-193; G. C. WHIPPLE, _State Sanitation_, Vol. I, pp.
88-112; see also the United States Public Health Service, _Reprints on
the Notifiable Diseases_, and the reports of the state and local Boards
of Health.

=2. Public water supplies.= =References=: W. B. MUNRO, _Principles and
Methods of Municipal Administration_, pp. 122-166; H. G. JAMES,
_Municipal Functions_, pp. 217-227; H. B. WOOD, _Sanitation Practically
Applied_, pp. 278-337; ALLEN HAZEN, _Clean Water and How to Get It_, 2d
ed., pp. 73-99; CHARLES BASKERVILLE, _Municipal Chemistry_, pp. 33-89;
F. E. TURNEAURE and H. L. RUSSELL, _Public Water Supplies_, pp. 141-172.

=3. Modern methods of sewage disposal.= =References=: W. B. MUNRO,
_Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration_, pp. 183-210; H. G.
JAMES, _Municipal Functions_, pp. 227-237; H. B. WOOD, _Sanitation
Practically Applied_, pp. 338-378; JOHN A. FAIRLIE, _Municipal
Administration_, pp. 245-255; CHARLES BASKERVILLE, _Municipal
Chemistry_, pp. 276-299; W. P. CAPES and J. D. CARPENTER, _Municipal
Housecleaning_, pp. 33-89; G. W. FULLER, _Sewage Disposal_, pp. 175-183;
LEONARD METCALF and H. P. EDDY, _American Sewerage Practice_, Vol. II,
pp. 78-127; A. P. FOLWELL, _Sewerage_, pp. 300-332; L. P. KINNICUT, C.
A. E. WINSLOW, and A. W. PRATT, _Sewage Disposal_, pp. 204-232.

=4. The milk question.= =References=: CHARLES BASKERVILLE, _Municipal
Chemistry_, pp. 90-118; H. B. WOOD, _Sanitation Practically Applied_,
pp. 233-277; HOLLIS GODFREY, _The Health of the City_, pp. 30-57; M. J.
ROSENAU, _The Milk Question_, pp. 1-22; J. S. MACNUTT, _The Modern Milk
Problem_, pp. 1-30; H. N. PARKER, _City Milk Supply_, pp. 28-90; G. C.
WHIPPLE, _Typhoid Fever_, pp. 41-91.

=5. Housing in its relation to public health.= =References=: HOLLIS
GODFREY, _The Health of the City_, pp. 302-345; F. C. HOWE, _The Modern
City and Its Problems_, pp. 273-288; JACOB A. RIIS, _How the Other Half
Lives_, pp. 7-27; LAWRENCE VEILLER, _Housing Reform_, pp. 3-46.

Short Studies

1. =The germ theory of disease.= C. V. CHAPIN, _The Sources and Modes of
Infection_, pp. 1-38; C. B. MORREY, _The Fundamentals of Bacteriology_,
pp. 18-31.

2. =Typhoid fever.= Illinois State Board of Health, _Typhoid Fever: Its
Cause, Prevention, and Suppression_, pp. 2-17.

3. =Insects and disease.= H. B. WOOD, _Sanitation Practically Applied_,
pp. 420-444.

4. =Vital statistics.= _Ibid._, pp. 25-65; G. C. WHIPPLE, _Vital
Statistics_, pp. 308-337.

5. =Sources of water supply.= W. B. MUNRO, _Principles and Methods of
Municipal Administration_, pp. 122-142.

6. =The disposal of garbage.= _Ibid._, pp. 167-183.

7. =The inspection of food.= H. B. WOOD, _Sanitation Practically
Applied_, pp. 205-232.

8. =The smoke nuisance.= HOLLIS GODFREY, _The Health of the City_, pp.
1-8. (See also United States Bureau of Mines, _Bulletin_, No. 49.)

9. =Tenement-house reform.= C. A. BEARD, _American City Government_, pp.
287-310.

10. =Municipal housing abroad.= HOLLIS GODFREY, _The Health of the
City_, pp. 263-301; F. C. HOWE, _The Modern City and Its Problems_, pp.
284-304.

11. =The work of local health authorities.= MOSES N. BAKER, _Municipal
Engineering and Sanitation_, pp. 248-258; HENRY BRUÈRE, _The New City
Government_, pp. 401-413.

12. =Health and education.= H. B. WOOD, _Sanitation Practically
Applied_, pp. 445-462; F. W. BURKS and J. D. BURKS, _Health and the
School_, pp. 73-102; E. B. HOAG and L. M. TERMAN, _Health Work in the
Schools_, pp. 1-35.

Questions

1. From your reading of history and literature give some examples of the
way diseases were dealt with in the olden days.

2. What are bacilli? Make a list of the things, beneficial, harmless,
and harmful which are due to their activities.

3. Explain the various ways in which disease may be communicated. How
are the following measures related to the control of communicable
diseases: (_a_) quarantine; (_b_) the draining of marshes; (_c_) the
removal of filth; (_d_) the extermination of rats; (_e_) the enforcement
of regulations to prevent overcrowding in tenements?

4. What are vital statistics and what is their value? How are they
compiled and by what means may they be improved?

5. Explain what is meant by vaccination. By inoculation. Give some
evidence to prove that both have been effective.

6. Why is milk inspection of supreme importance? In what various ways
may milk become infected? Why should milk be kept in a cool place?

7. Do you understand the following terms: adulteration; artificial
preservatives; misbranding; ptomaine; narcotics?

8. Name the various wastes which the community produces each day and
explain how each may be safely disposed of.

9. In what ways may water be treated so as to make it safe for human
consumption?

10. Why and in what way is it necessary to regulate the housing of the
people in large cities?

11. What are the duties of the local board of health in your community?
The state department of health?

12. Ought hygiene to be a compulsory study in the public high schools?

Topics for Debate

1. Vaccination should be made compulsory throughout the United States.

2. American cities should construct and maintain municipal tenements.

3. Free medical attendance should be provided at the public expense for
all who cannot afford to pay for it.

-----

Footnote 251:

Measures for the promotion and protection of the public health have a
marked effect upon the death rate. Fifty years ago it was not at all
uncommon to find, in American cities and towns, an annual death rate
of thirty persons per thousand of population. Today this rate has
everywhere been cut in two. Even in large centers of population like
New York and Chicago the annual death rate, in normal years, is now
below fifteen per thousand. This means, of course, that the average
duration of life, taking the population as a whole, has been
lengthened. The lowered death rate has probably added seven or eight
additional years to the average life-span. It is easy to see what an
enormous gain this has meant to the productive power of the country.

Footnote 252:

Recall, for example, the passage in Homer’s _Iliad_, where the sun god
in anger raised his terrible bow and with every twang of the
bow-string sent men to their death by pestilence.

Footnote 253:

It was the same with many other things. The Romans, for example, used
seals with which to stamp impressions on documents and coins. That is
the essence of printing. Yet the world did not learn the next
important step, how to print books, for a thousand years.

Footnote 254:

During the earlier years of the World War, before the armies of the
Central Powers overran Serbia, that country was stricken with typhus
from one end to the other. The Allied countries equipped a great
sanitary expedition which went through the land and virtually
disinfected the entire population. Trains of box cars were fitted up
as bathing and delousing plants, with hot water and steam from the
locomotive. These trains went along from village to village, stopping
at each long enough to put the inhabitants, one by one, through the
scrubbing process and their clothing through the steam vat.

Footnote 255:

In order that measures for preventing the spread of disease may be
effective, they must be based upon a well-organized and accurate
system of vital statistics. These statistics include figures relating
to births, deaths, and illness. They are compiled in the offices of
the health authorities from the reports sent in by physicians. These
reports, to be of real value, must not only be accurate but prompt. By
means of these statistics the health authorities can sense the
beginnings of an epidemic, can often determine its source or cause,
and can immediately set the machinery in motion to ensure its control.
When one physician reports a case of typhoid this may not be of great
significance; but if a dozen cases are reported on the same day, the
necessity of an immediate investigation into the water and milk
supplies becomes apparent.

Footnote 256:

The city of Glasgow obtains its supply of pure water from Loch
Katrine, immortalized in _The Lady of the Lake_.

Footnote 257:

The choice between the two kinds of filtration depends upon local
conditions. Where the raw water is excessively turbid or bad-colored,
the rapid sand filter is more commonly used. The chemical treatment of
water involves the use of chlorinated lime (better known as bleaching
powder) or some other chemical disinfectant which kills the noxious
bacteria. Only small quantities are required in proportion to the
volume of water used. Chemical treatment is not commonly used except
in emergencies; it is not regarded as a satisfactory permanent plan of
water treatment.

Footnote 258:

These housing regulations now provide, as a rule, that houses designed
to accommodate more than two families shall not occupy more than
two-thirds of the lots upon which they are built, the remaining space
being left for light and air. They also require that such houses shall
not be of highly inflammable construction, that they be provided with
lighted hallways, that sanitary equipment be installed, and that no
rooms be used for ordinary living purposes unless they have one or
more windows. A further provision in some of these tenement-house laws
is that houses may be condemned as unsanitary if they contain less
than so many cubic feet of air space for each person living in them.
This last provision is difficult to enforce except by frequent
inspection, yet it is very important because no matter how well a
house may be constructed, there will be a danger to the public health
if it is seriously overcrowded.

Footnote 259:

At the Peace Conference in 1919 the protection of the public health
throughout the world was considered so important that provision for it
was included in the Covenant of the League of Nations (see p. 638).

CHAPTER XXVII
POOR-RELIEF, CORRECTION, AND OTHER
WELFARE PROBLEMS

_The purpose of this chapter is to describe the way in which
American communities are dealing with the problems of poverty,
crime, and delinquency._

=Poverty and Pauperism.=—Poverty is one of the very oldest among human
problems; two thousand years ago, in Biblical times, the world was
trying to find a solution for it and it has not ceased to try ever
since. In all ages and in all countries there have been groups of
unfortunate people who, through their own fault or the fault of others,
are not able to provide for their own subsistence. It is to the
condition of such people, whose earnings do not enable them to maintain
the normal standard of living, that we apply the term poverty. Not all
who are poor, therefore, are in poverty, but only those who are so poor
that their health and physical efficiency are being impaired by lack of
earning power. Some of those who are in poverty become dependent upon
private or public charity, and these we call paupers. Pauperism, in
other words, is a condition of dependence upon the agencies of
poor-relief. Many thousands of persons live in poverty, yet are not
paupers. They struggle along, able only to make the barest sort of
living, and often suffer great privations rather than apply for any form
of charity.

=The Extent of Poverty and Pauperism in the United States.=—There are no
accurate figures showing the extent of poverty in the United States.
[Sidenote: The number of paupers in public institutions.] The census of
1920 listed nearly a million persons in charitable institutions of one
sort or another, of whom about one hundred thousand were paupers in
public almshouses. But this census made no computation of the number
receiving poor-relief in their own homes, which must be several times as
large as that in institutions. It would probably be within bounds to say
that five persons out of every hundred in the United States are partly
or wholly dependent upon private or public aid. Probably as many more
are in a condition of poverty, but continue to struggle along without
assistance from others. We may say, therefore, that poverty holds about
ten per cent of the whole population in its iron grip; hence it is no
exaggeration to speak, as social-workers often do, of the “submerged
tenth”.

[Sidenote: Comparison with Europe.]

Compared with other countries, however, this is not an excessive
proportion. In the countries of Europe the percentage of paupers is much
larger. Poverty is usually more widespread in thickly-populated regions
where there are large groups of industrial workers. In London it has
been estimated that at least thirty per cent of the people are below the
poverty line; in New York City the estimate is twenty-five per cent. The
cities everywhere contribute far more than their due proportion to the
impoverished classes. Poverty is least prevalent, as a rule, in the
agricultural districts.[260]

=The Causes of Poverty.=—The causes of poverty are numerous and
complicated but they can all be grouped into two general classes: First,
those which are traceable to the individual, and second, those which are
attributable to the environment in which he lives. These we may
distinguish by calling them _individual_ and _social_ causes.

[Sidenote: 1. Individual causes of poverty.]

Among the individual causes of poverty the most common are illness,
accident, old age, degeneracy, bereavement, intemperance, shiftlessness,
and ignorance. Illness is probably the most important single cause. The
figures compiled by poor-relief organizations show that it is the
immediate reason for at least one-quarter of all the applications which
come to them for assistance, and is a contributory reason in the case of
many more. Accidents which result in either temporary or permanent
incapacity to do full work have also been an important cause of poverty
in the past, but they are no longer so to the same extent in those
states which have made provision for workmen’s insurance (see p. 411).
Old age comes to all in time and there are many thousands who make no
provision for its coming. This class includes many who have worked hard
all their lives, have reared families, and have been useful citizens,
but who have been either unable or unwilling to save. In some European
countries, as has been pointed out, provision is made for them by means
of old age pension systems. Bereavement, particularly the loss by death
of the family’s main support, has been a frequent cause of poverty among
women and children. To some extent this has been alleviated by the
practice of making provision for mothers’ pensions and by the increasing
extent to which men who have dependents are now securing life insurance.

[Sidenote: Mental and moral degeneracy.]

Degeneracy, which is also an important cause of poverty, may be defined
as inherited mental or moral weakness. Feeble-minded parents often
transmit this defect to their children, who start life with a handicap
which they are not usually able to overcome. It has been estimated that
nearly one-half of all the inmates of public institutions are below the
normal standard of mentality. Many years ago a careful study was made of
a certain family—the Jukes—through four generations, great-grandparents,
grandparents, parents, and children. Among seven hundred persons in this
family, beginning with degenerate great-grandparents, no fewer than five
hundred became at some time or other recipients of public poor-relief.
Incidentally, it may be mentioned that they also contributed far more
than their due proportion to the prisons and insane asylums.

[Sidenote: Physical handicaps.]

Then, again, some people who are neither mentally nor morally
degenerate, are born with physical handicaps or acquire these handicaps
early in life; such, for instance, are the deaf-mutes, the blind, and
the crippled. They are the ones whom we most commonly meet on the public
streets begging or selling trinkets, or playing some sort of instrument
as an excuse for what is really begging. Intemperance, too, has figured
largely among the causes of poverty during many centuries, but so far as
the United States is concerned it is not likely to do so in the future.
Alcohol is one of the important factors in the problem of poverty which
can be placed under control by the action of society. Shiftlessness,
ignorance, bad habits, and vice are all causes of varying importance,
but in the main they are only immediate causes; the underlying causes
are usually to be found in some mental, moral, or physical defect of the
individual, or they arise from a poor environment.

[Sidenote: 2. The social causes of poverty.]

The social causes of poverty are also numerous. Unemployment is one of
them, and it is in many cases due to no fault of the individual worker.
More often it is the outcome of a serious imperfection in our industrial
organization (see p. 417). The underpayment of the worker, particularly
the underpayment of women and children in industry, has also contributed
to the problem of poverty. It means that the workers are under-nourished
and therefore unable to maintain their normal strength; they are unable
to save anything for use in case of sickness or old age, and hence have
to fall back upon the agencies of private or public assistance whenever
misfortune comes. Minimum wage laws (see p. 416) aim to protect society
from having to pay the penalty which results, both directly and
indirectly, from the underpayment of labor. Unsanitary conditions of
living, bad housing, and overcrowding are causes of poverty—they are
social causes because society creates such conditions and permits them
to continue. Unsanitary conditions lead to illness, and illness results
in unemployment. But they are also, in a sense, the effects of poverty;
they are conditions of life to which, under our present social and
economic organization, the poor are compelled to submit by reason of
their poverty.

Defects in our educational system have been productive of more poverty
than people commonly imagine. It is not without significance that
poverty is always widespread in those countries and those regions where
illiteracy and ignorance are prevalent. Compulsory public education is
one of the greatest measures for the prevention of poverty that the
world has ever devised. [Sidenote: Relation of the school system to
poverty.] While the system of public education in the United States is
exceedingly efficient on the whole, it is nevertheless true that many
thousands of children are growing up without enough education to ensure
them a fair chance of success in life.

Some would also include our immigration policy among the social causes
of poverty. Until recent years these immigrants were permitted to come
in almost unrestricted numbers; they concentrated, for the most part, in
large cities; they contributed to overcrowding and by their competition
for labor forced down the level of wages in unskilled employments. The
causes of poverty, in short, are not all traceable to the faults or
misfortunes of the individual. Society as a whole is responsible for
some of them.[261]

=How We Deal with the Problem of Poverty.=—The public attitude in regard
to the problem of poverty has undergone a marked change during the past
fifty years. For many centuries poverty was looked upon as the result of
human perverseness, the outcome of purely individual causes which were
likely to endure as long as human nature remained the same. [Sidenote:
Older methods of dealing with the poor.] It was taken for granted that
the poor would be with us always; that poverty could not be prevented by
any action on the part of society, and that the only thing to do was to
punish the shiftless while helping the worthy poor by giving them public
and private aid. The measures for the relief of the poor taken by the
governments of various European countries and by most American
communities until comparatively recent years were based upon this
attitude. Those who could work and would not were branded as vagrants
and put in jail. Those who were in poverty through sickness, accident,
old age, degeneracy, intemperance, or other individual causes were taken
into such institutions as hospitals, infirmaries, almshouses, homes for
inebriates, and the like. The people were everywhere encouraged to give
alms to the poor, but the prevention of poverty by organized social
action received little or no attention.

[Sidenote: The modern attitude.]

The public attitude, especially the attitude of the more enlightened
part of the public, has now changed or is changing. We know from a
careful study of the problem that poverty is no more an essential
concomitant of civilized life than were piracy, slavery, bubonic plague,
or universal drunkenness in years now long gone by. Poverty can be
eradicated as these things have been, although not by any means so
easily. The individual causes of poverty, of course, will always be at
work. Old age will continue to come upon mankind, and we can hardly hope
under any circumstances to get rid of sickness and accidents entirely.
But society can at least bring it about that old age, illness, and
accident, not to speak of unemployment and other social causes, will no
longer bring inevitable poverty in their train. Attention is now being
given, therefore, to measures of prevention; and almsgiving has come to
be recognized as a mere makeshift way of dealing with the problem. It is
like trying to put an end to all diseases and to wipe illness off the
face of the earth by merely giving people medicine after they become
sick.

=The Temporary Remedies.=—The only permanent solution for the problem of
poverty is the removal of the underlying causes. This, however, cannot
be accomplished in a day, and in the meantime various measures of
temporary alleviation must be provided by the public authorities and by
private organizations.

[Sidenote: Indoor relief.]

Public provision for the care of the poor takes two forms known
respectively as indoor and outdoor relief. By indoor relief is meant the
care of the poor in institutions maintained by the state, county, or
city. There was a time when paupers of all types were herded together
into the same poorhouse, but it is now the policy to provide, so far as
practicable, different public institutions for the sick, the mentally
defective, the aged, and the young. Hence, in many states we have
hospitals for chronic cases, institutions for the feeble-minded, homes
for the aged, institutions for the care of orphans, schools for the
blind, and so on.

[Sidenote: Outdoor relief.]

By outdoor relief is meant the giving of assistance to the poor in their
own homes. Many years ago this was the more common plan of dealing with
the problem; it still exists in many American communities. People who
are in need apply to the overseers of the poor or to some other public
authority from whom they receive, after proper investigation, such
assistance in the form of food, clothing, fuel, or medicine as they may
urgently require. Some of the larger cities have abandoned altogether
the giving of outdoor relief at the public expense because they have
found this system open to grave abuses. Unless administered with great
care, it encourages shiftlessness and results in the expenditure of
large amounts from the public funds. The tendency nowadays is to leave
outdoor relief to be provided by private organizations although some
communities still take care of the most urgent cases from the public
funds. These private organizations are sometimes connected with the
churches but more often they are entirely non-sectarian, made up of
generous men and women who give both time and money to the work.

Private outdoor relief often leads to indiscriminate almsgiving, thus
lending encouragement to wastefulness and imposture. People who are too
lazy to earn an honest living apply to various organizations for help
and sometimes obtain it from several of them. [Sidenote: The
organization of relief agencies.] To eliminate this overlapping central
bodies known as Charity Organization Societies, or Associated Charities,
or Family Welfare Societies have been formed in many of the larger
American communities. Their function is to serve as a clearing house of
information concerning all applicants for assistance and in other ways
to make the work of the individual organizations more efficient.

=The Permanent Remedies.=—The permanent solution of the problem of
poverty must be sought in comprehensive measures of prevention. Some of
these measures are already being taken in the more progressive states;
others have been proposed and are steadily gaining public support.
[Sidenote: Social insurance.] Insurance against sickness and accident,
minimum wage laws, mothers’ pensions, are already doing their share in
the prevention of poverty. Old age pensions have been established abroad
and in time will doubtless be provided for the American worker.
Insurance against unemployment may be inadvisable (see p. 418) but the
organization of industry can be so improved as to reduce the amount of
unemployment now existing. [Sidenote: Other remedies.] The prohibition
of the liquor traffic has marked an important step in the direction of
reducing poverty. Vocational schools for the deaf, the blind, and the
crippled, are now training these unfortunates in the art of earning
their own living. The enforcement of laws relating to compulsory
education will reduce illiteracy and thus decrease the class from which
poverty secures most of its recruits. Present restrictions upon
immigration, if they are continued, will render more easy the
maintenance of American standards of living among those who toil with
their hands. By the segregation of degenerates in public institutions,
moreover, we can prevent the propagation of degeneracy.[262]
Overcrowding and unsanitary conditions of living are being prevented by
modern city planning and good housing laws.

Now it is doubtful whether all of these measures put together will avail
to wipe out poverty entirely, but if they are vigorously applied the
amount of poverty in the United States will certainly be much reduced.
[Sidenote: The danger of too many remedies.] There is always a danger,
of course, that laws and regulations designed to promote the well-being
of the poor may over-reach themselves, and may result in placing
additional burdens upon the wage-earning classes. Attempts to narrow the
gulf between the rich and the poor by the levying of discriminatory
taxes do not usually succeed; in the end they merely augment the
hardships of the poor. It is customary for sociologists to speak of
poverty as a “social disease” and to assure us that like any other
disease it can be eradicated. That is all very true. But diseases are
not eradicated by striking at the heads of healthy people in order that
they may have a smaller advantage over the sick. Neither will the plague
of poverty be cured by measures which strike at the well-to-do for the
mere reason that they are so much better off than the poor. The poor can
never be made rich by the simple expedient of making the rich poorer.

=The Problem of the Mentally Defective.=—There are various forms of
mental defectiveness, ranging from feeble-mindedness to violent
insanity. The total number of mentally defective persons in the United
States is estimated to exceed half a million. Until relatively recent
years no careful distinction was made between persons afflicted with
different forms of mental trouble; all were treated in much the same
way. [Sidenote: Old and new methods of dealing with the insane.] The
usual plan was to bring them together in large asylums where the
violently insane were kept under close restraint while the “harmless”
inmates were given somewhat greater freedom. This crude method of
dealing with unfortunates who needed medical treatment far more than
they needed restraint and confinement has now been almost everywhere
abandoned, and the treatment of mental defectiveness is being carried on
in accordance with more scientific methods. These scientific methods
involve the careful study and diagnosis of each particular case and the
substitution of medical care for mechanical restraint. In response to
this treatment a considerable proportion of the cases have proved
capable of marked improvement, and sometimes entire recovery. It should
be mentioned, however, that some forms of insanity are not curable by
any known form of scientific treatment. A permanent reduction in the
number of mentally-defective persons can best be achieved by preventing
the transmission of hereditary defects, by the proper treatment of
mental ailments as soon as the first symptoms appear, and by the removal
of two things which have contributed greatly to the spread of insanity
in the past, namely, alcoholism and the drug habit.

=The Problem of Crime.=—A crime is an offence against society. In early
days all offences were regarded as having been committed against
individuals. The person who stole something was looked upon as having
wronged the owner, and the owner was entitled to secure his own redress.
But with the development of organized society there grew up the idea
that the whole community had an interest in the prevention of
wrong-doing, and that wrongs which were ostensibly directed against
single individuals were in reality committed against the whole people.
[Sidenote: Evolution of the criminal law.] So society took upon itself
the responsibility for making laws to protect the rights of individuals,
and for the imposition of punishment whenever these laws are violated. A
crime is an offence against society because it involves some violation
of a law which has been made in the interest of all. An act may
constitute a crime, therefore, without being morally wrong. It is not
morally wrong to park an automobile alongside a hydrant, but it is in
most cities a violation of the law to do so, and punishable in the
courts. The courts enforce the law whatever it is.

=The Classification of Crimes.=—It was formerly the custom to classify
all crimes as treasons, felonies, or misdemeanors. A treason was an
attempt to overthrow the state by rebellion or otherwise; a felony was a
serious offence against persons or property, such as murder or burglary;
while the term misdemeanor was used to include all the less serious
violations of the law, such as selling milk without a license or
disregarding a sign to keep off the grass in the public parks. Nowadays,
however, a more elaborate grouping of crimes is usually made. [Sidenote:
The various types of offences.] This grouping usually includes (_a_)
offences against the public peace and order, such as treason, rioting,
and any obstruction of the officers of the law; (_b_) offences against
the public health and morals, such as bigamy, gambling, the sale of
intoxicants, or the pollution of public water supplies; (_c_) offences
against the person, such as murder, manslaughter, or assault; and (_d_)
offences against property, including burglary, theft, fraud, and so on.
This list of offences does not include such things as breaches of
contract, libel, and failure to pay debts, for these are not crimes but
torts or civil wrongs. They are still regarded as offences against
individuals and not against society. The aggrieved individual brings his
own suit in the courts, and the courts merely act as arbiters to see
that justice is done between man and man.

=The Causes of Crime.=—The causes of crime, like those of poverty, are
both individual and social. [Sidenote: 1. Individual causes of crime.]
Men sometimes take to wrongdoing because they are mentally or morally
defective, having inherited traits of degeneracy. Handicapped by these
defects in making an honest living they often resort to crime at an
early age. Bad training in the home, habits of truancy acquired during
school age, and aversion to work are all individual causes which promote
criminality. [Sidenote: 2. Social causes of crime.] The social causes
include poverty, the influence of bad companions, the lack of efficiency
on the part of police in cities, the undue leniency of the courts in
some cases, and the difficulty which even honest men sometimes encounter
in obeying the host of laws which our lawmakers are turning out every
year. It is significant that crimes against property, such as burglary
and theft become less frequent when the country is prosperous and more
numerous in times of depression when so many persons are out of
employment. Among illiterates the proportion of offenders against the
law is very high, so that the failure to enforce rigidly the laws
relating to school attendance must also be set down as one of the social
causes of criminality.

=The Extent of Crime in the United States.=—More than half a million
persons are sent to jails or reformatories in the United States every
year. The number of those who are let off with the payment of fines is
much larger. Even these two figures put together do not give us the
number of crimes committed, however, for it is probable that the
majority of crimes do not result in the detection of the guilty person,
and many minor crimes are not reported to the police at all. The cost of
maintaining police systems for the prevention of crime, courts for the
trial of accused persons, and prisons for the incarceration of the
convicted, is about a billion dollars per year, or about as much as the
country spends upon education.

[Sidenote: Are crimes on the increase?]

Whether the number of crimes, taking the country as a whole, is
increasing more rapidly than the growth of population we do not know.
This is because the figures in some states are not carefully or
uniformly kept. But crime has been increasing in the large cities during
the past few decades. This is partly because the crowded cities afford
unusual opportunities to escape detection and partly because police
inefficiency or corruption has encouraged the commission of crimes with
impunity. The number of crimes committed in the United States is much
greater, in proportion to population, than in any of the chief European
countries.[263]

=The Theory of Punishment.=—Among primitive people punishment was
regarded as a retaliation or vengeance, but as civilization developed
this notion gave way to one in which punishment was looked upon as a
means of warning other people from committing similar crimes. In either
case the feeling was that punishment ought to be severe. [Sidenote: The
old severity.] Severity, rather than certainty of punishment was
depended upon to deter people from committing crimes. A century ago in
England, for example, men were put to death for stealing small sums of
money and were sent to jail for long terms when they failed to pay their
debts. But even this severity of punishment did not achieve the desired
end, for crimes were relatively more numerous in England a century ago
than they are today.

[Sidenote: What is the purpose of punishment?]

In due course the public intelligence was led to the conclusion that
_certainty_ of detection and punishment, rather than severity, was the
best way of securing the observance of the laws.[264] Since the prime
object of punishment is neither to visit the wrath of society upon the
offender, nor yet to reform him (although this is an incidental object),
but to protect the people against the commission of crimes, it follows
that the penalty should be no more severe than is necessary to achieve
this object. Hence there are gradations of punishment, each adjusted to
the degree in which the offence constitutes a challenge to the
well-being of society. If murder is more severely penalized than
manslaughter, it is not because the victim suffers more in one case than
in the other. He has lost his life in either case, and no penalty can
restore it. It is not the atrociousness of a crime that makes it
serious, but the degree of danger to the whole community involved.

=Prisons and Prison Reform.=—Until a generation ago the treatment of
prisoners in all parts of the country was inhuman. Offenders of all
types, old and young, were thrown together into the same institutions.
They were brutally treated by those in charge, confined in narrow, damp
cells, given poor food to eat and rarely set to work at any useful
employment. Even yet these conditions have not wholly disappeared from
every part of the United States. But the movement for the reform of
prisons and prison methods has made notable progress during the past
twenty years.

[Sidenote: The main features of prison reform:]

The main features in prison reform may be briefly stated. [Sidenote: 1.
Classification of prisoners.] First, in point of importance, is the
classifying of prisoners and the sending of each class to a special
institution instead of herding them all together in one county jail.
Some prisoners are hardened criminals and not easy to reform. Others are
first offenders, persons who have never been previously convicted. With
humane treatment and the opportunity to learn a trade these prisoners
can often be sent out into the world, when their terms expire, with the
likelihood of their becoming good citizens. There are others who also
need to be segregated, such as juvenile offenders and those who are
mentally defective. Prison reform involves the separation and special
treatment of each class.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Illustration:

JUSTICE AND MERCY. By A. R. Willett

_Copyright by A. R. Willett. Reproduced by permission of the County
Commissioners, Mahoning County, Ohio, from a photograph by the
Youngstown Art Engraving Company._
]

JUSTICE AND MERCY

By A. R. Willett

From a mural decoration in the Mahoning County Court
House, Youngstown, Ohio.

There is enough realism in this picture to obviate
the need of much interpretation. The prosecuting
attorney, with the book of the law in his hand, asks
that judgment be given. He is in no angry mood, but
is merely performing a stern duty. To the right, a
wife and mother pleads that justice be tempered with
mercy.

“And earthly power doth then show likest God’s,
When mercy seasons justice.”
—The Merchant of Venice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: 2. The new discipline.]

Another feature of prison reform is the humanizing of discipline. It has
been the general custom in prisons to punish any serious breach of the
rules by placing the offender in solitary confinement for days or even
weeks. Better results are now being obtained by giving privileges to
those prisoners who behave properly and taking these privileges away
from all who do not. This plan involves the grading of prisoners
according to their conduct, the best-behaved men being placed in the
first class and allowed various privileges. A system of marks and
demerits is used to determine the grade of each prisoner. Solitary
confinement is reserved for the incorrigibles only.[265]

[Sidenote: 3. Internal reforms.]

Along with the system of classifying and grading prisoners, a general
betterment of internal prison conditions has been taking place. It is
now generally recognized that all prisoners should be kept employed at
useful labor, that wherever practicable those who have not already
learned a trade should be taught one during their prison terms, that
those who are illiterate should learn to read and write, that the labor
of prisoners should not be farmed out to employers as has so often been
the case in the past, that prisoners should not be subjected to
unnecessary humiliation, and that they should be given such measure of
self-government as can be safely entrusted to them. Outdoor employment
on state farms and state roads is replacing, to a considerable extent,
the activities of the prison workshop.

=Indeterminate Sentences and the Parole System.=—Two marked improvements
in correctional methods have been introduced by the use of indeterminate
sentences and releases on parole. The old plan was to sentence every
prisoner for a fixed term, two years, ten years, or some such period.
The convict then served out his full term, no more and no less,
irrespective of his behavior. This plan is now being abolished. Instead
it is becoming the general practice to make the sentences indeterminate,
as for example, not less than two nor more than five years. By good
behavior the prisoner is then enabled to secure his release when the
minimum period has expired. This method is particularly desirable in the
case of young offenders who are sent to reformatories. The parole system
is also used as a means of encouraging good behavior and reformation on
the part of prisoners. Where this system is in operation the prison
officials are permitted to release prisoners, even before their minimum
terms have expired, upon promise to give society no further trouble. If
the paroled prisoner should violate this promise, he is brought back to
finish his term. It has been found that very few paroled prisoners fail
to keep their promises.

=The Probation System.=—The number of persons committed to prison has
been considerably reduced by the use of probation. In the case of first
offences, where the crime is not serious, it is now the usual practice
in many courts to place the offender on probation for a given period.
This means that instead of being taken to jail he is placed under the
surveillance of a probation officer. These probation officers are
attached to the courts; their duty is to help probationers, keep a
watchful eye on them, and report from time to time how they are getting
along.[266]

=The Problem of Juvenile Delinquency.=—Great progress has been made
during the past twenty-five years in the treatment of juvenile
offenders. Persons under eighteen years of age were formerly dealt with
by the regular criminal tribunals; in many of the larger cities they are
now brought before a special Juvenile Court. Where such courts do not
exist it is the usual practice to have juvenile cases brought before the
regular court at a special session. The offenders, in serious cases, are
usually sent to reform schools or other institutions where vocational
instruction is given. For minor offences, particularly where there is no
previous record of appearance in the juvenile court, the offender is
placed in charge of a probation officer. The purpose of the probation
system is to secure the reformation of the offenders, not to enforce
punishment.[267]

[Sidenote: Why divorces are becoming more common.]

=The Divorce Problem.=—The steady increase in the number of divorces has
tended to make juvenile delinquency more difficult to handle; in other
respects also it constitutes a social problem of the first
magnitude.[268] Several economic and social changes have tended to make
divorces more common. The development of industry is one of them. Before
modern industry afforded employment for women, the household was almost
the sole center of feminine activity. But under present economic
conditions most women find no great difficulty in earning their own
living and this has engendered a feeling of self-reliance. Mention may
likewise be made of the fact that the rights and privileges of women
have been more strongly stressed by law and custom during recent years.
Women have been given the legal right to own property, to vote, and to
hold office. These things have helped to develop a spirit of
independence. Social conditions have also changed. In the old days men
who divorced their wives and women who divorced their husbands were
frowned upon by their neighbors, but this weapon of social ostracism has
been gradually losing its power because society has come to recognize
the justice of granting divorces for adequate reasons.

[Sidenote: Can the causes of divorces be reduced?]

=How May the Situation be Remedied?=—In seeking a remedy for any
political, social, or economic evil we must first turn to the causes.
The increase in the number of divorces has been due in considerable
measure, as already pointed out, to the growth of industrial
opportunities for women and to the readiness with which society
tolerates the granting of divorces. It is also due, in some degree, to
the conditions of life in large cities where the nervous strain caused
by over-crowding makes it more difficult to meet the complex domestic
problems patiently. It is significant that divorces are much more common
in the large cities than in the rural districts. In part it is due also
to the lax divorce laws of some states, where the courts are permitted
to grant divorces on the flimsiest pretexts, and to the absence of
sufficiently strict regulations designed to prevent hasty marriages.

[Sidenote: Some specific remedies.]

Some of these causes are hard to remedy. The economic independence of
women is a new condition which cannot be changed. Some progress has been
made in various cities of the country by the establishment of special
tribunals known as Courts of Domestic Relations whose function it is to
adjust family quarrels. These courts have proved their value by keeping
many cases out of the divorce courts. It has been suggested that we
ought to amend the national constitution so as to provide that no
divorces shall be granted except by the federal courts. This would make
the rules uniform throughout the United States and prevent the securing
of divorces on trivial grounds. A proposal for such an amendment is now
being considered by Congress. Meanwhile some of the states have come to
the conclusion that a check should be placed upon hasty marriages and
have consequently made laws requiring that persons intending to be
married shall file notice of their intention a certain number of days
before the marriage takes place. These various remedies are good enough
so far as they go, but the only permanent and effective remedy is the
education of public opinion to a point where it will use its influence
to check the stream of divorces. Social ostracism is a powerful weapon
in the hands of any community that wishes to use it. The immediate need
is to educate the American people in the homes, in the schools, and in
the churches, so that they may appreciate the gravity of the problem and
insist upon its being properly solved.

General References

E. T. TOWNE, _Social Problems_, pp. 285-307 (Poor Relief); pp. 184-207
(Mental Defectives); pp. 208-234 (Crime and Correction);

H. R. BURCH and S. H. PATTERSON, _American Social Problems_, pp. 200-250
(Poor Relief); pp. 271-288 (Mental Defectives); pp. 237-270 (Crime and
Correction);

CHARLES A. ELLWOOD, _Sociology and Modern Social Problems_, pp. 299-325
(Poor Relief); pp. 326-353 (Crime and Correction);

A. G. WARNER, _American Charities_, especially pp. 36-63;

C. R. HENDERSON, _Dependent, Defective, and Delinquent Classes_,
especially pp. 1-39;

F. H. WINES, _Punishment and Reformation_, especially pp. 121-132 (The
Reformation of the Criminal);

MAURICE PARMELEE, _Poverty and Social Progress_, pp. 168-187.

Group Problems

=1. The causes of poverty and how we may get rid of them.= Relative
importance of the various causes in your own state and community.
Analyze each of these causes and ascertain what measures have been taken
to deal with each. Study the experience of foreign countries with
old-age pensions and unemployment allowances. Note the effect, if any,
of workmen’s insurance, mothers’ pensions, and minimum wage laws in
various American states. Suggest further steps for removing the
fundamental causes of poverty. =References=: E. T. TOWNE, _Social
Problems_, pp. 290-301; H. R. BURCH and S. H. PATTERSON, _American
Social Problems_, pp. 205-216; E. T. DEVINE, _Misery and its Causes_,
pp. 1-50; ROBERT HUNTER, _Poverty_, pp. 1-65; W. H. DAWSON, _Social
Insurance_, _passim_.

=2. The care of dependent children.= =References=: A. G. WARNER,
_American Charities_, pp. 220-228; C. R. HENDERSON, _Dependent,
Defective, and Delinquent Classes_, pp. 98-120; G. B. MANGOLD, _Child
Problems_, pp. 293-345.

=3. Prison reform: how far should it be carried?= =References=: E. H.
WINES, _Punishment and Reformation_, pp. 312-363; T. M. OSBORNE, _Within
Prison Walls_, pp. 24-58; _Ibid._, _Society and Prisons_, pp. 185-235;
C. R. HENDERSON, _The Dependent, Defective, and Delinquent Classes_, pp.
276-307.

=4. The divorce problem in its social and economic aspects.= Early
history of the problem. The spread of divorce in the United States.
Comparison with other countries. Causes of divorce. Relative importance
of these causes. Effects on family organization. Effects upon the
children concerned. Economic results of divorce. The possible remedies.
Probable effectiveness of these remedies. Conclusions. =References=: C.
A. ELLWOOD, _Sociology and Modern Social Problems_, pp. 147-166; W. F.
WILLCOX, _The Divorce Problem_, _passim_; J. P. LICHTENBERGER, _Divorce;
A study in social causation_ (Columbia University Studies in History,
Economics, and Public Law, Vol. XXXV, No. 3, pp. 52-96, 151-171); J. Q.
DEALEY, _The Family in its Sociological Aspects_, pp. 73-108; United
States Bureau of the Census, _Report for 1910_ (See _Abstract_,
_Sections on Marital Conditions_); H. BOSANQUET, _The Family_, pp.
260-314; W. GOODSELL, _The Family as a Social and Educational
Institution_, pp. 456-496.

Short Studies

1. =The treatment of the poor in earlier days.= THOMAS MACKAY, _Public
Relief of the Poor_, pp. 35-68.

2. =Unemployment as a cause of poverty.= E. T. DEVINE, _Misery and its
Causes_, pp. 113-146.

3. =Old-age pensions abroad.= W. H. DAWSON, _Social Insurance in
Germany_, pp. 1-21.

4. =The problem of the deaf and the blind.= E. T. TOWNE, _Social
Problems_, pp. 161-181.

5. =Poor relief organizations in the United States.= C. R. HENDERSON,
_Modern Methods of Charity_, pp. 380-451.

6. =The problem of the mental defectives.= H. R. BURCH and S. H.
PATTERSON, _American Social Problems_, pp. 271-288.

7. =Theories of crime and punishment.= T. N. CARVER, _Sociology and
Social Progress_, pp. 654-673.

8. =The work of Jeremy Bentham.= A. V. DICEY, _The Relation Between Law
and Public Opinion in England_, pp. 167-209.

9. =Prison self-government.= F. H. WINES, _Punishment and Reformation_,
pp. 364-412.

10. =Fundamental factors in the prevention of crime.= F. H. WINES,
_Punishment and Reformation_, pp. 413-461.

11. =Juvenile courts.= BERNARD FLEXNER and R. N. BALDWIN, _Juvenile
Courts and Probation_, pp. 12-78; T. D. ELIOT, _The Juvenile Court and
the Community_, pp. 1-41.

Questions

1. What is the difference between poverty and pauperism? Has the
distinction any importance?

2. Place the individual causes of poverty in what seems to you to be
their order of consequence and give your reasons for so placing them.

3. What is meant by the minimum standard of living? Make an estimate of
what it costs to maintain this minimum standard in your own community at
the present time.

4. To what extent are overcrowding and unsanitary conditions the _cause_
of poverty and to what extent are they the effect?

5. What are the advantages and the disadvantages of private poor relief
organizations? In what way may the disadvantages be overcome?

6. In what ways are poverty and a poor educational system related?

7. Why is it desirable to separate the different types of mental
defectives?

8. What is the difference between crimes and torts? Which of the
following are crimes and which are not: telling a falsehood; blasphemy;
throwing rubbish in the streets; refusing to obey the orders of a
policeman; building a house on another man’s land; ringing in a false
alarm; telling false stories about a neighbor; playing ball on Sunday?
Can you make a classification of crimes apart from that given in the
text?

9. Place the causes of crime in what seems to you to be their order of
importance. Compare this with the answer to Question 2.

10. Explain the difference between indeterminate sentence, parole, and
probation.

11. Make a list of prison reforms which meet your approval. What could
you do, as a citizen, to secure the adoption of these reforms.

12. Why are juvenile courts desirable? What disposition do they make of
cases which come before them? What are the duties of a probation
officer?

Topics for Debate

1. The public authorities should assume all responsibility for poor
relief and do away with private charity organizations altogether.

2. County jails should be abolished and all prisoners sent to state or
federal institutions.

3. The Osborne plan of prison self-government should be adopted
throughout the country.

-----

Footnote 260:

An exception to this must be made in the case of the negro population
of the South. The amount of poverty among the Southern negroes is
large, although most of them live in rural communities.

Footnote 261:

Poverty, in a way, reproduces itself. Some years ago a New York social
worker gave the following rather cogent description of the way in
which one generation passes its poverty on to the next. “A child,
reared in a poor home, is taken out of school and sent to work at an
early age. He drudges away, brings home every cent of his pay, is
allowed to keep little or none of it, and gets no fun out of life.
After a while he gets tired of this; he meets some girl who has been
brought up in the same way; they get married; but neither of them has
saved any money nor has the slightest idea of how to manage a home.
They rent a small flat, buy some furniture on the installment plan,
and then find that they are not able to pay for it. They get into debt
and when either falls sick or the husband is out of work there is
nothing to eat. When children come they grow up on improper
nourishment; they are slapped in the face and scolded at all hours;
they get no home training and very little schooling; as soon as they
are able to earn a few dollars a week they are hauled out of school
and put to work—and so history just repeats itself.”

Footnote 262:

The marriage of feeble-minded or other mentally defective persons
ought to be prevented, for the results of such marriages are bad for
the whole community. They help to fill the poorhouses, the asylums,
and the jails. There are some who believe that the government ought to
go further and lend its influence towards the promotion of greater
care in determining the marriage of persons who are not mentally
defective. Marriage, as has been shown in an earlier chapter, is the
basis of the home and hence the foundation of the whole social order.
It is an institution of exceedingly great importance to the well-being
of society. Yet we leave the whole thing to the caprice of
individuals, or their passing fancy, or to the accidents of chance
friendships. Whatever may be the inspiration to marriage it can truly
be said that many unions of man and woman contribute nothing to the
well-being of present or future society. Is it right that an
institution of such importance to the human race, both present and
future, should be so little controlled by law, by custom, or by public
opinion and so largely left to the discretion of individuals? Can the
race be improved in that way? Beyond preventing the marriage of
mentally degenerate persons is there any further action that society
ought to take?

Footnote 263:

Many explanations are offered for this. We are a relatively new
country, with a population made up of many races. Court procedure is
slow and cumbrous; it takes a long time to punish offenders, and they
have a fair chance of escaping punishment altogether. Police have been
under the control of politicians and have been lax in enforcing the
laws. We have emphasized the idea of liberty so strongly that it has
benefited even the criminal. We have not made punishment certain
enough or severe enough to deter people from evil-doing. All these
excuses have some force, no doubt, but do they fully account for our
poor showing in comparison with other countries?

Footnote 264:

The reformer who first educated the public to this doctrine was Jeremy
Bentham, an English writer on social topics who lived in the early
years of the nineteenth century.

Footnote 265:

The most conspicuous figure in this branch of prison reform during
recent years is Mr. Thomas Mott Osborne, who was for a time in charge
of the state prison at Auburn, N. Y. Mr. Osborne entirely abolished
the old system of discipline and established a scheme of
self-government among the prisoners. But public opinion was not quite
ready for such a radical experiment as Mr. Osborne inaugurated, and
his work was bitterly criticised in many quarters, although it was
commended in others. In the midst of the controversy he gave up his
post and his successor did not continue his policy.

Footnote 266:

A good many people are beginning to wonder whether the reaction
against the old-fashioned methods of dealing with offenders has not
been carried too far. Persons charged with crime are now given a fair
trial with liberal opportunities for appeal. When convicted they are
frequently given indeterminate sentences and then, after a short term
of confinement, are released on parole. In prison they are well
housed, properly fed, given various privileges, provided with motion
picture entertainments, and given other forms of recreation. The
complaint is made that we have made the path of the transgressor
altogether too easy and that the sort of punishment which is now meted
out to offenders is inadequate to serve as a deterrent to crime. The
increase in crime, particularly in the larger American cities, is by
some attributed to this leniency of treatment.

Footnote 267:

One of the first of these courts, and the best known of them all, is
the Juvenile Court of Denver, Colorado, which was for some years
presided over by Judge Ben B. Lindsey. For a time the success of this
court seemed to be remarkable, for Judge Lindsey possessed the knack
of getting wayward boys to tell him the truth; but in his zeal for
giving them a chance to reform he appeared to many citizens of Denver
to be unduly lenient. The Juvenile Court was retained, but another
judge was put in charge of it.

Footnote 268:

In number of divorces the United States, unhappily, leads the world.
More divorces are granted each year in this country than in all other
civilized countries put together. This is one of the things which
gives us no occasion for boasting, because it points to a serious
weakening in the stability and strength of the family as a social
unit. Not only is the number of divorces very large, but it is rapidly
increasing year by year. Fifty years ago the number per annum in the
United States was only about twenty thousand; now it is over one
hundred and twenty thousand. On the average there was one divorce for
every thirty marriages in 1870; today the ratio is one in ten. At the
present rate of increase it has been estimated that by 1950 no fewer
than one-fourth of all marriages will be terminated by divorce, and if
the same condition of affairs should continue until the end of the
twentieth century, one-half of all the marriages would eventuate in
that way. This would indeed be an ominous outlook were it not that
conditions are likely, sooner or later, to undergo a change. When a
social problem becomes very serious, as this one is now becoming, it
is the habit of society to seek out and apply appropriate remedies.

CHAPTER XXVIII
THE NATIONAL DEFENCE

_The purpose of this chapter is to show why an army and navy are
needed by the United States; how they are organized; and what they
cost._

[Sidenote: What we spend each year for military purposes.]

=The Stupendous Cost of Armaments.=—Although the people of the United
States dislike war and desire peace the national government is now
spending about $750,000,000 every year to maintain the country’s
military and naval forces. Seven dollars per head of population is our
annual contribution for national defence. The people of the United
States are spending far more on national defence, on payments for past
wars, and on preparations for wars of the future, than they are
expending upon all branches of civil government. The cost of a single
battleship is greater than that of all the school buildings in a state
like Ohio or California. And this does not reckon the loss caused by the
withdrawal of more than two hundred thousand able-bodied young men from
the farms and factories. Why is it necessary to support armies and
navies? The leading nations of the world, at the Washington conference
of 1921-1922, reached an agreement for the reduction of naval armaments.
Would it not be practicable for the world to abolish armies and navies
altogether? We have all heard the arguments of the pacifists to the
effect that great armaments are not necessary, that they are in fact an
encouragement to war, and that they merely impose upon the people a
grievous burden in taxes without any substantial advantage in
return.[269]

Let us first look at this problem from a different angle, close at home.
We spend large sums of money in all American cities for the maintenance
of police, police courts, and prisons. Why do we do it? If people would
only obey the laws, respect the rights of others, and refrain from
interfering with their neighbors, there would be no need for these armed
guardians of the law. The trouble is, however, that without police and
prisons we would have disorder, injustice, and oppression. A community
certainly would not promote the cause of law and order by leaving itself
helpless against those who set out to do wrong. Now the army and the
navy are our police writ large. They are, against wrong-doing from
without, what the police are against wrong-doing from within—a measure
of protection and security.

[Sidenote: A nation cannot leave itself defenceless.]

=Defence is an Essential Function of Government.=—Many years ago one of
the Fathers of the American Republic, James Madison, stated this point
in a single sentence. “Security against foreign danger”, he wrote, “is
one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed object of
the American union.” We set great value in this democracy on the right
to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, but no people can be
secure in their rights to any of these things so long as they permit
themselves to remain defenceless against the assaults of their enemies.
When one citizen injures another there are courts to render justice. But
when one nation treats another unjustly the injured country has no such
redress; it must depend upon its own strength to assert its rights. The
impulse to self-defence is deeply implanted in human nature. A man’s
first care is to defend himself and those dearest to him. So a nation’s
first care should be for the safety of those within its borders. A
country that is not ready and able to protect its own citizens can
scarcely be said to deserve their patriotism. Fear God and take your own
part! is a good motto.[270] A man who cannot take his own part, when
occasion demands, is a weakness in any community, for his impotence is
an encouragement to wrongdoers. The same applies to nations. A country
that cannot defend itself against external injustice puts a premium on
aggression.[271] The day may come when, as it is written in the
Scriptures, “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war any more”; but until that long-looked-for time
arrives it is the duty of every land to make sure that its territories
shall not be invaded with impunity. Wanton or unjust war is an abhorrent
evil, and even a just war of self-defence brings immeasurable suffering.
The permanent avoidance of war is assuredly a goal which human effort
should strive by some means or other to attain.

[Sidenote: Do armaments engender militarism?]

=National Defence and Militarism.=—It is often said that armaments lead
to militarism and the encouragement of a warlike spirit among the
people, and that the nation which keeps a sharp sword is always under a
temptation to unsheathe it. The history of European nations proves that
there is a measure of truth in this assertion. Huge armies are not
merely an economic burden, a source of enormous expense; but they create
suspicion and distrust among a nation’s neighbors. During the fifty
years preceding 1914 the various countries of Europe kept each other’s
tempers constantly on edge by reason of their being armed to the teeth.
The standing armies of Germany, Austria, Russia, France, and Italy prior
to the outbreak of the World War totalled nearly two million men. These
men had to be fed, clothed, and supported by the labor of those who were
not in the military service. How much better it would have been if most
of them had spent their time behind the plough!

[Sidenote: What another world-war would mean.]

=The Causes of War.=—Intelligent people everywhere are agreed that war
is the greatest curse of humanity and that some means of prevention must
be found. If the world, within the next generation, should have the
misfortune to engage in another titanic conflict like the last, it will
not much matter who wins. Victor and vanquished will alike go down in a
welter of blood and chaos. There is no difference of opinion among
thoughtful men of all nations on this point. So far as the desirability
of permanently avoiding war is concerned, there is entire agreement
between pacifists and other people. But how is war to be permanently
avoided? One way, and probably the only effective way, is to remove the
causes of war.

[Sidenote: The chief motives in war.]

In past years a great many different things have drawn nations into war.
Greed for territory has been a prolific cause of armed conflict during
many centuries. Governments, like individuals, often violate the tenth
commandment and covet the possessions of their neighbors. Rivalry in
trade sometimes leads to ill-feeling, suspicion, and in the end to
hostilities. The press, or certain sections of it, is sometimes given to
fomenting this bad feeling and so are politicians occasionally. The
misgovernment of a helpless people has at times led to outside
intervention on their behalf, as when the United States in 1898
interposed to terminate Spanish oppression in Cuba. Alliances among
nations, particularly secret alliances, have aroused jealousy to a point
where some relatively minor mishap sufficed to send armies forth to
battle. In the case of the World War the murder of an Austrian archduke
at Serajevo was the match which set Europe aflame; but it was not the
underlying cause of the conflict. The real causes are to be found in the
rivalry, the jealousies, and the militarism which turned Europe into a
huge armed camp during the years preceding 1914.

[Sidenote: Can these motives be removed?]

There is no reason why nations should be natural enemies. Like men they
can live together in amity if, like men, they learn to secure respect
for their own rights by respecting the rights of others. Up to a certain
point rivalry between different countries makes for progress, but when
rivalry engenders bitterness it becomes a menace to peace. A large part
of the mutual suspicion which exists among governments would be
obliterated if secret diplomacy were abolished and the burden of great
armaments removed.

=The Regular Army of the United States.=—Until these causes of war are
permanently removed by some agreement among the nations of the world no
country can venture to give up reasonable measures for its own defence.
For military protection the United States relies first of all upon the
regular army. In proportion to the total population of the country this
army has never been large in time of peace. The policy of the United
States has always been to maintain a standing army of very moderate size
and to depend, in emergencies, upon the assistance of units raised from
among the able-bodied men of the civilian population.[272] [Sidenote:
How the regular army is organized.] The size of the regular army is
fixed from time to time by Congress; it is always recruited by voluntary
enlistment and has never contained any regiments raised by conscription.
Enlistments are for a term of years, at the end of which time an
honorable discharge is given if the soldier has served faithfully. The
regular army is completely and at all times under the control of the War
Department; its officers are appointed by the President as
commander-in-chief; its discipline is regulated by federal law and its
entire cost of maintenance is borne by the national government.

=The National Guard.=—But the military forces of the United States do
not consist of the regular army alone. Each state maintains a militia in
which every able-bodied citizen between the ages of eighteen and
forty-five is under obligation to serve when called upon. The effective
portion of this militia, however, consists of organized units known as
the national guard. In time of peace the national guard is under the
control of the states, the governor in each state being its
commander-in-chief; but Congress has authority to provide for the arming
and disciplining of this force so that it may be serviceable in time of
war. The present regulations relating to the size, organization, arming,
and disciplining of the national guard were framed by Congress in 1916.
Its officers, in time of peace, are appointed in each state by the
governor; but the national government furnishes the arms and equipment
besides giving an annual money grant to each state. The national guard,
like the regular army, is recruited by voluntary enlistment. In time of
war or other emergency it may be called into the service of the federal
government and then becomes, for all practical purposes, an integral
part of the United States army.[273]

=The Volunteers.=—During practically all the wars in which the United
States was engaged prior to 1917 a call was made for volunteers. In the
Civil War more than a million soldiers were brought to the colors in
response to the six successive calls which President Lincoln issued. But
recruits did not always come readily and it was necessary on occasions
to offer bounties or money grants to all who would volunteer. During the
war with Spain in 1898 volunteers were again called for, and many
regiments were raised in this way, notably the First Volunteer Cavalry,
better known as the Rough Riders.[274] The serious defect of an army
raised in this way is that no one can foretell the number of men who
will respond. The volunteer system, moreover, rests upon the idea that
military service is an optional, not a universal duty, on the part of
citizens.

[Sidenote: The draft in 1917-1918.]

=The National Army.=—When the United States entered the World War in
1917 it was realized that a sufficient military force could not be
obtained by using the regular army, by ordering out the national guard,
or by calling for volunteers. So, on May 18, 1917, Congress passed the
Selective Service Act which authorized the President to summon all male
citizens between the ages of twenty-one and thirty-one to be registered.
It further provided that the President should call into service (subject
to certain exemptions made in the act and in accordance with regulations
which he might frame) a sufficient number of men to form a national
army. [Sidenote: How the draft was applied.] The first registration took
place in June, 1917, and immediately thereafter the local draft boards,
under the supervision of the Provost-Marshal-General, selected the
persons who were called into service. In due course it was found
advisable to classify all the registrants and to summon, first of all,
unmarried men without dependents who were not engaged in any essential
occupation. In the summer of 1918 an extension of the age limit was
authorized by Congress, to include all men between the ages of eighteen
and forty-five; but it did not prove necessary to call into service any
considerable number of men from among these later registrants. The
classification of the men, the physical examinations, and the order in
which men were called to the colors were all provided for in the body of
rules known as the Selective Service Regulations.

The men drafted under these regulations were sent to military camps or
cantonments located in different parts of the country. There they were
organized into military units, equipped, and trained. As soon as each
division had completed its preliminary training it was sent to Europe.
Forty divisions of the national army, mobilized in this way, were in
Europe before the armistice was signed. These, with the non-combatant
troops, made up a total of about two million men. [Sidenote: The
American army in the war.] In the spring of 1918, when the last great
German drive against the French and British armies took place, there
were only half a million American troops in Europe. The need for more
was urgent and America was asked to hurry. By almost superhuman effort
great bodies of troops were rushed from the camps to the Atlantic ports
and sent across the water during the summer at the rate of more than two
hundred thousand men a month. When the final united assault of the
Allied armies carried them through the German lines in the autumn the
strength of the American forces contributed decisively to the ultimate
victory. The speed with which America drew a great army from the ranks
of her citizenship, trained it, sent it overseas, used it to turn the
scale, and brought it home again—these things made a profound impression
upon the whole world.

[Sidenote: The President as commander-in-chief.]

=The Control of the Army in War.=—According to the constitution of the
United States the power to declare war rests with Congress. The usual
method of declaring war is the passage of a resolution by both houses of
Congress, signed by the President. War may begin, however, without a
formal declaration on either side. It may begin by an act of war, an
attack by one nation upon another, or by one section of a country upon
another. The Civil War began with the firing upon Fort Sumter; there was
no declaration of war by either side. Once war is declared the movements
of the army depend upon the discretion of the President. He appoints the
officers who command it and has the final decision as regards the course
of military operations. Congress votes the money for carrying on a war,
but the President directs the spending of it. Congress determines the
size and character of the army, but as commander-in-chief the President
controls all its operations in the field.[275] This division of
functions might possibly lead to friction and even to disaster if
Congress and the President did not work in harmony, but on the whole the
two branches of the government have always shown a spirit of
co-operation in war-time.

[Sidenote: The army as an aid to the civil power.]

=The Use of Armed Forces in Time of Peace.=—In time of peace the regular
army and the national guard may be used under certain conditions to put
down riot or disorder. The President has the right to use United States
troops within the limits of any state in order to enforce the national
laws, to facilitate the carrying of the mails, or to maintain any other
function of the national government. This he may do without the
invitation or permission of the state government, or even against the
wishes of the state authorities. In 1894 when a railway strike in
Chicago interfered with the free passage of mails, President Cleveland
sent a detachment of regular troops to the state of Illinois and cleared
the way. The Supreme Court held that he was within his rights. If a
state is invaded, the President may also act on his own volition; but
when internal disorders occur, it is the primary function of the state
authorities to suppress them. The governor is vested with authority to
call out the national guard for this purpose. Federal troops cannot be
sent in such cases except upon the request of the state authorities,
unless, of course, the disorders reach a point where they obstruct the
national government in the performance of its functions. In any event,
troops are not called out for active service in time of peace save under
conditions of serious emergency. Soldiers are not well qualified to
handle ordinary disturbances; they have not been trained for that
purpose and their presence is likely to make mild disturbances more
serious. Bodies of state constabulary, like those maintained in New
York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, are better adapted to use in such
situations.

[Sidenote: The articles of war.]

=Military Law.=—The citizen, under normal conditions, is subject only to
the law of the land. But the soldier (and this term includes officers)
is subject not only to the ordinary laws but to a special code of
military law the provisions of which are embodied in the Articles of War
and are administered by courts-martial. The Articles of War are enacted
by Congress, and anyone entering the army, whether as a commissioned
officer or an enlisted man, becomes subject to their provisions both in
time of war and in time of peace. These articles deal with such matters
as desertion, disobedience of orders, neglect of duty, absence without
leave, the wrongful use of military equipment, and kindred military
offences.

[Sidenote: Courts-martial.]

Military law is not enforced by the ordinary courts but by special
courts known as courts-martial, which are composed of army
officers.[276] Punishment may be inflicted in the form of dishonorable
discharge from the army, or imprisonment—even the death penalty may be
imposed in extreme cases during war. The accused person has the right to
have his own counsel and the customary rules of evidence are followed,
as in the civil courts.

[Sidenote: What martial law implies.]

=Martial Law.=—Military law and martial law are often confused with each
other, but they are in fact wholly different. Martial law is the entire
legal administration which is applied to any area of conflict or
insurrection by order of Congress, or by the President in case such
action is urgently needed before action by Congress can be taken. It is
not proclaimed except in case of invasion, insurrection, or civil or
foreign war, and then only in districts where the ordinary laws and
courts prove themselves unable to secure the public safety.

[Sidenote: Its effects.]

When martial law is proclaimed in any district the ordinary laws cease
to function there. The orders of the commanding military officer take
the place of the laws. Special military tribunals are usually appointed
to enforce these orders; but if practicable, the ordinary courts may be
retained. Martial law applies to everybody within the district, soldiers
and civilians alike. The commanding officer issues his orders and,
whatever they are, they must be implicitly obeyed. He may order, for
example, that there shall be no public gatherings, no traffic in the
streets after nightfall, and no keeping of weapons in private houses. He
may require every inhabitant to carry a pass signed by the military
authorities. There is no definite code of martial law; the will of the
commanding officer is supreme so long as the citizen is not deprived of
his rights as guaranteed by the constitution of the United States. This
constitution, however, is the supreme law of the land and not even the
army can disregard it. Martial law is never proclaimed except in urgent
circumstances when it appears to be the only way of securing public
order and protecting property. During the Civil War it was administered
in some sections of the South which were occupied by the Northern
armies.[277]

=The Navy.=—The navy is commonly called the “first line” of the national
defence inasmuch as the most vulnerable boundaries of the United States
extend along two great seacoasts.[278] Like the army its organization is
under the jurisdiction of Congress, which appropriates the money for its
maintenance; but the President is also the commander-in-chief of the
navy and is responsible for directing its operations. In this he is
assisted by the Secretary of the Navy who in turn is advised by a staff
of naval officers. Men are enlisted in the navy, and officers are
commissioned as in the army, but with different ratings and ranks.
[Sidenote: Administration of the navy.] The navy also has its code
corresponding to the Articles of War and its system of courts-martial.
The Marine Corps, which in organization, drill, and discipline, is
really a military organization, comes under the control of the Secretary
of the Navy because it is primarily intended to furnish a landing force
after attack. The marine, as Kipling says, is “a soldier and sailor
too”. In connection with the work of the navy mention should also be
made of the coast defences which are located at points where they may
serve to protect the commercial seaports. These consist of concealed
land batteries, floating batteries, channels guarded by mines,
submarines, and naval airplanes.

[Sidenote: The history of the issue.]

=The Problem of Disarmament.=—Is there any reasonable ground for the
hope that the burden of maintaining an army and navy may be reduced at
some time in the near future? Proposals for a general disarmament by
international agreement have been put forth at various times for a
hundred years or more. Following the long Napoleonic Wars which
exhausted the chief countries of Europe, the Czar of Russia suggested
that the nations should agree to place a limit upon their respective
armaments. But nothing came of this proposal, and although the question
of disarmament was discussed during the next three-quarters of a century
in unofficial circles no concrete plan for an international conference
on the matter was formulated until 1898, when Russia once more brought
to the attention of the other European powers the urgent desirability of
considering some effective measures for disarmament.

[Sidenote: The two Hague conferences.]

As a direct result of this action delegates appointed by all the leading
governments of the world assembled at the Hague in the following year
and discussed the possible methods of securing international
disarmament. A resolution was adopted affirming the desirability of such
action but no definite plan was formulated. A second Hague Conference
was held eight years later but it likewise managed to procure no
definite promises of disarmament because Germany refused to enter into
any such agreement, believing that more could be gained by war than by
disarming. So the feverish activity in preparations for war continued
until the great world conflict began. In the negotiations which took
place at the close of this war it was generally agreed that a reduction
of armaments on the part of all countries should begin at the earliest
practicable moment, but the disordered state of affairs in several
European countries, notably in Russia, delayed any important steps in
that direction. This led President Harding, in the summer of 1921, to
propose that the chief naval powers should send delegates to a
conference at Washington in order that some plan of limiting naval
expansion might be prepared.

[Sidenote: The conference on naval armaments.]

This conference assembled in the autumn of 1921 and at once proceeded to
consider a proposal, made on behalf of the United States, that a fixed
tonnage of capital ships agreed upon and that this limit should not be
exceeded during the next ten years. With some slight amendments the
American proposal was ultimately accepted and embodied in an
international treaty. The conference also framed agreements for the
future limitation of submarine warfare, the prohibition of poison gas in
war, and the restriction of fortifications in the Pacific regions. No
action was taken towards the limitation of armies.[279]

=Universal Military Training.=—If the leading nations do not agree upon
a plan of general disarmament, is it desirable that the United States
should adopt a system of universal military training? There is a popular
aversion to the maintenance of a large regular army. On the other hand
it would be folly to permit the United States to stand unprepared if
other nations go on arming themselves as in the years preceding the
World War. [Sidenote: The Swiss plan.] The suggestion has been made that
we could avoid the necessity of maintaining a large regular army and yet
secure the advantages of military preparedness by adopting the plan used
in Switzerland where every able-bodied young man is required to undergo
a short period of military training. This training would be taken at
some convenient time between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one; it
would last from three to six months. The claim is made that this
training would have educational as well as military value and that it
would conduce to the physical upbuilding of American manhood. In
opposition to the plan of universal military training it is contended
that anything of this sort would involve a great waste of energy, would
withdraw large numbers of young men from productive labor, would foster
militarism, and would involve enormous expense.

[Sidenote: New wars being new methods.]

=What is Real Preparedness?=—Under present-day conditions one must
recognize that preparedness for war does not consist in merely training
men to march and shoot. No war is ever like any previous war. No amount
of human ingenuity or foresight can avail to train men for “the next
war”, because nobody knows where, when, or how the next war is going to
be fought. The Civil War was fought in the open; it was a war of
movement. The World War was fought, for the most part, in trenches; it
was a war of positions. In the Civil War, cavalry played an important
part; in the World War cavalry had very little share. Artillery was the
great factor. For example, it has been estimated that all the artillery
ammunition used during three whole days at the battle of Gettysburg
would have lasted the American artillery just about thirty minutes in
one of the Argonne battles! New weapons and devices are brought forth in
every new conflict, and they greatly change the conditions of warfare.
The great European struggle utilized the airplane, poison gas,
incendiary bombs, gas shells, hand grenades, liquid flame, tanks,
wireless telegraphy, wireless telephony, dirigible balloons, submarines,
seaplanes, and artillery with a range of over fifty miles—none of these
things figured in any previous war.

[Sidenote: The “next war”, if it comes.]

It has been predicted that the next war will be fought, for the most
part, in the air and under the sea; that the entire populations of great
cities may be wiped out during a few days by a deluge of poisonous
gas-bombs hurled from the sky;[280] that science under the pressure of
war emergency will discover some form of lethal ray (we have X-rays,
light rays, heat rays,—why not rays of a deadlier sort?) which will be
shot from the clouds to shrivel and poison human beings by the
thousands; that disease germs will be called into service to spread
pestilence among the people;—all these things have been soberly
predicted as likely to feature the next great conflict if one ever
comes.[281]

[Sidenote: How the progress of science affects warfare.]

Progress in science and in the arts completely changes the methods of
warfare in one generation after another, If General Hooker had possessed
a single airplane, you may be sure that “Stonewall” Jackson would never
have slipped around his flank at Chancellorsville. A squadron of
“tanks”, if the Army of the Potomac had been provided with them in 1863,
would probably have cleared the road to Richmond within a week. Who can
tell what weapons, appliances, and tactics the nations will need for use
in the next war, if another war should ever come? Preparations of a
strictly military sort are essential, to be sure, but it is not wise to
place entire reliance upon an army which is trained to use certain
tactics in a prescribed way. That, of itself, does not constitute true
“preparedness”.

Three words sum up the reasons for the Allied victory in the World War;
these words are _men_, _munitions_, and _morale_. France, Great Britain,
the United States, and Italy had civilian reserves to draw upon. They
had great peace-time industries which they converted into munition
factories. Above all things the moral strength and steadfastness of free
peoples counted in the long struggle against autocracy. [Sidenote: What
real “preparedness” means.] The lesson to be drawn from this is that if
a country builds up a vigorous manhood, both physically and mentally; if
it creates great, varied, and well-managed industries; if it fosters
patriotism and a sense of righteousness through its system of public
education; if it cultivates intelligently all the progressive arts of
peace—if a nation does all these things, it is accomplishing real
preparedness for whatever may come. Great wars are won, paradoxical as
it may sound, in times of peace.

=The War-Time Powers of Government.=—There is an ancient Latin maxim:
_inter arma silent leges_. It means that under the stress of armed
conflict the ordinary laws give way. In the United States this maxim
does not strictly apply; the constitutional rights of the citizen remain
intact and the ordinary laws of the land continue to apply in war-time.
Nevertheless it is true that a state of war requires strict vigilance on
the part of the government and this may lead it to impose upon
individual freedom various restrictions which would not be imposed in
time of peace. [Sidenote: Limitations on civic liberty during wars.]
During the World War, for example, the national government laid certain
restrictions upon the consumption of food, the use of coal, and the
manufacture of luxuries. This it did under its constitutional authority
“to raise _and support_ armies”. [Sidenote: The Espionage and Sedition
Acts.] Congress also passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts which
provided penalties for making or circulating false statements with
intent to injure the United States or using “abusive language about the
government or institutions of the country”. By these laws, in brief, it
was made a crime to favor the cause of the enemy by any word or act. In
some quarters this legislation was regarded as an unwarranted
interference with freedom of speech but on the whole it was a
justifiable war-time precaution. Those who found their personal freedom
restricted by the Espionage and Sedition Acts suffered very little
hardship compared with that borne by the soldiers and sailors who went
into active service.

[Sidenote: There can be no absolute freedom of speech at any time.]

=Freedom of Speech in War-Time.=—During the World War there was
considerable complaint in some quarters because the national government
placed certain limitations upon freedom of speech, and a good deal of
discussion arose as to what freedom of speech really means. The issue is
one which cannot be argued in general terms, for it is not a question of
principle but of practical policy. On the one hand it is generally
agreed that men ought to have all reasonable liberty to express their
own thoughts in their own way; on the other hand it is just as fully
agreed that people must not be allowed to go about preaching treason,
uttering slanders, and by word of mouth infringing the rights of others.
The question, then, is not whether we should grant freedom of speech or
deny it; but how much of it we should grant or deny.

[Sidenote: But the presumption should be in favor of free speech.]

In a democracy the presumption should be in favor of freedom. It should
be curtailed no further than is clearly demanded by the general
interest. Just where that point comes is something that cannot be fixed
by any general rule. In time of peace, for example, we may safely permit
a greater freedom of speech than in time of war. We may rightly allow a
citizen, whose loyalty is not in doubt, a greater latitude than a
foreigner who professes his hatred of the United States. The problem is
an exceedingly difficult one and the courts may at times do injustice in
dealing with outspoken persons; but the nation in its sober senses is
not likely to let the fundamental right of free speech be permanently
restricted beyond a reasonable point.[282]

[Sidenote: The various war boards, 1917-1918.]

=Mobilizing the Economic Forces.=—In order to ensure victory it also
becomes necessary to mobilize all the economic forces of a country, the
industries, the means of transport, and even the professional skill.
During the years 1917-18 the government of the United States established
a War Industries Board whose function it was to supervise and speed up
industrial production; likewise a Food Administration, a Fuel
Administration, a War Labor Board, a Censorship Board, a Committee on
Public Information, a War Finance Corporation, an Alien Property
Custodian, and various other war-time authorities with duties which are
in a general way indicated by their titles. Both the work and the
authority of a government enlarge under the stress of war.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Illustration:

PRICES IN THE UNITED STATES FROM
1810 TO 1920
(Prices in 1914 = 100)
]

Retail prices are based on wholesale prices.

Three times have wholesale prices in America risen to more than
double the normal.

1. During the war of 1812, which was in reality the country’s
participation in the Napoleonic wars—one of the great world
wars.

2. During the Civil War, in 1861-65, a long and costly struggle.

3. During the recent World War.

Not less notable than the great rise of prices during these great
wars has been the long and continued fall of prices extending over a
generation of time which followed the great rise.

THE RISE OF PRICES IN WAR TIME

The diagram on the reverse of this page illustrates
the way in which war disturbs a nation’s economic
life. It sends prices sky-high by reason of the
monetary inflation which almost invariably
accompanies war. This rapid rise in prices causes
industries to expand. Wages rise with prices, and
for the moment we have an era of prosperity or “good
times” as it is usually called. But when the
stimulus of war inflation is removed, the general
level of prices begins to decline, and with this
fall in prices the industries slacken. Wages also
come down, although more slowly than prices, and we
have an era of industrial depression or hard times.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidenote: The greatest of all human tragedies.]

=War’s Aftermath.=—War is waste. It destroys life and property, uses up
the accumulated wealth of nations, and saddles them with huge debts
which future generations have to pay. The cost of a war can never be
reckoned in full until long after the treaty of peace has been signed.
The Civil War came to an end more than fifty years ago, but we are still
paying more than two hundred million dollars per annum in pensions to
veterans of that struggle or to their widows. The number of Civil War
pensioners and their widows now on the roll is more than five hundred
thousand. It was not until 1906 that the last surviving widow of a
veteran of the Revolutionary War died. The burden of pensions growing
out of the World War is just beginning to accumulate; the country will
not feel its full weight for many years to come. A generation born after
this war ended will be required to defray its cost. War also leaves, as
its tragic aftermath, large numbers of wounded, disabled, or invalided
soldiers who must be cared for at the public expense. No nation which
values its own honor can afford to leave its veterans unaided in
suffering and want. In the United States we have made provision for
affording medical care to those soldiers of the World War who require it
and for giving vocational education to those partially disabled men who
need it in order to fit them for success in life.

General References

C. A. BEARD, _American Government and Politics_, pp. 342-357; _Ibid._,
_Readings in American Government and Politics_, pp. 308-322;

EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the United States_, pp.
423-444;

W. B. MUNRO, _The Government of the United States_, pp. 265-276;

A. B. HART, _Actual Government_, pp. 459-480;

P. S. REINSCH, _Readings in American Federal Government_, pp. 610-650;

EDWARD F. ALLEN and RAYMOND FOSDICK, _Keeping Our Fighters Fit_,
_passim_;

B. A. FISKE, _The Navy as a Fighting Machine_, _passim_;

R. M. JOHNSTON, _Leading American Soldiers_, especially pp. 3-65;

E. H. CROWDER, _The Spirit of Selective Service_, pp. 59-92;

R. R. MCCORMICK, _The Army of 1918_, pp. 207-243.

Group Problems

=1. In what ways did the World War differ from previous wars?= What
predictions have been made concerning the weapons and tactics of the
next war? How can preparedness best be made for such a war?
=References=: J. F. RHODES, _History of the Civil War_, pp. 1-46; B.
CROWELL and R. F. WILSON, _How America Went to War_, Vol. I, pp. 3-14;
WILL IRWIN, _The Next War_, pp. 33-66; EMORY UPTON, _The Military Policy
of the United States_, _passim_; ERICH VON LUDENDORFF, _Ludendorff’s Own
Story_, _passim_; BARON HORFF VON DEWITZ, _War’s New Weapons_, pp. 5-48;
W. L. MCPHERSON, _The Strategy of the Great War_, pp. 80-118; D. W.
JOHNSON, _Topography and Strategy in the War_, pp. 1-40.

=2. How can the causes of war be removed? Should we have international
disarmament?= =References=: G. L. DICKINSON, _The Choice Before Us_, pp.
166-186; H. M. KALLEN, _The Structure of Lasting Peace_, pp. 141-187; A.
T. MAHAN, _Armaments and Arbitration_, pp. 15-35; F. W. HOLLS, _The
Peace Conference at The Hague_, pp. 66-92; J. B. SCOTT, _The Status of
the International Court of Justice_, pp. 1-30; JOHN BAKELESS, _The
Economic Causes of Modern Wars_, pp. 177-195.

=3. The National Army of 1917-1918: how it was raised, trained, and
used.= =References=: E. H. CROWDER, _The Spirit of Selective Service_,
pp. 115-175; _Selective Service Regulations_ (revised edition), pp.
1-30; R. B. PERRY, _The Plattsburg Movement_, pp. 173-214; LEONARD P.
AYRES, _The War with Germany_, pp. 13-48; R. R. MCCORMICK, _The Army of
1918_, pp. 1-57.

Short Studies

1. =The War Department.= JOHN A. FAIRLIE, _National Administration_, pp.
133-151.

2. =The war powers of the President and Congress.= _Cyclopedia of
American Government_, Vol. III, pp. 646-648; G. GLENN, _The Army and the
Law_, _passim_.

3. =The growth of the navy.= G. R. CLARK, _History of the United States
Navy_, pp. 406-444; E. S. MACLAY, _History of the United States Navy_,
Vol. III, pp. 11-36.

4. =Great American soldiers.= R. M. JOHNSTON, _Leading American
Soldiers_, pp. 137-192 (Grant); 256-310 (Lee).

5. =The Grand Army of the Republic.= W. H. WARD, _Records of Members of
the Grand Army of the Republic_, pp. 5-15.

6. =The American Legion.= G. S. WHEAT, _The Story of the American
Legion_, pp. 12-30; 193-211.

7. =How the nation mobilized in 1917-1918.= P. L. HAWORTH, _The United
States in Our Own Time_, pp. 422-440.

8. =Military law, martial law, and military government.= EVERETT
KIMBALL, _National Government of the United States_, pp. 434-444.

9. =The human cost of the war.= HOMER FOLKS, _The Human Costs of the
War_, pp. 119-167.

10. =The use of regular troops in labor troubles.= GROVER CLEVELAND,
_Presidential Problems_, pp. 79-117.

11. =The Hague Conferences.= F. W. HOLLS, _The Peace Conferences at The
Hague_, pp. 1-35; J. H. CHOATE, _The Two Hague Conferences_, _passim_.

12. =The United States Food Administration.= 1917-1918. W. F.
WILLOUGHBY, _Government Organization in War Time_, pp. 258-292.

13. =How the National Army was drafted.= E. H. CROWDER, _The Spirit of
Selective Service_, pp. 115-175; see also _Second Report of the Provost
Marshal General_ (1918).

14. =Military pensions.= JOHN A. FAIRLIE, _National Administration_, pp.
205-208; W. H. GLASSON, _History of Military Pension Legislation_, pp.
70-107.

15. =Freedom of speech in war time.= ZECHARIAH CHAFEE, JR., _Freedom of
Speech_, _passim_.

Questions

1. Classify the chief causes of war and indicate which class of causes
was mainly responsible for: the French and Indian Wars; the
Revolutionary War; the Napoleonic Wars; the War of 1812; the Mexican
War; the Civil War; the Spanish War; the Russo-Japanese War; and the
World War.

2. What did President Roosevelt mean when he said that a defenceless
nation is a temptation to injustice. Give some examples to illustrate
this proposition and also to illustrate the reverse.

3. Why would it not be better to abolish the national guard and have
only a regular army?

4. Explain the various steps by which civilians were taken into the
national army under the provisions of the Selective Service Law.

5. Is it right to use the armed forces of the nation in quelling labor
troubles? What are the objections to so doing?

6. Explain the system of trial by court-martial under the following
heads: (_a_) who may be tried; (_b_) on what charges; (_c_) how the
court is organized; (_d_) who prosecutes; (_e_) who defends; (_f_) what
sentence may be imposed; (_g_) who reviews the sentence.

7. What is the difference between proclaiming martial law in a district
and establishing a military government over it?

8. Outline the history of the United States navy. What are the
characteristics of (_a_) battleships; (_b_) battle cruisers; (_c_)
gunboats?

9. What would be (_a_) the political and (_b_) the economic advantages
of disarmament? What difficulties stand in the way of an international
agreement to disarm?

10. Make a list of the special governmental agencies which were
established in the United States during the World War, and name the
functions performed by each.

Topics for Debate

1. The United States should adopt the system of universal military
training.

2. A declaration of war should require a two-thirds vote of Congress.

3. The national government should pay pensions to veterans of the World
War in the same way that it has provided pensions for veterans of the
Civil War.

-----

Footnote 269:

Since its foundation in 1788 the national government has spent, in
round figures, about sixty-seven billion dollars. Of this entire sum
fifty-eight billions have been spent for war, that is, for maintaining
the army and navy, for carrying on the nation’s various wars, for
pensions, and for interest on war debts.

Footnote 270:

THEODORE ROOSEVELT, _Fear God and Take Your Own Part_ (N. Y., 1915),
Ch. I.

Footnote 271:

History is full of examples to support this statement. When Carthage
proved unable to defend herself against Roman aggression, the victors
left not one stone upon another. Look at Poland, ripped apart during
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries by her avaricious neighbors
and now restored to nationhood by the armed forces of France, England,
Italy, and America. And what of China today? Are her four hundred
million people happier and more prosperous because they happen to be
citizens of a defenceless country?

Footnote 272:

The War of Independence was won by a volunteer army. On the conclusion
of peace this army was disbanded, but the absence of a defence force
was deemed a serious danger. Accordingly, when the constitution was
framed in 1787, it provided that the new Congress should have power
“to raise and support armies.” During Washington’s first term a
Department of War was established in the national government and a
small regular army was created under the supervision of this
department. The size of this army was not above five thousand men of
all ranks, barely sufficient to keep the Indian tribes from giving
trouble. But the Napoleonic wars in Europe led Congress to increase
its size as a measure of precaution, and during the War of 1812 an
endeavor was made to raise the regular army, by enlistment, to about
35,000 men. Recruits, however, did not come readily because the war
was unpopular in some parts of the country, and it therefore became
necessary to call out the militia organizations of the several states.
After 1816, when peace was made, the regular army was greatly reduced,
and until 1860 it remained small with the exception of the years in
which the United States was at war with Mexico. The Civil War
necessitated a considerable expansion of the regular army, but the
larger portion of the fighting force was obtained by calling out the
state militia and by raising regiments of volunteers. When the war was
over, Congress fixed the maximum strength of the regular army at
25,000, and there it remained until the outbreak of the war with
Spain, when it was more than doubled. In 1916, during the World War,
but before the United States entered the conflict, a further increase
to a maximum of 175,000 was authorized. This figure subsequently rose
to 225,000 but in 1921 it was cut down by Congress to 150,000, at
which point it remains today, although a further reduction is now
being considered.

Footnote 273:

Prior to 1916 the national guard could not be called upon for service
outside the United States, but only for defence against invasion and
for the suppression of internal disturbances. But in 1916 it was
provided by the National Defence Act that whenever Congress authorizes
the use of armed forces in addition to the regular army, the President
may draft any or all members of the national guard into the service of
the United States and may employ them outside American territory.

Footnote 274:

Theodore Roosevelt was serving as Assistant Secretary of the Navy when
the war with Spain began in 1898. He offered to raise a volunteer
cavalry regiment of cowboys from the cattle country and his offer was
accepted by the government. Resigning his position in the Navy
Department he organized this regiment of Rough Riders and became its
lieutenant-colonel. The Rough Riders went to Cuba, where they gave a
good account of themselves.

Footnote 275:

The actual organization and disciplining of the army during peace, as
well as its movements and operations in war, are under the immediate
direction of the General Staff. This body consists of a Chief of
Staff, who is appointed from among the high officers of the army, and
numerous other army officers who are detailed for this service. The
General Staff is so organized that in the event of war one section of
it can take charge of operations in the field while the other keeps
building up the army at home. General Pershing, who commanded the
American Expeditionary Forces in the World War is now Chief of Staff,
his principal assistant being Major-General Harbord, who commanded the
First Army overseas.

Footnote 276:

For minor offences an enlisted man is tried by summary court-martial
before a single officer. For more serious offences a special
court-martial of from three to five officers is convened. If the
offence is very serious, or if the accused person is a commissioned
officer, the trial takes place before a general court-martial of from
five to fifteen officers, who must be, wherever possible, at least of
equal rank with the accused. The verdict, or finding, of the
court-martial, together with its recommendations for punishment in
case of conviction, is transmitted to the officer by whose order the
court was convened. This officer has power to diminish but not to
increase the punishment recommended by the court-martial.

Footnote 277:

There is still another phase of military jurisdiction which must be
distinguished from both military law and martial law. This is called
military government. It may be explained as follows: When any
territory is conquered and held by an invading army it must obviously
be given some temporary form of government. The former government
usually flees and something must be put in its place. Under such
conditions the commander-in-chief of the occupying force sets up a
temporary administration. In 1919, when a portion of the American
Expeditionary Force advanced into German territory under the terms of
the armistice, a military government with its headquarters at Coblenz
was established for the area occupied by the American troops. A
military government may even be set up in home territory during a
civil war or insurrection. After the fall of the Confederacy military
governments were maintained in the South until the state governments
were reconstructed, hence we commonly speak of the “reconstruction”
period. Military government is always a temporary arrangement, never
intended to be permanent, although it may last for several years. It
does not, like martial law, supplant the ordinary laws of the occupied
territory, but merely means that the occupying army, through its
commander-in-chief, takes over the administration.

Footnote 278:

The beginnings of the American Navy go back to the time of the
Revolutionary War, when a few frigates were placed in service; but
when the war was over these ships were sold and the navy abolished. In
1794, however, Congress authorized the building of six new frigates,
and four years later a Department of the Navy was created, with a
member of the Cabinet at its head. The number of vessels increased
very slowly and when the War of 1812 began the United States had only
sixteen war vessels, some of them too small to be of great usefulness.
This small navy, nevertheless, gave a good account of itself during
the course of the war at sea. From 1815 to the outbreak of the Civil
War little attention was paid to the upbuilding of American naval
strength, but during the course of this struggle a great expansion
took place. The invention of the iron-clad _Monitor_ revolutionized
naval construction. But when the South had been subdued the Navy was
once more allowed to dwindle and it was not until after 1885 that the
United States again made a serious attempt to build up a strong naval
establishment. Since that date naval progress has been steady and
today the United States navy ranks second in point of size among the
sea forces of the world. By the terms of the agreement concluded among
the chief naval powers of the world at Washington in 1922 it has been
arranged that the United States, Great Britain, and Japan shall each
destroy certain war vessels now built or in process of building, and
that each shall refrain from building new capital ships (except for
purposes of replacement), during the next ten years. At the end of
this period the navies of the United States and Great Britain will be
approximately equal in strength, while that of Japan will be about
three-fifths as strong. See also p. 577.

Footnote 279:

For the action of the conference with reference to matters in the Far
East, see p. 619.

Footnote 280:

Brigadier-General Mitchell of the United States Army Air Service, in
his testimony before a committee of Congress in 1920, declared that a
few planes could visit New York City and rain down enough phosgene gas
to kill every inhabitant “unless we provide some means of repelling
them.”

Footnote 281:

See the quotations from various military authorities given in _The
Next War_, by WILL IRWIN, pp. 46-66.

Footnote 282:

There is a tradition in England that if a person goes into Hyde Park,
London (a large open space in the center of the city), he may gather a
crowd around him and say anything he pleases, subject only to the
chance that he may be roughly handled if his hearers do not like what
he says. For this reason, Hyde Park is sometimes referred to as the
“safety valve” of the English government. Anyone who has a grievance,
real or imaginary, can go there and blow off steam. Having had his
say, without let or hindrance, the speaker feels better about it.
Somewhere in this country we ought to have a Hyde Park.

We must be careful not to judge the liberties of the citizen and the
severity of a government by what may happen in war-time or in time of
civil insurrection. War inflames popular passion and impels both the
officers of government and the people to do unwise things, sometimes
to violate the laws of the land in the name of patriotism. An excited
nation, like an excited man, is entitled to some allowance.
Nevertheless, it is the duty of all who understand the meaning of free
government to stand firmly against the wrongful curtailment of
personal rights at any time; for the true interests of free government
are never promoted by resort to injustice or oppression.

CHAPTER XXIX
FOREIGN RELATIONS

_The purpose of this chapter is to explain what international law
is, what obligations it imposes, and how the United States carries
on its relations with other countries._

[Sidenote: Trade has brought nations together.]

=The Contact of Nations.=—In all ages the nations of the world have been
brought into relations with one another. During the early centuries
their contact was not very close, as a rule, because differences in
race, religion, and language, together with the lack of facilities for
travel and transportation served to keep the people apart. But the
Phoenicians, the Greeks, and the Romans all traded with their neighbors,
and this trade, which began around the eastern shores of the
Mediterranean, gradually widened east and west. After the fall of the
Roman empire chaos reigned over the greater part of Europe; commerce
declined, and incessant warfare prevented the growth of friendly
intercourse among the people of different religions. These were the
so-called Dark Ages, in which travel was fraught with danger and trade
was at the mercy of bandits. Gradually, however, intercourse between
different regions revived and expanded. The highways and waterways
became safe again. Nations were once more brought into friendly
relationships. During the past three or four hundred years this
intercourse of nation with nation has been steadily becoming more
extensive, broken only from time to time by the waging of wars. The
steamship, the railroads, the automobile, the telegraph, and the
telephone have all served to reduce distances and bring the various
parts of the world closer together.

[Sidenote: The origin of international law.]

=International Rules and Customs.=—Just as social and economic
relations among men gave rise to customs and usages which everyone now
obeys for the common good, so the growth of intercourse among the
nations brought into existence, little by little, a body of usages and
rules which guide them in their relations with one another. Even the
Greeks and Romans recognized the necessity of some such rules to
prevent misunderstandings. Since ancient times these usages, rules,
and agreements have been gradually becoming more definite until they
now form that body of jurisprudence which is known as International
Law. In a strict sense international law is not law at all; its rules
have not emanated from any definite source such as parliament or a
legislature, and there are no courts with power to enforce its
provisions.[283] Some of its rules are of long standing custom; others
have come into effect as the result of agreements among nations. The
provision that the ambassador is exempt from the jurisdiction of the
state to which he goes is very old,—as old as the Achaean League. It
is an ancient custom, now called law. On the other hand the rule that
a blockade of enemy ports is not valid unless maintained by an
adequate force is a relatively modern rule and rests upon
international agreement.

[Sidenote: What international law includes.]

=International Law.=—International law may therefore be defined as that
body of usages and rules which the civilized nations of the world are
accustomed to observe in their dealings with one another. These rules
and usages relate to a great many things. [Sidenote: The laws of war.]
They provide for friendly communication between nations in time of peace
by means of ambassadors and other diplomatic envoys. International law
declares the high seas to be free to all, but stipulates that a country
may exercise jurisdiction over its adjacent seas for a distance of one
marine league from the shore. The usages and rules of international law
also provide for the protection of aliens, the collection of debts, the
carrying on of trade, and many other questions which arise between
nations at peace.

When nations are at war they are called _belligerents_, and the rules of
international law restrict the ways in which war may be carried on. They
forbid a belligerent to put poison in wells, or to bombard undefended
towns, or to kill prisoners of war. It is quite true that these
so-called “laws of war” are sometimes set at naught in the heat of
conflict, and it is also true that when a nation violates them there is
no regular redress; but the rules are well established and the public
opinion of the world always condemns any country which indulges in
barbarities contrary to the rules of war.

[Sidenote: The laws of neutrality.]

Nations which are not at war when war is going on are called _neutrals_.
Their rights as neutrals are defined and their duties as neutrals are
prescribed by the rules of international law. Neutrals are permitted to
carry on trade with belligerents subject to two limitations, namely that
their ships must not try to enter any blockaded port and must not carry
contraband of war. Contraband of war includes weapons, munitions,
military supplies, and any other merchandise which a belligerent can use
directly or indirectly in carrying on the war. The citizens of neutral
states are also debarred from serving in the armed forces of
belligerents.

International law, in short, deals with a great variety of matters which
arise in peace, including emigration and travel, trade, naturalization,
diplomatic intercourse, the extradition of criminals, treaties, and so
forth, as well as with questions which arise during war such as
blockades, captures at sea, the rules of land warfare, and the rights of
neutrals. It is considered by the United States to be a part of the law
of the land, and its rules are enforced within American territory by the
federal courts.

[Sidenote: The federal government alone controls foreign relations.]

=The Control of Foreign Relations.=—All relations with foreign countries
are under the control of the national government. No state of the Union
can make any treaty, or declare war, or enter into an alliance, or send
ambassadors abroad. No state, moreover, may maintain ships of war in
time of peace or armed forces except as provided in the constitution.
War can be declared by Congress alone. These provisions are wisely
inserted in the national constitution, for if every state were permitted
to deal independently with foreign countries, we should get into endless
complications and difficulties. But in spite of the fact that no state
can make a treaty or have any formal diplomatic negotiations with a
foreign country it is nevertheless true that a state can and sometimes
does create a situation which requires diplomatic action on the part of
the national government. Prolonged negotiations between the American and
Japanese governments have had to be carried on, for example, as the
result of California’s having restricted the privileges of Japanese
citizens in that state (see p. 32). So, also, although the constitution
gives Congress the sole power to declare war, the President through his
command of the army and navy can bring about a situation which leaves
Congress no choice whatsoever. On one occasion President Roosevelt
threatened that if German warships did not leave the coast of Venezuela
within forty-eight hours, he would send the American fleet there. Had
the German ships remained and a conflict ensued, the action of Congress
in declaring war would have become a mere formality.

=How Foreign Relations are Conducted.=—The conduct of foreign relations
rests with the President, whose right-hand man in such matters is the
Secretary of State. But the President’s discretion is limited by the
fact that all appointments require confirmation by the Senate and all
treaties must be approved in that body by a two-thirds vote before they
become valid. For this reason, the President usually finds it advisable
to keep in touch with the leaders of the Senate while he is handling
foreign affairs of importance. He is under no legal obligation to do
this, but it is politically expedient. Failure to do it has on occasions
led the Senate to reject agreements which the President has concluded
after prolonged negotiations.[284] [Sidenote: The Department of State.]
The Department of State is the President’s immediate agency in the
conduct of all diplomatic intercourse, and is so recognized by all
foreign governments. It is through this department that all official
correspondence with other governments is carried on. The Secretary of
State is often called the “premier” of the cabinet, but the function of
leadership and the ultimate responsibility for the cabinet’s work rests
with the President. In handling the details of foreign relations the
State Department is assisted by a body of officials who constitute the
diplomatic service.

=The Diplomatic Service.=—It is the custom of every civilized country to
send and receive diplomatic officials. The United States sends a
representative to every important foreign capital; in return, every
foreign country maintains a diplomatic agent in Washington. In the case
of the most important countries these representatives are given the rank
and title of ambassador. [Sidenote: Ambassadors and ministers.] There is
an American ambassador stationed at Paris; a French ambassador at
Washington. In the case of less important countries the diplomatic
representatives are usually given the rank and title of minister. There
is an American minister at Copenhagen; a Danish minister at Washington.
The difference between ambassadors and ministers is in rank, title, and
salary; there is no important difference in their functions. When an
ambassador or minister is absent, the diplomatic official who is left in
charge is called a _chargé d’affaires_. If some special negotiations are
to be carried on, a country may send an envoy, or an “envoy
extraordinary”, as he is called.[285] Each ambassador or minister is
assisted by one or more secretaries and a force of clerks.

[Sidenote: Duties of diplomats.]

Diplomatic officials, whether ambassadors or ministers, have the duty of
serving as channels of official communication between their own
government and the government to which they are accredited. They act
always in accordance with instructions sent to them from home. If a
foreign government has any communication to make to the government of
the United States, it addresses itself either to the American diplomatic
representative at its own capital, or to its own diplomatic
representative at Washington. In either case the diplomatic
representative presents the communication, orally or in writing, to the
Secretary of State. The heads of nations, whether presidents, kings, or
emperors, sometimes communicate with each other by personal letter; but
important matters are not usually handled in that way.[286]

In addition to forwarding communications the members of the diplomatic
service have various other duties. An ambassador or minister is expected
to keep his own government well informed concerning all that is going on
at the foreign capital where he is stationed. He renders any necessary
assistance to American citizens who may become involved in difficulties
or danger. He represents his own country on all occasions of ceremony
and has many social duties to perform. These duties are prescribed by
the usages of the diplomatic service and are the same at all national
capitals. Finally, he co-operates with the consuls of his own country
and does what he can to make their work more effective.[287]

[Sidenote: How members of the diplomatic service are chosen.]

All American ambassadors, ministers, and other diplomatic officials are
appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. In European
countries it is the custom for young and capable men to enter the lower
ranks of diplomatic service and work up, step by step, to the higher
posts. But although lower posts in the diplomatic service of the United
States are filled by competitive examination, the higher positions are
usually given to men who have had no previous diplomatic experience. Men
whom the President selects as ambassadors or ministers are, as a rule,
drawn from civil life, and their appointments are often looked upon as
rewards for political service. This does not mean, however, that they
fail to make capable ambassadors or ministers, despite the lack of
experience; on the contrary, the system has worked astonishingly well on
the whole. This is because men of marked ability and distinction in
civil life are usually selected by the President for the more important
diplomatic posts. Among the list of those who have served as American
ambassadors to Great Britain one finds the names of Charles Francis
Adams, James Russell Lowell, John Hay, and Joseph H. Choate. Among the
notable American diplomats during the earlier years of the World War
were James W. Gerard at Berlin, Henry Morgenthau at Constantinople,
Brand Whitlock at Brussels, and Paul S. Reinsch at Pekin.

The official establishment of an ambassador is called an embassy; that
of a minister is known as a legation. [Sidenote: The immunities of
diplomats.] An embassy or a legation is exempt from local jurisdiction;
it cannot be searched by the police, and the officials connected with it
are exempt from arrest except for very serious crimes. A country cannot,
according to international usages, decline to receive a diplomatic
official from any other country, but it can, and sometimes does, object
to receiving some particular individual as ambassador or minister on the
ground that he is _persona non grata_. Similarly a country may request
that any diplomatic official who has been sent to it shall be recalled
by his own government and such requests have occasionally been
made.[288]

[Sidenote: Consuls.]

In addition to diplomatic officials the United States sends and receives
consuls. The consular service is concerned with commercial rather than
diplomatic relations; hence the consuls are stationed, for the most
part, at ports of entry. The functions of consuls are closely related to
the development of American foreign trade and they have been described
in an earlier chapter (p. 373).

=Secret and Open Diplomacy.=—The traditional policy of the diplomatic
service in all countries has been to do its work in secret. To some
extent this has been necessary, because of the nature of the
negotiations carried on. [Sidenote: Why secrecy is deemed essential.]
There are times, of course, when the publication of what is going on in
the way of negotiations between different countries would lead to
serious misunderstandings and might cause the negotiations to be broken
off altogether. It is natural, for example, that each government, when
it begins negotiations on any question, should ask a good deal more than
it expects to obtain. Only as the discussion proceeds through the
channels of diplomacy does each country give way a little and in the end
they reach an agreement. Now, if these negotiations had to be carried on
before the eyes of the whole world an agreement would be very difficult
because no government likes to back down, even slightly, from its
original demands.

So secrecy is in some cases necessary. But there has been too much of it
in the past. Many important matters have been withheld from public
knowledge even after the negotiations have been finished, and pledges
have been made by rulers without informing their people. [Sidenote: The
experience of Europe.] It was because of secret diplomacy that the
various European countries, prior to 1914, became enmeshed in a maze of
intrigues and semi-secret alliances which drew them steadily toward the
brink of war.[289] The United States, happily, has had very little
experience with secret diplomacy. Every treaty or agreement must be
submitted to the Senate and when so submitted it cannot be kept secret.
Nothing can be kept secret after it is laid for discussion before a body
of ninety-six men, at least it cannot remain secret very long.
[Sidenote: The American tradition of open diplomacy.] The Senate,
moreover, has always insisted on making these agreements public,
although the discussions may be held behind closed doors. One of the
reasons why the government of the United States has acquired a good
reputation for frankness and sincerity in its relations with other
countries is to be found in this avoidance of secrecy in international
agreements. This policy should never be abandoned.

=Treaties.=—A treaty is a formal agreement made between two or more
countries and binding upon each. There are many kinds of treaties,
including treaties of peace, treaties of alliance, treaties providing
for reciprocity in trade, for the mutual surrender of fugitive
criminals, postal treaties, treaties of arbitration, and so on.
[Sidenote: How treaties are made.] There are three stages in the making
of a treaty, namely, the negotiation, the signature, and the
ratification. The negotiations are usually carried on through members of
the diplomatic service, but in the case of important treaties it is
customary to appoint special envoys for the purpose. When all details
have been agreed upon the treaty is engrossed on parchment and signed by
the official representatives of the respective countries. But it does
not go into effect until it is ratified and, so far as the United States
is concerned, this ratification cannot take place until the treaty has
been approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.[290]

Whenever a treaty has been concluded on behalf of the United States,
therefore, it is transmitted by the President to the presiding officer
of the Senate by whom it is referred to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs. This committee, in due course, makes its report to the Senate
whereupon a discussion takes place. [Sidenote: The power of the Senate
over treaties.] When the discussion is finished the Senate votes to give
or withhold its assent. If it acts favorably, the President notifies the
other government and the treaty becomes effective; if the Senate rejects
the treaty, it fails to go into force. The Senate, strictly speaking,
cannot amend any treaty, but it may ask the President, and through him
the other government, to accept certain changes. As a rule the Senate
has ratified treaties without amendment but it has sometimes insisted on
alterations, and on some notable occasions it has rejected treaties
altogether.[291]

[Sidenote: The roots of American diplomacy.]

=American Foreign Policy.=—When Washington finished his second term as
President in 1796, he delivered to his countrymen a Farewell Address in
which he gave them some sound advice. Among other things he pointed out
that the primary interests of America were very remote from those of
Europe and advised that the United States should “steer clear of
permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world”. Not long
afterwards Jefferson reiterated this principle and urged that the policy
of America should aim at “honest friendship with all nations, entangling
alliances with none”. This attitude of Washington and Jefferson embodied
the best interests of the United States in the early days of the
Republic and undoubtedly reflected the sentiment of the people. In
keeping with this principle of “political isolation” the United States
remained neutral during the European wars which followed the French
Revolution and strenuously endeavored to avoid taking sides in the
struggle between England and France. The United States government, in
1807, went so far as to shut off all trade with both these warring
countries. But in 1812, the continued violation of America’s rights as a
neutral exhausted the patience of the people. These rights were violated
by France and England alike; the English violations, however, were the
ones which stirred up the greatest amount of popular resentment. So the
United States engaged in war with England for the maintenance of the
principles of neutrality.

=The Monroe Doctrine.=—Being resolved not to meddle in the political
affairs of Europe so long as American rights were not infringed, the
United States felt in a position to insist, at the appropriate time,
that Europe should refrain from interference in the affairs of the
Western Hemisphere. [Sidenote: Origin of the doctrine.] The occasion for
announcing this principle of “hands off” came in 1823. During the years
preceding this date the Spanish colonies in Central and South America
had revolted. They declared their independence of Spain and drove out
the Spanish authorities, setting up in each case a republican form of
government. Spain naturally desired to retain her sovereignty over these
territories and sought assistance of other European countries for that
purpose. There appeared to be a possibility that France, Austria,
Prussia, and Russia—a combination known as the Holy Alliance—would join
with Spain in the subjugation of the revolted South American
territories. The government at Washington became alarmed over the
possibilities of large military and naval forces being sent across the
Atlantic by a coalition of monarchial countries, believing that this
would not only be a blow to the republican form of rule but a serious
danger to the United States as well. President James Monroe accordingly
authorized the issue of a declaration setting forth the interest of the
United States in the matter.[292]

The salient passages in this declaration are as follows:

“In the wars of European powers in matters relating to themselves we
have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do
so.... With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European
power we have not interfered and shall not interfere.... But with the
governments which have declared their independence and maintained it,
and whose independence we have on great consideration and on just
principles acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the
purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their
destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as a
manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United
States.... The American continents, by the free and independent
condition which they assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be
considered as subjects for future colonization by any European
powers.”

This doctrine has remained the cornerstone of American policy with
reference to the countries of Central and South America for one hundred
years. [Sidenote: Its application.] On several occasions it has been
invoked to protect these countries against armed pressure. During the
Civil War, for example, the French government sent an army to Mexico and
maintained an imperial administration there in defiance of the Mexican
people. While the conflict between North and South continued the
government of the United States was unable to take any firm action in
this matter, but in 1866 France was requested to withdraw her troops
from Mexico, which she did. Again, in 1895, President Cleveland informed
the government of Great Britain that the United States would support
Venezuela against any attempt to settle a boundary dispute otherwise
than by arbitration.

[Sidenote: Its status.]

The Monroe Doctrine is not a part of international law. It is not even a
law of the United States. It never received the approval of the Senate,
which is supposed to be a check upon the President in deciding the
permanent features of American foreign policy. Its validity has never
been formally recognized either by the countries of Europe or by the
states of South America whom the doctrine immediately concerns.[293] Its
maintenance rests upon the vigilance and strength of the United States.
In guarding the smaller states of the New World against European
aggression the United States is taking what the American people regard
as an essential measure of self-protection.

=Is the Monroe Doctrine Obsolete?=—We are sometimes told nowadays that
the Monroe Doctrine is behind the times, that we have outgrown it, and
ought to give it up.[294] When the doctrine was announced, a hundred
years ago, the states of South America were too weak to defend
themselves; the various countries of Continental Europe were governed
despotically and maintained large standing armies. The states of Central
and South America, likewise, were at that time glad to have American
protection. But now, we are told, all this is changed. The
Spanish-American states are strong and able to look out for themselves.
They do not want our guardianship. The nations of Continental Europe,
moreover, are no longer despotisms but republics and limited monarchies.
They have enough problems to keep them employed for the next generation
without interfering in the affairs of the New Hemisphere. So it has been
suggested that the doctrine be given up, particularly as no one knows
exactly what it means at the present day.[295] But the doctrine is
deeply imbedded in the diplomatic traditions of the American people and
there is nothing to be gained by giving it up unless the situation
becomes very different from what it is today.

=American Contributions to International Law.=—The United States has
rendered signal service in making the rules and usages of international
law more enlightened and more humane. [Sidenote: 1. Neutral rights.] At
all times the American government has been a champion of neutral rights
and particularly has insisted upon liberal rules concerning neutral
commerce on the high seas. [Sidenote: 2. Laws of war.] It has lent its
influence to the movement for making the laws of war more human and for
prohibiting all practices which needlessly endanger the lives of
non-combatants. It has stood for freedom of trade and the “open door”.
[Sidenote: 3. Arbitration.] Among the nations of the world the United
States has been foremost in the advocacy and use of arbitration as a
means of settling international disputes. In keeping with this policy
arbitration treaties have been concluded between the United States and
twenty other countries, each treaty providing that all disputed
questions, of whatsoever nature, shall be submitted to arbitration if
they cannot be adjusted by diplomatic negotiation, and that no resort to
war shall in any event take place until after the processes of
arbitration have been exhausted. [Sidenote: 4. Recent contributions.] At
the Peace Conference which assembled in 1919 after the close of the
World War, moreover, it was the United States that first put forward in
definite form the plan for a League of Nations. And in 1921 it was the
United States which took the initiative in calling the international
conference which arranged for a great reduction in naval armaments.

General References

CHARLES A. BEARD, _American Government and Politics_, pp. 315-341;
_Ibid._, _Readings in American Government and Politics_, pp. 291-307;

EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the United States_, pp.
540-573;

A. B. HART, _Actual Government_, pp. 430-445;

JOHN W. FOSTER, _The Practice of Diplomacy_, especially pp. 34-54;

P. S. REINSCH, _Readings in American Federal Government_, pp. 651-682;

E. S. CORWIN, _The President’s Control of Foreign Relations_, _passim_;

GAILLARD HUNT, _The Department of State_.

Group Problems

=1. The Monroe Doctrine. Is it obsolete?= The international situation
during the years 1815-1823. The Holy Alliance, its organization and
aims. Spain in America. The revolt of the Spanish Colonies.
Preliminaries of the declaration. Canning’s suggestion. Scope of the
doctrine as announced. Subsequent applications and extensions. The
French in Mexico. The Venezuela controversy. Present scope of the
doctrine. Attitude of Europe toward it. Attitude of the Spanish-American
states. Its value for the future. Conclusion. =References=: HIRAM
BINGHAM, _The Monroe Doctrine: An Obsolete Shibboleth_, pp. 3-55; A. B.
HART, _The Monroe Doctrine_, pp. 55-83, and _passim_; A. C. COOLIDGE,
_The United States as a World Power_, pp. 95-120; C. H. SHERRILL,
_Modernizing the Monroe Doctrine_, pp. 64-76; C. L. JONES, _Caribbean
Interests of the United States_, pp. 323-351; J. H. LATANÉ, _The United
States and Spanish America_, pp. 292-334; D. C. GILMAN, _James Monroe_
(American Statesmen Series, Standard Library Edition), pp. 156-174;
THEODORE ROOSEVELT, _American Ideals_, pp. 220-237; _Cyclopedia of
American Government_, Vol. II, pp. 456-468; DEXTER PERKINS, “Europe,
Spanish America, and the Monroe Doctrine” in _American Historical
Review_ (January, 1922).

=2. The diplomatic service and how it can be improved.= =References=: J.
W. FOSTER, _The Practice of Diplomacy_, pp. 34-54; JOHN A. FAIRLIE,
_National Administration_, pp. 77-91; E. VAN DYNE, _Our Foreign
Service_, pp. 45-113; _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. I, pp.
593-595; P. S. REINSCH, _Readings on American Federal Government_, pp.
651-658; 675-682.

=3. The chief rules of international law; how can their enforcement be
ensured?= =References=: G. B. DAVIS, _Elements of International Law_,
pp. 19-30; T. J. LAWRENCE, _Principles of International Law_, pp.
119-138; G. G. WILSON and G. F. TUCKER, _International Law_ (7th ed.),
pp. 44-60; A. S. HERSHEY, _The Essentials of International Public Law_,
pp. 143-169; A. H. SNOW, _The American Philosophy of Government_, pp.
113-154; 267-283. See also the General References to Chapter XXX.

Short Studies

1. =The rights and duties of neutrals.= G. B. DAVIS, _Elements of
International Law_, pp. 376-395 (Rights of Neutrals); pp. 396-445
(Duties of Neutrals).

2. =The privileges of diplomats.= J. W. FOSTER, _The Practice of
Diplomacy_, pp. 159-174.

3. =How treaties are made.= G. B. DAVIS, _Elements of International
Law_, pp. 223-249.

4. =The power of the Senate in relation to treaties.= RALSTON HAYDEN,
_The Senate and Treaties_, especially pp. 169-195; J. W. FOSTER, _The
Practice of Diplomacy_, pp. 262-283.

5. =The Venezuelan controversy.= GROVER CLEVELAND, _Presidential
Problems_, pp. 173-281.

6. =Arbitration as a method of settling International disputes.= R. L.
JONES, _International Arbitration as a Substitute for War between
Nations_, pp. 218-269; J. W. FOSTER, _Arbitration and The Hague Court_,
pp. 39-57; J. B. MOORE, _American Diplomacy_, pp. 200-222.

7. =The Hague Conferences.= G. B. DAVIS, _Elements of International
Law_, pp. 258-263; 519-524; 525.

8. =The proposed codification of international law.= A. H. SNOW, _The
American Philosophy of Government_, pp. 395-418.

Questions

1. What is international law? Is it properly a system of law? Explain
the sense in which you use the term _law_ in the following expressions:
law of gravitation; law of the land; law of supply and demand; law of
fashion.

2. Look up and explain the following terms: _belligerent_, _contraband_,
_unneutral service_, _filibustering_, _blockade_, _three-mile limit_,
_diplomatic immunity_.

3. Make a list of (_a_) the rights of neutrals; (_b_) the duties of
neutrals, and show how each right involves a duty.

4. Draw up, in the form of a diary, a day’s happenings in the American
embassy at Tokyo, putting down at least six things done by the
ambassador during the day.

5. Explain what is meant by secret diplomacy. To what extent has the
United States avoided it and why?

6. Give an account (from your studies in American History) of some
important treaty to which the United States was a party. Tell how it was
negotiated, signed, and ratified.

7. Is the principle set forth by Washington and Jefferson concerning the
true policy of the United States in foreign affairs applicable at the
present time?

8. Are the following statements true of the United States today:

(_a_) “In the wars of European powers in matters relating to themselves
we have never taken any part.”

(_b_) “With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power
we have not interfered”?

9. What is meant by the saying that “the covenant of the League of
Nations does not destroy the Monroe Doctrine but extends it to the whole
world”? Is that statement correct?

10. What seems to you to be the most important among American
contributions to international law?

Topics for Debate

1. All members of the diplomatic service, including ambassadors, should
be chosen under civil service rules.

2. A majority vote in the Senate should be made sufficient for the
ratification of treaties.

3. It would be a violation of the Monroe Doctrine if Great Britain were
to sell the island of Jamaica to Germany.

-----

Footnote 283:

This is a great and fundamental weakness of international law, that
there is no executive authority to apply it and there are no courts to
enforce its rules when nations disobey. During the World War the rules
of international law were violated on many occasions, for example, in
the use of poison gas, the bombing of hospitals, the sinking of
hospital ships, the forcing of prisoners to labor on military works,
and the illegal detention of neutral ships. Yet in spite of these
violations international law emerged from the war stronger than it was
before. The nations which violated international law most shamelessly
were the ones that lost the war, and their defeat was due in no small
measure to the resentment which was aroused throughout the world by
reason of these violations.

Footnote 284:

Illustrations are too fresh in everyone’s mind to require any extended
comment. In 1918 President Wilson took with him to the peace
negotiations at Paris no member of the Senate. He did not keep in
touch with the leaders of the majority party in this body. But in 1921
when President Harding appointed the four American delegates to the
Washington Conference he named two of them from the Senate.

Footnote 285:

In addition to regular envoys, it is sometimes customary for a country
to send an unofficial representative to conduct negotiations
informally. During the years before the United States entered the war,
Colonel Edward M. House, of Texas, was sent to Europe by President
Wilson on at least two occasions in order that certain confidential
discussions might be carried on without using the regular diplomatic
channels. When unofficial representatives are sent in this way no
public announcement is made.

Footnote 286:

Communications between diplomats and their own governments are not
usually sent by mail if the matters dealt with are of great
importance. They are sent by special couriers or messengers. When
diplomatic communications are sent by telegraph or cable they are
transmitted in cipher, that is, in a secret code of words which no
outsider can read. Nations occasionally get hold of one another’s
diplomatic codes and decipher communications which they are not
supposed to read. For example, the German government in the spring of
1917, before the United States declared war, sent a wireless message
to its official representative in Mexico, telling him in substance
that if America entered the war, he was to stir up Mexico against the
United States by promising that when the war was over Mexico would be
rewarded with some American territory. This message was in secret
code; but the American officials caught it from the air, deciphered
it, and at the appropriate time put the German government in an
embarrassing situation by publishing the message in plain English to
the whole world.

Footnote 287:

When two countries go to war they at once withdraw their diplomatic
representatives from one another’s capitals. The embassy or legation
and its archives are put under the care of some neutral ambassador
until the war is over. During the years 1914-1917 the American
ambassador in Berlin and the American minister in Brussels looked
after the interests of Great Britain at these two capitals. The work
of Mr. Brand Whitlock at Brussels was notable, and the services which
he rendered to the Belgian people during the years of their country’s
captivity will long be remembered in that heroic little land.

Footnote 288:

In 1915, for example, the Austro-Hungarian ambassador to the United
States, Dr. Dumba, endeavored to stir up trouble among certain
Hungarian immigrants who were working in American munition factories,
making weapons and military supplies for sale to Great Britain and
France. When the United States government discovered these intrigues,
Dr. Dumba was dismissed from the country.

Footnote 289:

The making of secret treaties continued, in fact, after the war began.
By secret treaties France and Great Britain promised that Italy should
have certain territories which were held by Austria and that Russia
should have Constantinople. When the war was over the new government
at Vienna permitted the publication of a whole volume of secret
treaties that had been made during the preceding fifty years. The
Bolsheviks in Russia also published all the secret treaties of the
Czar that they could find.

In the covenant of the League of Nations it is provided that every
treaty between nations which become members of the League must be
registered and published.

Footnote 290:

There are some cases in which the approval of the House of
Representatives is also needed before a treaty can go into effect. In
the treaty which provided for the purchase of Alaska in 1867 and in
the treaty which closed the war with Spain in 1898, provision was made
for the payment of money by the United States. Now no money can be
appropriated from the treasury without action on the part of the
House, and if the House had declined to appropriate the money, the
conditions of these treaties could not have been fulfilled. In both
cases, however, the House did actually vote the necessary funds.

Footnote 291:

In 1870, for example, President Grant concluded with the government of
San Domingo a treaty which provided for the annexation of that island
to the United States. The Senate, after a hard fight, rejected the
treaty altogether. Even more notable, of course, was the Senate’s
action in declining to ratify the treaty which President Wilson signed
at Paris in 1919.

Footnote 292:

The English government proposed that the United States and Great
Britain should issue the declaration jointly, but President Monroe and
his secretary of state, John Quincy Adams, thought it better that the
United States should make the declaration alone.

Footnote 293:

At the Peace Conference in 1919 the European countries were willing to
concede what was virtually a recognition of the Monroe Doctrine, and
the covenant of the League of Nations contains a provision that
nothing in that document shall affect the validity of “regional
understandings, like the Monroe Doctrine, for securing the maintenance
of peace” (Article XXI).

Footnote 294:

HIRAM BINGHAM, _The Monroe Doctrine: An Obsolete Shibboleth_ (New
Haven, 1913).

Footnote 295:

No one knows exactly what it means today because its scope has been
rather indefinitely extended at various times. No doubt it would be
further extended if the occasion should arise. For example, the
original doctrine was directed against European powers only. But if
Japan should attempt to acquire territory in Central or South America,
the Monroe Doctrine would unquestionably be invoked as applicable to
an Asiatic power as well.

CHAPTER XXX
THE UNITED STATES AS A WORLD POWER

_The purpose of this chapter is to answer the question: What are the
relations of the United States to the rest of the world?_

=The Old Policy of Isolation.=—For more than one hundred years it was
the settled policy of the United States to keep aloof from all
entanglements in the affairs of the rest of the world. [Sidenote: The
doctrines of Washington and Jefferson.] This tradition of aloofness was
given a definite form by Washington, who solemnly warned his countrymen
against getting mixed up in the “ordinary” conflicts of European states,
and it was subsequently endorsed by Jefferson.[296] Yet even in
Jefferson’s own administration it became apparent that if the United
States intended to carry on trade with all parts of the world, the
government must intervene for the protection of its own citizens
whenever this should become necessary. So, in 1803, the American fleet
was sent to the Mediterranean, where it bombarded a nest of pirates who
had been interfering with American commerce. Then came the War of 1812,
which grew out of foreign interference with American trade. On several
subsequent occasions during the nineteenth century the policy of
protecting and promoting foreign trade drew the United States into
negotiations with various countries of Europe and Asia. In a sense,
therefore, the United States has never pursued a policy of complete
isolation; on the other hand no permanent alliances have been made with
any country, and the principle of independence in all matters of foreign
policy has been consistently maintained. So far as diplomatic matters
did not directly concern North, Central, or South America, the statesmen
of the world could safely leave the United States out of their
reckonings during the greater part of the nineteenth century. In
diplomacy the United States belonged, so to speak, to a different world.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Illustration:

THE SPIRIT OF LIGHT. By Edwin A. Abbey

_Copyright by Edwin A. Abbey. From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis
& Cameron, Boston. Reproduced by permission._
]

THE SPIRIT OF LIGHT

By Edwin A. Abbey

From a mural painting in the Pennsylvania State
Capitol at Harrisburg.

This is a very striking picture, one of the artist’s
best. In the background are the huge derricks which
lift the oil from the bowels of the earth. In front
of them golden-haired figures, robed in gauze with
torch in hand, are swirling upward in joyous energy
like a swarm of fireflies.

In making this picture the artist took infinite
pains. Each figure was first drawn from a living
model. Each was then photographed and by the use of
a lantern the figures were projected upon the
canvas where they were manœuvred into place for the
artist’s guidance. The whole picture is successful
in conveying the impression of spontaneity combined
with lightness and grace.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

=Why Isolation was Possible.=—This substantial isolation was made
possible for more than a hundred years by three features. [Sidenote: 1.
The fortunate geographical position of the United States.] The first is
the favored geographical position of the country. The United States, as
a strong nation, has stood alone in the Western Hemisphere. Her only
neighbors were European colonies and the struggling states of
Latin-America. So long, therefore, as the powerful nations of Europe
could be held at arm’s length there was no reason why the United States
should give much thought to problems of defence, alliances, and
diplomacy. Nature gave the United States an advantage in this respect
which is not possessed by any other strong nation with the exception of
Japan. Countries like England, France, and Germany could not have
pursued a policy of isolation even if their people had desired it, for
they are too close to each other.

[Sidenote: 2. The abundance of land.]

In the second place the United States was encouraged to hold aloof from
the older countries of the world by the fact that there was plenty of
room for expansion at home. For a hundred years there was no need to go
abroad seeking new territories. It took the United States a whole
century to develop and populate the solid block of country which extends
from the Atlantic to the Pacific. When other countries desired places of
overflow for their population and new fields of investment for their
capital, they engaged in a race for colonial possessions. The United
States had no such need or ambition; there was quite enough opportunity
at home.

[Sidenote: 3. The absence of European intervention.]

Finally, the traditional policy of isolation was made possible by the
good fortune which prevented European interference at critical times,
notably during the American Civil War, when there was serious danger
that Great Britain and France might combine to aid the South. If that
had actually happened, it is not unlikely that Russia would have come to
the aid of the North, and the Civil War would then have developed into a
world conflict. In that case American isolation would have ended more
than a half century ago. But good fortune, aided by competent diplomacy,
enabled the United States to settle its own troubles without foreign
interference and to continue the traditional policy of incurring no
obligations to any other country. In a word there was the will to keep
aloof and, what is quite as important, the opportunity to do it.[297]
From the War of Independence down to the year 1917 the United States
entered into no military alliance or association with any other country;
when the American armies fought, they fought alone.

=America’s Entry into the World War.=—The World War created a situation
which the United States had never faced before. [Sidenote: The old
policy of isolation comes to an end.] All Western Europe burst ablaze;
one country after another was drawn in; and hostilities soon spread
beyond the borders of the Old Continent. From the outset the United
States endeavored to maintain a strict neutrality; but American commerce
was subjected to interference by the belligerents on both sides.
Particularly offensive to the United States, however, was the German
practice of sinking without warning passenger vessels upon which
American citizens were traveling. The torpedoing of the British liner
Lusitania, and the consequent loss of many American lives, stirred
public opinion throughout the United States. This and other offences
against the law of nations moved President Wilson to demand from the
German government a pledge that the practice of sinking vessels without
warning should cease, and this pledge was conditionally given. Early in
1917, however, the German government decided to inaugurate, as a
desperate stroke, a campaign of “unrestricted submarine warfare”, and
the government of the United States was informed that even neutral
vessels, unless they observed certain strict precautions, would be
torpedoed without warning.

This action settled the matter of America’s continued neutrality.
[Sidenote: The declaration of war in 1917.] Diplomatic relations with
Germany were broken off and in April, 1917, Congress passed a
declaration of war. The events of the next eighteen months are still
fresh in everyone’s mind. America entered the struggle with a
determination to turn the scale, and on November 11, 1918, the German
military authorities were brought to terms. By signing an armistice they
acknowledged defeat and agreed to terms dictated by the Allied and
Associated Powers.

=The Fourteen Points.=—Some months before the signing of this armistice
President Wilson, in an address to Congress, set forth the principal
aims of the United States in the war. These aims were grouped under
fourteen heads and soon came to be known as the Fourteen Points. Every
one of them had to do with matters which, prior to the war, would have
been deemed of no immediate concern to the United States. Taken as a
whole, however, they outlined the principles upon which, in President
Wilson’s opinion, a durable peace could be erected and the future
security of the world maintained. The German government, in asking for
an armistice, declared its acceptance of these principles.

=The Treaty of Versailles.=—After the armistice had been signed on
behalf of the various belligerents a conference was convened at
Versailles to draw up a definite treaty of peace. This conference
included delegates from the countries which had shared in the winning of
the war. Germany and her allies, the vanquished, were not represented.
For several months the conference wrestled with the problems involved in
the making of a treaty—the rearrangement of boundaries, the recognition
of new states, the disposal of German colonies, the payment of
reparations, and, most difficult of all, the forming of a league of
nations to prevent future wars. When the work was finished the German
representatives were called in and were required to sign the treaty
substantially without any changes. The treaty was then communicated to
the various countries to be ratified and in due course it was ratified
by all the important countries except the United States.

[Sidenote: Why isolation is no longer possible:]

=The New World Order.=—The war and the changes which accompanied it
served to alter the whole world environment. America was brought into
more intimate contact with Europe than ever before. Even before the war,
however, it had become apparent that the traditional policy of isolation
could not be permanently maintained. To all intents and purposes the
world has become much smaller in these latter days. In point of miles
America is just as far away from Europe as ever, but a thousand miles
count for less nowadays than did a hundred in our great-grandfathers’
time. During the summer of 1918 the United States transported to Europe
in less than four months a million men. Fifty years ago that would have
been deemed to be an utterly impossible achievement. [Sidenote: 1. The
annihilation of distance.] The fast steamship of today can cross the
ocean in a hundred hours; in Washington’s time the fleetest
sailing-ships could not skim the Atlantic in less than three weeks on
the average. The time is soon coming, in all probability, when men can
be in London one day and in New York the next. This is not a mere dream;
it is well within the range of possibilities. So we can no longer talk
of geographical isolation. The progress of mankind has virtually
annihilated distance.

[Sidenote: 2. The acquisition of overseas possessions.]

Again, the United States is no longer, as in the old days, devoid of
tangible interests in distant parts of the earth. Beginning in 1898,
Porto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam were acquired from Spain, and
Hawaii was annexed. Later the Panama Canal was built and a zone of
territory on both sides of it acquired. More recently, the Virgin
Islands were purchased from Denmark. All this has involved a departure
from the traditional policy of acquiring local interests only. It has
given America, in the case of the Philippines, an outpost several
thousand miles away. Whatever, therefore, concerns the Malay Archipelago
or, indeed, any part of the Far East, concerns the interests of the
United States. Isolation is no longer possible because the United States
has surrendered, in this case at any rate, the geographical advantage of
isolation.

[Sidenote: 3. The acquisition of interests through the war.]

Finally, during the past few years, the relation of the United States to
the rest of the world has been changed by reason of the interests
acquired through the war. The fact that the Treaty of Versailles did not
receive the approval of the Senate does not in any way impair the rights
and interests which the United States acquired as one of the victors in
the war. Those interests, obtained at great sacrifice and acknowledged
by Germany in the separate treaty which the United States made with that
country in 1921, are spread over virtually the entire world. They are of
incalculable value, present and future. No policy of isolation is now
possible unless the country is ready to abandon these privileges
altogether, and, for reasons which will presently be stated, the
surrender of these various American interests is out of the question. In
the new world order the United States cannot hold off from the rest of
the world. The policy of a nation is determined by what it regards as
its own vital interests.

[Sidenote: Wide scope of these interests.]

=The New American Interests.=—Some important interests in various parts
of the world were acquired by the United States before the war; others
have been obtained or intensified as a result of it. The scope and
nature of these interests may best be explained, perhaps, by grouping
them under four main heads, according to their general geographical
location, namely, Europe, Central and South America, the Far East, and
the Near East. It is not possible to arrange them in the order of their
relative importance, for only the future can determine what this order
of importance may turn out to be. Certain it is, however, that in all
four world-areas the interests of the United States are of vast
consequence not only to the American people but to the cause of world
peace and prosperity. Above and beyond all, moreover, is the vital
interest of America in the maintenance of international amity. Apart
from the loss of life, America’s participation in the World War cost the
country, directly and indirectly, more than thirty thousand million
dollars. That is indeed a heavy price to pay for helping to settle a
quarrel which the United States had no part in promoting. It surely
requires no argument to prove that America has a vital interest in
avoiding another such calamity.

[Sidenote: America’s interests now extend to everything that may
threaten peace.]

=America and Europe.=—The war resulted in placing Great Britain, France,
Italy, and the other victorious countries of Europe under heavy
obligations to the United States. To a certain extent these obligations
are sentimental; in return for America’s help towards winning the war
the other victorious countries are under a natural obligation to give
the United States an adequate share in determining the permanent
conditions of peace. This they have been willing to do; but it involves
responsibilities which the United States has shown no great willingness
to accept. The old tradition of non-interference in strictly European
affairs is still strong and this has led the American government to
distinguish, wherever possible, between questions of local and of
world-wide concern. The distinction, however, is practically impossible
to make. The boundaries of some small European state may seem to be a
matter of no concern at Washington; but if a disagreement over this
question should bring once more a general European clash of arms, the
importance of the issue would speedily be recognized. So long as the
general preservation of world-peace is among the primary interests of
the United States, as it seems bound to be, no menace to peace,
anywhere, at any time, can be lightly regarded by the people of America.

=The Loans to Associated Nations.=—But the war did not result in the
creation of sentimental obligations only. Obligations of great
importance and a tangible nature on the part of Europe to America grew
out of it. During the conflict the United States loaned large sums of
money to Great Britain, France, Italy, Russia, and the other Associated
Powers.[298] These loans were made generously, in the midst of a grave
emergency; but nothing definite was arranged as to when or how they
should be repaid. [Sidenote: How the loans were made.] In view of the
disorganized conditions in Europe created by the war no request for the
payment of interest was made by the United States during the conflict or
for some years after its close. In 1922, however, Congress authorized
the President to appoint a commission of five persons to arrange with
the European countries for the funding of the debts by the issue of
bonds. These bonds will be given to the United States.

Now it must be reasonably clear to anyone who gives the matter a
moment’s thought that until these bonds are paid off by the various
European countries (which will be thirty or forty years hence) the
United States will be vitally interested in what Washington called the
“vicissitudes” of the Old World. [Sidenote: America’s mortgage on
Europe.] America, in effect, holds a mortgage on Europe, and it is the
practice of mortgage-holders to keep a sharp eye on their invested
funds. Great Britain, France, and the other debtor countries expect to
redeem these loans, in considerable part, out of reparation payments
made to them by Germany. If Germany does not pay them, it will be much
harder for them to pay America.[299] In this roundabout way, therefore,
the United States has acquired a tangible interest in the pledges made
by the German government.

=America’s Interest in the Industrial Reconstruction of Europe.=—The sum
total of America’s interest in the peace and prosperity of Europe is not
represented, however, by these ten billion dollars of loans. The
commercial relations of the two continents have become so intimate that
whatever is an injury to the one is a detriment to the other. Europe is
America’s best customer. Our exports there are greater than to all the
rest of the world put together. [Sidenote: Importance of Europe as a
market.] The farmer, the cotton grower, the manufacturer—all depend in
part upon the European market. There is not sufficient demand at home
for all the foodstuffs, materials, and manufactured goods which the
United States can now produce. The European market, however, has been
broken down as the result of the long conflict and it is greatly to the
interest of the United States that it should be built up again. This can
only be done by keeping the world at peace until the damage done by the
war has been repaired. For that commercial reason, if for no other, the
United States cannot well afford to remain entirely isolated from the
rest of the world.

=The United States and Latin-America.=—The relations of the United
States with most of the Latin-American states have been at all times
friendly. We have never been at war with any of them except Mexico. When
these various countries revolted against Spanish control about a hundred
years ago, the people of the United States, remembering their own
experience, were in sympathy with them. The announcement of the Monroe
Doctrine was regarded by Latin-America as an act of friendliness. And
for more than a century since that time the United States has served as
a protector to the sister republics of the southern continent. When the
War with Spain began in 1898 Congress announced that the United States
had no intention to annex Cuba and this pledge, at the close of the war,
was kept. Cuba was given her independence. Naturally this evidence of
good faith made a strong and favorable impression upon the Central and
South American states.

[Sidenote: Relations with Mexico.]

With Mexico, however, relations have not been cordial for several years.
Ever since the invasion of their country by an American army in 1846 the
Mexican people have been suspicious of American aggression; but the
relations between the two governments remained cordial enough so long as
President Diaz continued in power south of the Rio Grande, which was
from shortly after the close of the American Civil War until well into
the twentieth century. Diaz ruled Mexico in the fashion of a dictator;
but he kept the country peaceful as well as on good terms with the
outside world. Since the expulsion of Diaz the Mexicans have had several
changes in the presidency and for ten years the government has been
denied recognition by the United States. The successors of Diaz have
professed their desire to place the government of the country on a truly
democratic basis and to some extent they have succeeded in doing so; but
they have not managed to maintain order and justice with a firm hand.
Twice during the past decade it has been deemed necessary to send
American troops into the country. The government of Mexico is republican
in form, but elections have not, as a rule, been fairly conducted. The
leaders who have control of the government try to manipulate the
elections so as to maintain their own hold upon the country, and they
usually succeed.

[Sidenote: The situation today.]

Between Mexico and the United States there are today no questions of
great importance in dispute. The United States is ready to recognize the
existing government of Mexico but only upon condition that certain
pledges are made in writing. These include assurances that payments will
be made by Mexico as compensation for the lives and property of American
citizens destroyed during the troubles of the past ten years; that there
shall be no confiscating of property without legal reason in the future;
and that payments of interest on Mexico’s foreign obligations shall be
resumed. These do not appear to be unreasonable conditions.

There are large American investments in Mexico, particularly in the oil
and mining districts. Some of those who hold these investments would
like to see the United States intervene by force of arms, but it is
quite unlikely that there will be anything of the kind unless all other
means of securing the rights of Americans in Mexico prove unavailing.
The United States has a certain moral responsibility for the good
behavior of Mexico, even though the Mexican government may not recognize
the existence of such an obligation. [Sidenote: Mexico and the Monroe
Doctrine.] If the Monroe Doctrine gives the United States the right to
keep European countries from interfering in Mexican affairs, even when
their citizens have been wronged, it may also be said to carry the duty
of seeing that Mexico does not abuse this protectorship.

[Sidenote: Panama.]

In the region of the Isthmus the interests of the United States are
especially important because of the Canal. The Panama Canal is not only
of commercial but of military value to the United States, and no serious
disturbance of the peace in this section of Central America can well be
tolerated.

[Sidenote: The Pan-American Congress.]

Many years ago the United States government made the suggestion that
from time to time a Pan-American Congress made up of delegates from all
the republics of the New World should be held to discuss matters of
common interest. The suggestion was accepted and several Congresses have
been held during the past three decades. There has also been established
at Washington a Bureau of American Republics whose function it is to
carry out the resolutions of each Congress and to spread information
concerning the common interests of all the countries.

=The United States and the Far East.=—In ordinary usage the term “Far
East” includes the Japanese and Chinese empires, Siberia and the other
Russian territories to the north of China, and the Malay Archipelago to
the south. Until a quarter of a century ago the interests of the United
States, whether political or commercial, were relatively small in this
part of the world. [Sidenote: The Philippines.] But the acquisition of
the Philippines and the growth of American trade with the Orient have
combined to alter the situation. Another factor which has impelled the
United States to pay greater attention to the Orient today is the
progress of Japan. The rapid growth of this empire in military and naval
strength means that the United States has a rival for the mastery of the
Pacific. During the nineteenth century the eyes of America were turned
entirely towards Europe; in the twentieth they will have to be turned
towards Asia as well.

[Sidenote: China and Japan.]

Apart from affairs in the Philippines the problems of the Far East, so
far as the United States is concerned, center around two present-day
international phenomena, the weakness of China and the strength of
Japan. China is a vast country with at least three or four times the
population of the United States. Although nominally a republic its
government is weak, inefficient, unable to exercise firm control over
all parts of the country, and without effective means of national
defence. Quite naturally, therefore, China offers a temptation to any
strong country desiring exclusive trade advantages for itself. Her
nearest neighbor, Japan, would speedily be able to secure entire control
of the Chinese Republic and make China a vassal state were it not for
the deterring influence of the other great powers of the world.

In 1899, after the close of the Spanish War, the government of the
United States addressed a note to all the great powers urging that they
agree to seek no further special trade advantages in China, that the
integrity of Chinese territory be preserved, and that the principle of
“equal and impartial trade” should be adopted. [Sidenote: The “open
door.”] To this suggestion all the powers agreed. This policy thus
accepted has become known as the policy of the “open door”, and until
the outbreak of the World War it was substantially followed, except that
the various powers retained the commercial advantages that they had
already acquired.

During this war, however, Japan attacked and captured Kiao-Chao, a port
which had been leased by China to Germany for a long term of years, and
this territory the Japanese continued to hold after the war was over.
Not until the Washington conference of 1922 did Japan agree to give it
up. [Sidenote: Recent developments.] In 1918, moreover, the government
of Japan made a list of twenty-one demands upon China for special
privileges, and although some of these demands were later modified or
withdrawn entirely, several important privileges were wrung from the
Chinese. In connection with these negotiations the United States
government gave assurance in the so-called Ishii-Lansing agreement that
the United States would recognize the “special interest” of Japan in
Chinese affairs. It is avowedly the policy of Japan to acquire, if she
can, the same predominance in Asia that the United States has exercised
in North and South America.

=The Conference on Pacific Problems.= Regarding it as highly desirable
that all controversies affecting the Far East and the Pacific should be
amicably settled, thus forestalling the growth of large naval armaments
on both sides of the Western ocean, President Harding in the summer of
1921 proposed that the Washington conference should discuss these
questions and should endeavor to secure a satisfactory solution of them.
[Sidenote: The Washington conference.] The conference did so, and
embodied the results of its negotiations in certain agreements,
particularly in what is commonly known as the “Four Power” treaty. By
the terms of this treaty the United States, Great Britain, France, and
Japan mutually agree to respect the integrity of each other’s
possessions in the islands of the Pacific.[300] The nations represented
at the conference also agreed to refrain from the erection of
fortifications in certain places now unfortified.

Out of the negotiations at Washington, moreover, came the agreement on
the part of Japan to restore Kiao-Chao and the adjacent province of
Shantung to China. First and last, therefore, the Washington conference
succeeded in promoting an amicable agreement on most of the questions at
issue. It did not, however, take up the question of Japanese immigration
to the Pacific Coast of America, nor did it discuss the grievances of
the Japanese immigrants already there. These matters are left for
further negotiation through the regular diplomatic channels.

=America and the Near East.=—The expression “Near East” is commonly
regarded as including the areas which lie at the eastern end of the
Mediterranean and thereabouts; it comprises Turkey, Armenia, Syria,
Palestine, Arabia, Mesopotamia, and other territories in the same
general region. As a result of the war the Turkish Empire has been
disintegrated; most of its territories have been virtually placed under
the control of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Greece through the
instrumentality of mandates (see p. 636). The United States was offered
the mandate for Armenia, but declined to accept it.

[Sidenote: The oil question.]

Now some of these territories are rich in natural resources.
Mesopotamia, for example, is known to possess extensive oil fields. The
question arises, therefore, whether the European countries which hold
the mandates are to have the lion’s share of this natural wealth. And it
is a question of considerable importance when one bears in mind the fact
that the oil fields of the United States will probably be exhausted
before many decades have passed (see p. 330). The direct interest of the
United States is less immediate, perhaps, than in the other areas
(Europe, Central and South America, and the Far East), but it is
sufficiently vital to deserve mention.

=The Wide Scope of America’s Interests.=—From this brief and general
survey some idea of the scope of American interests can be gained. But
the preceding paragraphs have not listed them all. The people of the
United States have a sentimental interest in many foreign problems where
no economic considerations are at stake. Ireland is an example.
America’s interest in a just and peaceful settlement of the Irish
question is not inspired by economic motives. It arises in large part
from the sentimental desire to see a people, with whom there are close
ties of kinship, attain contentment and prosperity. So with Poland and
the new Slavic countries of Continental Europe. America would regret to
see them lose a status of independence which was gained at so great a
sacrifice.

There is no part of the world, in fact, to which the interest of the
United States, direct or indirect, sentimental, political, or economic,
does not now extend. The enormous strength and prestige of America, as
disclosed during the war, have made a profound impression in every part
of the globe and have given the United States a potent influence upon
the destinies of mankind. The United States has become a world power of
the first order. Whether the American people like it or not, that
inexorable fact remains.

General References

A. T. MAHAN, _The Interest of America in International Conditions_, pp.
127-185;

W. E. WEYL, _American World Policies_, passim;

A. C. COOLIDGE, _The United States as a World Power_, pp. 95-120;

C. E. JONES, _Caribbean Interests of the United States_, pp. 148-192;

J. H. LATANÉ, _America as a World Power_, pp. 255-268; _Ibid._, _From
Isolation to Leadership_, pp. 3-39;

H. H. POWERS, _America Among the Nations_, pp. 197-239;

W. A. DUNNING, _The British Empire and the United States_, pp. 357-371;

A. B. HART, _Foundations of American Foreign Policy_, pp. 1-52;

WOODROW WILSON, _State Papers and Addresses_, pp. 464-479;

P. S. REINSCH, _World Politics_, pp. 327-362.

Group Problems

=1. How the United States became a world power.= Early relations with
Europe. The Monroe Doctrine. The opening of Japan. The war with Spain
and the new acquisitions. John Hay and the “open door.” The World War
and its aftermath. Scope of American interests today. =References=: J.
H. LATANÉ, _America as a World Power_, pp. 3-28; 63-81; _Ibid._, _The
United States and Latin America_, pp. 61-291; A. C. COOLIDGE, _The
United States as a World Power_, pp. 121-147; J. W. FOSTER, _American
Diplomacy in the Orient_, pp. 399-438; W. M. FULLERTON, _Problems of
Power_, pp. 11-43; P. S. REINSCH, _World Politics_, pp. 309-336.

=2. How foreign trade affects the national welfare.= Foreign trade and
national prosperity. Foreign trade and world power. “Dollar Diplomacy.”
Trade and imperialism. =References=: C. M. PEPPER, _American Foreign
Trade_, pp. 3-32; 62-89; 110-139; J. D. WHELPLEY, _The Trade of the
World_, pp. 391-425; A. J. WOLFE, _Theory and Practice of International
Commerce_, pp. 495-522; C. L. JONES, _Caribbean Interests of the United
States_, pp. 1-16; L. C. and T. F. FORD, _The Foreign Trade of the
United States_, pp. 1-27.

=3. How the building of the Panama Canal extended American interests
abroad.= =References=: LINCOLN HUTCHINSON, _The Panama Canal and
International Trade Competition_, pp. 46-97; F. A. OGG, _National
Progress_, pp. 246-265; A. B. HART, _The Monroe Doctrine: An
Interpretation_, pp. 340-348; W. M. FULLERTON, _Problems of Power_, pp.
300-315.

=4. The open door in China.= What it means. Obstacles in its way.
=References=: K. K. KAWAKAMI, _Japan in World Politics_, pp. 117-166; J.
H. LATANÉ, _America as a World Power_, pp. 100-119; W. W. WILLOUGHBY,
_Foreign Rights and Interests in China_, pp. 245-266; A. B. HART, _The
Monroe Doctrine: An Interpretation_, pp. 282-298; W. R. THAYER, _The
Life and Letters of John Hay_, Vol. II, pp. 231-249; A. C. COOLIDGE,
_The United States as a World Power_, pp. 327-374; K. K. KAWAKAMI,
_Japan and World Peace_, pp. 160-196; JOHN DEWEY, _China, Japan, and the
United States_ (_New Republic_ Pamphlets, No. 1).

Short Studies

1. =Pan-Americanism.= What it means. R. G. USHER, _Pan-Americanism_, pp.
203-231; J. V. NOEL, _The History of the Second Pan-American Congress_,
pp. 9-30; Pan-American Union, _Bulletins_, March, 1911.

2. =The United States as an international policeman.= THEODORE
ROOSEVELT, _Autobiography_, pp. 543-553; D. C. MUNRO, _The Five
Republics of Central America_, pp. 227-264; A. B. HART, _The Monroe
Doctrine: An Interpretation_, pp. 223-242.

3. =Our Mid-Pacific possessions.= E. J. CARPENTER, _America in Hawaii_,
pp. 192-251; J. M. CALLAHAN, _American Relations in the Pacific and the
Far East_, pp. 114-145.

4. =World competition for oil.= F. A. TALBOT, _The Oil Conquest of the
World_, pp. 17-34; F. R. KELLOGG, _The Mexican Oil Situation_ (in Clark
University Addresses, _Mexico and the Caribbean_, pp. 54-72).

5. =The United States in Panama.= C. L. JONES, _Caribbean Interests of
the United States_, pp. 193-228; RALPH PAGE, _Dramatic Moments in
American Diplomacy_, pp. 227-259; THEODORE ROOSEVELT, _Autobiography_,
pp. 553-571.

6. =America’s interest in China.= W. E. GRIFFIN, _America in the East_,
pp. 203-225; B. A. ROBINSON, _America’s Business Opportunity in China_
(in Clark University Addresses, _Recent Developments in China_, pp.
237-255; also Clark University Lectures, _China and the Far East_, pp.
95-119).

7. =The United States and the Latin American republics.= J. H. LATANÉ,
_America as a World Power_, pp. 269-284; C. E. JONES, _Caribbean
Interests of the United States_, pp. 106-124.

8. =Isolation as an American policy.= A. B. HART, _Foundations of
American Foreign Policy_, pp. 1-52; J. H. LATANÉ, _From Isolation to
Leadership_, pp. 3-53.

9. =America’s maritime power.= E. N. HURLEY, _The New Merchant Marine_,
pp. 122-166; A. T. MAHAN, _The Interest of America in Sea Power_, pp.
3-27.

10. =America’s interest in the reconstruction of Europe.= D. J. HILL,
_The Rebuilding of Europe_, pp. 236-282; WALTER WEYL, _The End of the
War_, pp. 50-72; R. S. BAKER, _What Wilson Did at Paris_, pp. 3-35.

Questions

1. Give reasons why a policy of isolation was possible during the first
three-quarters of the nineteenth century.

2. Was the entry of the United States into the war in 1917 in keeping
with American traditions or a departure from American traditions? Give
your reasons.

3. Look up the Fourteen Points. Indicate the ones which were
incorporated in the Treaty of Versailles. Name the ones which were not
so incorporated.

4. Explain why America is interested in the reconstruction of Europe.
How can this reconstruction be best aided by the United States?

5. It has been suggested that the loans made by the United States to
European countries ought to be canceled. Why is this proposal made and
what is your opinion of it?

6. What policy do you think the United States ought to pursue toward
Mexico? Has the United States any responsibility for the good behavior
of Mexico towards European countries? Why or why not?

7. To what extent should America insist upon the maintenance of the
“open door” in China? Has Japan a special interest in the Orient similar
to that of the United States in the Western Hemisphere?

8. What did the Washington Conference accomplish? Why did it not
accomplish more?

9. Was the United States wise or unwise in declining to accept any
mandates from the League of Nations?

10. Does the strength and prestige of America entail any
responsibilities of leadership? If so, give some idea as to how these
can be carried out.

Topics for Debate

1. The United States should maintain the Monroe Doctrine.

2. The United States should recognize a Japanese “Monroe Doctrine” in
the Far East.

3. The United States should not participate in international conferences
dealing only with European questions.

-----

Footnote 296:

Washington was well aware that the United States might have to take a
hand in European quarrels if they should assume an extraordinary
importance. Notice the exact wording of the passage in his Farewell
Address. “It would be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by
artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her (Europe’s)
politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her
friendships or enmities.” Washington was not in the habit of wasting
words, and he did not twice insert the limitation “ordinary” without
good reason. By the way, he did not use the phrase “entangling
alliances”. That expression was first used by Jefferson in his
inaugural address (March 4, 1801).

Footnote 297:

From 1815 to 1914 all the great wars were localized. The Crimean War
(1854-1855), although five nations took part in it, was confined to
the territories around the Black Sea; the War of 1859, in which the
French and Italians on the one side fought the Austrians on the other,
was settled in Northern Italy. The other important wars were, for the
most part, individual duels between two nations or between two
sections of a single nation.

Footnote 298:

The total amount loaned to European governments by the United States
during the war was about ten billion dollars, of which nearly half was
loaned to Great Britain.

Footnote 299:

The payments made by Germany to Great Britain, France, and Italy, as
well as the payments made by these countries to the United States,
must inevitably take the form of payment in goods. There is not enough
gold in Europe to make payment in gold. All this means that so long as
the reparations and loans are being liquidated large imports of goods
from Europe are likely to come into this country.

Footnote 300:

By the terms of a supplementary treaty, this does not include the main
Japanese islands themselves.

CHAPTER XXXI
THE UNITED STATES AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the relations of the
United States to the most ambitious experiment in government that
the world has ever attempted.

=The Desire to End War.=—Since the dawn of human history mankind has
been divided into independent tribes and nations ready to hurl
themselves upon one another in warfare. No mind can comprehend the
immeasurable suffering which war has brought upon the human race during
the past three thousand years. From the days when the Assyrian
charioteers crushed their enemies under horse and wheel to those tragic
years of yesterday when the hospitals of Europe were filled with the
victims of high explosive shells and poison gas,—in all this long
interval there has been no cessation of warfare among men and no era of
peace on earth.

Small wonder it is, therefore, that in the anguish of the World War men
of all races should have cried out for some such settlement as would put
an end to war and all its horrors forever.[301] [Sidenote: The cry for a
permanent peace.] Soldiers in the ranks called it a “war to end war“ and
gave up their lives unflinchingly in the hope@@ that future generations
would be spared a repetition of the world-wide misery. But how might
such a blessing be obtained for future generations of mankind? That was
one of the great problems which the soldiers bequeathed to the
statesmen.

[Sidenote: How strife between individuals has been diminished.]

=Can this Desire be Realized?=—Now it is believed by many that war can
never be permanently abolished except by applying to nations a principle
which men have applied to themselves as individuals, that is to say, by
establishing an organization whereby all controversies can be settled
without resort to force. Treaties of amity and arbitration among nations
are valuable so far as they go; but so long as there is no high
authority with power to administer justice between nation and nation
each must look to its own self-preservation. This means that each feels
obliged to regard war as a possibility and to be prepared for it.
Without sufficient assurance against the possibility of war it is idle
to expect that nations will wholly disarm. And when interests clash and
the passions of men are aroused they will use the weapons which are at
hand.

[Sidenote: The motive behind the League of Nations.]

The primary motive of those who urged the formation of a League of
Nations was the desire to avoid war by substituting another method of
adjusting disputes, but they also hoped that such an organization would
enable the vast sums hitherto spent each year on warlike preparations to
be applied to the development of industry and commerce, to education, to
the protection of the public health, to the betterment of labor
conditions, and to promoting all the arts of peace. They harbored the
hope, moreover, that great constructive tasks which are beyond the power
of any one nation to accomplish might be achieved by the nations of the
world in co-operation. As an ideal it is truly great. The Italian poet,
Dante, dreamt of it six hundred years ago. Perhaps we can best
appreciate what the realization of such an ideal would mean to the world
by glancing for a moment at what tribulations the world passed through
during the course of a single century, from 1814 to 1914.

=The Great Wars of a Century Ago.=—A little more than a century ago the
various nations of Europe engaged in a long and exhausting war. First
and last all the chief countries of the world were drawn into it.
[Sidenote: How the Napoleonic Wars failed to eliminate the causes of
war.] The chief cause of this great struggle was the ambition of
Napoleon, who sought to make France dominant in the political affairs of
Europe and by his aggressions finally managed to array all the other
leading nations in an alliance against him. When France was finally
vanquished by the combined efforts of England, Prussia, Russia, Austria,
and Spain, a congress of the nations was held at Vienna to determine the
detailed arrangements by which the future peace of the continent might
be preserved, and after prolonged discussions this congress agreed upon
a general settlement. The principal motive which actuated the delegates
at the Congress of Vienna was that of strengthening the four powers to
whom the overthrow of France had been chiefly due, thus establishing a
combination which would be able to impose its will upon the rest of the
continent in the interests of peace. Great Britain, Prussia, Austria,
and Russia dominated the congress and for some years after 1815
virtually remained in a quadruple alliance to see that the terms of
peace were observed. But the Congress of Vienna took no action in the
way of establishing a league or confederation to which all the nations,
great and small, should be admitted. It left the peace of Europe in the
hands of four powerful states with the hope, a futile hope it turned out
to be, that these four states would agree among themselves.

=The Rise of the Alliances.=—The map of Europe, as rearranged by
the Congress of Vienna, paid no attention to the right of
self-determination. Territories were taken from one state and
given to another without reference to the desires of their
inhabitants. The chief aim was to strengthen the powers that had
won the war, giving each of them boundaries that could be easily
defended. The interests of military defence, not those of
nationality, prevailed.

[Sidenote: The rivalries of the nineteenth century.]

Because of this action the congress left many openings for friction and
jealousy among the various states, yet provided no regular means whereby
disputes could be adjusted. In the course of time, moreover, the
interests of the four great powers which dominated the work of the
congress drew apart. England preferred to hold aloof from the diplomatic
intrigues of the continental states, devoting her energies to the
upbuilding of an empire in other parts of the world. France, moreover,
regained her old-time strength and once more became recognized as one of
the leading European powers. Italy, which had been left by the Congress
of Vienna a mosaic of small independent states, eventually achieved its
unity, and the kingdom of Prussia expanded into the German Empire. Thus,
the four great powers of 1815 grew to six before the end of the
nineteenth century—Great Britain, Russia, Austro-Hungary, France, Italy,
and Germany.

With these six great states progressing side by side, ambitious for
power and jealous of one another, it was inevitable that alliances and
counter-alliances should be formed. These combinations took many twists
and turns during the diplomatic manoeuvres of the nineteenth century,
but in the end the six leading nations of Europe gravitated into
opposing camps. The first, known as the Triple Alliance, included
Germany, Austro-Hungary, and Italy. The second, commonly called the
Triple Entente, was made up of Great Britain, France, and Russia. These
alliances were based upon treaties or understandings of which certain
portions were made public and the rest kept secret.

[Sidenote: The “armed peace.”]

=The Balance of Power.=—For many years the preservation of European
peace rested upon the observance of a principle known as the “balance of
power”. This principle is not easy to define, but in general it meant
that no single state or combination of states should be allowed to
become strong enough to outweigh a rival state or its combination. The
balance could never be exact because some states, by virtue of their
more rapid increase in population and prosperity, were always outrunning
others, hence the situation developed into a race wherein each group of
powers sought to strengthen itself by bringing smaller states into its
circle, by welding its members more closely together, and by the
creation of great armaments. The purpose of the alliances, based upon
the principle of balance of power, was not to prevent war but rather to
prevent any state from being attacked by a combination of other states
and having to defend itself single-handed. Under the terms of the Triple
Alliance and the Triple Entente it remained quite possible for single
states to go to war and fight it out alone; but both alliances protected
their members against combined attacks. In a word, the situation became
such that any war, wherever it might start, was very likely to become a
general war.

[Sidenote: The nations in the recent war.]

=The Realignments of 1914-1918.=—On the outbreak of the World War in
1914 the Triple Entente held together, but the Triple Alliance was
weakened by the action of Italy in refusing to be drawn into a cause
which the Italian people did not approve. Italy, a little later, joined
with France, Great Britain, and Russia. Meanwhile Japan had also taken
the side of these allies and eventually the United States became
associated in the war with them. Thus the Triple Entente developed into
a powerful allied combination including not only the five powers named
but many smaller states as well. Before the close of hostilities
twenty-five states had declared war upon the German government. Germany
and Austro-Hungary, the remaining states of the Triple Alliance, had the
aid of two other states only, Turkey and Bulgaria. The course of events
showed, therefore, that not only were alliances ineffective in
preserving the peace but that they actually helped to extend the area of
conflict over a whole continent.

=The War to End War.=—When the United States, after long hesitation,
decided to throw its strength on the side of the Allies, one of the
chief actuating motives was the desire to see the struggle settled in
such a way that there would never be another great war. [Sidenote:
Idealism in this war.] As the spokesman of the American people,
President Wilson repeatedly declared that out of the war some general
agreement and league for the permanent preservation of world peace must
come. In this he undoubtedly reflected the sentiment not only of his own
country but of the great masses of the people in the other warring
states as well. Everywhere there had been going on, practically
throughout the world, a popular agitation for the establishment of some
general covenant which would make future wars impossible. It was now
felt that the balance of power was gone, that individual treaties among
nations were not sufficient protection, and that something more
effective must be found. There was no great difference of opinion as to
the ideal. It was welcomed everywhere. The problem was how to translate
the ideal into a reality. This task President Wilson believed to be the
most important and yet the most difficult among all the problems of
peace-making. To help with its solution he took the highly-unusual
course of himself attending the conference which was held at Paris to
determine the conditions of peace.

[Sidenote: How the League was brought into existence.]

=The Framing of the Covenant.=—When the members of this conference
assembled it was agreed, after some deliberation, that a commission
should be appointed to prepare a plan for a League of Nations and that
this plan, when accepted by the conference, should become an integral
part of the peace treaty. This latter point was particularly insisted
upon by President Wilson and was agreed to as the result of his
insistence. The commission was appointed; it prepared a plan; the plan
was laid before the peace conference, and before being adopted was
published to the world. In the United States it met with strong support
in some quarters and vigorous opposition in others. The Senate, by which
the whole peace treaty would have to be approved before it could be
binding upon the United States, discussed the details of the plan and
thirty-one senators signed a declaration that some of the provisions
were unacceptable. In the end, however, the original covenant, with some
modifications, was adopted by the peace conference and incorporated as a
part of the treaty of peace.[302] As such it was subsequently accepted
by all the leading powers to whom it was submitted, except the United
States. In its scope the League of Nations is designed to include,
ultimately, all the countries of the world. Provision is made in the
covenant for the immediate admission of most countries by their simple
acceptance of the covenant; others may be admitted to membership by a
two-thirds vote of the league assembly. Fifty-one states are now
members.[303]

[Sidenote: An analogy and contrast.]

=The League as a Scheme of Government.=—What are the important features
in this scheme of super-government? This question may best be answered,
perhaps, by taking as our background the federal system with which we
are most familiar in the United States, noting the outstanding points of
resemblance and contrast. At the time of its formation, indeed, the
American federal government was looked upon by the several states as a
super-government and they were very jealous of it. It was not until many
years had passed that this jealousy died down. This same designation was
given to the scheme of organization established by the League Covenant.
The government of the United States has its deliberative, executive, and
judicial departments; so has the League of Nations. But there the
resemblance ends. The methods of constituting the organs are different;
so are their powers, and so are their relations to one another.

[Sidenote: The Assembly and the Council.]

=The League’s Deliberative Organs.=—The League of Nations has two
deliberative bodies,—an Assembly to which each member-nation may send
not more than three delegates, and a Council, made up of one member from
each of the five great powers,—the United States, Great Britain, France,
Italy, and Japan (these five nations being always represented), and one
member from each of four lesser powers to be designated from time to
time by the Assembly. Since the United States has not joined the League,
the Council now consists of only eight members, the four nations
constituting the second group being at present Belgium, Brazil, Spain,
and China. Unless otherwise stated in the covenant, any decision either
of the Council or the Assembly requires a unanimous vote. The Council
must meet at least once a year; the Assembly meets at stated intervals
determined by itself. The Assembly has decided to meet annually on the
first Monday in September and the Council is now holding quarterly
sessions. Geneva has been selected as the League capital.

[Sidenote: The Secretariat.]

=The Administrative Organization.=—By the terms of the covenant certain
functions of an executive nature are given to the Council, but the
administrative work devolves upon the Secretariat of the League. This
body comprises a permanent secretary and numerous officials appointed by
him. The Secretariat performs the clerical work, registers all treaties,
carries on the correspondence with the member-nations, and prepares
business to be laid before the Council and the Assembly.

[Sidenote: The League’s judiciary.]

=The Court of International Justice.=—The covenant also makes provision
for a permanent world court, composed of judges selected by the Assembly
from among eminent jurists nominated by the different member-countries.
At the second Assembly session, held during 1921, the eleven regular
judges and four alternate or deputy judges were chosen. Controversies
come before this court whenever nations agree to submit their disputes
to it for decision.

=Outstanding Features of League Organization.=—In comparing the general
organization of League government with the American federal system some
striking contrasts appear. [Sidenote: Equality of all nations in the
League Assembly.] First of all, it is significant that in the Council
and in the Assembly each nation has one vote only. Each nation may send
to the Assembly one, two, or three representatives; but whether it sends
one or three its voting power is the same. In the American Senate all
the states have the same voting power, but in the House of
Representatives the states with larger populations have proportionate
voting strength. Equality of voting power is natural in a political
union that is just starting. The nations of the world, being accustomed
to sovereignty and legal equality were not willing to recognize
gradations of rank. The same feeling was manifested among the American
colonies when, under the Articles of Confederation, it was provided that
every state, small or large, while it might send from two to seven
delegates to the Congress, should have the same voting power as any
other. There was a long fight over this question in the Constitutional
Convention of 1787, the smaller states demanding equal power with the
larger, the larger asking that representation should be based upon
population. The matter was settled by giving the smaller states equal
representation in the Senate, and conceding to the larger states the
right to dominate the House. But the framers of the League Covenant
could not accept a compromise of this sort; for if representation
according to population were made the rule in either the Council or the
Assembly, India and China would have far more delegates than the United
States, England, and France put together. So all were given equal
representation in the Assembly, while representation in the Council was
confined to nine nations only.

Other marked contrasts should be noted. In the House of Representatives
and in the Senate of the United States measures are passed by a majority
vote; [Sidenote: The requirement of unanimity.]in the Assembly and
Council of the League, unless otherwise specified, a unanimous vote is
necessary for action. This is a mark of the distrust with which the
nations regard one another. The provision for unanimity means that
nothing can be carried through the Assembly if a single nation
disapproves, for a solitary vote can block action. The same is true of
the Council as respects each nation represented in it. This, of course,
establishes a very cumbersome and slow-working scheme of government.
Decisions of the Council or the Assembly, moreover, have no absolute
binding force, as have the enactments of Congress. There is no
centralized executive authority, with power to see that decisions are
obeyed—no executive authority in the national sense. The League has no
army to enforce its will. Even the International Court of Justice has no
jurisdiction save when the suitors, of their own accord, come to it. It
lacks the coercive power of a Supreme Court.

=Provisions for the Prevention of Wars.=—The prime purpose in
establishing the League of Nations was a desire to lessen the danger of
wars. To that end the covenant contains several provisions of high
importance which may be briefly summarized.

[Sidenote: 1. Armaments.]

First, there is a provision for the reduction of armaments. The Council
is directed to have a study made by experts and to report upon the
amount of armed strength needed by each nation. The various governments,
however, are not bound to accept the Council’s recommendations. In any
case, all members of the League agree to keep one another informed as to
the extent of their respective armament programs. This represents, of
course, a very modest step in the direction of actual international
disarmament.

[Sidenote: 2. Territorial integrity.]

Second, the members of the League agree to protect one another against
any seizure of their territories or any destruction of their
independence by outside attacks. This is the famous Article X. Whenever
such attack occurs, the Council is to advise as to how the pledge of
integrity can be fulfilled.

[Sidenote: 3. Conciliation.]

Third, if a dispute which cannot be settled by diplomatic negotiations
arises between members of the League, the members agree to refer it to
arbitration if it is suitable for such disposition; or, if not, then to
the Council of the League for inquiry. The members of the League agree
to refrain from hostilities until three months after the Council has
rendered its decision.

[Sidenote: 4. Coercion.]

Fourth, if any member-nation resorts to war in violation of the
preceding provisions, the other members of the League agree to boycott
it and to withdraw from relations with it; in extreme cases, the Council
is authorized to consider and recommend means of compulsion by armed
force.

[Sidenote: 5. Registration of treaties.]

Fifth, a very important provision is that by which all treaties
hereafter entered into by members of the League shall be registered with
the Secretariat and published. Until this has been done, no treaty is to
be considered binding. This, of itself, embodies no small step in the
direction of eliminating a prolific source of friction and strife.
Secret treaties have been the mainspring of many wars.

[Sidenote: Duties of the mandatories.]

=The System of Mandates.=—In previous wars it has been the habit of
victorious nations to divide all the conquered territory among
themselves, each taking a portion in full ownership. The Peace
Conference of 1919, however, agreed to try a new plan, namely, that of
placing the League of Nations in charge of some former German and
Turkish territories. It was provided that by means of mandates each of
these territories should be directly governed, on behalf of the League,
by one of its member-countries, with the understanding that eventually
complete self-government should be given in certain cases. The
mandatory, or country holding the mandate, is required to present an
annual report to the League and a permanent commission is provided to
examine these reports. In accordance with these arrangements, several
mandates have been granted. Great Britain, for example, has been made
the mandatory for Palestine, France for Syria, and New Zealand for
certain former German colonies in the South Pacific.

[Sidenote: A territorial trust.]

The possession of a mandate does not give the mandatory any exclusive
commercial privileges in the territory concerned, but merely creates a
trust which is to be exercised for the benefit of the people who inhabit
it. Whether this new experiment in the government of dependent
territories will work out successfully no one yet can tell. Much will
depend upon whether the League acquires prestige and power. If it should
collapse, there is little doubt that these various territories would
merely pass into the full ownership of the countries which now hold the
mandates.

=The League and Labor.=—The widely-differing policies hitherto pursued
by various countries in relation to labor have long been a cause of
international distrust and friction. When any one country endeavors to
accord greater privileges to its workers—such as the adoption of a
shorter working day or the guarantee of a minimum wage—this action
places it at a disadvantage in trade competition with other countries
not so progressive. It is, therefore, provided that a permanent
International Labor Office shall be established and that members of the
League shall send representatives to a labor conference at least once a
year. Such measures for the protection of labor as may be recommended by
this conference are to be presented to the government of each
member-country for adoption. Each government may adopt or refuse to
adopt the recommendations as it sees fit; but where a recommendation is
adopted, a country must live up to it and provisions are made for
ensuring this. [Sidenote: The first labor conference.] The first meeting
of the labor conference took place at Washington in 1919. Since that
time two further conferences have been held. Recommendations have been
made in favor of the eight-hour day, the prohibition of child labor, and
an effective system of factory inspection. In most of the discussions
concerning the League these great opportunities which it presents for
the improvement of labor conditions were entirely overlooked.

=The League and the Protection of Health.=—Great improvements in the
science of health protection have been made during the past generation
by all civilized countries, as a previous chapter has indicated. But no
matter how watchful a country may be in guarding the health of its own
people, it can never feel safe so long as epidemics are allowed to rage
unchecked in other lands. The ravages of disease stop at no national
boundaries. Trade and travel carry infection across even the
best-protected borders. In recognition of this the League covenant
pledges the member-countries to take steps for the international
prevention and control of disease. [Sidenote: The international health
office.] This is to be accomplished by the establishment of a permanent
International Health Office. The function of this office is to gather
data relating to public health questions, to promote the acceptance of
the best health regulations by the different countries, and to secure
common action in the case of dangerous epidemics.[304] The League is
also authorized to wage a war upon the use of opium and other harmful
drugs, likewise to take measures against the traffic in women and
children.

=American Objections to the Covenant.=—When the provisions of the
covenant were finally adopted by the Peace Conference, objections were
urged in various countries, but more particularly in the United States.
To what features was objection made? Some objected to the provision
which gives the British Empire six votes in the Assembly of the League
while the United States had but one.[305] Article X of the covenant, by
which the nations who enter the League must guarantee one another’s
territory and independence against outside aggression was also objected
to, for it seemed to pledge the United States to defend boundary lines
in all parts of the world. Many feared that this provision would some
day require the use of American soldiers in distant places. Objection
was also raised against certain provisions of the peace treaty, such as
that which turned over to Japan the territorial and other rights in the
Chinese province of Shantung, which had been held by Germany.[306] And
in general there was a feeling that if the United States were to enter
the League, this action would involve a continual entanglement in
European affairs and a complete abandonment of America’s traditional
policy.

[Sidenote: The proposed reservations.]

It was at first believed that by making reservations on these various
points the United States could overcome the more important objections,
ratify the treaty, and enter the League. But President Wilson declined
to accept such reservations and in the end the whole document, treaty
and covenant together, failed to receive the requisite two-thirds vote
in the Senate.

The presidential election of 1920 was fought out on this issue. The
Democratic candidate declared in favor of entering the League with
suitable reservations, while the Republican candidate made no explicit
pledge as to what course he would pursue although he seemed for a time
to favor the formation of a new association on a somewhat different
basis. [Sidenote: The ultimate decision.] After the election, which
resulted in a decisive Republican victory, President Harding announced
that the United States would not enter the League; the project of a new
association was quietly dropped; and a separate peace with the new
German republic was concluded.

=The League at Work.=—The refusal of the United States to assume
membership was a severe, and possibly a fatal, blow to the strength and
prestige of the League. It is as though the state of New York, a century
and a quarter ago, had declined to ratify the constitution, leaving the
other twelve states to form a union by themselves. [Sidenote: What the
League has done.] Nevertheless, the League of Nations seems to be a
going concern; it has established headquarters at Geneva; its
Secretariat has been organized; its Council has held many sessions; its
Assembly has been twice convoked; its court has been established; labor
conferences have been held; mandates have been allotted; commissions
have been appointed; and a good deal of important business has been
transacted. Its members are very anxious to have the United States join
with them and would doubtless go a long way in accepting whatever
reasonable reservations this country might choose to make. But there is
no immediate probability that America will become a member on any terms.
The problem which now engages the attention of the American government
is that of arranging, through treaties and conferences, for the removal
of the various dangers to peace in the future.

[Sidenote: Can the work be done by a series of conferences?]

=The League and the Washington Conference.=—The calling of the
Washington Conference was the first step in this direction. The
agreements reached at this conference represent a very substantial step
in the direction of avoiding future wars but they do not cover the whole
field of possible controversy. They leave untouched the whole question
of land armaments and deal with none of the chief European problems. It
is taken for granted that other conferences will be called from time to
time, each for the purpose of dealing with some specific set of
international questions, and there are many who believe that the primary
purposes which the League of Nations was intended to fulfill can be
served in this way. One advantage of the conference plan is that it
allows each nation to retain greater freedom of action; but this is also
a defect, for it permits any single country to block progress by merely
declining to join with the others when a conference is called. The
Washington Conference demonstrated how easy it is to reach agreements in
the common interest when nations come together for a free and frank
discussion.

[Sidenote: A lost opportunity.]

=Will the League of Nations Live?=—Will the League slowly acquire
strength despite the failure of the United States to become a member? Or
will the League gradually lose all its reason for existence, save as an
agency for carrying out the terms of the peace treaty, and when these
terms are fulfilled, pass out of existence? These are questions which no
one can answer today. The close of the war gave the world its greatest
opportunity to devise a plan which would forever put an end to the curse
of war and usher in a long era of international amity. Men labored long
and diligently to provide such a plan, but they failed to achieve a full
measure of success.

Where the blame for this partial failure belongs is not a matter that it
can profit the world much to discuss. The opportunity came and has gone.
Whether the partial failure can ever be retrieved, whether the League
devised at Paris will survive the severe setback given to it by the
action of the United States, are things which only the next generation
can determine. In spite of its handicap, however, the League must strive
to maintain its existence, for its continuance is essential to the
enforcement of the peace treaty. Those nations which are interested in
seeing the provisions of the treaty fulfilled must either use the
League, or provide other machinery in its place, or else revise the
terms of peace, and on the whole, the first alternative seems to be the
easier one. To the exhausted nations of Europe it offers some hope of
relief from the burden of great armaments, and to small countries
throughout the world the League stands as a means of obtaining a fair
hearing for their grievances. It is easy enough to pick flaws in the
covenant; but is there any likelihood that a different document would
gain the adhesion of fifty-one states? No such number ever agreed to
anything of the sort before.

The attitude of the United States was not dictated by self-interest
alone, or by party politics. There was, and still is, a strong
conviction in the minds of a large element among the American people
that the covenant of Versailles will not prove to be a safeguard against
war, but may, indeed, lead to intensified rivalries and bitterness. Many
Americans, and many Europeans also, feel that the terms of peace which
were arranged at Paris contain many unwise, unjust, and even
impracticable provisions. They believe that a League of Nations, charged
with the duty of enforcing these provisions, is bound to encounter
difficulties of a serious character.

General References

F. C. HICKS, _The New World Order_, especially pp. 3-91 (The Peace
Treaty, including the Covenant, is printed in the appendix);

W. H. TAFT, G. W. WICKERSHAM, and others, _The Covenanter: An American
Exposition of the Covenant of the League of Nations_, _passim_;

S. P. DUGGAN, _The League of Nations_, p. 1-17; 96-111;

J. A. HOBSON, _Towards International Government_, pp. 11-57;

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, _The
Place of the United States in a World Organization for the Maintenance
of Peace_ (July, 1921), pp. 1-29;

G. G. WILSON, _The First Year of the League of Nations_, pp. 1-55;

R. B. FOSDICK, GEORGE RUBLEE, J. T. SHOTWELL, LÉON BOURGEOIS, and
others, _The League of Nations Starts_, pp. 1-28;

L. OPPENHEIM, _The League of Nations_, pp. 28-48;

D. L. MORROW, _The Society of Free States_, pp. 137-154;

T. J. LAWRENCE, _The Society of Nations_, pp. 33-57;

RAY STANNARD BAKER, _America and World Peace_, _passim_.

Group Problems

=1. The idea of a league of nations in history.= Ancient Greek leagues.
Dante’s De Monarchia. The Great Design of Henry IV. William Penn’s plan.
The proposed confederation of Europe after the Napoleonic wars. Kant’s
“Everlasting Peace.” The Holy Alliance. The federation of Central
America (1824). The Hague Conferences. =References=: ELIZABETH YORK,
_Leagues of Nations, Ancient, Mediaeval, and Modern_, pp. 114-179 (see
also _Bibliography_, pp. 331-337); WILLIAM LADD, _The Peace of Europe_,
pp. 1-11; W. A. PHILLIPS, _The Confederation of Europe_, pp. 145-156; F.
C. HICKS, _The New World Order_, pp. 66-78; J. H. CHOATE, _The Two Hague
Conferences_, pp. 3-44; D. L. MORROW, _The Society of Free States_, pp.
12-32.

=2. A study of the merits and faults of the Covenant.= =References=:
Senate Debates during the period June 2 to October 6, 1919, in
_Congressional Record_ (66th Congress, 1st Session, Vol. 58), _For the
League_: SENATOR SWANSON, of Virginia (pp. 2532-2542), SENATOR
HITCHCOCK, of Nebraska (pp. 6403-6427); _Against the League_: SENATOR
JOHNSON, of California (pp. 501-509), SENATOR LODGE, of Massachusetts
(pp. 3778-3784).

Short Studies

1. =The League of Nations and American ideals.= A. H. SNOW, _The
American Philosophy of Government_, pp. 155-172.

2. =The League of Nations and American interests.= OTTO H. KAHN, _Our
Economic Problems_, pp. 354-367.

3. =The League and the Monroe Doctrine.= S. P. DUGGAN, _The League of
Nations_, pp. 273-303; Annals of American Academy of Political and
Social Science, _The Place of the United States in a World Organization
for the Maintenance of Peace_ (July, 1921), pp. 31-44.

4. =The international labor conferences.= F. C. HICKS, _The New World
Order_, pp. 270-279.

5. =The League and disarmament.= Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, _The Place of the United States in a World
Organization for the Maintenance of Peace_ (July, 1921), pp. 45-67.

6. =The League at work.= ARTHUR SWEETSER, _The League of Nations at
Work_, pp. 29-62.

7. =Some examples of international government.= L. S. WOOLF,
_International Government_, pp. 179-265; F. B. SAYRE, _Experiments in
International Administration_, pp. 18-62.

8. =The “Concert of Powers” in Europe.= T. J. LAWRENCE, _Principles of
International Law_, pp. 268-279.

9. =The system of mandates.= R. B. FOSDICK, GEORGE RUBLEE, J. T.
SHOTWELL, LÉON BOURGEOIS, and others, _The League of Nations Starts_,
pp. 110-125.

10. =International public health and sanitation.= R. B. FOSDICK, GEORGE
RUBLEE, J. T. SHOTWELL, LÉON BOURGEOIS, and others, _The League of
Nations Starts_, pp. 155-169.

11. =The League of Nations as a scheme of government.= L. OPPENHEIM,
_The League of Nations_, pp. 28-48.

12. =Small nations and the League.= S. P. DUGGAN, _The League of
Nations_, pp. 161-183; Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, _The Place of the United States in a World Organization
for the Maintenance of Peace_ (July, 1921), pp. 68-97.

Questions

1. What is meant by “applying to nations a principle which men the world
over have applied to themselves as individuals”?

2. Explain what was done at the Congress of Vienna and why there were so
many wars during the hundred years which followed that congress.

3. Explain the following expressions: _balance of power_, _Triple
Alliance_, _Entente_, _concert of powers_.

4. Make a diagram showing the organization of the League of Nations.
Explain by means of this diagram the contrasts between the League’s
organization and that of a federal government.

5. What are the weak features in the League organization?

6. Summarize the provisions which were placed in the Covenant for the
prevention of future wars and give your opinion as to the value of each.

7. Explain the relation of the League to (_a_) labor problems, (_b_)
health protection, (_c_) the suppression of the drug traffic.

8. Make a list of the chief American objections to the League and
indicate how much importance you attach to each.

9. Do you regard the refusal of the United States as a death-blow to the
success of the League? Give your reasons.

10. If the League fails, how can international peace be best secured?

Topics for Debate

1. A scheme of universal arbitration should be substituted for the
League of Nations.

2. The United States should call another conference to effect an
international agreement for the reduction of armies.

-----

Footnote 301:

It is said that the Thirty Years’ War reduced the population in some
sections of the warring states to one-half or one-third of what it had
been when the struggle began. The losses of all the countries engaged
in the World War have been estimated to be almost ten millions, more
than the entire population of Canada from ocean to ocean. Millions
more died from famine and under-nourishment at home. Is it not strange
that nations should work for years with might and main to increase the
size and prosperity of their populations, then turn around and undo a
large part of what they have been able to accomplish? In peace nations
labor to alleviate each others’ distress; in war they labor to cause
it. Patiently through the decades men of science wrestle with the
problem of relieving pain and suffering; then, in an instant, all
their skill is devoted to killing, maiming, and suffocating men by the
million! There is no wisdom like the wisdom of man, and no folly like
it either.

Footnote 302:

The covenant was made an integral part of the peace treaty, largely at
President Wilson’s insistence, for two reasons: First, because it was
believed that this would be a surer way of obtaining the assent of all
the great nations to the provisions of the covenant; second, because
many of the terms of the treaty (for example, those relating to
boundaries and mandates) were framed on the assumption that a League
of Nations would be in existence to carry them into effect. Taken
together, the treaty and the covenant make the longest international
document ever framed, a printed book of 87,000 words—about half the
size of this text-book. Nearly a thousand diplomats, experts, and
clerks spent more than three months in drafting it.

Footnote 303:

Invitations were not extended to Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria,
Turkey, Russia, or Mexico. Austria, however, has since been admitted
to membership.

Footnote 304:

When, for example, a typhus epidemic broke out in Poland, and the
Polish authorities found themselves unable to control it, the League
sent a commission of health experts to assist them.

Footnote 305:

This is because not only Great Britain herself but India, Canada,
Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand are members of the League. It
was assumed that the six British votes in the Assembly would always be
cast together; but, as a matter of fact, the various British dominions
insisted upon having separate votes in order that they might vote
according to their own particular interests. In most international
matters the interests of Canada, Australia, and South Africa are not
at all certain to coincide with those of England.

Footnote 306:

Since the treaty and the covenant were joined together, the objections
to one applied to the other. Concerning Shantung, see also p. 620.

CHAPTER XXXII
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION

_The purpose of this chapter is to discuss some present-day problems
of world democracy._

[Sidenote: Why the people are now thinking new thoughts.]

=The War and the New Era.=—The world has spent the years since the war
in a condition of political and economic unrest. This is not surprising
because this herculean contest rocked the foundations of civilized
society. It let loose the primitive passions of men, hurled monarchs
from their thrones, turned industry upside down, drew millions of men
out of life’s normal routine, and wasted as much wealth as the whole
world can create in twenty or thirty years. Small wonder it is that
people should ask themselves whether a social order which permitted all
this to happen is in reality the best type of organization for the
civilized countries of the world. Self-examination usually takes place
among men and nations after a great disaster. Things which have been
assumed to be true are inspected; old traditions are overhauled, and new
proposals receive a more ready welcome than at other times.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Illustration:

THE GRADUATE. By Edwin H. Blashfield

_From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis & Cameron, Boston.
Reproduced by permission._]
]

THE GRADUATE

By Edwin H. Blashfield

From the mural painting in the Great Hall of the
College of the City of New York.

Wisdom sits enthroned, a globe in her hands. Her
placid head, covered with a fold of her mantle,
is lighted from below by the flame on the altar
at her feet. The light also illumines the globe
which she holds. On either side of her pedestal,
in a long curved row, sit the great centers of
learning (Paris, Rome, Oxford, etc.) represented
by graceful female forms, and in front of them
are some illustrious representatives of the arts
and sciences—Petrarch, Galileo, Shakespeare, and
others. In the immediate foreground are young
men of today—students on the right and aspirants
on the left.

Directly in front of the altar is the Graduate, with
academic cap and gown. Beside him stands Alma Mater,
handsome and dignified, in a figured Venetian
mantle, bearing a shield with a seal of the college
and holding a scroll. She bids the young graduate go
forth into the world, bearing the torch which he has
lighted at the altar of Wisdom. In front of both,
and a little to the right, is Discipline, or Self
Control, holding in one hand a scourge and in the
other a sword. She stands ready to accompany the
young graduate on his journey through life.

Below the picture is the inscription: “Doth not
Wisdom cry? She standeth in the top of the high
places, by the way of the places of the paths. She
crieth at the gates at the entry of the city, at the
coming in at the doors.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------

=The Growth of Radicalism.=—Two working principles have hitherto
furnished the basis for political and economic organizations in such
countries as the United States, Great Britain, and France. [Sidenote:
Democracy and individualism.] Democracy, by which we mean the control of
government by the whole people, acting chiefly through their
representatives, has been the accepted basis of political institutions.
Individualism, by which we mean an economic system founded upon the
individual ownership of private property and, through private property,
the individual control of industry has been in general the recognized
foundation of economic institutions. By the masses of the people in all
free countries the principles prefigured by these two words, democracy
and individualism, have been tacitly accepted for fifty years or more as
the groundwork of political and economic activity. Both were challenged
from certain quarters; the socialists, for example, attacked the whole
system of economic individualism; but in no country was the policy of
individualism overthrown.

[Sidenote: Should they be displaced?]

During and after the war, however, the demand for a reconstruction of
the world’s entire political and economic structure became more
insistent. Radical ideas as to what ought to be done, and radical
proposals as to how it ought to be done were brought forth and spread.
The world found itself, almost in a day, face to face with demands for
the complete repudiation of democracy as an ideal and of individualism
as a principle of economic organization. Proposals for state socialism,
guild socialism, communism, and a dictatorship of the proletariat were
put forth aggressively on every hand. No country proved to be immune
from this radical movement, although in some it made far greater headway
than in others.

=The Soviet Plan of Government in Theory.=[307]—Among the various
countries, Russia has gone the farthest, of course, in the radical
demolition of the old political and economic order. The overthrow of the
Czarist empire was presently followed by the establishment of soviet
government and a system of economic communism. This action naturally
attracted world-wide attention and it has exerted, during the past few
years, a profound influence upon the attitude of men toward political
and economic problems everywhere. [Sidenote: Why should Americans care
to know anything about it?] It has given new inspiration to radicalism
in the United States. We ought, therefore, to know something about this
extraordinary overturning of the old political and economic structure in
Russia; otherwise we cannot grasp the far-reaching significance of
radical movements in our own country.

What is the soviet form of government and what is meant by communism as
applied to industry?

The soviet form of government is a repudiation of the entire scheme of
government which has been described in this book. [Sidenote: Why the
Bolshevists object to democracy.] Its supporters regard democracy as a
mere weapon of the capitalist by means of which he exploits the worker.
The only way in which the workers can obtain their rights, they declare,
is by establishing a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, in other words,
a government absolutely dominated by themselves to the exclusion of all
others. This, in the first instance, must be done by violence; but,
eventually, they hold, the people will accept it peaceably.

[Sidenote: The difference between soviet and democratic government.]

Soviet government differs from democratic government in two
all-important respects. In a democracy all adult citizens, whatever
their occupation, are equally entitled to a share in the control of the
government. Democracy stands on the principle of universal, direct, and
secret suffrage. The soviet form of government repudiates the doctrine
of political equality. It asserts that all power must be vested in the
hands of the peasants and workers, and that the _bourgeoisie_ (by which
they mean capitalists, storekeepers, employers of any kind, including
even farmers who employ hired labor) are entitled to no share in the
control of the government. Democracy and equal suffrage, the soviet
apologists proclaim, are merely instruments by which the strong oppress
the weak. For a system of government by the people, they would
substitute government by a portion of the people. In Russia this has
meant, as a matter of fact, government by a very small fraction of the
people.

The soviet system also differs from democracy as respects the way in
which the officials of government are chosen. Representation in
democracies is based upon areas of territory. [Sidenote: The soviet
basis of representation.] All the voters of a town, country, or district
join in electing a single representative. The people who live in a given
territorial area are assumed to have a common interest by reason of
their living close together. Under the soviet system this is
considerably changed. Occupation as well as territory is the basis of
representation. Groups of voters unite in choosing delegates because
they work at the same trade, not because they live in the same
neighborhood. For example, all the workers in a particular factory, or
all the farmers in a certain district begin by choosing one or more
representatives. These representatives come together and form the city
workers’ soviet or the township soviet. The city workers’ soviet is made
up of one or more delegates from every factory. Each local soviet,
moreover, appoints delegates to higher soviets and these, in turn,
choose delegates to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, which is the
supreme governing body. As this congress is too large to do the routine
work of government, it delegates this function to a cabinet or Council
of Peoples’ Commissars.[308]

=The Soviet Plan of Government in Practice.=—This is the theory of
soviet government. The supreme political authority is constituted by the
_workers_ alone, through a long process of indirect election. The
national executive is several steps removed from the control of the
people. He is not directly responsible to the people as in the United
States. In actual fact, moreover, this elaborate plan of indirect
representation has become, in Russia, little more than a scheme on
paper. Many of the provincial Soviets have chosen no delegates at all.
There is no assurance that those who now hold the reins of power in
Russia are the real representatives of the masses of the people. To keep
themselves in office the Commissars have throttled all opposition.
[Sidenote: Some results of the soviet rule.] They have set at naught all
the securities for personal liberty which exist in democratic countries.
Arrests have been made without warrants, thousands of them; men and
women have been held in prison and put to death without public trial;
freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly have
been denied. The soviet leaders admit all this but argue that these
measures are necessary in order to prevent a counter-revolution.

=The Economic Aspects of Communism.=—The Russian revolution did not
confine itself to political reconstruction alone. It was an economic
revolution as well. [Sidenote: Relation of communism to industry.] All
private trade, of whatever sort, was, in theory at least, abolished
throughout Russia and all industries taken over by the government. The
factories, shops, stores, and all other instrumentalities of business
were placed in charge of officials to be managed for the benefit of the
workers. These workers were assigned to the various industries by the
soviet authorities, compulsory labor being decreed by law and a fixed
standard of wages established. Trade unions and co-operative societies
were put under the ban. Workers received their pay in the form of
requisitions or orders on the government stores for food and other
supplies. Strikes were forbidden on penalty of imprisonment. All land
was declared to be owned by the state, but the peasant farmers were
allowed to retain their farms upon giving the government a share in the
produce.

[Sidenote: Breakdown of communism in Russia.]

Although the government did its best to carry through the foregoing
program, economic communism in Russia broke down.[309] Factories and
stores went out of business; the peasants could not be coerced into
supplying food for cities; foreign trade stopped almost entirely; the
railroads failed to function; everywhere there was misery and
starvation. So the soviet authorities in 1921 decided upon a partial
return to the system of privately-managed industry. Factories and shops,
to some extent, have been reopened under individual ownership; the trade
unions have been permitted to reorganize; the rules relating to
compulsory labor have been relaxed; and differences in the rate of wages
paid to different workers are once more permitted. The country has swung
back to a modified form of individualism and capitalistic production.

[Sidenote: The Russian lesson.]

The great lesson of communism in Russia is that no system of economic
organization can long survive unless it succeeds in producing enough to
feed, clothe, and shelter the people. When the incentive of private gain
is taken away, some equally strong incentive to production must be put
in its place; otherwise production will decline and there will not be
enough to go around. That is what happened in Russia. Neither compulsion
nor appeals to the loyalty of the worker availed to keep production up.
Fewer goods were produced and there was less to distribute. Equality of
distribution avails nothing when there is too little to be distributed.

=The International Aims of the Communists.=—Communism is not merely
national in its aim; it is international. Its motto is: “Workers of the
World, Unite!” Its goal is the violent overturning of the existing
political and economic organization in all countries so that soviet
governments may be established and all private industry abolished.
[Sidenote: Program of the Third International.] This is the program of
the _Third International_, a body made up of communist delegates from
all over the world. In order to promote this program the Russian
authorities have endeavored to carry on a propaganda in all other
countries, sending out literature and agents wherever possible. The
communists realize, however, that the prospects for such a revolution
are not good in countries like the United States, Great Britain, and
France so long as the trade union movement makes progress and gains
advantages for organized labor. Hence they aim to secure the destruction
of unions, to promote “outlaw” strikes, and to encourage every form of
industrial discontent.

[Sidenote: Socialism and communism are widely different.]

=Moderate Socialism and Communism Distinguished.=—Communism, as it has
been exemplified in Russia during the past few years, should be
distinguished from socialism as the latter term is commonly understood,
although extreme forms of socialism may go substantially as far.
Socialists do not propose that all except the workers shall be excluded
from a share in government. They do not propose to wipe out the
political rights of the individual, or to destroy trade unionism, or to
provide for labor conscription. Orthodox socialism does not aim at a
“dictatorship” of any kind.

[Sidenote: Socialism defined.]

=State Socialism.=—The program of the moderate socialists is commonly
known as state socialism. Briefly stated, it proposes that all the land,
the mines, the forests, the factories, the railroads, and every other
instrumentality of production or distribution should be managed in the
interests of the whole people. Under the system of individualism,
according to the socialist argument, these things are now managed
primarily in the interest of private owners. The worker creates values
in far greater proportion than the wages he receives. This surplus value
goes to the employer in the form of profits. The socialist would abolish
profits. The entire net earnings would go to the worker. The basis of
government would not, however, be revolutionized. With some changes to
make democracy more effective (for example, the wider use of the
initiative and referendum), state socialism would leave government about
as it is. The workers, being in the majority, would control government
through their numerical superiority at the polls; they would not deny
the suffrage to non-socialists. State socialism proposes the doing of
all this through the ballot-box, not by violence or armed revolution.

=The Case for Socialism.=—Many books have been written in advocacy of
state socialism and many arguments advanced in its behalf. The case for
socialism rests largely upon certain propositions which may be briefly
stated as follows: [Sidenote: The present industrial injustice.] Wealth
is largely the product of labor, yet labor does not get its rightful
share in the product. Capital and management, on the other hand, get
more than their rightful share. Hence the rich are growing richer, and
the poor are growing poorer. The control of industry, and with it the
well-being of many million workers, is passing steadily into the hands
of a very few men. Inequalities of wealth lead to discontent; the
present organization of industry results in unemployment; and men are
engaged in a perpetual class war with one another. Great wastes,
moreover, result from the system of competition. Several milkmen, for
instance, go up and down the same street, each serving a few families.
Think of what the postage rates would be if we had a similar state of
affairs under free competition in furnishing postal service! Socialism,
it is claimed, would unify production and distribution, thus preventing
waste.

[Sidenote: What socialism proposes as a remedy.]

Now the remedy for this is to abolish private capitalism, to have the
government take over the industries, divide the earnings fairly, giving
every worker his rightful share, thus securing a more nearly equal
distribution of wealth and happiness. By this means, also, poverty and
unemployment would be abolished. If all the products of labor were given
to the worker (rent, interest, and profits being abolished), there would
be enough to give everybody a reasonable day’s work and a comfortable
living. There would be steady employment for all. The great majority of
the people are workers. Their welfare should be the first care of
organized society; but their welfare can never be secured so long as
practically complete power over the conditions under which the workers
labor and live is exercised by the private owners of industry.
Socialists also claim that a moral gain would result, inasmuch as the
present class conflict would give way to a recognition of human
brotherhood. Co-operation, not conflict, would be the watchword of
industrial society.

=The Case Against Socialism.=—The advocates of socialism, in their
arguments, frequently assume something which they have not been able to
prove. [Sidenote: Are the poor growing poorer?] They proclaim that the
rich are growing richer and the poor are growing poorer, that the middle
class is being crushed out, and that soon there will be only two groups,
the very rich and the very poor. It is true that wealth is increasing
and that there are more rich men today than ever before in the history
of the world; but it is also true that the middle class is more numerous
and the worker much better off than at any previous time. The standard
of living among American wage-earners today is higher than it was among
well-to-do people a hundred years ago. The average worker is better
housed, better clothed, better fed, and has more of the comforts of life
than the employer of a century ago.

[Sidenote: The chief argument against socialism.]

But apart from this the crucial question concerns the way in which
production would be maintained and how the earnings would be distributed
under a socialist system. Today the main incentive to work is the
expectation of reward. Most men work because they expect to be paid for
it. Cut down their pay and they will usually stop work and try to
persuade other people from working. There are exceptions to the rule, of
course; but when men and women work hard and try to do their best it is
because they hope to get promoted, to get their wages raised, to secure
an easier job at higher pay.[310] Socialism would abolish this exact
relation between skill and wages. Everyone would work at whatever task
he was best fitted to perform and would be given enough to live on
comfortably. Or, as the socialists put it, everyone would produce
according to his ability and be paid according to his needs.

[Sidenote: Some practical questions.]

This, however, begs some very important questions of a practical nature.
Who would determine the work that you or I should do? Who would
determine that you must labor in the coal mines while I go abroad, as a
foreign ambassador? Who will determine your needs and mine, so that we
may be rewarded accordingly?

[Sidenote: Socialism and compulsion.]

The answer is that authorities would have to be established with power
to settle these things and to apply compulsion where necessary. We would
have industrial autocracy. Men and women would have no complete freedom
to choose their own occupations. The socialists say that if the existing
wage system were abolished everyone would do his best to increase
production in order to make the new plan a success; but where
socialistic experiments have been tried the contrary is true; the
workers do less and produce less. Let us remember, also, the increased
danger of corruption which would come if the authorities were given so
great an increase in power. The whole resources of the country would be
placed in the control of an official class; the entire labor-force of
the nation would be put at their disposal. The socialist answers that if
officials proved arbitrary or corrupt the people would turn them out of
office. Does our experience with other forms of government warrant any
such expectation?

[Sidenote: Socialism and human nature.]

Two methods of getting work done have been tried by the world at one
time or another. In ancient and mediæval times most of the work was done
by slaves. The slave got no wages; he did his work because he was
compelled to do it. In modern times, since slavery and serfdom no longer
exist among civilized people, most of the work is done by free men who
do it because they expect to be paid for doing it. And since there are
differences in the abilities of different men, some get more pay than
others, even though the opportunities be the same for all. If the
capable worker were not paid more than the less competent, he would not
exert himself to do his best. To get the best out of any free man he
must be given the hope of a reward in proportion to his efficiency, and
for the great majority of people this means a reward in dollars and
cents. That is human nature.

[Sidenote: Can human nature be changed?]

It is sometimes said that human nature may change and that, in a new
environment, men might work unselfishly for the common welfare without
reference to their rate of wages or profits. True enough the motives of
men may and do change somewhat; but when we trace the course of human
history through twenty centuries we find that the dominant traits of
mankind have altered very little in all that time. Human nature itself
affords the greatest obstacle to the success of a socialist system.

=Socialism and Liberty.=—Liberty does not include political freedom
alone. It comprises the right of the individual to choose his own
career, to make his own bargains, and to become his own employer if he
can. An industrial system in which all men are compelled to do as some
higher authority dictates would establish the very negation of liberty.
Under socialism the complete control of all economic life would be
vested in some supreme authority. It matters little how that authority
might be chosen; the concentration of such vast powers anywhere, in the
hands of any group of men, would make individual liberty a meaningless
expression. It may be replied that under our present system of private
industry the worker has in fact very little liberty; that many employers
are despots and that the worker is subjected to tyranny. That is to a
certain extent true. But in so far as there is an undue and needless
restriction under present conditions of industry the remedy is to
promote the liberty of the worker through the power of his own
organizations and by the laws of the land.

=Socialism and Democracy.=—Socialism and democracy can never be good
friends. Democracy is government _by the people_; in other words it is
government by amateurs. It is not government by a professional class.
The government of the German Empire before the war was largely in the
hands of a professional class, a bureaucracy it was called. Now a
democratic government, being managed by the rank and file of the people,
is often wasteful and clumsy in its handling of business affairs. We
have had some notable examples of this in the United States; for
example, the building of airplanes and ships during the war, the
operation of the railroads during 1918-1920, and the construction of
public buildings. A bureaucratic government, conducted by professional
administrators, is much more efficient. [Sidenote: Socialism would
professionalize the government.] It is not improbable, therefore, that
socialism, by placing upon the public authorities the entire management
of every form of industry, including factories and shops as well as
railroads and telegraphs, would mean the breakdown of the democratic
ideal and the professionalizing of government. The entire industrial
system of the country could not be successfully managed by amateurs. To
save it from collapse under socialism the government would have to be
reorganized on bureaucratic lines.

=Can Democracy Solve Its Problems?=—But if not socialism, what then?
Certain it is that we are facing great problems both at home and abroad
today; and these problems must be solved in the interest of human
happiness. We cannot close our eyes to them and trust that somehow or
other they will work out their own solution. Can democracy and our
present system of private industry master them? Well, democracy and our
present industrial system have overcome a great many obstacles in the
past and it is only by studying the past that we can make any forecast
of the future. The land surveyor, when he wants to project a straight
line from a given point, walks back some distance so that he may align
his pickets in the ground. Let us for a moment pursue the same plan,
walk back a dozen decades in American history and take a sight along the
great landmarks to the present time. What have democracy and
individualism contributed to the well-being and happiness of the
American people?

[Sidenote: Democracy and American progress.]

=What America Has Done.=—In the past one hundred and twenty years the
people of the United States have increased their territories ten-fold,
their numbers twenty-fold, and their wealth at least a thousand-fold.
They have, with one great exception, composed their internal quarrels
peaceably during the whole of this long period. They have developed a
government based upon the consent of the governed and have placed the
capstone upon it by the grant of universal suffrage. They have kept the
various branches of government within their own respective fields and
have thus prevented the growth of despotic power anywhere. The people’s
direct control over the policy of the government, moreover, has been
greatly augmented during the past generation. It is indeed doubtful
whether Washington, Hamilton, and Madison, if they were to arise from
their graves, would recognize the present government of the United
States as their own handiwork, so far has it moved along lines of
greater democracy. In the states and the cities this steady drift to
more direct popular control has been very marked. One need only mention
such things as the initiative, referendum and recall, direct primaries,
popular election of senators, the short ballot, the commission and
city-manager forms of government, and the extension of suffrage to
women—all of which are the product of the last twenty-five years—to
indicate how strong has been the tide of popular control.

Most striking of all American achievements, however, has been the wide
diffusion of material comforts among the masses of the people. In no
other country is there anything approaching it. The standard of living
among wage-earners is higher than it is anywhere else, much higher. The
average American worker is better housed and better provided with food
than is the typical workman in any other country. He and his children
get better educational opportunities and a better chance to rise in the
world. The way in which immigrants have been flocking to our shores
during the past hundred years is a proof that millions of men and women
have looked upon America as a land of opportunity. This is not to imply,
by any means, that there are no slums in American cities, no poverty, no
misery, and no industrial oppression. We have, in truth, far too much of
all these things. But it is also the truth that we have relatively less
of them than any of the other great industrial lands.

Not all of this progress and prosperity is due, of course, to the
political and economic system which America has maintained during the
past century. The rich natural resources of the country and the steady
industry of its people have been fundamental factors. But no matter how
vast their resources or how unremitting their industry a people cannot
achieve lasting prosperity and contentment unless they possess a
political system and an economic organization which is well suited to
their needs.

=What Democracy Has Failed to Do.=—It would be idle to regard democratic
government everywhere as an unqualified success. No scheme of political
organization will of itself secure a government which is both efficient
and popular. The active efforts of the people are required to achieve
this end. Not merely the consent of the governed but the participation
of the governed is essential. By reason of popular indifference the
institutions of democracy in America have frequently been perverted and
abused by men whom the people have placed in power. [Sidenote: Some
examples.] What passes for public opinion is at times nothing but
propaganda, organized to promote some selfish interest. Democracy has
not yet succeeded, moreover, in preventing wars or inducing all nations
to deal justly with one another. It has not prevented the rise of
opposing classes among the people, or kept groups of individuals from
setting themselves in antagonism to each other. Democracy has not
reconciled labor and capital; it has not carried its principles very far
into our industrial organization. These are serious failings, no doubt;
but the friends of democracy can fairly say, “Would any other system
have done better?” Democracy is what the people make it, and its faults
point to the defects of human nature.

=The Citizen’s Duty in a Democracy.=—No form of government gives the
citizen so much as democracy, and none makes greater demands upon him in
return. We are far too much concerned about the rights of men and women;
far too little concerned about their obligations to society, to the
state, and to their fellow-men. Voting at elections is but a small part
of the citizen’s duty. His share in the forming of a sound and
enlightened public opinion constitutes an obligation upon him every day
in the year. When public opinion takes an unwise course it is because
the people make up their minds hastily, without careful thought, and
without the guidance which should be provided by the educated men and
women of the land. Every individual is a unit in the forming of public
sentiment; he can be a helpful factor if he will. Education is the chief
corner-stone of democratic government, and it must also be the chief
prop to any plan of industrial democracy which hopes to be successful
and permanent. Education makes men and women tolerant of other people’s
opinions, gives them confidence in mankind, and faith in what mankind
can accomplish.

Democracy has passed through many raging storms. In the dark days of the
Civil War there were many who feared that in America it was about to
perish utterly. But it survived and grew stronger than before. Without
the faith of the people in it, and the work which is the exemplification
of faith, democracy can accomplish nothing; with these things there is
no problem that it need fear to face.

General References

E. M. FRIEDMAN, _American Problems of Reconstruction_, pp. 45-55;

BERTRAND RUSSELL, _Proposed Roads to Freedom_, pp. 186-212;

R. C. K. ENSOR (editor), _Modern Socialism_, pp. 65-89;

N. P. GILMAN, _Socialism and the American Spirit_, pp. 46-89;

H. G. WELLS, _What is Coming_, pp. 96-124;

O. D. SKELTON, _Socialism: A Critical Analysis_, pp. 16-61;

JOHN SPARGO, _Social Democracy Explained_, pp. 1-49;

C. J. BULLOCK, _Selected Readings in Economics_, pp. 668-705;

J. R. COMMONS, _Industrial Government_, pp. 110-134;

F. A. CLEVELAND and JOSEPH SCHAFER, _Democracy in Reconstruction_, pp.
165-192;

SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB, _A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth
of Great Britain_, _passim_;

WILLIAM MACDONALD, _A New Constitution for a New America_, pp. 127-139.

Group Problems

=1. What industrial democracy means.= The traditional organization of
industry. Relations of employer and employee. The representation of the
workers in the management of industry. Methods of securing this
representation. Shop councils. Merits and defects of the plan. Other
proposals. Effects of industrial democracy upon production.
=References=: G. D. H. COLE, _Guild Socialism Re-stated_, pp. 42-77;
_Ibid._, _Self-Government in Industry_, pp. 24-47; R. W. SELLARS, _The
Next Step in Democracy_, pp. 246-272; J. R. COMMONS, _Industrial
Government_, pp. 77-109; IDA M. TARBELL, _New Ideals in Business_, pp.
134-162; SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB, _A Constitution for the Socialist
Commonwealth of Great Britain_, pp. 147-167.

=2. The worker in the socialist state.= =References=: HARTLEY WITHERS,
_The Case for Capitalism_, pp. 138-168; H. G. WELLS and others,
_Socialism and the Great State_, pp. 69-119; R. W. SELLARS, _The Next
Step in Democracy_, pp. 135-156; O. D. SKELTON, _Socialism: A Critical
Analysis_, pp. 177-219; JOHN SPARGO, _Social Democracy Explained_, pp.
50-84.

=3. The newer problems of democracy.= =References=: F. A. CLEVELAND and
JOSEPH SCHAFER, _Democracy in Reconstruction_, pp. 25-66; E. M.
FRIEDMAN, _American Problems of Reconstruction_, pp. 447-464; F. J. C.
HEARNSHAW, _Democracy at the Crossways_, pp. 11-78; GRAHAM WALLAS, _Our
Social Heritage_, pp. 158-186; L. T. HOBHOUSE, _Democracy and Reaction_,
pp. 167-187; H. F. WARD, _The New Social Order_, pp. 35-75; J. H. TUFTS,
_Our Democracy; its Origins and its Tasks_, pp. 268-298.

Short Studies

1. =How the workers manage business enterprises.= C. R. FAY,
_Cooperation at Home and Abroad_, pp. 222-237.

2. =Anarchism: its teachings and methods.= BERTRAND RUSSELL, _Proposed
Roads to Freedom_, pp. 32-55; F. J. C. HEARNSHAW, _Democracy at the
Crossways_, pp. 262-287.

3. =Syndicalism: its organization and aims.= JOHN SPARGO, _Social
Democracy Explained_, pp. 244-277; J. G. BROOKS, _American Syndicalism_,
pp. 73-105.

4. =Communism.= LEO PASVOLSKY, _The Economics of Communism_, pp. 1-17;
48-83.

5. =Bolshevism.= R. W. POSTGATE, _The Bolshevik Theory_, pp. 13-41;
BERTRAND RUSSELL, _The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism_, pp. 119-156;
JOHN SPARGO, _Bolshevism_, pp. 262-323.

6. =The soviet experiment in Russia.= H. N. BRAILSFORD, _The Russian
Workers’ Republic_, pp. 37-79; FRANK COMERFORD, _The New World_, pp.
118-169; 281-305.

7. =Guild socialism.= G. D. H. COLE, _Guild Socialism Re-Stated_, pp.
9-41; HARTLEY WITHERS, _The Case for Capitalism_, pp. 189-235; GRAHAM
WALLAS, _Our Social Heritage_, pp. 102-121.

8. =Marxian socialism.= B. L. BRASOL, _Socialism_ vs. _Civilization_,
pp. 61-110; JOHN SPARGO, _Socialism Explained_, pp. 123-157.

9. =State socialism: the arguments for and against.= HARTLEY WITHERS,
_The Case for Capitalism_, pp. 138-168; A. E. DAVIES, _The Case for
Nationalization_, pp. 12-29.

10. =The individual and the new society.= A. B. HART (editor), _Problems
of Readjustment After the War_, pp. 98-128.

11. =Women in the new social order.= H. G. WELLS, _What is Coming_, pp.
159-188; H. A. HOLLISTER, _The Woman Citizen_, pp. 142-178.

12. =Fiscal reconstruction.= E. M. FRIEDMAN, _American Problems of
Reconstruction_, pp. 427-446.

Questions

1. Why has the movement for political and social reconstruction become
stronger in recent years?

2. Explain how “the soviet form of government is a repudiation of the
entire scheme of government which has been described in this book”.

3. Make a diagram showing the organization of the soviet government in
Russia. Show how much more direct is the control of the people over
their government in the United States.

4. What is the lesson of the economic breakdown in Russia?

5. Explain what is meant by the _International_. What are its aims?

6. State any arguments for socialism which are not given in the text.
Any arguments against socialism. Is it true that “as a general rule
there are only two ways of getting work done in this world”? In a
socialist state what would be the incentive to work? Would it be
sufficient?

7. Would the establishment of socialism necessarily involve the
abandonment of democracy? Argue the point.

8. Name the principal achievements of American democracy during the past
hundred years. Which of them do you regard as the most important and
why?

9. Name some present-day political and economic injustices which you
would like to see set right. Suggest what might be done about them.

10. Are you a more earnest or a less earnest believer in democracy by
reason of your having studied _Social Civics_?

Topics for Debate

1. Representation in government should be based on occupations rather
than on territorial divisions.

2. The laborers should be given a voice in the management of their
respective industries.

3. The condition of the laborer is better under private capitalism than
it would be under socialism.

-----

Footnote 307:

The term “soviet” means council or meeting. The constitution of the
Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic may be found in FRANK
COMERFORD, _The New World_, pp. 281-305.

Footnote 308:

Nikalai Lenin is now the head of this Council; Leon Trotzky is
Minister of War in it. Each member of the Council is head of a
department.

Footnote 309:

The breakdown was due in part, no doubt, to the disorganization
wrought by the war and the internal revolts which broke out in Russia
after the war. To make matters worse there were crop failures, with
resulting famines, in some of Russia’s best grain-producing regions.

Footnote 310:

It is quite true that some men and women work because they like to
work and dislike to be idle, or because they feel that what they do is
of value to the community, or for some other reason not directly
connected with their pay. They form, however, a very small fraction of
the total body of wage-earners.

APPENDIX
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

PREAMBLE

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the
common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.

ARTICLE I
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 1. Two Houses

1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress
of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives.

Section 2. House of Representatives

1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen
every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors
in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors[311]
of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

2. No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to
the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the
United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that
state in which he shall be chosen.

3. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the
several states which may be included within this Union, according to
their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the
whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a
term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, _three-fifths of all
other persons_[312]. The actual enumeration shall be made within three
years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and
within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall
by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for
every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one
Representative; and, until such enumerations shall be made, the state of
New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight,
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York
six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six,
Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia
three.

4. When vacancies happen in the representation from any state, the
executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such
vacancies.

5. The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other
officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Section 3. Senate

1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators
from each state chosen by the legislature thereof[313] for six years;
and each Senator shall have one vote.

2. Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first
election, they shall be divided, as equally as may be, into three
classes. The seats of the senators of the first class shall be vacated
at the expiration of the second year; of the second class, at the
expiration of the fourth year; and of the third class, at the expiration
of the sixth year; so that one-third may be chosen every second year;
and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess
of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make
temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which
shall then fill such vacancies.[314]

3. No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age
of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United

States, who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for
which he shall be chosen.

4. The Vice-President of the United States shall be President of the
Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

5. The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President
_pro tempore_, in the absence of the Vice-President, or when he shall
exercise the office of President of the United States.

6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When
sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the
President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall
preside; and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of
two-thirds of the members present.

7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to
removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office
of honor, trust, or profit, under the United States; but the party
convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment,
trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law.

Section 4. Elections and Meetings of Congress

1. The times, places, and manner, of holding elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature
thereof: but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such
regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such
meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by
law appoint a different day.

Section 5. Powers and Duties of the Houses

1. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and
qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall
constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn
from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of
absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties, as each House
may provide.

2. Each House may determine the rules of the proceedings, punish its
members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of
two-thirds, expel a member.

3. Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and, from time to
time, publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in their judgment,
require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House,
on any question, shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be
entered on the journal.

4. Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the
consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other
place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section 6. Privileges of and Restrictions on Members

1. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for
their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury
of the United States. They shall, in all cases, except treason, felony,
and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their
attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to,
and returning from, the same; and for any speech or debate in either
House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

2. No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was
elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the
United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof
shall have been increased during such time; and no person, holding any
office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during
his continuance in office.

Section 7. Revenue Bills: Veto of President

1. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as
on other bills.

2. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and
the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President
of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he
shall return it, with his objections, to that House in which it shall
have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their
journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration,
two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent,
together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall
likewise be reconsidered, and, if approved by two-thirds of that House,
it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses
shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons
voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each
house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President
within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to
him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it,
unless the Congress, by their adjournment, prevent its return, in which
case it shall not be a law.

3. Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of the
Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a
question of adjournment), shall be presented to the President of the
United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved
by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of
the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and
limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

Section 8. Legislative Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have power:

1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the
debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare, of the
United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform
throughout the United States:

2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States:

3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several
states, and with the Indian tribes:

4. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on
the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States:

5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and
fix the standard of weights and measures:

6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and
current coin of the Unites States:

7. To establish post-offices and post-roads:

8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for
limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries:

9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court:

10. To define and punish piracies and felonies, committed on the high
seas, and offences against the law of nations:

11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules
concerning captures on land and water:

12. To raise and support armies; but no appropriation of money to that
use shall be for a longer term than two years:

13. To provide and maintain a navy:

14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and
naval forces:

15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the
Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions:

16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and
for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the
United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of
the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to
the discipline prescribed by Congress:

17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such
district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of
particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of
the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over
all places, purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in
which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals,
dock-yards, and other needful buildings:—And

18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any
department or officer thereof.

Section 9. Prohibitions upon the United States

1. The migration or importation of such persons, as any of the states,
now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by
the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but
a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten
dollars for each person.

2. The privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ shall not be suspended,
unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may
require it.

3. No bill of attainder, or _ex post facto_ law, shall be passed.

4. No capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in
proportion to the _census_ or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be
taken.[315]

5. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

6. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue
to the ports of one state over those of another; nor shall vessels bound
to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties, in
another.

7. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of
appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the
receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from
time to time.

8. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no
person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without
the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office,
or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Section 10. Prohibitions upon the States

1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;
grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit;
make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;
pass any bill of attainder, _ex post facto_ law, or law impairing the
obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

2. No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts
or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary
for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and
imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use
of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject
to the revision and control of the Congress. No state shall, without the
consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of
war, in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another
state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually
invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

ARTICLE II
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT: THE PRESIDENT AND
VICE-PRESIDENT

Section 1. Term: Election: Qualifications: Salary: Oath of Office

1. The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United
States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four
years, and together with the Vice-President, chosen for the same term,
be elected as follows:

2. Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof
may direct, a number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators
and Representatives, to which the state may be entitled in the Congress;
but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust
or profit, under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

3. [The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by
ballot for two persons, of whom one, at least, shall not be an
inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list
of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which
list they shall sign and certify, and transmit, sealed, to the seat of
the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the
Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate
and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes
shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes
shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number
of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one, who have such
majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of
Representatives shall immediately choose, by ballot, one of them for
President; and if no person have a majority, then, from the five highest
on the list, the said House shall, in like manner, choose the President.
But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the
representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this
purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the
states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the
greatest number of votes of the Electors shall be the Vice-President.
But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate
shall choose from them, by ballot, the Vice-President.][316]

4. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the Electors, and the
day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same
throughout the United States.

5. No person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United
States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be
eligible to that office, who shall not have attained to the age of
thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United
States.

6. In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death,
resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said
office, the same shall devolve on the Vice-President, and the Congress
may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or
inability, both of the President and Vice-President, declaring what
officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act
accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be
elected.

7. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services a
compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the
period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive,
within that period, any other emolument from the United States, or any
of them.

8. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the
following oath or affirmation:

9. “I do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States.”

Section 2. President’s Executive Powers

1. The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy of the
United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called
into the actual service of the United States; he may require the
opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive
departments upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective
offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for
offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present
concur; and he shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, and
consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the
United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,
and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest
the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the
President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

3. The President shall have power to fill all vacancies that may happen
during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall
expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. President’s Executive Powers (_continued_)

1. He shall, from time to time, give to the Congress information of the
state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures
as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary
occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of
disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he
may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive
ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws
be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the
United States.

Section 4. Impeachment

1. The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United
States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction
of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE III
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Section 1. Courts: Terms of Office

1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one
Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time
to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and
inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and
shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which
shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. Jurisdiction

1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,
arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and
treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all
cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to all
cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which
the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more
states, between a state and citizens of another state,[317] between
citizens of different states, between citizens of the same state
claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or
the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.

2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court
shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before
mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as
to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the
Congress shall make.

3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by
jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes
shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state the
trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have
directed.

Section 3. Treason

1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war
against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony
of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason,
but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or
forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.

ARTICLE IV
RELATIONS OF STATES

Section 1. Public Records

1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public
acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the
Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts,
records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2. Rights in One State of Citizens of Another State

1. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several states.[318]

2. A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime,
who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall, on
demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be
delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the
crime.

3. No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or
regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall
be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may
be due.

Section 3. New States: Territories

1. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no
new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any
other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more
states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of
the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

2. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful
rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property
belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall
be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of
any particular state.

Section 4. Protection to States by the Nation

1. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a
republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against
invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive
(when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.

ARTICLE V
AMENDMENT

1. The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states,
shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case,
shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the
several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one
or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress:
provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first
and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first Article; and that
no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage
in the Senate.

ARTICLE VI
NATIONAL DEBTS: SUPREMACY OF NATIONAL LAW:
OATH

1. All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the
adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United
States under this Constitution as under the Confederation.

2. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be
made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law
of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,
anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary
notwithstanding.

3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of
the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers,
both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound, by
oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test
shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust
under the United States.

ARTICLE VII
ESTABLISHMENT OF CONSTITUTION

1. The ratification of the conventions of nine states shall be
sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states
so ratifying the same.

AMENDMENTS[319]

ARTICLE I
FREEDOM OF RELIGION, OF SPEECH, AND OF THE
PRESS: RIGHT OF PETITION

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

ARTICLE II
RIGHT TO KEEP ARMS

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

ARTICLE III
QUARTERING OF SOLDIERS IN PRIVATE HOUSES

No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the owner; nor, in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.

ARTICLE IV
SEARCH WARRANTS

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

ARTICLE V
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous,
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
actual service, in time of war, or public danger; nor shall any person
be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness
against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.[320]

ARTICLE VI
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS (_continued_)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor;
and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

ARTICLE VII
JURY TRIAL IN CIVIL CASES

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no
fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of
the United States than according to the rules of the common law.

ARTICLE VIII
EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENTS

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

ARTICLE IX
UNENUMERATED RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

ARTICLE X
POWERS RESERVED TO STATES

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively,
or to the people.

ARTICLE XI[321]
SUITS AGAINST STATES

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend
to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects
of any foreign state.

ARTICLE XII
ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT

1. The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by
ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall
not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name
in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct
ballots the person voted for as Vice-President; and they shall make
distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons
voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which
lists they shall sign, and certify, and transmit, sealed, to the seat of
the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the
Senate; the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the
votes shall then be counted; the person having the greatest number of
votes for President shall be the President, if such number be a majority
of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such a
majority, then, from the persons having the highest numbers, not
exceeding three, on the list of those voted for as President, the House
of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the
representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this
purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the
states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President,
whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth
day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as
President, as in case of the death, or other constitutional disability,
of the President.[322]

2. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President,
shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole
number of Electors appointed; and if no person have a majority, then,
from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the
Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of
the whole number of Senators; a majority of the whole number shall be
necessary to a choice.[322]

3. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President
shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States,

ARTICLE XIII[323]
SLAVERY

Section 1. Abolition of Slavery

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Power of Congress

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

ARTICLE XIV[324]
CIVIL RIGHTS: APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES:
POLITICAL DISABILITIES: PUBLIC DEBT

Section 1. Civil Rights

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Apportionment of Representatives

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according
to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in
each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at
any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President
of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and
judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof,
is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one
years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged,
except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of
representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the
number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male
citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. Political Disabilities

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector
of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military,
under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously
taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United
States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or
judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United
States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may,
by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. Public Debt

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for
services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or
pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion
against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of
any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held
illegal and void.

Section 5. Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation,
the provisions of this article.

ARTICLE XV[325]
RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE

Section 1. Right of Negro to Vote

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. Power of Congress

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

ARTICLE XVI[326]
INCOME TAX

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states,
and without regard to any census or enumeration.

ARTICLE XVII[327]
SENATE: ELECTION: VACANCIES

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from
each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each
Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the
qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the
state legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate,
the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to
fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any state may
empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointment until the
people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or
term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the
Constitution.

ARTICLE XVIII[328]
NATIONAL PROHIBITION

SECTION 1—After one year from the ratification of this article the
manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the
importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United
States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for
beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

SECTION 2—The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent
power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

SECTION 3—This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the
several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years of
the date of the submission hereof to the States by Congress.

ARTICLE XIX[329]
WOMAN SUFFRAGE

SECTION 1—The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of
sex.

SECTION 2—Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

-----

Footnote 311:

Voters.

Footnote 312:

Annulled by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Footnote 313:

Superseded by the Seventeenth Amendment.

Footnote 314:

See Seventeenth Amendment.

Footnote 315:

See Sixteenth Amendment.

Footnote 316:

Superseded by the Twelfth Amendment.

Footnote 317:

Modified by the Eleventh Amendment.

Footnote 318:

Compare Fourteenth Amendment.

Footnote 319:

The first ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were adopted in
1791.

Footnote 320:

See Amendment XIV, Sec. 1, which extends part of this restriction to
the States.

Footnote 321:

Adopted in 1798 to protect the sovereignty of the States.

Footnote 322:

Adopted in 1804, superseding Article II, Sec. 1.

Footnote 323:

Adopted in 1865.

Footnote 324:

Adopted in 1868.

Footnote 325:

Adopted in 1870.

Footnote 326:

Adopted in 1913.

Footnote 327:

Adopted in 1913.

Footnote 328:

Adopted in 1919.

Footnote 329:

Adopted in 1920.

INDEX

Accidents, industrial, 411-412

Admission of new states, 227-228

Agriculture, the federal Department of, 299 _n_
scope and methods of, 339-342
special characteristics of, 343-345
improvements in, 345-346
government encouragement of, 346-348
financial aids to, 348-349
problems of, 349-352

Agricultural bloc, in Congress, 282 _n_, 350-351

Alaska, government of, 229 _n_

Albany Congress, 248

Ambassadors, appointment and duties of, 591-595

Amendments, to state constitutions, 232
to national constitution, 260-262

American Federation of Labor, 403-404

Americanization, the public schools as agencies of, 28
purpose and methods of, 33

“American Plan” in industry, 409

Anti-Trust Law. _See_ Sherman Act

Appointments to office, methods of, 99-101
confirmation of, 270-271
presidential, 293-294

Appeals, judicial, 311-312

Appropriations in Congress, 463-465

Arbitration, of labor disputes, 409-410
compulsory, 410-411
international, 601-602

Aristotle, classification of governments by, 66-67

Armaments, the cost of, 563-564

Army, various divisions of the, 567-571
control of, in war, 571-572

Army in peace, 572-573

Articles of Confederation, 249-251, 287

Assessments for taxation, 456-457

Athletics, value of, in training citizens, 86-88

Attorney-General, office of, 299 _n_

Australian ballot, 132

Balance of power in Europe, 629

Ballot, history of the, 131-132
reform of, 132-133
preferential, 133-134

Banks, functions of, 434
organization of, 435-437
federal reserve, 437-439
work of, 439-442
_See_ also Farm Loan Banks

Bargaining, collective, 405-406

Billboards, regulation of, 214-215

Bill of Rights, 261

Bimetallism, the controversy over, 428-430

Blacklists, industrial, 407

Blackstone’s _Commentaries_, 314 _n_

Bloc. _See_ Agricultural bloc

Blue-sky laws, 446 _n_

Boards, in counties, 169-170
in cities, 192
in state government, 238-239
of education, 498
of health, 534

Bonds, defined and explained, 445 _n_
government, 466-467
serial, 469

Bonaparte, Napoleon, on the qualities of a good constitution, 258

Bosses, political, their origin, 29
their methods, 160-161

Boycotts in labor troubles, 407

Brindell Case, 404 _n_

Bryan, William J., on free silver, 430

Budgets, how made, 462-463
in Congress, 463-465

Buildings, public, in cities, 212-214

Bureau of Animal Industry, 347
of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, 376
of Child Welfare, 415 _n_
of Education, 499
of American Republics, 617

Burke, Edmund, on the function of a representative, 98-99

Business taxes, 222

Cabinet, organization and functions of, 297-303

Campaign funds, 161-162

Capital, as a factor in production, 48-50

Center of population in the United States, 21

Chancery. _See_ Equity

Charters, municipal, 186-190

Checks and balances, 232-234

Child labor, the restriction of, 414-415

Chief justice, duties of, in presidential impeachments, 270 _n_

China, economic resources of, 335
open door in, 618-620

Circuit courts, 313

Cities, drift of population to, 22-23
growth of, 183-184
character of population in, 184-186
relation to state, 186-190
government of, 190-199
administrative problems in, 203-222
taxation in, 455-457

City councils, 193-194

City government, development of, 182-184
present organization of, 184-199
_See_ also Municipal problems

City-manager plan, 197-198

City planning, 206-298

Citizenship, rights of, 79
qualifications for, 81
dual, 82 _n_
obligations of, 83-84
training for, 84-88

Civil liberty, origin and nature of, 78-81
relation of direct legislation to, 111

Civil War, effect of, on relations between nation and states, 227
on the constitution, 261-262
martial law during, 574-575
naval progress during, 575 _n_
cost of pensions after, 583
danger of foreign intervention during, 608

Civil service, federal, 104
in counties, 173
_See_ also Merit system

Clayton Act, 391, 408

Cleveland, adoption of city manager plan in, 197 _n_
Grover, use of armed forces in labor troubles by, 572-573

Closed shop, the question of, 408-409

Coal, the conservation of, 329-330

Codes of law, 315 _n_

Coinage in the United States, 427-430

Colbert, Jean-Baptiste, on the art of taxation, 455 _n_

Collective bargaining, 56, 405-406

Colleges, training for citizenship in, 87-88

Commerce, purposes of, 356-357
development of, 357-358
scope and nature of, 358-359
regulation of, 359-360
agencies of, 364-368
effect of tariffs on, 368-372
the encouragement of, 372-378

Commission government, in cities, 194-196
in states, 241-242

Commissions, public service, 480-481

Committees, party, 156-158
in the Senate, 268-269
in the House, 275
of conference, 277-278
on budget matters, 464-465

Communism, economic aspects of, 650-652

Common law, 314-315

Companies, commercial, 50-51
_See_ also Holding companies

Competition, the nature of, 54
among public utilities, 475-476

Conciliation in labor disputes, 409-410

Confederation, Articles of, 249-251

Confirmation of appointments, 100

Congress, of the Confederation, 248-252, 257
of the United States, influence of public opinion on, 95-96
organization and work of, 266-282
committees in, 268-278
agricultural bloc in, 350-351
new budget system in, 464-465
of Vienna, 627-628

Conservation of natural resources, 326-336

Consular service, 373-374

Constitution of the United States, events leading to, 246-253
makers of, 254-255
nature of, 257-258
development of, 258-260
methods of amending, 260-262

Constitutions, state, 230-232

Consumption of wealth, 39-40

Constabulary, state, 217

Constitutional Convention of 1787, 253-257

Continental Congress, 248

Contract, freedom of, 55-56

Conventions, party, state, 129, 156-157
national, 158-159

Coroner, office of, 172

Corporations, the nature of, 50-51
citizenship of, 81 _n_
industrial, 384-385
control of, 389-393

Council, in cities, 193-194

County districts, 177

County government, 167-174

County manager plan, 170

Courtesy of the Senate, 270-271

Courts, county, 170-171
state, 239
federal, 308-313

Courts-martial, 573-574

Covenant. _See_ League of Nations

Credit, agricultural, 348-349
relation of money to, 442-443

Credit, relation of prices to, 443-444
advantages and dangers of, 444-445

Crime, classifications of, 550-551
causes of, 552-553
methods of dealing with, 553-557

“Crime of 1873”, 429 _n_

“Cross of Gold” campaign, 430

Currency, paper, history of, 430-431
present forms of, 431-432
advantages of, 432-434

Currency Act (1900), 430

Custom, the influence of, 9-10

Darwin, Charles, theories of, 2-4

Debts, public, necessity of, 465-466
nature and amount of, 466-468
repayment of, 468-469

Declaration of Independence, influence of John Locke on, 64-65
assertion of civil rights in, 80
political doctrines of, 248-249

Defence, national, cost of, 563-564
need for, 564-567
methods of, 567-583

Degeneracy as a cause of poverty, 542

Demand and supply, relations of, 40

Democracy, true and false types, 68
progress of, 69
justification of, 70
relation of education to, 492-493
relation of socialism to, 657-658
achievements of, 658-660
citizen’s duty toward, 660-661

Departments, in city government, 191-192, 205-206
in state government, 238-239
in federal government, 299

Diminishing returns, the law of, 343

Diplomatic service, organization and functions of, 591-595

Direct legislation, progress of, 107-108
procedure in, 109-110
merits and defects of, 110-112

Disarmament, international, 576-577
_See_ also Washington Conference

Disease, the germ theory of, 516-517
transmission of, 517-520
in industry, 521-522
the prevention of, 522-524

District attorney. _See_ Prosecuting attorney
of Columbia, government of, 230 _n_
courts, federal, 313

Divine right, theory of, 63-64

Division of labor, 44-46
in agriculture, 344-345
of powers, 232-234

Divorce problem, 557-560

Domestic relations, courts of, 559

Drug evil, the, 526

Duties on imports, 459
_See_ also Tariffs and Tariff problems

Economics, the subject-matter of, 38-39

Education, relation to democracy, 492-493
to personal efficiency, 493-494
purpose and value of, 494-495
growth of, 495-496
control and management of, 496-498
national government’s work for, 498-499
federal aid to, 499-500
problems of, 500-507
vocational, 507-508

Educational tests for voting, 122-124

Elections, in counties, 169
procedure at, 129-137
corrupt practices at, 137-138
of senators, 267-268
of representatives in Congress, 273-274
presidential, 288-290
_See_ also Ballots, City Government, Voting

Emergency Fleet Corporation, 375

Employers’ liability, 411-412

England, local government in, 227
cabinet system in, 301

Environment, the influence of, 5-9

Equity, origin and nature of, 316-317

Espionage Act, the, 581

Europe, relations with, 613

Evolution, theory of, 1-5
in political institutions, 66

Excess profits, taxation of, 458-459

Exchange, the theory of, 53

Expatriation, the doctrine of, 83

Factories. _See_ Industry

Family, as a fundamental social group, 11-12
its place in the evolution of government, 66

Far East, American interests in the, 617-618

Farm Loan Banks, 348-349

Farmers’ Alliance. _See_ National Farmers’ Alliance
Institutes, 350

Farmer-Labor party, 351

Federalism, the nature of, 67-68

_Federalist, The_, 257

Federal reserve banks, organization and work of, 437-439
Trade Commission, 341-392

Filibusters, 278-279

Filtration of water supplies, 530-531

Fire prevention, the need for, 217-218
methods of, 218-219

Fisheries, economic importance of, 333

Fittest, survival of the, 3-4, 11

Food, the inspection of, 525-526
control of, in war time, 582

Foreign policy, American traditions relating to, 606-607
nature of, 587-590
control of, 590-591
how conducted, 591-602

Forests, economic importance of, 331
_See_ also Reserves

Four Power Treaty, 619-620

Fourteen Points, the, 609-610

France, local government in, 227

Franchises, taxation of, 456
public service, 477-480

Freedom of speech in war time, 581-582

Free silver, the fight for, 428-430

Free trade, arguments for and against, 370-372

Garbage, disposal of, 527-528

Gary system, 506-507

General property tax, 455-456

“Gentlemen’s agreement”, with Japan, 32
in industry, 386

Geography, influence of, 8-9, 333-336

George, Henry, social views of, 461 _n_

Germany, social insurance in, 419

Gerrymander, origin and use of, 273

Gladstone, W. E., opinion of the national constitution, 256-257

Gompers, Samuel, 405

Government, the importance of, 13
as a factor in production, 51-52
the basis of obedience to, 63-65
origin of, 65-66
classification of, 66-69
purpose of, 70-72
functions of, 72-73
the study of, 74

Governor, position and powers of, 237-238

Grand jury, 318

Granges. _See_ Patrons of Husbandry

Greenbacks, the, 431

Guidance, vocational, 396-397

Guild operation, 488-489

Habeas corpus, the writ of, 317 _n_

Habit, influence of, 10

Hague Conferences, the, 577

Hamilton, Alexander, 255, 257
_Report on Manufactures_, 370

Hawaii, government of, 229 _n_

Hayes-Tilden election, 290 _n_

Highways in counties, 168

Hobbes, Thomas, defender of absolutism, 65

Holding companies, 387

Holy Alliance, 598-599

Home rule, municipal, 187-190

House of Representatives, federal, organization and work of, 272-283

Housing, municipal control of, 531-533

Ideals, national, economic influence of, 327
effect of urban growth on, 184-186

Illiteracy in the United States, 502 _n_

Immigration, the course of, 23-24
causes of, 25-26
effects of, 26-29
restriction of, 29-30, 32

Impeachments, federal, 269-270

Income taxes, 458-459

Increasing returns, law of, 388

Incidence of taxation, 451-452

Individualism as an economic system, 14, 73

Index numbers, 443 _n_

Industrial accidents, 411-412
courts, 410-411
democracy, 393-394
Revolution, nature of, 383-384
Revolution, effect on labor, 400-401, 414 _n_
Workers of the World (the I. W. W.), 405

Industry, definition of, 383
development and organization of, 384-386
combinations in, 386-389
government regulation of, 389-393
present-day problems of, 393-397
the hygiene of, 520-521

Inheritances, taxes on, 458

Initiative and referendum, origin and spread of, 107-108
how used, 109-110
value of, 110-111
objections to, 111-112

Injunctions, use of, in labor disputes, 407-408

Insular possessions, government of, 229-230

Insane, problem of the, 549-550

Insects as disease carriers, 518-519

Insurance, against accident, 413
against unemployment, 418
against old age, 419

Interest on invested capital, 49-50

Interior Department, its work, 299 _n_

International, The, 651-652

International law, nature and scope of, 588-590

Interstate commerce, growth of, 359-361
regulation of, 362-364
Commerce Commission, jurisdiction and work of, 363-364

Interpretation, development of the constitution by, 259-260

Jackson, Andrew, removals from office by, 102

Japan, relations with, 618-620

Japanese, problem of the, on Pacific slope, 32-33

Jefferson, Thomas, believer in social contract theory, 65
on entangling alliances, 598, 606

Johnson, Andrew, impeachment of, 270 _n_

Judicial procedure, 317-323

Judicial supremacy, the doctrine of, 310-311

Judges, selection and removal of, 239-240

Jukes, the, 542-543

Junior high schools and colleges, 502-503

Jury, grand, 318
trial, 318-319
merits and defects of, 317-321

Justice, Department of, its work, 299 _n_

Juvenile delinquency, 557

Kansas plan of arbitration, 410-411

Knights of Labor, 402-403

Labor, as a factor in production, 43-44
division of, 44-46
perishable nature of, 46-47
federal department of, 299 _n_

Labor in agriculture, 349
changes in the conditions of, 400-401
organization of, 401-403
American Federation of, 403-404
the radical element in, 404-405
methods and policies of, 405-410
problems of, 410-419
services of, during the World War, 419-420
relations of, to League of Nations, 637

Latin-America, relations with, 615-617

Law, branches of the, 314-315
military, 573-574
martial, 574-575
relations of labor to, 411

League of Nations, origin of the, 625-630
covenant of, 630-632
as a scheme of government, 632-636
system of mandates, 636-637
relation of labor to, 637
public health work of, 638
American objections to, 638-639
work of, 639-640
relation of Washington Conference to, 640-641
future of, 641-642
relation of Monroe Doctrine to, 600 _n_

Legislative reference bureaus, 237 _n_

Legislatures, state, decline of confidence in, 108
organization of, 235-237

L’Enfant, Major, planning of Washington by, 207

Liquor traffic, its effect upon the public health, 526-527

Loans to European countries, 613-614
_See_ also Debts

Lobbying, 237 _n_

Local government in Europe and America compared, 178-179

Locke, John, his theory of political obedience, 64

Lockouts, industrial, 407

Lockwood Committee, its investigations, 55 _n_

London, first civil police established in, 216
poverty in, 541

Los Angeles, origin of recall in, 114

Louisiana Purchase, 228

Lusitania, sinking of the, 609

McCulloch _v._ Maryland, the case of, 435 _n_

Machines, political, 159-160

Madison, James, on the need of national defence, 564
contributions to _The Federalist_, 257

Magna Carta, 79, 323, 495

Maine, Sir Henry, on the rise of men from status to contract, 56

Management, industrial, as a factor in production, 50-51

Mandate (_mandamus_), the writ of, 317 _n_

Mandates, the system of, 636-637

Martial law, 574-575

Mayor, position and powers of the, 190-191

Mentally defective, the problem of the, 549-550

Merchant marine, 375-376

Mergers in industry, 387

Merit system, origin of, 103-104
workings of, 104-105
value of, 105-106
in the consular service, 374

Metropolitan counties, 173-174

Mexico, relations with, 615-617

Military government, 575 _n_

Military law, 573-574

Militarism, the encouragement of, 565-566

Milk, inspectors of, 524-525

Mines and minerals, economic importance of, 329-340
their relation to conquest, 334-335

Minimum wage laws, 416-417

Minor political parties, 152-153

Mints in the United States, 428

Money, origin of, 424-425
functions and characteristics of, 425-427

Money, forms of, in the United States, 427-433
relation of credit to, 442-443
quantity theory of, 444
_See_ also Currency

Monopolies, types of, 54
effects of, 55
industrial, 387-388
natural, 474-475

Monroe Doctrine, origin and nature of, 596-599
present status of, 600-601

Municipal problems, 203-222
_See_ also City government

National banks, organization and work of, 435-439
Farmers’ Alliance, 350
Guard, relation of federal authorities to, 568-569

Naturalization, requirements for, and procedure in, 81-82

Natural monopolies, 474-475
resources, 326-336
selection, the principle of, 3-4

Navy, growth and organization of, 575-576
_See_ also Disarmament

Near East, American interests in, 620

Negroes, migration of, to the United States, 27
present numbers and distribution, 30-31
problems of, 31-32
voting rights of, 261-262

Neutrality, laws of, 589
American contributions to the rights of, 601

New England town, the government of, 175-176

New York City, population of, 23
poverty in, 541

New Zealand, compulsory arbitration in, 409 _n_

Nominations, history of, 120-121
methods of making, 127-129
_See_ also Conventions, Primary

Normal schools, 504

Northern Securities Case, 365-390

Oil, the conservation of, 329-330

Old age pensions, 419

Open shop, controversies over, 408-409

Optional charter system, 189 _n_

Oregon, direct legislation in, 110

Organization, of industry, 50-51, 384-385
of labor, 401-405

Ownership, public. _See_ Public ownership

Pacific, problems of the, 618-620

Panama Canal, the, 617

Pan-American Congress, 617

Parks and recreation grounds, 212

Parole system, 555-556

Parties, political, nature and functions of, 145-150
history of, 150-151
programs of, 151-154
the voter’s relation to, 154-155
organization of, 156-161
finance of, 161-162
reform of, 162-163

Partnerships, business, 50

Patents, 55

Patrons of Husbandry, 350

Pauperism, nature of, and remedies for, 540-549

Pavements, 210-212

Peel, Sir Robert, first civil police system established by, 216 _n_

Penn, William, plan of colonial union proposed by, 248

Pensions, the cost of, 583
old age, 419

Petitions, for direct legislation, 109

Picketing during labor troubles, 407

Playground, training for citizenship on the, 86

Philippines, government of the, 229 _n_, 230 _n_

Plumb Plan, 366, 489

Pocket veto, 294

Police, history of, 215-216
organization of, 216-217

Poll taxes, 456

Pools in industry, 386-387

Poor relief, history and methods of, 540-549

Popular sovereignty, 94-95

Population, growth of, 19-20
distribution of, 20-21
center of, 21
drift of, to the cities, 22-23

“Pork barrel”, in Congress, 464 _n_

Porto Rico, government of, 229 _n_

Poverty, extent and causes of, 540-545
methods of dealing with, 545-549

President of the United States, position and powers of, 286-297
control of army, 571-572
control of navy, 576

Preparedness for war, the true nature of, 578-580

Price-fixing by governments, 391

Prices, relation of, to value, 53-54
to money and credit, 443-444
to taxes, 452

Primary, the different forms of, 127-129

Prisons and prison reform, 554-555

Private property, regulation of, 214-215

Probation system, 556-557

Production, economic, 41-42
the factors in, 42-52
large-scale, 388-389

Profit sharing, 394-395

Profits, nature and basis of, 51

Property, private. _See_ Private Property

Proportional representation, 134-136

Prosecuting attorney, 171-172

Protective tariffs, arguments for, 370-371
arguments against, 371-372

Public buildings, in counties, 168
in cities, 212-214

Public domain, 327-328

Public health, importance of, 514-515
progress in the protection of, 515-516
menaces to, 516-520
methods of safeguarding, 521-534
enforcement of regulations relating to, 534-535

Public Health Service, federal, 534-535

Public libraries, 504-505

Public opinion, nature and influence of, 94-96

Public ownership, in Europe, 482
in America, 483
arguments for, 483-485
arguments against, 435-437

Public service commissions, 480-481

Quantity theory of money and prices, 444

Quarantine, methods of, 522-523

Races in the United States, 19-33

Radicalism, growth of, 646-647

Railroads, the beginnings of, 362-363
relation of, to Sherman Act, 364-365
in war time, 365-366
government operation of, 366-367
return to private operation of, 367
future of, 368

Railway Labor Board, 367

Ratio of representation, 272

Recall of officers, 113-114

Recess appointments, 271

Reciprocity with Canada, 373

Reconstruction, economic, in Europe, 614-615
political and economic, 646-661

Redistricting, 273

Refunding of public debts, 468

Registration of voters, 125-126

Regular army, 567-568

Removals from office, 106

Rent, its nature, 43

Representation, proportional, 134-136

Representatives, effect of direct legislation on the quality of, 112
the choice of, 96-97
proper function of, 98-99

Reserves, forest, 332-333

Restraint of trade, 389-390

Resources, natural, 326-336

Revolution, American, as a unifying factor, 248

Rings, political, 160-161

Rome, ancient, prestige of citizenship in, 80-81

Roosevelt, Theodore, on national defence, 565 _n_
in Venezuela controversy, 590

Rule of reason, the, 390

Rural exodus, the, 351-352

Russia, the new government in, 647-652

Sales tax, as proposed, 462

Schools. _See_ Education

Second jeopardy, 320

Secret diplomacy, 595-596

Selective service in war time, 570-571

Selectmen, boards of, in towns, 176

Senate of the United States, organization and powers of, 267-272
rejection of treaties by, 631

Senatorial courtesy. _See_ Courtesy of the Senate

Sewage, collection and disposal of, 527-528

Sheriff, office of, 171

Sherman Act, 364-365, 389-390, 391 _n_

Shipping Board, 375

Single tax, as proposed, 461-462

Short ballot, 132-133
in county elections, 174

Sinking funds, 468

Smith, Adam, on the canons of taxation, 455

Smoke abatement in cities, 531

Social contract, theory of, 65
control, 14-15
control, the limits to, 72-73
insurance as a means of reducing poverty, 548

Socialism, defined and explained, 652-653
arguments for, 653-654
arguments against, 654-658

Socialist party, its rise and present status, 154

Society, its origin and nature, 1-13

Soil, economic importance of, 327-328
exhaustion of, 345

Soviet system in Russia, 647-650

Speaker, office of, 274-275

Special assessments, 457

Spoils system, 101-103
in the consular service, 374

State Department, its work, 591

States, nature of, 62-63
relation of local government to, 186-190, 219-220
relation to national government, 226-227
admission of, 227-230
constitutions of, 230-232
functions of, 232-233
legislative organization in, 235-237
executive organization in, 237-238
judicial organization in, 239-240
encouragement of agriculture by, 348
control of corporations by, 392
tax systems of, 457-458
educational work of, 496-497
supervision of public health by, 534

Statutes and statutory law, 315-316

Steam, revolution in industry caused by, 384

Stock exchange, functions of, 445-446

Streets, planning of, 208-209
width and arrangement, 209-210
paving of, 210-212

Strikes, how organized, 406-407

Succession to the presidency, 296

Suffrage, history of, 119-120
negro, 120-121
universal, 121-122
_See_ also Elections, Voting

Supreme Court of the United States, its constitutional functions,
259-260
its organization and influence, 308-311

Tariffs and tariff policy, 368-372

Taxation, in cities, 220-222
the burden of, 450-451
the incidence of, 451-453
special nature of, 453-454
principles of, 454-455
local, 455-457
state, 457-458
national, 458-459
the two purposes of, 459-460
exemptions from, 460-461
the reform of, 461-462

Taxes, on immigrants, 30
as an element in the cost of production, 52

Teachers, the training of, 503-504

Tenements. _See_ Housing

Territories, the government of, 229-230

Timber, the conservation of, 331-332

Town government, 175-176

Towner-Sterling Bill, 499 _n_

Township government, 176-177

Trade unions. _See_ Organization of labor

Traffic zones, 210

Transportation Act, 364, 367

Treasury, Department of the, 299 _n_

Treaties, ratification of, by the Senate, 271
commercial, 373
how made, 596-597

Trial by jury, 318-321

Tribe, its place in political evolution, 66

Triple Alliance, 628-629

Trusts, industrial, 387

Tweed, William M., 161 _n_

Typhoid fever, its cause and method of transmission, 517-518

Unemployment, the problem of, 417-418

Unions, labor, aims and methods of, 401-410

Universal military training, merits and defects of, 578

Usage, development of constitution by, 258-259

Utility, the principle of, in determining demand, 40-41

Utilities, public, 215
the nature of, 474-476
regulation of, 470-477
franchises of, 477-480
public ownership of, 481-488
guild operation of, 488-489

Vaccination and inoculation, effects of 523-524

Value, definition of, 53

Versailles, Treaty of, 610, 631 _n_

Vice president, election of, 288
duties of, 270 _n_
functions of the, 296-297

Veto power, the President’s, 294-295

Vocation, the choice of a, 396-397

Vocational education, 507-508
_See_ also Guidance, vocational

Volunteers, use of, in war, 569-570

Voting, preferential, 133-134
qualifications for, 122-125
absent, 138
compulsory, 138-139
by machine, 139-140
in Congress, 278 _n_
_See_ also Registration of voters, Suffrage

Wages, factors affecting the rate of, 47-48

War, the cost of, 563-564
the causes of, 566-567
preparedness for, 578-581
the laws of, 588-589
humanizing of, 601
measures for the prevention of, 635-636
_See_ also Arbitration, Hague Conferences, League of Nations,
Washington Conference

War Industries Board, 582

Washington Conference, 575 _n_, 577, 619-620

Washington Conference, relation of League of Nations to, 640-641

Washington, George, as a non-partisan President, 102
on the weakness of the Confederation, 252
at the constitutional convention, 254
on two-house legislatures, 266
advice on foreign policy, 597-598, 606 _n_

Waste disposal, methods of, in cities, 527-528

Water supply, sources and methods of, 529-530

Wealth, definition of, 39

Weather Bureau, importance of its work, 347

Wellington, the Duke of, on the value of organized play, 87

Wider use of the school plant, 505-506

Whitehall, Indiana, center of population, 21

Wilson, Woodrow, on the aims of America in the World War, 609-610
_See_ also Fourteen Points, League of Nations, World War

Woman suffrage, the winning of, 262

Women, in industry, the protection of, 413-414

Workman’s compensation, 413

World power, the United States in relation to, 606-621

World War, rise of wages during, 48
American agriculture during, 342-343
American labor during, 419-420
public debts resulting from, 466
powers of the government during, 580-583
America’s part in, 608-609
cost of, 612
problems created by, 646-661

Writs at law, 317 _n_

Year Book of the Department of Agriculture, 347

Footnotes

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcriber’s Note

The index entry regarding the duties of the Vice President refers to a
note on p. 270, but no such note exists.

The index entry regarding compulsory arbitration in New Zealand refers
to a note on p. 419. The note appears on p. 409.

Other errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected,
and are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the
original. Where the error is in a footnote, the original note is
included and the line within it.

71.32 protect a[rg/gr]iculture Transposed.
80.2 It wa[s] a long and grim struggle Restored.
82.34 In the case of the Porto Ricans[,] citizenship Added.
105.10 They are practical[ in] their nature. Added.
179.33 and[ and] the county-manager plans. Removed.
193.7 that i[s/t] encourages Replaced.
250.26 [I/i]t could act only Replaced.
316.13 many states[.] Added.
329.8 restocking of lakes with fish)[.] Added.
353.33 _The Non-Partisan League_, pp.269-283[;/.] Replaced.
379.33 and future development[.] Added.
418.10 a certain p[re/er]centage of the total Transposed.
465.12 to the present taxpayers[.] Added.
468.n2.2 life of a public i[n/m]provement Replaced.
470.10 _Public Finance_, [pp. ]261-280. Added.
471.11 p. 457.[)] Added.
618.6 mastery of the Pacific[.] Added.
673.29 I do solem[n]ly swear Inserted.
683.6 a Senator or Represen[t]ative Inserted.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Social Civics" ***

Home