between the Republican and Democratic policies, and showed how we were
dependent on Republican principles as a foundation on which to erect any
advance in our social and economic welfare.
This year the Republican Party has adopted a very advanced platform.
That was natural, for we have always been the party of progress, and
have given our attention to that, when we were not engaged in a
life-and-death struggle to overcome the fallacies put forth by our
opponents, with which we are all so familiar. The result has been that
here in Massachusetts, where our party has ever been strong, and where
we have framed legislation for more than fifty years, more progress has
been made along the lines of humanitarian legislation than in any other
State. We have felt free to call on our industries to make large outlays
along these lines because we have furnished them with the advantages of
a protective tariff and an honest and efficient state government. The
consequences have been that in this State the hours and conditions of
labor have been better than anywhere else on earth. Those provisions for
safety, sanitation, compensations for accidents, and for good living
conditions have now been almost entirely worked out. There remains,
however, the condition of sickness, age, misfortune, lack of employment,
or some other cause, that temporarily renders people unable to care for
themselves. Our platform has taken up this condition.
We have long been familiar with insurance to cover losses. You will
readily recall the different kinds. Formerly it was only used in
commerce, by the well-to-do. Recently it has been adapted to the use of
all our people by the great industrial companies which have been very
successful. Our State has adopted a system of savings-bank insurance,
thus reducing the expense. Now, social insurance will not be, under a
Republican interpretation, any new form of outdoor relief, some new
scheme of living on the town. It will be an extension of the old
familiar principle to the needs at hand, and so popularized as to meet
the requirements of our times.
It ought to be understood, however, that there can be no remedy for lack
of industry and thrift, secured by law. It ought to be understood that
no scheme of insurance and no scheme of government aid is likely to make
us all prosperous. And above all, these remedies must go forward on the
firm foundation of an independent, self-supporting, self-governing
people. But we do honestly put forward a proposition for the relief of
misfortune.
The Republican Party is proposing humanitarian legislation to build up
character, to establish independence, not pauperism; it will in the
future, as in the past, ever stand opposed to the establishment of one
class who shall live on the Government, and another class who shall pay
the taxes. To those who fear we are turning Socialists, and to those who
think we are withholding just and desirable public aid and support, I
say that government under the Republican Party will continue in the
future to be so administered as to breed not mendicants, but men.
Humanitarian legislation is going to be the handmaid of character.
IX
PUBLIC MEETING ON THE HIGH COST OF LIVING, FANEUIL HALL
DECEMBER 9, 1916
The great aim of American institutions is the protection of the
individual. That is the principle which lies at the foundation of
Anglo-Saxon liberty. It matters not with what power the individual is
assailed, nor whether that power is represented by wealth or place or
numbers; against it the humblest American citizen has the right to the
protection of his Government by every force that Government can command.
This right would be but half expressed if it ran only to a remedy after
a wrong is inflicted; it should and does run to the prevention of a
wrong which is threatened. We find our citizens, to-day, not so much
suffering from the high cost of living, though that is grievous enough,
as threatened with an increasing cost which will bring suffering and
misery to a large body of our inhabitants. So we come here not only to
discuss providing a remedy for what is now existing, but some protection
to ward off what is threatening to be a worse calamity. We shall utterly
fail of our purpose to provide relief unless we look at things as they
are. It is useless to indulge in indiscriminate abuse. We must not
confuse the innocent with the guilty; it must be our object to allay
suspicion, not to create it. The great body of our tradespeople are
honest and conscientious, anxious to serve their customers for a fair
return for their service. We want their coöperation in our pursuit of
facts; we want to coöperate with them in proposing and securing a
remedy. We do not deny the existence of economic laws, nor the right to
profit by a change of conditions.
But we do claim the right and duty of the Government to investigate and
punish any artificial creation of high prices by means of illegal
monopolies or restraints of trade. And above all, we claim the right of
publicity. That is a remedy with an arm longer and stronger than that of
the law. Let us know what is going on and the remedy will provide
itself. In working along this line we shall have great help from the
newspapers. The American people are prepared to meet any reasonable
burden; they are not asking for charity or favor; fair prices and fair
profits they will gladly pay; but they demand information that they are
fair, and an immediate reduction if they are not.
The Commonwealth has just provided money for an investigation by a
competent commission. Its Police Department, its Law Department, are
also at the service of our citizens. Let us refrain from suspicion; let
us refrain from all indiscriminate blame; but let us present at once to
the proper authorities all facts and all evidence of unfair practices.
Let all our merchants, of whatever degree, assist in this work for the
public good and let the individual see and feel that all his rights are
protected by his Government.
X
ONE HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY DINNER OF THE PROVIDENT INSTITUTION FOR
SAVINGS
DECEMBER 13, 1916
The history of the institution we here celebrate reaches back more than
one third of the way to the landing of the Mayflower--back to the day of
the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, who saw Prescott,
Pomeroy, Stark, and Warren at Bunker Hill, who followed Washington and
his generals from Dochester Heights to Yorktown, and saw the old Bay
Colony become the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. They had seen a nation
in the making. They founded their government on the rights of the
individual. They had no hesitation in defending those rights against the
invasion of a British King and Parliament, by a Revolutionary War, nor
in criticising their own Government at Washington when they thought an
invasion of those rights was again threatened by the preliminaries and
the prosecution of the War of 1812. They had made the Commonwealth. They
understood its Government. They knew it was a part of themselves, their
own organization. They had not acquired the state of mind that enabled
them to stand aloof and regard government as something apart and
separate from the people. It would never have occurred to them that they
could not transact for themselves any other business just as well as
they could transact for themselves the business of government. They were
the men who had fought a war to limit the power of government and
enlarge the privileges of the individual.
It was the same spirit that made Massachusetts that made the Provident
Institution for Savings. What the men of that day wanted they made for
themselves. They would never have thought of asking Congress to keep
their money in the post-office. They did not want their commercial
privileges interfered with by having the Government buy and sell for
them. They had the self-reliance and the independence to prefer to do
those things for themselves. This is the spirit that founded
Massachusetts, the spirit that has seen your bank grow until it could
now probably purchase all there was of property in the Commonwealth when
it began its existence. I want to see that spirit still preëminent here.
I want to see a deeper realization on the part of the people that this
is their Commonwealth, their Government; that they control it, that they
pay its expenses, that it is, after all, only a part of themselves; that
any attempt to shift upon it their duties, their responsibilities, or
their support will in the end only delude, degrade, impoverish, and
enslave. Your institution points the only way, through self-control,
self-denial, and self-support, to self-government, to independence, to a
more generous liberty, and to a firmer establishment of individual
rights.
XI
ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES DINNER, BOSTON
DECEMBER 15, 1916
During the past few years we have questioned the soundness of many
principles that had for a long time been taken for granted. We have
examined the foundations of our institutions of government. We have
debated again the theories of the men who wrote the Declaration of
Independence, the Constitution of the Nation, and laid down the
fundamental law of our own Commonwealth. Along with this examination of
our form of government has gone an examination of our social,
industrial, and economic system. What is to come out of it all?
In the last fifty years we have had a material prosperity in this
country the like of which was never beheld before. A prosperity which
not only built up great industries, great transportation systems, great
banks and a great commerce, but a prosperity under whose influence arts
and sciences, education and charity flourished most abundantly. It was
little wonder that men came to think that prosperity was the chief end
of man and grew arrogant in the use of its power. It was little wonder
that such a misunderstanding arose that one part of the community
thought the owners and managers of our great industries were robbers, or
that they thought some of the people meant to confiscate all property.
It has been a costly investigation, but if we can arrive at a better
understanding of our economic and social laws it will be worth all it
cost.
As a part of this discussion we have had many attempts at regulation of
industrial activity by law. Some of it has proceeded on the theory that
if those who enjoyed material prosperity used it for wrong purposes,
such prosperity should be limited or abolished. That is as sound as it
would be to abolish writing to prevent forgery. We need to keep forever
in mind that guilt is personal; if there is to be punishment let it fall
on the evil-doer, let us not condemn the instrument. We need power. Is
the steam engine too strong? Is electricity too swift? Can any
prosperity be too great? Can any instrument of commerce or industry ever
be too powerful to serve the public needs? What then of the anti-trust
laws? They are sound in theory. Their assemblances of wealth are broken
up because they were assembled for an unlawful purpose. It is the
purpose that is condemned. You men who represent our industries can see
that there is the same right to disperse unlawful assembling of wealth
or power that there is to disperse a mob that has met to lynch or riot.
But that principle does not denounce town-meetings or prayer-meetings.
We have established here a democracy on the principle that all men are
created equal. It is our endeavor to extend equal blessings to all. It
can be done approximately if we establish the correct standards. We are
coming to see that we are dependent upon commercial and industrial
prosperity, not only for the creation of wealth, but for the solving of
the great problem of the distribution of wealth. There is just one
condition on which men can secure employment and a living, nourishing,
profitable wages for whatever they contribute to the enterprise, be it
labor or capital, and that condition is that some one make a profit by
it. That is the sound basis for the distribution of wealth and the only
one. It cannot be done by law, it cannot be done by public ownership, it
cannot be done by socialism. When you deny the right to a profit you
deny the right of a reward to thrift and industry.
The scientists tell us that the same force that rounds the teardrop
moulds the earth. Physical laws have their analogy in social and
industrial life. The law that builds up the people is the law that
builds up industry. What price could the millions, who have found the
inestimable blessings of American citizenship around our great
industrial centres, after coming here from lands of oppression, afford
to pay to those who organized those industries? Shall we not recognize
the great service they have done the cause of humanity? Have we not seen
what happens to industry, to transportation, to all commercial activity
which we call business when profit fails? Have we not seen the suffering
and misery which it entails upon the people?
Let us recognize the source of these fundamental principles and not
hesitate to assert them. Let us frown upon greed and selfishness, but
let us also condemn envy and uncharitableness. Let us have done with
misunderstandings, let us strive to realize the dream of democracy by a
prosperity of industry that shall mean the prosperity of the people, by
a strengthening of our material resources that shall mean a
strengthening of our character, by a merchandising that has for its end
manhood, and womanhood, the ideal of American Citizenship.
XII
ON THE NATURE OF POLITICS
Politics is not an end, but a means. It is not a product, but a process.
It is the art of government. Like other values it has its counterfeits.
So much emphasis has been put upon the false that the significance of
the true has been obscured and politics has come to convey the meaning
of crafty and cunning selfishness, instead of candid and sincere
service. The Greek derivation shows the nobler purpose. Politikos means
city-rearing, state-craft. And when we remember that city also meant
civilization, the spurious presentment, mean and sordid, drops away and
the real figure of the politician, dignified and honorable, a minister
to civilization, author and finisher of government, is revealed in its
true and dignified proportions.
There is always something about genius that is indefinable, mysterious,
perhaps to its possessor most of all. It has been the product of rude
surroundings no less than of the most cultured environment, want and
neglect have sometimes nourished it, abundance and care have failed to
produce it. Why some succeed in public life and others fail would be as
difficult to tell as why some succeed or fail in other activities. Very
few men in America have started out with any fixed idea of entering
public life, fewer still would admit having such an idea. It was said of
Chief Justice Waite, of the United States Supreme Court, being asked
when a youth what he proposed to do when a man, he replied, he had not
yet decided whether to be President or Chief Justice. This may be in
part due to a general profession of holding to the principle of Benjamin
Franklin that office should neither be sought nor refused and in part to
the American idea that the people choose their own officers so that
public service is not optional. In other countries this is not so. For
centuries some seats in the British Parliament were controlled and
probably sold as were commissions in the army, but that has never been
the case here. A certain Congressman, however, on arriving at Washington
was asked by an old friend how he happened to be elected. He replied
that he was not elected, but appointed. It is worth while noting that
the boss who was then supposed to hold the power of appointment in that
district has since been driven from power, but the Congressman, though
he was defeated when his party was lately divided, has been reflected.
All of which suggests that the boss did not appoint in the first
instance, but was merely well enough informed to see what the people
wanted before they had formulated their own opinions and desires. It was
said of McKinley that he could tell what Congress would do on a certain
measure before the men in Congress themselves knew what their decision
was to be. Cannon has said of McKinley that his ear was so close to the
ground that it was full of grasshoppers. But the fact remains that
office brokerage is here held in reprehensive scorn and professional
office-seeking in contempt. Every native-born American, however, is
potentially a President, and it must always be remembered that the
obligation to serve the State is forever binding upon all, although
office is the gift of the people.
Of course these considerations relate not to appointive places like the
Judiciary, Commissionerships, clerical positions and like places, but to
the more important elective offices. Another reason why political life
of this nature is not chosen as a career is that it does not pay. Nearly
all offices of this class are held at a financial sacrifice, not merely
that the holder could earn more at some other occupation, but that the
salary of the office does not maintain the holder of the office. It is
but recently that Parliament has paid a salary to its members. In years
gone by the United States Senate has been rather marked for its number
of rich men. Few prominent members of Congress are dependent on their
salary, which is but another way of saying that in Washington Senators
and Representatives need more than their official salaries to become
most effective. It is a consolation to be able to state that this is not
the condition of members of the Massachusetts General Court. There,
ability and character come very near to being the sole requirements for
success. Although some men have seen service in our legislature of
nearly twenty years, to the great benefit of the Commonwealth, no one
would choose that for a career and these men doubtless look on it only
as an avocation.
For these reasons we have no profession of politics or of public life in
the sense that we have a profession of law and medicine and other
learned callings. We have men who have spent many years in office, but
it would be difficult to find one outside the limitations noted who
would refer to that as his business, occupation, or profession.
The inexperienced are prone to hold an erroneous idea of public life and
its methods. Not long ago I listened to a joint debate in a prominent
preparatory school. Each side took it for granted that public men were
influenced only by improper motives and that officials of the government
were seeking only their own gain and advantage without regard to the
welfare of the people. Such a presumption has no foundation in fact.
There are dishonest men in public office. There are quacks, shysters,
and charlatans among doctors, lawyers, and clergy, but they are not
representative of their professions nor indicative of their methods. Our
public men, as a class, are inspired by honorable and patriotic motives,
desirous only of a faithful execution of their trust from the executive
and legislative branches of the States and Nation down to the
executives of our towns, who bear the dignified and significant title of
selectmen. Public men must expect criticism and be prepared to endure
false charges from their opponents. It is a matter of no great concern
to them. But public confidence in government is a matter of great
concern. It cannot be maintained in the face of such opinions as I have
mentioned. It is necessary to differentiate between partisan assertions
and actual conditions. It is necessary to recognize worth as well as to
condemn graft. No system of government can stand that lacks public
confidence and no progress can be made on the assumption of a false
premise. Public administration is honest and sound and public business
is transacted on a higher plane than private business.
There is no difficulty for men in college to understand elections and
government. They have all had experience in it. The same motives that
operate in the choice of class officers operate in choosing officers for
the Commonwealth. Here men are soon estimated at their true worth. Here
places of trust are conferred and administered as they will be in later
years. The scale is smaller, the opportunities are less, conditions are
more artificial, but the principles are the same. Of course the present
estimate is not the ultimate. There are men here who appear important
that will not appear so in years to come. There are men who seem
insignificant now who will develop at a later day. But the motive which
leads to elections here leads to elections in the State.
Is there any especial obligation on the part of college-bred men to be
candidates for public office? I do not think so. It is said that
although college graduates constitute but one per cent of the
population, they hold about fifty per cent of the public offices, so
that this question seems to take care of itself. But I do not feel that
there is any more obligation to run for office than there is to become a
banker, a merchant, a teacher, or enter any other special occupation. As
indicated some men have a particular aptitude in this direction and some
have none. Of course experience counts here as in any other human
activity, and all experience worth the name is the result of
application, of time and thought and study and practice. If the
individual finds he has liking and capacity for this work, he will
involuntarily find himself engaged in it. There is no catalogue of such
capacity. One man gets results in one way, another in another. But in
general only the man of broad sympathy and deep understanding of his
fellow men can meet with much success.
What I have said relates to the somewhat narrow field of office-holding.
This is really a small part of the American system or of any system.
James Bryce tells us that we have a government of public opinion. That
is growing to be more and more true of the governments of the entire
world. The first care of despotism seems to be to control the school and
the press. Where the mind is free it turns not to force but to reason
for the source of authority. Men submit to a government of force as we
are doing now when they believe it is necessary for their security,
necessary to protect them from the imposition of force from without.
This is probably the main motive of the German people. They have been
taught that their only protection lay in the support of a military
despotism. Rightly or wrongly they have believed this and believing have
submitted to what they suppose their only means of security. They have
been governed accordingly. Germany is still feudal.
This leads to the larger and all important field of politics. Here we
soon see that office-holding is the incidental, but the standard of
citizenship is the essential. Government does rest upon the opinions of
men. Its results rest on their actions. This makes every man a
politician whether he will or no. This lays the burden on us all. Men
who have had the advantages of liberal culture ought to be the leaders
in maintaining the standards of citizenship. Unless they can and do
accomplish this result education is a failure. Greatly have they been
taught, greatly must they teach. The power to think is the most
practical thing in the world. It is not and cannot be cloistered from
politics.