_Question_. What do you think of the signs of the times so far as
the campaign has progressed?
_Answer_. The party is now going through a period of misrepresentation.
Every absurd meaning that can be given to any combination of words
will be given to every plank of the platform. In the heat of
partisan hatred every plank will look warped and cracked. A great
effort is being made to show that the Republican party is in favor
of intemperance,--that the great object now is to lessen the price
of all intoxicants and increase the cost of all the necessaries of
life. The papers that are for nothing but reform of everything
and everybody except themselves, are doing their utmost to show
that the Republican party is the enemy of honesty and temperance.
The other day, at a Republican ratification meeting, I stated among
other things, that we could not make great men and great women
simply by keeping them out of temptation--that nobody would think
of tying the hands of a person behind them and then praise him for
not picking pockets; that great people were great enough to withstand
temptation, and in that connection I made this statement: "Temperance
goes hand in hand with liberty"--the idea being that when a chain
is taken from the body an additional obligation is perceived by
the mind. These good papers--the papers that believe in honest
politics--stated that I said: "Temperance goes hand in hand with
liquor." This was not only in the reports of the meeting, but this
passage was made the subject of several editorials. It hardly
seems possible that any person really thought that such a statement
had been expressed. The Republican party does not want free whiskey
--it wants free men; and a great many people in the Republican
party are great enough to know that temperance does go hand in hand
with liberty; they are great enough to know that all legislation
as to what we shall eat, as to what we shall drink, and as to
wherewithal we shall be clothed, partakes of the nature of petty,
irritating and annoying tyranny. They also know that the natural
result is to fill a country with spies, hypocrites and pretenders,
and that when a law is not in accordance with an enlightened public
sentiment, it becomes either a dead letter, or, when a few fanatics
endeavor to enforce it, a demoralizer of courts, of juries and of
people.
The attack upon the platform by temperance people is doing no harm,
for the reason that long before November comes these people will
see the mistake they have made. It seems somewhat curious that
the Democrats should attack the platform if they really believe
that it means free whiskey.
The tax was levied during the war. It was a war measure. The
Government was _in extremis_, and for that reason was obliged to
obtain a revenue from every possible article of value. The war is
over; the necessity has disappeared; consequently the Government
should return to the methods of peace. We have too many Government
officials. Let us get rid of collectors and gaugers and inspectors.
Let us do away with all this machinery, and leave the question to
be settled by the State. If the temperance people themselves would
take a second thought, they would see that when the Government
collects eighty or ninety million dollars from a tax on whiskey,
the traffic becomes entrenched, it becomes one of the pillars of
the State, one of the great sources of revenue. Let the States
attend to this question, and it will be a matter far easier to deal
with.
The Prohibitionists are undoubtedly honest, and their object is to
destroy the traffic, to prevent the manufacture of whiskey. Can
they do this as long as the Government collects ninety million
dollars per annum from that one source? If there is anything
whatever in this argument, is it not that the traffic pays a bribe
of ninety million dollars a year for its life? Will not the farmers
say to the temperance men: "The distilleries pay the taxes, the
distilleries raise the price of corn; is it not better for the
General Government to look to another direction for its revenues
and leave the States to deal as they may see proper with this
question?"
With me, it makes no difference what is done with the liquor--
whether it is used in the arts or not--it is a question of policy.
There is no moral principle involved on our side of the question,
to say the least of it. If it is a crime to make and sell intoxicating
liquors, the Government, by licensing persons to make and sell,
becomes a party to the crime. If one man poisons another, no matter
how much the poison costs, the crime is the same; and if the person
from whom the poison was purchased knew how it was to be used, he
is also a murderer.
There have been many reformers in this world, and they have seemed
to imagine that people will do as they say. They think that you
can use people as you do bricks or stones; that you can lay them
up in walls and they will remain where they are placed; but the
truth is, you cannot do this. The bricks are not satisfied with
each other--they go away in the night--in the morning there is no
wall. Most of these reformers go up what you might call the Mount
Sinai of their own egotism, and there, surrounded by the clouds of
their own ignorance, they meditate upon the follies and the frailties
of their fellow-men and then come down with ten commandments for
their neighbors.
All this talk about the Republican platform being in favor of
intemperance, so far as the Democratic party is concerned, is pure,
unadulterated hypocrisy--nothing more, nothing less. So far as
the Prohibitionists are concerned, they may be perfectly honest,
but, if they will think a moment, they will see how perfectly
illogical they are. No one can help sympathizing with any effort
honestly made to do away with the evil of intemperance. I know
that many believe that these evils can be done away with by
legislation. While I sympathize with the objects that these people
wish to attain, I do not believe in the means they suggest. As
life becomes valuable, people will become temperate, because they
will take care of themselves. Temperance is born of the countless
influences of civilization. Character cannot be forced upon anybody;
it is a growth, the seeds of which are within. Men cannot be forced
into real temperance any more than they can be frightened into real
morality. You may frighten a man to that degree that he will not
do a certain thing, but you cannot scare him badly enough to prevent
his wanting to do that thing. Reformation begins on the inside,
and the man refrains because he perceives that he ought to refrain,
not because his neighbors say that he ought to refrain. No one
would think of praising convicts in jail for being regular at their
meals, or for not staying out nights; and it seems to me that when
the Prohibitionists--when the people who are really in favor of
temperance--look the ground all over they will see that it is far
better to support the Republican party than to throw their votes
away; and the Republicans will see that it is simply a proposition
to go back to the original methods of collecting revenue for the
Government--that it is simply abandoning the measures made necessary
by war, and that it is giving to the people the largest liberty
consistent with the needs of the Government, and that it is only
leaving these questions where in time of peace they properly belong
--to the States themselves.
_Question_. Do you think that the Knights of Labor will cut any
material figure in this election?
_Answer_. The Knights of Labor will probably occupy substantially
the same position as other laborers and other mechanics. If they
clearly see that the policy advocated by the Republican party is
to their interest, that it will give them better wages than the
policy advocated by the Democrats, then they will undoubtedly
support our ticket. There is more or less irritation between
employers and employed. All men engaged in manufacturing and
neither good nor generous. Many of them get work for as little as
possible, and sell its product for all they can get. It is impossible
to adopt a policy that will not by such people be abused. Many of
them would like to see the working man toil for twelve hours or
fourteen or sixteen in each day. Many of them wonder why they need
sleep or food, and are perfectly astonished when they ask for pay.
In some instances, undoubtedly, the working men will vote against
their own interests simply to get even with such employers.
Some laboring men have been so robbed, so tyrannized over, that
they would be perfectly willing to feel for the pillars and take
a certain delight in a destruction that brought ruin even to
themselves. Such manufacturers, however, I believe to be in a
minority, and the laboring men, under the policy of free trade,
would be far more in their power. When wages fall below a certain
point, then comes degradation, loss of manhood, serfdom and slavery.
If any man has the right to vote for his own interests, certainly
the man who labors is that man, and every working man having in
his will a part of the sovereignty of this nation, having within
him a part of the lawmaking power, should have the intelligence
and courage to vote for his own interests; he should vote for good
wages; he should vote for a policy that would enable him to lay
something by for the winter of his life, that would enable him to
earn enough to educate his children, enough to give him a home and
a fireside.
He need not do this in anger or for revenge, but because it is
just, because it is right, and because the working people are in
a majority. They ought to control the world, because they have
made the world what it is. They have given everything there is of
value. Labor plows every field, builds every house, fashions
everything of use, and when that labor is guided by intelligence
the world is prosperous.
He who thinks good thoughts is a laborer--one of the greatest.
The man who invented the reaper will be harvesting the fields for
thousands of years to come. If labor is abused in this country
the laborers have it within their power to defend themselves.
All my sympathies are with the men who toil. I shed very few tears
over bankers and millionaires and corporations--they can take care
of themselves. My sympathies are with the man who has nothing to
sell but his strength; nothing to sell but his muscle and his
intelligence; who has no capital except that which his mother gave
him--a capital he must sell every day; my sympathies are with him;
and I want him to have a good market; and I want it so that he can
sell the work for more than enough to take care of him to-morrow.
I believe that no corporation should be allowed to exist except
for the benefit of the whole people. The Government should always
act for the benefit of all, and when the Government gives a part
of its power to an aggregation of individuals, the accomplishment
of some public good should justify the giving of that power; and
whenever a corporation becomes subversive of the very end for which
it was created, the Government should put an end to its life.
So I believe that after these matters, these issues have been
discussed--when something is understood about the effect of a
tariff, the effect of protection, the laboring people of this
country will be on the side of the Republican party. The Republican
party is always trying to do something--trying to take a step in
advance. Persons who care for nothing except themselves--who wish
to make no effort except for themselves--are its natural enemies.
_Question_. What do you think of Mr. Mills' Fourth of July speech
on his bill?
_Answer_. Certain allowances should always be made for the Fourth
of July. What Mr. Mills says with regard to free trade depends,
I imagine, largely on where he happens to be. You remember the
old story about the _Moniteur_. When Napoleon escaped from Elba
that paper said: "The ogre has escaped." And from that moment
the epithets grew a little less objectionable as Napoleon advanced,
and at last the _Moniteur_ cried out: "The Emperor has reached
Paris." I hardly believe that Mr. Mills would call his bill in
Texas a war tariff measure. He might commence in New York with
that description, but as he went South that language, in my judgment,
would change, and when he struck the Brazos I think the bill would
be described as the nearest possible approach to free trade.
Mr. Mills takes the ground that if raw material comes here free of
duty, then we can manufacture that raw material and compete with
other countries in the markets of the world--that is to say, under
his bill. Now, other countries can certainly get the raw material
as cheaply as we can, especially those countries in which the raw
material is raised; and if wages are less in other countries than
in ours, the raw material being the same, the product must cost
more with us than with them. Consequently we cannot compete with
foreign countries simply by getting the raw material at the same
price; we must be able to manufacture it as cheaply as they, and
we can do that only by cutting down the wages of the American
workingmen. Because, to have raw material at the same price as
other nations, is only a part of the problem. The other part is
how cheaply can we manufacture it? And that depends upon wages.
If wages are twenty-five cents a day, then we can compete with
those nations where wages are twenty-five cents a day; but if our
wages are five or six times as high, then the twenty-five cent
labor will supply the market. There is no possible way of putting
ourselves on an equality with other countries in the markets of
the world, except by putting American labor on an equality with
the other labor of the world. Consequently, we cannot obtain a
foreign market without lessening our wages. No proposition can be
plainer than this.
It cannot be said too often that the real prosperity of a country
depends upon the well-being of those who labor. That country is
not prosperous where a few are wealthy and have all the luxuries
that the imagination can suggest, and where the millions are in
want, clothed in rags, and housed in tenements not fit for wild
beasts. The value of our property depends on the civilization of
our people. If the people are happy and contented, if the workingman
receives good wages, then our houses and our farms are valuable.
If the people are discontented, if the workingmen are in want, then
our property depreciates from day to day, and national bankruptcy
will only be a question of time.
If Mr. Mills has given a true statement with regard to the measure
proposed by him, what relation does that measure bear to the
President's message? What has it to do with the Democratic platform?
If Mr. Mills has made no mistake, the President wrote a message
substantially in favor of free trade. The Democratic party ratified
and indorsed that message, and at the same time ratified and indorsed
the Mills bill. Now, the message was for free trade, and the Mills
bill, according to Mr. Mills, is for the purpose of sustaining the
war tariff. They have either got the wrong child or the wrong
parents.
_Question_. I see that some people are objecting to your taking
any part in politics, on account of your religious opinion?
_Answer_. The Democratic party has always been pious. If it is
noted for anything it is for its extreme devotion. You have no
idea how many Democrats wear out the toes of their shoes praying.
I suppose that in this country there ought to be an absolute divorce
between church and state and without any alimony being allowed to
the church; and I have always supposed that the Republican party
was perfectly willing that anybody should vote its ticket who
believed in its principles. The party was not established, as I
understand it, in the interest of any particular denomination; it
was established to promote and preserve the freedom of the American
citizen everywhere. Its first object was to prevent the spread of
human slavery; its second object was to put down the Rebellion and
preserve the Union; its third object was the utter destruction of
human slavery everywhere, and its fourth object is to preserve not
only the fruit of all that it has won, but to protect American
industry to the end that the Republic may not only be free, but
prosperous and happy. In this great work all are invited to join,
no matter whether Catholics or Presbyterians or Methodists or
Infidels--believers or unbelievers. The object is to have a majority
of the people of the United States in favor of human liberty, in
favor of justice and in favor of an intelligent American policy.
I am not what is called strictly orthodox, and yet I am liberal
enough to vote for a Presbyterian, and if a Presbyterian is not
liberal enough to stand by a Republican, no matter what his religious
opinions may be, then the Presbyterian is not as liberal as the
Republican party, and he is not as liberal as an unbeliever; in
other words, he is not a manly man.
I object to no man who is running for office on the ticket of my
party on account of his religious convictions. I care nothing
about the church of which he is a member. That is his business.
That is an individual matter--something with which the State has
no right to interfere--something with which no party can rightfully
have anything to do. These great questions are left open to
discussion. Every church must take its chance in the open field
of debate. No belief has the right to draw the sword--no dogma
the right to resort to force. The moment a church asks for the
help of the State, it confesses its weakness, it confesses its
inability to answer the arguments against it.
I believe in the absolute equality before the law, of all religions
and all metaphysical theories; and I would no more control those
things by law than I would endeavor to control the arts and the
sciences by legislation. Man admires the beautiful, and what is
beautiful to one may not be to another, and this inequality or this
difference cannot be regulated by law.
The same is true of what is called religious belief. I am willing
to give all others every right that I claim for myself, and if they
are not willing to give me the rights they claim for themselves,
they are not civilized.
No man acknowledges the truth of my opinions because he votes the
same ticket that I do, and I certainly do not acknowledge the
correctness of the opinions of others because I vote the Republican
ticket. We are Republicans together. Upon certain political
questions we agree, upon other questions we disagree--and that is
all. Only religious people, who have made up their minds to vote
the Democratic ticket, will raise an objection of this kind, and
they will raise the objection simply as a pretence, simply for the
purpose of muddying the water while they escape.
Of course there may be some exceptions. There are a great many
insane people out of asylums. If the Republican party does not
stand for absolute intellectual liberty, it had better disband.
And why should we take so much pains to free the body, and then
enslave the mind? I believe in giving liberty to both. Give every
man the right to labor, and give him the right to reap the harvest
of his toil. Give every man the right to think, and to reap the
harvest of his brain--that is to say, give him the right to express
his thoughts.
--_New York Press_, July 8, 1888.