of those associated with him in the same movement; and certain of
the sentences which he quotes as if they were meant to apply to him
were, on the contrary, meant to apply generally to the agitators who
proclaimed both him and Mr. Bryan as their champions, and especially to
many of the men who were running on the Populist tickets in different
States. To Mr. Watson’s own sincerity and courage I thought I had paid
full tribute, and if I failed in any way I wish to make good that
failure. I was in Washington when Mr. Watson was in Congress, and I
know how highly he was esteemed personally by his colleagues, even
by those differing very widely from him in matters of principle. The
staunchest friends of order and decent government fully and cordially
recognized Mr. Watson’s honesty and good faith--men, for instance, like
Senator Lodge of Massachusetts, and Representative Bellamy Storer of
Ohio. Moreover, I sympathize as little as Mr. Watson with denunciation
of the “cracker,” and I may mention that one of my forefathers was the
first Revolutionary Governor of Georgia at the time that Mr. Watson’s
ancestor sat in the first Revolutionary legislature of the State. Mr.
Watson himself embodies not a few of the very attributes the lack
of which we feel so keenly in many of our public men. He is brave,
he is earnest, he is honest, he is disinterested. For many of the
wrongs which he wishes to remedy, I, too, believe that a remedy can be
found, and for this purpose I would gladly strike hands with him. All
this makes it a matter of the keenest regret that he should advocate
certain remedies that we deem even worse than the wrongs complained
of, and should strive in darkling ways to correct other wrongs, or
rather inequalities and sufferings, which exist, not because of the
shortcomings of society, but because of the existence of human nature
itself.
There are plenty of ugly things about wealth and its possessors in
the present age, and I suppose there have been in all ages. There are
many rich people who so utterly lack patriotism, or show such sordid
and selfish traits of character, or lead such mean and vacuous lives,
that all right-minded men must look upon them with angry contempt;
but, on the whole, the thrifty are apt to be better citizens than the
thriftless; and the worst capitalist cannot harm laboring men as they
are harmed by demagogues. As the people of a State grow more and more
intelligent the State itself may be able to play a larger and larger
part in the life of the community, while at the same time individual
effort may be given freer and less restricted movement along certain
lines; but it is utterly unsafe to give the State more than the minimum
of power just so long as it contains masses of men who can be moved by
the pleas and denunciations of the average Socialist leader of to-day.
There may be better schemes of taxation than those at present employed;
it may be wise to devise inheritance taxes, and to impose regulations
on the kinds of business which can be carried on only under the
especial protection of the State; and where there is a real abuse by
wealth it needs to be, and in this country generally has been, promptly
done away with; but the first lesson to teach the poor man is that, as
a whole, the wealth in the community is distinctly beneficial to him;
that he is better off in the long run because other men are well off;
and that the surest way to destroy what measure of prosperity he may
have is to paralyze industry and the well-being of those men who have
achieved success.
I am not an empiricist; I would no more deny that sometimes human
affairs can be much bettered by legislation than I would affirm that
they can always be so bettered. I would no more make a fetish of
unrestricted individualism than I would admit the power of the State
offhand and radically to reconstruct society. It may become necessary
to interfere even more than we have done with the right of private
contract, and to shackle cunning as we have shackled force. All I
insist upon is that we must be sure of our ground before trying to get
any legislation at all, and that we must not expect too much from this
legislation, nor refuse to better ourselves a little because we cannot
accomplish everything at a jump. Above all, it is criminal to excite
anger and discontent without proposing a remedy, or only proposing
a false remedy. The worst foe of the poor man is the labor leader,
whether philanthropist or politician, who tries to teach him that he
is a victim of conspiracy and injustice, when in reality he is merely
working out his fate with blood and sweat as the immense majority of
men who are worthy of the name always have done and always will have to
do.
The difference between what can and what cannot be done by law is well
exemplified by our experience with the negro problem, an experience
of which Mr. Watson must have ample practical knowledge. The negroes
were formerly held in slavery. This was a wrong which legislation
could remedy, and which could not be remedied except by legislation.
Accordingly they were set free by law. This having been done, many of
their friends believed that in some way, by additional legislation,
we could at once put them on an intellectual, social, and business
equality with the whites. The effort has failed completely. In large
sections of the country the negroes are not treated as they should be
treated, and politically in particular the frauds upon them have been
so gross and shameful as to awaken not merely indignation but bitter
wrath; yet the best friends of the negro admit that his hope lies,
not in legislation, but in the constant working of those often unseen
forces of the national life which are greater than all legislation.
It is but rarely that great advances in general social well-being can
be made by the adoption of some far-reaching scheme, legislative or
otherwise; normally they come only by gradual growth, and by incessant
effort to do first one thing, then another, and then another. Quack
remedies of the universal cure-all type are generally as noxious to the
body politic as to the body corporal.
Often the head-in-the-air social reformers, because people of sane and
wholesome minds will not favor their wild schemes, themselves decline
to favor schemes for practical reform. For the last two years there has
been an honest effort in New York to give the city good government,
and to work intelligently for better social conditions, especially in
the poorest quarters. We have cleaned the streets; we have broken the
power of the ward boss and the saloon-keeper to work injustice; we have
destroyed the most hideous of the tenement houses in which poor people
are huddled like swine in a sty; we have made parks and play-grounds
for the children in the crowded quarters; in every possible way we
have striven to make life easier and healthier, and to give man and
woman a chance to do their best work; while at the same time we have
warred steadily against the pauper-producing, maudlin philanthropy of
the free soup-kitchen and tramp lodging-house kind. In all this we
have had practically no help from either the parlor socialists or the
scarcely more noxious beer-room socialists who are always howling about
the selfishness of the rich and their unwillingness to do anything for
those who are less well off.
There are certain labor unions, certain bodies of organized
labor--notably those admirable organizations which include the railway
conductors, the locomotive engineers and the firemen--which to my mind
embody almost the best hope that there is for healthy national growth
in the future; but bitter experience has taught men who work for reform
in New York that the average labor leader, the average demagogue who
shouts for a depreciated currency, or for the overthrow of the rich,
will not do anything to help those who honestly strive to make better
our civic conditions. There are immense numbers of workingmen to whom
we can appeal with perfect confidence; but too often we find that a
large proportion of the men who style themselves leaders of organized
labor are influenced only by sullen short-sighted hatred of what they
do not understand, and are deaf to all appeals, whether to their
national or to their civic patriotism.
What I most grudge in all this is the fact that sincere and zealous
men of high character and honest purpose, men like Mr. Watson, men and
women such as those he describes as attending his Populist meetings,
or such as are to be found in all strata of our society, from the
employer to the hardest-worked day laborer, go astray in their methods,
and are thereby prevented from doing the full work for good they ought
to. When a man goes on the wrong road himself he can do very little to
guide others aright, even though these others are also on the wrong
road. There are many wrongs to be righted; there are many measures
of relief to be pushed; and it is a pity that when we are fighting
what is bad and championing what is good, the men who ought to be our
most effective allies should deprive themselves of usefulness by the
wrong-headedness of their position. Rich men and poor men both do wrong
on occasions, and whenever a specific instance of this can be pointed
out all citizens alike should join in punishing the wrong-doer. Honesty
and right-mindedness should be the tests; not wealth or poverty.
In our municipal administration here in New York we have acted with
an equal hand toward wrong-doers of high and low degree. The Board of
Health condemns the tenement-house property of the rich landowner,
whether this landowner be priest or layman, banker or railroad
president, lawyer or manager of a real estate business; and it pays no
heed to the intercession of any politician, whether this politician be
Catholic or Protestant, Jew or Gentile. At the same time the Police
Department promptly suppresses, not only the criminal, but the rioter.
In other words, we do strict justice. We feel we are defrauded of help
to which we are entitled when men who ought to assist in any work to
better the condition of the people decline to aid us because their
brains are turned by dreams only worthy of a European revolutionist.
Many workingmen look with distrust upon laws which really would
help them; laws for the intelligent restriction of immigration, for
instance. I have no sympathy with mere dislike of immigrants; there
are classes and even nationalities of them which stand at least on
an equality with the citizens of native birth, as the last election
showed. But in the interest of our workingmen we must in the end keep
out laborers who are ignorant, vicious, and with low standards of life
and comfort, just as we have shut out the Chinese.
Often labor leaders and the like denounce the present conditions of
society, and especially of our political life, for shortcomings which
they themselves have been instrumental in causing. In our cities the
misgovernment is due, not to the misdeeds of the rich, but to the low
standard of honesty and morality among citizens generally; and nothing
helps the corrupt politician more than substituting either wealth or
poverty for honesty as the standard by which to try a candidate. A
few months ago a socialistic reformer in New York was denouncing the
corruption caused by rich men because a certain judge was suspected of
giving information in advance as to a decision in a case involving the
interests of a great corporation. Now this judge had been elected some
years previously, mainly because he was supposed to be a representative
of the “poor man”; and the socialistic reformer himself, a year ago,
was opposing the election of Mr. Beaman as judge because he was one of
the firm of Evarts & Choate, who were friends of various millionaires
and were counsel for various corporations. But if Mr. Beaman had been
elected judge no human being, rich or poor, would have dared so much as
hint at his doing anything improper.
Something can be done by good laws; more can be done by honest
administration of the laws; but most of all can be done by frowning
resolutely upon the preachers of vague discontent; and by upholding
the true doctrine of self-reliance, self-help, and self-mastery. This
doctrine sets forth many things. Among them is the fact that though a
man can occasionally be helped when he stumbles, yet that it is useless
to try to carry him when he will not or cannot walk; and worse than
useless to try to bring down the work and reward of the thrifty and
intelligent to the level of the capacity of the weak, the shiftless,
and the idle. It further shows that the maudlin philanthropist and the
maudlin sentimentalist are almost as noxious as the demagogue, and that
it is even more necessary to temper mercy with justice than justice
with mercy.
The worst lesson that can be taught a man is to rely upon others and
to whine over his sufferings. If an American is to amount to anything
he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride
in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others;
he must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and
accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow-men a
responsibility which is not theirs.
Let me say in conclusion, that I do not write in the least from the
standpoint of those whose association is purely with what are called
the wealthy classes. The men with whom I have worked and associated
most closely during the last couple of years here in New York, with
whom I have shared what is at least an earnest desire to better social
and civic conditions (neither blinking what is evil nor being misled
by the apostles of a false remedy), and with whose opinions as to what
is right and practical my own in the main agree, are not capitalists,
save as all men who by toil earn, and with prudence save, money are
capitalists. They include reporters on the daily papers, editors of
magazines, as well as of newspapers, principals in the public schools,
young lawyers, young architects, young doctors, young men of business,
who are struggling to rise in their profession by dint of faithful
work, but who give some of their time to doing what they can for the
city, and a number of priests and clergymen; but as it happens the
list does not include any man of great wealth, or any of those men
whose names are in the public mind identified with great business
corporations. Most of them have at one time or another in their
lives faced poverty and know what it is; none of them are more than
well-to-do. They include Catholics and Protestants, Jews, and men who
would be regarded as heterodox by professors of most recognized creeds;
some of them were born on this side, others are of foreign birth; but
they are all Americans, heart and soul, who fight out for themselves
the battles of their own lives, meeting sometimes defeat and sometimes
victory. They neither forget that man does owe a duty to his fellows,
and should strive to do what he can to increase the well-being of the
community; nor yet do they forget that in the long run the only way to
help people is to make them help themselves. They are prepared to try
any properly guarded legislative remedy for ills which they believe
can be remedied; but they perceive clearly that it is both foolish and
wicked to teach the average man who is not well off that some wrong
or injustice has been done him, and that he should hope for redress
elsewhere than in his own industry, honesty, and intelligence.
[Illustration]
FOOTNOTES:
[18] _Review of Reviews_, January, 1897.
[Illustration]
XI
THE MONROE DOCTRINE[19]
The Monroe Doctrine should not be considered from any purely academic
standpoint, but as a broad, general principle of living policy. It is
to be justified not by precedent merely, but by the needs of the nation
and the true interests of Western civilization. It, of course, adds
strength to our position at this moment to show that the action of the
national authorities is warranted by the actions of their predecessors
on like occasions in time past, and that the line of policy we are now
pursuing is that which has been pursued by all our statesmen of note
since the republic grew sufficiently powerful to make what it said
of weight in foreign affairs. But even if in time past we had been
as blind to the national honor and welfare as are the men who at the
present day champion the anti-American side of the Venezuelan question,
it would now be necessary for statesmen who were both far-sighted and
patriotic to enunciate the principles for which the Monroe Doctrine
stands. In other words, if the Monroe Doctrine did not already exist it
would be necessary forthwith to create it.
Let us first of all clear the question at issue by brushing away one
or two false objections. Lord Salisbury at first put in emphatic words
his refusal in any way to recognize the Monroe Doctrine as part of the
law of nations or as binding upon Great Britain. Most British statesmen
and publicists followed his lead; but recently a goodly number have
shown an inclination to acquiesce in the views of Lord Salisbury’s
colleague, Mr. Chamberlain, who announces, with bland indifference to
the expressed opinion of his nominal chief, that England does recognize
the existence of the Monroe Doctrine and never thought of ignoring it.
Lord Salisbury himself has recently shown symptoms of changing ground
and taking this position; while Mr. Balfour has gone still farther in
the right direction, and the Liberal leaders farther yet. It is not
very important to us how far Lord Salisbury and Mr. Chamberlain may
diverge in their views, although, of course, in the interests of the
English-speaking peoples and of peace between England and the United
States, we trust that Mr. Chamberlain’s position will be sustained
by Great Britain. But the attitude of our own people _is_ important,
and it would be amusing, were it not unpleasant, to see that many
Americans, whose Americanism is of the timid and flabby type, have
been inclined eagerly to agree with Lord Salisbury. A very able member
of the New York bar remarked the other day that he had not yet met the
lawyer who agreed with Secretary Olney as to the legal interpretation
of the Monroe Doctrine. This remark was chiefly interesting as showing
the lawyer’s own limitations. It would not have been made if he had
met the Justices of the Supreme Court, for instance; but even on the
unfounded supposition that his remark was well grounded, it would have
had little more significance than if he had said that he had not yet
met a dentist who agreed with Mr. Olney. The Monroe Doctrine is not a
question of law at all. It is a question of policy. It is a question
to be considered not only by statesmen, but by all good citizens.
Lawyers, as lawyers, have absolutely nothing whatever to say about it.
To argue that it cannot be recognized as a principle of international
law, is a mere waste of breath. Nobody cares whether it is or is not
so recognized, any more than any one cares whether the Declaration of
Independence and Washington’s farewell address are so recognized.
The Monroe Doctrine may be briefly defined as forbidding European
encroachment on American soil. It is not desirable to define it so
rigidly as to prevent our taking into account the varying degrees
of national interest in varying cases. The United States has not
the slightest wish to establish a universal protectorate over other
American States, or to become responsible for their misdeeds. If one
of them becomes involved in an ordinary quarrel with a European power,
such quarrel must be settled between them by any one of the usual
methods. But no European State is to be allowed to aggrandize itself
on American soil at the expense of any American State. Furthermore, no
transfer of an American colony from one European State to another is to
be permitted, if, in the judgment of the United States, such transfer
would be hostile to its own interests.
John Quincy Adams, who, during the presidency of Monroe, first clearly
enunciated the doctrine which bears his chief’s name, asserted it as
against both Spain and Russia. In the clearest and most emphatic terms
he stated that the United States could not acquiesce in the acquisition
of new territory within the limits of any independent American State,
whether in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere, by any European
power. He took this position against Russia when Russia threatened
to take possession of what is now Oregon. He took this position as
against Spain when, backed by other powers of Continental Europe, she
threatened to reconquer certain of the Spanish-American States.
This is precisely and exactly the position the United States has now
taken in reference to England and Venezuela. It is idle to contend that
there is any serious difference in the application of the doctrine to
the two sets of questions. An American may, of course, announce his
opposition to the Monroe Doctrine, although by so doing he forfeits
all title to far-seeing and patriotic devotion to the interests of his
country. But he cannot argue that the Monroe Doctrine does not apply
to the present case, unless he argues that the Monroe Doctrine has no
existence whatsoever. In fact, such arguments are, on their face, so
absurd that they need no refutation, and can be relegated where they
belong--to the realm of the hair-splitting schoolmen. They have no
concern either for practical politicians or for historians with true
historic insight.
We have asserted the principles which underlie the Monroe Doctrine, not
only against Russia and Spain, but also against France, on at least two
different occasions. The last and most important was when the French
conquered Mexico and made it into an Empire. It is not necessary to
recall to any one the action of our Government in the matter as soon
as the Civil War came to an end. Suffice it to say that, under threat
of our interposition, the French promptly abandoned Maximilian, and
the latter’s Empire fell. Long before this, however, and a score of
years before the Doctrine was christened by the name Monroe even the
timid statesmen of the Jeffersonian era embodied its principle in
their protest against the acquisition of Louisiana, by France, from
Spain. Spain at that time held all of what is now the Great West.
France wished to acquire it. Our statesmen at once announced that they
would regard as hostile to America the transfer of the territory in
question from a weak to a strong European power. Under the American
pressure the matter was finally settled by the sale of the territory in
question to the United States. The principle which our statesmen then
announced was in kind precisely the same as that upon which we should
now act if Germany sought to acquire Cuba from Spain, or St. Thomas
from the Danes. In either of these events it is hardly conceivable that
the United States would hesitate to interfere, if necessary, by force
of arms; and in so doing the national authorities would undoubtedly
be supported by the immense majority of the American people, and,
indeed, by all save the men of abnormal timidity or abnormal political
short-sightedness.
Historically, therefore, the position of our representatives in the
Venezuelan question is completely justified. It cannot be attacked on
academic grounds. The propriety of their position is even more easily
defensible.
Primarily, our action is based on national self-interest. In other
words, it is patriotic. A certain limited number of persons are fond
of decrying patriotism as a selfish virtue, and strive with all their
feeble might to inculcate in its place a kind of milk-and-water
cosmopolitanism. These good people are never men of robust character or
of imposing personality, and the plea itself is not worth considering.
Some reformers may urge that in the ages’ distant future patriotism,
like the habit of monogamous marriage, will become a needless and
obsolete virtue; but just at present the man who loves other countries
as much as he does his own is quite as noxious a member of society as
the man who loves other women as much as he loves his wife. Love of
country is an elemental virtue, like love of home, or like honesty or
courage. No country will accomplish very much for the world at large
unless it elevates itself. The useful member of a community is the man
who first and foremost attends to his own rights and his own duties,
and who therefore becomes better fitted to do his share in the common
duties of all. The useful member of the brotherhood of nations is that
nation which is most thoroughly saturated with the national idea, and
which realizes most fully its rights as a nation and its duties to its
own citizens. This is in no way incompatible with a scrupulous regard
for the rights of other nations, or a desire to remedy the wrongs of
suffering peoples.