popular election of United States Senators after the amendment was first
endorsed by the House of Representatives at Washington. For one hundred
and three years after the adoption of the Federal Constitution the
people tolerated the election of Senators by legislatures before there
was a protest that rose to the dignity of a Congressional resolution.
A Republican President, Andrew Johnson, recommended the change in a
message to Congress. Some ten years later, General Weaver, a Populist
Representative in Congress from Iowa, introduced a resolution proposing
an amendment providing for the popular election of Senators, but
no action was taken at that time. In 1902 a Democratic House of
Representatives at Washington passed a resolution, by the necessary
two-thirds vote, submitting the proposed amendment. Hon. Harry St.
George Tucker, of Virginia, was the chairman of the committee when this
resolution passed the House. A similar resolution passed the House on
five separate occasions afterward (twice when the House was Democratic
and three times when it was Republican) before it could pass the Senate.
The amendment was finally submitted by joint action of a Democratic
House and a Republican Senate and was ratified in a short time,
Democratic and Republican states vying with each other in furnishing the
necessary number. In 1913 it became my privilege, as Secretary of State,
to sign the last document necessary to make this amendment a part of the
Constitution. I have dwelt upon this contest at some length in order to
call attention to the time it took to secure the change and to the fact
that the two parties share the honour of making the change.
It took seventeen years to secure the amendment to the Constitution
authorizing an income tax. The Income Tax Law, enacted in 1894, was
declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, by a
majority of one, in 1895. In 1896 the fight for a constitutional
amendment was inaugurated and the amendment was ratified and became
a part of the Constitution early in 1913. This amendment, like the
amendment providing for popular election of United States Senators,
required many years, and for the same reason, viz., that the people were
not alert as they should have been, not as vigilant as they should be.
In the case of the Income Tax Amendment also, as in the case of the
other, the two parties contributed to the change in the Constitution and
share the glory together. The first amendment brought the United States
Senate nearer the people and opened the way for other reforms; the
second made it possible to apportion more equitably the burdens of the
government.
The Income Tax Amendment was adopted just in time to enable the
government to collect the revenue needed for the recent war. During
the seventeen years covered by the struggle for this amendment the
government was impotent to tax wealth; it could draft the man but not
the pocketbook. What would have been the feeling among the people if we
had entered the late war under such a handicap? How would conscription
have been received if it applied to father, husband and son and not to
wealth also?
And then, too, the Income Tax Amendment came just in time to answer the
last argument made in favour of the saloon. Those engaged in the liquor
traffic, after being defeated on all other points, massed behind the
proposition that the government needed the revenue from whiskey, beer,
and saloons. As soon as the government was able to collect an income tax
the friends of prohibition were able to look the liquor dealers in the
face and say, "Never again will an American boy be auctioned off to a
saloon for money to run the government; we now have other sources from
which to draw."
The third of the amendments was also a long time in coming and was
finally brought by joint action of Democrats and Republicans. It is not
necessary to trace the growth of this reform. Suffice it to say that
the Christian churches were the dominating force behind the prohibition
movement and that the South played a very prominent part in driving out
the saloon. More than two-thirds of the Senators and members from the
Southern States voted for the submission of National Prohibition after
nearly all the Southern States had adopted prohibition by individual
act. The first four states to ratify were Southern Democratic
States--Mississippi, Virginia, Kentucky, and South Carolina. It is only
fair, however, to say that the West contested with the South the honour
of leading in this fight, and that the Northern States finally did
nearly as well as the Southern States in the matter of ratifying. And
it is better that the victory should be a joint one, expressing the
conscience of the nation regardless of party, than that it should be
merely a party victory.
But the real credit for leadership belongs not to any party or to any
section, but to those whose consciences were quickened by the teachings
of the Bible. Total abstinence was naturally more prevalent among church
members than among those outside of the church, and this, of course, was
the foundation upon which prohibition rested. The arguments against the
use of liquor are the basis of the arguments in favour of prohibition.
Because liquor is harmful the saloon is intolerable.
I venture to set forth the fundamental propositions upon which the
arguments for prohibition rested.
First: God never made a human being who, in a normal state, needed
alcohol.
Second: God never made a human being strong enough to begin the use
of alcohol and be sure that he would not become its victim.
Third: God never fixed a day in a human life _after_ which it is
safe to begin the use of intoxicating liquors.
These three propositions can be stated without limitation or mental
reservation. They apply to all who now live and to all who ever lived;
and will apply to all who may live hereafter. To these may be added
three propositions which apply especially to Christians.
First: The Christian is a Christian because he has given himself in
pledge of service to God and to Christ. What moral right has he to take
into his body that which he knows will lessen his capacity for service
and _may_ destroy even his desire to serve?
Second: What moral right has a Christian to spend for intoxicating
liquor money needed for the many noble and needy causes that appeal to a
Christian's heart? The Christian, repeating the language taught him by
the Master, prays to the Heavenly Father, "Thy kingdom come;" what right
has he to rise from his knees and spend for intoxicating liquor money
that he can spare to hasten the coming of God's kingdom on earth?
Third: What right has a Christian to throw the influence of his example
on the side of a habit that has brought millions to the grave? We shall
have enough to answer for when we stand before the judgment bar of God
without having a ruined soul arise and testify that it was a Christian's
example that led him to his ruin. Paul declared that if meat made his
brother to offend he would eat no meat. What Christian can afford to say
less in regard to intoxicants? If the Christian drinks only a little
it is a small sacrifice to make for the aid of his brother; if the
Christian drinks enough to make stopping a real sacrifice he ought to
stop for his own sake, on his family's account and out of respect for
his church.
While the harmfulness of liquor was the foundation upon which the
opposition to the saloon was built, it may be worth while to add that
popular government, by putting responsibility upon the voters, compelled
the Christian to vote against the saloon licenses. In all civilized
countries the sale of liquor is now so restricted that it cannot be
lawfully offered for sale without a license. As the license is necessary
to the existence of the saloon--as necessary as the liquor sold over the
bar--the Christian who voted for a license became as much a partner in
the business as the man who dispensed it, and he had even less excuse.
The manufacturer and the bartender could plead in extenuation that they
made money out of the business and money has led multitudes into sin.
For money many have been willing to steal; for money some have been
willing to murder; for money a few have been willing to sell their
country; for money one man was willing to betray the Saviour. The
Christian who voted for licenses had not even the poor excuse of those
who engaged in the business for mercenary reasons. As the consciences
became awakened, therefore, Christians, in increasing numbers, refused
to share responsibility for the saloon and what it did.
Science contributed largely to the final victory. People used to say
that drinking did not hurt if one did not drink too much. But no one
could define how much "too much" was. The invisible line between "just
enough" and "too much" is like the line of the horizon--it recedes as
you approach until it is lost in the darkness of the night.
Science proved that it is not immoderate drinking only, but
_any_ drinking that is harmful, and, therefore, that the real line is
that between not drinking and drinking.
Science has also demonstrated, as I have shown in another lecture, that
drinking decreases one's expectancy, according to insurance tables; a
young man at twenty-one must deliberately decide to shorten his life by
more than ten per cent. if he becomes an habitual drinker.
But, what is worse, science has shown that alcohol is a poison that runs
in the blood, so that the drinking of the father or mother may curse a
child unborn and close the door of hope upon it before its eyes have
opened to the light of day.
Business aided us also, as large corporations increasingly discriminated
against those who drank.
Patriotism furnished the last impulse; war threw a ghastly light upon
the evils of intemperance and upon the sordid greed of those engaged in
the liquor business.
The reform will not turn back. Enforcement will become more strict in
this country as its benefits are more clearly shown and prohibition will
spread until the saloon will be abolished throughout the world. Although
now past sixty-one I expect to live to see the day when there will not
be an open saloon under the flag of any civilized nation.
We are now able to prevent typhoid fever, the individual being made
immune by a treatment administered before he has been exposed to the
disease. Total abstinence resembles this preventive; no total abstainer
is in danger of alcoholism.
But we also have a preventive for yellow fever, namely, the destroying
of the breeding place of the mosquito which carries the germ of the
disease. Prohibition resembles this preventive. The saloon was found
to be the breeding place of alcoholism and prohibition strikes at the
source of the danger. These two, total abstinence and prohibition,
will eliminate the drink evil as typhoid and yellow fever have been
eliminated.
The fourth amendment adopted in recent years extended equal suffrage
to women. Like the three to which I have referred, it was a long time
coming and came at last by joint action of the two great parties.
A majority of both parties in both Senate and House voted for the
submission of this amendment and it required both Democratic and
Republican states to ratify it. The opposition which the amendment met
in the South was not due to lack of confidence in women, for nowhere in
the world is woman more highly estimated or more fully trusted. Such
local opposition as there was was due to the race question. Now that
woman can express herself at the polls, her influence will be felt as
much in the South as in other sections; it will throughout the United
States seal the doom of the liquor traffic. The women will stand guard
at the grave of John Barleycorn and make sure that he will never know a
resurrection morn.
Drawing their inspiration from the Bible, even to a greater extent than
the men do, the women will hasten the triumph of every righteous cause.
They will throw their influence on the side of every moral reform. The
adoption of the single standard of morals will be made possible by
woman's advent into politics. Her ballot will make it easier to lift man
to her level in the matter of chastity and to distribute more equitably
than man has done, the punishments imposed for acts of immorality.
Woman has come into power in politics at a time when she can aid in the
promotion of world peace by compelling the establishment of machinery
which will substitute reason for force in the settlement of
international disputes. Her first great triumph at the polls may be the
fulfilling of the prophecy, spoken more than two thousand years ago,
that swords shall be beaten into ploughshares and that nations shall
learn war no more. She will be repaid for all her patience and her
waiting if now, by her ballot, she can make it unnecessary for another
mother's son to be offered upon the altar of Mars. That this nation is
in a better position than ever before to lead the world in every good
cause is due to the gifts that have come with American citizenship, only
three of which I have had time to mention.
Every citizen should be honest with himself, examine his own heart and
answer to his own conscience. What estimate does he place upon the
education which he has received? What value does he put upon the
religion that controls his heart? How highly does he prize the form of
government under which he lives? Let him put his own appraisement upon
these three great gifts; these sums added together will represent his
acknowledged indebtedness to society; then let him resolve to pay so
much of this incalculable debt as is within his power.
We live in a goodly land. No king can shape our nation's destiny; not
even a President can have the final word as to what our nation is to be.
Each citizen, no matter how humble that citizen may be, can have a part.
Let us do our part; joining together, let us solve the problems with
which we have to deal, and, by so doing, bless our country and, through
it, other lands. Let us join together and raise the light of our
civilization so high that its rays, illumining every land, may lead the
world to those better things for which the world is praying.
VIII
"HIS GOVERNMENT AND PEACE"
By way of introduction, allow me to say that I fully recognize the
difference between a _presentation_ of fundamental principles and an
_application_ of those principles to life. While an _application_
of principles arouses greater interest it is more apt to bring out
differences of opinion and to excite controversy. But the Christian is
always open-minded because he desires to _know_ the right and to do it.
He "prove(s) all things and hold(s) fast that which is good." Therefore,
he welcomes light on every subject, from every source. It is in this
spirit that I speak to you and it is this spirit that I invoke. I speak
from conviction, formed after prayerful investigation, and am as anxious
to be informed as I am to inform.
Some twenty years ago I turned back to the sixth verse of the ninth
chapter of Isaiah to refresh my memory on the titles bestowed on the
Messiah whose coming the prophet foretold. After reading verse six, my
eyes fell on verse seven and it impressed me as it had not on former
readings. This was probably because I had recently been giving attention
to governmental problems and had occasionally heard advanced a very
gloomy philosophy, namely, that a government, being the work of
man, must, like man, pass through certain changes that mark a human
life--that is, be born, grow strong, and then, after a period of
maturity, decline and die. It is a repulsive doctrine and my heart
rebelled against it. It offends one's patriotism, too, to be compelled
to admit that, in spite of all that can be done, our government _must
some day perish_. In verse seven we read of a government that _will not
die_:
"Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, ...
to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even
forever."
The fault in the philosophy to which I have referred lies in the fact
that while government is each day in control of those then living,
it really belongs to generations rather than to individuals. As one
generation passes off the stage another comes on; therefore, there is no
reason why this government should ever be weaker or worse than it is now
unless our people decline in virtue, intelligence and patriotism. It
should grow better as the people improve.
In the verse quoted we find that the enduring government--the government
of Christ--is to rest on justice. And so, our government must rest on
justice if it is to endure. But what is justice? We are familiar with
this word but how shall it be interpreted in governmental terms? Christ
furnished the solution--He presented a scheme of Universal Brotherhood
in which justice will be possible.
To show how important this doctrine of brotherhood is, let us consider
for a moment the alternative relationship. There are but two attitudes
that one can assume in regard to his fellowmen--the attitude of brother
and the attitude of the brute; there is no middle ground.
This is the choice that each human being must make--a choice as distinct
and fundamental as the choice between God and Baal; and it is a choice
not unlike that.
One may be a very weak brother or a very feeble brute, but each person
is, consciously or unconsciously, controlled by the sympathetic spirit
of brotherhood or he hunts for spoil with the savage hunger of a beast
of prey.
I am not making a new classification; I am merely calling attention to
a classification that has come down from the beginning of history. Many
years ago I heard a man from New Zealand tell how a cannibal in that
country once supported his claim to a piece of land on the ground that
the title passed to him when he ate the former owner. I accepted this
story as a bit of humour, but it accurately describes an historic form
of title. Even among the highly civilized nations governments convey to
their subjects or citizens land secured by conquest, the lands being
taken from the conquered by the conquerors. A tramp, so the story goes,
being ordered out of a nobleman's yard, questioned the owner's title.
The latter explained that the title to the land had come down to him
in unbroken line from father to son through a period of 700 years,
beginning with an ancestor who fought for it. "Let's fight for it
again," suggested the tramp.
To show how ancient is the distinction that I am trying to make clear, I
remind you that both the Psalmist and Solomon used the word "brutish"
in describing certain kinds of men, and one of the minor prophets calls
down wrath upon those who build a city with blood. Christ, it will be
remembered, denounced the hypocrites who devoured widows' houses and for
a pretense made long prayers.
The devouring did not cease with that generation; it is to-day a menace
to stable government and to civilization itself. In times of peace we
have the profiteer who is guilty of practices which violate all rules
of morality even when they do not actually violate statute law. In this
"Land of the free and home of the brave," we have been compelled to
enact laws to restrain brutishness--not only laws to prevent assault,
murder, arson, the white slave traffic, etc., but also laws to restrain
men engaged in legitimate business. Pure food laws prevent the
adulteration of that which the people eat--men were willing to destroy
health and even life in order to add to their profits. Child labour laws
have become necessary to keep employers from dwarfing the bodies, minds
and souls of the young in their haste to make larger dividends.
Usury laws are necessary to protect the borrowers from the lenders, and,
from occasional violations, we can judge what the condition would be if
the very respectable business of banking was not strictly regulated by
law. We have an anti-trust law intended to prevent the devouring
of small industries by large ones--law made necessary by injustice
nation-wide in extent.
Congress and the legislatures of the several states are constantly
compelled to legislate against so-called "business" enterprises that are
being conducted on a brute basis--some are combinations in restraint of
trade, others are merely gambling transactions. For a generation the
agriculturists, who constitute about one-third of our entire population,
have been at the mercy of a comparatively small group of market gamblers
who, by betting, force prices up or down for their own pecuniary gain.
An anti-option law has been recently enacted after an agitation of
nearly thirty years, and also a law regulating the packers. These are
only a few illustrations; they could be multiplied without limit. They
show how unbrotherly society sometimes is even in this highly favoured
nation.
How can Christ's teachings relieve the situation? Easily. He dealt with
fundamentals, and gave special attention to the causes of evil. He
taught, first, that man should love God--the basis of all religion;
second, He taught that man should commune with the Heavenly Father
through prayer--the basis of all worship; third, He proclaimed the
existence of a future life in which the righteous shall be rewarded and
the wicked punished. These three doctrines contribute powerfully to
morality, the basis of stable government. In another address I have
called attention to the destructive influence exerted by the doctrine of
evolution, as applied to man, and have pointed out how Darwinism
weakens faith in God, makes a mockery of prayer, undermines belief in
immortality, reduces Christ to the stature of a man, lessens the sense
of brotherhood and encourages brutishness. It is unnecessary, therefore,
to dwell upon this subject in this address.
Christ warned against the sins into which man is sure to fall when the
heart is not wholly devoted to the service of God. He shows how evil in
the heart will manifest itself in the life. Greed is at the bottom of
most of the wrong-doing with which government has to deal. The Bible
says "the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."
It surely is responsible for unspeakable ills. The case is so plain that
human reason would seem sufficient to furnish a cure. It ought not to
be difficult to agree upon the principles that should govern legitimate
accumulations.
There are two propositions that cover the whole ground; one is economic
and the other rests upon religion. Both are based upon the laws of God,
but one can be enforced by the government, while the other is binding on
the conscience alone.
The divine law of rewards is self-evident. When God gave us the earth
with its fertile soil, the sunshine with its warmth and the rains with
their moisture, His voice proclaimed as clearly as if it had issued from
the skies: Go work, and in proportion to your industry and ability so
shall be your reward. This is God's law and it will prevail except where
force suspends it or cunning evades it. It is the duty of the Church to
teach, and the duty of Christians to respect, God's law of rewards.
It is the duty of the government to give free course and full sway to
the divine law of rewards; first, by abstaining from interference with
that law; and second, by preventing interference by individuals. No
defense need be made of the righteousness of this law; just in so far
as the government can make it possible for each individual to draw from
society according to his contribution to the welfare of society it will
encourage the maximum of effort on the part of the individual and,
therefore, on the part of society as a whole. If some receive more than
their share, others will necessarily receive less than their share--the
very essence of injustice; the former will become indolent because work
is not required of them and the latter will grow desperate because
their toil is not fairly rewarded. Injustice is the greatest enemy of
government.