THE DEBATE ON THE BOND AND CREDIT LAWS—REV. CADMUS M. DESTY AND THE
MORAL LAW.
The discussion of the bond and credit laws referred to the people to be
voted upon at the Association election in October, 1907, was as earnest,
interesting and thorough as any which had ever occurred in Idaho. The
advocates of their adoption were vigorous and persistent and regarded
themselves as conscientious.
They were not honest, however, with themselves. They had allowed an
artful and unscrupulous agent of the competitive system to convince them
that a moral question was involved and to delude them into believing him
to be a great and good man.
Indeed, Hickman had written a pamphlet on “Co-operation and Financial
Integrity,” which was published on his return to New York City from
Co-opolis, and a large number of these had been sent back to Co-opolis
and distributed throughout Idaho.
It was an able presentation of the view he desired his partisans in
Idaho to urge. It was not his view, however, but simply the plea which a
shrewd lawyer in the competitive world might make for a guilty criminal.
It was sufficiently effective to become the text-book of the affirmative
in the discussion, and they lauded Hickman to the skies until it was
proven that he had for years been the trusted agent of the celebrated
banking house of Rothschild. After that the bond advocate mentioned
Hickman no more.
In this discussion every member of the Legislative Council of the
Association and every member of the Great Council were listed in
opposition to these laws. Ex-Governor, now United States Senator,
Thompson was one of the most active of the negative speakers. On the
side of the affirmative was the Reverend Dr. Cadmus M. Desty, the famous
pulpit orator, a most conscientious man and an intelligent Co-operator.
He had become convinced, and I would stake life itself that he was
perfectly honest in the matter, that our whole system must fail if we
broke what he conceived to be God’s law, and did what was unjust and
dishonest.
The whole basis of his contention was the moral law. He was an emotional
speaker. It was his custom to support his views by making copious
quotations from the bible and, drawing from them some conclusions which
were satisfactory to his mind, launch into an exhortation which was
perfectly irresistible to some of his emotional followers.
In those days our discussions were not conducted as they are to-day.
Then the disputants were given an hour or an hour and a half each to
present his side. Our system of requiring the affirmative to state an
argument in ten minutes, and the negative to reply in the same length of
time, continuing in this manner for several hours in the presence of
referees who permit no divergence from the subject, is calculated to
exclude oratory and passion, and raise the discussion to an intellectual
plane. But the system was not adopted until 1912.
It must be confessed that the oratorical contests of the old style were
as interesting as a circus or gladiatorial show, in which respect they
were superior to the give-and-take method of to-day.
The greatest of all the debates of that campaign occurred between
Senator Thompson and the Reverend Dr. Desty during September. One of
these took place in the great hall at Co-opolis. There were present
9,000 members of the Industrial Army and one thousand pupils from the
schools. It was our custom to have the Educational department send a
certain number of its wards to these discussions, in order to have them
familiarized with Co-opolitan methods. These questions were always
discussed fully in the schools as well as in the Industrial Army.
The discussion in the great hall was opened by Dr. Desty. He insisted
that the bonds of Boise City should be paid, that the poor people, who
doubtless held them, factory operators in the unfortunate competitive
cities, perhaps, had purchased them in good faith; that the action of
the Co-opolitan Association, which he entirely approved, had rendered
these bonds valueless, and that the Association, which was founded on
principles of justice, equality and righteousness, should not withhold
from these poor people what belonged to them.
He also pointed out the fact that as long as the bonds remained
outstanding the territory affected by them would be lost to the
Association. Then came the wonderful, soul-stirring oratory of the man,
which moved his hearers to the depths. I almost felt, as I listened to
him on that occasion, that perhaps he was right.
When he finished the applause from all parts of the hall was deafening.
I believe now that it was more an acknowledgment of his wonderful
oratory than because he had produced a conviction of the correctness of
his views, but I was distressed by different thoughts then.
Senator Thompson followed on behalf of the negative. The Senator was at
that time in the very prime of an exceptionally strong and vigorous
manhood. He had occupied the important positions of President of the
Association and Governor of the state, the former for seven years, the
latter for two. His reputation was world-wide, not as an orator, but as
the father of the Co-operative Commonwealth and the possessor of
extraordinary administrative ability. He had not, as yet, taken his oath
of Senator of the United States, having been but recently elected, and
was hardly known as a public speaker outside of the state. He was not an
emotional orator.
His chief characteristics in debate were his ready wit, his complete
command of the subject under discussion, and his logical and powerful
array of facts. He was the opposite of the Reverend Dr. Desty in nearly
every respect. That day he was at his best. As he came forward to the
speakers’ stand he was received with terrific applause. This was always
the case, however, and it did not indicate that his was the most popular
side.
He commenced by informing the audience that he did not desire to use any
personal influence with them concerning the exercise of their suffrage.
He wished them to be guided by truth and wisdom only. If the people of
Idaho were not sufficiently intelligent to save their Co-operative
Commonwealth then it must fall, because their intelligence was its sole
foundation. He had some evidence to present for their consideration.
Here he read three affidavits from England, which set forth the
business, character and history of one Lester Hickman. These averred
that gentleman to be the president of the American and English Bond and
Trust Company, limited, of London, and that his company was the
purchaser, for a mere nominal sum, of the municipal bonds of the cities
of Idaho. They further averred that Hickman was known as a bitter enemy
of all movements for the bettering of the condition of the people, and
neither more nor less than a keen broker and speculator. They also set
forth that Hickman’s reputation for honesty was somewhat shady.
After reading these affidavits Senator Thompson exclaimed:
“This is the prophet of financial morality whose teachings are invoked
for your instruction by my good and sincere but misguided friend, Dr.
Desty.” At this point the applause which shook the house and was again
and again repeated marked the turning of the tide of public sentiment
against the affirmative.
“I think now,” resumed the Senator, after quiet was restored, “that the
bond and credit laws are dead. But I would not have you decide this
question on the simple fact that the man who instigated them is a
selfish hypocrite and schemer. I want you to understand these laws
thoroughly and adopt or reject them on their merits. If they are good,
it matters not who proposes them. Let them be adopted. If they are bad,
it matters not what demon inspired them, they should be rejected.
“These laws are for what purpose? To introduce among you the most
iniquitous feature of the competitive system.
“Once allow it to be introduced, whether under the guise of necessity or
morality, whether by Shylock or by an erring angel, and I would not give
a straw for your entire system. It will eat its way into the very heart
of your body politic and destroy all that is worth having about it.
“History shows to my mind successive systems of slavery, one chasing the
other through the earth.
“Bond slavery succeeded chattel slavery and has nearly crushed liberty
to death in the great republic. There is not the slightest reason why
the Co-opolitan Association should become indebted to private persons.
“We are the public, the law, the will of Idaho, and what we desire
within the state that we can have. If we wish to build a railroad beyond
the state we ought to have no difficulty in doing that.
“What is necessary to such a road? First you must have the line
surveyed. That has been done. Next you must have the right of way. That
will be somewhat expensive. But if the right of way costs us five
million dollars why should we borrow it? We have it already. Even if we
did not have it, let me remind you that from 1862 to 1892, a period of
thirty years, Idaho produced nearly two hundred million dollars of gold
and silver, and her producing population was at no time greater than
thirty thousand persons. With a population such as we have to-day we can
produce gold enough, if gold is needed, in a single year, to build this
road.
“Would not Idaho be demented to borrow gold from a hypocritical agent of
Rothschild when we can, without incurring debt, take it from our own
valleys, creek beds and mountains?”
The Senator treated the question of bond issues from every point of view
conceivable, with a power of description, illustration and argument that
not only held his audience spellbound, but fixed its logic deep in the
minds of all who heard him. Such was the effect of the affidavits which
he read upon the mind of his reverend opponent that the latter declared
his intention never again to enter upon the discussion of political
questions or questions of public finance. Thenceforth he confined
himself to religion and became a world-renowned pulpit orator.
When the election occurred the vote was overwhelming against all these
laws, the last going down largely on account of the unpopularity of the
two others known as the land and credit propositions. Our system did not
permit the submission of a rejected law for at least five years after
its rejection. The proposition to abolish the labor orders and pay all
labor in non-transferable checks was a really meritorious one and ought
to have been adopted.
The people, however, are so constituted that once their suspicions are
aroused they are much readier to say no than yes, and the abolition of
orders as a medium of labor exchange had to wait until 1912. It is
gratifying, however, to be able to say that the people were less and
less inclined to demand such orders, and more and more inclined to
receive the labor checks.
The defeat of the bond and credit laws had the effect of placing the
Co-opolitan Association and the co-operative system on an enduring
basis. The entire world now realized that it was an assured and
successful system and in every state in the Union the tendency was
toward the enactment of laws favorable to co-operative action on the
part of the laborer. Nearly all the states, seized by the spirit of the
hour, began to discuss the propriety of calling a constitutional
convention and reforming their systems of state government upon the
model of Idaho.
The features of our state constitution most favored were its provisions
embodying the initiative and referendum and the imperative mandate,
which I have already described.