EQUALITY AND PRIVILEGE
All men, our Declaration of Independence tells us, are created free
and equal-that is, with a right to freedom and equality. They are
not actually equal in natural gifts, but they ought, so far as possible,
to be made equal in opportunity; equality is not a fact, but an ideal.
And as an ideal it comes sometimes into conflict with its twin ideal
of liberty; the freedom of the stronger must be curtailed when it robs
the weaker of their fair share of happiness; but, on the other hand,
a dead level of equality must not be sought at the sacrifice of the
potentialities for the general good that lie in the free play of
individuality. The various projects for securing a greater equality
among men must be scrutinized with an eye to their total effects
upon human happiness.
What flagrant forms of inequality exist in our society?
Equality is a modern ideal; in former times it was generally assumed
that men inevitably belong to classes or castes; that some must have
luxury and others poverty, some must rule and others obey. Plato, in
constructing his ideal state, retains the walls between the small
governing class, the warriors, and the mass of artisans, who are of
no particular account but to get the work done. Castiglione, in his
Book of the Courtier, declares that "there are many men who,
although they are rational creatures, have only such share of
reason as to recognize it, but not to possess or profit by it. These,
therefore, are naturally slaves, and it is better and more profitable
for them to obey than to command."
But the invention of the printing press brought ideas to the masses,
the invention of gunpowder brought them power; the colonization of
new continents leveled old distinctions of rank; the development of
manufacture and commerce brought fortune and power to men of
humble origin. The forces thus set in motion have resulted in our
day in the general acceptance of political democracy witness in
contemporary affairs the inception of the Portuguese Republic,
the Chinese Republic, the abolition of the veto-power of the British
House of Lords-and are creating a widespread belief in industrial
democracy. So complete is our American acquiescence in the
principle of equality in the abstract that it is difficult for us to
realize the burning passions that underlay such familiar words
as Don Quixote's, "Know, Sancho, that one man is no more
than another unless he does more than another"; or Burns's
"A man's a man for a' that"; or Tennyson's " 'Tis only noble
to be good."
Yet, for all our abstract belief in equality, we have not become equal
in opportunity, and in some ways are actually becoming less so. Land,
for example, which was once to be had for the taking, is steadily
rising in price, and is now, in most parts of the country, getting
beyond the reach of the poor. Foreign observers agree that there is
no other existing nation so plutocratic as our own; and wealth here
is probably though the matter is in doubt becoming more and more
concentrated. [Footnote: For a recent and cautious discussion of this
point see F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, chap. 54, sec. 3.
There is really no accurate information available to settle the
question whether wealth is becoming more or less concentrated.
Certainly the number of the rich has rapidly increased, and very many
of the poor have risen into the class of the well to do. Wages and
the scale of living of the poor have risen, but not in proportion to
the total increase in wealth. The rich seem to be not only getting
richer, but getting a larger SHARE of the national wealth.] It is
estimated that one per cent of the inhabitants of our country now own
more property than the remaining ninety-nine per cent.
The natural resources of the country have been to a considerable extent
such natural monopolies as railways, telegraph and telephone service,
gas and electric lighting, are controlled by, and largely in the
interests of, a small owning class. The Astors have become enormously
rich because one of their progenitors bought for an inconsiderable
sum farm land on Manhattan Island which is now worth so many dollars
a square foot. Others have made gigantic fortunes out of the country's
forests, its coal deposits, its copper, its waterpower, its oil. A
certain upper stratum of society is freed from the necessity of work,
can exercise vast power over the lives of the poor, and use its great
accumulations for personal luxury or at its caprice, in defiance of
the general welfare. Such congestion of wealth involves poverty on
the part of masses of the less fortunate. With no capital, the poor
man cannot compete in the industrial game; he has no money to invest,
no reserve to fall back upon; he must accept employers' terms or starve.
He cannot pause to educate himself, to get the skill and knowledge
that might enable him to work up the ladder. His power in politics
is overshadowed by that of the great corporations with their funds
and their control of legal skill. He cannot afford expert medical care,
or proper hygienic conditions of life; he is lucky if he can get a
measure of justice in the courts. To call such a situation one of
equality is irony. It is certain that, far as we are yet from final
solution of the problems of production, we are still farther from a
solution of the problems of the distribution of wealth. "A new and
fair division of the goods and rights of this world should be," De
Tocqueville long ago declared, "the main object of all who conduct
human affairs." What methods of equalizing opportunity are possible?
Three plans for a fairer distribution of wealth have been proposed.
According to one, the profits from industry would be divided among
the population on a basis of their NEEDS. This is, however, clearly
impracticable; every one, would discover unlimited needs, and no one
would be fit to make the apportionment. The second scheme is that all
men should be paid alike for equal hours of work, or, rather, in
proportion to the disagreeableness of the work, the amount of
SACRIFICE made. This scheme is that usually advocated by Socialists.
The objection to it is that equal pay for every man would take away the
chief stimulus to initiative, skill, energy, efficiency; it would take
the zest and excitement out of the game of life, make living too
monotonous; there must be rewards for the ambitious youth, prizes to
be won. The third plan proportions reward to efficiency. And on the
whole, as men are constituted, it seems desirable to reward men
financially according to their efficiency, so far as that can be
measured.[Footnote: F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, chap. 64,
sec. 3.] This does not mean to leave things as they are. For at present
the shrewd, if also fortunate, are rewarded out of all proportion to
their efficiency; and many who are not efficient at all, who even do
no work at all that is socially useful, are among the wealthiest.
Moreover, efficiency itself is only partly due to the individual's
will and effort; it is due to the physique and gifts and fortune he
has inherited, the education and environment that have molded him,
the social situation in which he finds himself, the willingness of
others to cooperate with him, and his good luck in early ventures.
It seems unfair that to him that hath so much, so much more should
be given. Or at least it seems fair that he that hath less should be
given more favorable opportunity. It is not enough, as Professor Giddings
says, to reward every man according to his performance; we must find
a way to enable every man to achieve his potential performance. The
plan of proportioning rewards to efficiency must be modified by mercy
for the weak-minded and weak-bodied. It must be supplemented by earnest
efforts to provide health, education, and favorable environment for
all, and, by the limitation of the right of inheritance, that all may
have, so far as possible, approximately equal opportunity. It must
beware of judging efficiency by immediate and obvious results, must
encourage inventions that ripen slowly, genius that stumbles and blunders
before succeeding, work that contributes to others' results and makes
no showing for itself. It must involve a restriction of the right to
unearned incomes. To put these necessary corollaries to the efficiency-\
reward plan into concrete form:
(1) The handicap of ignorance must be removed by providing free
education for all, to the point of enabling every one to develop
efficiency in some vocation. Scholarships for the needy, the
prohibition of child labor, and a high enough wage scale for adults
to permit the youth of all classes to complete their education, are
indispensable.
(2) The handicap of ill-health must be, so far as possible, removed
by state support of mothers-so that children need not inherit a weakened
constitution from overtired mothers, or suffer from want of care in
infancy; by free medical aid to all; by strict legislation for sanitary
housing, pure food, etc; by the provision of public parks and
playgrounds.
(3) The possibility of exorbitant profits from industry (profits out
of proportion to the actual contribution of the individual in skillful
work, mental or manual) must be abolished, by one of the plans
discussed in chapter XXVII.
(4) There must be abolition or sharp limitation of unearned incomes
i.e., incomes for which a return to society in service has not been
made by the getter. This is the step that is clearest of all
theoretically, but the worst sticking point in practice. If we could
persuade men that they should not reap where they have not sown,
the gravest inequities of our present order would disappear. The
sources of unearned incomes are, first, the "unearned increment"
in land values; secondly, the "unearned increment" in the value of
natural resources; thirdly, all interest on investment; fourthly, all
wealth inherited or obtained by legacy or gift.
(a) Land in the heart of New York or London sells at fifteen million
dollars or so an acre. The land value of Manhattan Island alone,
the central part of New York City, is in the neighborhood of
$3,500,000,000, and rapidly increasing. A few generations ago it was
all bought from the Indians for $24. It is estimated that the "unearned
increment" of land values in Berlin during fifty years has been between
$500,000,000 and $750,000,000. What is true so strikingly in the case
of these great cities is true, in lesser degree, of all cities and
towns and villages that have grown in population. The total increase
in land values in America since the days of the pioneers equals, of
course, the present value of its land, since it was acquired by our
forefathers without payment, or with only a nominal fee to the Indians.
Almost all of this enormous increase in wealth has gone into the
pockets of the fortunate individuals who got possession; very little
into the public treasury. Our cities have remained terribly poor,
always in debt, obliged to pass by many needed improvements and to
impose heavy taxes on their citizens. Yet all this wealth (not counting
improvements made by the possessor upon his land) has been socially
created. Others have moved into the neighborhood, factories have been
built near by, roads and railways and sewers and water systems and
lighting-systems and police protection, and a hundred other things,
have made the individual's land more and more salable. If our fathers
had been wise enough to divert a large percentage of this increase
in value into the public coffers, no one would have been wronged, but
many private fortunes would today be smaller, and the entire population
could have been free from taxation from the beginning, with plenty
of money for all needed public works, including many that we can now
only dream about.
It is easy to see what could have been done; to determine what should
now be done is far more difficult. To try to regain for the public
the unearned increments of past years would be an injustice to those
who have purchased lands recently, at the increased prices, and even,
perhaps, to those who have benefited by the increasing values, since
they have regarded the increase as theirs and adjusted their
expenditures to this added income. The best that could be done would
be to take an inventory of all land values now, and provide for a
recurrent reappraisal; then to take all, or a large percentage, of
the increased value from now on. It would, indeed, be dangerous to
attempt to take it all, on account of the extreme difficulty of drawing
the line between earned and unearned increments; even the most
painstaking and impartial decisions would be sometimes unjust. But
to take half or two thirds of what should be deemed "unearned" would
be practicable. Several modern States now take from ten to fifty per
cent; and the percentage taken will doubtless increase. The objections
to such a course are twofold. In the first place, it is pointed out
that if the unearned increment of value is appropriated by the State,
the State should recoup landowners for all undeserved decrements of
value; it is not fair to take away the possibility of gain and leave
the possibility of loss. So long, however, as our population grows,
the State could afford to make good the comparatively few cases of
decreased value and yet get a big income. The other objection is that
the hope of winning the increased land values has been a great and
needed incentive to the development of the country, and a legitimate
compensation for the hardships of pioneering. But while this is true
of the earlier days, it applies less and less to present conditions,
and is hardly at all applicable to the profits made in city lands.
On the whole, there seems little objection to the appropriation by
the State henceforth of the unearned increments of land value. But
the days of enormous increments are passing, and land will presently
reach a comparatively stable value. So that this method of preventing
inflated fortunes must be counted, on the whole except for new and
rapidly growing communities a lost opportunity. [Footnote: H. J.
Davenport, State and Local Taxation, pp. 294-303. F. C. Howe, European
Cities at Work, pp. 189-207. Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 22,
p. 83; vol. 25, p. 682; vol. 27, p. 539. Political Science Quarterly,
vol. 27, p. 586. National Municipal Review, vol. 3, p. 354. F. W.
Taussig, Principles of Economics, chap. 44, sec. 5.]
(b) What is true of land is true of the natural resources of the
country-coal, minerals, oil, gas, waterpower, forests. These were
seized, with a small payment or none, by the early comers, and sold
later at a great advance, or worked for an increasing profit by the
owner. Here, again, if the nation had maintained an inventory of these
values and appropriated to itself all or a percentage of the increase
in value (which results from the increasing public need of the
resources and the limited supply, together with the increase in
facilities for transportation, etc, rather than from the owner's labor
or skill), many of our present gross inequalities in wealth would have
been forestalled, and the community would be far richer in its common
wealth. Add to the realization of this fact the sight of the reckless
waste by private owners of such resources as can be wasted, and the
present conservation movement is fully explained. The best that can
now be done is to retain under government ownership such natural
resources as have not yet passed into private hands, and to appropriate
further increases in value of those that are privately owned. [Footnote:
C. R. Van Hise, Concentration and Control, pp. 154-66. Outlook, vol.
85, p. 426; vol. 86, p. 716; vol. 93, p. 770; vol. 95, p. 21.]
(c) Practically all of the upper classes add to the incomes they earn by
labor of hands or brain an "unearned" income derived from investment;
i.e., from the willingness of others to pay for the use of their
accumulated wealth or lands. A considerable class is thus enabled,
if it chooses, to live without working. A great proportion of this
wealth that draws interest was never itself earned by the possessors,
in the stricter sense of the word "earned"; it has come to them by
inheritance, by the increase of value of land or natural resources,
or squeezed out of labor and the public by the unregulated profits
of some autocratically managed industry or franchise. Is it expedient
to allow this accumulated wealth to bring an income to its possessors?
There are two possibilities: one goes with government control of private
industry, the other with industrial socialism.
According to the first plan, income might still be derived from money
in savings banks, from stocks and bonds, and from the rent of land
and buildings. But it would cease to be a serious source of inequality.
For if the unearned increment of land values and natural resources
were deflected to the State, if none but moderate profits were allowed
from industry; and if, in addition, the right of inheritance and gift
were sharply curtailed, there would be, after a generation, no large
fortunes left or thereafter possible. A man might receive by legacy
a moderate amount of money, a little land or property; by working
efficiently and living simply he might add continually to his
investments and so come to have an income measurably beyond his
earnings. But he could not get wealth enough for investment to be freed
in perpetuity from the necessity of earning his living; and
inequalities of wealth could not become very great; no greater,
perhaps, than would be consistent with the greatest happiness.
According to the socialistic plan, since all industry would be run
by the State, on state provided capital, there would be no demand
for a man's savings except for purely personal uses, no stocks and
no bonds, no savings banks, except for the safe deposit of money
and valuables. All interest might then be forbidden; and a man would
save merely for future use, or to pass on to others, not for the sake of
drawing a further income from his savings. All rent must then in fairness
be forbidden also, except such payments as would be a fair return for
improvements made, buildings constructed, with the cost of repairs,
insurance, etc. This would result in all land being owned by the users,
and do away with landlordism. The unearned increment would be so
widely distributed that it would be needless, for purposes of equalizing
distribution, to bother with it, though it might still be appropriated
by the State as a means of increasing its revenue. This scheme would
make it impossible for any one to live without earning his livelihood,
except during such periods as his accumulated earnings would tide
him over. It would, indeed, lessen the incentive to saving; but if it were
buttressed by the provision of fair salaries for all and by universal
insurance against illness, accident, old age, and death, there would
no longer be much need of saving. This social order would be eminently
just, leaving only such inequalities in wealth as would result from
the differences in productive efficiency of different men, coupled
with a moderate right of inheritance. Its practicability, however,
hinges upon the general practicability of socialism, which must remain
for the present an open question. [Footnote: F. W. Taussig, Principles
of Economics, chap. 46; chap. 66, sec. 5; chap. 64, radical change
as this lies beyond the range of immediate possibilities]
(d) The right of inheritance and gift, which we have had to mention
as aggravating other sources of inequality, needs, as matters are at
present, drastic curtailment. The tax must not, indeed, be heavy enough
to encourage spendthrift living and lessen thrift, or to cut too deeply
into the capital necessary for carrying on business. But a carefully
devised tax can escape these dangers; and it is plainly not best for
society, or for the heirs themselves in most cases, that they should
have irresponsible use of large sums of money which they have not
earned in a world where millions are starving, physically, mentally,
and spiritually, for lack of what money can provide. If, however, the
plan last outlined is ever carried into effect, there will be no need
of restricting the right of inheritance; even the alternative plan
would require little attention to inheritance after present
inequalities had been approximately leveled, as there would then be
little opportunity for large accumulations. A sharply graded
inheritance tax may therefore be looked upon as a now necessary but
temporary expedient.[Footnote: F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics,
chap. 54, sec. 5; chap. 67. secs. 5, 6.] We may conclude with the
consideration of four special problems that are related, in some
aspect, to the conceptions of equality and privilege.
What are the ethics of:
I. The single tax? The single-tax idea is that all the public revenue
should be raised by a land tax. The push behind the movement comes
from the sight of the unearned fortunes that have been made out of
land. The term is used loosely by some to mean merely the taking or
taxing by the State, as we have already suggested, of all future unearned
increments of land value, so far as they can be computed. But, this
would not now provide enough revenue for most communities, and so would
not really make possible a single tax. The real single tax would involve
taking in taxation not only future INCREASES in values, but ALL the
rental value of land. Even this would not always produce revenue enough,
as the needs of public revenue bear no relation to the land values
in a given area. But it would in most places produce considerably more
than enough revenue. Land taxes in New York City, for example, if
trebled, would supply all the revenue; they would have to be quintupled
to absorb the entire rental value of the land the city stands on. The
simplicity of the scheme appeals to many-especially to those who own
no land. But it amounts to a confiscation of land values by the State,
which would be unjust to land-owners, however advantageous to the
rest of the community. It means charging everybody rent for the land
he now owns. Present tenants would be no worse off, but present owners
of the land they use, as well as landlords, would be hard hit. Let
us consider each in turn.
A considerable proportion of the land is owned by the users, the
majority of whom are members of the middle class and but moderately
well to do. Upon them the burden of supporting our increasing public
undertakings would largely fall. But why? THEY are not getting any
unearned income. THEY have, in most cases, paid pretty nearly full
value for their land, even though that land was originally acquired
for little or nothing. They have put their earnings into land in good
faith, when they might have put it into industry or enjoyed its use.
The single tax would work grave injustice to them. It would also be
practically inexpedient, in drawing the public revenue largely from
a class that can less afford it, while leaving hardly touched most
of the bigger fortunes, which consist seldom chiefly of land oldings.
But even as to that part of the land that is bringing unearned income
to landlords is it fair to stop that income unless we stop all other
forms of income on investment? One man has put his fortune into stocks
or bonds; he draws his five per cent in security with no further trouble
than clipping coupons; another, having put an equal fortune into land,
finds his five per cent income entirely confiscated. Not by such class
legislation can justice be served or equality produced. The landlord
class deserves no worse than the stockholder class or the investor
in a savings bank. It is fair, as we suggested above, to put an end
to ALL incomes from investment, and make every man live on his earnings;
it is not fair to pick out landlords for exploitation.
II. Free trade and protection?
Free trade is undoubtedly the ultimate industrial ideal; not as a natural
right, but as a matter of mutual advantage, that everything may be
manufactured in the most economical place and way. The geographical
division of labor is as generally advantageous as the assignment of
highly specialized tasks within a community. Import duties result in
diverting labor into less economical channels, and hence entail a loss
to the community as a whole. The prosperity of the United States has
been in considerable measure the result of its complete internal free
trade. On this general truth the best economists are pretty universally
agreed. The argument that a tariff wall is necessary to maintain our
generally higher standard of wages and living is pure fallacy, as,
indeed, can be seen in the fact that wages in free-trade England are
higher than in protectionist Germany. The only legitimate economic
question is whether special advantages may accrue from protecting certain
industries under certain peculiar conditions. For example, a new
industry, in the conduct of which skill has not yet been acquired,
may need nursing while it is growing strong enough to produce as cheaply
as foreign competitors. Again, when foreign nations impose a tax upon
our products, it may be politically expedient to impose a counter-tariff,
as a means toward reciprocity and eventual free trade. But the
discussion of such situations involves no ethical principles, and may
be left to the economists and statesmen.
The considerations that concern the moralist are rather such as these:
Is it advisable to keep our own people self-sufficing, producing all
they need to consume? Is it permissible to protect (by a subsidy, which
is equivalent to an import duty in other matters) our foreign merchant
marine, so as to have the satisfaction of seeing our flag flying in
foreign ports and the assurance of plenty of transports, colliers,
etc, in case of war? Or is it better for humanity that the nations
should become mutually interdependent, requiring one another's products
and somewhat at one another's mercy in case of war? There can be no
doubt that the narrower, "patriotic" view retards the deepest interests
of humanity, and that free trade is to be sought not only as a means
toward economic prosperity, but as an avenue toward universal peace.
The other dominant ethical aspect of the situation lies in the fact
that the tariff plays into the hands of certain monopolies, enables
them to maintain high prices and make excessive profits, which
international competition would reduce. As actually used, the American
tariff is largely an instrument for favoring special classes of
manufacturers at the general expense, and so is to be condemned.
On the other hand, where manufacturers are enabled by the tariff merely
to make fair profits, and economic considerations would dictate a
removal of the duty and the shifting of labor to industries where it
could be more regard for vested interests should make us pause. To
ruin an industry in which capitalists have invested their fortunes
and laborers have acquired skill, although it would be in the end for
the general good, would work unjust hardship to them; in such cases,
then, a tariff should be lowered only with great caution, or some
compensation should be made to the individuals who suffer loss thereby.
III. The control of immigration? Another contemporary question is
whether discrimination may rightfully be exercised in the admission
of aliens to residence in our country. Abstract considerations would
suggest the desirability of equal treatment to all comers. But certain
practical effects must be considered.
(1) The admission of hordes of ill-educated and ill-disciplined
immigrants from countries lower in the scale of progress than our own
is a serious menace to the ideals and standards of living that we have
at great cost evolved. Our own morals and manners are not firmly enough
fixed to be sure of withstanding the downward pull of more primitive
conceptions and habits. Their willingness to work for small wages
lowers the remuneration of Americans; their contentment with wretched
living conditions blocks our attempts to raise the general standard
of life. Many of them are unappreciative of American ideals, easily
misled by corrupt politicians, and thus a deadweight against political
and social advance. We may, perhaps, disregard the poverty of the
immigrant, if he is in good health and able to work; we may even
disregard his lack of education, if he is mentally sound and reasonably
intelligent. But if some practicable method could be devised to lessen
radically the incoming stream of those who are low in their standards
of living, we should be spared the social indigestion from which we
now suffer. One feasible suggestion is to limit the number of immigrants
annually admitted from each country to a certain small percentage of
the number of natives of that country already resident here. In that
way the total number could be restricted without offense to any nation,
and those peoples most easily assimilated would be admitted in greatest
proportions. In addition, naturalization should be permitted only after
a number of years, during which the immigrant would be in danger of
deportation for proved criminality, vicious indulgence, intemperance,
shiftlessness, troublesome agitation, and other undesirable traits.
(2) The admission of peoples of very alien race to residence side by
side with our own inevitably gives rise to friction and unpleasantness.
However irrational it may be, there are instinctive antipathies and
distrusts between the different racial stocks. The importation of the
Negroes brought us a terrible racial problem, one for which there seems
no satisfactory solution. White men as a class dislike living side
by side with them, and fiercely resent intermarriage, which might
ultimately merge the races, as it seems to be doing in South America.
A general feeling of brotherhood and social democracy is greatly retarded
by this racial chasm.[Footnote: Cf. J. M. Mecklin, Democracy and Race
Friction.] It is earnestly to be hoped that Chinese, Japanese, Hindus,
and other non-European races may not be admitted to residence here
in any great degree; similar antipathies and resentments would be added
to our existing discords. It is not that these races are inferior to
our own, they are simply different; and however superficial the
differences, they are just the sort of differences that cause social
friction. Precisely the same argument would apply to the exodus of
Americans and Europeans to Asiatic countries. A certain amount of
intermingling of students, travelers, missionaries, traders, is highly
beneficial, in the exchange of ideas and manners it stimulates; that
the main racial stocks should remain apart, on their several
continents, in that mutual respect and brotherhood that the superficial
repugnancies of too close contact tend to destroy. The plan suggested
at the close of the preceding paragraph would sufficiently avert these
undesirable racial migrations.
IV. The woman-movement? The demand of women for a larger life and a
recognition from men of their full equality has found expression
recently, not only in the hysterical and criminal acts of British
suffragettes, but in many soberer revolts against the traditional
assignment of duties and privileges. We may agree at once in deploring
the exclusion of women from any rights and opportunities which are
not inconsistent with a wise division of labor, and that patronizing
air of superiority shown toward them by so many men-a condescension
not incompatible with tenderness and chivalry. Theirs has been the
repressed and petted sex. Yet there are no adequate grounds for
supposing that men are, on an average, really abler or saner or more
reasonable naturally than women; that they are, indeed, in any
essential sense different, except for the results of their different
education and life, and such divergences as the differentiation of
sex itself involves including an average greater physical
strength.[Footnote: But cf. Munsterberg, Psychology and Social Sanity,
p. 195] Men and women are naturally equals; with equally good
training they can contribute almost equally to the world's work; they
have an equal right to education, a useful vocation, and the free
pursuit of happiness. But equal rights do not necessarily imply
identical duties; there is a certain division of labor laid down by
nature. Women alone can bear children, mothers alone can properly rear
them; no incubators and institutions can supply this fundamental need.
If women, in their eagerness to compete with men in other occupations,
neglect in any great numbers this most difficult and honorable of all
vocations, there will be a dangerous decline in the numbers and the
nurture of coming generations. Moreover, if homes are not to be
supplanted by boarding houses and hotels, the great majority of women
must stay at home and do the work which makes a home possible. Home
making and child rearing are the duties that always have been and
always will be the lot of most women; and they are duties too exacting
to permit of being conjoined with any other vocation.
On the other hand, the woman who has servants and rears no children
should be pushed by public opinion into some outside occupation; women
have no more right to idle than men. All unmarried women, when past
the years that may properly be devoted to education, should certainly
enter upon some useful vocation; and there is no reason why (with a
few obvious exceptions) any occupation save the more physically arduous
should be closed to such. Every girl should be prepared for some
remunerative work, in case she does not marry or her husband dies
leaving her childless. Such economic independence would, further, have
the inestimable value that she would be under no pressure to marry
in order to be supported and have an honorable place in the world;
if she is trained to earn her living she will be free to marry only
for love. If she does marry, and gives up her prior vocation to be
housekeeper and child-rearer, she should be legally entitled to half
her husband's earnings. The grave difficulty is that a woman needs
to prepare herself both for her probable duties as housekeeper and
mother, and also for her possible need of earning a living otherwise.
Education in the former duties, that must fall to the great majority
of women, cannot safely be neglected, as it is so largely today; the
only general solution will be for unmarried women to adopt, as a class,
the vocations for which less careful preparation is necessary.
The question of the ballot is not practically of great importance,
first, because equal suffrage is coming very fast, whatever we may
say, and, secondly, because it will make no great difference when it
comes. There is no natural right in the matter; the decision in political
affairs might well be left to half the population-when that half cuts
so completely through all classes and sections-if the saving in
expense or trouble seemed to make it expedient. The interests of
women are identical with those of men. Women are, in most parts
of this country, as well off before the law as men; they do not need
the ballot to remedy any unjust discriminations. Moreover, the ballot
will mean the necessity of sharing the burden of political responsibility.
The women who look upon the right to vote as a plum to be grasped
for, a something which they want because men have it, with no
conception of the training necessary to exercise that right responsibly,
are not fit to be trusted with it. It often seems that it were better to
restrict our present trustful and generous right of suffrage to those
who can show evidence of intelligence and responsibility, rather
than to double the number of shallow and untrained voters.
But, on the other hand, there is reason to suppose that women,
through their greater interest in certain goods, will materially accelerate
some reforms-as, the sanitation of cities, the improvement of
education, child-welfare legislation, the warfare against alcohol and
prostitution. The actual results already attained where women vote
are, on the whole, important enough to warrant the extension of the
right, as a matter of social expediency. Moreover, the very increase
in the number of voters makes the securing of power through bribery
more difficult; and the entrance of women into politics will probably
hasten their purification in many places. At any rate, the necessity
of voting will tend to develop a larger interest among women in public
affairs, to fit them better for the education of their children, and
to do away with the lingering sense of the inferiority of women. Certain
it is, finally, that an increasing number of women want the vote, and
will not rest till they get it.
General: F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, chap. 54. W. E. Weyl,
The New Democracy, book I. Adams and Sumner, Labor Problems, chap.
XIII. C. B. Spahr, The Present Distribution of Wealth in the United
States. Dewey and Tufts, Ethics, chap. XXV, secs. 6, 7. Atlantic
Monthly, vol. 112, pp. 480, 679. The single tax: Henry George, Progress
and Poverty; Social Problems. R. C. Fillebrown, The A.B.C. of Taxation.
Outlook, vol. 94, p. 311. Shearman, Natural Taxation. Atlantic Monthly,
vol. 112, p. 737; vol. 113, pp. 27, 545. H. R. Seager, Introduction
to Economics, chap, XXVI, secs. 283-88. F. W. Taussig, op. cit, chap.
42, sec. 7. Arena, vol. 34, p. 500; vol. 35, p. 366. New World, vol.
7, p. 87. Free trade: North American Review, vol. 189, p. 194. Quarterly
Review, vol. 202, p. 250. H. Fawcett, Free Trade and Protection. W.
J. Ashley, The Tariff Problem. H. R. Seager, op. cit, chap. XX, secs.
211-17. F. W. Taussig, op. cit, chaps. 36, 37. Immigration: Jenks
and Lauck, The Immigration Problem. H. P. Fairchild, Immigration. Adams
and Sumner, Labor Problems, chap. III. F. J. Warne, The Immigrant
Invasion. A. Shaw, Political Problems, pp. 62-86. North American Review,
vol. 199, p. 866. Nineteenth Century, vol. 57, p. 294. Educational
Review, vol. 29, p. 245. Forum, vol. 42, p. 552. Charities, vol. 12,
p. 129. Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 16, pp. 1, 141. The
woman question: J. S. Mill, The Subjection of Women. C. P. Gilman,
Women and Economics. O. Schreiner, Woman and Labor. K. Schirmacher,
The Modern Woman's Rights Movement. Jane Addams, Newer Ideals of Peace,
chap. VII. F. Kelley, Some Ethical Gains through Legislation, chap.
V. Outlook, vol. 82, p. 167; vol. 91, pp. 780, 784, 836; vol. 95, p.
117; vol. 101, pp. 754, 767. Atlantic Monthly, vol. 112, pp. 48, 191,
721. Century, vol. 87, pp. 1, 663. National Municipal Review, vol.
1, p. 620.