BY
JOHN HAYS HAMMOND
In our last Congress, out of ninety-six members of the Senate and four
hundred and thirty-five members of the House of Representatives, only
about seventy legislators were classified as business men. This means
that the Congress of the United States cannot be regarded as a genuinely
representative body. To make it such, we should have a much larger
representation than we have of the business class in the broadest sense
of the term,—that is, not only manufacturers, merchants, and bankers,
but also farmers, engineers, leaders of labor organizations, scientific
men, journalists, physicians, educators, and men of other vocations
influential in the life of the Nation.
This conception of the proper make-up of our legislative bodies is a
comparatively new and unfamiliar one, partly because it has been felt
that legal training and practice in applying the laws in courts made men
particularly fitted to be law-makers and partly because until recently
decidedly few business men have attracted public attention by reason of
their knowledge and skill in handling questions of government. The old
idea of the statesman was that he ought to be detached from the active
every-day interests of the community and thus be in a position to give
his attention to general matters of public and national policy. The
present generation, however, has been coming to realize that most of
these matters are directly or indirectly related to the business of the
citizens of the country and that the wise determination of them involves
taking into account the principles and the necessary practices of
business. Hence the subject of the place of the business man in politics
is becoming one of compelling interest, not only because of patriotic
considerations, but also on account of the enlightened self-interest
which should serve as a guide in legislation for the benefit of the
country as a whole, as well as of the individuals who are its citizens.
For his comparatively small representation in legislative halls the
business man himself is largely to blame. There has been a lamentable
lack of interest on the part of American business men as a class in our
country’s political affairs. By many of them politics has been regarded
as having merely an academic interest, so far as they were concerned; by
others politics has been held to be an unclean vocation. In a way,
however, these allegations about the character of politics have been
only convenient excuses for failure to take a proper part in public
affairs. Generally speaking, the plain, unvarnished reason for the
failure of business men to discharge their political duties has been
their unwillingness to make the necessary sacrifices of social
pleasures, of money or of present business opportunities. Business men
who allow such motives to dominate their actions are simply shirking
their civic responsibilities, are essentially disloyal to the community
from which they derive their support, and should be so stigmatized by
their fellow-citizens.
Still less justifiable than the indifference to politics which has just
been described is the habit which too many business men, especially
those controlling large corporations, have permitted themselves to fall
into, of dealing with political and legislative matters at second hand
and by indirection. This habit, fortunately for the country, has of late
been greatly diminishing because of the strong condemnation of it by
enlightened public opinion; but it cannot be denied that for many years
in our political history the owners and managers of important
corporations, with some notable exceptions, regarded it as justifiable,
while keeping out of politics themselves, to make generous contributions
to campaign funds and thus to assist in electing legislators who could
be counted upon to attend to matters of legislation affecting their
interests. Apart from its moral objections, this practice necessarily
developed a class of mere professional politicians without any
qualifications whatsoever to deal with the great business problems of
our cities, our States and the Nation itself. Every thinking American
must admit that a highly beneficial result of the agitation of the
question of the relation of government to business in the past few years
has been to bring about a vast change in this order of things.
Corporations are no longer able to dictate legislation for their selfish
ends through a conscienceless and morally stultified class of political
representatives. It is well that this rank undergrowth, which impeded
all proper participation in politics on the part of self-respecting
business men, has been to a great extent cleared away.
There is a growing realization on the part of the public that our
business prosperity and our political soundness are mutually
interdependent,—that we cannot have business prosperity without the aid
of just, adequate and far-sighted government, and that we cannot have
permanently satisfactory public policies without the aid of the
experienced and enlightened business class. Especially is this truth
being impressed upon the minds of citizens of the country as they
reflect upon the conditions that will have to be met as a result of the
European War. We have already had a chance to see how few men in
American public life are able to cope with far-reaching international
problems, while at the same time it is rapidly dawning upon us that our
chief political and economic problems of the future will be of the
world, and not of the “parish pump,” type. This is bringing home to our
minds the interdependence of all our industries and business activities,
and of all classes in the community, in whatever vocations they may be
engaged. There can be but little doubt that as public thinking follows
these lines more and more fully and resolutely there will be a tendency
in our future legislation, which the demagogic politicians will be
unable to withstand, to subordinate considerations of petty political
advantage, and of partisan aims and ends, to the right solution of the
great economic problems which are at last seen to be vital to the
welfare of the Nation, at home and abroad.
The assistance which business men can give in the work of arriving at
correct solutions of these great economic problems is apparent. It is
also apparent that without this assistance Congress and the
administrative departments of our Government cannot be expected to reach
correct and adequate conclusions in regard to them. The truth is that
our Government as a whole is at this very moment suffering severely in
efficiency and economy from the lack of the continuous participation of
able business men in the conduct of its affairs. The administration of
our governmental departments, for instance, is confessedly obsolete and
uneconomical, if judged by the best business standards. Thus, both an
increase in our national revenues and a decrease in our national
expenditures could undoubtedly be effected through the coöperation of
expert business men in Congress with the heads of these departments in
the introduction of the most approved business methods. In the
management of the ordinary affairs of the country our Government had
been well likened to a great corporation in which all the people of the
country are stockholders. This conception has not yet become universal,
but when it does—and it undoubtedly will—there will result a general
demand for successful business men in the administration of the People’s
Corporation.
This, however, will be only a part of the demand that will arise when it
is more fully appreciated how impossible it is to arrive at sound public
policies and practices with respect to any matter, domestic or foreign,
affecting the country, without having due regard for the business
principles which control the means by which almost all the material and
ideal benefits of society are procured. The larger demand will be that
the politicians cease to look upon politics as a field reserved for
their own often purely selfish activities and that business men as a
class no longer treat politics as having only a remote and academic
interest for them and hence as deserving to be relegated to
irresponsible theorists or to casually selected and mainly incompetent
legislators.
A new conception of the qualifications of those who conduct our
Government is beginning to take shape in this country. Time was when the
prevalent popular notion was that the chief qualification required for a
political career was to be an adept in the Machiavellian arts; and the
currency of this notion has undoubtedly deterred many a conscientious
man of tender susceptibilities from taking the part in politics for
which he was well fitted by his business experience and in which he
could have been of great benefit to the community. But this conception
is rapidly passing, no doubt to the intense irritation of some of the
surviving politicians of the old school, who are having it impressed
upon them that indispensable prerequisites to real and abiding success
in politics, as well as in business, are integrity of purpose,
straight-forwardness in dealing with the public and an honest intent to
serve, not their own selfish interests, but the permanent good of the
community. The old-time equivocations, lack of candor and nefarious
machinations of the resourceful party boss have now so little chance of
success that it is clear, even to those who are reluctant to give them
up, that they must now be consigned to the scrap-heap of discredited
politics. And it is this very fact that removes the most disagreeable
obstacles from the way of the able yet scrupulous business man who feels
impelled to do his share towards making politics subserve the best
interests of the country.
The consequences of the tendencies just described are already observable
in our public life. While unfortunately it is still true that the
average character and qualifications of our political leaders,
legislators and officeholders are by no means of the high standard
required by the great economic and political interests of the country,
yet I do not like the muckrakers’ sweeping denunciations of our public
men as a class. I have had some opportunity in recent years to observe
these public men, and what I have seen of them has given me the opinion
that the majority of them are of unimpeachable integrity and that not a
few of them possess uncommon ability. Certainly the vast interests of
the United States demand that those intrusted with the duties of
government should have political wisdom and business capacity of the
highest kind,—undoubtedly much higher than we have yet attained on the
average; but nothing whatever is gained by dishonest or even by
undeserved criticism of men in public station. Disingenuous and purely
political abuse of our legislators and public officers serves but to
belittle the critics, to diminish the legitimate influence of the press
which prints and circulates their diatribes, and, worse still, to deter
many desirable men from entering the public service. Nothing could be
more harmful to the Nation.
All this but emphasizes the fact that the ideal we should steadily
pursue is to fill our Government, both on the legislative and on the
administrative side, with men of the broadest practical experience and
with the highest conceptions of the disinterested service and the
honorable fulfilment of their duties required of them for the public
good. The community derives little advantage from the mere gratification
of the personal political ambitions of its public men. Politics, rightly
conceived, cannot be regarded as primarily intended to afford a field
for those whose motives, even if not illegitimate, are characterized
more by a desire for self-advancement than by a sense of obligation to
handle the Nation’s affairs in the soundest and most efficient way. What
is needed first of all, is that the American people should be able to
say with absolute assurance that its Congress and its National
administrative departments (not to mention its State and municipal
governmental agencies) are composed of such men that the principles of
sound, efficient, economical and honorable business can be counted upon
to prevail in the handling of all matters, notwithstanding all the
extravagant proposals of loose thinking or self-seeking politicians of
the lower type.
The people must make up their minds that they will have the responsible
positions in the Government, legislative or administrative, occupied by
men who have demonstrated their ability and success as enlightened
business men. Already in the selection of political leaders our voters
are beginning to call for men about whose personal integrity there is no
doubt—men above the influence of the selfish and unscrupulous
corporations, on the one hand, or the dictation of the so-called labor
vote, on the other; men who have the courage of their convictions and
who can be relied upon to give their support to legislative measures
which best serve the interest of the general public, irrespective of all
other considerations. This is an enormous gain for the country. But much
more is necessary. The entire Government and the politics that
determines what it shall be must be infused with the spirit of sound
knowledge and aggressive efficiency which characterizes American
business of the best type. The place of our business men in politics is
to bring this about.
PEACE BY COMPULSION
SOME PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN THE PATH OF THE OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED
LEAGUE OF PEACE—IT WOULD NECESSITATE A RADICAL CHANGE OF POLICY ON THE
PART OF THE UNITED STATES
BY
JAMES BROWN SCOTT
[DIRECTOR OF THE CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR UNIVERSAL PEACE]
In regard to the proposition to employ force to compel international
peace, it seems to me that the use of force cannot be safely entrusted
to any nation or group of nations; that the United States would not
consent to grant such a right to a power or group of powers; and that,
therefore, we should not ask that we ourselves be allowed to use force
in certain cases.
One can easily think of cases in which we would not consent to
arbitrate. For instance, if Denmark should sell St. Thomas to Germany,
or if Mexico should make a cession of Magdalena Bay to Japan, we would
undoubtedly insist that the cession in either case was void, as
contravening our policy, and, if the cessionaire refused to cancel the
cession, we would prevent the occupation of the territories in question
by force. We would not submit the question to an international tribunal,
because under international law Denmark and Mexico would have the right
to make such cessions. We could not or would not submit the question to
a Council of Conciliation, because its recommendation would be against a
policy which the people of the United States insist upon. If the foreign
country insisted upon the cession and took possession, as it would have
the legal right to do, war might result. There are other illustrations.
I merely mention two which have figured from time to time in the press.
It may be well, however, to give a further sample or two. Suppose that
Russia and Japan should fall out over their rights in Manchuria, and
Russia or Japan should use force against the other. Would the United
States be willing to use its land and naval forces against either one or
the other of these two great powers? Or suppose that the demands which
Japan might feel justified in making upon China, either now or during
the course of the war, or indeed after its termination, should be of a
kind which China could not accept without sacrificing its independence,
and Japan should thereupon use force, although China offered to submit
the question to arbitration, would the United States, as a party to the
League of Peace, use its land and naval forces against Japan? Or would
the United States be willing to become a party to a League which might
have pledged its good faith to do so?
And speaking of the proposed League of Peace, I notice that its
partizans do not contemplate the use of force to compel the execution of
a judgment. Force is to be used to get the parties into court or before
the Council of Conciliation; that is to say, in case of a nation that
refuses to submit its case to the court or to the council and invades
the territory of the country with which it is in controversy, the
members of the League bind themselves to unite their forces with the
other party willing to arbitrate, and to use their forces thus combined
against the nation going to war instead of arbitrating the dispute. If
public opinion can be depended upon to execute the award, cannot public
opinion be depended upon to force nations into court, if only the
controversy be made public and public opinion be given a chance?
The suggestion of a League of Peace is very attractive in that it does
not propose any particular kind of solution, but contents itself with
the statement that the difference, whatever it is, shall be settled
peaceably, leaving it to the parties in dispute to determine the form
and nature of the adjustment. Some of the speakers at the Philadelphia
gathering, in referring to the proposition of using force against a
recalcitrant nation, admitted that the United States would need to
change its policy in order to become a party to the League, but felt
that the United States should be willing to do so. I gather the
impression that such speakers had in mind the use of force by the United
States against other countries, not the use of force by other parties to
compel the United States to settle a dispute peaceably which our people
might be unwilling to arbitrate or submit to a Council of conciliation.
We might be willing for instance, to combine with other nations to use
force against a weak power, but I doubt whether we would be willing to
use force against a nation such as Germany over the Servian question,
and I feel sure that we would be unwilling to allow foreign nations a
right to use force against us.