AT THE LUNCHEON, NEW ORLEANS, LA., OCTOBER 26, 1905

_Governor; Mr. Mayor; and You, My Hosts_:

Let me, at the outset, express through you my profound gratitude, my

deeply moved appreciation of the way in which the people of New Orleans

and of Louisiana have greeted me to-day. Gentlemen, no President of

the United States could be greeted as I have been greeted to-day and

not go back to take up the duties of his office with a stronger and

more earnest purpose to try faithfully to represent all the people

whom he serves. And, Governor, as you have so well said, when a man

is President, when he holds any public office, questions of a merely

partisan character sink into absolute insignificance compared with the

mighty questions upon which all good Americans should be united.

And now, gentlemen, as you have greeted me so well, you have given me

the opportunity to indulge myself in a luxury. There have been moments

in the past when I was afraid of saying how well I thought of the

Senators and Representatives in the National Congress from Louisiana

for fear I might damage them! I did not know but that, may be, the

best service I could do them was to keep still about my feeling for

them. Now, I am emboldened by your generous kindness and confidence

to say that it has been indeed a pleasure to deal with Louisiana’s

representatives in the Senate and in the Lower House of Congress,

because whenever I had to do with a great question of national

importance I could go to them, convinced that if I could show them that

it was really for the good of the Nation they would stand for it. That

is all I ask of any man. I do not want any Senator or any Congressman

to vote for anything I favor just because I favor it; but I do not

want him to vote against it just because I favor it. There have been

certain very worthy men in both Houses of Congress among the colleagues

of the Louisiana representatives who instantly strove to prevent the

realization of their most cherished projects as soon as I strove to

bring it about! Now, from the representatives of Louisiana I was sure

of support in such matters, whether it was a question of building up

and keeping at a high point of efficiency the United States Navy, or

whether it was a question of building the Panama Canal. And mind you,

gentlemen, the two things go together. One thing that, as President of

this country, I will not do, is to make a bluff that I can not make

good. I do not intend, on behalf of the Nation, to take any position

until I have carefully thought out whether that position will be

advantageous to the Nation, but if I take it I am going to keep it, and

I am going to keep it no matter what outsider goes the other way. And

I am sure that you, gentlemen, know that it has been an utter mistake

to think of me as a man desirous of seeing this Nation quarrelsome;

this Nation eager to get into trouble. I have no respect either for the

nation or for the individual that brawls, that invites trouble. I want

to see this Nation do as the individual men in the Nation, who respect

themselves, should do, that is be scrupulously regardful of the rights

of others and honestly endeavor to avoid all cause of difficulty with

any one. But I want, on behalf of this Nation, the peace that comes,

not to the coward who cringes for it, but to the just man armed who

asks it as a right.

Listening to the greeting of the Governor and the Mayor this afternoon,

I felt at once very proud and very humble. I have been greeted with

words far above my worth, far above what is merited by what I have

done. (Cries of “No, No!”) I did not say that for the purpose of

asking your dissent from it. I do not say anything unless I mean it,

and I do not say anything to flatter any audience or speak well of them

unless I think well of them, and would speak well of them anywhere.

I come down to see you of this State and city with a heart full of

gratitude to you for having displayed, through the trials of the

hard summer that has passed, those qualities of heroism which we

like to think of as distinctly American. Gentlemen, in coming among

you this afternoon, I have the feeling of a man who, having been at

headquarters, but not in action, goes to see a regiment that has been

in action. I know that you understand, gentlemen, that the Governor

and Mayor, at any time during the past summer, had but to request my

presence, and I would have come down here at once, at any time when I

could have been of the slightest assistance to you in the magnificent

struggle you were waging. I wish to express the profound appreciation

and gratitude of all Americans toward you, our fellow-Americans, who

have borne the heat and burden of the contest during the long day that

is now passing. In actual war there can be no greater or more effective

heroism than was shown by those who stayed here at their posts; by

those who, being away, came back; and by those who, having planned to

go away, instantly gave up going away and stayed here to aid in the

fight for their fellows in distress. You have had your martyrs, among

them my lamented friend, Archbishop Chappelle; but you have also your

proud memories of service rendered, and the thrill that comes with the

victory you have already won. I have been both amused and irritated

at the criticisms sometimes made on you, by people who lived in other

communities that were not in danger. Among the younger men here are

some who when younger still have played football, and they will

remember how very much easier it was to play the game from the side

lines than on the field. Now, Louisiana and New Orleans, this summer,

did what, so far as I remember, has never before been done in the case

of a similar epidemic of yellow fever in the United States. They took

hold of it after it had started and when it had got well under way,

and they controlled and conquered it without waiting for the frost to

come. The highest gratitude is due to the officials of the State, to

the officials of the city, and to the private individuals, clergymen,

educators, philanthropists, and business men, who have spent their time

and money and risked their lives freely in organizing and achieving

success. It was the greatest privilege to me to contribute what I

was able to the work. Mr. Mayor, Governor, you can hardly realize

the pleasure I felt when a request was made upon me that gave me the

chance of doing something for you; and I am glad to find how well you

think of the work that was done by the United States Public Health and

Marine Hospital Service under Dr. White. It gives me pleasure now to

announce that in response to the request of the Governor and Mayor I

have told them that Dr. White shall be detailed down here just as long

as his services are needed. Now, just one word of warning to you, Dr.

White. We have excellent Scriptural authority for the statement that

it is well to beware when all men speak well of you; because it is an

unfortunate feature of human nature that when they have appreciated a

man up to the very last limit, they tend to go a little bit the other

way, after a while. The time when one is praised very much is the time

one should walk guardedly and carefully and work with all one’s soul

and strength. Gentlemen, that applies to Presidents quite as much as to

doctors!

The Governor spoke of the Panama Canal. It is a very big work, and it

is only a very big nation that can do that kind of work. I expect soon

to have a report from the engineers as to the exact shape the work will

take. I will then be able to make more definite forecasts as to the

time, but of this I can assure you, the work will be done well, it will

be done as speedily as possible, and it will absolutely and surely be

done.

One more point: New Orleans and Louisiana are vitally interested in the

levee system. The Mississippi, which flows through the State, drains

portions of twenty odd other States, and the control of that river

must, in my opinion, be, in good part, a national object. The National

Government now does something toward the erection and care of the

levees. In my judgment it should do not only more, but very much more.

I was greeted to-day by your school-children, clustered around the

monument erected to that pure and upright man and mighty General,

Robert E. Lee; and as we drove away from the square in which his statue

stands we passed by a house in this old Confederate city in which there

was prominently displayed a picture of Abraham Lincoln, and underneath

it the words, “With malice toward none, with charity toward all.” I

have been greeted by a special guard of honor, composed of men who, in

the great war, wore the Confederate uniform. I have also been greeted

by men who, in that war, wore the blue. I saw before me many of my

comrades of the lesser war. I had in my own regiment, from Louisiana

as well as from many other States, men whose fathers had worn the

gray, just as I had other men whose fathers had worn the blue, all

united forever in loyalty to one indissoluble union, and acknowledging

only the rivalry of trying to see which could do the most for the

flag of our common country. Oh, my fellow-countrymen, think what a

fortune is ours, that we belong to this Nation, which, having fought

one of the mightiest wars of all times, is now reunited forever, in

an indissoluble union, under one flag; so that we claim as ours the

heritage of honor and glory, left by every man who, on whichever side

he stood, when the days came which tried men’s souls, did all that in

him lay—did his whole duty—according to the light that was given him to

see that duty.

SPEECH TO THE OFFICERS AND CREW OF THE U. S. FLAGSHIP “WEST VIRGINIA,”

AT SEA, OCTOBER 29, 1905

_Admiral, Captain, Officers and Ship’s Company of the “West Virginia”_:

It is a privilege for any President to come on board a squadron of

American warships such as these, not alone to see the ships, but to

see the men who handle them. From the admiral down through the entire

ship’s company, every American should be proud of what I have seen

aboard this ship; the discipline, the ready subordination of each man,

whether officer or enlisted man, to duty; the care taken of the men,

and in return the eager, intelligent, self-respecting zeal of each

man in doing his work. What must impress especially any observer is

how essential it is that every individual on a ship like this should

do his whole duty, and in any crisis more than his duty. The result

as I see it in this ship is a triumph not only of organization and

discipline, but of the ready zeal with which each individual performs

his allotted task. At any time some emergency may arise in which the

safety of the entire ship will depend upon the vigilance, intelligence,

and cool courage of some one man among you, perhaps an officer, perhaps

an enlisted man. Any man in the whole ship’s company who does his full

duty can claim as his own the honor and repute of the ship and has the

right to feel a personal pride in all she does. You and your fellows

in the Navy and in its sister service, the Army, occupy a position

different from that of any other set of men in our country. Going

through the ship yesterday, in the engine rooms, storerooms, turrets,

everywhere the thing that impressed me most was the all-importance of

each man in his place: the all-importance of that man both knowing his

work and feeling it a matter of keen personal pride to do it as well as

it could possibly be done. All through the ship I have seen the same

purpose, the purpose to learn exactly what the duty to be done was and

then to do it; and the power to do presupposes the possession by each

of you of intelligence, courage, and physical address. I believe that

this attitude of yours is typical of the attitude of the men of our

Navy generally and of the Army also. Now on the one hand this should

make our country feel toward Uncle Sam’s men in the Army and in the

Navy a sense of obligation and gratitude such as they feel toward no

others; and on the other hand it should make you feel that no other

Americans rest under so great an obligation to do their duty well;

for in your hands lies the credit, the honor, and the interest of the

entire Nation. You are doing your duty well and faithfully in peace.

Remember that if ever, which may Heaven forbid, war comes, it will

depend upon you and those like you whether the people of this country

are to hold their heads even higher or to hang them in shame. I hope

that no such crisis will ever occur, but I have entire faith that if it

ever does occur, you will rise level to any demand that may be made

upon you, and that by the way you train yourselves and are trained in

time of peace, you will fit yourselves to do well should war arise.

Now a special word to the officers. Captain Arnold, as a boy you

witnessed a great fight of the “Merrimac” when she came out to Hampton

Roads, sank the “Congress” and the “Cumberland,” and the next day met

her match in the “Monitor.” That was a fight fraught with great honor

for our people. The “Cumberland” sank with her flags flying and her

guns firing while her decks were awash, and as the water was shallow,

her flag still floated from the mast above them after she had gone

down. The captain of the “Congress” met his death in the fight, winning

an epitaph which deserves to be remembered forever in the American

Navy. His name was Joe Smith, and his father, an old naval officer, was

in Washington. When word was brought to him that his son’s ship had

surrendered, he answered simply: “Then Joe is dead.” To have earned

the right to have his death assumed as a matter of course in such

conditions is of itself enough to crown any life, and every American

officer should keep ever before him all that is implied therein. Let

each of you officers remember, in the event of war, that while a

surrender must always be justifiable, yet that a surrender must always

be explained, while it is never necessary to explain the fact that you

don’t surrender, no matter what the conditions may be.

A tragedy occurred this morning. A man was lost from the “Colorado.”

Such cases are from time to time inevitable in a service like ours.

Under such circumstances, everything must always be done, as in this

instance everything was done, for the rescue of the man. But you men

are fitted for fighting because you have the fighting edge. This means

that you are willing at all times to face death in the performance of

your duty. The man who died this morning was an excellent seaman who

had done his duty faithfully and who died in the performance of that

duty. Therefore he died in the service of his country exactly as much

as if he had died in battle, and deserves as much honor.

What I have said so far applies to the whole Navy. Now a word

especially to this squadron and to this ship. No other nation can boast

of a better squadron, a squadron composed of more formidable vessels.

In the matter of the officers and men, we have no cause to shrink from

comparison with any other nation. So far, the “Colorado” has been the

one ship that has had the chance to show what she could do in gunnery

practice, and her record has been so astonishingly good that the other

ships of the squadron will have to do their level best if they expect

even to equal it. I need not tell you to remember that battles are

decided by gunfire, and that the only shots that count are the shots

that hit.

Men, I am glad to have seen you, and I don’t think that anywhere under

our flag there could be found a better set of clean-cut, vigorous,

self-respecting American citizens of the very type that makes one

proudest to be an American.

REMARKS TO A DELEGATION OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES’ ORDERS—EXECUTIVE OFFICE,

WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 14, 1905

_Gentlemen_:

I have just a word that I want to say to you. In the first place, I

trust I need hardly say that no delegation will ever be more welcome

at the White House than such a delegation as this. The interests of

the wage-worker and the interests of the tiller of the soil must be

peculiarly close to all American public men; among other reasons for

the reason that if they prosper all other classes will prosper likewise

as a matter of course. As I said the other day to the representatives

of organized labor at Atlanta, I shall do everything in my power for

the laboring man except to do anything wrong; for the man who will

do anything wrong in the nominal interest of another man will also

do wrong against this same other man if ever it becomes to his own

interest to do so. Your associations deserve peculiar regard because

you have developed to a marked degree the very qualities that all

bodies of wage-workers should develop: the intelligence, the regard for

the future, the self-respect mingled with the respect for others, the

power of self-restraint, which are absolutely essential to any body

of men which is to move upward and onward. Remember always that every

man of us must in some shape or other have his passions and appetites

governed; and the less of that government there is from within the

more there will have to be from without.

With most of the general statements that you make I agree, but I am

not sure that I agree with your application of them. There has been

comparatively little complaint to me of the railroad rates being

as a whole too high. The most serious complaints that have been

made to me have been of improper discrimination in railroad rates.

For instance, in two recent cases affecting great corporations the

complaints that have been made to me have been that they are too low

as regards certain big shippers; the complaint in both these cases is

about the differential, the difference of treatment of two sets of

users of the railways, the difference in favor of one set of shippers

as against another set of shippers. Whether this is just or not I am

not prepared to say. I very deeply appreciate and sympathize with the

feeling you express as to the community of interest between the man

who actually does the handling of the trains, at the brakes, in the

engine cab, as a fireman, as a conductor, and the man who has to do,

as a capitalist or as the higher employee of the capitalist, with the

general management of the road. I feel that one of the lessons that can

not be overinculcated is the lesson of the identity of interest among

our people as a whole. I do not have to tell a body like this something

that I do have to tell some other bodies, and that is if you have not

got at the head of a railroad a man who can make a success of it, the

wage-workers on that railroad can not prosper. You must have at the

head the type of ability which can do well; just as you, comrade of

the Civil War (turning to an engineer who wore the button of the Grand

Army) needed a general who knew his business, or your valor did not

avail. You remember that the valor of the best enlisted man that ever

was (of course he was the basis of everything; the man who carried the

gun and made the army; and you could not get the right stuff out of

him if it was not in him) was of no value if there was not a directing

power to see that the valor was used aright. The Union Army could have

accomplished nothing if the feeling of the enlisted men had been the

wish to down Grant and Sherman instead of supporting them heartily in

achieving the common work for which all in common were striving.

If you will look at my Raleigh speech and my other recent utterances

you will see my principles clearly set forth. I have said again and

again that I would not tolerate for one moment any injustice to a

railroad any more than I would tolerate any injustice by a railroad.

I have said again and again that I would remove a public official who

improperly yielded to any public clamor against a railroad, no matter

how popular that clamor might be, just as quickly as I would remove

a public official who rendered an improper service to the railroad

at the expense of the public. But I am convinced that there must

be an increased regulatory and supervisory power exercised by the

Government over the railways. Indeed, I would like it exercised to a

much greater extent than I have any idea of pressing at the moment.

For instance, I would greatly like to have it exercised in the matter

of overcapitalization. I am convinced that the “wages fund” would be

larger if there was no fictitious capital upon which dividends had

to be paid. I need hardly say that this does not mean hostility to

wealth. If you gentlemen here, in whom I believe so strongly, were all

a unit in demanding that some improper action should be taken against

certain men of wealth, then, no matter whether I did or did not like

those same men of wealth, I would defend them against you, no matter

how much I cared for you; and in so doing I would really be acting in

your own interest. I would be false to your interest if I failed to do

justice to the capitalist as much as to the wage-worker. But I shall

act against the abuses of wealth just as against all other abuses. The

outcry against rate regulation is of much the same character as that

I encountered when I was engaged in putting through that car-coupling

business; or in endeavoring to secure certain legislation in which you

have all been interested, such as the employers’ liability law.

Most certainly I will join with you in resisting to the uttermost

any movement to hurt or damage any railroads which act decently, for

I would hold that such damage was not merely to the capitalist, not

merely to the wage-worker engaged on the railroads, but to all the

country. My aim is to secure the just and equal treatment of the

public by those (I trust and believe a limited number) who do not want

to give it, just as much as by the larger number who do want to give

it. All I want in any rate legislation is to give the Government an

efficient supervisory power which shall be exercised as scrupulously to

prevent injustice to the railroads as to prevent their doing injustice

to the public. Our endeavor is to see that those big railroad men and

big shippers who are not responsive to the demands of justice are

required to do what their fellows who are responsive to the demands of

justice would be glad to do of their own accord.

MESSAGE COMMUNICATED TO THE TWO HOUSES OF CONGRESS AT THE BEGINNING OF

THE FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-NINTH CONGRESS, DECEMBER 5, 1905.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

The people of this country continue to enjoy great prosperity.

Undoubtedly there will be ebb and flow in such prosperity, and this ebb

and flow will be felt more or less by all members of the community,

both by the deserving and the undeserving. Against the wrath of the

Lord the wisdom of man can not avail; in times of flood or drought

human ingenuity can but partially repair the disaster. A general

failure of crops would hurt all of us. Again, if the folly of man mars

the general well-being, then those who are innocent of the folly will

have to pay part of the penalty incurred by those who are guilty of

the folly. A panic brought on by the speculative folly of part of the

business community would hurt the whole business community. But such

stoppage of welfare, though it might be severe, would not be lasting.

In the long run the one vital factor in the permanent prosperity of

the country is the high individual character of the average American

worker, the average American citizen, no matter whether his work be

mental or manual, whether he be farmer or wage-worker, business man or

professional man.

In our industrial and social system the interests of all men are

so closely intertwined that in the immense majority of cases a

straight-dealing man who by his efficiency, by his ingenuity and

industry, benefits himself must also benefit others. Normally the man

of great productive capacity who becomes rich by guiding the labor

of many other men does so by enabling them to produce more than they

could produce without his guidance; and both he and they share in the

benefit, which comes also to the public at large. The superficial

fact that the sharing may be unequal must never blind us to the

underlying fact that there is this sharing, and that the benefit comes

in some degree to each man concerned. Normally the wage-worker, the

man of small means, and the average consumer, as well as the average

producer, are all alike helped by making conditions such that the man

of exceptional business ability receives an exceptional reward for

his ability. Something can be done by legislation to help the general

prosperity; but no such help of a permanently beneficial character

can be given to the less able and less fortunate, save as the results

of a policy which shall inure to the advantage of all industrious and

efficient people who act decently; and this is only another way of

saying that any benefit which comes to the less able and less fortunate

must of necessity come even more to the more able and more fortunate.

If, therefore, the less fortunate man is moved by envy of his more

fortunate brother to strike at the conditions under which they have

both, though unequally, prospered, the result will assuredly be that

while damage may come to the one struck at, it will visit with an even

heavier load the one who strikes the blow. Taken as a whole, we must

all go up or go down together.

* * * * *

Yet, while not merely admitting, but insisting upon this, it is also

true that where there is no governmental restraint or supervision some

of the exceptional men use their energies not in ways that are for

the common good, but in ways which tell against this common good. The

fortunes amassed through corporate organization are now so large, and

vest such power in those that wield them, as to make it a matter of

necessity to give to the sovereign—that is, to the Government, which

represents the people as a whole—some effective power of supervision

over their corporate use. In order to ensure a healthy social and

industrial life, every big corporation should be held responsible by,

and be accountable to, some sovereign strong enough to control its

conduct. I am in no sense hostile to corporations. This is an age of

combination, and any effort to prevent all combination will be not only

useless, but in the end vicious, because of the contempt for law which

the failure to enforce law inevitably produces. We should, moreover,

recognize in cordial and ample fashion the immense good effected

by corporate agencies in a country such as ours, and the wealth of

intellect, energy, and fidelity devoted to their service, and therefore

normally to the service of the public, by their officers and directors.

The corporation has come to stay, just as the trade union has come to

stay. Each can do and has done great good. Each should be favored so

long as it does good. But each should be sharply checked where it acts

against law and justice.

So long as the finances of the Nation are kept upon an honest basis

no other question of internal economy with which the Congress has

the power to deal begins to approach in importance the matter of

endeavoring to secure proper industrial conditions under which the

individuals—and especially the great corporations—doing an interstate

business are to act. The makers of our National Constitution provided

especially that the regulation of interstate commerce should come

within the sphere of the General Government. The arguments in favor

of their taking this stand were even then overwhelming. But they are

far stronger to-day, in view of the enormous development of great

business agencies, usually corporate in form. Experience has shown

conclusively that it is useless to try to get any adequate regulation

and supervision of these great corporations by State action. Such

regulation and supervision can only be effectively exercised by a

sovereign whose jurisdiction is coextensive with the field of work of

the corporations—that is, by the National Government. I believe that

this regulation and supervision can be obtained by the enactment of

law by the Congress. If this proves impossible, it will certainly be

necessary ultimately to confer in fullest form such power upon the

National Government by a proper amendment of the Constitution. It would

obviously be unwise to endeavor to secure such an amendment until it

is certain that the result can not be obtained under the Constitution

as it now is. The laws of the Congress and of the several States

hitherto, as passed upon by the courts, have resulted more often in

showing that the States have no power in the matter than that the

National Government has power; so that there at present exists a very

unfortunate condition of things, under which these great corporations

doing an interstate business occupy the position of subjects without

a sovereign, neither any State government nor the National Government

having effective control over them. Our steady aim should be by

legislation, cautiously and carefully undertaken, but resolutely

persevered in, to assert the sovereignty of the National Government by

affirmative action.

This is only in form an innovation. In substance it is merely a

restoration; for from the earliest time such regulation of industrial

activities has been recognized in the action of the lawmaking bodies;

and all that I propose is to meet the changed conditions in such manner

as will prevent the Commonwealth abdicating the power it has always

possessed, not only in this country but also in England before and

since this country became a separate Nation.

It has been a misfortune that the national laws on this subject have

hitherto been of a negative or prohibitive rather than an affirmative

kind, and still more that they have in part sought to prohibit what

could not be effectively prohibited, and have in part in their

prohibitions confounded what should be allowed and what should not be

allowed. It is generally useless to try to prohibit all restraint on

competition, whether this restraint be reasonable or unreasonable; and

where it is not useless it is generally hurtful. Events have shown

that it is not possible adequately to secure the enforcement of any

law of this kind by incessant appeal to the courts. The Department

of Justice has for the last four years devoted more attention to the

enforcement of the anti-trust legislation than to anything else. Much

has been accomplished; particularly marked has been the moral effect

of the prosecutions; but it is increasingly evident that there will be

a very insufficient beneficial result in the way of economic change.

The successful prosecution of one device to evade the law immediately

develops another device to accomplish the same purpose. What is needed

is not sweeping prohibition of every arrangement, good or bad, which

may tend to restrict competition, but such adequate supervision and

regulation as will prevent any restriction of competition from being to

the detriment of the public, as well as such supervision and regulation

as will prevent other abuses in no way connected with restriction of

competition. Of these abuses, perhaps the chief, although by no means

the only one, is overcapitalization—generally itself the result of

dishonest promotion—because of the myriad evils it brings in its train;

for such overcapitalization often means an inflation that invites

business panic; it always conceals the true relation of the profit

earned to the capital actually invested, and it creates a burden of

interest payments which is a fertile cause of improper reduction in or

limitation of wages; it damages the small investor, discourages thrift,

and encourages gambling and speculation; while perhaps worst of all is

the trickiness and dishonesty which it implies—for harm to morals is

worse than any possible harm to material interests, and the debauchery

of politics and business by great dishonest corporations is far worse

than any actual material evil they do the public. Until the National

Government obtains, in some manner which the wisdom of the Congress may

suggest, proper control over the big corporations engaged in interstate

commerce—that is, over the great majority of the big corporations—it

will be impossible to deal adequately with these evils.

I am well aware of the difficulties of the legislation that I am

suggesting, and of the need of temperate and cautious action in

securing it. I should emphatically protest against improperly radical

or hasty action. The first thing to do is to deal with the great

corporations engaged in the business of interstate transportation. As I

said in my Message of December 6 last, the immediate and most pressing

need, so far as legislation is concerned, is the enactment into law of

some scheme to secure to the agents of the Government such supervision

and regulation of the rates charged by the railroads of the country

engaged in interstate traffic as shall summarily and effectively

prevent the imposition of unjust or unreasonable rates. It must include

putting a complete stop to rebates in every shape and form. This power

to regulate rates, like all similar powers over the business world,

should be exercised with moderation, caution, and self-restraint; but

it should exist, so that it can be effectively exercised when the need

arises.

The first consideration to be kept in mind is that the power should be

affirmative and should be given to some administrative body created by

the Congress. If given to the present Interstate Commerce Commission

or to a reorganized Interstate Commerce Commission, such commission

should be made unequivocally administrative. I do not believe in the

Government interfering with private business more than is necessary.

I do not believe in the Government undertaking any work which can with

propriety be left in private hands. But neither do I believe in the

Government flinching from overseeing any work when it becomes evident

that abuses are sure to obtain therein unless there is governmental

supervision. It is not my province to indicate the exact terms of the

law which should be enacted; but I call the attention of the Congress

to certain existing conditions with which it is desirable to deal. In

my judgment the most important provision which such law should contain

is that conferring upon some competent administrative body the power

to decide, upon the case being brought before it, whether a given rate

prescribed by a railroad is reasonable and just, and if it is found

to be unreasonable and unjust, then, after full investigation of the

complaint, to prescribe the limit of rate beyond which it shall not be

lawful to go—the maximum reasonable rate, as it is commonly called—this

decision to go into effect within a reasonable time and to obtain from

thence onward, subject to review by the courts. It sometimes happens

at present, not that a rate is too high but that a favored shipper

is given too low a rate. In such case the Commission would have the

right to fix this already established minimum rate as the maximum;

and it would need only one or two such decisions by the Commission to

cure railroad companies of the practice of giving improper minimum

rates. I call your attention to the fact that my proposal is not to

give the Commission power to initiate or originate rates generally,

but to regulate a rate already fixed or originated by the roads, upon

complaint and after investigation. A heavy penalty should be exacted

from any corporation which fails to respect an order of the Commission.

I regard this power to establish a maximum rate as being essential

to any scheme of real reform in the matter of railway regulation.

The first necessity is to secure it; and unless it is granted to the

Commission there is little use in touching the subject at all.

Illegal transactions often occur under the forms of law. It has often

occurred that a shipper has been told by a traffic officer to buy a

large quantity of some commodity and then after it has been bought an

open reduction is made in the rate to take effect immediately, the

arrangement resulting to the profit of the one shipper and the one

railroad and to the damage of all their competitors; for it must not

be forgotten that the big shippers are at least as much to blame as

any railroad in the matter of rebates. The law should make it clear so

that nobody can fail to understand that any kind of commission paid on

freight shipments, whether in this form or in the form of fictitious

damages, or of a concession, a free pass, reduced passenger rate, or

payment of brokerage, is illegal. It is worth while considering whether

it would not be wise to confer on the Government the right of civil

action against the beneficiary of a rebate for at least twice the value

of the rebate; this would help stop what is really blackmail. Elevator

allowances should be stopped, for they have now grown to such an extent

that they are demoralizing and are used as rebates.

The best possible regulation of rates would, of course, be that

regulation secured by an honest agreement among the railroads

themselves to carry out the law. Such a general agreement would, for

instance, at once put a stop to the efforts of any one big shipper or

big railroad to discriminate against or secure advantages over some

rival; and such agreement would make the railroads themselves agents

for enforcing the law. The power vested in the Government to put a stop

to agreements to the detriment of the public should, in my judgment,

be accompanied by power to permit, under specified conditions and

careful supervision, agreements clearly in the interest of the public.

But, in my judgment, the necessity for giving this further power is

by no means as great as the necessity for giving the Commission or

administrative body the other powers I have enumerated above; and it

may well be inadvisable to attempt to vest this particular power in the

Commission or other administrative body until it already possesses and

is exercising what I regard as by far the most important of all the

powers I recommend—as indeed the vitally important power—that to fix a

given maximum rate, which rate, after the lapse of a reasonable time,

goes into full effect, subject to review by the courts.

All private-car lines, industrial roads, refrigerator charges, and the

like should be expressly put under the supervision of the Interstate

Commerce Commission or some similar body so far as rates, and

agreements practically affecting rates, are concerned. The private-car

owners and the owners of industrial railroads are entitled to a fair

and reasonable compensation on their investment, but neither private

cars nor industrial railroads nor spur tracks should be utilized as

devices for securing preferential rates. A rebate in icing charges,

or in mileage, or in a division of the rate for refrigerating charges

is just as pernicious as a rebate in any other way. No lower rate

should apply on goods imported than actually obtains on domestic goods

from the American seaboard to destination except in cases where water

competition is the controlling influence. There should be publicity

of the accounts of common carriers; no common carrier engaged in

interstate business should keep any books or memoranda other than those

reported pursuant to law or regulation, and these books or memoranda

should be open to the inspection of the Government. Only in this way

can violations or evasions of the law be surely detected. A system of

examination of railroad accounts should be provided similar to that

now conducted into the national banks by the bank examiners; a few

first-class railroad accountants, if they had proper direction and

proper authority to inspect books and papers, could accomplish much

in preventing wilful violations of the law. It would not be necessary

for them to examine into the accounts of any railroad unless for

good reasons they were directed to do so by the Interstate Commerce

Commission. It is greatly to be desired that some way might be found

by which an agreement as to transportation within a State intended to

operate as a fraud upon the Federal interstate commerce laws could be

brought under the jurisdiction of the Federal authorities. At present

it occurs that large shipments of interstate traffic are controlled by

concessions on purely State business, which of course amounts to an

evasion of the law. The Commission should have power to enforce fair

treatment by the great trunk lines of lateral and branch lines.

I urge upon the Congress the need of providing for expeditious action

by the Interstate Commerce Commission in all these matters, whether

in regulating rates for transportation or for storing or for handling

property or commodities in transit. The history of the cases litigated

under the present commerce act shows that its efficacy has been to

a great degree destroyed by the weapon of delay, almost the most

formidable weapon in the hands of those whose purpose it is to violate

the law.

Let me most earnestly say that these recommendations are not made

in any spirit of hostility to the railroads. On ethical grounds, on

grounds of right, such hostility would be intolerable; and on grounds

of mere national self-interest we must remember that such hostility

would tell against the welfare not merely of some few rich men, but

of a multitude of small investors, a multitude of railway employees,

wage-workers; and most severely against the interest of the public as

a whole. I believe that on the whole our railroads have done well and

not ill; but the railroad men who wish to do well should not be exposed

to competition with those who have no such desire, and the only way to

secure this end is to give to some Government tribunal the power to

see that justice is done by the unwilling exactly as it is gladly done

by the willing. Moreover, if some Government body is given increased

power the effect will be to furnish authoritative answer on behalf

of the railroad whenever irrational clamor against it is raised, or

whenever charges made against it are disproved. I ask this legislation

not only in the interest of the public, but in the interest of the

honest railroad man and the honest shipper alike, for it is they who

are chiefly jeoparded by the practices of their dishonest competitors.

This legislation should be enacted in a spirit as remote as possible

from hysteria and rancor. If we of the American body politic are true

to the traditions we have inherited we shall always scorn any effort

to make us hate any man because he is rich, just as much as we should

scorn any effort to make us look down upon or treat contemptuously any

man because he is poor. We judge a man by his conduct—that is, by his

character—and not by his wealth or intellect. If he makes his fortune

honestly, there is no just cause of quarrel with him. Indeed, we have

nothing but the kindliest feelings of admiration for the successful

business man who behaves decently, whether he has made his success

by building or managing a railroad or by shipping goods over that

railroad. The big railroad men and big shippers are simply Americans of

the ordinary type who have developed to an extraordinary degree certain

great business qualities. They are neither better nor worse than their

fellow-citizens of smaller means. They are merely more able in certain

lines and therefore exposed to certain peculiarly strong temptations.

These temptations have not sprung newly into being; the exceptionally

successful among mankind have always been exposed to them; but they

have grown amazingly in power as a result of the extraordinary

development of industrialism along new lines, and under these new

conditions, which the lawmakers of old could not foresee and therefore

could not provide against, they have become so serious and menacing

as to demand entirely new remedies. It is in the interest of the best

type of railroad man and the best type of shipper no less than of the

public that there should be governmental supervision and regulation

of these great business operations, for the same reason that it is in

the interest of the corporation which wishes to treat its employees

aright that there should be an effective employers’ liability act, or

an effective system of factory laws to prevent the abuse of women and

children. All such legislation frees the corporation that wishes to do

well from being driven into doing ill, in order to compete with its

rival, which prefers to do ill. We desire to set up a moral standard.

There can be no delusion more fatal to the Nation than the delusion

that the standard of profits, of business prosperity, is sufficient in

judging any business or political question—from rate legislation to

municipal government. Business success, whether for the individual or

for the Nation, is a good thing only so far as it is accompanied by and

develops a high standard of conduct—honor, integrity, civic courage.

The kind of business prosperity that blunts the standard of honor, that

puts an inordinate value on mere wealth, that makes a man ruthless and

conscienceless in trade and weak and cowardly in citizenship, is not a

good thing at all, but a very bad thing for the Nation. This Government

stands for manhood first and for business only as an adjunct of manhood.

The question of transportation lies at the root of all industrial

success, and the revolution in transportation which has taken place

during the last half century has been the most important factor in

the growth of the new industrial conditions. Most emphatically we do

not wish to see the man of great talents refused the reward for his

talents. Still less do we wish to see him penalized; but we do desire

to see the system of railroad transportation so handled that the strong

man shall be given no advantage over the weak man. We wish to ensure

as fair treatment for the small town as for the big city; for the

small shipper as for the big shipper. In the old days the highway of

commerce, whether by water or by road on land, was open to all; it

belonged to the public and the traffic along it was free. At present

the railway is this highway, and we must do our best to see that it is

kept open to all on equal terms. Unlike the old highway it is a very

difficult and complex thing to manage, and it is far better that it

should be managed by private individuals than by the Government. But it

can only be so managed on condition that justice is done the public.

It is because, in my judgment, public ownership of railroads is highly

undesirable and would probably in this country entail far-reaching

disaster, that I wish to see such supervision and regulation of them

in the interest of the public as will make it evident that there is

no need for public ownership. The opponents of Government regulation

dwell upon the difficulties to be encountered and the intricate and

involved nature of the problem. Their contention is true. It is a

complicated and delicate problem, and all kinds of difficulties are

sure to arise in connection with any plan of solution, while no plan

will bring all the benefits hoped for by its more optimistic adherents.

Moreover, under any healthy plan, the benefits will develop gradually

and not rapidly. Finally, we must clearly understand that the public

servants who are to do this peculiarly responsible and delicate work

must themselves be of the highest type both as regards integrity and

efficiency. They must be well paid, for otherwise able men can not in

the long run be secured; and they must possess a lofty probity which

will revolt as quickly at the thought of pandering to any gust of

popular prejudice against rich men as at the thought of anything even

remotely resembling subserviency to rich men. But while I fully admit

the difficulties in the way, I do not for a moment admit that these

difficulties warrant us in stopping in our effort to secure a wise and

just system. They should have no other effect than to spur us on to the

exercise of the resolution, the even-handed justice, and the fertility

of resource, which we like to think of as typically American, and which

will in the end achieve good results in this as in other fields of

activity. The task is a great one and underlies the task of dealing

with the whole industrial problem. But the fact that it is a great

problem does not warrant us in shrinking from the attempt to solve it.

At present we face such utter lack of supervision, such freedom from

the restraints of law, that excellent men have often been literally

forced into doing what they deplored because otherwise they were left

at the mercy of unscrupulous competitors. To rail at and assail the men

who have done as they best could under such conditions accomplishes

little. What we need to do is to develop an orderly system; and such a

system can only come through the gradually increased exercise of the

right of efficient Government control.

* * * * *

In my annual Message to the Fifty-eighth Congress, at its third

session, I called attention to the necessity for legislation requiring

the use of block signals upon railroads engaged in interstate

commerce. The number of serious collisions upon unblocked roads that

have occurred within the past year adds force to the recommendation

then made. The Congress should provide, by appropriate legislation,

for the introduction of block signals upon all railroads engaged in

interstate commerce at the earliest practicable date, as a measure of

increased safety to the traveling public.

Through decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the

lower Federal courts in cases brought before them for adjudication

the safety-appliance law has been materially strengthened, and the

Government has been enabled to secure its effective enforcement in

almost all cases, with the result that the condition of railroad

equipment throughout the country is much improved and railroad

employees perform their duties under safer conditions than heretofore.

The Government’s most effective aid in arriving at this result has been

its inspection service, and that these improved conditions are not

more general is due to the insufficient number of inspectors employed.

The inspection service has fully demonstrated its usefulness, and in

appropriating for its maintenance the Congress should make provision

for an increase in the number of inspectors.

* * * * *

The excessive hours of labor to which railroad employees in train

service are in many cases subjected is also a matter which may well

engage the serious attention of the Congress. The strain, both mental

and physical, upon those who are engaged in the movement and operation

of railroad trains under modern conditions is perhaps greater than that

which exists in any other industry, and if there are any reasons for

limiting by law the hours of labor in any employment, they certainly

apply with peculiar force to the employment of those upon whose

vigilance and alertness in the performance of their duties the safety

of all who travel by rail depends.

* * * * *

In my annual Message to the Fifty-seventh Congress, at its second

session, I recommended the passage of an Employers’ Liability Law

for the District of Columbia and in our navy yards. I renewed that

recommendation in my Message to the Fifty-eighth Congress, at its

second session, and further suggested the appointment of a commission

to make a comprehensive study of employers’ liability, with a view to

the enactment of a wise and constitutional law covering the subject,

applicable to all industries within the scope of the Federal power.

I hope that such a law will be prepared and enacted as speedily as

possible.

* * * * *

The National Government has as a rule but little occasion to deal

with the formidable group of problems connected more or less directly

with what is known as the labor question, for in the great majority

of cases these problems must be dealt with by the State and municipal

authorities and not by the National Government. The National

Government has control of the District of Columbia, however, and it

should see to it that the City of Washington is made a model city

in all respects, both as regards parks, public playgrounds, proper

regulation of the system of housing so as to do away with the evils

of alley tenements, a proper system of education, a proper system

of dealing with truancy and juvenile offenders, a proper handling

of the charitable work of the District. Moreover, there should be

proper factory laws to prevent all abuses in the employment of women

and children in the District. These will be useful chiefly as object

lessons, but even this limited amount of usefulness would be of real

national value.

There has been demand for depriving courts of the power to issue

injunctions in labor disputes. Such special limitation of the equity

powers of our courts would be most unwise. It is true that some judges

have misused this power; but this does not justify a denial of the

power any more than an improper exercise of the power to call a strike

by a labor leader would justify the denial of the right to strike. The

remedy is to regulate the procedure by requiring the judge to give due

notice to the adverse parties before granting the writ, the hearing

to be _ex parte_ if the adverse party does not appear at the time and

place ordered. What is due notice must depend upon the facts of the

case: it should not be used as a pretext to permit violation of the

law, or the jeopardizing of life or property. Of course, this would

not authorize the issuing of a restraining order or injunction in any

case in which it is not already authorized by existing law.

I renew the recommendation I made in my last annual Message for an

investigation by the Department of Commerce and Labor of general

labor conditions, especial attention to be paid to the conditions

of child labor and child-labor legislation in the several States.

Such an investigation should take into account the various problems

with which the question of child labor is connected. It is true that

these problems can be actually met in most cases only by the States

themselves, but it would be well for the Nation to endeavor to secure

and publish comprehensive information as to the conditions of the labor

of children in the different States, so as to spur up those that are

behindhand, and to secure approximately uniform legislation of a high

character among the several States. In such a Republic as ours the one

thing that we can not afford to neglect is the problem of turning out

decent citizens. The future of the Nation depends upon the citizenship

of the generations to come; the children of to-day are those who

to-morrow will shape the destiny of our land, and we can not afford

to neglect them. The Legislature of Colorado has recommended that the

National Government provide some general measure for the protection

from abuse of children and dumb animals throughout the United States.

I lay the matter before you for what I trust will be your favorable

consideration.

The Department of Commerce and Labor should also make a thorough

investigation of the conditions of women in industry. Over five million

American women are now engaged in gainful occupations; yet there is

an almost complete dearth of data upon which to base any trustworthy

conclusions as regards a subject as important as it is vast and

complicated. There is need of full knowledge on which to base action

looking toward State and municipal legislation for the protection of

working women. The introduction of women into industry is working

change and disturbance in the domestic and social life of the Nation.

The decrease in marriage, and especially in the birth rate, has been

coincident with it. We must face accomplished facts, and the adjustment

to factory conditions must be made; but surely it can be made with less

friction and less harmful effects on family life than is now the case.

This whole matter in reality forms one of the greatest sociological

phenomena of our time; it is a social question of the first importance,

of far greater importance than any merely political or economic

question can be; and to solve it we need ample data, gathered in a sane

and scientific spirit in the course of an exhaustive investigation.

In any great labor disturbance not only are employer and employee

interested, but also a third party—the general public. Every

considerable labor difficulty in which interstate commerce is involved

should be investigated by the Government and the facts officially

reported to the public.

The question of securing a healthy, self-respecting, and mutually

sympathetic attitude as between employer and employee, capitalist

and wage-worker, is a difficult one. All phases of the labor problem

prove difficult when approached. But the underlying principles, the

root principles, in accordance with which the problem must be solved

are entirely simple. We can get justice and right dealing only if we

put as of paramount importance the principle of treating a man on his

worth as a man rather than with reference to his social position,

his occupation, or the class to which he belongs. There are selfish

and brutal men in all ranks of life. If they are capitalists their

selfishness and brutality may take the form of hard indifference to

suffering, greedy disregard of every moral restraint which interferes

with the accumulation of wealth, and cold-blooded exploitation of the

weak; or, if they are laborers, the form of laziness, of sullen envy of

the more fortunate, and of willingness to perform deeds of murderous

violence. Such conduct is just as reprehensible in one case as in

the other, and all honest and far-seeing men should join in warring

against it wherever it becomes manifest. Individual capitalist and

individual wage-worker, corporation and union, are alike entitled to

the protection of the law, and must alike obey the law. Moreover, in

addition to mere obedience to the law, each man, if he be really a

good citizen, must show broad sympathy for his neighbor and genuine

desire to look at any question arising between them from the standpoint

of that neighbor no less than from his own; and to this end it is

essential that capitalist and wage-worker should consult freely one

with the other, should each strive to bring closer the day when both

shall realize that they are properly partners and not enemies. To

approach the questions which inevitably arise between them solely from

the standpoint which treats each side in the mass as the enemy of the

other side in the mass is both wicked and foolish. In the past the most

direful among the influences which have brought about the downfall of

republics has ever been the growth of the class spirit, the growth of

the spirit which tends to make a man subordinate the welfare of the

public as a whole to the welfare of the particular class to which he

belongs, the substitution of loyalty to a class for loyalty to the

Nation. This inevitably brings about a tendency to treat each man not

on his merits as an individual, but on his position as belonging to

a certain class in the community. If such a spirit grows up in this

Republic it will ultimately prove fatal to us, as in the past it has

proved fatal to every community in which it has become dominant. Unless

we continue to keep a quick and lively sense of the great fundamental

truth that our concern is with the individual worth of the individual

man, this Government can not permanently hold the place which it has

achieved among the nations. The vital lines of cleavage among our

people do not correspond, and indeed run at right angles, to the lines

of cleavage which divide occupation from occupation, which divide

wage-workers from capitalists, farmers from bankers, men of small means

from men of large means, men who live in the towns from men who live in

the country; for the vital line of cleavage is the line which divides

the honest man who tries to do well by his neighbor from the dishonest

man who does ill by his neighbor. In other words, the standard we

should establish is the standard of conduct, not the standard of

occupation, of means, or of social position. It is the man’s moral

quality, his attitude toward the great questions which concern all

humanity, his cleanliness of life, his power to do his duty toward

himself and toward others, which really count; and if we substitute for

the standard of personal judgment which treats each man according to

his merits, another standard in accordance with which all men of one

class are favored and all men of another class discriminated against,

we shall do irreparable damage to the body politic. I believe that our

people are too sane, too self-respecting, too fit for self-government,

ever to adopt such an attitude. This Government is not and never shall

be government by a plutocracy. This Government is not and never shall

be government by a mob. It shall continue to be in the future what it

has been in the past, a government based on the theory that each man,

rich or poor, is to be treated simply and solely on his worth as a man,

that all his personal and property rights are to be safeguarded, and

that he is neither to wrong others nor to suffer wrong from others.

The noblest of all forms of government is self-government; but it is

also the most difficult. We who possess this priceless boon, and who

desire to hand it on to our children and our children’s children,

should ever bear in mind the thought so finely expressed by Burke:

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their

disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion

as they are disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good

in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society can not exist unless

a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and

the less of it there be within the more there must be without. It is

ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate

minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

* * * * *

The great insurance companies afford striking examples of corporations

whose business has extended so far beyond the jurisdiction of the

States which created them as to preclude strict enforcement of

supervision and regulation by the parent States. In my last annual

Message I recommended “that the Congress carefully consider whether

the power of the Bureau of Corporations can not constitutionally be

extended to cover interstate transactions in insurance.” Recent events

have emphasized the importance of an early and exhaustive consideration

of this question, to see whether it is not possible to furnish better

safeguards than the several States have been able to furnish against

corruption of the flagrant kind which has been exposed. It has been

only too clearly shown that certain of the men at the head of these

large corporations take but small note of the ethical distinction

between honesty and dishonesty; they draw the line only this side of

what may be called law-honesty, the kind of honesty necessary in order

to avoid falling into the clutches of the law. Of course the only

complete remedy for this condition must be found in an aroused public

conscience, a higher sense of ethical conduct in the community at

large, and especially among business men and in the great profession of

the law, and in the growth of a spirit which condemns all dishonesty,

whether in rich man or in poor man, whether it takes the shape of

bribery or of blackmail. But much can be done by legislation which

is not only drastic but practical. There is need of a far stricter

and more uniform regulation of the vast insurance interests of this

country. The United States should in this respect follow the policy of

other nations by providing adequate national supervision of commercial

interests which are clearly national in character. My predecessors have

repeatedly recognized that the foreign business of these companies

is an important part of our foreign commercial relations. During the

Administrations of Presidents Cleveland, Harrison, and McKinley the

State Department exercised its influence, through diplomatic channels,

to prevent unjust discrimination by foreign countries against American

insurance companies. These negotiations illustrated the propriety of

the Congress recognizing the national character of insurance, for in

the absence of Federal legislation the State Department could only give

expression to the wishes of the authorities of the several States,

whose policy was ineffective through want of uniformity.

I repeat my previous recommendation that the Congress should also

consider whether the Federal Government has any power or owes any duty

with respect to domestic transactions in insurance of an interstate

character. That State supervision has proved inadequate is generally

conceded. The burden upon insurance companies, and therefore their

policy-holders, of conflicting regulations of many States, is

unquestioned, while but little effective check is imposed upon any able

and unscrupulous man who desires to exploit the company in his own

interest at the expense of the policy-holders and of the public. The

inability of a State to regulate effectively insurance corporations

created under the laws of other States and transacting the larger part

of their business elsewhere is also clear. As a remedy for this evil

of conflicting, ineffective, and yet burdensome regulations there has

been for many years a widespread demand for Federal supervision. The

Congress has already recognized that interstate insurance may be a

proper subject for Federal legislation, for in creating the Bureau of

Corporations it authorized it to publish and supply useful information

concerning interstate corporations, “including corporations engaged in

insurance.” It is obvious that if the compilation of statistics be the

limit of the Federal power, it is wholly ineffective to regulate this

form of commercial intercourse between the States, and as the insurance

business has outgrown in magnitude the possibility of adequate State

supervision, the Congress should carefully consider whether further

legislation can be had. What is said above applies with equal force

to fraternal and benevolent organizations which contract for life

insurance.

* * * * *

There is more need of stability than of the attempt to attain an ideal

perfection in the methods of raising revenue; and the shock and strain

to the business world certain to attend any serious change in these

methods render such change inadvisable unless for grave reason. It is

not possible to lay down any general rule by which to determine the

moment when the reasons for will outweigh the reasons against such a

change. Much must depend, not merely on the needs, but on the desires,

of the people as a whole; for needs and desires are not necessarily

identical. Of course no change can be made on lines beneficial to, or

desired by, one section or one State only. There must be something

like a general agreement among the citizens of the several States, as

represented in the Congress, that the change is needed and desired

in the interest of the people as a whole; and there should then be a

sincere, intelligent, and disinterested effort to make it in such

shape as will combine, so far as possible, the maximum of good to the

people at large with the minimum of necessary disregard for the special

interests of localities or classes. But in time of peace the revenue

must on the average, taking a series of years together, equal the

expenditures, or else the revenues must be increased. Last year there

was a deficit. Unless our expenditures can be kept within the revenues

then our revenue laws must be readjusted. It is as yet too early to

attempt to outline what shape such a readjustment should take, for it

is as yet too early to say whether there will be need for it. It should

be considered whether it is not desirable that the tariff laws should

provide for applying as against or in favor of any other nation maximum

and minimum tariff rates established by the Congress, so as to secure a

certain reciprocity of treatment between other nations and ourselves.

Having in view even larger considerations of policy than those of a

purely economic nature, it would, in my judgment, be well to endeavor

to bring about closer commercial connections with the other peoples of

this continent. I am happy to be able to announce to you that Russia

now treats us on the most-favored-nation basis.

* * * * *

I earnestly recommend to the Congress the need of economy and to this

end of a rigid scrutiny of appropriations. As examples merely, I

call your attention to one or two specific matters. All unnecessary

offices should be abolished. The Commissioner of the General Land

Office recommends the abolishment of the office of receiver of public

moneys for United States land offices. This will effect a saving of

about a quarter of a million dollars a year. As the business of the

Nation grows it is inevitable that there should be from time to time a

legitimate increase in the number of officials, and this fact renders

it all the more important that when offices become unnecessary they

should be abolished. In the public printing also a large saving of

public money can be made. There is a constantly growing tendency to

publish masses of unimportant information. It is probably not unfair to

say that many tens of thousands of volumes are published at which no

human being ever looks and for which there is no real demand whatever.

Yet, in speaking of economy, I must in no wise be understood

as advocating the false economy which is in the end the worst

extravagance. To cut down on the Navy, for instance, would be a crime

against the Nation. To fail to push forward all work on the Panama

Canal would be as great a folly.

* * * * *

In my Message of December 2, 1902, to the Congress I said:

“Interest rates are a potent factor in business activity, and in

order that these rates may be equalized to meet the varying needs

of the seasons and of widely separated communities, and to prevent

the recurrence of financial stringencies which injuriously affect

legitimate business, it is necessary that there should be an element

of elasticity in our monetary system. Banks are the natural servants

of commerce, and upon them should be placed, as far as practicable,

the burden of furnishing and maintaining a circulation adequate to

supply the needs of our diversified industries and of our domestic and

foreign commerce; and the issue of this should be so regulated that a

sufficient supply should be always available for the business interests

of the country.”

Every consideration of prudence demands the addition of the element

of elasticity to our currency system. The evil does not consist in an

inadequate volume of money, but in the rigidity of this volume, which

does not respond as it should to the varying needs of communities and

of seasons. Inflation must be avoided; but some provision should be

made that will ensure a larger volume of money during the fall and

winter months than in the less active seasons of the year; so that

the currency will contract against speculation, and will expand for

the needs of legitimate business. At present the Treasury Department

is at irregularly recurring intervals obliged, in the interest of the

business world—that is, in the interest of the American public—to

try to avert financial crises by providing a remedy which should be

provided by Congressional action.

* * * * *

At various times I have instituted investigations into the organization

and conduct of the business of the Executive Departments. While none

of these inquiries have yet progressed far enough to warrant final

conclusions, they have already confirmed and emphasized the general

impression that the organization of the Departments is often faulty

in principle and wasteful in results, while many of their business

methods are antiquated and inefficient. There is every reason why our

executive governmental machinery should be at least as well planned,

economical, and efficient as the best machinery of the great business

organizations, which at present is not the case. To make it so is

a task of complex detail and essentially executive in its nature;

probably no legislative body, no matter how wise and able, could

undertake it with reasonable prospect of success. I recommend that the

Congress consider this subject with a view to provide by legislation

for the transfer, distribution, consolidation, and assignment of duties

and executive organizations or parts of organizations, and for the

changes in business methods, within or between the several Departments,

that will best promote the economy, efficiency, and high character of

the Government work.

* * * * *

In my last annual Message I said:

“The power of the Government to protect the integrity of the elections

of its own officials is inherent and has been recognized and affirmed

by repeated declarations of the Supreme Court. There is no enemy of

free government more dangerous and none so insidious as the corruption

of the electorate. No one defends or excuses corruption, and it would

seem to follow that none would oppose vigorous measures to eradicate

it. I recommend the enactment of a law directed against bribery and

corruption in Federal elections. The details of such a law may be

safely left to the wise discretion of the Congress, but it should go

as far as under the Constitution it is possible to go, and should

include severe penalties against him who gives or receives a bribe

intended to influence his act or opinion as an elector; and provisions

for the publication not only of the expenditures for nominations and

elections of all candidates, but also of all contributions received and

expenditures made by political committees.”

I desire to repeat this recommendation. In political campaigns in a

country as large and populous as ours it is inevitable that there

should be much expense of an entirely legitimate kind. This, of course,

means that many contributions, and some of them of large size, must

be made, and, as a matter of fact, in any big political contest such

contributions are always made to both sides. It is entirely proper

both to give and receive them, unless there is an improper motive

connected with either gift or reception. If they are extorted by any

kind of pressure or promise, express or implied, direct or indirect,

in the way of favor or immunity, then the giving or receiving becomes

not only improper but criminal. It will undoubtedly be difficult as

a matter of practical detail to shape an act which shall guard with

reasonable certainty against such misconduct; but if it is possible

to secure by law the full and verified publication in detail of all

the sums contributed to and expended by the candidates or committees

of any political parties the result can not but be wholesome. All

contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any

political purpose should be forbidden by law; directors should not be

permitted to use stockholders’ money for such purposes; and, moreover,

a prohibition of this kind would be, as far as it went, an effective

method of stopping the evils aimed at in corrupt practices acts. Not

only should both the National and the several State legislatures forbid

any officer of a corporation from using the money of the corporation in

or about any election, but they should also forbid such use of money in

connection with any legislation save by the employment of counsel in

public manner for distinctly legal services.

* * * * *

The first Conference of Nations held at The Hague in 1899, being unable

to dispose of all the business before it, recommended the consideration

and settlement of a number of important questions by another conference

to be called subsequently and at an early date. These questions

were the following: (1) The rights and duties of neutrals; (2) the

limitation of the armed forces on land and sea, and of military

budgets; (3) the use of new types and calibres of military and naval

guns: (4) the inviolability of private property at sea in times of war;

(5) the bombardment of ports, cities, and villages by naval forces. In

October, 1904, at the instance of the Interparliamentary Union, which,

at a conference held in the United States and attended by the lawmakers

of fifteen different nations, had reiterated the demand for a second

Conference of Nations, I issued invitations to all the Powers signatory

to The Hague Convention to send delegates to such a conference

and suggested that it be again held at The Hague. In its note of

December 16, 1904, the United States Government communicated to the

representatives of foreign governments its belief that the conference

could be best arranged under the provisions of the present Hague treaty.

* * * * *

From all the Powers acceptance was received, coupled in some cases

with the condition that we should wait until the end of the war then

waging between Russia and Japan. The Emperor of Russia, immediately

after the treaty of peace which so happily terminated this war, in a

note presented to the President on September 13, through Ambassador

Rosen, took the initiative in recommending that the conference be now

called. The United States Government in response expressed its cordial

acquiescence and stated that it would, as a matter of course, take

part in the new conference and endeavor to further its aims. We assume

that all civilized governments will support the movement, and that the

conference is now an assured fact. This Government will do everything

in its power to secure the success of the conference to the end that

substantial progress may be made in the cause of international peace,

justice, and good-will.

This renders it proper at this time to say something as to the general

attitude of this Government toward peace. More and more war is coming

to be looked upon as in itself a lamentable and evil thing. A wanton

or useless war, or a war of mere aggression—in short, any war begun

or carried on in a conscienceless spirit—is to be condemned as a

peculiarly atrocious crime against all humanity. We can, however, do

nothing of permanent value for peace unless we keep ever clearly in

mind the ethical element which lies at the root of the problem. Our aim

is righteousness. Peace is normally the handmaiden of righteousness;

but when peace and righteousness conflict then a great and upright

people can never for a moment hesitate to follow the path which leads

toward righteousness, even though that path also leads to war. There

are persons who advocate peace at any price; there are others who,

following a false analogy, think that because it is no longer necessary

in civilized countries for individuals to protect their rights with a

strong hand, it is therefore unnecessary for nations to be ready to

defend their rights. These persons would do irreparable harm to any

nation that adopted their principles, and even as it is they seriously

hamper the cause which they advocate by tending to render it absurd

in the eyes of sensible and patriotic men. There can be no worse foe

of mankind in general, and of his own country in particular, than

the demagogue of war, the man who in mere folly or to serve his own

selfish ends continually rails at and abuses other nations, who seeks

to excite his countrymen against foreigners on insufficient pretexts,

who excites and inflames a perverse and aggressive national vanity,

and who may on occasions wantonly bring on conflict between his nation

and some other nation. But there are demagogues of peace just as there

are demagogues of war, and in any such movement as this for The Hague

conference it is essential not to be misled by one set of extremists

any more than by the other. Whenever it is possible for a nation or an

individual to work for real peace, assuredly it is failure of duty not

so to strive; but if war is necessary and righteous, then either the

man or the nation shrinking from it forfeits all title to self-respect.

We have scant sympathy with the sentimentalist who dreads oppression

less than physical suffering, who would prefer a shameful peace to

the pain and toil sometimes lamentably necessary in order to secure a

righteous peace. As yet there is only a partial and imperfect analogy

between international law and internal or municipal law, because there

is no sanction of force for executing the former, while there is in the

case of the latter. The private citizen is protected in his rights by

the law, because the law rests in the last resort upon force exercised

through the forms of law. A man does not have to defend his rights with

his own hand, because he can call upon the police, upon the sheriff’s

posse, upon the militia, or in certain extreme cases upon the Army, to

defend him. But there is no such sanction of force for international

law. At present there could be no greater calamity than for the free

peoples, the enlightened, independent, and peace-loving peoples, to

disarm while yet leaving it open to any barbarism or despotism to

remain armed. So long as the world is as unorganized as now, the armies

and navies of those peoples who on the whole stand for justice offer

not only the best, but the only possible, security for a just peace.

For instance, if the United States alone, or in company only with

the other nations that on the whole tend to act justly, disarmed, we

might sometimes avoid bloodshed, but we would cease to be of weight

in securing the peace of justice—the real peace for which the most

law-abiding and high-minded men must at times be willing to fight. As

the world is now, only that nation is equipped for peace that knows how

to fight and that will not shrink from fighting if ever the conditions

become such that war is demanded in the name of the highest morality.

So much it is emphatically necessary to say in order both that the

position of the United States may not be misunderstood, and that

a genuine effort to bring nearer the day of the peace of justice

among the nations may not be hampered by a folly which, in striving

to achieve the impossible, would render it hopeless to attempt the

achievement of the practical. But while recognizing most clearly

all above set forth, it remains our clear duty to strive in every

practicable way to bring nearer the time when the sword shall not be

the arbiter among nations. At present the practical thing to do is to

try to minimize the number of cases in which it must be the arbiter,

and to offer, at least to all civilized powers, some substitute for

war which will be available in at least a considerable number of

instances. Very much can be done through another Hague conference in

this direction, and I most earnestly urge that this Nation do all in

its power to try to further the movement and to make the result of the

decisions of The Hague conference effective. I earnestly hope that the

conference may be able to devise some way to make arbitration between

nations the customary way of settling international disputes in all

save a few classes of cases, which should themselves be as sharply

defined and rigidly limited as the present governmental and social

development of the world will permit. If possible, there should be a

general arbitration treaty negotiated among all the nations represented

at the conference. Neutral rights and property should be protected at

sea as they are protected on land. There should be an international

agreement to this purpose and a similar agreement defining contraband

of war.

During the last century there has been a distinct diminution in the

number of wars between the most civilized nations. International

relations have become closer, and the development of The Hague tribunal

is not only a symptom of this growing closeness of relationship, but is

a means by which the growth can be furthered. Our aim should be from

time to time to take such steps as may be possible toward creating

something like an organization of the civilized nations, because as

the world becomes more highly organized the need for navies and armies

will diminish. It is not possible to secure anything like an immediate

disarmament, because it would first be necessary to settle what peoples

are on the whole a menace to the rest of mankind, and to provide

against the disarmament of the rest being turned into a movement which

would really chiefly benefit these obnoxious peoples; but it may be

possible to exercise some check upon the tendency to swell indefinitely

the budgets for military expenditure. Of course, such an effort could

succeed only if it did not attempt to do too much; and if it were

undertaken in a spirit of sanity as far removed as possible from a

merely hysterical pseudo-philanthropy. It is worth while pointing out

that since the end of the insurrection in the Philippines this Nation

has shown its practical faith in the policy of disarmament by reducing

its little army one-third. But disarmament can never be of prime

importance; there is more need to get rid of the causes of war than of

the implements of war.