THE FORD HALL TOWN MEETING
The Ford Hall Town Meeting is a school of democracy at work; it is a
school of applied brotherhood. That statement may sound like an attempt
at fine writing but I want to show you that applied to the Town Meeting
it is justified. I want to show you also that after you have carried on a
debating club for a few years, the Town Meeting is a good graduate school
for the further development of the art of debate. You will remember that
throughout this book I have insisted that the real purpose of debate is
to get worth while things done. To a peculiar degree, the Ford Hall Town
Meeting does enable debate to get worth while things done.
I said it was a school of democracy at work; but what is democracy?
You have learned that there are three kinds of states, monarchies,
aristocracies and democracies. You all believe, moreover, that in this
age of the world, the first two are outgrown and that the democratic
state is the only one that should exist nowadays. If I should ask you
to define a democratic state you would immediately answer that the
democratic state is one based upon democracy. If I should then ask
you to define democracy, you would hesitate long. I have tried many
definitions before I found one which was satisfactory. How does this
strike you?
“Democracy is the equality of opportunity for self-expression.” I think
that statement covers it all. You see, for instance, the opportunity to
the slave was not equal to that of the free man. The child of twelve who
works in the factory all day has no equality of opportunity with other
children. The man who is willing to work but can’t find a job, has no
equality of opportunity. To the slave, the child, and the jobless man,
democracy means nothing.
We all believe that God intended every child to have his chance. Somehow,
though, things have become twisted and warped. Because we believe,
however, that after a while things will be right, we keep on trying to
help make our democracy the common property of all of us. We try to keep
these children out of the factory and get them into school. We try to get
a job for this man who wants work, or, better yet, so arrange things that
there will be plenty of jobs for him and for his friends. After Jimmy
Francis’ mother has lost Jimmy’s father by death and she is left without
means, we want our democratic state to say: “Oh! Mrs. Francis, what a
loss! We are truly sorry for Jimmy and for you. To show that we are, we
have arranged so you will have a few dollars a week, enough to help take
care of Jimmy, so you won’t be anxious and worried about his bringing up.”
You see many a widowed mother hasn’t had her equal chance to bring up her
boy as she wanted to. Democracy didn’t exist as far as she was concerned.
Her Jimmy began to live in the streets, then in the pool-rooms, then in
the saloons. He wasn’t a good boy any more; he knew all about vice and
crime. He knew all about reform schools and jails and possibly State
prisons. Her Jimmy was lost to democracy.
But was it Jimmy’s fault? Or his mother’s? Did he have his chance? Was
the State really democratic to him?
You see there are many questions which will tax all our thinking powers
properly to answer. Really, however, the kind of a state which gives
every boy his opportunity to make the most of himself, is just like one
great family. You know in the family, Jimmy has a chance equal to that
of Bob, and Bill and Frank share alike in everything. Why? Because they
are brothers. Don’t you see then that democracy is but another name for
brotherhood? If all men are brothers, if they really _are_ brothers,
and mean brotherhood when they say brotherhood, most of our perplexing
questions would settle themselves right off.
The idea seems very simple; it is simple. Its working out, however, is
not so simple.
How shall we put at work this idea of democracy? That’s not so simple,
and men everywhere are studying how best to bring into action this simple
principle of democracy, brotherhood. One of the best of the schools
working out this idea is the Ford Hall Town Meeting. I want to show you
just what it is doing, and how its example affects you.
Really to understand the Town Meeting you must know something about the
“Ford Hall Idea,” for the Town Meeting is but its latest development.
Like many other ideas, this one centers about one man. I don’t mean
that this man _discovered_ it. No. The Idea was as old as time. Hebrew
prophets taught it. David sang it. Jesus lived it. Paul preached it. This
man made a new application of the old vision. He was, eight years ago, an
ordinary business man, who was more and more grieved at the way people
went on misunderstanding one another. Class was clashing with class. Men
didn’t know what other men thought, and because they didn’t know, they
doubted; because they doubted, they feared. And, the worst, men evidently
didn’t care to find out what other men thought. They seemed to hunt for
points of differences instead of points upon which they could agree.
This was the situation that George W. Coleman saw.
He began to wonder what he could do to bring men together. He felt sure
that if they could only _know_ each other, they would find so many points
where they did agree that they would forget those upon which they did
not agree. If that much progress proved impossible, he thought that at
least they would see the real merit on both sides, see the sincerity of
each other, and make a working agreement which would put tolerance in the
place of hate.
Mr. Coleman was at that time president of the Boston Baptist Social Union
to which Daniel Sharp Ford had left a building on Beacon Hill, Boston,
and an income to be used “to soften the inevitable conflict between
capital and labor in Boston.” Mr. Ford was the owner of _The Youth’s
Companion_. “There is my chance,” said Mr. Coleman. “What can better
carry out the spirit of Mr. Ford’s will than a Sunday night service
where the Jew and the Baptist, the Methodist and the Socialist, the
Congregationalist and the Catholic, the Churched and the Unchurched, can
get together and discuss the vital things of life, and _learn to know
each other_.”
The Social Union agreed, and now for seven winters every Sunday night
has seen twelve hundred earnest men and women gathered in Ford Hall to
listen to one who has a message and is not afraid to let the other man
talk back. The speaker speaks, and then the listeners ask questions. They
have the right to talk out in meeting, you see, and understand the great
difference between being talked at and being talked with. At the Ford
Hall Meetings, speaker and audience talk with each other.
Of course, much of the success of Ford Hall has come from the choice
of the subjects of the addresses. No one would think, for example, of
discussing the Alsace-Lorraine affair, interesting as it all is to the
student of history, and fitting as it would be for the Debating Club. Nor
would a speaker at Ford Hall discuss the authorship of the book of Amos,
for example, important as is such a question for a theological school.
But the teachings of Amos on the questions of land ownership, the points
of similarity between Amos and Henry George—that’s different, you see. It
is right that we should know whether Cook or Peary discovered the North
Pole, but that problem does not affect the life of the man who lives
in the congested city slum. He would go right on living just the same
whether there was a North Pole or wasn’t. The racial differences between
the Slavs and the Yankees suggest interesting questions, but they assume
a different importance when they are related to the immigration of those
Slavs to America. In the first instance, the Ford Hall audience would be
but politely interested; in the second discussion they would be vitally
concerned.
If we can group these questions under one class, then, we should say Ford
Hall Folks, as they have come to call themselves, are concerned in Social
Civics. The Idea, then, that Mr. Coleman had, was that if a place could
be provided where men and women of all races and beliefs and creeds and
of no creeds could get together to discuss together Social Civics—that
is, those questions which vitally concern the common life of all—that
they would learn to know each other, to understand each other, to respect
each other’s point of view. In short they would become neighbors instead
of enemies.
And the idea worked! They have not lost their independence. Oh, no! They
think just as intensely as they ever did. But they realize that the other
man is doing the same thing too.
In the Ford Hall audiences, are men of all faiths and of none, of all
economic and political creeds. Most of them are workers with their hands.
Most of them are poor, many extremely so. Many of them have fled the
terrors of oppression and massacre, and, in too many cases, when they
arrived in America they found misunderstanding and even brutality, little
less than that which they escaped overseas. So when they did find Ford
Hall, the place where brotherhood is preached and, better yet, where it
is lived, you can see that liberty, justice, equality and freedom, came
to mean something to them.
I am telling you these things in such detail for I want you to realize
that democracy and brotherhood are very real things; they touch our lives
closely and intimately. If you have been fortunate enough to have escaped
the miseries so many of these brothers of ours have had to endure, you
ought to feel an added sense of responsibility for the maintenance of the
democracy they believe in.
In the Ford Hall meetings, then, we have a group of people with a passion
for brotherhood trying to find the ground common to all their beliefs.
But these meetings were only discussing the _theories_ of democracy. How
should the theory be converted into practice? The answer is The Town
Meeting.
All the Ford Hall Folks are enthusiastically democratic. They said: “We
all want to _do_ something. What shall we do? What _can_ we do? What are
people who think as we do, doing now? Have we laws which would do what we
want done, if they were enforced? If they are not enforced, why aren’t
they? Is it because of remediable defect in the law, or is it because the
people need further education?”
You see how different the abstract idea may be from the measure necessary
to carry it into practice? For example, during the winter of 1914 we all
agreed that the man who wants work and is starving because he can’t get
it ought to have his chance, _ought to have work_. One speaker at a Ford
Hall meeting discussed: “The Right to Work.” He was eloquent, logical,
forceful; his hearers again received the message of democracy, that every
man had the right to self expression in terms of his industrial life—had
a right to a job. But there could be no discussion of _how he was going
to get that job_. The next Thursday night, however, a bill was introduced
in the Town Meeting providing that the State should engage in active work
in reforesting and reclaiming waste land, thereby providing work for the
unemployed. Do you see the difference? Do you see how the Town Meeting
supplements and carries into definite expression the Ford Hall Idea? The
Sunday night speaker discussed the theory of the rights of the jobless
man. The Town Meeting sought to put that theory into practice the next
Thursday night. That’s the Town Meeting angle of the Ford Hall Idea.
I hope I have made clear to you the reasons for organizing the Town
Meeting. We all felt that there was plenty of talk lying around loose,
good talk, full of good ideas and worth while. But if that talk could
be translated into workable measures, into specific plans for doing
things, we would be taking a distinct step ahead. So the Town Meeting was
organized.
The Town Meeting, in form, is a group of men and women who are organized
to discuss such measures as would be introduced into a real town meeting,
a city council or a state legislature, to relieve social ills. The
ordinance or bill, as the case may be, is not a mere declaration of a
theory, but a definite programme for carrying some theory of betterment
into action. We confined the sphere of its discussions to matters arising
within a State, and not the nation, because we wished, for the sake
of simplicity, to avoid the complications of inherent and delegated
sovereignty. We assumed, therefore, that the Town Meeting could legislate
on all matters _except_ those belonging to the National or Federal
government.
In Town Meeting citizenship, there are no distinctions of sex, race,
creed, or position or rank of any kind. The suggestion of an age limit
was voted down after a lad in knee trousers had made an impassioned plea
for a chance to supplement the work of the schools. Young and old, rich
and poor, foreigner and native, join in a citizenship whose sole test is
service. We believe in each other, in the Town Meeting. We trust each
other. Take, for instance, the single matter of taxes. Of course we need
money to pay our bills. Therefore we arranged our budget and levied our
appropriation to meet it _but imposed no taxes_. Our citizens know that
we must have money; they know our needs, and every meeting envelopes
like this are passed around:
SEASON OF 1914
FORD HALL TOWN MEETING
_Income Tax_
Put Your Weekly Tax in this ENVELOPE
Minimum Tax 5 cents per Meeting
SUGGESTED SCHEDULE
Income $ 9 weekly or less 5 cts.
Income $12 weekly or less 6 cts.
Income $15 weekly or less 7 cts.
Income $18 weekly or less 8 cts.
Income $21 weekly or less 9 cts.
Income $24 weekly or less 10 cts.
Income $27 weekly or less 12 cts.
Income $30 weekly or less 15 cts.
Income more than $30 weekly 25 cts.
Every citizen may well give as much as she/he can afford
without regard to schedule.
In the future it will be clearly seen that the citizen who
gives most generously in time and money to the public welfare,
will get most in honor and happiness.
Noblesse oblige
_Assessors_:
MRS. WILLIAM HORTON FOSTER, Treasurer
JACOB S. LONDON
GEORGE BREWSTER GALLUP
The citizen determines how much he should pay, how much he can pay,
inserts that much, seals his envelope and hands it to the treasurer. No
mark of any kind is placed upon the envelope and no one but the citizen
knows the amount he has paid. The question is one between himself and his
honor.
The organization is called the Town Meeting because we wished to
emphasize the absolute and fundamental democracy of the group. You
remember how in the town meetings of New England the citizens came
together every year and decided what the town should do and should not
do. As community life became more complicated, however, the town meeting
proved inadequate. The various towns, therefore, appointed delegates to
discuss together the questions of large concern while the town meetings
cared for purely local matters. Furthermore, as cities increased in
importance and in the variety of their business, city councils often took
the place of town meetings. So we soon had the three legislative bodies,
the town meeting, the city council, and the legislature.
Out of this increasing perplexity of modern conditions has arisen the
need of a more highly organized legislative system. Now men cannot get
together and offhand decide what should or should not be done. Men, even
of the highest motives, can’t legislate intelligently upon questions that
they have not studied. Hence the committee system of Congress and the
various legislatures has grown up.
Under this system, committees are appointed, from the members, to which
are referred the various questions which come before the legislative
bodies. For instance, if a bill which sought to regulate the employment
of boys in factories were presented to a state legislature, it would
probably be referred to the Committee on Labor, or perhaps to the
Committee on Industries. If in that State there were many questions about
child labor, it might have a special committee on child labor alone. But
whatever the committee might be, there would be some one committee to
which would be referred every bill affecting the labor of children in
factories. This committee would be in a position to discuss all these
measures more intelligently and study them more carefully than could be
done in the legislature itself. It would invite before it people who
knew the subject thoroughly and would then report its conclusions to the
legislature, perhaps together with its information carefully organized.
The Ford Hall Town Meeting is organized, like a legislature, with a
series of committees to which are referred the various questions which
come before it. The Calendar of the Town Meeting on a recent date will
indicate clearly what kind of measures we are considering and what
committees have them in charge.
When you look at the Calendar you will notice that there are “orders” on
the list, and “bills.” In other Calendars “resolves” appeared also. What
is the difference? Generally speaking, the bill is a measure introduced
into the legislature, an order (ordinance) is a measure introduced into a
city council, and a resolve (resolution) is a measure introduced into a
town meeting. Yes, I mean to say we introduce them all indiscriminately,
but we don’t mix them up. You may have a perfectly good idea for helping
solve a problem but many a time you don’t know whether it is something
the State should take up or whether it belongs to the city or possibly to
the town. So in the Town Meeting the citizen must make up his mind where
his proposed measure belongs. That’s part of his drill.
Look at the Calendar again. See the practical nature of the measures
introduced. The history of Order No. 1 illustrates a valuable feature
of the Town Meeting. The order directed the City of Boston to expend
$50,000 on a model municipal lodging house. That winter the question of
unemployment and the care of the unemployed was very much before us in
Boston and in other parts of the country. It is easy to say: “Yes, we
will have a model municipal lodging house” and order one built. But in
regular routine I, as Moderator, referred this order to the Committee on
City Planning. (You know it is the duty of the Moderator to refer every
measure when it is introduced, to what, in his judgment, is the proper
committee.) The chairman of this committee didn’t render a perfunctory
report on the bill but started his committee at work studying municipal
lodging houses everywhere. The members of the committee asked themselves:
“What constitutes a _model_ lodging house?” and then set themselves to
find out. They have been studying such institutions at home and abroad.
They are accumulating such a mass of information upon the questions
involved that when they do bring in a report it will be supported by
evidence which will command attention. Such a report will be a very much
worth while document; it will be a sociological study worthy of any civic
body.
NUMBER SUBJECT REFERRED TO REPORTED
COMMITTEE ON
=========================================================================
Order #1 municipal lodging house. city planning. In committee.
Bill #5 to investigate unemployment. labor. unfavorably.
On order of day.
Bill #6 individual license act. liquor laws. In committee.
Bill #7 to give effect to Declaration judiciary. unfavorably.
of Independence. On order of day.
Bill #8 lights in tenement houses. housing. In committee.
Bill #10 occupancy of cellars and housing. In committee.
basements.
Bill #16 sale of liquors by druggists liquor laws. favorably.
and apothecaries. On order of day.
Bill #18 removal of hats by ladies. rules and In committee.
courtesies,
jointly.
Bill #19 “tin plate law,” introduced On order of day.
by committee on publicity.
Order #6 condemning Ward 8 municipal municipal In committee.
building. affairs.
Bill #21 publication of weekly by judiciary. unfavorably.
Massachusetts towns. Recommitted.
Bill #22 recreation evening in education and In committee.
public schools. play and
recreation
jointly.
Bill #23 open air concerts. play and In committee.
recreation.
Bill #24 insurance commission. judiciary. In committee.
Bill #25 State recreation board. play and In committee.
recreation.
Bill #29 system to pay public debts. judiciary. In committee.
Bill #30 summer outings. courtesies. In committee.
Bill #31 American and other flags. labor. In committee.
Bill #32 coöperation with transportation. In committee.
Postmaster-General.
Bill #33 straw vote on equal suffrage. judiciary. In committee.
Bill #34 children as actors. play and In committee.
recreation.
Bill #35 equal suffrage. judiciary. In committee.
Bill #37 investigating department labor. In committee.
stores.
Bill #38 abolishing capital punishment. judiciary. In committee.
Bill #39 removing Charles Street Jail. municipal In committee.
affairs.
Bill #40 investigating Wayfarer’s Lodge. city planning. In committee.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next on the Calendar, Bill No. 5, concerned the notice which must be
given before discharge of employés. Now notice. The great majority of
the citizens of the Town Meeting are workers with their hands—laborers,
and sympathetic with labor; yet they defeated that bill, because it was
unfair and impractical.
The Town Meeting takes itself very seriously, and so must you when you
organize one. It doesn’t for a moment think it is just playing at life.
It studies these questions and then seeks to translate its decisions into
civic action. For example, after deciding that a certain policy was for
the best interest of the city, it memorialized the city to that end. The
city authorities heard our arguments, and the matter is now laid over
awaiting the settlement of certain questions upon which our question
depends. As far as this point is concerned it makes no difference what
the city eventually does with our memorial. The point is that the city
takes us as seriously as we take ourselves.
Have I told you enough to give you the spirit and genius of the Ford
Hall Town Meeting? You can see how it gives training in parliamentary
practice and debate. You see how it educates in the finer graces of club
life and intercourse. You can see how its committee activities can weld
workers together. You can see how its investigations of city conditions
are truly educational, how they train the citizens for usefulness to the
state.
Have I justified the insertion of this description of the Ford Hall Town
Meeting in a book on Debating for Boys?
I have told you about it because all your debating and all your clubs
won’t be worth much to you unless you catch the same spirit of applied
democracy, of brotherhood—the spirit that has gripped the Ford Hall
Folks. Truly they were baptized with a passion for it. They found it here
after great suffering and trial. You boys can govern your lives by the
same spirit; you can fill your lives with the same service.
So after you have tried yourselves out in the regular debating clubs,
organize a Town Meeting, or do it now if you feel the kindling of the
idea strongly enough. Everything I have said about debating applies to
the work of the Town Meeting as well as that of the debating society. And
even more than that of the club is the work of the Town Meeting related
to real life, preparation for which is the aim of this book.