Page images

man being. But we must always re lieved in the man and the dollar, but member that human rights are para that in case of conflict he believed in the mount. In fact, everything depends man before the dollar. Again, in his upon the establishment of the true re message to Congress in 1861, Lincoln lation between the individual and dull, said: inanimate property.

"It is not needed or fitting here that The house and its foundation are in a general argument should be made in dissolubly connected, and we cannot favor of popular institutions, but there think of one without the other. So, is one point with its connection not so human rights and property rights are hackneyed as most others, to which I indissolubly connected. We cannot ask a brief attention. It is the effort to think of the one without the other, and place capital on an equal footing with, as, in the building of a house, we must if not above, labor in the structure of think of the foundation first and of the government; it is assumed that labor is house as a superstructure, so in thinking available only in connection with capi



TACOMA EASTERN R. R. Courtesy Tacoma Eastern R. R.

of society we must necessarily think of tal; that nobody labors unless somebody human rights first and of property rights else owning capital somehow, by the use as resting upon human rights. He who of capital, induces him to labor. talks of property rights as if they could “Labor is prior to and independent exist without a regard for human rights, of capital. Capital is only the fruit of speaks as foolishly as one who would at labor, and could never have existed if tempt to build a house without consid labor had not first existed. Labor is ering the foundation upon which it is to the superior of capital, and deserves stand. Lincoln discussed this subject much the higher consideration." in his own inimitable way. In 1859, in It will be seen that Lincoln believed responding to an invitation to attend a labor to be prior to and independent of birthday dinner given by Boston Repub- capital, and that he regarded capital as licans in honor of Thomas Jefferson, Lin only the fruit of labor. He expressly coln said that the Republican party be declared labor to be not only superior to

capital, but deserving of much the higher assumed as a fundamental proposition consideration. If labor is superior to that no man can justly lay claim to propcapital and deserving of much higher erty except on the ground that he has consideration, is not the human being given to society a benefit equal in value who stands back of labor more import to the property to which he lays claim. ant than either capital or labor? And If, for instance, an employe of the govare not the rights of human beings more ernment receives a certain compensaimportant than any rights which attach tion from the government which acts for to property, if indeed, the word “right" all the people, it is upon the theory that can properly be used to describe a qual he gives to the government a service ity or characteristic of property? equivalent in value to the compensation

The question that we have to meet received. If the compensation paid by is not really a question between the indi the government is more liberal than vidual and property, but rather a ques compensation paid by private individtion between those who own a great deal uals for similar service, it is on the theory

[graphic][ocr errors]

HEAD OF NESQUALLY CANYON. Courtesy Tacoma Eastern R. R.

As Seen from Train on Tacoma Eastern R. R.

of property and those who own but little, or it might better be stated as an issue between those who are seeking to secure property without giving to society an equivalent, and those who ask nothing more than to secure so much property as will reward them for the contribution which they make to the welfare of society.

Property, for the purpose of this article, will be defined as anything (a human being excepted) that can

that can be made the subject of ownership, and it will be

that the government should be in position not only to command at all times the service needed for the carrying on of the work of the government, but to command the best service.

The pension system is also based upon the theory that the government is paying for service rendered, and at the same time insuring a future service in case it needs to call upon its citizens to risk their lives in its behalf.

The patent system rests upon the same law of rewards. If a person gives

a new idea to the public or makes a new use of one of the forces of nature, society rewards him for the service rendered by giving him a temporary monopoly of the use of the idea. Thus the government in all of its operations acts upon the law of equivalents, proportioning the compensation, as nearly as possible, to the service rendered.

If the law governing inheritances seems to be an exception, it must be regarded as an apparent rather than a real exception. In the first place, the right to give away one's property is really a part of the right to use it. The right of a man to share his food with one whom he loves is as sacred as his right to eat it himself, and the right of a man to share his property with others, providing he has acquired it justly, is as sacred as his right to use it himself. If, for instance, a man by rendering an equivalent service secures an indefeasible title to a horse, his right to give that horse to another is as important a right as his right to use it himself. In so far as a parent's gifts to a child are in the preparation of the child for service, the parent is discharging an obligation incurred by him when he brought the child into the world, and in so far as the parent's gifts go beyond that, they may be considered as a payment for service rendered

or payment in advance for service that the child is expected to render to the parent when the parent becomes infirm. So, gifts between friends are as a rule made in payment for service rendered or in anticipation of services to be rendered, either to the giver or to others.

It is safe to say that no contest over property rights is likely to arise between those who feel that they are giving to society a service commensurate with the compensation which they are receiving. The controversy arises now and has always arisen between those who are conscious of enjoying what they have not earned, or conscious of desiring to secure that to which they are not entitled, and the masses of the people who feel that they not only earn all that they receive, but something more. Those who are insisting upon legislation which will protect each citizen in the enjoyment of

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the real champions of property rights as well as the champions of human rights, and those who talk so loudly of defending property rights are, upon investigation, found to be the ones who are endangering property rights as well as assailing the natural rights of the individual.

A few concrete cases will illustrate this proposition. Frequent efforts have been made to prohibit speculation in grain and in stocks, but those who attempt to secure such legislation are denounced as the enemies of property. Are they not the friends of property? What right has any man to enrich himself by disturbing the price of another man's property? The farmer raises grain for sale; he prepares the ground, sows the seed, tends the crop, separates the grain from the stalk or the husk, conveys it to the market and delivers it to the local miller or to a railroad for transportation to the miller at a distance. The miller grinds the grain into flour or meal, and delivers it to the baker or to the kitchen to be in turn converted into food. The farmer has a right to a compensation fixed by the law of supply and demand, for he not only bases his effort upon this, but he finds a protection in the free operation of this law. If the price is below the average, the low price, when the law of supply and demand operates freely, is caused by an increased supply, and this increased supply at the lower price yields him an average return. If the increased yield is in some other section, so that he does not receive the benefit of it in any particular year, he knows that his turn will come.

But when the market speculator appears upon the scene he enriches himself by overthrowing the law of supply and demand, and by substituting the law of corner and monopoly. He does not add a single bushel to the grain in existence; he does not facilitate its conveyance from purchaser to consumer; he does not turn a wheel; he does not serve a single useful purpose.

He simply feasts upon those whom he victimizes, and, like the horse leech, his cry is always “Give! Give!"

The same may be said of the business

[merged small][merged small][graphic][subsumed]

ENTERING NESQUALLY CANYON. Courtesy Tacoma Eastern R. R.

On Line of Tacoma Eastern R. R.

upon security, upon income and upon the value of money, and plunges stocks up or plunges them down for his own profit, and to the great injury of those who enter the market for honest purposes.

speculator as well as upon those whom he dupes and deceives. It is sufficient to say that the men who engage in such speculation not only make no contribution to the welfare of society, but constantly sacrifice the interests of innocent

people to their own greed. Those who in keeping the surplus large while the seek by legislation to put the board of rest of the people are interested in keeptrade and the stock exchange upon an ing the surplus small. honest basis, and to make them contrib In like manner it can be shown that ute to the security of business and to the those who oppose banks of issue are welfare of the country, are the friends of not open to the criticism that they are property, not the enemies of property. attacking property interests, for there Such legislation would be beneficial to is no more reason why a bank should the farmers who produce, to the consum draw interest upon bonds and at the ers for whom the farmer produces, and same time have the use of the face to the middlemen, and hurtful only to value of the bonds in bank notes, than those whom selfishness has made blind that any other bondholder should keep to the rights of others as well as their his money and at the same time draw own highest good.

interest upon it as if loaned to the govThose who demand the divorcement ernment, and there is no good reason of the treasury department from Wall why this particular form of security Street are not the enemies of private should be singled out and made profitproperty; they simply insist that public able to the holder, while other forms of property should not be taken for private security, equally good, are discriminated purposes, and that the functions of gov against ernment should not become an asset in We are told that when the brothers private business. It ought not to be of Joseph found that the father had considered heresy to say that the gov given him a coat of many colors, as a ernment should be administered by the token of his partiality, they hated Jopeople in their own behalf. It ought seph. In so far as hostility has been not to subject one to criticism to declare manifested toward bankers as a class, that the financial system of the govern it is accounted for by the fact that they ment should be made to subserve the in have been wearing the coat of many colterests of the whole people and not be ors and enjoying privileges and favors used to advance the interests of a few. denied to the rest of the people. Legislation can produce a drouth of The defenders of imperialism and comoney as surely as the sun, when rain is lonialism have posed as the special chamwithheld, can produce a drouth in the pions of commercial interests and of propfields and scarcity of money is as sure erty rights, and so distinguished a repreto increase the purchasing power of the sentative of the imperialists as Senator dollar as scarcity of a cereal is sure to Lodge has advocated the holding of the raise the price per bushel. Those who Philippines on the ground that our nainsist that the dollar should be made as tion must look after its pecuniary interstable as possible in its purchasing power ests. No one who will investigate the are not the enemies of property; they subject will doubt that the persons ben simply protest against allowing the stan efited by imperialism are small in numdard of value to be juggled with in bei compared with the persons whose the interest of the money changer and property interests are injured by imthe holder of fixed investments.

perialism. Thousands pay taxes to hold Those who desire to have the taxes the Filipinos in subjection where one limited to the needs of the government, person draws a dollar's worth of profit and, when collected, kept in the treas out of our occupation of the islands ury, are not guilty of doing injustice to The profit realized from trade with the the banks. They are simply advocating Filipinos amounts to but a small per a system which denies to the banks a cent. upon the money that we are exvaluable and unearned privilege which, pending there, and all the people spend when bestowed, arrays the banks against the money, while but a handful reap the the rest of the people, for if the banks benefits. The American does not excan make a profit out of the government pect to go to the Philippine Islands to deposits they are pecuniarily interested live. If all of the Filipinos were killed

« PreviousContinue »