The Great Need of the Country
San Francisco Examiner, July 6, 1877, on Henry George's Speech
We have already made some reference to the oration delivered by Mr. Henry George in this city on Independence Day, which we listened to at the time of its delivery, but, after reading it, we deem it worthy a more extended review. It was anything but a “Fourth of July oration" in the generic sense that has become attached to the term; and we can fancy the astonishment of those who expected to hear the usual spread-eagle fustian about the glory and greatness of the nation when they were told instead that the Republic is getting to be not much better than a name, and that in the social conditions into which we are drifting it is utterly impossible that republican institutions could be preserved.
Though throughout instinct with patriotism, it was with patriotism of the kind that does not fear to look unpleasant facts in the face, and calling an address like this “agrarian” and “communistic” does not dispose of the facts that were marshalled in such striking form.
It is true, as Mr. George declared, that a few are becoming very rich and many very poor; that republican government is becoming a reproach in our large cities; that a class is growing up who look upon political corruption as legitimate, and that we have already an aristocracy that, both in absolute and relative power, far surpasses the feudal aristocracy. His comparison between Warwick, the king maker, and the simple citizen who stands at the head of the Central Pacific Railway corporation, and his parallel between the influences that in the middle ages compelled every freeman to seek a lord, and those that are now operating to compel every workman to seek an employer, commend themselves with the power of self-evident facts. Let us here quote a paragraph or two:
"In our Constitution is a clause prohibiting the granting of titles of nobility. In the light of the present it seems a good deal like the device of the man who, leaving a big hole for the cat, sought to keep the kitten out by blocking up the little hole. Could titles add anything to the power of the aristocracy that is here growing up? Six hundred liveried retainers followed the great Earl of Warwick to Parliament; but in this young State there is already a simple citizen who could discharge any one of thousands of men from their employment, who controls 2,200 miles of railroad and telegraph, and millions of acres of land; and has the power of levying toll on traffic and travel over an area twice that of the original thirteen States. Warwick was a king-maker. Would it add to the real power of our simple citizen were we to dub him an earl?
“Look at the social conditions which are growing up here in California, Land monopolized; water monopolized; a race of cheap workers crowding in, whose effect upon our own laboring classes is precisely that of slavery; all the avenues of trade and travel under our control, all wealth and power tending more and more to concentrate in a few hands. What sort of a republic will this be in a few years longer if these things go on? The idea would be ridiculous, were it not too sad.”
Reading over these extracts one cannot help reflecting on the lessons they teach. Writers upon social economy tell us that two men working in harmony together can accomplish more than two men working separately; and that when larger numbers work in union their power increases in an accelerating ratio. No one will dispute this; and these who have observed the movements of organisations cannot fail to perceive that those who work unscrupulously have a great advantage over those who are restrained by considerations of honesty and decorum.
In political affairs a well-organised combination of persons actuated only by selfish and ambitious motives may control the action of the people of a party forty times more numerous, and it will always be more than a match for any association of men whose aim is merely to secure good government.
It is the great power of combinations of depraved men which makes all the trouble in a republic. The unorganized mass of the people may be dissatisfied with those who manage public affairs, but generally they are helpless, unless some unusual incident arouses their feelings, and in such a case they are apt to act injudiciously. What is most discouraging in contemplating measures for the purification of politics, is that the people tolerate corruption. Where it is known that an individual who holds or has held a public position, expends money freely, possesses fortune which he cannot have acquired honestly, no censure from neighbors is visited upon him, but in many cases he is more honored on account of his wealth than honest or useful man in obscure circumstances.
In this connection it is worth while to note the cogent observations of Mr. George. In speaking of the complaints of political demoralisation that come from every quarter, he says such complaints "are not because bad men have been elected to office or corrupt men have taken to engineering parties. If bad men are elected to office, if corrupt men run parties, is it not because the conditions are such as to give them the advantage over good and pure men?
It is not the glamour of success that makes the men whose work we celebrate today loom up through the mists of a century like giants. They were giants — some of them so great, that with all our eulogies we do not yet appreciate them; and their full fame must wait for yet another century. But the reason why such intellectual greatness gathered around the cradle of the Republic and guided her early steps, was not that men were greater in that day, but that the people chose their best.
You will hardly find a man that time, of high character and talent, who was not in some way in the public service. This certainly cannot be said now. And it is because power is concentrating, as it must concentrate as our institutions deteriorate. If one of those men were to come back today and were spoken of for high position — say for the United States Senate — instead of Jefferson?
Three questions the knowing ones would ask: 'Has he money to make the fight?’ 'Are the corporations for him?' 'Can he put up the primaries?' No less a man than Benjamin Franklin — a man whose fame as a statesman and philosopher is yet growing — a man whom the French Academy, the most splendid intellectual assemblage in Europe, applauded as the modern Solon — represented the city of Philadelphia in the provincial Assembly for ten years, until, as their best man, he was sent to defend the colony in London. Are there not today cities in the land which even a Benjamin Franklin could not represent in a State Assembly unless he put around his neck the collar of a corporation or took his orders from a local ‘ring.' "
Practically this is offering a premium for official profligacy and dishonesty, and while so low an appreciation of integrity and faithfulness exists, it is folly to hope that any measures can purify the political atmosphere. The great need of this country at the present time is a higher standard of morality; an honest pride which will make men ashamed to be rogues, and which will cause honest men to spurn villainy in ruffles and to despise the feasts of knaves.
Where is the remedy for the debased condition of moral sentiment? We have churches, schools, and associations for improvement in abundance, but with increase of wealth, vice, crime and depravity, abound more and more.
We need a system of education which will make honesty, usefulness and correct habit more honorable than the ostentation of dishonest riches. It is not by easy efforts that the tide of debasement can be stayed; and first we should recognise the fact that our present means of moral culture are sadly defective.
While the facts set forth cannot be denied, we fancy there are few who will care to directly combat the relentless logic with which Mr. George demonstrated that the concentration of wealth and power now going on must result in political corruption, and that a corrupt republican government must become a despotism of the worst kind, when jobbers sell power and "the vile can only be succeeded by the viler."
Whether Mr. George's theory be correct or not (and he certainly enjoys the advantage of holding a coherent and consistent one), then can be no doubt that the facts to which he calls attention demand the study of all patriotic men and it is for these who dissent from his views of the remedies to present better ones. It is true as he says, that the way we are taking of building up a republic in California — permitting land and water to be monopolised, and wealth and power to be concentrated into a few hands and then importing a servile race to come into competition with our laboring classes — “would be ridiculous were it not too sad.”
As a piece of literary composition this address was worthy of the occasion, while the striking thoughts with which it is replete are worthy of a much better fate than befalls the average Fourth of July oration — they ought to attract the attention of all thinking men.
Note: many long paragraphs in the original were broken up into shorter ones here.
Comments