No. 14.

Published weekly by J. MORRISON-FULLER, at 3 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass.

SUBSCRIPTION, $2.00 PER YEAR.

NOTICE! THE WORKS OF HERBERT SPENCER. Subscribers will receive FREE (to the amount of their subscription) any of the Works of Herbert Spencer they may select. Authorized Edition.

On remembering the eagerness for public applause and the dread of public disgrace, which stimulate and restrain men, we cannot question that the diffused manifestations of feeling habitually dictate their careers, when their immediate necessities have been satisfied. It requires only to contemplate the social code which regulates life, down even to the color of an evening necktie, and to note how those who dare not break this code have no hesitation in smuggling, to see that an unwritten law enforced by opinion is more peremptory than a written law not so enforced. And still more on observing that men disregard the just claims of creditors, who for goods given cannot get the money, while they are anxious to discharge socalled debts of honor to those who have rendered neither goods nor services, we are shown that the control of prevailing sentiment, unenforced by law and religion, may be more potent than law and religion together when they are backed by sentiment less strongly manifested. Looking at the total activities of men, we are obliged to admit that they are still, as they were at the outset of social life, guided by the aggregate feeling, past and present; and that the political agency, itself a gradually developed product of such feeling, continues still to be in the main the vehicle for a specialized portion of it, regulating actions. of certain kinds. Herbert Spencer.

-

Price 5 Cents.

Devoted to the record of the facts and considerations which show that Individual Liberty is good for the people of the United States:

And that, therefore, Legislative Regulation is injurious for them.

IN MEDIAS RES.

The progress of business in Congress from the reconvening, on July 7 to July 17, may be briefly described.

In the Senate, the diplomatic and consular appropriation was disposed of by the adoption of the report of the Conference Committee. Having refused to take up the Tariff Bill on the 7th inst., the so-called Land Court Bill was discussed for a while, and debate was resumed on the bill for Subsidizing the merchant marine. This having been continued on the 11th and 12th, the bill was passed on that day by a vote of 29-18. In the meanwhile three days were devoted to the final discussion of the Silver Bill-directing the purchase of 4,500,000 ounces of silver monthly, "or so much as may be offered at the market price," and this measure was approved by concurrence in the Conference Report, 39-26. The Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill was then debated during six days.

In the House, July 7, debate was begun in committee of the whole on the Land Grant Forfeiture Bill, and was continued on the 10th and 17th. This bill is to forfeit about 7,000,000 acres of land, heretofore granted to various railroads and said not to have been earned by them by completing the required mileage.

July 8, a bill to prevent collisions at sea was passed, 125–44.

The bill to admit Wyoming was signed on this day by the speaker.

The diplomatic, etc., appropriations were discussed but not acted on.

The bill increasing the working force of the Pension Bureau was passed.

The Silver Bill was again debated on the 11th and 12th, when the Conference Report was adopted, 122-90.

There was expended, between 1848 and 1878, the enormous sum of $21,000,000 of the hard-earned money of the working men and women of the United States in subsidies to the owners of ocean ships. One fifth of this sum would buy every American ship now engaged in the foreign trade. Not one dollar of this enormous sum has been or ever will be returned to the individuals from whom it was taken. There are more than 25,000 millionaires in the United States.

Not a single word proceeded from the lips of Republican Senators in reply to the facts and considerations which show that these subsidies do not accomplish their object. But let no one suppose that this is because they do not understand the subject. Several of them are well versed in maritime matters, and the question is, of course, simply a maritime question. No principle of government, taxation, or of equity is involved; it is simply a problem in naval construction and navigation. And so the Senators evidently regard it, as was plainly exhibited in the little controversy between Messrs, Harris and Frye. The question was the effect subsidies might have in discriminating between ports, and Mr. Frye said, in support of the validity of his opinion that the ports would be on a footing of equality with regard to the subsidy:

MR. FRYE. I, of course, have had correspondence with shipping men, because I have tried to learn from shipping men what I could about ships and shipping, although I was born and brought up with them myself. . . So here is the man admitted by the Senate to understand the subject better than any of the rest of them, who thinks he understands the operation of subsidies because he was "born and brought up" with ships! In the same way, I suppose, we are all astronomers, because we were born and brought up in sight of the sun, moon, and stars,

The chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Allison, is authority for the statement that the appropriations which will have passed Congress by the end of the session will amount to $450,000,000. There are probably about 12,000,000 voters; from the pockets of each of whom, therefore, about $38 would be taken if taxation were equally distributed among them. One tenth of this sum would be amply sufficient for the necessary expenses of the Government,— omitting the interest on the debt.

The Republicans in the Senate not only succeeded in seating the Republican contestants from Montana, but, by letting the contest be drawn out, they had the two very short terms, expiring in 1891, awarded to Senators from other States, so that the Montana Senators were assigned to terms expiring only in 1893 and 1895. If the Montana Senators had been on hand to take part in the drawing at the same time with those of the two Dakotas and Washington, there would have been one chance in four that one of them would be assigned to a term expiring in 1891. So the Republicans have not only gained two seats by the contest, but they have managed to have the two doubtful senatorships assigned to them for the longest possible terms. In other words, they have gained a greater advantage from the protracted contest than if they had won the Montana senatorships without contest; for, in the latter event, the terms of these would have been assigned at the same time with the other new Senators, and two of these new terms expire in 1891; but it was contrived that both of the short terms should be drawn by Senators whose sucessors will probably belong to the same party. A successfully contested election has proved better than an undisputed election.

The rapid depletion of the United States Treasury does not discourage those who press forward schemes involving further drafts upon it. There are supposed to be about 100,000,000 acres of land in the country which is now unproductive, part of which might be made fertile by expending some millions of dollars in irrigating it. There is no doubt that this land would be irrigated by private companies as soon as any demand should arise for the products which could be raised upon it, if

only the State governments and the general government would leave them free to do so. It cannot be claimed that there is any pressing need for reclaiming desert lands for agricul tural purposes, when, to use Mr. Edward Atkinson's illustration, the entire wheat crop of the United States could be grown upon that part of the State of Texas by which it exceeds in area the German Empire. But certain individuals, doubtless, would greatly profit if the Government could be induced to undertake the work. There is less excuse for the Government in this case than there was for subsidizing the western railroads, because we are now experiencing the evils of that enterprise. The railroads would have been built without assistance from the Government, but not quite so soon. We are now enduring and shall long have to endure evils for having the roads built in that way before they were needed. But it seems to be beyond the reasoning powers of the average Congressman to draw inference to guide his own actions from the results which have followed the actions of his predecessors.

The Chicago Herald calls attention to one aspect of the proposal, -the effect it would have, if adopted, upon farmers of other sections.

"If there was a scarcity of food in this country, or a prospect of one, it might be the duty of the Government to provide against it. But such is not the case. There is much more of every kind of food than can be consumed. The price of farm products of every kind is much lower than that of clothing or other manufactured goods. Adding to the extent of our productive land and aiding more people to engage in articulture is an outrage on farmers. It is as unjust as would be the construction by the Government of cotton mills and iron works to compete with those erected and operated by individuals. Government has no more right to ruin the farmers of Illinois by irrigating land in Montana than it has to ruin the cotton manufacturers in Massachusetts by erecting mills in Iowa, to be given to the persons who will operate them. It is a duty of government to protect property, and not to injure it by reducing its value."

It is a matter of common observation that the highways in most parts of the country are in a deplorable condition. As it is chiefly As it is chiefly

town and city governments which undertake the care of roads, it is to these governments that we should naturally first look for better things. But improvement has been sought in this direction, and sought in vain. The goveruments themselves need improvement even more than the highways, which they raise money to maintain and then neglect. The next agency from which help is invoked is the State governments. At the last session of the New York Legislature, a bill was introduced, looking to highway improvement, but was defeated. Similar attempts have met with failure in several other States. These measures were defeated, apparently, because the force of public opinion was against them. Actually, there seems to have been a sentiment against the State's interfering in this matter. The objection against action on the part of the State was not that it would probably be inefficacious-this suspicion hardly seems to have entered any one's mind; but the success of the measures, it was perceived, would mean large appropriations of money, and many persons objected to paying higher taxes, even for the laudable purpose of securing better roads. The wisdom of the objectors must be admitted to have been partly unconscious. The money would be well invested if it would really secure good roads. But it is notorious that the money applied to the care of roads by municipal bodies is shamefully misspent, in perhaps the majority of cases producing nearly the minimum effect at the maximum expeuse; and there is no reason to suppose that money would be applied any more wisely by the State than it is by cities and towns.

One more resource is open before invoking supernatural power, namely, the Federal Government; and to this one magazine, the Outing, unhesitatingly appeals. But it is not proposed that the government at Washington really go into the business of repairing country cross-roads; it is invoked to bring its influence to bear upon public opinion, to the end that a great demand for better roads may spring up. Farmers, being the most heavily taxed of any class in the community, in proportion to their income, are naturally the ones who object most to any increase in taxation. The report of the Department of Agriculture circulates very widely among farmers, according to the information of the Outing, to the extent of four or five hundred thousand

copies every year, and each copy has many

a

66

readers. Now, the publication in one of these reports of carefully prepared and authoritative article, setting forth the advantages of better highways, with details as to cost, best methods of building and maintaining, as well as a showing of the actual losses to farmers by the present system, would go far in the molding of public opinion." The general government might pull the string, and public opinion would force State governments to appropriate money. Certainly, if any branch of government undertakes to maintain roads, it should maintain good ones as good, at least, as could be expected from the amount expended; but it is the way of governments always to promise and never to perform.

As often happens in these cases, Speaker Reed's critic in the North American makes out the strongest case for the opposite side. The writer shows that he has not the faintest appreciation of the fundamental consideration in counting a quorum. What though the Constitution permitted three members to form a quorum, if such legislation is contrary to the genius of democracy, it were better to disregard the Constitution entirely. Of all hopeless tasks, this of trying to live by rote is the most hopeless. The Constitution is all very well in its way, and should be regarded with respect. Democracy is much less adapted to excite admiration, perhaps; but democracy is a more stern and pressing fact. We hear a great deal about obstruction in parliamentary bodies here and elsewhere. But obstruction is not so repugnant to democracy as minority legislation is. The restlessness of representative assemblies under the tactics necessary to defeat minority legislation is a "sign of the times." It forebodes the initiation of a new period in politics,- a period during which the full effect of fundamental errors and blunders will be worked out. The fundamental blunder which has vitiated the conception, and is now about to vitiate the application of democracy, is the notion that a majority, by the simple fact of being the majority, has an intrinsic and inherent right to rule. This blunder is fundamental; for the essential fact about democracy is that the majority has the power to rule; it is a quite secondary consideration that the majority is right in exercising its power. The righteousness of the rule of the majority depends upon the assumption — very

I. The editor of To-DAY, complaining that Liberty does not respond to its repeated calls for the evidence in favor of anarchism, expresses his willingness to "listen to an argument to show that 'government is the father of all evil,' and of nothing but evil, as the anarchists, of course, believe." I can assure him that he will never hear any such argument from Liberty. The editor of Liberty is not in the habit of attempting to prove things that he has not asserted and does not believe. — Liberty, No. 162.

Anarchism throws a flood of light upon this wild scene, and clearly outlines the issue as well as the methods of settling it. It sums up the whole complicated situation in the following trenchant declaration: GOVERNMENT IS THE FATHER OF ALL SOCIAL EVIL. Liberty, No. 113.

You see, Mr. Editor, that I have not altogether neglected the files of Liberty, in which there is said to be "abundant evidence" of the claims of anarchism.

When I first read the second of the paragraphs quoted above, I said to myself, this man is a fool, meaning, of course, that I did not agree with him. But the first thing for me to determine was, what are the claims of anarchism, what is its fundamental claim? I had my doubts about the anarchists knowing what their own premise was. The conclusion they regard as cocksure no "vague and futile talk "about that. I expected, however, to find their premises a little mixed in their own minds; so when I read the "trenchant declaration," that government is the father of all social evil, I said to myself, now here is where the confusion begins. But I was never more mistaken in my life: that is where the confusion ends, not where it begins. In other words, I discovered that this is the right premise to go with the anarchist conclusion. It struck me that the writer of that premise for anarchism was far from being a fool. I agreed with him entirely; that is the proper premise for his conclusions. I think so yet. The "issue" which you now speak of as the real one may be the issue you have with some one else, but not with me. Whenever I see fit, I may let you turn the issue into the one you describe, - an issue on