The Credit System
The five chief instruments of credit.
What is Credit?—Credit is simply the giving and taking of promises in place of money. The most common form is “book credit”, which means that wholesalers and retail merchants give out goods with nothing but charge accounts on their books to show for it. These accounts are merely the records of credit which has been extended to customers. But in many transactions something more than a book record is desired, in which case the person giving the credit may ask for a “promissory note”. This is a written promise to pay a designated sum either on demand or at a definite date. Bank checks are also instruments of credit; so are drafts and bills of exchange. Anything that expresses or implies a promise to pay a sum of money is an evidence of credit.
THE RELATION OF MONEY AND PRICES
The general relation between the amount of money in circulation and the course of prices is shown by the two statistical diagrams on the other side of this page.
It will be noticed that per capita circulation began to decline in 1921. Prices also commenced to fall during that year, and if the table of prices were extended to cover the last year or two it would show the price-lines moving downward. The data for continuing the lines of the lower diagram may be found in the publications of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
MONEY IN CIRCULATION PER CAPITA (Figures for first day of month)
COURSE OF WHOLESALE AND RETAIL PRICES[[207]] IN THE UNITED STATES
JANUARY, 1913, TO MAY, 1920
[Average Prices, 1913 = 100]
The Relation of Credit to Money.—A large part of the world’s business is done on credit. If all debts had to be paid tomorrow, there would not be enough money in the world to pay one cent on the dollar. But all debts do not fall due at once, and a huge credit system is able to stand with comparative safety upon a relatively small amount of gold. |There is a limit to the expansion of credit.| There is a limit, however, to the expansion of credit and this limit is roughly determined by the amount of gold available to be held as a reserve. Hence it is that when the volume of gold increases, credit usually expands also. With their reserves full to overflowing the banks are more ready to lend money on notes, and the rate of discount goes down. Conversely, as the volume of gold declines, credit usually contracts. The rate of discount then goes up and business men find it harder to borrow money upon commercial paper. In the one case we speak of an inflation or expansion in money and credit; in the other we speak of a contraction or deflation.
Credit and Prices.—The general level of prices depends upon the value of money. The price of a thing is merely its value expressed in terms of money. To say that prices have gone up is to say exactly the same thing as that the value of money has gone down.[[208]] The general level of prices, to put the matter in another way, is determined by the demand for goods on the one hand and the supply of goods on the other. The demand for goods, however, is represented by the amount of gold currency available plus the amount of credit which is built upon this gold. The credit, as has been seen, bears a definite relation to the gold. |How the general level of prices is determined.| Hence it can fairly be said that the amount of gold is an index of demand for goods or services. So, if the supply of goods remains approximately the same, any large increase in the available amount of gold would send prices up; and conversely, if the supply of goods is greatly increased, while the available amount of gold remains approximately the same, prices would go down.
The quantity theory of money and prices.
This is the so-called quantity theory of the relation between money, credit, and prices and it holds good in a general way although it does not work out as simply as it reads. The adjustment of supply and demand sometimes takes place very slowly. The volume of credit which can be built upon a given reserve of gold is not absolutely fixed, moreover; in some circumstances it may be more extensive than in others. |Defects of the quantity theory as shown by recent experience.| During the World War, for example, credit ran away from the gold reserve in all the European countries. Enormous amounts of paper money were issued with very little gold in reserve to protect them. Due to reduced production, the supply of ordinary goods sharply declined. A combination of these two things, inflation of credit (i. e., potential demand for goods) and decreased production, sent prices sky-high.[[209]] In the United States credit was also inflated during the war and prices went up, though not to the same extent as in Europe. Since 1920 the process of “deflating” credit has been going on. This process of deflation is guided by the federal reserve banks, which are able to contract the volume of credit by charging higher rates for rediscount.
The Advantages and Dangers of Credit.—It is probable that at least two-thirds of the buying and selling in the world is done on credit. Nearly all large transactions are put through by the use of credit for short or long terms. Credit affords many advantages to modern industry and commerce; without it, indeed, our whole economic system would break down. |Four functions which credit permits.| A few of these advantages may be mentioned: (a) It economizes the use of gold and silver, by doing away with the necessity of passing gold and silver coin from hand to hand at every transaction. (b) It enables large payments to be made at distant points without an actual shipment of metallic money. (c) It permits men to engage in business operations beyond their own means by borrowing capital and using it productively. (d) It enables people to invest their savings (by depositing in savings banks, lending money on mortgages, buying bonds or stocks, etc.) so as to secure a profitable rate of interest without great risk.
Credit may also harm.
But there are also some disadvantages. The credit system often encourages extravagance in that people are tempted to buy goods which they eventually find it hard to pay for; it tends to encourage speculation which frequently results in heavy losses; and it sometimes enables promoters to obtain capital when there is little or no chance of their being successful. By strict governmental supervision, however, the advantages can be retained and most of the dangers eliminated.
The Stock Exchange.—A word should be said about the place where instruments of credit are most commonly bought and sold, namely, the stock exchange. As its name implies, this is a market in which men buy and sell stocks, bonds, and other securities.[[210]] There is a stock exchange in every large city. The buying and selling is done through brokers, who are members of the exchange and who receive a small commission for their work, this commission being paid by the persons for whom they buy or sell. A broker, at your request, will buy or sell on the exchange any security that is listed there. The amount of the purchase may be paid in full, or, if the buyer desires, a partial payment of five, ten, or twenty per cent may be made. |Trading on margin.| This is called “buying on margin”. The current prices of all securities are kept posted on the exchange; they go up and down from day to day in keeping with market conditions. Shrewd investors try to buy when prices are low and to sell when prices are high, but in this they are not always successful. Many fortunes have been made—and lost—on the stock exchange.
General References
F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, Vol. I, pp. 227-235 (Coinage); 236-251 (Quantity of Money and Prices); 265-273 (Bimetallism); 348-359 (Banking Operations); 375-385 (The Banking System of the United States);
Isaac Lippincott, Economic Development of the United States, pp. 550-580;
H. R. Burch, American Economic Life, pp. 336-371;
W. A. Scott, Money and Banking, pp. 1-116;
W. S. Jevons, Money and the Mechanism of Exchange, pp. 3-41;
Marshall, Wright, and Field, Materials for the Study of Elementary Economics, pp. 443-546;
C. J. Bullock, Introduction to the Study of Economics, pp. 224-246;
D. R. Dewey, Financial History of the United States, especially pp. 383-413;
Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 460-479;
Horace White, Money and Banking (5th edition), passim;
F. A. Fetter, Modern Economic Problems, pp. 31-163.
Group Problems
1. How money and credit are related to prices. The meaning of “prices”. The quantity theory of money. Relation of money to credit. Reserves for paper money. Bank reserves. Discounting and rediscounting. How inflation of money and credit affects prices. Index numbers. American experience during the years 1914-1921. References: F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, Vol. I, pp. 427-445; C. J. Bullock, Introduction to the Study of Economics, pp. 242-278; Irving Fisher, The Purchasing Power of Money, pp. 8-32; Ibid., Stabilizing the Dollar, pp. 1-12; J. A. Hobson, Gold, Prices, and Wages, passim; David Kinley, Money, pp. 199-223.
2. The American banking system: how it is organized and how it functions. D. R. Dewey, Financial History of the United States, pp. 320-328; 383-390; F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, Vol. I, pp. 375-399; C. F. Dunbar, Theory and History of Banking, pp. 132-153; C. A. Conant, A History of Modern Banks of Issue, pp. 396-447; E. W. Kemmerer, The A, B, C of the Federal Reserve System, pp. 28-65; H. P. Willis, The Federal Reserve System, passim; A. B. Hepburn, History of the Currency and Coinage of the United States, pp. 411-418; 511-544.
3. The controversy over free silver and its lessons for the future. D. R. Dewey, Financial History of the United States, pp. 101-104; 210-212; 403-413; 436-437; 468; F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, Vol. I, pp. 265-273; J. L. Laughlin, History of Bimetallism in the United States, especially pp. 266-280.
Short Studies
1. The early history of money. W. S. Jevons, Money and the Mechanism of Exchange, pp. 19-30; David Kinley, Money, pp. 14-26.
2. The quantity theory of money. F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, Vol. I, pp. 236-251.
3. American and foreign banking systems compared. E. R. A. Seligman, Principles of Economics, pp. 524-550; or F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, Vol. I, pp. 360-385.
4. Can the dollar be stabilized? Marshall, Wright, and Field, Materials for the Study of Elementary Economics, pp. 474-483; Irving Fisher, Stabilizing the Dollar, especially pp. 12-30.
5. The free-silver campaign of 1896. C. A. Beard, Contemporary American History, pp. 164-198; D. R. Dewey, National Problems, pp. 220-237; 314-328.
6. Banking operations and accounts. C. F. Dunbar, History and Theory of Banking, pp. 20-38.
7. American institutions for saving and investment. F. A. Fetter, Modern Economic Problems, pp. 146-166.
8. Financial panics. F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, Vol. I, pp. 400-426.
9. The high cost of living. J. H. Hammond and J. W. Jenks, Great American Issues, pp. 143-159.
10. Economic crises. T. N. Carver, Principles of National Economy, pp. 427-442.
Questions
1. Are the qualities of money given in this book in the order of their importance? If not, rearrange them so. Can you think of any other essential qualities? What objections would there be to the use of platinum as money? Pearls? Porcelain?
2. Gold dollars are not coined in the United States at all. How is it, then, that the gold dollar can be the legal standard of value?
3. Name all the different kinds of money that are circulated in the United States (including paper money) and tell when the issue of each kind was first authorized. Examine the money you have with you. Tell where each coin was minted. In the case of bills what is the security behind each? Can you detect counterfeit bills? How?
4. Why was the action of Congress in demonetizing silver called “the crime of 1873”?
5. At the Democratic National Convention of 1890 Mr. Bryan said: “You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.” Explain in full what he meant. Was there any good reason for believing that the free coinage of silver at a ratio of sixteen to one would (a) increase prices; (b) give relief to the debtor class; (c) benefit the wage earner?
6. Explain the process by which, under a dual system of coinage, the metal which is over-valued at the mint will drive the other out of circulation. Is it correct to say that “cheap money drives out dear money”?
7. If you were engaged in business as a manufacturer, name all the different dealings that you might have with a bank.
8. Explain what is meant by each of the following terms: demand note; endorser; trustee; commercial paper; rate of discount; rediscounting; collateral; deflation; coupon bond; preferred stock; broker; buying stock on margin.
9. Show how the volume of credit helps to determine prices and how the volume of credit is related to the amount of gold coin in hand. Why does the quantity theory of money not work out with mathematical accuracy in practice?
10. Does the argument in McCulloch vs. Maryland impress you as logical? Does the decision mean that officials of national banks and of federal reserve banks are exempt from state taxes? Does it mean that when a national bank occupies a leased building the landlord pays no taxes to the city?
Topics for Debate
1. All banking institutions should be brought under the supervision of the federal government.
2. A “compensated” dollar (adjusted to the general level of prices) should be established as a measure of deferred payments.
3. The national and state governments should guarantee depositors against loss in all banks chartered by the nation and the states, respectively.
CHAPTER XXIII
TAXATION AND PUBLIC FINANCE
The purpose of this chapter is to explain what taxes are, how they are levied, and how they are spent.
Taxation per capita.
The Cost of Government.—The cost of maintaining the national government and all its activities is now about four billion dollars per year, in other words about forty dollars per annum for every man, woman, and child in the country. The cost of maintaining state and local government varies in different parts of the country, but it would be safe enough to put it down as three billion dollars more, or thirty dollars per head. In round figures, therefore, the average tax payment every year for each individual in the United States is at least seventy dollars.[[211]]
The extent of the burden upon the income-earner.
Bear in mind, however, that only a small part of the whole population is earning the income which enables these taxes to be paid. When we eliminate all the children, all the women who are not employed in any income-earning occupation, all the public officials who are paid out of taxes, all the delinquents, cripples, paupers, unemployed, and so on—when we subtract all these from the total it will be found that only one person in five is an actual income-earner. From the earnings of these twenty million people the entire seven billions in taxes must be paid; there is no other source from which the taxes can come. A little mental arithmetic will readily demonstrate, therefore, that every income-earner in the United States pays, on the average, at least $350 per year in taxes of one sort or another, in other words about a dollar a day.[[212]]
Everyone is a taxpayer, directly or indirectly.
Who Pays the Taxes?—“Oh yes”, someone will say, “but most people earn small incomes and pay no taxes at all, or almost none. The heavy taxes are paid by wealthy men and women who own property and have large incomes.” That is misleading. People who own property and earn large incomes are the ones who actually hand the collector his tax-money, to be sure; but they merely give him, for the most part, money which they have collected from others. The owner of an apartment house collects taxes from his tenants in the form of rent; the storekeeper collects taxes in the price of his goods; the lawyer and the doctor collect taxes when they charge fees. Taxes are an element in the cost of everything, an element just as certain as interest, wages, or profit. Everyone who rents a house, buys goods, or hires any form of service pays taxes. If you analyze the various items which make up the price of a suit of clothes, for example, you will find that they usually come in this order of importance; wages, cost of materials, taxes, profits, interest.[[213]] The chief factors which make up the rent of a house are interest, taxes, and profits in the order named. Hence it is that while landlords, merchants, manufacturers, and others make the direct payment of taxes to the government, they in turn pass the burden to tenants and consumers.[[214]]
The way in which taxes are shifted.
The Incidence of Taxation.—Taxes, therefore, do not usually stay where they are levied. They are shifted from one shoulder to another until they finally reach someone, usually the ultimate consumer, who cannot unload the burden upon anybody else. This ultimate resting-place of a tax is called its incidence, and an important thing about any tax is to discover just what its incidence is; for the justice or injustice of taxation depends upon the ability of the actual taxpayer to bear the burden and not upon the wealth of the ostensible taxpayer. If the government were to levy a tax of one cent per loaf upon bread, there would be a storm of protest because everybody would recognize it as a direct tax upon one of the necessities of life. But a tariff duty on wheat, or a property tax on flour mills or bakeries, is just as certainly a tax on bread and is paid ultimately by those who buy it. The chief difference is that in the latter case the payment is made by the consumer without his knowing it.
Relation of taxes to rents and prices.
Most people pay taxes unknowingly. Their taxes are concealed in rents or prices, and they complain bitterly that these things are high. It does not occur to the average American wage-earner that if taxes were lower, rents and prices would be lower, and that if there were no taxes, it would be exactly the equivalent to finding every morning, on coming down to breakfast, a crisp, new dollar-bill on his plate. Demagogues tell us that trusts, and profiteers, and other forms of organized avarice are responsible for high prices; but one of the biggest factors in the high-cost-of-living is the high-cost-of-government.
If waste were avoided the tax burden would be diminished.
If this enormous flow from the nation’s earnings into the public coffers were wholly, or even largely, used to promote and encourage production, it would not be so bad. Much of it is wasted, or spent without adequate return. This takes place because the people do not keep close watch on the officials whom they elect to public office and do not hold them to a strict accountability when public money is squandered. More than a hundred years ago the most eminent of American jurists, Chief Justice John Marshall, pointed out that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy”. He was right; the power to tax is the most far-reaching power that any government can possess. By the use of the taxing power a government can take from the people what they would otherwise save, thus preventing the increase of the nation’s wealth and ultimately breaking down its prosperity.
Taxes are:
How Taxes Differ from other Payments.—Taxes differ from most other payments in two respects. |(a) compulsory.| First, they are compulsory. No one need pay interest, rent, wages, or prices unless he bargains to do so; but the payment of taxes is not the result of any bargain. Taxes are levied without any reference to the initiative or wishes of the individuals upon whom they may fall, except, of course, in so far as these individuals by their votes may have an influence in determining the general taxing policy of the government. |(b) levied without reference to service rendered.| Second, taxes are not payments made to the government by individuals and corporations in return for services rendered. The man who rides a hundred miles on a railroad pays twice as much as one who goes half that distance, because he gets twice as much for his money. But the man who pays a thousand dollars in taxes does not get twice as much in benefits from the government as the one who pays only five hundred dollars.
The basis of taxation is ability to pay.
Nearly all payments that we make are in the form of a quid pro quo; they are in proportion to the benefits which we receive. This is the case in payments for all forms of goods or services—the one great exception is the payment of taxes. Taxes have no direct relation to benefit; those who pay very little in taxes, either directly or indirectly, sometimes receive a large return in the form of public services. Take for example the taxes that support the public schools. The fact that a wealthy man has no children, or prefers to send his children to a private school, does not relieve him of the obligation to pay his full share of what public education costs the community. On the other hand, a man whose contribution in taxes is very small may send a dozen children, one after another, through the public schools without any extra cost.
Why taxes cannot be adjusted to service.
It would not be possible to base taxation upon service, because there is no way of knowing how much benefit each individual receives from the government’s work. Do some individuals, for example, obtain more benefit than others from the maintenance of law and order or do all derive benefit alike? Who gets the greater benefit from clean streets, the rich man who drives his motor car over them, or the poor man whose children use the streets as a playground? Taxes could not be adjusted to benefit. Even if they could be so proportioned, it would be unwise to do so. The general interest requires that everyone should enjoy the benefits of police protection, the public schools, the parks, the playgrounds whether they are able to pay for them or not.[[215]] So taxes are levied in order to pay for these things, not on a basis of individual benefit, but simply by putting the heaviest burden in the first instance upon those who are best able to pay it, letting them shift it if they can.
Principles upon which Taxes are Levied.—How is the ability of individuals to pay taxes estimated? It is done by taking some such thing as property or income as the basis. Those who have more property or income are called upon to contribute more than those who have less. |The basic principles of taxation according to Adam Smith.| About a hundred and fifty years ago a famous writer on economics, Adam Smith, laid down four principles to which all taxation should conform. These maxims of taxation are now everywhere recognized as valid and are worth remembering. Briefly stated, they are as follows: People should be taxed according to their ability to pay; all taxes should be definite and not uncertain or arbitrary; they ought to be levied at the time and in the manner which causes the least inconvenience to the people; and they should be so contrived as to take out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over what is needed by the public treasury. Those who make the tax laws do not always heed these maxims, and taxes are sometimes levied on the principle of getting the most money with the least trouble.[[216]]
Taxes on property.
Local Taxes.—The greater portion of the taxation levied by cities, counties, towns, and villages is in the form of taxes on property. This is a direct tax and as a rule it is levied on all private property, of whatever sort, at a uniform rate of so much per thousand dollars of valuation. |The general property tax.| A tax levied in this uniform way on all private property is called a general property tax. In some states, however, provision has been made for classifying the various kinds of property and taxing each kind at a different rate. Property is first classified into two divisions, real property, and personal property.[[217]] Real property (or real estate) consists of land, buildings, and other fixtures established on the land; personal property consists of, first, tangible things of a movable nature such as household furniture, machinery, merchandise; and second, intangibles such as bonds, mortgages, and bank deposits. |The classified property tax.| Where there is a classified property tax, each of these three forms (real property, tangibles, and intangibles) is taxed at a different rate. One reason for taxing them at different rates is that real estate requires a great deal more in the way of public services (for example, in paved streets, water supply, sewerage, etc.); another reason is that while real property cannot evade taxation intangibles can usually do so when the tax is too heavy.[[218]] If the rate of taxation on intangibles is lowered, the temptation to evade is not so great. It will usually be found that more money will come into the public treasury from a moderate rate of taxes on stocks and bonds than from an oppressively high rate.
Other local taxes.
A few communities also obtain some revenue from another direct tax, the poll tax, which amounts to one or two dollars per year on each adult. In some cities franchise taxes are laid upon public service companies (such as gas, electric lighting, and street railway companies). The proceeds from these sources do not form any large proportion of the total revenue.
Assessments for purposes of taxation.
All collecting of taxes is preceded by a formal step known as assessment. No tax can be legally collected unless it has been assessed in ways prescribed by law. Property of all kinds is valued for taxation by officials known as assessors. Usually they are county or city officials, sometimes appointed, sometimes elected. They re-value property at stated intervals and set their assessment at what they believe to be the market value (unless they are instructed to assess at a percentage of the market value as is the case in some states). Income taxes, corporation taxes, and inheritance taxes are assessed by the tax officials on the basis of sworn statements made to them by the taxpayers.
Special assessments.
In the case of such public improvements as sewers, street pavements, and sidewalks it is the custom in many cities to levy a special assessment upon the owners of the property that is benefited. These special assessments are levied in proportion to the benefit received; they are not taxes in the ordinary sense. |Taking property for public use.| When the nation or state or city requires land for public improvements it has the right to acquire it from the owner, even though he be unwilling to sell. The public authorities, by their right of eminent domain, can take land or other property for public use at any time, but must give the owner just compensation. If the amount of compensation cannot be agreed upon between the government and the private owner, it is fixed by the courts.
The sources of state revenue.
State Taxes.—The states obtain their revenue in various ways. One common method is by requiring the cities, counties, or towns to pay over to the state a certain fraction of the sums which they collect on property. Thus, when the citizen gets his bill for local taxes he finds it itemized—so much for state taxes, so much for county taxes, and so much for city or town taxes. Most of the states also levy taxes on corporations, including railways, telephone companies, insurance companies, and banks. These taxes may be calculated upon capital or net earnings or deposits or upon some other basis. A few states tax inheritances and a few levy a state income tax. Taxes on inheritances are usually progressive, that is, the rate is higher in the case of large inherited fortunes. State income taxes are levied upon the net earnings of individuals or partnerships, a certain minimum income being left exempt. Most of the states have other miscellaneous sources of revenue, some of them important, as, for example, the annual license fees imposed upon all owners of motor vehicles.
Income and excess profits taxes.
National Taxes.—The national government, by reason of its need for larger revenues in recent years, has resorted to many forms of taxation. At the present time the principal sources of national revenue are the taxes on the incomes of corporations and individuals, the customs duties, the excises, and the inheritance taxes. The national income taxes are levied upon the net earnings of all individuals, partnerships, and corporations above a certain minimum. The rate of taxation, in the case of individual incomes, is progressive—a normal tax is laid upon all incomes up to a certain figure and surtaxes are levied upon incomes above this amount.[[219]] Under the original provisions of the constitution, the national government could not levy direct taxes unless it apportioned them among the several states according to their population, and according to a decision of the Supreme Court in 1894 an income tax is a direct tax.[[220]] But the Sixteenth Amendment, adopted in 1913, now gives the national government authority to tax incomes “from whatever source derived” without the necessity of apportionment among the states. Once a year every person or corporation earning a net income above the prescribed minimum must make a sworn statement setting forth the exact amount of such earnings, and upon this “income tax return” the legal rate is assessed.
Duties on imports.
Duties on imports still yield a large revenue, as they have done every year since 1790. No duties may be laid upon exports, such duties being forbidden by the constitution. This is in some respects unfortunate, because duties on exports go into the price of the exported goods and thus fall upon the foreign consumer. A tariff on exports (such as lumber, coal, and ore) would not only yield a considerable revenue but would help to conserve the natural wealth of the United States. The excises are levied upon tobacco, theatre tickets, and other things which are rated as luxuries.[[221]] The national government also levies an inheritance tax, the rate of the tax depending upon the value of the property inherited. These various taxes bring in between three and four billion dollars per year.
Taxes for revenue and taxes for regulation.
The Two Purposes of Taxation.—The main object of all taxation is to produce a revenue. But this is not the only object. Taxation may also be used to bring about such social reforms as the nation or the community may deem desirable, and taxes are sometimes adjusted to this end. For example, the manufacture of goods by the use of child labor can be checked by placing a heavy excise tax upon such products.[[222]] It is believed that the growth of large fortunes can be checked by the imposition of heavy surtaxes on large incomes and on inheritances; the present national taxes on incomes and inheritances have been framed with this end in view to some extent. In other words the system of taxation can be used and is being used in some measure to secure such economic and social readjustments as Congress and the state legislatures think desirable. The question is: How far should the law-making bodies go in this direction? Many people believe that “swollen fortunes” are an evil in a democratic society and that all earnings above a certain point should belong to the community. Others feel that heavy surtaxes place a damper upon ambition, that they lessen the amount of money saved by the whole people, thus reducing the amount of capital available for industry, and that they give the government large sums which are spent wastefully.[[223]]
Taxation and class prejudice.
Tax Exemptions and Extravagance.—When taxation is regarded as a means not only of raising a revenue but also of redistributing wealth it takes on grave possibilities of abuse. The majority among the voters can always find reasons for increasing the burdens on the minority; the wage-earners urge that more taxes ought to be placed on the rich and insist that they themselves be exempted from taxation upon their incomes. The chief evil in all this is not the injustice to the rich, for they usually manage to shift the burden down the line till it comes back upon the wage-earner; the unfortunate part of it is that the masses of the people, proceeding under the delusion that they pay none of the taxes, are quite unconcerned when they see large sums of money being collected by the government and spent wastefully. They do not realize that it is their money; that they earned every cent of it before the government obtained it to spend. If they could be induced to see matters in this light, they would never permit their representatives in Congress, in the state legislatures, and in city councils to throw money around with such a lavish hand. Tax exemptions and extravagance are twin brothers.
The single tax.
Proposed Reforms in Taxation.—Various new forms of taxation are proposed from time to time. Many years ago a well-known American social reformer, Henry George, advocated the placing of all property taxes on land alone, allowing buildings and personal property to go untaxed altogether. His argument was that the high value of land in cities and towns is created by the community, not by the owner. Vacant land in the downtown portion of a large city is sometimes worth many hundred dollars per foot. What gives it this high value? Not the owner, for he has done nothing to improve it. The growth of the city round about this land has made it valuable. This “unearned increment” of value, therefore, Henry George proposed that the community should take by levying a very heavy tax upon it.[[224]]
Objections to the single tax.
The single tax proposition, as above outlined, has many earnest advocates; but it has made very little progress as a practical policy in this country. The objection commonly raised against the proposal is that it would be an outright confiscation of a certain form of private property, namely, vacant land; that the single tax on the site value of improved land, like taxes on buildings used for industrial or mercantile purposes, would merely be shifted to the tenant and by him transferred in the form of higher prices to the consumer; and that the amount derived from the single tax would not yield enough to relieve the people from paying other forms of taxation.
The proposed sales tax.
More recently a good deal of discussion has taken place concerning the desirability of a general tax on sales at a uniform rate. It is argued that such a tax would fall directly and proportionately on all the people; that it would be so small as to have only the slightest effect upon prices; that it would be easy to collect and hard to evade. Such a sales tax at one per cent would probably yield nearly a billion dollars per year to the national treasury. On the other hand the objection is made that a tax of this sort would be a real hardship upon masses of the people who have small incomes and would be felt much less severely by the well-to-do.[[225]]
How money is appropriated.
The Spending of Public Money.—When taxes are collected they go into the public treasury of the nation, state, or community. Once in the treasury the money cannot be spent until it has been finally appropriated by Congress, by the state legislature, by the county board, by the city council, or by whatever body possesses the power to make appropriations. Appropriations are usually made once a year in the form of a budget, and the manner of making a budget is as follows: On or before a given date the various administrative departments (such as the parks department in cities or the departments of highways in states) make their estimates of expenditure for the next twelve months. Along with this, for purposes of comparison, a statement of probable revenue from taxes and other sources is prepared by the financial officers of the state or local government.
The estimates.
The estimates are put together and submitted to the mayor, the governor, or some other designated officer, who transmits them to the council or legislature as the case may be. The lawmaking body then considers the estimates, item by item, and finally votes the entire list after making such changes as it finds desirable. This budget, in cities and states, usually requires the approval of the mayor or the governor and may be vetoed like other measures. In some states the governor may veto individual items in the budget while letting the others stand, but as a rule he is required to accept or reject the appropriation bill as a whole. The general tendency is to give the executive branch of the state and local governments larger powers in budget-making so that the responsibility for any extravagance may be better centralized.
The older method of making appropriations, in Congress.
The National Budget System.—Until 1921 the national government made its large annual expenditures without any regular budget system at all. Each department (war, navy, agriculture, and so on) prepared its estimates and sent them to the Secretary of the Treasury, who presented them to the President for transmission to Congress with whatever recommendations he might choose to make. In addition to this every senator and representative had the right to propose appropriations, and hundreds of such proposals were made in Congress at every session. The practice, prior to 1921, was to refer all the departmental estimates and all the individual proposals to various committees. All estimates and bills for army expenditures went to the Committee on Military Affairs; all such measures relating to the postal service went to the Committee on Post-Offices, and so on. Eight or nine committees each took a hand in considering these proposals to spend money; each did its work without reference to what the other committees were doing; and each made its own recommendations to Congress.[[226]]
Results of this method.
The result of this procedure was that no general plan for keeping down the expense could ever be effectively put into force, there being too many independent committees to deal with. In 1921, however, Congress passed an act providing for the establishment of a national budget system and the rules of both chambers in Congress were altered so as to carry the new plan into effect. |The new budget system.| The departmental estimates now go to an official in the Treasury Department known as the Director. He puts them together into a budget and with the President’s approval submits them to the House of Representatives. Here they are considered by a single large committee, known as the Appropriations Committee, and all proposals of expenditure made by individual congressmen (after they have been approved by the committees directly concerned) are also submitted to this committee. The latter then lays before the House a complete budget or plan of expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year. When this budget, with or without changes, passes the House, it is forwarded to the Senate, where it is likewise considered by a single committee. After it has been passed by the Senate it goes to the President for his approval. The President cannot veto individual items in the budget but must accept or reject it as a whole. This is a serious handicap because the rejection of the entire budget would leave the departments without funds with which to carry on their work. The great advantage of the new budget system is that it enables Congress to make a comprehensive plan of expenditure for the year and thus to hold the expenses within the estimated revenues.
Is it necessary for governments to borrow?
Public Debts: Why Governments Borrow Money.—Nearly all nations, states, counties, cities, and even villages have debts. Why do they find it necessary to borrow money? Why should they not, like wise individuals, adopt a pay-as-you-go policy? The reason is that such a policy would be very unfair to the present taxpayers.[taxpayers.] Suppose, for example, that a town or city builds a new high school. The building will cost a great deal of money and may reasonably be expected to serve its purpose for twenty, thirty, or even forty years. Now there are two ways in which the community can defray the cost: It can levy a heavy tax rate upon the property of the people at once, doubling or trebling the usual tax rate if necessary, and thereby obtaining the money with which to pay cash for the school. Or, on the other hand, it may borrow the money and arrange that this amount (with interest) shall be repaid in annual installments over twenty or more years, thus spreading the burden over the whole period in which the building fulfils its purpose.
Proper and improper borrowing.
Which of these is the fairer method? The latter plan has the merit of placing the burden upon all those who get the benefit; but it has the defect of saddling the taxpayers of the future with a debt which they have had no share in creating. Governments, however, are much more concerned with the present than with the future, for it is the present taxpayer who decides the elections. Wherever practicable, therefore, they endeavor to finance public improvements by selling bonds rather than by increasing the present tax rates. State roads, public buildings, bridges, and other costly enterprises are financed by borrowing. The construction of the Panama Canal by the national government was not paid for at the time; the money with which to build it was borrowed by issuing long-term bonds. Governments sometimes go further and borrow money to make good a shortage in current expenses. This is an unwise policy; not one honest word can be said in favor of it. Current expenses should be paid from the taxes of today, not from the taxes of ten years hence. When a government borrows money to pay current expenses it usually defends its action by saying that the people approved it at the polls. Of course the people will usually approve things of this sort. When you ask a man whether he prefers to pay for a thing himself or let somebody else pay for it, there is little doubt what his answer will be.
War is the greatest cause of borrowing. During the Civil War the United States government borrowed about three billion dollars, most of which was repaid within thirty years. During and immediately after the World War it secured, by the issue of Liberty Bonds and Victory Notes, about twenty-six billion dollars, all of which becomes repayable at various dates before 1950.[[227]]
THE NATIONAL DEBT
1860-1920
The largest additions to the national debt of the United States were made during the years 1861-1865, and the years 1917-1919. During the former of these two periods the debt rose from less than fifty millions to nearly three billions; during the years 1917-1919 it increased from one to twenty-seven billions or thereabouts. By using the logarithmic or proportional scale for comparing these two periods it will be seen that the ratio of increase was less in the later period than in the earlier.
It will be noticed that although the national debt was much reduced during the twenty-five years which followed the Civil War, it never dropped anywhere near its pre-war level. The enormous debt which we piled up during the World War is already being reduced. Will it ever be cut to the level of 1916?
THE NATIONAL DEBT
1860-1920
Long- and short-term loans.
How Borrowing Takes Place.—When governments decide to borrow money there are two ways of doing it. If the money is needed for a short time only, for example, to pay expenses until the taxes come in, it can be borrowed from the banks on short-term notes. The national government, for its short-term borrowing, issues treasury notes, running for a year or less. These bear interest and are sold to the banks which re-sell them to private investors. But if the money is needed for a longer period, the usual plan is to issue bonds. These bonds, as already pointed out (p. 445) are promises to pay, and the government pledges its credit to repay them promptly when they mature, with interest every year or every half-year meanwhile. National, state, and local bonds are for the most part exempt from taxation.[[228]]
How the war increased the national debt.
The Burden of the Public Debt Today.—The borrowing power of the national government is not limited by any provision of the constitution. Congress may borrow money up to any amount. The national debt today is about twenty-three billion dollars, as against only one billion before the war. The yearly interest on the present debt, in fact, is about as large as the whole of the old debt. Arrangements are being made, however, to lessen this interest-burden by obtaining interest payments from foreign countries upon the loans made to them by the United States during the war.
Debt limits.
In the case of the states and cities the power to borrow money is not unlimited. The state constitutions usually contain provisions as to how much money may be borrowed and for what purposes. Sometimes they provide that state debts may not be created except by vote of the people. Cities are also, in most cases, bound by debt limits which are fixed by the state constitution or by state laws. The limit, as a rule, is flexible; it enables the city to borrow money up to a certain percentage of its assessed valuation, so that when the value of property goes up the borrowing power becomes enlarged. State and city debts have been increasing at a rapid rate; on the whole more rapidly than population or wealth.[[229]] The tendency is to put a large share of the burden on the shoulders of the next generation. It is right that future taxpayers should bear their share, as has been said; but they should not be called upon to do more than that.[[230]] It is probably within bounds to say that thirty to forty cents out of every dollar which we pay in taxes today goes for interest and debt repayments. Before long, if we keep on, half the taxes will go to pay for past obligations. The large cities are the worst offenders; some of them are mortgaging the future at an alarming rate. Stricter laws relating to local borrowing are needed, but more essential still is the awakening of public opinion to the realities of the situation.
How Public Debts are Repaid.—When bonds are issued by the public authorities some provision ought to be made for paying them at maturity; but this is not always done. |Refunding.| The national debt, when portions of it become due, is sometimes refunded, that is, paid off by issuing new bonds. |Sinking funds.| In the states and municipalities the usual plan has been to establish a sinking fund when the bonds are issued, and then to pay a certain installment into this fund out of each year’s taxes. By this process the sinking fund grows year by year until it is sufficient to pay off the bonds when they become due. |Serial issues.| A better plan is to issue the bonds in such form that they will fall due serially, that is, one or more bonds coming due in each successive year of the loan period. Then, instead of creating a sinking fund to pay off the whole debt at one time, the bonds are paid off one by one. The serial bond plan does away with the necessity of holding large sums in hand awaiting the maturity of the debt, and thus diminishes the risk of loss through poor investment or corruption.
Are Public Debts a Public Evil?—Alexander Hamilton, who was Secretary of the Treasury in Washington’s first cabinet, propounded the doctrine that a public debt, if not too large, is a source of strength to the government. He argued that when government bonds are widely held by the people, all those who own the bonds are interested in the stability and prosperity of the nation. Other noted financiers at various times have contradicted Hamilton and have declared all public debts to be public evils in that they impose burdens on the people without giving them anything tangible to show for it. But the truth is that public debts do not fall entirely in either class. They are benefits in one sense and evils in another. The power to borrow, like any other power, may be used wisely or unwisely. In times of great emergency, or for public improvements of permanent value, money may very properly be obtained by borrowing; always provided, however, that arrangements are made to pay off the debts within a reasonable time. The evil comes when governments borrow money in order to pay current expenses or to defray the cost of improvements which are not needed, and when they complacently allow the debt to pile up, year after year, with no thought of reducing it. “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof”, it is said; but we can also make the evil sufficient unto the future as well.
General References
C. A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 358-378; Ibid., Readings in American Government and Politics, pp. 323-342;
F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, Vol. II, pp. 483-561;
Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 445-479;
W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 233-245; Ibid., Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration, pp. 403-478 (Municipal Finance);
C. F. Bastable, Public Finance, pp. 261-280[pp. 261-280];
E. R. A. Seligman, Essays in Taxation (9th edition), pp. 66-99 (The Single Tax);
C. J. Bullock, Selected Readings in Public Finance, pp. 39-49; 143-157; Ibid., Introduction to the Study of Economics, pp. 493-520;
C. C. Plehn, Introduction to Public Finance, pp. 310-327;
American Academy of Political and Social Science, Taxation and Public Expenditures, pp. 1-283 (Annals, Vol. XCV, May, 1921).
Group Problems
1. Should the present rate of national income taxes and surtaxes be raised or lowered? The Income Tax Law of 1913. The increase in rates during the war. The changes made in 1921. Are the present exemptions fair? How do the surtaxes operate? Are they shifted by the taxpayers to others? How? The flow of investments into non-taxables. Examples. Is a progressive rate justifiable in order to promote a greater approach to equality in net incomes? Conclusions. References: C. C. Plehn, Introduction to Public Finance, 4th ed., pp. 270-309; G. N. Wilson, The Income Tax, pp. 1-11; F. R. Fairchild, Federal Taxation of Income and Profits (American Economic Review, Vol. XI, No. 1, Supplement, pp. 148-159); R. M. Haig, The Federal Income Tax, pp. 1-25; J. A. Hobson, Taxation in the New State, pp. 95-110; American Academy of Political and Social Science, Taxation and Public Expenditure, pp. 180-187 (Annals, Vol. XCV, May, 1921).
2. How public budgets are made. H. J. Ford, The Cost of Our National Government, pp. 11-21; S. G. Lowrie, The Budget, pp. 11-30; F. A. Cleveland, Chapters on Municipal Administration and Accounting, pp. 67-81; Cyclopedia of American Government, Vol. I, pp. 181-184; Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, 1917-1918, Bulletins, No. 2 (State Budget Systems in the United States); American Academy of Political and Social Science, Public Budgets, pp. 36-46 (Annals, Vol. LXII, No. 151); Ibid., Taxation and Public Expenditure, pp. 228-250 (Annals, Vol. XCV, May, 1921); U. S. Bureau of the Census, Financial Statistics of States; Financial Statistics of Cities. (Each is published annually.)
3. A study of the per capita cost of selected administrative departments in your own state or community compared with those of other states or communities. (Adequate data for this study can be found in two annual publications of the U. S. Census Bureau, namely, Financial Statistics of States, and Financial Statistics of Cities. For an example of such a study, in brief form, see W. B. Munro, Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration, p. 457.)[p. 457.)]
Short Studies
1. The principles underlying taxation. F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, Vol. II, pp. 483-496.
2. The power of Congress to tax. W. B. Munro, The Government of the United States, pp. 221-227.
3. Income taxes in foreign countries. E. R. A. Seligman, The Income Tax (2d ed.), England, pp. 167-218; France, pp. 273-328; Germany, pp. 223-272.
4. How the Civil War was financed. D. R. Dewey, Financial History of the United States, pp. 298-333.
5. The mobilization of American finances during the World War. W. F. Willoughby, Government Organization in War Time and After, pp. 50-66; E. R. A. Seligman, Essays in Taxation (9th ed.), pp. 750-782.
6. Excises as a source of revenue. C. J. Bullock, Selected Readings in Public Finance, pp. 449-472.
7. The general property tax. F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, Vol. II, pp. 528-549.
8. The tariff as a source of revenue. C. J. Bullock, Selected Readings in Public Finance, pp. 425-448.
9. The single tax. E. R. A. Seligman, Essays in Taxation, pp. 66-99.
10. The wastefulness of the old appropriation system. P. S. Reinsch, Readings on American Federal Government, pp. 355-361.
11. State debts and debt limits. Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, 1917-1918, Bulletins, No. 15 (Constitutional Restrictions on State Debts).
12. Municipal debts and debt limits. Ibid., No. 14 (Constitutional Restrictions on Municipal Indebtedness).
13. Methods of borrowing: sinking funds vs. serial bonds. Ibid., No. 21 (Methods of Borrowing: Sinking Funds vs. Serial Bonds).
14. The classification of property for taxation. Ibid., No. 20 (Classification of Property for Purposes of Taxation).
15. The new national budget system. F. A. Cleveland and A. E. Buck, The Budget and Responsible Government, pp. 371-381.
Questions
1. Show how taxes are related to the cost of living. What forms of taxation are most closely related to it?
2. Can you add any other principles of taxation to those laid down by Adam Smith?
3. Select from the constitution all the provisions which relate to taxation and put them together in this form: “Congress may impose any sort of taxation except that——and that——and that, etc.”
4. What is the incidence of (a) import duties; (b) export duties; (c) a tax on vacant land; (d) a tax on a factory; (e) a normal tax on incomes; (f) a poll tax; (g) a tax on inheritances; (h) a tax on the profits of theatres; (i) a tax on motor trucks?
5. Is it right that income from government bonds should be exempt from taxation?
6. Which of the following taxes is the wage-earner likely to feel the least, and why: tariff duties, a property tax, income taxes, a sales tax, a poll tax?
7. Should different forms of property (land, buildings, household furniture, stocks, bonds, automobiles, etc.) be taxed at different rates? Should factories be taxed at a different rate from homes? If all men are equal in the eyes of the law, why should they be taxed at different rates?
8. It cost only a billion dollars a year to run the government before the war. Interest on the debt now amounts to nearly another billion. But the government is spending about four billions. Why is this? Now that the war is over, why is it not possible (apart from interest on the war debt) to get back to the old scale of expenditures?
9. What are the chief defects in our present system of raising public revenues? What improvements can you suggest? Would you favor a sales tax? Do you believe that Congress was unwise in abolishing the tax on excess profits?
10. Enumerate all the different forms of taxation that any one man may have to pay in the United States at the present day.
11. How is the budget prepared and passed in your state? Compare the relative influence of the governor with that of the legislature in determining what the state government spends.
12. Explain treasury notes; refunding; debt limit; surtaxes; net debt; progressive taxation; sinking fund; serial bonds; special assessments.
13. Two cities of about the same size may have approximately equal amounts of net debt yet one may be in a much better financial position than the other. Account for this.
14. When Chief Justice Marshall said: “The power to tax involves the power to destroy”, what did he mean? Should the power to tax be used to secure a more nearly equal distribution of wealth and net annual incomes among the people?
Topics for Debate
1. The salaries of government officials should be taxed like the incomes of private individuals.
2. No man’s income should be twice taxed (once by the nation and once by the state).
3. Property should be taxed by a uniform rule and should not be classified for taxation.
4. No debt limits should be fixed for cities by state law, cities being allowed to decide for themselves how much they shall borrow.
5. Assessors should be appointive state officials and should not be elected by the voters of cities, counties, or towns.
CHAPTER XXIV
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the nature of public utilities, the various methods of regulating them, and the question whether they ought to be owned by the government.
Ordinary business is regulated by competition.
The Problem.—In the case of most ordinary business enterprises the factor which secures reasonable prices and good service to the customer is competition. The customer who finds that prices are high or that service is poor at one grocery store stops trading there and goes somewhere else. The merchant who finds one bank unsatisfactory moves his account to another bank. The wholesale dealer, if one factory does not send him goods promptly, or charges him too much, gives his future orders to some other factory. Stores, banks, and factories are in competition with other establishments of their own kind; in order to get business they are constantly trying to outstrip their competitors by lowering prices and improving service. In this sense “competition is the life of trade”. The rivalry of those who have goods or services to sell is in itself enough to afford the public protection.
Natural Monopolies.—But there are certain lines of business in which no real competition exists because they are monopolies. Monopolies, as has already been pointed out, are of three different types, natural, legal, or artificial (see p. [54]); and all public service enterprises (railroads, telegraphs, telephones, lighting plants, etc.) fall within the first of these classes—they are natural monopolies. We call them public services or public utilities; but this is not merely because they are of great importance to the public. Bread and meat are also of vast public importance but we do not refer to the bakery and the meat market as public services. |But public utilities are natural monopolies.| Telephones, telegraphs, street railways are called public services or public utilities because they are monopolies by nature. The citizen has no alternative by reason of competition. If he wants to go from one place to another, he cannot usually find two lines of railroad, or if so, their rates are the same. If the rates for electric lighting are exorbitant, he cannot tell the company that he will buy electric light from someone else, for he is dealing with the only concern from which electric light can be obtained in that particular locality. The man who lives in Omaha can send to Chicago and buy his shoes there if he finds that prices and quality are not satisfactory in his own city; but he cannot get his telephone service or his electric light in that way. He is absolutely dependent on local service and, as a rule, on one local service alone.
Their nature excludes competition.
Public Utilities do not Compete.—Why do we say that these public utilities are monopolies by nature? It is because their business, from the way in which it is carried on, virtually excludes competition. It would be physically possible to have two rival street railway companies operating on the same street, two gas companies, and two electric lighting companies; but imagine the congestion and inconvenience this would cause! Moreover, it would practically double the amount of fixed capital needed to provide the service and this would mean higher prices to the public in the end.[[231]] In years gone by many cities tried the plan of setting two public service companies in competition with one another, and in a few cities competing telephone companies still exist; but the competition is rarely in earnest and scarcely ever lasts very long. The rival public service companies, finding that competition is not profitable, presently form a combination and raise their rates. The controlling fact is that light, power, transportation, and communication (whether by telegraph, telephone, or post) can be more cheaply served by a monopoly than by competing companies. There can be, in fact, no effective competition between public utilities operating in the same area.
Being Monopolies They Must be Regulated.—Now if public utilities are monopolies by nature, and can never be anything else, it is essential that the government shall exercise, in one way or another, sufficient control over them to restrain them from abusing their power. |Public utilities use public property.| This is all the more easy to do because public utilities, unlike ordinary industrial or mercantile concerns, must come to the state or city government for certain privileges which they find necessary in order to carry on their business. Every public utility finds it essential to use property which belongs to the whole people. A railroad must run its tracks across the highway; a gas company must lay its pipes beneath the pavements; an electric lighting company must put some of its poles in the streets; a street railway company, as its name implies, must make large use of the public thoroughfares. Moreover, they all desire the right to take whatever private property they may need for their terminals, power houses, tanks, and so on. This is a right which only the government can give.[[232]] So the public service companies, from the fact that they must ask privileges from the government, render themselves amenable to governmental control. It is not so with ordinary industrial monopolies such as the making of steel or sugar or tobacco. |They also use the right of eminent domain.| They do not, as a rule, ask for legal privileges of any kind; they do not need permanent rights in the public highways or demand that they be allowed to exercise the right to eminent domain; hence they are not so easily brought under public regulation.
How the Regulation is Effected.—In order to use the streets or any other public property, an individual or corporation must first obtain official permission. The merchant who puts a sign out from his building over the highway, the barber who sets his familiar red-and-white pole in the sidewalk, the contractor who blocks the public passage way when he is putting up a building—all must first get the city’s permission. |Permits and franchises.| This is given by the city officials in the form of a license or permit. But the public service company must have a general permit covering rights in a great many streets and holding good for a number of years. |Definition of a franchise.| This general permission, which does not differ from an individual permit except in its broader scope and longer duration, is called a franchise. A franchise is merely a grant of the right to use public property (the streets, particularly) either in perpetuity or for a term of years and subject to certain conditions. Before any public service company can begin operations it must first secure a franchise from the state, city, town, or township as the case may be. The company secures the rights and the government imposes the conditions.
The old-type franchise.
Franchises, Past and Present.—It was formerly the custom of states and cities to grant franchises for long terms of years without imposing strict conditions for the protection of the people. The reason for this was, in part, the strong desire of the community to get the service at once. When electric street railways first came into use, replacing the old horse-cars, they were regarded as a godsend to the suburban districts. There was a great popular clamor to have the horse-car lines electrified as quickly as possible. So the companies that were willing to provide this improved service obtained, in many cases, very liberal franchises running for long terms and without strict conditions. These were days, moreover, when city councilmen and state legislators often proved susceptible to corrupt influences. Valuable privileges in many cities were bartered away for next to nothing by dishonest or incompetent officials. How many million dollars in franchises have been practically given away by American states and cities during the past generation no one has ever been able to calculate. Certain it is, at any rate, that hundreds of private fortunes were made from these one-sided bargains.
The newer methods.
But public opinion, in due course, became aroused to the injustice of this free-and-easy method, and laws were passed forbidding the grant of franchise privileges for longer than a designated term of years, or without first giving the opponents of the grant an opportunity to be heard.[[233]] In some cases the laws forbade the granting of any franchise without the consent of the people at the polls. Provisions were also made to ensure that in return for their privileges the companies should pay a share of their annual profits into the city treasury.[[234]] Finally, it became the practice to stipulate in the franchise that the rates charged by the company, the quality of the service, and various other features affecting the interests of the citizens, should be subject to public regulation. Franchises are still granted by legislatures and municipal councils but with much greater care than formerly.
Regulation by the terms of a franchise is not enough.
Administrative Regulation.—In spite of these various restrictions, however, it soon became apparent that a sufficiently close regulation of public utilities could not be maintained by merely inserting various conditions in their franchises. Franchises are granted for ten, twenty, or even fifty years, and conditions greatly change within this period. A provision in the franchise relating to the quality of gas, or the rate of fare on street railways, or the candle-power of electric lamps may be framed carefully to cover the needs of today, but no one can foresee what will be needed five or ten years hence. Progress is continually being made in the mechanism of public utilities as in all other branches of industry. If regulation is to be effective, it must keep moving forward as new devices and methods come into use. A franchise has the defect of being a closed bargain. It stands still while the things which it tries to regulate keep marching on. No written document, furthermore, is self-enforcing, and unless some machinery is provided to make the companies live up to their agreements there are always loopholes through which they can evade the restrictions.
It must be supplemented.
In order to make the regulation of public utilities flexible and effective, therefore, it has become the practice to supplement the terms of franchises by a system of administrative regulation. Besides inserting a long list of conditions in the franchise the government now stipulates, as a rule, that the rates and the quality of service shall be fixed from time to time, in accordance with existing conditions, by a body of officials commonly known as a public service commission which is supposed to deal fairly with all parties.
State and municipal commissions.
Public Service Commissions.—Public service commissions are in some cases maintained by the cities; but more often they are state-appointed bodies. There are two reasons which make it desirable that the regulation of public utilities should be in the hands of the state rather than under the control of the cities. In the first place the jurisdiction of the city officials does not extend beyond the city limits, whereas public service companies often do a considerable part of their business outside. It is not uncommon, for example, to find the same street railway, electric lighting, and telephone company operating in several neighboring communities.[[235]] Municipal regulation, in such cases, would subject the company to different rules in each community.
There is a second reason, namely, that public regulation is always expensive. A public service commission must have skilled investigators to assist it in deciding the technical questions which arise, and these experts are costly to employ. Large cities can afford it, but in the case of small communities it is better to have a single state commission perform the functions of regulation for them all. In this way, moreover, the regulations can be made uniform. Public service commissions consist of three or five members; in cities they are appointed as a rule by the mayor; in states they are usually appointed by the governor; but in some states they are elected by popular vote. Appointment is now regarded as the more satisfactory method.
Work of these commissions.
The work of a public service commission covers a wide range. Its chief function is to see that the companies live up to the terms of their franchises and obey the laws relating to public utilities. It hears complaints from city officials and citizens, investigates these complaints, obtains the company’s side of the case, and makes such decision as the matter seems to require. It prevents discriminations in favor of one community against another, and insists that equally good service be given to all; it requires financial reports from the various companies and often has power to fix the maximum rates which they may charge. In some states it is the practice to grant “indeterminate” franchises, or franchises which run for no stated term of years, coupled with the provision that the franchise may be canceled at any time by order of the public service commission if the company does not comply with the conditions. It can easily be seen, therefore, that public service commissions have a degree of authority which can readily be abused unless the commissioners are fair-minded and absolutely honest men. Their position is like that of judges, in a sense, for their function is to hold evenly the scales of justice between the companies on the one hand and the public on the other. Fairness is the essence of successful regulation.
Has regulation been satisfactory?
Public Ownership.—By the methods which have been described in the foregoing pages the government has been able to protect, fairly well, on the whole, the interests of the public. Railroads, telegraph companies, electric lighting plants, and other similar corporations are no longer able to do as they please. On the contrary their owners are inclined to feel that public regulation has gone too far and has become oppressive. Yet regulation has not always been satisfactory to the public. The complaint is often made that members of public service commissions are chosen for political reasons and that their work, in such cases, is neither effective nor impartial. The success of regulation has varied in different parts of the country. In some states it has been satisfactory to both sides; in others it has satisfied neither.
Would public ownership be better?
Because regulation has not proved successful in all cases the proposal is sometimes made that the utilities should be taken over and operated by the government itself. Those who support this policy of public ownership believe that the national government should take over the railroads, telegraphs, and telephone lines, while the states and the cities should become owners of all the street railways, gas companies, and electric lighting concerns. These utilities should then be publicly managed, they argue, just as the postal service is now conducted by the national government, or as water supplies are now provided by the cities.[[236]]
Public ownership overseas.
European Experience in Public Ownership.—It is pointed out, in this connection, that the policy of public ownership has been widely followed in various European countries, particularly in Great Britain, France, and Germany. In Germany the railroads have been for many years owned and operated by the government. In all three countries the telegraphs are government-owned, and are operated in connection with the post-offices. The telephone service is also in public hands. Gas and electric lighting plants are to some extent owned by companies in various European cities, but the majority of them have been taken over by the municipal authorities. Even the street railways have been passing under municipal ownership. Many European cities, moreover, not only operate these various public services but conduct other municipal enterprises, such as abattoirs, bakeries, theatres, savings banks, and even pawnshops as well.[[237]]
American experience has been less extensive.
Public Ownership in America.—In the United States the policy of public ownership has not been nearly so popular. The railroads, telegraphs, and telephones are owned and operated by private companies. They were managed by the national government for a time during the war, but when the emergency ended they were returned to their owners. Among the larger cities of the United States only five or six own and operate their gas plants; about twenty have municipal ownership of electric lighting plants.[[238]] Street railway lines are owned by the city in only three or four instances; but in several other communities they are being operated by the public authorities under leases from the owners.[[239]] When one bears in mind that the total number of public utilities in the United States runs up into the thousands it will be seen that the policy of public ownership has had a relatively small and slow development on this side of the Atlantic.
Arguments for Public Ownership.—The chief arguments in favor of public ownership in the United States may be briefly set forth as follows: |1. Regulation has failed.| First, all public utilities, being natural monopolies, require a stricter measure of regulation than can ever be provided by any form of public supervision. So long as these utilities remain in private hands there will be a continual effort to evade public regulation and this effort will usually be successful because rich and powerful companies are exceedingly difficult to control under a democratic form of government. “We have tried regulation”, the advocates of public ownership say, “and it has not been satisfactory. Therefore, let us try the only other alternative, which is to buy out the companies altogether.” |2. Lower rates and better service.| Second, under public ownership the people would obtain lower rates and better service. This would be possible because the government could procure capital more cheaply than private companies and thus make a substantial saving in interest.[[240]] It would not be seeking for profits, but would strive to give service at actual cost. If the government owned all the utilities, moreover, it could buy supplies and materials in large quantities and hence at lower prices. Each street railway company now buys rails, cars, cables, coal, and so on for itself. If a state owned all the street railways within its territory, it would purchase these things on a much larger scale. |3. More just to labor.| Third, public ownership means a fairer and better treatment of the employees. Wages, as a rule, are higher in public than in private employment (assuming the same degree of training and skill); the hours of labor are not so long (since the eight-hour day is now generally recognized in public employment); and there is better protection against arbitrary dismissal. For these reasons labor organizations usually favor public ownership. |4. The effect on politics.| Fourth, the public service companies have had a detrimental influence upon American politics. They are seekers of public privileges, and in their zeal to obtain favors are under strong temptation to work in a quiet way for the election of public officials who will be friendly to them. They form a part of what Mr. Elihu Root once spoke of as the “invisible government”. Through their paid agents and lobbyists they try to influence the action of legislatures and city councils in ways which are to their own financial advantage but detrimental to the public interest. The abolition of all franchises and the direct public ownership of all utilities would remove, it is asserted, a corrupting influence from American politics. These are the chief arguments used by the advocates of public ownership.
The Arguments Against Public Ownership.—But there is much to be said on the other side. |1. More costly to the public.| First, it is claimed that public ownership, by reason of higher wages and less efficient management, would prove to be far more expensive than private enterprise, and that in the long run the increased cost would have to be paid by the people. This higher cost might take the form of higher rates for the service or it might come out of the general taxes; but it would fall on the public in either case. When the national government operated the railroads during the war it kept the freight and passenger rates low; the result was a deficit amounting to about a billion dollars, which had to be made good out of the public treasury. The taxpayers carried a burden which should have been borne by the shippers and passengers. |2. Means retention of obsolete methods.| Second, public ownership would mean poor service; the utilities would not keep up with modern methods; the public would be put to great inconvenience by reason of incompetent management. Private companies are alert, on the look-out for new economies, and always ready to adopt improved methods. The incentive to all this is their desire to make greater profits. They do not hesitate to spend money upon improvements if by so doing they can obtain more business and increase their earnings.[[241]] Remove this incentive, as is done when the government operates a public utility, and everybody takes his job easily. |3. Would not improve political conditions.| Third, municipal ownership would merely substitute the influence of organized labor for that of organized capital in politics. The nation, states, and cities would have an enormous number of officials and employees on their respective pay rolls. The employees would also be voters. They would stand solidly for whichever political party offered them better wages, fewer hours of labor, and other advantages. The interests of the public would have scant consideration in the face of organized political pressure from this huge array of government workers. Even today the city employees are an important factor in municipal politics. What would they be if their numbers were doubled or trebled? The railroad employees of the country number many hundred thousand. Count in their wives (who are also voters), their relatives and friends, the voters whom they can personally influence, and you will see that they would form no negligible factor in national politics. |4. European experience not applicable.| Fourth, although public ownership has been moderately successful in European countries where the governments are highly centralized it does not follow that it would have the same success in this country. In the United States, where government is conducted on a democratic basis, with short terms of office and strong partisan forces at work, with the spoils system still flourishing in many states and cities, public ownership would result in gross mismanagement and extravagance. If the government is to engage in business it should first put itself on a business basis. Before it undertakes to operate the railroads or the telephone service it should introduce efficiency into its own governmental functions.
Weight of the foregoing arguments.
Summary.—In balancing these various arguments, one against the other, and in comparing the relative merits of public regulation with those of public ownership, much depends upon local conditions. It cannot be said that either policy is the better one at all times, in all communities, for all utilities, and under all circumstances. Where public regulation has been satisfactory there is a good deal to be said for the policy of letting well enough alone. Where the policy of regulation has not been successful the arguments for trying the experiment of public ownership become stronger. It ought to be remarked, however, that if local conditions are such as to make regulation a failure they are not likely to make public ownership a success. A state or community which cannot hold capital under effective control is not likely to be much more successful in its dealings with a large body of public employees. No great weight should be attached to the fact that public ownership has succeeded in one city or failed in another. The success or failure of public ownership, as a policy, cannot be fairly judged from this or that adventure in it, any more than we can judge the outcome of a campaign from the winning or losing of a single skirmish. Banks sometimes fail, yet our banking system is sound. Speculators occasionally succeed, and make fortunes, but that does not prove speculation to be a profitable form of business.
So far as can be judged from the figures of profit and loss, public ownership is less economical than private management. The community which owns and operates a street railway or a lighting plant or any other public utility will not make a profit, in most cases, unless it charges higher rates than would be charged by a private company. The books may show a profit, but this is because not all expenses which ought to be charged to the plant are put down; they are saddled upon the taxpayer in some roundabout way. Public ownership cannot be justified as a matter of pennies and dimes. |The question is not one of profit and loss alone.| But profit and loss are not the only things to be considered. The question as to which plan is better for the public is much more than a question of surplus or deficit. The fair treatment of labor, the reliability of the service, the removal of sinister political influences—these should be reckoned with as well. And that is where people with different points of view fail to agree. The advisability of public ownership is an intensely practical issue which cannot be solved by appealing to any set rules or principles. It is entirely logical for one to favor public ownership of the water supply while opposing its extension to the street railway. One is closely related to the public health; the other is not. In a well-governed community, where the service rendered by a private company has proved to be unsatisfactory, the policy of public ownership may be entirely justified. This does not mean, however, that the people of boss-ridden cities, with the spoils system in full operation, should take over public services which are doing well enough under private management. Conditions, not theories, should determine which is the wise policy.
Guild Operation.—In recent years another alternative to private ownership has been put forth. It is known as guild ownership. Knowing that many people are disinclined toward public ownership because they fear that it would merely mean the mismanagement of the public services by politicians, some labor leaders have proposed that the utilities should be owned and operated by the organized employees. In brief they suggest that the government should supply the capital (receiving interest on it, of course,) and that the employees should operate the utilities through officials chosen by them, or chosen by themselves and the government jointly. The Plumb plan, put forward in 1919 as a solution of the railroad problem, was a proposal of this nature. Some advocates of guild operation believe in applying this policy not only to public utilities but to all industries.
General References
F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, Vol. II, pp. 397-418;
Clyde L. King, The Regulation of Municipal Utilities, pp. 3-55;
H. G. James, Municipal Functions, pp. 246-281 (Public Utilities); pp. 282-295 (Municipal Ownership);
Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, 1917-1918, Bulletins, No. 22 (Municipal Ownership in the United States);
E. M. Phelps (editor), Government Ownership of Railroads (Debaters’ Handbook Series). Contains material on both sides of the question. See also K. B. Judson (editor), Government Ownership of Telegraphs and Telephones, and J. E. Johnson, Municipal Ownership, in the same series;
F. C. Howe, The Modern City and its Problems, pp. 149-164.
Group Problems
1. Government ownership of telegraphs and telephones. History of the wire services. How the telegraph and telephone companies are organized. Present methods of regulation by the national, state, and local authorities. Public ownership of telegraphs and telephones in Europe. The results of European experience. American experience during the war. Summary and conclusions. References: K. B. Judson (editor), Government Ownership of Telegraphs and Telephones (Debaters’ Handbook Series); A. N. Holcombe, Government Ownership of Telephones in Europe, pp. 441-463; H. R. Meyer, Public Ownership and the Telephone of Great Britain, pp. 239-268; W. W. Willoughby, Government Organization in War Time, pp. 191-198.
2. State regulation of public utilities. References: H. G. James, Municipal Functions, pp. 246-281; C. L. King, Regulation of Municipal Utilities, pp. 253-263; G. P. Jones, State Versus Local Regulation, in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, LIII (May, 1914), pp. 94-107; Proceedings of the Conference of American Mayors, 1915, pp. 123-162; H. M. Pollock and H. S. Morgan, Modern Cities, pp. 225-249.
3. Municipal ownership in Europe. References: G. B. Shaw, The Common Sense of Municipal Trading, pp. 17-42; Leonard Darwin, Municipal Ownership, pp. 33-66; Douglas Knoop, Principles and Methods of Municipal Trading, pp. 95-106; F. C. Howe, European Cities at Work, pp. 37-67; Yves Guyot, Where and Why Public Ownership Has Failed, pp. 55-71; W. H. Dawson, Municipal Life and Government in Germany, pp. 208-259; C. D. Thompson, Municipal Ownership, pp. 15-25; National Civic Federation Report (1907), Part I, Vol. I, pp. 261-302.
Short Studies
1. Franchises. Cyclopedia of American Government, Vol. II, pp. 44-48.
2. A model street railway franchise. C. L. King, Regulation of Municipal Utilities, pp. 165-181.
3. Gas and electric lighting franchises. W. B. Munro, Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration, pp. 247-257.
4. Germany’s experience in public ownership. W. H. Dawson, Municipal Life and Government in Germany, pp. 208-259.
5. Great Britain’s experience in public ownership. Douglas Knoop, Principles and Methods of Municipal Trading, pp. 306-365.
6. Municipal ownership in the United States. Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, 1917-1918, Bulletin, No. 22; National Civic Federation, Shall the Government Own and Operate the Railroads, the Telegraph and Telephone Systems? The Affirmative Side; Ibid., The Negative Side.
7. Guild ownership. G. D. H. Cole, Guild Socialism, pp. 42-77.
8. Public service commissions. S. P. Orth, Readings on the Relation of Government to Industry, pp. 308-343.
9. The danger of giving government too much to do. Otto H. Kahn, American Economic Problems, pp. 235-275.
10. The Plumb plan. Public Ownership League, Bulletin, No. 12, pp. 86-100; Ibid., Bulletin, No. 14, pp. 59-74; 127-130.
Questions
1. Name all the principal public service industries of the present day. Would you say that the following are public utilities: abattoirs; grain elevators; coal mines; pipe lines for conveying oil from city to city; wireless telegraph establishments; airships carrying passengers; automobiles; taxicabs; jitney busses; hotels; steamships; docks; banks; hospitals? Why or why not in each case?
2. Make a definition of public utilities which will square with your answer to the previous question.
3. If a merchant should install an electric generator to provide light for his own store, would he be then engaged in a public service and would he require a franchise? If he desired to sell current to his neighbors (without crossing a street) would he then require a franchise? Give your reasons.
4. Certain industries are particularly suited to public management (for example, the postal service and water supply). Name some others. Why are they suited?
5. What provisions should be made in a street railway franchise as regards term, fares, service, contributions by the company to the public treasury, disposal of the plant when the franchise expires, and regulation during the franchise term?
6. Can you give any reasons why the government should carry mail but not telegrams? Parcels by post but not by express?
7. Name some reasons why the effective regulation of public utilities is difficult.
8. What public utilities are operated in your city? By what companies? When do their franchises expire? Who regulates them? Would any of them be better managed under public ownership?
9. Which of the arguments for municipal ownership seem to you to be the strongest, and why? Which of the arguments against?
10. Would it be consistent for an Englishman to favor municipal ownership of street railways in London but to oppose it in New York after becoming a resident there?
Topics for Debate
1. Street railways should be (a) owned and operated by private companies, or (b) owned by private companies and operated by the government, or (c) owned and operated by the government.
2. Guild operation should be applied to all public utilities.
CHAPTER XXV
EDUCATION
The purpose of this chapter is to explain why education is made compulsory, how the schools are managed, what they cost, and what they are trying to do.
In a democracy education is essential.
Education and Democracy.—No matter where one may go, in any part of the world, it will be found that political democracy and public education tend to keep pace with each other. In despotisms one will rarely find a system of universal, free, public education; or, if it is found, one can be sure that the despotism will not last very long. Education is the friend of democracy and the foe of despotism. Indeed it can fairly be said that without a system of public education no democracy can be sure of its own permanence. This is because the maintenance of democratic government depends upon the ability of the people to think straight and to see things clearly. The more political freedom you give a people the greater is their opportunity for abusing it.
Free government depends on intelligence.
In a real democracy the only safeguard is the common sense of the people, and a system of free, public education will do more for the diffusion of common sense among the people than anything else can do. It is unsafe to place the ballot in the hands of people without giving them the opportunity to acquire that degree of enlightenment which is necessary to enable them to use the ballot intelligently. The voter who cannot read a newspaper or understand the public questions which he is called upon to decide is a poor foundation upon which to build a government. More than fifty years ago, when England practically adopted manhood suffrage, some of the old-fashioned statesmen bemoaned the fact that the multitudes of the people would be “masters” of the government. “Well, then”, said a certain member of Parliament, “educate your masters!” That is the only way to keep a democratic government honest, intelligent, orderly, and capable.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE BOOK. By John W. Alexander
From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis & Cameron, Boston. Reproduced by permission.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE BOOK
By John W. Alexander
These three mural paintings are in the East Corridor of the Library of Congress.
The first depicts the spread of knowledge by oral tradition. A seer, or wise man, narrates by word of mouth to his tribesmen the story of the race. This was, in earliest times, the only way of imparting knowledge. Then, after many centuries, came the making of manuscript books on parchment. The monks of the Middle Ages, as shown in the central picture, spent much of their time in the laborious task of making books—each letter being printed by hand. Finally came the invention of printing. In the third picture Gutenburg, the inventor, is inspecting one of the pages just completed by the primitive press which the boy is turning by hand.
If so, why are intelligent men sometimes corrupt in politics?
But someone may interpose to ask this embarrassing question: If education helps to make people more intelligent in political matters, why is it that well-educated and intelligent people are often found among corrupt and selfish politicians, and that even college graduates sometimes become notorious political bosses? The answer is that in this, as in other things, a general truth does not cease to be a general truth because there are exceptions to it. Many well-educated men are unable to earn a living, but would any sensible person argue that education, as a general rule, renders no aid toward the gaining of a livelihood? As well might one urge that newspapers render no service in disseminating the truth because some of them occasionally print lies. It is quite true that men are not politically wise in exact proportion to the extent of their education. The man or woman who is only a grammar school graduate may have more political wisdom than the most finished scholar in the land. But this does not impair the fundamental truth that knowledge is preferable to ignorance in all countries, at all times, and in every field of human activity.
The general purpose of education.
Education and Personal Efficiency.—To make men and women intelligent in matters of government is not, however, the only purpose of education. The general prosperity of the country depends, in the long run, upon the individual ability of its citizens. Every individual who proves able to earn his own living, establish a home, bring up a family, and by his savings add something to the nation’s capital is a contributor to the national prosperity. Every individual who fails to make his own way and becomes dependent, either in whole or in part, upon the efforts of others, is a drag upon the community. In its own interest, therefore, it is the duty of the whole people to see that everyone is not only enabled but encouraged to become personally efficient, able to make his own way in the world, and capable of pulling his own weight in that many-oared boat which carries the progress of society along.
The specific purposes of education:
The Purpose and Value of Education.—The purpose of education therefore is three-fold. |1. Economic.| First, it aims to give young men and women the sort of training which will enable them to earn a living. This is a primary and fundamental purpose, because earning a living is one of life’s great problems. But it is not the only purpose of education; an educational system would be very defective if it confined itself to this and nothing more. |2. Personal.| The second purpose of education is to develop the personality of the individual, his own resources and mentality, so that he may enjoy those durable satisfactions of life which are not directly connected with the work of earning a livelihood. The enjoyment which men and women derive from life is not entirely dependent upon the amount of their incomes; one need only to look about the community to realize that this is so. Even a large fortune does not of itself guarantee happiness. To live a full and contented life it is necessary to know what is going on in the world, to appreciate its significance, and to understand the many things which, to the uneducated man or woman, are hidden mysteries. Education helps an individual to know himself, to know what is going on around him, to understand the motives which govern the actions of his fellow-men, and to adjust himself to the environment in which he lives. Knowledge is power. It is power in the hands of everyone who possesses it. |3. Social.| The third purpose of education, the social purpose, is also of great importance. Education aims to train the individual so that he may better serve his fellow-men. Democracy, as has been said, rests upon the intelligence of the people. A democratic government exacts from its citizens a sort of service which education alone can teach them to give.[[242]]
The illiteracy of bygone days.
The Growth of Public Education.—For many centuries in the history of the world the masses of the people were afforded no opportunity for even the elements of education. Not one person in ten thousand could read or write. Even kings on the throne were illiterate. There is a well-known picture of King John, with a crown on his head and a quill pen in his hand, signing the Great Charter. It is an altogether fanciful picture, because John Plantagenet could not write a single word, not even his own name. No copy of Magna Carta or any other document has ever been found with his signature on it. The only persons who could read or write in those days were the monks and other officers of the Church together with a very few laymen who were educated by them. Even after the invention of printing, education spread slowly and it was not until the nineteenth century that the desirability of providing free schools for the masses of the people came to be generally recognized. Prior to that time education was almost everywhere regarded as a luxury to be bought and paid for by the relatively few individuals who could afford it.
The first American schools.
In the United States free education goes back to colonial days. As early as 1647 the colony of Massachusetts Bay provided that a schoolmaster should be appointed and paid out of the taxes in every town of more than fifty families and that this schoolmaster should teach all the children “to write and reade”; but this example was not generally followed in the other colonies. It has been estimated that not more than half the population in the colonial days could read and write. The proportion of illiteracy among women was especially large because very little provision was made for educating girls. Even after the Revolution the system of free, public schools spread slowly and not until the middle of the nineteenth century did it cover the greater portion of the country. Since the Civil War, however, the policy of making education not only free but compulsory has been adopted in virtually every part of the United States. The total enrolment in the public schools is now more than twenty-two millions, and the cost of educating the vast array of young citizens is considerably over a billion dollars a year.
The function of the state in education.
The Control and Management of Education.—As the national constitution gives the federal government no power to control education the responsibility rests with the several states. Every state has established a system of free, public education, but the methods of control and management differ greatly from one state to another. Some states have centralized the management of the schools in the hands of the state authorities; others leave this very largely to the school officials of the counties, cities, or districts. Everywhere there is a state department of education, with a board or a superintendent in charge, some states having both. The local educational unit may be the city, town, township, school district, or (especially in the Southern states) the county. A school board, usually elected, erects the school buildings, chooses a school superintendent, appoints principals and teachers (on the recommendation of the superintendent), and appropriates money for the support of the schools. The detailed work of managing the schools rests primarily upon the superintendent.[[243]]
Where should the chief control be lodged?
Central vs. Local Control of Schools.—To what extent should the public schools be under the control of the state authorities? Is it advisable that local school boards should be left free to manage the schools as they think best, without interference from the state? These are questions upon which the opinions of educators differ. It is argued that the school board, in every city, town, or township knows best the needs of its own community and hence ought to be given a free hand in meeting these needs. This policy, moreover, affords each school a chance to try experiments and it is through experiments that progress in education, as in everything else, is usually made. On the other hand it is logical to assert that if the state laws make education compulsory and if the state treasury grants money to local schools it is the right of the state to see that the money is properly spent. If every city, town, and village were left free to manage its schools without any central control there would be no uniformity in the subjects taught, in the qualifications of teachers, or in the organization of the schools. It would be difficult in that case for a pupil to transfer from one school to another, outside the same community, without finding himself a misfit in the new institution. A certain amount of central control seems therefore to be desirable, but it is not for the best interests of education that every school throughout the state should be conducted in exactly the same way. A system of that sort tends to deaden the whole process of education. There is a great deal to be said for home rule in education, provided there is a sufficient amount of state supervision to keep the schools up to a proper standard.
Keeping the schools out of politics.
School Boards and Politics.—It is generally agreed that party politics should have no place in the management of the public schools. There may be justification for party politics in lawmaking bodies; but in school boards there is none. There is an efficient way of managing the schools and an inefficient way; but there is no such thing as a Republican way or a Democratic way. Yet elections to school boards are, in many communities, contested upon party lines. Men and women are nominated and elected, very often, because they belong to one or the other political party, not because they have good judgment or a deep interest in school affairs. In this, however, public sentiment is gradually changing. In many places the school board elections have become non-partisan; party designations have been taken off the ballots, and it matters little which party a candidate belongs to. Why should it? What relation is there between a man’s views on the tariff or the league of nations and his ability to serve his own neighbors acceptably as a member of a local school board? There is no visible relation. Taking the schools out of politics means that the taxpayers get greater value for the money which is spent in maintaining the schools, that all questions are decided upon their merits and not by political favoritism, and that every pupil gets the benefit of better schools, better teachers, and better educational methods.
Educational Work of the National Government.—The national government, as has already been pointed out, possesses no formal powers with respect to education in the states. Nevertheless it has done a good deal to promote the interests of public education by publishing the results of investigations into educational problems, and by rendering advisory assistance to the state authorities. |The national Bureau of Education.| It maintains a Bureau of Education which is now within the jurisdiction of the Interior Department. At the head of this bureau is a Commissioner of Education appointed by the President. The functions of the bureau are almost wholly of an informal character; it collects data for the use of educators and publishes this material in annual reports and bulletins.[[244]] There has been a strong movement to make this bureau a regular Department of Education, with a member of the cabinet at its head, and to increase its powers considerably; but this movement has not yet been successful.
Federal Aid to Education.—Within the last few years there has been a good deal of controversy, both in Congress and outside, over a proposal to appropriate further funds from the national treasury for the promotion of general education in the states, particularly in those states where the common school system needs toning up. |The Towner-Sterling Bill: its merits and defects.| This proposal is embodied in a measure which has been before Congress for some time but upon which no favorable action has yet been taken.[[245]] In favor of the measure it is argued that public elementary education is a national necessity and that if any state cannot raise sufficient money to keep its common schools up to a proper standard the interests of the whole nation will suffer in the end. There is just as much reason, and more, it is asserted, for federal aid to state schools as for such aid to state roads. On the other hand it is objected that the policy of large federal subsidies to education would involve the taxing of the populous and thriving states of the East, the Middle West, and the Pacific Slope for the benefit of those other states, especially in the South, where the school system has heretofore been backward through lack of funds. Most of the federal government’s income is provided by the taxpayers of states like New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Massachusetts. But in these states the public school system has already been brought up to a standard where there is no urgent need for federal assistance. The chief gainers under the new plan would be the states which contribute very little of the revenue. In other words, we should be taxing some states for the benefit of others. A somewhat more weighty objection, to some minds, is found in the possibility that if the national government begins the practice of making large annual grants to the states for educational purposes it may, in due course, undertake to exercise control over the public school systems of the entire country. When a government grants money for any purpose it has an undeniable right to make sure that the money is being properly spent. To do this it must create some system of inspection. Inspection leads to supervision, and supervision sooner or later merges into actual control. It is feared in some quarters that this would be the ultimate outcome of federal aid to common school education on any large scale.
| THE PUBLIC | |||||||||
| BOARD OF EDUCATION | |||||||||
| CLERK | SUPERINTENDENT | COUNSEL | |||||||
| SECRETARY | |||||||||
| PRINCIPALS | |||||||||
| ENGINEERS | SUPERVISORS | ||||||||
| JANITORS | |||||||||
| TEACHERS | |||||||||
| PUPILS | |||||||||
HURON PLAN OF SCHOOL ORGANIZATION
THE CONTROL OF EDUCATION
This diagram illustrates a common type of municipal school administration. The voters choose a Board of Education, or School Board. This body, in turn, appoints a Superintendent of Schools who has supervision over all matters of school management. In some cities the members of the Board of Education are appointed by the mayor. In the larger municipalities there are, as a rule, one or more assistant superintendents.
Make a similar chart showing the organization of the school system in your own community.
A series of present-day questions.
Some Problems of School Organization.—Several problems of great importance are engaging the attention of the school authorities at the present time. The more conspicuous among them may be indicated by a series of questions which are under discussion wherever educators come together, but which are also of direct interest to the pupils and to the community. To what age should school attendance be made compulsory? How can pupils be kept from leaving school before they have received a sufficient amount of education? How should the school course be divided? Should we have junior high schools and junior colleges as well as regular high schools and regular colleges? How may the training of teachers be improved? Can the work of the schools be brought into closer and better contact with the resources of the public library? Is it possible to use the school plant, after school hours, for various forms of community service? Can greater use be made of the school plant during the school day? And where are we going to get the money with which to carry on all these new enterprises if we ultimately agree that they are desirable? This list of questions may seem to contain some that are not related to one another, but they all point to different aspects of the same great problem and may be summed up in the one broad query: What changes in school organization will better enable education to fulfil its three-fold purpose?
Compulsory school attendance.
The School Age.—To what age should attendance be made compulsory? In most of the states this age is now fixed at fourteen years (or grammar school graduation) although some Southern states still maintain the twelve-year limit. Many believe that even the fourteen-year limit is not high enough and are urging that it be raised. In some states a step in this direction has been taken by requiring that all persons under sixteen years of age who engage in any form of wage-earning employment must either present a certificate of graduation from grammar school or must attend continuation classes for so many hours per week. More urgent than any raising of the school age, however, is the need for more strictly enforcing the rules which now exist. In some communities the present age limit of fourteen years is not insisted upon, with the result that many thousands in the backward rural sections and in the crowded districts of cities are growing up in illiteracy. Whatever the age limit it ought to be enforced to the letter.[[246]]
The present school divisions.
Re-arranging the School Divisions.—But we should not depend wholly upon the stern arm of the law for the solution of a problem like that of keeping pupils at school. When normal boys and girls strongly dislike going to school, when they stay away at every opportunity and leave school as soon as they can, we may well suspect that there is something wrong with the school system itself. Graduation from grammar school has hitherto been looked upon as the natural point at which to break off. The majority of pupils leave the schools at that stage; only a minority go on with the regular school course. Our whole system of school divisions has therefore brought it about that there is no logical breaking-off point between the ages of thirteen or fourteen on the one hand (grammar school graduation) and seventeen or eighteen (high school graduation) on the other. It is believed by many educators, moreover, that the last two grades of the grammar schools have not been so organized as to awaken in the average pupil a desire to go further. The upper grades of grammar schools do not differ essentially in their methods of instruction from the lower grades although the much greater maturity of the pupils would seem to warrant the use of different methods.
The junior high school system.
To improve this situation it is now proposed to divide the school course into three parts by establishing junior high schools, and many communities have already adopted this plan. The junior high school as usually organized takes the last two grades of the grammar school, adds on the first year or the first two years of the regular high school course, and thus provides a three-year or a four-year program which carries pupils through to the ages of fifteen or sixteen. The methods of instruction are those of the regular high school.[[247]] This plan is said to have two marked advantages: it induces pupils to continue their schooling one or two years longer, and it gives them a type of instruction which is better suited to their age and interests. Objection is sometimes raised against the junior high school system on the ground that it involves the introduction of elective studies and hence may result in the neglecting of fundamentals. It may also result in bringing all the customary social and athletic diversions of the high school into the lives of younger pupils. Whether this is an advantage or a defect may be regarded as an open question.
The junior college.
What becomes of the regular high school if its first year or two years are lopped off? There are two alternatives. It may become simply a senior high school with a three-year or a two-year course, or it may add on two additional years covering work which has hitherto been done by freshmen and sophomores in colleges, thus providing what has come to be known as a junior college course. Where this policy is pursued the pupil can be carried two years beyond the old high school graduation and enabled, on entering a college or university, to obtain a degree in less than the usual time. All this involves a considerable increase in the expense of maintaining the school system, of course; but it also increases the service rendered to the community.
The Training of Teachers.—In the last analysis the success of education depends upon the teacher. Suitable buildings, a well-planned curriculum, good text books, all contribute their share towards the efficiency of a school; but these are inanimate things. Without capable teachers they are of little avail. Now effective teaching requires two attainments on the part of the teacher, a knowledge of the subject and ability to impart this knowledge to others. Both of these things are essential and both are in large measure the result of training. |Normal schools.| It is for this reason that all the states maintain normal schools in which prospective teachers are trained in the art of giving instruction. For teachers who are already in service many of these normal schools provide courses during the afternoon and evening hours so that teachers may keep abreast of the most modern methods in education. |Extension courses.| The universities also provide extension courses and summer instruction with the same end in view. All this is highly desirable and should be carried even further. We are inclined to spend our school appropriations on buildings, books, supplies, and facilities for the pupils and to feel that the community discharges its full obligation to the teachers when it pays them salaries that are by no means proportionate to the importance of the work in which they are engaged. But human knowledge is moving forward at a rapid pace and anyone who does not keep close on its trail is sure to be left far behind. Unless the teachers are afforded the opportunity of keeping in touch with everything that is new it is difficult to see how their instruction can keep pace with the times.
The School and the Public Library.—The public library is an institution of great educational value and its relation to the schools ought to be more intimate than is usually the case. Too often the public library is merely an ornate building with a miscellaneous assortment of books (mostly fiction) on its shelves. It is regarded as a place for adult readers primarily. But the way to enlarge this circle of adult readers is to bring them into touch with the resources of the library when they are young, and the public schools are the natural channels through which this can be accomplished.
How the public library can help the schools.
In well-managed public libraries this is now being done. Many of them have established juvenile departments in which an expert carefully chooses books that are likely to interest the young. Reading lists of interesting and timely subjects are also kept posted; the pupils in the schools are encouraged to use the library in connection with their studies; illustrated lectures are provided in the late afternoon hours and on Saturdays, and the whole atmosphere of the library becomes one of welcome to readers of every age. It should not be thought, however, that all public libraries are rendering this degree of service. Many of them are unprogressive in these things.
The school as a neighborhood center.
Wider Use of the Schools.—Under ordinary conditions, how many hours of use does a community obtain from its school buildings in the course of a year? Five hours per day, five days per week for about forty weeks in the year. That makes a total of about a thousand hours—a year contains more than eight times as many. When used for school purposes only, school buildings are empty seven-eighths of the time. But the cost of maintenance (interest, care, etc.) goes on all the time just the same. These buildings are admirably suited for many after-school purposes; they are centrally-located, well heated and ventilated, clean and commodious. Why not make use of them outside of school hours? The answer to this query is that many cities are now making use of them for evening classes, for public meetings, and neighborhood recreation. The high schools in many cities have become evening social centers for the section in which they are located. This means that the classrooms, assembly hall, and gymnasium are opened for lectures, entertainments, games, and dances, all under the supervision of officials (usually teachers) who are appointed and paid by the school board. The complaint is sometimes made that this wider use of the school plant is not education in the customary sense, but recreation or amusement, and that the taxpayers should not be required to pay for adult amusement under color of supporting a public school system. There is some force in this contention, but so long as the work is of value to the community, and worth what it costs, the particular heading under which the money is expended does not matter a great deal. These evening activities are placed in charge of the school authorities as a matter of convenience and not because they are exclusively of an educational character.
The Gary System.—Do we make sufficient use of the school facilities within the available school hours of the day? The usual school program does not cover more than five hours, although there are eight hours between eight in the morning and four in the afternoon. |Schools on an eight-hour basis.| In Gary, Indiana, a few years ago the school authorities decided that schooling, like labor, should be put upon an eight-hours-a-day basis. Pupils were therefore kept at school from eight until four, spending half their time in the classrooms and the other half at vocational work or at organized play. In this way the classrooms were made to accommodate twice the customary number of pupils. The Gary plan was based on the idea that even as regards their play the school can be of service to pupils and that time spent in learning something useful should be substituted for time spent in roaming the streets. Especial emphasis is placed by the Gary plan upon letting each pupil follow his own line of interests both in the classroom and in the vocational work. But the system has not, on the whole, proved popular elsewhere with either parents or pupils. The labor organizations also dislike it, suspecting that the plan is a capitalist scheme for getting the children of the worker more rapidly into the shops and factories.
The old curriculum.
Vocational Education.—The foregoing topics do not exhaust the list of things which educators are earnestly considering today. There is also the important question as to what should be taught in the schools and how it should be taught. For some years the whole curriculum of the public schools has been in process of change. The training of the old-time American school was in large measure literary and intellectual, without any direct relation to the present or future interests of pupils. It came to us from a past generation, when education was the prerogative of the well-to-do alone, the privilege of the leisure class, designed to give culture and erudition. But inasmuch as nearly ninety per cent of all the pupils in the public school go directly into some form of industrial or mercantile employment (not into the learned professions) it can readily be seen that a school program of strictly cultural studies does not satisfy the real needs of the community. Hence the demand for vocational education, for such study and practice as will connect the pupil directly with his future life work.[[248]]
The new curriculum.
In response to the demand for vocational studies the old school curriculum has undergone a striking change. Today it is the disposition of educators to challenge every subject to demonstrate its value. A subject which cannot demonstrate that it helps to fulfil some one of the recognized purposes of education is given a subordinate place in the curriculum or taken out altogether. In keeping with this attitude the vocational studies have come into great prominence during the past twenty years or more, for they are regarded as connecting the pupil with his future life-work. Shopwork, millinery, sewing, cooking, stenography, mechanical drawing, and a dozen other branches of vocational work have been brought into the school program. They are crowding the older high school studies, particularly the classical languages, into the background. Special schools of commerce and industry have been provided in many of the large cities, and special schools of agriculture in the rural districts.[[249]]
No sensible person should regret that the schools have moved in this new direction; the only question is how far they ought to go. If the only purpose of education were to teach the art of earning a living it would be another matter; but do purely vocational studies afford sufficient scope for the attainment of the other educational purposes? Man does not live by bread alone. The cultural studies have their value although this is often overlooked because it does not appear in plain sight to the naked eye. Even in the vocational school there should be a proper balance between the definitely vocational studies and the so-called cultural subjects.
The Newer Methods of School Instruction.—Forty or fifty years ago all American education, in schools and colleges, was on a prescribed basis. Definite subjects were laid down to be studied and everybody studied them. But the plan of allowing students to choose some or all of their studies was adopted by the colleges and in due course this elective system worked its way down into the schools.
The elective system.
There is a good deal to be said in favor of the elective system; it permits a choice of work in accordance with individual interests and capacities. After all, the school is created for the pupil, not the pupil for the school. The pupil is the true unit of instruction, not the subject. On the other hand the elective system may be carried to extremes; in some colleges that was the case and it has now been found necessary to put restrictions on the plan. A system of free and unguided electives leads to a patchwork education, desultory in character and without depth. It is all right to know a little about everything; but it is even more important to know some one thing well. Certain subjects form the groundwork of knowledge, and to go ahead with others before first mastering them is like building the roof of a house before you have dug the foundation or erected the walls. Without a grounding in the great languages, the English language particularly, and a fair proficiency in mathematics, history, and the elements of science no one is entitled to call himself an educated man.
The socialized recitation.
The classroom methods have also changed considerably in the last generation, and they have changed for the better. The older methods sought to drill facts into the pupil’s mind and resulted, very often, in merely over-stocking his memory. Today the aim is to utilize, wherever possible, a method of approach through the interests of the individual and to show him how every shred of knowledge fits into the whole fabric. The old methods of classroom instruction laid the entire emphasis upon individual study and recitations; today much greater emphasis is being placed upon group activity, which includes group discussions, group investigations, and group reports. This does not mean, however, that the individual pupil carries less responsibility than under the older system. It still remains true that there is no royal road to knowledge and no system of rapid transit either. No system can make an educated individual without self-effort. Education is one of the very few things in the world which anyone can obtain but which no one can give away.[[250]]
Financing the Schools.—All new educational enterprises mean increased expenses. Public education in the United States has become enormously more expensive during the past twenty years. The newer methods of school organization and instruction, the wider use of the schools, the extension of vocational education, the providing of free text books, the progress of health work in the schools, the establishment of evening schools, continuation schools, vacation schools—all these things have caused the cost to keep mounting year after year. |A billion dollars a year for education.| The public schools of the United States now cost the taxpayer more than a billion dollars per annum. That is twice what they cost ten years ago. If the expenses double once more in the next decade, where will the money come from? Practically all of it is now obtained by taxation; but taxation spreads itself out through rents and prices upon the whole people as has already been shown. A billion a year seems to be a large sum. It is a large sum but, strange to say, it is less than the American people spend every year for tobacco. Money for the schools, it is safe to predict, will be forthcoming when people understand what education means to individuals and to the nation. If present sources of revenue will not stand the strain others must be found. There is no more profitable way in which the nation can invest its wealth.
General References
E. P. Cubberly, Public School Administration, pp. 3-65;
S. T. Dutton and David Snedden, The Administration of Public Education in the United States, pp. 25-95;
F. J. Goodnow and F. J. Bates, Municipal Government, pp. 335-354 (Educational Administration);
A. J. Inglis, Principles of Secondary Education, pp. 340-383;
John A. Fairlie, Local Government in Counties, Towns, and Villages, pp. 215-224;
W. E. Chancellor, Our City Schools, pp. 25-77;
W. B. Munro, Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration, pp. 356-402;
George F. Swain, How to Study, pp. 1-21;
The Annual Reports of the United States Commissioner of Education, the Bulletins of the United States Bureau of Education, and the Annual Reports of the State Superintendents of Education contain much useful information.
Group Problems
1. The purpose, progress, value, and limitations of vocational education. The old curriculum, its merits and defects. The rise of manual training. Its value. Beginnings of industrial education. Its progress. Its scope. Its place in the school system. Its relation to industry and the attitude of industry toward it. The attitude of organized labor. Limitations on the scope of vocational education. References: P. H. Hanus, Beginnings in Industrial Education, pp. 3-27; David Snedden, Vocational Education, pp. 1-104; Meyer Bloomfield, The School and the Start in Life (United States Bureau of Education, Bulletin, 1914, No. 4, pp. 117-133); S. T. Dutton and David Snedden, The Administration of Public Education in the United States, pp. 404-425; Irving King, Social Aspects of Education, pp. 144-176; A. H. Leake, Industrial Education, its Problems, Methods, and Dangers, pp. 3-39; United States Senate and House Committees on Agriculture, Vocational Education (Report of Hearings, 1912). See also the Proceedings of the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial (Vocational) Education (published annually).
2. How far should the state control the public schools? References: S. T. Dutton and David Snedden, The Administration of Public Education in the United States, pp. 41-72; E. C. Elliott, State School Systems (U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin, 1910, No. 2, pp. 31-68); A. C. Perry, Outlines of School Administration, pp. 16-28; J. M. Mathews, Principles of American State Administration, pp. 296-334.
3. The school as a social center. References: Irving King, Education for Social Efficiency, pp. 262-279; C. A. Perry, The Wider Use of the School Plant, pp. 3-16; 335-380; E. J. Ward, The Social Center, pp. 302-314; National Society for the Study of Education, Tenth Yearbook (1913), Part I, pp. 1-69.
Short Studies
1. The social aim of education. Irving King, Education for Social Efficiency, pp. 11-20.
2. The organization and functions of school boards. W. B. Munro, Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration, pp. 359-372.
3. How teachers are appointed. F. W. Ballou, The Appointment of Teachers in Cities, pp. 8-41.
4. Vocational guidance. Irving King, Education for Social Efficiency, pp. 177-205.
5. How schoolhouses should be constructed. F. B. Dresslar, American School Houses (U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin, 1910, No. 5, pp. 17-38 and passim).
6. The Gary system. General Education Board, New York City. The Gary Schools, a General Account, pp. 17-72.
7. Has popular education failed in America? C. W. Eliot, American Contributions to Civilization, pp. 203-236.
8. The educational lessons of the war. F. A. Cleveland and Joseph Schafer, Democracy in Reconstruction, pp. 212-243.
9. Education and economic success. J. Ellis Barker, Economic Statesmanship, pp. 143-179.
Questions
1. Explain why public education is necessary for the preservation of popular rights and liberties.
2. If democracy and public education usually go together, why is it that Germany had an excellent system of public education and yet remained an autocracy down to 1918?
3. Do the laws of your state provide for compulsory school attendance? If so, between what ages? What is your opinion as to the proper age limits?
4. Explain the organization and functions of your state board (or department) of education and your local school board.
5. Give a summary of what the federal government is now doing for education. Do you believe that it ought to do more? If so, what?
6. How are funds for school purposes raised in your community? On what basis does the state make its contribution?
7. What suggestions can you make for keeping the schools out of politics?
8. Do you believe that teachers should be appointed under civil-service rules?
9. Do you approve or disapprove of the Gary system? Give your reasons.
10. Make some suggestions for bringing the school and the public library into closer relations.
Topics for Debate
1. The Towner-Sterling Bill should be passed by Congress.
2. School discipline should be placed in charge of a student council.
3. The age limit of compulsory school attendance should be raised to sixteen years.
CHAPTER XXVI
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SANITATION
The purpose of this chapter is to point out what things endanger the public health and what means are taken to safeguard the people against them.
Health and efficiency.
A Highly Important Matter.—Nothing among all the activities of modern government is more important than the care of the public health. Its importance cannot be measured in dollars and cents or in figures of any kind. The health of the individual is the greatest of all factors in personal efficiency; no man, woman, or child can do the best work in any field of activity if hampered by disease, however slight. The health of the community is likewise essential to its progress and prosperity. Health protection, accordingly, is not a matter which can safely be left to everyone’s discretion. Some people would realize the necessity of safeguarding themselves and their families against disease; but others would not, and their neglect would entail danger to the whole community. Some people would know how to avoid ill-health, so far as it can be avoided; but others would not possess this knowledge and would suffer for lack of it.[[251]] A man’s religious or political belief may be his own personal concern; but his ideas of cleanliness and disease prevention are not. People who lay themselves open to disease constitute a danger to all those around them. In earlier days, when the population was scattered and not brought into contact the need for social control of the public health was less imperative. Today, when millions of people live in crowded cities where they come hourly into contact with one another the safeguarding of the public health constitutes a governmental task of the first importance and magnitude.
Old and New Ideas Concerning Health Protection.—No science has made greater progress during the past hundred years than the science of preventive medicine. In early times all diseases were looked upon as due to the same cause, namely, the anger of the gods for some misdoing on the part of the individual or the community.[[252]] The usual course, when a pestilence came upon the people, was to go through ceremonies and offer sacrifices in order that this anger might be appeased.
The great plagues of olden days.
Great plagues swept over Europe almost unchecked for a thousand years. In every community there were healers and medicine-men, who claimed to possess magic arts in dealing with all human ailments but, as a grim truth, nobody had the remotest idea as to what brought these epidemics, or how they were spread, or what might be done to prevent them. It is said that the Black Death in the fourteenth century carried off one-third of all the people in England. Whole towns were swept out of existence. Knowledge concerning the nature of disease and the methods of preventing it developed very slowly for many centuries, because many superstitions had to be broken down, and only within quite modern times did health protection reach the stage where it could properly be called a science.
The germ theory of disease.
Health protection did not attain a scientific basis, in fact, until the germ theory of disease was worked out and accepted. This theory, which is simple enough in its elementary principles, completely reconstructed the ideas of the human race concerning the causes and methods of preventing bodily ailments. It provided a complete explanation for many things which had been looked upon as utter mysteries. The wonder is that the world spent so many centuries in discovering it. Even in the days of the Roman Empire intelligent men suspected that there was some connection between filth and pestilence; but just what this connection was they never were able to trace out satisfactorily, nor did anyone manage to do it for more than fifteen hundred years after them.[[253]] How long it has sometimes taken the world to move from one step in knowledge to the next!
Explanation of this theory.
The Causes of Disease and Infection.—The germ theory of disease may be concisely stated in this way: Innumerable small organisms (known as microbes, bacteria, bacilli, or germs) exist in the air, and in or upon nearly all substances. These organisms or germs are so small that they are invisible to the eye unless a powerful microscope is used. They are so small that thousands of them can assemble on the head of a pin or in the smallest drop of water. |Harmless bacteria.| Most of them are harmless; and some of them render useful service. Without the aid of these little organisms we could not make cheese or vinegar. On the other hand nearly all organic decay, of whatever sort, is caused by the action of bacteria. When apples rot, or milk grows sour, or butter becomes rancid, it is all due to bacterial action. Bacteria multiply with extraordinary rapidity wherever the temperature and other conditions are favorable; most species increase by division, that is, one micro-organism divides itself into two, these two into four, and so on by geometrical progression. As successive divisions often take place within a few hours it is easy to see how a very few germs today may number millions tomorrow. Under the microscope most of the different species can be identified, for they assume varying shapes and display a variety of characteristics.
Harmful bacteria.
But although most of these diminutive organisms are harmless, many of them are what scientists call pathogenic germs, in other words, they are a menace to health when they gain access to the human body. The human body, in fact, is the most favorable environment for these disease-bearing bacilli, and most of them can live but a short time outside of it. Access may be gained in various ways, but principally through the food and drink we consume, or through the bites of germ-carrying insects. The bacteria, when they gain lodgment in the tissues of the body, often multiply with great rapidity, creating poisonous substances, and thus increase the normal bodily temperature—a condition which we speak of as fever. When the body is strong and vigorous, it can sometimes overcome and throw off the effects of this bacterial action, for the human blood, under normal conditions, possesses powers of resistance to pathogenic germs; but when people are frail or exhausted, this power of resistance is greatly diminished and the bacilli are enabled to gain the upper hand.
Water-Borne Diseases—Typhoid Fever.—One way in which pathogenic bacilli gain access to the human body and produce disease may be illustrated by the case of typhoid fever. Fifty years ago this disease was one of the most common in all countries; today it has been almost entirely eradicated in civilized lands. Both armies in the Civil War lost thousands of men through its ravages, but in the American army during the World War there were only a few cases. Accurate knowledge of the way in which typhoid is transmitted has given mankind an almost complete mastery over this scourge of many centuries.
The causes of typhoid and the remedies.
Typhoid is caused by a germ which is most commonly found in polluted water, but sometimes makes its way into milk through the use of water in washing cans and utensils. It does not come from bad ventilation, sewer gas, ash piles, or exposure to cold, as some people imagine. The typhoid bacilli, being taken into the stomach with water, milk, or any other contaminated nourishment, find their way into the intestines and cause inflammation there, thus producing a fevered condition. If the sewage from hospitals and homes where there are typhoid patients is not carefully guarded, it gets into lakes, rivers, or wells, polluting them and spreading the disease. The elimination of typhoid is, therefore, very largely a problem of protecting the water supply against contact with human sewage. This is one reason why progressive communities are giving so much attention and spending so much money upon modern methods of sewage disposal and upon the rigorous protection of their public water supplies. An epidemic of typhoid is always the outcome of somebody’s ignorance or neglect. It has been suggested, with a good deal of force, that for every such epidemic somebody ought to be put in jail.
Insect-Borne Diseases.—Another way in which disease-bearing bacilli obtain access to the human blood is through the bites of insects. |The scourge of yellow fever.| Fifty years ago yellow fever was the great scourge of all tropical countries. When the French built a railway across the Isthmus of Panama in 1885 it is said that the work cost one life for every tie in the road, so great were the ravages of yellow fever among the laborers. But the United States, twenty-odd years later, succeeded in digging a canal across the Isthmus without the loss of a single life from this disease. Under Spanish rule, Cuba was never free from yellow fever; the island has been free from it since the Americans cleaned it up.
The war upon insects.
The change has been brought about by the discovery that the germs of yellow fever are carried by a certain species of mosquito which transmits the infection from a diseased person to others. The cleaning-up of stagnant pools in which the mosquitoes breed, and the careful screening of doors and windows has practically eliminated the disease wherever these measures have been taken. Substantially the same thing is true of the disease known as malaria so far as causes and remedies are concerned. Typhus, a fever which has long been the pestilence of backward countries, is transmitted from person to person by the common body-louse or “cootie”. Cities, armies, and even whole countries have been set free from this plague by delousing operations, that is by the wholesale disinfection of clothing and persons.[[254]] Bubonic plague, the Black Death of the Middle Ages, which has swept over Asia and portions of Europe so many times, is transmitted by rat fleas. Other diseases besides yellow fever, typhus, and bubonic are known to be spread by insects, and still others are believed to be. The common house-fly is undoubtedly a carrier of typhoid germs from filth and sewage to the water, milk, and food supplies in homes and stores. The world would be far better off if the whole category of disease-carrying insects, mosquitoes, lice, fleas, and flies, could be made as extinct as the dodo.
The Wide Range of Disease and Causes.—Not all diseases, of course, are caused by polluted food and drink or by the transmission of insect-borne bacilli. Some are undoubtedly caused by pathogenic germs whose methods of infection we do not yet know. There are various theories as to what carried influenza from one end of the world to the other during 1918 but none of them satisfactorily explain all that happened. The epidemic in one case broke out upon a sailing ship, far off at sea, six weeks after it had left port. So disease still has its mysteries, yet unsolved. |Things which cause and spread disease.| We know, however, that many ailments are either directly caused or are facilitated by poor nourishment, bad ventilation, lack of cleanliness, physical exhaustion, and lax attention to personal hygiene. Some are due also, in whole or in part, to certain forms or conditions of work, and are commonly known as occupational or industrial diseases. Such, for example, is lead poisoning in paint factories; such also is the illness which often overcomes men working in tunnels and other places where compressed air is used. The spread of tuberculosis, the great white plague of today, is undoubtedly due in some measure to dust and bad ventilation. The relations between diseases and occupations have not received careful study until recent years, but it is believed that we shall ultimately find the causes of many human ailments in the conditions under which some forms of industry are carried on.
Industry and ill health.
Hygiene of Factories and Workshops.—Because of the unsanitary conditions which have been found by investigation to exist in workshops and factories, particularly in the large cities, various states have made laws and regulations to protect the health of employees in such establishments. Some trades, such as the making of poisonous phosphorous matches, have been prohibited altogether. Others, by reason of their danger to the health of the workers, have been subjected to strict regulation. The “sweat-shops” or tenement rooms in which women and children formerly worked long hours for a mere pittance, crowded together with almost no ventilation—these industrial dungeons have been legislated out of existence almost everywhere. Workshops and factories must now be commodious, well-lighted, clean, and properly ventilated. Adequate sanitary equipment must be provided. It is the duty of the state factory inspectors to see that all these requirements are fulfilled.
The Prevention of Disease—Individual Precautions.—Without the co-operation of individuals no government can maintain a high standard of health among the people. All that the public authorities may do will prove inadequate unless individuals themselves, young and old, understand and observe the means of disease-prevention. |Physical fitness.| Physical fitness is one of the greatest blessings any man or woman can have, and it is largely the product of strict attention to the upbuilding of the body in early years. Theodore Roosevelt was a frail, sickly lad in his boyhood days. He realized, as he explains in his autobiography, that he could never make a marked success in life without building up his physical vigor, so he set about doing it, and by the time he had reached full manhood he was a model of physical ruggedness. How did he manage it? Regular habits, out-of-door life, prompt attention to minor ailments, a zest for every form of wholesome sport,—these things transformed a weakly youth into the sturdiest man that ever sat in the presidential chair.
There is no need to lay down any definite rules as to how the young men and women of America may gain and maintain a high standard of health and bodily vigor. Common sense will suggest most of them. The besetting sin of youth is its prodigality, the wasting of strength that should be saved for years to come, and the failure to realize that an individual’s health at the age of forty or fifty depends very largely upon what use is made of health opportunities during the years from fifteen to twenty-five. The glory of a young man is his strength; he does not usually let his mind run ahead to the day when he will be neither young nor strong. No investment that young people can make will pay higher dividends than that which is represented by the time, the thought, and the care spent upon the task of keeping well in early years.
Quarantine.
The Prevention of Communicable Diseases: Quarantine and Disinfection.—First among the measures taken by the public authorities to prevent the spread of communicable diseases are the quarantine regulations which are enforced at all the seaports under the authority of the national government. Day and night throughout the year, the health officers stand guard at these ports to see that no disease-bearing persons are permitted to land. Vessels leaving foreign harbors for the United States must secure a bill-of-health from the American consul before they sail; and the first person who goes on board an incoming vessel after it takes on its pilot is the quarantine officer. This official permits no passengers to be landed until he has made sure that there are no persons afflicted with communicable disease aboard. If there are any such cases, the passengers are held until the danger is past. The various states and cities also maintain systems of health-inspection and quarantine. Certain diseases (including tuberculosis, smallpox, typhoid, scarlet fever, pneumonia, whooping cough, diphtheria, measles, mumps, and so forth) must be promptly reported to the local health authorities. The local health regulations require that in case of the more readily communicable diseases the house be placarded. In extreme cases, the patients may be removed to an isolation hospital.
Disinfection.
After the illness has terminated, the regulations usually provide that the premises shall be disinfected under the supervision of an official from the health department. Every state, as well as every city and town, maintains general regulations relating to quarantine and disinfection, these being enforced by the state health authorities. For the most part, however, this work is supervisory, the detailed enforcement of the rules being left to the health officers of the various communities, although in the case of epidemics, involving several municipalities, the state health authorities usually assume direct control. Similarly, when epidemics spread or threaten to spread from one state to another, the national health authorities step in.[[255]]
Vaccination and Inoculation.—The practice of vaccinating and inoculating healthy persons as a safeguard against disease has been used for more than a century. Vaccination consists in introducing vaccine into the blood of a healthy person, usually by making an abrasion of the skin. The vaccine is obtained from health laboratories, where it is produced from the blood of artificially-infected cattle. Inoculation of the human blood is also widely used nowadays in order to prevent or to mitigate diphtheria, typhoid, pneumonia, and rabies. All members of the American expeditionary forces during the World War were given the anti-typhoid inoculation. It consisted of injecting into the blood a quantity of dead or greatly-weakened typhoid bacilli. They were not sufficient to produce the disease but they were enough to set the resisting-powers of the blood in motion so that the latter would be fully developed to meet a real infection if it should come.
Should vaccination be compulsory?
Vaccination against smallpox is compulsory in several of the states and in many communities, although there is a good deal of objection to it among certain sections of the people. If smallpox were completely wiped off the face of the earth there would be no need for universal vaccination; but so long as numerous cases exist, as they still do in many countries, compulsory vaccination is likely to prove a justifiable measure of public safety.
Importance of the milk supply.
Milk Inspection.—Among all the foods of humanity, milk is probably the most important. It is the chief nutrition of children until they reach school age, and sometimes even longer. It forms a large factor in the diet of invalids. Even in the daily fare of robust adults, it is an item of no small importance. Yet no article of everyday commerce is more easily contaminated, and in the case of no other article are the results of pollution likely to be so serious. For when the germs of disease get into milk, they multiply with appalling rapidity and they go directly into the diet of those who have the least power to withstand infection, the children and invalids of the community.
The danger of pollution.
From its source on the farms milk passes through several hands before reaching the consumer, and at each of these points may be contaminated. Careless milking, the storing of milk in unsanitary places or in unclean utensils, the lack of adequate precautions in transporting or delivering the milk—any of these things may result in pollution. Strict rules and frequent inspection help to safeguard the milk supply at the source and during its journey to the consumer, but the problem of careful inspection is rendered difficult by the fact that the milk supplies of large cities are now drawn from a wide area outside the municipal limits. New York City, for example, obtains its supply of nearly two million quarts per day from about forty-five thousand farms scattered throughout eight different states.
Milk and the infant death rate.
It is easy to appreciate the difficulties involved in the supervision of the milk supply under such conditions. Nevertheless, this supervision is being carried on in all large communities and it has resulted in a marked lowering of the infant death rate. Infant mortality and the milk supply are closely related, in fact it can fairly be said that the rate of the one depends in a large measure upon the purity of the other. The establishment of milk-distribution stations in large cities has been of considerable value in enabling the people of the crowded sections to obtain pure milk at reasonable prices.
The Inspection of Food.—The marketing of impure or adulterated food is everywhere forbidden by the laws and the health regulations, but until comparatively recent years these rules were not always strictly enforced. One reason for this is to be found in the fact that many articles of food are subjects of interstate commerce, produced in one state to be sold in another, and hence are not easily made amenable to local control. |The Food and Drugs Act, 1906.| In 1906, however, Congress passed a comprehensive law known as the Food and Drugs Act, by the terms of which the national government assumed the duty of eliminating impure food from general commerce. This act prohibited the adulteration of food and drugs; it made provision for the inspection of meats at the great packing plants; it required that all packages of food and drugs shall be branded correctly and that when artificial preservatives are used, the label shall state the fact. All impure, adulterated, or wrongly-branded articles are excluded from interstate commerce under the provisions of this law.
State inspection of food.
The supervision of the national government does not extend, however, to articles of food which are produced, distributed, and sold within the territory of a single state. As regards such articles, the task of protecting the public against impurity and adulteration rests with the state and local health officers. These officers perform their work by frequent inspection at places where food is produced and sold. Makers and vendors of impure or adulterated foods are prosecuted in the ordinary courts.
The Drug Evil.—The indiscriminate and unchecked sale of narcotic drugs (morphine, opium, etc.) in past years led to serious evils. Persons who regularly use any of these narcotic drugs become slaves to the habit; they are unable to get along without daily use of them, and in the end become physical wrecks. The drug habit became, a few years ago, such a widespread public evil that the national government took the manufacture and sale of these narcotics under its own supervision. Such drugs cannot now be bought or sold except under strict regulations which involve the written request of a qualified physician. Nevertheless a good deal of trade in narcotics is still carried on through illicit channels.
Prohibition as a health measure.
Prohibition of the Liquor Traffic.—The relation of the liquor traffic to the public health is a matter upon which men have not entirely agreed; but it is a well-recognized fact that the general use of intoxicating liquors led in many cases to poverty, and poverty in turn brought under-nourishment and disease in its train. The action of the states in adopting the Eighteenth Amendment, by which the manufacture, transportation, and sale of all intoxicants is forbidden, may therefore be looked upon as a step which, in the long run, will conduce to the betterment of the public health. The excessive use of alcohol impaired the physical vigor of many thousands among the population and rendered them less capable of resisting disease. The statistics of hospitals during the period that has intervened since prohibition went into effect show that, from a health standpoint, the Eighteenth Amendment has had a beneficial effect.
Waste Disposal and Sewerage.—Every community produces each day a large amount of waste which must be collected and disposed of in a sanitary manner if the interests of the public health are to be fully protected. Some of this waste contains little or no element of danger—ashes, waste paper, and rubbish of all sorts, for example. The removal of this material is a matter of public convenience rather than of public health protection. As a rule it is drawn away and either used for filling marsh land or incinerated. |Garbage.| Another form of waste is garbage, which includes the discarded material from markets, bakeries, hotels, restaurants, and private dwellings. This garbage decomposes quickly and must be gathered at frequent intervals. In some communities the garbage is disposed of by incineration; in others it is sold to farmers for feeding swine; a few cities utilize it in reduction plants, where the grease and oil is extracted for commercial use.
Sewage.
Sewage, which includes both surface water and the liquid waste from places of human abode, is by far the most dangerous waste of all. Although it is more than ninety-nine per cent water, every ounce contains the possibility of spreading disease. |Older methods of disposal.| This effluvia, which passes through the sewers and drains, was at one time everywhere disposed of by turning it into the ocean, lakes, or rivers. Even yet many cities of the United States get rid of their sewage in that way. The method is not objectionable in the case of ocean discharge, provided the outfall sewer is carried a sufficient distance from the shore, although even in such cases some of the sewage may be borne landward by the incoming tides to pollute the shellfish beds and the beaches. The sewage of many cities along the Great Lakes is discharged into these extensive bodies of fresh water where the amount of dilution is so great that no serious harm results, provided no water for human consumption is drawn from the immediate neighborhood of the discharge points. The time will doubtless come, however, when the increasing volume of sewage will compel these cities to adopt other methods of disposal. The discharge of untreated sewage into rivers and small streams is now generally regarded as a public nuisance, and the abandonment of the practice is being required by the laws wherever practicable. Many cities, however, yet resort to this method.
Modern sewage systems.
Modern, scientific methods of sewage disposal have taken several different forms. A common plan is to conduct the sewage into huge reservoirs, basins, or tanks, where the solids are allowed to settle and form a sludge while the liquid is run off into the ocean or a lake or a river. The settling process is sometimes hastened by the use of chemicals. This does not free the waterways from danger but it is a good deal less objectionable than the practice of turning untreated sewage into them. Some cities pump the sewage upon filter beds (tracts of land which have been dug out and filled with slag or other porous substances). A few use their sewage for the irrigation of dry farming lands. No particular plan of sewage disposal can be regarded as the best under all circumstances. Local conditions differ from one community to another, and each case requires special study. Ordinarily a large town or city will produce nearly two hundred gallons of sewage per day for every man, woman, and child in its population. This means an enormous total in the course of a year and the problem of handling it safely, without excessive expense, is often a difficult one. It may well be repeated, however, that so far as the public health is concerned, sewage is the most dangerous substance known to man, and its safe disposal is one of the most important problems of the government in every civilized community.
The Protection of the Public Water Supply.—The great importance of an adequate and safe water supply is something which hardly requires a long argument. In the rural districts and in small villages the neighboring wells and springs may be utilized, but in large communities, especially those having numerous industries, a public supply must be provided. |How much water is needed?| It is customarily figured that large towns and cities require approximately and on the average one hundred gallons of water per capita every day in the year. Half-a-ton of water per day per person! What is done with it all? Not all of it, of course, is used for human consumption. By far the greater part is utilized for public, industrial, and general sanitary purposes. Sprinkling parks and lawns, putting out fires, flushing sewers—all these activities require large amounts of water. Factories, laundries, railroads, and other such establishments make heavy demands on the total supply. So does the modern sanitary equipment which is now being installed almost everywhere in hotels, stores, and houses. The amount of water required for human consumption is very small compared with the quantities used in these other ways.
The first essential of a satisfactory water supply, therefore, is that it be adequate, which means that large cities must often go a long distance in order to obtain water in sufficient quantities. |Sources of supply.| New York City derives a large part of its water from the Catskill Mountains; Los Angeles brings its entire supply from the Sierra Nevadas, more than two hundred and fifty miles away.[[256]] Many other cities obtain their water close at hand: Chicago, for example, draws from Lake Michigan, and Cleveland from Lake Erie. Adequacy, however, is not the only consideration. For use in the industries, water must be clear in color and not too hard. When it is turbid or hard, it has to be clarified and softened by storage and the use of chemicals. The relative purity of the water, its freedom from pollution, is the most important consideration of all.
The treatment of water for human use.
There are various ways of making sure that water is fit for human consumption. One way is to secure the supply from a source which is by nature free from pollution, from deep-driven wells or from mountain lakes which are above the level of probable contamination. Water supplies drawn from very large bodies of water, like the Great Lakes, are normally safe enough if the intake is set far out from shore, because the diluting power of these vast water areas is sufficient to render harmless even a considerable amount of pollution by sewage discharge. Where a water supply of sufficient natural purity cannot be had within reasonable distance the only safe plan is to subject the water to such length of storage, or to such mechanical or chemical treatment as will ensure its fitness for use. The storage of water in a reservoir, exposed to the light and air, will render it safe, under normal conditions. The length of time required for this purpose will depend, of course, upon the quality of the water which is put into the reservoir. A period of three months is ordinarily regarded as sufficient where the raw water has not been badly contaminated. The mechanical treatment of water is commonly known as filtration, and there are several forms of public water-filtration plants now in use by American cities. The simplest is the system of slow sand filters in which the water is treated by allowing it to percolate slowly through a bed of sand and crushed stone, thereby becoming rid of noxious bacteria. A more complicated method involves the use of rapid sand filters in which the raw water is forced through filterbeds of crushed stone under pressure.[[257]]
Smoke Abatement.—Pure air is another essential to the maintenance of the public health. Rural parts of the country encounter no difficulty on this score, but the larger cities are now finding it necessary to protect the air which their citizens have to breathe. In these days of smoke-belching industry, the very atmosphere of the large city is laden with a menace to health and cleanliness. An investigation made in New York some years ago disclosed the fact that sulphur dioxide (a poisonous gas) was being discharged into the air by the smokestacks and chimneys of the city at an appalling rate. The elementary student of chemistry can well testify that SO2 is not a substance that human beings thrive upon. And apart from the menace to health there is the heavy damage done by soot-laden atmosphere to the furnishings of houses and the contents of shops. Hence the agitation in the large cities for an abatement of this smoke nuisance and the establishment of regulations which now, in many places, require the use of mechanical smoke consumers by all large industries. The enforcement of this requirement is not at all difficult, because any violation is visible to the naked eye.
Overcrowding and disease.
The Housing of the People.—By the homes of a town or city you may judge its people. The proper housing of the population has a close relation to many things, but to none is this relation closer than to the public health. When the people are herded together in tenements, with dark and narrow hallways, with rooms badly ventilated and often without sunlight, we have a fertile soil for the spread of tuberculosis. More than ten thousand persons die each year in the tenement districts of New York City from the Great White Plague alone. The children who grow up in congested quarters, moreover, go out into the world handicapped in both body and soul. Their powers of resistance to disease are often seriously impaired by the crowding, poor ventilation, and lack of proper sanitary arrangements. An investigation of housing conditions made in New York City over twenty years ago led to the enactment of a comprehensive Tenement House Law (1901) in order to prevent overcrowding, and the main provisions of this law have since been copied by most of the larger cities of the country.[[258]]
Housing experiments abroad.
In some European cities, notably Glasgow and London, many municipal tenements have been erected. Crowded slums have been demolished and model houses, each accommodating one or more families, have been erected in their place by the use of public money. These tenements are then rented to workers at reasonable rates. This plan has not yet been tried on any large scale in the United States nor would it be likely to prove very satisfactory so long as city administration, in all its branches, is conducted so wastefully as it is in America today. During the World War, however, the federal government built many hundreds of workmen’s dwellings in different parts of the country, particularly in the neighborhood of the great shipbuilding plants. After the war they were sold to private buyers.
It is often urged that instead of building model tenements in crowded sections, the authorities of large cities ought to promote the growth of suburbs by giving them good transportation facilities, and by promptly supplying these suburban districts with sewers, water supply, gas, electricity, and paved roads. People who go to the suburbs not only have more room, but they are much more likely in the course of time, to own their homes. |The importance of owning a home.| Home-owning is a practice which ought to be encouraged, not only for reasons of health and recreation, but to steady the political temper of the people as well. The man who owns a piece of the earth’s surface, with a house on it that he calls his home, is not often a believer in violence or revolution. A great deal of honest sentiment clusters about the American home, but very little can ever attach to three or four rooms in a tenement house.
Other Measures of Public Health Protection.—The foregoing list does not exhaust the various measures taken by the authorities of the nation, state, and city for the protection of the public health. The laws and regulations which now prohibit the use of public drinking-cups on trains, in schools, and in other public places may be mentioned. The common cup has been, in the past, an active spreader of infection. Its use ought to be forbidden everywhere. Measures for the elimination of mosquitoes and house-flies have been taken by all the more progressive states and cities with aid at many points from the national government. The statement has been made, upon what seems to be good authority, that mosquitoes, flies, and other insect pests are directly or indirectly responsible for a hundred thousand deaths in the United States every year. Whatever their number, these deaths are preventable, because a diligent campaign will suffice to banish both flies and mosquitoes from any part of the country. The medical inspection of children in the schools is another health measure of great importance. In many of the larger cities this inspection includes all school children, of whatever age, and is made at frequent intervals. It permits the early detection of symptoms and thus allows remedies to be applied promptly. It has done a great deal to protect the schools against the frequent outbreak of epidemics.
How Health Measures are Enforced.—The duty of enforcing measures for the protection of the public health rests first of all upon the local health officers. |Local boards of health.| The laws of most states now require that a board of health or some similar authority shall be maintained in every township, village, town, and city. One of the members of this board of health must usually be a physician. In large towns and cities a qualified health officer, who is always a physician, is employed on part time or full time. The local boards of health and the health officers have charge of quarantine and disinfection, the inspection of food and milk, and the enforcement of sanitary regulations. They also grant permits for the maintenance of slaughter-houses and other establishments which have a direct or indirect relation to the public health.
State health officers.
In practically all the states, moreover, there is a State Department of Health. This department is usually under the supervision of a State Board of Health, but in a few states a single health commissioner has been placed in charge. The powers and duties of these state departments vary a good deal throughout the country, but in a general way they assist the local health authorities, especially when an epidemic threatens to spread beyond local control. A good deal of their work is advisory in character.
The United States Public Health Service
The United States Public Health Service was established in 1912, although health work had been carried on by the national government through other agencies prior to that date. It is, rather strangely, a bureau of the Treasury Department. The Public Health Service has charge of the port quarantine system; its assistance may be obtained by the states at any time in coping with epidemics; and it maintains well-equipped research laboratories for the study of all questions affecting the public health. It is believed by many physicians that the work of this bureau is so important that it ought to be made a regular department of the national administration with a member of the cabinet at its head.[[259]]
What the schools can do.
Education and the Public Health.—The basis of successful public health work is the education of people in hygiene and sanitation. If the people can be brought to realize the transcendent importance of the work, their co-operation will be given cheerfully. Where the health regulations are now disobeyed it is largely because their value to the individual, as well as to the community, has not been made clear. An effective method of educating the public is by means of health exhibits which demonstrate, with the aid of pictures, especially motion pictures, the value of proper hygienic conditions in the workshop and the home. But the ultimate education of the whole people in this field, as in all others, must be primarily the work of the schools. It is easier to teach hygiene and sanitation to children than to grown-ups. Adults have acquired habits of life and attitudes of mind which are hard to alter. Hence the education of children in all that relates to clean living, wholesome food, modern sanitation, and the avoidance of disease should be part of the regular work in schools throughout the country. Upon this will depend, in no small degree, the future physical well-being of the nation.
General References
H. G. James, Municipal Functions, pp. 68-92;
Hollis Godfrey, The Health of the City, especially pp. 1-29;
W. H. Allen, Civics and Health, pp. 3-32;
Cyclopedia of American Government, see under Health, Contagious Diseases, Quarantine, Tenement House Regulation, etc.;
W. B. Munro, Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration, pp. 122-166 (Water Supply); pp. 167-210 (Sewerage and Sanitation);
H. B. Wood, Sanitation Practically Applied, especially pp. 205-232 (Pure Foods); pp. 233-277 (Clean Milk);
Irving Fisher and L. B. Fisk, How to Live, pp. 119-168;
Walter Camp, Keeping Fit All the Way, pp. 3-41;
Charles Baskerville, Municipal Chemistry, pp. 1-19;
Milton J. Rosenau, Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, pp. 716-745;
W. T. Sedgwick, Principles of Sanitary Science and the Public Health, pp. 89-107;
E. B. Hoag and L. M. Terman, Health Work in the Schools, pp. 133-191.
Group Problems
1. How can the spread of communicable diseases be prevented? Are the vital statistics of your community carefully and promptly compiled? The local health authorities,—who are they and what are their functions? What control is exercised over the agencies which spread disease? Examine the status of each in your own community. References: Milton J. Rosenau, Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, pp. 134-158; H. B. Wood, Sanitation Practically Applied, pp. 66-152; Woods Hutchinson, Preventable Diseases, pp. 83-122; Hollis Godfrey, The Health of the City, pp. 158-193; G. C. Whipple, State Sanitation, Vol. I, pp. 88-112; see also the United States Public Health Service, Reprints on the Notifiable Diseases, and the reports of the state and local Boards of Health.
2. Public water supplies. References: W. B. Munro, Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration, pp. 122-166; H. G. James, Municipal Functions, pp. 217-227; H. B. Wood, Sanitation Practically Applied, pp. 278-337; Allen Hazen, Clean Water and How to Get It, 2d ed., pp. 73-99; Charles Baskerville, Municipal Chemistry, pp. 33-89; F. E. Turneaure and H. L. Russell, Public Water Supplies, pp. 141-172.
3. Modern methods of sewage disposal. References: W. B. Munro, Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration, pp. 183-210; H. G. James, Municipal Functions, pp. 227-237; H. B. Wood, Sanitation Practically Applied, pp. 338-378; John A. Fairlie, Municipal Administration, pp. 245-255; Charles Baskerville, Municipal Chemistry, pp. 276-299; W. P. Capes and J. D. Carpenter, Municipal Housecleaning, pp. 33-89; G. W. Fuller, Sewage Disposal, pp. 175-183; Leonard Metcalf and H. P. Eddy, American Sewerage Practice, Vol. II, pp. 78-127; A. P. Folwell, Sewerage, pp. 300-332; L. P. Kinnicut, C. A. E. Winslow, and A. W. Pratt, Sewage Disposal, pp. 204-232.
4. The milk question. References: Charles Baskerville, Municipal Chemistry, pp. 90-118; H. B. Wood, Sanitation Practically Applied, pp. 233-277; Hollis Godfrey, The Health of the City, pp. 30-57; M. J. Rosenau, The Milk Question, pp. 1-22; J. S. MacNutt, The Modern Milk Problem, pp. 1-30; H. N. Parker, City Milk Supply, pp. 28-90; G. C. Whipple, Typhoid Fever, pp. 41-91.
5. Housing in its relation to public health. References: Hollis Godfrey, The Health of the City, pp. 302-345; F. C. Howe, The Modern City and Its Problems, pp. 273-288; Jacob A. Riis, How the Other Half Lives, pp. 7-27; Lawrence Veiller, Housing Reform, pp. 3-46.
Short Studies
1. The germ theory of disease. C. V. Chapin, The Sources and Modes of Infection, pp. 1-38; C. B. Morrey, The Fundamentals of Bacteriology, pp. 18-31.
2. Typhoid fever. Illinois State Board of Health, Typhoid Fever: Its Cause, Prevention, and Suppression, pp. 2-17.
3. Insects and disease. H. B. Wood, Sanitation Practically Applied, pp. 420-444.
4. Vital statistics. Ibid., pp. 25-65; G. C. Whipple, Vital Statistics, pp. 308-337.
5. Sources of water supply. W. B. Munro, Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration, pp. 122-142.
6. The disposal of garbage. Ibid., pp. 167-183.
7. The inspection of food. H. B. Wood, Sanitation Practically Applied, pp. 205-232.
8. The smoke nuisance. Hollis Godfrey, The Health of the City, pp. 1-8. (See also United States Bureau of Mines, Bulletin, No. 49.)
9. Tenement-house reform. C. A. Beard, American City Government, pp. 287-310.
10. Municipal housing abroad. Hollis Godfrey, The Health of the City, pp. 263-301; F. C. Howe, The Modern City and Its Problems, pp. 284-304.
11. The work of local health authorities. Moses N. Baker, Municipal Engineering and Sanitation, pp. 248-258; Henry Bruère, The New City Government, pp. 401-413.
12. Health and education. H. B. Wood, Sanitation Practically Applied, pp. 445-462; F. W. Burks and J. D. Burks, Health and the School, pp. 73-102; E. B. Hoag and L. M. Terman, Health Work in the Schools, pp. 1-35.
Questions
1. From your reading of history and literature give some examples of the way diseases were dealt with in the olden days.
2. What are bacilli? Make a list of the things, beneficial, harmless, and harmful which are due to their activities.
3. Explain the various ways in which disease may be communicated. How are the following measures related to the control of communicable diseases: (a) quarantine; (b) the draining of marshes; (c) the removal of filth; (d) the extermination of rats; (e) the enforcement of regulations to prevent overcrowding in tenements?
4. What are vital statistics and what is their value? How are they compiled and by what means may they be improved?
5. Explain what is meant by vaccination. By inoculation. Give some evidence to prove that both have been effective.
6. Why is milk inspection of supreme importance? In what various ways may milk become infected? Why should milk be kept in a cool place?
7. Do you understand the following terms: adulteration; artificial preservatives; misbranding; ptomaine; narcotics?
8. Name the various wastes which the community produces each day and explain how each may be safely disposed of.
9. In what ways may water be treated so as to make it safe for human consumption?
10. Why and in what way is it necessary to regulate the housing of the people in large cities?
11. What are the duties of the local board of health in your community? The state department of health?
12. Ought hygiene to be a compulsory study in the public high schools?
Topics for Debate
1. Vaccination should be made compulsory throughout the United States.
2. American cities should construct and maintain municipal tenements.
3. Free medical attendance should be provided at the public expense for all who cannot afford to pay for it.
CHAPTER XXVII
POOR-RELIEF, CORRECTION, AND OTHER
WELFARE PROBLEMS
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the way in which American communities are dealing with the problems of poverty, crime, and delinquency.
Poverty and Pauperism.—Poverty is one of the very oldest among human problems; two thousand years ago, in Biblical times, the world was trying to find a solution for it and it has not ceased to try ever since. In all ages and in all countries there have been groups of unfortunate people who, through their own fault or the fault of others, are not able to provide for their own subsistence. It is to the condition of such people, whose earnings do not enable them to maintain the normal standard of living, that we apply the term poverty. Not all who are poor, therefore, are in poverty, but only those who are so poor that their health and physical efficiency are being impaired by lack of earning power. Some of those who are in poverty become dependent upon private or public charity, and these we call paupers. Pauperism, in other words, is a condition of dependence upon the agencies of poor-relief. Many thousands of persons live in poverty, yet are not paupers. They struggle along, able only to make the barest sort of living, and often suffer great privations rather than apply for any form of charity.
The Extent of Poverty and Pauperism in the United States.—There are no accurate figures showing the extent of poverty in the United States. |The number of paupers in public institutions.| The census of 1920 listed nearly a million persons in charitable institutions of one sort or another, of whom about one hundred thousand were paupers in public almshouses. But this census made no computation of the number receiving poor-relief in their own homes, which must be several times as large as that in institutions. It would probably be within bounds to say that five persons out of every hundred in the United States are partly or wholly dependent upon private or public aid. Probably as many more are in a condition of poverty, but continue to struggle along without assistance from others. We may say, therefore, that poverty holds about ten per cent of the whole population in its iron grip; hence it is no exaggeration to speak, as social-workers often do, of the “submerged tenth”.
Comparison with Europe.
Compared with other countries, however, this is not an excessive proportion. In the countries of Europe the percentage of paupers is much larger. Poverty is usually more widespread in thickly-populated regions where there are large groups of industrial workers. In London it has been estimated that at least thirty per cent of the people are below the poverty line; in New York City the estimate is twenty-five per cent. The cities everywhere contribute far more than their due proportion to the impoverished classes. Poverty is least prevalent, as a rule, in the agricultural districts.[[260]]
The Causes of Poverty.—The causes of poverty are numerous and complicated but they can all be grouped into two general classes: First, those which are traceable to the individual, and second, those which are attributable to the environment in which he lives. These we may distinguish by calling them individual and social causes.
1. Individual causes of poverty.
Among the individual causes of poverty the most common are illness, accident, old age, degeneracy, bereavement, intemperance, shiftlessness, and ignorance. Illness is probably the most important single cause. The figures compiled by poor-relief organizations show that it is the immediate reason for at least one-quarter of all the applications which come to them for assistance, and is a contributory reason in the case of many more. Accidents which result in either temporary or permanent incapacity to do full work have also been an important cause of poverty in the past, but they are no longer so to the same extent in those states which have made provision for workmen’s insurance (see p. [411]). Old age comes to all in time and there are many thousands who make no provision for its coming. This class includes many who have worked hard all their lives, have reared families, and have been useful citizens, but who have been either unable or unwilling to save. In some European countries, as has been pointed out, provision is made for them by means of old age pension systems. Bereavement, particularly the loss by death of the family’s main support, has been a frequent cause of poverty among women and children. To some extent this has been alleviated by the practice of making provision for mothers’ pensions and by the increasing extent to which men who have dependents are now securing life insurance.
Mental and moral degeneracy.
Degeneracy, which is also an important cause of poverty, may be defined as inherited mental or moral weakness. Feeble-minded parents often transmit this defect to their children, who start life with a handicap which they are not usually able to overcome. It has been estimated that nearly one-half of all the inmates of public institutions are below the normal standard of mentality. Many years ago a careful study was made of a certain family—the Jukes—through four generations, great-grandparents, grandparents, parents, and children. Among seven hundred persons in this family, beginning with degenerate great-grandparents, no fewer than five hundred became at some time or other recipients of public poor-relief. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that they also contributed far more than their due proportion to the prisons and insane asylums.
Physical handicaps.
Then, again, some people who are neither mentally nor morally degenerate, are born with physical handicaps or acquire these handicaps early in life; such, for instance, are the deaf-mutes, the blind, and the crippled. They are the ones whom we most commonly meet on the public streets begging or selling trinkets, or playing some sort of instrument as an excuse for what is really begging. Intemperance, too, has figured largely among the causes of poverty during many centuries, but so far as the United States is concerned it is not likely to do so in the future. Alcohol is one of the important factors in the problem of poverty which can be placed under control by the action of society. Shiftlessness, ignorance, bad habits, and vice are all causes of varying importance, but in the main they are only immediate causes; the underlying causes are usually to be found in some mental, moral, or physical defect of the individual, or they arise from a poor environment.
2. The social causes of poverty.
The social causes of poverty are also numerous. Unemployment is one of them, and it is in many cases due to no fault of the individual worker. More often it is the outcome of a serious imperfection in our industrial organization (see p. [417]). The underpayment of the worker, particularly the underpayment of women and children in industry, has also contributed to the problem of poverty. It means that the workers are under-nourished and therefore unable to maintain their normal strength; they are unable to save anything for use in case of sickness or old age, and hence have to fall back upon the agencies of private or public assistance whenever misfortune comes. Minimum wage laws (see p. [416]) aim to protect society from having to pay the penalty which results, both directly and indirectly, from the underpayment of labor. Unsanitary conditions of living, bad housing, and overcrowding are causes of poverty—they are social causes because society creates such conditions and permits them to continue. Unsanitary conditions lead to illness, and illness results in unemployment. But they are also, in a sense, the effects of poverty; they are conditions of life to which, under our present social and economic organization, the poor are compelled to submit by reason of their poverty.
Defects in our educational system have been productive of more poverty than people commonly imagine. It is not without significance that poverty is always widespread in those countries and those regions where illiteracy and ignorance are prevalent. Compulsory public education is one of the greatest measures for the prevention of poverty that the world has ever devised. |Relation of the school system to poverty.| While the system of public education in the United States is exceedingly efficient on the whole, it is nevertheless true that many thousands of children are growing up without enough education to ensure them a fair chance of success in life.
Some would also include our immigration policy among the social causes of poverty. Until recent years these immigrants were permitted to come in almost unrestricted numbers; they concentrated, for the most part, in large cities; they contributed to overcrowding and by their competition for labor forced down the level of wages in unskilled employments. The causes of poverty, in short, are not all traceable to the faults or misfortunes of the individual. Society as a whole is responsible for some of them.[[261]]
How We Deal with the Problem of Poverty.—The public attitude in regard to the problem of poverty has undergone a marked change during the past fifty years. For many centuries poverty was looked upon as the result of human perverseness, the outcome of purely individual causes which were likely to endure as long as human nature remained the same. |Older methods of dealing with the poor.| It was taken for granted that the poor would be with us always; that poverty could not be prevented by any action on the part of society, and that the only thing to do was to punish the shiftless while helping the worthy poor by giving them public and private aid. The measures for the relief of the poor taken by the governments of various European countries and by most American communities until comparatively recent years were based upon this attitude. Those who could work and would not were branded as vagrants and put in jail. Those who were in poverty through sickness, accident, old age, degeneracy, intemperance, or other individual causes were taken into such institutions as hospitals, infirmaries, almshouses, homes for inebriates, and the like. The people were everywhere encouraged to give alms to the poor, but the prevention of poverty by organized social action received little or no attention.
The modern attitude.
The public attitude, especially the attitude of the more enlightened part of the public, has now changed or is changing. We know from a careful study of the problem that poverty is no more an essential concomitant of civilized life than were piracy, slavery, bubonic plague, or universal drunkenness in years now long gone by. Poverty can be eradicated as these things have been, although not by any means so easily. The individual causes of poverty, of course, will always be at work. Old age will continue to come upon mankind, and we can hardly hope under any circumstances to get rid of sickness and accidents entirely. But society can at least bring it about that old age, illness, and accident, not to speak of unemployment and other social causes, will no longer bring inevitable poverty in their train. Attention is now being given, therefore, to measures of prevention; and almsgiving has come to be recognized as a mere makeshift way of dealing with the problem. It is like trying to put an end to all diseases and to wipe illness off the face of the earth by merely giving people medicine after they become sick.
The Temporary Remedies.—The only permanent solution for the problem of poverty is the removal of the underlying causes. This, however, cannot be accomplished in a day, and in the meantime various measures of temporary alleviation must be provided by the public authorities and by private organizations.
Indoor relief.
Public provision for the care of the poor takes two forms known respectively as indoor and outdoor relief. By indoor relief is meant the care of the poor in institutions maintained by the state, county, or city. There was a time when paupers of all types were herded together into the same poorhouse, but it is now the policy to provide, so far as practicable, different public institutions for the sick, the mentally defective, the aged, and the young. Hence, in many states we have hospitals for chronic cases, institutions for the feeble-minded, homes for the aged, institutions for the care of orphans, schools for the blind, and so on.
Outdoor relief.
By outdoor relief is meant the giving of assistance to the poor in their own homes. Many years ago this was the more common plan of dealing with the problem; it still exists in many American communities. People who are in need apply to the overseers of the poor or to some other public authority from whom they receive, after proper investigation, such assistance in the form of food, clothing, fuel, or medicine as they may urgently require. Some of the larger cities have abandoned altogether the giving of outdoor relief at the public expense because they have found this system open to grave abuses. Unless administered with great care, it encourages shiftlessness and results in the expenditure of large amounts from the public funds. The tendency nowadays is to leave outdoor relief to be provided by private organizations although some communities still take care of the most urgent cases from the public funds. These private organizations are sometimes connected with the churches but more often they are entirely non-sectarian, made up of generous men and women who give both time and money to the work.
Private outdoor relief often leads to indiscriminate almsgiving, thus lending encouragement to wastefulness and imposture. People who are too lazy to earn an honest living apply to various organizations for help and sometimes obtain it from several of them. |The organization of relief agencies.| To eliminate this overlapping central bodies known as Charity Organization Societies, or Associated Charities, or Family Welfare Societies have been formed in many of the larger American communities. Their function is to serve as a clearing house of information concerning all applicants for assistance and in other ways to make the work of the individual organizations more efficient.
The Permanent Remedies.—The permanent solution of the problem of poverty must be sought in comprehensive measures of prevention. Some of these measures are already being taken in the more progressive states; others have been proposed and are steadily gaining public support. |Social insurance.| Insurance against sickness and accident, minimum wage laws, mothers’ pensions, are already doing their share in the prevention of poverty. Old age pensions have been established abroad and in time will doubtless be provided for the American worker. Insurance against unemployment may be inadvisable (see p. [418]) but the organization of industry can be so improved as to reduce the amount of unemployment now existing. |Other remedies.| The prohibition of the liquor traffic has marked an important step in the direction of reducing poverty. Vocational schools for the deaf, the blind, and the crippled, are now training these unfortunates in the art of earning their own living. The enforcement of laws relating to compulsory education will reduce illiteracy and thus decrease the class from which poverty secures most of its recruits. Present restrictions upon immigration, if they are continued, will render more easy the maintenance of American standards of living among those who toil with their hands. By the segregation of degenerates in public institutions, moreover, we can prevent the propagation of degeneracy.[[262]] Overcrowding and unsanitary conditions of living are being prevented by modern city planning and good housing laws.
Now it is doubtful whether all of these measures put together will avail to wipe out poverty entirely, but if they are vigorously applied the amount of poverty in the United States will certainly be much reduced. |The danger of too many remedies.| There is always a danger, of course, that laws and regulations designed to promote the well-being of the poor may over-reach themselves, and may result in placing additional burdens upon the wage-earning classes. Attempts to narrow the gulf between the rich and the poor by the levying of discriminatory taxes do not usually succeed; in the end they merely augment the hardships of the poor. It is customary for sociologists to speak of poverty as a “social disease” and to assure us that like any other disease it can be eradicated. That is all very true. But diseases are not eradicated by striking at the heads of healthy people in order that they may have a smaller advantage over the sick. Neither will the plague of poverty be cured by measures which strike at the well-to-do for the mere reason that they are so much better off than the poor. The poor can never be made rich by the simple expedient of making the rich poorer.
The Problem of the Mentally Defective.—There are various forms of mental defectiveness, ranging from feeble-mindedness to violent insanity. The total number of mentally defective persons in the United States is estimated to exceed half a million. Until relatively recent years no careful distinction was made between persons afflicted with different forms of mental trouble; all were treated in much the same way. |Old and new methods of dealing with the insane.| The usual plan was to bring them together in large asylums where the violently insane were kept under close restraint while the “harmless” inmates were given somewhat greater freedom. This crude method of dealing with unfortunates who needed medical treatment far more than they needed restraint and confinement has now been almost everywhere abandoned, and the treatment of mental defectiveness is being carried on in accordance with more scientific methods. These scientific methods involve the careful study and diagnosis of each particular case and the substitution of medical care for mechanical restraint. In response to this treatment a considerable proportion of the cases have proved capable of marked improvement, and sometimes entire recovery. It should be mentioned, however, that some forms of insanity are not curable by any known form of scientific treatment. A permanent reduction in the number of mentally-defective persons can best be achieved by preventing the transmission of hereditary defects, by the proper treatment of mental ailments as soon as the first symptoms appear, and by the removal of two things which have contributed greatly to the spread of insanity in the past, namely, alcoholism and the drug habit.
The Problem of Crime.—A crime is an offence against society. In early days all offences were regarded as having been committed against individuals. The person who stole something was looked upon as having wronged the owner, and the owner was entitled to secure his own redress. But with the development of organized society there grew up the idea that the whole community had an interest in the prevention of wrong-doing, and that wrongs which were ostensibly directed against single individuals were in reality committed against the whole people. |Evolution of the criminal law.| So society took upon itself the responsibility for making laws to protect the rights of individuals, and for the imposition of punishment whenever these laws are violated. A crime is an offence against society because it involves some violation of a law which has been made in the interest of all. An act may constitute a crime, therefore, without being morally wrong. It is not morally wrong to park an automobile alongside a hydrant, but it is in most cities a violation of the law to do so, and punishable in the courts. The courts enforce the law whatever it is.
The Classification of Crimes.—It was formerly the custom to classify all crimes as treasons, felonies, or misdemeanors. A treason was an attempt to overthrow the state by rebellion or otherwise; a felony was a serious offence against persons or property, such as murder or burglary; while the term misdemeanor was used to include all the less serious violations of the law, such as selling milk without a license or disregarding a sign to keep off the grass in the public parks. Nowadays, however, a more elaborate grouping of crimes is usually made. |The various types of offences.| This grouping usually includes (a) offences against the public peace and order, such as treason, rioting, and any obstruction of the officers of the law; (b) offences against the public health and morals, such as bigamy, gambling, the sale of intoxicants, or the pollution of public water supplies; (c) offences against the person, such as murder, manslaughter, or assault; and (d) offences against property, including burglary, theft, fraud, and so on. This list of offences does not include such things as breaches of contract, libel, and failure to pay debts, for these are not crimes but torts or civil wrongs. They are still regarded as offences against individuals and not against society. The aggrieved individual brings his own suit in the courts, and the courts merely act as arbiters to see that justice is done between man and man.
The Causes of Crime.—The causes of crime, like those of poverty, are both individual and social. |1. Individual causes of crime.| Men sometimes take to wrongdoing because they are mentally or morally defective, having inherited traits of degeneracy. Handicapped by these defects in making an honest living they often resort to crime at an early age. Bad training in the home, habits of truancy acquired during school age, and aversion to work are all individual causes which promote criminality. |2. Social causes of crime.| The social causes include poverty, the influence of bad companions, the lack of efficiency on the part of police in cities, the undue leniency of the courts in some cases, and the difficulty which even honest men sometimes encounter in obeying the host of laws which our lawmakers are turning out every year. It is significant that crimes against property, such as burglary and theft become less frequent when the country is prosperous and more numerous in times of depression when so many persons are out of employment. Among illiterates the proportion of offenders against the law is very high, so that the failure to enforce rigidly the laws relating to school attendance must also be set down as one of the social causes of criminality.
The Extent of Crime in the United States.—More than half a million persons are sent to jails or reformatories in the United States every year. The number of those who are let off with the payment of fines is much larger. Even these two figures put together do not give us the number of crimes committed, however, for it is probable that the majority of crimes do not result in the detection of the guilty person, and many minor crimes are not reported to the police at all. The cost of maintaining police systems for the prevention of crime, courts for the trial of accused persons, and prisons for the incarceration of the convicted, is about a billion dollars per year, or about as much as the country spends upon education.
Are crimes on the increase?
Whether the number of crimes, taking the country as a whole, is increasing more rapidly than the growth of population we do not know. This is because the figures in some states are not carefully or uniformly kept. But crime has been increasing in the large cities during the past few decades. This is partly because the crowded cities afford unusual opportunities to escape detection and partly because police inefficiency or corruption has encouraged the commission of crimes with impunity. The number of crimes committed in the United States is much greater, in proportion to population, than in any of the chief European countries.[[263]]
The Theory of Punishment.—Among primitive people punishment was regarded as a retaliation or vengeance, but as civilization developed this notion gave way to one in which punishment was looked upon as a means of warning other people from committing similar crimes. In either case the feeling was that punishment ought to be severe. |The old severity.| Severity, rather than certainty of punishment was depended upon to deter people from committing crimes. A century ago in England, for example, men were put to death for stealing small sums of money and were sent to jail for long terms when they failed to pay their debts. But even this severity of punishment did not achieve the desired end, for crimes were relatively more numerous in England a century ago than they are today.
What is the purpose of punishment?
In due course the public intelligence was led to the conclusion that certainty of detection and punishment, rather than severity, was the best way of securing the observance of the laws.[[264]] Since the prime object of punishment is neither to visit the wrath of society upon the offender, nor yet to reform him (although this is an incidental object), but to protect the people against the commission of crimes, it follows that the penalty should be no more severe than is necessary to achieve this object. Hence there are gradations of punishment, each adjusted to the degree in which the offence constitutes a challenge to the well-being of society. If murder is more severely penalized than manslaughter, it is not because the victim suffers more in one case than in the other. He has lost his life in either case, and no penalty can restore it. It is not the atrociousness of a crime that makes it serious, but the degree of danger to the whole community involved.
Prisons and Prison Reform.—Until a generation ago the treatment of prisoners in all parts of the country was inhuman. Offenders of all types, old and young, were thrown together into the same institutions. They were brutally treated by those in charge, confined in narrow, damp cells, given poor food to eat and rarely set to work at any useful employment. Even yet these conditions have not wholly disappeared from every part of the United States. But the movement for the reform of prisons and prison methods has made notable progress during the past twenty years.
The main features of prison reform:
The main features in prison reform may be briefly stated. |1. Classification of prisoners.| First, in point of importance, is the classifying of prisoners and the sending of each class to a special institution instead of herding them all together in one county jail. Some prisoners are hardened criminals and not easy to reform. Others are first offenders, persons who have never been previously convicted. With humane treatment and the opportunity to learn a trade these prisoners can often be sent out into the world, when their terms expire, with the likelihood of their becoming good citizens. There are others who also need to be segregated, such as juvenile offenders and those who are mentally defective. Prison reform involves the separation and special treatment of each class.
JUSTICE AND MERCY. By A. R. Willett
Copyright by A. R. Willett. Reproduced by permission of the County Commissioners, Mahoning County, Ohio, from a photograph by the Youngstown Art Engraving Company.
JUSTICE AND MERCY
By A. R. Willett
From a mural decoration in the Mahoning County Court House, Youngstown, Ohio.
There is enough realism in this picture to obviate the need of much interpretation. The prosecuting attorney, with the book of the law in his hand, asks that judgment be given. He is in no angry mood, but is merely performing a stern duty. To the right, a wife and mother pleads that justice be tempered with mercy.
“And earthly power doth then show likest God’s,
When mercy seasons justice.”
—The Merchant of Venice.
2. The new discipline.
Another feature of prison reform is the humanizing of discipline. It has been the general custom in prisons to punish any serious breach of the rules by placing the offender in solitary confinement for days or even weeks. Better results are now being obtained by giving privileges to those prisoners who behave properly and taking these privileges away from all who do not. This plan involves the grading of prisoners according to their conduct, the best-behaved men being placed in the first class and allowed various privileges. A system of marks and demerits is used to determine the grade of each prisoner. Solitary confinement is reserved for the incorrigibles only.[[265]]
3. Internal reforms.
Along with the system of classifying and grading prisoners, a general betterment of internal prison conditions has been taking place. It is now generally recognized that all prisoners should be kept employed at useful labor, that wherever practicable those who have not already learned a trade should be taught one during their prison terms, that those who are illiterate should learn to read and write, that the labor of prisoners should not be farmed out to employers as has so often been the case in the past, that prisoners should not be subjected to unnecessary humiliation, and that they should be given such measure of self-government as can be safely entrusted to them. Outdoor employment on state farms and state roads is replacing, to a considerable extent, the activities of the prison workshop.
Indeterminate Sentences and the Parole System.—Two marked improvements in correctional methods have been introduced by the use of indeterminate sentences and releases on parole. The old plan was to sentence every prisoner for a fixed term, two years, ten years, or some such period. The convict then served out his full term, no more and no less, irrespective of his behavior. This plan is now being abolished. Instead it is becoming the general practice to make the sentences indeterminate, as for example, not less than two nor more than five years. By good behavior the prisoner is then enabled to secure his release when the minimum period has expired. This method is particularly desirable in the case of young offenders who are sent to reformatories. The parole system is also used as a means of encouraging good behavior and reformation on the part of prisoners. Where this system is in operation the prison officials are permitted to release prisoners, even before their minimum terms have expired, upon promise to give society no further trouble. If the paroled prisoner should violate this promise, he is brought back to finish his term. It has been found that very few paroled prisoners fail to keep their promises.
The Probation System.—The number of persons committed to prison has been considerably reduced by the use of probation. In the case of first offences, where the crime is not serious, it is now the usual practice in many courts to place the offender on probation for a given period. This means that instead of being taken to jail he is placed under the surveillance of a probation officer. These probation officers are attached to the courts; their duty is to help probationers, keep a watchful eye on them, and report from time to time how they are getting along.[[266]]
The Problem of Juvenile Delinquency.—Great progress has been made during the past twenty-five years in the treatment of juvenile offenders. Persons under eighteen years of age were formerly dealt with by the regular criminal tribunals; in many of the larger cities they are now brought before a special Juvenile Court. Where such courts do not exist it is the usual practice to have juvenile cases brought before the regular court at a special session. The offenders, in serious cases, are usually sent to reform schools or other institutions where vocational instruction is given. For minor offences, particularly where there is no previous record of appearance in the juvenile court, the offender is placed in charge of a probation officer. The purpose of the probation system is to secure the reformation of the offenders, not to enforce punishment.[[267]]
Why divorces are becoming more common.
The Divorce Problem.—The steady increase in the number of divorces has tended to make juvenile delinquency more difficult to handle; in other respects also it constitutes a social problem of the first magnitude.[[268]] Several economic and social changes have tended to make divorces more common. The development of industry is one of them. Before modern industry afforded employment for women, the household was almost the sole center of feminine activity. But under present economic conditions most women find no great difficulty in earning their own living and this has engendered a feeling of self-reliance. Mention may likewise be made of the fact that the rights and privileges of women have been more strongly stressed by law and custom during recent years. Women have been given the legal right to own property, to vote, and to hold office. These things have helped to develop a spirit of independence. Social conditions have also changed. In the old days men who divorced their wives and women who divorced their husbands were frowned upon by their neighbors, but this weapon of social ostracism has been gradually losing its power because society has come to recognize the justice of granting divorces for adequate reasons.
Can the causes of divorces be reduced?
How May the Situation be Remedied?—In seeking a remedy for any political, social, or economic evil we must first turn to the causes. The increase in the number of divorces has been due in considerable measure, as already pointed out, to the growth of industrial opportunities for women and to the readiness with which society tolerates the granting of divorces. It is also due, in some degree, to the conditions of life in large cities where the nervous strain caused by over-crowding makes it more difficult to meet the complex domestic problems patiently. It is significant that divorces are much more common in the large cities than in the rural districts. In part it is due also to the lax divorce laws of some states, where the courts are permitted to grant divorces on the flimsiest pretexts, and to the absence of sufficiently strict regulations designed to prevent hasty marriages.
Some specific remedies.
Some of these causes are hard to remedy. The economic independence of women is a new condition which cannot be changed. Some progress has been made in various cities of the country by the establishment of special tribunals known as Courts of Domestic Relations whose function it is to adjust family quarrels. These courts have proved their value by keeping many cases out of the divorce courts. It has been suggested that we ought to amend the national constitution so as to provide that no divorces shall be granted except by the federal courts. This would make the rules uniform throughout the United States and prevent the securing of divorces on trivial grounds. A proposal for such an amendment is now being considered by Congress. Meanwhile some of the states have come to the conclusion that a check should be placed upon hasty marriages and have consequently made laws requiring that persons intending to be married shall file notice of their intention a certain number of days before the marriage takes place. These various remedies are good enough so far as they go, but the only permanent and effective remedy is the education of public opinion to a point where it will use its influence to check the stream of divorces. Social ostracism is a powerful weapon in the hands of any community that wishes to use it. The immediate need is to educate the American people in the homes, in the schools, and in the churches, so that they may appreciate the gravity of the problem and insist upon its being properly solved.
General References
E. T. Towne, Social Problems, pp. 285-307 (Poor Relief); pp. 184-207 (Mental Defectives); pp. 208-234 (Crime and Correction);
H. R. Burch and S. H. Patterson, American Social Problems, pp. 200-250 (Poor Relief); pp. 271-288 (Mental Defectives); pp. 237-270 (Crime and Correction);
Charles A. Ellwood, Sociology and Modern Social Problems, pp. 299-325 (Poor Relief); pp. 326-353 (Crime and Correction);
A. G. Warner, American Charities, especially pp. 36-63;
C. R. Henderson, Dependent, Defective, and Delinquent Classes, especially pp. 1-39;
F. H. Wines, Punishment and Reformation, especially pp. 121-132 (The Reformation of the Criminal);
Maurice Parmelee, Poverty and Social Progress, pp. 168-187.
Group Problems
1. The causes of poverty and how we may get rid of them. Relative importance of the various causes in your own state and community. Analyze each of these causes and ascertain what measures have been taken to deal with each. Study the experience of foreign countries with old-age pensions and unemployment allowances. Note the effect, if any, of workmen’s insurance, mothers’ pensions, and minimum wage laws in various American states. Suggest further steps for removing the fundamental causes of poverty. References: E. T. Towne, Social Problems, pp. 290-301; H. R. Burch and S. H. Patterson, American Social Problems, pp. 205-216; E. T. Devine, Misery and its Causes, pp. 1-50; Robert Hunter, Poverty, pp. 1-65; W. H. Dawson, Social Insurance, passim.
2. The care of dependent children. References: A. G. Warner, American Charities, pp. 220-228; C. R. Henderson, Dependent, Defective, and Delinquent Classes, pp. 98-120; G. B. Mangold, Child Problems, pp. 293-345.
3. Prison reform: how far should it be carried? References: E. H. Wines, Punishment and Reformation, pp. 312-363; T. M. Osborne, Within Prison Walls, pp. 24-58; Ibid., Society and Prisons, pp. 185-235; C. R. Henderson, The Dependent, Defective, and Delinquent Classes, pp. 276-307.
4. The divorce problem in its social and economic aspects. Early history of the problem. The spread of divorce in the United States. Comparison with other countries. Causes of divorce. Relative importance of these causes. Effects on family organization. Effects upon the children concerned. Economic results of divorce. The possible remedies. Probable effectiveness of these remedies. Conclusions. References: C. A. Ellwood, Sociology and Modern Social Problems, pp. 147-166; W. F. Willcox, The Divorce Problem, passim; J. P. Lichtenberger, Divorce; A study in social causation (Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, Vol. XXXV, No. 3, pp. 52-96, 151-171); J. Q. Dealey, The Family in its Sociological Aspects, pp. 73-108; United States Bureau of the Census, Report for 1910 (See Abstract, Sections on Marital Conditions); H. Bosanquet, The Family, pp. 260-314; W. Goodsell, The Family as a Social and Educational Institution, pp. 456-496.
Short Studies
1. The treatment of the poor in earlier days. Thomas Mackay, Public Relief of the Poor, pp. 35-68.
2. Unemployment as a cause of poverty. E. T. Devine, Misery and its Causes, pp. 113-146.
3. Old-age pensions abroad. W. H. Dawson, Social Insurance in Germany, pp. 1-21.
4. The problem of the deaf and the blind. E. T. Towne, Social Problems, pp. 161-181.
5. Poor relief organizations in the United States. C. R. Henderson, Modern Methods of Charity, pp. 380-451.
6. The problem of the mental defectives. H. R. Burch and S. H. Patterson, American Social Problems, pp. 271-288.
7. Theories of crime and punishment. T. N. Carver, Sociology and Social Progress, pp. 654-673.
8. The work of Jeremy Bentham. A. V. Dicey, The Relation Between Law and Public Opinion in England, pp. 167-209.
9. Prison self-government. F. H. Wines, Punishment and Reformation, pp. 364-412.
10. Fundamental factors in the prevention of crime. F. H. Wines, Punishment and Reformation, pp. 413-461.
11. Juvenile courts. Bernard Flexner and R. N. Baldwin, Juvenile Courts and Probation, pp. 12-78; T. D. Eliot, The Juvenile Court and the Community, pp. 1-41.
Questions
1. What is the difference between poverty and pauperism? Has the distinction any importance?
2. Place the individual causes of poverty in what seems to you to be their order of consequence and give your reasons for so placing them.
3. What is meant by the minimum standard of living? Make an estimate of what it costs to maintain this minimum standard in your own community at the present time.
4. To what extent are overcrowding and unsanitary conditions the cause of poverty and to what extent are they the effect?
5. What are the advantages and the disadvantages of private poor relief organizations? In what way may the disadvantages be overcome?
6. In what ways are poverty and a poor educational system related?
7. Why is it desirable to separate the different types of mental defectives?
8. What is the difference between crimes and torts? Which of the following are crimes and which are not: telling a falsehood; blasphemy; throwing rubbish in the streets; refusing to obey the orders of a policeman; building a house on another man’s land; ringing in a false alarm; telling false stories about a neighbor; playing ball on Sunday? Can you make a classification of crimes apart from that given in the text?
9. Place the causes of crime in what seems to you to be their order of importance. Compare this with the answer to Question 2.
10. Explain the difference between indeterminate sentence, parole, and probation.
11. Make a list of prison reforms which meet your approval. What could you do, as a citizen, to secure the adoption of these reforms.
12. Why are juvenile courts desirable? What disposition do they make of cases which come before them? What are the duties of a probation officer?
Topics for Debate
1. The public authorities should assume all responsibility for poor relief and do away with private charity organizations altogether.
2. County jails should be abolished and all prisoners sent to state or federal institutions.
3. The Osborne plan of prison self-government should be adopted throughout the country.
CHAPTER XXVIII
THE NATIONAL DEFENCE
The purpose of this chapter is to show why an army and navy are needed by the United States; how they are organized; and what they cost.
What we spend each year for military purposes.
The Stupendous Cost of Armaments.—Although the people of the United States dislike war and desire peace the national government is now spending about $750,000,000 every year to maintain the country’s military and naval forces. Seven dollars per head of population is our annual contribution for national defence. The people of the United States are spending far more on national defence, on payments for past wars, and on preparations for wars of the future, than they are expending upon all branches of civil government. The cost of a single battleship is greater than that of all the school buildings in a state like Ohio or California. And this does not reckon the loss caused by the withdrawal of more than two hundred thousand able-bodied young men from the farms and factories. Why is it necessary to support armies and navies? The leading nations of the world, at the Washington conference of 1921-1922, reached an agreement for the reduction of naval armaments. Would it not be practicable for the world to abolish armies and navies altogether? We have all heard the arguments of the pacifists to the effect that great armaments are not necessary, that they are in fact an encouragement to war, and that they merely impose upon the people a grievous burden in taxes without any substantial advantage in return.[[269]]
Let us first look at this problem from a different angle, close at home. We spend large sums of money in all American cities for the maintenance of police, police courts, and prisons. Why do we do it? If people would only obey the laws, respect the rights of others, and refrain from interfering with their neighbors, there would be no need for these armed guardians of the law. The trouble is, however, that without police and prisons we would have disorder, injustice, and oppression. A community certainly would not promote the cause of law and order by leaving itself helpless against those who set out to do wrong. Now the army and the navy are our police writ large. They are, against wrong-doing from without, what the police are against wrong-doing from within—a measure of protection and security.
A nation cannot leave itself defenceless.
Defence is an Essential Function of Government.—Many years ago one of the Fathers of the American Republic, James Madison, stated this point in a single sentence. “Security against foreign danger”, he wrote, “is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed object of the American union.” We set great value in this democracy on the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, but no people can be secure in their rights to any of these things so long as they permit themselves to remain defenceless against the assaults of their enemies. When one citizen injures another there are courts to render justice. But when one nation treats another unjustly the injured country has no such redress; it must depend upon its own strength to assert its rights. The impulse to self-defence is deeply implanted in human nature. A man’s first care is to defend himself and those dearest to him. So a nation’s first care should be for the safety of those within its borders. A country that is not ready and able to protect its own citizens can scarcely be said to deserve their patriotism. Fear God and take your own part! is a good motto.[[270]] A man who cannot take his own part, when occasion demands, is a weakness in any community, for his impotence is an encouragement to wrongdoers. The same applies to nations. A country that cannot defend itself against external injustice puts a premium on aggression.[[271]] The day may come when, as it is written in the Scriptures, “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”; but until that long-looked-for time arrives it is the duty of every land to make sure that its territories shall not be invaded with impunity. Wanton or unjust war is an abhorrent evil, and even a just war of self-defence brings immeasurable suffering. The permanent avoidance of war is assuredly a goal which human effort should strive by some means or other to attain.
Do armaments engender militarism?
National Defence and Militarism.—It is often said that armaments lead to militarism and the encouragement of a warlike spirit among the people, and that the nation which keeps a sharp sword is always under a temptation to unsheathe it. The history of European nations proves that there is a measure of truth in this assertion. Huge armies are not merely an economic burden, a source of enormous expense; but they create suspicion and distrust among a nation’s neighbors. During the fifty years preceding 1914 the various countries of Europe kept each other’s tempers constantly on edge by reason of their being armed to the teeth. The standing armies of Germany, Austria, Russia, France, and Italy prior to the outbreak of the World War totalled nearly two million men. These men had to be fed, clothed, and supported by the labor of those who were not in the military service. How much better it would have been if most of them had spent their time behind the plough!
What another world-war would mean.
The Causes of War.—Intelligent people everywhere are agreed that war is the greatest curse of humanity and that some means of prevention must be found. If the world, within the next generation, should have the misfortune to engage in another titanic conflict like the last, it will not much matter who wins. Victor and vanquished will alike go down in a welter of blood and chaos. There is no difference of opinion among thoughtful men of all nations on this point. So far as the desirability of permanently avoiding war is concerned, there is entire agreement between pacifists and other people. But how is war to be permanently avoided? One way, and probably the only effective way, is to remove the causes of war.
The chief motives in war.
In past years a great many different things have drawn nations into war. Greed for territory has been a prolific cause of armed conflict during many centuries. Governments, like individuals, often violate the tenth commandment and covet the possessions of their neighbors. Rivalry in trade sometimes leads to ill-feeling, suspicion, and in the end to hostilities. The press, or certain sections of it, is sometimes given to fomenting this bad feeling and so are politicians occasionally. The misgovernment of a helpless people has at times led to outside intervention on their behalf, as when the United States in 1898 interposed to terminate Spanish oppression in Cuba. Alliances among nations, particularly secret alliances, have aroused jealousy to a point where some relatively minor mishap sufficed to send armies forth to battle. In the case of the World War the murder of an Austrian archduke at Serajevo was the match which set Europe aflame; but it was not the underlying cause of the conflict. The real causes are to be found in the rivalry, the jealousies, and the militarism which turned Europe into a huge armed camp during the years preceding 1914.
Can these motives be removed?
There is no reason why nations should be natural enemies. Like men they can live together in amity if, like men, they learn to secure respect for their own rights by respecting the rights of others. Up to a certain point rivalry between different countries makes for progress, but when rivalry engenders bitterness it becomes a menace to peace. A large part of the mutual suspicion which exists among governments would be obliterated if secret diplomacy were abolished and the burden of great armaments removed.
The Regular Army of the United States.—Until these causes of war are permanently removed by some agreement among the nations of the world no country can venture to give up reasonable measures for its own defence. For military protection the United States relies first of all upon the regular army. In proportion to the total population of the country this army has never been large in time of peace. The policy of the United States has always been to maintain a standing army of very moderate size and to depend, in emergencies, upon the assistance of units raised from among the able-bodied men of the civilian population.[[272]] |How the regular army is organized.| The size of the regular army is fixed from time to time by Congress; it is always recruited by voluntary enlistment and has never contained any regiments raised by conscription. Enlistments are for a term of years, at the end of which time an honorable discharge is given if the soldier has served faithfully. The regular army is completely and at all times under the control of the War Department; its officers are appointed by the President as commander-in-chief; its discipline is regulated by federal law and its entire cost of maintenance is borne by the national government.
The National Guard.—But the military forces of the United States do not consist of the regular army alone. Each state maintains a militia in which every able-bodied citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five is under obligation to serve when called upon. The effective portion of this militia, however, consists of organized units known as the national guard. In time of peace the national guard is under the control of the states, the governor in each state being its commander-in-chief; but Congress has authority to provide for the arming and disciplining of this force so that it may be serviceable in time of war. The present regulations relating to the size, organization, arming, and disciplining of the national guard were framed by Congress in 1916. Its officers, in time of peace, are appointed in each state by the governor; but the national government furnishes the arms and equipment besides giving an annual money grant to each state. The national guard, like the regular army, is recruited by voluntary enlistment. In time of war or other emergency it may be called into the service of the federal government and then becomes, for all practical purposes, an integral part of the United States army.[[273]]
The Volunteers.—During practically all the wars in which the United States was engaged prior to 1917 a call was made for volunteers. In the Civil War more than a million soldiers were brought to the colors in response to the six successive calls which President Lincoln issued. But recruits did not always come readily and it was necessary on occasions to offer bounties or money grants to all who would volunteer. During the war with Spain in 1898 volunteers were again called for, and many regiments were raised in this way, notably the First Volunteer Cavalry, better known as the Rough Riders.[[274]] The serious defect of an army raised in this way is that no one can foretell the number of men who will respond. The volunteer system, moreover, rests upon the idea that military service is an optional, not a universal duty, on the part of citizens.
The draft in 1917-1918.
The National Army.—When the United States entered the World War in 1917 it was realized that a sufficient military force could not be obtained by using the regular army, by ordering out the national guard, or by calling for volunteers. So, on May 18, 1917, Congress passed the Selective Service Act which authorized the President to summon all male citizens between the ages of twenty-one and thirty-one to be registered. It further provided that the President should call into service (subject to certain exemptions made in the act and in accordance with regulations which he might frame) a sufficient number of men to form a national army. |How the draft was applied.| The first registration took place in June, 1917, and immediately thereafter the local draft boards, under the supervision of the Provost-Marshal-General, selected the persons who were called into service. In due course it was found advisable to classify all the registrants and to summon, first of all, unmarried men without dependents who were not engaged in any essential occupation. In the summer of 1918 an extension of the age limit was authorized by Congress, to include all men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five; but it did not prove necessary to call into service any considerable number of men from among these later registrants. The classification of the men, the physical examinations, and the order in which men were called to the colors were all provided for in the body of rules known as the Selective Service Regulations.
The men drafted under these regulations were sent to military camps or cantonments located in different parts of the country. There they were organized into military units, equipped, and trained. As soon as each division had completed its preliminary training it was sent to Europe. Forty divisions of the national army, mobilized in this way, were in Europe before the armistice was signed. These, with the non-combatant troops, made up a total of about two million men. |The American army in the war.| In the spring of 1918, when the last great German drive against the French and British armies took place, there were only half a million American troops in Europe. The need for more was urgent and America was asked to hurry. By almost superhuman effort great bodies of troops were rushed from the camps to the Atlantic ports and sent across the water during the summer at the rate of more than two hundred thousand men a month. When the final united assault of the Allied armies carried them through the German lines in the autumn the strength of the American forces contributed decisively to the ultimate victory. The speed with which America drew a great army from the ranks of her citizenship, trained it, sent it overseas, used it to turn the scale, and brought it home again—these things made a profound impression upon the whole world.
The President as commander-in-chief.
The Control of the Army in War.—According to the constitution of the United States the power to declare war rests with Congress. The usual method of declaring war is the passage of a resolution by both houses of Congress, signed by the President. War may begin, however, without a formal declaration on either side. It may begin by an act of war, an attack by one nation upon another, or by one section of a country upon another. The Civil War began with the firing upon Fort Sumter; there was no declaration of war by either side. Once war is declared the movements of the army depend upon the discretion of the President. He appoints the officers who command it and has the final decision as regards the course of military operations. Congress votes the money for carrying on a war, but the President directs the spending of it. Congress determines the size and character of the army, but as commander-in-chief the President controls all its operations in the field.[[275]] This division of functions might possibly lead to friction and even to disaster if Congress and the President did not work in harmony, but on the whole the two branches of the government have always shown a spirit of co-operation in war-time.
The army as an aid to the civil power.
The Use of Armed Forces in Time of Peace.—In time of peace the regular army and the national guard may be used under certain conditions to put down riot or disorder. The President has the right to use United States troops within the limits of any state in order to enforce the national laws, to facilitate the carrying of the mails, or to maintain any other function of the national government. This he may do without the invitation or permission of the state government, or even against the wishes of the state authorities. In 1894 when a railway strike in Chicago interfered with the free passage of mails, President Cleveland sent a detachment of regular troops to the state of Illinois and cleared the way. The Supreme Court held that he was within his rights. If a state is invaded, the President may also act on his own volition; but when internal disorders occur, it is the primary function of the state authorities to suppress them. The governor is vested with authority to call out the national guard for this purpose. Federal troops cannot be sent in such cases except upon the request of the state authorities, unless, of course, the disorders reach a point where they obstruct the national government in the performance of its functions. In any event, troops are not called out for active service in time of peace save under conditions of serious emergency. Soldiers are not well qualified to handle ordinary disturbances; they have not been trained for that purpose and their presence is likely to make mild disturbances more serious. Bodies of state constabulary, like those maintained in New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, are better adapted to use in such situations.
The articles of war.
Military Law.—The citizen, under normal conditions, is subject only to the law of the land. But the soldier (and this term includes officers) is subject not only to the ordinary laws but to a special code of military law the provisions of which are embodied in the Articles of War and are administered by courts-martial. The Articles of War are enacted by Congress, and anyone entering the army, whether as a commissioned officer or an enlisted man, becomes subject to their provisions both in time of war and in time of peace. These articles deal with such matters as desertion, disobedience of orders, neglect of duty, absence without leave, the wrongful use of military equipment, and kindred military offences.
Courts-martial.
Military law is not enforced by the ordinary courts but by special courts known as courts-martial, which are composed of army officers.[[276]] Punishment may be inflicted in the form of dishonorable discharge from the army, or imprisonment—even the death penalty may be imposed in extreme cases during war. The accused person has the right to have his own counsel and the customary rules of evidence are followed, as in the civil courts.
What martial law implies.
Martial Law.—Military law and martial law are often confused with each other, but they are in fact wholly different. Martial law is the entire legal administration which is applied to any area of conflict or insurrection by order of Congress, or by the President in case such action is urgently needed before action by Congress can be taken. It is not proclaimed except in case of invasion, insurrection, or civil or foreign war, and then only in districts where the ordinary laws and courts prove themselves unable to secure the public safety.
Its effects.
When martial law is proclaimed in any district the ordinary laws cease to function there. The orders of the commanding military officer take the place of the laws. Special military tribunals are usually appointed to enforce these orders; but if practicable, the ordinary courts may be retained. Martial law applies to everybody within the district, soldiers and civilians alike. The commanding officer issues his orders and, whatever they are, they must be implicitly obeyed. He may order, for example, that there shall be no public gatherings, no traffic in the streets after nightfall, and no keeping of weapons in private houses. He may require every inhabitant to carry a pass signed by the military authorities. There is no definite code of martial law; the will of the commanding officer is supreme so long as the citizen is not deprived of his rights as guaranteed by the constitution of the United States. This constitution, however, is the supreme law of the land and not even the army can disregard it. Martial law is never proclaimed except in urgent circumstances when it appears to be the only way of securing public order and protecting property. During the Civil War it was administered in some sections of the South which were occupied by the Northern armies.[[277]]
The Navy.—The navy is commonly called the “first line” of the national defence inasmuch as the most vulnerable boundaries of the United States extend along two great seacoasts.[[278]] Like the army its organization is under the jurisdiction of Congress, which appropriates the money for its maintenance; but the President is also the commander-in-chief of the navy and is responsible for directing its operations. In this he is assisted by the Secretary of the Navy who in turn is advised by a staff of naval officers. Men are enlisted in the navy, and officers are commissioned as in the army, but with different ratings and ranks. |Administration of the navy.| The navy also has its code corresponding to the Articles of War and its system of courts-martial. The Marine Corps, which in organization, drill, and discipline, is really a military organization, comes under the control of the Secretary of the Navy because it is primarily intended to furnish a landing force after attack. The marine, as Kipling says, is “a soldier and sailor too”. In connection with the work of the navy mention should also be made of the coast defences which are located at points where they may serve to protect the commercial seaports. These consist of concealed land batteries, floating batteries, channels guarded by mines, submarines, and naval airplanes.
The history of the issue.
The Problem of Disarmament.—Is there any reasonable ground for the hope that the burden of maintaining an army and navy may be reduced at some time in the near future? Proposals for a general disarmament by international agreement have been put forth at various times for a hundred years or more. Following the long Napoleonic Wars which exhausted the chief countries of Europe, the Czar of Russia suggested that the nations should agree to place a limit upon their respective armaments. But nothing came of this proposal, and although the question of disarmament was discussed during the next three-quarters of a century in unofficial circles no concrete plan for an international conference on the matter was formulated until 1898, when Russia once more brought to the attention of the other European powers the urgent desirability of considering some effective measures for disarmament.
The two Hague conferences.
As a direct result of this action delegates appointed by all the leading governments of the world assembled at the Hague in the following year and discussed the possible methods of securing international disarmament. A resolution was adopted affirming the desirability of such action but no definite plan was formulated. A second Hague Conference was held eight years later but it likewise managed to procure no definite promises of disarmament because Germany refused to enter into any such agreement, believing that more could be gained by war than by disarming. So the feverish activity in preparations for war continued until the great world conflict began. In the negotiations which took place at the close of this war it was generally agreed that a reduction of armaments on the part of all countries should begin at the earliest practicable moment, but the disordered state of affairs in several European countries, notably in Russia, delayed any important steps in that direction. This led President Harding, in the summer of 1921, to propose that the chief naval powers should send delegates to a conference at Washington in order that some plan of limiting naval expansion might be prepared.
The conference on naval armaments.
This conference assembled in the autumn of 1921 and at once proceeded to consider a proposal, made on behalf of the United States, that a fixed tonnage of capital ships agreed upon and that this limit should not be exceeded during the next ten years. With some slight amendments the American proposal was ultimately accepted and embodied in an international treaty. The conference also framed agreements for the future limitation of submarine warfare, the prohibition of poison gas in war, and the restriction of fortifications in the Pacific regions. No action was taken towards the limitation of armies.[[279]]
Universal Military Training.—If the leading nations do not agree upon a plan of general disarmament, is it desirable that the United States should adopt a system of universal military training? There is a popular aversion to the maintenance of a large regular army. On the other hand it would be folly to permit the United States to stand unprepared if other nations go on arming themselves as in the years preceding the World War. |The Swiss plan.| The suggestion has been made that we could avoid the necessity of maintaining a large regular army and yet secure the advantages of military preparedness by adopting the plan used in Switzerland where every able-bodied young man is required to undergo a short period of military training. This training would be taken at some convenient time between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one; it would last from three to six months. The claim is made that this training would have educational as well as military value and that it would conduce to the physical upbuilding of American manhood. In opposition to the plan of universal military training it is contended that anything of this sort would involve a great waste of energy, would withdraw large numbers of young men from productive labor, would foster militarism, and would involve enormous expense.
New wars being new methods.
What is Real Preparedness?—Under present-day conditions one must recognize that preparedness for war does not consist in merely training men to march and shoot. No war is ever like any previous war. No amount of human ingenuity or foresight can avail to train men for “the next war”, because nobody knows where, when, or how the next war is going to be fought. The Civil War was fought in the open; it was a war of movement. The World War was fought, for the most part, in trenches; it was a war of positions. In the Civil War, cavalry played an important part; in the World War cavalry had very little share. Artillery was the great factor. For example, it has been estimated that all the artillery ammunition used during three whole days at the battle of Gettysburg would have lasted the American artillery just about thirty minutes in one of the Argonne battles! New weapons and devices are brought forth in every new conflict, and they greatly change the conditions of warfare. The great European struggle utilized the airplane, poison gas, incendiary bombs, gas shells, hand grenades, liquid flame, tanks, wireless telegraphy, wireless telephony, dirigible balloons, submarines, seaplanes, and artillery with a range of over fifty miles—none of these things figured in any previous war.
The “next war”, if it comes.
It has been predicted that the next war will be fought, for the most part, in the air and under the sea; that the entire populations of great cities may be wiped out during a few days by a deluge of poisonous gas-bombs hurled from the sky;[[280]] that science under the pressure of war emergency will discover some form of lethal ray (we have X-rays, light rays, heat rays,—why not rays of a deadlier sort?) which will be shot from the clouds to shrivel and poison human beings by the thousands; that disease germs will be called into service to spread pestilence among the people;—all these things have been soberly predicted as likely to feature the next great conflict if one ever comes.[[281]]
How the progress of science affects warfare.
Progress in science and in the arts completely changes the methods of warfare in one generation after another, If General Hooker had possessed a single airplane, you may be sure that “Stonewall” Jackson would never have slipped around his flank at Chancellorsville. A squadron of “tanks”, if the Army of the Potomac had been provided with them in 1863, would probably have cleared the road to Richmond within a week. Who can tell what weapons, appliances, and tactics the nations will need for use in the next war, if another war should ever come? Preparations of a strictly military sort are essential, to be sure, but it is not wise to place entire reliance upon an army which is trained to use certain tactics in a prescribed way. That, of itself, does not constitute true “preparedness”.
Three words sum up the reasons for the Allied victory in the World War; these words are men, munitions, and morale. France, Great Britain, the United States, and Italy had civilian reserves to draw upon. They had great peace-time industries which they converted into munition factories. Above all things the moral strength and steadfastness of free peoples counted in the long struggle against autocracy. |What real “preparedness” means.| The lesson to be drawn from this is that if a country builds up a vigorous manhood, both physically and mentally; if it creates great, varied, and well-managed industries; if it fosters patriotism and a sense of righteousness through its system of public education; if it cultivates intelligently all the progressive arts of peace—if a nation does all these things, it is accomplishing real preparedness for whatever may come. Great wars are won, paradoxical as it may sound, in times of peace.
The War-Time Powers of Government.—There is an ancient Latin maxim: inter arma silent leges. It means that under the stress of armed conflict the ordinary laws give way. In the United States this maxim does not strictly apply; the constitutional rights of the citizen remain intact and the ordinary laws of the land continue to apply in war-time. Nevertheless it is true that a state of war requires strict vigilance on the part of the government and this may lead it to impose upon individual freedom various restrictions which would not be imposed in time of peace. |Limitations on civic liberty during wars.| During the World War, for example, the national government laid certain restrictions upon the consumption of food, the use of coal, and the manufacture of luxuries. This it did under its constitutional authority “to raise and support armies”. |The Espionage and Sedition Acts.| Congress also passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts which provided penalties for making or circulating false statements with intent to injure the United States or using “abusive language about the government or institutions of the country”. By these laws, in brief, it was made a crime to favor the cause of the enemy by any word or act. In some quarters this legislation was regarded as an unwarranted interference with freedom of speech but on the whole it was a justifiable war-time precaution. Those who found their personal freedom restricted by the Espionage and Sedition Acts suffered very little hardship compared with that borne by the soldiers and sailors who went into active service.
There can be no absolute freedom of speech at any time.
Freedom of Speech in War-Time.—During the World War there was considerable complaint in some quarters because the national government placed certain limitations upon freedom of speech, and a good deal of discussion arose as to what freedom of speech really means. The issue is one which cannot be argued in general terms, for it is not a question of principle but of practical policy. On the one hand it is generally agreed that men ought to have all reasonable liberty to express their own thoughts in their own way; on the other hand it is just as fully agreed that people must not be allowed to go about preaching treason, uttering slanders, and by word of mouth infringing the rights of others. The question, then, is not whether we should grant freedom of speech or deny it; but how much of it we should grant or deny.
But the presumption should be in favor of free speech.
In a democracy the presumption should be in favor of freedom. It should be curtailed no further than is clearly demanded by the general interest. Just where that point comes is something that cannot be fixed by any general rule. In time of peace, for example, we may safely permit a greater freedom of speech than in time of war. We may rightly allow a citizen, whose loyalty is not in doubt, a greater latitude than a foreigner who professes his hatred of the United States. The problem is an exceedingly difficult one and the courts may at times do injustice in dealing with outspoken persons; but the nation in its sober senses is not likely to let the fundamental right of free speech be permanently restricted beyond a reasonable point.[[282]]
The various war boards, 1917-1918.
Mobilizing the Economic Forces.—In order to ensure victory it also becomes necessary to mobilize all the economic forces of a country, the industries, the means of transport, and even the professional skill. During the years 1917-18 the government of the United States established a War Industries Board whose function it was to supervise and speed up industrial production; likewise a Food Administration, a Fuel Administration, a War Labor Board, a Censorship Board, a Committee on Public Information, a War Finance Corporation, an Alien Property Custodian, and various other war-time authorities with duties which are in a general way indicated by their titles. Both the work and the authority of a government enlarge under the stress of war.
PRICES IN THE UNITED STATES FROM
1810 TO 1920
(Prices in 1914 = 100)
Retail prices are based on wholesale prices.
Three times have wholesale prices in America risen to more than double the normal.
1. During the war of 1812, which was in reality the country’s participation in the Napoleonic wars—one of the great world wars.
2. During the Civil War, in 1861-65, a long and costly struggle.
3. During the recent World War.
Not less notable than the great rise of prices during these great wars has been the long and continued fall of prices extending over a generation of time which followed the great rise.
THE RISE OF PRICES IN WAR TIME
The diagram on the reverse of this page illustrates the way in which war disturbs a nation’s economic life. It sends prices sky-high by reason of the monetary inflation which almost invariably accompanies war. This rapid rise in prices causes industries to expand. Wages rise with prices, and for the moment we have an era of prosperity or “good times” as it is usually called. But when the stimulus of war inflation is removed, the general level of prices begins to decline, and with this fall in prices the industries slacken. Wages also come down, although more slowly than prices, and we have an era of industrial depression or hard times.
The greatest of all human tragedies.
War’s Aftermath.—War is waste. It destroys life and property, uses up the accumulated wealth of nations, and saddles them with huge debts which future generations have to pay. The cost of a war can never be reckoned in full until long after the treaty of peace has been signed. The Civil War came to an end more than fifty years ago, but we are still paying more than two hundred million dollars per annum in pensions to veterans of that struggle or to their widows. The number of Civil War pensioners and their widows now on the roll is more than five hundred thousand. It was not until 1906 that the last surviving widow of a veteran of the Revolutionary War died. The burden of pensions growing out of the World War is just beginning to accumulate; the country will not feel its full weight for many years to come. A generation born after this war ended will be required to defray its cost. War also leaves, as its tragic aftermath, large numbers of wounded, disabled, or invalided soldiers who must be cared for at the public expense. No nation which values its own honor can afford to leave its veterans unaided in suffering and want. In the United States we have made provision for affording medical care to those soldiers of the World War who require it and for giving vocational education to those partially disabled men who need it in order to fit them for success in life.
General References
C. A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 342-357; Ibid., Readings in American Government and Politics, pp. 308-322;
Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 423-444;
W. B. Munro, The Government of the United States, pp. 265-276;
A. B. Hart, Actual Government, pp. 459-480;
P. S. Reinsch, Readings in American Federal Government, pp. 610-650;
Edward F. Allen and Raymond Fosdick, Keeping Our Fighters Fit, passim;
B. A. Fiske, The Navy as a Fighting Machine, passim;
R. M. Johnston, Leading American Soldiers, especially pp. 3-65;
E. H. Crowder, The Spirit of Selective Service, pp. 59-92;
R. R. McCormick, The Army of 1918, pp. 207-243.
Group Problems
1. In what ways did the World War differ from previous wars? What predictions have been made concerning the weapons and tactics of the next war? How can preparedness best be made for such a war? References: J. F. Rhodes, History of the Civil War, pp. 1-46; B. Crowell and R. F. Wilson, How America Went to War, Vol. I, pp. 3-14; Will Irwin, The Next War, pp. 33-66; Emory Upton, The Military Policy of the United States, passim; Erich von Ludendorff, Ludendorff’s Own Story, passim; Baron Horff von Dewitz, War’s New Weapons, pp. 5-48; W. L. McPherson, The Strategy of the Great War, pp. 80-118; D. W. Johnson, Topography and Strategy in the War, pp. 1-40.
2. How can the causes of war be removed? Should we have international disarmament? References: G. L. Dickinson, The Choice Before Us, pp. 166-186; H. M. Kallen, The Structure of Lasting Peace, pp. 141-187; A. T. Mahan, Armaments and Arbitration, pp. 15-35; F. W. Holls, The Peace Conference at The Hague, pp. 66-92; J. B. Scott, The Status of the International Court of Justice, pp. 1-30; John Bakeless, The Economic Causes of Modern Wars, pp. 177-195.
3. The National Army of 1917-1918: how it was raised, trained, and used. References: E. H. Crowder, The Spirit of Selective Service, pp. 115-175; Selective Service Regulations (revised edition), pp. 1-30; R. B. Perry, The Plattsburg Movement, pp. 173-214; Leonard P. Ayres, The War with Germany, pp. 13-48; R. R. McCormick, The Army of 1918, pp. 1-57.
Short Studies
1. The War Department. John A. Fairlie, National Administration, pp. 133-151.
2. The war powers of the President and Congress. Cyclopedia of American Government, Vol. III, pp. 646-648; G. Glenn, The Army and the Law, passim.
3. The growth of the navy. G. R. Clark, History of the United States Navy, pp. 406-444; E. S. Maclay, History of the United States Navy, Vol. III, pp. 11-36.
4. Great American soldiers. R. M. Johnston, Leading American Soldiers, pp. 137-192 (Grant); 256-310 (Lee).
5. The Grand Army of the Republic. W. H. Ward, Records of Members of the Grand Army of the Republic, pp. 5-15.
6. The American Legion. G. S. Wheat, The Story of the American Legion, pp. 12-30; 193-211.
7. How the nation mobilized in 1917-1918. P. L. Haworth, The United States in Our Own Time, pp. 422-440.
8. Military law, martial law, and military government. Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 434-444.
9. The human cost of the war. Homer Folks, The Human Costs of the War, pp. 119-167.
10. The use of regular troops in labor troubles. Grover Cleveland, Presidential Problems, pp. 79-117.
11. The Hague Conferences. F. W. Holls, The Peace Conferences at The Hague, pp. 1-35; J. H. Choate, The Two Hague Conferences, passim.
12. The United States Food Administration. 1917-1918. W. F. Willoughby, Government Organization in War Time, pp. 258-292.
13. How the National Army was drafted. E. H. Crowder, The Spirit of Selective Service, pp. 115-175; see also Second Report of the Provost Marshal General (1918).
14. Military pensions. John A. Fairlie, National Administration, pp. 205-208; W. H. Glasson, History of Military Pension Legislation, pp. 70-107.
15. Freedom of speech in war time. Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Freedom of Speech, passim.
Questions
1. Classify the chief causes of war and indicate which class of causes was mainly responsible for: the French and Indian Wars; the Revolutionary War; the Napoleonic Wars; the War of 1812; the Mexican War; the Civil War; the Spanish War; the Russo-Japanese War; and the World War.
2. What did President Roosevelt mean when he said that a defenceless nation is a temptation to injustice. Give some examples to illustrate this proposition and also to illustrate the reverse.
3. Why would it not be better to abolish the national guard and have only a regular army?
4. Explain the various steps by which civilians were taken into the national army under the provisions of the Selective Service Law.
5. Is it right to use the armed forces of the nation in quelling labor troubles? What are the objections to so doing?
6. Explain the system of trial by court-martial under the following heads: (a) who may be tried; (b) on what charges; (c) how the court is organized; (d) who prosecutes; (e) who defends; (f) what sentence may be imposed; (g) who reviews the sentence.
7. What is the difference between proclaiming martial law in a district and establishing a military government over it?
8. Outline the history of the United States navy. What are the characteristics of (a) battleships; (b) battle cruisers; (c) gunboats?
9. What would be (a) the political and (b) the economic advantages of disarmament? What difficulties stand in the way of an international agreement to disarm?
10. Make a list of the special governmental agencies which were established in the United States during the World War, and name the functions performed by each.
Topics for Debate
1. The United States should adopt the system of universal military training.
2. A declaration of war should require a two-thirds vote of Congress.
3. The national government should pay pensions to veterans of the World War in the same way that it has provided pensions for veterans of the Civil War.
CHAPTER XXIX
FOREIGN RELATIONS
The purpose of this chapter is to explain what international law is, what obligations it imposes, and how the United States carries on its relations with other countries.
Trade has brought nations together.
The Contact of Nations.—In all ages the nations of the world have been brought into relations with one another. During the early centuries their contact was not very close, as a rule, because differences in race, religion, and language, together with the lack of facilities for travel and transportation served to keep the people apart. But the Phoenicians, the Greeks, and the Romans all traded with their neighbors, and this trade, which began around the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, gradually widened east and west. After the fall of the Roman empire chaos reigned over the greater part of Europe; commerce declined, and incessant warfare prevented the growth of friendly intercourse among the people of different religions. These were the so-called Dark Ages, in which travel was fraught with danger and trade was at the mercy of bandits. Gradually, however, intercourse between different regions revived and expanded. The highways and waterways became safe again. Nations were once more brought into friendly relationships. During the past three or four hundred years this intercourse of nation with nation has been steadily becoming more extensive, broken only from time to time by the waging of wars. The steamship, the railroads, the automobile, the telegraph, and the telephone have all served to reduce distances and bring the various parts of the world closer together.
The origin of international law.
International Rules and Customs.—Just as social and economic relations among men gave rise to customs and usages which everyone now obeys for the common good, so the growth of intercourse among the nations brought into existence, little by little, a body of usages and rules which guide them in their relations with one another. Even the Greeks and Romans recognized the necessity of some such rules to prevent misunderstandings. Since ancient times these usages, rules, and agreements have been gradually becoming more definite until they now form that body of jurisprudence which is known as International Law. In a strict sense international law is not law at all; its rules have not emanated from any definite source such as parliament or a legislature, and there are no courts with power to enforce its provisions.[[283]] Some of its rules are of long standing custom; others have come into effect as the result of agreements among nations. The provision that the ambassador is exempt from the jurisdiction of the state to which he goes is very old,—as old as the Achaean League. It is an ancient custom, now called law. On the other hand the rule that a blockade of enemy ports is not valid unless maintained by an adequate force is a relatively modern rule and rests upon international agreement.
What international law includes.
International Law.—International law may therefore be defined as that body of usages and rules which the civilized nations of the world are accustomed to observe in their dealings with one another. These rules and usages relate to a great many things. |The laws of war.| They provide for friendly communication between nations in time of peace by means of ambassadors and other diplomatic envoys. International law declares the high seas to be free to all, but stipulates that a country may exercise jurisdiction over its adjacent seas for a distance of one marine league from the shore. The usages and rules of international law also provide for the protection of aliens, the collection of debts, the carrying on of trade, and many other questions which arise between nations at peace.
When nations are at war they are called belligerents, and the rules of international law restrict the ways in which war may be carried on. They forbid a belligerent to put poison in wells, or to bombard undefended towns, or to kill prisoners of war. It is quite true that these so-called “laws of war” are sometimes set at naught in the heat of conflict, and it is also true that when a nation violates them there is no regular redress; but the rules are well established and the public opinion of the world always condemns any country which indulges in barbarities contrary to the rules of war.
The laws of neutrality.
Nations which are not at war when war is going on are called neutrals. Their rights as neutrals are defined and their duties as neutrals are prescribed by the rules of international law. Neutrals are permitted to carry on trade with belligerents subject to two limitations, namely that their ships must not try to enter any blockaded port and must not carry contraband of war. Contraband of war includes weapons, munitions, military supplies, and any other merchandise which a belligerent can use directly or indirectly in carrying on the war. The citizens of neutral states are also debarred from serving in the armed forces of belligerents.
International law, in short, deals with a great variety of matters which arise in peace, including emigration and travel, trade, naturalization, diplomatic intercourse, the extradition of criminals, treaties, and so forth, as well as with questions which arise during war such as blockades, captures at sea, the rules of land warfare, and the rights of neutrals. It is considered by the United States to be a part of the law of the land, and its rules are enforced within American territory by the federal courts.
The federal government alone controls foreign relations.
The Control of Foreign Relations.—All relations with foreign countries are under the control of the national government. No state of the Union can make any treaty, or declare war, or enter into an alliance, or send ambassadors abroad. No state, moreover, may maintain ships of war in time of peace or armed forces except as provided in the constitution. War can be declared by Congress alone. These provisions are wisely inserted in the national constitution, for if every state were permitted to deal independently with foreign countries, we should get into endless complications and difficulties. But in spite of the fact that no state can make a treaty or have any formal diplomatic negotiations with a foreign country it is nevertheless true that a state can and sometimes does create a situation which requires diplomatic action on the part of the national government. Prolonged negotiations between the American and Japanese governments have had to be carried on, for example, as the result of California’s having restricted the privileges of Japanese citizens in that state (see p. [32]). So, also, although the constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war, the President through his command of the army and navy can bring about a situation which leaves Congress no choice whatsoever. On one occasion President Roosevelt threatened that if German warships did not leave the coast of Venezuela within forty-eight hours, he would send the American fleet there. Had the German ships remained and a conflict ensued, the action of Congress in declaring war would have become a mere formality.
How Foreign Relations are Conducted.—The conduct of foreign relations rests with the President, whose right-hand man in such matters is the Secretary of State. But the President’s discretion is limited by the fact that all appointments require confirmation by the Senate and all treaties must be approved in that body by a two-thirds vote before they become valid. For this reason, the President usually finds it advisable to keep in touch with the leaders of the Senate while he is handling foreign affairs of importance. He is under no legal obligation to do this, but it is politically expedient. Failure to do it has on occasions led the Senate to reject agreements which the President has concluded after prolonged negotiations.[[284]] |The Department of State.| The Department of State is the President’s immediate agency in the conduct of all diplomatic intercourse, and is so recognized by all foreign governments. It is through this department that all official correspondence with other governments is carried on. The Secretary of State is often called the “premier” of the cabinet, but the function of leadership and the ultimate responsibility for the cabinet’s work rests with the President. In handling the details of foreign relations the State Department is assisted by a body of officials who constitute the diplomatic service.
The Diplomatic Service.—It is the custom of every civilized country to send and receive diplomatic officials. The United States sends a representative to every important foreign capital; in return, every foreign country maintains a diplomatic agent in Washington. In the case of the most important countries these representatives are given the rank and title of ambassador. |Ambassadors and ministers.| There is an American ambassador stationed at Paris; a French ambassador at Washington. In the case of less important countries the diplomatic representatives are usually given the rank and title of minister. There is an American minister at Copenhagen; a Danish minister at Washington. The difference between ambassadors and ministers is in rank, title, and salary; there is no important difference in their functions. When an ambassador or minister is absent, the diplomatic official who is left in charge is called a chargé d’affaires. If some special negotiations are to be carried on, a country may send an envoy, or an “envoy extraordinary”, as he is called.[[285]] Each ambassador or minister is assisted by one or more secretaries and a force of clerks.
Duties of diplomats.
Diplomatic officials, whether ambassadors or ministers, have the duty of serving as channels of official communication between their own government and the government to which they are accredited. They act always in accordance with instructions sent to them from home. If a foreign government has any communication to make to the government of the United States, it addresses itself either to the American diplomatic representative at its own capital, or to its own diplomatic representative at Washington. In either case the diplomatic representative presents the communication, orally or in writing, to the Secretary of State. The heads of nations, whether presidents, kings, or emperors, sometimes communicate with each other by personal letter; but important matters are not usually handled in that way.[[286]]
In addition to forwarding communications the members of the diplomatic service have various other duties. An ambassador or minister is expected to keep his own government well informed concerning all that is going on at the foreign capital where he is stationed. He renders any necessary assistance to American citizens who may become involved in difficulties or danger. He represents his own country on all occasions of ceremony and has many social duties to perform. These duties are prescribed by the usages of the diplomatic service and are the same at all national capitals. Finally, he co-operates with the consuls of his own country and does what he can to make their work more effective.[[287]]
How members of the diplomatic service are chosen.
All American ambassadors, ministers, and other diplomatic officials are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. In European countries it is the custom for young and capable men to enter the lower ranks of diplomatic service and work up, step by step, to the higher posts. But although lower posts in the diplomatic service of the United States are filled by competitive examination, the higher positions are usually given to men who have had no previous diplomatic experience. Men whom the President selects as ambassadors or ministers are, as a rule, drawn from civil life, and their appointments are often looked upon as rewards for political service. This does not mean, however, that they fail to make capable ambassadors or ministers, despite the lack of experience; on the contrary, the system has worked astonishingly well on the whole. This is because men of marked ability and distinction in civil life are usually selected by the President for the more important diplomatic posts. Among the list of those who have served as American ambassadors to Great Britain one finds the names of Charles Francis Adams, James Russell Lowell, John Hay, and Joseph H. Choate. Among the notable American diplomats during the earlier years of the World War were James W. Gerard at Berlin, Henry Morgenthau at Constantinople, Brand Whitlock at Brussels, and Paul S. Reinsch at Pekin.
The official establishment of an ambassador is called an embassy; that of a minister is known as a legation. |The immunities of diplomats.| An embassy or a legation is exempt from local jurisdiction; it cannot be searched by the police, and the officials connected with it are exempt from arrest except for very serious crimes. A country cannot, according to international usages, decline to receive a diplomatic official from any other country, but it can, and sometimes does, object to receiving some particular individual as ambassador or minister on the ground that he is persona non grata. Similarly a country may request that any diplomatic official who has been sent to it shall be recalled by his own government and such requests have occasionally been made.[[288]]
Consuls.
In addition to diplomatic officials the United States sends and receives consuls. The consular service is concerned with commercial rather than diplomatic relations; hence the consuls are stationed, for the most part, at ports of entry. The functions of consuls are closely related to the development of American foreign trade and they have been described in an earlier chapter (p. 373).
Secret and Open Diplomacy.—The traditional policy of the diplomatic service in all countries has been to do its work in secret. To some extent this has been necessary, because of the nature of the negotiations carried on. |Why secrecy is deemed essential.| There are times, of course, when the publication of what is going on in the way of negotiations between different countries would lead to serious misunderstandings and might cause the negotiations to be broken off altogether. It is natural, for example, that each government, when it begins negotiations on any question, should ask a good deal more than it expects to obtain. Only as the discussion proceeds through the channels of diplomacy does each country give way a little and in the end they reach an agreement. Now, if these negotiations had to be carried on before the eyes of the whole world an agreement would be very difficult because no government likes to back down, even slightly, from its original demands.
So secrecy is in some cases necessary. But there has been too much of it in the past. Many important matters have been withheld from public knowledge even after the negotiations have been finished, and pledges have been made by rulers without informing their people. |The experience of Europe.| It was because of secret diplomacy that the various European countries, prior to 1914, became enmeshed in a maze of intrigues and semi-secret alliances which drew them steadily toward the brink of war.[[289]] The United States, happily, has had very little experience with secret diplomacy. Every treaty or agreement must be submitted to the Senate and when so submitted it cannot be kept secret. Nothing can be kept secret after it is laid for discussion before a body of ninety-six men, at least it cannot remain secret very long. |The American tradition of open diplomacy.| The Senate, moreover, has always insisted on making these agreements public, although the discussions may be held behind closed doors. One of the reasons why the government of the United States has acquired a good reputation for frankness and sincerity in its relations with other countries is to be found in this avoidance of secrecy in international agreements. This policy should never be abandoned.
Treaties.—A treaty is a formal agreement made between two or more countries and binding upon each. There are many kinds of treaties, including treaties of peace, treaties of alliance, treaties providing for reciprocity in trade, for the mutual surrender of fugitive criminals, postal treaties, treaties of arbitration, and so on. |How treaties are made.| There are three stages in the making of a treaty, namely, the negotiation, the signature, and the ratification. The negotiations are usually carried on through members of the diplomatic service, but in the case of important treaties it is customary to appoint special envoys for the purpose. When all details have been agreed upon the treaty is engrossed on parchment and signed by the official representatives of the respective countries. But it does not go into effect until it is ratified and, so far as the United States is concerned, this ratification cannot take place until the treaty has been approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.[[290]]
Whenever a treaty has been concluded on behalf of the United States, therefore, it is transmitted by the President to the presiding officer of the Senate by whom it is referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. This committee, in due course, makes its report to the Senate whereupon a discussion takes place. |The power of the Senate over treaties.| When the discussion is finished the Senate votes to give or withhold its assent. If it acts favorably, the President notifies the other government and the treaty becomes effective; if the Senate rejects the treaty, it fails to go into force. The Senate, strictly speaking, cannot amend any treaty, but it may ask the President, and through him the other government, to accept certain changes. As a rule the Senate has ratified treaties without amendment but it has sometimes insisted on alterations, and on some notable occasions it has rejected treaties altogether.[[291]]
The roots of American diplomacy.
American Foreign Policy.—When Washington finished his second term as President in 1796, he delivered to his countrymen a Farewell Address in which he gave them some sound advice. Among other things he pointed out that the primary interests of America were very remote from those of Europe and advised that the United States should “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world”. Not long afterwards Jefferson reiterated this principle and urged that the policy of America should aim at “honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”. This attitude of Washington and Jefferson embodied the best interests of the United States in the early days of the Republic and undoubtedly reflected the sentiment of the people. In keeping with this principle of “political isolation” the United States remained neutral during the European wars which followed the French Revolution and strenuously endeavored to avoid taking sides in the struggle between England and France. The United States government, in 1807, went so far as to shut off all trade with both these warring countries. But in 1812, the continued violation of America’s rights as a neutral exhausted the patience of the people. These rights were violated by France and England alike; the English violations, however, were the ones which stirred up the greatest amount of popular resentment. So the United States engaged in war with England for the maintenance of the principles of neutrality.
The Monroe Doctrine.—Being resolved not to meddle in the political affairs of Europe so long as American rights were not infringed, the United States felt in a position to insist, at the appropriate time, that Europe should refrain from interference in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere. |Origin of the doctrine.| The occasion for announcing this principle of “hands off” came in 1823. During the years preceding this date the Spanish colonies in Central and South America had revolted. They declared their independence of Spain and drove out the Spanish authorities, setting up in each case a republican form of government. Spain naturally desired to retain her sovereignty over these territories and sought assistance of other European countries for that purpose. There appeared to be a possibility that France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia—a combination known as the Holy Alliance—would join with Spain in the subjugation of the revolted South American territories. The government at Washington became alarmed over the possibilities of large military and naval forces being sent across the Atlantic by a coalition of monarchial countries, believing that this would not only be a blow to the republican form of rule but a serious danger to the United States as well. President James Monroe accordingly authorized the issue of a declaration setting forth the interest of the United States in the matter.[[292]]
The salient passages in this declaration are as follows:
“In the wars of European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so.... With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere.... But with the governments which have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have on great consideration and on just principles acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States.... The American continents, by the free and independent condition which they assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”
This doctrine has remained the cornerstone of American policy with reference to the countries of Central and South America for one hundred years. |Its application.| On several occasions it has been invoked to protect these countries against armed pressure. During the Civil War, for example, the French government sent an army to Mexico and maintained an imperial administration there in defiance of the Mexican people. While the conflict between North and South continued the government of the United States was unable to take any firm action in this matter, but in 1866 France was requested to withdraw her troops from Mexico, which she did. Again, in 1895, President Cleveland informed the government of Great Britain that the United States would support Venezuela against any attempt to settle a boundary dispute otherwise than by arbitration.
Its status.
The Monroe Doctrine is not a part of international law. It is not even a law of the United States. It never received the approval of the Senate, which is supposed to be a check upon the President in deciding the permanent features of American foreign policy. Its validity has never been formally recognized either by the countries of Europe or by the states of South America whom the doctrine immediately concerns.[[293]] Its maintenance rests upon the vigilance and strength of the United States. In guarding the smaller states of the New World against European aggression the United States is taking what the American people regard as an essential measure of self-protection.
Is the Monroe Doctrine Obsolete?—We are sometimes told nowadays that the Monroe Doctrine is behind the times, that we have outgrown it, and ought to give it up.[[294]] When the doctrine was announced, a hundred years ago, the states of South America were too weak to defend themselves; the various countries of Continental Europe were governed despotically and maintained large standing armies. The states of Central and South America, likewise, were at that time glad to have American protection. But now, we are told, all this is changed. The Spanish-American states are strong and able to look out for themselves. They do not want our guardianship. The nations of Continental Europe, moreover, are no longer despotisms but republics and limited monarchies. They have enough problems to keep them employed for the next generation without interfering in the affairs of the New Hemisphere. So it has been suggested that the doctrine be given up, particularly as no one knows exactly what it means at the present day.[[295]] But the doctrine is deeply imbedded in the diplomatic traditions of the American people and there is nothing to be gained by giving it up unless the situation becomes very different from what it is today.
American Contributions to International Law.—The United States has rendered signal service in making the rules and usages of international law more enlightened and more humane. |1. Neutral rights.| At all times the American government has been a champion of neutral rights and particularly has insisted upon liberal rules concerning neutral commerce on the high seas. |2. Laws of war.| It has lent its influence to the movement for making the laws of war more human and for prohibiting all practices which needlessly endanger the lives of non-combatants. It has stood for freedom of trade and the “open door”. |3. Arbitration.| Among the nations of the world the United States has been foremost in the advocacy and use of arbitration as a means of settling international disputes. In keeping with this policy arbitration treaties have been concluded between the United States and twenty other countries, each treaty providing that all disputed questions, of whatsoever nature, shall be submitted to arbitration if they cannot be adjusted by diplomatic negotiation, and that no resort to war shall in any event take place until after the processes of arbitration have been exhausted. |4. Recent contributions.| At the Peace Conference which assembled in 1919 after the close of the World War, moreover, it was the United States that first put forward in definite form the plan for a League of Nations. And in 1921 it was the United States which took the initiative in calling the international conference which arranged for a great reduction in naval armaments.
General References
Charles A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 315-341; Ibid., Readings in American Government and Politics, pp. 291-307;
Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 540-573;
A. B. Hart, Actual Government, pp. 430-445;
John W. Foster, The Practice of Diplomacy, especially pp. 34-54;
P. S. Reinsch, Readings in American Federal Government, pp. 651-682;
E. S. Corwin, The President’s Control of Foreign Relations, passim;
Gaillard Hunt, The Department of State.
Group Problems
1. The Monroe Doctrine. Is it obsolete? The international situation during the years 1815-1823. The Holy Alliance, its organization and aims. Spain in America. The revolt of the Spanish Colonies. Preliminaries of the declaration. Canning’s suggestion. Scope of the doctrine as announced. Subsequent applications and extensions. The French in Mexico. The Venezuela controversy. Present scope of the doctrine. Attitude of Europe toward it. Attitude of the Spanish-American states. Its value for the future. Conclusion. References: Hiram Bingham, The Monroe Doctrine: An Obsolete Shibboleth, pp. 3-55; A. B. Hart, The Monroe Doctrine, pp. 55-83, and passim; A. C. Coolidge, The United States as a World Power, pp. 95-120; C. H. Sherrill, Modernizing the Monroe Doctrine, pp. 64-76; C. L. Jones, Caribbean Interests of the United States, pp. 323-351; J. H. Latané, The United States and Spanish America, pp. 292-334; D. C. Gilman, James Monroe (American Statesmen Series, Standard Library Edition), pp. 156-174; Theodore Roosevelt, American Ideals, pp. 220-237; Cyclopedia of American Government, Vol. II, pp. 456-468; Dexter Perkins, “Europe, Spanish America, and the Monroe Doctrine” in American Historical Review (January, 1922).
2. The diplomatic service and how it can be improved. References: J. W. Foster, The Practice of Diplomacy, pp. 34-54; John A. Fairlie, National Administration, pp. 77-91; E. Van Dyne, Our Foreign Service, pp. 45-113; Cyclopedia of American Government, Vol. I, pp. 593-595; P. S. Reinsch, Readings on American Federal Government, pp. 651-658; 675-682.
3. The chief rules of international law; how can their enforcement be ensured? References: G. B. Davis, Elements of International Law, pp. 19-30; T. J. Lawrence, Principles of International Law, pp. 119-138; G. G. Wilson and G. F. Tucker, International Law (7th ed.), pp. 44-60; A. S. Hershey, The Essentials of International Public Law, pp. 143-169; A. H. Snow, The American Philosophy of Government, pp. 113-154; 267-283. See also the General References to Chapter XXX.
Short Studies
1. The rights and duties of neutrals. G. B. Davis, Elements of International Law, pp. 376-395 (Rights of Neutrals); pp. 396-445 (Duties of Neutrals).
2. The privileges of diplomats. J. W. Foster, The Practice of Diplomacy, pp. 159-174.
3. How treaties are made. G. B. Davis, Elements of International Law, pp. 223-249.
4. The power of the Senate in relation to treaties. Ralston Hayden, The Senate and Treaties, especially pp. 169-195; J. W. Foster, The Practice of Diplomacy, pp. 262-283.
5. The Venezuelan controversy. Grover Cleveland, Presidential Problems, pp. 173-281.
6. Arbitration as a method of settling International disputes. R. L. Jones, International Arbitration as a Substitute for War between Nations, pp. 218-269; J. W. Foster, Arbitration and The Hague Court, pp. 39-57; J. B. Moore, American Diplomacy, pp. 200-222.
7. The Hague Conferences. G. B. Davis, Elements of International Law, pp. 258-263; 519-524; 525.
8. The proposed codification of international law. A. H. Snow, The American Philosophy of Government, pp. 395-418.
Questions
1. What is international law? Is it properly a system of law? Explain the sense in which you use the term law in the following expressions: law of gravitation; law of the land; law of supply and demand; law of fashion.
2. Look up and explain the following terms: belligerent, contraband, unneutral service, filibustering, blockade, three-mile limit, diplomatic immunity.
3. Make a list of (a) the rights of neutrals; (b) the duties of neutrals, and show how each right involves a duty.
4. Draw up, in the form of a diary, a day’s happenings in the American embassy at Tokyo, putting down at least six things done by the ambassador during the day.
5. Explain what is meant by secret diplomacy. To what extent has the United States avoided it and why?
6. Give an account (from your studies in American History) of some important treaty to which the United States was a party. Tell how it was negotiated, signed, and ratified.
7. Is the principle set forth by Washington and Jefferson concerning the true policy of the United States in foreign affairs applicable at the present time?
8. Are the following statements true of the United States today:
(a) “In the wars of European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part.”
(b) “With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered”?
9. What is meant by the saying that “the covenant of the League of Nations does not destroy the Monroe Doctrine but extends it to the whole world”? Is that statement correct?
10. What seems to you to be the most important among American contributions to international law?
Topics for Debate
1. All members of the diplomatic service, including ambassadors, should be chosen under civil service rules.
2. A majority vote in the Senate should be made sufficient for the ratification of treaties.
3. It would be a violation of the Monroe Doctrine if Great Britain were to sell the island of Jamaica to Germany.
CHAPTER XXX
THE UNITED STATES AS A WORLD POWER
The purpose of this chapter is to answer the question: What are the relations of the United States to the rest of the world?
The Old Policy of Isolation.—For more than one hundred years it was the settled policy of the United States to keep aloof from all entanglements in the affairs of the rest of the world. |The doctrines of Washington and Jefferson.| This tradition of aloofness was given a definite form by Washington, who solemnly warned his countrymen against getting mixed up in the “ordinary” conflicts of European states, and it was subsequently endorsed by Jefferson.[[296]] Yet even in Jefferson’s own administration it became apparent that if the United States intended to carry on trade with all parts of the world, the government must intervene for the protection of its own citizens whenever this should become necessary. So, in 1803, the American fleet was sent to the Mediterranean, where it bombarded a nest of pirates who had been interfering with American commerce. Then came the War of 1812, which grew out of foreign interference with American trade. On several subsequent occasions during the nineteenth century the policy of protecting and promoting foreign trade drew the United States into negotiations with various countries of Europe and Asia. In a sense, therefore, the United States has never pursued a policy of complete isolation; on the other hand no permanent alliances have been made with any country, and the principle of independence in all matters of foreign policy has been consistently maintained. So far as diplomatic matters did not directly concern North, Central, or South America, the statesmen of the world could safely leave the United States out of their reckonings during the greater part of the nineteenth century. In diplomacy the United States belonged, so to speak, to a different world.
THE SPIRIT OF LIGHT. By Edwin A. Abbey
Copyright by Edwin A. Abbey. From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis & Cameron, Boston. Reproduced by permission.
THE SPIRIT OF LIGHT
By Edwin A. Abbey
From a mural painting in the Pennsylvania State Capitol at Harrisburg.
This is a very striking picture, one of the artist’s best. In the background are the huge derricks which lift the oil from the bowels of the earth. In front of them golden-haired figures, robed in gauze with torch in hand, are swirling upward in joyous energy like a swarm of fireflies.
In making this picture the artist took infinite pains. Each figure was first drawn from a living model. Each was then photographed and by the use of a lantern the figures were projected upon the canvas where they were manœuvred into place for the artist’s guidance. The whole picture is successful in conveying the impression of spontaneity combined with lightness and grace.
Why Isolation was Possible.—This substantial isolation was made possible for more than a hundred years by three features. |1. The fortunate geographical position of the United States.| The first is the favored geographical position of the country. The United States, as a strong nation, has stood alone in the Western Hemisphere. Her only neighbors were European colonies and the struggling states of Latin-America. So long, therefore, as the powerful nations of Europe could be held at arm’s length there was no reason why the United States should give much thought to problems of defence, alliances, and diplomacy. Nature gave the United States an advantage in this respect which is not possessed by any other strong nation with the exception of Japan. Countries like England, France, and Germany could not have pursued a policy of isolation even if their people had desired it, for they are too close to each other.
2. The abundance of land.
In the second place the United States was encouraged to hold aloof from the older countries of the world by the fact that there was plenty of room for expansion at home. For a hundred years there was no need to go abroad seeking new territories. It took the United States a whole century to develop and populate the solid block of country which extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific. When other countries desired places of overflow for their population and new fields of investment for their capital, they engaged in a race for colonial possessions. The United States had no such need or ambition; there was quite enough opportunity at home.
3. The absence of European intervention.
Finally, the traditional policy of isolation was made possible by the good fortune which prevented European interference at critical times, notably during the American Civil War, when there was serious danger that Great Britain and France might combine to aid the South. If that had actually happened, it is not unlikely that Russia would have come to the aid of the North, and the Civil War would then have developed into a world conflict. In that case American isolation would have ended more than a half century ago. But good fortune, aided by competent diplomacy, enabled the United States to settle its own troubles without foreign interference and to continue the traditional policy of incurring no obligations to any other country. In a word there was the will to keep aloof and, what is quite as important, the opportunity to do it.[[297]] From the War of Independence down to the year 1917 the United States entered into no military alliance or association with any other country; when the American armies fought, they fought alone.
America’s Entry into the World War.—The World War created a situation which the United States had never faced before. |The old policy of isolation comes to an end.| All Western Europe burst ablaze; one country after another was drawn in; and hostilities soon spread beyond the borders of the Old Continent. From the outset the United States endeavored to maintain a strict neutrality; but American commerce was subjected to interference by the belligerents on both sides. Particularly offensive to the United States, however, was the German practice of sinking without warning passenger vessels upon which American citizens were traveling. The torpedoing of the British liner Lusitania, and the consequent loss of many American lives, stirred public opinion throughout the United States. This and other offences against the law of nations moved President Wilson to demand from the German government a pledge that the practice of sinking vessels without warning should cease, and this pledge was conditionally given. Early in 1917, however, the German government decided to inaugurate, as a desperate stroke, a campaign of “unrestricted submarine warfare”, and the government of the United States was informed that even neutral vessels, unless they observed certain strict precautions, would be torpedoed without warning.
This action settled the matter of America’s continued neutrality. |The declaration of war in 1917.| Diplomatic relations with Germany were broken off and in April, 1917, Congress passed a declaration of war. The events of the next eighteen months are still fresh in everyone’s mind. America entered the struggle with a determination to turn the scale, and on November 11, 1918, the German military authorities were brought to terms. By signing an armistice they acknowledged defeat and agreed to terms dictated by the Allied and Associated Powers.
The Fourteen Points.—Some months before the signing of this armistice President Wilson, in an address to Congress, set forth the principal aims of the United States in the war. These aims were grouped under fourteen heads and soon came to be known as the Fourteen Points. Every one of them had to do with matters which, prior to the war, would have been deemed of no immediate concern to the United States. Taken as a whole, however, they outlined the principles upon which, in President Wilson’s opinion, a durable peace could be erected and the future security of the world maintained. The German government, in asking for an armistice, declared its acceptance of these principles.
The Treaty of Versailles.—After the armistice had been signed on behalf of the various belligerents a conference was convened at Versailles to draw up a definite treaty of peace. This conference included delegates from the countries which had shared in the winning of the war. Germany and her allies, the vanquished, were not represented. For several months the conference wrestled with the problems involved in the making of a treaty—the rearrangement of boundaries, the recognition of new states, the disposal of German colonies, the payment of reparations, and, most difficult of all, the forming of a league of nations to prevent future wars. When the work was finished the German representatives were called in and were required to sign the treaty substantially without any changes. The treaty was then communicated to the various countries to be ratified and in due course it was ratified by all the important countries except the United States.
Why isolation is no longer possible:
The New World Order.—The war and the changes which accompanied it served to alter the whole world environment. America was brought into more intimate contact with Europe than ever before. Even before the war, however, it had become apparent that the traditional policy of isolation could not be permanently maintained. To all intents and purposes the world has become much smaller in these latter days. In point of miles America is just as far away from Europe as ever, but a thousand miles count for less nowadays than did a hundred in our great-grandfathers’ time. During the summer of 1918 the United States transported to Europe in less than four months a million men. Fifty years ago that would have been deemed to be an utterly impossible achievement. |1. The annihilation of distance.| The fast steamship of today can cross the ocean in a hundred hours; in Washington’s time the fleetest sailing-ships could not skim the Atlantic in less than three weeks on the average. The time is soon coming, in all probability, when men can be in London one day and in New York the next. This is not a mere dream; it is well within the range of possibilities. So we can no longer talk of geographical isolation. The progress of mankind has virtually annihilated distance.
2. The acquisition of overseas possessions.
Again, the United States is no longer, as in the old days, devoid of tangible interests in distant parts of the earth. Beginning in 1898, Porto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam were acquired from Spain, and Hawaii was annexed. Later the Panama Canal was built and a zone of territory on both sides of it acquired. More recently, the Virgin Islands were purchased from Denmark. All this has involved a departure from the traditional policy of acquiring local interests only. It has given America, in the case of the Philippines, an outpost several thousand miles away. Whatever, therefore, concerns the Malay Archipelago or, indeed, any part of the Far East, concerns the interests of the United States. Isolation is no longer possible because the United States has surrendered, in this case at any rate, the geographical advantage of isolation.
3. The acquisition of interests through the war.
Finally, during the past few years, the relation of the United States to the rest of the world has been changed by reason of the interests acquired through the war. The fact that the Treaty of Versailles did not receive the approval of the Senate does not in any way impair the rights and interests which the United States acquired as one of the victors in the war. Those interests, obtained at great sacrifice and acknowledged by Germany in the separate treaty which the United States made with that country in 1921, are spread over virtually the entire world. They are of incalculable value, present and future. No policy of isolation is now possible unless the country is ready to abandon these privileges altogether, and, for reasons which will presently be stated, the surrender of these various American interests is out of the question. In the new world order the United States cannot hold off from the rest of the world. The policy of a nation is determined by what it regards as its own vital interests.
Wide scope of these interests.
The New American Interests.—Some important interests in various parts of the world were acquired by the United States before the war; others have been obtained or intensified as a result of it. The scope and nature of these interests may best be explained, perhaps, by grouping them under four main heads, according to their general geographical location, namely, Europe, Central and South America, the Far East, and the Near East. It is not possible to arrange them in the order of their relative importance, for only the future can determine what this order of importance may turn out to be. Certain it is, however, that in all four world-areas the interests of the United States are of vast consequence not only to the American people but to the cause of world peace and prosperity. Above and beyond all, moreover, is the vital interest of America in the maintenance of international amity. Apart from the loss of life, America’s participation in the World War cost the country, directly and indirectly, more than thirty thousand million dollars. That is indeed a heavy price to pay for helping to settle a quarrel which the United States had no part in promoting. It surely requires no argument to prove that America has a vital interest in avoiding another such calamity.
America’s interests now extend to everything that may threaten peace.
America and Europe.—The war resulted in placing Great Britain, France, Italy, and the other victorious countries of Europe under heavy obligations to the United States. To a certain extent these obligations are sentimental; in return for America’s help towards winning the war the other victorious countries are under a natural obligation to give the United States an adequate share in determining the permanent conditions of peace. This they have been willing to do; but it involves responsibilities which the United States has shown no great willingness to accept. The old tradition of non-interference in strictly European affairs is still strong and this has led the American government to distinguish, wherever possible, between questions of local and of world-wide concern. The distinction, however, is practically impossible to make. The boundaries of some small European state may seem to be a matter of no concern at Washington; but if a disagreement over this question should bring once more a general European clash of arms, the importance of the issue would speedily be recognized. So long as the general preservation of world-peace is among the primary interests of the United States, as it seems bound to be, no menace to peace, anywhere, at any time, can be lightly regarded by the people of America.
The Loans to Associated Nations.—But the war did not result in the creation of sentimental obligations only. Obligations of great importance and a tangible nature on the part of Europe to America grew out of it. During the conflict the United States loaned large sums of money to Great Britain, France, Italy, Russia, and the other Associated Powers.[[298]] These loans were made generously, in the midst of a grave emergency; but nothing definite was arranged as to when or how they should be repaid. |How the loans were made.| In view of the disorganized conditions in Europe created by the war no request for the payment of interest was made by the United States during the conflict or for some years after its close. In 1922, however, Congress authorized the President to appoint a commission of five persons to arrange with the European countries for the funding of the debts by the issue of bonds. These bonds will be given to the United States.
Now it must be reasonably clear to anyone who gives the matter a moment’s thought that until these bonds are paid off by the various European countries (which will be thirty or forty years hence) the United States will be vitally interested in what Washington called the “vicissitudes” of the Old World. |America’s mortgage on Europe.| America, in effect, holds a mortgage on Europe, and it is the practice of mortgage-holders to keep a sharp eye on their invested funds. Great Britain, France, and the other debtor countries expect to redeem these loans, in considerable part, out of reparation payments made to them by Germany. If Germany does not pay them, it will be much harder for them to pay America.[[299]] In this roundabout way, therefore, the United States has acquired a tangible interest in the pledges made by the German government.
America’s Interest in the Industrial Reconstruction of Europe.—The sum total of America’s interest in the peace and prosperity of Europe is not represented, however, by these ten billion dollars of loans. The commercial relations of the two continents have become so intimate that whatever is an injury to the one is a detriment to the other. Europe is America’s best customer. Our exports there are greater than to all the rest of the world put together. |Importance of Europe as a market.| The farmer, the cotton grower, the manufacturer—all depend in part upon the European market. There is not sufficient demand at home for all the foodstuffs, materials, and manufactured goods which the United States can now produce. The European market, however, has been broken down as the result of the long conflict and it is greatly to the interest of the United States that it should be built up again. This can only be done by keeping the world at peace until the damage done by the war has been repaired. For that commercial reason, if for no other, the United States cannot well afford to remain entirely isolated from the rest of the world.
The United States and Latin-America.—The relations of the United States with most of the Latin-American states have been at all times friendly. We have never been at war with any of them except Mexico. When these various countries revolted against Spanish control about a hundred years ago, the people of the United States, remembering their own experience, were in sympathy with them. The announcement of the Monroe Doctrine was regarded by Latin-America as an act of friendliness. And for more than a century since that time the United States has served as a protector to the sister republics of the southern continent. When the War with Spain began in 1898 Congress announced that the United States had no intention to annex Cuba and this pledge, at the close of the war, was kept. Cuba was given her independence. Naturally this evidence of good faith made a strong and favorable impression upon the Central and South American states.
Relations with Mexico.
With Mexico, however, relations have not been cordial for several years. Ever since the invasion of their country by an American army in 1846 the Mexican people have been suspicious of American aggression; but the relations between the two governments remained cordial enough so long as President Diaz continued in power south of the Rio Grande, which was from shortly after the close of the American Civil War until well into the twentieth century. Diaz ruled Mexico in the fashion of a dictator; but he kept the country peaceful as well as on good terms with the outside world. Since the expulsion of Diaz the Mexicans have had several changes in the presidency and for ten years the government has been denied recognition by the United States. The successors of Diaz have professed their desire to place the government of the country on a truly democratic basis and to some extent they have succeeded in doing so; but they have not managed to maintain order and justice with a firm hand. Twice during the past decade it has been deemed necessary to send American troops into the country. The government of Mexico is republican in form, but elections have not, as a rule, been fairly conducted. The leaders who have control of the government try to manipulate the elections so as to maintain their own hold upon the country, and they usually succeed.
The situation today.
Between Mexico and the United States there are today no questions of great importance in dispute. The United States is ready to recognize the existing government of Mexico but only upon condition that certain pledges are made in writing. These include assurances that payments will be made by Mexico as compensation for the lives and property of American citizens destroyed during the troubles of the past ten years; that there shall be no confiscating of property without legal reason in the future; and that payments of interest on Mexico’s foreign obligations shall be resumed. These do not appear to be unreasonable conditions.
There are large American investments in Mexico, particularly in the oil and mining districts. Some of those who hold these investments would like to see the United States intervene by force of arms, but it is quite unlikely that there will be anything of the kind unless all other means of securing the rights of Americans in Mexico prove unavailing. The United States has a certain moral responsibility for the good behavior of Mexico, even though the Mexican government may not recognize the existence of such an obligation. |Mexico and the Monroe Doctrine.| If the Monroe Doctrine gives the United States the right to keep European countries from interfering in Mexican affairs, even when their citizens have been wronged, it may also be said to carry the duty of seeing that Mexico does not abuse this protectorship.
Panama.
In the region of the Isthmus the interests of the United States are especially important because of the Canal. The Panama Canal is not only of commercial but of military value to the United States, and no serious disturbance of the peace in this section of Central America can well be tolerated.
The Pan-American Congress.
Many years ago the United States government made the suggestion that from time to time a Pan-American Congress made up of delegates from all the republics of the New World should be held to discuss matters of common interest. The suggestion was accepted and several Congresses have been held during the past three decades. There has also been established at Washington a Bureau of American Republics whose function it is to carry out the resolutions of each Congress and to spread information concerning the common interests of all the countries.
The United States and the Far East.—In ordinary usage the term “Far East” includes the Japanese and Chinese empires, Siberia and the other Russian territories to the north of China, and the Malay Archipelago to the south. Until a quarter of a century ago the interests of the United States, whether political or commercial, were relatively small in this part of the world. |The Philippines.| But the acquisition of the Philippines and the growth of American trade with the Orient have combined to alter the situation. Another factor which has impelled the United States to pay greater attention to the Orient today is the progress of Japan. The rapid growth of this empire in military and naval strength means that the United States has a rival for the mastery of the Pacific.[Pacific.] During the nineteenth century the eyes of America were turned entirely towards Europe; in the twentieth they will have to be turned towards Asia as well.
China and Japan.
Apart from affairs in the Philippines the problems of the Far East, so far as the United States is concerned, center around two present-day international phenomena, the weakness of China and the strength of Japan. China is a vast country with at least three or four times the population of the United States. Although nominally a republic its government is weak, inefficient, unable to exercise firm control over all parts of the country, and without effective means of national defence. Quite naturally, therefore, China offers a temptation to any strong country desiring exclusive trade advantages for itself. Her nearest neighbor, Japan, would speedily be able to secure entire control of the Chinese Republic and make China a vassal state were it not for the deterring influence of the other great powers of the world.
In 1899, after the close of the Spanish War, the government of the United States addressed a note to all the great powers urging that they agree to seek no further special trade advantages in China, that the integrity of Chinese territory be preserved, and that the principle of “equal and impartial trade” should be adopted. |The “open door.”| To this suggestion all the powers agreed. This policy thus accepted has become known as the policy of the “open door”, and until the outbreak of the World War it was substantially followed, except that the various powers retained the commercial advantages that they had already acquired.
During this war, however, Japan attacked and captured Kiao-Chao, a port which had been leased by China to Germany for a long term of years, and this territory the Japanese continued to hold after the war was over. Not until the Washington conference of 1922 did Japan agree to give it up. |Recent developments.| In 1918, moreover, the government of Japan made a list of twenty-one demands upon China for special privileges, and although some of these demands were later modified or withdrawn entirely, several important privileges were wrung from the Chinese. In connection with these negotiations the United States government gave assurance in the so-called Ishii-Lansing agreement that the United States would recognize the “special interest” of Japan in Chinese affairs. It is avowedly the policy of Japan to acquire, if she can, the same predominance in Asia that the United States has exercised in North and South America.
The Conference on Pacific Problems. Regarding it as highly desirable that all controversies affecting the Far East and the Pacific should be amicably settled, thus forestalling the growth of large naval armaments on both sides of the Western ocean, President Harding in the summer of 1921 proposed that the Washington conference should discuss these questions and should endeavor to secure a satisfactory solution of them. |The Washington conference.| The conference did so, and embodied the results of its negotiations in certain agreements, particularly in what is commonly known as the “Four Power” treaty. By the terms of this treaty the United States, Great Britain, France, and Japan mutually agree to respect the integrity of each other’s possessions in the islands of the Pacific.[[300]] The nations represented at the conference also agreed to refrain from the erection of fortifications in certain places now unfortified.
Out of the negotiations at Washington, moreover, came the agreement on the part of Japan to restore Kiao-Chao and the adjacent province of Shantung to China. First and last, therefore, the Washington conference succeeded in promoting an amicable agreement on most of the questions at issue. It did not, however, take up the question of Japanese immigration to the Pacific Coast of America, nor did it discuss the grievances of the Japanese immigrants already there. These matters are left for further negotiation through the regular diplomatic channels.
America and the Near East.—The expression “Near East” is commonly regarded as including the areas which lie at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and thereabouts; it comprises Turkey, Armenia, Syria, Palestine, Arabia, Mesopotamia, and other territories in the same general region. As a result of the war the Turkish Empire has been disintegrated; most of its territories have been virtually placed under the control of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Greece through the instrumentality of mandates (see p. [636]). The United States was offered the mandate for Armenia, but declined to accept it.
The oil question.
Now some of these territories are rich in natural resources. Mesopotamia, for example, is known to possess extensive oil fields. The question arises, therefore, whether the European countries which hold the mandates are to have the lion’s share of this natural wealth. And it is a question of considerable importance when one bears in mind the fact that the oil fields of the United States will probably be exhausted before many decades have passed (see p. [330]). The direct interest of the United States is less immediate, perhaps, than in the other areas (Europe, Central and South America, and the Far East), but it is sufficiently vital to deserve mention.
The Wide Scope of America’s Interests.—From this brief and general survey some idea of the scope of American interests can be gained. But the preceding paragraphs have not listed them all. The people of the United States have a sentimental interest in many foreign problems where no economic considerations are at stake. Ireland is an example. America’s interest in a just and peaceful settlement of the Irish question is not inspired by economic motives. It arises in large part from the sentimental desire to see a people, with whom there are close ties of kinship, attain contentment and prosperity. So with Poland and the new Slavic countries of Continental Europe. America would regret to see them lose a status of independence which was gained at so great a sacrifice.
There is no part of the world, in fact, to which the interest of the United States, direct or indirect, sentimental, political, or economic, does not now extend. The enormous strength and prestige of America, as disclosed during the war, have made a profound impression in every part of the globe and have given the United States a potent influence upon the destinies of mankind. The United States has become a world power of the first order. Whether the American people like it or not, that inexorable fact remains.
General References
A. T. Mahan, The Interest of America in International Conditions, pp. 127-185;
W. E. Weyl, American World Policies, passim;
A. C. Coolidge, The United States as a World Power, pp. 95-120;
C. E. Jones, Caribbean Interests of the United States, pp. 148-192;
J. H. Latané, America as a World Power, pp. 255-268; Ibid., From Isolation to Leadership, pp. 3-39;
H. H. Powers, America Among the Nations, pp. 197-239;
W. A. Dunning, The British Empire and the United States, pp. 357-371;
A. B. Hart, Foundations of American Foreign Policy, pp. 1-52;
Woodrow Wilson, State Papers and Addresses, pp. 464-479;
P. S. Reinsch, World Politics, pp. 327-362.
Group Problems
1. How the United States became a world power. Early relations with Europe. The Monroe Doctrine. The opening of Japan. The war with Spain and the new acquisitions. John Hay and the “open door.” The World War and its aftermath. Scope of American interests today. References: J. H. Latané, America as a World Power, pp. 3-28; 63-81; Ibid., The United States and Latin America, pp. 61-291; A. C. Coolidge, The United States as a World Power, pp. 121-147; J. W. Foster, American Diplomacy in the Orient, pp. 399-438; W. M. Fullerton, Problems of Power, pp. 11-43; P. S. Reinsch, World Politics, pp. 309-336.
2. How foreign trade affects the national welfare. Foreign trade and national prosperity. Foreign trade and world power. “Dollar Diplomacy.” Trade and imperialism. References: C. M. Pepper, American Foreign Trade, pp. 3-32; 62-89; 110-139; J. D. Whelpley, The Trade of the World, pp. 391-425; A. J. Wolfe, Theory and Practice of International Commerce, pp. 495-522; C. L. Jones, Caribbean Interests of the United States, pp. 1-16; L. C. and T. F. Ford, The Foreign Trade of the United States, pp. 1-27.
3. How the building of the Panama Canal extended American interests abroad. References: Lincoln Hutchinson, The Panama Canal and International Trade Competition, pp. 46-97; F. A. Ogg, National Progress, pp. 246-265; A. B. Hart, The Monroe Doctrine: An Interpretation, pp. 340-348; W. M. Fullerton, Problems of Power, pp. 300-315.
4. The open door in China. What it means. Obstacles in its way. References: K. K. Kawakami, Japan in World Politics, pp. 117-166; J. H. Latané, America as a World Power, pp. 100-119; W. W. Willoughby, Foreign Rights and Interests in China, pp. 245-266; A. B. Hart, The Monroe Doctrine: An Interpretation, pp. 282-298; W. R. Thayer, The Life and Letters of John Hay, Vol. II, pp. 231-249; A. C. Coolidge, The United States as a World Power, pp. 327-374; K. K. Kawakami, Japan and World Peace, pp. 160-196; John Dewey, China, Japan, and the United States (New Republic Pamphlets, No. 1).
Short Studies
1. Pan-Americanism. What it means. R. G. Usher, Pan-Americanism, pp. 203-231; J. V. Noel, The History of the Second Pan-American Congress, pp. 9-30; Pan-American Union, Bulletins, March, 1911.
2. The United States as an international policeman. Theodore Roosevelt, Autobiography, pp. 543-553; D. C. Munro, The Five Republics of Central America, pp. 227-264; A. B. Hart, The Monroe Doctrine: An Interpretation, pp. 223-242.
3. Our Mid-Pacific possessions. E. J. Carpenter, America in Hawaii, pp. 192-251; J. M. Callahan, American Relations in the Pacific and the Far East, pp. 114-145.
4. World competition for oil. F. A. Talbot, The Oil Conquest of the World, pp. 17-34; F. R. Kellogg, The Mexican Oil Situation (in Clark University Addresses, Mexico and the Caribbean, pp. 54-72).
5. The United States in Panama. C. L. Jones, Caribbean Interests of the United States, pp. 193-228; Ralph Page, Dramatic Moments in American Diplomacy, pp. 227-259; Theodore Roosevelt, Autobiography, pp. 553-571.
6. America’s interest in China. W. E. Griffin, America in the East, pp. 203-225; B. A. Robinson, America’s Business Opportunity in China (in Clark University Addresses, Recent Developments in China, pp. 237-255; also Clark University Lectures, China and the Far East, pp. 95-119).
7. The United States and the Latin American republics. J. H. Latané, America as a World Power, pp. 269-284; C. E. Jones, Caribbean Interests of the United States, pp. 106-124.
8. Isolation as an American policy. A. B. Hart, Foundations of American Foreign Policy, pp. 1-52; J. H. Latané, From Isolation to Leadership, pp. 3-53.
9. America’s maritime power. E. N. Hurley, The New Merchant Marine, pp. 122-166; A. T. Mahan, The Interest of America in Sea Power, pp. 3-27.
10. America’s interest in the reconstruction of Europe. D. J. Hill, The Rebuilding of Europe, pp. 236-282; Walter Weyl, The End of the War, pp. 50-72; R. S. Baker, What Wilson Did at Paris, pp. 3-35.
Questions
1. Give reasons why a policy of isolation was possible during the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century.
2. Was the entry of the United States into the war in 1917 in keeping with American traditions or a departure from American traditions? Give your reasons.
3. Look up the Fourteen Points. Indicate the ones which were incorporated in the Treaty of Versailles. Name the ones which were not so incorporated.
4. Explain why America is interested in the reconstruction of Europe. How can this reconstruction be best aided by the United States?
5. It has been suggested that the loans made by the United States to European countries ought to be canceled. Why is this proposal made and what is your opinion of it?
6. What policy do you think the United States ought to pursue toward Mexico? Has the United States any responsibility for the good behavior of Mexico towards European countries? Why or why not?
7. To what extent should America insist upon the maintenance of the “open door” in China? Has Japan a special interest in the Orient similar to that of the United States in the Western Hemisphere?
8. What did the Washington Conference accomplish? Why did it not accomplish more?
9. Was the United States wise or unwise in declining to accept any mandates from the League of Nations?
10. Does the strength and prestige of America entail any responsibilities of leadership? If so, give some idea as to how these can be carried out.
Topics for Debate
1. The United States should maintain the Monroe Doctrine.
2. The United States should recognize a Japanese “Monroe Doctrine” in the Far East.
3. The United States should not participate in international conferences dealing only with European questions.
CHAPTER XXXI
THE UNITED STATES AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the relations of the United States to the most ambitious experiment in government that the world has ever attempted.
The Desire to End War.—Since the dawn of human history mankind has been divided into independent tribes and nations ready to hurl themselves upon one another in warfare. No mind can comprehend the immeasurable suffering which war has brought upon the human race during the past three thousand years. From the days when the Assyrian charioteers crushed their enemies under horse and wheel to those tragic years of yesterday when the hospitals of Europe were filled with the victims of high explosive shells and poison gas,—in all this long interval there has been no cessation of warfare among men and no era of peace on earth.
Small wonder it is, therefore, that in the anguish of the World War men of all races should have cried out for some such settlement as would put an end to war and all its horrors forever.[[301]] |The cry for a permanent peace.| Soldiers in the ranks called it a “war to end war“ and gave up their lives unflinchingly in the hope@@ that future generations would be spared a repetition of the world-wide misery. But how might such a blessing be obtained for future generations of mankind? That was one of the great problems which the soldiers bequeathed to the statesmen.
How strife between individuals has been diminished.
Can this Desire be Realized?—Now it is believed by many that war can never be permanently abolished except by applying to nations a principle which men have applied to themselves as individuals, that is to say, by establishing an organization whereby all controversies can be settled without resort to force. Treaties of amity and arbitration among nations are valuable so far as they go; but so long as there is no high authority with power to administer justice between nation and nation each must look to its own self-preservation. This means that each feels obliged to regard war as a possibility and to be prepared for it. Without sufficient assurance against the possibility of war it is idle to expect that nations will wholly disarm. And when interests clash and the passions of men are aroused they will use the weapons which are at hand.
The motive behind the League of Nations.
The primary motive of those who urged the formation of a League of Nations was the desire to avoid war by substituting another method of adjusting disputes, but they also hoped that such an organization would enable the vast sums hitherto spent each year on warlike preparations to be applied to the development of industry and commerce, to education, to the protection of the public health, to the betterment of labor conditions, and to promoting all the arts of peace. They harbored the hope, moreover, that great constructive tasks which are beyond the power of any one nation to accomplish might be achieved by the nations of the world in co-operation. As an ideal it is truly great. The Italian poet, Dante, dreamt of it six hundred years ago. Perhaps we can best appreciate what the realization of such an ideal would mean to the world by glancing for a moment at what tribulations the world passed through during the course of a single century, from 1814 to 1914.
The Great Wars of a Century Ago.—A little more than a century ago the various nations of Europe engaged in a long and exhausting war. First and last all the chief countries of the world were drawn into it. |How the Napoleonic Wars failed to eliminate the causes of war.| The chief cause of this great struggle was the ambition of Napoleon, who sought to make France dominant in the political affairs of Europe and by his aggressions finally managed to array all the other leading nations in an alliance against him. When France was finally vanquished by the combined efforts of England, Prussia, Russia, Austria, and Spain, a congress of the nations was held at Vienna to determine the detailed arrangements by which the future peace of the continent might be preserved, and after prolonged discussions this congress agreed upon a general settlement. The principal motive which actuated the delegates at the Congress of Vienna was that of strengthening the four powers to whom the overthrow of France had been chiefly due, thus establishing a combination which would be able to impose its will upon the rest of the continent in the interests of peace. Great Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Russia dominated the congress and for some years after 1815 virtually remained in a quadruple alliance to see that the terms of peace were observed. But the Congress of Vienna took no action in the way of establishing a league or confederation to which all the nations, great and small, should be admitted. It left the peace of Europe in the hands of four powerful states with the hope, a futile hope it turned out to be, that these four states would agree among themselves.
The Rise of the Alliances.—The map of Europe, as rearranged by the Congress of Vienna, paid no attention to the right of self-determination. Territories were taken from one state and given to another without reference to the desires of their inhabitants. The chief aim was to strengthen the powers that had won the war, giving each of them boundaries that could be easily defended. The interests of military defence, not those of nationality, prevailed.
The rivalries of the nineteenth century.
Because of this action the congress left many openings for friction and jealousy among the various states, yet provided no regular means whereby disputes could be adjusted. In the course of time, moreover, the interests of the four great powers which dominated the work of the congress drew apart. England preferred to hold aloof from the diplomatic intrigues of the continental states, devoting her energies to the upbuilding of an empire in other parts of the world. France, moreover, regained her old-time strength and once more became recognized as one of the leading European powers. Italy, which had been left by the Congress of Vienna a mosaic of small independent states, eventually achieved its unity, and the kingdom of Prussia expanded into the German Empire. Thus, the four great powers of 1815 grew to six before the end of the nineteenth century—Great Britain, Russia, Austro-Hungary, France, Italy, and Germany.
With these six great states progressing side by side, ambitious for power and jealous of one another, it was inevitable that alliances and counter-alliances should be formed. These combinations took many twists and turns during the diplomatic manoeuvres of the nineteenth century, but in the end the six leading nations of Europe gravitated into opposing camps. The first, known as the Triple Alliance, included Germany, Austro-Hungary, and Italy. The second, commonly called the Triple Entente, was made up of Great Britain, France, and Russia. These alliances were based upon treaties or understandings of which certain portions were made public and the rest kept secret.
The “armed peace.”
The Balance of Power.—For many years the preservation of European peace rested upon the observance of a principle known as the “balance of power”. This principle is not easy to define, but in general it meant that no single state or combination of states should be allowed to become strong enough to outweigh a rival state or its combination. The balance could never be exact because some states, by virtue of their more rapid increase in population and prosperity, were always outrunning others, hence the situation developed into a race wherein each group of powers sought to strengthen itself by bringing smaller states into its circle, by welding its members more closely together, and by the creation of great armaments. The purpose of the alliances, based upon the principle of balance of power, was not to prevent war but rather to prevent any state from being attacked by a combination of other states and having to defend itself single-handed. Under the terms of the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente it remained quite possible for single states to go to war and fight it out alone; but both alliances protected their members against combined attacks. In a word, the situation became such that any war, wherever it might start, was very likely to become a general war.
The nations in the recent war.
The Realignments of 1914-1918.—On the outbreak of the World War in 1914 the Triple Entente held together, but the Triple Alliance was weakened by the action of Italy in refusing to be drawn into a cause which the Italian people did not approve. Italy, a little later, joined with France, Great Britain, and Russia. Meanwhile Japan had also taken the side of these allies and eventually the United States became associated in the war with them. Thus the Triple Entente developed into a powerful allied combination including not only the five powers named but many smaller states as well. Before the close of hostilities twenty-five states had declared war upon the German government. Germany and Austro-Hungary, the remaining states of the Triple Alliance, had the aid of two other states only, Turkey and Bulgaria. The course of events showed, therefore, that not only were alliances ineffective in preserving the peace but that they actually helped to extend the area of conflict over a whole continent.
The War to End War.—When the United States, after long hesitation, decided to throw its strength on the side of the Allies, one of the chief actuating motives was the desire to see the struggle settled in such a way that there would never be another great war. |Idealism in this war.| As the spokesman of the American people, President Wilson repeatedly declared that out of the war some general agreement and league for the permanent preservation of world peace must come. In this he undoubtedly reflected the sentiment not only of his own country but of the great masses of the people in the other warring states as well. Everywhere there had been going on, practically throughout the world, a popular agitation for the establishment of some general covenant which would make future wars impossible. It was now felt that the balance of power was gone, that individual treaties among nations were not sufficient protection, and that something more effective must be found. There was no great difference of opinion as to the ideal. It was welcomed everywhere. The problem was how to translate the ideal into a reality. This task President Wilson believed to be the most important and yet the most difficult among all the problems of peace-making. To help with its solution he took the highly-unusual course of himself attending the conference which was held at Paris to determine the conditions of peace.
How the League was brought into existence.
The Framing of the Covenant.—When the members of this conference assembled it was agreed, after some deliberation, that a commission should be appointed to prepare a plan for a League of Nations and that this plan, when accepted by the conference, should become an integral part of the peace treaty. This latter point was particularly insisted upon by President Wilson and was agreed to as the result of his insistence. The commission was appointed; it prepared a plan; the plan was laid before the peace conference, and before being adopted was published to the world. In the United States it met with strong support in some quarters and vigorous opposition in others. The Senate, by which the whole peace treaty would have to be approved before it could be binding upon the United States, discussed the details of the plan and thirty-one senators signed a declaration that some of the provisions were unacceptable. In the end, however, the original covenant, with some modifications, was adopted by the peace conference and incorporated as a part of the treaty of peace.[[302]] As such it was subsequently accepted by all the leading powers to whom it was submitted, except the United States. In its scope the League of Nations is designed to include, ultimately, all the countries of the world. Provision is made in the covenant for the immediate admission of most countries by their simple acceptance of the covenant; others may be admitted to membership by a two-thirds vote of the league assembly. Fifty-one states are now members.[[303]]
An analogy and contrast.
The League as a Scheme of Government.—What are the important features in this scheme of super-government? This question may best be answered, perhaps, by taking as our background the federal system with which we are most familiar in the United States, noting the outstanding points of resemblance and contrast. At the time of its formation, indeed, the American federal government was looked upon by the several states as a super-government and they were very jealous of it. It was not until many years had passed that this jealousy died down. This same designation was given to the scheme of organization established by the League Covenant. The government of the United States has its deliberative, executive, and judicial departments; so has the League of Nations. But there the resemblance ends. The methods of constituting the organs are different; so are their powers, and so are their relations to one another.
The Assembly and the Council.
The League’s Deliberative Organs.—The League of Nations has two deliberative bodies,—an Assembly to which each member-nation may send not more than three delegates, and a Council, made up of one member from each of the five great powers,—the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan (these five nations being always represented), and one member from each of four lesser powers to be designated from time to time by the Assembly. Since the United States has not joined the League, the Council now consists of only eight members, the four nations constituting the second group being at present Belgium, Brazil, Spain, and China. Unless otherwise stated in the covenant, any decision either of the Council or the Assembly requires a unanimous vote. The Council must meet at least once a year; the Assembly meets at stated intervals determined by itself. The Assembly has decided to meet annually on the first Monday in September and the Council is now holding quarterly sessions. Geneva has been selected as the League capital.
The Secretariat.
The Administrative Organization.—By the terms of the covenant certain functions of an executive nature are given to the Council, but the administrative work devolves upon the Secretariat of the League. This body comprises a permanent secretary and numerous officials appointed by him. The Secretariat performs the clerical work, registers all treaties, carries on the correspondence with the member-nations, and prepares business to be laid before the Council and the Assembly.
The League’s judiciary.
The Court of International Justice.—The covenant also makes provision for a permanent world court, composed of judges selected by the Assembly from among eminent jurists nominated by the different member-countries. At the second Assembly session, held during 1921, the eleven regular judges and four alternate or deputy judges were chosen. Controversies come before this court whenever nations agree to submit their disputes to it for decision.
Outstanding Features of League Organization.—In comparing the general organization of League government with the American federal system some striking contrasts appear. |Equality of all nations in the League Assembly.| First of all, it is significant that in the Council and in the Assembly each nation has one vote only. Each nation may send to the Assembly one, two, or three representatives; but whether it sends one or three its voting power is the same. In the American Senate all the states have the same voting power, but in the House of Representatives the states with larger populations have proportionate voting strength. Equality of voting power is natural in a political union that is just starting. The nations of the world, being accustomed to sovereignty and legal equality were not willing to recognize gradations of rank. The same feeling was manifested among the American colonies when, under the Articles of Confederation, it was provided that every state, small or large, while it might send from two to seven delegates to the Congress, should have the same voting power as any other. There was a long fight over this question in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the smaller states demanding equal power with the larger, the larger asking that representation should be based upon population. The matter was settled by giving the smaller states equal representation in the Senate, and conceding to the larger states the right to dominate the House. But the framers of the League Covenant could not accept a compromise of this sort; for if representation according to population were made the rule in either the Council or the Assembly, India and China would have far more delegates than the United States, England, and France put together. So all were given equal representation in the Assembly, while representation in the Council was confined to nine nations only.
Other marked contrasts should be noted. In the House of Representatives and in the Senate of the United States measures are passed by a majority vote; |The requirement of unanimity.|in the Assembly and Council of the League, unless otherwise specified, a unanimous vote is necessary for action. This is a mark of the distrust with which the nations regard one another. The provision for unanimity means that nothing can be carried through the Assembly if a single nation disapproves, for a solitary vote can block action. The same is true of the Council as respects each nation represented in it. This, of course, establishes a very cumbersome and slow-working scheme of government. Decisions of the Council or the Assembly, moreover, have no absolute binding force, as have the enactments of Congress. There is no centralized executive authority, with power to see that decisions are obeyed—no executive authority in the national sense. The League has no army to enforce its will. Even the International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction save when the suitors, of their own accord, come to it. It lacks the coercive power of a Supreme Court.
Provisions for the Prevention of Wars.—The prime purpose in establishing the League of Nations was a desire to lessen the danger of wars. To that end the covenant contains several provisions of high importance which may be briefly summarized.
1. Armaments.
First, there is a provision for the reduction of armaments. The Council is directed to have a study made by experts and to report upon the amount of armed strength needed by each nation. The various governments, however, are not bound to accept the Council’s recommendations. In any case, all members of the League agree to keep one another informed as to the extent of their respective armament programs. This represents, of course, a very modest step in the direction of actual international disarmament.
2. Territorial integrity.
Second, the members of the League agree to protect one another against any seizure of their territories or any destruction of their independence by outside attacks. This is the famous Article X. Whenever such attack occurs, the Council is to advise as to how the pledge of integrity can be fulfilled.
3. Conciliation.
Third, if a dispute which cannot be settled by diplomatic negotiations arises between members of the League, the members agree to refer it to arbitration if it is suitable for such disposition; or, if not, then to the Council of the League for inquiry. The members of the League agree to refrain from hostilities until three months after the Council has rendered its decision.
4. Coercion.
Fourth, if any member-nation resorts to war in violation of the preceding provisions, the other members of the League agree to boycott it and to withdraw from relations with it; in extreme cases, the Council is authorized to consider and recommend means of compulsion by armed force.
5. Registration of treaties.
Fifth, a very important provision is that by which all treaties hereafter entered into by members of the League shall be registered with the Secretariat and published. Until this has been done, no treaty is to be considered binding. This, of itself, embodies no small step in the direction of eliminating a prolific source of friction and strife. Secret treaties have been the mainspring of many wars.
Duties of the mandatories.
The System of Mandates.—In previous wars it has been the habit of victorious nations to divide all the conquered territory among themselves, each taking a portion in full ownership. The Peace Conference of 1919, however, agreed to try a new plan, namely, that of placing the League of Nations in charge of some former German and Turkish territories. It was provided that by means of mandates each of these territories should be directly governed, on behalf of the League, by one of its member-countries, with the understanding that eventually complete self-government should be given in certain cases. The mandatory, or country holding the mandate, is required to present an annual report to the League and a permanent commission is provided to examine these reports. In accordance with these arrangements, several mandates have been granted. Great Britain, for example, has been made the mandatory for Palestine, France for Syria, and New Zealand for certain former German colonies in the South Pacific.
A territorial trust.
The possession of a mandate does not give the mandatory any exclusive commercial privileges in the territory concerned, but merely creates a trust which is to be exercised for the benefit of the people who inhabit it. Whether this new experiment in the government of dependent territories will work out successfully no one yet can tell. Much will depend upon whether the League acquires prestige and power. If it should collapse, there is little doubt that these various territories would merely pass into the full ownership of the countries which now hold the mandates.
The League and Labor.—The widely-differing policies hitherto pursued by various countries in relation to labor have long been a cause of international distrust and friction. When any one country endeavors to accord greater privileges to its workers—such as the adoption of a shorter working day or the guarantee of a minimum wage—this action places it at a disadvantage in trade competition with other countries not so progressive. It is, therefore, provided that a permanent International Labor Office shall be established and that members of the League shall send representatives to a labor conference at least once a year. Such measures for the protection of labor as may be recommended by this conference are to be presented to the government of each member-country for adoption. Each government may adopt or refuse to adopt the recommendations as it sees fit; but where a recommendation is adopted, a country must live up to it and provisions are made for ensuring this. |The first labor conference.| The first meeting of the labor conference took place at Washington in 1919. Since that time two further conferences have been held. Recommendations have been made in favor of the eight-hour day, the prohibition of child labor, and an effective system of factory inspection. In most of the discussions concerning the League these great opportunities which it presents for the improvement of labor conditions were entirely overlooked.
The League and the Protection of Health.—Great improvements in the science of health protection have been made during the past generation by all civilized countries, as a previous chapter has indicated. But no matter how watchful a country may be in guarding the health of its own people, it can never feel safe so long as epidemics are allowed to rage unchecked in other lands. The ravages of disease stop at no national boundaries. Trade and travel carry infection across even the best-protected borders. In recognition of this the League covenant pledges the member-countries to take steps for the international prevention and control of disease. |The international health office.| This is to be accomplished by the establishment of a permanent International Health Office. The function of this office is to gather data relating to public health questions, to promote the acceptance of the best health regulations by the different countries, and to secure common action in the case of dangerous epidemics.[[304]] The League is also authorized to wage a war upon the use of opium and other harmful drugs, likewise to take measures against the traffic in women and children.
American Objections to the Covenant.—When the provisions of the covenant were finally adopted by the Peace Conference, objections were urged in various countries, but more particularly in the United States. To what features was objection made? Some objected to the provision which gives the British Empire six votes in the Assembly of the League while the United States had but one.[[305]] Article X of the covenant, by which the nations who enter the League must guarantee one another’s territory and independence against outside aggression was also objected to, for it seemed to pledge the United States to defend boundary lines in all parts of the world. Many feared that this provision would some day require the use of American soldiers in distant places. Objection was also raised against certain provisions of the peace treaty, such as that which turned over to Japan the territorial and other rights in the Chinese province of Shantung, which had been held by Germany.[[306]] And in general there was a feeling that if the United States were to enter the League, this action would involve a continual entanglement in European affairs and a complete abandonment of America’s traditional policy.
The proposed reservations.
It was at first believed that by making reservations on these various points the United States could overcome the more important objections, ratify the treaty, and enter the League. But President Wilson declined to accept such reservations and in the end the whole document, treaty and covenant together, failed to receive the requisite two-thirds vote in the Senate.
The presidential election of 1920 was fought out on this issue. The Democratic candidate declared in favor of entering the League with suitable reservations, while the Republican candidate made no explicit pledge as to what course he would pursue although he seemed for a time to favor the formation of a new association on a somewhat different basis. |The ultimate decision.| After the election, which resulted in a decisive Republican victory, President Harding announced that the United States would not enter the League; the project of a new association was quietly dropped; and a separate peace with the new German republic was concluded.
The League at Work.—The refusal of the United States to assume membership was a severe, and possibly a fatal, blow to the strength and prestige of the League. It is as though the state of New York, a century and a quarter ago, had declined to ratify the constitution, leaving the other twelve states to form a union by themselves. |What the League has done.| Nevertheless, the League of Nations seems to be a going concern; it has established headquarters at Geneva; its Secretariat has been organized; its Council has held many sessions; its Assembly has been twice convoked; its court has been established; labor conferences have been held; mandates have been allotted; commissions have been appointed; and a good deal of important business has been transacted. Its members are very anxious to have the United States join with them and would doubtless go a long way in accepting whatever reasonable reservations this country might choose to make. But there is no immediate probability that America will become a member on any terms. The problem which now engages the attention of the American government is that of arranging, through treaties and conferences, for the removal of the various dangers to peace in the future.
Can the work be done by a series of conferences?
The League and the Washington Conference.—The calling of the Washington Conference was the first step in this direction. The agreements reached at this conference represent a very substantial step in the direction of avoiding future wars but they do not cover the whole field of possible controversy. They leave untouched the whole question of land armaments and deal with none of the chief European problems. It is taken for granted that other conferences will be called from time to time, each for the purpose of dealing with some specific set of international questions, and there are many who believe that the primary purposes which the League of Nations was intended to fulfill can be served in this way. One advantage of the conference plan is that it allows each nation to retain greater freedom of action; but this is also a defect, for it permits any single country to block progress by merely declining to join with the others when a conference is called. The Washington Conference demonstrated how easy it is to reach agreements in the common interest when nations come together for a free and frank discussion.
A lost opportunity.
Will the League of Nations Live?—Will the League slowly acquire strength despite the failure of the United States to become a member? Or will the League gradually lose all its reason for existence, save as an agency for carrying out the terms of the peace treaty, and when these terms are fulfilled, pass out of existence? These are questions which no one can answer today. The close of the war gave the world its greatest opportunity to devise a plan which would forever put an end to the curse of war and usher in a long era of international amity. Men labored long and diligently to provide such a plan, but they failed to achieve a full measure of success.
Where the blame for this partial failure belongs is not a matter that it can profit the world much to discuss. The opportunity came and has gone. Whether the partial failure can ever be retrieved, whether the League devised at Paris will survive the severe setback given to it by the action of the United States, are things which only the next generation can determine. In spite of its handicap, however, the League must strive to maintain its existence, for its continuance is essential to the enforcement of the peace treaty. Those nations which are interested in seeing the provisions of the treaty fulfilled must either use the League, or provide other machinery in its place, or else revise the terms of peace, and on the whole, the first alternative seems to be the easier one. To the exhausted nations of Europe it offers some hope of relief from the burden of great armaments, and to small countries throughout the world the League stands as a means of obtaining a fair hearing for their grievances. It is easy enough to pick flaws in the covenant; but is there any likelihood that a different document would gain the adhesion of fifty-one states? No such number ever agreed to anything of the sort before.
The attitude of the United States was not dictated by self-interest alone, or by party politics. There was, and still is, a strong conviction in the minds of a large element among the American people that the covenant of Versailles will not prove to be a safeguard against war, but may, indeed, lead to intensified rivalries and bitterness. Many Americans, and many Europeans also, feel that the terms of peace which were arranged at Paris contain many unwise, unjust, and even impracticable provisions. They believe that a League of Nations, charged with the duty of enforcing these provisions, is bound to encounter difficulties of a serious character.
General References
F. C. Hicks, The New World Order, especially pp. 3-91 (The Peace Treaty, including the Covenant, is printed in the appendix);
W. H. Taft, G. W. Wickersham, and others, The Covenanter: An American Exposition of the Covenant of the League of Nations, passim;
S. P. Duggan, The League of Nations, p. 1-17; 96-111;
J. A. Hobson, Towards International Government, pp. 11-57;
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The Place of the United States in a World Organization for the Maintenance of Peace (July, 1921), pp. 1-29;
G. G. Wilson, The First Year of the League of Nations, pp. 1-55;
R. B. Fosdick, George Rublee, J. T. Shotwell, Léon Bourgeois, and others, The League of Nations Starts, pp. 1-28;
L. Oppenheim, The League of Nations, pp. 28-48;
D. L. Morrow, The Society of Free States, pp. 137-154;
T. J. Lawrence, The Society of Nations, pp. 33-57;
Ray Stannard Baker, America and World Peace, passim.
Group Problems
1. The idea of a league of nations in history. Ancient Greek leagues. Dante’s De Monarchia. The Great Design of Henry IV. William Penn’s plan. The proposed confederation of Europe after the Napoleonic wars. Kant’s “Everlasting Peace.” The Holy Alliance. The federation of Central America (1824). The Hague Conferences. References: Elizabeth York, Leagues of Nations, Ancient, Mediaeval, and Modern, pp. 114-179 (see also Bibliography, pp. 331-337); William Ladd, The Peace of Europe, pp. 1-11; W. A. Phillips, The Confederation of Europe, pp. 145-156; F. C. Hicks, The New World Order, pp. 66-78; J. H. Choate, The Two Hague Conferences, pp. 3-44; D. L. Morrow, The Society of Free States, pp. 12-32.
2. A study of the merits and faults of the Covenant. References: Senate Debates during the period June 2 to October 6, 1919, in Congressional Record (66th Congress, 1st Session, Vol. 58), For the League: Senator Swanson, of Virginia (pp. 2532-2542), Senator Hitchcock, of Nebraska (pp. 6403-6427); Against the League: Senator Johnson, of California (pp. 501-509), Senator Lodge, of Massachusetts (pp. 3778-3784).
Short Studies
1. The League of Nations and American ideals. A. H. Snow, The American Philosophy of Government, pp. 155-172.
2. The League of Nations and American interests. Otto H. Kahn, Our Economic Problems, pp. 354-367.
3. The League and the Monroe Doctrine. S. P. Duggan, The League of Nations, pp. 273-303; Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, The Place of the United States in a World Organization for the Maintenance of Peace (July, 1921), pp. 31-44.
4. The international labor conferences. F. C. Hicks, The New World Order, pp. 270-279.
5. The League and disarmament. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The Place of the United States in a World Organization for the Maintenance of Peace (July, 1921), pp. 45-67.
6. The League at work. Arthur Sweetser, The League of Nations at Work, pp. 29-62.
7. Some examples of international government. L. S. Woolf, International Government, pp. 179-265; F. B. Sayre, Experiments in International Administration, pp. 18-62.
8. The “Concert of Powers” in Europe. T. J. Lawrence, Principles of International Law, pp. 268-279.
9. The system of mandates. R. B. Fosdick, George Rublee, J. T. Shotwell, Léon Bourgeois, and others, The League of Nations Starts, pp. 110-125.
10. International public health and sanitation. R. B. Fosdick, George Rublee, J. T. Shotwell, Léon Bourgeois, and others, The League of Nations Starts, pp. 155-169.
11. The League of Nations as a scheme of government. L. Oppenheim, The League of Nations, pp. 28-48.
12. Small nations and the League. S. P. Duggan, The League of Nations, pp. 161-183; Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The Place of the United States in a World Organization for the Maintenance of Peace (July, 1921), pp. 68-97.
Questions
1. What is meant by “applying to nations a principle which men the world over have applied to themselves as individuals”?
2. Explain what was done at the Congress of Vienna and why there were so many wars during the hundred years which followed that congress.
3. Explain the following expressions: balance of power, Triple Alliance, Entente, concert of powers.
4. Make a diagram showing the organization of the League of Nations. Explain by means of this diagram the contrasts between the League’s organization and that of a federal government.
5. What are the weak features in the League organization?
6. Summarize the provisions which were placed in the Covenant for the prevention of future wars and give your opinion as to the value of each.
7. Explain the relation of the League to (a) labor problems, (b) health protection, (c) the suppression of the drug traffic.
8. Make a list of the chief American objections to the League and indicate how much importance you attach to each.
9. Do you regard the refusal of the United States as a death-blow to the success of the League? Give your reasons.
10. If the League fails, how can international peace be best secured?
Topics for Debate
1. A scheme of universal arbitration should be substituted for the League of Nations.
2. The United States should call another conference to effect an international agreement for the reduction of armies.
CHAPTER XXXII
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss some present-day problems of world democracy.
Why the people are now thinking new thoughts.
The War and the New Era.—The world has spent the years since the war in a condition of political and economic unrest. This is not surprising because this herculean contest rocked the foundations of civilized society. It let loose the primitive passions of men, hurled monarchs from their thrones, turned industry upside down, drew millions of men out of life’s normal routine, and wasted as much wealth as the whole world can create in twenty or thirty years. Small wonder it is that people should ask themselves whether a social order which permitted all this to happen is in reality the best type of organization for the civilized countries of the world. Self-examination usually takes place among men and nations after a great disaster. Things which have been assumed to be true are inspected; old traditions are overhauled, and new proposals receive a more ready welcome than at other times.
THE GRADUATE. By Edwin H. Blashfield
From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis & Cameron, Boston. Reproduced by permission.]
THE GRADUATE
By Edwin H. Blashfield
From the mural painting in the Great Hall of the College of the City of New York.
Wisdom sits enthroned, a globe in her hands. Her placid head, covered with a fold of her mantle, is lighted from below by the flame on the altar at her feet. The light also illumines the globe which she holds. On either side of her pedestal, in a long curved row, sit the great centers of learning (Paris, Rome, Oxford, etc.) represented by graceful female forms, and in front of them are some illustrious representatives of the arts and sciences—Petrarch, Galileo, Shakespeare, and others. In the immediate foreground are young men of today—students on the right and aspirants on the left.
Directly in front of the altar is the Graduate, with academic cap and gown. Beside him stands Alma Mater, handsome and dignified, in a figured Venetian mantle, bearing a shield with a seal of the college and holding a scroll. She bids the young graduate go forth into the world, bearing the torch which he has lighted at the altar of Wisdom. In front of both, and a little to the right, is Discipline, or Self Control, holding in one hand a scourge and in the other a sword. She stands ready to accompany the young graduate on his journey through life.
Below the picture is the inscription: “Doth not Wisdom cry? She standeth in the top of the high places, by the way of the places of the paths. She crieth at the gates at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.”
The Growth of Radicalism.—Two working principles have hitherto furnished the basis for political and economic organizations in such countries as the United States, Great Britain, and France. |Democracy and individualism.| Democracy, by which we mean the control of government by the whole people, acting chiefly through their representatives, has been the accepted basis of political institutions. Individualism, by which we mean an economic system founded upon the individual ownership of private property and, through private property, the individual control of industry has been in general the recognized foundation of economic institutions. By the masses of the people in all free countries the principles prefigured by these two words, democracy and individualism, have been tacitly accepted for fifty years or more as the groundwork of political and economic activity. Both were challenged from certain quarters; the socialists, for example, attacked the whole system of economic individualism; but in no country was the policy of individualism overthrown.
Should they be displaced?
During and after the war, however, the demand for a reconstruction of the world’s entire political and economic structure became more insistent. Radical ideas as to what ought to be done, and radical proposals as to how it ought to be done were brought forth and spread. The world found itself, almost in a day, face to face with demands for the complete repudiation of democracy as an ideal and of individualism as a principle of economic organization. Proposals for state socialism, guild socialism, communism, and a dictatorship of the proletariat were put forth aggressively on every hand. No country proved to be immune from this radical movement, although in some it made far greater headway than in others.
The Soviet Plan of Government in Theory.[[307]]—Among the various countries, Russia has gone the farthest, of course, in the radical demolition of the old political and economic order. The overthrow of the Czarist empire was presently followed by the establishment of soviet government and a system of economic communism. This action naturally attracted world-wide attention and it has exerted, during the past few years, a profound influence upon the attitude of men toward political and economic problems everywhere. |Why should Americans care to know anything about it?| It has given new inspiration to radicalism in the United States. We ought, therefore, to know something about this extraordinary overturning of the old political and economic structure in Russia; otherwise we cannot grasp the far-reaching significance of radical movements in our own country.
What is the soviet form of government and what is meant by communism as applied to industry?
The soviet form of government is a repudiation of the entire scheme of government which has been described in this book. |Why the Bolshevists object to democracy.| Its supporters regard democracy as a mere weapon of the capitalist by means of which he exploits the worker. The only way in which the workers can obtain their rights, they declare, is by establishing a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, in other words, a government absolutely dominated by themselves to the exclusion of all others. This, in the first instance, must be done by violence; but, eventually, they hold, the people will accept it peaceably.
The difference between soviet and democratic government.
Soviet government differs from democratic government in two all-important respects. In a democracy all adult citizens, whatever their occupation, are equally entitled to a share in the control of the government. Democracy stands on the principle of universal, direct, and secret suffrage. The soviet form of government repudiates the doctrine of political equality. It asserts that all power must be vested in the hands of the peasants and workers, and that the bourgeoisie (by which they mean capitalists, storekeepers, employers of any kind, including even farmers who employ hired labor) are entitled to no share in the control of the government. Democracy and equal suffrage, the soviet apologists proclaim, are merely instruments by which the strong oppress the weak. For a system of government by the people, they would substitute government by a portion of the people. In Russia this has meant, as a matter of fact, government by a very small fraction of the people.
The soviet system also differs from democracy as respects the way in which the officials of government are chosen. Representation in democracies is based upon areas of territory. |The soviet basis of representation.| All the voters of a town, country, or district join in electing a single representative. The people who live in a given territorial area are assumed to have a common interest by reason of their living close together. Under the soviet system this is considerably changed. Occupation as well as territory is the basis of representation. Groups of voters unite in choosing delegates because they work at the same trade, not because they live in the same neighborhood. For example, all the workers in a particular factory, or all the farmers in a certain district begin by choosing one or more representatives. These representatives come together and form the city workers’ soviet or the township soviet. The city workers’ soviet is made up of one or more delegates from every factory. Each local soviet, moreover, appoints delegates to higher soviets and these, in turn, choose delegates to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, which is the supreme governing body. As this congress is too large to do the routine work of government, it delegates this function to a cabinet or Council of Peoples’ Commissars.[[308]]
The Soviet Plan of Government in Practice.—This is the theory of soviet government. The supreme political authority is constituted by the workers alone, through a long process of indirect election. The national executive is several steps removed from the control of the people. He is not directly responsible to the people as in the United States. In actual fact, moreover, this elaborate plan of indirect representation has become, in Russia, little more than a scheme on paper. Many of the provincial Soviets have chosen no delegates at all. There is no assurance that those who now hold the reins of power in Russia are the real representatives of the masses of the people. To keep themselves in office the Commissars have throttled all opposition. |Some results of the soviet rule.| They have set at naught all the securities for personal liberty which exist in democratic countries. Arrests have been made without warrants, thousands of them; men and women have been held in prison and put to death without public trial; freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly have been denied. The soviet leaders admit all this but argue that these measures are necessary in order to prevent a counter-revolution.
The Economic Aspects of Communism.—The Russian revolution did not confine itself to political reconstruction alone. It was an economic revolution as well. |Relation of communism to industry.| All private trade, of whatever sort, was, in theory at least, abolished throughout Russia and all industries taken over by the government. The factories, shops, stores, and all other instrumentalities of business were placed in charge of officials to be managed for the benefit of the workers. These workers were assigned to the various industries by the soviet authorities, compulsory labor being decreed by law and a fixed standard of wages established. Trade unions and co-operative societies were put under the ban. Workers received their pay in the form of requisitions or orders on the government stores for food and other supplies. Strikes were forbidden on penalty of imprisonment. All land was declared to be owned by the state, but the peasant farmers were allowed to retain their farms upon giving the government a share in the produce.
Breakdown of communism in Russia.
Although the government did its best to carry through the foregoing program, economic communism in Russia broke down.[[309]] Factories and stores went out of business; the peasants could not be coerced into supplying food for cities; foreign trade stopped almost entirely; the railroads failed to function; everywhere there was misery and starvation. So the soviet authorities in 1921 decided upon a partial return to the system of privately-managed industry. Factories and shops, to some extent, have been reopened under individual ownership; the trade unions have been permitted to reorganize; the rules relating to compulsory labor have been relaxed; and differences in the rate of wages paid to different workers are once more permitted. The country has swung back to a modified form of individualism and capitalistic production.
The Russian lesson.
The great lesson of communism in Russia is that no system of economic organization can long survive unless it succeeds in producing enough to feed, clothe, and shelter the people. When the incentive of private gain is taken away, some equally strong incentive to production must be put in its place; otherwise production will decline and there will not be enough to go around. That is what happened in Russia. Neither compulsion nor appeals to the loyalty of the worker availed to keep production up. Fewer goods were produced and there was less to distribute. Equality of distribution avails nothing when there is too little to be distributed.
The International Aims of the Communists.—Communism is not merely national in its aim; it is international. Its motto is: “Workers of the World, Unite!” Its goal is the violent overturning of the existing political and economic organization in all countries so that soviet governments may be established and all private industry abolished. |Program of the Third International.| This is the program of the Third International, a body made up of communist delegates from all over the world. In order to promote this program the Russian authorities have endeavored to carry on a propaganda in all other countries, sending out literature and agents wherever possible. The communists realize, however, that the prospects for such a revolution are not good in countries like the United States, Great Britain, and France so long as the trade union movement makes progress and gains advantages for organized labor. Hence they aim to secure the destruction of unions, to promote “outlaw” strikes, and to encourage every form of industrial discontent.
Socialism and communism are widely different.
Moderate Socialism and Communism Distinguished.—Communism, as it has been exemplified in Russia during the past few years, should be distinguished from socialism as the latter term is commonly understood, although extreme forms of socialism may go substantially as far. Socialists do not propose that all except the workers shall be excluded from a share in government. They do not propose to wipe out the political rights of the individual, or to destroy trade unionism, or to provide for labor conscription. Orthodox socialism does not aim at a “dictatorship” of any kind.
Socialism defined.
State Socialism.—The program of the moderate socialists is commonly known as state socialism. Briefly stated, it proposes that all the land, the mines, the forests, the factories, the railroads, and every other instrumentality of production or distribution should be managed in the interests of the whole people. Under the system of individualism, according to the socialist argument, these things are now managed primarily in the interest of private owners. The worker creates values in far greater proportion than the wages he receives. This surplus value goes to the employer in the form of profits. The socialist would abolish profits. The entire net earnings would go to the worker. The basis of government would not, however, be revolutionized. With some changes to make democracy more effective (for example, the wider use of the initiative and referendum), state socialism would leave government about as it is. The workers, being in the majority, would control government through their numerical superiority at the polls; they would not deny the suffrage to non-socialists. State socialism proposes the doing of all this through the ballot-box, not by violence or armed revolution.
The Case for Socialism.—Many books have been written in advocacy of state socialism and many arguments advanced in its behalf. The case for socialism rests largely upon certain propositions which may be briefly stated as follows: |The present industrial injustice.| Wealth is largely the product of labor, yet labor does not get its rightful share in the product. Capital and management, on the other hand, get more than their rightful share. Hence the rich are growing richer, and the poor are growing poorer. The control of industry, and with it the well-being of many million workers, is passing steadily into the hands of a very few men. Inequalities of wealth lead to discontent; the present organization of industry results in unemployment; and men are engaged in a perpetual class war with one another. Great wastes, moreover, result from the system of competition. Several milkmen, for instance, go up and down the same street, each serving a few families. Think of what the postage rates would be if we had a similar state of affairs under free competition in furnishing postal service! Socialism, it is claimed, would unify production and distribution, thus preventing waste.
What socialism proposes as a remedy.
Now the remedy for this is to abolish private capitalism, to have the government take over the industries, divide the earnings fairly, giving every worker his rightful share, thus securing a more nearly equal distribution of wealth and happiness. By this means, also, poverty and unemployment would be abolished. If all the products of labor were given to the worker (rent, interest, and profits being abolished), there would be enough to give everybody a reasonable day’s work and a comfortable living. There would be steady employment for all. The great majority of the people are workers. Their welfare should be the first care of organized society; but their welfare can never be secured so long as practically complete power over the conditions under which the workers labor and live is exercised by the private owners of industry. Socialists also claim that a moral gain would result, inasmuch as the present class conflict would give way to a recognition of human brotherhood. Co-operation, not conflict, would be the watchword of industrial society.
The Case Against Socialism.—The advocates of socialism, in their arguments, frequently assume something which they have not been able to prove. |Are the poor growing poorer?| They proclaim that the rich are growing richer and the poor are growing poorer, that the middle class is being crushed out, and that soon there will be only two groups, the very rich and the very poor. It is true that wealth is increasing and that there are more rich men today than ever before in the history of the world; but it is also true that the middle class is more numerous and the worker much better off than at any previous time. The standard of living among American wage-earners today is higher than it was among well-to-do people a hundred years ago. The average worker is better housed, better clothed, better fed, and has more of the comforts of life than the employer of a century ago.
The chief argument against socialism.
But apart from this the crucial question concerns the way in which production would be maintained and how the earnings would be distributed under a socialist system. Today the main incentive to work is the expectation of reward. Most men work because they expect to be paid for it. Cut down their pay and they will usually stop work and try to persuade other people from working. There are exceptions to the rule, of course; but when men and women work hard and try to do their best it is because they hope to get promoted, to get their wages raised, to secure an easier job at higher pay.[[310]] Socialism would abolish this exact relation between skill and wages. Everyone would work at whatever task he was best fitted to perform and would be given enough to live on comfortably. Or, as the socialists put it, everyone would produce according to his ability and be paid according to his needs.
Some practical questions.
This, however, begs some very important questions of a practical nature. Who would determine the work that you or I should do? Who would determine that you must labor in the coal mines while I go abroad, as a foreign ambassador? Who will determine your needs and mine, so that we may be rewarded accordingly?
Socialism and compulsion.
The answer is that authorities would have to be established with power to settle these things and to apply compulsion where necessary. We would have industrial autocracy. Men and women would have no complete freedom to choose their own occupations. The socialists say that if the existing wage system were abolished everyone would do his best to increase production in order to make the new plan a success; but where socialistic experiments have been tried the contrary is true; the workers do less and produce less. Let us remember, also, the increased danger of corruption which would come if the authorities were given so great an increase in power. The whole resources of the country would be placed in the control of an official class; the entire labor-force of the nation would be put at their disposal. The socialist answers that if officials proved arbitrary or corrupt the people would turn them out of office. Does our experience with other forms of government warrant any such expectation?
Socialism and human nature.
Two methods of getting work done have been tried by the world at one time or another. In ancient and mediæval times most of the work was done by slaves. The slave got no wages; he did his work because he was compelled to do it. In modern times, since slavery and serfdom no longer exist among civilized people, most of the work is done by free men who do it because they expect to be paid for doing it. And since there are differences in the abilities of different men, some get more pay than others, even though the opportunities be the same for all. If the capable worker were not paid more than the less competent, he would not exert himself to do his best. To get the best out of any free man he must be given the hope of a reward in proportion to his efficiency, and for the great majority of people this means a reward in dollars and cents. That is human nature.
Can human nature be changed?
It is sometimes said that human nature may change and that, in a new environment, men might work unselfishly for the common welfare without reference to their rate of wages or profits. True enough the motives of men may and do change somewhat; but when we trace the course of human history through twenty centuries we find that the dominant traits of mankind have altered very little in all that time. Human nature itself affords the greatest obstacle to the success of a socialist system.
Socialism and Liberty.—Liberty does not include political freedom alone. It comprises the right of the individual to choose his own career, to make his own bargains, and to become his own employer if he can. An industrial system in which all men are compelled to do as some higher authority dictates would establish the very negation of liberty. Under socialism the complete control of all economic life would be vested in some supreme authority. It matters little how that authority might be chosen; the concentration of such vast powers anywhere, in the hands of any group of men, would make individual liberty a meaningless expression. It may be replied that under our present system of private industry the worker has in fact very little liberty; that many employers are despots and that the worker is subjected to tyranny. That is to a certain extent true. But in so far as there is an undue and needless restriction under present conditions of industry the remedy is to promote the liberty of the worker through the power of his own organizations and by the laws of the land.
Socialism and Democracy.—Socialism and democracy can never be good friends. Democracy is government by the people; in other words it is government by amateurs. It is not government by a professional class. The government of the German Empire before the war was largely in the hands of a professional class, a bureaucracy it was called. Now a democratic government, being managed by the rank and file of the people, is often wasteful and clumsy in its handling of business affairs. We have had some notable examples of this in the United States; for example, the building of airplanes and ships during the war, the operation of the railroads during 1918-1920, and the construction of public buildings. A bureaucratic government, conducted by professional administrators, is much more efficient. |Socialism would professionalize the government.| It is not improbable, therefore, that socialism, by placing upon the public authorities the entire management of every form of industry, including factories and shops as well as railroads and telegraphs, would mean the breakdown of the democratic ideal and the professionalizing of government. The entire industrial system of the country could not be successfully managed by amateurs. To save it from collapse under socialism the government would have to be reorganized on bureaucratic lines.
Can Democracy Solve Its Problems?—But if not socialism, what then? Certain it is that we are facing great problems both at home and abroad today; and these problems must be solved in the interest of human happiness. We cannot close our eyes to them and trust that somehow or other they will work out their own solution. Can democracy and our present system of private industry master them? Well, democracy and our present industrial system have overcome a great many obstacles in the past and it is only by studying the past that we can make any forecast of the future. The land surveyor, when he wants to project a straight line from a given point, walks back some distance so that he may align his pickets in the ground. Let us for a moment pursue the same plan, walk back a dozen decades in American history and take a sight along the great landmarks to the present time. What have democracy and individualism contributed to the well-being and happiness of the American people?
Democracy and American progress.
What America Has Done.—In the past one hundred and twenty years the people of the United States have increased their territories ten-fold, their numbers twenty-fold, and their wealth at least a thousand-fold. They have, with one great exception, composed their internal quarrels peaceably during the whole of this long period. They have developed a government based upon the consent of the governed and have placed the capstone upon it by the grant of universal suffrage. They have kept the various branches of government within their own respective fields and have thus prevented the growth of despotic power anywhere. The people’s direct control over the policy of the government, moreover, has been greatly augmented during the past generation. It is indeed doubtful whether Washington, Hamilton, and Madison, if they were to arise from their graves, would recognize the present government of the United States as their own handiwork, so far has it moved along lines of greater democracy. In the states and the cities this steady drift to more direct popular control has been very marked. One need only mention such things as the initiative, referendum and recall, direct primaries, popular election of senators, the short ballot, the commission and city-manager forms of government, and the extension of suffrage to women—all of which are the product of the last twenty-five years—to indicate how strong has been the tide of popular control.
Most striking of all American achievements, however, has been the wide diffusion of material comforts among the masses of the people. In no other country is there anything approaching it. The standard of living among wage-earners is higher than it is anywhere else, much higher. The average American worker is better housed and better provided with food than is the typical workman in any other country. He and his children get better educational opportunities and a better chance to rise in the world. The way in which immigrants have been flocking to our shores during the past hundred years is a proof that millions of men and women have looked upon America as a land of opportunity. This is not to imply, by any means, that there are no slums in American cities, no poverty, no misery, and no industrial oppression. We have, in truth, far too much of all these things. But it is also the truth that we have relatively less of them than any of the other great industrial lands.
Not all of this progress and prosperity is due, of course, to the political and economic system which America has maintained during the past century. The rich natural resources of the country and the steady industry of its people have been fundamental factors. But no matter how vast their resources or how unremitting their industry a people cannot achieve lasting prosperity and contentment unless they possess a political system and an economic organization which is well suited to their needs.
What Democracy Has Failed to Do.—It would be idle to regard democratic government everywhere as an unqualified success. No scheme of political organization will of itself secure a government which is both efficient and popular. The active efforts of the people are required to achieve this end. Not merely the consent of the governed but the participation of the governed is essential. By reason of popular indifference the institutions of democracy in America have frequently been perverted and abused by men whom the people have placed in power. |Some examples.| What passes for public opinion is at times nothing but propaganda, organized to promote some selfish interest. Democracy has not yet succeeded, moreover, in preventing wars or inducing all nations to deal justly with one another. It has not prevented the rise of opposing classes among the people, or kept groups of individuals from setting themselves in antagonism to each other. Democracy has not reconciled labor and capital; it has not carried its principles very far into our industrial organization. These are serious failings, no doubt; but the friends of democracy can fairly say, “Would any other system have done better?” Democracy is what the people make it, and its faults point to the defects of human nature.
The Citizen’s Duty in a Democracy.—No form of government gives the citizen so much as democracy, and none makes greater demands upon him in return. We are far too much concerned about the rights of men and women; far too little concerned about their obligations to society, to the state, and to their fellow-men. Voting at elections is but a small part of the citizen’s duty. His share in the forming of a sound and enlightened public opinion constitutes an obligation upon him every day in the year. When public opinion takes an unwise course it is because the people make up their minds hastily, without careful thought, and without the guidance which should be provided by the educated men and women of the land. Every individual is a unit in the forming of public sentiment; he can be a helpful factor if he will. Education is the chief corner-stone of democratic government, and it must also be the chief prop to any plan of industrial democracy which hopes to be successful and permanent. Education makes men and women tolerant of other people’s opinions, gives them confidence in mankind, and faith in what mankind can accomplish.
Democracy has passed through many raging storms. In the dark days of the Civil War there were many who feared that in America it was about to perish utterly. But it survived and grew stronger than before. Without the faith of the people in it, and the work which is the exemplification of faith, democracy can accomplish nothing; with these things there is no problem that it need fear to face.
General References
E. M. Friedman, American Problems of Reconstruction, pp. 45-55;
Bertrand Russell, Proposed Roads to Freedom, pp. 186-212;
R. C. K. Ensor (editor), Modern Socialism, pp. 65-89;
N. P. Gilman, Socialism and the American Spirit, pp. 46-89;
H. G. Wells, What is Coming, pp. 96-124;
O. D. Skelton, Socialism: A Critical Analysis, pp. 16-61;
John Spargo, Social Democracy Explained, pp. 1-49;
C. J. Bullock, Selected Readings in Economics, pp. 668-705;
J. R. Commons, Industrial Government, pp. 110-134;
F. A. Cleveland and Joseph Schafer, Democracy in Reconstruction, pp. 165-192;
Sidney and Beatrice Webb, A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain, passim;
William Macdonald, A New Constitution for a New America, pp. 127-139.
Group Problems
1. What industrial democracy means. The traditional organization of industry. Relations of employer and employee. The representation of the workers in the management of industry. Methods of securing this representation. Shop councils. Merits and defects of the plan. Other proposals. Effects of industrial democracy upon production. References: G. D. H. Cole, Guild Socialism Re-stated, pp. 42-77; Ibid., Self-Government in Industry, pp. 24-47; R. W. Sellars, The Next Step in Democracy, pp. 246-272; J. R. Commons, Industrial Government, pp. 77-109; Ida M. Tarbell, New Ideals in Business, pp. 134-162; Sidney and Beatrice Webb, A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain, pp. 147-167.
2. The worker in the socialist state. References: Hartley Withers, The Case for Capitalism, pp. 138-168; H. G. Wells and others, Socialism and the Great State, pp. 69-119; R. W. Sellars, The Next Step in Democracy, pp. 135-156; O. D. Skelton, Socialism: A Critical Analysis, pp. 177-219; John Spargo, Social Democracy Explained, pp. 50-84.
3. The newer problems of democracy. References: F. A. Cleveland and Joseph Schafer, Democracy in Reconstruction, pp. 25-66; E. M. Friedman, American Problems of Reconstruction, pp. 447-464; F. J. C. Hearnshaw, Democracy at the Crossways, pp. 11-78; Graham Wallas, Our Social Heritage, pp. 158-186; L. T. Hobhouse, Democracy and Reaction, pp. 167-187; H. F. Ward, The New Social Order, pp. 35-75; J. H. Tufts, Our Democracy; its Origins and its Tasks, pp. 268-298.
Short Studies
1. How the workers manage business enterprises. C. R. Fay, Cooperation at Home and Abroad, pp. 222-237.
2. Anarchism: its teachings and methods. Bertrand Russell, Proposed Roads to Freedom, pp. 32-55; F. J. C. Hearnshaw, Democracy at the Crossways, pp. 262-287.
3. Syndicalism: its organization and aims. John Spargo, Social Democracy Explained, pp. 244-277; J. G. Brooks, American Syndicalism, pp. 73-105.
4. Communism. Leo Pasvolsky, The Economics of Communism, pp. 1-17; 48-83.
5. Bolshevism. R. W. Postgate, The Bolshevik Theory, pp. 13-41; Bertrand Russell, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, pp. 119-156; John Spargo, Bolshevism, pp. 262-323.
6. The soviet experiment in Russia. H. N. Brailsford, The Russian Workers’ Republic, pp. 37-79; Frank Comerford, The New World, pp. 118-169; 281-305.
7. Guild socialism. G. D. H. Cole, Guild Socialism Re-Stated, pp. 9-41; Hartley Withers, The Case for Capitalism, pp. 189-235; Graham Wallas, Our Social Heritage, pp. 102-121.
8. Marxian socialism. B. L. Brasol, Socialism vs. Civilization, pp. 61-110; John Spargo, Socialism Explained, pp. 123-157.
9. State socialism: the arguments for and against. Hartley Withers, The Case for Capitalism, pp. 138-168; A. E. Davies, The Case for Nationalization, pp. 12-29.
10. The individual and the new society. A. B. Hart (editor), Problems of Readjustment After the War, pp. 98-128.
11. Women in the new social order. H. G. Wells, What is Coming, pp. 159-188; H. A. Hollister, The Woman Citizen, pp. 142-178.
12. Fiscal reconstruction. E. M. Friedman, American Problems of Reconstruction, pp. 427-446.
Questions
1. Why has the movement for political and social reconstruction become stronger in recent years?
2. Explain how “the soviet form of government is a repudiation of the entire scheme of government which has been described in this book”.
3. Make a diagram showing the organization of the soviet government in Russia. Show how much more direct is the control of the people over their government in the United States.
4. What is the lesson of the economic breakdown in Russia?
5. Explain what is meant by the International. What are its aims?
6. State any arguments for socialism which are not given in the text. Any arguments against socialism. Is it true that “as a general rule there are only two ways of getting work done in this world”? In a socialist state what would be the incentive to work? Would it be sufficient?
7. Would the establishment of socialism necessarily involve the abandonment of democracy? Argue the point.
8. Name the principal achievements of American democracy during the past hundred years. Which of them do you regard as the most important and why?
9. Name some present-day political and economic injustices which you would like to see set right. Suggest what might be done about them.
10. Are you a more earnest or a less earnest believer in democracy by reason of your having studied Social Civics?
Topics for Debate
1. Representation in government should be based on occupations rather than on territorial divisions.
2. The laborers should be given a voice in the management of their respective industries.
3. The condition of the laborer is better under private capitalism than it would be under socialism.