Mr. Lawrence Mechlin said: “We certainly were thinking nearly alike, Mr. Darrell, with this difference, may-be, that I don't feel as hopeful as I did a few weeks ago, when you and I talked about the fair chances of the Texas Pacific as we looked at that same white dome when we were coming down. Now I am very fearful that the sad condition of the impoverished South is not going to have the weight which it deserves in the minds of this Congress. I talked with many of our law-givers about the matter, and all seemed not to realize the importance, the policy, the humanity of helping the South, and of giving to the Pacific Coast a competing railway, to get California out of the clutches of a grasping monopoly. All agree that it ought to be done, but it looks as if few put their hearts into the matter.”
“Their hearts are in their pockets, uncle, and I am afraid that after all our reluctance to believe that our Congressmen can be improperly influenced, we will have to submit—with shame and sorrow—and accept the fact that bribery has been at work, successfully. The chief of the lobby is king.”
“Not yet—not yet. It is a frightful thought. Let us not accept it yet. Let us think it is an error, but not knavery. I am coming down again, I think, before this session is over. I want to see more before I am convinced. I have my fears and my doubts, but I still hope—must hope—that our Congress has many honest men.”
“You can hope—but it will be in vain,” George said; “the money of the Central Pacific Railroad will be too much for Colonel Scott.”
“Don't be so desponding, boy.”
“I can't have any hope in this Congress. There never can be any better arguments in favor of the Texas Pacific than are now plain to everybody. So, then, if in the face of all these powerful considerations Congress turns it back and will not hear the wail of the prostrate South, or the impassionate appeals of California, now, now, when there is not one solitary reason under heaven why such appeals and entreaties should be disregarded, is there any ground to expect any better in the uncertain future? Certainly not. But still, I do not say that we should abandon all hope. For the sake of my father, who has trusted so much in the Texas Pacific, I am glad you will do all you can to help Colonel Scott.”
“I certainly shall,” Mr. Mechlin replied. Then, after a few minutes of silence, he said: “If our legislators could only be induced to adopt Herbert Spencer's view of the duties of law-givers, there would be far less misery in the United States. If they could but stop to see how clearly it stands to reason that ‘legislative deductions must be based upon fundamental morality,’ that ‘the inferences of political economy are true, only because they are discoveries by a roundabout process of what the moral law commands.’ It is an unfortunate mistake that the words ‘moral law’ are generally understood to apply practically only to private conduct; to a man's fidelity to his marriage vows; to his religious belief; this we learn at school. But these words are only loosely applied (if at all) to a man's actions as a legislator. I never heard in election times that any one expects our law-givers to base their legislation upon fundamental morality, and regard expediency as a secondary consideration. Congressmen know that they are expected to watch the material interests of their States or counties, but they do not feel any moral responsibility to see that other constituencies do not suffer injustice. Thus, if the Congressmen of one State choose to betray the rights of their constituencies, other Congressmen generally look on indifferently, or, perhaps, amused—and do not interfere any more than they would in the domestic affairs of perfect strangers. They do not seem to perceive that on the very instant in which they see that a community, or an individual, is being wronged by the neglect or design of their own representatives, that then any other Congressman should come forward to protect the betrayed community or defenseless citizen. This is clearly their duty. But it seems to be ignored by tacit consent. All Congressmen are ready to offer objections to every conceivable measure. To jump up and shout against anything, seems to be thought the proof of a man being a good legislator. Combativeness is the one faculty ever in use to offer obstructions, and thus necessary and useful legislation is foolishly retarded, and untold misery is brought upon innocent citizens. All this is a mistake. Because the ‘fundamental law of morality’ is not understood. Herbert Spencer says: ‘Now, this that we call moral law is simply a statement of the conditions of beneficial action. Originating in the primary necessities of things, it is the development of these into a series of limitations within which all conduct conducive to the greatest happiness must be confined. To overstep such limitations is to disregard these necessities of things, to fight against the constitution of nature.’ Mr. Spencer applies this axiom to the happiness of individuals, as well as of entire communities. If the principles of fundamental morality were better understood and more conscientiously respected, railroad manipulators would find it impossible to organize a lobby to defeat all laws intended to aid the Texas Pacific. But I repeat, in spite of all discouragement, I will use my best efforts to help the Texas Pacific, as I firmly believe every honest man in these United States ought to do, even when not directly interested.”
The journey to New York was accomplished safely by our party, and in good time for the charity ball. Mrs. Mechlin and Mrs. Gunther being in the list of its distinguished matrons, busied themselves about that grand affair from the day after their return until its successful finale, which was also a success pecuniarily.
To the charity ball follow the Liederkranz and the Purim.
“Are you to go masked, George?” Mrs. Mechlin asked, as they were discussing the coming ball with Miss Gunther.