“That which is, was made by God,” cries the conservative.
“God is leaving that and is entering this other,” replies the radical.
These have been the battle-cries of mankind all down the ages. The conservative has always been the stand-patter. He has been always on the defensive, explaining, apologizing, opposing and pleading that change would result in deterioration. The conservative must bear the vice, the sins and crimes of the society of his time, and, bending under the load, piteously pleads for delay, for compromise. He preaches the pusillanimous doctrine of “let us bear the evils we already have rather than fly to those we know not of.” Conservatism never made an invention, wrote a poem, painted a picture nor breathed a prayer that rose above the roof.
Pharaoh, King of Egypt, was a conservative. He stood pat on keeping the Hebrew nation in slavery, against the radicalism of Moses. The Roman empire was conservative. It stood pat on its pagan worship, against the radicalism of the new religion. The scientific world stood pat on the then accepted doctrine that the “sun do move,” against the radicalism of Galileo that it is the earth that does the moving. King George was a conservative. He stood pat on America’s remaining a British colony, against the radicalism of Washington and the Continental Congress. The French King, Louis XVI, was a conservative, and stood pat against the radicalism of the people of France when they demanded liberty and bread. The Czar of Russia and his titled aristocracy are conservatives. They are standing pat against progress, enlightenment and justice among the masses of the people of that unhappy country. But it is about the conservatives of our own country that I want to write. I want to say a word about our own stand-patters.
Webster’s Dictionary says that a conservative is, “One who desires to maintain existing institutions and customs.” A conservative in the United States today, then, is a man who wants the Beef Trust to continue to force the farmer to accept its price for his cattle, and the consumer to pay its price for dressed beef. A conservative is a man who wants the railroads to continue giving rebates to favored shippers, and to hold them from unfavored shippers. A conservative is a man who wants the United States Senate to continue to be composed of men who do not represent the masses of the people of their respective states, but who represent the corporations. For instance, a conservative in New York State is a man who wants Chauncey M. Depew and Thomas C. Platt to continue in the United States Senate.
Depew represents the Vanderbilt system of railroads, while Platt represents the United States Express Company. The two will oppose any legislation which interferes with the income of their corporations, never mind what the people of the state or nation want. The people have for years wanted a parcels post in this country. England and other countries have it, but we cannot. Why? Because Platt is in the Senate, and also in the parcel-carrying business. You, Mr. Conservative, put him in the Senate and you keep him there.
We have what is called a protective tariff in this country. It is a law which, in the name of protecting the workingman, robs him and every other consumer. If you are a conservative, you are in favor of maintaining this law.
The tariff schedule was drawn up by a committee of Congress behind closed doors. That is, the doors were closed on those who have to pay the tariff, but open to those who were to be benefited by it. The committee sent for the manufacturers of the various necessary articles which people use, and asked them how much of a tax they wanted on similar articles made abroad. And the manufacturers wrote these schedules for the committee, and they were adopted. Notice, the consumers, the people who have to pay the tariff, were not invited to appear before this committee. Only the manufacturers, who are the beneficiaries, were taken into counsel.
If you are a conservative—that is, if you are a stand-patter, you are in favor of continuing and “maintaining” this “mother of trusts.”
Sometimes laboring-men become dissatisfied with their wages, or the number of hours they are made to work, and they exercise their God-given right to cease work, or go on strike. Then the corporations rush to the courts and secure injunctions, restraining the strikers from doing all sorts of things. In some instances these injunctions are obtained and served on the strikers before any of the acts from which the injunctions restrain them have been committed or attempted. Special deputy sheriffs and Pinkerton men are hurried to the scene of the strike. The state militia is ordered out, and in one instance Federal troops were sent to Chicago. At Homestead the hired deputy-sheriff-Cossacks shot down peaceable workmen, just as real Cossacks shot down the peaceable workmen who marched with Father Gapon in the streets of St. Petersburg recently—and for no better reason. Martial law has been declared, court-martial has been substituted for trial by jury. The right of habeas corpus has been suspended. Members of labor unions have been thrown into prison without trial; others have been torn from their homes and deported to other states without process of law, and bull pens established for guarding prisoners. These things have been happening in the United States for years. In each instance it was claimed that such arbitrary measures were necessary to preserve order, keep the peace, protect the property of the corporations, and to enforce the injunctions issued by the courts—when these injunctions were directed against the laboring or producing class. Now see how differently things work when a corporation is at the dangerous end of an injunction gun.