A Momentous Question by B.

International Religious Liberty Association · Chicago, Illinois · Jun 28, 1900

FromThe American Sentinel, The Sentinel of Liberty, Vol. 15, No. 25.

A Momentous Question.

By B.

Testifying before the Industrial Commission in Washington, N. F. Thompson, Secretary of the Southern Industrial Convention, said of labor organizations:

“Their influence for disruption and disorganization of society is far more dangerous to the perpetuation of our government in its purity and power than would be the hostile array on our borders of the armies of the entire world combined. Organizations teaching such theories should be held as treasonable in their character, and their leaders worse than traitors to their country.”

Apropos of this the Springfield Republican says editorially:

“There are some very unlovely features about labor unionism in its current practical workings. We see these brought out in such contests as those being waged in Chicago and St. Louis—in the sympathetic strike, the boycott, the resort to violence when other means fail, the mob spirit that is so generally excited, and the temper which would deny by force and terrorizing practices the means of livelihood to the ‘scab’ or non-union workman.

“But what are you going to do about the unions, beyond holding them and their strikes within the bounds of law and order? Are you going to prohibit and suppress labor organization? If so, are you going to deal likewise with capital and prohibit not only combinations of corporations, but combination of capital in any and all corporations? Is the right all on the side of the strong, and the wrong all on the side of the weak? Is aggression against individual rights confined wholly to the organized laborer, and is organized capital wholly to be trusted not to exceed its own reasonable claims as against the laborer and the general public?”

Then answering in part its own question, the Republican has this to say:

“This cannot be, and in a popular government it is simply idle to talk about prohibiting labor organization and strikes without also considering the necessity of applying equally severe restrictions to capital. Nevertheless the people at large are getting exceedingly weary of these constant and most disturbing and destructive and often bloody outbreaks between organized labor and organized capital, which are a disgrace to the civilization of the time. Some means must be found to stop these assaults on peace and order and progress in wealth production.”

Of course “this cannot be” and popular government be maintained. But the facts here enumerated, and others of like character, are sounding the death knell of free institutions in this country.

As a people we talk about teaching the Cubans and the Filipinos the art of self-government, and yet are daily demonstrating that we do not possess the faculty ourselves.

Two things are absolutely essential to government of the people by the people; namely, self-control and love of liberty for its own sake—that is, love of the principle apart from one’s own participation in its benefits. In other words, love of liberty not simply for one’s own self but for all men.

It has been truly said, “That government is best that governs least.” But any government to be effective must govern sufficiently to preserve the peace—to make life and property safe, etc. But this can be done with the minimum of government only where the people govern themselves; each respecting his neighbor’s rights, etc.

Just now complaint is made that in a certain section of this city, every man out after a certain hour is arrested by the police and required to give a satisfactory account of himself. This is of course very annoying to good citizens, and some of the papers are crying out against it. But why is it done? Surely not because the police want to persecute law-abiding men. It is done because there are so many law-breakers operating in that section that the police consider it necessary for the protection of the city. In this case the criminal element by their failure to govern themselves make it necessary in a measure for the police authorities to place restriction upon all that work a hardship upon honest people necessarily out at unseasonable hours.

Again, much is said about the necessity of restricting the trusts and corporations. But why this necessity? Simply because men of wealth also are losing the faculty of self-government. Greed leads, them to overreach and wrong their fellow-men; hence the necessity for more government. And so our state and national governments are constantly becoming more and more paternal, that is, they are constantly intermeddling more and more with that which ordinarily ought be left to the individual.

It matters not how intelligent a people may be, if they lack the faculty of self-control—if they refuse to do that which is demanded by the principles of justice—they show themselves unfit for self-government and invite despotism.

Nor is it possible for such a people to make laws that will compel themselves to deal justly. This is illustrated by the situation in St. Louis to-day. The mayor of the city belongs to one political party; the governor of the state to another. Each fears to take any decisive step to restore order and protect persons and property in the city, lest he may alienate votes from his party. Thus the laws which the people have made for their own protection fail when that protection is most needed, because those whose duty it is to enforce them fear to offend the people, who, by their representatives, made the laws. Such a condition of affairs is certain in time to destroy representative government. Such a state of affairs is anarchy and anarchy always invites despotism. B.