THE FAILURE OF REPUBLICS.
EUROPEAN writers are expressing and discussing “a decline of belief in the value of the republican form of government.” In this discussion, of course, the United States forms a prominent item. This is altogether a pertinent question. A republican form of government being “a government of the people, by the people, for the people,” is simply self-government. The people govern themselves by themselves for themselves. And as each individual, as far as he personally is concerned, is the people, a republican form of government—self-government—is that in which each individual governs himself by himself—by his own powers of self-restraint exercised upon himself—for himself, for his own best good in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And so long as that is done, a republic anywhere is a success. But, in a republic, just as soon as a single individual fails to govern himself by himself for himself, that republic has begun to fail; and so far as that individual is concerned, a republican form of government is a failure. Just as soon as two individuals fail to govern themselves, the republic is just so much more of a failure. Yet so long as the majority of the people composing a republic, do individually govern themselves, by themselves, for themselves, the government will be a success; because they, being the majority, are able to protect themselves from the infringements of those who fail to govern themselves, and have to be governed. But just the moment the majority turns to the other side, the moment the number failing to govern themselves crosses the line and becomes greater than the number of those who do govern themselves,—that moment republican government has failed. And though the name may continue for a time, the thing is gone; the government is no longer a republic. At that point, however, the failure does not so palpably appear as when the majority—those who fail to govern themselves—has become larger and yet larger. But when that majority that fails to govern itself, each by himself, becomes so great that its influence is felt upon all the procedure of the government—then republican government has failed utterly; it is no longer a republic in any true sense: it is a despotism—not indeed a despotism of one, nor of a few, but of the many. And a despotism of the many—of the majority—is not at all the least of despotisms. Yet, then, it is only a question of time when the despotism of the many will merge in a few, then in a very few, and finally in a despotism of one,—and that is monarchy. Wherever in a republic there is found a man who fails to govern himself by himself, in that man there is found an open bid for a monarchy. And when that man becomes a majority, a monarchy is certain. It may indeed be an elective monarchy, but it is none the less a monarchy. Thus it is literally true that in government there are just two things, one or the other of which people must consider—republicanism and monarchy; self-government or government by another; liberty or despotism. What is the republic of France to-day, but the former monarchy only under another name? Now anyone who for any number of years has read and thought, knows full well that in the United States the number of those in all phases of society who fail to govern themselves is very great, and is rapidly on the increase. Notice the startling increase of crime. Notice the strikes that so frequently occur, and at times almost cover the country, invariably accompanied with violence and often with rioting. Notice the electoral corruption—municipal, State, and national. Notice the procedure in State legislatures, especially in the electing of a United States Senator. See the large number of organizations and combinations in different fields, which are constantly being formed for protection, and to beat back that which they know is certainly coming to grind them under. But all these combinations, organizations, and associations are composed only of men who have failed and do fail as individuals to govern themselves. And a combination of men for the purpose of governing themselves and others, who, individually, have failed to govern themselves, is just as much of a failure in self-government, is just as much of a failure as to a republic, as in the case of the individuals before forming the combination. Since a republican form of government is only self-government, and since all these things are a universal testimony that the great mass of the people of the United States are failing to govern themselves, it is perfectly plain that this great example of republican government in the world is certainly failing. And when such is the truth which is forced upon the attention of the world, and which the outside world is seriously discussing, what is there left for the world to contemplate other than that which, with foreboding, is mentioned by the London Spectator?— The peoples consider only monarchy and republicanism; and, for the reasons we have indicated, the favor of republicanism declines, with a grave result, we fear, in an increase of political hopelessness, and therefore a decrease of political energy. And the outcome of that can be only that monarchies, and even society itself, shall fail and perish in their own corruption. Thus has it ever been with the nations; thus only will it ever be. And the end hastens. *The following words from an editorial in the Detroit News-Tribune of May 27 well describe the present situation of the world:—* There is now a general feeling, which can be referred to no particular facts, nor explained on any rational theory, that we are approaching a period of greater combats [than those of the preceding century], a world-struggle, in which the tremendous machinery which has been organized for war is to be put to a full test between the rival Powers who are grasping at the earth, or all of it that remains unattached to the great empires. There has certainly been no period in the past when the ambitions for conquest were so keen and so widespread as at present; when so many powers, armed to the teeth, were watching with jealousy every movement of their neighbors, and looking about with so little scruple for compensations. “The nations” are “angry;” and soon there must burst upon the world that “time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation.” “Get ready, get ready, get ready.” *In an article in Harper’s Weekly for May 19, on the subject of labor unions, Rupert Hughes states that* “recently in London a laborer was fined by his union for the offense of ‘shoving up the line’ too fast; that is, he had been guilty of laying more bricks than the prescribed limit, which, incredible as it may seem, had been placed at one hundred and forty a day. In New York City twelve hundred bricks a day is thought a good average, while in the West, previously to the latest rulings of the unions, from three thousand to thirty-five hundred bricks were not an uncommon quota for a single man, and on jobs where haste was demanded men have been known to lay four thousand bricks a day.” Speaking of “the plumbers and the allied interests,” he writes: “They soon decided that it would be pleasant to limit the daily output of their trade, and now it is forbidden for a plumber to wipe more than so many joints, or for a steamfitter to run more than so many feet of pipe, a day. The rest of the time the man may loaf and invite his soul.” And again: “In the plumbering trade, for instance, the more easily intimidated contractor was not permitted even to appoint his own foreman, but must accept the election of the men. He could not discharge a man, and the only way to get rid of an undesirable workman without bringing on a strike was to resort to the technical procedure of laying him off for the time being, or of putting so many men to plaster one corner that they stepped upon one another’s feet, and so interfered with one another that some of them resigned of their own volition.” Even further: “The bricklayers were limited [by their union rules] to the laying of fifteen hundred bricks in eight hours, though an expert could more than double this without unwholesome exertion. . . . The plasterers are limited to so many square feet a day, and the other trades are similarly hide-bound. Other restrictions are set also in the matter of the use even of material made by nonunion hands, and certain styles of work are not permitted to machinery.” The writer then asks: “Does it not seem that the laboring man, whose favorite bogie is the trust, has himself organized a trust of the most despotic sort?”