A REPLY TO DR. ABBO1T. Francis A. Walker, president of fought over and killed forever. show that they are starting on Life is too short to waste time over the right course. It is their duty them any longer. While slavery to themselves and posterity to of one kind was abolished the keep straight on that course, come issue has been used by the mono- what will. poly power to enslave them in partisanship. The "bloody shirt" must be buried and he who would wear it treated with scorn and contempt. We are living for the future, not in the past, and the in- the Massachusetts Institute of dustrial masses of all sections are Technology at Boston, under the uniting to free themselves. title "Democracy and Wealth," in The desperate situation of the the November Forum replies to opposition is seen in the efforts to Dr. Abbott's article on "Industrial fan the spark of sectionalism into Democracy," and is a fair sample a flame by crying that "rebel brig- of the arguments that the opposiadiers" are leading the movement tion bring against the advocacy of in Kansas, but they are mistaking improved industrial conditions. It the sentiment of the people. A is a repetition of the old cry "Don't rebel movement is going on a disturb existing conditions." He rebellion against injustice, against opposes Dr. Abbott because his the leadership of plundering bri- words "bring encouragment to gands; but the rebels are coming from all parts of the land, and to restore to the people that which they have lost while they have been kept separated by dead and false issues. those who are striking at property, society and law," the alarm cry of the opposition. Instead of directing his reply square at the principles that Dr. Abbott advocates, he attempts to ridicule his statements a method it would not be necessary to resort to by a man of Mr. Walker's knowledge if he had any better argument to offer, He opens his article by saying: "Much as I admire Dr. Abbott, both as a man and as a teacher of men, I am constrained to regard his article on Industrial Democracy,' in the Forum for August, as likely to do more harm than good. In these days of general unrest, of agitation, often for agitation's own sweet sake; when the wellmeaning are perplexed by challenges directed against the fundamental principles of government and property; when the instincts of spoliation and confiscation, which lurk beneath the fairest surface of conventional honesty, are being roused to wolfish ferocity by the appeals of demagogues and of even lic teacher, if he feels impelled to conmore dangerous enthusiasts; the pubtribute something to the already rather embarrassing wealth of propositions for social reform, should make his recommendations as direct, as moderate, and as specific as possible. He should use terms that are not only perfectly intelligible to those who wish to learn his views, but that are as little susceptible as may be of misconstruction by those who may wish to pervert them. Nothing requires to be added to the force of the impulses which threaten to overbear the calm common sense, the disposition towards compromise and mutual concession, the conservatism in practice combined with courage and liberality in thinking, which have hitherto so strongly characterized the American in his political and industrial relations. When, in the present agitated state of the public mind, with a vast foreign population not bred under our laws, trained in our schools, or accustomed to political debate, a writer for the press raises the cry, 'Wealth of the people, for the people, by the people, his words are certain to be taken in their worst sense, and to bring encouragement to many who are striking at poverty, society, and law. "My first criticism of Dr. Abbott's declaration has reference to the vagueness of the term, 'the people,' as he uses it. He says: The wealth of the nation is wealth of the people. It springs from the people. It therefore belongs of a right to the people.' To this I answer that, in one sense, it is already so assigned. If all the wealth of the United States is produced by the people, that is, by those who are residents or citizens of the country, so also does that wealth belong to the people; in other words, all who own it are, with exceptions to inconsiderable to be noted, residents or citizens of the United States. But Dr. Abbott is not satisfied; evidently, then, he does use the term in this sense. Does he mean that the people of the United States have, in their corporate capacity, produced all the wealth of the country? This would manifestly not be true. The people of the United States have, in their corporate capacity, produced a very small part of the wealth of the country. Another meaning given to the phrase in question would make Dr. Abbott assert that the people of the United States have, man for man, in equal measure, contributed to the production of wealth; but not even the wildest, socialist could assert such a thing. What meaning, then, can we give the phrase, 'the people,' in interpreting Dr. Abbott's statement? The only remaining sense which this statement will bear is that the people of the United States have, individually, but in unequal measure, produced the wealth of the nation. Very good; and it is also true that the people of the United States do, individually, but in unequal measure, own the wealth of the nation. Varied productive capa bility and effort; varied wealth. Why is not Dr. Abbott satisfied? Because, he would say, the differences in wealth, as distributed, are greater than the differences in productive capability and effort warrant. Would it not have been well to say this, directly and simply, instead of raising a cry of wildly communistic sound, which on examination is found in its most obvious senses to mean that which is false, and which, in the only construction that is consistent with the truth, requires an entirely new substantive statement to give it any significance at all? "It is to be noted that Dr. Abbott offers no positive proof that the shares received by individuals, in the present industrial order, are disproportioned to their industrial deserts. He adopts Laveleye's maxim: "To each worker his produce, his entire produce, nothing but his produce;' yet he says: 'No man ever, by himself, created or ever can create wealth.' How, then, when many, perhaps an indefinite number, unite in production, is each man's produce-his own produce, his entire produce, with nothing but his produce-to be separated and determined? How can his share be fixed at all, except by that mutual estimation and valuation which we call exchange, and which, in the existing industrial system, we use for that purpose? With reference_to this 'method of balancing values,' Dr. Abbott admits that 'possibly there may be no better one discoverable.' fact, then, is simply this: certain large fortunes accumulated by individuals strike Dr. Abbott as in excess of the renumeration proper to the services performed by them in production. But might not this be due to a failure on Dr. Abbott's part fully to appreciate the nature and the extent of those services? A high authority in economics has said that Sir Henry Bessemer's invention is today doing the work of one hundred thousand men. Mr. Edward Atkinson, in a striking paper, “The Railroad and the Farmer,' has shown that the gigantic fortune of the elder Vanderbilt was but a small fraction o the gain resulting to the country from the development of its railway system through his organizing and energizing genius. The "But I am not disposed to take issue with Dr. Abbott as to the existence of much that is inequitable in the distribution of wealth. That in this present evil world, with so much of hardship and wrong everywhere, there should not be hardship and wrong here, would be a monstrous proposition. The law, "To him that hath shall be given,' an tedates the stone tables of Sinai. It is in the very nature of things." advocates, who will properly felicitate themselves upon the accession of so distinguished an ally. If he does not tract the words I have quoted. No mean so much as this, he ought to reman's position on this issue should be doubtful." Mr. Walker in continuing gives the railroads the credit for creating the wealth they possess and disregards the work of the people that preceded and followed them, Mr. Abbott is most evidently as he does about the Vanderbilt's in what Mr. Walker says he appears being successful in taking advan- to be, a believer that the people tage of the growing demands of should by right retain the value the people, and finds fault with they unitedly create, but he disthose who have not done likewise. plays wonderful ignorance of the If he is right the highwayman principle the single tax men advoshould be honored for gaining wealth from the weaker he has taken advantage of. cate when he speaks of the value of houses the product of labor— with land, a natural gift to man, and whose value is measured principally by the presence of many men. The writer further says: "But whatever may be the expediency or the inexpediency of landnationalization, Dr. Abbott is not justified in using the terms in which Mr. Walker finds many reasons why improved conditions cannot be expected and the principal one, that all reform advocates recognize and are striving to removethe ignorance of the masses, but he shows most plainly that he he refers to the process by which the does not wish knowledge to spread too rapidly, because it would disturb existing conditions too rapidly. He admits that some great fortunes have been improperly made and that combinations of such are used in an oppressive way against the masses, but says this wealth was simply made in speculation in stocks, and "is not obtained necessarily at any cost to the stockholders or at the expense of the general community," but does not intimate from what source the wealth originally did come. He says: "To my utter amazement I here read words which ally Dr. Abbott with the Henry George party: "The wealth which is not the product of individual labor shall not become individual property; that which is by its nature common wealth shall remain wealth common to all the people.' This is sheer, rank Georgism; nothing else, nothing less. It means, if it has any meaning, the nationalization of the lard. It means that no man shall ever own a house and the ground on which it stands, since the value of these would be liable, at any time, to be enhanced by the growth of the community in wealth and population. If Dr. Abbott really means this, he may be sure of a cordial welcome from the single-tax land of the United States became private property. Speaking of the natural forces of the country, including agricultural land, forests, water powers, and mines, he says that we have acted upon the hypothesis that 'they belong of a right to the strongest (or to the most grasping and unscrupulous) in a struggle, not for existence, but for wealth, luxury, and power.' Such language is wide of the truth. With wonderfully few exceptions, those who own the land among us have come into possession of it not only peacefully and lawfully, but with the invitation and encouragement of the government, upon the well-settled and unanimouslylenge this statement who can! Take approved policy of the people. Chalthe whole region west of the Alleghanies. It was once, substantially all of it, the property of the govornment. In this state of things, the people, all parties and all sections concurring, adopted the principle that this vast domain should, as early as practicable, become individual property. Finding that the original terms of sale did not allow a sufficiently rapid alienation of the soil, they reduced those terms. Finally, by general consent, the policy was adopted of giving away land, in moderate amounts, to actual settlers; in order that each farm might have an owner, and that the United States might have a numerous body of citizens bound to the soil by ties of affection and interests." In theory it has been all that Mr. vidual activity, to force up their wages as high as they will go, or at least as high as they can be kept. Walker claims, but in practice far from it. The hundreds of thousands of acres of agricultural and mineral land now held by private corporations and the methods by which they have obtained title is sufficient proof. It is this proof coming to the knowledge of the masses that is making this an un"settled" and anything but an "unanimously-approved policy of energetically, and prudently con the people," and will soon compel the same "people" to rise in their might and confiscate many titles to what is now claimed as private property. Abbott alleges, and of one which he "I have spoken of reasons which Dr. does not allege, in favor of the control of industry by the body of the people. I will now, with permission, speak of a reason why it may not be altogether desirable that this control should be so vested. The prime interest of the community is that industry shall be ably, ducted. In particular, nothing can cost the working classes so much as the incompetent management of business. To avoid this the best brain power and the best will power are none too good. The born leaders of industry In conclusion he gives as a rea- the men who carry large responsibiliin any community are few. They are son why the industrial democracy ties easily, whose faculties are not paradvocated by Dr. Abbott is impos- alyzed or flustered by possibilities of sible, because the mass of the loss, who have a calm vision, a broad outlook, firm nerves, and great natural people show an indifference to powers of command. The vast majoranything tending in that direction. ity of those who can be useful in subWhile this is true he forgets that ordinate positions, where decisions are knowledge is spreading and before made for them, where their renumerait this indifference is fading away to them by others, where their work is and that words from men like Mr. carefully defined and is to be done Abbott greatly assist the spread within traditional limits, would be of this knowledge. A recognition useless, or of this last fact may be the real reason why he opposes Mr. Abbott's work. His concluding words are: tion is fixed in advance and is assured worse than useless, in places of authority. Most of these even. dislike responsibility in matters of importance. They would thank no one for thrusting greatness of this sort upon them. 'If "But Dr. Abbott will say that he "There is one conceivable reason for does not intend to dispense with industrial democracy which Dr. Ab- leaders in production, but only to have bott does not allege, namely, that the the people choose those leaders. mass of the people earnestly desire it. they can select their own captains for a But nothing has been more marked few year of military service, they can than the indifference, if not actual hos- choose their own captain of industry.' tility, of the laboring population of It is true that, under a popular governEngland and America, generally, to ment, the people, in their corporate the schemes of co-operation and of capacity, have to do, more or less diprofit-sharing which have been urged rectly, with choosing their military upon them with so much of benevo- leaders. This, however, is not because lent intention ever since 1848. In Eng- such a choice is likely to be especially land, large numbers of working men fortunate, from a military point of care enough about the saving which view, for it is not; but because, under may be effected in the expenditure of the general system of government, the their incomes through co-operative thing must be done in this way, and stores or shops, to take the moderate can be done in no other. In the case amount of trouble necessary to keep of industry, however, we have a natup this service through terms of years; ural selection of leaders, which yields but as to earning their incomes in co- results far higher; results as high, inoperative shops or factories, they will, deed, as poor human nature can hope again speaking generally, have none of to attain. Of several traders, several it. They prefer to throw the responsi- manufacturers, several employers of bilities, labors and risks of organizing labor, one, at first little by little and production upon the employing class; then more rapidly, begins to enlarge and then, by means of trade unions, his operations, because he has succeedstrikes, public sentiment, and indi- ed on the smaller scale; customers more and more resort to him, because his work is always well and promptly done; credit comes increasingly under his command, because he is known to be frugal, prudent, and punctilious in in his payments; and so, in time, having been found faithful in a few things, he is made ruler over many things. "WHAT CONGRESS HAS DONE." This is the title of a series of articles written for the November issue of the North American Review by Representatives McKinley, Lodge, Dalzell, Fitch, "Time will not serve to discuss other McAdoo and Clements, by an examinaissues, more or less important, which tion of which, and by applying a little are raised in Dr. Abbott's article. Some reason and common sense, we are able of them have no necessary relation to a general scheme of social reform, but to decide for ourselves what they have would be better considered by them- done. McKinley seems all bound up selves. The questions whether cities in himself, his tariff bill seems to him shall supply gas as they now supply the most important of all legislation. water to their residents; whether the All street railways shall be placed in the We are informed that "this was presame relation to the municipality as the emminently a business session." streets themselves; whether the general but Clements agree that it was the longgovernment shall regulate-if, indeed. est ever held. The first three named it shall not own and operate-the main railway lines of the country; the agree that "the people had intrusted burning question of the coal mine and to the republican party the power of the natural-oil well-all these can be legislation upon a platform of pledges, considered and discussed just as favor- and not a pledge which has not been ably, and in fact much more intelligently and calmly, without raising the kept." We can only judge from the cry, Wealth of the people, for the peo- bills passed, who they consider the people, by the people.' ple and to whom they were pledged. The representative from Ohio, in "that speaking of the tariff act, says, duties were lowered where they were necessary, and increased when by so doing great industries could be built "Like Dr. Abbott, I entertain highly optimistic views regarding the future of society; but I look forward rather to an industrial republic than to an industrial democracy. The history of the past seventy-five years has shown truly wonderful results in the improvement of the relations between the up and encouraged." several classes of the community, and in the elevation of those who were formerly depressed or downtrodden; yet as follows: The silver, meat inspecwithout departing from fundamental and well-approved principles of government, interfering with the rights of property, or seriously impairing the virtue of private enterprise and indi vidual initiative. I believe that fur The representatives from Massachusetts names the bills of most importance tion, anti-trust, anti-lottery, original package, bankruptcy, and a bill for the relief of the supreme court, including three important measures in the interther progress will be made more safely ests of labor-what these three measand even more rapidly, by continuing ures are and their objects, is not stated; in the same course, than by introduc- he concludes by saying: "We have ing new ideas of social organization, also kept our pledge to revise the tariff by tampering with the institution of private property, whether in land or and reduce the surplus." The later rein goods, or by materially enlarging duction he places between $60,000,000 the traditional functions of the state." and $70,000,000, the bulk of which was taken from sugar, "the chief necessity of life." "A nation of men unanimously bent on freedom or conquest, can easily confound the arithmetic of statists, and achieve extravagant actions out of all proportions to their means.' Emerson. "There is no form to truth." nia tells us the most important measThe representative from Pennsylvaure was the conclusion arrived at, as to the authority of the speaker, and what constitutes a quorum, and in this way answers how it was possible for Congress to do so much; we are through him informed that "the house has taken |