Speaking of paper money issued by the states,—and the same language is equally true of paper money issued by the United States—Chief Justice Marshall says, inCraigv.The State of Missouri: "Such a medium has been always liable to considerable fluctuation. Its value is continually changing; and these changes, often great and sudden, expose individuals to immense loss, are the sources of ruinous speculations, and destroy all confidence between man and man. To cut up this mischief by the roots, a mischief which was felt by the United States, and which deeply affected the interest and prosperity of all, the people declared in their constitution that no state should emit bills of credit."
Mr. Justice Washington, after referring, inOgdenv.Saunders, to the provision of the constitution declaring that no state shall coin money, emit bills of credit, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, says: "These prohibitions, associated with the powers granted to congress 'to coin money and to regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin,' most obviously constitute members of the same family, being upon the same subject and governed by the same policy. This policy was to provide a fixed and uniform standard of value throughout the United States, by which the commercial and other dealings between the citizens thereof, or between them and foreigners, as well as the moneyed transactions of the government, should be regulated. For it might well be asked, Why vest in congress the power to establish a uniform standard of value by the means pointed out, if the states might use the same means, and thus defeat the uniformity of the standard, and consequently the standard itself? And why establish a standard at all for the government of the various contracts which might be entered into, if those contracts mightafterwards be discharged by a different standard, or by that which is not money, under the authority of state tender laws? It is obvious, therefore, that these prohibitions in the tenth section are entirely homogeneous, and are essential to the establishment of a uniform standard of value in the formation and discharge of contracts."
It is plain that this policy cannot be carried out, and this fixed and uniform metallic standard of value throughout the United States be maintained, so long as any other standard is adopted, which of itself has no intrinsic value and is forever fluctuating and uncertain.
For the reasons which I have endeavored to unfold, I am compelled to dissent from the judgment of the majority of the court. I know that the measure, the validity of which I have called in question, was passed in the midst of a gigantic rebellion, when even the bravest hearts sometimes doubted the safety of the republic, and that the patriotic men who adopted it did so under the conviction that it would increase the ability of the government to obtain funds and supplies, and thus advance the national cause. Were I to be governed by my appreciation of the character of those men, instead of my views of the requirements of the constitution, I should readily assent to the views of the majority of the court. But, sitting as a judicial officer, and bound to compare every law enacted by congress with the greater law enacted by the people, and being unable to reconcile the measure in question with that fundamental law, I cannot hesitate to pronounce it as being, in my judgment, unconstitutional and void.
In the discussions which have attended this subject of legal tender there has been at times what seemed to me to be a covert intimation, that opposition to the measure in question was the expression of a spirit not altogether favorable to the cause, in the interest of which that measure was adopted. All such intimations I repel with all the energy I can express. I do not yield to any one in honoring and reverencing the noble and patriotic men who were in the councils of the nation during the terrible struggle with the rebellion. To them belong the greatest of all glories in our history,—that of having saved the Union, and that of having emancipated a race. For theseresults they will be remembered and honored so long as the English language is spoken or read among men. But I do not admit that a blind approval of every measure which they may have thought essential to put down the rebellion is any evidence of loyalty to the country. The only loyalty which I can admit consists in obedience to the constitution and laws made in pursuance of it. It is only by obedience that affection and reverence can be shown to a superior having a right to command. So thought our great Master when he said to his disciples: "If ye love me, keep my commandments."
Since concluding what we desired to say on the subject of controlling and regulating railroads and railroad corporations, our attention has been directed to a circular fromThe New York Nation, of July 27th, 1873, entitled: "The Railroad Discussion, and Common Sense." This singular article challenges attention. If it is put forth in the interest of railroad corporations, we can readily account for the views expressed, and the covert foreshadowing of national control of railroads; but if it be published and circulated in the interest of the people asThe Nationwould have us understand, it is not calculated to assist them in their efforts at reform, but on the contrary will tend to divide and distract their counsels, and delay the relief sought.
We copy the circular, that the reader may judge of its merits, and to give a more intelligent understanding of our remarks upon it:—
(From the Nation [N. Y.] of July 17.)
We have followed, and shall continue to follow, the "farmers' movement" with great interest, but it must be confessed that it seems at times of no little difficulty, owing to the very heterogeneous composition of the organizations which are carrying it on, and the wide diversity of their character and avowed aims. When Judge Lawrence was turned out of office in Illinois by the "Grangers," and Judge Craig put in his place, we took it for granted that they were going to deliver themselves from the tyranny of the railroads by putting judges on the bench pledged to interpret the state constitution in aparticular way, or in other words, as one of the local papers put it, by showing that "the people" were superior to both laws and judges. It has, however, since been stoutly denied that this interference with the bench was anything more than a local accident, and we have been assured that the farmers seek changes of a much more legitimate character, and resting on more solid foundations than the creation of a subservient judiciary. The recent platforms have certainly had a much wider sweep than the earlier ones, and, unless language has been strangely abused in making them, embrace grave modifications in fiscal as well as in railroad legislation. But the question how to reduce the railroads to the condition of public highways, controllable by and existing solely or mainly for the convenience of the community, is still apparently as far from solution as ever. It is by no means surprising that this should be the case, but that it is the case we are forced to conclude by the extraordinary character of the latest plan propounded by the reformers, which has had sufficient plausibility to command the approval of so sober-minded a paper as the ChicagoTribune.
The farmers have been accused, partly in consequence of their escapade about the judges in Illinois, of seeking to rob the railroad companies of their lawful earnings by forcing them to carry on their business at a loss, under the operation of cast-iron rules, drawn up without reference to its peculiar nature. This was a charge of which the farmers soon began to see the gravity, and they accordingly now announce that they have no scheme of spoliation or confiscation in their minds, but that they have at last hit upon a mode of ascertaining what are "reasonable rates," which consists in discovering what was the amount of capital "actually invested in constructing and operating the roads," and treating a fair percentage of this as a proper return to the stockholders, and all charges which bring in more than this as "unreasonable," and therefore open to prohibition by the courts and state legislatures. Under this theory of railroad property, all stock which does not represent money actually invested is treated as "fictitious," and all attempts to earn dividends on such stock as attempts at extortion. For instance—to put a case of frequent occurrence—acorporation obtains a charter for a road which will cost two million dollars to build. It accordingly borrows the two millions on mortgage bonds, and constructs the road, while the members divide among themselves two millions of stock more, and they work the road so as to make it pay interest on the four millions. The farmers now say that no road shall be so worked as to pay interest on anything but the proceeds of the bonds, or, in other words, the actual cost of construction and equipment. This, stripped of details, is the new plan, as gravely propounded by the ChicagoTribune.
Now, if anybody will get up and propose a general railroad act of this nature, applicable to all roads hereafter to be built, we think we can promise that he will have the hearty support of everybody who has seriously reflected on the railroad problem. Forbid the construction of any road except with the proceeds of paid-up stock, and forbid any higher dividends than a certain fixed percentage on this amount, and we shall have a rule of which nobody can complain. We do not believe that a single mile of railroad would ever be constructed under such a rule in a new and thinly settled country like the west or south. Safe investments are not so scarce as to induce people to go into one of the most unsafe of investments, and one promising in most cases no return at all for several years, for the mere chance of seven or even ten per cent at the outside. But we should, nevertheless, be heartily glad to see the plan tried, and believe it would, by stopping railroad construction for the present, bring the western farmers to a healthier comprehension of their relations to the roads, and railroad companies to a healthier comprehension of their relations to the community, and might tend to a solution of the railroad problem, which would be both permanent and satisfactory.
But the application of any such rule now to roadsalready in operationwould be spoliation pure and simple—spoliation as flagrant as any ever proposed by Karl Marx or Ben. Butler; if any attempt were made to carry it out, it would produce perhaps the greatest financial crash ever witnessed. It has in the first place that leading characteristic of Ben. Butler's greenback scheme, that it would not only violate a tacit pledge made by the state to individuals, but it would deprive men ofrewards already earned by running great risks. When a railroad constructed for two million dollars is made to earn interest on four millions, the case is precisely similar to that of a government which in a time of great danger and perplexity sells seven per cent bonds at fifty; and the present proposal of the farmers resembles Butler's plan of paying the bondholders in 1870 what they gave for their bonds in 1862. In fact, it is the old-fashioned game on a great scale of "Heads I win, tails you lose." The west has, during the past thirty years, wanted railroads, which there was a very small chance of making profitable for a long time. It encouraged eastern men and foreigners to make them in any way they pleased, running whatever risk there was, and pocketing whatever gain there might be, and they were made. The investment then was one of great danger and difficulty;to treat it now as one of no danger and no difficulty would, be simply swindling. The word is hard, but the times demand plain speech. This was perhaps a bad mode of securing lines of communication, but the laws allowed it and encouraged it, and the people applauded it, and it is now a contract as binding in morals as in law. It is open to us to turn over a new leaf, and permit no more roads to be made in that way, but it is not open to us to treat those who lent us their money as dupes. As there has been enough of this sharp practice already, more of it would seriously shake the foundations of social order.
In the second place, as regards the older roads, it is not possible for "the people" or anybody else to ascertain what is the exact amount on which, in abstract justice, the earnings ought to pay interest. The stock, whether "fictitious" or not, has in most cases passed out of the hands of the original holders. It has been sold and resold, in open market, under the most solemn guarantees known to civilized society, with the understanding that it represented thebona fideownership of the roads, with all their earnings, possible as well as actual. The laws, the courts, and public opinion, assured to it this character without reservation or qualification. In this character it has passed into the hands of widows, orphans, and helpless people generally, of charitable corporations, of colleges, banks, and institutions of all kinds by which the affairs of thecommunity are administered. To throw any doubt on its value now would be to cause an amount of misery and alarm which no thinking man could contemplate without a shudder. If the state wants to make the railroads common highways, it has the right to take them, but at their market value, paying the owners what other people would pay them, and not enquiring curiously and knavishly into the original cost. Between honest parties to a bargain, that, to use a homely phrase, is "Neither here or there." The people ought, undoubtedly, to have looked forward a little when they first began to grant charters; but not having done so, they ought not to now throw on others the whole damage done by their own laches.
Though last, not least, much of the outcry over the high rates charged by railroads is due to an immense but deeply seated popular delusion as to the value of railroad property. When one puts his newspaper aside, and sits down calmly to examine the receipts which the farmers are so anxious to have cut down, the proposal we are discussing assumes a somewhat ludicrous aspect. We have before us the last issue of "Poor's Railroad Manual," which certainly ought to be perfectly studied before the minds of the public are filled with wild and revolutionary notions about railroad property. There were in operation last year in the United States, 57,323 miles of railroad, the net earnings of which bore to thecostof the roads the relation of 5.20 per cent, and to the capital stock of 3.21. This means simply that the work of transportation in the United States is, on the average, already done at a loss to the owners of the lines, or, in other words, vastly more cheaply to the public than there is the least likelihood of its being done in any other way—an assertion which anybody may verify by examining the accounts of the New York state canals. Now, fancy anybody seriously proposing to capitalists to construct railroads, as most of the western railroads were constructed, through a howling wilderness, forthe chanceof five and a half per cent, whenever the earnings allowed it; and fancy what subjects for spoliation are presented by the bloated owners of railroad property who pocket on the average less than four per cent on the face value of their stock. Let us add, finally, that no corporation should be restricted by law to a certain rate ofearnings, unless it contracts freely to do the work on those terms or has a minimum guaranteed to it by the state. In short, the railroad question, we would remind the ChicagoTribune, is not simply a question of dollars and cents. It is a question of morality in its highest and most important phases, and one the settlement of which must touch the security of all property, and affect the value of constitutions as safeguards of individual rights.
We have gone on for thirty years treating railroads as private property, and permitting and encouraging their construction by private enterprise. Out of this numerous abuses have grown up which ought to be remedied. The corporations have grown too powerful; their influence in politics is corrupting; the power of directors in the management is too great. For the reform of all this, careful legislationpreceded by careful inquiryis necessary. The prohibition of special legislation would do much to abate the corruption. Some means ought also to be devised for protecting the minority of the stockholders against the despotic power, which in some cases amounts to virtual confiscation, of those holding a bare majority of the stock, or, in other words, of giving stockholders the means of actually superintending the management of their own property and defending themselves against "rings" and "raids." Moreover, the power of directors to do anything but work the road ought to be diminished. Their discretion as regards extensions, combinations, consolidations, leases, and purchases, ought to be greatly reduced, if not destroyed. This involves two things not easily supplied. One is wise legislation, and the other honest government inspection. How far we are from both is best shown by the Illinois attempt at reform, which consists at present in taking the working of the roads out of the hands of the exceedingly able body of trained business men who now have charge of it, and compelling them to use a crazy table of "rates" drawn up by a mob of excited and ignorant politicians. If we are not prepared for this, the alternative, and the only one, is the purchase of the railroads by the state, and their management by our Murphys and Caseys. We shall not argue against this at present, for obvious reasons. But this, whatever difficulties it may present, is theonly honorable way of escaping the necessity of such reforms in the present system as we have indicated above. Whatever the evils of our railroad system, they are not to be met or removed by fraud.
First.The Nationsays that it has "followed the 'farmers' movement' with great interest, and with no little difficulty, owing to the heterogeneous composition of the organizations which are carrying it on, and the wide diversity of their character and avowed aims." The thought suggested is, that because the farmers are not united in their views relative to the best means to effect reform, because of the heterogeniety of their composition, the author of the circular could not understand their objects and aims. Unity of thought and action is rarely found in any body of men, even when few in number, during the discussion of ends sought to be obtained. Such unity cannot be expected in the first stages of the organization, and discussions of plans for future action. When the people living in various parts of the country, in different states, with diverse interests, but all having in view the accomplishment of a common end, attempt to unite their efforts, it would be too much to expect that they would harmonize at the outset in their views, or that they would not commit some errors. The "farmers' movement" is in its incipiency; it maybe said to be now only preparing for action, and it is yet too soon to look for united effort. The first assertion of the circular is only a covert thrust at the "farmers' movement"—an attempt to impress upon the public mind the belief that it is the effort of an irresponsiblemoborrabbleto defy law and override the rights of other classes, and especially of railroad corporations. HenceThe Nationis desirous of talking "common sense," and in its opening discloses its "common sense" to be a plea in behalf of railroad corporations.
Second.The circular casts odium on the efforts now being made to correct the abuses practiced by railroad corporations, by the use of the following language; "When Judge Lawrence was turned out of office in Illinois by the Grangers, and Judge Craig was put in his place, we took it for granted thatthey were going to deliver themselves from the tyranny of railroads by putting judges on the bench pledged to interpret the state constitution in a particular way, or, in other words, as a local paper has it, by showing that 'the people were superior to both laws and judges.'" Is it true that "Judge Lawrence was turned out of office?" He was a candidate for re-election, but a majority of the people voted for another man. Judge Craig was elected to office in the constitutional method, and took the seat formerly occupied by Judge Lawrence. The people did not "turn him out," but in the legal method, when his term had expired, elected another man. But, says the circular, "we took it for granted that they (the Grangers) were going to deliver themselves," etc. There were no other judges to be elected, and there was nothing in the election of Craig that would warrantThe Nationin arriving at the conclusion that control of the state was to be taken, and judges elected pledged to decide constitutional questions in a particular way. The idea is put prominently forth that the people who are attempting reform are a heterogeneous, irresponsible, body of men—a mob, who, by the mere strength of numbers, are going to overturn all law, pack the courts, and rule as mere caprice should dictate. This was taken for granted, because the people had elected one judge whom they believed was in sympathy with them. By the same rule we are warranted in assuming that the appointment of two judges in sympathy with the railroad interest of the county will revolutionize this whole government, and that all judges to be hereafter appointed will be pledged to decide all constitutional questions in favor of railroads. The author of this circular, however, is forced to admit that he was mistaken in his conclusions, and that the farmers "seek changes of a more legitimate character, and resting on a more solid formation than the creation of a subservient judiciary." While the people of the whole country knew and fully understood that the objects the farmers were seeking to accomplish were relief from the oppressions and extortions practiced by railroad companies; while the agricultural, political, and religious press of the land had been discussing the various propositions, and conventions of farmers and mechanics were meeting, and platforms andprinciples were being published, and the Patrons of Husbandry were discussing at public meetings and in the newspapers the best means for adoption, the author of this circular, who is now coming to the front as the champion of railroad corporations, or of the people, or of both, and is scattering his circular throughout the land, had heard nothing of the movement, and took it for granted that all that was sought by the "Grangers" was to elect "judges pledged to decide constitutional questions in a particular way;" and it required the "recent platforms" to admonish him that the Grangers looked to a reform of the abuses connected with the railroads and finances of the country.
With the new light our author received from the "platforms," he hastens to illuminate the public mind on this "vexed" railroad question. Having now mastered the situation, the writer takes it for granted that the all-important question is, "How to reduce railroads to the condition of public highways, controllable and existing solely or mainly for the convenience of the community," and concludes that the question is "as far from solution as ever."
It matters little whether railroads are considered "public highways" or private property. The name by which they are known will not make any difference. The real question is, how to make them subserve the objects for which they were intended, and at the same time afford a fair remuneration to the persons owning them. Some of the courts have already decided that the railroads of the country are public highways; but such decisions afford no relief.The Nationdoes not give us its opinion, nor does it seem to be aware that the supreme court of the United States has decided that railroads are public highways.
Third.The Nationsays that "The farmers have been accused partly because of their escapade about the judges of Illinois, of seeking to rob the railroad companies of their lawful earnings, by forcing them to carry on their business at a loss, under the operation of cast-iron rules, drawn up without reference to its peculiar nature; that the farmers virtually acknowledged this charge when they saw its gravity, and that they accordingly now announce that they have no scheme of spoliation or confiscation in their minds, but have at last hit upon a mode of ascertaining what are 'reasonable rates,' which consists in discovering what was the amount of capital invested in constructing and operating the roads, and treating a fair per cent on this as a proper return to the stockholders, and all charges which bring in more than this as 'unreasonable,' and therefore open to prohibition by the courts and state legislatures."The Nationadmits that this rule applied to companies hereafter organized, and roads hereafter built, would be just, and assures us that everybody would approve of such a law. Let the road be built with the proceeds of paid-up stock, and restricted to a fair per cent dividend on such paid stock, andThe Nationwill approve. To verify its hearty indorsement of this plan, it tells us in the next sentence that it does "not believe that a single mile of railroad would ever be constructed under such a rule in a new and thinly-settled country like the west and south." It would be glad to see it tried, believing "it would stop building railroads for the present, bring western farmers to a healthier comprehension of their relation to the roads, and railroad companies to a healthier comprehension of their relation to the community, and might tend to a solution of the railroad problem which would be both permanent and satisfactory." It gives as a reason why no roads would be built, that capitalists would not invest their money on unsafe security, or where the return would be uncertain. The logical deduction is, that if railroad companies are limited in the amount of their stock to the actual cost of the roads, no money can be obtained to build them; but if the company is allowed to add fictitious stock—to "water" it at pleasure, then capital can be had.
We do not discover the force of this reasoning. Railroads are usually constructed with borrowed capital. The capitalist loaning his money loans it on what he believes to be advantageous terms and good security. If a road cost $2,000,000, and is built with borrowed capital, we cannot readily see how the security is improved by issuing to the stockholders certificates for $2,000,000 of stock, no part of which has been paid. True, it may have the effect to place the road in the hands of men who are experienced in operating roads, capitalizing theirearnings and watering stocks, borrowing money on bonds, and loading the road with a burden that can only be supported by extortion; but it does not increase the value of the security held by the lender, nor does it enhance the value of the road. The less burden in the way of debts there is resting on a road, the more valuable are its stock and bonds. We confess we cannot discover the strength ofThe Nation'sargument. It seems to take it for granted that railroads can only be constructed by the class of men who now monopolize the business; in other words, that the class of unscrupulous men who have reduced the organizing of railroad companies and the manner of obtaining capital for the construction of roads to a system, are the only men who can undertake any railroad enterprise. It looks upon the south and west as destitute of men competent to organize a railroad company, or to procure means for the construction of railroads, or to construct them when the capital has been obtained. It regards the home construction of railroads in these sections as out of the question. It concludes that the method now adopted for procuring capital and constructing railroads is the only one that can be adopted. It forgets that in purer and simpler times railroads were built and owned by the parties living along their lines; that the process of adding large amounts of stock by watering was not then discovered, and that without these fictitious additions fair returns were made for the amounts invested. After all, railroads are only built when and where the business of the country requires them, save where large bounties are paid. In the west and south, where the business of certain localities and districts require a railroad, it will be built, even if the legislature should require the owners and stockholders to become so far honest as to limit their stock to the actual cost of the road, and to compel stockholders to pay up before obtaining certificates for their stock. It does not require these professional men to organize and control railroad companies, or the roads after construction.
But for the interference of rings formed to prevent such a consummation, any company of men who desire a railroad in their locality, by pursuing an honest course, could organize a company and build their road. If the amount of stock necessary to buildthe road was in good faith subscribed, and the same was being paid up as the construction of the road progressed, any reasonable amount of money could be obtained by such company by making an honest showing to capitalists. The demand for railroads would be as regularly supplied, as for any other article of necessity. The laws of trade would regulate their construction. In all such cases capitalists would have the best of security, and the roads would pay fair dividends on paid-up capital and interest on the sum borrowed for legitimate purposes. But if there were no legitimate call for the road, if it were intended as a fraud, by a set of educated sharpers who desired to receive large dividends on stock not paid up, or to borrow money by the sale of bonds in an amount double the cost or value of the road when completed, then it could not be built under thenew rulesandThe Nation'sprediction would be verified. Any legitimate business not "cornered" or controlled by combinations or rings can be successfully prosecuted, and to say, as doesThe Nationin substance, that if railroad companies are forbidden to act dishonestly and corruptly, no more railroads will be constructed, is an admission that the whole system is a fraud, and is a strong argument in favor of immediate, prompt, and efficient action on the part of state legislatures and of the courts. If men must become dishonest in order to build and operate railroads successfully, the whole system is rotten and should be destroyed, and an honest plan substituted.
Fourth.But saysThe Nation: "The application of any such rule to roadsalready in operation, would be spoliation, pure and simple. * * * * It would not only violate a tacit pledge made by the state to individuals, but would deprive men of rewards already earned by running great risks." This is the old argument in favor of railroad companies, but with this difference: It makes the state a party to the dishonest practices of men who have enriched themselves at the expense of the public, and those to whom they have sold their bonds. We venture the assertion that, with few exceptions, all railroads in the United States that have been honestly and prudently managed have earned a fair per cent on the capital actually expended in building, equipping, and operating them, and that a scale of tariffs greatly less than the rates now charged would, as a rule, afford fair dividends on the actual cost of the roads. No instances can be shown, where the states, in granting charters to railroad companies, directly or in the passage of general incorporation statutes, have given to the companies the right to commit frauds upon the parties with whom they deal by using their credit to build their roads, and without payment of their subscriptions issue to themselves certificates as for paid-up stock. In all cases, individual stockholders are made liable for the debts to the amount of their stock. In contemplation of law the stock is paid up, and the roads are constructed by using the capital derived from this source. The stock is supposed to amount to as much as the cost of the road. The state, in giving the company a corporate or artificial being, enters into no agreement, express or implied, to make good the contract of the company, or to be responsible for their misconduct, further than to exercise such control over them as to prevent or reform abuses, by compelling them to act honestly—being the same control exercised over all other persons within its jurisdiction. The creditors of railroad corporations have no stronger claim on the state in case of the non-fulfillment of contracts by railroad companies, or in cases of fraudulent and dishonest practices, than have the creditors of individuals. If a man worth $2,000 represents himself to be worth $4,000, knowing that his representations are false, and obtains credit upon his property for twice its real value, he violates the law, can be punished criminally, and is also responsible in a civil action; but his creditor has no claim upon the state for payment of the sum loaned or credit given on those representations. Is the claim different when a railroad corporation is the party obtaining the credit? Is the state under any greater obligations in one case than in the other? ButThe Nationsays the custom of doing business on this plan has obtained and been in use for thirty years, and from this draws an argument in favor of its legitimacy. Does this fact make it honest? or change the relation of the state to these corporations? A man has followed horse-stealing for thirty years, and is at last detected; he has been in the habit of selling his stolen horses to innocent parties; they have been reclaimed by the owners; can the purchasers, because this thief has so long followed his pursuit, claim compensation from the state? A man obtains goods under false pretenses, and before the owner can reclaim them, sells them to a third party; can the person defrauded claim compensation from the state? We cannot discover the distinction between the cases stated and that of railroad companies, who by falsely pretending that they have paid up their capital stock, obtain money on their bonds for an amount greater than the value of their entire roads. They all commit crimes for which they are liable to be punished, and all are liable in law to make good their contracts; but in neither case is there any pecuniary liability imposed upon the state or the public. Nor would the application of the rule to railroad companies already in existence, who have built their roads, be "spoliation pure and simple." It never can be wrong to compel men to do right. If railroad companies, by arbitrarily increasing their capital stock, and issuing certificates therefor without payment of any part of it, as is the general rule among them, are receiving dividends on such stock, justice to the public demands that the state legislatures should compel them to purge their stock, and at once cancel all such spurious and illegitimate issues. The duty the state government owes to the public demands this, that the oppressions under which the people suffer may be prevented in the future. But "it would deprive men of rewards already earned by running great risks." What these "great risks" are, is not readily seen. They certainly have not risked their money; they built their roads on borrowed capital, and have declared dividends to themselves on stock they have never paid. They extort from the public, in charges for transportation, money sufficient to pay the interest on the money borrowed for building their roads, and to pay dividends on their stock that has not cost them anything, and if they have run any risks they are the same that all men, who violate the law, have ventured upon. The pecuniary risks are all taken by the parties from whom they borrow.
The Nationsays that the west during thirty years has wanted railroads, and that there was small chance of making them profitable for a long time. That "it encouraged eastern menand foreigners to make them in any way they pleased, running whatever risks existed, and pocketing whatever gain there might be—and they were made." The people of the west have vivid recollections of the manner in which the means were raised to make their railroads. They took large amounts of stock, and voted large amounts of local aid for which they were to receive stock and dividends. After contributing sufficient to pay at least one-half of the entire cost of their roads, their easternfriendsmortgaged their roads and sold them out, and the "people of the west" got neither stock nor dividends, but they are to-day paying taxes to discharge debts contracted by them in building their roads after having been swindled by theireastern friendsout of values, amounting in Iowa alone, to not less than $4,000,000.The Nationfurther says that "the investment then was one of great danger and difficulty;to treat it now as one of no difficulty and no danger, would be simple swindling." This journal evidently knew but little of the real facts in the case, or it would not have made this assertion. But if we admit that the undertaking was both dangerous and difficult, does that exempt from all responsibility the adventurers who came west andfattenedoff of the simplicity of the people? Does it absolve them from the effects of their dishonest acts? Are the states pledged to make good the dishonest contracts of these adventurers because of the danger or difficulty they run?
While the law should regulate the action of all railroad companies, would it be "simple swindling" for the legislature to compel these pioneer adventurers to purge their companies of fictitious or "watered" stock, or limit their rate of charges? We do not believe that the legislature ever intended to charter railroad companies to prey upon the people at pleasure and without restriction, nor is it true that any injustice would be done in compelling companies, whose roads are constructed, to reduce their stocks to the amounts actually invested in their roads, and to limit their rates of charges to a fair and reasonable compensation for the money so invested. Nor would it shake the foundations of social order to compel these men to act honestly.
But another difficulty is suggested in this circular. Ourauthor says: "It is not possible for 'the people' or anybody else to ascertain theexactamount, on which, in abstract justice, the earnings ought to pay interest." True, it may be hard to ascertain what is the "exact" amount, but this fact presents no great difficulty. It is now known to nearly everybody about what railroads cost per mile. When a road that we know, in the nature of things, could not have cost more than $35,000 per mile, is by the "watering" process shown to have cost the sum of $75,000, it would not be difficult to approximate the amount of stock that should be cancelled; nor need the fact that the exact amount cannot be ascertained prevent legislative action. In all cases a large margin to cover any doubts might be allowed to the companies, and still great reductions could be made.
Fifth.The Nation, as it progresses, becomes more earnest. It takes up the oft repeated cry of "innocent purchasers," "widows and orphans," with their all invested in railroad stock. "Charitable corporations and banks" have invested in railroad stocks and "helpless people generally." It tells us that "this stock has been sold and resold, in open market, under the most solemn guarantees known to civilized society, with the understanding that it represents thebona fideownership of the roads, with all their earnings, possible as well as actual. The laws, the courts, and public opinion, assured to it this character without reservation or qualification. * * * To throw any doubt on its value now would be to cause an amount of misery and alarm which no thinking man could contemplate without a shudder." That some parties would suffer financially by compelling railroad companies to reduce their stock to an honest standard cannot be denied, and in some cases it might work absolute financial ruin. But that any considerable amount of railroad stock is held and owned by poor people is rather improbable, and that "helpless people generally" deal in railroad stock is not true. That some purchases are made by innocent parties may also be true; yet in this day and age when the fact that at least one-half of all railroad stock is mere fiction and has no intrinsic value is known to the public generally, a third party must be "innocent" indeed to purchase it without knowing that its value is imaginary rather than real.
Most of the stocks and bonds of railroad companies are sold in Wall Street by the owners and managers, acting in their character of brokers and stock gamblers. The innocent third parties are generally the dupes of these brokers who are on the lookout for the unwary. These dupes are caught and stripped and turned loose without remorse, when the managers of the great railroad interests of the country are "loading or unloading," and no complaint is heard. The "innocents" are robbed without exciting a passing remark; but when an attempt is made to relieve the people from the onerous burdens imposed upon them, we hear on all sides the cry of "innocent purchasers!" and of the great wrongs about to be committed. They virtually admit their own dishonesty, but say in substance: "We have duped others and you must permit us to rob the people in order that 'innocent' third parties may not suffer." This is the pith ofThe Nation'sargument. It goes further, and says: The law and the courts have sanctioned this dishonest course, and because of this, the same raid upon the rights of the people must be allowed to continue without interruption.
Neither the people nor the state are in any manner responsible for the acts of these railroad managers. All contracts for the sale of bonds or stocks are in the first instance made with the companies or their agents. They are responsible to the parties holding their bonds or stocks. Their roads are liable to their full value, and each stockholder is liable to the amount of stock he owns, and to that extent must make good the contracts made by the managers of the road. The purchaser had the means of knowing the value of the stock he purchased. If he suffer, his suffering is the result of the fraud of the directors of the road, and of his own negligence. None of these causes affect the right of the state to regulate the company, and to compel it to act honestly.
The cry of "innocent purchasers" will not avail. While the people can sympathize with those who are defrauded by the dishonest acts of the companies, and appreciate the helpless condition of widows and orphans who have lost by railroadrascality, the facts will demonstrate that they are few in number, unless we include among the "widows and orphans" Commodore Vanderbilt, Col. Tom. Scott, Daniel Drew, Jay Gould, and the Wall street brokers generally, who own and control most of the railroad stocks. If we admit all that is stated in the circular, the right of the people to be protected against the impositions and oppressions of the railroad companies remains unchanged, and the legislature, acting for the whole people, can control the management of the companies so far as it affects the public. If the doctrine advocated by the circular be true, railroad corporations are now able to defy the government and the people.
Sixth.The Nation, in its circular letter, says: "If the state wants to make the railroads common highways, it has the right to take them, but at their market value, paying the owners what other people would pay them, and not inquiring curiously and knavishly into their original cost. Between honest parties to a bargain, that, to use a common phrase, is neither here nor there." We get more light as we advance. As we understand the principles of our government, the states possess the right of eminent domain. But they have no power to buy and sell, like corporations or individuals. They may condemn private property for public use, if the public good requires it. The value of property for public use is ascertained in the manner prescribed by statute.The Nationis inconsistent. It says in one paragraph that the state has no lawful right to regulate railroads and restrict the action of railroad companies in the issuing of stock, etc., and then declares that the state can take the railroads from the companies should it desire to do so. But for cool assuranceThe Nationis entitled to the champion belt when it says the statemusttake the roads at their market value—at what other people would pay for them—without inquiring "curiously and knavishly" into the original cost! In other words, these corporations are so potent that should the state attempt to exercise its right of eminent domain, they can dictate the terms upon which they would be willing to surrender their roads to the public. The terms are that the state must pay the companies' value for all the watered stockwith which they have loaded their roads, as well as for all the bonds the companies have sold, and do thiswithout asking questions. If the people or the states should stop to inquire into their cost, they would be acting knavishly. True, the companies could not build their roads without special grants from state legislatures, but having obtained the privilege of locating their roads where they pleased, and having, by false pretences, obtained local aid and defrauded the people who helped to build the roads; having piled up their fictitious stock by the billion, and by onerous and dishonest charges reduced the farming population to poverty, their champion,The Nation, tells the states: "If you want the railroads, you can take them, but you must not be curious to know what they cost; this would be a knavish act; you can have them by paying the companies the full amount of money they claim to have invested, including fictitious and watered stock." This kind of impudence is sublime. The railroad companies, through thishired spokesman, propose to quit business provided the states will pay them just what they are pleased to call the value of their roads, and ask no questions. It is usual for the thief, when seeking immunity for his crimes, to propose to return a part of the stolen property, but these corporations, who have been robbing the states and the people for years, offer to close their career by forcing upon the parties robbed what is left of their booty, provided the states will pay to them not only the cost of the roads, but allow them par value for all their bogus or fictitious stock.
They propose to compel the states to adopt a new rule—the rule that governs operations in Wall street. They will "bull" their stock to the highest point, and force the states to purchase at these high figures.The Nationsays that "The people ought undoubtedly to have looked forward a little when they first began to grant charters; but, not having done so, they ought not now throw on others the whole damage done by their ownlaches." The conclusion is that because they dealt with railroad companies as they deal with honest men, and did not provide in advance for the punishment of all conceivable dishonest practices on the part of the officers of the companies,thereforethe people are the guilty parties and shouldreward the innocent railroad companies by paying them real dollars for the imaginary dollars they have added to their stock. The railroad companies took an undue advantage of the people, but that is "neither here nor there;" the companies must get from the states all that they please to demand for their roads. This is the "common sense"The Nationpresents to the people.
The power of the states, under the constitution, to purchase, is not doubted by this advocate of the railroad interest, nor does he, in his "common sense," consider the immense tax that the purchase of the railroads would entail upon the people.
Seventh.The Nationsays that "Much of the outcry over the high rates charged by railroads is due to an immense but deeply-seated popular delusion as to the value of railroad property." The reader is then referred to Poor's Railroad Manual for the value of railroad property, butThe Nationfails to state that in this Manual the value of all railroads is given as furnished by the companies themselves; it includes all their watered stock and bonds with which the roads are "loaded," and does not purport to give the actual cost of any road. The book, too, is published in the interest of the companies, and for the purpose of inflating rather than giving the true value of the roads. From this Manual it appears that dividends do not average more than five per cent on the stock. When it is remembered that every dollar invested in railroads (taking all the roads in the United States) represents two additional dollars, or that by the increase of stock and issuing of bonds, the reported cost is three times the actual cost of the roads, a dividend of five per cent is equivalent to fifteen per cent on the actually paid-up honest capital, it would appear thatThe Nation, and not the people, is laboring under "a deep-seated delusion."The Nationis not informed upon the subject, or desires to present an unfair view of it. In the Manual to which reference is made, the New York organ will find the statement that railroads can afford to carry freights for one and one-fourth per cent per ton per mile. This is their own statement. Whataretheir charges? Recently they have beenreducing their rates. As published, old rates from New York to Chicago were one dollar per hundred-weight. This has been reduced to seventy-five cents by the managers of the Grand Trunk lines. By the new scale the rates charged are about double what the Manual fixes as "paying," and yetThe Nationthinks that because the farmers desire lower rates, the question of reduction assumes a "somewhat ludicrous aspect." We are advised to examine Poor's Railroad Manual before we permit our minds to be filled with revolutionary notions about railroads. The farmer should presume that the advantage is all on his side when railroad companies charge himonlyseventy-five cents for carrying a bushel of wheat from Iowa to New York, and that at present rates railroad companies are making little or nothing, and are running great risks. These are proper deductions from the circular ofThe Nation. Having presented the whole case to its own satisfaction, it gives reign to fancy, and says: "Now fancy anybody seriously proposing to capitalists to construct railroads, as most of the western railroads were constructed,through a howling wilderness, for thechanceof five and a half per cent whenever the earnings of the road allowed it; and fancy what subjects for spoliation are presented by these bloated owners of railroad property, who pocket on the average less than four per centon the par value of their stock,"—to which we might add, "including more than one billion of dollars for which they never paid one cent." The fact that these self-denying railroad men are constantly extending their roads, buying and leasing all that they can get control of, for the purpose of more effectually controlling the government and enslaving the people, and are devoting all the earnings of their roads to these objects, are not deemed worthy of notice by this champion of the railroad interest. We know as a fact, that the leading and controlling railroad men are spending their whole energy and their money to this end. These men are fast consolidating the whole railroad interest. We also know, that companies that are content to divide their earnings, rather than extend their roads, make large dividends, and leave a surplus to be capitalized. The "common sense" ofThe Nationdoes not strike us with its intended force.The Nationevidently has but a limited knowledge ofthe west. The fancy sketch of self-denying railroad men constructing railroads "through a howling wilderness," is finely drawn; but it exists only in the mind ofThe Nation. If this writer had been speaking of the mountain gorges and desolate pine plains which vex and impoverish the Boston & Albany track from Albany to Worcester, he might be excused for his words; but the "howling wilderness" does not apply to the cultivated prairies, whose enterprising farmers helped to build the roads now so bitterly and justly complained of, and it describes the domain of no western road save where the companies obtained, through legislative and congressional aid, enough of the people's land to construct the roads.
Eighth.As a last pointThe Nationsays, that "no corporation should be restricted by law to a certain rate of earnings unless it consents freely to do such work on those terms, or has a minimum guaranteed to it by the state." The state possesses no power to guarantee to any private corporation any rate of dividends; nor would it be just to compel the people to donate a part of their earnings to railroad companies, or to any other private parties. In our judgment, the state has the constitutional right to regulate and control all private corporations and, when the good of the public demands it, to restrict the rates charged by railroad companies for carrying freights and passengers. We admit that "the questions connected with the regulation of railroads are questions of morality, in their highest and most important phases, the settlement of which must touch the security of all property, and affect the value of constitutions as safeguards of individual rights." We go further, and say that in the management of railroads, and the favors shown to the companies, the constitutional rights of individuals have already been measurably destroyed, and that the most important question now is, How can those rights be restored and no injustice be done to railroad companies? These questions we have already discussed, and will only add that the sole remedy to be applied is legislative limitation and restriction. The abuses now practiced by railroad companies must be corrected. The legislatures have the power and it is their duty to restrict the scale of charges to such rates as willafford a fair remuneration to the companies on their investments, and at the same time protect the people from the extortions of soulless corporations. This power can be exercised over the companies now in being as well as over those to be hereafter organized.
We have devoted this chapter to an examination of the views ofThe Nationfor the reason that, in the form of a circular, they have been widely distributed, and are designed to distract and divide those who are seeking relief from the oppressions of this railroad monopoly, and because the writer treats the "Farmers' Movement," the "Grangers," and "the people" with undisguised derision and contempt. The farmers are characterized as amobof politicians—an irresponsible body—ignorant and careless of the rights of others, and represented as claiming a superiority to courts and laws. The idea that the people, farmers, or grangers have not sufficient knowledge to take the lead in any attempt to reform the abuses under which they suffer, is put prominently forth. The attempt at reform in Illinois is referred to in the following words, in speaking of the remedy for present abuses: "How far we are from both (i. e., ascertaining and applying the remedy) is best shown by the Illinois attempt at reform, which consists at present in taking the working of the roads out of the hands of the exceedingly able body of trained business men who have charge of it, and compelling them to use a crazy table of 'rates' drawn up by amobof excited and ignorant politicians." The prevailing notion which has obtained in some parts of the country, that farmers and working men are not qualified to act in matters of a public nature, is reflected throughout the circular, and the rights and privileges of railroad corporations are spread before the reader in what is termed a "common sense" manner. The object of all this is apparent: It is to impress upon the public mind the idea that the people are not equal to the occasion, and that no reform can be effected.
It is a self-evident proposition, that the wealth of a country lies in its products, and that the quantity of its products depends directly upon the amount of labor employed. The diverse interests and pursuits in our country afford opportunity for the employment of an immense number of laborers. Indeed, the persons employed in manual labor in the various industrial pursuits of the country number more than one-half of the whole population. This great army of laborers is engaged in agricultural and horticultural pursuits; its rank labors in shops, factories, furnaces, mines, stores, and offices, upon railroads and canals, and in vessels, and in the numerous other relations requiring their services. Their right to fair remunerative prices for their labor is admitted by all. Whether that remuneration is paid in money, as when the labor is hired, or shares in the product of its creation, the workman should receive a just reward for his services. No onerous taxes, duties, or restrictions, should be imposed upon labor. The profits derived from labor should belong to the laborer. When capital and labor unite in producing, a fair division of the product should be made. Any system that gives the whole product to the capitalist, except the small stipend paid for the time the laborer is employed, is oppressive. We are not an advocate of a division or distribution of the wealth of the country among all classes and pursuits, but contend that it is but just that the operatives in the factory, the forgers of the foundry, the skilled artificers of the machine shop, the miners who extract wealth from the earth, the laborers who build and operate railroads, canals, etc., and, in short, all whose work and skill, combined with capital, produce a profit, should receive a fair proportion of the profit thus created. Prosperity and contentment can only be found where all industrial pursuits prove remunerative; where manual labor not only supports the laborer, but enables him to acquire a competence in process of time. That division of labor and capital which compels the laborer to toil daily to keep want from his door, and is so inflexible that the sickness of a single day entails the loss of necessaries to his family, is a species of slavery. When by the customs of the country, or by its laws, the line dividing labor and capital is so clearly defined, that the laborer, by a life-time of toil, can accumulate nothing, while the capitalist employing him realizes from ten to one hundred per cent per annum upon the amount invested, the one is but coining the life-blood of the other, and the laborer is but little better than a bond-servant. From time immemorial, those who obtain their support by manual labor have received less attention from government than any other class. Indeed, in all monarchial governments they are left out of consideration, except as their labor can be made useful in advancing the interests of the superior classes. In our own country there has existed a prejudice against the laboring classes. Especially was this so in the south until the abolition of slavery. As a nation, we have been apt to follow old opinions, and look upon labor as degrading, and the laborer as a menial. This prejudice still exists to a great degree, and our boys seek speculative rather than legitimate industrial employments. While in theory all men are considered equal in our country, practically the old feudal distinction is kept up. We have no titled aristocracy in America, but we are fast creating an aristocracy of wealth and pursuits. While labor is the motive-power, and manual laborers the engineers who keep the car of progress moving forward, they receive less consideration from the hands of government than the loungers and speculators. While acts of congress and state legislatures, designed to benefit the wealthy capitalists, are of frequent date, but few can be found designed or enacted in the interest of the laboring classes. Special legislation in favor of the capitalists, corporations, and manufacturers, has been the rule; legislation in the interest of the laboring classes the exception. Thedignitythat should attach to labor is entirely wanting, and the respect thelaborer should command is not accorded to him. Not that he is looked upon as the inferior of other men, but that in all matters affecting the public welfare, the interests of the capitalist, the large operator, the banker, manufacturer, and corporations generally, claim special attention, while the real wealth-producing portion of the people is neglected. This is not the result of any design on the part of those engaged in other pursuits—it results from the fact that capital pays particular attention to its own interests, while labor is content to let other interests take control of the government, of all public matters, and of even its own pursuits, quietly accepting a secondary position, and neglecting to claim the consideration and respect to which it is entitled from its intimate connection with the capital of the country and the body politic.
The laborer's political existence is seldom felt save at elections, when the strongestvotedecides the day, and then generally in the blind following of its file leaders. The reforms promised to labor on these occasions are seldom realized, and the laborer, without asserting his rights as a freeman, is too apt to continue in the old, beaten track, sometimes complainingly, it is true, but willing and ready to be directed by his party or employer, whenever his help is needed. All of which is calculated to widen the line dividing capital and labor, and to increase the wealth and power of the capitalist.
Let us illustrate: The capitalist is engaged in manufacturing, and wishes protection from the government. The question of protective tariffs is one of the issues of the campaign. He employs one hundred voters. He makes known to them his wishes, and explains to them the benefits he expects to receive. They wish to oblige their employer and accept his views as correct, and all cast their votes for what they are led to believe will be his benefit. They are not less intelligent than other men, but instead of acting independently they wish to please their employer. By this act, they involuntarily take an inferior place among men, and lower their dignity. While they have by their action enabled the manufacturer to increase his gains, by the success of a protective tariff, they have secured nothing for themselves, not even an advance of wages, unless their employer voluntarily allows such an advance. Heis aided by legislative enactment through their votes, and can demand additional profit for the product of their labor; but the act is of no personal benefit to them. All they receive, if anything, is voluntarily allowed by the capitalist employing them. Had they examined for themselves they might have discovered that the act which benefited him was detrimental to their own interests. The same illustration will apply to all pursuits requiring capital and labor. The consolidation of any business so as to destroy or prevent competition is detrimental to the interests of labor. Monopolies, of whatever kind, are encroachments upon the interests of those who depend upon manual labor for support.
Railroad corporations in the United States employ not less than two hundred thousand men. This large number of men have no interest in these corporations excepting the wages paid to them. Subtract the sums they so receive, and their daily labor still adds to the wealth of these powerful corporations. They are employed to perform manual labor; they are free and independent citizens of this republic. Their employers do not have any claim upon them for anything but their labor. Yet, as a general rule, in all matters affecting the interests of railroad corporations, when the issue is made at the ballot box, these men are found voting as their employers desire, too often without giving the matter due attention, and not unfrequently in support of measures which are at war with their own best interests. In thus voting they are influenced by what they deem proper motives; they desire to gratify their employers. This state of things is also most strikingly presented in local and municipal elections, when certain measures are to be carried. In such cases, as a general rule, the person or officer controlling or employing men votes them "solid" on the side of the question he supports. In the cases we have given, as well as in all others of a like character, where any combination or corporation desires to influence or carry certain measures, the undivided support of the employees is expected. So long has this manner of voting been practiced, it has grown into a custom; for the employee, if he refuses to observe it, does so at the risk of losing his employment. We have referred to these things, not for thepurpose of showing that the men engaged in manual labor are inferior to other men, or to prove that they act from improper motives, but to demonstrate our proposition that they do not think and act independently in matters of public concern, and are indifferent to their own best interests. That while other interests procure special favors from government, the laboring classes are content to occupy an inferior position, and even give their support to measures tending to degrade rather than to ennoble them. Because of these things, the laboring classes, as a general rule, are treated by those who are getting control of the capital and business of the country as inferior beings, and labor is not classed by them as of honorable calling.
The creation of privileged classes in our country is to be deprecated. The centralization of wealth and the grading of the standing of men by the amount of money they possess; the creation of great corporations, with power to control the business and finances of the country, now threaten to overthrow our republican institutions. But equally to be dreaded is the indifference manifested by the laboring classes in asserting and protecting their rights. Practically, so far as the business of the country is concerned, the line between capital and labor is now sharply drawn, and in the administration of the government, the old-time dogma, that the class controlling the wealth of the country should rule, while those who labor for a support are to remain "hewers of wood and drawers of water," is fast assuming tangible form, and unless the far-reaching and grasping policy of monopolies is checked by the laboring and producing classes, the absolute control of the government will pass from the people into the hands of their oppressors. By the action of railroad corporations; the special legislation in favor of certain interests; the monopolies given to manufacturers, and the action of the Wall street brokers, the wealth of the country has become centralized, and is controlled by and in the interests of the monopolists, who, because of their combinations, also control the value of labor throughout the country. The influence of the laboring classes is made to subserve the purposes of monopolists. The manufacturer, protected by government, enjoys all the profit accruing from the labor of the operatives, and uses the influence incident to his position to strengthen his interests by controlling their suffrages.
In all the different labor-employing pursuits, the political privileges enjoyed by the employe are directed and controlled by the employer in his own interest; the whole mental and physical structure of the laborer is used in advancing his employer's interest. Because of this law of capital, the comparatively few men now controlling the railroads of the country, our manufacturers and other great interests which have become the special favorites of those in power, have obtained an almost unlimited influence over the best interests of the country. They have been able to entrench themselves in their strongholds, and compel all the agricultural, the commercial and other industrial pursuits to contribute to their already dangerous power. The great army of laborers, instead of controlling the political affairs of the country in their own interest, become the instruments in the hands of the monopolists of their own oppression. With sufficient strength to shape the whole policy of the government they are content to let others control them, while they toil from day to day for the small compensation allowed them, and derive no benefit from the proceeds of their labor.
If the capital and labor of the country were combined, so that the products could be divided and a fair proportion allowed to the laborer, his social and financial condition would be improved, and the power of the few who now control the government in their own interest would be destroyed. While the duty of providing for himself and family is imposed upon every one, inthis countryevery citizen has another important duty to perform: the duty of aiding in the preservation of republican government and the equal rights of all the people. Those who become indifferent to these objects and duties, and allows selfish or ambitious men to get the control of the government, and prostitute it to their own purposes, are the authors of their own sufferings. And those who permit themselves to become instruments in the hands of the people's oppressors for the continuance of oppression, commit great wrongs to themselves and their country.
The public opinion that accords to the Wall street stockgambler a place among honorable men, and allows him to shape the financial policy of the country, that allows him to live outside of prison walls, is corrupted and perverted. Yet there is no class of men in the whole country who have so great an influence over the government and the commercial and financial interests as the Wall street brokers.
No class of citizens should command greater respect than that engaged in manual labor, nor should any other class exercise a more potent influence in the nation; yet, as a matter of fact, no class receives so little consideration or has less influence in national affairs. While great interests with concentrated wealth, requiring no special aids from government, are constantly receiving them, the interests of the laboring and producing classes receive no special care or attention. While railroad corporations and other great monopolies are vigilant in protecting and strengthening their interests, the laboring classes are indifferent as to what is to be their future.
While other interests are extending their influence, the interests of the laborers are neglected, and the laborers themselves are content to occupy inferior places in the body politic. While labor is the means, and thelaborerthepowerthat developes and enriches the country, theinterestsof the laborers languish, while those of the speculator, the stock broker, and capitalist,prosper. Before we can become a prosperous, contented, and happy people, all honorable pursuits must have equal rights before the law. Special and class legislation must be abandoned, and thedignityof labor must be fully vindicated.
But it may be asked, How are these things to be accomplished? We answer: 1st. By laborers asserting their right to think and act as independent men; by giving their employers to understand that they do not hire their intellects, theirrightsas citizens, but only their physical force; that while they labor for their employers, they preserve their individuality and self-respect; by giving their employers to understand that they are only paid for manual labor, and that they are not bondsmen. 2d. By demanding for labor such remuneration as will allow the laborer to share in the profits resulting from his toil,either by treating it as an investment in the business in which it is employed, or by the payment of such compensation as will allow a surplus for investment—refusing to wear out their lives in procuring a bare subsistence. 3d. By the diffusion of knowledge among the laboring classes, especially of the theory and objects of our government, and the relation sustained by the laboring classes to the government, and by demanding for themselves due respect and consideration on the part of those engaged in other pursuits; by demanding of legislatures and of congress the enactment of such statutes as shall not impose taxes upon their labor for the benefit of other pursuits, and such as shall require all taxes levied for any purpose to be levied upon thepropertyandnot the laborof the country. 4th. By demanding the unconditional repeal of all statutes which confer upon individuals, classes, companies, corporations, or callings, special bounties, grants, privileges, or profits which in their operations act oppressively upon the laboring and producing classes. And lastly, to strive to eradicate the ancient and continuing prejudice against labor, and to vindicate the truth of the often repeated declaration of eminent men: "That the person engaged in manual labor is following the most ancient as well as the most noble calling."
These objects can all be accomplished by united and intelligent action. The false, yet popular, idea that a man's respectability among his fellows is graduated by the extent of his possessions, and his political standing scaled by the amount of his money, can be obliterated, and merit alone will become the rule by which to measure the man. The laboring man with intellect and personal merit will supersede the man who has money but lacks mind, in the social and political world.