Wf---'
The Commoner
JULY, 1915
13
m
what is; progress peers into the future and
seeks to know what ought to he.
Our nation has profited by precedent, hut it
has not permitted itself to bo fettered by it, and
hereafter as heretofore, it must be bravo enough
to mark out new ways and to achieve new vic
ories. There being no time for elaboration,. I must
content myself with speaking of things funda
mental; I ask you to consider three lines in
which progress has been made and along which
still further progress is possible. First, we must
solve aright the domestic problems which con
front our generation and we must do this not
only for ourselves but that our example may help
those, in foreign lands, who, while not as free as
we are to set the pace, are as anxious as we that
a right solution shall be reached. Every domestic
problem of any lmportai oe involves to a greater
or less extent a conflict between human rights
and What are known as property rights. Jeffer
son, the most profound political philosopher who
has yet appeared, and the greatest constructive
statesman in the world's history, founded his
entire, system of philosophy upon the proposi
tion that human rights are superior to property
rights not that property rights should be ig
nored but that they should never be placed above
the inalienable rights of man; three of which,
the right to life, the right to liberty, and the
right to the pursuit of happiness, are enumerated
in the Declaration of Independence.
Lincoln, who was not ashamed to count him
self a follower of Thomas Jefferson, presented
the issue in language more apt, more terse, and
more epigramatic than any employed by Jefferson
in advancing the same idea. In 1859 Lincoln, In
a letter expressing his regret that ho was unable
to accept an invitation to participate in the cele
bration of Jefferson Day at Boston, said: "The
republican party believes in the man and the
dollar, but, in case of conflict, it believes in the
man before the dollar." It will be seen that his
political philosphy rested upon the same founda
tion as Jefferson's and that he agreed with the
Sage of Monticello in giving higher consideration
to man, the handiwork of God, than to property,
the handiwork of man. If Jefferson, the first and
greatest democrat, and Lincoln, the first and
greatest republican, united .in supporting a prop
osition, it would seem to be worthy to be accept
ed by this generation, unler.s its correctness con
be successfully impeached; but as this proposi
tion is sometimes rejected in practice by those
who have not the courage to openly combat it, I
shall invoke the authority of one greater than
oither of the political leaders to whom I have re
ferred, the teacher from whom both, consciously
or unconsciously, drew their inspiration. Christ,
in language conveying a like meaning, has drawn
the same comparison and drawn it in favor of
man as against property. In emphasizing the
superior claims of the things that arc spiritual
over things which are material, he asks: "Is not
the life more than meat and the. body more than
raiment?" And yet, notwithstanding the fact
that this proposition, namely, that man comes
first and property afterwards, is endorsed by au
thority which can not be controverted; in spite
of the. fact that the proposition is supported also
bv the universal conscience of the common peo
ple, we find that every important economic prob
lem, here and elsewhere, now and always, in
volves this dispute as to which has the prior
claim; and the precedents of history, I must ad
mit, are largely on the side of property.
If the United States is io lead the world in
the advance, toward economic peace, it must be
guided by this principle, that human rights come
first, and must apply it to every question with
which it has to deal. This does not mean-that
property rights are to be violated; it means,
rather that respect for human rights is a con
dition precedent to the security of property
rights. Let man's prior claim be recognized and
be will see to it that the claims of property have
due consideration; if man's rights are trampled
upon, the rights of property will have no de
fender. mhc second thought for which I ask consiaer
ation relates to the true measure of greatness.
Jpcnrding to tho old standard, the individual
grew in importance as ho was able to command
hn services of others; he waa great in propor
tion as people, either voluntarily or under com
pulsion, labored for him. Tho natural outgrowth
r f this measure of greatness was a contempt for
1 il: labor has usually been regarded as a badge
rt inferiority, while idleness has too often been
accepted as anevldence of respectability. It was
a cruel theory as demoralizing to those who ate
the bread that others earned as It was unjust to
those whoBe toll was unrequittcd. It was sup
ported by precedent, but it was challenged nine
teen hundred years ago and Is losing prestlgo day
by day. No more revolutionary doctrine was
over advanced on earth than that proclaimed by
the Nazarono, when, in response to a very human
question, ho said "Lot him who would bo chlof
est among you be tho servant of all." That aoc
trino is growing; and today a multitude, not all
professing Christians, it is true, nor professing
Christians only, but, insido of tho church and
outside of the church, an increasing number are
not only accepting this moral philosophy but are
finding that, paradoxial as it may scorn, thoro is
moro pleasure in giving than in recolving. Ho
who GIVES lays up capital upon which ho may
reasonably expect returns, whilo the one wno
RECEIVES Is running into debt he is contract
ing obligations which he can not Honorably ig
nore. Precedent supports tho old theory, but
progress may be estimated by tho extent to which
the new theory is being adopted.
Most of tho sins which nations commit against
each other find their source In tho failure to ap
ply to nations the moral principles which wo ap
ply to individuals. Tho moro wo consider this
tendency to ignore in international matters tho
common rules of everyday life tho more we won
der at it, because there is no other rulo which
can bo substituted for it. To illustrate what I
mean, let mo ask you to consider one of tho most
familiar errors which we have to encounter. If
anyone is asked his opinion of the commandment
"Thou shalt not steal," ho promptly replies 'hat
it presents a self-evident truth; and yet we know
that tho man who steals a small amount is, as a
rule, more certain of punishment than the man
who steals a very large amount. Why? There is
no logic by which the fact can bo justified, but
we all know that the man who commits grand
larceny has more apologists than the man who is
guilty of petty larceny; and we further know that
the stealing of any amount by an individual Is
more quickly condemned than the larceny of
territory by nations. How many must Join in
the violation of a moral law in order to convert
theft into patriotism?
And so with tho qommandment "Thou shalt
not kill"; no one would risk his own reputation
by attempting to defend the act of any Individ
ual who commits murder, either for money or
out of revenge. By what process of reasoning
then, shall we convince ourselves that the moral
character of the act Is changed when tho killing
is done on a large scale for the securing of ter
ritory, is the outgrowth of race or religious
hatred, or because of family ambitions or trade
rivalries?
But these Illustrations are employed merely to
reinforce the proposition that moral principles
apply to groups, no matter how large, as well as
to individuals, and the acceptance of this prop
osition leads us to the conclusion that tho great
ness of a nation must be measured by the same
rule which we apply to individuals. If the in
dividual is great, not in proportion as he takes
out of the world but in -roportion as he con
tributes to the welfare of his fellows, so the na
tion is great, not in proportion as it absorbs but
In proportion as it gives to mankind.
We need not fear to apply this measure of
greatness to our nation. It has earned its prlm
"acy by the assistance which it has rendered to
the world assistance rendered In many ways,
two of which deserve snecial mention. First: It
is giving money to worthv causes as no other na
tion now gives or ever has given; wo are each
year spending unselfishly moro money per capita
for people who do not live under our flag than
any other people nor living or whose donations
history records. If you travel westward you will
And scattered all over Asia religious and Intel
lectual centers established by American mission
aries and American teachers. After following an
unbroken chain of these churches and schools es
tablished by American altruism and supported by
American money, I found rtisfaction In tho
thought that, if we cannot claim that the sun nev
er sets upon American territory, we do have ea
son to rejoice that the sun never sets upon Amer
ican philanthrophv; before I he orb of day goes
down upon ono of these evidences of America's
greatness, it rises upon another.
Second: We r.re giving that which money can
not buy: we are giving ideas and ideals. The
idea is the only thing that defies monopoly; It Is
as free as the air we breathe and as necessary
to tho spiritual life of the Individual and the
world as air is to the human body. It Is one's
own fault if any other person hac higher ideals
than his own. for ho run appropriate any Ideal
If he will. Ideas pass from nation to nation, and
they are moro pricoloss than merchandise, al
though they can not bo burdoned by import or ex
port duties, or voxed by customs collectors. Our
treasury statistics do not onumorato tho idea
imported or exported, and yot tills commerce far
exceeds In real value tho commerce about which
we aro so solicitous. In tho oxchango of ideas we
aro anxious to have tho balance of trade against
us rather than In our favor, for only thon can
wo have tho satisfaction that comes from know
ing that our contributions exceed tho gifts which
wo rcceivo.
And this brings mo to tho third thought which
I deem appropriate to this day, namely, the
methods which wo should employ In dealing with
other nations.
In international affairs wo arc compelled to
choose botwoon two opposite and conflicting the
ories; ono Is supported by tho precedents of his
tory tho other is in harmony with the principles
which wo aro moro and moro applying In dally
life. Ono of those thoorles rollcs upon forco;
tho other on persuasion. Forco has back of it
tho physical power of tho nation and Its purpose
Is to COMPEL. Persuasion has nack of It the
spirit of friendship and seeks to CONVINCE,
Stated In simple terms, the program of force
contemplates a consent grudgingly given as the
result of coercion; persuasion contemplates an
agreement voluntarily reached as tho result of ar
gument. While thcro may bo no apparent differ
ence In tho immediate effect-for both may accom
plish tho samo result, there Is a tremendous
difference if wo consider years instead of days.
A victory secured through throat of force is only
temporary; tho resentment which it arouses and
the spirit of rovongo to which it gives birth rob
the triumph of its permanonco. On tho other
hand, a victory secured by persuasion is lasting
and lays tho foundation for a co-operation which
creates Instead of destroys.
Somo years ago I heard an Illustration used by
a New York divine; I ropeatlt because I can not
improve upon It. Ho likened forco to tho ham
mer and love to tho rays of tho sun; "With the
hammer," ho said, "you can break a mass of Ice
into a thousand pieces, but each piece will still
bo ice," but "sunshine," ho continued, "acting
silently and slowly, will melt the mass and 'i
will bo ico no more." If, in dealing with Indi
viduals, "a soft answer turneth away wrath;"
It is no less true that tho spirit which leads to
negotiations will avert the ftcljng of hostility
out of which war is born.
This nation more than ny other great nation
Is at liberty to put God's truth to tho test, and
in International affairs tr ' the efficacy of those
methods which have proven successful among in
dividuals. With an ocean rolling on either side?
with a mountain range along either coast, we are
singularly free from the possibility of invasion
invasion, the fear of which has lod tho European
nations to convert themselves Into armed camps.
We find an incentive, too, in the fact that, having
won distinction as the leader of tho peace move
ment, wo have a reputation to sustain.
And we can not overlo k another Important
fact, namely, that we have tho machinery by
which peace can bo preserved, whilo tho natiojs
of Europe, insofar as they cal with each other,
have only machinery for war. Wo have thirty
treaties linking us to three-quarters of the in
habitants of the globe, and pledging us to the
investigation of every disp te beforo a declara
tion of war or the commencement of hostilities.
The plan embodied In these treaties gives us an
honorable means of avoiding hasty action; it
gives us an opportunity to appeal to the sober
second thought of those Hh whom we have a
controversy. These treaties do not make war
impossible; we can under these treaties have
war if, after due deliberation, the people really
want war, but they give tin parties to cue trea
ties a chanco to think before they shoot.
I have brought before you these three prop
ositions, which, if applied, will materially affect
the conduct of our nation, and the meaning of
our flag is determined by - hat nr nation does,
'The flag represents, not wh - the nation WAS or
MAY BE, but what the nation IS, and we who
are citizens of this great republ'c are privileged
to share In shaping the nation's policy and in
determining the ideals which our flag shall pro
claim to tho world. No other people enjoy so
great a distinction, and therefore, citizenship
nowhere else carries with it so great a responsi
bility. This Is the day of all the days in the year
when it is our duty to weigh vell this respon
sibility; This is the age of all ages when our
hearts ought to be open to the summons to great
service. We have reached that period in the na
tion's progress and that epoch in the world's
it
mnroe topt-; " T
"""t.'CTMTW
gg jiv '";,.H,i!i