Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (July 1, 1915)
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
