Cbe Conservative *
reigned nt Warsaw. The test of gov
ernment is not in the outward mechan
ical display of order , but in the capacity
to develop the best men , and wo have
lived in the faith that government by
the consent of the governed develops
the best men. Wo have not let the wise
rule the ignorant , the learned the un
learned , the rich the poor , but wo have
appealed always to those whom Abra-
"ham Lincoln called "the plain people"
as the ones in whoso judgment to rely ,
and upon whose shoulders should rest
the burden of government.
Ideas are , after all , the eternal forces.
Human life and destiny are controlled
by them. They may seem today of lit
tle significance , but around them gather
material interests and tomorrow their
power is disclosed.
It is a universal law that no family or
nation will prosper whoso foundation
ideas are not harmonious and consistent.
If conflicting , there is nothing more cer
tain than that trouble will follow. Our
own history furnishes a tremendoiis les-
HOII in this direction. Wo commenced
our national life declaring , as its
foundation principle , that all men were
created equal ; that they possessed in
alienable rights life , liberty and the
pxirsuit of happiness. But we tolerated
a conflicting thought. Wo attempted
to limit our foundation principle to
white men and deny it to black. It was
a compromise. It seemed a small mat
ter. The. antagonism would disappear
with time. But wo forgot that ideas are
living forces.
William H. Seward divined the whole
situation when he affirmed an "irrepres
sible conflict. " Abraham Lincoln saw
the inevitable struggle when he declared
that this nation could not endure half
slave and half fre.e. And after nearly a
century we paid the penalty in the aw
ful sacrifice of the civil war.
Shall we forget the lesson of the past ?
Shall we say it is a trifling matter to in
troduceiuto the life of this nation , which
affirms that government derives all its
powers from the consent of the gov
erned , the thought that that is true of
only one race and not of all ? That the
consent of the governed may be recog
nized for one portion and one race and
repudiated for another portion and an
other race within the satno dominion ?
Government by consent and govern
ment by force , no matter how well the
government may be administered , are
two essentially antagonistic principles.
Doubtless no immediate conflict will fol
low. We may see a largo measure ol
prosperity ; but are wo not sowing the
seed wHch in the days to come wil
grow up into a harvest of trouble for our
children and our children's children ?
The possibility is not changed by the
unquestioned fact that the Anglo-Saxon
race has the capacity for governing other
races , nor by the singular prosperity
which has attended England in her col
onial system. In comparing the two na
tions it must bo remembered that Eng-
and's colonial system comuienced'when
: he king was one in fact as well as in
name. The consent of the governed
was only a little factor in English life
when she first reached out her hand to
subdue and control other races. It was
no more for the king to govern Canada
and India than it was for him to govern
England ; and while the consent of the
governed has been struggling and grow
ing in England , it has not oven yet become -
come the single , dominant , controlling
fact of that nation's life ; so that the an
tagonism between the two ideas of gov
ernment by consent and government by
force has never , in that empire , been
fully developed.
With us the case is different. We
stand consecrated to the single political
idea of government by the consent of
the governed. To introduce into the
life of the nation the other thought of
government by force is , at the very out
set , to precipitate a conflict which ,
sooner or later , must inevitably result in
disaster.
Neither have we been so successful in
our treatment of dependent races in the
past as to justify any exalted expecta
tions for the future. We have called
the Indian tribes the wards of the na
tion , and our best citizens have striven
from the beginning of the government
to the present time to secure to them
their just rights , and with what result ?
The eccentric congressman from Now
Hampshire is credited with the state
ment that the Puritans marched among
the Indians with a Bible in one hand
and a rifle in the other. They con
verted those they could with the one
and disposed of the rest with the other.
Helen Hunt has told the story of our
dealings with these tribes in a book
which she entitles "A Century of Dis
honor. " Are wo entirely sure that a
century of dishonor in respect to sav
ages near at homo will not be followed
by a millennium of dishonor in respect
to those beyond the seas ?
To hoar some talk you would think
that all the influences going out from
this Christian nation to the heathen
have been Christian , purifying , eleva
ting ; but the fact is that even from
Puritan Now England there have gone
more hogsheads of rum than mission
aries , more gallons of whisky than
Bibles. If anyone imagines that this
will be changed when we come into con
trol of the Philippines and attempt to
rule them , that thereafter only mission
aries and Bibles will pass thither fron
America , ho sadly underrates the locomotive
tivo capacity of the devil.
Again , a necessity of colonial posses
sions is an increase in our regular army
and the first increase proposed is from
80,000 to 100,000 men. It is a strange
commentary that at the close of the
nineteenth century the head of the mos
arbitrary government in the civilized
world , the czar of the Russias , is invit-
ng the nations of the world to a de
crease in their arms , while this , the
! reest land , is proposing an increase in
its. Yet such seems to bo the impora-
; ivo need , if we enter upon the system
of colonial expansion. We have lived
and prospered for 1211 years with a hand
ful of regular troops. Wo have preserved -
served peace at homo and have been re
spected abroad. Government by con
sent of the governed has little need of
the soldier. So the world has come to
believe , and BO it is. Are wo ready to
forfeit this high position ? Do wo not
endanger the very foundation principles
of this government when we make the
blare of the bugles and the tramp of the
armed battalion the music which is
heard on every side and the inspiration
which attracts the ambition of our
youth ?
Another aspect of this question is
worth noticing , and that is its relation
to labor. Wo are facing in this country
a difficult problem. The inventive spirit
of our people is multiplying with mar
velous rapidity labor-saving machines.
By the use of them one or two skilled
laborers will do the work heretofore
done.by many unskilled laborers. There
is , therefore , a surplus of unemployed
labor. The machine is supplanting the
man. Wo are facing the' fact of an in
creasing amount of unemployed and un
skilled labor. What shall be done ?
China , with its enormous population ,
has sought to solve it by prohibiting the
machine. Is that the best solution wo
can offer ? It has not a few advocates in
our midst. The boycott put on the Ox-
ley Stave Company , which resulted in
litigation , going up to the court of ap
peals , in the Eighth circuit , was founded
on the fact that the company intro
duced machines into its manufactory
for doing work which had theretofore
been done by-hand. The complaint in
dorsed by the Federation of Labor
against the United States superintend
ent of printing and engraving is of the
same nature. Everywhere we hear a
claim that the cleaning of streets must
be done by hand labor instead of by ma
chine. More than one labor body has
protested against the employment of
women. I am not here to indorse all
these but simply to note the fact that
labor realizes that it has a surplus , and
is seeking to reduce it. Now , the great
economic problem in this country is not
how can a few men make more money
and pile up larger fortunes ? But how
can the great body of the people make a
fair and comfortable living ? The right
to work is again and again insisted upon
as more important than the right to vote ,
and the cry of the right to work is sup
plemented by the cry that the state fur
nish work to all. who cannot obtain it
elsewhere. But the furnishing of work
by the state means more taxation , and
that implies added burdens on the em-