Peace by Standing Army
Henry George
[A speech delivered at the labour meeting, Cooper
Union, New York, 12 July, 1894,
in which Henry George called for protest against President Cleveland's
sending Federal troops to Chicago during the great railroad strike]
Mr. Chairman and Fellow-Citizens:
I COME here to-night, at considerable personal inconvenience, to
discharge what I believe to be a duty. I come here to talk to you, as
I have always talked, frankly and plainly. In some things I do not
agree with the men who have invited me to come here. In some things I
probably differ from the majority of this audience. I do not believe
in strikes. (Hisses and faint cheers.) I am not disposed to denounce
George M. Pullman. (Prolonged hisses and groans.) I come here as a
citizen, as a Democrat -- (Slight applause, followed by hisses and
groans, continuing for several minutes)
I come as a Democrat who, from his great tariff message in 1887, has
earnestly and with all his strength and ability supported Grover
Cleveland (more hisses and groans), to protest against his action.
(Great cheers.)
I come here to say what no daily paper in New York City has dared to
say -- that the action of Grover Cleveland (hisses and cries of "Order!")
in throwing the standing army, without call from local authority, into
the struggle between the railroads and their workmen, was in violation
of the fundamental principles of our Government, and dangerous to the
Republic. Governor Altgeld (loud cheering) has spoken the true
Democratic doctrine. (Renewed hisses.) You men who are hissing the
name of Democracy know no more about that doctrine than do the
so-called Democrats who rule and rob this city. The Democracy that I
am talking about, the Democracy to which I belong and as a
representative of which I stand here, is not that Democracy; it is the
Democracy of Thomas Jefferson ! It is not the false Democracy of
to-day, but it is the true Democracy; the Democracy that believes in
equal rights to all and special privilege to none; the Democracy that
would crush monopolies under its foot. (Cheers.) It is not the
Democracy which now rules, but the Democracy that I trust soon will.
(Long cheers.)
I am not a lawyer. I have had no time to make a special study of the
matter from a legal standpoint. I cannot say how far, if at all, the
President has violated the written law of the land. But this I do say
positively: he has violated that law more important than the written
law; he has violated the fundamental principles of our polity.
(Cheers.)
The doctrine that the Federal power should be slow to interfere in
that in which it is not directly concerned is a foundation stone of
our Republic. Governor Altgeld and Governor Waite are right. (Cheers.)
If the standing army is to be sent into the States of this nation as
it has been sent into the State of Illinois and other States, if the
Federal Executive of its own motion is to undertake to keep the peace
between citizens throughout the land, what shall the end be? We shall
need a standing army of hundreds of thousands of men. The moment this
principle is acknowledged, there is an end to local self-government,
the Republic dies, and in all but name and hereditary succession the
Empire has come. It is the lesson of the history of the world -- peace
kept by a standing army is incompatible with a true republic. (Loud
cheering.)
This is a time for every sober man who loves his country and wishes
to see it exist in peace and plenty to redeem its promise and fulfil
its high destiny, to enter his pro test against this Presidential
action, temperately, firmly, unequivocally. (Cheers.)
But it is said that the President's action has been to maintain law
and order. Let that be granted. Does the end always justify the means?
I yield to nobody in my respect for law and order and my hatred of
disorder, but there is something more important even than law and
order, and that is the principle of liberty. I yield to nobody in my
respect for the rights of property, yet I would rather see every
locomotive in this land ditched, every car and every depot burned and
every rail torn up, than to have them preserved by means of a Federal
standing army. That is the order that reigned in Warsaw. (Long
applause.) That is the order in the keeping of which every democratic
republic before ours has fallen. I love the American Republic better
than I love such order. (Long cheering.)
What is the pretence that is made a justification for the action of
the President? It is that the running of the mail trains of the United
States has been interfered with. Debs has been indicted and arrested,
charged with conspiracy to interfere with the mails of the United
States. (Groans and hisses.) Is that charge a true or a fair one?
(Shouts of "No!") I do not believe that there is an honest
man to-day who will say that he believes in his heart that there is
any basis for this charge. Debs from the first declared that he and
those who were following him were anxious to carry the mail trains of
the United States.
But the railroads used the United States mail as a tool to crush
labour organisation. (Cheers.) The railroads were the real
conspirators so far as conspiracy to interfere with the transportation
of the mails is concerned. (Loud cheers.) They did not carry nor
attempt to carry the mails on the regular mail trains as usual. If
they had, Debs and his men would have seen to it that the mail cars
went through. What they did do was to change the position of the mail
cars, and to scatter the mails among all their trains, and demand then
that all trains should be run through because there was mail matter on
them. (Cries of "Shame!" and long hissing.)
The conspiracy was by the millionaire monopolists. They deliberately
conspired to use the mails so as to call upon the Federal Government
to send its troops to crush down their employees. (Cries of "That
is right!")
Look at California, where this struggle has been fiercest. I know
something of that State. Citizen of New York as I now am, yet the
greater part of my life has been spent in California. The people of
that State are an orderly and law-abiding people. Do you suppose that
they would look easily upon any movement that contemplated an
interference with the mail service, which means so much to them? I
know that they would not. I have not been in California for years, yet
to-night I would stake my life that the great majority of the people
of that State are in sympathy with the employees as against the
railroad monopolies. Can there be stronger proof that if law is on one
side, justice and liberty are on the other side? When a law-loving
people sympathise with violations of law, there must be injustice
behind the law. (Applause.)
The masses of California hate the railroad power, and there is reason
why they should. It has been the railroad power that has utterly
demoralised California politics and debauched its public service. It
is the railroad power that has given the control of that great State
into the hands of a few railroad magnates -- such a control as no
prince ever exercised over his principality.
I stood by when the first spadeful of earth was turned in Sacramento
for the Pacific roads. The men who were then back of that enterprise
were but moderately wealthy men -- the richest of them worth perhaps
$100,000. To day those men, or those who have succeeded them, are
multi-millionaires. How did they get their great for tunes? Not as C.
P. Huntington says in a newspaper paragraph this evening -- by
industry and frugality. (Laughter.) They got those fortunes by robbery
-- by robbery that is worse than highway robbery because it has been
coupled with the bribery of those whom the people elected to serve
them in high office, even on the benches of their courts. (Cheers.)
These men have used what they got in trust from the Nation and the
State, to corrupt the Government of Nation and State. They have bought
their way from primary elections to the United States Senate; they
have made the managers of both parties their henchmen, put their
friends on the bench, controlled newspapers, and kept lawyers under
fee to take no case against them; they have throttled enterprise and
held the State in a bond of iron. Over and over the people of
California have rebelled at the ballot only to find after election was
over that the railroad was still in control. (Cheering.)
What is true of California is true of other Western States, and true
in large degree all over the country. And this great corrupt power,
not content with legislative control, has been looking forward to the
use of the Federal courts and of the standing army. We have been,
building ships of war that are of no use unless for the purpose of
furnishing some pleasant gentlemen with pleasure trips and of
furnishing the Carnegies with money. (Cheers and laughter.) We now
have a standing army of 25,000 men, and there are demands that it
shall be increased to 50,000 men. In the days when our Government was
weaker, when we had hostile savages on our frontier lines, and had
real fighting to do, we had an army of only 10,000 men and a navy in
proportion.
What is the reason that we are building ships of war and increasing
the size of our army? It is because the millionaire monopolists are
becoming afraid of a poverty- stricken people which their oppressive
trusts and combinations are creating. It is because great wealth,
unjustly acquired, always wants the security of standing armies and
navies. (Long cheering.)
I want to speak with the utmost respect of Mr. Cleveland. (Prolonged
hissing and groaning.) No man has been given such high honour from the
American people. They made him President once, and then after a four
years lapse showed their confidence in him by making him President
again, a compliment never paid to any man before. He has received
higher honour from the American people than even did George
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln or Ulysses S. Grant.
(A voice, "Why did you support him?")
Why I supported him -- why against politicians and powers he was
elected -- was because I believed, and the people believed, he had
sounded the key-note against monopoly. I am slow to attribute to Mr.
Cleveland anything but the best motives, but the facts are plain. Not
only has he left undone that which he had asked the warrant and
received the command of the people to do, but from the very first, I
am sorry to say, he seems to have taken the side, wantonly taken the
side, of those very monstrous monopolies that have oppressed the
people and which they believed he would begin to break down. (Loud
cheering.)
It is at least the fact that his Federal appointments in California
have been such as the railroad magnates themselves would have dictated
had they been allowed to dictate, and I am not so sure that they were
not. To the most important Federal office in California Mr. Cleveland
appointed a man who was denounced at a Democratic State Convention as
a traitor to his party because he had sold out to the railroad
companies. Mr. Cleveland did this in spite of the fact that these
things were formally presented to him by representative men of
California. (Hisses.) And his other California appointments, so far as
I have learned, are of the same character.
With Democratic lawyers of national reputation to choose from, one of
Mr. Cleveland's first steps was to take as his Attorney-General a
corporation attorney, a man whom I, and I think most of you, never had
heard of. I refer to Mr. Olney. (Groans.)
It is from such capturing by great corporate interests of the legal
machinery and law courts of the Federal Government that we get
injunctions that look to the punishing of a man for not going to work
when he did not choose to go to work, and I fear it is from the same
power that the order comes which sends the standing army into States
where the State authority has not asked for it, and even protests
against its presence. (Groans.)
You have heard of the Senate sugar investigation, an investigation
designed to do anything except to find out facts. (Laughter.) When in
Washington, before that investigation was ordered, or the newspaper
charges which compelled it had been made, I was told by reliable
authority that a Democratic United States senator, who has been once,
and if I mistake not, twice, Chairman of the National Democratic
Executive Committee and consequently in a position to know, was
declaring that the Sugar Trust interests must be taken care of in the
tariff revision because it had contributed $200,000 to Mr. Cleveland's
election. Whether the railroads made any such contributions I do not
know. (Laughter and cries of "Certainly they did!" "Sure!"
and "You bet!")
I said in beginning that I came here to say what our daily papers in
New York dared not say. That is true as far as my knowledge goes. But
it has only been true since last Saturday. On last Friday, the 6th,
the greatest of our Democratic papers, the "New York World,"
came out in a long and ringing article denouncing the use by President
Cleveland of the standing army. On Saturday it ate its words of the
day before and applauded the President, and has continued to do so
ever since. What brought about such a change? If telegrams could be
dragged out as the telegrams of the strike managers have been, we
might find out; but it certainly was not a change of heart, a change
of conviction. It is ominous to find the entire press applauding
action which violates so grossly American principles and American
tradition; but it is even more ominous still, it seems to me, to see
the ease with which a power that has bent courts and executive to its
will can between sunrise and sunset wheel around a great paper-a paper
that in so many things has stood as the exponent of true Democratic
principles. (Great applause.)
But I must stop. (Cries of "No, no; go on!" from all parts
of the hall.) I would, indeed, like to go on, but I have exceeded my
time, and others are to follow. Still, something yet I must say, but I
must be brief. The purpose of this meeting is not only to express
opinion on the action of the President, but to consider the industrial
situation.
Well, what are we going to do about it? (Cries of "Impeach
Cleveland!" "We have the ballot!" "Let us have
political action!")
There is no royal road to relief. It cannot be found in electing this
man or that man, or in merely changing from this party to that party.
Political action amounts to nothing unless it is the expression of
thought, not impulse. This is a time which calls for our best and most
sober thought. Consider what is proposed. On the one side there are
calls for a general strike. Can anything be accomplished by a general
strike ? A strike unaccompanied by violence is simply a test of
endurance -- a trial of who can live longest when the exertion of
labour is stopped. Now, as a matter of fact, who can live longest when
the earnings of labour are stopped -- the men who have wealth in store
or the men who are dependent on their daily earnings for their daily
bread? the rich man or the poor man? (Applause, and cries of "The
rich!") Yes; the rich man every time. (Continued applause.)
Again, we are told that arbitration is the sovereign Remedy -- that
we must have compulsory arbitration. This is as idle and more
dangerous than the cry we used to hear for bureaus of labour
statistics. Compulsory arbitration! That must mean, if it means
anything, that behind the arbitrators there must be power to enforce
their decree. Have you considered what compulsory arbitration means?
Arbitrators must be appointed. In the long run who will get the
arbitrators, the rich men or the poor men? (Cries of "The rich!"
"The rich every time!") Yes; judging from experience, the
rich. Are you willing, then, to submit your wrongs to arbitration?
(Cries of "No!") To call for the establishment of courts
which, if they amount to anything at all, are to have power to compel
you to work when you do not want to work? ("No, no!" and
applause.)
Then there is a third proposition. The "Morning Journal" of
this city is the proposer. It concedes and declares the impolicy and
weakness of strikes. It proposes instead of striking that the men in
sympathy with the Pullman strikers should keep at work, save their
money, and raise a fund which should enable every Pullman striker to
leave Pullman! Well, supposing you did. Where are you to take them?
(Laughter.) Is there a city, a town, a hamlet in this country where
their trades are carried on, that there are not to-day three idle men
in those trades for one at work? (Applause.) Suppose you did raise
money to take these Pullman strikers out of Pullman, could anything
better please Mr. Pullman? Poor as are the wages he pays, would he
have any difficulty in filling his works were the strikers removed?
(Applause.)
I speak of this proposition because it brings us to the heart of the
labour question. Strikes, labour troubles, low wages, all the bitter
injustice which the masses are feeling, come at bottom from the fact
that there are more men seeking work than can find opportunities to
work. (Applause and cries of "That is it!") Yet the country
abounds in opportunities. Its natural resources are so great ae to
seem without limit. The trouble is that the natural resources have
been monopolised. (Much applause.)
Let me tell you what I have told you many times before. It is
something I must tell you, or I should be dishonest. This whole great
organised labour movement is on a wrong Line -- a line on which no
large and permanent success can possibly be won. Trades-unions, with
their necessary weapon, the strike, have accomplished something and
may accomplish something, but it is very little and at great cost. The
necessary endeavour of the strike to induce or compel others to stop
work is in its nature war, and furthermore it is war that must
necessarily deny a fundamental principle of personal liberty -- the
right of every man to work when, where, for whom and for what he
pleases. Those who denounce labour organisations and their works use
this moral principle against you. Stated alone, it is their strength
and your weakness. ("That is true!")
But above the wrongs which strikes involve, there is a deeper, wider
wrong, which must be recognised and asserted if the labour movement is
to obtain the moral strength that is its due. It is the great denial
of liberty to work which provokes these small denials of liberty to
work. It is the shutting up by monopolisation of the natural,
God-given opportunities for work that compels men to struggle and
fight for the opportunity to work, as though the very chance of
employment were a prize and a boon. (Applause.)
The key to the labour question is the land question. The giant of
monopolies is the monopoly of the land. That which no man made, that
which the Almighty Father gives us, that which must be used in all
production, that which is the first material essential of life itself,
must be made free to all. In the single tax alone can labour find
relief. (Great and long continued applause.)
|