The Labor Question
AT THE CHICAGO LABOR DAY PICNIC, SEPT. 3, 1900
AT THE CHICAGO LABOR DAY PICNIC, SEPTEMBER 3, 1900
By far the greatest problem, the most far-reaching in its stupendous importance, is that problem, or rather that group of problems, which we have grown to speak of as the labor question. It must be always a peculiar privilege for any thoughtful public man to address a body of men predominantly composed of wage-workers, for the foundation of our whole social structure rests upon the material and moral well-being, the intelligence, the foresight, the sanity, the sense of duty, and the wholesome patriotism of the wage-worker. This is doubly the case now; for, in addition to each man’s individual action, you have learned the great lesson of acting in combination. It would be impossible to overestimate the far-reaching influences of, and, on the whole, the amount of good done through your associations.
By far the greatest problem, with the most enormously important and far-reaching consequences, is what we call the labor question. It is really a group of problems. Any thoughtful public figure should consider it a special privilege to address a group made up mostly of wage workers. Our entire social structure rests on the material and moral well-being of wage workers. It also rests on their intelligence, foresight, sound judgment, sense of duty, and healthy patriotism. This is doubly true now. For, in addition to acting individually, you have learned the great lesson of acting together. It would be impossible to overstate the far-reaching influence of your associations or the good they have done overall.
In addressing you, the one thing that I wish to avoid is any mere glittering generality, any mere high-sounding phraseology, and, above all, any appeal whatsoever made in a demagogic spirit, or in a spirit of mere emotionalism. When we come to dealing with our social and industrial needs, remedies, rights and wrongs, a ton of oratory is not worth an ounce of hard-headed, kindly common-sense.
As I speak to you, I want to avoid empty generalities and lofty language. Above all, I want to avoid any appeal to popular passions or mere emotion. When dealing with our social and industrial needs, remedies, rights, and wrongs, a ton of speeches is not worth an ounce of practical, kind common sense.
The fundamental law of healthy political life in this great Republic is that each man shall in deed, and not merely in word, be treated strictly on his worth as a man; that each shall do full justice to his fellow, and in return shall exact full justice from him. Each group of men has its special interests; and yet the higher, the broader and deeper interests are those which apply to all men alike; for the spirit of brotherhood in American citizenship, when rightly understood and rightly applied, is more important than aught else. Let us scrupulously guard the special interests of the wage-worker, the farmer, the manufacturer, and the merchant, giving to each man his due and also seeing that he does not wrong his fellows; but let us keep ever clearly before our minds the great fact that, where the deepest chords are touched, the interests of all are alike and must be guarded alike.
The basic law of healthy political life in this great Republic is that every man must be judged strictly on his worth as a man, in action and not just in words. Each man must treat his fellow man with full justice and demand full justice in return. Each group of men has its own interests. Yet the higher, broader, and deeper interests are those shared by all men. The spirit of brotherhood among American citizens, rightly understood and practiced, matters more than anything else. Let us carefully protect the special interests of wage workers, farmers, manufacturers, and merchants. Let us give each man his due and see that he does not wrong his fellow men. But let us always remember a great truth: in the deepest matters, the interests of all are alike and must be protected alike.
We must beware of any attempt to make hatred in any form the basis of action. Most emphatically each of us needs to stand up for his own rights; all men and all groups of men are bound to retain their self-respect, and, demanding this same respect from others, to see that they are not injured and that they have secured to them the fullest liberty of thought and action. But to feed fat a grudge against others, while it may or may not harm them, is sure in the long run to do infinitely greater harm to the man himself.
We must beware of any attempt to make hatred, in any form, the basis for action. Each of us must stand up for our own rights. All people and all groups must retain their self-respect and demand the same respect from others. They must make sure they are not harmed and that they have the fullest freedom of thought and action. But nursing a grudge against others may or may not harm them. In the long run, it is sure to do infinitely greater harm to the person holding the grudge.
The more a healthy American sees of his fellow-Americans the greater grows his conviction that our chief troubles come from mutual misunderstanding, from failure to appreciate one another’s point of view. In other words, the great need is fellow-feeling, sympathy, brotherhood; and all this naturally comes by association. It is, therefore, of vital importance that there should be such association. The most serious disadvantage in city life is the tendency of each man to keep isolated in his own little set, and to look upon the vast majority of his fellow-citizens indifferently, so that he soon comes to forget that they have the same red blood, the same loves and hates, the same likes and dislikes, the same desire for good, and the same perpetual tendency, ever needing to be checked and corrected, to lapse from good into evil. If only our people can be thrown together, where they act on a common ground with the same motives, and have the same objects, we need not have much fear of their failing to acquire a genuine respect for one another; and with such respect there must finally come fair play for all.
The more a healthy American sees of his fellow Americans, the more convinced he becomes that our chief troubles come from misunderstanding one another. We fail to appreciate one another’s points of view. In other words, our great need is for fellow feeling, sympathy, and brotherhood. All of these naturally grow from spending time together. It is therefore vitally important that we do so. The most serious disadvantage of city life is the tendency to stay isolated in one’s own small circle. A man may become indifferent to the vast majority of his fellow citizens. He soon forgets that they have the same red blood, the same loves and hates, and the same likes and dislikes. They share the same desire for good. They also share the constant tendency to slip from good into evil, a tendency that must always be checked and corrected. If only our people can come together on common ground, with the same motives and goals, we need not fear much that they will fail to develop genuine respect for one another. And with such respect, fair play for all must eventually follow.
The first time I ever labored alongside of and got thrown into intimate companionship with men who were mighty men of their hands was in the cattle country of the Northwest. I soon grew to have an immense liking and respect for my associates, and as I knew them, and did not know similar workers in other parts of the country, it seemed to me that the ranch-owner was a great deal better than any Eastern business man, and that the cowpuncher stood on a corresponding altitude compared with any of his brethren in the East.
The first time I worked and became close friends with men skilled at manual labor was in the cattle country of the Northwest. I soon came to like and respect my companions immensely. I knew them, but I did not know similar workers in other parts of the country. So it seemed to me that ranch owners were much better than Eastern businessmen. It also seemed that cowboys stood just as high above their fellow workers in the East.
Well, after a little while I was thrown into close relations with the farmers, and it did not take long before I had moved them up alongside of my beloved cowmen; and I made up my mind that they really formed the backbone of the land. Then, because of certain circumstances, I was thrown into intimate contact with railroad men, and I gradually came to the conclusion that these railroad men were about the finest citizens there were anywhere around. Then, in the course of some official work, I was thrown into close contact with a number of the carpenters, blacksmiths, and men in the building trades, that is, skilled mechanics of a high order, and it was not long before I had them on the same pedestal with the others. By that time it began to dawn on me that the difference was not in the men but in my own point of view, and that if any man is thrown into close contact with any large body of our fellow-citizens it is apt to be the man’s own fault if he does not grow to feel for them a very hearty regard and, moreover, grow to understand that, on the great questions that lie at the root of human well-being, he and they feel alike.
Well, after a while, I got to know farmers well. Before long, I held them in the same high regard as my beloved cowmen. I decided that they really were the backbone of the country. Then, because of certain circumstances, I got to know railroad workers well. Gradually, I came to believe that these railroad workers were among the finest citizens anywhere around. Later, through some official work, I got to know a number of carpenters, blacksmiths, and building trades workers. These were highly skilled tradesmen, and before long I held them in the same high regard as the others. By then, I began to realize that the difference was not in the men, but in my own point of view. If a man gets to know any large group of our fellow citizens well, it is likely his own fault if he does not grow to hold them in very warm regard. He is also likely to understand that he and they feel alike about the great questions at the heart of human well-being.
Our prime need as a nation is that every American should understand and work with his fellow-citizens, getting into touch with them, so that by actual contact he may learn that fundamentally he and they have the same interests, needs, and aspirations.
Our greatest need as a nation is for every American to understand and work with fellow citizens. By connecting with them directly, each American can learn that they all share the same basic interests, needs, and aspirations.
Of course different sections of the community have different needs. The gravest questions that are before us, the questions that are for all time, affect us all alike. But there are separate needs that affect separate groups of men, just as there are separate needs that affect each individual man. It is just as unwise to forget the one fact as it is to forget the other. The specialization of our modern industrial life, its high development and complex character, means a corresponding specialization in needs and interests. While we should, so long as we can safely do so, give to each individual the largest possible liberty, a liberty which necessarily includes initiative and responsibility, yet we must not hesitate to interfere whenever it is clearly seen that harm comes from excessive individualism. We can not afford to be empirical one way or the other. In the country districts the surroundings are such that a man can usually work out his own fate by himself to the best advantage. In our cities, or where men congregate in masses, it is often necessary to work in combination, that is, through associations; and here it is that we can see the great good conferred by labor organizations, by trade-unions. Of course, if managed unwisely, the very power of such a union or organization makes it capable of doing much harm; but, on the whole, it would be hard to overestimate the good these organizations have done in the past, and still harder to estimate the good they can do in the future if handled with resolution, forethought, honesty, and sanity.
Of course, different parts of the community have different needs. The most serious questions before us are questions for all time, and they affect us all alike. But different groups of people have different needs, just as each individual has different needs. It is just as unwise to forget either fact. Modern industrial life is highly developed, complex, and specialized. This means that needs and interests are specialized too. As long as we can safely do so, we should give each individual the greatest possible freedom. That freedom necessarily includes initiative and responsibility. Yet we must not hesitate to intervene when excessive individualism clearly causes harm. We cannot rely on rigid rules either way. In rural areas, people can usually shape their own destinies to the greatest advantage. In cities, or wherever people gather in large numbers, they often need to work together through associations. Here we can see the great good done by labor organizations, by trade unions. Of course, if managed unwisely, a union or other organization can do great harm because of its very power. But, on the whole, it would be hard to overestimate the good these organizations have done in the past. It would be even harder to estimate the good they can do in the future. They can do that good if managed with determination, foresight, honesty, and sound judgment.
It is not possible to lay down a hard-and-fast rule, logically perfect, as to when the State shall interfere, and when the individual must be left unhampered and unhelped.
It is impossible to set a fixed, logically perfect rule for when the government should intervene. Nor can such a rule decide when individuals should be left free from both interference and help.
We have exactly the same right to regulate the conditions of life and work in factories and tenement-houses that we have to regulate fire-escapes and the like in other houses. In certain communities the existence of a thoroughly efficient department of factory inspection is just as essential as the establishment of a fire department. How far we shall go in regulating the hours of labor, or the liabilities of employers, is a matter of expediency, and each case must be determined on its own merits, exactly as it is a matter of expediency to determine what so-called “public utilities” the community shall itself own and what ones it shall leave to private or corporate ownership, securing to itself merely the right to regulate. Sometimes one course is expedient, sometimes the other.
We have exactly the same right to regulate living and working conditions in factories and tenement houses as we do to regulate fire escapes and similar features in other houses. In some communities, a highly effective factory inspection department is just as essential as a fire department. How far we should go in regulating working hours or employer liability is a practical question. Each case must be judged on its own merits. In the same way, the community must make a practical decision about which so-called “public utilities” it should own. It must also decide which utilities to leave in private or corporate hands, while keeping only the right to regulate them. Sometimes one approach is practical, sometimes the other.
In my own State during the last half-dozen years we have made a number of notable strides in labor legislation, and, with very few exceptions, the laws have worked well. This is, of course, partly because we have not tried to do too much and have proceeded cautiously, feeling our way, and, while always advancing, yet taking each step in advance only when we were satisfied that the step already taken was in the right direction. To invite reaction by unregulated zeal is never wise, and is sometimes fatal.
In my own state, we have made significant advances in labor legislation over the past six years. With very few exceptions, the laws have worked well. This is partly because we have not tried to do too much. We have proceeded cautiously, finding our way as we go. We have kept moving forward, but only after satisfying ourselves that each previous step was in the right direction. It is never wise to invite a backlash through unchecked zeal, and it is sometimes fatal.
In New York our action has been along two lines. In the first place, we determined that as an employer of labor the State should set a good example to other employers. We do not intend to permit the people’s money to be squandered or to tolerate any work that is not the best. But we think that, while rigidly insisting upon good work, we should see that there is fair play in return. Accordingly, we have adopted an eight-hour law for the State employees and for all contractors who do State work, and we have also adopted a law requiring that the fair market rate of wages shall be given. I am glad to say that both measures have so far, on the whole, worked well. Of course there have been individual difficulties, mostly where the work is intermittent, as, for instance, among lock-tenders on the canals, where it is very difficult to define what eight hours’ work means. But, on the whole, the result has been good. The practical experiment of working men for eight hours has been advantageous to the State. Poor work is always dear, whether poorly paid or not, and good work is always well worth having; and as a mere question of expediency, aside even from the question of humanity, we find that we can obtain the best work by paying fair wages and permitting the work to go on only for a reasonable time.
In New York, we have acted in two ways. First, we decided that the State should set a good example for other employers. We do not intend to let the people’s money be wasted or accept anything less than the best work. But while demanding good work, we believe we should also make sure workers are treated fairly in return. We have therefore adopted an eight-hour law for State employees and all contractors doing State work. We have also adopted a law requiring payment of the fair market wage. I am glad to say that both measures have, on the whole, worked well so far. Of course, there have been individual difficulties, mostly where the work is intermittent. For example, it is very difficult to define what eight hours of work means for canal lock-tenders. But, on the whole, the result has been good. The practical experiment of having men work eight hours has benefited the State. Poor work is always costly, whether it is poorly paid or not. Good work is always well worth having. Even apart from the question of humanity, we find that fair wages and reasonable working hours produce the best work. That is the practical advantage.
The other side of our labor legislation has been that affecting the wage-workers who do not work for the State. Here we have acted in three different ways: through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, through the Board of Mediation and Arbitration, and through the Department of Factory Inspection.
The other side of our labor legislation has concerned wage workers who do not work for the State. We have acted in three ways: through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Board of Mediation and Arbitration, and the Department of Factory Inspection.
During the last two years the Board of Mediation and Arbitration have been especially successful. Not only have they succeeded in settling many strikes after they were started, but they have succeeded in preventing a much larger number of strikes before they got fairly under way. Where possible it is always better to mediate before the strike begins than to try to arbitrate when the fight is on and both sides have grown stubborn and bitter.
Over the past two years, the Board of Mediation and Arbitration has been especially successful. It has settled many strikes after they began. But it has also prevented a much larger number before they fully got underway. Whenever possible, it is always better to mediate before a strike begins. That is better than trying to arbitrate once the fight is on and both sides have grown stubborn and bitter.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has done more than merely gather the statistics, for by keeping in close touch with all the leading labor interests it has kept them informed on countless matters that were really of vital concern to them. Incidentally, one pleasing feature of the work of this bureau has been the steady upward tendency shown during the last four, years both in amount of wages received and in the quantity and steadiness of employment. No other man has benefited so much as the wage-worker by the growth in prosperity during these years.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has done more than collect statistics. It has stayed in close contact with all the leading labor interests. As a result, it has kept them informed about countless matters of vital concern to them. One pleasing feature of the bureau’s work has been its evidence of steady progress over the past four years. Wages have risen, and work has become more plentiful and steady. No one has benefited more from the growth in prosperity during these years than the wage worker.
The Factory Inspection Department deals chiefly, of course, with conditions in great cities. One very important phase of its work during the last two years has been the enforcement of the anti-sweatshop law, which is primarily designed to do away with the tenement-house factory. The conditions of life in some of the congested tenement-house districts, notably in New York City, had become such as to demand action by the State. As with other reforms, in order to make it stable and permanent, it had to be gradual. It proceeded by evolution, not revolution. But progress has been steady, and wherever needed it has been radical. Much remains to be done, but the condition of the dwellers in the congested districts has been markedly improved, to the great benefit not only of themselves, but of the whole community.
The Factory Inspection Department deals mainly, of course, with conditions in large cities. Over the past two years, an important part of its work has been enforcing the anti-sweatshop law. The law is mainly intended to end factory work in tenement houses. Conditions in some crowded tenement districts, especially in New York City, had become so bad that the State had to act. As with other reforms, change had to be gradual to make it lasting. It proceeded through evolution, not revolution. But progress has been steady, and wherever necessary, it has been radical. Much remains to be done, but conditions for people living in crowded districts have improved markedly. This has greatly benefited not only the residents themselves, but the whole community.
A word on the general question. In the first place, in addressing an audience like this I do not have to say that the law of life is work, and that work in itself, so far from being a hardship, is a great blessing, provided, always, it is carried on under conditions which preserve a man’s self-respect and which allow him to develop his own character and rear his children so that he and they, as well as the whole community of which he and they are part, may steadily move onward and upward. The idler, rich or poor, is at best a useless and is generally a noxious member of the community. To whom much has been given, from him much is rightfully expected, and a heavy burden of responsibility rests upon the man of means to justify by his actions the social conditions which have rendered it possible for him or his forefathers to accumulate and to keep the property he enjoys. He is not to be excused if he does not render full measure of service to the State and to the community at large. There are many ways in which this service can be rendered,—in art, in literature, in philanthropy, as a statesman, as a solider,—but in some way he is in honor bound to render it, so that benefit may accrue to his brethren who have been less favored by fortune than he has been. In short, he must work, and work not only for himself, but for others. If he does not work, he fails not only in his duty to the rest of the community, but he fails signally in his duty to himself. There is no need of envying the idle. Ordinarily, we can afford to treat them with impatient contempt; for when they fail to do their duty they fail to get from life the highest and keenest pleasure that life can give.
A word about the broader question. First, I need not tell an audience like this that life requires work. Far from being a hardship, work is a great blessing in itself. This is true as long as working conditions preserve a man’s self-respect. They must also allow him to develop his character and raise his children. Then he and his children, along with the whole community they belong to, can steadily move onward and upward. An idle person, rich or poor, is at best useless to the community and generally harmful. Much is rightly expected from someone who has been given much. A wealthy man bears a heavy responsibility to justify, through his actions, the social conditions that made his wealth possible. Those conditions allowed him or his ancestors to accumulate and keep the property he enjoys. There is no excuse if he fails to give his full measure of service to the state and the community. He can serve in many ways: in art, literature, philanthropy, or as a statesman or soldier. But honor requires him to serve in some way, so that those less fortunate than he may benefit. In short, he must work, and not just for himself but for others. If he does not work, he fails in his duty to the rest of the community. He also fails greatly in his duty to himself. There is no need to envy the idle. Ordinarily, we can afford to treat them with impatient contempt. By failing to do their duty, they miss the highest and keenest pleasure life can offer.
To do our duty—that is the summing up of the whole matter. We must do our duty by ourselves and we must do our duty by our neighbors. Every good citizen, whatever his condition, owes his first service to those who are nearest to him, who are dependent upon him, to his wife, and his children; next he owes his duty to his fellow-citizens, and this duty he must perform both to his individual neighbor and to the State, which is simply a form of expression for all his neighbors combined. He must keep his self-respect and exact the respect of others. It is eminently wise and proper to strive for such leisure in our lives as will give a chance for self-improvement; but woe to the man who seeks, or trains up his children to seek, idleness instead of the chance to do good work. No worse wrong can be done by a man to his children than to teach them to go through life endeavoring to shirk difficulties instead of meeting them and overcoming them. You men here in the West have built up this country not by seeking to avoid work, but by doing it well; not by flinching from every difficulty, but by triumphing over each as it arose and making out of it a stepping-stone to further triumph.
Doing our duty sums up the whole matter. We must do our duty to ourselves and to our neighbors. Every good citizen, whatever his circumstances, owes his first service to those closest to him who depend on him: his wife and children. Next, he owes a duty to his fellow citizens. He must fulfill that duty both to individual neighbors and to the State. The State is simply a way of expressing all his neighbors together. He must keep his self-respect and demand the respect of others. It is wise and right to seek enough leisure to improve ourselves. But woe to the man who seeks idleness instead of the chance to do good work. And woe to the man who trains his children to seek idleness instead of that chance. A man can do no worse wrong to his children than to teach them to avoid difficulties throughout life. Instead, he should teach them to face and overcome difficulties. You men here in the West built up this country by doing work well, not by seeking to avoid it. You did not shrink from every difficulty. You overcame each one as it arose and made it a stepping-stone to further triumph.
We must all learn the two lessons—the lesson of self-help and the lesson of giving help to and receiving help from our brother. There is not a man of us who does not sometimes slip, who does not sometimes need a helping hand; and woe to him who, when the chance comes, fails to stretch out that helping hand. Yet, though each man can and ought thus to be helped at times, he is lost beyond redemption if he becomes so dependent upon outside help that he feels that his own exertions are secondary. Any man at times will stumble, and it is then our duty to lift him up and set him on his feet again; but no man can be permanently carried, for if he expects to be carried he shows that he is not worth carrying.
We must all learn two lessons: to help ourselves and to give and receive help from our fellow men. Every one of us sometimes slips and needs a helping hand. And shame on anyone who fails to offer that hand when he has the chance. Yet, though every man can and should be helped at times, he is beyond saving if he becomes too dependent on outside help. He is lost if he comes to believe that his own efforts matter less than the help he receives. Any man will stumble at times, and then it is our duty to lift him up and set him on his feet again. But no man can be carried forever. If he expects to be carried, he shows that he is not worth carrying.
Before us loom industrial problems vast in their importance and their complexity. The last half-century has been one of extraordinary social and industrial development. The changes have been far-reaching; some of them for good, and some of them for evil. It is not given to the wisest of us to see into the future with absolute clearness. No man can be certain that he has found the entire solution of this infinitely great and intricate problem, and yet each man of us, if he would do his duty, must strive manfully so far as in him lies to help bring about that solution. It is not as yet possible to say what shall be the exact limit of influence allowed the State, or what limit shall be set to that right of individual initiative so dear to the hearts of the American people. All we can say is that the need has been shown on the one hand for action by the people, in their collective capacity through the State, in many matters; that in other matters much can be done by associations of different groups of individuals, as in trade-unions and similar organizations; and that in other matters it remains now as true as ever that final success will be for the man who trusts in the struggle only to his cool, head, his brave heart, and his strong right arm. There are spheres in which the State can properly act, and spheres in which a free field must be given to individual initiative.
We face industrial problems of enormous importance and complexity. The past fifty years have brought extraordinary social and industrial development. The changes have been far-reaching, some for good and some for bad. Even the wisest among us cannot see the future with perfect clarity. No one can be certain he has found the complete solution to this vast and complicated problem. Yet each of us, if we are to do our duty, must strive courageously to help find it. We must do all we can. We cannot yet say exactly how much power the State should have. Nor can we say what limits should be placed on individual initiative, which the American people hold so dear. All we can say is that many matters have shown the need for people to act together through the State. In other matters, associations of different groups of people, such as trade unions and similar organizations, can do much. And in still other matters, it remains as true as ever that ultimate success comes to the man who relies in the struggle only on his cool head, brave heart, and strong right arm. There are areas where the State can properly act, and others where individual initiative must be given free rein.
Though the conditions of life have grown so puzzling in their complexity, though the changes have been so vast, yet we may remain absolutely sure of one thing, that now, as ever in the past, and as it ever will be in the future, there can be no substitute for the elemental virtues, for the elemental qualities to which we allude when we speak of a man as not only a good man but as emphatically a man. We can build up the standard of individual citizenship and individual well-being, we can raise the national standard and make it what it can and shall be made, only by each of us steadfastly keeping in mind that there can be no substitute for the world-old, humdrum, commonplace qualities of truth, justice and courage, thrift, industry, common-sense, and genuine sympathy with and fellow-feeling for others. The nation is the aggregate of the individuals composing it, and each individual American ever raises the nation higher when he so conducts himself as to wrong no man, to suffer no wrong from others, and to show both his sturdy capacity for self-help and his readiness to extend a helping hand to the neighbor sinking under a burden too heavy for him to bear.
Although life has grown puzzlingly complex and changes have been vast, we can remain absolutely sure of one thing. Now, as always in the past and future, there is no substitute for the basic virtues. These are the qualities we mean when we call someone not just a good man, but truly a man. We can improve individual citizenship and well-being and raise our national standard to what it can and must become. But we can do so only if each of us keeps one thing firmly in mind. There is no substitute for the age-old, ordinary qualities of truth, justice, courage, thrift, hard work, common sense, and genuine sympathy and concern for others. A nation is made up of its people. Every American lifts the nation higher by wronging no one and allowing no one to wrong him. He also lifts the nation by showing his strong ability to help himself and his readiness to help a neighbor struggling under a burden too heavy to bear.
The one fact which all of us need to keep steadfastly before our eyes is the need that performance should square with promise if good work is to be done, whether in the industrial or in the political world. Nothing does more to promote mental dishonesty and moral insincerity than the habit either of promising the impossible, or of demanding the performance of the impossible, or finally, of failing to keep a promise that has been made; and it makes not the slightest difference whether it is a promise made on the stump or off the stump. Remember that there are two sides to the wrong thus committed. There is, first, the wrong of failing to keep a promise made, and, in the next place, there is the wrong of demanding the impossible, and therefore forcing or permitting weak or unscrupulous men to make a promise which they either know, or should know, can not be kept. No small part of our troubles in dealing with many of the gravest social questions, such as the so-called labor question, the trust question, and others like them, arises from these two attitudes. We can do a great deal when we undertake, soberly, to do the possible. When we undertake the impossible, we too often fail to do anything at all. The success of the law for the taxation of franchises recently enacted in New York State, a measure which has resulted in putting upon the assessment books nearly $200,000,000 worth of property which had theretofore escaped taxation, is an illustration of how much can be accomplished when effort is made along sane and sober lines, with care not to promise the impossible but to make performance square with promise, and with insistence on the fact that honesty is never one-sided, and that in dealing with corporations it is necessary both to do to them and to exact from them full and complete justice. The success of this effort, made in a resolute but also a temperate and reasonable spirit, shows what can be done when such a problem is approached in a sound and healthy manner. It offers a striking contrast to the complete breakdown of the species of crude and violent anti-trust legislation which has been so often attempted, and which has always failed, because of its very crudeness and violence, to make any impression upon the real and dangerous evils which have excited such just popular resentment.
We must all keep one fact firmly in mind. If we are to do good work, actions must match promises, whether in business or politics. Few habits do more to encourage dishonest thinking and moral insincerity. These include promising the impossible, demanding the impossible, and failing to keep a promise. It makes no difference whether the promise is made during a campaign or elsewhere. There are two sides to this wrong. First, it is wrong to break a promise. Second, it is wrong to demand the impossible. Such demands force or allow weak or unscrupulous people to make promises they know, or should know, they cannot keep. These two attitudes account for a significant part of our troubles with many serious social questions. These include the so-called labor question, the question of trusts, and similar issues. We can accomplish a great deal when we set out, thoughtfully, to do what is possible. When we attempt the impossible, we too often accomplish nothing at all. The success of the franchise tax law recently enacted in New York State shows how much a sensible, thoughtful effort can accomplish. The law has added nearly $200,000,000 worth of previously untaxed property to the tax rolls. Such an effort takes care not to promise the impossible, but to make actions match promises. It also insists that honesty is never one-sided. In dealing with corporations, we must treat them with complete justice and demand complete justice from them. This effort was determined, but also moderate and reasonable. Its success shows what can be done when such a problem is approached sensibly and soundly. It stands in striking contrast to the complete failure of the crude and harsh anti-trust laws so often attempted. Because of their very crudity and harshness, these laws have always failed to make any impression on the real and dangerous evils that have rightly aroused public resentment.
I thank you for listening to me. I have come here to-day not to preach to you, but partly to tell you how these matters look and seem to me, and partly to set forth certain facts which seem to me to show the essential community that there is among all of us who strive in good faith to do our duty as American citizens. No man can do his duty who does not work, and the work may take many different shapes, mental and physical; but of this you can rest assured, that this work can be done well for the nation only when each of us approaches his separate task, not only with the determination to do it, but with the knowledge that his fellow, when he in his turn does his task, has fundamentally the same rights and the same duties, and that while each must work for himself, yet each must also work for the common welfare of all.
Thank you for listening to me. I have not come here today to preach to you. I have come partly to tell you how I see these matters. I also want to present facts that show what we all have in common. We all strive in good faith to do our duty as American citizens. No one can do that duty without working, and work can take many forms, both mental and physical. But you can be sure that this work can be done well for the nation only under certain conditions. Each of us must approach our own task determined to do it. We must also know that others have fundamentally the same rights and duties when they do their tasks. And while each person must work for themselves, each must also work for the common good of all.
On the whole, we shall all go up or go down together. Some may go up or go down further than others, but, disregarding special exceptions, the rule is that we must all share in common something of whatever adversity or whatever prosperity is in store for the nation as a whole. In the long run each section of the community will rise or fall as the community rises or falls. If hard times come to the nation, whether as the result of natural causes or because they are invited by our own folly, all of us will suffer. Certain of us will suffer more, and others less, but all will suffer somewhat. If, on the other hand, under Providence, our own energy and good sense bring prosperity to us, all will share in that prosperity. We will not all share alike, but something each one of us will get. Let us strive to make the conditions of life such that as nearly as possible each man shall receive the share to which he is honestly entitled and no more; and let us remember at the same time that our efforts must be to build up, rather than to strike down, and that we can best help ourselves, not at the expense of others, but by heartily working with them for the common good of each and all.
On the whole, we will all rise or fall together. Some may rise or fall further than others. But aside from special exceptions, we must all share in whatever hardship or prosperity the nation as a whole faces. In the long run, each part of the community will rise or fall with the community. If hard times come to the nation, we will all suffer. That is true whether they come from natural causes or from our own foolishness. Some of us will suffer more and others less, but all will suffer somewhat. If, on the other hand, under Providence, our own energy and good sense bring us prosperity, all will share in it. We will not all share equally, but each of us will get something. Let us strive to make living conditions as fair as possible. Each person should receive the share they are honestly entitled to, and no more. At the same time, let us remember that we must work to build up, not tear down. We can best help ourselves not at others' expense, but by working wholeheartedly with them for everyone's common good.