« ПретходнаНастави »
as railroads and warehouses, the Supreme Court has said that they are “affected with a public interest.” They are so important for the general welfare that the public properly controls them. But is it not true that every business affects some one else than the owner? Certainly if a man has a machine shop which is dangerous to workmen, or if he conducts a hazardous business such as that of making powder, or white lead for paint, which is the occasion of accident and disease, he is affecting others. If men are maimed, or rendered ill, public charity may have to step in. If wages are too low to support men and their families in health and efficiency, the whole nation suffers. For an employer to take the position that he will not allow workmen to unite in order to deal with him on terms of equality, that he will have nothing to do with unions, and that he will resist any effort of the public to regulate his business, is to forget the larger public interest. It is not good citizenship.
On the other hand, the labor' unionist has likewise or of at times forgotten his citizenship. It is, of course, very
labor hard for the under dog in a fight to remember the rules of the game. The workingman has usually been the under dog. When he has resorted to violence, when he has beaten or killed non-union men, when he has dynamited buildings or bridges that were being built by nonunion men, he has not been a good citizen. Despite bad conditions in our factories and on our railways, despite the fact that it has often been hard to get protection by law for the lives and health of workingmen, despite the backwardness of our government, in many ways, as compared with the governments of Europe, it is nevertheless true that our country has been on the whole the best which the workingman has known.
It is also true, as all the most thoughtful leaders of the trade-unions profess, that the workingman can gain only through public sentiment. He must have the help of all. In other words, it is only through the power of the nation that he can receive just wages and proper protection to life and health. Of all classes in the community he has the strongest interest in the Union. The employer needs the state and nation and their law to protect his property; the workingman needs the state and nation and their law to protect his very life and liberty.
DEMOCRACY AS SELF-GOVERNMENT
EMOCRACY is used in this discussion in two Two senses: democracy meaning self-government meanings
of and democracy meaning equality. We do not
democracy intend to use the word “ Democracy” in the sense which is so common among us,-the name of a particular political party, as when we say that Woodrow Wilson was the candidate of the Democratic Party. In Greece, where the word was first used, it meant rule by the common people, the free citizens, as distinguished from rule by a king or by a few. Rule by a few was called oligarchy or aristocracy. Growing out of this usage is the meaning of democracy as self-government. (1) SelfBut at the same time, besides its meaning of self- govern
ment government or government by the people, it included also the second meaning, equality. Our Declaration (2) of Independence was a great democratic document in Equality both of these senses. It affirmed that all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. This was democracy in the first sense. It also declared that “all men are created equal.” The words of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg are often quoted as expressing both these aspects of democracy—“a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.” For although the word “equality” is not used, the words “for the people " evidently mean, for the whole people, and not for some special class of the people. “For the people” implies, then, that all men
have an equal right to be considered, although, of course, it may not mean that all men are equal in all respects or for all purposes.
We shall consider these two meanings of democracy separately, and in the first place we may well ask, Why do the American people believe in democracy in the
sense of government by the people. Four Many reasons might be urged for rule by the people. reasons Let us consider four. (1) No other kind of governfor self
ment is right, for no one has a right to govern another govern
without that other's consent. ment
(2) It gives a better government. (3) It makes people more intelligent and responsible. (4) It is less likely to plan and wage wars of aggression. We can see that it was the first of these reasons which was strongest with our forefathers; today we are putting more emphasis upon the
last two. (1) No The first reason appeals to men who have been opother gove pressed or treated unfairly by any government. As ernment is right
we saw in the earlier part of this book, in the clan or tribal life there was really a sort of self-government. The old men of the group handed down customs and decided quarrels, but the group did not think of them as really making laws. Frequently the old women would have as much influence in certain matters as the old men. Obedience to customs was not forced, but was given as a matter of course.
But in military life the chief came to the front, and if he were successful, became the king. He was often thought to be divine and his commands were sacred. Or if he was not regarded as divine, he was at any rate so strong that his commands were obeyed as law. It has been gradually and step by step that the people . have gained any right of making laws in modern Eu
ropean states. Because of the long, hard struggle which was still fresh in mind when the early settlers came to America, men prized the right to govern themselves. And though they did not at first object to a king, they did insist very strongly upon regulating their own affairs in all the ways which their original charters allowed. In their great Declaration they did not affirm a completely new principle when they declared that all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Philosophers had said many times that the right to rule came from the will of the people. Nevertheless, the Declaration was the boldest, strongest statement of this principle which had ever been made by the representatives of a whole people, and it made an epoch in the world. Many in Europe do not believe in this principle at all. They believe that certain kings or emperors have a divine right to rule. The American idea is that while the little child needs to be ruled by its parents, and the insane or criminal have to be cared for or restrained by others, no one class of people has a right to rule other classes. As Lincoln declared in his reply to Douglas, “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."
Two questions may come up at once when this is why the said. Did our Fathers think this applied to slaves? majority And does it mean that every one must consent to every
rule law or to the government as a whole in order to make the law or government right? The answer to the first question is easy. No doubt our forefathers did not apply this to slaves. The second point is more difficult. One philosopher, Rousseau, thought that to make a government just there must be at the outset unanimous consent to form a government. But when