Kitabı oku: «Vanishing Landmarks», sayfa 9
DIPLOMATIC SERVICE
While on this subject, I cannot refrain from discussing Civil Service as applied to our diplomatic and consular service.
There is quite a widespread demand that everything shall be taken out of politics, and a presumption is indulged, that, if this were done, all of the evils which now inhere in representative government would be cured. Undoubtedly men have been rewarded for political service with appointments to foreign fields, and some of these appointees have been wanting both in business experience and education as well as in aptitude. On the other hand, it is most unfortunate if only those who are disqualified for positions of responsibility are interested in politics. If every public position at home and abroad were to be filled with those who either take no interest in public affairs, or by those who are incapable of exerting any political influence, do you think the service would be materially improved?
The further criticism is indulged that administrations make foreign appointments from among their party friends, and utterly ignore adherents of the opposite political faith. Has it ever occurred to you that when a man is unable to find as good and able men among those who believe in political doctrines which he advocates as are available among his opponents, he ought in justice to himself to renounce allegiance to the party he believes in, and join the ranks of those with whom he disagrees?
Undoubtedly, the United States has sent some chumps abroad, but anyone who has lived long in Washington must have recognized that other countries also occasionally have chumps in their diplomatic service. After some years’ observation, I asked John Hay, then Secretary of State, whose experience at home and observation abroad better qualified him to speak than any other man in America, how our diplomatic and consular service compared with that of other countries. Promptly and without hesitation, he said: “It is universally recognized everywhere that American foreign service is the best in the world.”
One might as well expect to develop a successful trial lawyer by confining him to a law school all his life, or a successful business man by keeping him indefinitely in a business college, as to expect to produce an efficient representative of American interests abroad by requiring him to spend the most virile period of his life in studying how to represent these interests and all the while keeping him out of touch with the interests which he is to represent. A lawyer should understand his client’s business, if possible, better than his client. If he is to represent mining interests, he should know metallurgy, all processes of mining, reduction of ores and mining practices, as well as mining laws. Before a man can successfully, advantageously and wisely represent American interests abroad, he must understand American interests at home. He must have a practical knowledge of what Americans require in foreign countries, and the natural effect at home of the things he is trying to do abroad.
When confined to clerical positions, Civil Service is a lesser evil than anything else that has been tried, but it falls far short of being a panacea. When applied to positions requiring scientific, professional, technical or expert knowledge, it is an utter failure. If the government extends beyond its appropriate functions, and enters the business arena, Civil Service will result, first, in the greatest possible inefficiency; second, in political manipulation and control of everything, and, third, in transforming a hitherto virile and self-reliant people into a race of pap seekers. If the government pursues its present trend and enters one field of business activity after another it will logically end with everyone on the government payroll and all of us working for the rest of us and taxing ourselves to pay pensions to ourselves. When a government once enters the field of paternalism there is no place where it can logically stop.
CHAPTER XXIV
CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT
Before increasing the business activities of the government and creating an enormous army of government officials, clerks and employees, all under Civil Service, it is well to consider some feasible plan of retirement, for it is a question that will not down.
The discussion of Civil Service as applied to governmental industrial operations will be incomplete unless it includes the question of retirement. Shall those who have been for many years on the government payroll be pensioned? With few exceptions that is what the present Civil Service employees desire. They claim to have served their country as faithfully, and much longer, than soldiers in the army, and therefore are entitled to equal recognition and honor.
Most thoughtful people are able to note some marked differences. Few who are physically fit fail when they seek admission to the army or navy, but I have known quite a number who have sought government positions in vain. In addition to this the pay of the soldier is very meagre, while that of civil service clerks, in normal times, is at least fifty per cent higher than the same grade of service commands in the business world. The question resolves itself therefore into this proposition: Shall those who have secured government positions and held them for thirty years, when there have been thirty thousand other citizens equally patriotic, and equally competent, who have sought government employment in vain, be rewarded and pensioned because of their good fortune, and at the expense of their less favored brothers and sisters?
The same argument applies to old age pensions. Most red-blooded Americans are willing to assume responsibility for the support of themselves and their families, and gladly contribute in some fair and equitable manner, through appropriate processes of taxation, towards pensioning those who bear arms in defense of our common flag, and for the dignity of our country, and they are also willing to pay their share towards the maintenance of the helpless and the unfortunate few. But it is no evidence of yellow that some object to the burden of paying pensions to men and women who have no other claim thereto than that they have grown old and have failed to provide for themselves.
Take the case home and apply it to yourself and your family. Do you desire the government to promise you and your children a pension independent of the manner in which you and they acquit yourselves? Or would you prefer to face the future in the belief that if you win, through merit, the rewards of victory will be yours to enjoy, and if you lose you will be expected to suffer the consequences. In other words do you desire the government to pension you simply because you hold a poor hand or play a good hand badly? What effect do you think the promise of old age pension would have upon the rising generation? Is not the youth of America already sufficiently wanting in self-reliance?
The only other way thus far proposed by which the government shall support its employees in old age, is by means of guardianship. This plan seems to proceed upon the theory that those who are fortunate enough to secure government positions, are necessarily unable to look after their own affairs, and therefore are entitled to a guardian. The proposition is that the government shall take charge of a portion of the earnings of this favored set of American citizens – withhold part of their salary and deal it out to them as a mother does candy to her baby lest it overeat or consume it too soon. It is a pretty weak citizen who needs a guardian, and those who do – provided they are compos mentis and fourteen years of age – are entitled under the laws of most states to select their own.
Five years’ experience led me to recognize that new clerks as a rule are better than old ones. Those who come with any enthusiasm whatever make very rapid advancement in efficiency, but in a very few years the enthusiasm vanishes and hope of advancement is based entirely on seniority of service.
Before leaving the Department I recommended – and am now more convinced than ever of its wisdom – that government positions should be filled, as now, under the rules of Civil Service but that all new clerks should come facing a statute limiting the periods of their service to five years. Five years of government service, especially in the city of Washington, is in itself an education. In addition there are excellent night schools where clerks can and do pursue their studies. Before Civil Service was inaugurated thousands secured appointments in Washington, graduated in law or medicine and went forth familiar with the official atmosphere and prepared to give the lie to those in every town who teach that the Capitol of the Nation is a den of thieves. John W. Gates got his start in life as a sixty dollar per month clerk in the Post Office Department and spent his evenings writing letters for Senator John A. Logan, and meeting the big men of the nation who called.
A limited period in college is of great advantage but it would ruin any boy to keep him year after year in the same classes, going over the same subjects, reciting to the same tutors, getting nothing new and all the while segregated from all practical things of life. Why give these plums of official position – and they are no less plums because secured under Civil Service – to young men and women for life when they might be passed around with great advantage to that larger body of equally deserving citizens who would be benefited by a brief experience in public service.
The present force should be permitted to complete the tenor of their natural lives in the service. The new rule if adopted should apply only to those taken on after the enactment of the law limiting the period of service to five years. Exceptions would have to be made in cases requiring technical, professional or scientific knowledge. Provision would also have to be made whereby by executive order, on the recommendation of heads of departments, the specially competent could be retained.
CHAPTER XXV
PROPERTY BY COMMON CONSENT
The desire that the government shall enlarge its functions so as to prevent large accumulations, has led to the verge of confiscation of property. Several proposed methods of partial or total confiscation are discussed.
Originally no one held property by common consent, and in the very early history of the race I suppose no one gave a thought to what we now call “property rights.” Even now savages seldom claim ownership to anything beyond a dog, weapons of the chase, possibly a horse or a canoe. Gradually the divinely implanted desire for ownership, sovereignty, independence, led the more advanced to assert exclusive rights, but still they held little if anything by common consent. Each held what he could by force. Under these conditions civilization had its birth.
As the race advanced and began to feel the throb of God-like impulses, and to live in harmony with divine law, consent to proprietorship developed. For several centuries, in all civilized countries, with here and there a relapse into barbarism like the French Revolution of the 18th century, and the Russian Revolution of the 20th century, property rights and some measure of personal liberty have gone hand in hand and have been quite generally recognized and respected.
CONSENT WITHDRAWN
For the first time in the history of an English speaking people consent to personal ownership is being gradually withdrawn. Unless you have studied popular audiences, analyzed current magazine articles and scrutinized modern legislation, probably you have little conception of the proportion, even among the respectable and high minded, who are committed to some degree of confiscation.
At a joint debate on single tax under the auspices of an organization like many styled “Academy of Political Science” or “Political Science Club” or “Science of Government League,” which in this instance was an adjunct of one of our very large universities, I called for a direct expression from the audience upon the clear-cut proposition of confiscation of all private property. Two-thirds of the audience promptly responded in its favor. That audience was composed of “high-brows.” They were men and women who read magazines, attended lectures, belonged to “uplift” associations and indulged in mental processes which they thought was thinking. I had had similar experiences in joint debates on socialism, but had never before struck a bunch of incipient anarchists of such apparent respectability.
Some years ago I had the privilege of addressing an association of Socialist Clubs at Cooper Union. While I have addressed many better read audiences I have never seen one that had read more. Many of them did little else but read. In addition they were a most sincere and good intentioned body of men and women. There are, as every one knows who has come in contact with them, somewhat more than fifty-seven varieties of socialists, every one of which was well represented that evening. They were courteous, they were respectful, they listened with manifest interest; but it was easily discernible that they considered our civilization wrong and harmful in the extreme. One could see it, feel and taste it. The very atmosphere conveyed to every sense the unmistakable evidence that that great body of men and women thoroughly believed that what they termed “Capitalism” had its heel upon their necks. They were not rebellious, but it was evident they did not intend anyone to be misled into supposing that they were unconscious of their conditions, or that they intended to acquiesce longer than necessary.
In the campaign of 1918 the “single-taxers” of California made their third and great attempt to confiscate land values in that beautiful state. The issue of July 20th of “The Great Adventure,” an official organ of the single-tax propaganda, printed upon its front page in heavy double leaded type this announcement: “Single tax will put these big land values into the public treasury and leave the Ground Hogs nothing to rent but the actual value of their buildings.”
The January, 1918, number of “Everyman,” another of their official organs, contained a well-considered article lauding conditions in Russia, and promising the same for California. I quote briefly: “The people of Russia, who only yesterday were semi-starving slaves to a tinsel aristocracy, are now for the first time living upon their own lands, in their own homes, and working in their own fields and factories. They have dispossessed landlords and profiteers; and all who work have plenty. People do not starve where there is none to take the food out of their mouths. Famine is a result of human exploitation. When the people of any country go hungry it is because they are denied access to natural resources. The people of Russia have taken their natural resources, and also their industries and they will not go hungry… Out of darkest Russia has come the great light of actual freedom; and there is every reason to hope she will soon have the weakest government in the world, which means, of course, the strongest, bravest, truest and most united people… That is what we are striving to do in California, but we won’t stop with the land. We will only begin there. We could not stop there; the tide is too strong. It will bear us on into the new world of economic friendship.”
The same issue of “Everyman” gave a word picture, for the truth of which it vouched, of what it termed “Zapataland” – 90,000 square miles in Mexico – where it claimed confiscation had wrought its legitimate and beneficial results. It claimed the same conditions would be accomplished in California through the adoption of the single tax amendment to the Constitution as had been wrought in Mexico with the musket. It says: “In Zapataland they have no need for money. Is it food you want? Go to the market and help yourself. Do you need shoes or a hat? Go and take what you need! Have you a fancy for jewelry? Go make your selection… In some of the centers the women of Zapataland clamored for finger rings and bracelets. The elders consulted. They melted down some of the church ornaments, and in a few months baskets full of the envious shining trinkets were in all the Plaza shops. Help yourself… Labor is plentiful. Everybody wants to work at least a few hours a day – they insist upon it. ‘Give me that shovel! You have been digging there for a couple of hours or more. Let me dig awhile.’ ‘Here, you, stop straining yourself. Go and rest. I am stronger than you.’… In Mexico, the propaganda was carried on with ‘30-30’s’. The Zapata army went from valley to valley, from village to village, and dispossessed the owners.”
Such stuff is well calculated to deceive almost anyone except those who have seen a Mexican. For three successive campaigns California was flooded with that class of literature, its boasted purpose being confiscation. The organization back of the propaganda, with ample endowment, purposes to use California as an object lesson and to extend the principle throughout the nation.
For the benefit of any who thus far have not appreciated the gravity of this most plausible attack upon property rights, and therefore have not studied the question, I make the following brief statement of the case as it appeals to a very large number.
Henry George, the great apostle of single tax, was a very able man. I do not say he was a very wise man. Great intellects frequently lead to great errors.
Every advocate of single tax legislation has been a faithful disciple of Henry George. No one has added a new argument, stated an old argument with greater force, or reached a different conclusion. None of his followers has ever apologized for anything Henry George ever said, or refused to stand or fall with the great originator of the scheme. Therefore, to quote Henry George is to quote the best authority, and all authority.
I propose, therefore, to make a few extracts from Henry George’s standard work on the subject – the great text book of single-taxers – “Progress and Poverty.”
He begins and ends his argument with the proposition that God made the land, the sea, and the air, for his children collectively, and has never granted the exclusive right to any part thereof to king or subject. All pretended grants and conveyances, therefore, have been fictitious. Relying upon this argument, he holds that all natural resources still belong to the people collectively, and confiscation in the interest of all is justified.
On page 401 of “Progress and Poverty,” he says: “But a question of method remains. How shall we do it? We should satisfy the law of justice. We should meet all economic requirements by at one stroke abolishing all private titles, declaring all lands public property, and letting it out to the highest bidder in lots to suit.”
On page 403 he says: “I do not propose either to purchase, or to confiscate property in land. The first would be unjust; the second needless. Let the individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land; let them continue to call it their land; let them buy, and sell, and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent.”
Again, on the same page, he says: “We already take some rent in taxation. We have only to make some changes in our mode of taxation to take it all.”
Thus it will be seen that Henry George, with all his intellect, was mentally dishonest. His heart-beats were sympathetic, but his mind wobbled. He was able to perceive nothing dishonest when I sold my acres, or my lot, invested the proceeds in stocks and bonds, and then by my vote exempted my property from taxation, and placed all the burdens of government on the purchaser of my land.
He would have seen no injustice in a government of the people establishing Rural Credit Banks, as has been done, loaning millions, with mortgages as security, upon lands purchased from the government, then inducing widows and orphans to buy securities issued against these mortgages, and finally taxing the value of the real estate away, thus leaving the widows and orphans to beg their bread from door to door.
The American people are inherently and intuitively honest and just. Do you think it would be just, after the people, through their Congress and their president, had granted the homesteader a patent title in fee simple, now to tax its value away? As Henry George says, the effect is the same as confiscation. He calls it “taking the kernel and leaving the shell.”
