EXPRESSES VIGOROUS VIEWS ON LEAGUE. A Letter by Col. S. O. Bigney to Senator Lodge. The disturbed and unsettled condition of our country together with the maze of uncertainty into which we have been led causes one to wonder just what the outcome will be. We are certainly traveling a strange and unbeaten path, and, I fear, a very dangerous one. Should we become a member of the League of Nations under the present draft as it stands today, it will be, to my mind, the greatest blunder of American history. It would not be good judgment or sane reasoning to take our enemies into our household. There are practically only three nations standing together today of the former allied countries, namely: the United States, England and France,and I firmly believe that there is just one way to settle this vexed question. I have always been opposed to foreign alliances, but have come to the conclusion that we are in it and must make the best of it; therefore, an alliance, offensive and defensive, between the United States, England and France would clarify the mist of uncertainty and would serve to maintain the peace of the world more fully and securely than the League of Nations could possibly do-all three standing together in case any one should be attacked by a strong power. This sort of preparedness, in fact, would prevent war rather than invite it. This would also do away with the maintenance of an expensive estab lishment in Switzerland, a high salaried secretary and perhaps a dozen others who are to tell us what we must do and what we must not do. We are not yet quite ready to give up our freedom of action. Of course, we must be allowed to take care of our own affairs on this continent. Mexico has insulted us, murdered our citizens, confiscated their property and belittled the Monroe Doctrine. Here we find the German propaganda doing its work. There must be a day of reckoning for Mexico in the very near future. Now, then, let us see why the coming together of these three great nations should be brought about. We find today that Germany and Japan have an understanding, that Germany is Germanizing Russia and within a few years we will see Germany, Germanized Russia and Japan united. They are not friendly toward us-friendship between nations exists only where their interests are largely identical. It is possible that this will be the line-up at no distant time. Japan must give up Shangtung. Why should we allow or assist in strengthening our enemies' hands? If I am correct in my deductions this so-called League of Nations should be completely eliminated as it is impracticable and will not work out. I have been, and am now, opposed to it in any form. Germany has been compelled to sheath her sword and quit on the bat tlefield, but she is continuing her propaganda in this country as well as in other countries. The best thinkers and writers attribute recent disturbances to her damnable scheming. In Brazil and other South American countries her propaganda is in full swing against America and everything American, creating distrust and hatred toward this country. Now, then, how long are we, as American citizens, going to tolerate this sort of thing? The time is opportune for us to call a halt-we must not dilly-dally longer. From our national capital comes the word that we must open our markets to Germany and help her pay her indemnity while at every turn she is stabbing us in the back. It is time for this country to arouse itself in the face of this impending danger and serve notice upon Germany that unless she quits immediately her unfair and unheard-of methods no goods made in Germany, or of German manufacture, made or shipped through any foreign country, will be admitted into this country. This would be a righteous move and would not fail to bring Germany to time. CAPITAL AND LABOR-A FAIR DEAL. The principle on which all concerned should deal with the labor question appears to me plain. It is the principle of the Golden Rule. I think the formula should be that, first, labor is entitled to a living wage; after that, capital is entitled to a living wage; what is left over belongs to both capital and labor, in such proportion as fairness and equity and reason shall determine in all cases. The application of that formula is, of course, complex and difficult, because there are so many different kinds of labor, there are so many different kinds of capital. Not infrequently the laborer and capitalist overlap and merge into one. You have skilled labor and unskilled labor and casual labor, you have the small employer, the large individual employer, the corporate employer, the inventor, the prospector, etc. And then, circumstances and conditions vary greatly, of course, in different parts of the country, and in different industries. It is impossible to measure by the same yardstick everywhere, but the principle of fairness can be stated, the desire can be stated to do everything possible to bring about good feeling and good understanding between labor and capital, and willingly and freely to co-operate so that labor shall receive its fair share in the fruits of industry, not only by way of a wage return, but of an adequate return also in those less tangible things which make for contentment and happiness. It seems to me that, in the main, right-thinking men of capital and of labor would concur in the following points: 1. The workman is neither a machine nor a commodity. He is a collaborator with capital. (I do not use the word "partner," because partnership implies sharing in the risks and losses of the business, which risks and losses labor does not and cannot be expected to share, except to a limited extent and indirectly.) He must be given an effective voice in determining jointly with the employer the conditions under which he works, either through committees in each factory or other unit, or through labor unions, or through both. Individual capacity, industry and ambition must receive encouragement and recognition. The employer's attitude should not be one of patronizing or grudging concession, but frank and willing recognition of the dignity of the status of the worker and of the consideration due to him in his feelings and viewpoints. Everything practicable must be done to infuse interest and conscious purpose into his work, and to diminsh the sense of drudgery and monotony of his daily task. The closest possible contact must be maintained between employer and employee. Arrangements for the adjustment of grievances must be provided which will work smoothly and instantaneously. Every feasible opportunity must be given to the workman to be informed as to the business of which he forms a part. He must not be deprived of his employment without valid cause. For his own satisfaction and the good of the country, every inducement and facility should be extended to him to become the owner of property. Responsibility has nearly always a sobering and usually a broadening effect. I believe it to be in the interest of labor and capital and the public at large that workmen should participate in industrial responsibilities to the greatest extent compatible with the maintenance of needful order and system and the indispensable unity of management. Therefore, wherever it is practicable and really desired by the employes themselves to have representation on the Board of Direction, I think that should be conceded. It would give them a better notion of the problems, complexities and cares which the employer has to face. It would tend to allay the suspicions and to remove the misconceptions which, so frequently, are the primary cause of trouble. The workman would come to realize that capitalists are not, perhaps, quite as wise and deep as they are given credit for, but, on the other hand, a good deal less grasping and selfish than they are frequently believed to be, a good deal more decent and well meaning, and made of the same human stuff as the worker, without the addition of either horns or claws or hoofs. 2. The worker's living conditions must be made dignified and attractive to himself and his family. Nothing is of greater importance. To provide proper homes for the workers is one of the most urgent and elementary duties of the employer, or, if he has not the necessary means, then it becames the duty of the State. 3. The worker must be relieved of the dread of sickness, unemployment and old age. It is utterly inadmissible that because industry slackens, or illness or old age befalls a worker, he and his family should therefore be condemned to suffering or to the dread of suffering. The community must find ways and means of seeing to it, by public works or otherwise, that any man fit and honestly desirous to do an honest day's work shall have an opportunity to earn a living. Those unable to work must be honorably protected. The only ones on whom a civilized community has a right to turn its back are those unwilling to work. (Some of you may regard certain of the foregoing suggestions as closely approaching Socialism. I belive, on the contrary, that measures of the kind and spirit I advocate, so far from being in accord with the real Socialist creed and aim, would be in the nature of effective antidotes against Socialism and kindred plausible fallacies.) 4. The worker must receive a which not only permits him to keep body and soul together, but to lay something by, to take care of his wife and children, to have his share of the comforts, joys and recreations of life and to be encouraged in the practice and obtain the rewards of thrift. wage 5. Labor, on the other hand, must realize that high wages can only be maintained if high production is maintained. The restriction of production is a sinister and harmful fallacy, most of all in its effect on labor. The primary cause of poverty is under-production. Furthermore, lessened production naturally makes for costs. High wages accompanied by proportionately high cost of the essentials of living do not do the worker any good. And they do the rest of the community a great deal of harm. The welfare of the so called middle-class, i. e., the men and women living on moderate incomes, the small shopkeeper, the average professional man, the farmer, etc., is just as important to the community as the welfare of the wage-earner. If through undue exactions, through unfair use of his power, through inadequate output, the workman brings about a condition in which the pressure of high prices becomes intolerable to the middle classes, he will create a class animosity against himself which is bound to be of infinite harm to his legitimate aspirations. Precisely the same, of course, holds true of capital. The advent of the machine period in industry somewhat over a century ago brought about a fundamental and violent dislocation of the relationship which had grown up through hundreds of years between employer and employe. The result has been a grave and longcontinued maladjustment. In consequence of it for a long period in the past, it must be admitted, unfortunately, labor did not secure a square deal, and society failed to do anything like its full duty by labor. But, more and more of recent years, the conscience and thought of the world have awakened to a recognition of the rights of the working people. Much has been done of late to remedy that maladjustment, the origin of which dates back to the beginning of the Nineteenth Century. The process of rectification has not yet been completed, but it is going on apace. Meanwhile, labor ing men should take heed that, in their rightful resentment against former practices of exploitation and in their determination to obtain the redress of just grievances, they do not permit themselves to be misled by plausible fallacies or self-seeking agitators. They must not give credence, for instance, to the absurd preachment that practically all wealth other than that produced by the farmer, is the product of the exertions of the workingman. There are, of course, a number of other factors that enter into the creation of wealth. Thus, the "directive faculty," the quality of leadership in thought and action, is not only one absolutely needful in all organized undertakings, great or small, but it becomes increasingly rare and, consequently, increasingly more valuable as the object to which it addresses itself increases in size, complexity and difficulty. The State of Florida existed long before Mr. Henry M. Flagler came upon the scene, but its opportunities were permitted by its people and government to lie largely dormant until Mr. Flagler risked his fortune and employed the power of his creative genius to realize the visions. which he conceived as to the possibilities of that beautiful and richly endowed portion of our national domain, The new wealth, growth and opportunities which were created by Mr. Flagler's daring and far-flung enterprise, undertaken and carried out by him almost singlehanded in the face of scoffing and discouragement and vast difficulties, are almost incalculable. A portion of that new wealth—a considerable portion regarded by itself, but utterly insignificant as compared to the total enrichment of individuals as well as of communites, the state, and the nation-went to Mr. Flagler. Did he earn that reward? Can it be denied that his directive faculty and pioneering genius were a splendid investment to the people of Florida and to the nation, at the compensation he received? It would be easy to multiply similar instances testifying to the vast additions made to the assets of the community by the genius, daring and efforts of men endowed with the gifts of industrial captaincy. In a recently published, very able pamphlet entitled "Industrial Salvation," Miss Christabel Pankhurst, the well-known English leader in the cause of woman suffrage, says: Certain Socialists, who ought to know better, have falsely taught that the poverty or semi-poverty of the many is due to the luxurious living of the prosperous sections of the community. This is not the truth, and if through all the years of Socialist preachings the result of each year's industrial effort had been divided equally among the members of the community, there would have been no appreciable increase of prosperity for any, and there would have been one dead level of poverty for all. The way to progress is not to pull everybody down to a common level of mediocrity, but to stimulate individual effort, and strive to raise the general level of well-being and opportunity. It is not material success which should be abolished; it is poverty and justified discontent which should be abolished. We cannot abolish poverty by division, but only by multiplication. It is not by the spoliation of some, but by creating larger assets and broader opportunity for all, that national well-being can and must be enhanced. I wonder how many people realize that, if all incomes above $10,000 were taken and distributed among those earning less than $10,000, the result, as near as it is possible to figure out, would be that the income of those receiving that distribution would be increased barely ten per cent. And the result of any such division would be an immense loss in national productivity by turning a powerful and frucitifying stream into a mass of rivulets, many of which would simply lose themselves in the sand. I wonder how many people know that the frequent and loud assertion that the great bulk of the wealth of the nation is held by a small number of rich men, is wholly false; and that the fact is, on the contrary, that seven-eighths of our national income goes to those with incomes of $5000 or less, and but one-eighth to those with incomes above $5000. Moreover, those in receipt of incomes of $5000 or less, pay little or no income tax, while those having large incomes are subjected to very heavily progressive income taxes. As bearing upon the mischievous allegation so frequently and recklessly made by inciters to class hatred, that capital appropriates to itself the lion's share of the value of the workers' |