Page images
PDF
EPUB

countries were rapidly gaining even in exports on Great Britain and were at the same time supplying their home markets and growing into formidable competitors for their century old rival. As for the United States, they show that our home market is so good that a foreign outlet was needed for only a small proportion of our total production. When the world war broke it found the United States not only prepared industrially to furnish huge quantities of supplies for foreign armies. and foreign peoples, but to sustain our own vast population and our armies as well. That record has been made, and the free trader's retort that as much could have been done under free trade rests entirely upon assertion, not upon performance.

as

"There is little difference, in principle or methods," says Hon. Jonathan Bourne, Jr., "between the super-autocrat on the one hand and the superanarchist on the other. The Kaiser denounced his solemn treaties. "scraps of paper," and entered on warfare without precedent for barbarity. The I. W. W.'s declare that 'No terms made with an employer are final,' and they put spikes in saw logs to bring death to innocent men, put poison in wells to kill innocent women and children, and take any other 'direct action' that seems likely to serve their temporary selfish ends. Neither the Kaiser on the one hand nor the I. W. W. on the other could see that temporary advantages thus gained will be more than overcome by permanent losses in the end. Between

these two extremes of autocracy and anarchy the great mass of the people of all nations must work out the destiny of the human race-establishing the reign of law. The autocrat and the anarchist have one principle in common-they believe in government by men, not government by law. If Haywood and the Kaiser were to change places, each would pursue the policies practiced by the other. The real test of the fitness of a man to participate in the social organization is whether he believes in and consistently upholds government by law. To the extent that he believes in or consents to government by men independent of law, he is either an autocrat or an anarchist. It makes little difference which."

One impressive indictment brought by public ownership advocates against private management of railroads was the excessive salaries paid to officials. It was urged that great economies would be enforced under public operation. These promises, it is needless to say, have not been fulfilled, as was admitted recently by Senator Pomerene of Ohio in debate. The old order continues under the Wilsonian regime. Senator Pomerene read into the Record a list of 72 men on the payroll of the Director General who receive salaries aggregating $1,398,100 annually. On the list are five at $50,000 each; two at $40,000 each; three at $35,000 each; two at $30,000; eight at $25,000; II at $20,000; one at $18,500; one at $18,000; one at $17,500; six at $15,000; one at $14,000; one at $13,200; one at

$12,500; four at $12,000; one at $10,800; one at $10,600; and 23 at $10,000 each. The average salary of the 72 on the staff is $19,418 while the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court receives but $15,000. Senator King of Utah declared that under federal operation there are 14,000 more employes now doing the same work that was performed under private operation, and he added: "They are simply loafing on the job.

They realize that they are working for the federal government and do not care whether their work is done or not." Does any one believe that these conditions will be remedied under government ownership when managers and operatives will be immersed in politics? Does our experiences with municipal politics lead us to believe that there will be efficiency and economical management or a profligate expenditure of public funds?

EARLY AMERICAN ENTERPRISES.
By Roland

Wendell Phillips is gone, and no one can rival him in "the lost arts." All that most of us can hope to do is to find traces of by-gone industry. Maybe we have under-rated the importance and extent of manufactures prior to the Revolution. Stress has been laid on the Acts of Parliament repressive of colonial industry, but we do not know how strictly they were enforced.

Hon. Edmund D. Halsey put on record a story which may not be the Verily, human

only one of its class.

nature may in other colonies have worked as it did in New Jersey. To quote Mr. Halsey: "A slitting mill was erected at Old Boonton, on the Rockaway river, about a mile below the present town of Boonton, in defiance of the law, by Samuel Ogden of Newark, with the aid of his father. The entrance was from the hillside, and in the upper room first entered there were stones for grinding grain, the slitting mill being below and out of sight. It is said that Governor

Ringwalt.

William Franklin visited the place suddenly, having heard a rumor of its existence, but was so hospitably entertained by Mr. Ogden, and the iron works were so effectually concealed that the Governor came away saying he was glad to find that it was a groundless report, as he had always supposed." It has been hinted that the Governor did not wish to find evidence against Mr. Ogden. He may have had suspicions as to yesterday and tomorrow, but on that day he saw no industry of an illegal character.

At times one reflects that among the government officials of the eighteenth century was Robert Burns, the exciseman. Burns was not a man of abstemious habits, and it is quite possible that if he spent a convivial night with Jock and Sawney he did not ask whether the whisky had paid duties or not. However, when he entered the excise department be recognized that the law must be enforced, at least to a certain extent. Early one morning the news came to him that Kate

Watson, whom he had known for many years, was selling usquebaugh, and he made all haste to her dwelling. "Kate,” he asked, "are you mad? I'm on the excise. I must go through the town today, and in two hours I will be here for a thorough inspection." With this he departed,-two hours later Kate had concealed all that had the faintest suspicion of illegality. Does the reader recall the magistrate in "Guy Mannering" who has private reasons for hoping that the law will not fall with crushing weight on a smuggler? The smuggler, hinting at exposure, demands his release,whereon the magistrate, though denying the request, gives him a file and it is not long before the expert frees himself.

In the writings of Sir William Blackstone and of Adam Smith we can find references to lax enforcement of law, and we may have reason to suppose that in forests and in mountains far from the coast there may have been industries carried on without the approval of Crown and Parliament. Lord Chatham's words that the colonists had no right to make a hobnail of American iron are merely a strong assertion of control over the colonies; how many hobnails were made over here is a matter of guess, not of statistics. Bancroft's statement is accurate, but note how limited it is: "Every branch of consumption was, as far as practicable, secured to English manufacturers; every form of competition in industry, in the heart of the plantations, was discouraged or forbidden." But work had to be done, the pioneer

might have needs, but could not wait for a voyage to Europe and back. He might think that it was of prime necessity to strengthen his lines of defence against the Indians; he might hold that the development of a settlement came first and that the construction of an Act of Parliament was a secondary matter. Besides, do we know that all these Acts of Parliament were known to backward colonists? If local needs were met, if settlements grew, then there were more orders for British goods. Some at least of the early colonial manufactures were absolutely necessary to colonial existence, and more or less beneficial to Great Britain.

A passage from Adam Smith shows us both sides of the question: "While Great Britain encourages in America the manufactures of pig and bar iron, by exempting them from duties to which the like commodities are subject when imported from any other country, she imposes an absolute prohibition upon the erection of steel furnaces and slit-mills in any of her American plantations. She will not suffer her colonies to work in those more refined manufactures even for their own consumption; but insists upon their purchasing of her merchants and manufacturers all goods of this kind which they have occasion for."

In 1750 it was proposed to strike from the statute book the permission of slitting mills, yet all that was done was to require a return of every colonial mill existing and to forbid the construction of any more. Concerning this Act, James M. Swank says

that its effect was to repress the development of our steel industry and of the finished branches of our iron industry. Undoubtedly, it was repressive, but it was not destructive.

Bishop says that John Tucker so early as 1655 laid a steel making project before the general court of New Haven, but though he obtained privileges there is no record of achievement. In 1728 another Connecticut project is mentioned. Other efforts in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New Jersey are known to have been made prior to the Revolution. We have only fragmentary information, still there are many who do not even know that there are any fragments.

A copy of the New Jersey Gazette, printed at Trenton, April 17, 1786, contains the following advertisement:

American Blistered Steel Warranted equal in quality to the best steel imported from England, and to be sold by

John Nancarrow and White Matlack,
Under the FIRM of

NANCARROW and MATLACK, At the stores of John Helling's on Stampers' wharf, and in Second-street, between Race and Vine streets, at Greenfield and Humphrey's store on Chestnut-street wharf, at Baker, Potts and Co.'s store in Thirdstreet, at Michael Gunckle's store, the northeast corner of Race street, at Casper Singer and Sons in Market-street and at Benjamin Davis's store in Arch-street, between Front and Second-streets, and also by most of the merchants in Trenton.

The great encouragement given the said John Nancarrow, by the rapid sale of the steel he has made, previous to and during

the late war, has induced the said Nancarrow and Matlack to assure the publick that as they intend to carry on the steel manufactory in an extensive and spirited manner, they are determined to spare no pains to render their steel worthy the character given it.

Trenton, Jan. 3, 1786, t.f.

For a Trenton advertisement of

1786 this is rather substantial. Many a newspaper reader can recall the beginnings of the tin plate industry or the bicycle industry. In 1787 George Washington visited Nancarrow and Matlack's furnace, then said to have been "the largest and best in America." Four years later Tench Coxe stated that "about one-half of the steel consumed in the United States is home made, and new furnaces are building at this moment. The works being few and the importations ascertained, this statement is known to be accurate."

Have not many Americans looked only to the immovable body of the British Parliament and overlooked the irresistible force of colonial enterprise? In many instances, Englishmen in high station and of wide influence may have encouraged or at least condoned Americans in enterprises of doubtful legality. Suppose that a British frigate had been shattered by a storm and had put into Boston or Philadelphia for repairs; that the work had been done in less time, at less cost, and in better manner than the captain had deemed possible; that he had gone to sea and captured several rich prizes. It is quite possible that the captain would feel kindly to the colonial workmen, and that he would not give out any information likely to do them any harm if he could help it. There were British colonels and majors during the French and Indian wars who needed wagons and supplies of various kinds. They were in no great haste to investigate all the details of arrangement in the workshops that met their demands.

If another quotation be permitted, Dr. William Elder says, "The colonies were held under restraint so absolute that, beyond the common domestic industries and the most ordinary domestic employment, no kind of manufactures was permitted."

He, too, limits himself to "permitted," and does not claim that the prohibitions were rigidly enforced. At all events houses were reared, towns grew up, farming and hunting, trade and war required more or less manufacturing industry.

The entire subject is one concerning which we know little, but it is a fair guess that the actual output of the colonies was far larger than the recorded output. Do we know enough about the seal fishing of the Alaskan coast or the moose hunting in the forests, or the oyster gathering of the Chesapeake, or the lumber cutting on government lands, or the cattle raising in far Western areas to speak with confidence on the work that was done by Americans and for Americans prior to 1776?

LIMITATIONS OF ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP.

From time to time the working leadership of free trade forces in this country has shifted. During at least thirty years the dominant influences. against protection were found among planters; for some years after the war for the Union the whisky distillers were probably in control; later came the great importing houses. But the best writing for free trade has been done by college professors; men like Thorold Rogers, Francis Lieber, Perry and Sumner, trained authors, familiar with the construction of sentences and happy in the choice of quotations.

The literary merits of some of these advocates were never more highly rated than by Nelson Dingley. But academic polish did not give Fuel Director Garfield the practical wisdom he needed; it has not done for Dr. Taussig what years of research did for William D. Kelley; it has not supplied President Wilson with that grasp of actual life some of his

predecessors acquired by dealing with realities.

Studious habits and every-day utilities blended in a high degree in Newton. Laplace was called "the Newton of France." His mathematical powers, his clearness of statement, his methods of analysis have rarely been equalled. Yet after six weeks of Laplace in the ministry, Napoleon had to get rid of the official who, as he sarcastically observed, "brought in the infinitesimals." Once more the winds of politics shifted, Laplace was a legislator and a frightful example of what a legislator should not be. His public life is at best a matter of contemptuous pity; of his scientific work it may be said that Nathaniel Bowditch, Benjamin Peirce and Mary Somerville are still honored because they were worthy to translate and able to understand him. In his lofty mind the astronomical conceptions of Chaldea and of Greece, the observations of the Arabs, the speculations of

« PreviousContinue »