8/10/2019 January 16, 1919

1/4

ho

Undermines Prohibi t ion?

W

RSE

and worse the Prohibition angle becomes,

chiefly because of the lack of franlmess, honest and

straightforward dealing in those we in trust with

o u r

law-

making nd law-enforcing. The spectacle of the United

St ate s seeking to compel the vessels of other countries to

conform to

o u r

domestic customs while temporarily in port

and at the same time endeavoring to extend the immemorial

three-mile limit to twelve (why not twenty?) is enough to

make one hang ones head wit h shame. Well do we mer it

the ibin g of the cartoon

in

an Eng lish daily which por-

trayed a steamer arriving in English waters and passing

through a lane of signsmarked: Give up your horned

spectacles here ; Li mi t for chewing gum here, etc., etc.

We shallbe lucky, indeed, if th er e ar e no eprisals.Yet

our

fana tics insis t that we impose

o u r

wills and our pecu-

lia r ,beliefs upon those who in the conduct of international

trad e are temporarily

our

guests.

O u r

readers will notmisunderstand, we aresure,

ations

position. We ar e

for

the prohibitionamendment

as long

as

it is law and

are

for

its

rigid enforcement. Bu t

there is no stronger argument f o r a nation-widereferen-

dum han, th is case presen ts;

we

should therefore ike o

see the question submitted today t o a vote of all the people.

Believing as we do that the re su lt would be overwhelming

approval, there would then be a clear-cutpopular opinion

behindefforts to enforce he law. Bu t if we err n his

and the majorit y should favor the abolition

o

prohibition

we should accept the decision with all the cheerfulness we

could muste r; if the vote were close one eith er way we

should deeply regre t it, but that is the risk

a

democracy

has to run which

is

founded on the rule of th e majority.

The point plainly is that then thepeople would have spoken,

and n o t merely legislatures full of cowardly politicians vot-

ing not according to th ei r inmostbeliefs or according to

the ir consciences, but at the dictation of paid lobbies.

But has not a ref orming minority the right to convert

others to

its

-views o r to incorporate those views into legis-

lation? Were not heAbolitionists a small minor ity? Did

not the woman suffragists begin with a mere handful of

despised men and women? Unquestionably; ye t the parallel

is not quite exact; their methods were different; more than

that we do not recall any such tyrannical efforts to domi-

nate egislatures and men as we a re witnessing oday. In

NewYork the Anti-Saloon Leaguehas been laying down

the law to the Republicans wit h amazing effrontery-as if

no

otherssue existed on ear th today. Mr. Anderson

undertakes to tell the Republicans who is fit

f o r the

gubdr-

natorial nomination and who is not. With one weeping

wave of the hand this organ ization informs the party that

i t may not nominate e ithe r Col. Roosevelt

or Mr.

Machold,

but must choose from a list it submits. Louis XIV never

identified himself wit h the state more completely.

Now, in our judgment, there can be only one outcome of

such arrogance and hat

is a

further reaction from pro-

hibition. That is greatpit y rom he reformers

own

point of view. What heyought t o be- doing

is

doncen.

trating upon the enforcement

o f

the law and, by the sweet

reasonableness of this ttitu de,making riends or he

arguable principle that as long as the law is on the statute

books

it

should be enforced. Theymight also dwell upon

.the hypocrisy which, as we have already pointed out, marks

the carrying out

of

the law. It is

a

profound misfortun

from the point of view of the cause of temperance that

tain t of falseness rests upon the entire p rohibition strugg

Some legislatures voted

it

th e bulk of whose members we

totally opposed in principle and practice. Ou r highest o

cials violate the law privately when there is no dange r

discovery

o r

publicity. We heard one remarknot

so

ve

long ago tha t he had built one of th e most marvelous c

lar s in America and stocked it wi th more than enough

lasthim a lifetime-at least ixvarie ties of winewer

served a t h i s t ab leb ut he

is

viciously against all red

and laboring men and anybody else who will not obey o

laws, by heaven, sir. Inveighing aga inst those who wou

undermine ou r Constitution, he himself does his uttermo

to brin g it into contempt and to prove the theory that tho

sworn to uphold thisparticular law are

ou r

worst la

breakers.

By decision of Mr. Mellon we have ceased to conserve t

morals of sailors on foreign ships in our harbors by den

ing them wine liquor during their stay, andMr. Hardin

it

is

reported in dispatches, proposes

t o

askCongress

repeal that section

o f

the Volstead law which sugge

this precious bit

of

puritanical yranny.Very well; b

why is he notman nougho come out nd ay

s

Why is he not willing to give tha t much comfort t o tho

foreigners whom we are so incommoding and

so

infu

ating?

We sincerely hope that some of these countries will tak

prompt ction against us. We have become

s o

used

forcing our will ,upon othe r peoples not

a

tenth

or

a hu

dred th of our size, like the Ha itia ns and the Dominica

and th e Mexicans, that it would be a n extreinely good thi

if we were to hear from

a

fellow our own size that he d

not ntend to be put upon. Europe has

a

righ t to be e

tremely irritated against

us. It

was only

a

few months a

that Mr.Lasher and some other officials were counseli

Congress to vote th at half of th e immigrants from for ei

countries should cross the At lan tic Ocean upon Americ

vessels.

It

is

bad enough

t o

enforce o u r domesticsocialusages

upon thosesojourning inourharborswhen thoseusage

deliberatelycontravene the statute s and customs of oth

lands.

To

pass legislation in Washington ntended o c

trol he ree movements of the nha bitants of Italy,

England,

o r

France would be to go beyond allbounds

decency and fairness, and internationalcourtesy.

We frank ly do not know whether prohibition can be

forced

o r

not. We believe th at it has done much

the masses of the people whilehelping o demoralize t

classes that pri de themselves upon being superior beings

wealth and intelligence.

It

may have within it th e seeds

a dangerous strifean d clash of wills between cityan

countryside, Bu t we do know that he experiment

w

never have a fai r t ria l u nti l men reach h igh office in Wa

ington who, whilehavingdueregard fo r th e feelings

others, will hemselves stand by the prohibition awand

will by heir

own

personal bearingandabstention rom

liquor set an example fo r the nation o follow. Today t

bootlegger is not prohibitions worst enemy, bu t he high

office-holders who advocateenforcingprohibitionbyday

and then booze away half t he night.

8/10/2019 January 16, 1919

2/4

June

27 19231

The

Nation

73

Compulsory Arbit ra t ion

Dead

9

E movement fo r compulsory arb itration of labor dis-

puteshas received a serioussetback by th e decision

of t he Supreme Court declaring the Kansas Indus trial

act nconstitutionalnd void. Indeed, the courts con-

demnation of theact is so sweeping that

it

is doubtful

whether anything of substance remains. The question arose

Over a contested order of t he Court of Industrial Relations

fixing the wages of th e employees of small meat-packing

piant, and could have been disposed of by a simple decision

that he meat-packing indust ry snot sufficientlyclothed

with a

public int ere st to war ran t th e sort f public regula-

tion imposed. The Supreme Court, however, was unwilling

to ake such an easyway out andalthough it intimated

strongly tha t neithe r the food, clothing, nor fuel industries

ar e of such a public character

as

to justify regulation, it

preferred to rest

its

decision

on

the genera l nature of the

restrictions imposed by the law.

The object of th e act, the court found, was to secure con-

tinuity of industry. It forbade the owner of a business to

suspend operations even though he had been ordered to pay

wages which caused him a net loss, and it forbade the em-

ployees to strik e even though the wages k e d by the Court

of IndustrialRelations seemed t o them lower than he ir

needs. Such imitations upon the iberty of individuals to

manage heir own affairs, thecourt now decides, cannot

constitutionally be imposed unless a clear obligation to th e

public to providecontinuousservice is undertakeneither

directly

o r

by implication when the owner

o r

the employee

enter s he business. Compulsory arb itr ation

is

constitu-

tional only when the re is a situation somewhat equivalent

to the appointment of officers and the enlistment of soldiers

and sailors in mili tary service.

What, then, is lef t of compulsory arb itr atio n? It can be

applied, we suppose, to public employees, but

its

advocates

will not take much comfort from th at possibility, because

wage s in that ield

are

matters of legislation and not of bar-

gaining

in

any event. It can be applied to ailway em-

ployees in he face of

a

threatened nation-wide strike,

as

was decided when the Supreme Court sustained the Adam-

soneight-hour law. But hecou rt now expressly refuses

to extend the rule of tha t case, refe rrin g to

i t

a s excep-

tional and as going to the border line, and that avenue

the spread of the principle

is

thus shut

off.

As a practical matter we think that it may safely be said

th at compulsory arbi tration s dead, except as to th e em-

ployees of railroadsand public utilities

in

times of par-

ticular and vitally pressing emergency. And th at

its

death

is a good thing

f o r

all of

us

we have littl e doubt. The con-

flic ts between hose who labor and those who employ

are

not likely to be solved by a dictated peace, even though the

dicta tion come from a source theoretically above the battle.

Their ootsare imbedded inhumancomplexity and eco-

nomic inequality, and they can be helped only by

a

solution

based upon a greater equality of position, and upon freedom

to try to reachmutual agceement.Such a solution is far

distant, to e sure, but compulsory arbit ration stood squarely

in he road. Thatpart icula r obstacle has now been re-

d, and even though i ts removal affords another instance

a power which we believe the Supreme

ourtoughtnot o possess, nevertheless we should give

As

f o r

the Kansas court, th is decision ought t o seal

it

doom. Our eaders are awa re hat GovernorDavisasked

the egislature o abolish

it

lastwinter,but hat bod

merely cut down the ppropriations

f o r

it. He s now

quoted as-favoring an ex tr a session to, wipe the whole ex

periment o thest atu te books, and believes thathe wil

save a hundred housanddollars year f o r the State b

doing

so.

We hope tha t the legisl ature will now be of hi

mind. Yet, we cannot eel hat heexperimenthas bee

wholly without value.

It

is a good thing to test out

a

new

governmental device withhe ttenti on of th e nation

focused upon, it, ass

it

was n hiscase to remarkabl

degree. UntiI we hadhad somepracticaldemonstration

of

its

futilityandunconstitutionality,we should alway

have had demands that compulsory arbitration by

be tried.Themoral plainly is, however, not

t o

let ou

enthusiasm carry

us

away when an experiment

at

the be

ginn ing s proclaimedacure-all by those esponsible fo

it. Only two year s ago the pre ss was ringing with the de

mand that similar courts be set up in every Stat e n he

Union and by the Federal Government as well. With many

thi s was due to a genuine belief th at

a

satisfactory solutio

of the st rike difficulty had been achieved; the enthusiasm

of others was because they thought that, thanks to the c

a way hadbeen found of securely hobbling labor.

takes pride in having opposed the.court the very be

ginning.

Philosopher Statesman

THE STATESMAN. recognize your arguments . They are

old acquaintances. I not only recognize them; I admit thei

force. But he problem

is

salvation, alvation in tem

poral ense. Th at can come only from a deed.We mus

act.

THE PHILOSOPHER.

here was thinker once-youve

never heard ofhim-who sa id that all action is a

sign

of

limitation. Before you act you must exclude all other pos

sible actions. You

must

almost assert, a t least to yourself,

the absoluteness of the value of the deed you choose ou

of all possible deeds.

STATESMAN.hat

is

vicious intellectualism. Every poli

tician

is

bound.to be a pragmatis t. The deed to be done is

thefruitful deed.

PHILOSOPHER.hat a dangerous doctrine

STATESMAN.t ishe only possible one. We cannot

stagnate,

PHILOSOPHER.amnot

so

sure hat abstention rom

action which you call stagnation would .not often be fr ui t-

ful, that saturation with the idea

of a

situation would not

often help to solve it

STATESMAN.hat sounds true. No doubt it

is

true in the

schools.

In

my ife decisions mus t be made, since

all

are

immediateand final. Everyquestion s a question of life

and death-often literally, often f or thousands.

PHILOSOPHER.nd always fo r your career.

STATESMAN. ertainly. And it

is

my clear righ t to g uard

my career since its continuance is the condition of my ser-

vice to men, the condition of causing my ideas, supposing

them to have value, to prevail.

PHILOSOPHER.he trouble with your doctrine is its uni-

versality of application.

STATESMAN.thought thatw s

a

virtue in every doctrine,

8/10/2019 January 16, 1919

3/4

738 Theation

[Vol.

116

No.

30

PHILOSOPHER.f hestatesmanmustactandactprag-

matically and also save his career n order to make himself

I begyourpardon,his ideas-prevail; if th at is all, if

you forbid the consideration of truth, you make o u t a per-

fect ca se fo r any person in power-for Mussolini, Hit-

ler, for the leader of every red terror, every white terror.

Each of themactsout on the nstant hepragmatically

fruitful ruth

of

his personalityand ituation. Inbrief,

your doctrine is st rictly tha t old and shoddy one tha t m igh t

is right.

STATESMAN.ot at all.

PHILOSOPHER.e are alone, youknow.

STATESMAN.ell, what can aman who ha s power do

but e xer t tha t power as seems best to him?

PHILOSOPHER.e can do nothing else indeed. And since

it

is never a philosopher who is in power-

STATESMAN.eaven forbid

PHILOSOPHER.

ince, a t all events, it never is, th e action

you defend will always be half-blind because i t will always

spring from

h o t

convictions, fr om fea r, fro m opportunism

STATESMAN.ou speak ontemptuously of hot convic-

tions.What snobler?

PHILOSOPHER.

The hotter they are, the more ignoble ar e

they likely t o be, and the more destructive. Nothing is as

su re of itself as ignorance. snt that natu ral? Ther e are

no obstacles in ts path.Nothing is so sure of itself

as

fanaticism.

Mr.

Brya n knows exactly how the world is to

besaved; every Kleagle of the Klan knows th at too.

Its

simple. Anatole Fra nce sverydoubtful;Bertrand

Rus-

sell hunts for scraps of tentative ruth. Action is indeed

easy t o those who ar e not fit to act at all.

STATESMAN.ou

are trying t o foist a paradox onme.

It

follows,

I

suppose, that those who are wor thy of acting

cannot and will not and dare n ot act.

PHILOSOPHERrecisely. You complete my philosophic

truth

in

its

correct form.

STATESMAN.o r m ?

PHILOSOPHER.

es. In th e world o practice, since the re

is

a world of practice , we cannotindeed adhere

t o

the strict

forms of truth.

STATESMAN.h,

you will become pragmatic n amin-

ute

PHILOSOPHER.

ot at all. What I have said is absolutely

anduniversally rue. To tran slate hat ruth nto action

means thi s: To be afra id of power, t o abstain from power

as far as is humanly speaking possible, t o be afraid of i t

andabstainfrom it not hroughpersonal considerations,

but on the ground of t he old and precious sayin g that no

man is good enough to rule another.

STATESMAN. who

is

then o wield the irreducible

minimum of power in society, since heremust be such

wielding?

PHILOSOPHER.hose who fea r power and hate

it

and take

no pride o r glory in it , who exercise it after prayers and

tea rs, o whom the wielding

of it is

sacrifice andbitter

service.

STATESMAN.

ystics, then?

PHILOSOPHER.

od forb id The ncorruptible ntellects

who have thought their way clean through to its essential

evil. Not statesmen, of all people.

STATESMAN.or professional philosophers, I hope.

PHILOSOPHER.

am not so sure. There are philosophers

and philosophers.

T h e

Spice in

the

Thundere r

OMETIMES we are tempted

to

pit y the unhappy lot

the ired businessman nEngland.Presumably, l

the r est of us, he worries about the st ate of the world. Pr

sumably he has need to tur n to something for relie f; but

whatcanhe urn?In wonder andpitywe flap over t

news pages of the London I n vain we search

f

Mut t and, Jeff or fo r Mr. McGinniss

r

f o r our good frie

Cicero Sapp. They are no t the re; no one in all those ba

ren pages is being hit by brick; no one is being precip

tatedhead irst, shoes last,out of th e picture. And t

news, and the headlines Nothing

is

done to save the tire

Londoner work. The detail s of the lat est divorce indecen

hidden in the fine pr in t of aw-court rep ort and head

HighCourt of Justice.Probate, Divorce, andAdmiralt

Division. Ausbandsetition.ones os Jonesnd

Smith. The details are there, to be sure, even to the le

piece of initialedingerieound in he co-responden

room; but the reader must hunt hard for them. No kind-

hearted reporter writes them into the

first

paragraph.

rewrite man puts the bestf them into theheadlines.

Forhis ports, heEnglishmanmust work lmost

hard. After much searchinghe will come upon colum

soberly headed Spor ting News. Then if golf be h

hobby, a line of 10-point caps may catch his eye announci

Depart ure of American Amateurs. In he language

an Oxford doctors, disserta tionhe will be informed th

friends and admirers gathered at th e dock to bid farewe

to the Walker Cup Team, who expressed t hei r ple asu re

thevisit n ermstranspa rent ly sincere. Indeed,

marks the special sports writer,

it

was th e note of sinc

ity running through the remarks of all the members o t

party

. .

which made one realize the significant value

such meetings.

But perhaps the Englishman fares better n his

than

we

think. Doubtless he has learned to skip those drab

pages of news and sports and to turn directly t o the las

page of ll-for the re romance await s him. There,wit

alluring illustration and tempt ing description, he can mo

at once into the greatest estates in the British Isles. Th

are all fo r sale, one begins to believe, a nd they are all che

-if one for get s he axrat e. Who would fai l o find

thrill in the description

of

Wyckham Park, for example

pleasant place seated in a deer park of 270 acreswit

twenty-four bedrooms and two baths , complete domes

offices, and three lodge houses, not to mention-or to me

tion only invery fine pr1nttwenty-three mixed farm

f o u r residences,ifty-six ountry ottages, seven villa

shops, andseveralhundredacres

of

woodland? One c

as well have hun ting esta te of thousands of acres in Sco

land. And if one

is

tempted t o worry about th e difficu

of

upkeep and the trouble of finding the right sort of hel

one need only turn back to the first age of the same pape

There, n hepersonal column, where omance crowds

most as thick as among the real estate , one finds this:

Ex-officer

and

Public Schooloy

27),

with nothing

e

against him

except total

busmess inexperience, would

be

amaz

though eternally indebted,

If

anyone required

his

servic

Write box F. 363

The

Times.

Perh aps after all

we

could learn

to

get on withoutMut

and Jeff and th e flyingbricksand thespuri ous spice

our sports writers. For here is t he spice of life itself.

8/10/2019 January 16, 1919

4/4