|
We hear much idle chatter in these days about man's descent from the monkey, without always knowing just what idea the speaker really intends to convey. It has become such a common expression that it is used as a joke, when in reality the theory of evolution underlying it is one of the greatest discoveries of the last century. Darwin gave to the scientific world a new idea when he issued his book entitled "Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection." Darwin, however, rarely used the word evolution. This more truly lies within the world of philosophy than within the world of science. Science must deal with facts, and philosophy may wander with hypotheses into illimitable space. Thus Darwin propounded the idea that he had collected evidence sufficient to make him believe that certain species of animals, flowers, etc., might have originated from a common ancestry in the same way that varieties have done, and, that inasmuch as we recognize the family resemblance of several varieties of dogs,—the pug, the bull, the spaniel, the collie, etc., why not believe it possible that the wolf and the fox may be distantly related to the dog family? Or, as no two human beings are alike, why might not the horse and the zebra simply be different varieties? Why might they not originally have had a common ancestry and through the same vicissitudes that change individuals, have been separated into species of their own? The doctrine of the survival of the fittest plays a great part in "natural selection." While we know that the farmer carefully selects the best grades of wheat from which to raise his crops, the best apples from which to plant new orchards, and the best flowers from which to slip new varieties, we are not always so ready to accept the theory that nature may do for nature the same as man artificially does for nature. Herein lay much of Darwin's valuable information. Through much investigation he saw that certain tendencies were toward the killing off of the weaklings. All the time, powerful agencies are at work selecting the best species to propagate further. Conditions of life prove that many creatures must fall in the struggle. Only the best protected birds and animals can survive the hardships of an extraordinary winter. Animals poorly equipped with feathers and fur must perish. Thus the best will be left to propagate and give their progeny the benefits of our inheritance from the strongest of parents. Or, the struggle may be between enemies. One animal may be able to run faster, and another to fight more fiercely—this is what Darwin called natural selection. We know that climate makes a great difference in plant and animal life. From these two ideas it is a short step to believe that a species we may call the cat, is simply the domesticated result of years and centuries of selection in one direction, while the tiger is the product of a diversified selection. That species are constantly subjected to slight variations, and that those variations may be cumulated by selective breeding, is a known fact. Every organic being has an individuality of its own. No two persons are alike. Even the creases in a person's finger tips are such as to identify that person from another. Still, these variations are restricted to pretty well defined limits. The percentage of variation in the individual form is small, and in the main the progeny is like the parent. While the changes are small enough not to be greatly important in character, still they serve as a basis for the production of permanent varieties. Let us watch the breeder of horses in his selection of horses of great speed rather than strength, for race horses, and those of great power, for draft horses. And the same conditions prevail in selection in plant life. In our own lives, if we are careful, we can see wherein we do not use certain faculties, and thereby we lose them. For instance, by wearing tight shoes for centuries, the toes, especially the little toes, have gradually become deformed. Where once man had great prehensile power in his toes, he has little now. And this is all the more clear in the case of savage tribes in the wilds of the eastern hemisphere, which can use their toes for many purposes with great dexterity. Some have been discovered that can row boats with their feet. The inference is that, in many generations to come, not having need for little toes, they will gradually disappear. The same condition obtains with the teeth. These change their shape as their owners, through generations, change their method of eating. Gradually, the wisdom teeth seem to be disappearing. Sane philosophy builds up as well as deduces from every observation. And here it may be well to speak of atavism,—or that tendency of forms once common in a species to show themselves after having disappeared through natural selection. Much study has led scientists to conclude that things will not simply originate of themselves. Even evolution works out from some primal force that is constantly at work, changing naturally or artificially. Therefore, when odd formations are noted in life, some reason is deducible. These reasons, with evolution as the explanation, seem to be arrived at simply. Thus the appearance of strange formations is used to trace the origin of certain species, through many different forms, back to one parent. It seems a sharp jump thus to conclude that human beings are evolved from apes simply because the latter walk upright at times, have four limbs, are mammals, etc. As a matter of fact it is not necessary to believe this. Yet by comparison of two distinct kinds of apes we find there is greater difference between them than there is between their highest type and the lowest type of human. Frequently we find the presence of some atavic form in mankind which, seemingly, has no business in the species. Many men have slight, scum-like, eyelids, or rather the beginnings of them. These are not common with man, but in many forms of animal life; especially in birds, this underlid is common. Now and then we hear of human beings equipped with stumps at the end of their spines, like the beginings of short tails. One of the greatest difficulties of the religious man is to accept the doctrine of evolution because it seems to leave out God and the creation. Evolution is not necessarily atheistic. When looked at merely in its results as discovered in scientific facts, there is no ambiguity in the thing which Darwin is thought to have proved—namely, that somehow, through the action of heredity, variation and natural selection, species have originated in much the same manner that individuals of various traits have sprung up in the same species. The difficulty comes when we launch out and try to inject into beliefs of the origin of things, ideas and doubts about the dependence or independence of creative origin and control from God. Some great authorities have tried to theorize on the subject, and find no working plan complete without God. Machines do not make themselves or spring up out of the ground. And when we see a marvelous machine at work turning out steel needles from a block of steel, should we discredit the maker of the machine? Man is constantly at work changing the face of nature. He pulls up weeds from his garden, he changes the color of a flower; the mother, by loving care, saves her child's life from sickness. It may readily be conceived that Divine interference in nature may be one of wisdom rather than of power. If man may inject his plans into nature, there is no reason for saying that God may not do likewise. COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM In most civilized countries, the laws of the distribution of wealth are based on the recognition of private property. In view of inequalities which seem to spring out of the competitive system, a body of theories has grown up which has for its basis the abolition of private property, and a change such as shall establish society on another and possibly more equitable footing. To these theories the terms communism and socialism have been applied. Letting the term socialism describe both, there may be said to be two classes. The supporters of the first are those who plan for a new order of things which would bring society to a voluntary association, or community, having all things In common holding. The other body of theorists would have the working classes, or somebody in their behalf, take possession of all property, to be administered for the general benefit of the country. They want to have the whole productive resources of the nation under the management of a general government, resting on universal, equal, and direct suffrage, by ballot. Without, going into the merits of these theories, it may be said that they have sprung up largely because of the weakness exhibited by certain members of all communities. In the system of competition, all cannot survive the struggle; it is the strongest and fittest man that wins success. Combination of capital has become so huge that labor has had to combine to almost as threatening proportions, to protect itself. Monopolies control nearly all the resources of wealth. The world's meat supply is in the hands of a clique of men in Chicago. The railways and steamships of the world are fast closing together into gigantic trusts. Coal is held fast in the grip of a few men. Grain is constantly being cornered by the great elevator speculators. Real estate is held tight. In this environment the man who is not equipped to fight with weapons of exceptionally strong brain and body, must either become servile, or be obliterated. At this point, socialism steps in to say that if the government controlled all resources as it does the postal department, there would be no excessively rich people nor yet any paupers. They hold that enough is a sufficiency for any person. Too much is bad, and with proper control of the sources of wealth, there would be no strikes, no famines in the midst of plenty, and no deaths from hunger. Closely akin to socialism is the theory propounded by the late Henry George, and now the groundwork for the political action of a small but growing party. This theory, known as the single tax, is that all wealth comes from the ground. In the beginning the ground was as free as the air. Man used what he wanted of it and left the rest for his neighbor. With the advancement of the property-rights theory, however, and its actual operation, land has become the main source of monopoly. It is held that main always should have free access to the benefits of nature. Water and air are free, but land is now owned so that a man must pay for the right to exist upon it. Moreover, land is held by the single tax advocates to be of no value except as it comes in contact with man. Society gives it value. Labor is necessary to produce wealth from it. Inasmuch, therefore, as land is the one source of wealth, it should also be the one object of tax. In short, the single taxers say all land should be accessible to any one. If two people wanted the same piece of land, naturally, the one willing to forfeit something for its use, should be the one to have that use. All taxes, direct or indirect, should be abolished, and in their place, should be established a tax on land values. If land lay idle, it would be of no value. Then a poor man could step in and use it. Naturally, his use of it would make it of some value, and he would be taxed some-what. If the land was improved much and brought good results of labor, it would become so valuable that several persons might want it. Then the tax would increase. If someone wanted the land especially, he might pay the occupant a bonus to vacate, with something for his work in improving it. A system of this kind, it is argued, would dispense with all taxing bodies, assessors, etc., save one; would render trade as free between the nations as between the several states of the United States; would place the burden of taxation on property which is most valuable; would make monopolies pay taxes according to the benefits they acquire from nature, would make it unprofitable to hold land unused, for speculative purposes, and allow unused land to be utilized. Although the plausible theorizing of Henry George is held by a great majority of reputable thinkers to be visionary and chimerical, many of the ideas which he advocated are worthy of consideration, as they lead along profitable lines of reflection and investigation. TAMMANY HALL Political machinery has reached its perfection in the matter of control of elections in the great society called Tammany Hall—the Democratic organization of New York City. Notorious as the most deftly managed as well as the most corruptly governed of the political rings in America, this society is nevertheless such a factor in the municipal affairs of New York City, and even in state affairs, that it is a foe worthy of the best steel Republicans and reformers can command. Tammany may again be forced from its position of strength by the election of a reform mayor of Greater New York, yet such is the impress made upon the civic life of that great city that a description of Tammany's methods are worth the while. Be it known that Tammany Hall, while purporting to be organized as a representative body of New York Democrats, for civic good, is in reality, an association for "graft,"—in other words, a society with the political purpose of keeping the Democratic party in power in the city offices of New York, and the object of obtaining money by illegal means from citizens of all classes. Money is the constant demand of the Tammany men, and great have been the fortunes made from the ill-gotten pelf of "heeler" and "boss." Tammany's defeat in 1901 was not considered a permanent downfall, but was due to the overzealousness of its members to rob. As a political organization, this society probably has no equal. Through a system of representation that reaches down into the very gutters of the city's population, votes are controlled in an absolute manner. The leader of the organization is aided by 35 district leaders, who in turn control men throughout their districts, and these men control others, until great power is attained. Patronage is the watchword, although in times past., "graft,"—"blood-money,"—has more appropriately described the object of the system. In the low dives of iniquity of New York's streets, in the houses of disrepute, gambling-hells, criminal resorts, and tough saloons, are hundreds of law-breakers. Shame though it be, Tammany Hall has not only protected these law-breakers in their crimes but has abetted them,—for money. In a word, the authorities in times past have sought office for the purpose of allowing wantonness, crime, and debauchery to go unmolested, and of reaping unholy profit from it. The ward "heelers" or underlings in Tammany are generally saloonkeepers, or the like, who can keep in close touch with the criminal classes. The dissolute woman, the thief, and the thug wish protection. The society wants money. From low to high the "coin" is handed up. Political bosses become millionaires, patrolmen in the police force pay large sums to secure their positions, and afterwards pronounce it a good investment. The "collections" do not cease with the wretches of the slums. The most money, in past regimes, that has flowed into the coffers of Tammany Hall has probably come from "respectable" citizens, moneyed men who desire contracts for supplies and paying, and concessions from the city, or wish to be immune from persecution. It is a well-known fact that millions of dollars have been subscribed to Tammany by such men, in excess of all political needs. Who doubts where the money goes, when the leaders of the society suddenly grow rich? Another source of "graft" is the tax fund. The expenses for running New York's public offices in years past have frequently been as much as those for running the 15 next largest cities of the United States, combined. Delays of improvements have been made, double prices have been paid for supplies, and hundreds of men have been kept at work in public offices where they have not been necessary. This last form of "graft," possibly, has been the most common, although possibly not as much money has been lost thereby. Taxes have been evaded by wealthy corporations, and have been "fixed for a consideration," by officials paid and sworn to collect them for the city. Not only are methods employed to protect officials but crime has been fostered by these powers. Frequently, during the last reign of Tammany, fallen women reported that they had been persecuted by blackmailers into resuming their vile lives, after they had tried to reform. Every attempt at reform was met by exposure to employers. The police were hand in glove with thugs, and more than one case was reported where, through contact with such debauching methods, policemen and detectives turned criminals, having become so crafty that they could easily deceive their own brother officers of the law. It pays Tammany men to be in power—that is, financially. Thus the ward "heeler" can levy from the criminal for immunity from arrest. The higher politician can get money from big corporations that infringe upon the city's ordinances, and the bosses themselves can steal public moneys. Such has been the history of Tammany's past reigns. Is it to be wondered at that a successful attempt was made, in November, 1903, to bring these great forces together, in order to swing the power of office, and with it "graft," once more into the hands of Tammany?
BOOK VI |
