fYlfsA 5 
 
 THE MYTH 
 OF 
 
 AMERICAN 
 
 IMPERIALISM 
 
 BY 
 
 Otto H. Kahn 
 
 % 
 
 (Jrom Committee of American Business Men 
 
 fj ‘Park York 
 

 
 
 
 
 i i •• 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 / 
 
 . 
 
 V'- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE MYTH 
 OF 
 
 AMERICAN 
 
 IMPERIALISM 
 
 BY 
 
 Otto H. Kahn 
 
T * HE League for Industrial De¬ 
 mocracy ,an organization endors¬ 
 ing the principle of social ownership 
 of industry , at a meeting held at the 
 Fifth Avenue Restaurant, New York , 
 on December 30th , 1924, discussed 
 the subject of American Imperialism. 
 
 The speakers were Professor 
 Edwin Meade Earle of Columbia 
 University, two leading Socialists , 
 viz.: Mr. Morris Hillquit and Dr. 
 ScottNearing,and Mr.Otto H. Kahn. 
 In his address, which is reproduced 
 in the following pages, Mr. Kahn 
 denied the allegation of American 
 Imperialism. 
 
 Committee of 
 American Business Men 
 
THE MYTH 
 OF 
 
 AMERICAN 
 
 IMPERIALISM 
 
 BY 
 
 Otto H. Kahn 
 
T 'HE League for Industrial De¬ 
 mocracy, an organization endors¬ 
 ing the principle of social ownership 
 of industry , at a meeting held at the 
 Fifth Avenue Restaurant, New York , 
 on December 30th , 1924 , discussed 
 the subject of American Imperialism. 
 
 The speakers were Professor 
 Edwin Meade Earle of Columbia 
 University , two leading Socialists , 
 viz.: Mr. Morris Hillquit and Dr. 
 ScottNearing,and Mr. Otto H. Kahn. 
 In his address, which is reproduced 
 in the following pages , Mr. Kahn 
 denied the allegation of American 
 Imperialism. 
 
 Committee of 
 American Business Men 
 
THE MYTH OF 
 AMERICAN IMPERIALISM 
 
 I AM in the midst of the active life of 
 business. I must keep my eyes open to 
 the realities of things. To hold my place 
 I must be fairly competent to discern 
 currents, impulses and tendencies in our 
 national life. I do not hesitate to say 
 that never, in the thirty years concern¬ 
 ing which I can speak from personal ob¬ 
 servation, have I encountered Imperial¬ 
 ism, in this country. 
 
 Looking over the history of the United 
 States, and granting one single contin¬ 
 gent reservation dating back three-quar¬ 
 ters of a century, i.e., the war against 
 Mexico, it may be asserted justly and 
 truthfully, I believe, and without Phar¬ 
 isaical self-complacency, that America 
 has made no unfair use of her power, 
 that she has not employed her strength 
 to subjugate and exploit other peoples, 
 that she has resisted the temptation of 
 forcible aggrandizement, that she has 
 pursued a foreign policy which aimed to 
 keep in the path of justice, and that, if 
 any lapses did occur in her international 
 dealings, they were of the head, not the 
 heart. Some of you may answer: “Amer¬ 
 ica did not covet, because she did 
 not need.” That opens up a question 
 not of fact, but of speculation, not of 
 
 l3> 
 
ascertaining actualities, but of attribu¬ 
 ting motives. I believe you will agree 
 with me that no useful purpose would 
 be served in pursuing a discussion along 
 lines which could lead to no demonstra¬ 
 ble issue. 
 
 i. The Allegation of Political or 
 Military Imperialism 
 
 You will point an accusing finger and 
 you will hurl the challenging question: 
 “What about Hayti and San Domingo, 
 what about Nicaragua, Honduras, and 
 so forth ?” It is true we did send military 
 forces to these countries. There did, 
 most regrettably, occur some blood¬ 
 shed. In the execution of our program 
 we did commit some errors in judgment 
 and in manners. We did, in certain mea¬ 
 sures, proceed bunglingly and clumsily, 
 as Governments and their agents not in¬ 
 frequently do, especially when, as in the 
 cases under discussion, the task to be 
 undertaken is an unusual and unexpect¬ 
 ed one, and there are neither traditions 
 which afford guidance nor a trained per¬ 
 sonnel to attend to the execution. (Inci¬ 
 dentally, the very absence of such per¬ 
 sonnel tends to prove how little the 
 thoughts of our Government and people 
 were on Imperialism.) 
 
 But the test is in the answer to the 
 question which in my turn I ask of you: 
 “What was our purpose? Did we go to 
 oppress and exploit, did we go to add 
 these territories to our domain? Or did 
 we go to end an inveterate rule of tyran¬ 
 ny, malefactions and turmoil, to set up 
 
 l4> 
 
decent and orderly government and the 
 rule of law, to foster progress, to estab¬ 
 lish stable conditions and with them the 
 basis for prosperity to the populations 
 concerned ?” 
 
 I think there can be no doubt that it 
 was these latter things we aimed to at¬ 
 tain. And having measurably accom¬ 
 plished the task, we did withdraw, or 
 shall withdraw. We left behind, or shall 
 leave behind, a few persons charged with 
 the collection and proper administration 
 of certain revenues, but such arrange¬ 
 ments, to which I shall refer more fully 
 later on, are no more in the nature of 
 exploitation or oppression than the ap¬ 
 pointment of a person under a deed of 
 trust is in the nature of exploitation or 
 oppression. 
 
 These countries are almost at our door. 
 When we look out of our national win¬ 
 dow, they are within our sight. They 
 are situated athwart one of our main 
 trade and strategic routes. It is within 
 our duty as neighbors, within our nat¬ 
 ural rights and our legitimate self-inter¬ 
 est to see to it that they cease to be cen¬ 
 ters of perpetual disturbance, that the 
 rudiments of decent, orderly and civiliz¬ 
 ing government be observed by, and for 
 the benefit of, their people, that these 
 fertile regions become adequately use¬ 
 ful to the v/orld and to their own inhab¬ 
 itants. 
 
 To the argument that we ourselves 
 are not spotless, that our governmental 
 ways do not function to perfection, that 
 we have lynchings unavenged by the 
 law, that crime, law defiance and abuses 
 
 I 5 > 
 
are not unknown in this country,—to 
 that argument I will refer only long 
 enough to say that, while it may have a 
 certain efficacy in dialectics, it seems to 
 me manifest, for obvious reasons, that 
 it has no weight or bearing in a sober 
 discussion aiming not at oratorical lau¬ 
 rels but at the ascertainment of facts. 
 (Similarly, I will leave aside the conten¬ 
 tion that the very existence of America 
 is based upon Imperialism, inasmuch as 
 we took the country away from the In¬ 
 dians.) 
 
 You may charge me with the offense 
 of condoning high crimes and misde¬ 
 meanors against the hallowed doctrine 
 of “self-determination.” Well, I frankly 
 admit that my respect for, and allegi¬ 
 ance to, that doctrine is by no means 
 free from reservations. Neither nations 
 nor human beings have an unqualified 
 right to self-determination. Neither a 
 nation nor a human being has a right to 
 make a public nuisance of itself. Self- 
 determination is limited by considera¬ 
 tions of the welfare of the community. 
 Individuals that are proven incompe¬ 
 tent, shiftless, vicious, or affected with 
 contagious disease, are subject to ap¬ 
 propriate measures on the part of the 
 State. Nations whom long and incon¬ 
 trovertible experience has proved to be 
 unable or unwilling to so administer 
 their estates as to make them conform 
 to the minimum requirements of the 
 world’s work, who, instead of develop¬ 
 ing, impede development,—nations, 
 when finally so adjudged by the consen¬ 
 sus of the world’s public opinion, are 
 
 { 6 } 
 
properly subject to reasonable measures 
 of intervention, not in the spirit of the 
 strong despoiling the weak, but in the 
 spirit of the strong aiding the weak, of 
 advanced civilization helping retarded 
 civilization, of light being let into dark 
 places. 
 
 The purposes, tendencies and charac¬ 
 ter of an individual or a nation can often 
 be discerned as much from what they 
 deliberately refrain from doing as from 
 what they do. An imperialistic nation 
 would have appropriated Cuba after the 
 Spanish-American War, as a matter of 
 course,—or, if not then, would have 
 availed itself of one of the repeated oc¬ 
 casions which offered themselves since 
 then, to do so. America did not appro¬ 
 priate Cuba. The wise and reciprocally 
 useful treaty which she made with her, 
 bears no resemblance to appropriation. 
 Again, after the World War, America 
 had opportunity to extend her territor¬ 
 ial sway. She refused to do so. In the 
 closing year of the Taft Administration 
 and the first two years of the Wilson 
 Administration, America had strong 
 provocation and plausible ground for 
 intervention of an integral and more or 
 less lasting character in Mexico. It is 
 well-known that several European Gov¬ 
 ernments expected no less, and that 
 strong pressure was brought to bear 
 upon our Government to do so. No 
 greater temptation than authority over 
 that vast and rich country could have 
 been offered to any nation. No nation 
 even faintly touched with Imperialism 
 would have declined the opportunity 
 
 { 7 } 
 
which the then existing constellation of 
 circumstances offered both actually and 
 sentimentally. America did resist that 
 temptation and did decline that oppor¬ 
 tunity. 
 
 I would add that if America had meant 
 to go in for Imperialism, her choice of 
 objectives would prove her a singularly 
 inept “picker.” Surely, there was far 
 bigger game to be bagged than the Car- 
 ibbeans and the other places where she 
 is alleged, principally, to have indulged 
 in that sport. The additional trade or 
 control of raw materials, which were to 
 be obtained in those countries, are as 
 nothing compared with our total bal¬ 
 ance sheet; the wealth which might be 
 drawn from them is a drop in the bucket 
 compared with the profitable opportun¬ 
 ities available at home or beckoning 
 elsewhere abroad. What worth-while in¬ 
 ducement was there for us to pursue 
 Imperialism in those parts of the globe? 
 Commercially, the stake was not worth 
 playing for. From the point of view of 
 strategic requirements, the American 
 Government could doubtless have ob¬ 
 tained what is judged needful, for a not 
 too exorbitant monetary consideration, 
 by simple purchase and sale. 
 
 Owing to the limitation of the time 
 available, I cannot enter into the mat¬ 
 ter of America’s ownership of the Phil¬ 
 ippines, except to point out that it came 
 to us as an unforeseen incident of the 
 Spanish-American War, unsought and 
 decidedly unwanted, but—having come 
 —it involves a national responsibility 
 which, in self-respect and in duty, we 
 
 m 
 
are bound to discharge, and of which 
 we cannot divest ourselves until it is 
 fairly discharged. Likewise, time does 
 not permit me to answer, in anticipa¬ 
 tion, such conclusions as subsequent 
 speakers of the evening may presum¬ 
 ably draw from the circumstances sur¬ 
 rounding America’s construction of the 
 Panama Canal. I will confine myself to 
 saying that, whatever may be one’s 
 opinion as to President Roosevelt’s 
 manner of proceeding, the aim in view 
 and accomplished by him fits into no 
 reasonable definition of Imperialism. 
 
 2. The Allegation of Economic 
 Imperialism 
 
 Some of you, while perhaps inclined 
 not to insist upon the charge of Polit¬ 
 ical or Military Imperialism, may yet 
 maintain the arraignment of Economic 
 or Financial Imperialism. 
 
 As to Economic Imperialism, I know 
 of no instance, within the time of my 
 observation, in which that has been 
 practiced, unless you choose to apply 
 the term to the legitimate advancement 
 and defense of American trade. In the 
 ordinary pursuit of commerce, it has 
 occurred that American business men 
 have sought, and have obtained, con¬ 
 cessions in foreign countries. The word 
 “concession” has, and in the past not 
 unfrequently deserved to have, a some¬ 
 what sinister sound. In modern Ameri¬ 
 can practice it has meant nothing more 
 than that, before engaging capital, ef¬ 
 fort and enterprise in out-of-the-way 
 
 l9> 
 
places of the world, those concerned 
 want to be assured that they are not 
 setting out on a wild goose chase, but 
 that certain functions and opportuni¬ 
 ties in definite territories, on definite 
 terms, for a definite length of time, are 
 assigned to them contractually and can¬ 
 not be taken away from them capri¬ 
 ciously. 
 
 It is a proper and natural exercise of 
 the function of Government that official 
 cognizance should be taken of the grant¬ 
 ing of such concessions and that the mor¬ 
 al support of the Government should be 
 granted to American citizens for the un¬ 
 disturbed exercise of their rights there¬ 
 under, provided always that there is no 
 taint of fraud or corruption in their 
 original obtainment, that they are not 
 unconscionable in their essence, and 
 that they may not justly be held to 
 have lapsed through the fault of the 
 holder. It does happen that American 
 concession-hunters in their eagerness 
 “bite off more than they can chew,” 
 and in such a case, our Government 
 should not—nor, as far as I am aware, 
 does it—pursue a “dog-in-the-manger” 
 policy. 
 
 I believe the following points may be 
 regarded as established: 
 
 1. Our State Department does not lie 
 awake nights seeking to obtain con¬ 
 cessions for American citizens or 
 stimulating them to obtain conces¬ 
 sions for themselves. 
 
 2. It attempts to use its moral influence 
 against the granting of concessions 
 
 { io > 
 
unfairly discriminatory in favor of 
 other nations as against Americans, 
 precisely as it discountenances con¬ 
 cessions unfairly discriminatory in 
 favor of Americans as against other 
 nations. 
 
 3. Its policy is not to encourage the 
 granting of exclusive rights, be it to 
 Americans or to citizens of other na¬ 
 tions, but on the contrary our Gov¬ 
 ernment stands forth as the cham¬ 
 pion of the open door and equality of 
 opportunity for all comers, wherever 
 practicable in the nature of the case. 
 
 4. It takes due cognizance of the grant 
 of concessions (reasonably warranted 
 as to terms and conditions) to Amer¬ 
 ican citizens, but it never goes be¬ 
 yond the exercise of its moral influ¬ 
 ence in maintaining the rights of its 
 nationals under such concessions, 
 and I have known it to decline to do 
 so when it was not satisfied as to the 
 cleanness or fairness of the American 
 contention. 
 
 5. The game of concession-hunting or 
 otherwise exploiting opportunities in 
 foreign countries is neither as popu¬ 
 lar among Americans as some of you 
 would suppose it to be nor as profit¬ 
 able as it is “cracked up” to be. I do 
 not claim his relative aloofness from 
 that game as a sign of superior virtue 
 in the American, but rather attribute 
 it to the fact that the opportunities 
 in his own country are still so great 
 —in contrast to the state of af¬ 
 fairs among the principal nations of 
 
 I 11 > 
 
Europe—that he finds it difficult to 
 get up enthusiasm and eagerness for 
 employing his time, thought, effort 
 and capital in regions too far distant 
 from “Broadway.” 
 
 With every desire to make at least 
 some graceful concessions to the views 
 held by the previous speaker, and prob¬ 
 ably by the majority of this audience, 
 I am bound to conclude that I know of 
 no practices which can justly be charac¬ 
 terized as Economic Imperialism on the 
 part of America. 
 
 3. The Allegation of Financial 
 Imperialism 
 
 Lastly, as to Financial Imperialism: 
 
 The facts are simple and patent. 
 America holds half of the total available 
 stock of the world’s gold. Its people are 
 prosperous and have a surplus of funds 
 for investment. Many nations are in 
 need of funds, and naturally turn to 
 America. 
 
 The American banker acts as middle¬ 
 man between the lender and the bor¬ 
 rower. His first function in that capac¬ 
 ity is to investigate the solvency and 
 stability of the applicant for funds. 
 Next, he requires assurance that the 
 proceeds of the loan desired are for le¬ 
 gitimate and constructive purposes. He 
 then negotiates terms, both as to the 
 rate of interest and as to the special se¬ 
 curity (if any), requisite in order to 
 make the loan palatable to the Ameri¬ 
 can investor. (I will not omit to add 
 that these terms include a commission 
 
 i 12 > 
 
for himself and those associated with 
 him, but I will also add that, of late 
 years, the rate of that commission has 
 become practically as fixed and stereo¬ 
 typed by custom as that of a real estate 
 broker or an architect.) 
 
 In making arrangements for terms 
 and security, he must, of course, bear in 
 mind that the ultimate provider of the 
 funds desired to be raised, is not the 
 banker, nor even the financial commun¬ 
 ity, but the great army of investors. His 
 own function is merely that of negotia¬ 
 tor and distributor. The goods which he 
 purchases are intended for resale to the 
 public. They are not meant to remain 
 on his shelves. If they do, it is proof of 
 misjudgment, and if he falls into re¬ 
 peated misjudgment, the penalty is ex¬ 
 haustion of his working capital, and, 
 eventually, probable failure. The es¬ 
 sence of correct banking is that the 
 banker must keep the bulk of his funds 
 in liquid shape. 
 
 Therefore, in appraising the terms 
 and the security required in the case of 
 a loan to be offered to the public, the 
 banker has two principal things in 
 mind, namely, the salability of the 
 bonds which he buys and the permanent 
 solvency of the borrower. The public 
 holds him, the banker, morally respon¬ 
 sible for his recommendations, and the 
 penalty of carelessness or poor judg¬ 
 ment on his part is the withdrawal of 
 the confidence and the patronage of the 
 investor, i.e., the weakening, or even 
 the destruction, of the very fundament 
 on which his business rests. 
 
 i 13 I 
 
Is it not perfectly manifest, that in 
 the whole process of the dealings of the 
 financier with the borrower there enters 
 only one main question, namely, the 
 plain question of business, and that 
 there is neither room nor reason for the 
 element of Imperialism? 
 
 One final function remains to be ful¬ 
 filled before the banker, having com¬ 
 pleted mutually satisfactory negotia¬ 
 tions with the prospective foreign bor¬ 
 rower, whether a Government, or a Mu¬ 
 nicipality, or a governmentally guaran¬ 
 teed or administered undertaking, offers 
 his wares to the American investor. By 
 custom, which has acquired the force of 
 law, inquiry is made of the American 
 State Department whether it sees any 
 objection to the proposed transaction. 
 An approving reply from Washington 
 involves, of course, no kind of moral 
 guaranty or pledge on the part of our 
 governmental authorities. It involves 
 merely an implied conclusion on the 
 part of the State Department that the 
 proposed loan is intended to serve a le¬ 
 gitimate purpose and that its consum¬ 
 mation is not inconsistent with the point 
 of view of the American Government. 
 
 And that is all the State Department 
 has to do with the matter, except to use 
 its good offices if circumstances arise 
 which jeopardize the rights or the safety 
 of American capital placed, in good 
 faith, in foreign countries. That is the 
 limit of the Government's intercession. 
 There is not a single instance when the 
 armed forces of the American Govern¬ 
 ment have been employed to collect 
 
 { 14 > 
 
debts, or otherwise maintain the rights 
 of American bankers, financiers, con¬ 
 cessionaires or bondholders. The actu¬ 
 ating motive for the use of such forces, 
 in all cases when armed intercession 
 was resorted to, was to enact national, 
 not private, rights and duties. If among 
 the results of establishing order and aid¬ 
 ing to set up a proper system and ad¬ 
 ministration of government were the 
 fulfilment of due financial obligations 
 and compliance with legal pledges, it 
 remains true, nevertheless, that the 
 bringing about of these rightful things 
 was one of the efFects of the action of 
 the American Government, but was not, 
 either in fact or in spirit, the reason, 
 incentive or purpose which caused such 
 action to be taken. 
 
 One other matter remains to be re¬ 
 ferred to, which, to the casual and per¬ 
 haps not too benignantly inclined be¬ 
 holder, may have the appearance of im¬ 
 perialistic interference, but which in 
 fact has no such purpose, meaning or 
 effect. It has occurred (as it will doubt¬ 
 less continue to occur) that the willing¬ 
 ness of American bankers and investors 
 to loan funds to certain foreign coun¬ 
 tries was made dependent upon the 
 American Government designating 
 American citizens to administer special 
 guarantees, pledged to secure the loan 
 service, such as customs or similar spe¬ 
 cific sources of revenue. There is no 
 more of Imperialism in our Government 
 making such designation, as and if re¬ 
 quested by borrower and lender, and in 
 the exercising of such functions by the 
 
 I 15 > 
 
persons so designated, than there is Im¬ 
 perialism in the action of Mr. Gilbert in 
 exercising the functions of Reparation 
 Agent under the provisions of the Dawes 
 Report, by the common consent of Ger¬ 
 many and the other nations concerned. 
 
 Most of the nations of the world, as 
 well as many municipalities and indus¬ 
 trial concerns abroad, are eagerly ask¬ 
 ing for accommodation in the shape of 
 the loan of American dollars, to an ex¬ 
 tent, indeed, exceeding, for the time 
 being, the inclination and capacity of 
 American finance and the American in¬ 
 vestor. To call measurable compliance 
 with such requests, on reasonable con¬ 
 ditions as to security and otherwise, 
 Financial Imperialism, is surely to at¬ 
 tach a novel and strange meaning to 
 that term. 
 
 When, after the close of the Civil 
 War, Europe poured funds aggregating 
 hundreds of millions of dollars into the 
 United States (taking as security rail¬ 
 road and land mortgages) and thus pro¬ 
 vided the means for recovering from the 
 effects of that struggle and for the de¬ 
 velopment of American resources and 
 opportunities, did she practice Finan¬ 
 cial Imperialism? If so, it seems to me 
 that Lincoln’s famous reply to the com¬ 
 plaint of indulgence in whiskey-drink¬ 
 ing, brought against a victory-winning 
 General, may well be applied to that 
 kind of Imperialism. 
 
 The tales of an unsophisticated and 
 subservient State Department and a 
 ruthless, treaty-dictating, world-manip¬ 
 ulating Standard Oil or other “big 
 
 { 16 > 
 
business” power are simply myths. The 
 plain fact is that business men do not 
 possess the super-qualities which, either 
 in laudation or in condemnation, are 
 frequently attributed to them. They 
 have neither the craftiness and greed, 
 with which they are charged, nor the 
 profundity and far-sightedness, with 
 which they are credited. 
 
 Having had some little experience 
 with the inner workings of things, I 
 have no hesitation in saying that while 
 finance and “big business” have had 
 occasion at times to act as servants of 
 the State Department, they have never, 
 within the period of my recollection, 
 been permitted to be its masters. And I 
 say further that not only have such serv¬ 
 ices, generally, not been compensated, 
 but that in more than one instance that 
 I know of, they have involved both ex¬ 
 pense and effort, not recoverable either 
 directly or indirectly. 
 
 It is astonishing how often legends 
 about the power and sway of bankers 
 spring into being, and how credulously 
 they are accepted. For instance, the re¬ 
 cent international loans to Austria and 
 Germany have been the text for many 
 stories telling how high finance, through 
 the conditions governing these loans, 
 reduced these countries to a state of 
 vassalage to its power. The fact is that 
 in neither of these cases did bankers 
 have anything to do with determining 
 the conditions which were basic for the 
 loans. In the case of Austria, the condi¬ 
 tions were established by the League of 
 Nations. In the case of Germany, they 
 
 { 17 > 
 
were fixed by the Dawes Commission 
 and by the conference of Prime Minis¬ 
 ters and Finance Ministers in London 
 last summer. 
 
 All that the bankers were called upon 
 to do, and did, was to assist in the work¬ 
 ing out of certain technical matters, and 
 to advise what were the financial terms 
 at which the proposed issues would ap¬ 
 peal to investors, and, particularly, what 
 were the assurances of stability, of se¬ 
 curity and of freedom from outside in¬ 
 terference, which were requisite in order 
 to enable them (the bankers) to take 
 the responsibility of recommending the 
 loans to investors in their respective 
 countries. According to well-authenti¬ 
 cated reports, the person most outspo¬ 
 kenly in accord with the bankers’ point 
 of view in the latter aspect and most 
 insistent in demanding compliance with 
 it (not, of course, because it was the 
 bankers’ view, but because he believed 
 it to be the right view), was none other 
 than the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 in the Labor Government of Great Brit¬ 
 ain, the Socialist Philip Snowden. And 
 the then Prime Minister, the Socialist 
 Ramsay MacDonald, rose in the House 
 of Commons to declare that the bankers 
 had in no way gone beyond the expres¬ 
 sion of such advice as had been asked 
 of them, and that he gratefully acknowl¬ 
 edged the value and the spirit of their 
 services. 
 
 It is neither my function nor my in¬ 
 clination to claim a spotless record for 
 American business, big or little. But I 
 do claim that whatever other charge 
 
 I 18 > 
 
may or may not lie against it, the charge 
 of fostering or practicing Imperialism is 
 without ground or warrant in fact. 
 
 A 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 I have not tried to make an argument 
 in respect of Imperialism “per se.” I 
 have not aimed either to defend or at¬ 
 tack it. I have not sought to examine 
 the question whether Imperialism, nec¬ 
 essarily and in all contingencies, must 
 be adjudged as evil and unwarrantable. 
 I am merely saying that, according to 
 my observations and judgment, Imperi¬ 
 alism is not practiced by the Govern¬ 
 ment or the people of the United States. 
 
 I am aware that my presentation of 
 the case under discussion may engender 
 the retort that it “doth protest too 
 much.” For debating purposes, it would 
 doubtless have been good strategy to 
 make my affirmations and denials less 
 comprehensive. I can only say that if I 
 had done so, I should have failed in ad¬ 
 herence to what I believe to be the 
 truth. 
 
 I am likewise aware that nothing 
 lends itself more easily to scoffing and 
 derision than the avowal of disinterest¬ 
 edness of purpose and decency of mo¬ 
 tives. I realize that the profession of 
 one’s belief in the genuineness of such 
 avowals, especially in the case of na¬ 
 tions, runs counter somewhat to pre¬ 
 vailing intellectual fashions and is apt 
 in many minds to create, against the 
 person so professing, the presumption 
 of gullibility, if not hypocrisy. Yet, I do 
 not hesitate to confess that I am naive 
 
 I 19 > 
 
enough to believe that one of the tradi¬ 
 tions and springs of action of the Amer¬ 
 ican people, consistent with a robust 
 assertion of self-interest and self-coun¬ 
 sel, is to do the fair and square thing by 
 other nations, large or small, and, ac¬ 
 cording to its lights, to endeavor to be a 
 serviceable element toward the progress 
 and welfare of humankind. 
 
 4. A Few General Considerations 
 
 May I trespass upon your patience 
 for a little while longer to give expres¬ 
 sion to a few observations of a general 
 character which, with your leave, I 
 should like to submit to this gathering: 
 
 Let me begin by saying that, while I 
 am not a Radical and while I wholly 
 disbelieve in the theories of Socialism, I 
 am far from being a “Standpatter.” I 
 yield respectful consideration to every 
 opinion and every effort, the motives of 
 which bear the hallmark of sincere and 
 worthy purpose. I believe in progress 
 and in the stimulus of intelligent and 
 constructively directed discontent. I be¬ 
 lieve that the faults of Reaction, with 
 the wars and repressions springing there¬ 
 from, have done more harm to the world 
 than the faults of Radicalism. I am 
 troubled by the reflection that, in too 
 many cases, success in certain lines is 
 too richly rewarded in proportion to 
 the average yield, non-success too heav¬ 
 ily penalized, that, too often, the same 
 degree of effort meets with too uneven 
 a measure of compensation, that too 
 many of the trees of humankind, for 
 
 { 20 > 
 
lack of sufficient light, warmth and sus¬ 
 tenance, are stunted in their growth or 
 even doomed wholly to wither and 
 decay. 
 
 I believe that the mass of the Ameri¬ 
 can people want what is sensible and 
 just and making for the general welfare. 
 I believe that there is a vast majority 
 who would gladly bring cheer and com¬ 
 fort if they are shown wretchedness and 
 squalor, right if they are shown wrong, 
 freedom if they are shown oppression. I 
 believe it to be not a copy-book maxim 
 but a sober and well-attested fact that 
 the power of the spirit is far greater 
 than that of the dollar, that the might 
 of justice and right is far greater, ulti¬ 
 mately, than that of selfishness, preju¬ 
 dice or greed. 
 
 Let me quote as a single but charac¬ 
 teristic illustration in connection with 
 this last sentence, the matter of woman 
 suffrage. A great majority of American 
 men were originally opposed to it, part¬ 
 ly from reasoned conviction, partly 
 from sentiment, partly from an instinct 
 for the preservation of their “superior¬ 
 ity,” partly from apprehension that the 
 enlargement of the electorate would 
 strengthen the Radical vote. Yet when 
 gradually it became plain to the aver¬ 
 age male voter that no argument based 
 on justice could be sustained against 
 the proposition of giving the suffrage to 
 women, the opposition crumbled and 
 woman-suffrage won. 
 
 Let me point out that such measures 
 as, for instance, the progressive income- 
 tax, collective bargaining by employees, 
 
 i 21 > 
 
the eight-hour day, the governmental 
 supervision and regulation of railroads 
 and similar natural monopolies or semi¬ 
 monopolies, are approved by the sense 
 of justice of the business community, 
 provided the application of such mea¬ 
 sures is kept within the limits of reason, 
 and that they would not be repealed by 
 business if it had the power to repeal 
 them. 
 
 $ 5jt jfc 
 
 What you Radicals and we who hold 
 opposing views differ about, is not so 
 much the end as the means, not so much 
 what should be brought about as how it 
 should and can be brought about, be¬ 
 lieving as we do, that rushing after the 
 utopian is not only fruitless and inef¬ 
 fectual, but gets into the way of, and 
 retards, progress towards realizing at¬ 
 tainable improvement. 
 
 With all due respect, I venture to 
 suggest that Radicalism too often tends 
 to address itself more to theoretical per¬ 
 fection than to concrete amelioration; 
 to phantom grievances or grievances of 
 the past, which have lost their reality, 
 rather than to actual matters of the 
 day; to slogans, dogmas, professions, 
 rather than to facts. Indeed, I have 
 known leading Radical orators to bend 
 and twist the necks of facts most merci¬ 
 lessly, if the poor, rigid facts happened 
 to be facing in another direction than 
 the speaker’s arguments. I have known 
 them to attribute all virtue to certain 
 elements or sections of the community, 
 and all evil to others; to lack in a sense 
 
 I 22 > 
 
of proportion and in a homely apprecia¬ 
 tion of the realities; to advocate, in the 
 name of Liberty, policies embodying 
 the very reverse of individual freedom. 
 I do not mean to be flippant when I say 
 that the attitude and expressions of 
 Radical spokesmen recall to my mind, 
 at times, the story of the dissenting 
 juryman who complained that he had 
 never met eleven such obstinate men. 
 
 Leaving aside the demands of ortho¬ 
 dox Socialism, the platform of Radical¬ 
 ism demands, to quote only a few of its 
 planks, governmental control of bank¬ 
 ing credits; government ownership of 
 railways; such extension of Governmen¬ 
 tal functions as would mean a vastly 
 augmented bureaucracy; extreme, if not 
 throttling, taxation of accumulated cap¬ 
 ital; emasculating restraints in respect 
 of the Supreme Court; the abolition of 
 an Imaginary Imperialism, and so forth. 
 I am frank to say that I do not see in 
 what respect the attainment of these 
 and similar things would prove of tangi¬ 
 ble benefit to the plain people. 
 
 I see, on the contrary, under the op¬ 
 eration of the existing social and eco¬ 
 nomic system—gradually and progress¬ 
 ively adapting itself to the problems 
 and conceptions of the day—an advanc¬ 
 ing tide in the well-being of the people, 
 a growing assertion of the social con¬ 
 science, a noteworthy diminution in the 
 difference of the standard, and the con¬ 
 tents, of living between the well-to-do 
 and the masses. And I see further that 
 almost all the leading positions in gov¬ 
 ernment, industry and finance are held 
 
 i 23 > 
 
by sons of the plain people, who fought 
 and won their way to the top. 
 
 That does not mean that I see ground 
 for self-complacent satisfaction. Much 
 indeed remains to be accomplished, and 
 some of the things thus remaining call 
 urgently to be attended to. The advent 
 of the machine period, about a hundred 
 years ago, and the subsequent develop¬ 
 ment of large scale production in indus¬ 
 try, while they have brought results of 
 vast benefit to humanity in many ways, 
 did also bring grave maladjustments 
 and social ills, for which the world has 
 not yet found completely adequate 
 treatment or wholly effective remedies. 
 
 It seems to me the purpose of right- 
 thinking leaders, of whatever political 
 affiliations, should be to seek principally 
 the tangible result of making the lives 
 of the people steadily fuller and richer, 
 of bringing into them more of joy, satis¬ 
 faction and reward, of dislodging squal¬ 
 or, misery, drabness, oppression, denial 
 of opportunity. 
 
 Of course, the preservation of liberty, 
 the vigilance and protest against injus¬ 
 tice, are, or ought to be, the paramount 
 concern of all Americans, whatever their 
 station or occupation, I would frankly 
 question, however, whether alleged Im¬ 
 perialism, and such-like highly conten¬ 
 tious matters do cut an appreciable and 
 immediate figure in the life of the aver¬ 
 age worker and his family, for good or 
 ill. But, providing him with better hous¬ 
 ing; abolishing ugly and degrading tene¬ 
 ments ; creatingparks and adequateplay- 
 grounds; establishing well-equipped, 
 
 { 24 > 
 
clean and airy hospitals; furnishing 
 quick and comfortable transportation; 
 safeguarding him against unemploy¬ 
 ment, sickness and old age; seeing to it 
 that he has sanitary and dignified work¬ 
 ing conditions, his due say, adequate 
 opportunity, and a fair chance to share 
 in the fruits of industry; making the 
 administration of justice less cumber¬ 
 some, complex and expensive; giving to 
 him and his family ample access to 
 knowledge, art, beauty, and culture— 
 these and similar things do mean genu¬ 
 ine and concrete additions to his enjoy¬ 
 ment and contentment and to the value 
 of his life. 
 
 Such things are not controversial in 
 their essence as between Radicals, Lib¬ 
 erals and Conservatives, their benefits 
 are not debatable, and they are assured¬ 
 ly obtainable. Cannot we all join hands 
 in trying to bring them about? 
 
 Extreme claims will only produce ex¬ 
 treme resistance. Undue pressure will 
 inevitably cause commensurate coun¬ 
 ter-pressure. Exaggerated pronounce¬ 
 ments will produce exaggerated appre¬ 
 hensions. 
 
 Is it quite illusory to dream—in this 
 land, favored as it is beyond all others 
 with those things which make for widely 
 diffused prosperity and ought to make 
 for progress and happiness—that well- 
 intentioned and thoughtful men, with¬ 
 out yielding their respective convictions 
 and ultimate aims, may declare a truce 
 for a while and unite upon attempting 
 to accomplish those things which most 
 need to be done? 
 
 { 25 > 
 
Granting you the privilege, if you so 
 wish, to look upon Conservatives as op¬ 
 pressors, despoilers or besotted and 
 upon Liberals as ineffectual, outmoded 
 or trimmers, and reserving for Conser¬ 
 vatives and Liberals the privilege to re¬ 
 ciprocate in kind, is it really quite idle 
 to hope that we may cease to accentu¬ 
 ate and propagate friction, antagonism 
 and bitterness, and, agreeing upon cer¬ 
 tain limited objectives desired by all 
 right-minded men, that we may find a 
 bridge across which we can all walk to¬ 
 wards the attainment of those objec¬ 
 tives for the common welfare of the 
 American people? 
 
 {26} 
 

 
 
 
 
EDGAR C RUWE 
 COINCNEWVORK