CHAPTER XX.
THE DEBATE ON THE BOND AND CREDIT LAWS—REV. CADMUS M. DESTY AND THE MORAL LAW.
The discussion of the bond and credit laws referred to the people to be voted upon at the Association election in October, 1907, was as earnest, interesting and thorough as any which had ever occurred in Idaho. The advocates of their adoption were vigorous and persistent and regarded themselves as conscientious.
They were not honest, however, with themselves. They had allowed an artful and unscrupulous agent of the competitive system to convince them that a moral question was involved and to delude them into believing him to be a great and good man.
Indeed, Hickman had written a pamphlet on “Co-operation and Financial Integrity,” which was published on his return to New York City from Co-opolis, and a large number of these had been sent back to Co-opolis and distributed throughout Idaho.
It was an able presentation of the view he desired his partisans in Idaho to urge. It was not his view, however, but simply the plea which a shrewd lawyer in the competitive world might make for a guilty criminal. It was sufficiently effective to become the text-book of the affirmative in the discussion, and they lauded Hickman to the skies until it was proven that he had for years been the trusted agent of the celebrated banking house of Rothschild. After that the bond advocate mentioned Hickman no more.
In this discussion every member of the Legislative Council of the Association and every member of the Great Council were listed in opposition to these laws. Ex-Governor, now United States Senator, Thompson was one of the most active of the negative speakers. On the side of the affirmative was the Reverend Dr. Cadmus M. Desty, the famous pulpit orator, a most conscientious man and an intelligent Co-operator. He had become convinced, and I would stake life itself that he was perfectly honest in the matter, that our whole system must fail if we broke what he conceived to be God’s law, and did what was unjust and dishonest.
The whole basis of his contention was the moral law. He was an emotional speaker. It was his custom to support his views by making copious quotations from the bible and, drawing from them some conclusions which were satisfactory to his mind, launch into an exhortation which was perfectly irresistible to some of his emotional followers.
In those days our discussions were not conducted as they are to-day. Then the disputants were given an hour or an hour and a half each to present his side. Our system of requiring the affirmative to state an argument in ten minutes, and the negative to reply in the same length of time, continuing in this manner for several hours in the presence of referees who permit no divergence from the subject, is calculated to exclude oratory and passion, and raise the discussion to an intellectual plane. But the system was not adopted until 1912.
It must be confessed that the oratorical contests of the old style were as interesting as a circus or gladiatorial show, in which respect they were superior to the give-and-take method of to-day.
The greatest of all the debates of that campaign occurred between Senator Thompson and the Reverend Dr. Desty during September. One of these took place in the great hall at Co-opolis. There were present 9,000 members of the Industrial Army and one thousand pupils from the schools. It was our custom to have the Educational department send a certain number of its wards to these discussions, in order to have them familiarized with Co-opolitan methods. These questions were always discussed fully in the schools as well as in the Industrial Army.
The discussion in the great hall was opened by Dr. Desty. He insisted that the bonds of Boise City should be paid, that the poor people, who doubtless held them, factory operators in the unfortunate competitive cities, perhaps, had purchased them in good faith; that the action of the Co-opolitan Association, which he entirely approved, had rendered these bonds valueless, and that the Association, which was founded on principles of justice, equality and righteousness, should not withhold from these poor people what belonged to them.
He also pointed out the fact that as long as the bonds remained outstanding the territory affected by them would be lost to the Association. Then came the wonderful, soul-stirring oratory of the man, which moved his hearers to the depths. I almost felt, as I listened to him on that occasion, that perhaps he was right.
When he finished the applause from all parts of the hall was deafening. I believe now that it was more an acknowledgment of his wonderful oratory than because he had produced a conviction of the correctness of his views, but I was distressed by different thoughts then.
Senator Thompson followed on behalf of the negative. The Senator was at that time in the very prime of an exceptionally strong and vigorous manhood. He had occupied the important positions of President of the Association and Governor of the state, the former for seven years, the latter for two. His reputation was world-wide, not as an orator, but as the father of the Co-operative Commonwealth and the possessor of extraordinary administrative ability. He had not, as yet, taken his oath of Senator of the United States, having been but recently elected, and was hardly known as a public speaker outside of the state. He was not an emotional orator.
His chief characteristics in debate were his ready wit, his complete command of the subject under discussion, and his logical and powerful array of facts. He was the opposite of the Reverend Dr. Desty in nearly every respect. That day he was at his best. As he came forward to the speakers’ stand he was received with terrific applause. This was always the case, however, and it did not indicate that his was the most popular side.
He commenced by informing the audience that he did not desire to use any personal influence with them concerning the exercise of their suffrage. He wished them to be guided by truth and wisdom only. If the people of Idaho were not sufficiently intelligent to save their Co-operative Commonwealth then it must fall, because their intelligence was its sole foundation. He had some evidence to present for their consideration.
Here he read three affidavits from England, which set forth the business, character and history of one Lester Hickman. These averred that gentleman to be the president of the American and English Bond and Trust Company, limited, of London, and that his company was the purchaser, for a mere nominal sum, of the municipal bonds of the cities of Idaho. They further averred that Hickman was known as a bitter enemy of all movements for the bettering of the condition of the people, and neither more nor less than a keen broker and speculator. They also set forth that Hickman’s reputation for honesty was somewhat shady.
After reading these affidavits Senator Thompson exclaimed:
“This is the prophet of financial morality whose teachings are invoked for your instruction by my good and sincere but misguided friend, Dr. Desty.” At this point the applause which shook the house and was again and again repeated marked the turning of the tide of public sentiment against the affirmative.
“I think now,” resumed the Senator, after quiet was restored, “that the bond and credit laws are dead. But I would not have you decide this question on the simple fact that the man who instigated them is a selfish hypocrite and schemer. I want you to understand these laws thoroughly and adopt or reject them on their merits. If they are good, it matters not who proposes them. Let them be adopted. If they are bad, it matters not what demon inspired them, they should be rejected.
“These laws are for what purpose? To introduce among you the most iniquitous feature of the competitive system.
“Once allow it to be introduced, whether under the guise of necessity or morality, whether by Shylock or by an erring angel, and I would not give a straw for your entire system. It will eat its way into the very heart of your body politic and destroy all that is worth having about it.
“History shows to my mind successive systems of slavery, one chasing the other through the earth.
“Bond slavery succeeded chattel slavery and has nearly crushed liberty to death in the great republic. There is not the slightest reason why the Co-opolitan Association should become indebted to private persons.
“We are the public, the law, the will of Idaho, and what we desire within the state that we can have. If we wish to build a railroad beyond the state we ought to have no difficulty in doing that.
“What is necessary to such a road? First you must have the line surveyed. That has been done. Next you must have the right of way. That will be somewhat expensive. But if the right of way costs us five million dollars why should we borrow it? We have it already. Even if we did not have it, let me remind you that from 1862 to 1892, a period of thirty years, Idaho produced nearly two hundred million dollars of gold and silver, and her producing population was at no time greater than thirty thousand persons. With a population such as we have to-day we can produce gold enough, if gold is needed, in a single year, to build this road.
“Would not Idaho be demented to borrow gold from a hypocritical agent of Rothschild when we can, without incurring debt, take it from our own valleys, creek beds and mountains?”
The Senator treated the question of bond issues from every point of view conceivable, with a power of description, illustration and argument that not only held his audience spellbound, but fixed its logic deep in the minds of all who heard him. Such was the effect of the affidavits which he read upon the mind of his reverend opponent that the latter declared his intention never again to enter upon the discussion of political questions or questions of public finance. Thenceforth he confined himself to religion and became a world-renowned pulpit orator.
When the election occurred the vote was overwhelming against all these laws, the last going down largely on account of the unpopularity of the two others known as the land and credit propositions. Our system did not permit the submission of a rejected law for at least five years after its rejection. The proposition to abolish the labor orders and pay all labor in non-transferable checks was a really meritorious one and ought to have been adopted.
The people, however, are so constituted that once their suspicions are aroused they are much readier to say no than yes, and the abolition of orders as a medium of labor exchange had to wait until 1912. It is gratifying, however, to be able to say that the people were less and less inclined to demand such orders, and more and more inclined to receive the labor checks.
The defeat of the bond and credit laws had the effect of placing the Co-opolitan Association and the co-operative system on an enduring basis. The entire world now realized that it was an assured and successful system and in every state in the Union the tendency was toward the enactment of laws favorable to co-operative action on the part of the laborer. Nearly all the states, seized by the spirit of the hour, began to discuss the propriety of calling a constitutional convention and reforming their systems of state government upon the model of Idaho.
The features of our state constitution most favored were its provisions embodying the initiative and referendum and the imperative mandate, which I have already described.