COMMUNISM IN CALIFORNIA. R ESPECTABLE Americans are amazed and alarmed at
the new Constitution adopted by California, and if we may judge from the imperfect accounts which have as yet reached this country, they have reason for apprehension. The Labour Party, as it is called, has at last mastered one State, and has avowed its hostility to capital, and especially to capital in the hands of Corporations. Its leader, an Irishman named Kearney, recently stumped the Northern States, calling upon all labourers to unite in securing certain objects which, when reduced to political English, appeared to be the establishment of a mini- mum rate of wages, the passing of an eight-hours law, the severe taxation of public bonds, and the passing of restrictive Acts against all manner of Corporations. Mr. Kearney pos- sesses, when moved by pity for the labourer or when describ- ing his wrongs, a rough and not unattractive eloquence ; but he relies principally upon abuse, and upon wild, semi- poetical, semi-nonsensical outbursts, which to Englishmen suggest either dishonesty or a craze. He did not appear to make much impression in the North, though we noticed at the time, and notice this week again, that the authorities of New York took precautions against the "Kearney Meetings" which are very unusual, indeed unknown, in the States. The meet- ings were very carefully watched by the police, as if those ruling the City expected some revolutionary action which was never taken. At all events, Mr. Kearney went back to Cali- fornia disappointed, and there organised his party until he had attracted voters enough to carry a new Constitution. The townspeople in California hate the Chinese with a feeling compounded of moral dislike, of Anglo-Saxon scorn for all who are not white, and of the sentiment of Unionist workmen for those who underbid them. Mr. Kearney therefore promised to expel the Chinese, and at once secured the affection of the City artisans. He next, with an adroitness which indicates some skill in managing men, appealed to the small freeholders,to their desire for cheap railway transit, their hatred of the capitalists, who lend them money at what they think usurious rates, and—let this be noted—their horror of the plundering "Rings." He proposed that as, under the Constitution of the Union the Chinese could not be expelled, they being protected by Treaty, they should be excluded from citizenship, should be forbidden to own real property, should be interdicted from em- ployment on public works—except when under penal sentence —and should be expressly debarred from taking service with Corporations, any corporation employing them losing its charter. Next, he proposed that all property held by Corpora- tions or foreigners should be subject to special disabilities. No corporation can hold a freehold other than its own pre- mises—a direct and savage blow at mining companies, house- owning companies, and companies speculating in land—or a lease extending over a longer period than five years. More- over, all Companies whatever, even those which, like railroads, wharfage companies, and telegraph and carrying companies, directly serve the public, are to pay double the taxes paid by individuals,—that is to say, they are to be taxed upon their whole earnings, and then their individual shareholders are to be taxed again upon their share of dividends. Moreover, if the Cqrporation owns Railroads, its management of its business is placed under a Commission directly elected by the people, and intended to secure cheap carriage. At the same time, the individual capitalist does not escape. He is not only taxed upon his property, as Jacob Astor is, for example, in New York, a property valuation being the basis of taxation for State purposes, but is also to be taxed upon his income, as, till the pressure be- came unbearable, Jacob Astor was, for Federal purposes, in the two or three years following the war. Both taxes moreover, the property tax which has always been reserved to the State, and the Income-tax, hitherto levied only for Federal purposes, and indeed only for war, are in California to swell the State Treasury, which the Labour Party, having a majority, will completely control. Foreigners, again, holding property in the State are to be compelled to sell it when they leave—a relic probably of Mr. Kearney's early teaching about the sins of absentees ; and finally, by a provision so astounding that we can hardly believe the reporters, the directors of all corporations are declared jointly and severally liable for all money embezzled or stolen by the officers of their corpo- rations. If this clause is correctly described, and we suspect it is, it is the most wonderful instance of contempt for ele- mentary justice recorded in democratic legislation. John Smith is, in fact, solely because he is a director, to be fined for the offence of being robbed by his own servants. His cook has stolen his meat, and he as well as the cook, are sent to prison. This new Constitution ;ill, moreover, be worked by a Governor and officials and a Legislature all of whom will have been appointed by the Labour Party, which carried it, and which is now dominant at the polls.
We do not believe it will ever come into working order. One-half at least of the provisions we have enumerated are opposed to the Constitution of the United States. The laws against the Chinese are contrary to the Treaty under which Americans live and trade in China, as well as to the "race, creed, or colour" amendment in the Constitution ; while the taxation laws are opposed to the first principle of that docu- ment, that taxation must be equal. We believe the Supreme Court will annul all these provisions, or send the whole document back to the people for revision. The wealthy classes in America, moreover, when excited, have ways of holding their own. The recollection of the Vigilance Committee is not dead, and the small proprietors will very soon perceive that while the taxation will strike them, the city mobs will distribute the produce of their labour. But that such a Constitution should' have been passed by an American State is a most noteworthy and unwelcome phenomenon. The anti-Chinese laws, except for the indication they afford of cruel race-prejudice, do not prove Communism. Very sound communities have feared to admit the unlimited immigration of Pagan labourers, and a refusal to receive any more, after fair notice and a revision of the Treaty, would not, however inexpedient, be inconsistent with national justice. But the meaning of the Constitution, as explained and accentuated in the speeches of Mr. Kearney and his followers, is that the capitalist is an enemy ; that it is wrong to save money ; wrong to unite with others in great undertakings ; wrong to earn large profit by skilful com- binations of labour. Any one not earning wages ought to be fined for owning property, and if combined with others in that ownership, ought to be doubly fined. It will be noted that there is no trace of a law of maximum in Mr. Kearney's Constitution, no evidence of the idea, often maintained by perfectly honest men, that where there is evident superfluity, and an extra demand on the com- munity for protection, the person so circumstanced should pay an extra rate. That principle, carefully regulated, is not un- fair, and is acknowledged by our own community, in imposing an income-tax with exemptions . for all below a certain standard. Still less is there any idea of making the State sole employer, and so transferring all power—even the power of capital—to agencies controlled by the body of the people. That idea, quite unworkable, but very seducing, is far beyond the intellectual capacity of Californian mobs. They are actuated, to judge from their vote, not by dreams of Utopia, but by an envious, democratic dislike of the rich, a resolution that those who enjoy shall pay, and those who labour shall not, whatever the consequences, or whatever the claims of justice. That is a very dangerous spirit, and one which we deeply regret to see prevail in an English- speaking community, even for a limited time. Its direct logical conclusion is that the Moral Law is not binding upon the com- munity, that while an individual may not steal, a majority may. To tax a corporation specially, except as a condition of allowing it to become a corporation, while leaving a mere partnership untaxed, or less taxed, is theft, or rather spoliation —as undisguised as the demand of a Pasha for a Greek's money because the Greek has evidently made much—and it can have only one of two economic effects. Either corporations will not be formed, in which case civilisation will be deprived of half its productive strength, and many enterprises, such as the building of railways, canals, or harbours, will be impossible, or the Corporations in self-defence will be driven to rob the public. The latter will probably be the practical result, unless the withdrawal of foreign capital stops enterprise altogether, until the people, impatient of uni- versal dearness, once more revert to the old and sound con- clusion that the Moral Law is made for everybody, and not for the rich alone. Dives was commanded to pity and to give, not Lazarus to steal.
Previous page
