The Price of a Soul Part 1

The Price of a Soul.

by William Jennings Bryan.

NOTE

"The Price of a Soul" is an address delivered by Mr. Bryan, first at the Northwestern Law School Banquet in Chicago, then as a Commencement Oration at the Peirce School in Philadelphia and, in 1909, extended into a lecture.

THE PRICE OF A SOUL

The fact that Christ dealt with this subject is proof conclusive that it is important, for He never dealt with trivial things. When Christ focused attention upon a theme it was because it was worthy of consideration--and Christ weighed the soul. He presented the subject, too, with surpa.s.sing force; no one will ever add emphasis to what He said. He understood the value of the question in argument. If you will examine the great orations delivered at crises in the world's history, you will find that in nearly every case the speaker condensed the whole subject into a question, and in that question embodied what he regarded as an unanswerable argument. Christ used the question to give force to the thought which he presented in regard to the soul's value.

On one side He put the world and all that the world can contain--all the wealth that one can acc.u.mulate, all the fame to which one can aspire, and all the happiness that one can covet; and on the other side he put the soul, and asked the question that has come ringing down the centuries: "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"

There is no compromise here--no partial statement of the matter. He leaves us to write one term of the equation ourselves. He gives us all the time we desire, and allows the imagination to work to the limit, and when we have gathered together into one sum all things but the soul, He asks--What if you gain it all--_all_--ALL, and lose the soul?

What is the profit?

Some have thought the soul question a question of the next world only, but it is a question of this world also; some have thought the soul question a Sabbath-day question only, but it is a week-day question as well; some have thought the soul question a question for the ministers alone, but it is a question which we all must meet. Every day and every week, every month and every year, from the time we reach the period of accountability until we die, we--each of us--all of us, weigh the soul.

And exactly in proportion as we put the soul above all things else we build character; the moment we allow the soul to become a matter of merchandise, we start on the downward way.

Tolstoy says that if you would investigate the career of a criminal it is not sufficient to begin with the commission of a crime; that you must go back to that day in his life when he deliberately trampled upon his conscience and did that which he knew to be wrong. And so with all of us, the turning point in the life is the day when we surrender the soul for something that for the time being seems more desirable.

Most of the temptations that come to us to sell the soul come in connection with the getting of money. The Bible says, "The love of money is the root of all evil." If I had been making the statement, I think I would have said that the love of money is the root of _nearly_ all evil. But that is probably due to the fact that I am so conservative in thought and in method of statement, that, in stating a proposition, I prefer to leave a margin, so that if anybody disputes it I can bring proof of more than I said. But the Bible says, "The love of money is the root of _all_ evil"

and I shall not attempt to weaken the statement. If it is a mistake at all it is so slight a mistake that we need not spend time in correcting it.

And because so many of our temptations come through the love of money and the desire to obtain it, it is worth while to consider the laws of acc.u.mulation. We must all have money; we need food and clothing and shelter, and money is necessary for the purchase of these things.

Money is not an evil in itself--money is, in fact, a very useful servant. It is bad only when it becomes the master, and the love of it is hurtful only because it can, and often does, crowd out the love of n.o.bler things.

But since we must all use money and must in our active days store up money for the days when our strength fails, let us see if we can agree upon the rules that should govern us in the acc.u.mulation of the money that we need. How much money can a man rightfully collect from society? Surely, there can be no disagreement here. He can not rightfully collect more than he honestly earns. If a man collects more than he honestly earns, he collects what somebody else has earned, and we call it stealing if a man takes that which belongs to another.

Not only is a man limited in his collections of what he honestly earns, but no honest man will desire to collect more than he earns.

If a man can not rightfully collect more than he honestly earns, it is, then, a matter of the utmost importance to know how much money a man can honestly earn. I venture an answer to this and say that a man can not honestly earn more than fairly measures the service which he renders to society. I can not conceive of any way of earning money except to give to society a service equivalent in value to the money collected. This is a fundamental proposition and it is important that it should be clearly understood, for if one desires to collect largely from society he must be prepared to render a large service to society; and our schools and colleges, our churches and all other organizations for the improvement of man have for one of their chief objects the enlargement of the capacity for service.

There is an apparent exception in the case of an inheritance, but it is not a real exception, for if the man who leaves the money has honestly earned it, he has already given society a service of equivalent value and, therefore, has a right to distribute it. And money received by inheritance is either payment for service already rendered, or payment in advance for service to be rendered. No right-minded person will accept money, even by inheritance, without recognizing the obligation it imposes to render a service in return. This service is not always rendered to the one from whom this money is received, but often to society in general. In fact, most of the blessings which we receive come to us in such a way that we can not distinguish the donors and must make our return to the whole public.

But I need not dwell upon this, because in this country more than anywhere else in the world we appreciate the dignity of labor and understand that it is honorable to serve. And yet there is room for improvement, for all over our land there are, scattered here and there, young men and young women--and even parents--who still think that it is more respectable for a young man to spend in idleness the money some one else has earned than to be himself a producer of wealth.

And as long as this sentiment is to be found anywhere, there is educational work to be done, for public opinion will never be what it should be until it puts the badge of disgrace upon the idler, no matter how rich he may be, rather than upon the man who with brain or muscle contributes to the nation's wealth, the nation's strength and the nation's progress. But, as I said, the inheritance is an apparent, not an actual, exception, and we will return to the original proposition--that one's earnings must be measured by the service rendered. This is so important a proposition that I beg leave to dwell upon it a moment longer, to ask whether it is possible to fix in dollars and cents a maximum limit to the amount one can earn in a lifetime.

Let us begin with one hundred thousand dollars. If we estimate a working life at thirty-three years--and I think this is a fair estimate--a man must earn a little more than three thousand dollars per year for thirty-three years to earn one hundred thousand dollars in a lifetime. I take it for granted that no one will deny that it is possible for one to earn this sum by rendering a service equal to it in value. What shall we say of a million dollars? Can a man earn that much? To do so he must earn a little more than thirty thousand dollars a year for thirty-three years. Is it possible for one to render so large a service? I believe that it is. Well, what shall we say of ten million? To earn that much one must earn on an average a little more than three hundred thousand a year for thirty-three years. Is it possible for one to render a service so large as to earn so vast a sum? At the risk of shocking some of my radical friends I am going to affirm that it is possible. But can one earn a hundred million? Yes, I believe that it is even possible to serve society to such an extent as to earn a hundred million in the span of a human life, or an average of three million a year for thirty-three years.

We have one man in this country who is said to be worth five hundred million. To earn five hundred million one must earn on an average of fifteen million a year for thirty-three years. Is this within the range of human possibility? I believe that it is. Now, I have gone as high as any one has yet gone in collecting, but if there is any young man with an ambition to render a larger service to the world, I will raise it another notch, if necessary, to encourage him. So almost limitless are the possibilities of service in this age that I am not willing to fix a maximum to the sum a man can honestly and legitimately earn.

Not only do I believe that a man can earn five hundred million, but I believe that men have earned it. I believe that Thomas Jefferson earned more than five hundred million. The service that he rendered to the world was of such great value that had he collected for it five hundred million of dollars, he would not have been overpaid. I believe that Abraham Lincoln earned more than five hundred million, and I could go back through history and give you the name of man after man who rendered a service so large as to ent.i.tle him to collect more than five hundred million from society, but if I presented a list containing the name of every man who, since time began, earned such an enormous sum, one thing would be true of all of them, namely: that in not a single case did the man collect the full amount. The men who have earned five hundred million dollars have been so busy earning it that they have not had time to collect it; and the men who have collected five hundred million have been so busy collecting it that they have not had time to earn it.

Jefferson did not collect all he earned; in fact, he began public life well-to-do for a man of that period, and died poor--impoverished by visits of those who called to tell him how much they loved him and how much they appreciated his work. Lincoln did not collect the full amount; neither Jefferson nor Lincoln would have cared to collect five hundred million. What would either one have done with such a sum? Or, what is more important, what would five hundred million of dollars have done with Jefferson or Lincoln?

In that wonderful parable of the sower, Christ speaks of the seeds that fell and of the thorns that sprang up and choked them, and He himself explained what he meant by this ill.u.s.tration, namely: That the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the truth. If the great benefactors of the race had been burdened with the care of big fortunes, they could not have devoted themselves to the n.o.bler things that gave them a place in the affection of their people and in history.

It seems, therefore, that while one can not rightfully collect more than he honestly earns, he may earn more than it would be wise for him to collect. And that brings us to the next question: How much should one desire to collect from society? I answer, that no matter how large a service he may render or how much he may earn, one should not desire to collect more than he can wisely spend.

And how much can one wisely spend? Not as much as you might think, and not nearly as much as some have tried to spend. No matter how honestly money may be acquired, one is not free to spend it at will.

We are hedged about by certain restrictions that we can neither remove nor ignore. G.o.d has written certain laws in our nature--laws that no legislature can repeal--laws that no court can declare unconst.i.tutional, and these laws limit us in our expenditures.

Let us consider some of the things for which we can properly spend money. We need food--we all need food, and we need about the same amount; not exactly, but the difference in quant.i.ty is not great.

The range in expenditure is greater than the range in quant.i.ty, for expenditure covers kind and quality as well as quant.i.ty. But there is a limit even to expenditure. If a man eats too much he suffers for it. If he squanders his money on high-priced foods, he wears his stomach out. There is an old saying which we have all heard, that "The poor man is looking for food for his stomach, while the rich man is going from one watering place to another looking for a stomach for his food." This is only a witty way of expressing the sober truth, namely, that one is limited in the amount of money he can wisely spend for food.

We need clothing--we all need clothing, and we need the same amount. The difference in quant.i.ty is not great. The range in expenditure for clothing is greater than the range in quant.i.ty, because expenditure covers style and variety as well as quant.i.ty, but there is a limit to the amount of money one can wisely spend for clothing. If a man has so much clothing that it takes all of his time to change his clothes, he has more than he needs and more than he can wisely spend money for.

We need homes--we all need shelter, and we need about the same amount.

In fact, G.o.d was very democratic in the distribution of our needs, for he so created us that our needs are about the same. The range of expenditure for homes is probably wider than in the case of either food or clothing. We are interested in the home. I never pa.s.s a little house where two young people are starting out in life without feeling a sympathetic interest in that home; I never pa.s.s a house where a room is being added without feeling interested, for I know the occupants have planned it, and looked forward to it and waited for it; I like to see a little house moved back and a larger house built, for I know it is the fulfilment of a dream. I have had some of these dreams myself, and I know how they lead us on and inspire us to larger effort and greater endeavor, and yet there is a limit to the amount one can wisely spend even for so good a thing as a home.

If a man gets too big a house it becomes a burden to him, and some have had this experience. Not infrequently a young couple will start out poor and struggle along in a little house, looking forward to the time when they can build a big house. After a while the time arrives and they build a big house, larger, possibly, than they intended to and it nearly always costs more than they thought it would, and then they struggle along the rest of their lives looking back to the time when they lived in a little house.

We speak of people being independently rich. That is a mistake; they are dependently rich. The richer a man is the more dependent he is--the more people he depends upon to help him collect his income, and the more people he depends upon to help him spend his income. Sometimes a couple will start out doing their own work--the wife doing the work inside the house and the man outside; but they prosper, and after a while they are able to afford help. They get a girl to help the wife inside and a man to help the husband outside; then they prosper more--and they get two girls to help inside and two men to help outside, then three girls inside and three men outside. Finally they have so many girls helping inside and so many men helping outside that they can not leave the house--they have to stay at home and look after the establishment.

And this is not a new condition. One of the Latin poets complained of "the cares that hover about the fretted ceilings of the rich," and it was this condition that inspired Charles Wagner to write his little book ent.i.tled "The Simple Life," in which he entered an eloquent protest against the materialism which makes man the slave of his possessions and presented an earnest plea for the raising of the spiritual above the purely physical. I repeat, there is a limit to the amount a man can wisely spend upon a home.

But a man can give his money away. Yes, and no one who has ever tried it will deny that more pleasure is to be derived from the giving of money to a cause in which one's heart is interested, than can be obtained from the expenditure of the same amount in selfish indulgence. But if one is going to give largely he must spend a great deal of time in investigating and in comparing the merits of the different enterprises, and I am persuaded that there is a better life than the life led by those who spend nearly all the time acc.u.mulating beyond their needs and then employ the last few days in giving it away. What the world needs is not a few men of great wealth, doling out their money in antic.i.p.ation of death--what the world needs is that these men shall link themselves in sympathetic interest with struggling humanity and help to solve the problems of to-day, instead of creating problems for the next generation to solve.

But you say, a man can leave his money to his children? He can, if he dares. But a large fortune, in antic.i.p.ation, has ruined more sons than it has ever helped. If a young man has so much money coming to him that he knows he will never have to work, the chances are that it will sap his energy, even if it does not undermine his character, and leave him a curse rather than a blessing to those who brought him into the world. And it is scarcely safer to leave the money to a daughter. For if a young woman has a prospective inheritance so large that, when a young man calls upon her, she can not tell whether he is calling upon her or her father, it is embarra.s.sing--especially so if she finds after marriage that he married the wrong member of the family. And, I may add, that the daughters of the very rich are usually hedged about by a social environment which prevents their making the acquaintance of the best young men. The men who, twenty-five years from now, will be the leaders in business, in society, in government, and in the church, are not the pampered sons of the rich, but the young men who, with good health and good habits, with high ideals and strong ambition, are, under the spur of necessity, laying the foundation for future achievements, and these young men do not have a chance to become acquainted with the daughters of the very rich. Even if they did know them they might hesitate to enter upon the scale of expenditure to which these daughters are accustomed.

I have spoken at length in regard to these limitations, altho we all know of them or should. The ministers tell us about these things Sunday after Sunday, or should, and yet we find men chasing the almighty dollar until they fall exhausted into the grave. A few years ago I read a sermon by Dr. Talmage on this subject; he said a man who wore himself out getting money that he did not need would finally drop dead, and that his pastor would tell a group of sorrowing friends that, by a mysterious dispensation of Providence, the good man had been cut off in his prime. Dr. Talmage said that Providence had nothing to do with it, and that the minister ought to tell the truth about it and say that the man had been kicked to death by the golden calf.

A few weeks ago I read a story by Tolstoy, and I did not notice until I had completed it that the t.i.tle of the story was, "What shall it profit?" The great Russian graphically presented the very thought that I have been trying to impress upon your minds. He told of a Russian peasant who had land hunger--who added farm to farm and land to land, but could never get enough. After a while he heard of a place where land was cheaper and he sold his land and went and bought more land. But he had no more than settled there until he heard of another place among a half civilized people where land was cheaper still. He took a servant and went into this distant country and hunted up the head man of the tribe, who offered him all the land he could walk around in a day for a thousand rubles--told him he could put the money down on any spot and walk in any direction as far and as fast as he would, and that if he was back by sunset he could have all the land he could encompa.s.s during the day. He put the money down upon the ground and started at sunrise to get, at last, enough land.

He started leisurely, but as he looked upon the land it looked so good that he hurried a little--and then he hurried more, and then he went faster still. Before he turned he had gone further in that direction than he had intended, but he spurred himself on and started on the second side. Before he turned again the sun had crossed the meridian and he had two sides yet to cover. As the sun was slowly sinking in the west he constantly accelerated his pace, alarmed at last for fear he might have undertaken too much and might lose it all. He reached the starting point, however, just as the sun went down, but he had overtaxed his strength and fell dead upon the spot.

Then his servant dug a grave for him and he only needed six feet of ground then, the same that others needed--and the rest of the land was of no use to him. Thus far Tolstoy told the story of many a life--not the life of the very rich only, but the story of every life in which the love of money is the controlling force and in which the desire for gain shrivels the soul and leaves the life a failure at last.

I desire to show you how practical this subject is. If time permitted I could take up every occupation, every avocation, every profession and every calling, and show you that no matter which way we turn--no matter what we do--we are always and everywhere weighing the Soul.

In the brief time that it is proper for me to occupy, I shall apply the thought to those departments of human activity in which the sale of a soul affects others largely as well as the individual who makes the bargain.

Take the occupation in which I am engaged, journalism. It presents a great field--a growing field; in fact, there are few fields so large.

The journalist is both a news gatherer and a molder of thought. He informs his readers as to what is going on, and he points out the relation between cause and effect--interprets current history. Public opinion is the controlling force in a republic, and the newspaper gives to the journalist, beyond every one else, the opportunity to affect public opinion. Others reach the readers of a newspaper through the courtesy of the owner of the paper, but he has full access to his own columns, and does not fear the blue pencil. The journalist occupies the position of a watchman upon a tower. He is often able to see dangers which are not observed by the general public, and because he can see these dangers he is in a position of greater responsibility. Is he discharging the duty which superior opportunity imposes upon him? I might mention a number of temptations which come to the journalist, but I shall content myself with a few.

First, there is the temptation to conceal the name of the real owner of the paper. The proprietor of a paper should be known, but his ident.i.ty is not always disclosed. The corporate ent.i.ty which plays so large a part in the business world has entered the newspaper field.

The names of the stockholders are not published and we do not always know what individuality directs the paper's policy. Year by year the disclosures are bringing to light the fact that the predatory interests are using the newspapers and even some magazines for the defense of commercial iniquity and for the purpose of attacking those who lift their voices against favoritism and privilege. A financial magnate interested in the exploitation of the public secures control of a paper; he employs business managers, managing editors, and a reportorial staff. He does not act openly or in the daylight but through a group of employes who are the visible but not the real directors. The reporters are instructed to bring in the kind of news which will advance the enterprises owned by the man who stands back of the paper, and if the news brought in is not entirely satisfactory it is doctored in the office. The columns of the paper are filled with matter, written not for the purpose of presenting facts as they exist, but for the purpose of distorting facts and misleading the public. The editorial writers, whose names are generally unknown to the public, are told what to say and what subjects to avoid. They are instructed to extol the merits of those who are subservient to the interests represented by the paper, and to misrepresent and traduce those who dare to criticize or oppose the plans of those who hide behind the paper. Such journalists are members of a kind of "Blackhand society"; they are a.s.sa.s.sins, hiding in ambush and striking in the dark; and the worst of it is that the readers have no way of knowing when a change takes place in the ownership of such a paper. Editorial poison, like other poisons, can be administered more successfully if the victim is in ignorance as to who administers it.

There are degrees of culpability and some are disposed to hold an editorial writer guiltless even when they visit condemnation upon the secret director of the paper's policy. I present to you a different--and I believe higher--ideal of journalism. If we are going to make any progress in morals we must abandon the idea that morals are defined by the statutes; we must recognize that there is a wide margin between that which the law prohibits and that which an enlightened conscience can approve. We do not legislate against the man who uses the printed page for the purpose of deception but, viewed from the standpoint of morals, the man who, whether voluntarily or under instructions, writes what he knows to be untrue or purposely misleads his readers as to the character of a proposition upon which they have to act, is as guilty of wrong-doing as the man who a.s.sists in any other swindling transaction.

Another method employed to mislead the public is the publication of editorial matter supplied by those who have an interest to serve.

This evil is even more common than secrecy as to the ownership of the paper. In the case of the weekly papers and the smaller dailies, the proprietor is generally known, and it is understood that the editorial page represents his views. His standing and character give weight to that which appears with his endors.e.m.e.nt. A few years ago, when the railroad rate bill was before Congress, a number of railroads joined in an effort to create a public sentiment against the bill. Bureaus were established for the dissemination of literature, and a number of newspapers entered into contract to publish as editorial matter the material furnished by these bureaus.

This can not be defended in ethics. The purchase of the editorial columns is a crime against the public and a disgrace to journalism, and yet we have frequent occasion to note this degradation of the newspaper. Senator Carter, of Montana, speaking in the United States Senate, caused to be read several printed slips which were sent out by a bankers' a.s.sociation to local bankers with the request that they be inserted in the local papers, suggestion being made that the instructions to the local bankers be removed before they were handed to the papers. The purpose of the bankers' a.s.sociation was to stimulate opposition to the postal savings bank, a policy endorsed affirmatively by the Republican party, and, conditionally, by the Democratic party, the two platforms being supported at the polls by more than ninety per cent of the voters. The bankers' a.s.sociation opposed the policy, and, in sending out its literature, it was endeavoring to conceal the source of that literature and to make it appear that the printed matter represented the opinion of some one in the community.

The journalist who would fully perform his duty must be not only incorruptible, but ever alert, for those who are trying to misuse the newspapers are able to deceive "the very elect." Whenever any movement is on foot for the securing of legislation desired by the predatory interests, or when restraining legislation is threatened, news bureaus are established at Washington, and these news bureaus furnish to such papers, as will use them, free reports, daily or weekly as the case may be, from the national capitol--reports which purport to give general news, but which in fact contain arguments in support of the schemes which the bureaus are organized to advance. This ingenious method of misleading the public is only a part of the general plan which favor-holding and favor-seeking corporations pursue.

Demosthenes declared that the man who refuses a bribe conquers the man who offers it. According to this, the journalist who resists the many temptations which come to him to surrender his ideals has the consciousness of winning a moral victory as well as the satisfaction of knowing that he is rendering a real service to his fellows.