Test Bank for Intercultural Competence 7th Edition

Test Bank for Intercultural Competence

7th Edition
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankmall.com/download/test-bank-for-intercultural-competence-7th-edition/

Visit TestBankMall.com to get complete for all chapters

Intercultural Competence provides students with the tools to succeed in today’s
intercultural world.

Blending both the practical and theoretical, this text offers students the requisite
knowledge, the appropriate motivations, and the relevant skills to function
competently with culturally-different others. The text provides a discussion of
important ethical and social issues relating to intercultural communication and
encourages students to apply vivid examples that will prepare them to interact better
in intercultural relationships.

Learning Goals

Upon completing this book, readers will be able to:

 Appreciate the impact of cultural patterns on intercultural communication

 Use both practical and theoretical ideas to understand intercultural

communication competence

 Understand some of the central contexts — in health, education, business, and

tourism — in which intercultural communication occurs

 Discuss cultural identity and the role of cultural biases

About the Author

Dr. Myron W. (Ron) Lustig is a renowned teacher, writer, scholar, and researcher.
After receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin, he had a distinguished
career as a professor of communication at San Diego State University (SDSU). He
is now an emeritus professor at SDSU, a past president of the Western States
Communication Association (WSCA), and a recent recipient of WSCA’s
Distinguished Service Award, its highest honor. He is a former editor
of Communication Reports and is currently on the editorial boards of several
intercultural communication journals. His teaching and research interests include
intercultural, group, and interpersonal communication theories, methods, and
processes. Dr. Lustig has written 9 books or book revisions, over 30 scholarly
research articles, and numerous conference papers. During several recent spring
semesters, he has gained additional practical and theoretical lessons
about Intercultural Competence while teaching intercultural communication to
undergraduate and graduate students at Shanghai International Studies University.

Dr. Jolene Koester was president of California State University, Northridge, one of
the largest and most diverse campuses in the 23-campus California State University
system, from 2000-2011. Under her leadership, the University improved graduation
and retention rates, created a user-friendly campus, strengthened connections with
the community, and increased fundraising. She also worked to make the University
more learning-centered and focused on student success. Known nationally for her
leadership in higher education, she currently serves on the board of directors of
NAFSA, an association of international educators. She is also a past chair of the
Board of Directors for the American Association of State Colleges and Universities,
a former president of the Western States Communication Association, and remains
active in issues related to higher education access and leadership. After earning a
Ph.D. in speech communication from the University of Minnesota, she began her
academic career as a professor of communication studies at California State
University, Sacramento, and served in a variety of administrative positions there,
including provost and vice president for academic affairs, prior to her appointment
as president of Cal State Northridge.

Sponsored

Product details

 Publisher : Pearson; 7th edition (July 20 2012)

 Language : English

 Paperback : 400 pages

 ISBN-10 : 0205211240

 ISBN-13 : 978-0205211241
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
juggles with the people’s desire for enlarged foreign markets and
freer exchanges by pretending to establish closer trade relations for a
country whose articles of export are almost exclusively agricultural
products with other countries that are also agricultural, while
erecting a Custom House barrier of prohibitive tariff taxes against
the rich countries of the world that stand ready to take our entire
surplus of products and to exchange therefor commodities which are
necessaries and comforts of life among our own people.
Sec. 5.—We recognize in the trusts and combinations which are
designed to enable capital to secure more than its just share of the
joint product of capital and labor, a natural consequence of the
prohibitive taxes which prevent the free competition which is the life
of honest trade, but we believe their worst evils can be abated by law,
and we demand the rigid enforcement of the laws made to prevent
and control them, together with such further legislation in restraint
of their abuses as experience may show to be necessary.
Sec. 6.—The Republican party, while professing a policy of
reserving the public land for small holdings by actual settlers, has
given away the people’s heritage till now a few railroad and non-
resident aliens, individual and corporate, possess a larger area than
that of all our farms between the two seas. The last Democratic
administration reversed the improvident and unwise policy of the
Republican party touching the public domain, and reclaimed from
corporations and syndicates, alien and domestic, and restored to the
people nearly one hundred million acres of valuable land to be
sacredly held as homesteads for our citizens, and we pledge ourselves
to continue this policy until every acre of land so unlawfully held
shall be reclaimed and restored to the people.
Sec. 7.—We denounce the Republican legislation known as the
Sherman act of 1890 as a cowardly makeshift fraught with
possibilities of danger in the future which should make all of its
supporters, as well as its author, anxious for its speedy repeal. We
hold to the use of both gold and silver as the standard money of the
country, and to the coinage of both gold and silver without
discriminating against either metal or charge of mintage, but the
dollar unit of coinage for both metals must be of equal intrinsic and
exchangeable value, or be adjusted through international agreement
or by such safeguards of legislation as shall insure the maintenance
of the parity of the two metals, and the equal power of every dollar at
all times in the markets and in the payment of debts, and we demand
that all paper currency shall be kept at par with and redeemable in
such coin. We insist upon this policy as especially necessary for the
protection of the farmers and laboring classes, the first and most
defenceless victims of unstable money and a fluctuating currency.
Sec. 8.—We recommend that the prohibitory ten per cent. tax on
State bank issues be repealed.
Sec. 9.—Public office is a public trust. We reaffirm the declaration
of the Democratic National Convention of 1876 for the reform of the
civil service and we call for the honest enforcement of all laws
regulating the same. The nomination of a President, as in the recent
Republican convention, by delegations composed largely of his
appointees, holding office at his pleasure, is a scandalous satire upon
free popular institutions and a startling illustration of the methods
by which a President may gratify his ambition. We denounce a policy
under which federal office-holders usurp control of party
conventions in the States, and we pledge the Democratic party to the
reform of these and all other abuses which threaten individual liberty
and local self-government.
Sec. 10.—The Democratic party is the only party that has ever
given the country a foreign policy consistent and vigorous,
compelling respect abroad and inspiring confidence at home. While
avoiding entangling alliances it has aimed to cultivate friendly
relations with other nations and especially with our neighbors on the
American continent whose destiny is closely linked with our own,
and we view with alarm the tendency to a policy of irritation and
bluster, which is liable at any time to confront us with the alternative
of humiliation or war.
We favor the maintenance of a navy strong enough for all purposes
of national defence and to properly maintain the honor and dignity
of the country abroad.
Sec. 11.—The country has always been the refuge of the oppressed
from every land—exiles for conscience sake—and in the spirit of the
founders of our government we condemn the oppression practised
by the Russian government upon its Lutheran and Jewish subjects,
and we call upon our national government, in the interest of justice
and humanity, by all just and proper means, to use its prompt and
best efforts to bring about a cessation of these cruel persecutions in
the dominions of the Czar and to secure to the oppressed equal
rights.
We tender our profound and earnest sympathy to those lovers of
freedom who are struggling for home rule and the great cause of local
self government in Ireland.
Sec. 12.—We heartily approve all legitimate efforts to prevent the
United States from being used as the dumping ground for the known
criminals and professional paupers of Europe, and we demand the
rigid enforcement of the laws against Chinese immigration or the
importation of foreign workmen under contract to degrade American
labor and lessen its wages, but we condemn and denounce any and
all attempts to restrict the immigration of the industrious and worthy
of foreign lands.
Sec. 13.—This Convention hereby renews the expression of
appreciation of the patriotism of the soldiers and sailors of the Union
in the war for its preservation, and we favor just and liberal pensions
for all disabled Union soldiers, their widows and dependents, but we
demand that the work of the Pension Office shall be done
industriously, impartially and honestly. We denounce the present
administration of that office as incompetent, corrupt, disgraceful and
dishonest.
Sec. 14.—The federal government should care for and improve the
Mississippi River and other great waterways of the Republic so as to
secure for the interior States easy and cheap transportation to the
tidewater.
When any waterway of the Republic is of sufficient importance to
demand the aid of the government, that such aid should be extended,
a definite plan of continuous work until permanent improvement is
secured.
Sec. 15.—For purposes of national defence and the promotion of
commerce between the States we recognize the early construction of
the Nicaragua Canal and its protection against foreign control as of
great importance to the United States.
Sec. 16.—Recognizing the World’s Columbian Exposition as a
national undertaking of vast importance, in which the general
government has invited the co-operation of all the Powers of the
world, and appreciating the acceptance by many of such Powers of
the invitation for extended and the broadest liberal efforts being
made by them to contribute to the grandeur of the undertaking, we
are of the opinion that Congress should make such necessary
financial provision as shall be requisite to the maintenance of the
national honor and public faith.
Sec. 17.—Popular education being the only safe basis of popular
suffrage, we recommend to the several States most liberal
appropriations for the public schools. Free common schools are the
nursery of good government and they have always received the
fostering care of the Democratic party, which favors every means of
increasing intelligence. Freedom of education being an essential of
civil and religious liberty as well as a necessity for the development of
intelligence, must not be interfered with under any pretext whatever.
We are opposed to State interference with parental rights and rights
of conscience in the education of children as an infringement of the
fundamental democratic doctrine that the largest individual liberty
consistent with the rights of others insures the highest type of
American citizenship and the best government.
Sec. 18.—We approve the action of the present House of
Representatives in passing bills for the admission into the Union as
States of the Territories of New Mexico and Arizona, and we favor
the early admission of all the Territories having necessary population
and resources to admit them to Statehood, and while they remain
Territories we hold that the officials appointed to administer the
government of any Territory, together with the Districts of Columbia
and Alaska, should be bona fide residents of the Territory or District
in which their duties are to be performed. The Democratic party
believes in home rule and the control of their own affairs by the
people of the vicinage.
Sec. 19.—We favor legislation by Congress and State Legislatures
to protect the lives and limbs of railway employés and those of other
hazardous transportation companies and denounce the inactivity of
the Republican party and particularly the Republican Senate for
causing the defeat of measures beneficial and protective to this class
of wageworkers.
Sec. 20.—We are in favor of the enactment by the States of laws for
abolishing the notorious sweating system, for abolishing contract
convict labor and for prohibiting the employment in factories of
children under fifteen years of age.
Sec. 21.—We are opposed to all sumptuary laws as an interference
with the individual rights of the citizen.
Sec. 22.—Upon this statement of principles and policies the
Democratic party asks the intelligent judgment of the American
people. It asks a change of administration and a change of party in
order that there may be a change of system and a change of methods,
thus assuring the maintenance, unimpaired, of institutions under
which the Republic has grown great and powerful.
The Tariff Issue, 1892.
 REPUBLICAN.
We reaffirm the American doctrine of
Protection. We call attention to its
growth abroad. We maintain that the
prosperous condition of our country
is largely due to the wise revenue
legislation of the Republican
Congress.
We believe that all articles which
cannot be produced in the United
States, except luxuries, should be
admitted free of duty, and that on all
imports coming into competition
with the products of American labor
there should be levied duties equal to
the difference between wages abroad
and at home.
We assert that the prices of
manufactured articles of general
consumption have been reduced
under the operation of the tariff act
of 1890.
We denounce the efforts of the
Democratic majority of the House of
Representatives to destroy our tariff
laws, as is manifested by their attacks
upon wool, lead and lead ores, the
chief product of a number of States,
and we ask the people for their
judgment thereon.
DEMOCRATIC.
We denounce Republican Protection as
a fraud—as a robbery of the great
majority of the American people for the
benefit of a few. We declare it to be a
fundamental principle of the
Democratic party that the government
has no constitutional power to impose
and collect a dollar for tax except for
purposes of revenue only, and demand
that the collection of such taxes be
imposed by the government when only
honestly and economically
administered.
[The above paragraph was adopted by a
vote of 504 to 342 as a substitute for
the following, reported from the
majority of the committee: “We
reiterate the oft repeated doctrines of
the Democratic party that the necessity
of the government is the only
justification for taxations, and
whenever a tax is unnecessary it is
unjustifiable; that when Custom House
taxation is levied upon articles of any
kind produced in this country, the
difference between the cost of labor
here and labor abroad, when such a
difference exists, fully measures any
possible benefits to labor, and the
enormous additional impositions of the
existing tariff fall with crushing force
upon our farmers and workingmen,
and, for the mere advantage of the few
whom it enriches, exact from labor a
grossly unjust share of the expenses of
the government, and we demand such a
revision of the tariff laws as will remove
their iniquitous inequalities, lighten
their oppressions and put them on a
constitutional and equitable basis. But
in making reduction in taxes, it is not
proposed to injure any domestic
industries, but rather to promote their
healthy growth. From the foundation of
this government, taxes collected at the
Custom House have been the chief
source of Federal revenue. Such they
must continue to be. Moreover, many
industries have come to rely upon
legislation for successful continuance,
so that any change of law must be at
every step regardful of the labor and
capital thus involved. The process of
reform must be subject in the execution
of this plain dictate of justice.”]
 The Reciprocity Issue, 1892.
REPUBLICAN.
We point to the success of the
Republican policy of reciprocity,
under which our export trade has
vastly increased and new and
enlarged markets have been opened
for the products of our farms and
workshops.
We remind the people of the bitter
opposition of the Democratic party to
this practical business measure, and
claim that, executed by a Republican
administration, our present laws will
eventually give us control or the
trade of the world.
DEMOCRATIC.
Trade interchange on the basis of
reciprocal advantages to the countries
participating is a time-honored
doctrine of the Democratic faith, but
we denounce the sham reciprocity
which juggles with the people’s desire
for enlarged foreign markets and free
exchanges by pretending to establish
closer trade relations for a country
whose articles of export are almost
exclusively agricultural products with
other countries that are also
agricultural, while erecting a Custom
House barrier of prohibitive tariff taxes
against the richest countries of the
world that stand ready to take our
entire surplus of products and to
exchange therefor commodities which
are necessaries and comforts of life
among our own people.
 The Silver Issue, 1892.
REPUBLICAN.
The American people, from tradition
and interest, favor bi-metallism, and
the Republican party demands the
use of both gold and silver as
standard money, with such
restrictions and under such
provisions, to be determined by
legislation, as will secure the
maintenance of the parity values of
the two metals, so that the
purchasing and debt-paying power of
the dollar, whether of silver, gold or
paper, shall be at all times equal. The
interests or the producers of the
country, its farmers and its
workingmen, demand that every
dollar, paper or coin, issued by the
government, shall be as good as any
other. We commend the wise and
patriotic steps already taken by our
government to secure an
international conference, to adopt
such measures as will insure a parity
of value between gold and silver for
use as money throughout the world.
DEMOCRATIC.
We denounce the Republican
legislation known as the Sherman act of
1890 as a cowardly makeshift, fraught
with possibilities of danger in the
future, which should make all its
supporters, as well as its author,
anxious for its speedy repeal. We hold
to the use of both gold and silver as the
standard money of the country, and to
the coinage of both gold and silver,
without discriminating against either
metal or charge for mintage, the dollar
unit or coinage of both metals must be
of equal intrinsic and exchangeable
value, or be adjusted through
international agreement or by such
safeguards of legislation as shall insure
the maintenance of the parity of the
two metals, and the equal power of
every dollar at all times in the markets
and in the payment of debts, and we
demand that all paper currency shall be
kept at par with and redeemable in
such coin. We insist upon this policy as
specially necessary for the protection of
the farmers and laboring classes the
first and most defenceless victims of
unstable money and a fluctuating
currency.
The Ballot Issue, 1892.
 REPUBLICAN.
We demand that every citizen of the
United States shall be allowed to cast
one free and unrestricted ballot in all
public elections and that such ballot
shall be counted and returned as
cast; that such laws shall be enacted
and enforced as will secure to every
citizen, be he rich or poor, native or
foreign born, white or black, this
sovereign right guaranteed by the
Constitution.
The free and honest popular ballot,
the just and equal representation of
all the people, as well as their just
and equal protection under the laws,
are the foundation of our republican
institutions, and the party will never
relax its efforts until the integrity of
the ballot and the purity of elections
shall be fully guaranteed and
protected in every State.
We denounce the continued inhuman
outrages perpetrated upon American
citizens for political reasons in
certain Southern States of the Union.
DEMOCRATIC.
We warn the people of our common
country, jealous for the preservation of
their free institutions, that the policy of
Federal control of elections to which
the Republican party has committed
itself is fraught with the gravest
dangers, scarcely less momentous than
would result from a revolution
practically establishing a monarchy on
the ruins of the republic. It strikes at
the North as well as the South, and
injures the colored citizen even more
than the white; it means a horde of
deputy marshals at every polling place,
armed with Federal power, returning
boards appointed and controlled by
Federal authority; the outrage of the
electoral rights of the people in the
several States; the subjugation of the
colored people to the control of the
party in power and the reviving of race
antagonisms, now happily abated, of
the utmost peril to the safety and
happiness of all—a measure
deliberately and justly described by a
leading Republican Senator as “the
most infamous bill that ever crossed
the threshold of the Senate.” Such a
policy, if sanctioned by law, would
mean the dominance of a self-
perpetuating oligarchy of office-
holders, and the party first intrusted
with its machinery could be dislodged
from power only by an appeal to the
reserved right of the people to resist
oppression which is inherent in all self-
governing communities. Two years ago
this revolutionary policy was
emphatically condemned by the people
at the polls; but, in contempt of that
verdict, the Republican party has
defiantly declared, in its latest
authoritative utterance, that its success
in the coming elections will mean the
enactment of the Force bill and the
usurpation of despotic control over
elections in all the States.

Believing that the preservation of

republican government in the United
States is dependent upon the defeat of
this policy of legalized force and fraud,
we invite the support of all citizens who
desire to see the Constitution
maintained in its integrity with the
laws pursuant thereto which have given
our country a hundred years of
unexampled prosperity; and we pledge
the Democratic party, if it be intrusted
with power, not only to the defeat of
the Force bill but also to relentless
opposition to the Republican policy of
profligate expenditure, which in the
short space of two years has
squandered an enormous surplus and
emptied an overflowing Treasury, after
piling new burdens of taxation upon
the already overtaxed
 Civil Service, 1892.
REPUBLICAN.
We commend the spirit and evidence
of reform in the Civil Service and the
wise and consistent enforcement by
the Republican party of the laws
regulating the same.
DEMOCRATIC.
Public office is a public trust. We
reaffirm the declaration of the
Democratic National Convention of
1876 for the reform of the civil service,
and we call for the honest enforcement
of all laws regulating the same. The
nomination of a President, as in the
recent Republican Convention, by
delegations composed largely of his
appointees, holding office at his
pleasure, is a scandalous satire upon
free popular institutions and a startling
illustration of the methods by which a
President may gratify his ambition. We
denounce a policy under which Federal
office-holders usurp control of party
conventions in the States, and we
pledge the Democratic party to the
reform of these and all other abuses
which threaten individual liberty and
local self-government.
 The Third or People’s Party.

The political wing of the Farmers’ Alliance and the elements

favoring the entering of the Labor organizations into politics, united
in a National Convention at Omaha on the 4th of July, 1892. This
Convention was the outcome of several previous efforts on the part of
these several organizations to enter national politics. In many State
Conventions of the Alliance its sub-treasury plan divided the
organization into two factions—political and non-political, and as a
result the representation at Omaha did not reflect the views of the
entire organization.
Judge Gresham of Indiana, was prominently named as a
Presidential candidate, and he finally consented to the use of his
name if it could command unanimous support, but this was denied
by what were called “the old guard,” who favored the recognition of
those only who were plainly identified with the Third party.
At 12 o’clock the roll of States for nomination for President was
hardly completed and there were four candidates before the
Convention—Weaver, of Iowa; Kyle, of South Dakota; Field, of
Virginia, and Page of Virginia. The chance seemed favorable to
Weaver, but the uncertainty of a nomination on the first ballot made
his friends still painfully anxious. Gresham’s declination had been at
last reluctantly accepted by his admirers, and the refusal of Van
Wyck to allow the consideration of his name practically left the field
to the four candidates who had been formally presented.
 The Ballot.

The first ballot for President resulted as follows, only one ballot
necessary, Weaver being successful:
Alabama, Weaver, 43, Arkansas, Weaver, 12; Kyle, 20; California,
Weaver, 25; Colorado, Weaver, 6; Kyle, 10; Connecticut, Weaver, 8;
Kyle, 2; Delaware, Weaver, 1; Florida, Weaver, 16; Georgia, Weaver,
16; Kyle, 39; Idaho, Weaver, 12; Illinois, Weaver, 41; Kyle, 42;
Indiana, Weaver 54; Kyle, 5; Norton, 1; Iowa, Weaver, 52; Kansas,
Weaver, 40; Kentucky, Weaver, 40; Louisiana, Weaver, 32; Maine,
Weaver, 6; Kyle, 3; Massachusetts, Weaver, 9; Kyle, 18; Page, 1;
Michigan, Weaver, 56; Minnesota, Weaver, 27; Kyle, 9; Mississippi,
Weaver, 17; Missouri, Weaver, 61: Kyle, 7; Montana, Kyle, 12;
Nebraska, Weaver, 23; Kyle, 3; Nevada, Kyle, 7; New Jersey, Weaver,
4; New York, Weaver, 59; North Carolina, Weaver, 20; Kyle, 5; North
Dakota, Weaver, 11; Kyle, 1; Ohio, Weaver, 30; Kyle, 22; Oregon,
Weaver, 16; Pennsylvania, Weaver, 29; Stanford, 1; South Dakota,
Weaver, 1; Kyle, 15; Tennessee, Weaver, 45; Texas, Weaver, 60;
Virginia, Weaver, 48; Washington, Weaver, 15; West Virginia,
Weaver, 17; Wisconsin, Weaver, 7; Kyle, 41; Wyoming, Weaver, 3;
District of Columbia, Weaver, 8; Oklahoma, Weaver, 8. Total:
Weaver, 995; Kyle, 265; Norton, 1; Page, 1; Stanford, 1.
Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Indian Territory, New Mexico and Utah
are blank.
Norton moved to make the nomination unanimous, and Schilling,
of Wisconsin, Washburn, of Massachusetts, and the delegates from
South Dakota, Montana and Massachusetts seconded the motion. It
was carried with a hurrah and loud cheering.
General James G. Field, of Virginia, and of the Confederate
service, was nominated on the first ballot for Vice-President.
 People’s Party Platform.

Preamble: Corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures,

the Congress and touches even the ermine of the bench. The people
are demoralized, most of the States have been compelled to isolate
the voters at the polling places to prevent universal intimidation or
bribery. The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public
opinion silenced, business prostrated, our homes covered with
mortgages, labor impoverished and the land concentrating in the
hands of the capitalists.
The urban workmen are denied the right of organization for self-
protection; imported pauperized labor beats down their wages; a
hireling standing army, unrecognized by our laws, is established to
shoot them down, and they are rapidly degenerating into European
conditions. The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build
up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of
mankind, and the possessors of these in turn despise the republic
and endanger liberty. From the same prolific womb of governmental
injustice we breed the two great classes—tramps and millionaires.
The national power to create money is appropriated to enrich
bondholders; a vast public debt payable in legal tender currency has
been funded into gold-bearing bonds, thereby adding millions to the
burdens of the people.
Silver, which has been accepted as coin since the dawn of history,
has been demonetized to add to the purchasing power of gold by
decreasing the value of all forms of property as well as human labor,
and the supply of currency is purposely abridged to fatten usurers
and bankrupt enterprise and slave industry.
We declare that this republic can only endure as a free government
while built upon the love of the whole people for each other and for
the nation; that it cannot be pinned together by bayonets; that the
civil war is over, and that every passion and resentment which grew
out of it must die with it, and that we must be, in fact, as we are in
name, one united brotherhood of free men.
Our country finds itself confronted by conditions for which there is
no precedent in the history of the world. Our annual agricultural
productions amount to billions of dollars in value, which must within
a few weeks or months be exchanged for billions of dollars of
commodities consumed in their production. The existing currency
supply is wholly inadequate to make this exchange. The results are
falling prices, the formation of combines and rings, the
impoverishment of the producing class. We pledge ourselves that, if
given power, we will labor to correct these evils by wise and
reasonable legislation, in accordance with the terms of our platform.
The platform proper, declares:
First.—That the union of the labor forces of the United States this
day consummated shall be permanent and perpetual. May its spirit
into all hearts for the salvation of the Republic aid the uplifting of
mankind.
Second.—Wealth belongs to him who creates it, and every dollar
taken from industry without an equivalent is robbery. “If any will not
work, neither shall he eat.” The interests of rural and civic labor are
the same: their enemies are identical.
Third.—We believe that the time has come when the railroad
corporations will either own the people or the people must own the
railroads, and should the government enter upon the work of owning
and managing all railroads, we should favor an amendment to the
Constitution by which all persons engaged in the government service
shall be placed under a Civil Service regulation of the most rigid
character, so as to prevent the increase of the power of the national
administration by the use of such additional government employés.
Finance.—We demand a national currency, safe, sound and
flexible, issued by the general government only, a full legal tender for
all debts, public and private, and that without the use of banking
corporations, a just, equitable and efficient means of distribution
direct to the people, at a tax rate not to exceed two per cent, per
annum to be provided as set forth in the sub-Treasury plan of the
Farmers’ Alliance or a better system: also by payments in discharge
of its obligations for public improvements.
 (a).—We demand free and unlimited coinage of silver and gold at
the present legal ratio of 16 to 1.
(b).—We demand that the amount of circulating medium be
speedily increased to not less than $50 per capita.
(c).—We demand a graduated income tax.
(d).—We believe that the money of the country should be kept as
much as possible in the hands of the people, and hence we demand
that all State and national revenues shall be limited to the necessary
expenses of the government, economically and honestly
administered.
(e).—We demand that postal savings banks be established by the
government for the safe deposit of the earnings of the people and to
facilitate exchange.
Transportation.—Transportation being a means of exchange and a
public necessity, the government should own and operate the
railroads in the interests of the people.
(a).—The telegraph, telephone, like the post-office system, being a
necessity for the transmission of news, should be owned and
operated by the government in the interest of the people.
Land.—The land, including all the natural sources of wealth, is the
heritage of the people and should not be monopolized for speculative
purposes, and alien ownership of land should be prohibited. All land
now held by railroads and other corporations in excess of their actual
needs, and all lands now owned by aliens, should be reclaimed by the
government and held for actual settlers only.
AMERICAN POLITICS.
 BOOK III.
GREAT SPEECHES ON GREAT ISSUES.
 Speech of James Wilson,

January, 1775, in the Convention for the Province of Pennsylvania,

IN VINDICATION OF THE COLONIES.

“A most daring spirit of resistance and disobedience still prevails in

Massachusetts, and has broken forth in fresh violences of a
criminal nature. The most proper and effectual methods have
been taken to prevent these mischiefs; and the parliament may
depend upon a firm resolution to withstand every attempt to
weaken or impair the supreme authority of parliament over all
the dominions of the crown.”—Speech of the King of Great
Britain to Parliament, Nov., 1774.
Mr. Chairman:—Whence, sir, proceeds all the invidious and ill-
grounded clamor against the colonists of America? Why are they
stigmatized in Britain as licentious and ungovernable? Why is their
virtuous opposition to the illegal attempts of their governors,
represented under the falsest colors, and placed in the most
ungracious point of view? This opposition, when exhibited in its true
light, and when viewed, with unjaundiced eyes, from a proper
situation, and at a proper distance, stands confessed the lovely
offspring of freedom. It breathes the spirit of its parent. Of this
ethereal spirit, the whole conduct, and particularly the late conduct,
of the colonists has shown them eminently possessed. It has
animated and regulated every part of their proceedings. It has been
recognized to be genuine, by all those symptoms and effects by which
it has been distinguished in other ages and other countries. It has
been calm and regular: it has not acted without occasion: it has not
acted disproportionably to the occasion. As the attempts, open or
secret, to undermine or to destroy it, have been repeated or enforced,
in a just degree, its vigilance and its vigor have been exerted to defeat
or to disappoint them. As its exertions have been sufficient for those
purposes hitherto, let us hence draw a joyful prognostic, that they
will continue sufficient for those purposes hereafter. It is not yet
exhausted: it will still operate irresistibly whenever a necessary
occasion shall call forth its strength.
Permit me, sir, by appealing, in a few instances, to the spirit and
conduct of the colonists, to evince that what I have said of them is
just. Did they disclose any uneasiness at the proceedings and claims
of the British parliament, before those claims and proceedings
afforded a reasonable cause for it? Did they even disclose any
uneasiness, when a reasonable cause for it was first given? Our rights
were invaded by their regulations of our internal policy. We
submitted to them: we were unwilling to oppose them. The spirit of
liberty was slow to act. When those invasions were renewed; when
the efficacy and malignancy of them were attempted to be redoubled
by the stamp act; when chains were formed for us; and preparations
were made for riveting them on our limbs, what measures did we
pursue? The spirit of liberty found it necessary now to act; but she
acted with the calmness and decent dignity suited to her character.
Were we rash or seditious? Did we discover want of loyalty to our
sovereign? Did we betray want of affection to our brethren in
Britain? Let our dutiful and reverential petitions to the throne; let
our respectful, though firm, remonstrances to the parliament; let our
warm and affectionate addresses to our brethren and (we will still
call them) our friends in Great Britain,—let all those, transmitted
from every part of the continent, testify the truth. By their testimony
let our conduct be tried.
As our proceedings, during the existence and operation of the
stamp act, prove fully and incontestably the painful sensations that
tortured our breasts from the prospect of disunion with Britain; the
peals of joy, which burst forth universally, upon the repeal of that
odious statute, loudly proclaim the heartfelt delight produced in us
by a reconciliation with her. Unsuspicious, because undesigning, we
buried our complaints, and the causes of them, in oblivion, and
returned, with eagerness, to our former unreserved confidence. Our
connection with our parent country, and the reciprocal blessings
resulting from it to her and to us, were the favorite and pleasing
topics of our public discourses and our private conversations. Lulled
into delightful security, we dreamed of nothing but increasing
fondness and friendship, cemented and strengthened by a kind and
perpetual communication of good offices. Soon, however, too soon,
were we awakened from the soothing dreams! Our enemies renewed
their designs against us, not with less malice, but with more art.
Under the plausible pretence of regulating our trade, and, at the
same time, of making provision for the administration of justice, and
the support of government, in some of the colonies, they pursued
their scheme of depriving us of our property without our consent. As
the attempts to distress us, and to degrade us to a rank inferior to
that of freemen, appeared now to be reduced into a regular system, it
became proper, on our part, to form a regular system for
counteracting them. We ceased to import goods from Great Britain.
Was this measure dictated by selfishness or by licentiousness? Did it
not injure ourselves, while it injured the British merchants and
manufacturers? Was it inconsistent with the peaceful demeanor of
subjects to abstain from making purchases, when our freedom and
our safety rendered it necessary for us to abstain from them? A
regard for our freedom and our safety was our only motive; for no
sooner had the parliament, by repealing part of the revenue laws,
inspired us with the flattering hopes, that they had departed from
their intentions of oppressing and of taxing us, than we forsook our
plan for defeating those intentions, and began to import as formerly.
Far from being peevish or captious, we took no public notice even of
their declaratory law of dominion over us: our candor led us to
consider it as a decent expedient of retreating from the actual
exercise of that dominion.
But, alas! the root of bitterness still remained. The duty on tea was
reserved to furnish occasion to the ministry for a new effort to
enslave and to ruin us; and the East India Company were chosen,
and consented to be the detested instruments of ministerial
despotism and cruelty. A cargo of their tea arrived at Boston. By a
low artifice of the governor, and by the wicked activity of the tools of
government, it was rendered impossible to store it up, or to send it
back, as was done at other places. A number of persons, unknown,
destroyed it.
Let us here make a concession to our enemies: let us suppose, that
the transaction deserves all the dark and hideous colors in which
they have painted it: let us even suppose (for our cause admits of an
excess of candor) that all their exaggerated accounts of it were
confined strictly to the truth: what will follow? Will it follow, that
every British colony in America, or even the colony of Massachusetts
Bay, or even the town of Boston, in that colony, merits the
imputation of being factious and seditious? Let the frequent mobs
and riots, that have happened in Great Britain upon much more
trivial occasions, shame our calumniators into silence. Will it follow,
because the rules of order and regular government were, in that
instance, violated by the offenders, that, for this reason, the
principles of the constitution, and the maxims of justice, must be
violated by their punishment? Will it follow, because those who were
guilty could not be known, that, therefore, those who were known
not to be guilty must suffer? Will it follow, that even the guilty should
be condemned without being heard—that they should be condemned
upon partial testimony, upon the representations of their avowed
and embittered enemies? Why were they not tried in courts of justice
known to their constitution, and by juries of their neighborhood?
Their courts and their juries were not, in the case of captain Preston,
transported beyond the bounds of justice by their resentment: why,
then, should it be presumed, that, in the case of those offenders, they
would be prevented from doing justice by their affection? But the
colonists, it seems, must be stripped of their judicial, as well as of
their legislative powers. They must be bound by a legislature, they
must be tried by a jurisdiction, not their own. Their constitutions
must be changed: their liberties must be abridged: and those who
shall be most infamously active in changing their constitutions and
abridging their liberties, must, by an express provision, be exempted
from punishment.
I do not exaggerate the matter, sir, when I extend these
observations to all the colonists. The parliament meant to extend the
effects of their proceedings to all the colonists. The plan, on which
their proceedings are formed, extends to them all. From an incident
of no very uncommon or atrocious nature, which happened in one
colony, in one town in that colony, and in which only a few of the
inhabitants of that town took a part, an occasion has been taken by
those, who probably intended it, and who certainly prepared the way
for it, to impose upon that colony, and to lay a foundation and a
precedent for imposing upon all the rest, a system of statutes,
arbitrary, unconstitutional, oppressive, in every view, and in every
degree subversive of the rights, and inconsistent with even the name,
of freemen.
Were the colonists so blind as not to discern the consequences of
these measures? Were they so supinely inactive, as to take no steps
for guarding against them? They were not. They ought not to have
been so. We saw a breach made in those barriers, which our
ancestors, British and American, with so much care, with so much
danger, with so much treasure, and with so much blood, had erected,
cemented and established for the security of their liberties, and—
with filial piety let us mention it—of ours. We saw the attack actually
begun upon one part: ought we to have folded our hands in
indolence, to have lulled our eyes in slumbers, till the attack was
carried on, so as to become irresistible, in every part? Sir, I presume
to think not. We were roused; we were alarmed, as we had reason to
be. But still our measures have been such as the spirit of liberty and
of loyalty directed; not such as the spirit of sedition or of disaffection
would pursue. Our counsels have been conducted without rashness
and faction: our resolutions have been taken without phrensy or
fury.
That the sentiments of every individual concerning that important
object, his liberty, might be known and regarded, meetings have
been held, and deliberations carried on, in every particular district.
That the sentiments of all those individuals might gradually and
regularly be collected into a single point, and the conduct of each
inspired and directed by the result of the whole united, county
committees, provincial conventions, a continental congress, have
been appointed, have met and resolved. By this means, a chain—
more inestimable, and, while the necessity for it continues, we hope,
more indissoluble than one of gold—a chain of freedom has been
formed, of which every individual in these colonies, who is willing to
preserve the greatest of human blessings, his liberty, has the pleasure
of beholding himself a link.
Are these measures, sir, the brats of disloyalty, of disaffection?
There are miscreants among us, wasps that suck poison from the
most salubrious flowers, who tell us they are. They tell us that all
those assemblies are unlawful, and unauthorized by our
constitutions; and that all their deliberations and resolutions are so
many transgressions of the duty of subjects. The utmost malice
brooding over the utmost baseness, and nothing but such a hated
commixture, must have hatched this calumny. Do not those men
know—would they have others not to know—that it was impossible
for the inhabitants of the same province, and for the legislatures of
the different provinces, to communicate their sentiments to one
another in the modes appointed for such purposes, by their different
constitutions? Do not they know—would they have others not to
know—that all this was rendered impossible by those very persons,
who now, or whose minions now, urge this objection against us? Do
not they know—would they have others not to know—that the
different assemblies, who could be dissolved by the governors, were
in consequence of ministerial mandates, dissolved by them,
whenever they attempted to turn their attention to the greatest
objects, which, as guardians of the liberty of their constituents, could
be presented to their view? The arch enemy of the human race
torments them only for those actions to which he has tempted, but to
which he has not necessarily obliged them. Those men refine even
upon infernal malice: they accuse, they threaten us, (superlative
impudence!) for taking those very steps, which we were laid under
the disagreeable necessity of taking by themselves, or by those in
whose hateful service they are enlisted. But let them know, that our
counsels, our deliberations, our resolutions, if not authorized by the
forms, because that was rendered impossible by our enemies, are
nevertheless authorized by that which weighs much more in the scale
of reason—by the spirit of our constitutions. Was the convention of
the barons at Runnymede, where the tyranny of John was checked,
and magna charta was signed, authorized by the forms of the
constitution? Was the convention parliament, that recalled Charles
the Second, and restored the monarchy, authorized by the forms of
the constitution? Was the convention of lords and commons, that
placed king William on the throne, and secured the monarchy and
liberty likewise, authorized by the forms of the constitution? I cannot
conceal my emotions of pleasure, when I observe, that the objections
of our adversaries cannot be urged against us, but in common with
those venerable assemblies, whose proceedings formed such an
accession to British liberty and British renown.
 We can be at no loss in resolving, that the king cannot, by his
prerogative, alter the charter or constitution of the colony of
Massachusetts Bay. Upon what principle could such an exertion of
prerogative be justified? On the acts of parliament? They are already
proved to be void. On the discretionary power which the king has of
acting where the laws are silent? That power must be subservient to
the interest and happiness of those concerning whom it operates. But
I go further. Instead of being supported by law, or the principles of
prerogative, such an alteration is totally and absolutely repugnant to
both. It is contrary to express law. The charter and constitution, we
speak of, are confirmed by the only legislative power capable of
confirming them; and no other power, but that which can ratify, can
destroy. If it is contrary to express law, the consequence is necessary,
that it is contrary to the principles of prerogative; for prerogative can
operate only when the law is silent.
In no view can this alteration be justified, or so much as excused.
It cannot be justified or excused by the acts of parliament; because
the authority of parliament does not extend to it; it cannot be
justified or excused by the operation of prerogative; because this is
none of the cases in which prerogative can operate: it cannot be
justified or excused by the legislative authority of the colony; because
that authority never has been, and, I presume, never will be given for
any such purpose.
If I have proceeded hitherto, as I am persuaded I have, upon safe
and sure ground, I can, with great confidence, advance a step farther,
and say that all attempts to alter the charter or constitution of that
colony, unless by the authority of its own legislature, are violations of
its rights, and illegal.
If those attempts are illegal, must not all force, employed to carry
them into execution, be force employed against law, and without
authority? The conclusion is unavoidable.
Have not British subjects, then, a right to resist such force—force
acting without authority—force employed contrary to law—force
employed to destroy the very existence of law and of liberty? They
have, sir, and this right is secured to them both by the letter and the
spirit of the British constitution, by which the measures and the
conditions of their obedience are appointed. The British liberties, sir,
and the means and the right of defending them, are not the grants of
princes; and of what our princes never granted they surely can never
deprive us.

“Id rex potest,” says the law, “quod de jure potest.” The king’s
power is a power according to law. His commands, if the authority of
lord chief justice Hale may be depended upon, are under the
directive power of the law; and consequently invalid, if unlawful.
“Commissions,” says my lord Coke, “are legal; and are like the king’s
writs; and none are lawful, but such as are allowed by the common
law, or warranted by some act of parliament.”
And now, sir, let me appeal to the impartial tribunal of reason and
truth; let me appeal to every unprejudiced and judicious observer of
the laws of Britain, and of the constitution of the British government;
let me appeal, I say, whether the principles on which I argue, or the
principles on which alone my arguments can be opposed, are those
which ought to be adhered to and acted upon; which of them are
most consonant to our laws and liberties; which of them have the
strongest, and are likely to have the most effectual tendency to
establish and secure the royal power and dignity.
Are we deficient in loyalty to his majesty? Let our conduct convict,
for it will fully convict, the insinuation that we are, of falsehood. Our
loyalty has always appeared in the true form of loyalty; in obeying
our sovereign according to law; let those, who would require it in any
other form, know, that we call the persons who execute his
commands, when contrary to law, disloyal and traitors. Are we
enemies to the power of the crown? No, sir, we are its best friends:
this friendship prompts us to wish, that the power of the crown may
be firmly established on the most solid basis: but we know, that the
constitution alone will perpetuate the former, and securely uphold
the latter. Are our principles irreverent to majesty? They are quite
the reverse: we ascribe to it perfection almost divine. We say, that the
king can do no wrong: we say, that to do wrong is the property, not of
power, but of weakness. We feel oppression, and will oppose it; but
we know, for our constitution tells us, that oppression can never
spring from the throne. We must, therefore, search elsewhere for its
source: our infallible guide will direct us to it. Our constitution tells
us, that all oppression springs from the ministers of the throne. The
attributes of perfection, ascribed to the king, are, neither by the
constitution, nor in fact, communicable to his ministers. They may
do wrong; they have often done wrong; they have been often
punished for doing wrong.
Here we may discern the true cause of all the impudent clamor and
unsupported accusations of the ministers and of their minions, that
have been raised and made against the conduct of the Americans.
Those ministers and minions are sensible, that the opposition is
directed, not against his majesty, but against them; because they
have abused his majesty’s confidence, brought discredit upon his
government, and derogated from his justice. They see the public
vengeance collected in dark clouds around them: their consciences
tell them, that it should be hurled, like a thunderbolt, at their guilty
heads. Appalled with guilt and fear, they skulk behind the throne. Is
it disrespectful to drag them into public view, and make a distinction
between them and his majesty, under whose venerable name they
daringly attempt to shelter their crimes? Nothing can more
effectually contribute to establish his majesty on the throne, and to
secure to him the affections of his people, than this distinction. By it
we are taught to consider all the blessings of government as flowing
from the throne; and to consider every instance of oppression as
proceeding, which, in truth, is oftenest the case, from the ministers.
If, now, it is true, that all force employed for the purposes so often
mentioned, is force unwarranted by any act of parliament;
unsupported by any principle of the common law; unauthorized by
any commission from the crown; that, instead of being employed for
the support of the constitution and his majesty’s government, it must
be employed for the support of oppression and ministerial tyranny; if
all this is true (and I flatter myself it appears to be true), can any one
hesitate to say, that to resist such force is lawful; and that both the
letter and the spirit of the British constitution justify such resistance?
Resistance, both by the letter and the spirit of the British
constitution, may be carried further, when necessity requires it, than
I have carried it. Many examples in the English history might be
adduced, and many authorities of the greatest weight might be
brought to show, that when the king, forgetting his character and his
dignity, has stepped forth, and openly avowed and taken a part in
such iniquitous conduct as has been described; in such cases, indeed,
the distinction above mentioned, wisely made by the constitution for