plumber, since he is by law compelled to comply with modern sanitary principles and mechanical arrangements. Never was a greater error committed by the public," with "far-reaching results for evil."[1] This, however, is only an expression of the truth that the public must, in spite of all supervision, look after itself.
But, like a nobler sentiment, faith in the efficacy of legislation for the cure of all social ills, including those from incompetent barbers and horseshoers, "springs eternal in the human breast." It is not enough that such a law as the plumbing law can not be enforced; that, even if it were enforced, it would not yield the benefits that its framers anticipate; that, instead of favoring the honest plumber, it favors the dishonest one, and enables the unscrupulous politician to bribe or coerce constituents; that, instead of promoting the interests of the public, it is a detriment to them, producing a false sense of security perilous to health—it is still proposed to follow to the death the same ignis fatuus. To be sure, the most advanced "philanthropists" and "benefactors" do not propose to enact more rigorous municipal regulations or more elaborate State laws. These have failed. But they propose to resort to the great panacea of periodic inspection and national legislation. Preparing the way for the exercise of the last hope of the apostles of benevolent despotism, the Sanitary Committee of the Philadelphia convention declared that "no matter how thorough and complete" a piece of plumbing may have been done, "Nature, assisted by use, abuse, and neglect, will render that which was perfect most imperfect."[2] It then proceeds to urge with fitting solemnity "the very great importance of legislative action looking to and providing for periodic expert examination of sanitary appliances." That is to say, since people can not be trusted to keep their plumbing in order, the State must, like a policeman, compel them to do so. "A system of laws emanating from Congress," says an authority quoted with approval by the same committee on another occasion, after pointing out, among other things, that "the laws enacted by State and local authorities are continually subject to change according to the whim of any petty politician who sees his self-aggrandizement
- ↑ Proceedings, Philadelphia, 1895, pp. 43. 44. "The committee did not believe, however, that national legislation on the subject was desirable. It said: ‘In the nature of things, it is impossible to form laws which would be equally appropriate to all sections of the country; that which would be best suited to the needs of Michigan would rove most faulty for Louisiana. A system approaching perfection as applied to California would be ridiculous if applied to Maine’ (p. 43). But, as shown in the text, this sensible view was repudiated by the committee in the following year. It was crushed under what Mr. Spencer has fitly characterized as the momentum of the socialistic movement."
- ↑ Ibid., p.44.
