“To avoid these pretexts for sophistry, in the society I am studying, an old law is repealed at the same time as a new one is promulgated, while specifying that contracts made before the publication of the said law remain under the jurisdiction of the old one. What has been done under the protection of one law cannot be undone under the protection of another. The new law only takes effect on the date of its publication.
“To obtain a clear and precise legislation, it has been reduced to its simplest expression. It has been disengaged from the mass of inconsequential embellishments that parliamentary assemblies increase every day. It has been stripped of the technical terms and arcane procedures that make it a mystery for the general public; it has been made accessible to everyone. It has conserved a special language necessary to the regularity of judiciary service, but that language is in conformity with everyday language and within the range of all those who have recourse to the law. This avoids the expense of specialist men of law, who are dispensable when one understands the glossary of the Code.
“People are self-sufficient, as far as possible. Why isolate people from what ought to be the support of their entire lives, the guarantee of their liberty? Why elevate to the rank of a science that which ought to shine by virtue of its simplicity? Is it necessary for someone to be a scientist to defend his interests or to have recourse to an advocate who will explain his case to him in a manner that he cannot grasp?
“There is no more need for juries, since the death penalty has been abolished. The responsibility of society is annulled, insofar as the life of one of its members is not at stake. Ordinary magistrates are responsible for the ordinary cases of the assize court. Besides, is the jury such a wise institution? It is connected to universal suffrage, in that the magistracy is drawn from the notable individuals of the district where the case arises, but do not those notable individuals, chosen by senior administrators, include party members, who follow the arguments with the prejudice of a political interest foreign to the fundamentals of the case?
“And, independently of that political inclination that directs their actions, are they sufficiently competent in judiciary matters? Some have studied law superficially, many are merchants, manufacturers and landlords; they give the advice dictated to them by broad common sense, but they are absolutely ignorant of procedure, which plays a very important role in the present judiciary system. They are therefore obliged to rely at every point on the experience and skill of the president, who interrogates the accused, confronts the witnesses and present the affair in the light that suits him. If the president happens to be a party member and some political allusion is hidden beneath the case he is instructing, he will exercise his influence on the jury; by virtue of specious arguments, he can extract a judgment in which the jury participates without knowing the true reason—because the law has been made into a science, and an arduous one, that is left entirely to specialists, and which, under the pretext of safeguarding social liberty one does not engage the responsibility of incompetent individuals.
“Justice is deferred to a sort of council of elders, to which no one is admitted but those justified by an honest, laborious and stainless life, and whose age guarantees their experience and judgment. They have lived, they have seen life, they have made comparisons. The moral correction of society is not the prerogative of youth.
“One cannot sit in judgment until the age of 50. The various functions that constitute the judiciary hierarchy are not acquired by way of advancement. A judge, from the day he becomes a judge, can immediately preside over trials if the vote of his colleagues designates that employment for him, but he is only the president for the duration of a session, and cedes his place to whoever the same colleagues choose to succeed him.
“In that way, no more ascendant responsibilities that make justice a stairway to honors. All judges are at the same level. They nominate their president themselves; they only designate a function. That ensures that justice is administered as a matter of conscience, not as a matter of career. Judges are paid a salary, because time is the currency of existence, but that salary is so small that it does not provide nourishment to cupidity. It is, moreover, the same for all, hierarchical powers only having as temporary duration.
“There are still notaries, solicitors and men of law of every sort, serving to advise those who, in spite of the efforts of the administration, do not want to take care of their interests themselves. The law does not impose them on the public as functionaries invested with an indispensable ministerial character; their collaboration is facultative and purely consultative; they are relegated to the rank of intermediaries. Everyone can be his own notary or solicitor; it is sufficient for a procedure to have the legal stamp of the town hall. What need is there, in fact, for that army of parasites whose collaboration becomes a servitude to all of life’s actions? Are people not capable of dealing directly with the law, without an intermediary intent on maximizing expenses? What use is the town hall, then, if its authorization is not a sufficient control in the eyes of the tribunal? The town hall ought to be open to everyone, where everyone has authorization at their disposal free of charge.
“The responsibilities of notary and solicitor were created, in principle, to serve the acolytes of the law as a source of income and to come to the aid of the ignorant. Then stamp duty made vigilant auxiliaries of them, interested in drumming up custom. The State benefits more from that, in the sense that, if the public could dispense with men of law, they would provide less custom, and the man of law benefits from increasing that custom because, the more he pours into the coffers of the State, the more he receives in commission.
“You are familiar with the petty means that are employed nowadays to increase the client’s expenses: interminable formulas, wide margins, blank spaces, elongated handwriting that is routinely confined to five words or 17 letters per line, and so on. The means are certainly sure, the use of legally-stamped paper having increased dramatically, but is truly puerile that, in a century like ours, people are subjected to such paltry exercises in speculation, which extend as far as the humble bureaucracy of the Treasury.
“Is the signature of the mayor not worth as much as that of a notary? Cannot a contract, of no matter what kind, have the same value drafted by an individual rather than an authorized clerk? Provided that it is comprehensible and precise, can that not fulfill the objectives of the law? The State has gained a little less, but the client, for whom no reduction of price is made according to his position, uses it within the strict limit of his needs.
“I compare our modern society with the one I have before my eyes: one eliminates from the administration everything that is not recognized as a general necessity; the other strives with all its might to multiply mechanisms, to imagine honorific employments, only figuring on paper, to distribute to four functionaries the work for which one would suffice, to levy excessive taxes on people with a view to luxurious constructions, festivals and enterprises that only profit one privileged class. That complicated apparatus hinders the functioning of the administration, weighing down is operations and cluttering up its projects.
“The work has therefore begun of simplifying it, on both a small and large scale. An exact account has been drawn up of the work of ministries, and, according to that scrupulously-calculated statistic, all useless auxiliaries have been expelled. With fewer branches, schemes and hierarchical grades, more rapid, clearer and more positive results have been obtained.
“By applying this system to constituted civil bodies such as notaries, solicitors, businessmen, agents of exchange, etc., immense service has been rendered to the public by ridding them of an insatiable octopus whose tentacles, constantly reaching out for it, had trapped it and was sucking out the best fruits of its labor.
“The State wants people, above all, to be self-sufficient, so that they can take part themselves in arguments regarding their interests, so that as free citizens, they can make full use of their rights, without being dependent on the demand
s of specialists for everything. Are there not other means of making a living than condemning people to being unable to carry out their affairs without the aid of a ministerial official?
“These are abuses of bureaucracy, which will disappear over time. At the present moment, people are too preoccupied with the whole to think about the details. When the Republic is solidly set on unshakable foundations, care will be taken to refine it; but I cannot see that until 1900, when a new upheaval of the social strata will superimpose democracy on aristocracy, in the same way that the convulsions of volcanic eruptions superimpose new terrains on primitive ones.”
At this point Monsieur Landet, visibly exhausted, asked Hobson to wake him up.
Chapter VII
FINANCES
The Extremes Meet
The next session was devoted to finances.
“Today we shall touch on the ultimate exact science,” said Monsieur Landet, “the one whose brutal precision creates the prosperity or ruination of peoples.
“Before getting to the era in which Finances will have reached their apogee, it is as well to undertake a retrospective review of their progress, since their birth.
“There is no point in talking about antiquity, when they did not exist in a regularized fashion, even less of the Middle Ages, when they were parceled out in landed property between feudal lords invested with absolute power.
“Louis XI, by incorporating feudalism to the crown, reunited the fascicles of public fortune and founded a kind of royal Treasury presenting the approximate appearances of a regular institution.
“His successors squandered the savings of that far-sighted king on fêtes, tourneys and romantic wars. The external campaigns in Italy under Charles VIII and Louis XI, and the internal campaign again the League under Henri II exhausted the wealth of France to such an extent that it required a sage and prudent monarch like Henri IV to fill up, by means of economies, the voids left in the State Treasury. From that epoch on, Finances began to take the form of a special administration. Under Louis XII, Richelieu created superintendants charged with overseeing taxes and security royal wealth.
“Under Louis XIV, Colbert, a genius if ever there was one, organized the State Finances definitively and increased the exploitation of royal manufacture, agriculture, commerce and fisheries. His endeavor would have elevated France to heights inaccessible to other powers if Louis XIV, insatiable for pleasures, had not dug into that hard-won treasure with both hands, throwing it to his mistresses and the servile host of his courtiers. The shame and dolor preyed upon the minister; hindered in his noble career, he died—and Louis XIV, rid of an inconvenient controller, had no brake on his follies. When he could find no one else to pressurize, he demanded from war what he needed to feed the scandalous orgies of his reign. Iron, fire and pillage were all good to him. Like Nero, he offered his mistresses the grandiose panorama of the burning of the Palatinate.
“With peace concluded, he laid claim to a few profitable commercial cities, Strasbourg among them, by means of a secret commission, scorning human rights. And when the starving people came to the foot of his throne to expose the spectacle of their poverty, he extracted more millions from them to build Versailles.
“A shameful death removed him in the midst of general famine; his coffin was accompanied by curses—but historians exist shameless enough to call him a “great king.” In my opinion, he was merely the petty king of a great century.
“I shall swiftly pass over Louis XV, whose long rein provokes disgust. It was a stampede, further complicated by the bankruptcy of Law,26 who led France to an inevitable crisis whose consequences were borne by the luckless Louis XVI. And yet, if Louis XVI had not been so weak, if he had had the energy to reject the perfidious insinuations of his advisers, he would have been able to raise France from the abyss and change the face of the denouement. To do that, he had only to listen to Turgot, whose memorable letter has been handed down to posterity as the simplest and clearest summary of the science of Finances. I am extracting the following page therefrom:
“‘Sire,
“‘Your majesty has been kind enough to authorize me to submit to your eyes the engagement that he has made to himself to support me in the execution of the economical planning that is at all times, and today more than ever, an indispensable necessity. I would have liked to be able to explain the reflections suggested to me by the situation the finances are in, but time does not permit that, and I shall save a longer explanation until I have been able to obtain a more exact account. I shall limit myself at present, Sire, to remind you of these three promises:
“‘No bankruptcy.
“‘No increase in taxation.
“‘No borrowing.
“‘No bankruptcy, either admitted, or masked by forced reductions.
“‘No increase in taxes, the reason being the situation of your people, and even more so in Your Majesty’s heart.
“‘No borrowing, because borrowing always diminishes available revenue; after some time, it necessitates either bankruptcy or increases in taxation. In times of peace, borrowing can only be permitted to liquidate old debts or to pay back other debts incurred at a more onerous rate of interest.
“‘There is only one means to meet these three conditions, and that is to reduce expenditure to a lower level than that of income, and far enough below it to be able to save 20 million every year in order to pay off old debts. Otherwise, the first cannon-shot will force the State into bankruptcy.
“‘It is therefore absolutely necessary for Your Majesty to demand that the directors of all sections to agree expenditure with the Minister of Finance. Without that, each department will run up debts, which will always be Your Majesty’s debts, and the director of finance will not be able to recover the balance between expenditure and income.
“‘Your Majesty knows that one of the greatest obstacles to the economy is the multitude of demands by which it is continually assailed, and which the excessive ease of his predecessors in granting them has unfortunately authorized.
“‘It is necessary, sire, for you to arm yourself against your own generosity, and to consider where the money comes from that you distribute to your courtiers, and to compare the poverty of those from whom one is sometimes obliged to extract it with the most rigorous procedures with the situation of the people who are most entitled to receive your liberalities.
“‘There are favors which it was believed possible to grant because they did not bear immediately upon the royal treasury. They include interests, commissions and privileges; they are the most dangerous and the most abusive. Any profit on impositions that is not absolutely necessary for their collection is a debt consecrated to the relief of contributors and the needs of the state.’27
“In rereading that heartfelt letter from a man who, alone in his epoch, had the noble frankness to tell the king the truth, does one not sense the prognostication of the events that would soon put an end to the disorders of the monarchy? Turgot came to power but did not stay there. Such an administrator was contrary to the ambition and cupidity of men like Maurepas, Calonne and Brienne.28 He was defeated in the battle and retreated before the cabal. The task proposed was, in any case, if not impossible, at least gigantic; the court could not adjust to the domestic economies of the excessively honest controller general.
“The Revolution expelled the unhealthy miasmas of the monarchy, and the Convention accomplished the superhuman work of pruning the dead wood of ravaged France within two years.29
“Finally, the Directoire laid the basis of the constitution to which we owe representative government and individual liberty.30 France belonged to itself, after 18 centuries.
“Since then, within the system of direct and indirect taxation, Finances began to be organized according to serious and fixed rules. In spite of the wars of the First Empire and the sumptuous prodigality of the Second—I shall pass over in silence the Restoration and the July monarchy, which offered no distinctive character—they conserved a reas
onable level, equilibrated by public debt. And when the disasters of 1870-71 arrived, France was rich enough to pay five billion francs for its liberty. Since then, commerce and industry have almost repaired the breach made in its Finances.”
Here Monsieur Landet paused and collected himself for a few minutes. He had finished the history of State Finances and was penetrating into the future.
“Before arriving in the year 3878, I shall pause in the year 1959, the most distant epoch for the expiration of railway concessions. The companies, in issuing their shares, have made a contract with the State, under the terms of which they will only have an interest in and administration of their exploitation for a period of 99 years. When that period expires, the State, until then a silent partner in the exploitation, will acquire full ownership; the shares, expiring with the companies, will lapse.
“The creation of railway lines has been, for France and for Europe, a source of rapid fortune; everyone has profited from it, the shareholders as well as the customers. The necessity of circulation by virtue of progress in commerce and industry, constantly multiplying the number of networks, has forced the companies to borrow in order to undertake new works. They have, therefore, issued further shares.
“The exploitation of supplementary lines has increased the dividends of limited companies and the shared have increased in value proportionately. The shareholders, have grown accustomed to that productive placement, and have not taken into consideration the fact that the value will gradually decline as the expiry date of the concessions approaches.
“Like the capital shares, the secondary shares have been reimbursed at the price at which they were issued, but there is a difference between the two: the capital shareholder participates in the net benefits of exploitation before and after the reimbursement; the secondary shareholder, by contrast, only had a share in the money lent as a complimentary subsidy, with the chance of making a profit. Let us set the secondary shareholders aside; they are irrelevant.
The World in 2000 Years Page 15