power, his will their will, his purpose their purpose, his goal their
goal," then why is not his soul their soul? If moral principles are his
soul, and he is but the resultant of all the others, then what can their
souls be but moral principles? Truly this is a new conception of the
soul, which we commend to the consideration of psychologists and
theologians. We confine ourselves to the political aspect of the
question.
The Doctor proceeds:–
"A still more practical view of the subject is taken when we
consider the moral obligations of a nation as such; like an
individual, it is held bound in the judgment of mankind to the
fulfillment of its obligations. Great Britain, France, and Italy owe
enormous debts. The same is true of our own country. Shall the
obligations of these debts be met? May the nation repudiate? If not,
why not? . . . . Or does the law, 'Thou shalt not steal,' bind a nation
as well as an individual? . . . Do we not apply to nations the same
adjectives expressing moral qualities, which we apply to men? Has
not Great Britain a national character as well defined in the minds
men as her queen or Prime Minister–a character into which her
physical character and resources scarcely enter, but which is
determined by moral qualities? Is not the United States a
personality as distinct in the eyes of men as General Grant or Mr.
Colfax?"
Having thus established, as they suppose, their proposition that
the State is a moral person, the fundamental principle of the whole
National Reform movement is, as stated by themselves:–
"The nation being a moral person, must have a religion of its
own, and exercise itself about religious affairs."–Christian
Statesman, Feb. 28, 1884, p. 5.
It is too often the case with a person who is eager to prove a
particular proposition that he first resolves upon his conclusion, and
then makes "a major of most comprehensive dimensions, and, having
satisfied himself that it contains his conclusion, never troubles himself
about what else it may contain;" and as soon as it is examined it is
found to contain an infinite number of conclusions, every one being a
palpable absurdity. This is exactly the logical position occupied by the
advocates of this so-called National Reform. Take the statements
which we have here quoted, and who cannot see that they apply with
equal force to any conceivable association of human beings for a
common purpose? Let us here apply their argument in a single case,
and anybody can extend it to any number of similar cases. 
What is a railroad company? Its true figure is that of a colossal
man, his consciousness the resultant of the consciousness of the
stockholders of this gigantic entity, this body corporate; his power
their power, his will their will, his purpose their purpose, his goal the
end to which they are moving; a being created in the sphere of moral
law, and therefore both moral and accountable. It is composed of
moral beings subject to moral law, and is therefore morally
accountable.
A still more practical view of this subject is taken when we consider
the moral obligations of a railroad company as such; like an individual
it is held bound in the judgment of mankind to the fulfillment of its
obligations. May the railroad company repudiate? If not, why not? Or
does the law, "Thou shalt not steal," bind a railroad company as well
as an individual? Do we not apply to railroad companies the same
adjectives expressing moral qualities which we apply to men? Has
not the Erie Railroad Company a character as well defined in the
minds of men as its president or its cashier–a character into which its
physical character and resources scarcely enter, but which is
determined by moral qualities? Is not the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Company a personality as distinct in the eyes of men as is General
Sheridan or Mr. Edmunds?
"The railroad company has no soul" is the dictum of an atheistic
political theory. On the contrary, we say, with the famous financial
priest, James Fisk, Jr., what I admire most in the railroad company is
its soul. Moral principles are the soul of a railroad company. The
denial of the moral character and accountability of the railroad
company is of the nature of atheism; it is practically a denial of God's
45
providential government–leads to the subversion of morals, and the
destruction of the railroad itself. That a railroad company is
possessed of moral character, that it is therefore a subject of moral
law, and consequently accountable to God, is not theory but fact; not
hypothesis, but science. That all men do not admit that a railroad
company is a moral being, and accountable to God, does not prove
that it is not an established principle of moral and political National
Reform science. Therefore the railroad company, being a moral
person, must have a religion of its own, and must exercise itself about
religious affairs.
There, that is a genuine National Reform argument. And we submit
to any candid mind that it is just as good in proof of the personality 
and moral obligation of the railroad company as it is for that of the
State. And not only for the railroad company and the State, but
likewise, and equally, good for the personality and moral obligation of
banks, insurance companies, steamship companies, gas companies,
water companies, steamship companies, gas companies, water
companies, publishing companies, lodges, benefit societies, clubs,
corporations, and associations of all kinds; and the logic of the whole
situation is that each and every one of these must in its corporate
capacity "have a religion of its own, and must exercise itself about
religious affairs." If the premises of the National Reform Association
be true, this conclusion and a number of other equally absurd
inevitably follow, or else there is no truth in syllogism. But if the logic
of the thing be so absurd, it only demonstrates the absurdity of the
principle.
Now the National Reformers, being wedded to the principle, and
wishing to be divorced from the inevitable conclusions, resort to the
fallacy that railroad, bridge, steamboat, etc., companies are "but
creatures of the State," and so are not moral persons. Dr. McAllister
in the Cleveland convention, in trying to meet this point said:–
"The nation is a moral person, created by God, and creation
implies the authority of the creator; but a company of the kind
described, receives its charter from the State, is subject to the laws