concession; it is a confession. Socialism charges great wastes upon the competitive system. More goods are manufactured than are needed, and at greater cost, for want of concentration. Combine the productive forces in a given industry and you lessen the cost of production, while you control the market. There is no waste, because there are no goods unsold. The formation of a trust is an admission of the justice of this charge; or it is an admission of the charge that profits are gained out of proportion to the capital actually at work. The Distillers' and CattleFeeders' Trust, known as the Whiskey Trust, is made up of eighty distilleries; but, according to the New York "Times" of June 29, it was operating only thirteen of them. The conclusion from such a course is inevitable, either there had been immense waste in production, or the profit had been such as to allow a fair interest on the idle capital represented by the closed distilleries, making reasonable allowance for a certain enlargement of those kept in operation.

Every trust, we repeat, represents the working principle of Socialism, however contemptuous the makers of it may be toward any avowed socialistic method, or however indifferent they may be toward the moral motives of Socialism. The trust puts Socialism at work for the capitalist rather than for the laborer; that is, it uses the principle, while it violates the motive and defeats the object of current Socialism. The trust calls public attention to the practicability of socialistic principles. Without doubt the principle of Socialism is far in advance of the sentiment. Socialism, as a moral issue, has made comparatively little progress in this country, owing chiefly to the immense resources of the nation, so many which are yet undeveloped; but in no country have its principles been so quickly and easily applied to business life, as seen in the developments just referred to.

Still another change showing the same socialistic tendency appears in the growing interference of the state in purely economic affairs. The old principle of laissez faire is no longer respected. The government does much in various ways to regulate the industries of the nation. Apart from the effect of the tariff, the industrial life of the people is subject to constant legislation on the part of the States and of the nation. Nothing has yet been suggested of such detailed application to the laboring classes as the recent insurance bill of Count Bismarck, passed by the Reichstag, which practically affects no less than eleven millions of persons, granting for one item an invalid pension, from a compulsory insurance fund, of which the minimum is $15 a year, and the maximum about $91.1 Nor 1 The London Times describes the new government socialistic project as follows:

"The new measure includes within its scope almost the whole working population of Germany. It secures for the wage-earning classes of the country a fair maintenance in the event of sickness and of disabling accident, and a pension in old age. These benefits are granted in return for compulsory weekly payments, varying in amount according to the wages earned by the

has any such extended provision been made in this country as in England, chiefly through the municipalities, for the relief or diversion or improvement of the masses. But the state is becoming a very practical power amongst us in respect to the regulation of industry and in the assumption of what had been regarded as private or corporate functions. Many would be surprised to know how much a single State, like Massachusetts, attempts and accomplishes in the regulation of its industries, not only through direct legislation, but by its advisory commissions. And many, we presume, would be surprised to know how much they are in sympathy with those who favor the increasing transfer of corporate functions to the government, municipal, state, or national. Colonel Higginson is, doubtless, right in the statement which he makes in a recent letter to "The Nation":

"There are a good many persons, I take it, who have reached just this point of conviction—namely, to hold that, if the government carries on the postoffice fairly well, as it certainly does, it may well undertake the telegraph also, as in England; that if it can conduct a bankrupt railroad, through a 'receiver,' it could also carry on a successful one; that if a city can supply its inhabitants with water, it might as well try the experiment of supplying them with gas. How far this tendency is to go, such persons do not undertake to say and here they stop short of Mr. Bellamy and his thorough supporters; but in the meantime they are willing and glad to put themselves on record as looking in that same direction. They find themselves confronted with a situation which has nowhere been better stated than by a strong opponent of State Socialism, Professor A. T. Hadley of Yale University. He says, in the 'Political Science Quarterly' for December, 1888: Modern life demands organized business action. There are two great organizations, either one of which can manage it - organized capital, or organized government.' If this be the real alternative, there is certainly an increasing number of persons who would prefer to trust the government. This is, at any rate, the present writer's inclination."

contributors. The higher the previous payment the greater will be the benefit obtained, but the payments and benefits do not exactly correspond, some advantage being allowed to the poorer sections among the contributors. The insurance fund, if we may so term it, is further swelled by payments exacted from the employers, and the state finally comes in and augments by a fixed sum the allowance or pension in each separate case. The administration is under provincial boards, consisting of representatives of the workmen and of their employers, and subject to imperial control. It is intended to be a self-supporting scheme, except as regards the added contributions from the state, which are in the nature of a free bonus. But it is not clear on what principle it has been framed in order to secure this, or whether the contributions made to it will be large enough to be a fair equivalent for such portion of the benefits as they are to purchase. It is a bold step in any case, and all. the bolder because it has been taken somewhat in the dark. The promised contributions from the state are the most safe part of the whole, but they may prove by and by a very heavy tax on the public purse, and will press severely on a community not lightly burdened already, and on a state which has inter alia the enormous cost of German armaments to support. It is this part of the scheme, however, which most distinctly gives it a socialistic character."

1 See article, by William Clark, on Socialism in English Politics, in Political Science Quarterly, December, 1888, pp. 559, 560.

In view of these changes in the direction of Socialism, and in view of the hospitality of the public mind towards socialistic ideas, and of the readiness in business circles to adopt socialistic principles, may we not expect the gradual transfer of industry from corporations to the government; may we not expect the ultimate transformation of the Republic into a socialistic state? No wise man will predict what will not be. And the improbability or impracticability of a socialistic state is inherently no greater than of a democratic state. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that democracy is not the final settlement of the social problem. Political equality is in no sense the equivalent of social equality. Individual freedom, without those material gains which might be expected to accrue from it in a prosperous community, is a barren possession. "The social problem of the future," Mr. Mill says, "we consider to be how to unite individual liberty of action with a common ownership in the raw material of the globe, and an equal participation of all in the benefits of combined labor."

1

One difficulty of the social problem above that of the political problem lies in the want of room for experimenting on a grand scale. The political problem was solved through the discovery and occupation of the New World. American democracy was a growth, not a transformation, and the conditions of its growth determined, in large degree, its success. If the socialistic state had a new world awaiting it, as the democratic state had, in which it might grow according to its principles, furnished and equipped as it would be with the appliances of the modern world, we have no doubt that it would succeed, and in its success produce as great an impression upon existing forms of society as the American democracy has produced upon existing forms of government. But Socialism has no sufficient place in which to try its experiment with a view to general influence. The ground is occupied by opposing institutions. It must, therefore, establish itself by revolution, or by the transformation of existing institutions to its uses. Revolution is practically out of the question in a democracy. Transformation is the only method, and the process of transformation in this country would be attended, as we have intimated, with some peculiar difficulties.

To begin with, the transfer of the industries from the corporations to the government would bear most heavily upon the government at its weakest point, namely, in its municipal functions. If the new social system, after Mr. Bellamy's invention, could be set in motion at once, the strain would fall equally upon all parts. But as the change must be gradual, there must be a starting place, and that place must be the municipality. The first changes would consist in the extension of the functions of the city. Instead of providing water, and in some cases light, as now, the city would control the horse railways and other distributing agencies, and from the control of these would advance to the control of the pro

1 Autobiography, p. 232.

ductive industries. Indeed, a well ordered city is the nearest approach among existing institutions to the socialistic ideal. But a well ordered city of great size is the exception, not the rule. Municipal politics in this country are proverbially corrupt. The saloon is a far more influential factor in the government of cities than any or all workingmen's clubs. And the interests already intrusted to the city are the sources of corruption. Increase these interests, as cities are now governed, and you increase the sources of corruption. Taxation would soon become unbearable. But, it is said, the proposed social system takes away the motives to corruption. Under its workings it is no longer of personal advantage to any one to be dishonest. We grant that there is much truth in this answer. But we reply that the social system is not at work, the whole problem being how to put it at work. The difficulty is how to make a beginning if the very agency to be used is confessedly corrupt. Socialism can safely proceed with the "municipalization" of industry only when it has succeeded in purifying the municipal organization. It must first show itself a political force of sufficient power and purity to recover and control its proper agencies. This difficulty may not be insurmountable - we welcome the endeavor to overcome it - but no power has yet been able to make our municipal governments as honest, and for that reason as economical for public uses, as the average corporation.

Another difficulty peculiar to this country, which may be said to be territorial rather than political, lies in the immense diversity, if not divergence, of its industries, and of the industrial habits of its people. Socialism draws its illustrations chiefly from the factory system. But the manufacturing interest in this country has never been in agreement with other productive interests. It has been the ceaseless problem of politics to bring the conflicting interests of national industry into sufficient agreement for the material development of the nation. The capitalists of the East are not at one with those of the West and South. Not because they are capitalists, but because they represent the industries of their sections of the country. Put labor, or the people, in the place of capital, and the problem is not simplified. And more account

still must be made of the great divergence in the industrial habits of the peoples of different parts of the country. Socialism must rely more upon the workable unity of human nature than upon unity of material interests. But the peoples of the North and of the South, for example, are constitutionally unlike in all their views and methods of labor. The differences in this respect are far greater than between Englishmen and Irishmen. To secure such uniformity in work as would satisfy the sense of fairness on the part of those who are constitutional workers, would be wellnigh impossible. We should like to see the work of the typical Yankee of New England and that of the typical "poor white" of the South reduced to common terms either in time, quality, or amount. Socialism can manage what is individual in human

nature better than that which is provincial. The social system must be very elastic which can cover different types which are the product of different natural, social, and political forces.

But the greatest hindrance to the socialistic transformation of the social and political institutions of this country lies, we say it in friendliness, but in the utmost frankness, in the character of the current Socialism. The current Socialism is unmoral, not in the sense that it is immoral, but materialistic. We make exception, of course, in behalf of that Socialism which is thoroughly Christian in fact as well as in name, and we recognize the absolute dissociation of all genuine socialists from anarchists of every type. But the ideal of the current Socialism is materialistic rather than moral, and the remedy for existing abuses and inequalities is also materialistic in too large proportion to the moral. By far too little account is made of the place of individual morality in the new social system. Banish poverty, remove inequalities, and you assure the wellbeing of society. Does any one believe that? Does any one believe, for example, that poverty is altogether or the chief cause of the social vices, or that they would cease or even grow less under the equal distribution of the general wealth? We have allowed that the new social order, if once at work, would take away many of the motives to dishonesty; we also allow that it would remove many of the occasions for crime for which we now build prisons. But what of the vices for which we do not build prisons? What of the corruption which under the highest social development eats at the heart of society? The motto on the title-page of "The Nationalist" runs The Nationalization of Industry and the Promotion of the Brotherhood of Humanity. So far, so good, in its moral bearings. But the promotion of the brotherhood of humanity is not the only morality. There is an individual morality, which must be included if the social end is to be gained. And if it be said that this is of course assumed, we reply that it is not enough that it be assumed; it must be emphasized in any scheme of social reconstruction. And especially, as we began to say, with any scheme which is to find favor with the American people. The American people are in their convictions and methods profoundly moral. We do not forget, in this assertion, the apparent contradiction in the attitude of the nation toward slavery. But the end proved the truthfulness of the statement. We can understand and sympathize with the present impatience of socialistic thinkers with the apparent indifference in this country to social wrongs and inequalities. Still we repeat the statement that the American people are profoundly moral rather than materialistic in their use of methods, and in their conception of the true wellbeing of society. And in so far as the present aims and methods of Socialism are materialistic rather than moral, they will fail even of their legitimate influence upon the public mind. The Socialism which may prove a reconstructive and transforming force in this country must possess itself of a positive morality in accord with the genius and habit and method