A

LL HUMAN things do require to have an ideal in them," said Carlyle. This is true. But, like the sayings of so many philosophers, it is but partial truth. Human things, like all other things, require poise, balance, equilibrium; that is, a due proportion of their essential constituents. Without oxygen we have no water. Without ideality we have nothing human. Just as surely, with oxygen, minus other essentials, we have no water; and with ideality, minus other attributes, we have nothing human. Things human must contain an ideal; as certainly they must involve emotions; just as emphatically, they must be practical. Without ideality, justice will be wanting and justice alone is permanent. Power is requisite to all achievement, and power is found in emotions alone. Still, no matter how great be the power, no matter how just the cause, failure will be the certain issue in the absence of practical method.

Most appeals for a better adjustment of social forces, because of over-emphasis of one essential, have failed of success through lack of equilibrium.

For example, consider the tariff agitation. Emotion was excited, to be sure, although it was the emotion of wrath against oppression, not the emotion of joy or pleasure aroused by contemplation of the normal or beautiful. When presented in the guise of free trade, this appeal has always lacked the essential of practicability, for free traders of the usual sort have not proposed a rational method for providing an adequate revenue. When presented in the guise of tariff reform the appeal has lacked ideality, for it proposed a distinctly dishonest plan for raising public funds. Not only did tariff reform propose to continue a dishonest system, but, to maintain its own

position, it was under the necessity of itself demonstrating this dishonesty. The tariff reformer is compelled to show the essential dishonesty of a high tariff, and to do this must advocate the principle of free trade. Having proved his case, he proceeds to assure his hearers that he has no intention of practicing honesty, but would utilize the theory he has just overthrown-pleading, however, that he will be content with a less amount of plunder.

Free coinage of silver, with gold at a given ratio, is not so bad as gold monometalism, but is it anything more than to say to the mine-owners: "You shall have a market, maintained by law, for all you may dig from the earth; but those who dig vegetables must take the chances of traffic"? What ideal is here presented other than the ideal involved in tyranny? The reader will perceive that the criticism applies with still greater force to the gold-standard policy.

In spite of the manifest insufficiency of most proposals offered for social relief, some will insist that our troubles find their source in the limitations and perverse tendencies of human nature. To this oftrepeated assertion one can only reply, Human nature, so far as we know, is as it always was and will always be. People will act differently in different circumstances. To a degree we control our environment. Let us give our attention to that same environment and accept human beings as we find them. If there is anything wrong with them, you, my friend, may rest satisfied that you did not make them. You did not know enough. Therefore in that direction you are not responsible.

We make articles of food, clothing and shelter. Therefore, we know how. Therefore, again, it is possible for us to examine the processes by which they are

made and to arrive at a conclusion which shall be based on assured knowledge not guessed at.

Looking over the field, we find that for many years the press has furnished tales of public wrong, involving, of course, private misfortune and often misery and wretchedness-even death. Some years ago we were told of Tweed; riders on river and harbor bills-not to inquire too particularly as to the bills themselves; credit mobilier; whiskey frauds; later of Carnegie armor-plates, Cuban postoffice steals, embalmed beef, etc. Just at present it is the System, whether as unearthed by Folk, defeated by LaFollette, Dunne or Douglas, or exposed by Miss Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens or Lawson. For relief what are we offered that will comply with the requirements of "things human"? Populism is suggested, and besides being aggressive, it has polled many votes. It tells us that bankers charge too much interest; therefore the government must become a money-lender. Oil refiners exact too high prices; therefore the state must become an oil refiner. Warehouse managers speculate in and falsely grade cereals; therefore the government-but why continue? This is merely patchwork. It is the adoption by populists of the socialistic method of cutting knots they are unable to untie.

Even Mr. Roosevelt, in his late message declares that "the question of transpor

tation lies at the rooot of all industrial success." He seems wholly unconscious of the fact that things must be made before they can be transported. Are there no essential conditions to this "making"? Nor is this mental attitude peculiar to socialists and populists. The whole mass of restrictive laws with which we are burdened is of the same parentage. Legal attempts to regulate interest; to improve morals; to promote trade; to compel posterity to pay part of the expense incident to making public improvements, are all exhibitions of the same sort of stupidity. Law can keep the peace, or, in other words, prevent some men from

interfering with the legitimate industry of other men. Law can also establish and maintain an honest system of land-holding. Beyond these, law can do nothing other than to hamper and hinder industry.

In order, therefore, that we may obtain a comprehensive view of industrial affairs, let us call to mind those fundamental facts of human life which we all know, but usually choose not to admit, even to ourselves. The constitution of the State of Illinois very truthfully expresses the thought that a frequent recurrence to first principles is necessary for the preservation of liberty.

The most obvious fact of human existence is that each man, woman or child must consume certain physical things— or die. (There is always the alternative suggested by Epictetus and endorsed by Schopenhauer.) These physical things are known as food, clothing and shelter. Each of these articles is a product of human toil. But human toil alone cannot produce.

The toiler must be in possession of the elements (or some of them) of which the earth is composed. This simple, obvious fact is overlooked (or evaded) by nearly all who complain of, or attempt to explain, existing social conditions. It is vastly to the credit of Carlyle that he neither overlooked nor evaded. He said: "It is very strange, the degree to which these truisms are forgotten in our day."

In short, land (meaning the elements of which the earth is composed) and labor (meaning human energy expended in making articles of food, clothing and shelter) are the factors of all physical wealth. All physical things passing through the markets of the world are results of labor applied to land. Most people will agree that land is used at the beginning of all processes of production, but seem not clearly to perceive that it is vital at every step. To make bread we must use land to grow grain. Just as surely we must use land to transport it, to grind it, to bake it. The same is true in all forms of production. Labor and

land are absolutely necessary at each point in every productive process.

If each individual had equal opportunity to join in the processes of production it would seem that just distribution would certainly follow. But here is the rub. Each individual has not this equal opportunity. Land is private property. Production is absolutely impossible without land. It inevitably follows that those who own land are able to demand from laborers a part of the product in return for permission to use their land. For this payment by laborers land-owners make no return- -save permission as noted, and it will doubtless be admitted that this payment might possibly be great enough to leave workers with a very small remainder, a remainder so small, in fact, that they could properly be classed with the "worthy poor.

66

That part of the product that is paid to the land-owners is called "rent." The balance is known as wages"-being the return for industry, of whatever grade. It should be noted that payments made for the use of buildings are not rent-are, instead, wages.

The term "wages is used in common speech to indicate the reward of employed men. But when considering industry in general it must be given a wider meaning. To illustrate. A man rents a farm, paying one-third of the crop to the owner. The remainder is the reward of his toil, and is therefore his wages. He may have employed others to aid him, but his reward, as well as theirs, is wages. Again, the Deering reaper concern is helping to gather grain, and therefore is a producer, and so is a receiver of wages as truly as is its modest employer. Again, to produce one thousand bushels of wheat worth one dollar per bushel is, through exchange, to acquire capacity to secure a diamond worth one thousand dollars. That is, to produce wealth in one form is equivalent to producing it, to like value, in all forms. So, a man raising wheat in Dakota is in effect catching fish on the banks of Newfoundland, provided, of course, he wants

fish. If he prefers a carriage, then his toil at producing wheat is equivalent to mining iron and coal, making paint, manufacturing all the various articles included in the finished vehicle. The growing of wheat is thus equivalent to making the carriage, because such toil secures, through exchange, possession of the vehicle, just as would the direct application to the making of the conveyance.

Wealth, then, is one, although of many forms, and is produced by the application of labor to land, and is divided between producers and land-owners.

Rent is payment for the use of natural opportunity-for land. It follows from this division of wealth between producers and land-owners that the less of the total product of industry be taken as rent, the more will be left for wages; and conversely, the more be taken as rent the less will be left for wages. Those who own land upon which production occurs divide rent among themselves in proportion to the value of land held by each. Those who produce divide wages among themselves in proportion as each has contributed to production.

The ownership of the land thus having the same effect as the doing of work, that is, ownership of the product, all are trying to become land-owners. As a result of this endeavor, land is bought and held vacant in anticipation of future demand. (This is characteristic of every city in the United States.) If, now, we observe the necessary conditions of production, we shall know how very simple is the industrial problem. Men must use land-or die. Land is private property, with the necessary result that product is divided between land-owners and land-users. Holding some land vacant reduces the effective supply, and of course increases the value of that used—thereby artificially raising rent and reducing wages.

It is perfectly clear that the portion of wealth paid to land-owners is not theirs. by right of toil-others did the work. Because of this plain fact most of the social reformers of history, under one or