tends to deny God as too otiose for its clamors, and immortality as too patient and dilatory for its fret of reform.

True, private property as a token of the soul and of its right to realize, by utmost rational freedom, its immortal destiny, does brush away all canons of equality except that oneness of destiny which all men as men must achieve in their immortal careers; but what claim has equality to be a canon of any truth or right in the universe of reality? Why should any two souls be more equal than any two brains, or two lobes of the same brain, or a brainlobe and a big toe?

Must men be alike, unmanned and unthinged, in order that they may be equated and worked as so many xs and ys and zs into a social calculus? Whence came this madcap category unless from space of n dimensions, or from the black hell of envy which would besoot all souls to make them equally black, or sink them to hell's bottom to bring them to the same level? Is a gospel of envy to replace the Gospel of the Cross? One soul as good as another—who, not a fiend or fool, dare say it in the presence of a saint? And if not as good as another, is there any reason that he should be as wise or as rich? Is there not more reason to rejoice that there are saints to admire as our own advance-guard of goodness, and sages to study as our own oracles of wisdom, and rich men to esteem as the best and most productive managers of that general wealth which would be as much poorer without the genius of their management as wisdom would be less wise without its sages, and goodness less good without

its saints? Will you make all men finer artists by abolishing the Raphaels, or clearer thinkers by cancelling the Aristotles, or more prosperous citizens by prohibiting the Vanderbilts?

Banish, if you will, such men and every degree of genius, talent, and skill above the mass of workers whose time-length of work rates its value as "if it were a mere rattling of bones in bags of skin"-banish all odious superiority and colonize it in some region of scant promise, like Nova Scotia, and see what would happen within a century. Small as might be their numbers at first, their ambition, inventiveness, enterprise, would soon undersell and close your markets. Exclusion of their products would bring on war. In that war their masterful traits would conquer as easily as little Macedon conquered the vast and barbarous Orient, and the conquest would be welcomed by discontent that would prefer their superior government and guidance to profitless and hopeless fictions of level freedom.

For, such power of organization, unhappy equalists, as you have already shown under leaders who do not lead your industry but your idleness, and lead it toward aims that would lessen industry for the sake of larger idlings of discontent, can never educate you in those traits of character that amass both outward and inward force and subdue all wildness whether of soil or soul. It makes you rather the victims of plotters against your own economic and moral growth, becoming more and more unfit for work, and for progress by work, as your time and strength go to vaporings about vague general injustice and wrong, which will seem the more fla

You cultivate spleen

gitious the more you vapor. at the expense of brain and heart. Your herding for buffalo-rushes towards uncertain pasture lands can never drill and train you in the ways of patient and steady industrial advance. Exigencies may justify the organization of discontent, but discontent will be none the less morose for its culture by labor leagues; and when it grows to habit and character, it spoils the cheer of spirit which alone creates right values in labor and life. Every gain of discontent takes it farther away from contentment, and the just wage it seeks to-day will become unjust the day it is won, and because it is won by a chronic jaundice of will that discolors every good it gets, while weakening pursuit of the one good that gladdens purpose with an artistic sense of worth, confirmed at every step by excellence of work.

Leaders of industrial discontent open no paths of industrial progress. Their talent is for disorder rather than for order. They organize to disorganize. Their very principles of organization are essentially self-repellent. Nothing permanently great can come of envy and hate, however dynamitic in power. Banded for explosion, their bomb-like nature threatens their own bonds, and must burst by the very act that wins its ruinous end. Succeed, O dynamiters of industry! get control of the capital you now serve; make your leaders the managers of its use for your benefit, since all its wealth is in the profit of its use-then what? What single trait of profit-making use have those leaders foreshown in a career that has only trained industrial incapacity to expert ineptitude. They cannot invent. They

cannot found and conduct mills, shipyards, locomotive works, railway lines and transportation, markets of national or world-wide commerce, giving employment to tens and hundreds of thousands of men who could never find or make work for themselves. In their hands such enterprises would lose their capitalistic reason, wealth would cease to be wealth; labor would not know how or when to toil; wages would rapidly shrink in amount, and in the number of beneficiaries favored with their pittances, leaving discontent all the blacker for its sudden conflagration of success.

Must your eyelids be singed by your own arson of Society, before you will see how much you owe to the serviceable mastery of the men who marshal not your idleness, but your diligence, and in whose wit is all the wealth that gives your maul of diligence sure and remunerative employment? It is your own manliness which they impersonate and which looms before your hope in their large-statured command. They have risen from your ranks as prophets of your own destiny. Instead of depriving, they bestow and enrich. They are the creators of values. They discover the worlds of use and beauty you inherit. Their titles may not be adjudged by any abstract notion of so-called equity that may chance to prevail.

What, pray tell me, were the equity of reward between Stephenson and a stoker, Edison and a telephone-girl, Tennyson and a typesetter, Wagner and a bass-drum?

Instead of the few getting rich out of the labors of the many, it is more just to say that the many

are raised by the lift of the few, who are great only as they greatly serve mankind. It is great men that the race supremely wants, and that is the best order of Society which by largest and freest competition or emulation, and by richest prizes of success, gives amplest opportunity and incentive for their forthcoming. They are the progenitors and sponsors of peoples, of states, of sciences, of epochs, of ethical systems, of religions. China means Confucius; India, Buddha; Persia, Zoroaster; Greece, Homer; Rome, Cæsar; the Middle Ages, Dante; the modern world, Shakespeare, Goethe, Charlemagne, Bismarck. How many million common heads would it take to make any one of these in his value to his nation, his time, his Race? And if at last genius has won a new field in an age which is peculiarly the age of industry, so that its achievements are to be industrial rather than directly ethical or literary, shall we change the law of worth because it seems to affect stomachs more than souls? Are stomachs a juster standard than souls? Why should a stomach be fed unless it have a soul or serve a soul? We do not willingly feed flies or cockroaches or rats, and men are no worthier of food if they have no more soul. Mere gullets have no right of any kind. All rights come from souls, and all rights of souls from the soul's immortal nature, which most immortally appears, and is worthiest of proportionate rewards, in its heroes and demigods.

The heroes may not be moral; they may not intend service; nevertheless, they serve. They serve in spite of other or even contrary aims. Raphael painted his Madonnas as jobs for pay; still,