the law which is its expression, is as commanding in its own sphere as that of competition and may clash with it. Which of these laws or forces it is best to apply in a given case is entirely a question of probabilities and degree, not of right and obligation.

On the whole, I do not believe that the tendency of the theory of unrestricted competition and the play of this law in production and distribution are conducive to the highest good. It teaches that man is to be regarded as governed by but one, and that not the highest nor most powerful of human motives-the desire to acquire and consume wealth, a desire that has brought untold misery. to mankind. It asserts the right of the buyer to purchase commodities at the lowest possible price to which he can force the same, and denounces as interfering with an eternal law any attempt on the part of the seller or the workman in combination with his fellows to maintain a price or a wage that shall preserve his financial existence, or give him the necessaries and some of the comforts of life. It is by no means self-evident, nor is it capable of proof that it is in accordance with public policy that goods shall be sold at rates that mean great loss or ruin to the manufacturer, or that wages shall be paid that mean distress to the workmen, when by combining, fair profits and good wages can be obtained. It also denies to a score of employers or employés associated together the right to pursue a course which their judgment dictates, while it would freely concede to the same score of individuals acting as individuals the right to pursue precisely the same course. This is absurd.

Further, the logical results of the application of the theory we have been discussing are strikes and lockouts. The theory assumes that when wages are too low the employé will and should seek other employment; that is a

strike when too high, the employer will cease production, or give employment to those that will accept the rate he judges he can pay; that is a lockout. If the theory of competition is sound, then these stoppages, these strikes, are not only justifiable, but are absolutely necessary and commendable.

This theory is most dangerous in its teachings and tendencies. If it be taught as true and as the only theory which accords with eternal law, that there is an irresistible impulse on the part of both employer and employed for each to get all he can as against the other, governed in his action only by his desire to accumulate wealth, and that such an impulse and desire are commendable, then each is justified in acting upon this selfish desire without reference to any other motive of human conduct. This means contest, continually, logically, and justly so. The views of employer and employé as to what are fair wages or fair profits scarcely ever agree, and then comes strife, for each will try to impose his views upon the other. This theory, then, places the two chief classes of industrial society over against each other and urges them to the conflict, calmly and complacently assuring them that out of this selfish struggle will result complete justice. This is a most dangerous theory to teach men. It strikes at the stability of society. It means anarchy. May not ignorance or greed answer in the hour of their partial triumph: You taught us that the controlling and only motive of human action, so far as relates to production and distribution, is the desire to get wealth; it is upon that motive we act.

But beyond all this, the suggestion that competition should be the controlling motive of human action in connection with economical matters is out of all harmony with the spirit of the civilization in which we are placed.

It is asserting the necessity and rightful dominance in civilized society, which is based upon association, of the spirit that is the ruling one in the lowest state of savage and brute existence, that of struggle, of contest, of competition. Its methods may be somewhat different, but it is none the less the same spirit and seeking the same ends. "'T is true, and pity 't is 't is true," that "trade is utterly selfish," and it will always be so while it is taught that competition should be the governing force

its transactions, but it is neither necessarily nor justly selfish. The tendency of the teachings as to the proper motives of action in all other relations of human life is against selfishness. There is ever a determined effort to reduce its influence to the lowest point. I submit, therefore, that it cannot be true that selfishness is the proper motive nor that its methods are commendable in this sphere of activity that consumes so much of the time and thought of civilized society. Such a belief involves the assertion that the principle underlying the instructions of that marvellous Teacher, himself from the ranks of labor, and who had the deepest knowledge of the springs of human action, was a false one. The theory of Christian civilization is not of competition but of association.

CHAPTER IV.

METHODS FOR SETTLING LABOR DIFFERENCES (CONTINUED).--THE THEORY OF ASSOCIATION.

THE second theory regarding methods for preventing and settling labor differences I have termed the Theory of Association, as it is usually through associations of individuals that its action becomes manifest.

This theory, while recognizing the existence and, within certain limits, the authority of what the advocates of competition or individual action regard as the only legitimate economical laws, denies that they are fixed and unalterable, and asserts both the right and obligation, under certain circumstances, of interference with these laws and their action. It also asserts the existence of other forces as legitimate and commanding as competition, and of agencies through which these forces, competition included, may not only be rightfully applied, but through which new industrial conditions may be created and existing ones removed or modified. At the same time it does not assert that all methods, nor all agencies, nor all instances of the use of these methods and agencies are wise or effective, nor do the advocates of this theory feel bound to adopt and defend all measures refusing to recognize the principle of laissez faire. Each must be considered and judged by itself.

As to the rightfulness of this theory of associated action, it may be said that in all other departments of human activity, in church and state, in efforts for moral and

social advancement, in benevolent and humanitarian work, this principle not only prevails, but experience proves that it secures the most efficient action and the best results. Even in the departments of activity to which the questions we are considering pertain, production and distribution, this is the ruling mode of action. Capital is associated and labor is associated in the production and distribution of goods, and as a result of this combined action, they are produced cheaper and distributed at a lower cost and more swiftly than they could be by the old methods of individual action. The invention of the steam-engine, and the resulting abandonment of the domestic system, and the prevalence of the factory system, as well as the adoption of other methods of associated action, have largely multiplied the efficiency of the individual, increased wealth, and improved the workingman's condition. I confess I see no reason why this principle, which is so universal in other directions, and so beneficial, should not be brought to the discussion and settlement of these questions that arise between employer and employed. So far as I am aware, competition or individual action has in no instance been imposed upon humanity by any competent authority, while it is beyond question that the only absolute and unerring authority recognized generally in the civilized world has imposed upon mankind the principle of associated action.

But whether the rightfulness of associated action be recognized or not, there is a necessity and obligation that should compel its adoption. The individual cannot ignore the fact that he is a part not only of society as a whole, but of one or more of the groups into which it is divided. He must not and can not in justice be permitted to refuse or even to neglect to consider what the effect of his action upon others associated with him in