all. And what is his definition of labour? This is all-important. For instance, does he use the term "labour" in the sense used by a trade-unionist? Or does he include in the category of labour "brain workers," as those who do perform actual manual labour sometimes designate those who belong to the professions.

Though Mr. Schwab cannot lay down general rules for the labour question, he tells us that, " any organization, labour or capital, that is on a false basis, must fail." What might he not do for the safety of the commonwealth if he were to state clearly and distinctly what he means by a "false basis." He certainly suggests that capital has to a great extent been organized on a false basis. He reminds us that, "we started, some twenty years ago, on a series of exploitations that many people called trusts, and there were many such concerns organized that had as their prime motive the artificial idea of either restricting production or increasing the selling price. This statement leads one to imagine that he is conscious of the nature of the false basis on which such concerns were organized. Twenty years ago takes us back to Mr. McKinley and high protection, when exploitation was rampant. But Mr. Schwab says that we have seen these organizations, one after the other, fall and fade away." This is exceedingly interesting. The face value of the statement is not nearly so precious as the confession which is implied. But what follows is not anything like so clear as the other points in the speech. Mr. Schwab says, "What has been true of capital will be equally true of labour, and therefore the American labouring man must realize that his permanency and success, and the success of the na

́tion, will depend upon labour conditions and capital conditions that are founded on economic principles first of all."

What is the relationship of the American labouring man to the organization of capital, called trusts? What connects them up in Mr. Schwab's mind is obscure, unless we are to infer that there is danger in labour organizing on a false basis. The basis then would be utterly dissimilar to that of the trusts. Certainly exploitation could not very well be used by labour against capital. Perhaps Mr. Schwab may mean that the power to strike gives to labour a power to exploit capital by forcing higher nominal wage and shorter hours from capital. But this is only another way of saying labour desires to pay capital less interest for its use, a perfectly legitimate desire, but one that in practice has seldom brought any benefit to labour. The confusion here ought to be clarified, and few men are in a position so advantageous as Mr. Schwab for applying a keen business. instinct and a vast industrial experience to dispersing the deplorable economic fog which has settled on questions of this kind. He should, however, be taken at his word when he says, the success of the nation will depend upon labour conditions and capital conditions that are founded on economic principles first of all." No one wants a better platform than this.

Economic principles first of all are essential if we are to make any attempt at reform; they are indispensable if we are to insure the future of the commonwealth. This then means free discussion of all the problems which have beset us for a generation or more. Yes, we must teach and educate the American labourer, but who will teach and edu

cate our capitalists and politicians? Who is likely to command more respect than Mr. Schwab himself? What is required is a man of his commercial experience, his inclination to master the fundamentals of political economy, a man of his resolution, his sagacity, and his courage. Will he take up the task? Will he give labour and capital a lead? To those who are sure to say, why not seek a leader among the tried and respected politicians, the reply is that the undertaking must be kept free from partyprejudice. Besides, who is there in the vortex of party politics that has so freely stated ideas of reform, and who seems to have as clear an understanding of what is wrong? Who talks of "true democracy" and "economic principles economic principles " first of all? Who desires "the American labourer to know and feel that he can stand with his head in the air, as you can and as I can, and say with pride, I am an American citizen "?

CHAPTER II

THE OLD FREEDOM: THE LAND-FREE MAN

We

"We have got to cheer and inspirit our people with the sure prospects of social justice and due reward, with the vision of the open gates of opportunity for all. have got to set the energy and the initiative of this great people absolutely free, so that the future of America will be greater than the past, so that the pride of America will grow with achievement, so that America will know as she advances from generation to generation that each brood of her sons is greater and more enlightened than that which preceded it, know that she is fulfiling the promise that she has made to mankind." WOODROW WILSON, The New Freedom, Chap. XII, p. 292.

How far are we prepared to go? Who can tell? So long as so many of us remain in the dark and fear the light this question is difficult to answer. Anyway we may assume that education will undoubtedly make for higher and broader vision. It is futile to expect millenniums for those who have been satisfied so long with the present condition of affairs. But an educated people may not only bring about economic miracles, they may, after the reform of material conditions, desire the best the arts can give to ennoble and restore again the spiritual excellence of the race. But we hear the admonition of the cautious man who cries "make haste slowly." We know the fear the cautious man has gnawing in his

mind. Inured so long in a world which is not so bad a world after all, for the few, he is loath to change because he is conscious that many changes which have been called reforms have made conditions worse. There are numbers of well-intentioned men who feel deeply the economic injustice they see round and about them, men who feel the necessity for reform, but who are haunted with the idea that change might easily make conditions worse; consequently they grieve for what is, and do nothing. A great English statesman once pointed out that this might be the reason for so much indiscreet charity. But charity will not satisfy the demands which are made today.

How far are we prepared to go? Well, there is a demand for a true democracy founded on economic principles first of all. Who wants to go further than that? Let us have such a democracy and leave the millennium to look after itself. No new ideas are necessary for the bringing about of such a state. There have been true democracies. The tradition of the United States goes back to the truest democracy recorded in history. We have the records of it at our hands, and there is no reason why any man should remain in ignorance. Let us take a glance at its fundamentals. The story of the English democracy upon which this of the United States was largely based can be read in small compass in John Richard Green's A Short History of the English People, and also in Edward Freeman's The Growth of the English Constitution. Let it, however, suffice for our present purpose to give a short description of the principles which the English took with them when they invaded Britain.

"The basis of their society was the free man,