number equipped to take a larger part in shaping our destiny. On the contrary, it is for the benefit of all. For the truth of this we have but to turn to the backward countries of China and Russia, where the per capita wealth and number of very wealthy is infinitesimal, compared with our own land, just because the masses of their people are ignorant, and too poorly equipped to take a more vigorous part in the life of the nation.

Scripture tells us that bricks cannot be made without straw, and a virile, progressive commercial nation cannot be, without an intelligent, industrious, consuming people. And a progressive nation is not soundly organized when the control of affairs is confined to too few hands. Whereas we pride ourselves on our democracy of government, we must admit that we live under a rather pronounced monarchy of industry. A monarchy rather more than a plutocracy, for the lot of the workingman is not essentially different with a small employer of limited means than with a larger operator of wealth. The workingman is just as much controlled in the one case as in the other, and has just as little voice in the management of his own affairs in either case. It is the fundamental principle in the field of labor that is wrong. In commerce we practice an oligarchy just as much as Russia has practised it heretofore politically. We must establish a democracy of industry as well as a democracy of government. We frequently hear in this country that the voice of the people in affairs of state is seldom wrong, and that public decisions are just decisions. This is because the public have been educated to exercise their rights intelligently through suffrage in an expression of their views. When laboring men have had the opportunity to train their judgment concerning their industrial welfare, as they have in respect to their political welfare, their judgment will be as good in the one case as in the other. But this necessitates that labor be given the opportunity so to express themselves relative to their commercial welfare. In short, industrially as well as politically, we must operate by the consent of the governed.

Industry is built up on the basis of protection to the employer as the custodian of property, and on the theory that labor is a commodity. The latter conception is wholly wrong -the former is only partially sound. Employers and property should of course be protected. Without such protection society

could not endure. This applies to men of small means as well as to those of large wealth. But the time has come when we must change our conception of labor. As a stockholder the employee should be a co-custodian of property, with the employer. When times are dull an employer does not neglect his machinery or his plant. Why should he neglect his employees? Why should it be possible for him to neglect his employees? Are industries for employers alone? Why should the employer determine the fate of the employees without ever consulting them? Why should the employees not have a share in deciding matters which concern them quite as much as they concern the employer? The body of wage earners is vastly greater than the body of industrial managers and proprietors. Why should we after 140 years of democratic government politically, maintain such an oligarchy industrially? Commerce engages and dismisses labor on the same principle by which it supplies itself with any commodity. If a rubber manufacturer requires less rubber than usual the rubber can be stored without suffering any injury. But one cannot store away men and women, and lay them on the shelf like merchandise, to be taken down again at some future time when needed. Working men and women are living souls with human necessities and rights. They are just as hungry in dull times as in times of activity. Most working people never earn enough to make provision in times of employment against periods of unemployment. It has been shown that even with the present high wages most working people are not so well off as they were in 1914, because of the higher cost of living.

But all these questions are too involved a science for the average working men to contend with successfully and we who might solve them do not. We concern ourselves not at all. When it suits our convenience we discharge our employees with no concern about their welfare. In times of general unemployment this visits upon the employee body consequences disastrous and dire. Does it take a sage or a seer to understand that the continuance of such a condition will lead to chronic discontent, with unhappy results to all? Are we not inviting here the conditions which we see prevailing in Russia? We are perfectly aware that Germany has in operation in the United States a far-reaching system of propaganda, calculated

to foster discontent in order to keep us so occupied at home that we will not be able to contend with them in the commercial fields of the world. Shall we permit Germany to gain this victory over us after she has lost the war? Are we so insensible to the principles of justice that we shall not right this thing of our own accord without having to be prompted by fear of retribution?

When times are dull an employer does not neglect his machinery or his plant. He guards and preserves them just as much as in times of plenty. Neither should it be possible for any industry to abandon and neglect its body of employees during a time when their services are not so pressingly needed. During times of plenty it should be the custom to set aside a fund to make provision for the welfare of those identified with the industry when employment is slack. This would not be so expensive in the long run as the present method, for it would avoid the costly process, which every manufacturer knows is one of the great costs of manufacturing, of breaking in new operatives when the demand for labor again increases. It would enable the manufacturer to reach a maximum production of perfect output in the minimum of time, by having available expert operatives; a gain which alone would materially offset. the cost of the insurance fund previously provided, of sufficient amount to furnish a reduced compensation, but one sufficient for the men to maintain themselves, over the slack season. This would of itself greatly curtail poverty which is so prevalent at such times.

When an investment is made in an enterprise, preferred stock represents the cash amount paid in and common stock represents the future hopes of the investors. Why should this feature of profit-sharing be confined to those who make the moneyed investment and denied to those who are every bit as essential to the success, but who are never permitted according to the present distribution of earnings, to accumulate sufficient to make a contribution of funds. The money and management of the investors is no more essential than the labor of the employees. There is a difference in degree, but not in fact. In addition to the standard wage which an employee receives, why should he not get a common stock interest also, to represent the future hopes and prosperity of the company to which the char

acter of his labor constitutes a material contribution, for the duration of the operative's connection with the company? His wages may be considered in the light of a dividend on his labor, which is the only thing he possesses to contribute, in the same sense that the moneyed investor receives a preferred dividend for the contribution he makes to the company in the form of money put in. After the preferred dividends are met, the proceeds should be shared fairly by all those who contribute to the progress of the company. In my judgment it is a mistake to suppose that this would be detrimental to any company. My experience is that the character of the work obtained from anyone is in direct proportion to the incentive inspired in him to do his best. The prosperity of the South began when slavery was abolished, and a new era of prosperity will be ushered in when every employee feels that he is being fairly treated, that his tenure of occupation is as secure as it can be reasonably made, and when an incentive to do his best. actuates him in his work.

But we violently oppose the idea of giving employees any voice generally in determining their own working conditions. We fail to safeguard their health, then obstruct the enactment of child labor and workingmen's compensation acts. Since the Whitley report in England on joint industrial conferences and the governmental action based upon it, labor is enjoying a share in its own industrial government. By this plan every particular business has its own managing committee chosen from the workers and the employers. These then elect representatives to the general committee representing the whole industry, and that group in turn elects its representatives to Parliament. Legislation similar to this is what we need.

Mr. Rockefeller in his " Brotherhood of Men and Nations describes how when industry was small, employees and employers came in close contact and a state of brotherhood existed between them. But now in the vast realm of modern commerce corporations are composed of stockholders widely scattered, so that personal contact and acquaintance between employer and employed is in a large measure quite impossible. Strangeness engenders suspicion, which too frequently is forming a chasm of misunderstanding between those involved. "Instead of brotherhood there has developed distrust, bitter

mon.

"The conclusion is drawn

ness, the strike and the lockout." that labor and capital are enemies and their interests antagonistic; that each must arm itself to wrest from the other its share of the product of their common toil . . . This conclusion is false. Labor and capital are partners with interests in comNeither can get on without the other. . . . Contact between the two sides must be re-established by the election by the workers of committees to represent them in dealing with the owners. . . . The principle of this representation, including adequate machinery for the early uncovering and adjustment of grievances, was adopted three years ago by the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, one of the largest industrial corporations in Colorado. It has since then been put in operation by the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey in all its plants in various States. Likewise by the Consolidated Coal Company, one of the leading coal-mining companies, and the National War Labor Board and the Fuel Administrator have been urging the adoption of this principle in industry." If we make men free industrially as well as politically, they will be free spiritually. There will then be less incentive for domestic strife. The principles of co-operation and co-partnership between “ capital and labor" must supplant the theory of "capital versus labor" if we are to meet the issue successfully. Harmony between labor and capital can be promoted and justice advanced only by common fairness to all.

An employee leaving employment either voluntarily or involuntarily should receive just compensation for the stock held in his or her name. This will act as a deterrent to promiscuous dismissal. It will stabilize employment. It will make men more independent of the vicissitudes incident to every business. They will have some protection against the whims of foremen and superintendents, and especially new foremen and superintendents, with whom friction is so liable

to occur.

It is time to realize that a contented employee, free from worry and the practice of injustice, is a better employee. He is a better producing employee, therefore a more profitable employee, and a more ambitious employee, all of which is good for all concerned. The men in high position in commerce, in the counting house, in statesmanship-in every field