the other end of the scale we see the unjust capitalist. Even he attacks private property in another way. For part of the essence of private property is that there should be some boundary line, some limit, some means of demarcation. It is, in fact, this limit or boundary line that serves to distinguish his own property from that which belongs to other persons. Hence, if this boundary line or landmark, be removed, it is extremely difficult to distinguish between what belongs to the supposed proprietor and what belongs to others; but, in regard to the enormous possessions of some capitalists, their size is so abnormal that it is hard to say what belongs to the capitalist and what really belongs to others.

Human Nature at Fault.

The question, therefore, arises as to the intrinsic reasons for these diverse attacks on private property, one of the oldest landmarks of society. One answer is to be found in a very common trait of human nature. When the child begins to study anything for the first time, he tries to find out "how the thing is made," and, in order to get at the secret, will even destroy a watch or a butterfly; and the adult often employs the same process in regard to the conparatively new sciences of sociology and economics-new we say, although Aristotle studied society in ancient times. But he took only the political point of view-that society is the State. It is only within the last sixty years that society has been considered merely as a society. At first there was the French school, headed by Auguste Comte, which asserted that society should be studied from the point of view of the individuals composing the same.

Study, said they, the individual man, the homo minor, and then you will know all about the homo major, the society itself. Examine the instincts, the aspirations of the individual man, observe the stimuli that awaken his desires and the or jects that satisfy those desires, and then you may apply the resultant data also to society. Certainly all this is partly true. But this school ignored the fact that, once society is formed, there is in existence a separate and distinct entity. Gustave le Bon, who has written a great deal about society, and, incidentally, about "the crowd" in general, has elaborated many theories, some of which are false and some true. He says that the crowd has certain reasonings of its own, that its intelligence is inferior to the intelligence of its most superior units, and that the will power of the individual member of the crowd is also somewhat weakened.

How the Crowd Acts.

To what he says we may add the wellknown fact that "the crowd" often acts and speaks in remarkable unison, clearly pointing to some instinct permeating the whole assembly. Thus, in the play of Julius Caesar, the words spoken by the crowd are identically the same, and yet no sense of improbabililty is thereby created in the minds of the audience; similar instances might be quoted from history. Auguste Comte rather ignored this social element of society, and contented himself with the contemplation of only a part of the object of the science.

Herbert Spencer, on the other hand, emphasized the social element, almost entirely ignoring the individual. According to this famous writer, society is

not only a social unit, but also a distinct animal organism, subject to the same laws that regulate the development of the other animals-that is to say, the laws of heredity, environment and the struggle for existence. In other words, his argument amounted to this, that, since society resembles an animal in some respects, it resembles an animal in all respects. Now it was this law of environment that was, perhaps, attended with the most grievous practical consequence for it infected not only sociology but also the science of economics. It induced the early classical writers on political economy to speak of what they called "the economic man," and to concentrate all their attention on those activities of man that are directly connected with mere material things.

The Higher Influences.

This is an opinion obviously false. For behind the hand that gives or receives the rent, behind the roar and clank of machinery, behind the rags and tatters of the laboring man, there is always the soul, the mind, of the whole man, that, like the harp of a thousand strings, is played upon by other and higher influences than those of mere money get ting. While, in the words of the poet, it is true to some extent that man "struts and frets" upon the stage of this mortal life, as though moved by fate, by the brute force of surrounding

material circumstances, it is also true that, at times, men are masters of their fate, and, if man is the underling of environment, the fault is not in the stars, but in himself.

This error, however, was not confined to the English writers. It spread also to Germany and was taken up by Marx

and Lassalle, and by them was injected into the whole Socialist body throughout the world. From them are received the famous pronouncement that the wellbeing of man depends on the food that he eats and the clothing that he wears. Here, therefore, again, we are face to face with the old fundamental error of taking the part for the whole, of fixing the attention on just a portion of the truth and forgetting the whole of which it forms a part.

Other Socialist Errors.

Precisely the same kind of error lies at the root of the other doctrines of the Socialists, and this brings us to the main. point of this article. The Socialists at

tack capital in general, rent in general, and even profits in general. Naturally, the church lifts up her warning voice, and upholds the sanctity of private property. Nevertheless, the problem is not as simple as it may appear. For the question is precisely this: What is private property? There is a real capital, which is the means of production, and there is a false capital, the result of unjust legislation and unlawful combinations. Are we to consider this false

capital as private property? The Socialists, however, confuse the real capital with the false, condemning both indiscriminately. Our business, therefore, capital is, and then to uphold and deshould be to point out where the real fend that capital. Then, again, there is a real rent and a false rent. The real rent results from the natural difference in value between various soils, whereas the false rent is the result of disregard for the rights of others, as when a certain duke in Scotland, owning a third of the whole of Scotland, wilfully devotes his

whole property to the purposes of the chase, thereby artificially raising the rent in other parts of the country. Similarly, there is a just and an unjust monopoly profit. For the monopolist may make his profit either by asking a very high price from a very few, inflicting untold misery on the many, or he may make his profit by demanding a moderate price from the many, thus inflicting no injury on himself and benefiting all.

The Rights of Property.

From all this we may deduce two consequences: First, that the Socialists, though their propositions as they stand are absolutely false, have at least blindly perceived that there are some things worthy of attack; secondly, that it is impossible for us to defend, practically and adequately, the rights of private property, without drawing many distinctions and making a very serious study of existing economic conditions.

The root of the whole difficulty lies in the fact that the speculative, the theoretic, development of the country has not kept pace with its concrete and material development. By the speculative development is meant the power of generalizing from statistics, of constructing some general theory, that may serve as a guide in many cases. We hear, indeed, on all sides of us, the roar and rumbling of machinery, the multiplication of mills and factories, an everconstant rise of new discoveries and inventions, but the power of analyzing is strangely wanting. It is a significant fact that, here in America, there has not been one single founder of a school of economic thought, not one who has suc

ceeded in broaching some new original economic theory. Henry Carey is, perhaps, an exception, but even his name is quoted only in order to be refuted; and, as for Henry George, he borrowed his theory from the French Physiocrats. If we also examine the general trend of legislatures, we find that almost every piece of legislation has been enacted in response to some concrete stimulus of the moment. Take, for example, the conservation of natural resources. was only when the wasteful methods of farming and cutting down of forests began to become an element in the rise of

It

prices, that legislation was passed with a view to mitigating the evil. And the same may be said with reference to the currency, the export trade, a merchant marine, and other similar questions. It has always been a case of feeling one's way step by step-of finding out by a succession of steps that something must be tinkered up; but no light has arisen, such as we find in the history of English, and even German, legislation.

One Reason for Unrest.

This is one reason why there is such turbulent unrest all over the country, especially at the present moment. We have, for the time being, lost our way in the forest. The message of President Taft recommends, it is true, the State regulation of monopolies, but, so far, this is an idle platitude. For how is this legislation to be effected? It would be necessary to examine the actual conditions of each and every industrial plant, to ascertain the cost of the raw material, the amount of wages, the extent of the demand; even so, conditions are so varying that a revision would have to be held every year. The

only way out of the difficulty is to draw from the maze of statistics some general formula and enunciate some economic theory that may be a permanent guide to legislation; but the speculative development at present is not equal to the task. Even if some theory of the kind were proposed, it is extremely doubtful if it would be appreciated by the great mass of people who, after all, are supposed to pronounce the ultimate dictum.

Socialist's Theory False.

Now the Socialists, at at least, have a real theory of their own, false though that theory may be, and it is highly probable that this circumstance largely accounts for the headway that the Socialists have succeeded in making. To demolish their theory is, indeed, an easy task, for their platitudes are almost sufficient in themselves to accomplish this. The ordinary school-boy ought to be able to see the falsity of the assertion that "labor is the only source of value." A diamond, for example, has a value quite independent of the labor expended in getting it. And the other theories of the Socialists can be refuted, almost out of the catechism. The real difficulty consists in formulating the constructive theory that is to take their place, but, until we do this, it will be hard to cut into the ranks of the Socialists; certainly extremely difficult to cope with the present inequalities and fallacies.

At present, the only remedy for the situation seems to be that of a better sys

tem of education, paying more attention to the abstract and theoretical side of the curriculum of studies. Hitherto, it has been the boast of some great educational institutions that they are the pioneers of material progress, discovering new methods of transportation and manufacture.

A Theory Needed.

Let us express the hope that, some day, one of our institutions may propound some economic theory, of a fundamental and embracing nature, that will be able to accomplish the results indicated. This, indeed, will be the most effectual way of crushing Socialism. And we would accomplish far more by showing exactly how far the Socialists are wrong and why they are wrong, and then advancing some positive theory of our own, than by dwelling on the obvious mistakes that they have made. Truth is met, not only by negation, but also by the assertion of what is, actually and positively, the truth.

One thing is certain. The old landmarks will remain, whatever happens. The physical violation of right and the assault of an inferior on a superior person only have the effect of causing the invisible right and the intrinsic excellence to flash forth with extraordinary brilliancy. To quote the words of Pope Pius IX; "We can do nothing against the truth, but we can do a great deal for it.".