they were slipped in with the law of change of function. Dr. Charles S. Minot did not come nearer to an explanation of the jaw which functions. in speech, than the gills of the fishes. Certainly man's reason and speech need a better accounting for than the gap between the fishes' gills and the human jaw.

Building without Foundation.

There should be no wonder, since the Ten Commandments have been so long out of commission as the revelation of God to man, that the young men of the Harvard Socialist Club find within themselves the impulse to build a new foundation for human society. And since all God-given props are knocked from under them by their professors, what more authoritative guide than their own intuitions have these men to follow? Rightthinking is of primal necessity to the understanding of the problems which press hard upon modern life, but, since Science is the mere hand-maiden of Reli

gion, and since Religion at Harvard is stripped of her authority, Science, having no proper business of her own, must needs play the intellectual mischief with right-relation between man and man. Ideally, we are given the consensus of human opinion as the foundation of human rights, while in practice, the minority are left without rights, for the power of their defeated vote nobody is bound to respect.

The psychological atmosphere at Harvard permits sensibility to usurp the seat of reason, for the habit of "FreeThought" naturally degenerates into a state of mental anarchy which precludes the power of logical thinking. Having thus lost the four-cornered foundation

of the earth, namely the individual, the family, the state, and the race-there is left at Harvard no better security for the maintenance of the monogamic family than those instincts of exclusiveness which are presumed to be merely an inheritance from the centuries of practice of monogamy. Having, by experience, found the monogamic family, the basic family to best serve the needs of civilized life, that is the sole reason why it should be maintained and the sole guarantee that it shall persist.

Religion and Science.

It had, seemingly, not occurred to Mr. Henderson to examine the claims of the monogamic famliy as forming an integral part of the natural constitution of the human race. The science of society, which would, of course, show its basic structure, must logically lead to a recognition of the Original Design of the race itself to God's order. But this is tabooed ground at Harvard, for there psychology is without a soul. Besides, the data of the evolutionary progress of the race has so overshadowed the race itself that such a strictly scientific course would be a serious affront to the arrogance of those specious theories which begin nowhere and end in the same place.

Neither from the merely empirical standpoint did the president of the Harvard Socialist Club seem to take cognition of the fact that the experience of the race rests upon historical authority, not upon personal observation. Surely, using the criterion of individual judgment, one must be allowed to accept or to reject the decisions that monogamy has best served the race. Moreover, it is

certain that the Socialist leaders of the world have set down their decisions that monogamy has been of incalculable degradation to woman; that woman was brought into sex servitude as a means of establishing the regime of private property; and that woman's "freedom" shall be established together with the "ultimate object" for which the Harvard Socialist Club strives, namely, the uprooting of Christian civilization.

The Materialist Basis.

Perhaps the most significant was the final topic of that long afternoon's conversation. The president of the Harvard Socialist Club maintained that the materialist conception of history or by whatever phrase the subject matter of the materialistic cult may be designated -could not be assigned as the basis of Socialism, since from this principle doctrines strictly at variance with Socialism are as readily deducible. Mr. Henderson named Professor Carver as an example of the fact that Individualism as logically as Socialism may be deduced from the materialist basis of society, in controverting the point I had made that materialist monism-an utter denial of God-was speaking generally, the basis accepted by the entire Socialist school.

Of course, there was no issue between us on that score. Moreover, it might be readily conceded that the Harvard professor had gone the Marxists one better, in that he had narrowed the ground to a

pivotal point, by making "economic scarcity" the way to economic determinism.

There seemed to be a very comfortbetween the "enemies who were friends." able moment of intellectual agreement

Yet, in an instant, the president of the

Harvard Socialist Club became aware that the agreement was upon secondary, not upon primary ground.

Finding Solid Ground.

If then, two opposing doctrines are equally deducible from a given premise, should it not suggest something wrong in the premises? From a false premise, one may logically extend out in any direction; yet, stop where he may, his conclusion shall be no better than his premise-namely, false. Why not first establish by logic the solid ground of reason -God, myself and all things else—and build upon that-ever insisting upon maintaining action at the elevated centre, keeping the golden mean, and thereby avoiding all extremes? This was the basis which supported the system of thought developed by Aristotle; and it was accepted as the natural foundation upon which was ingrafted our Christian civilization. If our day and generation shall with integrity maintain the foundations upon which our society is established, we may build up a Christian democracy which shall astonish the world.

There was no reply.

T

HERE is no need, no excuse for Socialism. But there is sore need of social reform."

That is a splendidly-sane motto that THE COMMON CAUSE has selected. If there be any excuse, any need for Socialism, it lies in the need of social reform. That is one reason why Socialism exerts so great an appeal in this country-for there are truths in Socialism. I have myself lectured and written Socialism, and I have studied the undertones of the movement. What I have to say, there

There are many pseudo-thinkers in this country who have delved just deeply enough to lose their balance. They cannot foresee the slow but sure political evolution that demands only time for its fulfillment, they become filled with the fervor of fine words and flowing phrases, and their visual acuity becomes rapidly blunted. They see all things from the standpoint of graft and terrorism, and their fine discrimination is lost. Socialism appeals to them because it offers free play to their imaginations.

and not from theoretical knowledge.

Two Delusive Fictions.

One of the favorite fictions of the predatory rich is the "impassioned mob." One of the fixed delusions of the impassioned mob is the "predatory rich." Neither really exists. American Socialists are of three classes. First is the class of students and thinkers who see no political hope save in revolution; second is the class of workers and young men; third is the class of agitators. Let us see why Socialism appeals to these three classes, all of whom may be sincere enough.

place in a practical world; so they turn to a visionary state and it becomes real to them. Idealists are not necessarily Socialists; but Socialists are very necessarily idealists.

The Strength of Socialism.

The great strength of Socialism lies, of course, among the workers. These are as a rule ill-educated men and women who see before them the omnipresent "Iron Law of Wages" as a potent terror. They fail to understand the spirituality of religion, and so of necessity become materialists. They do not comprehend the truth that intelligent destruction in

That is exactly the strength of the Socialist movement. It takes the place of religion with the majority of its followers. A non-spiritual religion is what they can understand and dream over. The man who pours molten steel all day is in no frame of mind to bother about doctrinal differences in the evening; he cares nothing about them and would not understand them if he could. But when he finds a religion intimately associated with the steel he pours-a religion of the Jacquerie-he seizes on it, fights for it, dies for it right gladly.

The Appeal to Youth.

The movement appeals to the young men strongly, also for much the same reason. He does not like to realize that there is room at the top for the man fit to occupy that room; sophism strikes the mind of youth today as it did in the days of Socrates. He is a splendid barbarian, and revolutionary ideals strike fire from his soul. He cannot acquire the poise to reason sanely, for he has not the experience of the world and the men about him. Look at the "Socialist Clubs" in our colleges! They contain splendid men-men whom one is proud to have known-but these same men a few years later have very different ideals. The working man retains Socialism because.

he can hope for no better ideals than it offers; the man of education grows out of Socialism as he perceives its intolerance and other limitations. He finds that his cherished freedom shackled him with hidden chains, and it galls him until he casts it off. And that leads us to the chain-bearers of the third class.

The Socialist agitator is a splendid enthusiast, a knight of the soap-box who in theory un-boxes all his opponents in the lists. It is an undeniable fact that in the past he has conquered, but only because his opponents have argued from an intolerance and ignorance of the subject that renders them easy prey. It remains to be seen what THE COMMON CAUSE will effect with strong men who know their subject as the Socialists know theirs. It is a rather curious fact that every Socialist audience delights in having its speaker "stumped;" there seems to be a lingering under-current in every such crowd that rejoices when a man can answer back with sufficient intelligence to give the agitator pause.

Through the Red Haze.

Often this agitator is a paid worker of the party; more often he is a volunteer speaking from his own enthusiasm. He sees all things through the haze of the red. flag; whether he be a speaker, a writer, or an editor this crimson haze colors all that he does and says and thinks. If a religious movement puts out questions mentioning Socialism, he shouts forth that the steel trust is behind the movement. If a striker is shot, he cries that the "interests" control the army and that the government is going to the dogs.

His greatest plea is for a "free press.' But is the Socialist press free? Years

ago I helped found a Socialist paper, and was offered the editorship. I accepted on condition that I could run all the news all the time, uncolored by the crimson haze; that I could make a paper unbiased and unchained, ready to support a worthy Roman Catholic appeal or kill an unworthy Anarchist appeal. The condition was refused. No Roman Catholic appeal could be "worthy;" no Anarchist appeal could be "unworthy." There was a crying need for just such a paper as I proposed, and its Socialist owners would have prospered mightily; but the usual narrow-minded and intolerant sheet was the only result. This is but an instance. The Socialist press is not broad-minded enough to be free. Look at the Chicago Daily Socialist. Look at The Appeal to Reason, or any of the others. A tolerant Socialist ceases to be a Socialist.

Socialism has undeniably sound theories. Its weak point is that it tries to force these theories on the world before

their time. Many admit that government ownership would be good thing, but more deny that Socialist Ownership would be a good thing. Our need is not in political reform so much as in social reform. We ought not bar an immigrant from the country because he is a Socialist; but perhaps we ought to bar a Socialist from the country because he is an immigrant. Give our immigrants three acres of land each and they would not become Socialists.

The immigrant drifts to the city where his old friends are. He could work wonders with land that American farmers will not touch, but he has no chance. He becomes a miner, a shop or millworker, and he learns the meaning of the term "wage-slave." He gets what he is worth-and it is not much! But, let him be given an acre or two of landlet him be self-supporting instead of a dependent, let him own an inch of ground and live on it—and there will be no more red flags in our streets.