The Press., 1890-12-11


 surply and demand. This power may not exists and that it may be used, for time at least, by both employer and employed,
 to control the supply and demand for goods and labor, cannot be denied.
 But suppose we grant to the theory of competition all that is claimed for it, there. is still large class of questions which,
 from their very nature, competition iS
 powerless to determine. Among these are questions concerning the agreements en-
 tered into between employer and employ ed. Could this theory settle the meaning
 of disputed terms in @ contract, or could it
 establish what the custom of . particular
 trade is, and concerning which there may
 be an honest difference of opinion between
 employer and employed? Competition
 certainly could settle no such contentious,
 and it's inability to do so shove the ina.
 dequacy of the theory as general means
 for the prevention and settlement of labor
 differences.
 There are, however, those who assert
 that the principle of competitionis is an etern.
 al and unchangeable one, and these may
 ask if it IS wise to impede or in any way
 hinder the action of such force. In an-
 swer to this it may fairly be questioned if
 there are any eternal and immutable eco-
 homie laws. Are there any economic laws which are entitled to impose upon society
 or the individual any such obligation as is
 assumed to exist in competition? In dis
 cussing the principles of industrial legisla-
 ton the late Prof. Jevons says 'sthe first
 step must be to rid our minds of the idea
 that there are any such things in social
 matters as abstract rights, absolute princi-
 pies, indefeasible laws, unalterable rules,
 or anything whatever of an eternal and in-
 flexible nature." This is equally true of
 all discussions of the labor problem.
 There are no economic laws that are etern-
 al and lmmutable. The so. called laws are
 only an expression of that trend of affairs
 or of that course of human cAnduct which
 observation has disclosed.
 l On the whole, I do not believe that the
 theory of unrestricted competition is an
 encouraging one, or that the action of this
 law on the production and distribution of
 wealth IS conducive to the highest good.
 It teaches that man is to be governed by
 one supreme motive, the desire to acquire
 aud retain wealth. The logical result of
 the theory of competition is that goods
 may be sold at prices which mean loss and perhaps ruin to the manufacturer, and that
 wages may be paid which mean distress to
 the laborer. It cannot be shown by reas- oning or experience that such 8 result con-
 duces to the public good. Moreover the necessary results of the theory of competi- tion are strikes and lock k-outs; for compe-
 tition assumes that when wages are too low in given employment the employe will
 abandon it for other employment that is
 g strike; when wages are too high the em-
 ployer will cease production or employ
 those who will accept the wages which he
 believes he can pay; that is 8 lock-ou If then the theory of competition is sound
 these strikes, these lock-outs are not only : justifiable but are commendable, and must
 from necessity follow.
 We have now considered more or less : thoroughly those phases of our problem
 which reveal it's character and dimensions i; l, 1t remains to examine the various solutions
 that have been from time to time pro-
 pounded, and if possible to suggest bet , ter solution.
 : If the question were asked, what is to
 be the ultimate solution of the labor ques. , ton, the answer would come from one : class of speculators, sso matter from an other, GW aOiU become employers; from still another, the state. The first is An. archism, the second Communism, the third 1, Socialism. The most serious and import. ant of these three schemes is Socialism, the least feasible are Anarchism and Com. ) munism. Anarchism is on it's face crude and wild theory, but on one side it has al. ready worked out plausible and interest : ing science. The Anarchists base theii t doctrines upon the teachings of certain ? English philosophers. notably the teach 3 ings of Herbert Spencer. The philosophica - Anarchists discern in the progress of his f tory great cycle of which simple village + life is the beginning, our present society 8 is the middle stage, and the last stage vii - be simple communistic village life again t There is @ certain beauty in this theory q but from a practical point of view it give : no encouragement. Would it be well il !, any event that there should be return {, :, primitive society? The sharpest criticism r upon this scheme comes from the Social t Anarchism proposes would reunite again s as do the lowest forms of biological life ;, no matter how subdivided. The theor, r. not only is unwise, says Bax, but impossi ], ble, unless all authority were in @ momen of time universally wiped out. Besides how could it be accomplished It coult IS only be done by the ''strong man," an,
 the employed and the employer woul, J. simply change places in such revolution @ Moreover the adopted methods of Anarch s ism are too sanguinary and barbaric for 1t civilized age. Its agencies are violence l. blood-shed, despoilation, the conceale, it weapons to-day of the dynamiters and Nj ). hilists of the old world. Anarchism woul ,e not discriminate between the good an, l. the bad in the existing forms of govern ,f ment, but would subvert and wipe out tn B. entire present structure of society, root
 branch and fruit. The strongest argu ?, ment needed against Anarchism is a state I ment of its methods and avowed aims. B. In examining the theory of Communism B. we find that in 8 certain sense it touche le upon Anarchism. Anarchism would d n away with employers, while Communist 1t says there shall be no employers Con d munism proposes that society living tc 8, gether shall share all the wealth that tn g. society may produce. A number of fam s. lies would, according to this scheme, iiv 'h together on the same terms as the indiviG o. ual members of single family now live B. There are, according to MT. Charle of Woodruff, over eighty communistic socit er ties in America to-day, which own proper n. ty worth $l2,OOO, ,0OO. But an examins te tion into history of the communist of schemes must convince that communist le could never be generally applied, since fourishes only under special condition 0. In the first place, the communal societie pr of America are composed of hard workin ly people with very little inclination towar s,,k~ ,,ol IL N -r.s