The daily morning journal and courier., 1900-03-21

private official not thus controlled is held by the fear of doing himself harm if he manages i'll, and the hope of doing i himself good if he manages well. To compare the respective merits of the
 three systems, we are largely reduced to the work of comparing the relative merits of these three methods of re- sponsibility.
 In general, the resort to the police is the least satisfactory of the three, and for this reason: that it is essentially re-
 preSsive. It can prevent infractions Of
 the law, but it cannot be made to se- cure spontaneity of action outside of the limits of the law. In examining the results of different methods of govern
 ment action we find that in France, where this system of legislative control has been most fully carried out, the re- suits have been less good, on the whole,
 than under state ownership in Ger many or private enterprise in America
 and England. It has also the further weakness that the legislature, as at present. constituted, is elected for pur- poses other than the control of indus trial enterprise, and that this combna- tion of functions affords manifold Op- portunitieS for misunderstanding and corruption. Control of officials by the ballot has the disadvantage that the re- sponsibility is remote. Elections occur at such infrequent intervals that there is an opportunity for the perpetuation of many serious abuses before they can be checked. It is also true, when par ties have been frequently changed, that it is, difficult to fix on the officials of one party rather than another the re- sponsibility for any particular state of industrial affairs. Finally, even in the best managed government, there is danger that there will be a good deal of politics in the selection of administra- tive officials.
 The danger of uncontrolled private enterprise is that self-interest may not always operate in such way as to make people pursue the public interest as well as their own. This is especially the case when industrial forms and legal forms are in process of transition, and where neither the public sentiment nor the general law of the community has had time fully to take account of possible abuses incident to the change. A large part of the difficulty about trusts, for instance, at the present day, lies in the fact that we are trying to carry into an age of combination the morals and the law developed in time of free competition. We leave the pro- ducer free to make what prices he likes, because we assume that a failure to do so will evoke a competitor. In some cases this process iS SC slow that some or all of the consumers are ire trievably injured before the cure has time to work itself out.
 On the whole. it is impossible to say broadly that either one of these two systems is everywhere better than the other. Their applicability depends part ly on the character of the people and partly on the character of the industry in question. Often it will take a long series of experiments to determine which is on the whole superior Where the arguments appear to be evenly bal anced there Is one point which will generally turn the scale in favor of private enterprise; and that is, the higher educational character of a Sys- tenn which leaves people free to make their own mistakes and find their own correctives, as against system which, producing more widespread confor- mity from the beginning, may avoid abuses at first but hinder progress in the long run.