does not tend to the settlement of questions so that they will stay settled. Mankind learns daily, and in the end the truth will prevail.

I have not included, in the discussion, any opinions as to the acts of other nations in case of our adoption of free coinage. Some insist that other nations will be forced to follow our example in remonetizing silver; others insist as strongly that our fiscal affairs will be permanently separated from other commercial nations. As a matter of fact, neither party knows what would happen. All nations will be guided by the opinion of the ruling majority for the time being as to their interests. These opinions are liable to change with the march of events. Of course, should other nations remonetize silver, its value would tend to rise, and prices to correspondingly fall.

From all the foregoing, with a study of the tables which appear in the appendix, and of such official documents and standard works upon economics as are available, the reader must form his own judgment. In so doing one of the first things to do is to form an opinion as to the facts in which the two arguments do not agree. Especially, does the variation of prices which has occurred indicate appreciation of money or reduction of costs? If both, what is the relative influence of each? An intelligent, independent opinion on this point involves a careful study of conditions surrounding the student, and a patient study of detailed data collected by economists. The matter can not be further elucidated here. It would require a volume. A definite opinion. A definite opinion on this point should be conclusive as to the equities of the case.

It is, however, necessary to caution the student against placing much reliance on the deliverances of the political press, or controversial pamphlets or books. Least of all should we be influenced by the utterances of political orators. The first object of a political paper or speaker is to uphold its party and elect its candidates. Economic discussion at such times is always superficial. Things which make for the support of the view which is favored are magnified; those which make for opposing views are belittled or suppressed.

The object is not to find truth, but to get votes. The writers or speakers may be, and probably usually are, perfectly honest in their views. It is easy to get strong convictions by the exclusive study of one side. The way to find truth is to impartially study all sides, shirking no facts which may be disagreeable. The caution here given applies to all parties, and, I am sorry to say, on this particular subject, to nearly all literature.

T

CHAPTER V.

THE FARMER AND THE LABOR QUESTION.

HE farmer does not sell his labor, but the products thereof. He is largely an employer of labor, hoping by the sale of the product thus obtained to make a profit. The "laborer"-especially the skilled laborer-sells his labor direct to capitalists, who hope to sell the resulting product at a profit. With the money obtained from the capitalist from the sale of his labor, the laborer buys produce from the farmer. Economically, therefore, the relation of the farmer to the laborer is that of either a buyer of labor or a seller of produce. It is to the farmer's interest to have labor cheap and produce dear. It is to the interest of the laborer that produce shall be cheap and labor dear. Nothing can change these conditions so long as men are deemed entitled to the products of their own labor and land, and permitted to buy and sell as they may agree with each other.

It does not follow that this economic antagonism should produce enmity. All classes are in economic antagonism. with all other classes, and must remain so while men compete with each other, and yet upon the whole they get on together, because at the bottom they have an identical interest in the fact that each has a surplus of what some other lacks. Their mutual necessity to trade together is the bond which unites all classes, and should prevent economic differences from culminating in mutual hate. As between individuals brought into personal contact, hostility does not ordinarily result from trading. Occasionally it does, but friendship results quite as often. As between classes whose members do not mingle freely with those of other classes there is more danger. If one class, upon the average, is prosperous, and the other, upon the whole, unfortunate, enmity is quite certain to result. In this lies the danger to modern society, to be escaped only

by mutual forbearance, and mediation or repression by the consolidated social force.

Between the farmers and the laboring classes there is a certain bond of union in the fact that both conceive themselves to be suffering from the oppression of consolidated wealth. The most discontented farmers and the most discontented laborers are at times quite inclined to unite for political action. This tendency is promoted by the fact that between. the farmers and the workingmen there is a buffer class of tradesmen, which impartially receives the kicks which the two classes would bestow upon each other if they dealt directly. At the same time farmers belong logically with capitalists and employers (or exploiters), and as attached to the private ownership of land, must oppose one of the fundamental dogmas of a large body of workingmen.

Before considering the relations of the farmers to the labor question it is necessary, if we can, to define the labor question. This is not easy to do, because workingmen do not agree in their demands. We are compelled to deal only with the demands of organized labor, because those only are formulated. Organized labor, however, is a minority of labor, and the quarrels between labor factions, like other civil wars, are more bitter than the contests with outsiders. As I write I have before me a copy of a weekly paper which is the organ of one branch of workingmen which denounces the national leader of another branch in terms of positive ferocity. I imagine that both the writer and the person attacked are honest men carried away by one-sided views of the ills of society.

Trade unionism seeks to incorporate in "unions" of the different trades all workers therein, and to prevent the employment in that trade of any person not a member of the union. At the same time it seeks to limit the number of workmen in the trade, by fixing the number of apprentices in each shop at a fixed ratio to the total number of employees. At times and places where the unions are strong enough these rules are strictly enforced. Without the consent of the union an employer may not put his own son to work in the shop. The

hours of labor to constitute a day's work are fixed with reference to giving employment to the largest number possible. At first, in this country, the day's work was ten hours, then nine; now all trades are striving for an eight-hour day, and some have achieved it. In case of disagreement with employers the ultimate remedy is a strike. The unions claim to, and probably do in most cases, include the best workmen in their respective trades. In most cases, however, the places of strikers can be promptly filled by other workmen who are out of employment. The new men, however, are seldom so efficient as the old, and strikes in large establishments, and especially when important work is pressing, cause great loss to employers. In some trades, as locomotive engineers, for example, an extensive strike may almost paralyze trade, since there are almost never at hand skilled engineers, who can safely operate a locomotive, in sufficient number to run trains. When strikes are organized on a large scale, and the result is doubtful, efforts are made to induce "sympathetic strikes," in trades more or less closely connected with the strikers, but who have at the time no grievance of their own. This adds to the embarrassment of the employers, and by interesting a larger number of people, increases the pressure of public opinion. For example, if locomotive engineers were on a strike, they would seek to enlist the fireman's organization, or that of the trainmen, in the hope of absolutely stopping transportation. This would tend to bring the public to the side of the strikers, because it would desire business to be resumed and travel made safe, with little regard to the interest of contending parties; and as the railroads can usually be coerced easier and quicker than the strikers, the pressure tends to be put on them to yield.

It has come to be generally conceded that a strike is a legitimate and proper method of procedure in case of extremity, provided it be conducted peacefully. No one questions the right of any person to stop work when he does not wish to work longer, and very few now question the right of organized bodies of workingmen to stop simultaneously by virtue of a prearranged agreement. Early in the history of trade union