for evil. The whelp has become the lion. The magnitude of the world's industries in these days bewilders the wisest among us and we cringe, bowing before the god of speculation.

In olden days the struggle for industrial and political freedom aimed at curtailing the military power and in the Middle Ages at lessening the influence of the clergy. These we have partially overcome, but only to become victims of another tyranny, that of the moneyed interests, the worst and most galling of all tyrannies. This new force has seized governments, enslaving kings and rulers of men. It corrupts the very avenues of intelligence and perverts the truths of science. All men are obliged to fall prostrate before the mercantile collossus. A great parasite, without producing, it appropriates the wealth created by labor; a vampire, without our consent it arrogates to itself the lion's share of the good things that come from labor. It is an unscrupulous power, without sentiment, creed, country or any feeling for humanity. I do not hesitate to say that commercialism is responsible for more of the injustice, misery, wretchedness and crime in the world to-day than all other causes combined.

Commerce is a vulture that swallows the results of production, and, as now constituted, a hindrance to legitimate industry by monopolizing the raw material and in other ways enhancing Its cost. While pretending to serve, it audaciously spoliates. Jflst in the proportion that production exceeds the needs of consumption—which proportion is the measure of wealth—commercial interests absorb the increase. Thus, instead of a greater abundance, contributing to increase the happiness and well-being of all men, it brings about strife and discord; instead of promoting harmony and peace it is made a pretext for wars, confusion and injustice; instead of being a guarantee against want, it is made an engine for producing poverty and wretchedness. No application of labor-saving machinery that lightens toil and increases wealth can be effected without this unnatural monster's using it to inflict injury on great numbers of workmen. Thus the discoveries of the scientists, the developments of the arts,—all our boasted achievements, in fact,—only excite the greed of commerce, only serve to make man's inhumanity to man more manifest. Nor has the increase in the aggregate wealth of the country been permitted to bring anything like a corresponding benefit to the producing masses. On the contrary, it has widened the breach ,s«ss>\ '■^vs. -^^."s.\3JsXs» c2Qfc&aa$^^\k\s&ce. ■axA vrrmoraYrty. it has no "^soj^scicl, >Qtye. ^av&\^ Q\ WaxuTOOTv. Its votaries pervert

^2r\e. "v-oto?s Prayer, so that instead oi praying "Thy Kingdom ^.cnxve. % on. eaiTtn as in Heaven," they prey upon a\\ the rest of mankind. Their dictum is, "Every fellow for himself!"

Trie principal agencies of commerce as exchange are railroads, canals, and money as currency. The control of these agencies by corporations and individuals enables them to practically monopolize the means of exchange and dictates the conditions under which distribution of products is made. In fact, exchange has become the arbiter of production, the index of public opinion. Our produce and sfoc/r exchange fixes tfie value of commodities, prices beifigr enAancedor depressed to suit its convenience. Commerce snaAres n>zr or en/ofnspeace upon the nations. This is ex-emp/incd' fy fAe war in the Philippines and that in China. What tvou/d" /fie monej'power nave cared about the murdered m/ss/anarfes, nad there heen no prospect of ultimate profits hej'ond?

In ancient tfmes and in the Middle Ages wars of conquest were prosecuted under military domination for direct plunder and for gold. Under the modern regime of commercialism, wars are instigated for the purpose of spoliation by traffic. Under military domination great masses of people were diverted from the peaceful pursuits of constructive industry into the channels of destructive wars. Thus the producing class became impoverished, under commercial rule the result is the same, the only difference Wmg in the manner oi its action.

Tue proportion oi the population who subsist on profits extotted irom \ahor by useiess extravagance in exchange, far outnumbers its proper quantity and throws greater burdens on the •producing ciasses than were ever imposed by any military despotism in the worid.

This has been made possible by the vastly increased productiveness oi labor in our day, by improved machinery and more scientific processes, the gain amounting to eleven-fold within the last century and in many industries to a hundred fold within the same period. The working of exchange has been in the opposite direction; that is, to largely increase the number of persons engaged in methods of exchange, this increase being in the ratio of four to one as compared with that of a hundred years ago.

The problem of producing an abundance for all has been solved. The question we now have to deal with is that of an equitable distribution of this wealth produced by labor. How to secure this remains an enigma, which many are striving to solve. It seems to me essential to determine whether our premises are founded in truth or in error, before we attempt to formulate remedies. For if our basis prove erroneous, our conclusions will only sink us deeper in like error.

Now I affirm as basic anxioms.—First, that labor creates all wealth. Second, that all wealth belongs to those who create it. Third, that the productive capacity of society is superior to its needs of consumption. Fourth, that society can only rightly exist by an exchange of services, all tending to one general purpose, the production, distribution and consumption of utilities, so a? to serve the best interests of the whole, physically, intellectually and morally. And that all pursuits by which men now gain a living, but which do not contribute to one or another of these ends are useless and those engaged in them are parasites. Fifth, that the rewards of labor should be apportioned according to the utility of the services rendered and not dictated by arbitrary authority, founded on false pretence. Sixth, that the division of labor must be mutual and voluntary on the part of the workers themselves. When this is not so, it is not division of labor, but spoliation. Seventh, that physical labor is primarily deserving. Therefore, the highest rewards, and that in all social arrangements it should receive first consideration. Finally, that a true civilization must be judged by the status of its workers, and not by its loafers or by what a few may have accumulated by cunning and falsehood.

It is more important that those who produce food, clothing and shelter should be made comfortable than it is to have those who write books and decipher hieroglyphics live in luxury. For instance, if the rewards of labor were apportioned in accordance with its utility, farmers and cooks would stand above princes and poets. As it now is princes and poets are objects of veneration while the cook is a servant and the farmer a mere hay-seed. The doctor is called a professional man and paid at the rate of a dollar or mote for a. few m'm\Ad service, though he may not do you an>' good, wYvile the scavenger is a drudge and works ten hours for a do\\at. But we are told that the doctor Vias spent years oi his life in acquiring the knowledge needful for a physician. True, hut do you consider that during all those years some one else was feeding, clothing and affording him shelter? He certainly was not doing it for himself. The scavenger -was, meanwhile pursuing his drudgery, keeping the cotramanity free from contagious disease. Is not the work of the latter as essential to the health of the town or city as that of the doctor? Then why the distinction between the two? The reYiirds of labor are not apportioned according to the utility of the labor performed.

The political economists have maintained that wages are deterrrvmed by the risks and the disagreeableness of the occupation, but \t needs little observation to convince anyone that this is untrue. The fact is that most of the literature that passes current as authoritative on the topic of political economy is written to justify and uphold existing conditions and not at all to explain social phenomena.

We hear a great deal said, politely, about 'men of affairs,' 'leading citizens,' 'captains of industry,' and so on, especially in connection with the recent visit of the German prince. But you will notice that the only people thus designated by the newspapers are millionaires; and the more millions a man represents the higher they rate his usefulness as a man, while the means by •which he made his millions is discreetly left unmentioned. As a matter of fact, the less he has done, the more rapid his accumulation, the more admiration he excites. If he have succeeded in controlling the supply of some necessary of life and enhancing its cost to the working classes he is a great merchant; if he do the same with stocks, as Mr. Harriman did, he is a great financier.

Mr. Harriman, acting as President of the Oregon Short Line Railway Company, a corporation with a capital of twenty-seven millions, issued certificates of indebtedness to the amount of seventy-five millions. Then, as President of the Union Pacific R. R. Co., he bought these certificates. Next, as President of the Oregon line, he bought with the money thus obtaind seventyeight million dollars' worth of Northern Pacific shares. He then issued one hundred millions of Union Pacific bonds to reimburse its treasury. By this transaction with a capitalization of only twenty-seven million dollars he incurred an indebtedness of one hundred and seventy-five millions (less actual value of road's original 27 millions) and fastened it upon the public to pay interest on, without adding one dollar's worth of actual value to either road. But by this transaction he gained the reputation of being one of the foremost financiers in this country.

Now, from my standpoint, the only credit he is entitled to is this. First, he had the sense to discover that the American people are a pack of fools; and, second, had the gall to take advantage of them and pocket the money himself.

Now, this whole transaction was clearly dishonest, but its magnitude seems to have terrorized our public officials and paralyzed our courts of justice.

But, considering it from a purely economic standpoint what is the result? As I have said, the whole affair did not add one dollars of actual wealth to the country, but it does impose an additional debt of one hundred and seventy-five millions, the interest of which must be paid by labor. At six per cent, this amounts to the sum of ten millions per annum that we have tc pay for the use of these railroads to effect exchange. It absorbs the labor of twenty-one thousand workingmen, at five hundred dollars a year each, to meet the yearly interest alone; and it will require the labor of three hundred and fifty thousand workers, earning five hundred dollars a year each, to pay the principal.

This is what is called financiering. The case cited is by no means an isolated one; such are going on continually, on a similar scale of magnitude.

The means by which the present coal monopoly was effected,— one which compels every consumer of coal to pay six dollars a ton when the actual cost is not over two,—if exposed, would make the transaction of Harriman insignificant by comparison.

Now I have some knowledge of the means used to bring about the condition of affairs, and I say that had the workingmen of this country, who work for two dollars a day and less, been advised by John Sydney and men of his class, instead of the Gowens—one of the active promoters in securing the monopoly— they would to-day be able to obtain a ton of coal for one day's labor instead of being compelled to work three days to earn the cost of a ton. But they let Sydney die from poverty, because