compel his discharge, is despotic and brutal and will never be approved by the public or tolerated by employers. Union membership must be voluntary. There should be as much freedom to join and leave as there is in the membership of a church or of a social club.

Whenever a union is established in a shop, it should be recognized by the employers in all cases of bargaining about wages, or other interests of the laborers. If a dispute arises, a representative of the union should be recognized as spokesman for all those who belong to the union. If the non-union laborers do not agree with the position of the union, they can be dealt with accordingly. In the case of a strike, the union men have the right to be governed by the vote of their union to work or quit as the case may be. The right to strike is as sacred as the right to think, to speak, or to vote. If those not in the union do not agree with the decision and refuse to go out, which is very seldom, of course, they must be left free to act on their own decision, with the same freedom that the union has. In most cases, the union will be right in its demands, especially if no unprincipled walking-delegate has the power to decide the matter, and perhaps ninety per cent. of non-union men will agree with them, as they nearly always do. In such case, the union men must not be discriminated against, if the struggle is lost, or because they were more active in making the demands.

Here is where much of the evil really arises. The employers have all too frequently discriminated against those who make the demands, refusing to take them back. They do this on the plea that they have the right to employ whom they please, which is true; but so long as they make membership in a union or prominence in presenting demands an offense, the union has a plausible reason for adopting means of protecting its members. If union men are to be discriminated against in favor of non-union men, it is only

human that they should have recourse to similar unfair means to make non-union men impossible.

All considerations of economic justice and of personal freedom for employers to conduct their business, and for laborers to defend their rights, demand that the open shop shall be maintained. If employers want the open shop, they must treat the unions honorably and fairly and in good faith; and if the unions want such recognition, they must establish voluntary membership in organizations. So long as employers discriminate against unions, the closed shop will be demanded; and so long as unions use coercion to build up their organizations, the open shop will be demanded and the union distrusted.

While the open shop is obviously a practical question, it must ultimately be solved on a basis consistent with the principle of personal liberty for all-liberty of union men to act through their union without hindrance or discrimination, liberty for non-union men to act individually without hindrance or discrimination, and the liberty of employers to organize, and conduct the management of their business without interference. So long as these rights are denied, and either side insists on dictating to the other, the war of the open against the closed shop will continue.

IS THERE A LIMIT TO RISING WAGES?

THE FOLLOWING letter, making a very important inquiry, has been received:

Dear Mr. Gunton: Has not the continual and increasing pressure for increased compensation for the laboring community reached the point of producing damaging results? In England, the great cotton industry of Lancashire is running substantially without profit, and with little hope for future profit on the part of manufacturers, because, first, of the continuous pressure for increased wages; and, second, because of the resistance to the introduction of improvements that would leave a larger margin from which such increased wages can be paid.

The same is true here in certain lines, one of which is the boot and shoe industry in this section. In this town, which was formerly a center for this industry, substantially all the old concerns have gone out of business, and those that are left are pretty nearly running without profit, or even interest on their capital.

In the building line, new enterprises are checked, and would show an even worse condition of affairs were it not for governmental expenditures.

Now, I am a believer in high wages, as high as can be paid and maintain flourishing business. The question that I wish to ask is what, in your view, is the proper limit to wage-increase? One limit, of course, is the entire amount of production above cost of material, divided by the number of laborers. Is there any other limit short of that that you think can be properly maintained—a point where an employer would do wrong to the community, as well as himself, if he did not refuse to make further concession?

I presume you have thought this all over; somebody needs to do so. I am not speaking individually. I can regulate my individual affairs according to my own judgment or go out of business; but there are general considerations which it seems to me can be stated to advantage. AN EMPLOYER.

The above letter is from a large manufacturer, the largest in the country in his line. He is not an enemy to laborunions. On the contrary, he is friendly to every movement for the improved condition of the wage-worker and is

altogether one of the most broad minded, liberal employers in the United States. He has had conspicuous success in his business, has acquired a fortune, and can safely retire without financial injury. It is fair to assume, therefore, that his question is asked from the point of view of the student he is of the larger economic problem as affecting the development of business and the welfare of the masses. From any other point of view it would not be worth considering.

Of course, a large number of employers feel that every increase of wages is an injury, because it personally affects them adversely by temporarily lessening their profits. For this reason, there is always a general reluctance on the part of employers to increase wages. In the nature of things, it could hardly be otherwise. It might happen in a given case that an increase of wages would take more than all the profits, which, if not reimbursed by some means, would necessarily lead to failure, and yet the increase of wages might be thoroughly justifiable.

The limit of the general advance of wages can not be fixed by the condition of any given individual employer. While the adjustment of the wage-scale must be an individual matter with each employer and the specific laborers involved. The benefit or injury of a general increase of wages is a social question, and must be judged by its effect on the general welfare of the community. As a general proposition, it is true that the increase of wages is the sure indication of an improved social condition of the masses, and, since the laboring masses constiute seventenths of the community, whatever promotes their welfare is beneficial to the nation. Another proposition is equally true; namely, that the success and prosperity of the employing class really rests upon the welfare of the masses. All business is conducted for profit; but no business can be profitable that does not have an adequate market for its

wares; and the great market that furnishes a profitable basis for modern industry is the normal consumption maintained by the standard of living of the masses. It is because the standard of living and per capita consumption of the masses (rate of wages) in this country is so high that the American market is the market which all other nations are so eager to obtain.

Another general fact, scarcely less significant, is that it is essential to the progress of a nation that the productive instruments of the country should constantly undergo scientific improvement. This means that a part of the surplus profits of the nation must be devoted to experimentation and reinvestment in improved machinery and methods of production. It may be laid down as an indisputable economic proposition, that the progress of the world consists in the increased production of economic surplus. The increase in the total wealth produced, over the amount expended in the process of production is the only real addition to a nation's wealth. If the methods of production in any country are such that the wages, wear and tear of machinery, and so on, consume the entire product, there will be no economic surplus and, therefore, no progress. Under those conditions, nobody could have more next year than he had this year or last year, without somebody having less; hence wages can not be raised, the income of no class be increased, and the conditions of general welfare can not be advanced. In countries where the methods of production most nearly approximate to hand labor and are most uniform, this condition most nearly exists, and progress is correspondingly slow. Economic surplus, under whatever name it may be called, is largest in those industries and countries where the methods of production are most frequently improved, where, by new devices, nature is made to yield a larger amount of wealth for the same expenditure of capital and labor. Consequently, in those