626 PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION G (l.). 



anotlier, wlio commits a nuisance, and lie who throws out of gear the 

 industrial machine by ceasing work, or by refusing to allow men to work, 

 are alike enemies of the State. There is only one standard by which 

 any act of an individual can be tested. Does it disturb the peace or 

 affect the welfare of the community, or limit the scope of action of other 

 individuals to such an extent as to affect their happiness or welfare in 

 any definite way. If so it ought not to be permitted. And the fact 

 that such an act falls within the industrial sphere is quite immaterial. 

 Nor is the principle affected if such acts have been, owing to the domi- 

 nance of a certain section of the community who have interests in 

 common, hitherto regarded as lawful, though obviously operating in 

 many cases with great harshness. Private ownership of land, carried 

 to a point where it becomes a monopoly of a limited and essential 

 factor in production, is an example of this class of acts. 



It follows, then, from what has been said that the State may in a 

 democratic community do whatever is necessary to be done to promote 

 the welfare and secure the happiness of the citizens, and that there is 

 no class of acts which individuals may perform with which the State 

 may not in a proper case interfere. This interference may be of the 

 slightest, or it may go to the length of absolute prohibition. The 

 State may forbid the individual to do any of a certain class of acts at 

 all, but may do them itself. The police powers of the State are an 

 illustration of this class — the public executioner an extreme instance. 

 Here the State may actually kill the individual. But under no circum- 

 stances is the individual permitted to kill another. These powers were 

 not always exclusively the prerogative of the State, but were also 

 exercised by a number of individuals. With the development of 

 society the specialisation of function, always a phenomenon attendant 

 upon development, has resulted in these matters being brought under 

 the exclusive control of society in its collective capacity. 



In no branch of social activity has development been so marked 

 as in that of the industrial. Modern methods are so enormously 

 superior to those which they have superseded as to have effected a 

 revolution in production. The quantities of goods, their variety, their 

 cheapness, the productivity of the laborer, the extraordinary increase 

 in the amount of capital employed, have combined with other factors 

 to create a situation entirely novel in character. To attempt to deal 

 with the phenomena of modern industrialism in the way that served 

 the requirements of primitive production is obviously absurd and 

 impossible. Yet there are not wanting some hardy spirits who are 

 continually bewailing our departure from what they term " first princi- 

 ples " in these matters. 



The number of these critics and the energy of their criticism is, 

 however, becoming less each day. Facts are too much for them. 

 Insensibly they bend to the blowing gale. They admit exceptions to 

 the general application of their much-lauded " first principles." And 

 these exceptions daily become more numerous and more important. 



In the face of those latest developments of modern industrial 

 methods, " trusts " and " combines," it is, indeed, no longer possible 



