Mat 29, 1914] 



SCIENCE 



777 



tern does not propose to do so, but to give 

 tliem a share in controlling others. The 

 question — "Who shall decide when doctors 

 disagree? — finds its answer when another 

 equal authority is present to add consid- 

 erations beyond the scope of either. Such 

 deciding voices are provided for in the 

 mixed boards contemplated in the positive 

 system. Its ideal is that every form of 

 consideration which enters into the work 

 in hand shall have its representative in the 

 body which controls. 



Again, should the experts employed by 

 a charitable corporation be eligible thereto, 

 or ought its professional membership to be 

 chosen outside ? Choice from the staff sug- 

 gests a double doubt. Suppose a superior 

 ofScer and his subordinate chosen; would 

 not their equality on the board weaken the 

 administrative control of the superior? 

 No ; for the equality is that of ultimate au- 

 thority. The superior exercises his control 

 as the delegate of the inferior as well as of 

 himself and others. The inferior who dis- 

 puted it would question his own right. 

 There is no surer means of interesting any 

 one in subordination than to give him 

 power. 



The doubt has another bearing. It also 

 reflects the importance of the individual 

 interests at stake in the case of employees. 

 "Will not their concern for their pay, as a 

 rule, dominate their concern for their work ? 



The democracy of similarity says yes. 

 The craving for money is the dominating 

 motive in all men at all times. The democ- 

 racy of individuality says no — basing its 

 reply on a distinction. As social affairs 

 are now arranged, some money is a perpet- 

 ual necessity to us all, hardly less inexorable 

 than the air we breathe. Else why should 

 men and women still starve among us ? But 

 more money is an increasing luxury, the de- 

 sire for which may be outweighed by many 

 other interests. The auri sacra fames is an 



illegitimate child of the hunger for bread. 

 In the case of the paid expert in a chEirit- 

 able corporation, some money is at most 

 times assured, and motives are at all times 

 present capable of tempering the desire 

 for more. There are thus two reasons why 

 his interest in his pay will not certainly 

 dominate his interest in his work. His sal- 

 ary, while always moderate, is within lim- 

 its safe; and the long exercise of his spe- 

 cial aptitudes is at once fruit and source 

 of motives apart from those of gain. The 

 patience with which the specialist follows 

 his task is the result of the fascinating 

 germinal power of the ideas upon it of 

 which his brain is the theater, and which 

 his hand transfers to real life. They may 

 become an efScient anti-toxin for the 

 cacoethes haiendi. Those who have had 

 much to do with experts can echo the state- 

 ment of Renan — "The reason why my 

 judgments of human nature are a surprise 

 to men of the world is that they have not 

 seen what I have seen." To admit a rule 

 by which experts when paid shall be ex- 

 cluded from charitable boards is to commit 

 the absurdity of at once recognizing the ex- 

 ceptional man and treating him as if he 

 were like all other men. Other grounds of 

 bias — the desires for honor and power — 

 unpaid members share with him. The re- 

 ceipt of pay as well will not disqualify 

 those worthy of it. 



Again, how are the permissive and the 

 positive systems, respectively, related to the 

 rights of free thought and free speech? 

 These universal rights, so-called, are in es- 

 sence duties of men in power. They should 

 see to it that they do not so uphold the so- 

 cial order as to bar its advance. "Wliile all 

 authority, therefore, is obligated to reduce 

 to a minimum its repression of ideas and 

 their utterance, no organization of control 

 will absolutely prevent all danger of too 

 high an interpretation of this minimum. 



