18 



ICmNCB. 



[Vol. VIII, No. 178 



of prevalent complaint is found in the fact that 

 the conception of rights and duties, of liberties 

 and constraints, of privileges and responsibilities, 

 which lies at the basis of our juridical system, is 

 not applied to the highly developed industrial sys- 

 tem of the present. Difhculties have arisen be- 

 cause the industrial life and activity of the social 

 organism have grown to a different plane from 

 the one which underlies the juridical system. 

 The piston of the social engine demands a longer 

 stroke, the shuttle freer play, and the stationary 

 settings of the machinery are rapped and battered 

 in consequence. This thought may be amplified 

 by the following suggestion, which, while being- 

 interesting in itself as bearing upon the great 

 social question, will serve to further illustrate 

 how closely are the sciences of jurisprudence and 

 of economics related to each other. 



The idea of liberty, which is an idea germane 

 to every system of jurisprudence, finds its best 

 practical presentation in English law. The pecul- 

 iar feature of this English conception of liberty is, 

 that every man is allowed full control over his 

 own acts on condition of complete responsibility 

 for all that may ensue from them. This is the 

 basis of responsible government. It is well worked 

 ovit in botli criminal and civil law. It gives color 

 to all thought on freedom of speech and freedom 

 of the press. It rests, for its logical defence, upon 

 the claim that the exercise of any power which 

 touches the lives of others is of the nature of a grant 

 to him who exercises it. But though this theory, 

 that hberty is only possible under responsible ex- 

 ercise of power, is in good working-order so far 

 as political and jural affairs are concerned, its 

 controlling principle has never yet been adequate- 

 ly applied to the field of industrial activity. The 

 most effective power of the present day is capital, 

 for by means of capital the forces of nature are 

 brought to serve the industrial purposes of men. 

 But all men who work as business-agents must 

 conform to the economic law of capital. In this 

 day all must work with machinery, or not work 

 at aU ; and yet the law of property, which grants 

 ownership in capital, does not recognize its public 

 character. The consequence is, that we find a 

 power, which necessarily touches the life of every 

 man, managed for purely private ends. This is 

 contrary to the spirit of English liberty. 



Could we carry the principle of responsible 

 power over into the field of economics, and so 

 adjust matters as to realize responsible control 

 over all economic agencies, the industrial problem 

 would, in my opinion, be as perfectly solved as 

 its conditions will admit ; and, what is of more 

 importance, such a solution would be in full har- 

 mony with the form of Anglo-Saxon liberties. 



We have also every reason to believe that it would 

 be satisfactory and final, for it consists in the ex- 

 tension of a principle well tried in our jural and 

 political system to the industrial life of men. 



The tendency of events has already set in this 

 direction. Certain businesses are regarded as of 

 a g^tas^■-public character, and on that ground are 

 adjudged to be under the control of the law. For 

 example : the decisions in the so-called Granger 

 cases established for law, and in public opinion, 

 the right of the states to control railroad property ; 

 and the only question that now remains f)ertains 

 to the best method of control. But there is no 

 difference, except in degree, between the railroad 

 business and many other lines of business. All 

 businesses that escape in any marked degree the 

 regulative influence of competitive action fall 

 under the same rule. The community as con- 

 sumers may set up a just claim for legal regula- 

 tion, and defend the claim by the doctrine of 

 English liberty. This, however, does not touch 

 the labor problem, except as laborers are them- 

 selves consumers. Still the principle of responsi- 

 bility is, in my opinion, adequate to the solution 

 of this phase of the question also, though in this 

 case it pertains to the relation existing between 

 the employer and the employee. The fundainental 

 point at issue is a question of industrial organiza- 

 tion in the several industries. Private ownership 

 in capital must be allowed, in order to secure its 

 most economical administration ; but there is no 

 reason why its administration should be irrespon- 

 sible. It is from its very nature a social force ; 

 and not only should the community as a whole 

 have a word to say respecting its management, 

 but the employees also, as members of the com- 

 munity. This can be done by increasing the 

 duties of property, ^hich would be equivalent to 

 the creation of proprietary rights for the non-pos- 

 sessors. It is at this j)oint, I trust, that American 

 economics will part company with German social- 

 ism. It may be proper in Germany, where the 

 principles underlying the juridical system are 

 quite different from those that determine either 

 English or American law, to advocate constructive 

 socialism ; but it is absurd for one who claims to 

 be a disciple of the historical school of economy 

 to adopt German conclusions in this respect. Our 

 entire juridical structure is against it, and it is 

 easier to bring our industries into harmony with 

 the spirit of our law than to re-organize our 

 society from top to bottom, industries included. 

 At least, this hue of reasoning is a fair illustration 

 of the close relation that exists between juris- 

 prudence and economics. 



This subject is capable of indefinite expansion. 

 Indeed, I have purposely omitted a consideration 



