SCIENCE. 



[Vol. X. No. 230 



have had no manual training. The St. Louis school has never re- 

 ceived a dollar from either the city or the State, and, as Professor 

 Woodward phrased it, " the director is gratified by the thought, 

 that, in spite of its many shortcomings, the school has served to 

 demonstrate the entfre feasibility of incorporating intellectual and 

 manual training in such a way that each is the gainer thereby, and 

 that it has correctly read the public demand for a valuable mental 

 discipline which shall at the same time insure the acquirement of 

 knowledge and skill of intrinsic worth." 



THE INCREASE OF STATE INTERFERENCE IN THE 

 UNITED STATES. — I. 



The most casual newspaper-reader and observer of legislation 

 must have had his attention attracted to a growing tendency in 

 our legislation toward the reg'ulation of private and personal con- 

 cerns. We are aware, of course, that the term ' private and per- 

 sonal concerns ' may be said to be more or less indefinite ; but it is 

 nevertheless true, that, as used by the majority of intelligent people, 

 its content is, in a general way, understood and agreed to. It is in 

 this generally accepted sense that we use it here. 



A few weeks ago we editorially called the attention of the readers 

 of Scie?tce to an article in which Dr. Albert Shaw of Minneapolis 

 illustrated the tendency of which we speak, from recent legislation 

 in Minnesota. Dr. Shaw gave a digest or summary of the session- 

 laws of 1885 in his State, and pointed out not only the relatively 

 large number of laws that may be put under the head of ' State 

 interference,' but the great variety of subjects with which they 

 attempted to deal. 



It is our opinion that the majority of the American people are 

 not aware of this tendency in legislation, and that many of those 

 who are informed about it do not appreciate its real character, nor 

 the result to which it logically leads. To arouse discussion on 

 these points, as well as to secure more accurate data than have yet 

 been laid before the general public, we have addressed letters to 

 various students of legislation and political science in all parts of the 

 country. In our correspondence we have presented four questions, 

 as follows : i . How far does the legislation in your State show a 

 tendency similar to that observed in Minnesota ? 2. In what new 

 particulars is State interference being manifested ? 3. Do you be- 

 lieve such interference to be advisable } 4. If not, what measures 

 would you adopt to check it ? It is the answers to these questions 

 which we now desire to lay before our readers. As was to be ex- 

 pected, the different correspondents differ widely, both in standpoint 

 and in method. In a few cases correspondents from the same 

 State interpret the tendency of legislation in that State differently. 

 The one considers it in the line of State interference, the other does 

 not so view it. In a small number of cases the writers have con- 

 sidered the questions as affording them an opportunity to make an 

 attack on protection, prohibition, or some similar question. These 

 answers, involving as they do a begging of the question, are of no 

 value for our discussion. But, setting aside a few such instances as 

 these, the replies are of very great interest and value, and are of prac- 

 tical unanimity in stating that State interference is becoming more 

 general in all parts of the country, and along pretty much the same 

 lines. Granger legislation pure and simple, anti-co-operation legis- 

 lation in general, and labor legislation, are the classes under which 

 the vast majority of the laws indicating State interference may be 

 brought. The question at issue is, we take it, twofold, involving, 

 first, the conception of the powers and duties of the State ; and, 

 second, the application and use of these powers and duties. This 

 has not always been comprehended by our correspondents. And, 

 furthermore, for others than professed students of economics, it will 

 require some thinking and investigation in order to take a position on 

 the questions involved which shall be worth any thing. As Pres. 

 Francis A. Walker writes, " For an out-and-out lazsses-faz?-e it is 

 easy to dash off some highly objurgatory remarks on the subject of 

 State interference ; but for one who believes that the State has im- 

 portant functions, social and industrial, as well as political, it would 

 require much time and thought to give a proper expression of one's 

 ■views as to where State interference should begin, and where it 

 should end." 



Although the expressions of opinion which we have received 

 come from all parts of the country, it will conduce to clearness if 

 we discuss them by locality. For that reason we begin with the 

 New England States. 



, In Maine it seems that the tendency referred to is quite notice- 

 able, though it has only become so recently. Mr. F. E. Manson of 

 the Ke}inebec Journal, Augusta, writes, that, until the Legislature of 

 1886 passed slight restrictive measures, there were no laws which 

 regulated the formation of private and corporate concerns. Prof. 

 A. E. Rogers of the State College at Orono designates three par- 

 ticular directions in which State interference is being manifested : 

 (a) the increasing stringency of sumptuary laws, (b) the tendency 

 to diffuse education among the masses, and (c) the increasing 

 tendency to protect individual interests against corporate power. 

 Professor Rogers is emphatically in favor of this development of 

 State interference. He writes, " The government exists for the 

 benefit of the people, and whatever, all things coiisidered, conduces 

 to their benefit, is in the province of the government. In the pro- 

 posing and determining of legislation is the test of statesmanship. 

 No fixed rule can be laid down as to what measures may or may 

 not be undertaken." And then, with a bluntness that sounds like 

 Patrick Henry, the professor defiantly adds, " If this smacks of so- 

 cialism, so does the very organization of man into society, so does 

 government itself." 



From Massachusetts we have received a large number of replies ; 

 and it is e.xtremely interesting to compare the views they take as to 

 whether legislative interference is extending or not. Mr. Thomas 

 Wentworth Higginson, himself a legislator as recently as i88i,does 

 not believe that the tendency, while observable, has reached a dan- 

 gerous point. He believes that the town organizations, with their 

 jealousy of all centralization which curtails their powers, will effec- 

 tually check State interference in Massachusetts. Mr. Higginson 

 instances educational supervision in support of this position, and 

 states that the strong feeling in the towns against State interference 

 has thus far defeated all attempts to secure a more efficient super- 

 vision of the schools. Mr. Higginson believes that this local feel- 

 ing is similar in force and character throughout New England, and 

 attributes the increase of legislative interference in the Western 

 States to the absence of the town organization, with its attendant 

 local feeling. 



Prof. John B. Clark of Smith College finds the tendency to have been 

 stronger last year than this, and attributes the re-action to an efifort 

 on the part of conservative men to keep the growth of State inter- 

 ference within bounds. Professor Clark instances an arbitration 

 bill (by which either party in a labor-dispute may secure a decision), 

 an employers' liability bill (which makes employers responsible for 

 the acts of their employees resulting in injury to other employees, 

 in cases in which the common law would exempt them on the ' fel- 

 low-servant ' principle), and a bill fixing uniform times for meal- 

 hours in the case of factory-employees, as examples of the most 

 recent manifestations of State interference. Professor Taussig of 

 Harvard adds to this list certain legislation regarding food-adultera- 

 tion, but fails to find any distinct tendency toward an increase of 

 legislative interference, save in the case of labor-troubles. Profes- 

 sor Perry of Williams College is of the opinion that Massachusetts 

 is, on the whole, true to " that sound political maxim, ' That govern- 

 ment is best which governs least.' " He is inclined to believe that 

 the tendency toward interference is for the most part exhausted in 

 the introduction and push of bills of that general character, and ex- 

 ercises but slight influence on the positive enactments. Professor 

 Perry defines State interference as " nothing but the interference of 

 certain individuals for their own profit with the rights and property 

 of their fellow-citizens in the alleged ?iame of the State." We 

 shall refer again to this definition, which seems to us to reach the 

 kernel of the whole matter. 



Another correspondent, Mr. Joshua H. Millett of Boston, finds 

 that Massachusetts legislation shows a very great increase in the 

 number and variety of measures that may be styled ' interfering.' 

 On the statute-book he finds laws very similar to those cited from 

 Minnesota. "" Laws treat of almost every article of consumption 

 and use," writes Mr. Millett. Among the articles legislated about 

 are butter, cheese, fish, bread, vinegar, hops, leather, ashes, milk, 

 oil, gas, lumber, fertilizers, fruit, hay, marble, nails, and sewing- 



