Republic when Napoleon took over affairs. Action was needed, and to gain it democracy was killed. The other disease comes from the desire to share decision, to talk things over, to use the so-called democratic processes in reaching decisions; and here again you find developing a despot. This was an origin of Stalin and Lenin, of Hitler and Mussolini. It is one of the ways in which we have developed some of our political bosses.

There is a way, however, in which a democracy can steer a course between these two extremes. There are two kinds of government in a democracy, a government of laws, not a government of men; and a government of men, not a government of laws. When a governor of a state is elected, he is chosen by the people and his powers and duties are laid down in the law in black and white. He knows just what he can and cannot do. The people, in adopting the laws, have determined the policy and the governor rules according to the law. This is a government of laws.

However, democracy also has a government of men. The superintendent of a city hospital or municipal waterworks, or a superintendent of schools is rarely elected by the people. Furthermore, he does not administer according to a written set of rules. In a technical enterprise, the head cannot be bound by what is written down in a book. He has to be free to move ahead, to make decisions, to try experiments. It is dangerous to refer every question to all the people. Shared decisions will not help in removing an appendix or in

building a bridge. So if the head needs full authority, and at the same time it is impossible or unwise to refer all questions back to the people, what choice is there aside from an absolute dictatorship? The answer lies in the democratic device of an elected board of trustees or commissioners.

When it comes to administering a technical enterprise, the people can select a board. This can be done by direct election or appointment by some intermediate body or official. The people, in effect, say to this board, "You run the schools, or the waterworks, or the hospital for us. We will give you so much money. We want in general such and such kind of result." The board in turn determines general policy, and then employs a Director or Superintendent and says to him, "We employ you to build this bridge. You have authority. In general we want you to operate according to these policies. If after a time we do not like what you have done, we shall discharge you and put someone else in your place. You make up your own mind about how you want to do it. You do not have to share any decisions."

This is rule by the people, just as much as if it were a government of laws. The administrative officer has the authority. There is no danger of despotism. There is no delay, nor are there constant meetings or fruitless talk.

Here is a brand of democratic administration which demands leadership and implies achievement. Here

is a way in which the people can rule, and at the same time have speed, decision, and authority.

Democracy's Enemy No. 4. The despot who takes over power uncontrolled in the name of efficiency.

Democracy's Enemy No. 5. The person who thinks that democratic administration means discussing everything and decisions being shared by all concerned.

Duty to Democracy No. 4. Beware of delegating power to an elected official; and if power is so delegated, always limit the time he can exercise that power.

Duty to Democracy No. 5. Beware of the man who preaches that all administrative decisions should be shared by those affected by those decisions. When it is a problem of administration of a technical enterprise, trust to a board chosen from the people, it to determine policy and it in turn employing a technical administration, and during its pleasure giving that administration full power.

XXI

GO SLOW IN POLITICAL ECONOMICS

"The care of human life and happiness, and not. their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

-THOMAS JEFFERSON

Under despotism, and particularly under the various European despotisms from which our Fathers came, there had been rigorous domination by government over the economic life of man. The system of government in business in England in the eighteenth century and the reforms and practices of Colbert, Louis XIV's great finance minister, were illustrations of economic despotism that the planners of the American government wanted to avoid. It had been assumed that a country should plan and manage all its business, in order to become strong and rich and self-sufficient. Reliance had been placed in what was called the balance of trade, on the theory that the more you could sell abroad and the less you bought, the richer a country would be. So protective tariffs were set up and stimulated new manufactures. Everything made was manufactured under government license and according to government specifications. All questions of price were

fixed. Even the gold content of the money was varied as the powers-that-be determined. Plans like these had the effect of reviving a country at the start, and for a time all would be well. But it took a huge number of government employees to administer such a program, and it was customary after a time for the administration to become first stupid, and then arbitrary. Our ancestors carried a heavy burden when government supervised all business, and they were restive under such economic tyranny.

So the idea of laissez-faire, which meant that the government was to leave alone all matters of business, was welcomed when it was first advanced by Turgot, Dr. Quesnay, and others of the Encyclopedists. Benjamin Franklin was one of the early members of this group. "A wise and frugal Government," said Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address, "which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread that it has earned. This is the sum of good government." "Were we directed from Washington," he said at another time, "when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread." "Government even in its best state, is but a necessary evil," said Thomas Paine in Common Sense; "in its worst state, an intolerable one."

The management of business affairs by a lot of hired government employees had not worked well. They had