may be the ethical process; the end of which is not the survival of those who may happen to be the fittest, in respect to the whole of the conditions which exist-but of those who are ethically the best."

And the proof of the ethically best, of the purest and loftiest souls, lies in the care taken of, and the sacrifices made for, the weak, the idiotic, the insane, the criminal-if you please.

In the language of another, "If it be true that reason must direct the course of human evolution, and if it be also true that selection of the fittest is the only method available for that purpose, then, if we are to have any race improvement at all, the dreadful law of the destruction of the weak and helpless must, with Spartan firmness, be carried out voluntarily and deliberately. Against such a course all that is best in us revolts."

III

In his social relations man has made vast strides in advance of the bald biological proposition, progress is a survival of the fittest.

In his commercial and industrial relations he is in that savage condition wherein the "destruction of the weak and helpless" is carried out, not only "voluntarily and deliberately" and "with Spartan firmness," but with precisely the satisfaction a Roman audience watched one gladiator slay another, or a wild beast devour a Christian.

A distinguished professor says: "The big company has a right to beat the little one in an honest race for cheapness in making and selling goods; but it has no right to foul its competitor and disable it by an underhand blow." 1

That is the theory of the thorough-going evolutionist'Prof. John B. Clark, "The Control of Trusts," p. 15.

the "big fellow" has the right to survive because he has the brute force, the "little fellow" must and should go to the wall in order that the "fittest" may live and the commercial race be improved!

Strange how these crude propositions drawn from natural development persist in the field of economics long after they have disappeared from the field of ethics.

In all social, mental, moral progress, in their daily lives, men give the lie to the proposition that the strong have the right to elbow the weak to one side; on the contrary, it is recognized that the most precious privilege of the strong A is the succoring of the weak-that is life at its best.

If such is the law of man's social, intellectual, and moral development, why should not the same high obligations obtain in his commercial and industrial development?

That is a question every writer, every speaker on the subject should ask himself, and remain silent until the answer comes, for at heart it is not a question of making money but of making men.

It is a question every legislator should be able to answer before he frames new laws to encourage the old, the natural, the brutal competition.

Why pass laws to help one man to get the work, the customer, the livelihood, the very bread of another? Why copy nature in her most drastic mood?

IV

Nature is merciless, she knows no pity. "Survival of the fittest" is her goal. The way is strewn with corpses of the weak, with the débris of the rejected. Nature has no use for the lame, the halt, and the blind; her prizes are to the strong, and to only those of the strong who have no heart, who unfeelingly trample on the necks of others. The

slightest hesitation is fatal; the man who lags behind to lend a helping hand never catches up; the man who lifts the weak, carries the old, sits by the side of the sick, is a fool. Nature's competition is a battle in which no quarter is given.

Why should man compete so blindly, so mercilessly? Why should we seek to make it a law of the industrial world that only the young, the strong, the vigorous shall find employment?

Why should it be a law of the commercial world only the big, the rich, the powerful shall survive?

that

Because that is the natural order of things it does not follow it should be the human.

The human law should be not the survival of the strong, but the survival of all, of the best there is in all, and, oftentimes, there is more of good, more of real value to humanity in the weak than in the strong.

The decrepit body may be of little use to nature, but to mankind it may possess a priceless content, and even though the aged are a burden from a material point of view, they are needed to develop those qualities of sympathy and unselfishness, of devotion, and love that lift men toward the angels.

No, competition-true competition-is not the mere striving of two men to get the same job, the same customer, the same material advantage-it must be something finer and better than that.

V

Toward contests for industrial success the attitude of the American public is that of the eager spectator at a prize fight-the fiercer, the bloodier the contest the better; the slightest sign of relaxation on the part of either contestant, the slightest sign of a disposition to quit is greeted

with howls of derision, the fight must go to the limit, there must be no let-up before the final blow, and the greater the punishment received by both the more successful the event -from a sporting point of view.

With just that indifference to the fate of the individual does the public watch two merchants or manufacturers struggle for supremacy. Everybody knows the contest cannot last long, that one or the other, perhaps both men, will go into bankruptcy to the detriment of creditors, employees, families. Everybody knows that when one is disposed of somebody-and that "somebody" is the public-must pay the cost of the wasteful rivalry, that, in the long run, no good can result from men trying to ruin each other by selling goods below cost, yet if the two try to get together to put an end to the disastrous competition they are liable to prosecution as criminals. If they organize a company to own and operate both their stores or factories the combination is a monopoly, or in restraint of trade, and a violation of law. The public, like the spectator at the prize fight, howls in anger at the slightest sign of cessation of hostilities before a "knock-out."

That sort of competition is not worth while. It is not worth fostering and preserving. It savors of the dark ages of progress, of those primitive and savage conditions when the weak were abandoned, the old were killed. It is a curious persistence of a natural, a biological law in the industrial world long after man in his social and moral relations has advanced to higher and finer ideals.

Morality has made progress in every department of huEthical standards have been set up in every branch of human activity save that of making money.

man thought save that of economics.

VI

Of all the rivalries in which man engages brute competition in the production and distribution of wealth is the most contemptible, since it is the most sordid, a mere ↓ money-making proposition, unrelieved by a single higher consideration.

This is not the fault of competition-of rivalry as such -but of our industrial economy. There is nothing inherently wrong in rivalry in the large sense of the term; on the contrary, it is a most powerful incentive toward perfection, ethical, æsthetic, and material; it is the most powerful incentive toward coöperation, which is the foundation of progress. /

Rivalry-competition in its broadest significance is the earnest, intelligent, friendly striving of man with man to attain results beneficial to both; it is neither relentless nor indifferent; it is neither vicious nor vindictive, it is not inconsiderate, nor is it wholly selfish; it is not mechanical, but human, and should be, therefore, sympathetic.