of public good." His judgment in regard to the moral character of the man was not called in question, but he was criticised because this man, held by many to be guilty even of penitentiary offences, had such power that he could either help or injure the section of the country which he was visiting.

Socialists hold that, under socialism, elevation to positions of importance would be based upon moral qualifications, in part at least. They furthermore urge that the nature of public business is such that it is ennobling. A great leader in private business has his attention concentrated upon himself or upon a few stock-holders, whereas public life enlarges the horizon, and the right thinking person who administers public business, does so with reference to the good of the whole people. It may be justly urged that it is public and not private life which has given us a Washington, a Lincoln.1 The

1 A critic replies: "It is doubtless true that private service would not give us a Washington or a Lincoln, and it is equally true that public service would not give us a Fulton, a Whitney, a Morse, a Westinghouse, or an Edison."

This is by no means clear to those who know what is going on in the laboratories of the universities in different parts of the world. And it must be remembered that, taking the world as a whole, the greater part of its activity is conducted by those who are in the public service, namely, the professors and their assistants in the State universities. It is safe to say that those men who are named could not have done their work had it not been for the preliminary work carried on in the laboratories of universities. Morse is not the only name to be mentioned in connection with the telegraph. Professor Henry's name also has an honorable record as the inventor of what was essential in the telegraph, and, animated by the spirit which obtains in the public service at the best, he refused to take out a patent. There are, indeed, those who do not recognize the claims of Morse to originality in the practical application of the telegraph; but, of course, it is not necessary for us to enter upon a discussion of this controverted point. It is certain that Morse's work was based upon

heroes of men are those who have served States, and not those who have served private corporations. This shows us why, as John Stuart Mill pointed out, war, and not private business, has heretofore been the chief school of the social virtues. War has an anti-social character, insomuch as it is waged by one society of men against another; but it is carried on to advance the interest of a country, and the soldier feels that he is struggling for his land, and for it he is ready to give up life itself. His occupation cultivates in him generous habits of mind, and a sense of common danger draws him near to his fellowsoldiers.1

a great deal of previous activity of a public nature. Public service has given us a Bunsen, a Helmholtz, a Virchow, and many others who quite hold their own with the names mentioned. What reason have we, after all, to say that an Edison would not have given us his best, had he worked in a public laboratory? Those who are familiar with the work going on in the laboratories of universities, know that the entire time and strength of those engaged in these universities is given to their work, and, as a rule, the last thing of which they think is large pecuniary returns. Professor Babcock, in the State University of Wisconsin, invented a milk tester, which, it has been asserted, is worth to the State every year the entire cost of the university; and a professor in the University of Kansas has likewise, it is claimed, made discoveries which are worth, to the State of Kansas, the entire cost of that university. Professor Babcock refused to patent his invention because he did not think it was right for him to do so, as he was in the service of the State.

However, it is not incumbent upon the author of the present work, to show that all our inventions and improvements could result from public life, inasmuch as he endeavors, in the latter part of the book, to demonstrate the importance of a large field for private enterprise.

1"Until laborers and employers perform the work of industry in the spirit in which soldiers perform that of an army, industry will never be moralized, and military life will remain, what, in spite of the anti-social character of its direct object, it has hitherto been, the chief school of moral co-operation.' - The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte, by JOHN STUART MILL, New York, 1887, p. 135.

CHAPTER V.

SOCIALISM AS A PROMOTER OF ART.

Ir is likely to awaken surprise on the part of those who have not given attention to socialism, to learn that among people of artistic temperament, it meets with much favor. Poets, painters, and authors of talent are much inclined to view socialism with a certain sympathy, and there are many of them who are even outspoken in their adherence to it. John Ruskin advocates something like socialism, although of an aristocratic kind; and William Morris, regarded by many as the worthiest of the English poets to hold the post of Poet Laureate, is not only a socialist, but a rather extreme socialist. Alfred Hayes, prominent among the younger English poets, and Walter Crane, the artist, are members of the Fabian Society. Our own James Russell Lowell at one time said a good word in behalf of socialism, and probably Mr. W. D. Howells would no longer object to being classed among the socialists.

What is the explanation of this fact, which may at first seem a striking and surprising one? The explanation is found in the unfavorable atmosphere for art and literature which is created by competitive industrialism. Art can thrive only when it is encouraged by a favorable

1 "The Fabian Society," by William Clarke, in the New England Magazine for March, 1894.

social environment. Poverty on the part of the many and wealth on the part of a few, are alike held to be fatal to the highest art or literature. Leisure and moderate comfort on the part of the private citizen, with a grand public life, create the atmosphere in which art thrives. If we look back upon the past, we find that national feeling in its expansive periods has produced a large part of all that is great in art and literature. Three periods may be called to mind: the age of Pericles, when Greek art and literature achieved grand success; the age of Augustus, which was called the Golden Age; and the age of Elizabeth in England, which produced Shakespeare. Man achieves great things when in him the national life pulsates, and through him the nation speaks; but when the national life is mean, man's spirit finds no high plane of thought and expression. Architecture achieved its grandest success in the Middle Ages, when national feeling was becoming powerful, and the age in which this success was attained was not peculiarly a commercial age. It is often said in the United States that when we become richer we shall have a true art; but if what artists tell us is true, what art has to dread in the United States is a plutocracy. The increase of wealth, with present methods of distribution, would seem to be more likely to bring danger with it than promise to art. What is really wanted is more leisure and comfort for the masses, more joy in work, and a genuine revival of true national feeling.

Art is essentially public and not private in its destina

1 "The hearing ear is always found close to the speaking tongue, and no genius can long or often utter anything which is not invited or gladly entertained by men around him." - EMERSON: English Traits, chap. iv., on Race.

1

tion, and if it achieves its grandest success, must minister to society, and not to millionaires. This, at any rate, is the socialistic view. One socialistic writer complains that "now a clever workman is kept at tasks prescribed by plutocrats, and must produce baronial sideboards, and the deft-fingered girl hideous artificial flowers." He tells us the gold standards of plutocracy are not art standards, and that an atmosphere is produced by competition, and plutocracy resulting therefrom, in which art cannot thrive; "that competition ties the craftsman hand and foot, but art implies independence." Another socialist, in speaking of the creed of philosophic radicalism in England, which included classical political economy, says that:

"It was essentially a creed of Murdstones and Gradgrinds, and the first revolt came from the artistic side; the nest of singing birds of the lakes would have none of it."

Mr. William Morris, in an article upon the socialist ideal, makes a plea for socialism from the standpoint of art, and uses these words:

"The great mass of effective art, that which pervades all life, must be the result of the harmonious co-operation of neighbors; and the rich man has no neighbors, nothing but rivals and parasites. . When people once more take pleasure in their work, when the pleasure rises to a certain point, the expression of it will become irresistible, and that expression of pleasure is art, whatever form it may take."

Mr. Morris says that we must abolish the privilege of private persons to destroy the beauty of the earth for their private advantage, and he explains that the 1 See Church Reformer, March, 1890.

2 See New Review, January, 1891.