UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEG 
 
 IIIMIIIIIIIIWIIIIIIIIIIIIHIHHMHHIIIHIUmilHHWmilll 
 
 1822 02751 8885 
 
 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii] 
 
 X30KI 
 
 A Tredlim on the Status of Worn* 
 the Origin and Growth of 
 tim I'wniltf and the $t#lc 
 
 PHILIP RAPPAPOI 
 
 llliltllilllllllllHIUIIIIIIIIIIIillllHIllllllllHlllillllllllllllllllllllillltllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllll
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF 
 CALIFORNIA 
 
 SAN DIEGO
 
 3F CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO 
 
 31822027518885 
 
 . , 
 
 Social Sciences & Humanities Library 
 
 University of California, San Diego 
 Please Note: This item is subject to recall. 
 
 Date Due 
 
 FEB 1 23GO 
 
 Cl 39 (5/97) 
 
 UCSD Lib.
 
 Looking Forward 
 
 A Treatise on the Status of Woman 
 
 and 
 
 The Origin and Growth of the Family and 
 the State 
 
 BY 
 
 PHILIP RAPPAPORT 
 
 History without political science has no fruit : 
 Political science without history has no root. 
 
 Sir John Richard Seetey 
 
 m 
 
 CHICAGO 
 
 CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY 
 1906
 
 COPYRIGHT, 1906 
 BY PHILIP BAPPAPOBT
 
 UBMBBZIMIHNI 
 
 FOREWORD. 
 
 This book is written from the standpoint of historic 
 materialism. The theory of historic materialism is young 
 and, so far as I am aware, no economist, sociologist or 
 historian, using the English language, has made any ser- 
 ious attempt toward its application in his investigations. 
 What has been written upon the subjects treated in this 
 book with reference to that theory is scattered in scien- 
 tific and philosophical books and periodicals, mostly 
 known only to men of learning, and I know of no book 
 in the English language investigating those subjects on 
 the basis of historic materialism popularly enough, so as 
 to be adapted to the needs of the general public. 
 
 Carlyle would never have called political economy the 
 dismal science, if it had had advanced already to the 
 study of the evolution of economics, of the lines on which 
 it proceeded and does proceed from the beginning of 
 human society up to our own time, and the connection 
 between the economic structure of society and social and 
 political institutions. Instead of that, political econo- 
 mists considered the continued existence of the present 
 economic system with, perhaps, some slight modifica- 
 tions, a matter per se and studied only the inter-relations 
 of causes and effects within the system. Thus, political 
 economy degenerated into a mere science of trade, able 
 to serve only the working out of rules and systems of 
 private economy for individual use. 
 
 That was a dismal science, indeed. It was unable to 
 kindle a ray of hope, to warm a single soul. A political 
 economy which was unable to develop a higher ideal than 
 buying cheap and selling dear could not possibly awaken 
 response or enthusiasm in any human heart, and could 
 produce nothing but mute resignation among the suffer- 
 ing masses and utter disregard of their woes among
 
 4 FOREWORD 
 
 those whom the chances of fate had placed on the sunny 
 side of life. 
 
 To-day we know better. Although political economy 
 as officially taught at colleges and universities is still im- 
 pregnated with the same spirit of hopelessness, yet those 
 who are free to speak teach us that economic systems 
 share the fate of everything on earth. They come and 
 go ; they live and die. Some day in the future there will 
 hardly be a remnant left of our economic institutions. 
 Wdth the knowledge of the past the human mind busies 
 itself with the creation of goals to strife for, of ideals 
 to fight for. What matters it whether the goal will be 
 realized exactly as it had been contrived by thought and 
 longing? What matters it whether the social edifice of 
 the future will correspond exactly to the ideal created 
 by reasoning intellect and lofty imagination? There is 
 hope, there is expectation, there is life, there is enthusi- 
 asm, there is struggle and there is the certainty of a 
 better future. 
 
 It is the object of this book to enable the reader to 
 form his own judgment of future possibilities and proba- 
 bilities from historical knowledge. I will attempt to 
 show that what is has come to be, not because it was 
 willed by man, but as the necessary and logical sequence 
 of what was, and that the future will be the result of the 
 same process of evolution. The parts which man plays 
 in this process and his activities are not capricious and 
 self-willed, but spring with necessity from motives which 
 result from conditions. 
 
 I have some hope that a better knowledge of this 
 truth will serve to remove many prejudices and be pro- 
 ductive of more patience with and tolerance of the opin- 
 ions of others. 
 
 THE AUTHOR.
 
 Tis a foe invisible 
 The which I fear a fearful enemy, 
 
 Which in the human heart opposes me, 
 By its coward fear alone made fearful to me. 
 
 Not that, which full of life, instinct with power, 
 Makes known its present being; that is not 
 
 The true, the perilously formidable. 
 Oh no ! it is the common, the quite common, 
 
 The thing of an eternal yesterday. 
 What ever was, and evermore returns, 
 Sterling to-morrow, for to-day 't was sterling! 
 For of the wholly common is man made, 
 
 And custom is his nurse. Woe then to them 
 Who lay irreverent hands upon his old 
 
 House furniture, the dear inheritance 
 From his forefathers ! For time consecrates ; 
 
 And what is gray with age becomes religious. 
 Be in possession, and thou hast the right, 
 
 And sacred will the many guard it for thee. 
 
 , "The Death of Wallenstein.")
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER. PACK. 
 
 I INTRODUCTION * 7 
 
 II THE STATUS OF WOMAN 48 
 
 III THE FAMILY 91 
 
 IV DIVORCE 114 
 
 V PROSTITUTION 136 
 
 VI THE STATE 146 
 
 VII THE MODERN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 186 
 
 VIII CONCLUSION .209
 
 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The State and the family are social institutions, and 
 as such, of course, have their history. Likewise, the 
 status of woman in society has its history. Having a 
 history, in this instance means to have been different at 
 different times, to have undergone changes. Neither 
 the social status of woman, nor the family, nor the form 
 of social organization have always been what they are 
 now. We have what we call the woman movement for 
 the betterment of the condition of women, socially, 
 economically and politically. The numerous divorces, 
 of which we hear so frequent complaints, prove at least 
 one thing, namely, that the family itself offers no guar- 
 anty of happiness; and the many cases of abandonment, 
 infidelity and cruel treatment show that the family, as 
 an institution, leaves room for improvement. The ex- 
 istence of what is generally called the social evil is also 
 partly evidence of the imperfection of the family. The 
 imperfections of our government are so frequently men- 
 tioned in speeches and newspapers that their existence 
 needs no proof. 
 
 The status of woman and the imperfections of our 
 family life, as well as our political life, offer problems 
 for solution. For the purpose of understanding prob- 
 lems and finding means to solve them, it is necessary to 
 
 7
 
 8 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 know the history and the course of development of the 
 status or the institutions which present the problem, un- 
 less we are sure that in the history and in the evolution 
 of society no other forces prevail but mere chance or 
 the casual caprice of man. If, on the contrary, we are 
 of the opinion that evolution is governed by certain prin- 
 ciples, or certain influences, be they of a natural or so- 
 cial character, it is clear that no presumptions as to the 
 future can be correct, which are not based upon the 
 knowledge of those principles or influences. If we do 
 not know them, we must try to find them. Whatever men 
 do, we cannot but believe that in their actions they are 
 guided by some reasons and that these reasons are in 
 some way related to the conditions surrounding them. 
 We must know how the State and the family came to 
 be what they are, and how the status of woman came 
 to be what it is, if we want to avoid error in our con- 
 clusions as to the possibility and the direction of changes 
 in the future. Religious orthodoxy may believe that 
 everything is the effect of God's will, but science and 
 philosophy cannot rest at that, or they must go out of 
 business. For, there is surely no reason whatsoever, 
 why, if everything in the past went according to God's 
 will, it should not do so in the future. And if so, of 
 what use can it be to trouble ourselves with social prob- 
 lems? 
 
 Wle have societies for this reform and that reform, 
 societies composed of men, and such composed of 
 women, they publish programs and pass resolutions, but 
 they all seem to act under the belief that social institu- 
 tions can be reformed or altered at the will of well- 
 meaning reformers without regard to their history and 
 the course of their development. The historical sense
 
 INTRODUCTION 9 
 
 is not well developed in Americans; probably because 
 the country is young and has not much of a history, 
 compared with the older countries of the world. Al- 
 though there is hardly a subject more adapted to broaden 
 the mind, than history, yet our public schools confine 
 themselves mostly to national history and impart only 
 very meagre instruction, if any at all, in the history of 
 the world. 
 
 Yet, it should not be forgotten that the history of 
 the old world is, to some extent, also the history of 
 our own country, that the first white settlers on this 
 continent were not a newly created race, but 
 brought the views, the customs and the usages of the 
 old world with them, that civilized life on this continent 
 was only a continuation of the life upon the other hemi- 
 sphere, and that civilization did not commence from a 
 new starting-point. 
 
 But even the history of our own country is taught 
 without spirit and philosophy, the spirit of patriotism, 
 perhaps, excepted. But this spirit alone, unaccompanied 
 by other thoughts and sentiments, is more apt to drown 
 intellectual understanding than to impart it. History 
 is taught as if it were nothing but a chronology of 
 events, springing from the heroism or the wisdom of 
 certain individuals. Sociologists and modern historians, 
 however, take a different view, and search for the forces 
 behind the human will. "We shall thus be led," says 
 Buckle in his history of the civilization of England, "to 
 one vast question, which indeed lies at the root of the 
 whole subject, and is simply this : Are the actions of 
 men, and therefore of societies, governed by fixed laws, 
 or are they the result either of chance or of supernatural 
 interference?" "Fortunately," he also says, " the
 
 10 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 believer in the posibility of a science of history is not 
 called upon to hold either the doctrine of predestined 
 events, or that of freedom of the will ; and the only posi- 
 tions which I shall expect him to concede are the 
 
 following: That when we perform an action, we per- 
 form it in consequence of some motive or motives ; that 
 those motives are the results of some antecedents, and 
 that, therefore, if we were acquainted with all the laws 
 of their movements, we could with unerring certainty 
 predict the whole of their immediate results. This, un- 
 less I am greatly mistaken, is the view which must be 
 held by every man whose mind is unbiased by system 
 and who forms his opinions according to the evidence 
 actually before him. If, for example, I am intimately 
 acquainted with the character of any person, I can fre- 
 quently tell how he will act under some given circum- 
 stances. Should I fail in this prediction, I must ascribe 
 my error not to the arbitrary and capricious freedom of 
 his will, nor to any supernatural prearrangement, for of 
 neither of these things have we the slightest proof, but 
 I must be content to suppose either that I had been mis- 
 informed as to some of the circumstances in which he 
 was placed, or else that I had not sufficiently studied 
 the ordinary operations of his mind. If, however, I 
 were capable of correct reasoning, and if, at the same 
 time, I had a complete knowledge both of his disposi- 
 tion and of all the events by which he was surrounded, 
 I should be able to foresee the line of conduct which, 
 in consequence _of those events, he would adopt." 
 
 Entering then into the problem of ascertaining the 
 method of discovering the laws upon which human ac- 
 tion is based, Buckle concludes that their existence is 
 proven by the regularity of recurrence, and then turns
 
 INTRODUCTION 11 
 
 to statistics to prove the regularity. He then proceeds 
 to say in reference to what those laws are : "If we in- 
 quire what those physical agents are by which the human 
 race is most powerfully influenced, we shall find that 
 they may be classed under four heads, namely climate, 
 food, soil and the general aspects of nature; by which 
 last I mean those appearances which, though presented 
 chiefly to the sight, have, through the medium of that 
 or other senses, directed the association of ideas, and 
 hence in different countries have given rise to different 
 habits of national thought." 
 
 Here we have the first scientific attempt to write 
 history on the theory of materialism, that is upon the 
 theory that the ideas are not the original motive power 
 in history, but that thoughts and ideas are themselves 
 an effect and not a primitive cause. According to 
 Buckle they are the product of natural surroundings; 
 it is nature and natural characteristics which influence 
 thought and mould the action of man. Btockle writes 
 history on the theory that the human mind is not the 
 free agency which it was thought to be before, but that 
 it is directed by external forces. So far the most 
 modern sociologists agree with him, but as to what 
 these forces are, they do not agree with him. For, 
 while it would be quite possible to explain upon this 
 theory the differences between the characteristics, cus- 
 toms and institutions of different countries, the theory 
 must prove insufficient for the explanation of the 
 changes in one and the same country, where natural sur- 
 roundings always remain the same. The theory of 
 modern historic materialism is, that the mode and man- 
 ner of providing the means of subsistence, food, shelter, 
 clothing and so forth, in other words, that the mode of
 
 13 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 production is the directive force in the history of man, 
 the most powerful force in creating and shaping socidl 
 institutions. Great as the influence ^f nature is on 
 primitive man, yet in the course of civilization, social 
 influence gradually grew to greater weight and import- 
 ance, and man is much more actuated by motives of so- 
 ciety than of nature. At the aame time, subsistence al- 
 ways remained a matter of prime necessity. But the 
 manner of providing subsistence changed, and the eco- 
 nomic structure of society became the substructure upon 
 which all human institutions, moral or physical, were 
 built. All mora!, political or social questions resolve 
 themselves in the end into economic questions. 
 
 It is frequently said in opposition to this theory that 
 it denies the force of moral ideas, but this is not true. 
 The power and influence of moral ideas, after they have 
 sprung into existence, is not denied at all, but the theory 
 changes the relative position of conditions and ideas as 
 to their being primarily cause and effect. It maintains 
 that, in the order of things, concrete matter existed prior 
 to the abstract idea, and that, notwithstanding the force 
 of moral ideas, there is a force of economic development 
 in society working independent of moral ideas, and 
 creating conditions, the influence of which is strong 
 enough to alter, create and destroy moral ideas. 
 
 The abstract idea of good and bad could never have 
 appeared without the previous existence of concrete 
 facts or conditions, creating pain or pleasure, and the 
 conception of right and wrong must necessarily depend 
 on what these facts and conditions are. 
 
 If one were to write a history of the origin and 
 development of moral ideas, he would, probably, find 
 comparative philology of great assistance to him. He
 
 INTRODUCTION 3 3 
 
 would, perhaps, be struck in the outset with some sur- 
 prise at the fact that so many languages have one and 
 the same word for expressing the abstract idea of good 
 and designating concrete things. So in English: good 
 and goods, in German: gut, das Gut, die Gueter, in La- 
 tin : bonus, bonum, bona, in Greek : agathos, to agathon, 
 to agatha. 
 
 In an article on this subject in "Die Neue Zeit," the 
 French writer, Paul Lafargue, points to the Greek word 
 nomos, meaning law. Josephus expresses astonishment 
 that the word has never been used in that sense in the 
 Homeric poems. In those times it meant pasture, later 
 on it had the meaning of domicile, and still later of cus- 
 tom and law, denoting in its evolution different stages of 
 civilization and economic development. 
 
 It may contribute toward a better understanding of the 
 idea of historic materialism, if I demonstrate it by some 
 illustrations. Among the ancient Hebrews the taking of in- 
 terest was immoral, the Pentateuch forbade it. To-day the 
 taking of interest is so little averse to our moral senti- 
 ment, that courts allow interest on every debt after a 
 reasonable time, although no interest is contracted for. 
 Orthodoxy considers the Pentateuch as a divinely in- 
 spired book. How is it then that our moral sense does 
 not object to what the Pentateuch declares to be im- 
 moral? When the Mosaic law was given, there was 
 neither industrialism, nor commercialism, nor capitalism. 
 The system of wages and profit was unknown and money 
 or things were borrowed only in cases of actual need 
 and for purposes of consumption. To-day, most loans 
 are business-loans, and in business money is a source of 
 profit. The profit-making quality of money has wiped 
 out all moral scruples against the taking of interest. In
 
 14 UX)KING FORWARD 
 
 order to quiet the religious conscience translators have 
 used the word usury where the original speaks of inter- 
 est. 
 
 It now remains for me to test the theory and to see 
 whether it proves true in the evolution of the State, the 
 family and the status of woman. For this purpose I 
 will, in as few words as I can, always confining myself 
 to what is necessary to support and prove the theory, 
 describe the development of social organization together 
 with the family and the status of woman, beginning in 
 prehistoric times, when our forefathers still lived in a 
 state of savagery, and following it up to our own time 
 and civilization. I shall endeavor to show the influence 
 and effect of economic conditions on the progressive 
 changes in the structure of society and social institu- 
 tions, as well as the influence of moral ideas, as they 
 have sprung from the economic conditions. Much of 
 the knowledge which I possess, regarding these things, 
 I owe to the study of Lewis H. Morgan's ethnological 
 researches, the results of which are published in his book 
 "Ancient Society." 
 
 Most certainly, our knowledge of pre-historic insti- 
 tutions, and even of many institutions within historic 
 periods, rests on theory only. For, those living at any 
 certain time presume a general understanding of their 
 institutions and never think of explaining them suffici- 
 ently for the understanding of posterity. Therefore, what 
 we know of the Grecian and Roman gens is as much a 
 hypothesis as what we know of pre-historic group fami- 
 lies. But we are not without very strong evidence. It 
 consists of customs and usages prevailing at the begin- 
 ning of the historic period, and continuing even up to 
 the present time; further in ancient myths and legenJs
 
 INTRODUCTION 15 
 
 which are always the reflex of actual life, and although 
 untrue, are based upon actual facts, beliefs or customs. 
 Human phantasy is not able to invent what has not been 
 perceived before by the senses. It may exaggerate or 
 minimize actual form and action, it may idealize them 
 or may be better pleased by the grotesque, but it cannot 
 invent something absolutely new. In the description of 
 their gods men have never reached beyond the human 
 form, and ancient mythologies are nothing but the re- 
 flex of human life. 
 
 Another source of evidence are the customs and in- 
 stitutions of the aborigines of America, Asia, Africa and 
 Australia. Even the most civilized peoples of oui times 
 have, ages ago, been in the same condition as these are 
 now. As equal causes produce equal effects, our insti- 
 tutions in those past ages were in all probability similar 
 to the institutions of the still existing savages and bar- 
 barians. The latter's life is a mirror in which we see 
 the reflex of our own life in the past. 
 
 For the purposes of convenience and easy reference, 
 I shall follow Morgan also in dividing the time prior to 
 civilization into the two periods of savagery and barbar- 
 ism, and each of these two periods into three sub-peri- 
 ods, namely the lower, the middle and the upper status. 
 
 The lower status of savagery commenced with the 
 infancy of the human race and ended with the acquisi- 
 tion of a fish subsistence and a knowledge of the use of 
 fire. Men subsisted upon fruits and nuts. Articulate 
 speech commenced in this period. Each subsequent 
 status commencing where the previous one ends, it be- 
 comes only necessary to state where the others ended. 
 
 The middle status of savagery ended with the inven- 
 tion of the bow and arrow. The Australians and the
 
 16 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 greater part of the Polynesians, when discovered, were 
 in this status. 
 
 The upper status of savagery ended with the inven- 
 tion of the art of pottery. In this status were a num- 
 ber of Indian tribes in the far North- West of the United 
 States, when those tribes were discovered. 
 
 The lower status of barbarism ends, in the Eastern 
 hemisphere, with the domestication of animals, and in 
 the Western with the cultivation of maize and the use 
 of the adobe brick. The Indian tribes East of the Mis- 
 souri river were in this status. 
 
 The middle status of barbarism ended with the in- 
 vention of the smelting of iron. To it belonged the vil- 
 lage Indians of New Mexico, Mexico, Central America 
 and Peru; in Europe the ancient Britons etc. 
 
 The upper status of barbarism ended with the inven- 
 tion of a phonetic alphabet and the use of writing in 
 letters or hieroglyphics. To it belonged the Grecian 
 tribes of the Homeric age, the Italian tribes shortly be- 
 fore the founding of Rome, the Germanic tribes of the 
 times of Cesar, etc. 
 
 The upper status of barbarism is followed by the 
 period of civilization. 
 
 Our ancestors passed through all these stages and 
 were in the upper status of barbarism when they first 
 became known to history. Their experience prior to that 
 has been lost, and became discoverable only in the insti- 
 tutions and customs which existed at the time when the 
 light of history first shone upon them. Customs and in- 
 stitutions, as a rule, outlive their usefulness and neces- 
 sity, but enable us to suppose, with considerable cer- 
 tainty, what the conditions were that made them useful 
 or necessary. The prehistoric period of the Grecian,
 
 INTRODUCTION 17 
 
 Roman, and German tribes ends, and their historic 
 period begins in the middle status of barbarism. The 
 light of history falls back upon times from three to five 
 thousand years behind us. The length of the life of the 
 human race prior to that is beyond the possibility of 
 measurement, and can only be conjectured by geologists. 
 How far back social organization dates, we do not 
 know; it must already have commenced in the lowest 
 stage of savagery. For, even among the aborigines of 
 Australia and Polynesia who have not advanced beyond 
 the middle status of savagery, there exists a very com- 
 plex system of social organization and family relations, 
 more complete than most civilized people dream of, and 
 which can only be the product of development, running 
 through immense lengths of time. I use the term social 
 organization in contradistinction to political organization, 
 the former resting on personal relations, the latter on 
 territory. The first is earlier in the order of time, for 
 no political organization, no state government was pos- 
 sible before a tribe had settled down upon a definite ter- 
 ritory and commenced village life, and even after that 
 the social organization lasted for a long time, until politi^ 
 cal organization was invented. In fact, the political or- 
 ganization or state founded upon territory, is a very late 
 invention in the course of human progress ; among Euro- 
 pean nations it is not older than about twenty-five hun- 
 dred years. It was, in Europe, first established in Greece 
 toward the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth 
 century before Christ by the legislation known as that of 
 Ceisthenes, who divided Attica into one hundred demoi, 
 a kind of town or township. The town or township, that 
 is, a certain area of territory, is the unit of the state, but 
 the unit of social organization was the gens, which was
 
 18 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 a congregation of individuals. The gens was the unit of 
 the Roman social organization until the Romans formed 
 a political organization. Of course, it must not be sup- 
 posed that all peoples and tribes upon earth called the 
 unit of their organization gens. All of them had differ- 
 ent names; some perhaps had no name at all for it; but 
 it was everywhere the same, or nearly the same, in char- 
 acter and function, and the name gens is used by me for 
 all of them. The Roman gens existed within the his- 
 toric period, and even the greatest and most learned his- 
 torians never understood clearly its nature until Morgan, 
 who made his researches among the American Indians, 
 showed the analogies between their social organization 
 and that of the ancient Grecians and Romans. The gens 
 rests upon the principle of kinship and had its beginning 
 in family relations. Like all human institutions, it has 
 run through a long course of evolution, but, for the pur- 
 poses of this book, I need not farther dwell upon this 
 point. 
 
 The gens (pi. gentes) was, as already mentioned, an 
 organization resting on personal relations. A number of 
 gentes formed a phratry, as the Grecians, or a curia, as 
 the Romans called it ; and a number of phratries formed 
 the tribe. Sometimes the tribes attained to the forma- 
 tion of a nation or a confederacy as the Hebrews, the 
 Grecians, the Romans, the Iroquois Indians, etc., in other 
 cases they never came to that. 
 
 It is quite difficult for us to conceive of and compre- 
 hend an organization based upon personal relations only, 
 and having no relation whatever to the territory inhab- 
 ited, because it is entirely unsuitable to the modern sys- 
 tem of industry, trade and commerce, and particularly so; 
 to the modern system of private ownership in land. But
 
 INTRODUCTION 19 
 
 it was suitable to the conditions prevailing in ancient 
 times, or is suitable to the conditions prevailing among 
 peoples who have not yet reached our stage of civiliza- 
 tion. 
 
 The Athenian nation consisted of four tribes, each 
 tribe had three phratries and each phratry thirty gentes, 
 so that the Athenian nation consisted of three hundred 
 and sixty gentes. The number of individuals in a gens 
 varied, but each Athenian had his name inscribed in the 
 rolls of a gens. The members of a gens had a common 
 name, which was the name of a supposed common ances- 
 tor. (Among the Indians and other savages or barbar- 
 ians the name was or is generally that of an animal ; the 
 figure of it, or any other figure representing the sup- 
 posed ancestor, was or is usually used as a symbol or 
 totem.) 
 
 The other characteristics of the gens were that its 
 members had a common place of worship, a common 
 place of burial, and usually utilized the land in common. 
 They practiced common religious rites, they possessed 
 mutual rights of succession to the property of deceased 
 members, they were under reciprocal obligations of help 
 and defense, had arrangements for the redress of wrong, 
 frequently by the way of blood-revenge, and elected their 
 chiefs. 
 
 The members of a gens considered themselves as 
 blood-relatives, although they were not always actually 
 such, wherefore marriage within the gens was forbidden. 
 In the beginning of this form of organization the chil- 
 dren belonged to the gens of the mother, and descent 
 was in the female line. The reasons for this as well as 
 for the change, I will state in connection with the his- 
 tory of the family. But while this system of maternal
 
 30 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 descent lasted, the position of the woman was probably a 
 superior one, and there prevailed among many tribes 
 what I. I. Bachofen calls a system of "Mutterrecht" 
 (mother-right) a gynecocracy. The change took place 
 on account of the development of property, and after- 
 ward the children belonged to the father's gens, and de- 
 scent was in the male line. 
 
 From what we are able to learn of the functions of 
 the phratry, it is almost impossible to say what they were. 
 It seems, however, that they were not of a governmental 
 nature but rather of a religious and military character. 
 They probably manifested themselves at the burial of the 
 dead, at public games, at religious festivals and at coun- 
 cils of the people where the grouping of chiefs and peo- 
 ple would be by phratries rather than by gentes. There 
 is also some evidence that they were of military im- 
 portance. 
 
 The gentes, the phratries and the tribes had their 
 chiefs and leaders, upon whom devolved military as well 
 as priestly duties. They often assembled in council, but 
 the final decision rested with the general assembly of the 
 people. 
 
 This form of government existed among the Grecians 
 and Romans up to and within the historic period. There 
 is plenty of evidence that it existed among the ancient 
 Teutons. The Irish sept and the Scottish clan were, in 
 all probability, originally gentes. The fact that in China 
 villages can be found in which all the inhabitants bear 
 the same family name is probably proof that the same 
 organization prevailed in ancient times among the 
 Chinese; the Hebrew mishpaka (family) was probably a 
 gens, and the beth ab (father's house) a phratry. In 
 Numbers, Chap. 3, v. 14-20, relating the counting of trie
 
 INTRODUCTION 21 
 
 children of Levi we find among 22,300 male persons not 
 more than eight family names. The same kind of organi 
 zation still exists among the aborigines of America ; there 
 is ample proof that it existed among the Aztecs and 
 Incas; it exists among the aborigines of Australia, and 
 undoubtedly this form of government appeared and dis- 
 appeared among all peoples with the growing into and 
 the growing out of certain stages of civilization. 
 
 As to the causes which led to the transformation of 
 the gentile organization into the political organization, 
 we can learn them best from the history of Athens, be- 
 cause the final change took place within the historic per- 
 iod, as already remarked. Studying the legislation of 
 Theseus and Solon, we find that the economic conditions, 
 then existing, had fully outgrown the old organization. 
 Private ownership in land had gradually become estab- 
 lished, trade and commerce had developed and grown, 
 the ancient communistic customs had more or less disap- 
 peared, the influx of strangers created a class of inhab- 
 itants that stood outside the social organization and, con- 
 sequently, had no part whatever in the government, some 
 of the people became rich, others remained poor, and 
 with this the economic class made its appearance. The 
 old organization gradually became incompatible with the 
 new conditions. The real cause of the resulting evils, 
 however, was not discovered until the nation had experi- 
 mented through hundreds of years with all sorts of 
 reform. (This fact will give us food for reflection when 
 we compare the situation with the economic situation of 
 our time.) The existence of economic classes first found 
 expression in the legislation of Theseus. By this the peo- 
 ple were divided into three classes, irrespective of the 
 gentes, namely the Eupatridae, or well born; the Geo-
 
 22 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 mori, or husbandmen, and the Demiurgi or artisans. 
 The principal offices were assigned to the first class. The 
 classification recognized property and the aristocratic ele- 
 ment. If in modern legislation, especially under repub- 
 lican institutions, class-distinctions are not recognized, 
 such is not evidence of their non-existence, but of the 
 strength of economic influences, which is great enough 
 not to need such recognition for its support and main- 
 tenance. 
 
 After the legislation of Theseus came that of Draco : 
 then that of Solon, and then that of Cleisthenes, who 
 created a government based on territory and property in 
 place of the one based upon personal relations. The ter- 
 ritory of the nation was divided into one hundred dis- 
 tricts called demoi, with local governments. The class- 
 distinctions in the general government were retained. It 
 was the first European state-government. Simple as the 
 organization of the state appears to us, the idea did not 
 occur to the Athenian people before they had wrestled 
 with the subject through several centuries. Is it not 
 probable that, at some future time, the historian will 
 express his astonishment at the difficulties which we 
 encountered in solving problems which will appear quite 
 simple then? 
 
 After the creation of the Athenian state, the old gen- 
 tile organization, of course, ran along with the new or- 
 ganization for some time. But being deprived of all act- 
 ual functions, it became more and more meaningless and 
 gradually died out, leaving its traces, however, in many 
 customs, usages and institutions. 
 
 Turning now to the growth and development of the 
 family, I shall again follow Morgan whose researches 
 seem to me to be deeper and whose conclusions to be
 
 INTRODUCTION 23 
 
 riper than those of any other ethnologist, Lubbock and 
 McLellan included. From the historical standpoint, and 
 principally that of evolution, the latter's theory of exo- 
 gamy and endogamy seems to me quite unsatisfactory. 
 
 Morgan says : "The stages of the growth of the fam- 
 ily are embodied in systems of consanguinity and affinity, 
 and in usages relating to marriage, by means of which, 
 collectively, the family can be definitely traced through 
 several successive forms." The monogamian family, that 
 is the present form, prevailing among all civilized 
 nations, is the fifth in the succession of a number of 
 forms. It is founded upon the marriage of one man 
 with one woman, with an exclusive cohabitation, the lat- 
 ter constituting the essential element of the institution. 
 
 The preceding four forms of the family are as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 First: The consanguine family. 
 
 It was founded upon the intermarriage of brothers 
 and sisters in a group. Evidence still remains in the 
 oldest of existing systems of consanguinity, the Malayan, 
 tending to show that this, the first form of the family, 
 was anciently as universal as this system of consanguin- 
 ity which it created. 
 
 Second: The Punaluan family. 
 
 Its name is derived from the Hawaian relationship of 
 Punalua, (emphasis on the second syllable). It was 
 founded upon the intermarriage of several brothers to 
 each other's wives in a group; and of several sisters to 
 each other's husbands in a group. But the term brother 
 as here used, included the first, second, third and even 
 more remote male cousins, all of whom were considered 
 brothers to each other, as we consider own brothers ; and 
 the term sister included the first, second, third and even
 
 24 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 more remote female cousins, all of whom were sisters to 
 each other, the same as own sisters. This form of the 
 family supervened upon the consanguine. It created the 
 Turanian system of consanguinity. Both this and the 
 previous form belong to the period of savagery. 
 
 Third. The Syndiasmian family. 
 
 The term is from the Greek word meaning to pair. 
 It was founded upon the pairing of a male with a female 
 under the form of marriage, but without an exclusive 
 cohabitation. It was the germ of the monogamian fam- 
 ily. Divorce or separation was at the option of both, 
 husband and wife. This form of the family failed to 
 create a system of consanguinity. 
 
 Fourth: The patriarchal family. 
 
 It was founded upon the marriage of one man to sev- 
 eral wives. It was the family of the Hebrew pastoral 
 tribes, the chiefs and principal men of which practiced 
 polygamy. Undoubtedly it prevailed also among other 
 Semitic tribes than the Hebrew. It exercised but little 
 influence upon human affairs for want of universality. 
 It is found exclusively among pastoral peoples. 
 
 Morgan spent most of his life among the Iroquois 
 Indians, into one of whose tribes he caused himself to 
 be adopted, studying their customs and institutions. He 
 found among them a system of consanguinity and affinity 
 entirely inconsistent with the form of their family. The 
 latter was the Syndiasmian, and in reference to relation- 
 ships arising out of it, there could be no doubt who was 
 father, mother, son, daughter, brother or sister. Yet, the 
 Iroquois Indian not only calls his own children his sons 
 and daughters, but also those of his brothers, and the 
 children of his brothers call him father. The children 
 of his sisters, however, he calls his nephews and nieces,
 
 INTRODUCTION 25 
 
 and they call him uncle. The Iroquois woman calls the 
 children of her sisters her sons and daughters, just as 
 her own, and they call her mother; but the children of 
 her brother are her nephews and nieces, and they call her 
 aunt. Furthermore, the children of brothers call each 
 other brothers and sisters, as do the children of sisters, 
 but the children of a brother call the children of his sis- 
 ter cousins, and likewise do the children of a sister call 
 the children of her brother cousins. And they do not 
 only call each other so, but treat each other according 
 to this expressed relationship, and build their entire sys- 
 tem of consanguinity and affinity upon it. 
 
 The same system of consanguinity and affinity and 
 its inconsistency with the prevailing form of the family 
 exists among all the Indians and among many tribes in 
 the East Indies and in Hindostan, and partially it exists 
 among the African and Australian tribes. 
 
 Now, the form of the family which was still existing 
 during the first part of the nineteenth century among the 
 Kanakas, the original inhabitants of Hawaii, would cre- 
 ate exactly the system of consanguinity existing among 
 the Indians, it would create exactly such fathers, moth- 
 ers, brothers and sisters. But, remarkable to say, the 
 system of consanguinity prevailing among the Kanakas 
 was different from that described and also inconsistent 
 with their form of family. Among the Hawaiians the 
 children of a man call the children of his brothers and 
 of his sisters their brothers and sisters, that is to say the 
 relationship which we call that of cousins, does not exist, 
 but they are all brothers and sisters. Equally unknown, 
 of course, is the relationship of uncle and aunt, nephew 
 and niece. This system of consanguinity, called the 
 Malayan system, is found, generally, in Polynesia, but
 
 26 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 nowhere exists a form of family which corresponds to 
 it. It must, therefore, be concluded that it is the pro- 
 duct of a form of the family which has become extinct 
 We are enabled, however, to construe this form of the 
 family out of the system of consanguinity which we find, 
 but which does not harmonize with any of the families 
 existing. 
 
 The reason why systems of consanguinity are untrue 
 to the forms of the family together with which they ex- 
 ist, is to be found in the fact that the form of the family 
 advances faster of necessity than systems of consanguin- 
 ity which follow to record the family relationships. And 
 it must not be supposed that the types of the family men- 
 tioned are separated from each other by sharply defined 
 lines; on the contrary, the first passes into the second, 
 the second into the third, and so forth. One has suc- 
 cessively sprung from the other, and they represent col- 
 lectively the growth of the idea of the family. 
 
 . Three of the forms mentioned, the consanguine, the 
 punaluan and the monogamian family were radical, 
 because they were sufficiently general and influential to 
 create three distinct systems of consanguinity, all of 
 which still exist in living forms. The remaining two, 
 the syndiasmian and the patriarchal were intermediate, 
 and not sufficiently, influential upon human affairs to 
 create a new, or modify essentially the then existing sys- 
 tem of consanguinity. 
 
 It will now be in order to describe these different 
 forms of the family. 
 
 i. The consanguine family. 
 
 It is the first and most ancient form of the institution 
 and has ceased to exist even among the lowest tribes of 
 savages. Its existence is proven, however, by the Ma-
 
 INTRODUCTION 27 
 
 layan system of consanguinity and affinity which has out- 
 lived for innumerable centuries the marriage customs in 
 which, it originated, and which remains to attest the fact 
 that such a family existed when the system was formed. It 
 exists among the Hawaiians and other Polynesian tribes. 
 Under this system there are five categories of blood-rela- 
 tionship, into which all blood-relatives, near or remote, 
 are classified. Speaking as a Hawaiian, the children of 
 my brother are my children also, their children also my 
 grandchildren; it is the same with my sister's children. 
 In addressing the wives of my brothers, I call them also 
 my wives. My father's brother is my father, my grand- 
 father's brother also my grandfather. All the children 
 of my father's brothers and sisters are my brothers and 
 sisters and so forth. Uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, 
 cousins are unknown. 
 
 This system of relationship is found not only in Ha- 
 waii, but also among the Maoris of New Zealand, among 
 the Samoans and on many islands in the Pacific ocean. 
 It does not correspond with the form of family prevail- 
 ing among them now. 
 
 The fact that as a Hawaiian I call my brother's wives 
 also my wives, and that, speaking as a female, I call my 
 sister's husbands also my husbands, that the children of 
 all my brothers and sisters are called by me my children, 
 and so forth, proves the existence of a family in which 
 this relationship existed, not only in name, but in fact, 
 and that it must have been a family, consisting of a num- 
 ber of natural brothers and sisters, married in a group, 
 so that all the brothers together were the husbands of 
 all the sisters together. This is the only imaginable form 
 of the family that could produce the Malayan system of
 
 28 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 relationship. (I will show later on, that Morgan is prob- 
 ably mistaken as to that.) 
 
 The consanguine family was the first organized form 
 of society, and necessarily an improvement upon the 
 previous unorganized state, whatever that may have 
 been. 
 
 2.. The Punaluan family. 
 
 This family has existed in Europe, Asia, and America* 
 within the historical period, and in Polynesia within the 
 last century. Morgan says: With a wide prevalence in 
 the tribes of mankind in the status of savagery, it 
 remained in some instances among tribes who had 
 advanced into the lower status of barbarism, and in one 
 case, that of the Britons, among tribes who had attained 
 the middle status. 
 
 The transition from the consanguine family into th 
 Punaluan family was produced by the gradual exclusion 
 of own brothers and sisters from the marriage relation^ 
 the evils of which could not forever escape human obser- 
 vation. 
 
 Under the Hawaiian system of consanguinity a mac 
 calls his wife's sisters his wives, not only her own sis* 
 ters, but also her collateral sisters, that is the daughter* 
 of her mother's sisters and her cousins in remoter 
 degrees. But the husband of his wife's sister he calls 
 punalua, i. e., his intimate friend or companion. This 
 word has been used by Morgan to give a name to this 
 form of family. The husbands of the several sisters of 
 his wife he calls also punalua. They were jointly inter- 
 married in the group. These husbands were, probably, 
 not brothers, if they were, the blood relationship would 
 naturally have prevailed over the affineal, but their wives 
 were sisters own and collateral. In this case the sister-
 
 INTRODUCTION 29 
 
 hood of the wives was the basis upon which the group 
 was formed, and their husbands stood to each other in 
 the relationship of punalua. In the other group which 
 rests upon the brotherhood of the husbands a woman 
 calls her husband's brother her husband. All the brothers 
 of her husband, own as well as collateral, that are sons 
 of his father's brothers or cousins in second, third or 
 remoter degree, were also her husbands. But the wife 
 of her husband's brother she calls punalua, and the sev- 
 eral wives of her husband's brothers stand to her in the 
 same relationship of punalua. These wives were, prob- 
 ably, not sisters of each other, for the reason stated in 
 the other case, although exceptions doubtless existed 
 under both branches. All these wives stood to each 
 other in the relationship of punalua. 
 
 The punaluan family was a group family like the 
 consanguine. While the consanguine family consisted 
 altogether of brothers and sisters, in the punaluan family 
 a number of brothers were in the beginning married to 
 a number of sisters, not their own, in a group, and later 
 on, only one part of the family, either the male or the 
 female part, consisted either of brothers or sisters. 
 
 Even if we had not discovered this family in actual 
 existence in the last century, proof of its former preval- 
 ence would be the Turanian system of consanguinity 
 and affinity, just as the Malayan system of relationship 
 is proof of the existence of the consanguine family. 
 
 Traces of the punaluan custom remained here and 
 there, down to the middle period of barbarism, in excep- 
 tional cases in European, Asiatic and American tribes. 
 The most remarkable illustration is given by Cesar in 
 stating the marriage customs of the ancient Britons. He 
 observed that by tens and twelves husbands possessed
 
 30 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 their wives in common, and especially brothers with 
 brothers, and parents with their children. As to the lat- 
 ter he was certainly mistaken. 
 
 The most positive proof of the existence of this form 
 of the family is the Turanian system of Consanguinity 
 and affinity which prevails in about seventy American 
 Indian tribes, in South India among the Hindoos, in a 
 part of North India, also partially in Australia; traces 
 of it have been found in part of Africa, but the system 
 of the African tribes approaches nearer the Malayan; it 
 certainly was universal among the North American abor- 
 igines and has been traced sufficiently among those of 
 South America to render probable its equally universal 
 prevalence among them. 
 
 It recognizes all the relationships under the Aryan, 
 that is the modern system, besides an additional number 
 unnoticed by the latter. No other system of consan- 
 guinity, found among men, approaches it in elaborate- 
 ness of discrimination or in the extent of special char- 
 acteristics. It recognizes relationships for which mod- 
 ern languages have no names, it distinguishes between 
 brothers and sisters as to their age. So for instance, the 
 relationship between me and my older brother bears a 
 different name from that between me and my younger 
 brother. For many relationships which we can only des- 
 ignate descriptively, it has special names, as for my 
 mother's mother's sister's great-great-granddaughter, or 
 my fathers' fathers' fathers' sister's daughter's daughter. 
 It is called Turanian after the part of Asia called Turan. 
 The wonder is how savages and barbarians could work 
 out and use such an elaborate system with such a rich 
 nomenclature. It is certainly bewildering and confusing
 
 INTRODUCTION 31 
 
 to us. Its existence is proof of the punaluan family be- 
 cause no other family could produce the system. 
 
 But while the punaluan family went out of existence, 
 the system of relationship continued to last, and its terms 
 were used and still are used among nations and tribes 
 among which the subsequent family prevails, namely the 
 Syndiasmian. 
 
 3. The Syndiasmian family. 
 
 When the American aborigines were discovered, that 
 portion of them who were in the lower status of barbar- 
 ism had attained to the syndiasmian or pairing family^ 
 This family was special and peculiar. Several of them 
 were usually found in one house, the so-called long 
 houses, forming a communal household, in which the 
 principle of communism in living was practiced. In 
 many instances these households were presided over by 
 the mother (perhaps under the system which Bachofen 
 calls motherright). Morgan is of the opinion that the 
 fact of the conjunction of several such families in a com- 
 mon household is of itself an admission that the family 
 was too feeble an organization to face alone the hard- 
 ships of life. Nevertheless it was founded upon mar- 
 riage between single pairs, and possessed some of the 
 characteristics of the monogamian family. The woman 
 was now something more than the principal wife of the 
 husband, she was his companion, the preparer of his 
 food, and the mother of children whom he now began 
 with some assurance to regard as his own. 
 
 Marriage, however, was not founded upon sentiment 
 but upon convenience and necessity. It was left, in effect, 
 to the mothers to arrange the marriages of their children, 
 and they were negotiated generally without the knowl- 
 edge of the parties to be married, and without asking
 
 32 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 their previous consent. The relation, however, contin- 
 ued during the pleasure of the parties and no longer. It 
 is for this reason that it is properly distinguished as the 
 pairing family. The husband could put away his wife 
 at pleasure and take another without offense, and the 
 woman enjoyed the equal right of leaving her husband 
 and accepting another, wherein the usages of her tribe 
 were not infringed. But a public sentiment gradually 
 formed and grew into strength against such separations. 
 When alienation arose between a married pair, and their 
 separation became imminent, the kindred of each at- 
 tempted a reconciliation of the parties, in which they 
 were often successful ; but if they were unable to remove 
 the difficulty, their separation was approved. The wife 
 then left the home of her husband, taking with her their 
 children, who were regarded as exclusively her own, and 
 her personal effects, upon which her husband had no 
 claim ; or, where the wife's kindred predominated in the 
 communal household, which was usually the case, the 
 husband left the home of his wife. Thus, the continu- 
 ance of the marriage relation remained at the option of 
 the parties. Such were the usages of the Iroquois and 
 many other Indian tribes. Among the village Indians 
 in the middle status of barbarism the facts were not 
 essentially different, so far as they can be said to be 
 known. A comparison of the usages of the American 
 aborigines with respect to marriage and divorce shows 
 an existing similarity sufficiently strong to imply original 
 identity of usages. Usages similar to those prevailing 
 among the Iroquois and other Northern tribes are 
 reported by Spanish writers as having prevailed among 
 the Aztecs and the Peruvians. 
 
 In all probability the Syndiasmian family sprang
 
 INTRODUCTION 33 
 
 from the Punaluan simply in this way that although the 
 latter was founded upon group marriage, yet single 
 pairs did for mere individual reasons prefer each other, 
 so that a man had a principal wife among a number of 
 wives, and a woman a principal husband among a num- 
 ber of husbands, and the tendency in the punaluan fam- 
 ily, from the first, was in the direction of the syndias- 
 mian. 
 
 Two forms of the family had appeared before the 
 syndiasmian, and created two great systems of consan- 
 guinity, or rather two distinct forms of the same system, 
 but this third family neither produced a new system nor 
 sensibly modified the old. The syndiasmian family con- 
 tinued for an unknown period of time enveloped in a 
 system of consanguinity, false, in the main, to existing 
 relationships, and which it had no power to break. This 
 was reserved for monogamy, the coming power, able to 
 dissolve the fabric. 
 
 The syndiasmian family had no distinct system of 
 consanguinity to prove its existence, like its predeces- 
 sors ; but such proof is unnecessary, because it has existed 
 over large portions of the earth within the historical per-> 
 iod, and still exists in numerous barbarous tribes. Among 
 the American aborigines in the lower status of barbar- 
 ism, it was the prevailing form of the family at the epoch 
 of their discovery. Among the village Indians in the 
 middle status, it was undoubtedly the prevailing form, 
 although the information given by the Spanish writers 
 is vague and general. The communal character of their 
 joint tenement houses is of itself strong evidence that 
 the family had not passed out of the syndiasmian form. 
 It had neither the individuality nor the exclusiveness 
 which monogamy implies.
 
 34 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 Having now become acquainted with three forms of 
 the family which existed prior to the monogamous fam- 
 ily, two things are principally to be noted in reference 
 to the same. 
 
 First, that these forms existed prior to civilization, 
 and upon a stage in the progress of culture when there 
 was little property, at least no private property to speak 
 of, and the property idea was unknown or in its infancy. 
 Especially is this the case as to the consanguine and the 
 punaluan family. 
 
 Second, in the group family, of the relation between 
 parent and child, only that between mother and child 
 can be definitely known, but not that between father and 
 child. Nobody can know with certainty who, among 
 many fathers, his own father is, nor can one of the hus- 
 bands of a number of wives, point out his own children. 
 The mother's brother, the maternal uncle, was the near- 
 est relative after the mother herself. We have many 
 proofs for this. For instance: Chapter 24 of Genesis 
 tells us the romance of Isaac and Rebecca. Verse 53 
 reads as follows : And the servant brought forth jewels 
 of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and gave 
 them to Rebecca, he also gave to her brothers, and to 
 her mother precious things. Nothing is said of the 
 father, of whom we hear nothing but his name. The 
 brothers and the mother gave her away, and received 
 presents for her. 
 
 Or another instance : Tacitus, speaking of the an- 
 cient Teutons, said: The mother-brother considers his 
 nephew like his son, some even consider the blood-rela- 
 tion between the mother's brother and his nephew holier 
 and more binding than that between father and son, so
 
 INTRODUCTION 35 
 
 that when hostages were demanded, the sister's son was 
 considered to give a greater guaranty than the own son. 
 Although at the time of Isaac the Hebrews had', al- 
 ready, attained to the patriarchal family, and the Ger- 
 mans at the time of Tacitus to the syndiasmian, if not 
 the monogamous "family, yet these customs prove the 
 earlier existence of the group family. They had re- 
 mained after the reasons for them had ceased to exist. 
 The reason which caused the growth of the monoga- 
 mous family out of the syndiasmian, is, according to 
 Morgan, as follows: of the two sexes, the male, being 
 the physically stronger, most generally procured the ne- 
 cessities of life. As civilization advanced and the ac- 
 cumulation of property became possible, the property 
 idea arose and spread. Whether the property consisted 
 of animals or stacks of grain or anything else, as it was 
 accumulated by the males or fathers, it was quite natural 
 that in course of time they desired that their property 
 should go to their own children. This was not possible 
 in the group family, it was scarcely possible in the syndi- 
 asmian. To accomplish this end a form- of the family 
 became necessary which enabled a father to distinguish 
 his own children from those of other men. The prob- 
 lem was solved by the creation of the monogamian 
 family. 
 
 "It is impossible," says Morgan, "to overestimate the 
 influence of property in the civilization of mankind. It 
 was the power that brought the Aryan and Semitic na- 
 tions out of barbarism into civilization. The growth of 
 the idea of property in the human mind commenced in 
 feebleness, and ended in becoming its master passion. 
 Governments and laws are instituted with primary refer- 
 ence to its creation, protection and enjoyment. It in-
 
 36 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 troduced human slavery as an instrument in its produc- 
 tion, and after the experience of several thousand years, 
 it caused the abolition of slavery upon the discovery that 
 a freeman was a better property-making machine. The 
 cruelty inherent in the heart of man, which civilization 
 has softened without eradicating, still betrays the savage 
 origin of mankind, and in no way more pointedly than 
 in the practice of human slavery through all the cen- 
 turies of recorded history. With the establishment of 
 the inheritance of property in the children of its owner 
 came the first possibility of a strict monogamian family. 
 Gradually, though slowly, this form of marriage, with 
 an exclusive cohabitation, became the rule, but it was 
 not until civilization had commenced, that it became 
 permanently established." 
 
 As finally constituted, this family secured the pa- 
 ternity of children, substituted the individual ownership 
 of real as well as personal property for joint owner- 
 ship, and an exclusive inheritance by children in the 
 place of agnatic inheritance. It was a slow growth, 
 planting its roots far back in the period of savagery, a 
 final result, toward which the experience of the ages 
 steadily tended. Although essentially modern, it was 
 the product of a vast and varied experience. 
 
 Before proceeding farther in the consideration of the 
 monogamian family, I 1 wish to say a few words concern- 
 ing the patriarchal family. I have not more than men- 
 tioned it so far. Our principal knowledge of this family 
 comes from the Bible. It prevailed principally among 
 the ancient Hebrews, but no doubt also among other 
 Semitic tribes. It created no system of relationship and 
 had no general existence. It belongs to the upper period 
 of barbarism and remained for a time after the com-
 
 INTRODUCTION 37 
 
 mencement of civilization. The chiefs, and perhaps 
 others, lived in polygamy, but this was not the special 
 characteristic of it. It was the organization of a num- 
 ber of persons, bond and free, into a family under pa- 
 ternal power, for the purpose of holding lands, and for 
 the care of flocks and herds. The chief had authority 
 over its members and its property. Those held to servi- 
 tude, and those employed as servants lived in the mar- 
 riage relation. It was the incorporation of numbers in 
 servile and dependent relation, before that time un- 
 known, rather than polygamy, that stamped the patriar- 
 chal family with attributes of an original organization. 
 The nations, among whom it was prevalent, had, as far 
 as we know, led at a time, a nomadic life, and it was, 
 probably, produced by the peculiarities and the necessi- 
 ties growing out of such a life. 
 
 Returning to the monogamian family, we must not 
 presume that it was from its beginning the same that it 
 is now. It was growing into its present state by degrees. 
 Among the Grecians in the Homeric age, as well as 
 later on in the historic period, we find that chastity was 
 required of the wife only, and that the position of the 
 wife in the household as well as in public life was very 
 inferior, so much so that hetaerism was, if not approved, 
 at least not censured and not considered a violation of 
 matrimonial rights. Marriage among the Greeks was 
 not grounded upon sentiment but upon necessity and 
 duty. These considerations are those which governed 
 the Iroquois and the Aztecs; in fact they originated in 
 barbarism, and reveal the anterior barbarous condition 
 of the ancestors of the Grecian tribes. From first to 
 last among the Greeks there was a principle of egotism 
 or studied selfishness at work among the males, tending
 
 38 IX5OKING FORWARD 
 
 to lessen the appreciation of women, scarcely found 
 among savages. It reveals itself in their plan of domes- 
 tic life which, in the higher ranks, secluded the wife 
 for the purpose of enforcing an exclusive cohabitation, 
 without admitting the reciprocal obligation on the part 
 of her husband. It implies the existence of an anteced- 
 ent conjugal system of the Turanian type, against which 
 it was designed to guard. 
 
 All of this has reference to the Athenians. Among 
 the Spartans, however, who were far behind the Athen- 
 ians in culture and refinement, the position of women 
 and the purity of family life were far better than in 
 Athens. Which, to say the least, proves that culture 
 and refinement alone are not a sufficient agency for the 
 elevation of the status of woman and family life. 
 
 In Rome, the condition of women was more favor- 
 able, but their subordination the same. Marriage placed 
 the wife in the power of her husband. The husband 
 treated his wife as his daughter, and not as his equal. 
 He had the power of correction, and of life and death 
 in case of adultery. Divorce, from the earliest period, 
 was at the option of the parties, a characteristic of the 
 Syndiasmian family, and transmitted, probably from 
 that source. 
 
 Of the domestic life of the ancient Teutons we know 
 comparatively little. When they first came into contact 
 with the Romans they were in the upper status of bar- 
 barism, approaching civilization. Tacitus remarks that 
 they almost alone among barbarians contented them- 
 selves with a single wife. This points to monogamy. 
 The remark that women lived fenced up with chastity, 
 and the custom of giving a present in the nature of a 
 purchasing gift to the bride, and the severe punishment
 
 INTRODUCTION 39 
 
 of wives for unchastity permits the conclusion that the 
 wife was to a degree the property of the husband. How- 
 ever, as I said, our knowledge of the married life of the 
 ancient Germans is too limited to allow any definite con- 
 clusions. 
 
 Altogether, we may assume that the monogamian 
 family grew in degrees to its present status and that, for 
 a long time, it retained customs prevailing under the 
 syndiasmian form. 
 
 I have so far followed Morgan, frequently using his 
 own words, but I do not agree with all of his hypotheses. 
 I do not believe that 1 it was solely the desire of establish- 
 ing fathership with certainty, for the purpose of inherit- 
 ance, which led to the growth of the monogamian family, 
 because, although connected with property, it would be 
 too much of a sentimental reason which, alone, could 
 hardly have had such a far reaching influence among 
 barbarians. I also do not believe that his description of 
 the group family gives us a true and perfect picture of 
 these ancient forms of the family. Mr. Morgan believes 
 that the organization of gentes was, probably, preceded 
 by an organization into marriage classes, such as the 
 Australians have, that the object of this organization 
 was the prevention of cohabitation between near blood- 
 relatives, and that this object was under the gentile or- 
 ganization accomplished by the prohibition of marriage 
 within the gens. However, the Australian marriage 
 classes exist alongside of the gentes (frequently called 
 by writers totem-groups), and of the Australian age- 
 classes Morgan seems to have had no knowledge what- 
 ever. Among the still existing savage peoples, the Au- 
 stralians take the lowest rank in point of civilization, 
 and their different tribes differ even in degrees. Their
 
 40 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 customs are, therefore, of great interest and importance 
 in the study of the development of the human race and 
 its institutions. 
 
 Their marriage-classes were known to Morgan, but 
 incompletely. To acquaint the reader with them, I will 
 describe the social organization of one of the most ad- 
 vanced tribes, the Kamilaroi. They are divided into six 
 gentes or totem-groups, their names being Duli, Murii- 
 ra, Mute, Dinoun, Bilba, Nurai, all being names of ani- 
 mals. The first three form a larger group, called Dilbi, 
 believed to have a common female ancestor and to stand 
 to each other in blood-relationship. The same is the 
 case with the other three gentes, except that the name 
 of the larger group is Kupathin. They are not allowed 
 to marry within their own gens, and formerly they were 
 not even allowed to marry within their large group, or 
 phratry. 
 
 Irrespective of this organization they are divided into 
 four marriage-classes, each of which has a male and a 
 female division; these classes are: 
 
 Male. Female. 
 
 1. Ippai. Ippata. 
 
 2. Murri, Mata. 
 
 3. Kumbo, Buta. 
 
 4. Kubbi, Kubbota. 
 Each Kamilaroi belongs to one of these classes and 
 
 is allowed to marry only one of a definite other class. 
 An Ippai can marry only a Kubbota, a Kumbo only a 
 Mata, a Murri only a Buta, and a Kubbi only an Ippata. 
 The children receive names different from that of 
 the mother. The father's name is not considered at all. 
 The rule is as fellows:
 
 INTRODUCTION 41 
 
 The children of an Ippata are always: 
 
 Male. Female. 
 
 Kumbo. Buta. 
 
 Those of a Mata always, Kubbi, Kubbota. 
 
 Those of a Buta, Ippai, Ippata. 
 
 Those of a Kubbota, Murri, Mata. 
 
 Consequently the male division of a class and the 
 female division of it stand to each other in the relation 
 of brothers and sisters. 
 
 The object of this organization was evidently to ex- 
 clude own brothers and sisters from marriage. But in 
 order to prevent marriage between ancestors and lineal 
 descendants, the Australians are divided into age-classes, 
 a division of which Morgan, as I said, seems to have 
 known nothing. The number of classes, according to 
 Heinrich Cunow in "Die Verwandtschafts-Organisa- 
 tionen der Australneger" is three and no one is allowed 
 to marry out of his or her own age-class. All those be- 
 longing to one age-class call each other brothers and 
 sisters, although only few of them are such; but from 
 this fact it appears to the unknowing as if marriage be- 
 tween brothers and sisters were the rule, although this 
 is strictly prevented by the institution of the marriage- 
 class and the prohibition to marry within the gens. From 
 birth to the period of puberty the Australian belongs to 
 the first class, that of children. When puberty arrives, 
 and after having gone through certain ceremonies, the 
 Australian becomes a "young man," or a "young wo- 
 man" and belongs to the second class, the name of 
 which signifies young man or young woman. They can 
 now marry, and belong to this class until the oldest of 
 their children enters it, and then they become "old men," 
 or "old women" ; that is what the name of the third class
 
 42 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 signifies. The name of his age-class is borne by the 
 Australian beside the name of his gens and that of his 
 marriage-class, so that an Australian has three names, 
 each one standing in some relation to the marriage 
 rights. His age, according to the number of years he 
 has lived, is unknown to the Australian. 
 
 The designations of relationship are taken from the 
 division into age-classes, and as the members of each 
 class call each other brothers and sisters, and marriage 
 being allowed only within the age-class, the same system 
 of consanguinity and affinity must be produced which 
 was found existing in Hawaii and from which Morgan 
 constructed the consanguine family, namely the Malayan 
 system of relationship. It may be that the consanguine 
 family nevertheless existed prior to the division into 
 age-classes, but then its existence would not be proven 
 by the Malayan system of relationship, but merely by the 
 conjecture that any inhibition proves the previous exist- 
 ence of that which is inhibited. Of course, there is a 
 possibility that the age-classes are peculiar to the Au- 
 stralians and existed nowhere else, but that is something 
 which we do not know, and which, probably, will never 
 be known. 
 
 Although marriages between members of different 
 age-classes are strictly forbidden, yet it may happen 
 that a man and a woman, each belonging to another age- 
 class stand to each other in the relation of husband and 
 wife. For instance, if a wife, having born children, 
 dies, and her husband marries another. As soon as the 
 oldest of his children enters his, the second class, he in 
 turn enters the third, but his second wife, having no 
 child old enough to enter the second class, does not 
 with her husband enter the third class, but remains in
 
 INTRODUCTION 43 
 
 the second. Now, all the members of a class always 
 call all those of the class immediately above father and 
 mother, and they in turn call those of the class below 
 sons and daughters. All the members of the first class 
 call all the members of the third grandfathers or grand- 
 mothers, and the latter in turn call the others grand- 
 sons or granddaughters. 
 
 In the case just mentioned, the husband would be- 
 long to the class of grandfathers, but the wife to the 
 class of mothers, and so it may happen that one not ac- 
 quainted with their institutions, may believe that marri- 
 age is possible between parent and child. Perhaps, the 
 ancient Britons had a similar institution, and it was a 
 case of this kind which caused Caesar to say of them 
 that parents married their own children. 
 
 The study of the customs and usages of savages is 
 a matter of exceeding difficulty, and so it happened that 
 when missionaries first came into contact with savages 
 or barbarians, they were appalled by what they thought 
 to be the sum of human degradation. They were 
 shocked by what they saw in reference to the relation 
 of the sexes, because they did not understand it. Yet, 
 those people acted according to their moral sense and 
 observed their customs and usages perhaps more faith- 
 fully than we observe ours. Unfaithfulness of a hus- 
 band or wife among the Australians is a small private 
 affair, but if cohabitation should be had between a man 
 and a woman, belonging to a gens within which mar- 
 riage is forbidden or between a man and a woman be- 
 longing to different classes, between which marriage is 
 forbidden, they would be, if, perhaps, not killed, at least 
 mercilessly banished from their horde, which would be 
 sure death. In their own minds these people are quite
 
 44 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 as respectable and modest as we are in ours. Their in- 
 stitutions were not understood by the strangers who 
 only saw chaos and immorality where everything was 
 strictly regulated and regulations were strictly observed. 
 
 In "the evolution of woman," the author Eliza Gam- 
 ble, says : "The following fact, however, in regard to 
 these races has been observed: the more primitive they 
 are, or the less they have come in contact with civili- 
 zation, the more strictly do they observe the rules which 
 have been established for the government of the sexual 
 relations." 
 
 "The men who, with Captain Cook, first visited the 
 Sandwich Islands, reported the natives as modest and 
 chaste in their habits; but later, after coming in contact 
 with the influence of civilization, modesty and chastity 
 among them were virtues almost entirely unknown." 
 
 Indeed, there is abundant evidence that wherever 
 primitive races came in touch with civilization, they 
 were ruined physically and morally. 
 
 But to return to the age-classes of the Australians 
 and considering Morgan's assertion that the uncertainty 
 of paternity produced the change in the form of family, 
 it becomes clear that Morgan's hypothesis is of doubtful 
 value. For in the case of the Australians the knowl- 
 edge of paternity is a part of their system. How could 
 a man be transferred from the second class into the 
 third at the time of the puberty of his oldest child, 
 unless he knew his child? Shall we presume that the 
 institutions of the Australians are peculiar to them, and 
 are we compelled to abandon the theory that like causes 
 produce like effects and that the same degree of civili- 
 zation always and everywhere produced similar institu- 
 tions? Besides, marriage among the Australians and
 
 INTRODUCTION 45 
 
 Polynesians is generally in single pairs, although they 
 stand upon such a low degree of civilization that even 
 if we presume the earlier existence of the consanguine 
 group-marriage by mere reasoning from inhibitions, the 
 changes can not possibly have been produced by the 
 desire of passing property down to own children, for 
 they have not yet attained to the accumulation of prop- 
 erty of any kind or quantity. 
 
 True, their family is not yet monogamous, and 
 although knowledge of paternity is a part of their sys- 
 tem, yet, paternity is not infrequently uncertain. For 
 (and this may be a relic of a former group marriage) 
 the older brother very often permits cohabitation of his 
 younger brothers with his wife, for which he acquires 
 the right in case his younger brothers should marry, to 
 cohabit with their wives, and I presume that even in 
 such case he considers the children of his wife his own 
 children. Yet, as a general rule, fathers know their 
 own children, and it is quite doubtful whether uncer- 
 tainty of paternity was ever sufficiently general that it 
 could have produced a new form of the family. The 
 Dieyerie tribe has a form of marriage which comes quite 
 near the Punaluan family, only that what the Hawaiian 
 called Punalua, the Dieyerie calls Pirauru. It seems to 
 be practically a marriage in groups, making certainty of 
 paternity impossible, but it may be that also this form 
 of marriage is not yet perfectly understood. 
 
 The reasons for such far-reaching changes, as that 
 of descent in paternal line for descent in maternal line 
 and for eliminating that status of woman which gave 
 her whole power in the communal household and im- 
 mense influence in the government of the tribe, so much 
 so that ethnologists express the opinion that at a time
 
 46 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 a system of gynecocracy was of general prevalence, as 
 well as the reason for the gradual establishment of 
 monogamy, must have been principally of an economic 
 nature. The sentimental reason sprang up afterwards 
 and added force to the economic reason, particularly in 
 maintaining the new institution. We shall learn more 
 about this, as we proceed. 
 
 The errors into which Mr. Morgan has probably 
 fallen, need not concern us any further. They are not 
 sufficient to overthrow his general theories, and it is 
 not the object of this book to solve ethnological prob- 
 lems. It is sufficient for our purposes to know that, 
 even in the earliest stages of civilization, there was 
 neither chaos nor anarchy in the social or sexual rela- 
 tions of man, but that, on the contrary, they were, at 
 all times, regulated by system, order and law. Nor do 
 Mr. Morgan's errors detract from his merits as a path- 
 finder. As yet it has never happened that a scientific 
 truth was perfectly and completely evolved by its first 
 discoverer. What I intended to demonstrate, what is of 
 importance for us to know, and what I wish further to 
 show, is: 
 
 First, that human society is a living organism. 
 
 Second, that its beginning dates back perhaps, hun- 
 dreds of thousands of years, into the dim ages of lowest 
 savagery. 
 
 Third, that the different institutions of human soci- 
 ety are interdependent on each other, have either grown 
 together, or stand to each other in the relation of cause 
 and effect, and that none of them can be fully under- 
 stood without knowing them all. 
 
 Fourth, that human institutions cannot in their 
 nature be permanent, that they were from their begin-
 
 INTRODUCTION 47 
 
 ning, and still are, subject to a continous process of evo- 
 lution, changing their forms and modes of procedure, 
 and even going and coming, according to the necessities 
 of the human race. 
 
 Fifth, that, because the prime necessity of animated 
 beings is and ever must have been, the means to sup- 
 port physical life, and because the first mental efforts 
 of man must have been directed toward gaining the 
 necessaries of life from physical nature, and considering 
 the term necessaries of life as changing its import with 
 growing civilization, the efforts of gaining the means 
 of subsistence became the power, controlling the human 
 intellect. 
 
 Gradually and slowly the human intellect gained a 
 knowledge of nature and its forces, which, of course, 
 had an earlier existence than he. Man, never living 
 singly, and by nature endowed with social instincts, 
 learned the advantages of organization. He used both 
 toward the betterment of his condition. This grew bet- 
 ter, as the procurement of the necessaries of life became 
 easier. He shaped his organizations and his rules of 
 conduct with a view toward his economic welfare, and 
 the manner of producing and acquiring the necessaries 
 of life, using the word in its broadest significance, 
 became the causa causans, the fountain cause, of all 
 human action and all human institutions.
 
 II. 
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN. 
 
 / 
 
 The orthodox Hebrews have an ancient prayer in 
 
 which men thank God for not having created them 
 women, and the women thank him for having them cre- 
 ated according to his pleasure. This prayer is signifi- 
 cant of the status of woman since the beginning of civil- 
 ization, up to a comparatively short time ago. There 
 was, perhaps, no time in the history of the human race, 
 in which the condition of women was more inferior, 
 more degraded than in the beginning of the Christian 
 era. According to the doctrines of the fathers of the 
 Church, the woman was an unclean creature, the tempt- 
 ress who brought sin into this world, from whom it was 
 considered good and holy to keep away. Did they not 
 find proof of it in the holy scriptures? Was not man 
 first tempted by woman ? Did not God himself command 
 that man shall be the lord of woman? If there are any 
 books in existence, the authors of which held women 
 more in contempt than the authors of the biblical scrip- 
 tures and the writings of the fathers of the Church, I 
 do not know of them. I may say without fear of con- 
 tradiction, that most of what is said about women in 
 these ancient books is revolting to our sense of justice, 
 decency and morality. I shall not indulge much in quot- 
 ing, because, it is all too indelicate, and leave it to the 
 reader to inform himself. If nature and social condi- 
 tions had not been stronger forces than the zelotism of 
 
 48
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 49 
 
 the fathers of the Qiurch, such a thing as the family 
 would not exist to-day among Christian nations. "Mar- 
 riage," said Hieronymus, "is always vicious, wheretore 
 nothing can be done but to excuse it and to sanctify it." 
 According to the views of those men, nothing could 
 please God more than celibacy and sexual abstinence, 
 which according to our modern view would be a gross 
 insult to nature. I am sure that I make no mistake, if 
 I state that at no time and nowhere, even among savages 
 and barbarians, the position of women was, compared 
 with that of men, more inferior than in the Roman 
 empire about twenty centuries ago. Rights they had 
 none and the woman was under tutelage all her life. 
 She was born as the property of her father, and became 
 by marriage the property of her husband. The Roman 
 law, however, became the model law for all continental 
 Europe. The common law of England which, gener- 
 ally, followed its own course, independent of the Roman 
 law, was, nevertheless, not much more favorable to 
 women. 
 
 According to the common law, husband and wife 
 become by marriage one person in law. "That is," says 
 Blackstone in his commentaries, "the very being or 
 legal existence of the woman is suspended during the 
 marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated 
 into that of the husband, under whose wing, protection, 
 and cover, she performs everything." In other words, 
 husband and wife became one person, but that one per- 
 son was the husband. "But though," says Blackstone 
 further, "our law in general considers man and wife as 
 one person, yet, there are some instances in which she 
 is separately considered, as inferior to him, and acting 
 by his compulsion. And therefore all deeds executed,
 
 50 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 and acts done by her, during her coverture, are void." 
 That is to say that, in the state of marriage, the woman 
 had almost no existence at all, so far as rights were 
 concerned. Yet, for other purposes, she had a well de- 
 fined existence. For, as we further read in Blackstone, 
 the husband, by the old law, might give his wife mod- 
 erate correction. "As he is to answer for her misbe- 
 havior, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with 
 this power of restraining her by domestic chastisement, 
 in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct 
 his apprentices or children, for whom the master or par- 
 ent is also liable in some cases to answer." The ground 
 upon which this right of correction rested, is certainly 
 interesting, for the responsibility of the husband for the 
 misbehavior of the wife is no other but a pecuniary one. 
 After stating that under the civil law the husband had 
 the right to whip his wife, Blackstone continues : "But 
 with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second, this 
 power of correction began to be doubted; and a wife 
 may now have security of the peace against her hus- 
 band; or, in return, a husband against his wife. Yet, 
 the lower rank of people, who were always fond of the 
 old common law, still claim and exert their ancient priv- 
 ^ ilege, and the courts of law will still permit a husband 
 to restrain a wife of her liberty, in case of any gross 
 misbehavior." 
 
 Far up into the period of civilization the husband 
 had the privilege of committing adultery at pleasure, 
 and the right to kill his adulterous wife. More than 
 that the savage and barbarian could not do either. But 
 the savage hardly ever did it, while it is questionable 
 whether, even to this day, a French or an American
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 51 
 
 jury ever punished a husband for killing his wife when 
 he; caught her in adultery. 
 
 Very far up into the period of civilization, in Greece 
 and Rome, the father gave his daughter away in mar- 
 riage, whether she consented or not. What more could 
 the savage do in this respect? Bfat it never was, nor 
 is it customary among savages for parents to compel 
 their daughters to marry contrary to their will. 
 
 It may be stated, as a matter of fact, that with the 
 beginning of civilization, the condition of women grew 
 worse, and that woman was not as free and independent 
 as in the period of savagery. Her condition began to 
 improve only very late in the period of civilization. 
 
 It is, by the way, quite significant that most of our 
 modern languages have no word to designate the human 
 species and for this purpose use the word by which the 
 male is designated. "Man" may mean the human spe- 
 cies or a male person ; one has to gather its sense from 
 the context. So it is with the French "homme," or the 
 Italian "uomo," so it is in many other languages. Even 
 in German, which language has a separate word for the 
 designation of the species, its gender is masculine. The 
 word "Mensch" can never be used in the feminine. 
 If used, however, in the neuter gender, it is a vulgar 
 expression, meaning a lewd woman. 
 
 Not unfrequently it is attempted to prove the inferior 
 position of women in ancient times, or even in our times 
 among savages and barbarians, by the fact that the 
 father sold or sells his daughter to her husband. The 
 father was, or is paid in cattle or other things, or in 
 service. An instance of the latter is to be found in the 
 Pentateuch in the story of Jacob, Rachel and Leah. Be- 
 fore, here, discussing this point any farther, I deem it
 
 52 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 proper to call attention to the still prevailing custom, 
 but more prevailing in Europe than in this country, of 
 giving the daughter a dowry, which in most cases be- 
 comes the property of the husband. I find it difficult to 
 determine whether this is not as much a purchase of 
 the husband, as the giving of something to the father 
 of the bride is the purchase of the daughter. The only 
 material difference which I can see is, that in the one 
 case the valuable object of the transaction is the man, 
 while in the other it is the woman. And this is really 
 significant of the social position of woman; for we will 
 find, as a matter of fact, that where the father receives 
 something for his daughter, the woman is considered to 
 have an economic value, to be practically useful to the 
 household, and, in consequence thereof, has a superior 
 position within the same. 
 
 Bachofen, as stated before, showed from history, 
 legends, myths, customs and usages that there muse have 
 been once a period of gynecocracy or matriarchate. A 
 description of the conditions prevailing among the most 
 advanced Indian tribes on the North American conti- 
 nent a hundred years ago, and later still, furnishes a 
 picture of what the matriarchate probably was among 
 other barbarians. 
 
 The Hurons and Iroquois lived in so-called long- 
 houses. Such a house was inhabited by from eight to 
 twenty single families, who all of them claimed to be 
 the descendants of the same female ancestor. The old- 
 est woman in the house directed its affairs. Using the 
 word lodge for one of the large families, consisting of 
 a number of single families, from ten to fifteen lodges 
 formed a totem-group or gens, and from eight to twelve 
 of these groups formed the tribe. So we are informed
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 53 
 
 by Father Gabriel Sagard Theodat in his book "Le 
 
 grand voyage du pays des Hurons," published in 1632. 
 J. W. Powell in his "Wyandot Government," First an- 
 nual report of the Bureau of Ethnology, informs us as 
 follows: The land belonged to the tribe. The council 
 of chiefs divided the land between the gentes or totem- 
 groups according to the numbers of individuals in them. 
 Each 1 totem-group then divided its allotment between the 
 lodges. From time to time, among the Hurons every 
 two years, a redivision took place. The fields were 
 fenced in and the parcels of the several lodges were 
 designated by some kind of marks. 
 
 It should be noted here that the division of the land 
 among the ancient Hebrews must have been quite sim- 
 ilar. In Numbers 26 v. 51-56 we read: "These were 
 the number of the children of Israel, six hundred thous- 
 and and a thousand seven hundred and thirty. Unto 
 these the land shall be divided for an inheritance accord- 
 ing to the number of names." (We have noticed already 
 the smallness of the number of names.) "To many 
 thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to few thou 
 shalt give the less inheritance, to every one shall his in- 
 heritance be according to those that were numbered of 
 him." This clearly proves a division of the land be- 
 tween bodies of men according to their numerical 
 strength. But the Hebrews had at that time already 
 established descent in the male line. 
 
 Quite a similar arrangement is reported to us as 
 having prevailed among the Germans at the beginning 
 of the Christian era. At that time they, also, had al- 
 ready substituted descent in the male line for descent 
 in the female line. 
 
 But to return to the Hurons: the work on the fields
 
 54 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 was performed exclusively by women, the men assisted 
 only in clearing land. In consequence thereof only the 
 women possessed the right of usufruction. The women 
 directed the use of the land and its products. They also 
 directed the affairs of the household, raised the children 
 and made the clothing and the household utensils. The 
 men provided the class of food obtainable by fishing and 
 hunting, built canoes, manufactured their weapons and 
 hunting utensils and fought their battles. 
 
 Marriages were always arranged by the mothers or 
 the female chiefs of the household. The husband did 
 not move into the house of his wife nor she into his. 
 He continued to live in the household of his mother and 
 staid only temporarily with his wife. If he wished to 
 remain in her favor he had to give her regularly a share 
 of the fruits of his hunting expeditions. If the two 
 could not agree, they were always at liberty to separate. 
 So we are told by J. F. Lafitau in his "Moeurs des sau- 
 vages ameriquains." The husband had no claim on the 
 property of his wife or on his children. They belonged 
 to the family of the mother. As her property was 
 generally of a kind for which a man had no use, it went 
 after her death to her daughters or sisters. If a man 
 died, his property did not go to his own sons, but to the 
 sons of his sister; if there were none, then to his 
 brothers. 
 
 Under such conditions, the women having complete 
 control over the fruits of their labor and the necessaries 
 of life, and also having complete power in the house- 
 hold, they exercised superior influence on tribal affairs. 
 Among the Iroquois they took part in the general coun- 
 cils; they were, as Lafitau reports, the real authority, 
 the soul of the council; they dictated peace or war, ar-
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 55 
 
 ranged marriages, had control over the children and de- 
 termined the manner of descent. Among the Wyandots 
 they had the power of appointing the chiefs. Their 
 council of chiefs consisted of forty-four women and 
 eleven men, each of their eleven totem-groups being rep- 
 resented by four women and one man. 
 
 This was the most developed matriarchate of which 
 ethnological researches give us knowledge, although 
 similar institutions prevailed among other American 
 tribes and, also, among the Malayans. However, among 
 the latter, it is customary that the new husband moves 
 into the family of his wife; it seldom occurs that the 
 wife goes with her husband to his kindred. 
 
 According to Rev. Ashur Wright this custom seems 
 to have prevailed also among some of the Indian tribes. 
 Wright, for many years a missionary among the Sene- 
 cas wrote, in 1873, to Morgan in reference to their fam- 
 ily system, when occupying the old long-houses, as fol- 
 lows : "It is possible that some one clan predominated, 
 the women taking in husbands, however, from the other 
 clans; and sometimes for a novelty, some of their sons 
 bringing in their young wives, until they felt brave 
 enough to leave their mothers. Usually, the female por- 
 tion ruled the house, and were doubtless clannish enough 
 about it. The stores were in common; but woe to the 
 luckless husband or lover who was too shiftless to do 
 his share of the providing. No matter, how many chil- 
 dren, or whatever goods he might have in the house, he 
 might at any time be ordered to pick up his blanket and 
 budge; and after such orders it would not be healthful 
 for him to attempt to disobey. The house would be too 
 hot for him, and unless saved by the intercession of 
 some aunt or grandmother, he must retreat to his own
 
 66 lyOOKING FORWARD 
 
 clan; or, as was often done, go and start a new matri- 
 monial alliance in some other. The women were the 
 great power among the clans, as everywhere else. They 
 did not hesitate, when occasion required, "to knock off 
 the horn," as it was technically called, from the head of 
 a chief, and send him back to the ranks of the warriors. 
 The original nomination of the chiefs also always rested 
 with them." 
 
 In William Alexander's History of Women I find the 
 following : "At what period or by whom the laws of the 
 Egyptians were first promulgated, is uncertain, but if 
 what has been asserted by some ancient authors be true, 
 that the men, in their marriage contracts, promised 
 obedience to their wives, (Mr. Alexander had it, prob- 
 ably, from "Egypt," Diodorus, Book I), we may sup- 
 pose . that the women had no inconsiderable share in 
 legislation, otherwise they could hardly have obtained so 
 singular a privilege. But singular as this privilege may 
 appear, it is yet exceeded by the power of wives in the 
 Marian Islands ; there a wife is absolutely mistress in 
 the house, not the smallest article of which can the hus- 
 band dispose of without her permission; and if he 
 proves ill humored, obstinate or irregular in his conduct, 
 the wife either corrects, or- leaves him altogether, car- 
 rying all her movables, property and children along with 
 her. Should a husband surprise his wife in adultery, he 
 may kill her gallant, but by no means must use her ill. 
 But should a wife detect her husband in the same crime, 
 they may condemn him to what punishment she pleases, 
 and to execute her vengeance, she assembles all the 
 women in the neighborhood, who, armed with lances, 
 march to the house of the culprit, destroy his grains" etc. 
 In the island of Formosa daughters are regarded
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 57 
 
 more highly than sons, because as soon as a woman is 
 married, contrary to the customs of other countries, she 
 brings her husband home with her to her father's house, 
 and he becomes one of the family, so that parents derive 
 support and family-strength from the marriage of a 
 daughter. 
 
 From the Grecians it is known that in the earlier ages 
 women were alowed to vote in the public assemblies, a 
 privilege which was afterwards taken from them. 
 
 The Gauls admitted the women to their councils, 
 when peace or war was to be debated; and such dif- 
 ferences as arose between them and their allies were 
 terminated by female negotiation; as a confirmation of 
 this we find it stipulated in their treaty with Hannibal, 
 that should the Gauls have any complant against the 
 Carthagenians, the matter should be settled by the Car- 
 thagenian general; but should the Carthagenians have 
 any complaint against the Gauls, it should be referred 
 to the Gallic women. 
 
 A confirmation of what Alexander says in reference 
 to the women of the Marian Islands can be found in Le 
 Freycinet's "Voyage autour du monde." 
 
 From J. Kubary "The social institutions of the Pe- 
 lewans" we learn that on the Pelew Islands the most 
 and hardest labor on the fields is performed by the 
 women, that each clan has two chiefs, a male and a 
 female one, and that the village-government is in the 
 hands of all the chiefs. In case of marriage the husband 
 moves into the family of his wife. 
 
 Like the women in the Pelew Islands, those in the 
 Marian Islands perform most of the field labor. 
 
 The same custom prevails among many New Zealand- 
 ers. Upon the other hand, on the Viti Islands, accord-
 
 58 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 ing to Williams and Culvert in "Fiji and the Fijians," 
 all the field-work is done by the men, and the position 
 of the women is very low; they are cruelly treated by 
 their husbands and are absolutely their property. 
 
 On the Tonga Islands women do not participate in 
 field labor at all; they have no rights whatever, being 
 only little better treated than those on the Viti Islands. 
 According to W. Mariner in "Account of the natives of 
 the Tonga Islands" husbands cast off their wives at their 
 pleasure, and if a chief dies, some of his wives are 
 choked to death. 
 
 According to R. H. Codrington in "Social regulation 
 in Melanesia" the women of the Solomon Islands per- 
 form most of the agricultural labor, and Rev. G. Turner 
 in his "Samoa a hundred years ago and long before" 
 tells us that the women are treated better than is usual 
 in heathenish tribes. 
 
 Livingstone in his "Missionary travels and researches 
 in Southern Africa" speaks of the Bolonda, a negro 
 tribe living on the Zambesi river. They pursue agri- 
 culture. Women take part in councils. When they 
 marry, the husband must remove to the village of the 
 wife. When they separate, the children remain with 
 the mother. The wife must provide the husband with 
 food. If he offends his wife, she punishes him by giv- 
 ing him nothing to eat, and no other woman gives him 
 anything. 
 
 What fools these heathens and savages are! They 
 actually do respect labor, while we, Christians and civil- 
 ized men, bombastically profess the respectability of 
 labor, but respect those least who perform the most and 
 hardest labor, and bow deepest before those who do not 
 work at all.
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 59 
 
 A full understanding of the customs and social insti- 
 tutions of savages and barbarians shows how wrong the 
 prevailing opinions in reference to them are. "As 
 strength and power are in savage life," reasons Mr. 
 Alexander in his aforementioned book, "the only means 
 of attaining to power and distinction, so weakness and 
 timidity are the certain paths to slavery and oppression. 
 On this account we shall almost constantly find women 
 among savages condemned to every species of servile or 
 rather of slavish drudgery, and shall as constantly find 
 them emerging from this state in the same proportion as 
 we find the men emerging from ignorance and brutality ; 
 the rank therefore and condition, in which we find 
 women in one country, mark out to us with the greatest 
 precision the exact point in the scale of civil society to 
 which the people of such country have attained; and 
 were their history entirely silent on every other subject, 
 and only mentioned the manner in which they treated 
 their women, we would from thence be enabled to form 
 a tolerable judgment of the barbarity, or culture of their 
 
 manners." He further says : "In savage life 
 
 women have hardly any mental qualifications; nursed in 
 dirt and slovenliness, with but little ornament, and still 
 less art in arranging it ; burned with the sun and bedau- 
 bed with grease, they excite disgust rather than desire; 
 hence they are not so much the objects of love as of 
 animal appetite; are seldom admitted to any distinguish- 
 ing rank, and as seldom exempted from any distinguish- 
 ing slavery They .... the women are by him 
 
 (the man) destined to perform every mean and servile 
 office, a fate which constantly attends the weak, where 
 power and not reason dictates the law." 
 
 Speaking of the influence of women among the
 
 60 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 Hurons, Iroquois and other Indians, he says: "This 
 inconsistency of behavior, more or less takes place in 
 all nations, and is an incontestable proof that manners 
 and customs are everywhere more the offspring of 
 chance than of systematic arrangement." 
 
 The superficiality of this reasoning is astounding, 
 especially as coming from the author of such an inter- 
 esting book as Mr. Alexander's, and' I made these quota- 
 tions only, because they are typical of the way people 
 generally judge of these things. We shall soon learn, 
 however, that manners and customs are not the offspring 
 of chance, that, on the contrary, there is system -every- 
 where, and that the manner of providing the necessaries 
 of life has more to do with the status of woman, than 
 her physical appearance and the ignorance and brutality 
 of men. If, among savages, women have to perform 
 hard labor, such labor is an economic necessity. If in 
 the wanderings of an Australian horde the women carry 
 the babies and the belongings, they do it, because the 
 men cannot do these things and hunt for food at the 
 same time. If among Arabian and other tribes the 
 custom of infanticide prevailed, it was on account of a 
 lack of food. But it is certainly the height of absurdity 
 to measure the beauty of savage women with the eye 
 of civilized man, and to assume that the savage man 
 does the same, and that he does it with the aesthetic 
 sentiment of civilization. Presumably savage women 
 would not bedaub themselves with grease without the 
 knowledge of thereby pleasing their male companions. 
 
 I might considerably increase the number of illustra- 
 tions of the status of woman prior to the period of civi- 
 lization, but I deem the foregoing sufficient, and will, 
 in addition, only quote from Tacitus' Germania in refer-
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 61 
 
 ence to the ancient Germans: "When they are not in 
 war, they spend their time hunting, oftener doing noth- 
 ing but eat and sleep. The care of house and hearth 
 and of the fields was left to the women, the aged, that 
 
 is, the weakest of the family." "A dowry is not 
 
 brought by the wife to the husband, but by the husband 
 to the wife" "The fields are taken by the com- 
 munities according to the number of the tillers" 
 
 "In them (noble virgins) they see something holy and 
 prophetic, and for this reason do not refuse their advice, 
 and leave their words not unobserved." 
 
 No trace of matriarchal institutions appears among 
 tribes that had not yet attained to the tilling of the soil, 
 were not domiciled and not sufficiently advanced to ac- 
 cumulate some property. None of it can be found 
 among pastoral nations. The Australians who roam 
 through the bush in hordes and oftener suffer hunger 
 than have an overplus of food, treat their women kindly, 
 but always finding it difficult to obtain a suitable wife 
 within the horde on account of the many inhibitions 
 spoken of before, steal or exchange women for the pur- 
 pose of marriage, and the wife almost invariably fol- 
 lows the husband into his horde. 
 
 Matriarchal institutions seem to have had their be- 
 ginning toward the end of the lower status of barbarism 
 and to disappear sometime in the middle status, per- 
 haps late in that status, leaving traces of their existence 
 behind. It is, of course, not to be presumed, that they 
 disappeared suddenly; the transformation was certainly 
 slow and gradual. Their duration in years we do not 
 know, it may have been hundreds or thousands. Our 
 historical knowledge does not go behind the upper status 
 of barbarism, and those tribes, of whom we gained
 
 62 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 knowledge by the discovery of new continents did not 
 farther develop their institutions independently and free 
 from contact with civilization. 
 
 The economic conditions under which matriarchal 
 institutions prevailed were these: Permanent domicile 
 of the tribe, cultivation of the soil to some extent, solely, 
 or principally, by women, and the practice of hunting 
 by men, also the manufacture of household utensils by 
 women exclusively, and the possibility of accumulating 
 some property. 
 
 Wherever the women materially assisted in the pro- 
 duction of the necessaries of life, as on the Pelew Island, 
 the Marian Islands etc. or among the Hurons, they were 
 well treated and enjoyed a superior position; but wher- 
 ever they contributed nothing material toward the ne- 
 cessary labor for subsistence, as on the Viti or the Ton- 
 ga Islands, their position was quite inferior and they 
 were not unfrequently brutally treated. 
 
 With domiciliation or localization and the cultivation 
 of the soil the possibility of a more rapid increase of 
 population was given; with the gradual extension of 
 agriculture and raising of domesticated animals, hunting 
 as a pursuit for obtaining food and other necessaries 
 became more and more unnecessary; with the improve- 
 ment of tools and the growth of skill the quantity of 
 manufactured things increased, and exchange of them 
 between different groups or tribes sprang up. In course 
 of time the making provision for the support of the 
 family became the exclusive business of the males, while 
 the women were limited to household work. Contempo- 
 raneously with the limitation of the sphere of their ac- 
 tivity and their value as producers of the necessaries of 
 life, their power and influence waned. It was altogether
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 63 
 
 an economic process ,- there were no sentimental reasons 
 for it. Certainly, sentiment changed, but the change of 
 sentiment was the consequence of the change of eco- 
 nomic conditions. Sentiment is never an original cause, 
 it is always created by conditions; but after its creation 
 it may become a powerful factor in movements toward 
 a transformation of conditions that have become op- 
 pressive. The Mosaic law commanded the return of the 
 pawn, for money borrowed, on the evening of the day 
 on which it was given. The moneylender of to-day, 
 even if he be an orthodox Hebrew, would ridicule the 
 idea. We live under different economic conditions and 
 our sentiments correspond with these conditions. Christ 
 drove the money-changers from the temple; in our days 
 the banker is one of the most honored and respected 
 personages. Has moral sentiment declined with civili- 
 zation, or was moral conception of a higher grade two 
 and three thousand years ago, than it is now? I am 
 rather inclined to believe that if department stores, in- 
 dustrial corporations and stock-exchanges were older 
 than the Hebrew law, the latter would have been dif- 
 ferent from what is was, and the money-changers would 
 have had the front seats in the temple. 
 
 Up to modern times the economic conditions not 
 only remained unfavorable to women but grew so even 
 more. Century after century passed, but women re- 
 mained without power and influence, at least among the 
 classes who shaped legislation and institutions, because 
 the economic conditions were such that woman was not 
 an economic factor in production. 
 
 With the growth of property, the institution of slav- 
 ery sprang up. Slavery is not possible where the power 
 of production is so small that the worker cannot produce
 
 64 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 more than what is necessary for his own sustenance. 
 Perhaps it sounds paradoxical, but it is nevertheless 
 true, that slavery, as well as the subjugation of woman, 
 was the result of advancing civilization, in so far, at 
 least, as this advance consisted in the growth of the 
 power of production. I am firmly of the opinion that 
 if conditions had not arisen under which the free laborer 
 became a better producer than the slave, slavery would 
 still be an existing institution, and moral feeling and 
 sentiment would sustain it. It would be difficult to 
 prove, if possible at all, that the ancient Grecians were 
 inferior to us in humane sentiment and moral conscious- 
 ness, at least in the classic age, yet they maintained the 
 institution of slavery. It was defended even by Aristotle, 
 simply because it was, or was believed to be, an eco- 
 nomic necessity. At the same time they had little respect 
 for women and much less for their wives. I do not 
 know of any time and any place, when and where slav- 
 ery was co-existent with a superior position of women. 
 They were objects of physical admiration, or objects of 
 sensual or even soulful admiration, and as such have 
 wielded great influence in isolated cases by cabals and 
 intrigues, or by the power of their charms, or that of 
 genuine affection; their beauty and graces have been 
 permitted to adorn the home, but they have not exer- 
 cised any general power or influence as an integral part 
 of the nation or the community. Socially and politically 
 woman was held inferior to man. 
 
 Surely, there was between this period and that of 
 the matriarchate no difference in reference to the attrac- 
 tion of the sexes toward each other. It is, at least, not 
 to be presumed that women had deteriorated in physical 
 appearance or intellectual impression, nor that there was
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 65 
 
 any change in the forces of nature which could have 
 caused such a difference. It also can hardly be main- 
 tained that the introduction of slavery, or the abrogation 
 of institutions which gave woman power and influence 
 are in themselves proof of higher culture and greater re- 
 finement. Where then is the difference between the 
 period of matriarchate and the later period in which 
 slavery prevailed, and the power and influence of women 
 were gone? It is in this, that in the one period woman 
 was economically independent of man, in the other she 
 depended on him for support and maintenance. Where, 
 in the former period, she was not quite independent, the 
 man, at least, depended as much on her as she on him. 
 And, economically dependent she remained during 
 all the following centuries. Slavery disappeared and 
 was superseded by feudalism with its institution of serf- 
 dom. It was, in a sense, only a modification of slavery. 
 Economically it had the same effect on women as slavery 
 had. Household-drudgery extended to weaving and 
 spinning, to making soap and brewing beer, and produ- 
 cing numerous other things which the house-wife of the 
 present day simply orders by telephone. Most of the 
 work was done by the wives and daughters of the serfs, 
 and no work, the fruits of which belong to another, 
 makes the worker economically independent. Nor could 
 the work of the serfs make women of the upper classes 
 economically independent, because they did not own the 
 serfs and were not an economic necessity. Women 
 were adored in knightly, romantic fashion, minstrels 
 sang their praise, and the baron and the lord bowed 
 deeply in reverence to the lady. But all the sometimes 
 grotesque gallantry and chivalry only served to demon- 
 strate the sentiment that it was the duty of the strong
 
 66 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 to protect the weak. It was the politeness of the super- 
 ior toward the inferior, permeated by gross sensuality. 
 The wife was under coverture, as the law called it, and 
 her rights were few, her disabilities many. The poets 
 sang of fidelity to the lady in love, but the lady in love 
 was quite frequently some other woman than the wife. 
 
 Feudalism was in form and spirit a military institu- 
 tion. Such institutions are very apt to produce chivalry 
 and cavalierdom, but do not contribute toward the inde- 
 pendence and dignity of women; nor can militarism 
 grant to women an extensive sphere of influence. 
 
 The economic arrangements and the mode of pro- 
 duction in feudal times were these : the peasant serf 
 delivered to the landlord the largest part of the prod- 
 ucts of the lord's soil and his own toil, and these were 
 prepared and shaped for consumption in the home. 
 While the serfs were not themselves the property of 
 the lord, they were, so to say, a fixture belonging to 
 the land, and their labor force, as well as that of their 
 families, practically belonged to the lord, who reaped 
 the fruits of their labor. For all practical purposes 
 they lived in a condition of slavery. 
 
 It seems almost needless to state that the women in 
 those times, even those of the upper classes, received 
 very little education, and learned almost nothing, ex- 
 cept, perhaps, the execution of needle-work. Spending 
 almost their whole life within the household, which they 
 supervised in a manner pleasing to their lords, it was 
 neither thought useful nor necessary for them to know 
 anything which had no relation to the household or the 
 rearing of children. 
 
 That the life of the peasant woman was one of in- 
 cessant toil and servitude may go as self-understood.
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 67 
 
 The laws of inheritance were decidedly against 
 woman, for in most cases the estate went to the first- 
 born son. But the worst of all of it was the power of 
 the lord to dispose of his infant in marriage. "This," 
 says Blackstone, "seems to have been one of the greatest 
 hardships of ancient tenures. There were indeed sub- 
 stantial reasons why the lord should have the restraint 
 and control of the ward's marriage, especially of his 
 female ward; because of their tender years, and the 
 danger of such female ward's intermarrying with the 
 lord's enemy; but no tolerable pretense could be as- 
 signed why the lord should have the sale or value of 
 the marriage." Speaking then of the origin of that 
 right and of the provisions of the charter of Henry the 
 First in respect to it, he continues : "But this, among 
 other beneficial parts of that charter, being disregarded, 
 and guardians still continuing to dispose of their wards 
 (the father being in law the guardian of his child) in 
 a very arbitrary, unequal manner, it was provided, etc." 
 
 With 'few exceptions, principally among the many 
 petty reigning houses, such was in general the condi- 
 tion of women in feudal times. If it was bad in the 
 upper classes, it was even worse among the lower. For 
 the nobleman directed the marriages among his peasant 
 serfs and selected husbands and wives for them accord- 
 ing to his pleasure. The daughters of the peasants 
 were the easy, because powerless prey of his lordship's 
 lust, and there is ample proof that the "jus primae 
 noctis" was not a myth. Blackstone does not mention 
 it, but his description of the legal status of the serfs is 
 sufficient to create the conviction that the right existed 
 in England as well as on the continent. "These villeins 
 (the word means those holding land by tenure of villen-
 
 68 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 age) belong principally to lords of manors, were 
 
 either annexed to the manor or lord, or to the per- 
 son of the lord and transferable by deed from one owner 
 to the other. They could not leave their lord without 
 his permission, but if they ran away, or were purloined 
 from him, might be claimed and recovered by action, 
 like beasts or chattels. They held .... small portions of 
 land by way of sustaining themselves and families, but 
 it was at the mere will of the lord . . . . and it was upon 
 
 villein services and their services were not only 
 
 base, but uncertain, both as to time and quantity .... 
 A villein could acquire no property in land or goods, 
 but if he purchased either, the lord might enter upon 
 them, oust the villein, and seize them to his own use ... 
 In many places also a fine was payable to the lord, if 
 the villein presumed to marry his daughter to anyone 
 without leave from the lord, (this was probably a later 
 substitution for the peculiar right mentioned above. 
 The Author.) The lord might also bring an action 
 against the husband for damages in thus purloining his 
 property. For the children of villeins were also in the 
 same state of bondage with their parents." 
 
 Fortunately all human institutions are only transient, 
 and feudalism was no exception. In England serfdom 
 and villenage were practically done away with at the 
 end of the fourteenth century. The suffering of the 
 people caused the risings of Wat Tyler and Flannoc, 
 and though the people suffered defeat in the peasant's 
 war, yet the worst evils were abolished in immediate 
 consequence thereof. But it must not be forgotten that 
 the economic conditions, gradually, had also changed 
 considerably. Cities had grown up and acquired much 
 wealth, power and independence; payment in money
 
 THE; STATUS OF WOMAN 69 
 
 had been very extensively substituted for payment in 
 kind or service; the landless peasants had, many of 
 them, become wage laborers; in the cities the trades in- 
 creased; commerce began to flourish and tradesmen and 
 artisans became a power. The fear of competition then 
 devised the craft guilds. 
 
 The guild system bore the characteristics of feudal 
 times. Class-privileges and power on one side, com- 
 pulsory service on the other. The idea of free labor, 
 the right of every one to work for his own subsistence 
 had not yet entered the human mind. The prevailing 
 idea of a proper social order was that of class-govern- 
 ment. Labor and service were not conceived as separ- 
 able. In the beginning the craft-guilds may not have 
 been more than organizations for mutual protection 
 against the aggressions of the lords and barons, and it 
 may also be that for some time the intention of guard- 
 ing the interests of the public against poor and unsatis- 
 factory work was more than a mere pretense, but the 
 guilds had not been in existence very long when they 
 developed into powerful institutions with legal rights 
 and privileges, creating class-monopolies. They placed 
 checks and restrictions everywhere. The artisan com- 
 menced his career as an apprentice, the time of appren- 
 ticeship lasting from seven to eight years. During this 
 time he was not much better than a slave. When he 
 became a journeyman, he was far from being a freeman. 
 His civil rights were so few that he could not even 
 marry, unless his bride was the widow of a master. He 
 was a member of his master's household ; but to become 
 a master himself was a matter of great difficulty, except 
 for masters' sons. He was lucky, if the "masterpiece," 
 intended to bear evidence of his mastership, was ap-
 
 70 IvOOKING FORWARD 
 
 proved by the jealous masters. To guard against com- 
 petition the guilds fixed the number of masters allowed 
 in a city, and the maximum number of apprentices who 
 were allowed to learn the trade. Besides that, the fees 
 and costs which the journeyman entering mastership 
 was required to pay, and the expenses connected with 
 the ceremonial initiation were so numerous and large 
 that they frequently proved an insurmountable obsta- 
 cle. 
 
 There was tyranny everywhere. Quite character- 
 istic of the times was a law of Venice which forbade 
 artisans to practice their art or craft in foreign coun- 
 tries, so as to preserve the secrets thereof and the home 
 monopoly. If one went abroad, he was ordered to re- 
 turn; if he disobeyed, his nearest relatives were cast 
 into prison ; and if this did not bring him home, an 
 assassin was sent after him, and his relatives were lib- 
 erated after his death. 
 
 It must not be supposed that these guilds had 
 smooth sailing all the time. In the twelfth and thir- 
 teenth centuries it was several times attempted in Ger- 
 many by imperial legislation to destroy them, because 
 the feudal powers became jealous of them and feared 
 them. And, later on, dissatisfaction among the journey- 
 men began to grow, and they organized themselves 
 openly or secretly for the purpose of resisting the mas- 
 ters, but no social or political power was strong enough 
 to harm them. No outside force was powerful enough 
 to destroy them. Their death came from foes that grew 
 within. They themselves created the conditions which 
 undermined their existence, and their death was at no 
 time nearer than when they and the merchants' guilds 
 had reached their highest stage of development and
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 71 
 
 power. They were destroyed by the force of economic 
 conditions which they themselves had brought forth. 
 When they had reached their climax the process of self- 
 destruction commenced. It was the same process which 
 we witness now in regard to the competitive system, 
 which is slowly giving way to combination and associa- 
 tion. The institution of the guilds became, as I will 
 show, an obstacle to its own original purposes and inju- 
 rious to the very class which had created it. 
 
 There is abundant evidence that, in their earlier per- 
 iod, women were in the crafts as employers as well as 
 employees, but it is not difficult to understand that the 
 fear of competition drove them out. Thereafter no 
 women were to be found in the guilds with the excep- 
 tion of that of the prostitutes. For, frequently in the 
 middle ages the necessity of prostitution was recog- 
 nized, the prostitutes were protected by law and organ- 
 ized by ordinance and law. 
 
 In Japan, which emerged from feudalism only half 
 a century ago, houses of prostitution are to this day 
 maintained by the government. 
 
 WiOmen were not allowed to enter the trades. They 
 were not accepted as apprentices, and without going 
 through the prescribed course of apprenticeship and 
 journeymanship, they could not become masters and 
 could not establish a business of their own. Thus, a 
 woman, unless rich by inheritance, had not a shadow of 
 economic independence. Hardly any other avenue of 
 life was open to unmarried women, except that of a 
 house servant, and they were driven by the thousands 
 into vagabondage and prostitution. Perhaps there was 
 no time in the history of Europe when vagabondage 
 and prostitution had grown to such enormous proper-
 
 72 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 tions as in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. At 
 fairs or upon occasions where many men assembled, 
 these female vagabonds appeared by the hundreds or 
 thousands. The historian tells us that the council of 
 Constance, where the pope and the emperor, numerous 
 princes, dukes, counts and electors of the German 
 empire, as well as a large number of cardinals, bishops 
 and other prelates had assembled, accompanied by their 
 large retinues, witnessed the presence of not less than 
 fifteen hundred of these women in the city. 
 
 This was at a time when feudalism and serfdom in 
 Germany were still in full force. The German peasants' 
 war came more than a hundred years later than the 
 English, but the power of the cities had already 
 assumed large proportions and the numerous guilds 
 controlled the economic life therein. The cities, in Eng- 
 land, as well as on the continent, by trade and com- 
 merce, amassed great wealth, and from that time dates 
 the rise of that class which now, in economic parlance 
 is designated by the French word bourgeoisie. 
 
 Contemporaneous with the splendor of the cities 
 was the misery and degradation of the country people; 
 in England after the war of the races, in Germany after 
 the thirty years' war. Vagabondage of men and women 
 increased to incredible' proportions. In Germany it 
 was forced upon the populace by the almost complete 
 devastation of the country, in England by the discharge 
 of the many retainers of the impoverished nobility. 
 Nothing can give a better idea of the fearful extent of 
 vagabondage than the severity and cruelty with which 
 it was attempted to suppress it. 
 
 By an act of parliament it was laid down in 1547 
 as law in England that every able-bodied loiterer should
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 73 
 
 be branded with a hot iron and handed over as a slave 
 to the person who denounced him. The slave might be 
 kept on bread and water, and refused meat or good 
 nourishment of any kind; he might be compelled to 
 undertake the most filthy task by means of flogging or 
 other torture. If he ran away for a fortnight, he was 
 condemned to perpetual slavery and to be branded with 
 the letter S on his cheek and on his forehead; if he 
 ran away again, death as a felon was his doom. His 
 master could sell him, bequeath him, or let him like a 
 horse or a mule. Death was the punishment of slaves 
 who "contrived aught against their masters." When 
 one of the vagabonds was caught in the roads by the 
 public officers, he was branded with the letter V on his 
 chest, and brought back to his birth-place, where he 
 must work in chains on the public road. If a vagrant 
 gave a false birth-place, he became a slave of the muni- 
 cipality, and was branded again. His children became 
 the apprentices of the first-comer who wanted them, the 
 lads to the age of twenty-four, the girls up to the age 
 of twenty. If these poor creatures took to flight they 
 then became slaves to their masters, who might put 
 them in irons, whip them, put rings around their necks, 
 and the like. 
 
 If we were to judge the condition of the people in 
 those times from the romantic rubbish written of them, 
 we would be forced to believe that their lot was one 
 of exalted happiness and serenity, and that life was a 
 continuous love-feast. The truth, however, is, that 
 these conditions produced debauchery and immorality to 
 an almost incredible degree. Even prior to this period 
 of vagabondage the manners of the upper classes were 
 such that they would shock our sense of decency and
 
 74 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 propriety. It was nothing to women of the better classes 
 to sit down in the company of half drunken men and 
 listen complacently to the vilest stories and jests. Un- 
 doubtedly there was much of the romantic in their life, 
 if for no other reason, than that the women, having 
 many servants, had not much else to do, and did not 
 know what else to do, than to indulge in love-affairs. 
 Their education was scanty, their horizon narrow. But 
 romanticism has ever been the companion of an inferior 
 social position of women. Sensuous adoration took the 
 place of true respect. The greater the inequality of 
 rights and position, the more romanticism in the rela- 
 tion between the sexes. There is a want of common 
 interest in matters outside of personal relations. But 
 what sort of morals romanticism is apt to produce, how 
 it may lower the dignity of man, and inevitably must 
 lower the dignity of woman, we may judge, when we 
 learn that a prince of Liechtenstein drank the water 
 with which his lady-love had washed herself; cities 
 maintained houses of prostitution, and conducted visiting 
 noblemen of high rank to them as their guests. When 
 king Wladislaw of Bohemia visited Vienna in 1452, the 
 city authorities sent for his reception a deputation of 
 prostitutes, clad in nothing but a dress of thin gauze ; 
 and worse than that, emperor Charles the Fifth was, on 
 the occasion of his visit in Bruges, received by a deputa- 
 tion of citizens' daughters, wearing nothing but nature's 
 costume. The latter event has been memorialized by the 
 great painter Hans Makart in one of his celebrated 
 paintings. 
 
 Such was the state of morality in a time when 
 women had neither social nor political rights. It is 
 quite well for those who fear from the entrance of
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 75 
 
 women into business pursuits and political life the loss 
 of their femininity, to know this and ask themselves 
 whether women were in those, times more truly feminine 
 than in ours with less romanticism, but with more good 
 practical sense. Upon the other hand, we may well ask 
 ourselves, whether such a state of things had been pos- 
 sible, if women had an opportunity of making them- 
 selves useful in some way in the economic affairs of 
 society, striving toward economic independence, hav- 
 ing an influence in shaping the economic structure 
 of society, and taking an interest in the life of 
 the nation. Such, however, was impossible under 
 the feudal system, as well as under the guild system. 
 And I want to say right here, that speaking of economic 
 independence of women as a powerful liberating factor, 
 I do not mean such independence in isolated cases, but 
 as a general condition, although it is not altogether 
 without influence, even if appearing sporadically. As 
 is was, the women of the lower classes were, in the 
 country, slaves of the field, in the cities, slaves of the 
 large household, which included beside the family, the 
 journeymen and apprentices; the women of the upper 
 classes were, at least in earlier times, slaves of the house- 
 hold, and both were subject to the superior will of their 
 lords and masters. The only semblance of freedom ex- 
 isted among the prostitutes. 
 
 Time passed on and the guilds died. In respect to 
 death the fate of human institutions does not differ from 
 the fate of man himself. Powerful as the guilds were, 
 and indispensable as they were considered in their 
 days for the existence of human society, society nev- 
 ertheless exists to-day without them. The ruling classes 
 always believed their institutions to be indispensable for
 
 76 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 the welfare of mankind; they believe so to-day. Yet 
 subsequent history never failed to show the fallacy of 
 such belief. Is it to be doubted that future history will 
 do the same? 
 
 The guild system was a system of restraints, but 
 these restraints, in course of time, became obnoxious to 
 the very class that had created them for its own protec- 
 tion. For never was human ingenuity able to devise 
 social or economic institutions that did not from their 
 very beginning conceal within themselves the elements 
 of their own destruction. There could be no evolution 
 if it were not so. Every economic system will collapse 
 or topple over upon reaching the climax of its develop- 
 ment, but long before reaching that point, the signs of 
 its coming death will become visible, not to everybody, 
 perhaps, but to the cool and prudent observer. 
 
 The guild-system served its purpose to protect and 
 enrich certain classes quite well. But when the power 
 of production increased in consequence of the inventive 
 genius of man, and when commerce also increased, espe- 
 cially after the discovery of the Western continent and 
 the finding of the ocean-passage to India towards the end 
 of the fifteenth century, and when the accumulated wealth 
 was gradually turned into capital, that is, turned from a 
 source of enjoyment into an instrument of profit-making, 
 which was greatly facilitated by the growth and exten- 
 sion of money-economy, the restrictive system failed to 
 serve its purpose. It became a hindrance to the use of 
 capital and the increased power of production. Capital 
 needs elbow-room. It is inimical to every restriction in 
 its use. It needs room for the expansion of its uses. 
 So it came that the classes against whom restriction was 
 directed, were hardly more instrumental in its overthrow
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 77 
 
 than the class for whom it was instituted, and who had 
 grown rich under it. The accumulation of wealth had 
 reached a point where restriction became a barrier to 
 further increase and accumulation. Having reached the 
 climax of its development, where it was no longer able 
 to serve its original purposes, where in fact it became 
 an obstacle to the objects for which it had been created, 
 its death was inadvertible. The era of free trade and 
 competition appeared. (The expression free trade is not 
 to be understood as meaning absence of tariff-duties, but 
 absence of restrictions of trade.) 
 
 It must not be understood that all the restraints were 
 removed at once. It was done gradually, one after the 
 other, during and after a long continued class-struggle. 
 In France the last feudal rights and guild-restraints 
 were abolished during the great revolution, and in Ger- 
 many after the revolution of 1848. There was plenty of 
 feudalism in our country prior to the revolution and the 
 declaration of independence, and even some time after- 
 wards. We had not only negro-slavery, but it was also 
 possible to keep white persons in bondage as debtors, 
 apprentices, or under some sort of contract. In Penn- 
 sylvania white persons were sold like slaves, for terms 
 at least. Here are two samples of advertisements that 
 recently came under my notice: 
 
 "To be sold. A likely Servant Woman having three 
 years and a half to serve. She is a good spinner." 
 (Pennsylvania Gazette, June 1742.) 
 
 "To be sold. A Dutch apprentice lad who has five 
 years and three months to serve; he has been brought 
 up to the Taylor's business. Can work well." (Penn- 
 sylvania Staatsbote, Dec. 13, 1773.) 
 
 With the growth of industrialism, however, labor
 
 78 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 was freed, for, as I remarked before, experience had 
 taught that the free laborer was a better property pro- 
 ducing machine than the man held in bondage. 
 
 And now commenced the stupendous growth of cap- 
 ital and its career of industrial and commercial expan- 
 sion and exploitation of human labor. It was im- 
 mensely aided in this career by the discovery of natural 
 forces, not known hitherto, such as that of steam and 
 electricity, and the invention of machinery, through 
 which the power of production increased astoundingly. 
 From now on the economic history of the new world 
 does not differ materially from that of the old. The 
 new era took over from the old the large mass of land- 
 less and propertyless people, and material for the ex- 
 ploitation of labor existed in abundance. The laborers 
 being free, they were also left to compete with each 
 other. This resulted in two kinds of competition, that 
 between employer and employer, and that between 
 laborer and laborer, both kinds of competition tend- 
 ing to increase wealth on one side and poverty on 
 the other. And although I am ready to admit that 
 during this period the condition of the laborers im- 
 proved and that they became able to satisfy needs and 
 tastes which could not be satisfied by the laborers of 
 former periods, yet it remains true that in proportion to 
 the increase of the power of production and the stupen- 
 dous growth of wealth, they became actually poorer. 
 
 A good deal of the improvement in the condition of 
 the working-classes consists in the possibility of procur- 
 ing things which, from a modern standpoint, may seem 
 quite necessary for the support and enjoyment of life, 
 but are not absolutely so. They are things of luxury or 
 comfort which one does not miss, if one does not know
 
 THE; STATUS OF WOMAN 79 
 
 of them. But as far as food and wearing apparel are 
 concerned, the workmen of five centuries ago seem to 
 have been as well, if not better, off than those of to-day. 
 This is amply proven by the sumptuary laws of those 
 times. In Saxony it was ordained in 1482 that mechan- 
 ics and mowers must be content with receiving beside 
 their wages in money, twice a day, at noon and in the 
 evening, four "speisen" (kinds of food) : soup, two 
 kinds of meat and one kind of vegetables, and on fast 
 days five "speisen": soup, two kinds of fish and two 
 kinds of vegetables. 
 
 In England, parliament passed in 1463 a statute by 
 which agricultural laborers were not allowed to use 
 materials for clothing, which cost more than two shillings 
 a yard, nor were they to have a pair of stockings which 
 cost more than fourteen pence; silver girdles were also 
 prohibited. A wife was ordered not to give more than 
 a shilling for a head dress. Twenty years later laborers 
 were allowed to have stockings which cost eighteen pence 
 a pair and a wife might spend one shilling and eight 
 pence for a head dress. Considering the value of money 
 in those times, these prices were enormously high. 
 
 Undoubtedly, the workingmen enjoy to-day the com- 
 fort of things that then did not even exist, and which, 
 therefore, even the wealthiest did not have, but the fact 
 that, for instance, emperor Nero could not with all his 
 power procure a gas-stove or a petroleum-lamp, does not 
 make the laborer of the twentieth century a whit hap- 
 pier. It must also not be overlooked that dissatisfaction 
 in one class of people is not so much produced by the 
 latter's own condition, as by comparison between its 
 condition and that of another class. The poorest Amer- 
 ican workman has in his most humble 1 dwelling far more
 
 80 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 comfort than the Eskimo in his snow-hut, but, of the 
 two, the Eskimo is, probably, the more happy and con- 
 tented. 
 
 The new industrial system, the characteristic of 
 which is the massing together of hundreds and thous- 
 ands for production under centralized direction in the 
 most economical manner, with division of labor and the 
 aid of all technical facilities which the ingenuity of man 
 could devise, not for the immediate purpose of con- 
 sumption, but for the purpose of commerce, had won- 
 derful effects, and produced an economic class, which 
 gradually acquired all the power and influence formerly 
 possessed by the landowing class. It changed the char- 
 acter of whole nations, made England, which formerly 
 had been a purely agricultural country, a purely indus- 
 trial country, and is now completing the same process in 
 Germany. It is due to the vastness of the country that 
 the same effect was only partially produced in the United 
 States, but in the New England states agriculture is 
 nearly extinguished. It built railroads and steamships, 
 reducing distance to almost nothing, thereby facilitating 
 the shifting of population for industrial purposes; it has 
 tarnished the escutcheons of nobility and robbed titles 
 of their awe; it has democratized the world politically, 
 without, however, being able to abolish social distinc- 
 tions ; it has produced an enormous mass of wealth, such 
 as the world has never seen before, and made one class 
 produce it for the other without the use of physical force 
 or compulsory service, merely by the operation of eco- 
 nomic conditions. Originally destined to break down 
 monopoly created by the force of law, it soon created 
 monopoly by mere economic force. By the same force 
 of conditions only, without the use of any legal or phys-
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 81 
 
 ical restraints, it closed to certain classes the higher 
 avenues of life just as effectually, as they were formerly 
 closed to them by mediaeval laws and institutions, thus 
 achieving by technical freedom and equality a result, in 
 many respects similar to the results of feudalism and the 
 guild-restraints. But while under these latter systems 
 the social and political stacus of everyone was clearly 
 defined by tradition, custom and law, and the course of 
 life laid out by strict regulations in every walk of life 
 with such precision, that everyone could, with a degree 
 of certainty, foresee and map out his future, the new 
 system brought into all classes of society a high degree 
 of uncertainty of the prospects of the future, so that in 
 course of time it became impregnated with the charac- 
 ter of speculation. One of the most marked effects 
 which it had, was that on the life and status of women. 
 Through all the centuries of slavery, feudalism and 
 (may I use the word?) guildism, the women were no 
 economic factor. These systems of production left no 
 room for women in the economics of the time. Women 
 took no part in the production of the necessaries of life, 
 except as help-mates in the most uninfluential and the 
 most dependent classes, which were not free agencies, 
 but were tools or instruments of labor. Through these 
 thousands of years women had few, if any, civil or 
 property rights; through these thousands of years their 
 condition was more or less, one of tutelage. Hypocrit- 
 ical sentimentalism and gallantry subjected them fre- 
 quently to cruel and brutal laws under the pretense of 
 protecting their weakness. The natural influence of sex- 
 difference made men display in the presence of women 
 a deference and courtesy which disappeared in their ab- 
 sence. Upon the other hand, long continued usage had
 
 82 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 made women content with receiving homage and flat- 
 tery, and left them without aspirations and pretensions 
 in public affairs and the political life of the nations. 
 False sentimentalism and sickly romanticism believe even 
 to this day that this is the proper position of women, 
 that their beauty and graces inspire men to I would 
 say acts of bravery and valor, if mediaeval customs still 
 prevailed, but they having become extinct, I must say 
 according to the customs of our own times money- 
 making with the hope of carrying away the fairest of the 
 fair as wife, whose principal duty shall thereafter be to 
 caress away from her husband's brow the wrinkles put 
 there by. business cares, and make his home comfortable. 
 Undoubtedly this is a poetic and idyllic thought. But 
 alas, life is no idyl and reality is stronger than fancy. 
 
 And now behold! The competitive system, or as it 
 is also called, the capitalistic system, no sooner is firmly 
 established, than it draws woman into the whirl of eco- 
 nomic life. All the fences and hedges which surrounded 
 the individual's life are torn down. All the carefully 
 laid pathways for each individual's economic life are 
 obliterated, the regulation and protection which the 
 social and economic fabric had thrown around the indi- 
 vidual and had given his course certainty and steadiness, 
 " vanished, and every person was set free and thrown 
 upon his or her own resources. But the wealth remained 
 in the hands of those who had accumulated it before, and 
 now possessed the greatest freedom in its uses. The 
 others, men and women alike, were left to their wits and 
 possibilities to get along as well as they could. Men 
 and women alike had from now on to seek a livelihood, 
 unaided by institutions of law, except such for the pro- 
 tection of property and contract rights. There still ex-
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 83 
 
 isted many laws, customs and prejudices which were a 
 hindrance not only to women in the use of their eco- 
 nomic force, but also to men in the economic use of 
 women. What, therefore, was more natural and log- 
 ical than the commencement of the movement for the 
 emancipation of women? The new economic system 
 conjured up that movement. And as natural and log- 
 ical as was its creation, so natural and logical was its 
 success. It would have been impossible for the indus- 
 trial system to make the extensive use of women that it 
 was destined to make without giving them full property 
 rights. Slowly and grudgingly as they were given they 
 had to be given, because the new system of production 
 demanded it. It was not a voluntary concession, al- 
 though it had the appearance of it. It was not the 
 chivalry of the male sex, nor the men's advanced views 
 of equality, nor a higher sense of justice that gave to 
 women all the rights of person and property. Neither 
 was it done from a more exalted conception of right; 
 nor was it the continued clamor of women for their 
 rights which brought about this change in their posi- 
 tion. The new system of production needed women 
 who were free in the use of their persons and their prop- 
 erty; it could not get along without them. It had been 
 discovered that the free male laborer was a better prop- 
 erty producing machine than the unfree. Why should 
 this not hold true in reference to women? Political 
 rights were not necessary for making them good pro- 
 ducers; personal and property rights sufficed for that 
 purpose; therefore political rights were and still are 
 withheld from women, except where they are granted for 
 local reasons, as for instance for the purpose of temper- 
 ance legislation, or where the lower economic class has
 
 84 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 already gained much political power, as in Australia. 
 Freedom of contract, however, had become under the 
 new economic system an economic necessity, for without 
 it, the unhampered exploitation of female labor would 
 have been impossible. 
 
 Customs and social habits change slowly. Habit and 
 prejudice, therefore, still block the way of women to- 
 ward establishing themselves in business of their own, 
 but many of them devoted themselves to art and litera- 
 ture and teaching. They strove for better education, 
 and I say, without fear of contradiction, that the aver- 
 age American woman is to-day better educated than the 
 average American man. But the nineteenth century wit- 
 nessed 1 an influx of women in remarkable and still grow- 
 ing numbers in industrial and commercial pursuits as 
 wage-earners. They entered the office as stenographers, 
 typewriters, bookkeepers and clerks, the store as clerks 
 and saleswomen, the factory as laborers. The number 
 of factory women reaches into the millions. In Eng- 
 land women have worked and, I believe, still work even 
 in coal mines. In the United States they are generally 
 employed in lighter work, such as cotton-spinning, mak- 
 ing paper-boxes and principally in the garment indus- 
 tries. But they are also found in places where one 
 would not expect to find them. So, for instance, I 
 found several hundred of them at work in one of the 
 largest machine shops in the country, where they were 
 spinning thread around copper wire. Wherever the 
 hand-work is light, or wherever the machine works auto- 
 matically, needing only attendance, we find women of all 
 ages in employment. In bakeries and in laundries they 
 sometimes perform very hard work. They do even the 
 nasty and loathsome work of assorting rags. They
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 85 
 
 work in the company of men, frequently work ten hours 
 a day and more, and do night work as well as day work. 
 There are industries, for instance the cotton industry, 
 where the number of women far exceeds that of the men. 
 
 As a general rule they receive only small wages, sel- 
 dom enough to support them sufficiently and decently. 
 They receive from two dollars a week upward to six, 
 seven or eight dollars, and only seldom reach ten dollars 
 or over. It is needless to say that the moral effect of 
 all this is bad, very bad. Not less so is the physical 
 effect on women. An exhaustive investigation of the 
 relation of hard physical work to the health of women 
 wage-earners was made by the Massachusetts Bureau of 
 Labor statistics. It is shown there that the reproduct- 
 ive organs in particular are injured by the strain of their 
 labor and that their physical ability to perform the ma- 
 ternal functions is greatly impaired. It is even recom- 
 mended, as a result of that investigation, that immature 
 girls should be prevented by law from working in fac- 
 tories, stores, business institutions of all descriptions, and 
 that the law should have jurisdiction over the labor of 
 all women. 
 
 Of a very serious nature also is the economic effect. 
 Woman's labor, being so much cheaper than man's labor, 
 replaces the latter in thousands of instances, and fre- 
 quently leaves to the men no other choice but to aban- 
 don the particular branch of employment or be satisfied 
 with smaller wages. In consequence thereof female 
 wage-labor has the general tendency to force down the 
 wages of men and the standard of living in the laboring 
 class. Hence the opposition of labor organizations to 
 the employment of women. But the opposition is fruit- 
 less. The prevailing economic; system, or rather the syj>-
 
 86 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 tern of production, is stronger than this opposition. I 
 am of the opinion that, in consonance with the present 
 mode of production, the use of female labor will in- 
 crease with the growth of industry and the increase of 
 the facility of production. There is no other force, at 
 present, to counteract its effect on wages than the efforts 
 of labor organizations toward increase of wages and the 
 elevation of the standard of living of the working class. 
 I believe also, however, that in course of time, and as a 
 consequence of continued efforts of women to better the 
 condition of their sex, the police power of the State will 
 be more extensively used toward the improvement of 
 the sanitary condition of factories and the prohibition of 
 the employment of female labor at periods and in kinds 
 of work peculiarly injurious to the sex. I regret to be 
 compelled to say that, in this respect, the laws in this 
 great republic are far behind those of some of the Euro- 
 pean monarchies. 
 
 After woman had been drawn into the whirl of eco- 
 nomic life as wage-earner, having been forced to take up 
 the struggle of existence for herself, it was natural and 
 unavoidable that she would enter the struggle for supe- 
 rior position, for that is one of the forms of the economic 
 struggle of our time. Her energy and force once em- 
 ployed in the economics of the time, there was no reason 
 for her, after having discovered their value, to use them 
 only in inferior positions. The consciousness of her 
 force and ability having been awakened in her, why 
 should she not strive for all the accomplishments neces- 
 sary for the higher positions and become lawyer, doctor, 
 or anything better than a mere wage-earner? Has any- 
 body a right to complain? Had not competition been 
 proclaimed to be the life of trade? Did the theory hold
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 87 
 
 good only as to industry, commerce and common labor, 
 and not as to the professions? Had doctors and law- 
 yers a right to complain of competition while working- 
 men had not? From the moment that exploitation of 
 female labor force was begun, the modern woman- 
 movement was destined to appear. It owes its birth to 
 our economic system, and no prejudice and no scorn will 
 prove strong enough to hinder it in its onward course. 
 Henceforward it will be a very important factor in the 
 evolution of social institutions. 
 
 The "new woman" will not any longer be an object 
 of ridicule, but of respect; she will soon not be "new" 
 any more; and I am sure the time will come, or rather 
 return, when the voice of women will neither re- 
 main unheard, nor unheeded in matters of public con- 
 cern. 
 
 Bad as the moral, physical and economic effect of 
 woman-labor in offices, stores and factories is at pres- 
 ent, I believe that it is merely a phenomenon peculiar 
 to all transitions. The birth of a new time is always 
 attended with pain and suffering. The adjustment of 
 social institutions and regulations of life to new eco- 
 nomic conditions is necessarily a slow process, and 
 changes which are beneficial to mankind are, in the begin- 
 ning, very often injurious to single classes. Liberation 
 was not an immediate unmixed blessing to the slave 
 who needed time to learn the use of freedom. The in- 
 troduction of machinery, one of the greatest blessings to 
 mankind, caused much misery and suffering by throw- 
 ing thousands out of employment. I am sure a time 
 will come when all the evils of female labor will have 
 disappeared, and when it will be of general benefit to 
 individual and social life. It will not always be in the
 
 88 kOOkJNG W-ORWARD 
 
 form of cheap employment, it will not always be In the 
 form of wage-labor. I am sure, that in the selection of 
 woman's work, full regard will be had to her physical 
 and mental characteristics. I think it will gradually, 
 though in all probability very slowly, assume a form 
 which, together with other causes, will bring about the 
 economic freedom of women, and along jvith this, per- 
 fect social and political equality of the y^xes. 
 
 I have endeavored to show in this chapter that eco- 
 nomic institutions are not less subject to change than 
 other human institutions; that along with the evolution 
 of economic institutions, the status of woman also under- 
 went changes, and that it always stood in close relation 
 to her participation in the economics of the time. The 
 condition of women improved, their power and influence 
 increased or decreased in proportion to their being a 
 factor in the process of the production of the necessaries 
 of life, in being an economic factor in the life of the 
 nation. Hence I conclude that the woman question Is 
 an economic question and that sentiments of right and 
 justice play only a secondary role in the solution of the 
 problem, such sentiments being themselves the product 
 of economic conditions. 
 
 I am frank enough to state that I do not see how 
 under the present economic organization of the world 
 the economic independence, necessary for the full eman- 
 cipation of women, may become possible. For to repeat, 
 if I speak of the economic independence of women, I do 
 not mean independence in isolated cases, but independ- 
 ence as a general condition. I do not mean the possi- 
 bility for some women of becoming independently rich 
 in some way, or receiving good wages in competition 
 with other women or in competition with men. Wage-
 
 THE STATUS OF WOMAN 89 
 
 labor can never create general independence. I do mean 
 the absolute certainty of, and positive right to, a suffi- 
 cient livelihood and reasonable comfort for every mar- 
 ried or unmarried woman performing a reasonable 
 amount of useful work, be it either physical or intellect- 
 ual, adapted to her nature. Great and far reaching 
 changes will have to come before this independence 
 will be possible, changes in the economic structure of 
 society, changes in the form of government. Of what 
 nature these changes will be in all their details I am, 
 of course, unable to say. I think, however, it is true, 
 as is frequently asserted, that society is passing from a 
 condition of individualism into a condition of socialism. 
 I think it is also true that the creation and the growth 
 of trusts prove it and indicate the advent of new eco- 
 nomic arrangements based on the principle of associa- 
 tion. They certainly are directed against competition 
 and, perhaps, evidence the fact that the system of com- 
 petition has reached its climax and is slowly dying. Per- 
 sonally I am inclined to believe so. But while there can 
 be no doubt of its death at some time, because to deny 
 that would be a denial of all evolution of progress in the 
 past and in the future, and while we may predict with a 
 degree of certainty the general principle on which the 
 social structure of the future will be erected, we cannot 
 possibly at this time describe all its forms in detail. 
 
 Economic independence as I mean it, has, it is need- 
 less to assert, not yet been reached even by men. But 
 it is a fact, that women generally depend on men for 
 their support, and that this dependence is considered to 
 be quite within the natural order of things, whereas 
 cases in which men depend on women for their support
 
 90 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 are rare, and are considered without the natural order 
 of things. This is the cause of many inferiorities in 
 woman's life and position in spite of all legal, personal 
 and property rights given to her. But of this I shall 
 speak in other chapters of this book.
 
 TIL 
 
 THE FAMILY. 
 
 Monogamy is in present times generally prevalent in 
 the entire civilized world. The monogamian family 
 gradually and slowly grew out of the Syndiasmian. It 
 is based upon exclusive cohabitation between one man 
 and one woman, theoretically for life. According to 
 Morgan's hypothesis, it owes its existence to the wish of 
 establishing paternity with certainty for purposes of in- 
 heritance. As I said before, I do not fully agree with 
 this hypothesis, although the motive of establishing fath- 
 ership with certainty may have been very powerful to- 
 ward maintaining monogamy after its establishment and 
 with the continued growth of property. From my 
 studies, I conclude that there must have been a more 
 direct economic reason for it, although it cannot be de- 
 nied that there was, probably, always a close relationship 
 between marriage and inheritance. So, for instance, we 
 find in the Pentateuch (Numbers, ch. 36), that the mem- 
 bers of the tribe of Joseph objected to the marriage of 
 the daughters of Zelaphahad out of the tribe, because, as 
 they said: "Then shall the inheritance be taken from 
 the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be put to the 
 inheritance of the tribe, whereunto they are received"; 
 and that by the decision of the Lord, they were not 
 allowed to marry out of the tribe. But we find that the 
 objection was purely economic, and that there was not 
 a bit of sentimentality about it. Those who objected did 
 
 91
 
 92 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 so in their own interest, not only in that of their pro- 
 geny. 
 
 At that time monogamy was not yet known, and land 
 was held in common within the tribe. The common 
 ownership of land secured to every member of the tribe 
 at least a subsistence. With the establishment of pri- 
 vate ownership in land, however, and especially after the 
 tribal relation had ceased to be a part of the govern- 
 ment; and after the state, based upon territory and pri- 
 vate . property had been established, existence became 
 uncertain and sometimes precarious. Every man had to 
 look out, and establish an existence, for himself; the 
 larger the family, the more difficult it became to support 
 it. It seems to me that for the majority of people, a 
 system producing only small families became a neces- 
 sity after the establishment of private ownership in land. 
 We must not forget that until late in the period of civili- 
 zation, land was the only "real" property, and agricul- 
 ture the principal and most general pursuit for produc- 
 ing the necessities of life. The establishment of the 
 monogamous family came, in all probability, shortly after 
 the establishment of private ownership in land. In the 
 absence of those ties that made the members of a tribe 
 more or less one large family and with the' dissolution of 
 the nation into a number of self-supporting individuals, 
 I cannot imagine a form of family that would better fit 
 a system of private ownership of land and its mode 
 of using it, than the monogamian. The monogamian 
 famfl'y, under such circumstances, became an economic 
 necessity. 
 
 History leaves us in ignorance as to the time of the 
 introduction of private ownership in land as well as of 
 the monogamous family. The ancient Germans are the
 
 THE FAMILY 93 
 
 only people among whom the monogamian family seems 
 to have existed prior to the introduction of private own- 
 ership in land. But our knowledge of their family life 
 is very limited, and considering that in the Syndiasmian 
 family people lived also in single pairs, it is by no means 
 certain that at the time of Tacitus the monogamous fam- 
 ily was already generally established among them. 
 
 Theology may look at monogamy as a moral precept 
 only, but theology and science see with different eyes. 
 It is true that the moral sentiment of the modern world 
 is strongly against bigamous or polygamous marriages, 
 but neither the Old nor the New Testament forbids 
 them, and the modern prevailing sentiment upon this 
 point must, therefore, have sprung from another source 
 than the scriptures. Moral views spring from the fitness 
 of things, from usefulness or necessity. Usefulness, 
 necessity and fitness, however, are relative terms and 
 are subject to change with time and conditions. Neces- 
 sarily, therefore, the moral views of mankind change 
 correspondingly. 
 
 There never could be and there cannot be a standard 
 of moral principles suitable to all times and conditions. 
 Moral principles are always conservative, using the 
 word in its strictest sense. Their function is to con- 
 serve that which is. The most tyrannical powers and 
 the most vicious institutions have been justified on moral 
 grounds. What sustains an existing order of things is 
 moral, what threatens destruction to it is immoral. The 
 ruling classes have always monopolized the dictation of 
 moral precepts; Because of the controlling influence of 
 economic interests over human institutions, relations 
 which do not fit the economic structure of society offend
 
 94 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 the moral sense of the time, although no general con- 
 sciousness of that influence exists. 
 
 Existing economic conditions and moral principles 
 must, on account of the everlasting evolution of the for- 
 mer, become disharmonious from time to time. Then 
 follows a slow revolution of moral sentiment, a process 
 of adjustment. 
 
 Economic fitness and usefulness have gradually made 
 the moral sense of the modern world look at the monog- 
 amous family as the only one permissible in conscience. 
 
 Considering, however, the fact that all human insti- 
 tutions are subject to evolution, have we a right to 
 assume that the family is an exception? I am not in- 
 clined to indulge in speculation upon this delicate sub- 
 ject, but I can see no reason whatever why I should 
 believe that changes in the economic forms of society 
 will leave the form of the family forever unaffected. 
 One thing, however, I do not fear to say, and that is, 
 that I am not inclined to believe that a form of the fam- 
 ily alongside of which such a fearful institution as that 
 of prostitution is possible, can be the highest form of 
 the family which the human race is able to evolve. 
 
 We hear it frequently said that the family is the basis 
 of the state. This idea is brought forth, principally, in 
 arguments for more stringent divorce laws. However, 
 it is not true, neither in theory nor in fact. Both, fam- 
 ily and state rest upon entirely different principles; the 
 organization of the state rests on territory, that of the 
 family on personal relations. While really the relation 
 of cause and effect does not exist at all between the two, 
 yet if one wishes to establish some such sort of rela- 
 tion, then the state is rather the basis of the family. 
 The state prescribes the forms under which families may
 
 THE FAMILY 95 
 
 be legally established, the state determines the legitimacy 
 or illegitimacy of offspring, and the state establishes 
 laws of inheritance. It has the power to change the 
 laws and precepts upon these matters without affecting 
 its own existence and general powers. Upon the other 
 hand, the family has not the least power over the state. 
 In a- certain sense the family is the creature of the state, 
 in so far as the latter gives legal force to the prevailing 
 moral sentiment, but in no sense whatever is it the basis 
 of the state. The theory is probably an inheritance 
 from the times when the family was considered an insti- 
 tution necessary for the production of soldiers for the 
 king, and the raising of many children, especially boys, 
 an act of patriotism. It is not the habit of modern 
 mothers to display that kind of patriotism. 
 
 I either misunderstand the signs altogether, or else 
 the economic conditions of our time have a destructive 
 influence on the family. 
 
 I have a friend who lives in one of the large Eastern 
 cities. He has an extensive manufacturing business, is 
 a very careful business man and in very comfortable 
 circumstances. He has three sons and three daughters, 
 all unmarried with the exception of one daughter. The 
 other two girls have, since some time, been of marriage- 
 able age. The oldest son, more than thirty years old, 
 travels for his father's business; the second has chosen 
 a profession, and holds a position with a salary of tour 
 thousand dollars a year. On the occasion of a visit I 
 asked him why he did not marry. "My dear uncle," 
 (my friend's children call me uncle), he said, "with four 
 thousand dollars a year, I am unable to support a fam- 
 ily." The answer was a sufficient explanation, not only 
 why he, but also why the others, the girls included,
 
 96 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 were not yet married. I know men who would cer- 
 tainly not have let the opportunity escape to fire a volley 
 of good advice and sentimental teaching upon the young 
 man, and to exhaust all their eloquence and wisdom to 
 show him the folly of his position. I, however, kept 
 silent. Of what use would it have been to speak? He 
 belonged to a set among whom four thousand a year, 
 was not considered sufficient to support a family, accord- 
 ing to their standard of living, of course, and as even in 
 that set incomes of over four thousand dollars a year 
 are not exceedingly numerous, especially in younger 
 years, marriages are delayed until late in life, where 
 there is no preference for bachelorhood till death. Once 
 in a while a man or a woman, carried away by great 
 affection, has sufficient strength of character to marry 
 out of his or her set or class, but these cases are com- 
 paratively rare. 
 
 Such sets are to be found in every community. The 
 only difference between the sets and the communities is 
 in the limit of income below which marriage is consid- 
 ered impossible. A certain bank in Chicago has set for 
 its employees the limit at one thousand dollars. I re- 
 cently read in the newspapers that that bank advised its 
 employees that those with a salary of less than one thou- 
 sand dollars would not be allowed to marry without the 
 consent of the bank officials and keep their positions. 
 It was evidently thought that one thousand dollars was 
 the least with which a bank employee can support a fam- 
 ily and remain honest. Nothing was said of an increase 
 of their salaries to a thousand dollars, where it was less, 
 in case they intended to marry. 
 
 In Bebel's "Woman in the Past, Present and Future," 
 I find a table of statistics, giving the number of mar-
 
 THE FAMILY 97 
 
 riages among ten thousand of population in different 
 countries and years, the latter running from 1873 to 
 1886, both included. The table gives the following fig- 
 ures for the countries here named for each year during 
 that period: 
 
 Holland 171, 168, 167, 165, 162, 155, 153, 150, 
 
 146, 143, 142, 144, 139, 139. 
 
 Switzerland 152, 166, 179, 162, 157, 147, 138, 137, 
 
 136, 135, 136, 136, 138, 137. 
 
 Austria 188, 181, 171, 165, 150, 152, 155, 152, 
 
 160, 164, 157, 157, 152, 155. 
 
 France 178, 167, 164, 158, 150, 151, 152, 149, 
 
 150, 149, 150, 153, 149, 149. 
 
 Italy 159, 153, 168, 163, 154, 142, 150, 140, 
 
 162, 157, 161, 164, 158, 158. 
 
 .Belgium 156, 152, 145, 142, 149, 135, 136, 141, 
 
 142, 140, 136, 136, 136, 134. 
 
 England 176, 170, 167, 166, 157, 152, 144, 149, 
 
 141, 155, 154, 151, 144, 141. 
 
 Scotland 155, 152, 148, 150, 144, 134, 128, 132, 
 
 139, 140, 140, 135, 129, 124. 
 
 Ireland 96, 92, 91, 99, 93, 95, 87, 78, 
 
 85, 86, 85, 91, 86, 84. 
 
 Denmark 162, 164, 170, 171, 161, 148, 147, 152, 
 
 156, 154, 154, 156, 141, 142. 
 
 Norway 145, 153, 157, 154, 151, 146, 135, 133, 
 
 128, 134, 132, 137, 133, 131. 
 
 Sweden 146, 145, 140, 141, 137, 129, 126, 126, 
 
 124, 127, 128, 131, 133, .... 
 
 Hungary 226, 214, 218, 198, 182, 187, 205, 182, 
 
 198, 203, 205, 201, 
 
 In the German empire the number of marriages for 
 each one thousand of population was 8.5 in the decade 
 from 1861-1870; from 1871 to 1880 it was 8.6, and from 
 1 88 1 to 1888 only 7.8. 
 
 There is not one among the countries mentioned
 
 98 
 
 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 where the figures do not show a decided tendency to- 
 ward a decrease in the number of marriages. 
 
 American statistics on this subject are very scanty. 
 Mr. Carroll D. Wright informed me that the national 
 bureau of labor has not published any report upon the 
 subject of marriage and divorce since 1889, the report 
 published in that year covering twenty years of sta- 
 tistics of marriage and divorce in the United States. 
 Having to make comparison with population, there were 
 only available to me the figures of the two census years, 
 1870 and 1880. The report mentions only Connecticut, 
 the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Ohio, Rhode 
 Island and Vermont as giving reliable figures in refer- 
 ence to marriage, so that I am able to make up only the 
 following table of statistics: 
 
 States. 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Dist. of Columbia. 
 Massachusetts . . . 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 Vermont . . . 
 
 Popu- 
 1870 
 
 537,454 
 131,700 
 
 i,457,35i 
 2,665,260 
 
 217,353 
 330,551 
 
 ation. 
 1880 
 622,700 
 177,624 
 1,738,085 
 3,198,062 
 
 276,531 
 332,286 
 
 Marriages. 
 
 1870 
 
 4,971 
 
 1,500 
 
 14,721 
 
 22,459 
 2,362 
 
 2,928 
 
 1880 
 
 4,745 
 1,623 
 
 15,538 
 
 27,805 
 
 2,769 
 
 2,607 
 
 These figures show a slight increase only for Ohio, 
 from 8.43 marriages for each one thousand of popula- 
 tion to 8.69; Connecticut and Vermont, although show- 
 ing an increase of population, had not only a relative, 
 but even a positive decrease in marriages, the first from 
 4,971 to 4,745, the latter from 2,928 to 2,607. The rel- 
 ative decrease in the District of Columbia was from 
 11.39 for each one thousand of population to 9.14; in 
 Massachusetts from io.ii to 8.94, and in Rhode Island 
 from 10.87 to 10.05.
 
 THE FAMILY 99 
 
 Meagre as these figures are, they are, however, suf- 
 ficient to show that in the United States the same ten- 
 dency toward a decrease in the number of marriages 
 prevails as in Europe. There is no reason to presume 
 that statistics extending over a longer period of time or 
 a larger number of states would bring forth a different 
 result. At the same time these figures are very instruct- 
 ive to those who complain so much about hasty mar- 
 riages; for they show that the number of marriages in 
 the United States is considerably smaller than in any 
 European country, Germany and Ireland excepted, where 
 the ratio is about the same as in the United States. It 
 is to be observed that the foregoing table of statistics 
 for European countries gives the number of marriages 
 for ten thousand of population, while for Germany and 
 the United States the numbers are for each one thou- 
 sand. 
 
 There is everywhere a tendency toward a steady de- 
 crease in the number of marriages, and, so far as I am 
 able to observe, human nature not having changed, to 
 what else can it be ascribed than to our economic condi- 
 tions, to the uncertainty and precariousness of existence ? 
 The latter assumes different aspects in different classes 
 of society, but in principle and effect it is the same in 
 almost all of them. And although some people call 
 many of the considerations which keep men from mar- 
 rying folly, they are, on the contrary, frequently enough 
 the result of a high degree of conscientiousness, the feel- 
 ing of a duty to accumulate enough in a comparatively 
 short time so as to provide for old age and an assured 
 income for wife and children in case of death, lest they 
 be thrown upon their own resources and compelled to 
 give up the mode of life to which they are accustomed.
 
 100 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 The most favorably situated in respect to marriage 
 are, as it seems to me, the skilled workingmen. Although 
 there are periods of prosperity and of enforced idleness, 
 periods of high wages and low wages, yet there is suf- 
 ficient regularity in their economic condition to secure 
 them an average income with which they can live and 
 support a family according to the standard prevailing in 
 their class. If they remain in good health and live long 
 enough, they may be able to accumulate a small compe- 
 tence for their widows. Beyond that their hopes do not 
 go. There is no beyond that for them. In case of an 
 early death of the husband, the widow will, if she should 
 not marry again, support herself by her own work. She 
 knows that such misfortune may befall her, but she takes 
 the risk, not from choice, but from necessity. In most 
 cases she would have to support herself by her own 
 work anyway, if she remained unmarried. So, the risk 
 which the women of the working classes take is not very 
 great. I doubt not that statistics, if we had any, would 
 show that among the working people the number of 
 marriages, although varying with temporary conditions, 
 does not decrease within long periods. 
 
 The class most unfavorably situated in reference to 
 marriage is that of office employes, the class among 
 whom the young man with a salary of twelve or fifteen 
 dollars a week deems it necessary to wear a dress suit 
 at social functions. There are thousands and thousands 
 of young clerks whose weekly salary is less than twelve 
 dollars; I doubt that the average salary among office 
 workers, leaving even women out of consideration, is 
 much above fifteen dollars; it may be even below that. 
 It is well known that these salaries, during the last 
 twenty or more years, have steadily declined. But they
 
 THE FAMILY 101 
 
 are salaries, and it makes all the difference in the world 
 whether a man receives a salary or wages. Salary im- 
 plies social position and social pretensions, of which the 
 man receiving wages knows little or nothing. Social 
 pretensions are expensive. An income sufficient to sup- 
 port comfortably a workingman's family is frequently 
 insufficient to support a single man of the class receiv- 
 ing salaries. And so it comes that in certain classes of 
 society one will find a large number of pretty, charm- 
 ing, well educated women, who would make excellent 
 wives and excellent mothers, slowly but surely approach- 
 ing the age at which the world cruelly calls them old 
 maids, suppressing painfully all natural instincts, desires 
 and affections, and at last, in sheer desperation, marry- 
 ing either an unloved man, or burying all hopes for, and 
 aspirations to, the happiness to which woman is by nature 
 destined, and to which, from a standpoint of pure moral 
 justice, she is entitled. 
 
 What physiological and psychological effect this has 
 on woman, how terribly injurious this condition is to the 
 female organism, how dangerous it is to individual and 
 social health, the physician, the psychiatrist and the 
 sociologist are able to tell. Men have advantages which I 
 need not discuss. Reliable statistics show that of all the 
 insane and suicides, the overwhelming number are unmar- 
 ried. Bavarian statistics of 1858 show among the insane 
 eighty-one per cent unmarried, seventeen per cent mar- 
 ried, and two per cent unknown. In Saxony there were 
 in 1856 among a million of unmarried men one thou- 
 sand suicides, among a million of married men only five 
 hundred ; among a million of unmarried women two hun- 
 dred and sixteen, among a million of married women 
 only one hundred and twenty-five.
 
 102 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 There are no American statistics in reference to in- 
 sanity and suicide which give any valuable information. 
 The census of 1880 states the number of male insanes to 
 have been in that year 44,391, of female insanes 47,568. 
 This, is all I can gather from United States statistics. 
 
 Physicians, lawyers and other professional men 
 mostly marry very late in life. The reasons are entirely 
 of an economic nature. The peculiar mode of produc- 
 tion and distribution of our times, and the economic 
 organization resulting therefrom, have produced the 
 peculiar phenomenon that all pursuits and vocations 
 seem to be overcrowded, and that in everyone of them 
 one finds "too many." This goes so far that every coun- 
 try seems to suffer from overpopulation. Nowhere is 
 this felt more than in the professions. It seems as if the 
 earth was getting too small, especially for the many doc- 
 tors, lawyers and others in the learned professions. 
 Unless circumstances are exceptionally favorable to 
 them, they have to spend the best years of life in their 
 efforts to gain a firm foothold and a sure, sufficient in- 
 come, sufficient according to the standard of living pre- 
 vailing in their class. 
 
 Perhaps, it would be in order now to deliver a ser- 
 mon on democratic simplicity, and hurl anathemas on 
 vanity, luxury, pleasure-seeking and so forth. But of 
 what use would it be? Since when has it been possible 
 to avert the logical effects of conditions and institutions, 
 combined with those of human nature, by preaching? I 
 suppose that many a sermon has been preached against 
 luxury, the preacher wearing a diamond pin in his scarf, 
 without reflecting for a moment that nobody would wear 
 diamonds if there were no people unable to wear them. 
 For there is no more real beauty in a genuine diamond
 
 THE FAMILY 103 
 
 than there is in a good imitation. Economic conditions like 
 ours which produce classes that are so far distant from 
 each other as the millionaire is from the common laborer, 
 with all those between them, must of necessity produce 
 different standards of living, different degrees of educa- 
 tion, different tastes, different manners and different 
 rules of politeness. These differences existing, it is 
 neither more nor less than human nature that every one 
 desires the contact and society of those who are situated 
 like him, and inclines toward displaying with some de- 
 gree of ostentation his superior social position. The 
 most democratically inclined cannot deny the difference 
 in the intellectual and moral atmospheres of different 
 classes of society. In many cases, therefore, exclusion 
 from one's own class for financial reasons may practi- 
 cally mean exclusion from all social intercourse, because 
 one would not feel happy in the society of another class. 
 It is, therefore, false to call it folly to cling to the attrib- 
 utes of one's class. We are not the creatures of nature 
 merely, but also of social conditions and surroundings, 
 and we are what both have made of us. Be that good 
 or bad, wise or foolish, it is what it is, and it cannot be 
 changed without going back to the original source of all 
 of it; that is, the mode of production of the necessaries 
 of life, and the consequent mode of their distribution 
 resulting in a certain economic organization of society. 
 The reader will have noticed that the forces of fam- 
 ily deterioration, described so far, have not a directly 
 destructive influence, but affect the family indirectly by 
 preventing marriage. However, there are circumstances 
 arising from our economic conditions which injuriously 
 affect the family in the most direct way. Most potently 
 is it done by the substitution of woman and child labor
 
 104 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 for the labor of men. The astonishing proportion to 
 which woman labor has grown is shown by the census 
 of 1900. According to this, the number of persons in 
 the United States employed in gainful occupations was 
 29,285,922, of which 23,956,115 were of the male and 
 5,329,807 of the female sex. I purposely avoid to say 
 men and women, because the numbers given include per- 
 sons of ten years of age and over. It is a sad comment- 
 ary on our economic institutions, that it was found nec- 
 essary to include persons of so young an age. The ever 
 growing desire (call it economic necessity, if you choose, 
 it will not alter its pernicious effect) for cheap labor 
 tears not only boys and girls from the bosom of the 
 family, but also married women and mothers. Visit one 
 of the so-called she-towns in New England, where the 
 men find no employment and tend to household duties 
 while wives and daughters go to work in the cotton mill, 
 and you will learn the effect of thus tearing apart the 
 members of the family. What can possibly remain of 
 the happiness of family life if wives, mothers and chil- 
 dren have to eke out their existence in factory labor, 
 if they leave the home (and what kind of a home can 
 it be?) early in the morning, return late in the even- 
 ing, tired and worn out, covered with the dirt and dust 
 of the factory, and then, perhaps, start with the prepara- 
 tion of the evening meal? 
 
 I have no desire to become sentimental or pathetic, 
 but I cannot suppress the thought that our economic 
 institutions, in many instances, have the effect of wiping 
 out all the moral effects of civilization, turn our hearts 
 into stone and make us barbarians. Neither the sav- 
 ages of Africa nor those of Australia make their chil- 
 dren work for the support of life. To find the institu-
 
 THE FAMILY 105 
 
 tion of child labor one must go to Christian countries, 
 where the people boast of their wealth, culture and re- 
 finement. 
 
 For"Studies in Historical and Political Science," pub- 
 lished by Johns Hopkins University, William Franklin 
 Willoughby, associated, I believe, for a time with the 
 United States labor bureau, wrote a series of articles 
 under the general title of "State Activities in Relation 
 to Labor in the United States." In one of these articles 
 he says that the number of children working in the cot- 
 ton mills of Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina is 
 estimated to be about twenty thousand. Many of them 
 work for ten cents a day, and he knew of babies who 
 earned five or six cents. The hours are either from six 
 o'clock in the morning until six o'clock in the evening, 
 or from six o'clock in the evening until six o'clock in 
 the morning. In Alabama he found a child of seven 
 years who had worked forty nights in succession, and 
 a nine-year-old child, who had done night work for 
 eleven months. In South Carolina he met a five-year- 
 old child, working twelve hours every night. He met 
 many children doing night work who were unable to 
 tell their age, but from their appearance could not be 
 older than nine, or, at the utmost, ten years. Many of 
 the children are, in consequence of the noise of the 
 machinery, half deaf. A physician told him that ten 
 per cent of the children employed in the mills die of 
 consumption before they reach the age of seventeen. 
 The same physician (he lived in a manufacturing town 
 in Georgia) told him that during his ten years of prac- 
 tice there, he had amputated fingers from more than a 
 hundred children, as the result of accidents. He found 
 many children without thumbs, some without any fin-
 
 106 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 gers, some even without hands. The mill is generally 
 freed from responsibility for accidents by contract with 
 the parents or guardians. 
 
 And the nation does not blush for shame, and we 
 send missionaries to the heathens to teach them Chris- 
 tianity ! 
 
 "The Woman Who Toils" is the title of a book re- 
 cently published by Mrs. Bessie and Miss Mary Van 
 Vorst. The authoresses belong to what we, sometimes, 
 hear called the aristocratic class. They went into the 
 cotton mills of Massachusetts and South Carolina as 
 working women and worked and lived with the factory 
 women; they then told the world their experience. 
 Speaking of Columbia, South Carolina, Miss Van Vorst 
 says that the agents of the company go to the mountains 
 and hire the girls, holding out great promises to them. 
 The girls, poor as they are, come bareheaded and bare- 
 footed, but robust and healthy and carrying their whole 
 possessions with them in small bundles. (They are 
 white girls, just as the children, spoken of above, are 
 white.) They are housed in the factory village, which 
 is avoided by the inhabitants of the city like pestilence. 
 The houses contain from four to six rooms, and are 
 filthy and damp. There are three or more beds in each 
 room, on the bare walls hang the clothes of the women 
 living in these rooms. Most of the beds are occupied by 
 two persons. Breakfast consists of a small piece of pork 
 and one kind of fatted vegetable. The working day 
 lasts thirteen hours. Miss Van Vorst was immediately 
 employed, and instructed in her work by a sixteen-year- 
 old girl. She found that all the girls were chewing 
 snuff, from the oldest down to the youngest. The air 
 in the mill is almost white from the many particles of
 
 THE FAMILY 107 
 
 cotton flying about. The girls expectorate constantly, 
 their lungs become diseased and they frequently carry 
 away consumption. Most of them can neither read nor 
 write. Only the very youngest of them are lively and 
 display signs of health. The others show nothing but 
 mute resignation. 
 
 When Miss Van Vorst, after working hours, re- 
 turned to her boarding house, supper was ready. It was 
 spread on an uncovered board resting on wooden bear- 
 ers. The seats, also, were nothing but rough boards. 
 There were three large dishes on the "table." One was 
 filled with fish, meat and bones, all mixed up in an ill- 
 smelling sauce; the other with salt pork, and the third 
 with corn. The conversation turned about a fight which 
 had taken place between two jealous women. 
 
 The girl with whom Miss Van Vorst slept said she 
 could not go to bed early, because she was too tired to 
 sleep. W,hen sick, she would stay at home a day, but 
 then came the foreman and bothered her so long that 
 she would rather go to work than be further harrassed 
 by him. The girl seemed to be entirely worn out. 
 
 In the bed next to hers slept a working woman with 
 her child. She was sick, but said that when she first 
 came to the factory she was quite well. But those fac- 
 tories! She thought the factory had killed her. "Did 
 you see the water we have to drink? It is nothing but 
 poison; you can see all kinds of color in it." The doc- 
 tor, she said, would not come to her any more ; he could 
 not help her. 
 
 Miss Van Vorst heard a pretty girl ask for work. 
 The foreman answered that there was always work for 
 such a handsome girl, and then he placed her so that he 
 could keep an eye on her.
 
 108 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 Some of the older women take their breakfast along 
 with them to the factory, and sit down on the dirty floor 
 to eat it before work begins. All of them look dirty, 
 are unkempt, smell badly and look haggard and weary. 
 
 The women rise early; at five o'clock the factory 
 whistle sounds, they eat their breakfast and at sfx 
 o'clock they march to the factory. When they come 
 home after thirteen hours' work, they are almost too 
 tired to eat and throw themselves on their miserable 
 beds. 
 
 This sort of life leaves them only one pleasure. It 
 is not difficult to imagine of what kind it is, because 
 they are, after all, made of flesh and blood. Some enter 
 into what they call a factory marriage. It requires no 
 kind of legal ceremony. After a time the girl finds her- 
 self a mother, forsaken by the man whom she called 
 husband. And if the child lives, it will in time also 
 work in the cotton mill. The mother? But it is unnec- 
 essary tct speak of her. In the city they look down con- 
 temptuously upon those women, and accuse them of 
 leading immoral lives. 
 
 In Alexander's 'The History of Women" I read the 
 following : "It is the characteristic of men in every civ- 
 ilized nation to treat the weaker sex with lenity and in- 
 dulgence; to this they are prompted, not only by the 
 softer sensations instilled by nature, but also by that addi- 
 tional humanity, and those finer feelings which are com- 
 monly the result of knowledge, and which raise 
 the mind above what is mean, and inspire it only with 
 what is generous and noble. Hence, whenever we find 
 a people treating their women with propriety, we may 
 without any further knowledge of their history, conclude 
 that their minds are not uncultivated. When we find
 
 THE FAMILY 109 
 
 them cultivated, we may conclude that they treat their 
 women with propriety." 
 
 If Mr. Alexander had not written his excellent book 
 more than a hundred years ago, I would infer that he 
 intended to write a satire on American culture. He cites 
 Abraham, who bid Sarah, his wife, to bake bread and 
 prepare a meal for his visiting- angels, and cites Rebecca, 
 who drew water from the well for Isaac's servants, to 
 show that in patriarchal times women had to perform 
 low services. I am inclined to believe that the working 
 women of South Carolina, and undoubtedly of some 
 other American states, would not in the least object to a 
 return of patriarchal times. 
 
 Certainly, in the families of the well-to-do the lot of 
 the women has grown much easier in modern times, 
 compared with patriarchal times. But it is the very 
 same factory which destroys the lives of poor women, 
 that provides the more fortunate housewife with all those 
 things that give her ease and comfort, and spare her the 
 drudgery of the household, as it was when there were 
 no canneries, no cotton mills, no garment factories, no 
 laundries and no telephones. 
 
 Although I apprehend that the lot of the women 
 working in the Eastern sweatshops is not much superior 
 to that of the women working in the Southern cotton 
 mills; and although, one may be sure, the lot of the New 
 England factory woman is anything but enviable, yet I 
 will not say more on this subject, because it is unnec- 
 essary for my purposes. 
 
 While the modern household allows women much 
 time and freedom for other work besides, while modern 
 economics give women employment in many callings, 
 and the laws put nothing in her way to hinder her in
 
 110 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 providing for herself, yet custom and prejudice are 
 greatly against her. The female lawyer and the female 
 doctor are still scarce; churches, as a rule, refuse to 
 ordain women for the ministry, and she must be indeed 
 a courageous woman, who ventures to do any business 
 outside of the office or store. Yet, we are still in the 
 period of competition, and to hunt up the buyer, or the 
 man to be insured, is one of the most important parts of 
 business. Considering that women are still barred from 
 many vocations, considering the small remuneration 
 which women receive for their work, is it any wonder 
 that many of them see in marriage only a haven of rest 
 and marry without choice or love? And who, under the 
 circumstances, has the courage to blame a woman for 
 marrying for support only? Under the stress of eco- 
 nomic conditions a great moral wrong is committed. 
 Families are founded, born in deception and destined to 
 be destroyed' from within. The want of love on the part 
 of the wife is soon felt by the husband, and even if both 
 should be strong and honest enough to maintain con- 
 nubial fidelity, and successfully resist natural impulses 
 and temptations, torture and misery will nevertheless 
 be in most cases their inevitable lot. Numerous, how- 
 ever, are the instances where the power of resistance is 
 small, and what the consequences then are, is told by 
 the records of our divorce and criminal courts. Once in 
 a while the tragedy ends with suicide, now and then 
 even with murder. 
 
 Marriages of convenience, especially where the con- 
 venience is on the side of the male parties to them, are, 
 fortunately, not as numerous in our country as they are 
 in Europe ; but there is a decided tendency toward their
 
 THE FAMILY 111 
 
 increase, and we have our share of fortune and title 
 hunters. 
 
 In spite of all poetry and romantic literature, con- 
 jugal happiness needs for its continued existence not 
 only a material economic basis, which will assure the 
 absence of financial cares and sorrows, always apt to pro- 
 duce estrangement and quarrels, but also from its begin- 
 ning freedom of choice on both sides, freedom from any 
 kind of economic pressure or influence. Without this, 
 the family can never be what it should be, a continued 
 source of bliss and happiness. 
 
 The present form of the family sprang into existence, 
 and became gradually the generally prevailing form, at 
 a time when property commenced its career of master- 
 ship over man. Its transformation will certainly take 
 place in some future time, which will mark the begin- 
 ning of the mastership of man over property. This 
 change of mastership will necessarily produce new moral 
 conceptions, a new code of ethics. Just as the present 
 form of the family corresponds to the moral conscience 
 of our time, so will the future form of the family cor- 
 respond to the moral conscience of a future period. 
 What that form will be, it is impossible to foresee. We 
 are unable to' see with the eyes of future generations. 
 
 The monogamian family was born at or about a 
 time when land ceased to be the common inheritance of 
 gentes or tribes, and, in consequence of the institution 
 of private property in land, the ancient communistic 
 institutions crumbled away. Gradually and slowly the 
 conception of individualism, brought forth by the 
 changed economic conditions, crept into the mind of 
 man, until it became the ruling moral idea in the eco- 
 nomic life of civilized mankind. It became an immense
 
 112 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 moral force with stupendous practical results. It is 
 thought by students of sociology, at least by some, that 
 it has nearly spent its career, that its effects are no 
 longer beneficial, nay, that it has even become a hin- 
 drance to the further development of the human race. 
 I believe this to be so, but will not discuss the point in 
 this chapter. If it should be so, all OUT institutions, built 
 upon the basis of individualism, will follow a change of 
 that basis. Be that as it may, it is, at any rate, notice- 
 able that the present form of the family, instituted for 
 the purpose of facilitating the creation of families, fails 
 to accomplish this purpose any longer. Changes will 
 take place, or else the theory of evolution is altogether 
 wrong. I care not to enter into speculation as to the 
 direction these changes will take, but think it better to 
 leave this to the moral conscience and the prudence and 
 wisdom of a future generation. 
 
 What I wished to make clear is, that the family is a 
 social institution first, and a moral institution after- 
 wards; that its form never has been and never will be 
 permanent ; that in common with all forms in nature and 
 society, it is subject to changes in the course of evolu- 
 tion. And I further wished to demonstrate that in the 
 evolution of social forms and institutions, the mode of 
 production of the necessaries of life, or in a broader 
 sense, the economic structure" of society, is of paramount 
 influence; that necessity and usefulness create moral 
 conceptions, and that the moral sense of man has the 
 constant tendency to put itself in harmony with what 
 is recognized as being useful and necessary for the wel- 
 fare of human society and individual happiness. Social 
 institutions no sooner show signs of a retrogression of 
 their usefulness and of decay, than a revolution of the
 
 THE FAMILY 113 
 
 moral sentiment in reference to them begins to manifest 
 itself, and their moral value is questioned. The power 
 of evolution is irresistible, and experience teaches us 
 that its course in the production of forms has always 
 been from the lower to the higher. Therefore, we may 
 confidently expect that, whatever form the family will in 
 some future time assume, it will stand on a higher plane 
 than the present. It will be in perfect harmony with 
 the future economic organization of society, as was the 
 group family with the communism of poverty, or the 
 patriarchal family with pastoral conditions, or as the 
 monogamous family is with modern economic condi- 
 tions, and it will be supported by moral views superior 
 to ours.
 
 IV. 
 
 DIVORCE. 
 
 For the past few years newspapers and clergymen 
 were complaining of the steady increase of divorce with 
 more or less consternation and dismay. According to 
 American fashion, relief was proposed through legisla- 
 tion, directed, not against the cause of the evil, but 
 against the evil itself. I do not recollect of having read 
 in any periodical, or having heard from any preacher, an 
 intellectual discussion of the subject, going back to the 
 sources from which the evil springs, and being based on 
 patient and impartial investigation and study of the prob- 
 lem. If a physician, called to a patient, would tell him : 
 "It is wrong to be sick. I forbid you to be sick, and if 
 you will insist on feeling sick, I will keep you in a con- 
 tinuous state of suffering," he would act on the same 
 general principles on which the virtuous and enraged 
 editors and ministers act who recommend nothing else 
 but more strenuous and stringent laws against divorce. 
 
 Once in a while an especially wise individual makes 
 the startling discovery that there could be no divorces 
 if there were no marriages, and recommends stringent 
 and strenuous laws against reckless marriages as a sure 
 and never failing remedy. 
 
 A quite humorous contribution, but meant in all seri- 
 ousness, toward the efforts to solve the divorce prob- 
 lem was sometime ago furnished by the governor of 
 Iowa, who caused the introduction of a bill in the legisla- 
 
 114
 
 DIVORCE 115 
 
 ture of that state for the establishment of a school of 
 matrimony. It was reported in the newspapers that un- 
 like legislators of other states, those of Iowa were not 
 content to sit down and guess at the trouble. They 
 started out to investigate. The result was astonishing 
 even to those who believed they had made a study of 
 the problem. The difficulty, it was found, did not lie in 
 any of the expected directions. It was the result, not of 
 waywardness on the part of either husband or wife, or 
 yet of an untoward loosening of the ties, but of a gen- 
 eral incompatibility on the part of the young couples 
 seeking marriage. A girl and a man fall in love at first 
 sight, and without considering their adaptability to one 
 another, and without understanding the responsibilities 
 of marriage, rush away to the altar. 
 
 According to the newspapers it was deduced fronj 
 the records of the divorce courts that young men, with- 
 out the means of support, have within the past few 
 years been hurrying into matrimony, and leading mis- 
 erable lives from that time on. The number of young 
 men was only exceeded by that of young women who, 
 ignorant of cooking and general housework, became the 
 wives of men not financially able to support them at 
 ease. 
 
 This is undoubtedly a true and correct statement. 
 The amusing part is in the proposed remedy, in the bill 
 which authorizes the establishment of a state school of 
 matrimony with a state director and five thousand in- 
 structors, distributed among the numerous townships. 
 According to the provisions of the bill it became neces- 
 sary for those wishing to marry to take a prescribed 
 course in the college of matrimony and pass a strict 
 examination entitling them to a diploma before the neceS-
 
 116 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 sary marriage license could be obtained. The course of 
 study was left to the director, but it was known from the 
 expressed opinion of the governor, that the curriculum 
 was to contain a course in cooking. The governor evi- 
 dently believed in the saying, "The way to a man's heart 
 is through his stomach." From the foregoing true and 
 correct statement it is, however, to be supposed that the 
 students were to receive instruction in avoiding or pre- 
 venting love at first sight, in the knowledge of true love, 
 so as to be able to clearly distinguish it from mere fan- 
 cied love, and in sure ways to overcome financial difficul- 
 ties. After having achieved an efficiency in these 
 branches, the young men and young women were to 
 receive a diploma, which evidenced their fitness for mar- 
 riage, and then if they did marry, they were destined to 
 be happy ever afterwards. 
 
 The bill should have been passed, if for no' other rea- 
 son but to introduce a new theme into romances and 
 novels. The struggles of lovers with hard-hearted fath- 
 ers and mothers who, for this and for that reason, refuse 
 their consent, have become somewhat stale in fiction. 
 Here would have been, however, a new element of 
 obstruction which would have awakened new interest in 
 love stories. 
 
 When the human mind stands helpless before a con- 
 dition, rather than acknowledge its helplessness, it 
 breeds evil and nonsense. Most certainly, there is a 
 very effective way to prevent divorces; the law might 
 simply refuse them. Granting that the foundation for 
 many a divorce is already laid at the time of marriage, 
 the number of divorces may certainly be diminished by 
 making marriage more difficult and thereby reducing the 
 number of marriages. But the question arises whether,
 
 DIVORCE 117 
 
 as a consequence, the quantity of happiness among the 
 people will not decrease, rather than increase; whether 
 the moral status of society will not rather become lower 
 than higher, and whether or not evils will result, com- 
 pared with which the evil of numerous divorces will be 
 quite insignificant. For, divorce or no divorce, few mar- 
 riages, or many marriages, man is made of flesh and 
 bone, red, warm blood runs through his veins, and the 
 sexual instinct cannot be suppressed by legislation, nor 
 can love, respect and happiness be commanded by law. 
 
 When, many years ago, I entered into the practice 
 of law, I made it, in a sort of moral enthusiasm, a rule, 
 when a party wished to employ me for the purpose of 
 getting a divorce, to try to effect a reconciliation. In 
 several cases I succeeded, or thought, at least, that I had 
 succeeded, when, to my utter dismay, I found afterwards 
 that the parties had employed other lawyers and were 
 divorced. It set me to thinking, and I came to the con- 
 clusion that there is far greater responsibility in playing 
 providence than in acceding to the wishes of clients. 
 And finally experience taught me that the resolution 
 and the process of divorce, in ninety-nine out of a hun- 
 dred cases, produce so much heart-rending agony that 
 people would not resort to it, if in their misery they 
 could find relief somewhere else. 
 
 I am not in possession of any comparative statistics, 
 but I am willing to admit that the number of divorces 
 in America is considerably larger than in Europe. To 
 ascribe it to a lower state of morality, or a want of relig- 
 ious sentiment, or a lower degree of consciousness of 
 duty, would be a great error. I believe that in intel- 
 lectual and moral qualities, Americans compare favor- 
 ably with any other nation. I would rather ascribe it
 
 118 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 to the superior democratical sentiment prevailing in the 
 American people, so that the influence of caste-preju- 
 dice is smaller, that women are less willing to suffer 
 brutalities from husbands, and have a higher regard for 
 themselves; reasons which I consider anything but 
 deplorable. 
 
 Marriage is, by American law, considered a civil con- 
 tract and up to the sixth century it was not in the Chris- 
 tian world held to be anything else. Prior to that time 
 it was not considered that there was any religious ele- 
 ment in it, church and clergy had nothing to do with it, 
 and the scriptures contain nothing which stamps it with 
 a religious character. There was then no necessity for 
 the law to declare marriage a civil contract, because it 
 had never been thought to be anything else. Beginning, 
 however, in the sixth century, the church found it con- 
 venient, or necessary for its purposes, to force into mar- 
 riage the element of religion, and in the seventh century 
 it was by the council of Trent declared a sacrament. 
 Prior to the sixth century the clergy had nothing what- 
 ever to do with tying the marriage knot. More than a 
 thousand years afterward,, government again commenced 
 to consider marriage a civil contract only, and to dis- 
 regard the religious element, artificially infused into it 
 by the church. Many if not most of the European gov- 
 ernments are in advance of us in this respect and recog- 
 nize only solemnization of marriage before a civil officer, 
 without taking any knowledge whatsoever of religious 
 ceremonies or solemnization by a minister, leaving that 
 altogether to the sentiment or conscience of the parties. 
 
 It is a general maxim of law that a contract, volun- 
 tarily entered into, may also be voluntarily dissolved by 
 the parties to it. It may, however, be admitted at once,
 
 DIVORCE 119 
 
 that so far as the dissolution of the marriage contract is 
 concerned, the economic conditions of to-day, the guard- 
 ing of property interests, and the protection of the wife 
 and the children, make the interference of the law in 
 many cases a necessity. But farther than considering 
 the material interests of the parties neither courts nor 
 lawmakers should go. Moral or religious scruples 
 against divorce generally should not weigh upon them. 
 These are matters of conscience entirely foreign to the 
 nature of a valid civil contract, and entirely within the 
 province of individual judgment. Those who conscien- 
 tiously believe that there is a religious element in mar- 
 riage and divorce and those who consider marriage a 
 civil contract pure and simple shall be equally free to 
 act according to their belief and conscience. In an age 
 of religious freedom government and law should have 
 absolutely nothing to do with that side of the question, 
 and should not consider the voice of the minister of a 
 particle of more importance than that of any other 
 citizen. It certainly is the privilege of the minister to 
 judge the matter from his particular religious stand- 
 point, but it is not the privilege of the State to adopt 
 the minister's judgment simply because it is a minister's 
 judgment. I am sorry to be compelled to state that I 
 am unable to find in all the history of the world a single 
 instance where the State put itself under the influ- 
 ence of Church and clergy, and where freedom and hap- 
 piness did not suffer in consequence thereof; whereas 
 the instances where Church and clergy have sacrificed 
 freedom and happiness of the people to their doctrines 
 are only too numerous. 
 
 Moral sentiment and law allow only monogamous 
 marriages. So far, so good. As there can be no abso-
 
 120 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 lute freedom of contract, it is right and proper to guard 
 the interests of society by proper legislation in not allow- 
 ing persons not considered of discretion, such as minors, 
 insane persons, and idiots and also persons within cer- 
 tain degrees of blood relationship to enter into the con- 
 tract of marriage. But, provided persons are within the 
 law, what possible interest can the state or society have 
 in the conclusion or dissolution of the contract of mar- 
 riage ? Of what difference can it be to the state or soci- 
 ety whether A is married to B, or to C, or to D, and 
 of what benefit or injury can it be to the State or soci- 
 ety whether A and B remain in a state of marriage or 
 not? Of course, it is of interest to the community that 
 the divorced wife and her children be properly sup- 
 ported by the husband and father and do not become a 
 burden on the community. But if the husband and 
 father has property, the court can enforce such support, 
 if he has no property but has a conscience, he will sup- 
 port them of his own free will, as well as he can, and 
 if he has neither property nor conscience, the law is 
 powerless with or without divorce. Any punishment 
 meted out to a conscienceless husband and father will not 
 buy a morsel of bread for the abandoned family. What 
 rational ground then exists . for the state to interfere, 
 except so far as it is necessary for it to become the arbi- 
 ter between the parties in reference to matters of prop- 
 erty and the custody of their children, if they are unable 
 to agree upon these points? 
 
 Certainly, as no contract can be dissolved without 
 the consent of all the parties to it, so it is right and 
 proper that the marriage contract cannot be dissolved 
 by either one of the parties without the consent of the 
 other, and that only the law can do it upon proof of a
 
 DIVORCE 121 
 
 breach of its conditions. But by what shall the law be 
 guided? Shall it be guided by the doctrines of a relig- 
 ious body? Or by a standard of morals set up by one 
 or more churches and generally based on religious doc- 
 trines? Or shall the law-maker advance his own perso- 
 nal religious doctrines or moral views? I am of the 
 opinion that if the state has no material interest in the 
 matter, only humane considerations and the interests 
 and welfare of the parties concerned, should prevail. 
 
 Granted that the marriage-bond is sacred, whether 
 considered so in a religious, poetical or sentimental 
 sense, it seems to me that with the loss of mutual love, 
 affection and respect, all sanctity of the marriage-tie is 
 gone. W;ith love and esteem the marriage state is para- 
 dise and bliss, without them it is torture and barren of 
 anything that is good. Love and esteem, however, can- 
 not be made to appear and disappear at will. What is 
 more humane, to compel husband and wife who have 
 ceased to love and respect each other, to continue in a 
 state of marriage, in which case the want of love must 
 necessarily grow into hatred, or to allow them to sepa- 
 rate? What kind of morality must necessarily result 
 from a union which is no longer based on those 
 affections the existence of which alone justifies mar- 
 riage and lifts the attraction between human beings 
 of different sex so far above animal instinct? Those, 
 who in consequence of their social position, are accus- 
 tomed to the rules of conduct of polite society take care 
 not to show the world their actual state of feeling, and 
 use their trained power of self-control to suppress pas- 
 sionate outbreaks of anger, at least in the presence of 
 others, especially their children. But their whole life 
 is one of hypocrisy and sham, no amount of care can
 
 122 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 prevent the children from feeling instinctively the ab- 
 sence of affection between their parents, and there is in 
 such a family a general void of sunshine and happiness. 
 But among those who do not move in social circles 
 where one learns self-control in one's conduct, such a 
 condition is very likely to lead to acts of brutality. But 
 in either case it is the wife who suffers most. Being 
 the weaker of the two, and being, from the nature of 
 her sex, less in a condition to seek outside of the family 
 compensation for what the family refuses her, her life 
 is one of misery. In a family like that, the home is 
 permeated by an atmosphere of impurity, and nothing 
 can contribute more to the happiness of all the mem- 
 bers of the family than a clean and honest separation, 
 making possible for the husband as well as for the wife 
 a clean and honest life. Can the moral status of society 
 lose thereby? Is it not enough that social prejudices and 
 financial considerations prevent frequently a separation, 
 why should the law, and why should doctrinaires com- 
 pel people to. continue in a life of sham and hypocrisy, 
 ending frequently in public scandal? 
 
 Apropos of public scandal : Publicity in the adminis- 
 tration of justice is such a great and important princi- 
 ple that it is quite difficult to draw' the line where excep- 
 tions should be allowed. But is it necessary and can it 
 be good for the moral status of society that in actions 
 for divorce the domestic affairs of a family, every infi- 
 delity, every brutality, every transgression, every error 
 and every indiscretion, every trouble and every suffering 
 be laid bare before the world? Is it necessary to make 
 the persons concerned objects of shame, ridicule and 
 scandal? Could not, at least, the newspapers adopt dif- 
 ferent ethics and restrain themselves in the publication
 
 BMIMPT OMffimOGT MB Sttl 
 
 DIVORCE 123 
 
 of complaints for divorce and the evidence given in di- 
 vorce trials? If the law should be powerless in this in- 
 stance, should it not be possible for a sense of decency, 
 delicacy and kind consideration to manifest itself among 
 journalists and readers alike? 
 
 I confess I am unable to see what society profits or 
 what public morals gain by not permitting parties who 
 are unhappily married and wish to dissolve their union, 
 to do it quietly and decently by a method as simple as 
 that of marriage instead of compelling them to ventilate 
 their troubles before the eyes of the public and make 
 their marital relations and domestic affairs a subject of 
 common gossip to the disgust of every decent person 
 and the pleasure only of the scandal-monger. If they 
 were able to agree between themselves in all matters 
 concerning them, where is the advantage to society and 
 morality of disregarding the delicacy of feeling of the 
 parties, of outraging their sensibilities and of forcing 
 them to either confess or be convicted of some act of 
 brutality, meanness or impropriety before allowing them 
 to do what they consider necessary for their happiness 
 and from which nobody else suffers, or which is nobody 
 else's concern? Whatever one may think of Hester 
 Prynne, standing on the pillory with her babe in her 
 arms, she certainly is an object of pity; but the sancti- 
 monious officials who put her there, and the gossips star- 
 ing at her and wagging their tongues, are absolutely 
 repulsive. 
 
 What moral right has society to intrude as judge 
 between husband and wife where they do not need a 
 judge? Why should society in the form of law and 
 justice meddle with the private affairs of parties who 
 do not seek an arbiter between them? Is there anyone
 
 124 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 good and holy enough to force upon another his own 
 views of goodness? 
 
 It is sad enough that frequently parties cannot, for 
 economic or other reasons, agree upon a settlement of 
 their affairs and must call for it upon the Court. But 
 where such is not the case, I ask in the name of moral- 
 ity, in the name of propriety, in the name of practical 
 utility, in the name of anything that is just, good and 
 noble, with what justification the private affairs of par- 
 ties are made a public concern, and why we should, in 
 this advanced and enlightened age of democratical senti- 
 ment and civil and religious liberty, put people who wish 
 to dissolve an unhappy marriage-bond upon the pillory 
 of a public trial? 
 
 We hear so many declamations against rash and 
 hasty marriages. But they seem to me to be coming 
 from persons who have forgotten that there was a time 
 when they were young themselves and that it is the 
 privilege of youth to love ardently, passionately and un- 
 reasonably. It will be difficult to find young lovers in 
 whose mind a doubt of the everlastingness of their love 
 could be raised. They think they know each other thor- 
 oughly, but are, of course, mistaken; for perfect knowl- 
 edge of each other is impossible without the close per- 
 sonal union of marriage and the community of duties 
 and interests of the family. Love would not be love were 
 it always reflecting, investigating, hesitating, examining. 
 Besides, certain characteristics in man or woman may be 
 awakened into life only under certain circumstances such 
 as sickness, misfortune or business reverses, and a 
 woman's character may be entirely changed by mother- 
 hood, so that the discovery of not being well mated, 
 always comes, and generally cannot but come, too late.
 
 DIVORCE 125 
 
 The charge of hasty and rash marriage is, in this respect 
 at least, unreasonable and unjust, if not silly. 
 
 More justice and reason seems to be in the charge 
 that young people rush into marriage without seriously 
 considering the ability of supporting a family. But are 
 they really so much to be blamed even for this? Is it 
 altogether their fault? Is not day after day, in speech 
 and print, the lie pounded into the young man that by 
 industry and economy every man may if not exactly 
 become rich, at least get along comfortably? Will you 
 blame the young man if he believes it, if he, knowing 
 himself to be industrious and economical, trusts to those 
 who preach daily of the excellence of our economic in- 
 stitutions, of the possibilities which they offer, of the 
 many opportunities only waiting for somebody to make 
 use of them, and, confident of his own good intentions 
 and his ability, charges himself with the burden of pro- 
 viding for the woman he loves and with the responsi- 
 bilities of fatherhood? Really, who stands higher 
 morally, the young man who thus courageously enters 
 into the struggle or the one who does not consider an 
 income of three, four, or five thousand dollars sufficient 
 for the support of a family, and therefore remains 
 unmarried, thereby condemning some young woman to 
 maidenhood for life? 
 
 It seems to me that nobody has a right to complain 
 of rash and ill-advised marriage, but everybody should 
 treat with commiseration those who have chosen unfor- 
 tunately. One should never judge another solely from 
 one's own standpoint, but should try to imagine one's 
 self in the place of the other. An old German proverb 
 says : To understand everything means to forgive every- 
 thing.
 
 126 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 Undoubtedly cases are not rare, in which young 
 women marry without much love, and principally for 
 the reason that they have become weary of the struggle 
 for a livelihood. There is ample temptation for her to 
 do worse, but she marries. Sometimes persons of 
 good sense and quiet and even temper get along quite 
 well even under such circumstances. The woman has 
 certainly never told her husband that she did not love 
 him; in all probability she professed to love him. Then 
 if the marriage should turn out unfortunate, the moral- 
 ist will say, she deceived him and does not deserve any 
 better. Yet, I candidly say that, in view of the bitter- 
 ness of a lone woman's struggle for life, I could not cast 
 the first stone on her and compel her to drag her chains 
 all through her life, not to speak of the other party to 
 the contract. 
 
 It is one of the every day assertions of doctrinaires 
 that the knowledge of the facility with which divorces 
 can be had, is the cause of many a reckless rush into 
 marriage, and that if divorce were attended with greater 
 difficulty, people would be more careful in marrying. 
 This is an astonishingly absurd reasoning, based neither 
 upon logic nor experience. If ever there is a time in 
 life when the thought of divorce is farthest from man, 
 it is at the time of marriage. It would be a difficult task, 
 indeed, to find a single individual who was prevented 
 from marrying by the fear only that he, or she, might 
 afterwards meet serious obstacles in procuring, or even 
 find it impossible to procure, a divorce. Likewise will it 
 be anything but an easy matter to find a married person 
 who treated his marriage affairs lightly because of the 
 thought that divorce offers a remedy against the ills of 
 marriage. As a general rule when people marry they
 
 DIVORCE 127 
 
 have the honest intention to marry for life and their 
 feeling is not such that room is left for the thought of 
 separation. 
 
 Be the ordinary logic that facility of the dissolution 
 of marriage will result in an increase of dissolutions, 
 and preventive measures in a decrease, good or bad, it 
 is at most mere conjecture, not proved by any facts, 
 while the contrary conclusion is just as logical, but sus- 
 tained by actual conditions besides. If it is pointed out 
 that in certain states of the Union where the law facili- 
 tates divorces, they are also quite numerous, it must be 
 seen that this fact proves nothing, because there is a 
 rush to such states from parties desiring divorce and 
 residing in states where they find it difficult to obtain it. 
 However, it stands to reason, and a study of ordinary 
 life proves it, that where a union difficult or impossible 
 of dissolution, is formed, it will result in perfect relax- 
 ation of all efforts to maintain it. There is an immense 
 difference between the conduct of lovers and the con- 
 duct of spouses. The one is characterized by the strife 
 for possession, the other by security of possession; the 
 one by activeness, the other by passiveness, expressing 
 themselves respectively, in tireless attention and careless 
 nonchalance. Upon the other hand, there is a natural 
 probability that if the marriage-tie could be easily dis- 
 solved, there would be an unceasing endeavor to keep 
 alive the holy flame of love once existing, and the bliss- 
 ful state of wooing would never come to an end. I am 
 firmly of the opinion that the best means to accomplish 
 a reduction in the number of divorces, is to make divorce 
 very easy. If history teaches anything, it is that free- 
 dom is far more productive of happiness and good morals 
 than restraint and coercion, and that the straight-jacket
 
 128 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 is the worst adapted instrument for the creation of sound 
 ethics. 
 
 It is well known that the French law did not allow 
 divorce until a short time ago and Montaigne, the great 
 Frenchman, says: "We have thought to make our mar- 
 riage-tie stronger by taking away all means of dissolv- 
 ing it, but the more we, have tightened the constraint, so 
 much the more have we relaxed and detracted from the 
 bond of will and affection." 
 
 V. C. Scott says in his book, "The Silken East," the 
 following : 
 
 "Burma, as in many other things, is in advance of 
 more reputedly civilized countries in the status it 
 accords to its women. The infant marriage and shut- 
 ting up in walled houses, the polygamy, the harems, the 
 social punishment of widows, the denial of spiritual 
 rights which prevail in India are unknown in Burma. 
 Here women marry when they are of age and after they 
 have seen somewhat of the world. They marry, for the 
 most part, whomsoever they will and from love. They 
 are not handed over as chattels to a man whom they 
 know not, but are courted and won. The married 
 women's property act has in effect been established for 
 centuries in Burma. In this country, where the women 
 earn so much, the woman's earnings are her own. 
 Divorce is easily obtained, but seldom asked for. The 
 lightness of the marriage laws, the readiness of the Bur- 
 mese women to enter into an easy alliance, shock the 
 virtue of the strenuous foreigner, but within her ideals 
 she is a perfectly proper, modest and well mannered 
 woman. 
 
 "She has failings. Who has not? Her practice of 
 chewing betel is inelegant and destructive to her teeth;
 
 DIVORCE 129 
 
 her voice is apt under the pressure of adversity to be 
 shrill; her keen business faculties detract a trifle from 
 the romance in which, as in a halo, all women are envel- 
 oped ; in old age she is very ugly, and even in youth her 
 nose is stumpy, her lips a little thick, her cheek bones 
 high and heavy but these are Caucasian objections. 
 
 "In the eyes of the young men of the land the Bur- 
 mese girl is a peerless creature, and her influence over 
 their hearts and their passions is immense. What is 
 more, few men in Burma ever undertake anything of 
 magnitude without first seeking the able counsel of their 
 wives." 
 
 H. Fielding who has lived in Burma for a number of 
 years, tells us that if a Burmese girl marries, she keeps 
 her name, nothing indicating that she is married. She 
 retains her own property, the husband acquiring no right 
 to it, nor to what she herself earns or inherits. What 
 they earn together is their common property. He 
 further tells us that in Burma marriage can be quite 
 easily dissolved. The pair appears before the village- 
 elder and asks to be divorced. A record is made of it, 
 and then both are free. Each of them keeps his sepa- 
 rate property, and the property earned by common effort 
 is divided between them. Yet, in spite of the simplicity 
 and facility of divorce, divorces are extremely rare and 
 in the villages and among the better classes unusual 
 and exceptional. The reason for the small number of 
 divorces is, according to Mr. Fielding, the ease with 
 which divorce can be obtained, having the effect that 
 husband and wife treat each other at all times with great 
 courtesy and much consideration. 
 
 The only class, in which divorces are frequent, are 
 according to the same author, the not quite unobjec-
 
 130 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 tionable followers and hangers-on to the British admin- 
 istration, such as clerks, policemen, etc. "It is horri- 
 fying," adds Mr. Fielding, "to see what a demoralizing 
 effect we have on all people coming in touch with us." 
 
 This remark is quite significant. We are in the habit 
 of considering savages, barbarians, or peoples in a some- 
 what lower stage of culture than our own, with con- 
 tempt, and rejoice over the fact that the place of our 
 birth was somewhere on the Mississippi, the Rhine, or 
 the Thames and not on the Niger or Senegal. Yet, it 
 sometimes seems to me that, in many things, half civil- 
 ized people, barbarians and even savages are superior to 
 us in morals, that the everlasting, all-absorbing hunt for 
 wealth kills fine sentiment; that business, as carried on 
 in the modern world, spoils character ; and that modern 
 economics have a demoralizing effect on the conscience. 
 Should it be possible that what is good for the Burmese 
 might not be good for the European or the American, 
 and that freedom becomes dangerous to morality in pro- 
 portion to the growth of civilization? Should it be pos- 
 sible that the ethics of personal relations must suffer 
 with the increase of wealth, the growth of the power of 
 production and the extension of commerce, and that 
 freedom in personal relations is incompatible with the 
 economic structure of modern society ? It seems so, per- 
 haps it is so. War is destructive of morals, and our 
 economic condition is that of bellum omnium contra 
 omnes, (war of all against all). Business is business, 
 that is the excuse which one hears every day for doing 
 of what one feels ashamed, just as war is war is the 
 excuse for barbarities and cuelties against which the 
 feeling of humanity revolts. 
 
 The problem of divorce is an economic problem, as
 
 DIVORCE; 131 
 
 all our social problems are. A final solution of it is im- 
 possible under the prevailing economic system. It is 
 only possible under an economic system which would 
 make wife and children economically independent of 
 husband and father. But as such a system would cer- 
 tainly produce a new form of the family, the divorce 
 problem would then, perhaps, no longer be a problem. 
 The rights and customs of divorce have been different 
 under different forms of the family, and as the latter 
 corresponded with different economic systems, so did, of 
 course, also the former. In the Syndiasmian family 
 divorce lay in the pleasure of either party, under the 
 patriarchal form of the family, as evidenced by the an- 
 cient Hebrew law, divorce lay in the pleasure of the 
 husband, and it was a long time after the advent of the 
 monogamous family, until the rights of the wife in ref- 
 erence to divorce became equal to those of the husband, 
 and until the wife had as much right to demand chastity 
 of the husband, as the husband had to demand it of the 
 wife. It being impossible to foretell the future form of 
 the family, it is equally impossible to foretell the man- 
 ner of the solution of the divorce problem. I am con- 
 vinced, however, that it will not consist in greater and 
 severer legal restraint, because such has never proven to 
 be an effective means of reform and betterment of con- 
 ditions, much less of the improvement of morals. When- 
 ever moral doctrines, as expressed by law, custom or 
 prejudice, come into conflict with the material or intel- 
 lectual needs of man and his desire for happiness moral- 
 ity will suffer as long as the conflict lasts. 
 
 Considering that the future form of the family will 
 necessarily be the result of a slow and gradual process 
 of evolution, it is not impossible that more liberal prac-
 
 132 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 tices in respect to divorce will mark one of the early 
 stages of this process. And surely, in proportion to the 
 growth of the possibilities of self-support for women, 
 and their sense of independence, there will be a change 
 in the views in reference to divorce from the orthodox 
 to the liberal. 
 
 I am willing to admit without any further investiga- 
 tion that the number of divorces in proportion to the 
 number of marriages is increasing. But this increase is 
 neither cause for astonishment nor for dismay. Indeed, 
 I think it would be quite remarkable if it were otherwise, 
 and while the fact in itself may be regrettable, it is per- 
 haps, after all, a sign of progress. It is the unavoid- 
 able consequence of an economic condition which draws 
 women in constantly increasing numbers into the eco- 
 nomic life of tne nation, daily opens for them more fields 
 for economic activity, and produces in women a steadily 
 growing feeling of independence and ability to provide 
 for themselves. As a result thereof considerably fewer 
 of them are willing to bear the burden and torture of 
 unhappy marriage, and the number of women who feel 
 themselves strong enough to insist upon their natural 
 right of happiness is daily growing. Under former 
 modes of production and economic conditions, the only 
 career which was open for a woman who had not shelter 
 and support in the home of the parent or husband, was 
 that of a domestic servant, or servant to the person of 
 the employer. Such services are to most American 
 women so distasteful that they understand without 
 explanation why, when no other alternative existed, 
 unhappily married women, no matter how great their 
 misery was, bore their misfortune patiently and submis- 
 sively. But conditions are different now. Our social
 
 DIVORCE 133 
 
 and economic arrangements compel millions of women 
 to seek a livelihood for themselves, no matter with what 
 difficulties they meet. Success is the hope of most of 
 them, and it is absolutely useless to fight against the 
 logical consequences of the self-reliance resulting there- 
 from. Any artificial restraints directed against the 
 natural consequences of existing conditions, must neces- 
 sarily result in evil. 
 
 The evolution of economics will produce new forms 
 of social institutions, and moral views compatible with 
 the new forms. B'ut even while the old views prevail 
 we need not be governed by doctrines, which, as we can 
 clearly see, are no longer in harmony with existing con- 
 ditions, nor is it prudent to force a religious element in- 
 to mere social or personal relations. Divorce, although 
 always an individual problem, would not be_ a social 
 problem at all, if it were not made one by superstition, 
 bigotry and intolerance. There is a remarkable incon- 
 sistency between the treatment of marriage and that of 
 divorce by society. The first, although being the far 
 more important, is treated with much less care and con- 
 sideration. That society has an interest in marriage need 
 not be questioned. For from marriage springs the 
 future human being, and although our knowledge of 
 the laws of heredity is very limited, yet we know that it 
 is an active and influential force in the modeling of 
 man. Divorce, however, possesses no creative force. If 
 society has any interest at all in it, it is infinitely small, 
 and I believe that the increase in the number 1 of divorces 
 is, to a certain extent, and irrespective of the causes for 
 which it is sought, a sign of a gradual emancipation of 
 the thought, that others always know better what is 
 good for a person than that person himself.
 
 134 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 The time will surely come when, for hygienic as 
 well as for moral reasons, two persons, irrespective of 
 sex will not sleep in one room, much less in one bed; 
 when the same degree of modesty will prevail between 
 husband and wife as between strangers of opposite sex, 
 so that charms and beauty will not lose their effect by 
 force of habit. The time will surely come, when hus- 
 band and wife will be as desirous of pleasing and 
 appearing beautiful to each other, as if they were still 
 trying to win each other; when the wife will dress well 
 even for her husband alone, and when no husband will 
 return from his work to his home begrimed with the 
 dust and dirt of the workshop, thereby offending the 
 aesthetic sense of his wife. The time will come when 
 married life will be a life of continuous courtship, with- 
 out which it is absolutely senseless to expect the strength 
 of love between husband and wife to remain unimpaired 
 during their whole life. The time will come when the 
 family home will be a sanctuary of cleanliness of soul, 
 mind and body, and contentment and happiness not be 
 undermined by care and crime-breeding uncertainty of 
 existence or lust of gold. Then there will be fewer 
 divorces. 
 
 It is needless to say that such a condition is impos- 
 sible while the present economic system prevails. A 
 system which throws every one upon his own indi- 
 vidual resources, making as a rule the possession 
 of some wealth the condition sine qua non for 
 the acquisition of more wealth, creating at the same time 
 extreme poverty alongside of extreme wealth, and mak- 
 ing the poverty of one class the source of wealth of the 
 other, compelling the one to produce the other's wealth, 
 is absolutely incapable of producing general happiness
 
 DIVORCE 135 
 
 and an ideal state of morality. It is really a question 
 what is more demoralizing, great wealth or great pov- 
 erty. Perhaps great wealth creates more frivolity, and 
 great poverty more vulgarity, but both are equally des- 
 tructive of good morals and the happiness of famliy life, 
 and equally productive of causes for divorce. But far 
 more demoralizing and destructive of real happiness 
 than either wealth or poverty, is the system which makes 
 the manipulator of wealth rich and the creator of it poor, 
 the system which makes gain and accumulation of 
 wealth almost the sole object of life. We may be sure 
 that wherever we find symptoms of evil in modern soci- 
 ety, the original cause of it is most always to be found 
 in this system.
 
 V. 
 
 PROSTITUTION. 
 
 "The Social Evil" is the title of a book published 
 under the direction of "The Committee of Fifteen," 
 appointed in the fall of 1900 by the chamber of com- 
 merce of the city of New York. It commences with the 
 following lines : "Prostitution is a phenomenon coex- 
 tensive with civilized society. Barbarous and semi-bar- 
 barous peoples have at times been free from it. The an- 
 cient Germans, we are told, tolerated no prostitution in 
 their midst; and there are said to be Siberian and Afri- 
 can tribes to-day of which the same thing is true. But 
 no sooner has a people attained a moderate degree of 
 civilization than this social curse has fallen upon it; nor 
 has any race reached a point of moral elevation where 
 this form of vice has disappeared. . . ." "Like the pauper, 
 the prostitute is a creature of civilization, and like the 
 pauper, will continue to thrust her undesirable presence 
 upon society." 
 
 While this is true in the main, yet it must be accepted 
 with some modification. For it is not civilization per se 
 that is the mother of prostitution, but the economic con- 
 ditions as they have developed in connection with civili- 
 zation. It would be sad indeed, if we were forced to 
 conclude that civilization will never be able to cast from 
 it that terrible companion. Fortunately, civilization is 
 not dependent on the continued existence of the prevail- 
 ing economic system, and we may reasonably entertain
 
 PROSTITUTION 137 
 
 the hope that some future time will witness the death of 
 prostitution. 
 
 It is certain that religious prostitution, that is prosti- 
 tution as a religious rite, as it was practiced by the Assy- 
 rians, Babylonians and other Semitic nations, even 
 among the ancient Hebrews, is not known to have pre- 
 vailed in an earlier period than that of the upper status 
 of barbarism, or in the beginning of civilization. Yet, 
 when .and how it originated, we do not know. From an 
 economic standpoint, however, there is nothing in it 
 akin to modern prostitution. 
 
 We are informed by ancient writers that in primi- 
 tive Rome and Egypt girls sold their favors prior to 
 marriage in order to procure a dowry, and that this 
 practice was not considered dishonorable. (In Japan a 
 similar custom is still prevalent.) In this case the pur- 
 pose is proof that it took place in an advanced state of 
 cultural progress, for in earlier stages women were not 
 required to have a dowry, the husband rather paying for 
 his wife. It was quite late in the progress of civiliza- 
 tion, wihen prostitution became a vocation and its fol- 
 lowers social outcasts. 
 
 Even if we did not know quite well that the sense 
 of modesty and the obligation of chastity as a moral 
 conception are the product of the evolution of the 
 human race, and almost unknown in the lowest stages 
 of savagery, we could not for a moment seek the rea- 
 son for the absence of prostitution among savages and 
 barbarians in their higher state of morality. Although 
 we are apt to misconstrue many of their customs, it 
 would be absurd to ascribe to them a moral sense so 
 much higher developed than that of civilization, that it 
 would exclude the possibility of prostitution.
 
 138 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 There can be no question about the moral sentiment 
 in reference to prostitution. Through all the centuries 
 of its existence moral sentiment has become more and 
 more inimical to it without being able to expurgate it. 
 Consequently there must be a force in human society 
 stronger than the moral force. Undoubtedly there are 
 cases of perversity and uncontrolableness of natural im- 
 pulses, but such cases are not numerous enough to 
 account for the fearful extent of prostitution. .Such 
 cases excepted, I doubt whether a single prostitute can 
 be found, who would not a thousand times prefer a life 
 of decency and respectability to a life of shame, if she 
 were not prevented by the adversity of economic con- 
 ditions. 
 
 It is in the difference of the economic conditions 
 where we have to search for the reason of the absence 
 of prostitution among savages and barbarians and its 
 presence in civilization. There was no place for it in a 
 society which had no economic classes; it cannot exist 
 where there are no rich and no poor. The tribal rela- 
 tions and the gentile organization with its communistic 
 arrangements offered no soil for the growth of that 
 detestable institution. Nor would the form of the fam- 
 ily existing then permit of its appearance. The soil was 
 prepared for it with the introduction of private owner- 
 ship in land with all its economic and social conse- 
 quences. 
 
 Mr. Alvin S. Johnson, assistant professor of eco- 
 nomics at Columbia University the author of the afore- 
 mentioned book, who has carefully investigated the sub- 
 ject says : "In the first place there is a large class of 
 women who may be said to have been trained for prosti- 
 tution from earliest childhood. Foundlings and orphans
 
 PROSTITUTION 139 
 
 and the offspring of the miserably poor, they grow up 
 in wretched tenements, contaminated by constant famil- 
 iarity with vice in its lowest forms. Without training, 
 moral or mental, they remain ignorant and disagreeable, 
 slovenly and uncouth, good for nothing in the social 
 organism. When half matured, they fall the willing 
 victims of their male associates, and inevitably drift into 
 prostitution." 
 
 "Another form is closely connected with the appear- 
 ance of women in industry. In many cities there are 
 great classes of women without any resources excepting 
 their earnings as needle-women, day workers, domestics 
 or factory hands. These earnings are often so small as 
 barely to suffice for the urgent needs of the day. A sea- 
 son of non-employment presents them with the altern- 
 ative of starvation or prostitution. These form the 'oc- 
 casional prostitutes,' who, according to Blaschko (an 
 eminent German physician and writer on this subject) 
 far outnumber all others in the city of Berlin. When 
 employment is again to be had, they withdraw from the 
 life of shame, if its irregularities have not incapacitated 
 them for honorable labor." 
 
 "A third class, one which is more or less typical of 
 American prostitution, is made up of those who cannot 
 be said to be driven into prostitution either by absolute 
 want or by exceptionally pernicious surroundings. They 
 may be employed at living wages, but the prospect of 
 continuing from year to year with no change from tedi- 
 ous and irksome labor creates discontent and eventually 
 rebellion. They, too, are impregnated with the view 
 that individual happiness is the end of life, and their 
 lives bring them no happiness and promise them none. 
 The circumstances of city life make it possible for them
 
 140 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 to experiment with immorality without losing such 
 social standing, as they may have, and thus many of 
 them drift gradually into professional prostitution." 
 
 The prostitute is the helpless victim of modern eco- 
 nomic conditions, not industry alone. Among the hun- 
 dreds of thousands of saleswomen and typewriters there 
 are comparatively few who receive a compensation suf- 
 ficient for their support. Fortunate are those of them 
 who have parents, or other relatives with whom they 
 can live. I know of a large retail house, whose proprie- 
 tor in several cases, when the girl asking a situation, 
 said that she could not live on the wages offered, 
 answered with the cynical question : "Have you no male 
 friend to help you out?" 
 
 Undoubtedly there is, as Mr. Johnson says, a large 
 class of women, growing up in contaminating, wretched 
 surroundings, in poverty and vice. Poverty, however, 
 is the crime of society, a crime for which no individual 
 in particular can be held responsible. Our economic 
 system produces poverty with absolute certainty. There 
 may always be reasons why poverty strikes certain per- 
 sons, reasons which by no means, always make the per- 
 son blameless, but as a general rule, the reasons are 
 beyond individual control, and if it is not the one per- 
 son, that remains poor, it will be another. Without the 
 presence of a poor class the wage system could not exist 
 and the existence of poverty is the inevitable conse- 
 quence of an economic system in which millions are 
 compelled to compete with each other for employment 
 bringing not more than a bare living. With equally 
 unerring certainty, however, poverty breeds vice and 
 crime. 
 
 Equally of an economic character as the reasons are
 
 PROSTITUTION 141 
 
 which operate on women so as to cause them to offer 
 themselves in prostitution, are those which create the 
 "demand." "A great part of the population of a mod- 
 ern city," says Mr. Johnston, "consists of young men 
 who have drifted thither from the country and small 
 towns, attracted by the greater opportunities of rising 
 in social life and by the greater degree of personal com- 
 fort that the city offers. As a rule, the income that a 
 young man earns, while sufficient to secure a fair degree 
 of comfort for himself, does not suffice for founding a 
 family. As his income increases, his standard of per- 
 sonal comfort rises, accordingly he postpones marriage 
 until a date in the indefinite future, or abandons expec- 
 tation of it altogether. His interests center almost wholly 
 in himself. He is responsible to no one but himself. 
 The pleasures that he may obtain from day to day 
 become the chief end of his life. It is not unnatural, 
 then, that the strongest native impulse of man should 
 find expression in the only way open to it indulgence 
 
 in vice The problem of masculine vice, it will be seen, 
 
 is an integral part of that infinitely complex problem, 
 the "Social Question." 
 
 Having discussed this phase of sexual relation in the 
 chapter on the family, I need not discuss it again. But 
 a few words in reference to the drifting of young men 
 from the country and small towns into the larger cities 
 are in place here. The rapid growth of the cities and 
 the gradual depopulation of the country is a modern 
 phenomenon. We meet with this shifting of popula- 
 tion in all civilized countries which have an extensive 
 industry. The young men do not drift into the cities, 
 they are driven there. Industrial and commercial estab- 
 lishments locate in large cities, which offer to them many
 
 142 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 advantages, especially facilities of transportation. Mod- 
 ern industry requires the concentration of a large army 
 of workingmen and workingwomen at one point, so that 
 periodical discharge and re-employment create no embar- 
 rassment. At the same time the use of modern agri- 
 cultural implements and machinery is constantly increas- 
 ing, and in proportion to its increase the number of 
 human hands required for agricultural work grows 
 smaller. Undoubtedly the opportunities of social life 
 and the greater degree of personal comfort, as well as 
 the pleasures which the city offers, are a strong attrac- 
 tion, but not strong enough to depopulate the country in 
 the measure in which it is depopulated. It is lack of 
 opportunity of employment which is the cause of the 
 steady pilgrimage of the rural population toward the 
 city. It is an economic cause pure and simple; the 
 growth of the urban population and the consequential 
 decrease of the rural population are the direct effect of 
 modern industrialism. The factories locate in or near 
 the large cities, the merchant, the banker, the insurance 
 company, and so forth, follow, and after them comes the 
 great throng of employment seekers, many of whom re- 
 main unemployed even in the most prosperous times, 
 although the personnel of the unemployed constantly 
 changes. 
 
 To describe the moral effect of this massing together 
 of hundreds of thousands of people in a comparatively 
 small area is hardly necessary. In the country and the 
 small town everybody knows everybody else, everybody 
 is under the observation of his neighbor and under the 
 influence of his neighbor's opinion. In the large city 
 the individual disappears in the mass, one frequently 
 does not know one's next door neighbors; one does not
 
 PROSTITUTION 143 
 
 look after the private life of even one's close friends, 
 and a few minutes' ride brings one to parts of a city 
 where one is as much a stranger as in another part of 
 the world. Thus, moral transgression may be easily 
 concealed and prostitution immensely facilitated. But 
 all of this is merely secondary. The primary cause of 
 prostitution is in the economic system. Newspapers 
 may write against it, clergymen may preach against it, 
 sociologists and physicians may point out its dangers to 
 society and public health, lawmakers and police officials 
 may unite their efforts in attempts to regulate or sup- 
 press it, it will all be in vain as long as our present eco- 
 nomic system lasts. Because an economic system which 
 results in a condition of extreme wealth and extreme 
 poverty side by side, in a condition of extreme precari- 
 ousness of existence for millions of people, especially 
 women, and in a condition which produces a steady 
 decrease of the number of marriages by reason of posi- 
 tive or relative inability to support a family, is bound 
 to produce prostitution. Even if the death penalty were 
 meted out for it, that could no more prevent prostitu- 
 tion than in the time of queen Elizabeth the hanging 
 and branding of vagabonds could prevent vagabondage. 
 And just as in the middle ages vagabondage, as pro- 
 duced by feudal institutions was the prolific source of 
 prostitution, so it is in our times the cheerless, uncer- 
 tain and generally hopeless condition of the wage work- 
 ers, as produced by modern economic institutions. 
 
 A discussion of the effects of prostitution, or, of laws 
 and police measures by which its obtrusiveness and its 
 dangers may be lessened, is foreign to the objects of 
 this book. The New York Committee of Fifteen rec- 
 ommends the treatment of prostitution as a sin, not as
 
 144 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 a crime, and as an outline of a policy toward minimizing 
 its evil submits the following: 
 
 "First, strenuous efforts to prevent in the tenement 
 houses the overcrowding which is the prolific source of 
 sexual immorality. The attempts to provide better 
 housing for the poor, praiseworthy and deserving of 
 recognition as they are, have as yet produced but a fee- 
 ble impression upon existing conditions, and are but the 
 bare beginnings of a work which should be enlarged 
 and continued with unflagging vigor and devotion. If 
 we wish to abate the social evil, we must attack it at its 
 source. 
 
 Secondly, the furnishing, by public provision or 
 private munificence, of purer and more elevating forms 
 of amusement to supplant the attractions of the low 
 dance halls, theaters and other similar places of enter- 
 tainment that only serve to stimulate sensuality and to 
 debase the taste. The pleasures of the people need to 
 be looked after far more earnestly than has been the 
 case hitherto. 
 
 I may add in this connection that I have frequently 
 wondered why self-respecting women do not raise an 
 effective protest against the grossly indelicate and 
 offensive pictures which are posted by a certain class 
 of theaters. They serve a mean purpose and are an in- 
 sult to every decent woman. 
 
 Thirdly, whatever can be done to improve the mater- 
 ial conditions of the wage earning women, will be 
 directly in line with the purpose which is here kept in 
 view. T t is a sad and humiliating admission to make, 
 at the opening of the twentieth century, in one of the 
 greatest centers of civilization in the world, that in num- 
 erous instances, it is not passion, or corrupt inclination
 
 PROSTITUTION 145 
 
 but the force of actual physical want, that impels young 
 women to go along the road to ruin.'* 
 
 Although the committee makes these recommenda- 
 tions especially for the city of New York, they are 
 equally good for any other city, and perhaps include 
 everything that can be done in the way of melioration 
 and reform, as long as the banishment of the evil is an 
 impossibility.
 
 VI. 
 
 THE STATE. 
 
 To us who live in the twentieth century, nothing will 
 appear more simple and natural than the existence of 
 the state, so much so that few of us can imagine that 
 there ever was a time in which such an institution did 
 not exist. Much less are they able to apprehend the 
 possibility of the ending of this institution. To them 
 social and civil order has ever appeared in the form of 
 state government, they are unable to conceive of any 
 other order, and the absence of state government is in 
 their minds equivalent to anarchy. To the student of 
 history and ethnography, however, the state is not more 
 than one form in the evolution of the organization of 
 human society. It had a beginning and may have an 
 end. The student easily comprehends that at some 
 future time the State may be supplanted by another and 
 probably higher and better form of organization. 
 
 The State is an agglomeration of human individuals, 
 located and domiciled within a certain territory, under 
 laws and regulations having force only within that terri- 
 tory, irrespective of the personal relations of those in- 
 dividuals. It owes its birth to the growth of the insti- 
 tution of private ownership in land, and the increase of 
 chattel property and private property interests in gen- 
 eral, the protection of which became its principal func- 
 tion. The ancient gentile organization, based upon per- 
 sonal relations only, was efficient enough for the pro- 
 
 146
 
 THE; STATS 147 
 
 tection of persons, but was too feeble for the protection 
 of property interests which at the beginning of civili- 
 zation had become vast, numerous and complicated. It 
 must by no means be supposed that the State supplanted 
 the ancient personal organization at a given moment in 
 a perfected condition. On the contrary, it grew up by 
 degrees. It took centuries of wrestling and battling 
 with the evils of the time until the solution of the, what 
 we might call social problem, was found in the creation 
 of political government, founded upon territory. In all 
 probability the solution of our own social problem will 
 likewise not be the result of a sudden discovery or in- 
 vention, but rather of continued successive application 
 of many remedies with more or less incomplete effect. 
 
 The transition from an organization founded upon 
 person to an organization founded upon territory, was 
 too great a revolution, as to have by any possibility taken 
 place all at once. One of the steps leading up to the 
 creation of the state was the recognition of the economic 
 classes by the law, making them political classes by 
 distributing among them in different proportions the 
 powers of government. 
 
 The ancient purely democratic institutions had dis- 
 appeared long before the creation of the state. With 
 the introduction of private ownership in land and of 
 slavery complete democracy became an impossibility. 
 Grecian democracy, which we hear so exultingly praised 
 by historians, was really no democracy in the modern 
 sense of the word, because it embraced only part of the 
 people. Those who did the work of the nation did not 
 belong to the "demos," that is the people, but were 
 property. So it was with the "populus romanus." Slaves 
 and those belonging to subjected tribes or nations be-
 
 148 IvOOKING FORWARD 
 
 came no part of the ruling tribe and were accorded no 
 civil rights in the state for a long time. 
 
 The state started out with political classes already 
 existing, their creation was a step preparatory to its own 
 creation. The economic class is not like the political 
 class the manifestation of the human will, it is the crea- 
 ture of conditions. Whenever and wherever the eco-- 
 nomic conditions are of such a nature that they create 
 differences of wealth, those possessing great wealth 
 grow into power and influence by the mere operation of 
 conditions, whereafter by the mere effect of human 
 nature, they use their power and influence toward pre- 
 serving the institutions from which they derive both 
 wealth and power. They shape legislation in their own 
 favor and create political classes by recognizing the eco- 
 nomic classes. The economic class is the fundamental 
 basis of the political class. Whenever an economic class 
 receives governmental prerogatives by legislation, it 
 becomes a political class. 
 
 In England, the political classes were called states, 
 in France etats, in Germany Stande. "The lay part of 
 his majesty's subjects, or such as are not comprehended 
 under the denomination of clergy, may be divided," says 
 Blackstone, "into three distinct states, the civil, the mil- 
 itary, and the maritime. The civil state consists of 
 the nobility and the commonalty. The nobility consists 
 of dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and barons," the 
 commonalty of knights of the garter (and some other 
 kinds of knights), esquires, yeomen, tradesmen and so 
 forth. 
 
 Already in the mythical time of Theseus, long before 
 the establishment of the Athenian state, the Athenians 
 were divided into three classes, the Eupatridae or "well
 
 THE; STATE 149 
 
 born," the Geomori or husbandmen and the Demiurgi 
 or artisans, with the rights and powers of each well 
 defined. But under Solon a new division was made, not 
 according to callings, but according to property owned. 
 The people were divided into four classes according to 
 the measure of their wealth; each class was invested 
 with certain powers, and upon each were imposed cer- 
 tain obligations. Of these four classes, those only 
 belonging to the first were eligible to the high offices, 
 the others performed different grades of military ser- 
 vice, and were eligible to minor offices. .Military ser- 
 vices in those times were considered more of a privilege 
 than a duty, only freemen being allowed to bear arms. 
 To the first class, called "Pentakosiomedimnoi" (500- 
 measure-men) belonged those who harvested at least 
 five hundred measures (medimnoi) of barley or a quan- 
 tity of oil or wine of the same value, which was esti- 
 mated equal to a taxing capital of six thousand 
 drachms. To the second class belonged those harvesting 
 from three hundred to five hundred measures of barley, 
 considered equivalent to a capital of thirty-six hundred 
 drachms; they were called Hippeis ('knights, horsemen). 
 The third class, the Zeugitai, harvested from a hundred 
 and fifty to three hundred measures of barley and pos- 
 sessed a team of mules; eighteen hundred drachms was 
 considered the value of their possessions; the fourth 
 class, the Thetes had a yield of less than one hundred 
 and fifty measures. The division into districts of the 
 Athenian territory followed soon after by the legisla- 
 tion of Cleisthenes. 
 
 Rome entered upon its state career in a quite similar 
 manner. By the legislation, known as that of Servius 
 Tullius in the sixth century before Christ, and very soon
 
 150 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 after the legislation of Solon in Attica, the people were 
 divided into five classes, and the city was divided into 
 districts for governmental purposes. The division into 
 classes was made according to the value of their property, 
 and each class was possessed of a certain number of 
 votes in the popular assembly. The people voted by 
 centuries, each century having one vote. The number 
 of centuries, of which there were altogether one hun- 
 dred and ninety-three, was arbitrarily fixed for each 
 class, without regard to the actual number of members, 
 and it was so arranged that the wealthiest class had the 
 largest number of centuries and a majority of all the 
 votes. 
 
 The first class consisted of those who had a fortune 
 of one hundred thousand aces, equal to about sixteen 
 hundred dollars, and formed, together with eighteen 
 centuries of equites, or heavily armed horsemen, ninety- 
 eight centuries; they had that many votes out of one 
 hundred and ninety-three. The second class, with a for- 
 tune of seventy-five thousand aces, counted twenty 
 centuries ; the. third, to which belonged those with a for- 
 tune of fifty thousand aces, counted also twenty centu- 
 ries; the fifth with twelve thousand five hundred aces 
 was divided into thirty centuries. All these centuries 
 had to serve in war and provide for their own arma- 
 ments, which were according to the class of different 
 character. To the second class belonged also two cent- 
 uries of artisans; namely, sword-smiths and carpenters, 
 and to the fourth class belonged two centuries of horn- 
 blowers and trumpeters. The rest of the people, called 
 proletarians (possessors of children), all of them to- 
 gether formed one century, had consequently only one
 
 THE STATE 151 
 
 vote in the popular assembly, and neither paid taxes, 
 nor served in war. 
 
 The figures show that fortunes were small, com- 
 pared with those of our times, and the valuations 
 according to the yield in barley, oil or wine are instruct- 
 ive in reference to what the principal occupations were. 
 
 In a certain sense new legislation is always the rec- 
 ognition of already existing conditions. It is not to be 
 supposed that either the legislation of Solon, or that of 
 Servius Tullius had been possible, if wealth had not al- 
 ready had gradually and steadily gained for its owners 
 so much power and influence that the new order did not 
 materially change the prevalent conditions, but only 
 gave legal sanction to the more subtle effect of condi- 
 tions, and brought order into chaos. At any rate, we 
 are not able to learn, either from history or tradition, 
 that at the time of this legislation there was any violent 
 opposition to it, which would, in all probability, have 
 been the case, if the power and influence of the wealthy 
 classes had not already existed without such legislation. 
 Probably the idea of "noblesse oblige" had already then 
 entered into the minds of the legislators, wherefore 
 expensive duties were imposed on the new political 
 classes, and the military duties were assigned to them 
 with regard to the costliness of the outfit. In Greece, 
 for instance, the second class had to serve as cavalry, 
 the third as heavily armed infantry, while the fourth 
 had to bear light arms. 
 
 The economic classes existed and obtained political 
 prerogatives, in Greece as well as in Rome, prior to the 
 creation of the state, thereby being transformed into po- 
 litical classes, and the state based its governmental ar- 
 rangements on their existence. More than two thousand
 
 152 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 years later it discovered that, for the use of the power and 
 influence of wealth, the political class was of no neces- 
 sity at all, and that a wealthy economic class may be 
 powerful and influential enough to rule a country with- 
 out legal privileges. 
 
 Although prior to the institution of private owner- 
 ship in land, and the use of agricultural products as 
 articles of trade and commerce, there were persons of 
 greater influence than others, and, perhaps possessing 
 certain privileges, these privileges never extended so 
 far as to give those persons a greater share in the fruits 
 of labor or war. They gave honor and influence but 
 not wealth. And although even then theoretically elect- 
 ive positions of chiefs or leaders in war remained very 
 often as a matter of custom in one family, yet, such 
 favorable positions were generally the result of personal 
 service and distinction, and so long as there was a com- 
 munity of material interests, and therefore, private for- 
 tunes could not be accumulated, no conditions existed 
 which could produce classes. Such conditions arose 
 after the establishment of private ownership in land. 
 
 The political classes once established, did, of course, 
 everything in their power for the purpose of securing 
 themselves in their commanding position. A French 
 adage says: I'appetit vient en mangeant. The more 
 privileges they had, the more they wanted. They owed 
 their position to wealth, and they soon found that to 
 maintain themselves in it and to increase their privi- 
 leges they required more wealth. Consequently they did 
 what was quite natural for them to do, they used their 
 privileges to enrich themselves. They made wars of con- 
 quest, subjected whole nations, appropriated their land 
 and made the people their slaves. Land and slaves
 
 THE STATE 153 
 
 were the principal property in the ancient world, and 
 also the principal means of production. Possession of 
 land and slaves gave power. History teaches us that 
 in all times those who possessed most of the things 
 which at the time formed the wealth of the country, 
 constituted the ruling class. 
 
 In slavery times when slaves formed the principal 
 kind of property, the slave holders were the ruling class. 
 In the middle ages when land was the principal kind of 
 property, the land possessing class, the feudal lords, 
 were the ruling class; and in our times the capitalists 
 are the ruling class, because of the power of the capital 
 which they possess. 
 
 In the beginning the power was exercised under the 
 forms of democracy. Greece as well as Rome entered 
 statehood as democracies. This assertion may seem con- 
 trary to Roman history, but history has in all probabil- 
 ity made a mistake by calling the Greek basileus and the 
 Roman rex kings. They surely were no kings in the 
 modern sense of the word. Although it is not quite 
 clear what their functions were, their powers were cer- 
 tainly very limited. The basileus and the rex were 
 chiefs in war and performed, probably, judicial and 
 clerical functions besides. I have no doubt that their 
 offices were very much like that of the Hebrew shofet, 
 which is translated with judge, a translation which 
 seems to me arbitrary and misleading. For what we 
 learn of the judges in the scriptures points much more 
 to military than to judicial functions. There is no more 
 justification for translating names of offices than there 
 is for translating names of persons. By giving an an- 
 cient office a modern name, we impart to it a modern 
 character which it did not have. The modern concep-
 
 154 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 tion of king is quite different from even the ancient 
 German and Anglo-Saxon conception of it. The old 
 Saxon word for it was cuning, and the Anglo-Saxon 
 cyng. Its derivation is from the Saxon cunni, mean- 
 ing family, or house in a personal sense. The Saxon 
 cunni was probably the same institution as the Roman 
 gens or the Grecian genos, so that presumably, the cyng 
 was not more than the chief of a cunni, or gens. From 
 "Historia Franconium" (history of the Franks) by 
 Gregory, bishop of Tours, we learn that even as late as 
 in the sixth century the Franconian kings were power- 
 less in almost everything without the assent of the as- 
 sembly of the free Franks. We are told of king Chilp- 
 erich that he once claimed from the booty of war a 
 vessel, taken from a church, for himself for the purpose 
 of returning it to the church, whereupon a common 
 warrior stepped from the ranks, told the king that he 
 could have no more than what fell to him by lot and 
 smashed the vessel with his battle ax. The king was 
 helpless, but later on took his revenge. 
 
 Gradually the forms of democracy were cast aside 
 and monarchical institutions were firmly established. 
 More and more, legislation was directed toward keeping 
 the masses of the people in poverty and making them 
 believe that the little they had, they owed to the good 
 will and generosity of the upper classes. The evolu- 
 tion of the principle of class-government, coupled with 
 the institution of slavery culminated in Rome politically 
 in Caesarism, and economically in the creation of lati- 
 fundia, or immense landed estates, in the hands of a 
 comparatively small class. The mass of the people con- 
 sisted partly of slaves and partly of absolutely property-
 
 THE; STATE; 155 
 
 less citizens and non-producing free proletarians main- 
 tained at public cost. 
 
 Somewhat similar was the course of development in 
 Russia where Caesarism exists to this day, but is grad- 
 ually undermined by the growth of modern industry, 
 the workingmen being the most rebellious of the Tsar's 
 subjects. 
 
 Under the frightful conditions growing up under 
 Roman Caesarism, slave labor soon proved not produc- 
 tive enough and with the fall of the Roman empire and 
 the rise of German power came the creation of the 
 feudal state in which theoretically all the land belonged 
 to the king, who was at the top of the feudal ladder, 
 while at the foot of it there was the great mass of land- 
 less and propertyless workers. 
 
 Far up into the middle ages land-hunger was one of 
 the characteristics of the privileged classes, because 
 land was still the principal kind of property. It was as 
 late as in the fifteenth century that in England the en- 
 closure of the commons began. Up to that time there 
 were still many lands in the kingdom held in common 
 and used for agriculture and pasturage, upon which 
 thousands and thousands made their living. Bacon in 
 his "Henry VIII" says : "Enclosures at that time began 
 to be more frequent, whereby arable land which could 
 not be manured without people and families was turned 
 into pasture, which was easily rid by a few herdsmen; 
 and the tenancies for years, lives, and at will, where- 
 upon much of the yeomanry lived, were turned into 
 demesnes." 
 
 "Therefore," says Thomas More in the preface to 
 his Utopia, "that one covetous and insatiable cormorant 
 and very plague of his native country may compass
 
 156 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 about and enclose many thousands acres of ground to- 
 gether within one pale or hedge, the husbandmen be 
 thrust out of their own, or else by coveyn and fraud, or 
 by violent oppression, they be put besides it, or by 
 wrongs and injustices they be so worried that they be 
 compelled to sell all; by one means therefore, or by 
 other, either by hook or by crook, they must needs de- 
 part away poor, silly, wretched souls, men, women, hus- 
 bands, wives, fatherless children, widows, woeful moth- 
 ers with their young babes, and their whole household, 
 small in substance, and much in number, as husbandry 
 requireth many hands. All their household stuff, which 
 is worth very little, they be constrained to sell for a 
 thing of naught. And when they have wandered about 
 till that be spent, what can they than else do but steal, 
 and then justly, pardy, be hanged or else go about a 
 begging? And yet then, also, they be cast into prisons 
 as vagabonds, because they go about and work not; 
 whom no man will set a work though they never so will- 
 ingly proffer themselves thereto. For one shepherd or 
 herdman is enough to eat up that ground with cattle to 
 the occupying whereof about husbandry many hands 
 were requisite." 
 
 Thus did the ruling classes in England steal even 
 the land of their own people, in a time when agriculture 
 was the principal pursuit, and then flogged, imprisoned, 
 branded and hanged vagabonds and beggars. 
 
 Although history does not disclose any violent oppo- 
 sition against the establishment of privileged classes, yet 
 sometime after their establishment the inevitable and 
 endless class-struggles began and continued in differ- 
 ent forms, as economic conditions changed, up to and 
 within our own time. There were periods when they
 
 THE; STATE 157 
 
 culminated in open rebellion, violent insurrection or 
 great revolution. The slave-revolt under Spartacus and 
 the frequent violent outbreaks between patricians and 
 plebeians in Rome, the great uprisings of the peasants in 
 the middle ages almost everywhere in Europe, the insur- 
 rections under Wat Tyler, Jack Cade and Robert Kett 
 in England, the revolution of 1789 in France, etc., arc 
 specimens of the culminations of the everlasting class- 
 struggles. 
 
 The progress of the world and the growth of civi- 
 lization marked the development of a new economic 
 class, that of the craftsmen. The artisan gained in im- 
 portance as wealth, luxury and comfort increased. In 
 the growing cities they gradually became a power and, 
 by acquiring prerogatives and privileges, a distinct polit- 
 ical class, which grew in wealth and influence, as the 
 cities freed themselves from the power of the feudal 
 lords. It was not yet the time when a purely economic 
 class could rule without privileges. For, the methods 
 of production were still too simple. The work was done 
 by handicraft, the tools were few, simple and easily 
 accessible, and the principal means of production was 
 the producer's skill. Gradually, however, conditions 
 changed. First there came a change in the immediate 
 object of production. 
 
 Originally, the object of production was home-con- 
 sumption. In earlier times the producer consumed his 
 own product, and an exchange took place only when the 
 fruits of one's toil exceeded the producer's own needs. 
 Man produced what he needed for himself. This mode 
 of production was in course of time so thoroughly rev- 
 olutionized that the producer of to-day does not produce 
 that which he needs, but that which he does not need
 
 158 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 himself. The modern producer produces what he can- 
 not consume himself. He produces for sale and buys 
 with the proceeds what he intends to consume. He sel- 
 dom knows the consumer of his product and does not 
 personally come in contact with him. The craftsman 
 and artisan of the middle ages did not produce for their 
 own consumption either, but they produced directly for 
 the consumer, whom they knew and who was their cus- 
 tomer. 
 
 As early as in the fourteenth century we find produc- 
 tion for the purpose of exchange and commerce; goods 
 were even carried from one country into the other. It 
 sounds quite strange when we read to-day that England 
 sold wool, hides and grain to the wealthy cities of Flan- 
 ders, and took wine, oil, spices and certain manufactured 
 goods in exchange for them. The ships of the great 
 Mediterranean republics often found their way to Eng- 
 lish ports. These republics established overland routes 
 between India and Europe and carried the products of 
 one continent to the other. The exchange of goods re- 
 ceived an immense impetus by the remarkable discov- 
 eries of the fifteenth century; in 1492 that of the West 
 Indies, in 1497 tna ^ of Newfoundland and Florida, in 
 the same year that of the ocean way around the Cape 
 of Good Hope, in 1499 that of Brazil. Then followed 
 in the early part of the sixteenth century the conquests 
 of Cuba, Mexico and Peru, during which it became quite 
 doubtful who were the real savages, the conquerors or 
 the vanquished, for the conduct of the civilized Christian 
 Spaniards was certainly more savage and barbaric than 
 that of the heathenish aborigines. Very often it seems 
 to me that even to this day the savage nature of man is 
 still slumbering in civilized man, and is awakened and
 
 THE STATE 159 
 
 drawn from its recess by the lust for gold. Modern civi- 
 lization falls into hysterics at the sight of individual 
 misfortune or great accidental calamity, and at the same 
 time goes into man-killing wars of conquest, starts col- 
 onies in murderous climates, treats their original inhab- 
 itants with cruel barbarism, sends soldiers there to be 
 either slain or killed by malaria; and does it merely for 
 the purpose of extending trade and making large prof- 
 its. All of which would be, of course, impossible, if 
 there were not a propertyless class, ready at all times 
 to do the work of the property holding class, no matter 
 of what nature it is, and if the mode of production was 
 not such that it produces and constantly reproduces such 
 a poor class. 
 
 The building of better ships and the discovery of the 
 advantages which lay in the division of labor was fol- 
 lowed by a slow and gradual, but steady, growth of in- 
 dustry and commerce. Great wealth was accumulated, 
 and history has preserved the names of some great com- 
 mercial houses, such as the Welsers and the Fuggers 
 in Augsburg, who possessed fabulous riches. But then 
 came the era of great inventions, the utilization of forces 
 of nature, hitherto unknown, the wonderful progress of 
 chemistry, the facilitation of commerce by new means 
 of transportation, and industry and commerce took on 
 proportions which threw everything that existed before 
 into insignificance. 
 
 This stupendous growth and expansion had a re- 
 markable effect on the classes. It produced that purely 
 economic class which to-day rules over all civilized 
 countries, and abolished or rendered insignificant the 
 political or privileged classes. It was a simple economic 
 process. It was the necessary and unavoidable effect
 
 160 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 of the separation of the producer from the means of 
 production. The invention of the steam engine marked 
 the final outgoing of the artisan's shop and the firm 
 establishment of the factory system, a process which had 
 already begun with the introduction of systematic divi- 
 sion of labor. The means, or say tools, of production 
 grew more expensive from day to day; it was not any 
 longer within the possibilities of everybody to procure 
 them, and the great mass of the producers became wage- 
 workers. In proportion as capital grew, it needed more 
 freedom for its undertakings, and it brushed aside with 
 a powerful hand all legal restraints and restrictions. 
 Class privileges had become a hindrance to the opera- 
 tions of capital. It needed as workers men and women 
 free in the sale of their labor force. It therefore in- 
 vented, and raised to a great moral principle, the doc- 
 trine of free trade, meaning perfect freedom of trade, 
 the Manchester theory of "laissez faire, laissez aller." 
 It said to the government: "Hands off from my opera- 
 tions," and forced the government to protect it in its 
 freedom of operation, violating without any scruples its 
 own principles by the institution of protective and even 
 prohibitive tariff-duties where it suited its purposes. 
 
 When the philosophy of the second half of the 
 eighteenth century promulgated "les droits de l'homme," 
 the inalienable rights of man, as they were called in the 
 American declaration of independence, it had not dis- 
 covered a new moral principle, but stated in the form of 
 a moral rule what had become the economic necessity 
 of the time. It was not the great moral principle of 
 the right of a nation to legislate for itself that started 
 the American revolution, but it was the practical eco-
 
 THE; STATE 161 
 
 nomic principle of no taxation without representation 
 which did it. 
 
 In the French revolution as well as in the Amer- 
 ican, it was the "bourgeoisie," the possessing class, that 
 was the revolutionary element. The revolutions of the 
 eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were all "bourgeois" 
 revolutions, having for their objects the abolition of the 
 prerogatives of the privileged classes, the "states," the 
 "etats," the "stande." There existed as yet no eco- 
 nomic class which ruled without legal privileges. The 
 signers of the declaration of independence honestly be- 
 lieved that the extinction of political classes was all that 
 was needed to establish "liberty, equality and frater- 
 nity," and that a republican form of government was 
 perfectly sufficient to establish a permanent era of gen- 
 eral happiness. The power and influence of purely eco- 
 nomic classes was unknown to them; it was not thought 
 that a class could rule the state without being by the 
 law especially empowered to do so. The mode of phil- 
 osophy in those times was entirely deductive, and the 
 greatest thinkers believed in the truth and power of a 
 priori principles. They could see no reason why, if all 
 men were declared free and equal and a constitutional 
 and legal edifice was erected upon that proposition, all 
 men should not really be free and equal and enjoy the 
 fruits of freedom and equality as established in constitu- 
 tional maxims and legal formulae. The power of wealth 
 was for them so completely concealed behind the easily 
 observable power of class-privilege, the economic class 
 was so completely veiled by the privileged class, and 
 the belief that the elimination of legal class-privileges 
 was bound of necessity to be followed by the acme of 
 freedom was so strong, that they surrounded the con-
 
 162 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 stitution of the newly created Union with almost uncon- 
 querable guards. 
 
 It is almost needless to say that the freedom which a 
 Thomas Jefferson and a Patrick Henry had in their 
 minds, and which they felt sure of creating, does not 
 to-day exist. If they had been told that in consequence 
 of, and under the protection of the freedom established 
 by them, a class would grow up which, without titles 
 and privileges, would rule the country by sheer force of 
 wealth and economic conditions, and that the class, suf- 
 fering under this rule, would find in the constitution 
 of the United States, built upon those principles of free- 
 dom, an obstacle in their struggle for bettering their 
 condition ; if they had been told that their maxims of lib- 
 erty, as laid down in the constitution, would, in some 
 future time, receive an interpretation which through 
 theories of property and contract rights, would handicap 
 a lower class in its struggle for freedom, they would not 
 have comprehended it, and if they had, would not have 
 found means to prevent it. Yet, such is the case to-day, 
 and the class which rules by sheer force of wealth, with- 
 out titles and privileges, exists, not only in this country, 
 but in all civilized countries. It rules whether the form 
 of government is republican or monarchical, whether 
 titles exist or not, whether political classes still retain a 
 shadow of their former prerogatives or not. Where this 
 class exists, kingly power has been so reduced that the 
 principal difference between a modern monarchy and a 
 modern republic is only this, that in the one the office 
 of the chief of the nation is hereditary, in the other 
 elective. As a matter of principle I certainly prefer the 
 republican form of government to the monarchical. My 
 sentiment, indeed, is thoroughly republican, but I do not
 
 THE STATE; 163 
 
 believe, as many seem to believe, that republican forms 
 alone are sufficient to guarantee any degree of liberty. 
 Our republican forms did not prevent us from main- 
 taining through a whole century of our independence 
 the institution of slavery, nor do they prevent us to-day 
 from establishing imperial government over foreign peo- 
 ples. In the republic of France titles are still existing 
 and the middle and South American republics are mere 
 parodies on republicanism. It was not different in 
 ancient times. The democratical institutions of Greece 
 and its republican forms of government, as well as those 
 of primitive Rome, formed no obstacle to the mainte- 
 nance of slavery. The laws of Draco in the ancient 
 republic of Attica were said to have been written with 
 blood, the republic of Venice had a government as des- 
 potic as one can be imagined and that of Genoa was 
 thoroughly aristocratic. Upon the other hand, as to the 
 peoples' rights and liberty, there is very little material 
 difference between the constitutional monarchies of 
 Europe and the modern republics. The German emperor 
 cannot veto any law passed by the Reichstag and the 
 Bundesrath, but the president of the United States may 
 veto any law passed by Congress. The king of Eng- 
 land, after having appointed his council and govern- 
 ment, can neither appoint nor remove a civil officer, 
 whereas the president of the United States has the im- 
 mense prerogative of appointing and removing an army 
 of civil officers. If one considers the enormous influence 
 hidden in this prerogative, it is not too much to say 
 that the president of the United States wields a greater 
 power than most of the European monarchs. On paper, 
 kings, perhaps, possess greater rights in reference to 
 war and peace, whereas the constitution of the United
 
 164 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 States lays the power of declaring war exclusively Into 
 the hands of Congress. But declarations of war have 
 somewhat gone out of fashion. Wars are, in our days, 
 commenced without declaration, which follows after- 
 wards as a mere matter of form and our president, 
 being the commander-in-chief of the army and navy, 
 as kings and emperors are, has the practical power of 
 making war without waiting for a declaration of war 
 from Congress. Did not the American government par- 
 ticipate in the Boxer war in China only a few years ago 
 without ever asking the permission of Congress? Were 
 not, under President Harrison, American marines 
 landed in Honolulu and the country taken possession of 
 without even the knowledge of Congress? The Ger- 
 man, the English and the Italian press criticize the gov- 
 ernment as freely as the American press, only the king's 
 person is protected against insult by severe laws. True, 
 the president is, in this respect, at a disadvantage ; the 
 American citizen has the privilege of saying, nasty 
 things of the president. This privilege, however, seems 
 to me to be of very doubtful value, and one of which 
 well bred people are not apt to make use anyway. 
 
 Gibbon begins the third chapter of his "Decline and 
 Fall of the Roman Empire" as follows : "The obvious 
 definition of a monarchy seems to be that of a state in 
 which a single person by whatever name he may be des- 
 ignated, is entrusted with the execution of the laws, 
 the management of the revenue and the command of 
 the army." It seems to me that this defi lition fits the 
 United States not less than any modern constitutional 
 monarchy. 
 
 Further on in the same chapter the &reat historian 
 says: "The consul or the tribune might have reigned
 
 THE STATE 165 
 
 in peace. The title of the king had armed the Romans 
 against his life. Augustus was sensible that mankind is 
 governed by names." 
 
 The distinguishing feature of modern self-govern- 
 ment is not the republican but the parliamentary form, 
 including the right of budget, the right of holding the 
 purse-string, the right of taxation and the right of ap- 
 propriation. This right is held to-day by the people in 
 constitutional monarchies as well as in republics. It is 
 the people's right par excellence, without which all other 
 rights would be of no value whatever. It is the right, 
 the absence of which marks in our days absolutism or 
 despotism as a form of government. Whatever prerog- 
 atives the crown may have, as long as the use of them 
 depends on the willingness or unwillingness of the peo- 
 ple to bear the expense and to tax themselves with it, 
 the real power, theoretically, is in the hands of the peo- 
 ple. The right to grant or refuse taxes and appropria- 
 tions is of an economic character and is, therefore, 
 entirely in consonance with the character of the eco- 
 nomic class which to-day rules the world and presides 
 over the destinies of nations. Even governments like 
 the Russian must bow before it and concede to it at 
 least so much as giving an account of its resources and 
 expenditures, for otherwise it could not borrow a cent. 
 Inability to borrow, however, would be a very serious 
 matter in an age in which state-debts have grown to be 
 permanent institutions. Whatever differences there may 
 be between constitutional monarchies and republics in 
 minor matters, and in matters of form, in this material 
 point they are alike. The absence of political freedom 
 in a people is principally marked by the power of the 
 government to tax the people at will and to use its
 
 166 IvOOKING FORWARD 
 
 resources without accounting for them to the people. 
 It was taxation without representation which caused the 
 American colonies to free themselves from English rule, 
 but the Englishman, who is as liberty-loving as the 
 American, is loyal to the crown. The German govern- 
 ment cannot borrow a cent, nobody will loan it a cent, 
 it can spend nothing without the consent of the Reichs- 
 tag, and compared with this power of the people's rep- 
 resentatives, all other matters in which republics may 
 differ from monarchies appear to be mere trifles. Even 
 the hereditary right of the nobility of some European 
 monarchies, as for instance Great Britain and Prussia, 
 to occupy the seats in the upper houses of their legisla- 
 tive bodies, is unable to check the will of those holding 
 the keys to the coffers of the nation. 
 
 But the compulsory military service ! Is not that an 
 institution, violating every principle of liberty? Perhaps 
 it is, but it is not a distinguishing feature between mon- 
 archism and republicanism. Monarchical England has 
 no compulsory military service, and republican France 
 has. And who knows, but we would have it in the 
 United States also, if, instead of forming one great 
 nation, covering almost the whole continent, we formed 
 a half-dozen or dozen nations, each inhabiting a part of 
 our territory, and all being jealous of each other. It is 
 generally acknowledged that municipal government in 
 the European constitutional monarchies is better and 
 more honest than in our republic, that there is less cor- 
 ruption and that politics is cleaner; and as there is no 
 reason to believe that the European is more honest than 
 the American, the reason must be somewhere in our 
 governmental system. 
 
 The modern bourgeoisie, a purely economic class
 
 THE STATE 167 
 
 without constitutional prerogatives and legal privileges, 
 possessing the wealth of the nations, manipulating it in 
 industry, commerce and transportation, exploiting phys- 
 ical and intellectual human labor force and the forces of 
 nature as well as the treasures stored up in the bosom 
 of our planet, makes history and shapes the destinies 
 of nations, and, queer enough, does it all in the name 
 of freedom. In those times when land was the chief 
 source of wealth and power, dynasties and powerful 
 families indulged in warfare for the purpose of absorb- 
 ing the lands of other nations. To-day dynastic wars 
 have almost become an impossibility, because more is to 
 be gained by trading with a nation than by robbing it of 
 its land. The question of the open door has become of 
 greater importance than the question of whose domains 
 a country shall form a part. 
 
 The bourgeois class, composed of merchants, manu- 
 facturers, bankers, capitalists, etc., the tiers etat, the 
 third estate, as it was called in ante-revolution times of 
 France, has in numerous revolutions in different coun- 
 tries overthrown feudalistic institutions and has become 
 the ruling class of our time. It is sufficient for the pur- 
 poses of this book to state that it rules in republics and 
 monarchies alike, without entering into a discussion of 
 the psychological and political process of the growth of 
 its power and influence, interesting as the subject might 
 be. A few facts, however, I will mention, too obvious 
 to need any explanation. First, that parliamentarism, 
 coupled even with universal suffrage (women are not 
 yet counted), has not been able to prevent this class 
 from exercising an almost exclusive influence on elec- 
 tions, appointments, legislation, administration of justice 
 and the policy of the government, the large mass of the
 
 168 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 people, so far, having consciously or unconsciously sub- 
 mitted to the will of that class. Second, that a ruling 
 class cannot exist without a ruled class, and that, 
 although there are isolated cases of poor workingmen 
 acquiring, under specially fortunate circumstances, 
 great wealth, and thereby rising out of their class, the 
 present mode of production and distribution could not 
 exist without a large class of propertyless men and 
 women, dependent for work and a living upon the class 
 possessing the instruments of labor. Third, that our 
 law takes no knowledge of the existence of economic 
 classes, because such classes have no legal prerogatives; 
 that in the eyes of the law all citizens are free and 
 equal ; that legal theories prevail over actual conditions ; 
 that the theories of law are out of harmony with actual 
 relations; and that, therefore, freedom and equality are 
 only legal fictions. 
 
 The reason for this is that economic conditions 
 change more rapidly than legal and political institutions, 
 the latter following only very slowly the. continuous evo~ 
 lution of economics, and adjusting themselves only by 
 degrees and in long intervals to economic changes, often, 
 as history teaches, not without violent convulsions in 
 human society. There can be no question that unre- 
 strained competition produced many evils, yet one would 
 in vain seek for any deep impressions of these evils 
 upon our laws or even upon the tendency of new leg- 
 islation, except in efforts to suppress child labor. 
 
 Legislation of the last century is all based upon the 
 theory that competition is an unmixed blessing. Although 
 it has been quite evident for some time that the tendency 
 of economic evolution is toward its elimination, legisla- 
 tion fails to see in the uninterrupted and irresistible
 
 THE STATE 169 
 
 growth of concentration and combination in commerce 
 and industry a general social movement. It insists upon 
 proceeding on the old theory of the necessity and use- 
 fulness of competition, and instead of adjusting itself 
 to the new conditions, it attempts to oppose them and to 
 preserve institutions beyond which the development of 
 economic conditions has advanced. 
 
 As a consequence thereof we are witnesses to the 
 peculiar phenomenon that under legal maxims of free- 
 dom and equality, conditions are defended and upheld 
 which practically destroy freedom and equality, because 
 these maxims owe their existence to economic condi- 
 tions no longer prevalent. When the constitution of 
 this country was formed, a century and a quarter ago, 
 America was an agricultural country. There were no 
 steam engines, no gas engines, no electric motors; there 
 were no locomotives, no railroads, no steamships, no 
 street cars. Mills and factories, such as now fill our 
 country, existed nowhere. We exported some natural 
 products and imported most articles of industry. What 
 a tremendous change within not much more than a cen- 
 tury ! If the framers of our constitution would rise 
 from their graves, they would not know the face of the 
 country in which they were born, lived and died. Con- 
 sidering the different economic positions of employer 
 and employed, it appears almost impossible to frame any 
 law affecting both equally. Yet, when any legislative 
 attempt is made to remedy a condition recognized as 
 injurious to the freedom of action of the employee, the 
 remedy, in the nature of things, injuriously affecting 
 the employer's freedom of action, is rejected by the 
 courts as class legislation, or as violating the freedom 
 of contract. That is to say, the law is not allowed to
 
 170 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 interfere with the freedom of action in order to leave 
 undisturbed the interference of conditions with the free- 
 dom of action. An anomaly which necessarily must re- 
 sult from the disharmony between legal theories and 
 practical conditions. 
 
 Of course, efforts are constantly made toward the 
 adjustment of both, and numerous are the propositions 
 to counteract the influence of wealth and the power of 
 the ruling economic class. Some of them have been 
 practically tried, as for instance popular legislation by 
 initiative and referendum and depreciation of money, the 
 first being a purely political, the other a purely economic 
 measure. The intitiative and the referendum prevail, 
 although in a somewhat limited measure, in the Swiss 
 republic. The institution may have its merits, but it 
 seems to me that in the present economic order it can- 
 not be made effective. In Switzerland, at least, where 
 the general economic order and the relation between 
 the classes are the same as in every other country with 
 extensive industries, they have not resulted in any sub- 
 stantial changes. Nor could they; for cause and effect 
 cannot be reversed. The social question is not how to 
 do things, but what to do. The mode of legislation is 
 a means, not an end. Purely political measures may be 
 very effective against the power of political classes, but 
 not of purely economic classes, and can therefore be of 
 much importance only where political rights are not 
 equal to all. There have of late been signs that the 
 people of Switzerland are growing weary of the refer- 
 endum. 
 
 Depreciation of money, or more properly speaking, 
 of coins, as well as the substitution of money-tokens for 
 real money has, as history shows, been frequently re-
 
 THE STATE 171 
 
 sorted to, and has sometimes been of benefit in tempo- 
 rarily bridging over exceptional conditions, especially in 
 times of war, as, for instance, during the American war 
 for independence and the French revolution of 1798. 
 But history does not record the fact that it ever had 
 any lasting beneficial effect on the economic organiza- 
 tion of society, or that it ever permanently bettered the 
 condition of the class that needed betterment most. 
 Although a purely economic measure, it does not seem 
 to me to follow the trend of evolution and to be one 
 that would by logical economic necessity come in course 
 of time anyway. 
 
 While these two measures have been practically 
 tried 1 , there are other propositions which have never had 
 a practical test. There is the theory of the single tax, 
 whose followers believe that an exclusive land-tax would 
 bring about! a condition akin to public ownership of land 
 and thereby revolutionize the entire economic system. 
 Without intending to discuss extensively the merits or 
 demerits of the theories of Henry George, I cannot sup- 
 press a few thoughts in reference to it. It would be 
 remarkable, indeed, if a simple fiscal measure, such as 
 taxing only land and nothing else, no matter how high 
 or low the tax-rate may be, should have the effect of 
 completely revolutionizing the complete system of indus- 
 try, commerce and finance of the present time. I do not 
 believe that even Mr. George's brilliancy of style will 
 ever convince the masses of the people that the power 
 and influence of capital can be broken by freeing it from 
 taxation. Presuming even, though I do not believe it, 
 that the single tax would practically result in the aboli- 
 tion of private ownership in land, leaving, as Mr. 
 George puts it, only the shell to the owner and taking
 
 172 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 from him the kernel. I am unable to see that such far- 
 reaching changes in our economic conditions would 
 thereby be produced, as Mr. George thinks there would. 
 It requires the imaginative mind of Henry George to 
 believe that exploitation can be materially affected in 
 the industrial and commercial world by any means 
 which leaves the system of buying labor for its market 
 price and producing and exchanging for profit intact. 
 
 I do not recollect whether the word profit can be 
 found at all in Mr. George's book, but I do know that 
 in his theory profit is no special category of income. 
 He still adheres to the ancient and musty theory of 
 wages of superintendence, and treats profit as a species 
 of wages, so that when he speaks of wages, he does not 
 mean merely the price of hired labor, but also the profit 
 of the merchant and manufacturer, the $100,000 or 
 $150,000 salary of the president of a life insurance com- 
 pany, the fee of a corporation lawyer; in fact, every- 
 thing except interest and rent. An economic theory 
 which fails to recognize profit as one of the pillars on 
 which the prevailing system rests, and fails to distin- 
 guish between the wages of the day laborer, the salary 
 of a corporation president and the surplus of a mer- 
 chant or manufacturer hardly deserves serious consider- 
 ation. 
 
 If at any time, anywhere, the conditions should be 
 ripe for the abolition of private ownership in land, it will 
 in all probability be done in a much more direct way 
 than that of the single tax. 
 
 Whether the doctrines of the so-called philosophic 
 anarchists, who advocate the abolition of all authority, 
 but have not yet been able to devise means for the con- 
 duct of their own meetings without putting some kind
 
 THE; STATE 173 
 
 of authority into the hands of some person, are more 
 worthy of attention, I will leave to those who are fami- 
 liar with them. 
 
 Municipal ownership, or, as it is called in Great 
 Britain, municipal socialism, is sometimes recommended 
 as a reform movement for the betterment of general 
 economic conditions. Its effects in this respect are, 
 however, overestimated. It has been in practice in Ger- 
 many for many years without any visible effect on gen- 
 eral economic conditions. Municipal socialism is a mis- 
 nomer, for it is at the present time not socialistic, neither 
 in inception nor purpose, but merely a business method. 
 The character of municipal or state ownership depends 
 altogether on the character of the state and its ruling 
 class, and this is in present times anything but social- 
 istic. As a business method it may have many advan- 
 tages, as a general reform movement it is of little value. 
 
 The most radical, and, at the same time, the most 
 rational movement, is unquestionably modern socialism, 
 based upon the theories of Karl Marx, who, with his 
 acute, critical mind, has produced a description of mod- 
 ern economic conditions and relations, the analytical 
 force of which has not been surpassed by anything that 
 has been written on the subject before or since. Marx 
 distinguishes between labor force and labor, the latter 
 being the result of the application of the former. What 
 the employer buys is labor force and what he pays for 
 it is, if the laborer is not to suffer actual want, what, 
 considering the standard of living and the necessity of 
 maintaining a family for the preservation of the class, 
 is necessary for the reproduction of the labor force 
 expended. As this requires an amount of labor far 
 below the amount actually performed, the laborer pro-
 
 174 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 duces surplus values which become the property of the 
 employer and are accumulated for the formation of 
 wealth and capital. In other words, wealth is composed 
 of the difference between the price of labor force and 
 the result of labor performed. A man's labor force is a 
 physical quantity which does not change much; but 
 labor itself, the form in which labor force is applied, is 
 subject to variation in kind and effectiveness and has 
 grown in productiveness with the perfection of the in- 
 struments of labor. 
 
 These, however, the laborer does not possess. With- 
 out them he cannot make use of his labor force. He is, 
 therefore, compelled to sell his labor force to the owner 
 of the instruments of labor at a price which is influenced 
 comparatively little by the normal result of its applica- 
 tion. 
 
 Modern socialism, therefore, advocates the national- 
 ization or socialization of production by abolishing pri- 
 vate ownership of the instruments of production. This 
 would necessarily result in the abolition of the wage sys- 
 tem and lead to a distribution of the products among 
 the producers, after having made provision for the needs 
 of government, the aged, the sick and other dependents 
 and those who in science or art perform beneficial, 
 though not materially or physically productive, labor. 
 
 It is part of the socialistic philosophy that, by an 
 unavoidable process of evolution, socialism will become 
 the basis of the economic structure of society, as certain 
 as individualism is its basis now. The transformation 
 will, according to that philosophy, be gradual, although 
 it is possible that great upheavals and revolutions will 
 be a part of the evolutionary process. Believing that 
 the working class must create its own freedom and fur-
 
 THE STATE 175 
 
 ther believing the attainment of political power for th^ 
 accomplishment of their purposes to be a condition sine 
 qua non, socialists everywhere effect political organiza- 
 tions, using the ballot as a means of accomplishing their 
 object. The socialistic movement has become world- 
 wide, and there is hardly any civilized country in which 
 it is without organization. It has a very extensive lit- 
 erature and a large number of newspapers and periodi- 
 cals. Very fanciful pictures of socialistic conditions 
 have been drawn by Edward Bellamy in his "Looking 
 Backward," and by William Morris in his "News From 
 Nowhere." While scientists, politicians and statesmen 
 advocating socialism are careful to refrain from pic- 
 torial descriptions of future conditions, and confine 
 themselves to statements and explications of theories, it 
 is, of course, the privilege of the novelist and the poet 
 to be descriptive and fanciful. 
 
 A not inconsiderable faction of the Socialists under 
 the leadership of Jaures in France and Bernstein in Ger- 
 many, impressed by the uncertainty of the future, attach 
 more importance to the movement itself than to the the- 
 ories and probabilities of its final outcome, considering 
 the latter of secondary value only. 
 
 Perhaps it may be of interest to the reader to learn 
 the opinions of two such eminent American scholars as 
 the Reverend Dr. Lyman Abbott, one of the foremost 
 pulpit orators of America, and Mr. Lewis H. Morgan, 
 the great scientist whom I have so frequently mentioned 
 in this book. Mr. Abbott in a lecture on "Industrial 
 Evolution," which I attended a number of years ago, 
 expressed himself about as follows : "The first condi- 
 tion of labor is slavery. The capitalist, in this stage, 
 owns the laborer, and, therefore, owns all the products
 
 176 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 of the labor. The second condition is feudalism, in 
 which system the capitalist owns the land and the laborer 
 is an attachment to the land. The capitalist, in other 
 words, has a lien on the laborer. The third stage in the 
 evolution is the present wage system. The capitalist 
 now owns the tools, and the laborer, having no tools of 
 his own, must needs work at the command of the cap- 
 italist owner of the tools. Personally, however, the 
 laborer is free. The wages system, or capitalist system, 
 is a gain over feudalism, as feudalism is a gain over 
 slavery. To-day is better than yesterday, but may not 
 to-morrow be better than to-day? The remedy will lie 
 in the establishment of a "democracy" of industry, which 
 will be the fourth stage of evolution, toward which we 
 are rapidly tending. The men who toil shall own the 
 tools in this new era. The evolution of government 
 corresponds with the evolution of industry. Through 
 the paternal stage, we are now in the individualistic, and 
 are tending toward the fraternal." 
 
 Mr. Morgan closes one of the, chapters in his 
 "Ancient Society" with the following words : "Since the 
 advent of civilization the outgrowth of property has 
 been so immense, its forms so diversified, its uses so 
 expanding and its management so intelligent in the in- 
 terests of its owners, that it has become on the part of 
 the people, an unmanageable power. The human mind 
 stands bewildered in the presence of its own creation. 
 The time will come, nevertheless, when human intelli- 
 gence will rise to the mastery over property, and define 
 the relations of the state to the property it protects, as 
 well as the obligations and the limtis of the rights of its 
 owners. The interests of society are paramount to in- 
 dividual interests, and the two must be brought into just
 
 THE STATE; 177 
 
 and harmonious relation. A mere property career is not 
 the final destiny of mankind, if progress is to be the 
 law of the future as it has been of the past. The time 
 which has passed away since civilization began is but a 
 fragment of the past duration of man's existence, and 
 but a fragment of the ages yet to come. The dissolu- 
 tion of society bids fair to become the termination of a 
 career of which property is the end and aim, because 
 such a career contains the elements of self-destruction. 
 Democracy of government, brotherhood in society, 
 equality in rights and privileges, and universal educa- 
 tion, foreshadow the next higher plane of society to 
 which experience, intelligence and knowledge are stead- 
 ily tending. It will be a revival, in a higher form, of 
 the liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gen- 
 tes." 
 
 What I want to make clear is the point that political 
 and social institutions are the results of economic insti- 
 tutions, or more particularly, the results of the prevalent 
 general modes of production and the economic struct- 
 ures created by them at different times, and that, there- 
 fore, the principal point of attack for reform movements 
 must be the economic institutions. The means of attack 
 may be of a political character, but the aim must be of 
 an economic nature. And in order not to be misunder- 
 stood, I will add that under economic institutions I do 
 not understand individual enterprises, or any number of 
 them, but that which is part of, or equivalent to, a sys- 
 tem, as, for instance, the institution of working for 
 wages, or the institution of selling for profit, etc. 
 
 Although the evolutionary force in society is contin- 
 ually active, and never for a moment ceases to be, yet 
 man is its instrument, and social movement its form of
 
 178 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 action. We cannot quietly wait until changes come by 
 themselves. They have to be made by man. The social 
 edifice has been erected by man. Judging from the his- 
 tory of the past, it seems to be one of the most difficult 
 tasks of man to understand and clearly see the trend of 
 evolution in his own time. Whether men are blinded by 
 ignorance or selfishness, I care not to investigate, but it 
 almost seems to me to be the tragic fate of human soci- 
 ety that it must take up or, at leasty consider every erro- 
 neous, nay even impossible, proposition, and give a 
 practical test to many of them, before adopting a meas- 
 ure of real curative force. It seems to me also, judg- 
 ing from history, that society is not able to leap from 
 one extreme into the other, and that there must always 
 be middle or transition periods. So it is quite probable 
 that the constantly proceeding concentration of capital, 
 industry and commerce, the formation of trusts, syndi- 
 cates and other economic associations for the purpose 
 of avoiding competition, the clearly visible tendency in 
 the development of our economics to eliminate competi- 
 tion, are signs of a period of transition from the system 
 of competition to some other system, the exact outlines 
 of which, have not yet appeared. Be that as it may, the 
 world will not stand still, and those who are young 
 enough may, perhaps, be witnesses of remarkable 
 changes in the not very distant future. Of whatever 
 nature these changes may be, of one thing we may be 
 sure : The world will never go backward ; it will never 
 give up any of the cultural achievements of the past, 
 but will increase them rather and build on them. It 
 will never give up any of the acquired facilities of pro- 
 duction, and never lower the general standard of life. 
 A new system which will stand on a higher plane
 
 THE STATE 179 
 
 than the present will gradually grow and augment man's 
 comfort, happiness and freedom. It is difficult, if not 
 impossible, to imagine any form of government which 
 could be better adapted to our economic system of profit 
 and wages than the state as constituted at present. It 
 is, indeed, so well adapted to it, it is so closely linked to 
 it, that it is unable to battle successfully with its evils. 
 No personal ties, no personal relations are recognized 
 in the affairs of government and the economic life of the 
 people. The only relation in which man stands to the 
 state is that of either citizen or subject. Economically 
 speaking, everybody is left to himself, and the weaker 
 to the mercy of the stronger. Freedom of will is, by 
 legislation and in the administration of justice presup- 
 posed, but as a matter of fact does not exist. Violence 
 and deceit are the only forces recognized as being able 
 to affect the freedom of contract ; human feeling, human 
 affection, physical suffering, needs, wants, habits and 
 passions are forces unknown to the law of contract, be- 
 cause they are of an emotional and intellectual character* 
 and therefore intangible. The government of the mod- 
 ern state takes the attitude of the umpire at a prize fight, 
 insisting on fair play between the fighters and strict ob- 
 servation of the rules of fighting. The freedom of cap- 
 ital is almost perfect. 
 
 Such a form of government, be it monarchical or 
 republican, does not appeal to the highest and noblest 
 sentiments of which man is capable. It almost seems 
 that the modern republic has progressed more rapidly 
 in the elimination of all relations between the person and 
 the government than the modern monarchy. For, what 
 we like to call paternalism : rules and regulations fre- 
 quently of a petty nature, which seem to us vexatious,
 
 180 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 usually flow from a desire to check the individual's reck- 
 less disregard of the interests, feelings and sentiments of 
 others. 
 
 There are already strong indications everywhere of 
 the gradual abandonment of the doctrine of laisser faire. 
 The principle of non-interference of the state in eco- 
 nomic matters is quite frequently violated and can hard- 
 ly be maintained very much longer. In European coun- 
 tries, especially in Germany, laws in reference to fair 
 competition, hours of labor, the condition of working 
 places and factories, state insurance of laborers against 
 old age, sickness and accident are enforced without con- 
 stitutional scruples. In the United States efforts in that 
 direction are repeatedly made. So far, however, most 
 legislation of this kind has been declared unconstitu- 
 tional. Yet the Supreme Court of Montana recently de- 
 clared constitutional a law making the eight-hour work- 
 day compulsory for mines, and Colorado amended its 
 constitution to make possible the enactment of such a 
 law; but efforts toward its enactment have so far failed. 
 At all events it seems to me that the tendency toward 
 abandoning the doctrine of non-interference and the let- 
 alone policy is growing in strength, which means that 
 there is a tendency toward forcing the state to pay more 
 attention to personal relations and individual conditions 
 than heretofore. If this tendency should become pow- 
 erful, it must, in course of time, materially affect the 
 functions of the state and its relation to the citizens. 
 
 From its inception to this day, the state has been, 
 and still is, a class-institution. It could not and cannot 
 be anything else. It owes its creation to the existence 
 of classes, it will last as long as classes exist and will 
 disappear whenever they cease to exist. Even Plato and
 
 THE STATE 181 
 
 Aristoteles, who lived and wrote only a little more than 
 two centuries after the advent of state-government in 
 Greece, were unable tec conceive of the possibility of civ- 
 ilized existence without the state, and equally unable to 
 conceive of a state without classes. All recollections of 
 the great power of the gentile organization seem to have 
 had vanished. In the opinions of these great thinkers 
 man could exist only in and through the state; to them 
 the highest moral duty of man was to serve the state. 
 Aristoteles was even unable to imagine a state without 
 slaves, whose moral duty and greatest virtue was to obey. 
 The class has been the result of a productive power 
 which, although originally small, furnished more than 
 what was absolutely needed for subsistence. When labor 
 commenced to furnish a surplus over what was neces- 
 sary for the worker's subsistence, society divided itself 
 into classes, one of which did all the work, while the 
 other lived on its surplus. The necessity of class-insti- 
 tutions, and the state as the only possible embodiment of 
 social order, were defended by statesmen and philoso- 
 phers from the time of Plato up to the twentieth cen- 
 tury. But while the ancients had good grounds for their 
 philosophy, none exist in modern times. The product- 
 ive power of their society was small ; that of ours is im- 
 mense. It is, perhaps, quite true that, as Buckle argues, 
 civilization would have been impossible without the ex- 
 istence of unproductive classes, and that when produc- 
 tion is so small that everybody has to employ almost all 
 his time in the production of the necessities of life, an 
 intellectual class can only exist, if it is permitted to live 
 on the surplus produced by others. But it is needless 
 to explain that that reasoning is not applicable to our era
 
 182 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 of unlimited power of production ; and then intellectual 
 and unproductive are not necessarily the same. 
 
 The class, and with it the state, owe the possibility 
 of their creation to the comparative poverty of society 
 at the time of their creation. They are unseparable and 
 have become inconsistent with the condition of wealth 
 into which society has grown. Sooner or later they will 
 both disappear. They will be abolished, not from a sim- 
 ple conviction that their existence is contrary to justice 
 and equality, or from any other ethical reason, nor from 
 the simple desire to abolish them, but by the force of 
 economic conditions. 
 
 Naturally the question will be asked: What will 
 take their place? Morgan, that most eminent and close 
 observer of human and social progress, and wise inter- 
 preter of ancient institutions, thinks that there will be a 
 revival in higher form of the ancient gentes. Maybe he 
 is right. Maybe some new and happier form may be 
 found. We can never be positively certain about the 
 future. But be this as it may, we may be sure that 
 society will find a form of order and government com- 
 patible with a general enjoyment of its immense wealth, 
 compatible with a more universally beneficial use of its 
 unlimited productive force and compatible with its con- 
 stantly growing democratical sentiment. 
 
 The exact outlines of this form are, I repeat, not 
 distinctly visible yet. And although it is quite appar- 
 ent that it will be the result of continuous social and 
 economic struggles, which in their nature are class 
 struggles, it cannot even be predicted with any degree of 
 certainty what forms these struggles may yet assume. 
 We can only hope and wish that modern parliamenta-
 
 THE STATE 183 
 
 rism may be able to reduce violent and convulsive 
 movements to a minimum. That it cannot prevent them 
 altogether, we have had ample proof. For there is one 
 class that has little, if anything, to lose and everything 
 to gain, and another that has far more to lose than to 
 gain in the settlement of the great social conflicts. So 
 far very little, if any, ability has manifested itself to set- 
 tle the conflict between justice and evolution on one side 
 and personal or class interest on the other with intelli- 
 gence and good will and in a spirit of love and kindness. 
 The indications rather point to the contrary. 
 
 The world, as it is, is governed by motives of selfish- 
 ness, not from choice, nor from natural inclination, but 
 from force of conditions. The individual, however char- 
 itably and philanthropically inclined, is powerless to 
 direct the course of class-movements in opposition to 
 the interests of the class. Upon the other hand, there 
 are many instances of cruelty and tyranny of men, nat- 
 urally kind and humane, but actuated by certain con- 
 ceptions of right and wrong and firmly believing in the 
 justice, righteousness and necessity of their course. I 
 do not know of any instance in the history of the human 
 race where any concessions in the direction of greater 
 rights or greater freedom of the masses have volun- 
 tarily been granted by the rulers to the ruled, although 
 not infrequently concessions made some time after the 
 defeat of revolutionary movements had the appearance 
 of being voluntary. During the whole course of human 
 history there was no establishment of liberty, or greater 
 rights of the lower classes, or better conditions of the 
 masses, except as the result of never-resting class strug- 
 gles. In asserting this, the wish is not father of the
 
 184 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 thought; for I greatly wish that it were different. But 
 history is history, and we must take the facts as it rec- 
 ords them. 
 
 Much has been accomplished toward the settlement 
 of modern social conflicts in a manner free from phys- 
 ical violence in Australia and New Zealand by the or- 
 ganization of labor parties and the use of parliamentary 
 methods. To some extent this looks encouraging. But 
 it should not be overlooked that those countries, com- 
 pared with America and Europe are industrially poorly 
 developed and that most of their population is concen- 
 trated in cities. The socialistic tendency of their legis- 
 lation is easily recognizable, but what it will lead to in 
 the end cannot yet be seen. 
 
 However, speaking generally, the fact that the forms 
 of the future economic structure and political govern- 
 ment can only be surmised but not definitely predicted, 
 need not be a matter of grave concern. We may safely 
 act on probabilities, and no harm can come from treat- 
 ing as positive what, as long as man has only human 
 powers, can, at best, be only probable. The thinker and 
 student requires not more than a scientifically deduced 
 probability. The masses, however, need definite hope, 
 a definite goal, a definite ideal. The higher that ideal, 
 the nobler and loftier the sentiments created by it. The 
 masses need an aim, an object, true enough to appeal 
 to their intellect, beautiful enough to appeal to their 
 longings and great enough to satisfy their yearnings for 
 a complete enjoyment of the gifts of nature and the 
 blessings of culture and civilization. Where such an 
 ideal is wanting, or where no attemots are made tovarJ 
 its realization ana tiie struggle tor oetter condaions is
 
 THE STATE 185 
 
 confined merely to present possibilities, violent outbreaks 
 are almost unavoidable. Political economy, as officially 
 taught, contains nothing that is apt to create such an 
 ideal, and its few sentimental generalities are more a 
 sign of utter hopelessness and helplessness than of hope.
 
 VII. 
 
 THE MODERN ECONOMIC SYSTEM. 
 
 It is said of the tutor of king Gustavus Adolphus of 
 Sweden, the celebrated chancellor Oxenstierna, that he 
 once said to his pupil : "My son, you have no idea with 
 how little good sense and reason the world is governed." 
 Indeed, it seems that the world is oftener governed by 
 follies and absurdities than by wise and prudent meas- 
 ures. But I believe that the world cannot always be 
 governed by follies, absurdities and inconsistencies, cer- 
 tainly not by the same ones. 
 
 As far as economics are concerned, absurdities and 
 inconsistencies arise by development. That is to say, 
 institutions which, in their beginning, appear quite sen- 
 sible, nay, even necessary, breed in course of time ab- 
 surdities by unforeseen and unintended effects. When- 
 ever these absurdities appear, it is a sure sign that the 
 prevailing economic system is reaching its climax, that 
 it has become inconsistent with the best interests of soci- 
 ety, and that the end of its career is approaching. I 
 think, therefore, that a statement of' some of the absurd- 
 ities, inconsistencies and peculiarities of the modern eco- 
 nomic system will be quite instructive. 
 
 This system is, in one sense, based upon the princi- 
 ple of freedom of contract. But in giving effect to this 
 principle, freedom is considered from a political and not 
 from an economic standpoint, although most contracts 
 are of an economic character. The contract of a minor, 
 
 186
 
 THE MODERN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 187 
 
 for instance, be he ever so intelligent, is invalid, but the 
 contract of a hungry man is valid. A man contracting 
 under threats of violence is considered to act under 
 duress, but the man who accepts a very dangerous, or 
 very loathsome, or very ill-paying employment, because 
 of his fear that he may find no other employment, and 
 would be in danger of starving, if he refused it, is con- 
 sidered in law a free agent. Considering the condition 
 of the average employee, it is quite clear that his freedom 
 of contract is nothing but a legal fiction. Yet, it is upon 
 this legal fiction that courts have repeatedly set aside as 
 unconstitutional legislative enactments for the abolition 
 of certain abuses in the treatment of workingmen, as for 
 instance the truck system. The law, based upon, or 
 rather being the fruit of, our economic system, presup- 
 poses a freedom of will, where there is no freedom of 
 choice a palpable impossibility. Or it assumes the free- 
 dom of choice on the part of the working classes a pal- 
 pable error. 
 
 The inability of our jurists to distinguish between 
 man as a citizen, that is, as a political being, and man 
 as an individual, that is, as a natural being, has led to 
 another anomaly, namely, the legal fiction of equality. 
 Ignoring economic inequalities, and accepting political 
 equality as an existing fact, they insist upon legislation 
 which affects all classes equally. This, however, is 
 impossible. If the legislator legislates in favor of the 
 laborer by limiting the hours of labor, or prescribing 
 certain rules of payment of wages, the courts, under the 
 fiction of civil equality and protection of the rights of 
 contract and property, declare such laws to be class-leg- 
 islation and, therefore, unconstitutional. 
 
 Obviously, only such legislation is judicially declared
 
 188 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 to be class-legislation which affects the interests of the 
 ruling class unfavorably. Laws rendering illegal con- 
 tracts for the payment of wages in anything else but 
 money, or in longer than certain periods, have been de- 
 clared unconstitutional as class-legislation and because 
 they rob the laborer of his freedom to contract as he 
 pleases for the sale of his labor, which is his property. 
 Does this principle not apply to the money lender as well 
 as to the laborer ? Do usury laws not violate the freedom 
 of contract ? Why is the money lender's freedom of con- 
 tract not protected? Simply because usury laws which 
 now have the sanctity of age are of feudal origin and 
 served to protect the ruling class. 
 
 But how can theories of property be applied to labor 
 force ? By another fiction : the fiction that labor is prop- 
 erty, for the sale of which the laborer who sells it must 
 be as free to contract as for the sale of any other prop- 
 erty. But labor-force lacks all the elements of property. 
 The seller cannot divest himself, nor be dispossessed of 
 it, without either suicide or homicide. It exists and dies 
 with the laborer himself. What property rights could 
 the purchaser of labor assert, if he should pay for it in 
 advance and the seller should refuse to work? Labor 
 cannot be replevied, it cannot be taken on execution, it 
 cannot be attached, it does not go into the hands of the 
 administrator, nor descends to heirs. It is inseparable 
 from man, it is man himself. Labor can only be prop- 
 erty, if the laborer himself is property. Consequently 
 only slave labor can be property, but not wage labor. 
 
 Thus to prevent legislation favorable to the laborer, 
 courts pretend to protect the laborer's fictitious liberty 
 and protect it by impregnating wage labor with the 
 characteristics of slave labor.
 
 THE MODERN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 189 
 
 'Can anything be more absurd? 
 
 Legal fictions have, taken the place of class-privileges 
 of former times and they preserve economic inequality 
 with equal effect. Theoretically, that is politically, we 
 all have the same right to become rich, but how could 
 the wage system be maintained without a poor class? 
 In practice, the conditions are those of a lottery, in 
 which everyone taking a chance may win, but in which 
 the gains of the winners are made up of the losses of 
 the losers. 
 
 There is a conflict between theory and practice. 
 Economic conditions make the exercise of political free- 
 dom and equality, principally in matters of contract, im- 
 possible to a certain class of citizens. Whether a right 
 does not exist, or cannot practically be used, the effect 
 is the same. But how do our jurists get out of the 
 dilemma ? By the fiction that, if one does what he would 
 prefer not to do, were he not by circumstances com- 
 pelled to do it, his action is nevertheless that of his own 
 free will. They insist upon the existence of equality 
 and the absence of classes, because the law grants no 
 privileges. 
 
 It is one of the characteristics of our economic sys- 
 tem that, working only through the effect of conditions 
 and not through express legal enactments, its modus 
 operandi is so difficult to understand. The relations of 
 the slave to his master and of the serf to his lord, are so 
 simple and transparent that their effect can be compre- 
 hended without trouble. The relation of the wage- 
 worker, however, who apparently receives for his work 
 all that it seems to be worth, and yet remains poor, while 
 the purchaser of his labor is in a condition to grow rich 
 and frequently does grow rich, is quite a complicated
 
 190 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 matter which requires a great deal of study for its 
 understanding. Hence the difficulty of comprehending 
 the source of the capitalist's power and the slowness of 
 movements for economic reforms. 
 
 References to such movements are frequently brushed 
 aside with a wave of the hand and the careless remark 
 that there have been always rich and poor, and that there 
 always will be such. Of course, if is unnecessary to say 
 that the fact that a thing was, is no proof that it will be. 
 The poverty of the laborer of former periods was the 
 direct result of the force of law and only the indirect 
 result of the force of conditions, while his poverty at 
 present is the direct result of the force of conditions 
 and only the indirect result of the force of law. 
 
 Wealth is created by production. This requires no 
 explanation. But the distribution of wealth is not regu- 
 lated by production but by the manipulation of the pro- 
 ducts, which in itself creates nothing. If I have lumber 
 of the value of five dollars and make out of that lum- 
 ber a table worth twenty dollars, I have by my labor 
 produced a value of fifteen dollars. The general stock 
 of products, the wealth existing, has been increased by 
 so much. Now, if somebody gives me twenty dollars 
 for the table and afterwards sells it for twenty-five dol- 
 lars, no new wealth has been produced by that process; 
 there are neither more tables in the world, nor more 
 money; yet somebody has five dollars more than he had 
 before. The table may be sold a second time and bring 
 thirty dollars, and again somebody has five dollars more 
 than he had before, although there are neither more 
 tables nor more money in the world. Of course, I know 
 that a pseudo science explains that value is added to the 
 table by bringing it nearer to the consumer, but this is
 
 THE MODERN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 191 
 
 merely an excuse for a system which adds to price with- 
 out adding to value and confounds both. The table is 
 always the same table, and no number of sales can elim- 
 inate the fact that exchange creates nothing and that 
 only production creates wealth. Yet, a large class of 
 people grow wealthy merely by exchange, and it is the 
 special characteristic of modern industry that it pro- 
 duces merely for the purpose of exchange. The earliest 
 mode of production was home production coupled with 
 home consumption; slaves and serfs produced what was 
 immediately consumed at home. Later on, the immedi- 
 ate object of production was consumption by somebody 
 else but the producer; if I needed a coat, I went to the 
 tailor and had one made; if I needed a pair of shoes, 
 the cobbler made them for me, and I wore them ; but the 
 object of modern production is exchange, or as it is 
 called, trade and commerce. Between the producer and 
 the consumer there is a great distance; they do not 
 know each other, they do not see each other. Between 
 them is the manipulator of the product. The products 
 are merchandise before they become articles of consump- 
 tion. The result of this special characteristic of mod- 
 ern production is overproduction where there is want, 
 and overpopulation where there is a natural possibility 
 of supporting a much larger population. 
 
 The extent of the United States, the general re- 
 sources and the natural wealth of the country could 
 probably support a population ten or more times as 
 large as it is now. Comparing the population of the 
 United States with that of Europe, in respect of den- 
 sity, this assertion is perfectly justified. Yet the physi- 
 cian complains that there are too many physicians, the 
 lawyer that there are too many lawyers, the merchant
 
 192 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 that there are too many merchants, the laborer that there 
 ar too many laborers, and so forth. It seems as if there 
 were too many everywhere, and as if the absurd Malthu- 
 sian theory that the earth cannot produce enough for its 
 growing population were actually true. And that in an 
 age in which the productive power of man exceeds many 
 times his power of consumption ! Upon the other hand, 
 the population of Ireland has within not much more than 
 a hundred years declined about one-half without improv- 
 ing the situation and making an end of the seeming con- 
 dition of overpopulation. 
 
 There is scarcely a branch of industry in which from 
 time to time a condition of the market does not appear 
 which is ascribed to overproduction. Has there been a 
 change in the natural condition of men? Do they eat 
 less, do they drink less, do they wear less? Has their 
 natural power of consumption decreased? Not at all. 
 Overproduction has no reference whatever either to the 
 number of human beings in existence, nor to their needs 
 or their natural power of consumption; it has reference 
 only to an artificially created condition, in which people 
 have not the means wherewith to buy what they need. 
 The natural power of consumption has remained the 
 same, but the economic power of consumption is not the 
 same. Both are so different from each other that there 
 may be a condition of overproduction in a thing of which 
 millions are sorely in need and suffer for the want of it. 
 
 Considered in the abstract, such a condition is absurd. 
 In former periods overproduction would have been the 
 source of joy; it would have meant luxury, plentiful- 
 ness. In our times it is the source of want and misery. 
 If, speaking in the language of the religiously ortho- 
 dox, God should take it in his mind to punish the wheat-
 
 THE MODERN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 193 
 
 growers of Russia, Hungary and Argentina by letting it 
 rain too much, and curtailing their portion of sunshine, 
 blessing at the same time the American farmers with 
 enormous crops, the latter will kneel in prayer and thank 
 God for his great kindness. But if God should be equally 
 kind to all the wheat-growers of the world, the Amer- 
 ican farmer, instead of thanking God for his kindness, 
 will raise the cry of ruin and advocate the free coinage 
 of silver. Of course, two hundred bushels of wheat go 
 in their feeding capacity just twice as far as one hun- 
 dred bushels, and represent twice as much actual wealth, 
 but the farmer does not consider actual wealth, but 
 wealth as expressed in dollars and cents; to him wheat 
 is not an article of consumption, but an article of trade, 
 and over-abundant crops may result in such a falling of 
 the price that they make him actually poorer. His wheat 
 is growing on the field, but his wealth is made on that 
 mysterious thing which is called the market. Absurd as 
 it sounds, it is nevertheless true, that in modern indus- 
 try it is practically sought to create wealth by restrain- 
 ing its production. For the producer produces what he 
 does not need or Use for himself, and his product is only 
 of value to him in proportion as it brings him dollars 
 and cents. So it comes that our industrial system re- 
 sults in underproduction compared with the natural 
 power of consumption, and in overproduction, compared 
 with the economic power of consumption, all of which 
 is a poverty and misery creating absurd condition, most 
 detrimental to the welfare of the masses of the people. 
 Everybody is aware of the wonderful growth of the 
 power of production in modern times. It is so stupen- 
 dous that it baffles description. In some instances pro- 
 duction by machinery is more than a hundred times as
 
 194 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 effective as production by hand. The productive power 
 of our generation is practically unlimited. I cannot but 
 think that if there were in existence an individual en- 
 dowed with authority of directing all production and 
 distribution, and being perfectly just to all, he would see 
 to it that there is enough produced of everything, and 
 that it is distributed so, that every person could live in 
 comfort. As far as our productive power is concerned, 
 that would be perfectly possible without being stingy in 
 the allotment of time for leisure and recreation. I can- 
 not help thinking that if the economic affairs of the 
 world were directed by one will, guided by reason and 
 justice, the wonderful growth of the power of produc- 
 tion by the invention of mechanical contrivances would 
 have resulted in less labor and more comfort for each 
 and would have become a blessing for all mankind, ele- 
 vating them physically, morally and intellectually. In- 
 stead of this, what do we behold? 
 
 First, that the hours of labor are as long, or nearly 
 as long, as they were before the invention of machinery. 
 John Stuart Mill says somewhere that he doubts that 
 by the invention of machinery a single hour of labor was 
 saved to anyone. 
 
 Secondly, that we have among us probably as many 
 paupers as the world ever had, and that among the 
 masses of the people there is perhaps as much want and 
 misery as there ever was. 
 
 There is no doubt but that workingmen to-day enjoy 
 many comforts which were not within their reach a cen- 
 tury and more ago, but food, clothing and shelter were 
 as necessary to them then as they are now. Yet with a 
 productive power infinitely small compared with that of 
 the present generation, without the aid of almost any
 
 THE MODERN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 195 
 
 machinery, the working classes produced not only the 
 necessaries of life for themselves, but also for those who 
 produced nothing. They produced, as they do to-day, 
 all articles of luxury for the rich and the privileged 
 classes; they built their palaces, wove their velvets and 
 silks, carved their costly furniture and erected churches 
 and other public edifices of remarkable beauty and grand- 
 eur. Reasoning backward, from the fact that in spite 
 of our enormous power of production, we do not pro- 
 duce enough for the comfort of all, we are almost un- 
 able to understand how that was possible, and how pro- 
 duction at that time did not fall far short of the imme- 
 diate wants of the people. If sumptuary laws would not 
 prove the contrary, one would feel inclined to believe 
 that poverty, want and misery were the lot of almost the 
 whole working population. But such was not the case, 
 and if we could believe in the truth of all the romantic 
 stories of former times, human happiness was rather 
 more general than it is now. Be that, however, as it 
 may, it is positively certain that the comfort and the wel- 
 fare of the masses have grown in infinitely smaller pro- 
 portions than the power of production. 
 
 If, prior to the age of machinery, it was possible for 
 every worker to produce by mere handicraft a surplus 
 over and above the necessaries of life for himself and his 
 family, we can form some judgment as to how large that 
 surplus must be to-day without going into intricate cal- 
 culations. 
 
 I do not care to examine carefully and in detail the 
 causes which make necessary the production of such an 
 enormous surplus; that would require a complete analy- 
 sis of our economic system; but it would be a mistake 
 to believe that it all goes into the pockets of the factory-
 
 196 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 owners, although much of it travels that way. The 
 larger part of it, I believe, must serve to support a 
 numerous non-productive class which appeared in the 
 wake of competition and manufacturing for the purpose 
 of trade. I have reference to the immense number of 
 middlemen and go-betweens, to all those who do not 
 sell their own goods or the products of their own estab- 
 lishments. Only a few hundred years ago, when me- 
 chanics and artisans simply executed the orders of their 
 consuming customers, and commerce was small and of 
 modest extent, there was in the economic world very 
 little, if any, room for traders, agents, drummers, bro- 
 kers, commissioners, solicitors and so forth, all of whom 
 consume necessaries of life without producing any. 
 
 It is a queer world in which we live. In our younger 
 years, when our senses are strong and vigorous, when 
 our souls yearn for the enjoyment of life, and our hearts 
 are receptive of all that nature and civilization offers, 
 we must forego many comforts and pleasures and sup- 
 press many desires, because life, health and economic 
 existence are equally uncertain, and we must, if such is 
 possible, lay by, economize, save. If we are fortunate 
 and succeed, and are, as the years go by, able to accumu- 
 late a competence, we grow old in the meantime, and 
 lose the physical and mental vigor to fully enjoy life. 
 Cur economic and social arrangements rob the majority 
 of the civilized human beings of a full realization of the 
 pleasures of life in the age which alone permits their 
 full realization, and later, in the age in which it would 
 be economically possible, nature forbids it. As far as 
 individual happiness is concerned, it is a question whether 
 the tramp who looks with contempt on all that civiliza- 
 tion offers is not happier than the decent and respectable
 
 THE MODERN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 197 
 
 member of society, and whether civilization has increased 
 the amount of happiness in the world. Fortunately, we 
 have good reasons to believe in the progressive power of 
 civilization, leading to a different and better future. 
 
 When the young man enters the business world and 
 commences his career, he is admonished to save. From 
 the standpoint of private economy, the advice is certainly 
 good, but from a politico-economic standpoint it is sim- 
 ply nonsense. Can anything be savfcd? Is not every- 
 thing in the world, no matter how lasting it is, destroyed 
 in the end, if not by use, then by the ravages of nature ? 
 To save is an entirely negative proposition'. If I save 
 the money for a pair of shoes, it does not mean that I 
 save five dollars from destruction, because the five dol- 
 lars which I would expend for the shoes would still con- 
 tinue their existence, but it means the nonproduction 
 of a pair of shoes. Nothing is saved in reality, but pro- 
 duction is restrained. While it is commonly believed 
 that saving creates wealth, as a matter of fact, it pre- 
 vents the creation of wealth. Accumulation of wealth 
 and production of wealth are two different things; the 
 latter is possible without the former, but the former is 
 not possible without the latter. Our economic system 
 has produced such a remarkable conflict between private 
 economy and political economy that the individual can 
 almost do nothing to benefit himself without injury to 
 the body politic. 
 
 Defenders of our economic system not unfrequently 
 advance the theory of the survival of the fittest. The 
 theory is not as modest as that of the theologian who 
 believes that God has put everyone into his proper place, 
 but as applied it is just as comfortable and convenient. 
 Since the appearance of Darwin's epoch-making book on
 
 198 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 "The Origin of Species," the words evolution and sur- 
 vival of the fittest are in everybody's mouth, but by no 
 means fully understood by everybody. There is cer- 
 tainly a great difference between the struggle for exist- 
 ence in nature and the struggle for existence in society, 
 and it is, to say the least, an unsettled question whether 
 the theory of the survival of the fittest is equally applica- 
 ble to both. Granted, however, for argument's sake, 
 that it is, and that economic success is the measure of 
 fitness, what would follow? That the fittest in human 
 society is the one who can make the most money, the 
 one who possesses, in the highest degree, those faculties 
 which make possible the accumulation of a fortune. We 
 would be forced to conclude that the man is so much 
 fitter as a social being as he can gather wealth, and that, 
 as things are going under our economic arrangements, 
 and not to speak of men of letters, science or art, the 
 man who can make a table out of raw wood is less fit, 
 and, consequently, a less useful member of society, than 
 the one who can sell it with a profit. Yet, I must con- 
 fess that I am of the opinion that if those who have the 
 particular faculty of selling tables at a profit should not 
 survive, one might have tables nevertheless ; but if those 
 who can make tables should fail to survive, I am at a 
 loss to see how we should get them. 
 
 According to the Darwinian theory, faculties, char- 
 acteristics, talents and aptitudes grow in strength by 
 their use in the struggle for existence. If we reflect for 
 a moment what particular qualifications and proficiencies 
 are necessary for making money, how seldom it is that 
 men of great minds and genius, students and men of 
 great learning succeed in making money, how much bet- 
 ter the chances of the reckless and inconsiderate are
 
 THE MODERN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 199 
 
 than those of the careful, timid and noble-minded, it 
 would be, indeed, quite a peculiar kind of society in 
 which the money-making persons are the fittest and will 
 therefore survive the others. 
 
 It is very often asserted that genius and talent will 
 always succeed in the end, even if they have to overcome 
 many obstacles. This is said without much knowledge 
 and thought. The fact that genius and talent succeed 
 in some cases under adverse conditions is no proof that 
 they succeed in all cases. The world does not mention 
 those who fail under adverse conditions, and history 
 learns not of them. If it were not so, we would prob- 
 ably have knowledge of more geniuses and more talents. 
 Genius and talent are natural gifts, and nature is lavish. 
 More than ten generations have come and gone since the 
 birth of Shakespeare. Averaging each generation at 
 fifty millions of English speaking people, more than five 
 hundred millions have come into the world and gone 
 from it since that time. I do not and cannot believe 
 that nature, so profuse in its creations, should have cre- 
 ated the genius of a Shakespeare only once among five 
 hundred millions of human beings, not to speak of those 
 who lived before Shakespeare, nor those who will live 
 after us. I am far more inclined to believe that nature 
 has created many Shakespeares but that economic and 
 social conditions did not allow them to grow and develop. 
 
 Has any one ever been able to count those geniuses 
 and talents that went under in the struggle for daily 
 bread, those who had to give up their ideals and sacri- 
 fice their ambitions, because they first needed a liveli- 
 hood? Has any one ever been able to count those chil- 
 dren born in poverty, but gifted by nature with genius 
 or talent, and never receiving the education necessary for
 
 200 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 its development, either because the parents on account of 
 their poverty could not afford it, or in their ignorance, 
 generally also the result of poverty, were unable to dis- 
 cover genius or talent? Genius and talent need free- 
 dom from, care for their development. Even those gifted 
 with an inventive genius succeed only if the result of 
 their genius can be readily transformed into money by 
 capitalists, and even then it is generally the capitalist who 
 gets the lion's share. 
 
 Privileged classes and their governments have al- 
 ways taken pride in fostering and protecting arts and 
 science, and have given many a chance to the develop- 
 ment of discovered geniuses or talents. But "noblesse" 
 does not "oblige" the economic class pure and simple. 
 It leaves everything to private or business enterprise. 
 The -richest government in the world, that of the United 
 States, has not to this day thought of establishing an in- 
 stitution like the universities of Germany where men of 
 science are given the opportunity of free research. The 
 average American university professor is still not more 
 than a teacher of things known already, forced to use 
 all his time in endless routine work. 
 
 I am not at all inclined to show things in their most 
 extreme consequences, nor to use any extravagant lan- 
 guage. Yet when labor leaders sometimes say that the 
 condition of the modern wage-worker is worse than 
 slavery, I must admit that in one particular respect this 
 is undoubtedly true. The slave was fed, sheltered and 
 clothed. Supposing even that the ordinary common 
 laborer is employed all the year, round, he can hardly do 
 more than that for himself. But the slave had his price, 
 and the wage-worker has not. I am told that in slavery 
 times, in the Southern States, an able-bodied, young
 
 THE; MODERN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 201 
 
 healthy negro cost as much as a thousand dollars. Re- 
 presenting thus a considerable amount of capital invest- 
 ed, his owner had good cause to keep him healthy and 
 strong, at all events as much cause as the owner of a 
 valuable horse has to take good care of the animal. Such 
 considerations do not exist in modern industry. The 
 large modern factory employs hands which have to per- 
 form a certain amount' of labor ; if they cannot do it, the 
 employer has no further use for them. The modern 
 laborer is only paid while he works, and no personal 
 relations of any kind exist between employer and em- 
 ployee; most frequently they do not even know each 
 other. In case of sickness, old age, decrepitude etc., the 
 workingman is left to his own resources, which in many 
 cases simply mean charity. There has never been* an 
 economic system, in which naked materialism governed 
 all relations so completely as the modern. 
 
 Some time ago it was reported in the newspapers that 
 certain railroads had issued an order not only to employ 
 nobody above the age of forty-five, but even to discharge 
 such who were above that age and were in their posi- 
 tions only a certain time. While this was done openly, 
 and therefore appeared in a measure startling, yet it is 
 a fact that it is generally very difficult for persons of 
 advanced age to find employment, because it is of more 
 advantage to employ persons of full strength and vigor. 
 It is a cruelty forced upon employers who have person- 
 ally no wish at all to be cruel. This cruel effect of our 
 economic conditions becomes more apparent when we 
 reflect how difficult it has gradually become to start a 
 business of one's own without capital, and how the 
 amount of capital necessary has constantly grown. I be- 
 lieve that the majority of our rich business men who
 
 202 IX>OKING FORWARD 
 
 started thirty or forty years ago with small means, could 
 not repeat the operation to-day. Statistics show that, 
 in proportion to the growth of population, the number 
 of independent owners of business-establishments is de- 
 creasing, while the number of employees is correspond- 
 ingly increasing, a fact which, of necessity, must unfa- 
 vorably influence sturdiness and manliness of civil char- 
 acter. 
 
 Whether insanity is increasing in consequence of our 
 economic conditions, as is frequently stated, or whether 
 this increase is only apparent in consequence of our more 
 humane treatment of the insane, and bringing them to- 
 gether in large public institutions, I will not investigate, 
 but that modern industrial conditions very badly affect 
 the physical condition of the workers, and have a phys- 
 ically degenerating effect is subject to statistical proof. 
 English statistics of some fifty years ago show that the 
 average duration of life in England was thirty-four and 
 one third years. In manufacturing cities, however, it 
 was different. In Leeds the average duration of life 
 was twenty-one, in Manchester twenty, in Liverpool 
 seventeen years. Belgian statistics show that in the city 
 of Brussels the yearly death rate is one out of fifty 
 among the very wealthy, one out of twenty-seven among 
 small businessmen and mechanics and one out of four- 
 teen among day laborers. The French stastician Vil- 
 lerme showed some forty years ago that about one-half 
 of the children of spinners and weavers in the city of 
 Milhouse die before they reach the second year of age. 
 (These figures are taken from Ferdinand Lassalle's 
 Frankfort speech.) German and Swiss statistics show 
 similar results, and who can doubt that American sta- 
 tistics, if there were any of this character, would be of
 
 THE MODERN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 203 
 
 the same kind? I recollect that during the great strike 
 of the Anthracite miners of Pennsylvania in 1903, the 
 government sent officers into the mining districts to re- 
 cruit men for the navy. Their efforts, however, proved 
 futile, because, as they reported, the miners, having for 
 years been underfed, were not physically fit for service 
 in the navy. 
 
 European military statistics show that in order to 
 complete the annual recruiting lists, it became neces- 
 sary to constantly reduce the required size of the men. 
 Prior to the great revolution it was in France 165 centi- 
 meters, it was gradually reduced until in 1870 it was 
 only 154, a decrease of the normal height of the human 
 body of eleven centimeters within one century. In 
 Saxony, in 1780, the required height was 178 centime- 
 ters, in 1862 it was only 155. 
 
 Three years ago, the newspapers contained the fol- 
 lowing dispatch: London, March loth, (1903). The 
 annual report of the inspector general of the British 
 army, which has just been issued, confirms many previ- 
 ous statements that the physique of the British working 
 class is deteriorating. The report says that one subject 
 which causes anxiety for the future as regards recruit- 
 ing is the gradual deterioration of the physique of the 
 working classes, from which the bulk of recruits must 
 always be drawn. When it is remembered that the re- 
 cruiters are instructed not to submit candidates for 
 enlistment for medical examination unless they can be 
 reasonably expected to pass as fit, one cannot but be 
 struck by the percentage, namely, 32.22 considered by 
 the medical officers unfit for service. In reports from 
 all the manufacturing districts stress is invariably laid 
 upon the number of men medically rejected.
 
 204 IX)OKING FORWARD 
 
 About a year ago the newspapers contained the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 "Berlin, March 4 (1905). It is learned from reli- 
 able sources that this year's conscription in Berlin and 
 vicinity showed remarkably unfavorable results, inas- 
 much as a large percentage of the young recruits is 
 physically incapable of military service." 
 
 Newspapers recently informed their readers that a 
 Japanese statesman made in an interview the statement 
 that Japan, knowing that war with Russia would sooner 
 or later become inevitable, preferred to fight now, be- 
 cause it was feared that the development of modern in- 
 dustry might produce such physical degeneration that the 
 country could not then successfully cope with Russia. 
 
 No commentary could add to the impressiveness of 
 these figures and statements. 
 
 The history of civilization is one of continued saving 
 of human labor force in the production of the neces- 
 saries of life, so much so that civilization and saving of 
 human labor force are almost synonymous. So far, 
 however, the result of it has not been less work, but 
 more effective work and creation of more wealth. But 
 the time will come when the practical result will be less 
 work and more leisure. We will have not only more 
 but also better machinery than now. The era of ma- 
 chinery has only commenced. The time will come when 
 all heavy and all loathsome work will be done by auto- 
 matic machinery and all unpleasant and obnoxious fea- 
 tures of labor will disappear. This will result in an 
 improvement of the human race and will go far toward 
 the removal of the physical and intellectual distinctions 
 between the different classes of society. For it cannot 
 be denied that continuous heavy physical work has a
 
 THE MODERN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 205 
 
 brutalizing effect, that continuous dirty work kills the 
 aesthetic sense, and that the monotony of modern fac- 
 tory labor produces dullness of mind and lack of ambi- 
 tion. For all we know, there may still be natural forces 
 of which we know nothing and which we may yet dis- 
 cover. The science of electricity is still in its infancy, 
 and the time will come when the triumph of human in- 
 tellect over the forces of nature will be so complete that 
 comparatively little physical labor will be necessary, and 
 the performance of the little that will be will be a 
 pleasure. 
 
 But while progress in production ran all the time in 
 the direction of saving human labor force, the develop- 
 ment of distribution ran in the opposite direction. The 
 history of distribution is, at least for the last hundred 
 or two hundred years, a history of an enormous waste 
 of human labor force. It is one of the characteristics 
 of the competitive system that it costs sometimes more 
 to sell an article than to make it. Speaking generally, 
 production is in the end governed by consumption. 
 Things are ultimately bought because they are needed, 
 not because they are offered for sale. Yet, in conse- 
 quence of the distance between producer and consumer, 
 and principally in consequence of competition, an enor- 
 mous quantity of human energy is employed in the 
 efforts to sell. The result of these efforts, however, is 
 neither a general increase of consumption nor a general 
 increase of production, for what is sold by one remains 
 unsold by another. A number of competing shoe man- 
 ufacturers, for instance, may send out ever so many 
 salesmen, there is not, as a result of their efforts, a sin- 
 gle pair of shoes more consumed. Every increase of
 
 206 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 the sales of one manufacturer must necessarily result in 
 a corresponding decrease of the sales of the other. 
 
 An enormous amount of human labor force is prac- 
 tically wasted in printing, lithographing, painting, post- 
 ing, and so forth, for no other purpose but advertising. 
 Wasted, because the products of that labor add noth- 
 ing to human comfort and the stock of national wealth, 
 while those engaged in that work must, for their prac- 
 tical subsistence, draw on the stock of necessaries of 
 life produced by others. Yet, so absurd is OUT eco- 
 nomic system that this waste is considered a boon be- 
 cause it is a source of employment. 
 
 This waste has been so immense that reaction was 
 bound to follow. It came in the shape of combinations, 
 generally called trusts. Of course, those who combined 
 acted not from motives of political economy, but from 
 motives of private economy. Business men are not in 
 the habit of studying and consulting political economy. 
 They are not philosophers, but judge from experience 
 and from the effect of economic causes on their private 
 interests. The trust was created because competition had 
 become ruinous. It had developed to a degree where, 
 instead of being beneficial, it became injurious. The 
 elements of self-destruction in the system commenced 
 to operate. The competitive system commenced to be- 
 come enimical to the best interests of capital and entered 
 the first stage of its collapse. For a long time consid- 
 ered the life of trade, it is now feared that it may be- 
 come the death of trade. 
 
 What the trust will lead to is, for the present, hid- 
 den in the future. It may develop into a system of its 
 own, lasting for some time. It may be only the first 
 stage of an entirely new economic system, beginning to
 
 THE MODERN ECONOMIC SYSTEM 207 
 
 develop. In neither case will it be permanent. It is 
 absolutely impossible that society will suffer the perma- 
 nency of an institution which invests a comparatively 
 small number of private corporations and a still smaller 
 number of gigantic combinations, with the power of 
 controlling the production, the exchange and the trans- 
 portation of the necessaries of life. It is impossible that 
 society will forever suffer an economic institution to, 
 honestly or corruptly, shape legislation and influence the 
 administration of justice in the interest of the few that 
 possess and manipulate the wealth of the country, and 
 to rob the masses of the people of every shred of inde- 
 pendence by making ninety-nine out of a hundred the 
 hired servants of the remaining one. The best inter- 
 ests of human society will not grant the private trust a 
 very long existence. Its reign is, perhaps, preparing the 
 advent of a new economic order of society, and all 
 efforts to destroy it merely for the purpose of 'maintain- 
 ing or re-establishing the reign of competition will prove 
 futile. Some future generation may, perhaps, recognize 
 in it the beginning of the gradual application of the 
 principle of association as the basis of the economic 
 structure of society. 
 
 Two things, I believe, may be taken for certain. One 
 is the fact that competition, as a system, is in its death- 
 struggle, and the other is the continuance of the process 
 of combination in industry, commerce and transporta- 
 tion. Combinations may fail, combination will go on. 
 At the same time, democratical sentiment, the feeling of 
 self-esteem and the confidence in their own power will 
 grow among the masses of the people. They thirst more 
 for information and read more than they ever did. I 
 believe some future generation will deal with the com-
 
 208 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 binations in a method different from ours. It will, prob- 
 ably, not waste time and energy in fruitless attempts to 
 destroy what evolution has produced, but will try to 
 apply it to the use and benefit of the nation. It will 
 fully understand the immense value of combination as 
 an instrument for the saving of human labor force and 
 increasing the productiveness of its application. Human 
 society will not lose and sacrifice this effect, but will 
 make it subservient to the interests of the whole nation.
 
 VIII. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Knowledge of the past, based upon contemporane- 
 ous testimony, reaches back some fifty or sixty centuries. 
 Based upon surmise and conjecture, resting on circum- 
 stantial evidence, it looks back upon, perhaps, many hun- 
 dreds of thousands of years. When man sprang into 
 existence, he was, probably, not much superior, if supe- 
 rior at all, to the highest developed animals of which we 
 know. To-day, the lowest savages are in possession of 
 articulate language, some sort of social organization, and 
 some sort of moral feeling. Innumerable centuries must 
 have passed before man reached even the stage of the 
 savages existing to-day. Equally innumerable were the 
 centuries of savagery and barbarism, except where sav- 
 ages and barbarians came into contact with civilization. 
 Civilization has advanced rapidly within the historic 
 period, and the rapidity of the advance constantly in- 
 creased as the velocity of the falling stone increases the 
 nearer it approaches the earth. It took man longer, and 
 it cost, perhaps, much more mental effort to invent the 
 bow and arrow than it now requires to invent the most 
 complicated machine. 
 
 Human history is a history of continued uninter- 
 rupted progress. To say that any civilization ever de- 
 clined and disappeared is false. When nations perished, 
 their civilization was not lost, but was taken up and con- 
 tinued by other nations. When the Roman empire fell, 
 
 809
 
 210 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 civilization did not perish. What was best in Graeco- 
 Roman civilization had already been adopted by the 
 Germans. And during all times the human race has 
 steadily improved, intellectually, morally and, in some 
 respects, undoubtedly, also physically. 
 
 There is no stronger instinct in either man or ani- 
 mal than that of self-preservation. All other instincts, 
 and, as far as man is concerned, all thought and action 
 are subservient to it. There is one thing that man must 
 have in all stages of culture from the lowest to the high- 
 est, and that is the necessaries of life for his subsistence. 
 Different as they may be in different stages of culture, 
 the first natural impulse goes toward obtaining them, 
 and the first effort of thought and action is directed 
 toward that end. The manner of finding and acquiring, 
 and, later on, the manner of producing the necessaries 
 of life has shaped human sentiment, has brought forth 
 the moral sense and created moral laws, has undoubtedly 
 influenced the development of mythologies, creeds and 
 gods and has developed and given form to social and 
 political institutions. Considering the term necessaries 
 of life in the broad sense of civilization, including its 
 comforts and even its luxuries, no moral precept and no 
 institution antagonistic to the prevailing manner of pro- 
 ' ducing them can last. As we find in the history of man, 
 step by step, one change after the other in the mode of 
 production, so we find, step by step, corresponding 
 changes in moral and political laws, in social and polit- 
 ical institutions. These changes display an uninter- 
 rupted tendency of the latter to set themselves in har- 
 mony with the former. If to-day we were to follow all 
 the precepts and commands of the bible, our whole in- 
 dustrial, commercial and credit system would become
 
 CONCLUSION 211 
 
 impossible. We could have no private property in land, 
 we could take no interest on loans or debts, could keep 
 neither pledge nor mortgage in possession and would 
 not be allowed to suffer any one to become a pauper. 
 Upon the other hand, the moral sentiments expressed in 
 the Old Testament would not prevent us from keeping 
 slaves, nor the men from being bigamists or polyga- 
 mists. I believe to have good reason for assuming that 
 Christ's opinion that it were easier for a camel to go 
 through a needle's ear than for a rich man to enter the 
 kingdom of heaven does not much trouble the conscience 
 of any millionaire, nor hinder any one from striving to 
 become one. If we had continued to look upon women 
 with the same sort of moral feeling as the apostles and 
 fathers of the church did, the men would still thank God 
 every day for not having created them women, and the 
 latter would still be in the most abject condition. 
 
 No conquering nation has ever felt moral scruples 
 to make the inhabitants of another country captives and 
 slaves, or to take and use its land, and modern moral 
 sentiment does not practically interfere with the conduct 
 of bloody wars for the expansion of trade. 
 
 Economic motives are at the bottom of all of it. Eco- 
 nomic motives govern the actions of men and nations 
 to-day as they ever did. Evolution effected gradually, 
 and from time to time, great changes in economic condi- 
 tions and in the motives and sentiments springing from 
 them. There is not the slightest reason to believe that 
 present economic conditions and present moral views and 
 social and political institutions will henceforth remain 
 unchanged. That they will change in the future is as 
 certain as that they have changed in the past. The 
 uncertainty is only in the manner and the result of the
 
 212 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 change. Upon this point opinions may and will differ. 
 But it is not necessary to guess blindly, for evolution 
 works along the line of progress and knows no retro- 
 gression. We may be sure that there will be no return 
 to former methods; we may be sure that in the future, 
 as heretofore, production will use the most effective 
 methods available, and that the use of machinery will be 
 still more extended. The use of machinery will, as it 
 does now, make necessary the working together of 
 many, the concentration of production at central points. 
 There can be no return to the shop which was replaced 
 by the factory. Human power of production will con- 
 tinue to grow, and the time will come when human soci- 
 ety will not allow production to be retarded by artificial 
 means in the interest of the owners of the instruments 
 of production. Production will be carried on in the 
 most economical way and human energy and labor force 
 will not be treated as a commercial commodity and 
 wasted in the interest of a part of society, but, being 
 inseparable from man, will be treated as part of him. It 
 is not probable that this can be achieved by letting pro- 
 duction and distribution remain private business. The 
 probability rather is that they will have to be made a 
 public affair. Society has an interest in the welfare of 
 its members; so much is already acknowledged to-day. 
 After a while society will clearly see that the welfare 
 of its members can best be extended and preserved by 
 the most extensive use of its power of production and 
 that such use is impossible under the prevailing eco- 
 nomic system. Then will come a time of experiment- 
 ing, and out of these experiments, perhaps only after 
 many mistakes and failures, a new economic system will 
 arise. Nor will it come without severe class-struggles.
 
 CONCLUSION 213 
 
 The lower economic class will, as the lower classes have 
 always done, use all its energy in bettering its condition 
 and will strive to rise to the level of the class above, 
 while the ruling economic class will defend its position 
 with the same, energy and the same assurance of rights 
 as political classes ever defended theirs. They will in- 
 sist upon being let alone with a pertinacity equal to that 
 of the political classes which insisted upon their God- 
 given privileges. From an historical standpoint, far 
 above party and class-interests, the often heard talk of 
 harmony between capital and labor, as generally under- 
 stood, is merely an illusion. Through the whole history 
 of the human race, since the beginning of the institu- 
 tion of private property, we witness the everlasting 
 struggles between the different classes of society. Mod- 
 ern civilization can make an effort to eliminate from 
 these struggles acts of brutality and barbarism, but noth- 
 ing can prevent or end them except the creation of an 
 economic system, which makes the existence of classes 
 impossible. 
 
 The large majority of men are timid and afraid lest 
 they may flee from known evils to greater unknown 
 evils. But we need not feel any terror of the future 
 and may examine all propositions for reforms and 
 changes in our institutions with calm consideration. For 
 through all the centuries of the past, with all their inno- 
 vations and changes, the condition of human society has 
 gradually and constantly improved, and the human race 
 has grown better. There is no reason to be afraid of 
 the future, certainly not from the standpoint of human- 
 ity at large. Even not from the standpoint of individ- 
 ual man. For after all, human life is but temporary and 
 we are beyond those superstitions which caused the
 
 214 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 burial of a dead man's horses and servants and symbols 
 of treasure along with him for use in the other world. 
 After all, every human being has only one body to shel- 
 ter, one body to clothe, one stomach to fill. And if one 
 has what is necessary to live comfortably, and to satisfy 
 one's intellectual and aesthetic tastes, it is enough for 
 material happiness. Whatever goes beyond that can 
 only serve the vulgar desire of ostentation. All that is 
 necessary to add for the purpose of making happiness 
 complete, in so far as access to physical things can do 
 that, is, beside the certainty of having so much, the cer- 
 tainty that those whom we love and whom we leave be- 
 hind will enjoy the same material happiness. Compared 
 with the enormous fortunes and incomes of the favored 
 few, it takes very little to satisfy all reasonable demands 
 for well-being and comfort, and it cannot be disputed 
 that in our times the productive power of man and na- 
 ture together is fully adequate to their satisfaction. 
 From a general social and human standpoint the accu- 
 mulation of great fortunes becomes absurd and useless, 
 being able only to gratify the lust of power and ostenta- 
 tion. 
 
 It is urged sometimes in defense of our present sys- 
 tem that wealth is the powerful incentive to human 
 effort, and that without this incentive human talent and 
 intellect would be without an object for which to mani- 
 fest themselves. I do not believe it. While I admit 
 that man needs an incentive, an object for his efforts, I 
 cannot admit that there can be no other incentive but 
 wealth. Perhaps under the present system of produc- 
 tion and distribution, under present social and political 
 arrangements, it may be impossible to find a stronger, 
 nay even another incentive. But every economic sys-
 
 CONCLUSION 215 
 
 tem and the social arrangements growing out of it, cre- 
 ate their own incentives, their own ambitions, their own 
 intellectual and moral sentiments. To the ancient Gre- 
 cian a laudation or a wreath in the Olympic games was 
 as much an incentive for putting forth his best efforts 
 as money is to modern man. Men have given up their 
 lives for the sake of liberty, men have sacrificed their 
 lives for their country. In neither case could they them- 
 selves enjoy the fruits of their action. Is there any rea- 
 son why the good of society, and indirectly that of one- 
 self, may not be an equally strong incentive? If our 
 economic system has so shaped our minds and interests 
 that we cannot think of any other incentive but wealth, 
 it does not necessarily follow that there can be no other 
 incentive under other and different conditions. 
 
 I am firmly of the opinion that our economic system 
 is not favorable to the highest development of the human 
 race. Granted that it was the logical consequence of 
 what was before, granted that it contributed immensely 
 to the development of the race to its present point, and 
 that it was a necessary stage in the progress of civiliza- 
 tion, I think it has reached its highest point of useful- 
 ness and must give way to a better system, if civiliza- 
 tion is to progress as it has progressed heretofore. The 
 future system must grow out of the present system. It 
 must be the logical sequence of it. It cannot be in- 
 vented, it must grow and develop. A prevailing sys- 
 tem, especially one as complex as ours, cannot be sud- 
 denly destroyed and immediately replaced by another 
 entirely new and complete. It will be the result of grad- 
 ual adjustment. W'hile it is quite natural for the sociol- 
 ogist or the economist to construct in his mind such a 
 new system- he should be careful not to build his castle
 
 216 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 in the air, but on the firm ground of existing institu- 
 tions, and consider the possibilities and probabilities of 
 evolution. 
 
 The average man is conservative and has always mis- 
 givings about proposed changes and reforms. He is 
 always afraid of their non-adaptability to human nature. 
 As a rule, however, this fear is groundless. Man is as 
 much, if not more, the creature of his surroundings than 
 his surroundings are the creature of his mind and will. 
 If we attempt to retrace all social and economic changes 
 and man's adjustment to them to the beginning, we find 
 that the natural surroundings eixsted before man came 
 into them, and that man had to arrange his mode of liv- 
 ing according to them. The observation of evil effects 
 of these surroundings impelled him to improve them, 
 and as they grew better, they also improved him and 
 created in him new needs and new desires, made another 
 man of him. Better conditions gave him new inspira- 
 tions and infused him with new moral ideas. So will it 
 also be in the future. Men will adjust themselves to 
 their surroundings and a better economic system will 
 create the type of men suited to it in intellectual, phys- 
 ical and moral capacity. I have no fault to find with 
 those who believe that God infused man from the start 
 with moral sentiments and moral ideas, and that human 
 institutions were the result of these sentiments and ideas, 
 but I am of a different opinion. At any rate, I cannot see, 
 if it was God who has implanted man with moral ideas, 
 why he should have planted into man different moral 
 ideas at different times. 
 
 As every economic system creates moral ideas fitting 
 it, so it gives birth to crimes peculiarly its own. Under 
 our system of economics nine-tenths of all crimes known
 
 CONCLUSION 217 
 
 are crimes against property, or such as have for their 
 object the gain of property. Our laws mention many a 
 crime of which other laws, for instance the Mosaic law, 
 knew nothing. 
 
 It will, in all probability, be one of the characteristics 
 of the future economic system that labor force and the 
 instruments of labor are nearer together than they are 
 now. At present the man using his physical labor force 
 and the man owning the instruments of labor are dif- 
 ferent persons. It follows as an unavoidable result that 
 the former is dependent upon the latter, that he must 
 sell him his labor force for a market price, and that both 
 belong to different classes of society. Under the effect 
 of a new economic system, which brings labor force 
 and instruments of labor nearer together, conditions of 
 extreme wealth and extreme poverty will disappear and 
 the state or government will not be dominated over by 
 an economic class. There can be no real freedom, nor 
 real political equality, until there are no more economic 
 classes. Where there is general economic independence 
 no economic class will find tools for the execution of its 
 will among those who form the government, and the 
 government being then not only in name, but in fact 
 the representative of all the citizens, and not as now of 
 a class only, will have to assume functions which polit- 
 ical science, shaped by class-interests, would not allow 
 it to assume at present. 
 
 The conception of liberty will, in all probability, be 
 quite different from what it is now, and the ethical views 
 of the time may carry governmental protection farther 
 than merely against violence and fraud. There is no 
 positive liberty. It is always relative. The conscious- 
 ness of liberty depends on the harmony between individ-
 
 218 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 ual needs and desires and the possibility of their satisfac- 
 tion. But neither individual needs and desires, nor the 
 possibility of their satisfaction, are always the same. 
 
 The highest civilization and the highest moral con- 
 ception can only be worked out in a condition of eco- 
 nomic independence. Of course, not that individual in- 
 dependence which has the dependence of another for its 
 footstool, but the economic independence of all, which 
 can only be had under a government capable of secur- 
 ing it and instituted to that end. 
 
 The state, as constituted at present, would be incap- 
 able of securing such independence, even if it existed. 
 Although we still witness the accumulation and increase 
 of immense fortunes, we may nevertheless be sure that 
 the moment will come when disintegration will set In 
 and the process of equalization will commence. Society 
 will erect a new economic structure, and sooner or later 
 create a political edifice in harmony with it and adapted 
 to its mode of production and distribution. 
 
 The new mode of production and distribution will 
 not only produce a higher form of government, but also 
 a higher form of the family. The highest form of the 
 family can only evolve under economic conditions which 
 make husband and wife economically independent of 
 each other, so that no considerations of an economic 
 nature will enter into the holiest and most intimate rela- 
 tion between two human beings. The more one delves 
 into the novelistic and dramatic literature of our times, 
 the more one becomes convinced that the marriage prob- 
 lem is one of the deepest felt problems of the present 
 age. True, those plots and narratives are all invented, 
 but they are nevertheless the reflex of actual life. These 
 narrations of mistakes, changes of feeling, incompatibil-
 
 CONCHJSION 219 
 
 ity of temper or sentiment, describing the woe and mis- 
 ery following, speak a most pathetic language and sound 
 like a cry of longing for happier forms of marriage and 
 like a wail of despair of finding them. But, they are 
 sure to come some time under another economic system. 
 
 In the second volume of his "Sociology," Herbert 
 Spencer says : "In primitive phases while permanent 
 monogamy was developing, union in the name of the 
 law that is, originally, the act of purchase was ac- 
 counted the essential part of the marriage, and union in 
 the name of affection was not essential. In the present 
 day union in the name of the law is considered the most 
 important, and union by affection the less important. A 
 time will come when union by affection will be consid- 
 ered the most important, and union in the name of the 
 law the least important, and men will hold in reproba- 
 tion those conjugal unions in which union by affection 
 is dissolved." 
 
 While Herbert Spencer is ethnologically and historic- 
 ally in error, because marriage by purchase and monog- 
 amy,, even in its beginnings, did not exist contemporane- 
 ously, his philosophy is quite true. 
 
 I doubt that there is anything more destructive of 
 good will and affection in marriage than the consicous- 
 ness of possession and the difficulty or impossibility of 
 separation. The efforts of the parties toward winning 
 each other by presenting themselves from their best 
 sides, make room for an abandonment and carelessness 
 in dress and appearance, and a want of politeness in 
 manner and mutual intercourse, which, as between hus- 
 band and wife, have become almost proverbial and a 
 prolific source of jests in humerous periodicals. They 
 would in good society not be tolerated even between
 
 220 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 strangers. Yet all this could be different, for there is 
 no man who may not fascinate some woman, nor is there 
 a woman, be she ever so homely, who may not look 
 charming in the eyes of some man; and there are few 
 between whom the feeling of love and affection may 
 not be preserved for life, if it were as carefully culti- 
 vated after marriage as it was before marriage. 
 
 The best medicine against social ills is freedom. 
 Granting that society must guard against abuse of it, it 
 remains true, nevertheless, that with the advancement 
 of civilization and the exaltation of ethical conceptions, 
 sentiment and conscience must more and more take the 
 place of police, orders and penal laws and restrictions. 
 I feel satisfied that even to-day the majority of men 
 would neither commit larceny nor murder, even if they 
 were not forbidden and punished by law. The want of 
 economic freedom and independence makes cowards of 
 us all and hypocrites of many of us. Men have sup- 
 pressed their best thoughts for fear of economic injury, 
 and others have shammed beliefs and opinions for the 
 same reason. That has happened in the sphere of pol- 
 itics, in the sphere of religion and in the sphere of phi- 
 losophy and science. The freedom of speech is given to 
 us by the law, but it is chained by economic considera- 
 tions, by the fears which economic conditions produce, 
 and by the feeling of the necessity to do for the sake of 
 business or position what one would not do for the sake 
 of conscience. 
 
 It may be that in the activities of this world, each 
 sex has its proper sphere. But I have always consid- 
 ered it an assumption on the part of men to attempt to 
 determine for themselves the proper sphere of women. 
 In so far as they have done it, they have betrayed noth-
 
 CONCLUSION 221 
 
 ing but selfishness. Although they do not object to the 
 employment of women as wage-workers in shops, offices 
 and stores, there are a good many vocations out of 
 which they seek to keep her by proclaiming those voca- 
 tions to be peculiarly within the sphere of men. Most 
 men still entertain the opinion that the proper sphere of 
 woman is nowhere but within the home, and that the 
 only mission of woman upon this earth is to please and 
 comfort man, provided he is her husband. It does not 
 suit their taste to see women striving more and more 
 for independence and interesting themselves in matters 
 of public concern. Her right to higher education and 
 learning was only grudgingly acknowledged, and there 
 are still universities, on both sides of the Atlantic, which 
 close their doors to women. But nothing is more 
 tabooed, nothing considered less within the sphere of 
 women than politics. There, still, is little chance in the 
 United States for giving women the right of suffrage 
 outside of the few states in which it was granted to 
 them, probably for local purposes and principally, I sup- 
 pose, because it was thought to be of advantage to the 
 temperance cause. Yet women pay the same taxes on 
 property, if they have any, as men; they are subject to 
 the same criminal laws and to the same civil laws ; and, 
 if they stand alone, must find their support without any 
 aid from the state. Is it just, then, to give them no 
 voice in rating taxation or in making the laws? Taxa- 
 tion without representation was one of the causes for 
 which the American colonies rebelled against England. 
 Are not our women taxed without representation? And 
 considering stamp duties', import duties and the shift- 
 ing effect of taxes, are not all those women who must 
 make a living for themselves taxed, even if they pay no
 
 222 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 direct property tax? Are they not compelled to obey 
 laws made by others for them? Is this not gross injus- 
 tice? 
 
 One of the many silly reasons given for it is this, 
 that men should have the superior right of legislation 
 because on them also involves the duty of defending the 
 country in time of war. True, quite true, but it is to 
 be hoped that in course of time there will be no more 
 wars. Yet I think this special duty of men is offset by 
 a special function of women, namely, that of giving birth 
 to the future generation. It is a question where there 
 is more pain and suffering and more heroism, on the 
 battle-field or in child-bed. It is a question whether 
 death reaps a richer harvest on the battle-field or in 
 child-bed. Because in the one case the sufferings are 
 spread out, and in the other they are concentrated, in 
 time and space, so that the sensation of horror in both 
 cases is not the same, we have no opportunity to make 
 comparisons. There is, however, no question that the 
 function of bringing forth life is more useful to society 
 than that of taking life, no matter for what purpose. 
 And there is neither hope nor fear that child-bearing 
 will ever come to an end. 
 
 The reasons most generally stated, why women 
 should not be in politics, as not being their proper 
 sphere, are of a sentimental nature and reflect sorely and 
 sadly on our political life. It is, however, not worth 
 the trouble to investigate whether politics would cor- 
 rupt women, or women would purify politics. First, 
 because sentimental reasons do not weigh heavily in the 
 development of social institutions and political rights, 
 and secondly, it is greatly to be doubted that these are 
 true reasons. I believe that the cowardice of men, their
 
 CONCLUSION 223 
 
 fear of being overawed by woman, has much to do with 
 it. Men feel in their private and family life the power 
 which women have over them and fear that power in 
 public life. They fear it because they do not under- 
 stand the cause of it. 
 
 It sounds, perhaps, paradoxical to say that between 
 persons of unequal strength, bound together by ties of 
 duty or affection, the weaker is practically the stronger, 
 but it is true. The power of woman over man under 
 our social and economic condition has its source in her 
 weakness and dependence, and is for that reason an igno- 
 ble power. A woman may with impunity commit 
 against a man offenses which would meet with violent 
 resentment, if they came from a man. The economic 
 dependence of woman robs man of his freedom of action, 
 unless he is devoid of all feeling. The economic and 
 social dependence of woman stirs his chivalrous nature; 
 he knows and feels that the woman needs him, and he 
 submits when otherwise he would not. By parity of 
 reasoning it appears plain that with the growth of the 
 economic and social independence of women, man would 
 also become freer and more independent. A chivalrous 
 nature is always apt to become the slave of the weak. 
 Daughters are far more apt to rule a household than 
 sons, because the latter can easier care for themselves 
 than the former and may with less scruples be told to 
 go. A baby can make all the members of a household 
 its slaves. It is a slavery which can be abolished only in 
 two ways : either the stronger must become brutal or 
 the weaker must become stronger. Is it necessary to 
 point out the better and more civilized way? 
 
 And yet, I am frank enough to say that I do not set 
 much expectation on female suffrage under present con-
 
 224 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 ditions. To be sure, if its introduction would depend 
 on my vote, I would without a moment's hesitation cast 
 it in its favor as a matter of justice. But I would do it 
 with the conviction that it would, for the present, not 
 materially further the cause of women. Our political 
 fights are class-fights. The lack of consciousness that 
 they are does not change the fact. The absence of priv- 
 ileged classes conceals it, and the economic classes and 
 their struggles are not generally understood. How- 
 ever, as the comprehension of our economic system 
 grows, the political class-fight will become more pro- 
 nounced. I am well aware of the fact that such words 
 as class-struggles, class-fights, etc., have an odious sound 
 in the ears of many, but it is of no use to shut our eyes 
 to facts, nor is anything gained by self-deception. If 
 one fails to discover in the early history of our country 
 the economic class-struggle, such failure is pardonable; 
 but if one fails to discover it in the political struggles 
 of the last fifty years, in the everlasting tariff-wrangles, 
 in the rise and fall of greenbackism and populism, in the 
 candidacy of Bryan and the advocacy of the free coin- 
 age of silver, in the candidacy of Hearst as the friend 
 of the "small man," in the slow, but steady, growth of 
 the socialist party, in the attempt of legislation against 
 the trusts, in the efforts of labor organizations to obtain 
 favorable legislation, he is stricken with almost unpar- 
 donable blindness. 
 
 Now, while the political struggles bear the character 
 of class-struggles, the women as such form no particular 
 economic class. Their interests are identical with those 
 of their fathers or their husbands, and they would gen- 
 erally vote like these. For a long time to come the par- 
 ticipation of women in politics would probably not influ-
 
 CONCLUSION 225 
 
 ence legislation, because it would not change the pro- 
 portional strength of political parties. 
 
 But it may have a great intellectual influence. It 
 may teach women the importance and bearing of eco j 
 nomic questions, it may broaden their minds, they will 
 become interested in affairs to which they have hereto- 
 fore not paid any attention, they will become closer 
 observers, will learn to understand the world better, will 
 not waste, as they do now, their energy in small and 
 insignificant matters, as for instance the political tem- 
 perance movement, will become more tolerant and will 
 learn that freedom is a far better educator than coer- 
 cion and restraint. 
 
 We hear it said that women are not fit for politics 
 and matters of public concern, because they are gener- 
 ally influenced more by sentiment than by reason. I do 
 not care to dispute that they are more subject to senti- 
 ment and emotion than' men. It would, indeed, be aston- 
 ishing if the difference in physical condition and natural 
 functions were not associated with psychic differences; 
 but are we quite sure that it might not be better for 
 human society if its affairs were conducted with a little 
 less reason and a little more sentiment? And may not 
 the overbalancing power of sentiment over reason in 
 woman be more or less the product of her social status, 
 which made the use of the one more practicable to her 
 than the other? It is quite trite that women have so 
 far distinguished themselves more in the realm of sen- 
 timent than irt that of reason ; that is to say, more in art 
 than in science; but this also may be ascribed to the 
 social status of woman. That woman, however, is capa- 
 ble of distinguishing herself in science has been proved 
 in several instances. How could they be numerous
 
 326 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 when for centuries all the higher institutions of learn- 
 ing were closed to her? Be this, however, as it may, 
 and granted that each sex has its own proper sphere of 
 functions in the social body, I state it as my opinion 
 that woman should be given the opportunity to find her 
 proper sphere and to work out her own salvation on a 
 basis of social and civil equality with men. And I am 
 furthermore of the opinion that wherever woman can 
 accomplish something good and beneficial, she is in her 
 proper sphere. Woman should have a chance of work- 
 ing 1 out her destiny unhampered by legal restrictions and 
 social prejudices. 
 
 I have traced the status of woman, the form of the 
 family, and the form of social and political government 
 through the different stages of human progress and have 
 attempted to show their intimate connection with the 
 economic conditions as they appeared and disappeared 
 and affected the social and political institutions. 
 
 The prevalence of general poverty in the primitive 
 state oi; mankind resulted quite naturally in communistic 
 relations between those who by marriage or descent be- 
 longed together. The fact that the labor of each indi- 
 vidual scarcely sufficed for his or her own subsistence 
 created necessarily a sentiment of equality. Social organ- 
 1 ization rested altogether on personal relations. The form 
 of the family was one best adapted to communism of pov- 
 erty. When the stage of agriculture was reached and 
 women performed the most important labor, they ac- 
 quired superior power and influence, which led to the 
 establishment of the matriarchate and corresponding 
 changes in the form of the family. The patriarchal fam- 
 ily seems to have been particularly adapted to the 
 needs of pastoral peoples. With the growth of the effi-
 
 CONCLUSION 227 
 
 ciency of human labor, the participation of women in 
 providing subsistence became less necessary; men per- 
 formed it alone and woman lost her power and influ- 
 ence. The growth of productive power enabled the in- 
 dividual to produce more than what was necessary for 
 his own subsistence and the institution of slavery ap- 
 peared. In a society in which human beings were de- 
 graded to the condition of property, it was quite natural 
 that the weak were subjected by the strong, that ethical 
 views developed which permitted it, and that the con- 
 dition of women grew more abject and subordinate than 
 ever. Private property in land was established, and 
 classes developed which acquired privileges and power. 
 The growth of property interests made necessary an in- 
 stitution for their protection. The ancient gentile organ- 
 ization proved to be inefficient for the protection of pri- 
 vate property and the political state appeared. The 
 communistic institutions of old decayed, existence be- 
 came uncertain and precarious, large families were dif- 
 ficult to support and monogamy became the prevailing 
 form of the family. The fact that property consisted 
 principally of land and slaves led to wars of conquest 
 and Caesarism, and after the fall of Rome and the rise 
 of German power, land still being the -principal means 
 of production, feudalism and serfdom appeared. Neither 
 production by slaves nor production by serfs gave 
 woman an opportunity to become an economic factor, 
 and her social status remained low, as it did also under 
 the guild system. Trade and commerce gradually ex- 
 panded, better tools were invented, the advantages of 
 division of labor became understood, the factory system 
 was introduced, legal restraints in trade and commerce 
 were abolished and the era of free trade and unfettered
 
 228 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 competition began. The bourgeois class grew in power 
 and influence. Then came the era of great inventions 
 and modern industrialism which democratized the world 
 and made the purely economic class of business men the 
 ruling class in all civilized countries, monarchies as well 
 as republics. Modern industrialism drew women into 
 the whirl of economic affairs and she began to become 
 an economic factor again. Her social status improved 
 and the law granted her many rights of person and prop- 
 erty which she had not before. The modern movement 
 for the emancipation of women entered upon the stage. 
 The deleterious influence of the competitive system on 
 the family disclosed itself in a decrease of the number 
 of marriages and an increase in the number of divorces, 
 evincing a growing unsatisfactory condition of family 
 relations. The efforts towards checking divorce by 
 legal restraint and the pathetic cry in literature for more 
 satisfactory family relations are the reflex of the strug- 
 gle going on in human society. At the same time we 
 witness a growth of the power of capital, a growth of 
 the concentration of its forces, a growth of the dissatis- 
 faction of the masses of the people with existing eco- 
 nomic conditions, a growth of the bitterness and intensity 
 of the fight between capital and labor, a growth of the 
 democratical sentiment in the masses of the people and a 
 growth of the dissatisfaction with the use of the power 
 of the state and the administration of justice. Society 
 is in travail and the birth of new forms of economic 
 and social institutions is imminent. 
 
 The division of times past into different periods is 
 altogether arbitrary. The future historian may let civ- 
 ilization begin at a much later period than the historian 
 of our times. He may refuse to record pauperism,
 
 IftMVBft 
 CONCLUSION 229 
 
 prostitution, child labor, woman wage-labor, economic 
 classes, military institutions and wars as attributes of 
 civilization, and may put us down as barbarians. How- 
 ever, the institutions and conditions of all times have a 
 historical right to be. Not only do they come one after 
 the other, but all that succeeds comes as the necessary 
 fruit and consequence of that which precedes. 
 
 So far, the world has seen four great general sys- 
 tems of production, each with its own special form of 
 government, having passed slowly and by degrees from 
 one into the other. 
 
 First, in archaic times, the system of communism 
 of poverty. It created the gentile system of govern- 
 ment, a perfectly democratical organization, based on 
 personal relation. 
 
 Second, in ancient times, the system of slavery with 
 private ownership of land. It created political govern- 
 ment, based on territory and property, culminating in 
 despotism and Caesarism. 
 
 Third, in mediaeval times, the system of serfdom in 
 agriculture, and the system of guilds in industry. The 
 corresponding form of government was feudalistic, aris- 
 tocratic and autocratic. 
 
 Fourth, in modern times, the system of free compe- 
 tition with its capitalistic features. It created modern 
 parliamentarism with more or less extended rights of 
 suffrage in republics and constitutional monarchies. 
 
 The fifth? That is the problem. It may be already 
 in the stage of its inception. What will it look like? 
 Will it be, as Morgan believes, a return to the ancient 
 gentes in a higher form? Will it be, as Mr. Abbott 
 thinks, an industrial democracy, whatever that may 
 mean? Will it be socialistic or individualistic in char-
 
 230 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 acter? It would certainly be absurd to believe that our 
 social and political system is the highest which the hu- 
 man race is able to evolve. So far, there is no unan- 
 imity of answer, neither in the world of science nor in 
 the world of business, nor in the world of labor. It 
 would be idle to deny that the answer is oftener dic- 
 tated by interest and social position than by logic and 
 reason. But it seems to me that there is a decided ten- 
 dency toward socialism, not only in the views prevailing 
 among the laboring classes, but also in the world of lit- 
 erature and economic science. Indeed, if we consider 
 that the present conditions are the result of the unin- 
 terrupted application of the principle of individualism 
 through centuries, it is difficult, if not impossible, to see 
 how the future application of this principle can amelio- 
 rate, much less bring about a substantial change of con- 
 ditions. What else can Abbott's industrial democracy 
 or Morgan's return to the ancient gentes mean but 
 socialism in some form ? Political economy, as it is offici- 
 ally taught, sees the evils clearly enough, but is abso- 
 lutely unable to discover a remedy within the beaten 
 path of individualism. 
 
 Nor is this possible. For, so long as instruments 
 of labor are in the hands of one class only, and the other 
 class must sell to it their labor force and must do it 
 under the power and influence of competition for em- 
 ployment, any material change of general conditions 
 seems impossible. Effects can never be changed while 
 causes remain the same. Nothing even proves this bet- 
 ter than occasional individual cases of luck and success. 
 
 The fear of socialism is gradually waning ; the dire 
 predictions in case the world should turn socialistic do 
 not find as ready believers as formerly; people think
 
 CONCLUSION 231 
 
 more for themselves, and to-day a well respected citizen 
 may advocate socialism without fear of losing caste. 
 More people study it than ever did before, and there can 
 be no question that the number of those who are unable 
 to find another avenue of escape from the evils of our 
 economic arrangements but socialism is slowly, but 
 steadily, increasing. 
 
 It seems to be a very plain proposition. If the evils 
 under which we suffer result from the fact that the in- 
 struments of labor are beyond the control of those who 
 perform the work on and with them, the remedy is in 
 giving them the control. But as a change of control 
 from one class to the other would not destroy the classes 
 themselves, but would only result in a change of their 
 personnel, it is difficult to see what else remains but 
 putting the instruments of production within the control 
 of all people in their organized capacity, and that is the 
 state. 
 
 It is said, however, of socialism that it offers no 
 incentive to effort, that it would destroy individuality 
 and that it is visionary. 
 
 Of the first charge I have already spoken in this 
 chapter. As to the second I have shown that our pres- 
 ent economic order is not favorable at all to the devel- 
 opment of genius and talent. It does not seem to me 
 that the counting room, the stock exchange and the 
 "market," or the work for a mere living in the darkness 
 of the mine or the dusty and smoky factory, or the end- 
 less and unremunerative toil of women and children cre- 
 ate ideal individualities. 
 
 The third objection deserves no consideration at all. 
 It is easy enough to brush projects and propositions for 
 the future aside with a shrug of the shoulder as vision-
 
 232 BOOKING FORWARD 
 
 ary. It has always been done and requires very little 
 wisdom. Undoubtedly the guild-master looked upon 
 every proposition to free the trades from all restraints 
 as perfectly visionary, and if only a hundred years ago 
 one would have pictured present conditions as the nec- 
 essary consequences of unchecked competition, he would 
 have been called a dreamer. 
 
 Whether it is visionary or not cannot be determined 
 by the present generation of mankind. Final judgment 
 must be passed by a generation of the near or distant 
 future. But suppose the doctrine of socialism is false? 
 Was not the doctrine of the declaration of independence 
 that all men are born free and equal and that they were 
 endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights 
 also false? Yet, it has filled the people with the hope, 
 inspiration and enthusiasm necessary to bring the strug- 
 gle for independence to a successful end. 
 
 Every bit of freedom, every approach to equality, 
 every extension of political and civil rights was the re- 
 sult of social strife and revolution. They were social, 
 not natural, creations. The error consisted in stating as 
 a fact what was a mere ethical conception. If the social- 
 istic idea should also be not more than an ethical con- 
 ception, it may nevertheless result in immense changes 
 for the benefit of mankind. 
 
 Be this, however, as it may, evolution will take its 
 course regardless of objections and the result will be a 
 system of economics and government which will mark a 
 higher plane of culture, perhaps a civilization grand and 
 noble beyond our dreams and a greater and more equally 
 distributed amount of happiness for humanity. 
 
 If we look backward and compare what was with 
 what is, if we study the progress the world has made
 
 CONCLUSION 233 
 
 century after century without halt or rest, we can dis- 
 cover no ground upon which to base any doubt that the 
 future will be as much superior to the present as the 
 present is to the past. 
 
 Look backward, my dear reader, and when you have 
 beheld everything which the power of your mental vision 
 enables you to behold, then turn around and look for- 
 ward with courage and confidence toward a future 
 worthy of your best efforts and endeavors in behalf of 
 struggling humanity's hopes and aspirations. 
 
 Human society will not permit an economic system 
 which makes one class of the people produce all the 
 wealth of another class to last forever. Nor will human 
 society permit the permanence of a form of government 
 which takes no notice of man as a natural being, but 
 treats him only as a political being, makes the protec- 
 tion of property in all its ramifications its highest func- 
 tion and leaves man unprotected against its power. Hu- 
 man intelligence, impelled by necessity and popular will 
 and impulse, will find means to direct the gigantic mass 
 of wealth produced day after day by toiling humanity 
 into other channels than those running into the coffers 
 of comparatively few individuals and will gradually 
 devise and create a form of government adapted to their 
 new economic forms. By and by man will understand 
 that labor and production are not the object and pur- 
 pose of life, but only means to support it. Gradually the 
 human mind will be educated to a higher perception of 
 the value and dignity of man. All this will be accom- 
 plished, not by the good will and kind sentiment of some 
 individuals, useful as they may be, but by the ever-pres- 
 ent, steady, invincible movement and pressure from the 
 lower strata of society towards the upper, using these
 
 234 LOOKING FORWARD 
 
 words in an economic and political sense. This move- 
 ment has constituted the element of the organic life of 
 human society since economic classes have begun to 
 exist; without it society would be doomed to decay and 
 death. It has always been stronger than the powers 
 that were; it will be stronger than the powers that 
 are. Nobody can remain a neutral observer of this 
 movement; one must take part in it consciously or un- 
 consciously, be it as merchant or banker, manufacturer 
 or laborer, employer or employee, citizen or subject, and 
 must, according to position, understanding or conscience, 
 assist or resist it. 
 
 The social struggles which constitute this movement 
 must, from the mere fact of their existence and from 
 their very nature as class-struggles, result in changes for 
 the better; and although it is one of the shortcomings 
 of man that his vision is not powerful enough to pen- 
 etrate the veil which forever has hidden the future from 
 the human eye, yet man will continue to plan for the 
 future and create ideals toward the realization of which 
 he will unceasingly strive. He will derive inspiration 
 and strength from them in his struggles and efforts; and 
 his confidence in the results of his hopes and endeavors, 
 based upon science, logic and experience, reveals to him 
 the future in its general outlines, at least. 
 
 THE END.
 
 tfftfi 
 
 from which It was borrowed.
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 000 738 472 o