THE CHAIRMAN: I am authorized to interrupt for a moment the course of the ordinary proceedings, in consequence of a telegram which I hold in my hand, which shows that these meetings are not only sustained by the deep interest of these crowded audiences, and by the sympathy, as we know, of millions of our friends. throughout this land, but that the hearts of Christian men far beyond the sea are throbbing with the liveliest interest in our proceedings here. This telegram is dated "London, December 8," and is from the Council of the Evangelical Alliance there, to the Chairman of the Evangelical Alliance Conference at Washington. It reads:

"British Council, now sitting, cordially sympathize with you, praying for a rich blessing from our one Master."

MR. DODGE: Mr. Chairman, we have an inexorable rule here, that under no circumstances should we put anything to vote, but I suppose no rule is perfect without some exceptions. And I will, therefore, venture to move that this Conference, now in session, gratefully acknowledge the salutation of our brothers, and instruct the Secretary to return them a cordial answer by cable to-day.

THE CHAIRMAN: I will venture to ask so many as are in favor of this to manifest their sentiment by rising.

The members of the Conference rose unanimously, and the following message was sent in reply to the above telegram:

"Message of sympathy acknowledged by rising vote and grateful enthusiasm. Conference most successful."

RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO THE CAPITAL AND LABOR QUESTION.

BY HON. SETH LOW, OF BROOKLYN.

It

It is clearly impossible to deal with a question as large as this, in all its aspects, within the proper limits of a short address. will be in line with the central thought of this Conference, I think, if I attempt to define as distinctly as I can, the light which is thrown upon the subject at large by a consideration of it along the line of organized capital and organized labor. This is the characteristic and dominating aspect of the question in our time and in this land. If we may take a hopeful view here, all is well. If not, then is our case sad indeed.

In approaching the consideration of this question in our own Country, we must not forget that here every citizen is a voter. Two facts, therefore, strike us at once. They are so patent we cannot fail to see them. They seem at first sight so antagonistic that they puzzle and bewilder us. Or the one hand, there never has been a time when the individual has counted for so much; on the other, there never has been a time when the individual has counted for so little. Politically, at the present time in this country, the citizen, just because he is a man, is entitled to his vote. He may, upon election day, if he wishes, negative the judgment and the preference of the President of the United States, as to any official to be chosen. The President of the United States, in many respects, is the most powerful ruler in the world. In the matter of appointments and patronage, I suppose him to be quite the most powerful ruler. But when it comes to the choice of a new president, the vote of the humblest citizen in the land is as powerful as his. Side by side with this spectacle of the political power of the individual, we seem to see the individual, as a factor in the business concerns of men, disappearing quite as strikingly. The indi

vidual capitalist is disappearing in the corporation; the individual laborer is disappearing in the Trades Union or in the Knights of The first question that rises to our lips, in the presence of these strangely different tendencies of the time, surely, is, What does it mean? Is it possible that, after the race has struggled for so many centuries to make the individual politically free, to secure for him the opportunity and impulse for growth involved in political and individual freedom-is it possible that, after all, individuality is to be lost by indirection, through the corporation on the one hand and the Trades Union on the other? I do not think so. This strange contrast is only a new illustration-the illustration of our own times of that great law which is powerful in social as well as in physical life—the opposition of forces. Were it not for gravity, the revolution of the globe would throw us all violently into space; were it not for the revolution of the globe, gravity would fasten us to the earth. By the opposition of these two forces, the equilibrium is adjusted so nicely that a fly can walk. Were it not for conservatism among men, progress would always be revolutionary; were it not for liberalism, conservatism would make society stagnant. By the opposition of these two forces, wherever the equilibrium is maintained, social progress is both steady and orderly. If my premise be correct, it becomes us, then, first of all, not to be alarmed by the apparent difficulties which confront us, owing to the presence in our midst of these two antagonistic tendencies. What we are to do is to find their equilibrium. So considered, neither tendency can be spared. Together they furnish, instead of ground for fear, the best ground for hope that the transition of society from the old order to the new, wil! be a movement towards better and more permanent conditions.

It often has been shown that the last fifty years have witnessed a revolution throughout the civilized world, in the methods of communication, in the methods of travel, largely also in the manner of living, greater than can be traced through century to century, from the beginning of recorded history down to this epoch. Men say that this is the result of the great advances made during the last fifty years in physical science. No doubt it is; but it is important to notice that the fullness of time did not come for science until human history had reached the point where these two antagonistic tendencies touching the individual had become, both of them, ready for their consummation. In other words, that which

seems to me to have happened as to society, may be illustrated by a reference to the discovery of printing. Only when the type had been individualized, only when each type came to represent a single letter, was the era of combination reached. So now, as I conceive, we have reached in human society, and in this country in its highest form, the era of combination. That this depends largely upon the individualizing of the man, appears from the fact that where the individual is freest, politically, there also the organization, both of labor and of capital, is most complete. Some one has said that when printing was discovered, it seemed as though "a new fiat for light had gone forth from the lips of the Almighty." Does it not seem, as one reflects upon the mighty changes which have been wrought since the hidden forces of nature were placed at the service of combining society-does it not seem as though, in a very real sense, the time was already upon us when the Lord "will make all things new"? For this, at least, may be said: Combination implies community of interests; it is not utter selfishness. So that whatever selfish abuses may be traced to it, are abuses working in defiance of its own fundamental law.

If this be a correct conception of our own times, it follows, does it not, that combinations among workingmen, and combination among capitalists, the Trades Union and the Corporation, are in no necessary sense antagonistic to each other, any more than gravity working upon us is antagonistic to gravity working upon our antipodes. They simply are different manifestations of the same force, the force which emphasizes the interdependence of society, as against the individualizing forces of popular government. The forces which work in society are like the physical forces of the universe, in this respect at least, that they operate according to fixed law. The problem of mankind as to both kinds of forces is to ascertain the law of their operation. Until this is done, the same force which is waiting to be our servant, baffles, perplexes, troubles us. The method of ascertaining the law is the same in both cases, by experimentation and study. The present relation between labor and capital in this country seems to me simply to reflect the fact that we have not yet perfectly learned the laws which control these new forces that are expressing themselves in combinations of labor and capital alike. People have said, "Labor must combine because capital combines," and instantly there has arisen an unmistakable sense of antagonism

between the two forms of organization. The point I wish to emphasize is, that this is not the reason why labor combines. In the present age labor would combine even if it were conceivable that capital did not. Combined labor, as a matter of fact, does make the same demands of the individual employer as it makes of the corporation. The two forms of combination, the combination of capital and the combination of labor, are not antagonistic; they are only different expressions of the same force. This fact is of the utmost consequence. It is necessary that it should be laid to heart both by the capitalist and by the laborer. It goes to the root of many of the troubles which have marked in recent years the so-called conflict between capital and labor. Two results should flow from it; the belief that the tendency towards combined action on the part either of capital or of labor is not to be regretted; and the earnest purpose to ascertain the laws which govern this tendency, and to recognize the limit of safety in it.

It is clear that great mistakes mark the progress of society, hitherto, towards completer organization both along the lines of capital and of labor. I cannot see that one form of combination is more free from just blame than the other. The directors of corporations have ridden over the minority rough-shod. They have organized subsidiary corporations for their own benefit, to absorb the profits of the parent concern. They have managed, with as little thought as possible, for the interest of stockholders not in sympathy with the direction. The directors of labor organizations have been equally regardless of the interest of their minority. Strikes have been ordered contrary to their interests, and generally their rights have been compelled to yield to the power of the majority. Individual laborers are persecuted, and denied the right to earn their own living except by permission of the organization, and upon terms satisfactory to it. All these sorts of troubles, however, it is to be noted, are sins of capitalists against capitalists, and of labor against labor. It is only the old story under the modern form of combination, of the oppression of the weak by the strong. It perhaps is not out of place to say, on this occasion, that if the sins of this kind which labor commits against labor seem to be largely chargeable to foreign-born citizens, the exactly parallel class of wrongs which capital commits against capital cannot be so disposed of. They reveal the tendency to precisely the same sort and manner of sin on the part of