honor any requests that are made so long as the individual remains a faithful and wise steward. But both in the practical working out of relations under good leadership and in properly appreciating the spirit of the context it appears that the intention is to perpetuate as much individual liberty and free initiative in production as is compatible with the general well-being of the Order. In other words, the saving phrase, "so long as he is in full fellowship, and is faithful and wise in his stewardship," lifts the arrangement out of confusion and suggests a wise means, if it is handled by able men, of distributing available capital into productive channels. Unusual consideration is given to the wise steward, but at the same time the steadying hand of central direction (embodied by the Council and the Treasurer) encourages and modifies. Overproduction in particular lines, maladjustment of fixed and circulating capital, seasonable employments, etc., such patent causes of the cycle with its period of prosperity and its period of depression, and which are so difficult to handle under the present system, would have little excuse for continuance. Almost automatically they would be woven out of the economic structure under good management.

There is another consideration to be taken into account in comparing the United Order with industrial democracy. In the latter the people exercise control through officers who derive their authority either directly from the people concerned by election, or indirectly through the appointive power. In the Mormon Church higher authority proposes the names of new officers and the people either accept or reject them by vote. The initiative in the selection of officers always rests with the authorities of the priesthood and not with the church membership. It is customary at times to feel after the desires of the people by means of a secret ballot before the officers' names are proposed, but there is nothing binding about the resulting expression of popular desire, although it is usual to follow it.

There is also another characteristic of Mormon belief which would tend in practice to remove the United Order farther from a realization of industrial democracy. It is a strongly entrenched belief that the officers of the priesthood, when faithful, are guided by inspiration in the performance of their church duties. Hence, when anything is proposed by a church officer, the usual practice is to accept it readily. Only very rarely, and only when grievances have grown to somewhat large proportions, do the people object. The tendency is in the direction of "yea, yea," rather than towards independent initiative from the membership. In spite of this tendency there has been perpetuated in the average Mormon a considerable amount of aggressive independence due, in part, to conditions surrounding pioneer life. In "affairs temporal" it is quite probable that under the Order the control of the membership over

the treasury and over the officers would be quite substantial, though in no sense complete, through the right to "accept or reject."

As has been indicated earlier, a great problem which confronts industrial as well as political democracy, and perhaps its greatest problem, is the inefficiency which attends popular control. Wellliked but inefficient men are placed in office and waste follows in the wake of corruption. Perhaps no more disastrous type of inefficiency has ever been known than has occasionally been found in the Mormon Church when a good but inferior man has been placed at the head of a community and kept there thirty or perhaps forty years while the town has gradually died politically, industrially, and even religiously. Such examples, however, are rare. The usual practice is to select the best man that can be found for the position.

A more far-reaching provision governing control than the one concerned with the treasury, is the general arrangement that "all things shall be done by common consent in the church." Under this provision regulation of hours, and of conditions of employment should ultimately be determined by the stewards. Assume, for example, that it is found by experiment that an eighthour day brings about a maximum production, but that a majority of the stewards have decided that although the returns, per stewardship, are larger on this basis, they prefer a standard of living in which the money income is somewhat less, but which permits of more time for leisure and cultural growth. There is no doubt that such a majority could bring about a reduction of hours from eight to six if they so desired, even though the officers of the Order were unanimously opposed to such a change. If the majority of the stewards felt that considerable money should be spent in making the conditions of employment safe, healthy and agreeable, they would be in a position to require that such expenditures be made.

It seems quite clear that in all such matters the steward would have a better understanding of the relation between his income and the amount he produced than does the wage-earner of capitalism. There is a common feeling among present-day wage-earners that they do not get all they produce. Demands are frequently made for higher wages irrespective of whether the worker adds a sufficient value to the product to warrant such a wage, or not. The steward being both the owner of capital and the man who works it, would come early to understand the fundamental relation which exists between the value of the thing produced and the amount that it is possible to pay to the man who produces it.

This general power of "common consent" which is to reside in the stewards, should give them ultimate control over everything pertaining to the Order. Initiative rests with the steward within

his stewardship, but not in the selection of his officers. A majority, however, can say "no" and their verdict is final. Thus do we find the stewards to be, in many ways, substantial characters. In the last analysis ultimate control is in their hands. The slow-going strength of the hills is bound up in the arrangement. In voting on Order officers the steward should be informed and alert and should use his right to reject as well as to accept, if he is to exercise a reasonable amount of practical control. A well-informed and highly developed community of stewards would make use of this right.

In view of the very great importance of the enterpriser in production, and in view further of the fact that the Council of the Order and the Treasurer cannot but exercise an influence of out. standing importance on these enterprisers through their power to permit and to curtail expansion, it becomes evident that the authorities of the church exercise a most important power because of their possession of the initiative in the selection of officers. They may either heedlessly ignore the lessen which the mistakes of democracies so slowly teach, or profit by those lessons and promote efficiency, in the only manner by which it can be successfully established-through the selection of able men for leadership and through the endowment of these men with sufficient authority so that, in a real sense, they will be held responsible for success or failure within the particular field over which each has charge. In this way, and in this way only, it seems, can the innate gifts, with which able men are endowed, be given that scope which permits of their full utilization, for the public benefit. Reference is made here only to leadership and to the organization of that leadership. So far as the inheritances themselves are concerned, abundant provision is made for free scope and the resulting responsibility which comes from it; for in the management of the inheritances the steward is responsible in large measure to God alone. If he is unwise his credit at the treasury for improvement purposes falls, but outside of this there seems to be contemplated little interference with his stewardship, although he must render his accounts to the bishop.1.

In point of possibilities in efficient administration, the issue depends largely on the church authorities who select the United Order officials. It is obvious that the great difficulties that are incident to any new economic organization of a society, are such that no matter how good theoretically a plan may be, it will fail under inefficient or mediocre direction. Great leadership is required. Given such leadership, a fair amount of capital at the commencement, and a converted people of relatively high ideals and congenial interests, there appears to be much in the United

1 Doctrine and Covenants, 72:3. See also B. H. Roberts, History of the Mormon Church, Americana, vol. 5, p. 284.

Order Plan which would make for contentment and satisfaction after its machinery was once put into operation. Once in operation, the great question of poverty would find a most adequate solution.

There are many systems which, in theory, are more democratic than the United Order. Practically, where life is complex the popular will has not, however, been able to do múch in initiating policies. Politically, in this country, the people have not yet been able to extend their control to that point where they can exercise an effective check on either the government or the parties.1 The United Order appears to contemplate an effective check by the stewards but does not expect them to do much by way of initialtion so far as Order policies are concerned.

The Doctrine and Covenants does not mention any kind of merit plan for use in selecting officers for the joint-stewardships (large undertakings). Should the United Order be placed in operation again, a fruitful field for investigation and experiment would arise in this connection.

1 cf., F. J. Goodnow, Party Government in England and the United States; Jones, Readings in Parties and Elections, pp. 1-27.

CHAPTER XXII

THE UNITED ORDER ANSWER TO THE LABOR PROBLEM

THE WAGE EARNER

The use of the term capitalism in connection with the United Order raises the question as to whether "capitalistic methods" of production are contemplated by the Order, and if so how can a sytsem of stewardships be harmonized with a system wherein the great majority are propertyless workers, who of necessity work under the direction of foremen and who cannot have "control over that from which the living comes." In short, is the factory system, based on the "division of labor" and involving a large wage earning class, compatible with the United Order?

It will be well to pause here and to inquire briefly into the place which the factory system or machine production occupies in present day economic life. It will be recalled that it was during the latter half of the eighteenth century that a number of inventions were made in connection with the spinning jenny, the power loom and the steam engine, which brought about the industrial revolution. Following rapidly there came the cotton gin, the steam boat, the locomotive, the telegraph. Improved transportation brought raw materials closer to the markets and made possible a wider field for selling finished goods. The division of labor involved in handling the machines further impelled the new system on its way by making possible invention upon invention, looking to the institution of mechanical power in place of man power. As the productive process became further divided, it became easier to standardize the work which each worker performed, and as such work became standardized it became easier to see how machines might be employed to do it. So the movement became cumulative, and in every line mechanical process was made to do the work formerly done by hand. While the steam locomotives were being increased in size and improved to take care of increasing freights, electricity and oil came forward to assist coal in the great moving process, propelling electric trolleys, interurban railways, elevated railways, subways, automobiles, trucks, motor boats, etc., and providing power for the machines. While the steamships were bringing the distant fertile fields close to the industrial centers so that raw materials, were plentiful and mann-factured products sure of a market, the cables, the telephones, and wireless were consolidating and pushing the nations together. and furthering the growth of trade. The farmer threw away the sickle and the hand plow, and substituted for them the combined