Knowledge that Transforms

The Mississippi River, marking the Missouri-Illinois state line, makes a striking physical and governmental division between St. Louis, Missouri, and East St. Louis, Illinois; but otherwise these two municipalities (together with the immediately adjacent Illinois manufacturing towns?Madison, Venice, Granite City?which are naturally a part of East St. Louis) form a single commercial and manufacturing district. In the railroad development of this district those lines entering from east of the river stopped at the east bank and built their terminals entirely on the Illinois side; while all lines entering from territory west naturally provided terminals entirely on the Missouri side where the main business development had taken place. In recent years some three or four lines have acquired terminal property on both sides of the river; but no one road owns or operates an independent means of crossing the Mississippi River throughout the nineteen miles of St. Louis river front.1 Several companies were organized from time to time to pro? vide means of crossing the river, and to provide railroad terminals in St. Louis and East St. Louis: the Wiggins Ferry Company (operat? ing ferries for cars, vehicles, and passenger traffic, and belt lines and team-tracks on both sides of the river) ; the Terminal Railroad Association (operating the Eads Bridge for wagon, pedestrian, street-car and railroad traffic and providing belt lines, team-tracks, freight-houses, and the St. Louis Union Passenger Station) ; the Merchants Bridge Terminal Company (operating the Merchants Bridge and some belt and terminal properties on both sides) ; the Interstate Car Transfer Company (operating car-ferries, and a belt line in East St. Louis). These all supplied facilities for parts of the business, and, some limited competition; but the general result of their operation, independently of each other and independently of the railroads, was much friction, duplication of service, and cumulated terminal

Experiments in social legislation, dealing as they do with the lives and fortunes of human beings, are too costly to be undertaken often, or without a serious forecast of the consequences that possible failure may bring, not only to the individual but to the state; not only to this generation but to the next. "In dealing with the man," the Report of the Unemnployed Fund wisely points out, "the committee is also dealing with posterity." It might therefore be regarded as a part of our social duty to study the working-out of such experiments when they are offered to us, gratuitously as it were, with the costs to be paid by another nation. England has been furnishing one such experiment in its recent attempts to deal with the so-called "unemployed" and attempts to provide for this class are of rather special importance because they so often spell relief that they threaten to cause more evil than they cure. In the past few years, London has brought much money and sympathy, and what is more rare, thought and intelligent effort to bear upon this question, and she has much to teach us that we could not learn from our own extensive experiments of I893-94. For we were facing a sudden and appalling industrial crisis, and adopted makeshift plans in panic-stricken dismay; while in England, settled machinery under the control of the Local Government Board has been set up by act of Parliament, and we have the opportunity of study-

The philosophy of unionism today is regarded as complete and final, as absolutely established and unimpeachable-much as certain economic doctrines xvere regarded as being finally determined a half-century since. This sense of absolute finality and unimpeachability presaged for economic science immediate disintegration and general repudiation of doctrines, and the rewriting of the whole science. Other absolutely established social philosophies have experienced the same sudden and final disso,lutio,n. In fact, history teaches that absollutism, and consequent sensitiveness toi criticism, tolgether with a certain disposition to irrascibility, is histo,rically speaking, commonly symptomatic olf declining vitality in soicial institutions, as it is in the natural human body. T'rade-unioinism, certainly has noi occasion to rely upon any doctrine o,f infallibility to establish its power. On the contrary, it may safely, and might wisely, rely upon the strength of its own programme, upo,n the justness o,f its cause, and upon its record of achievement foir its maiin defense against detracto,rs-even against its honest-minded critics; but it has not chosen to do so,. It no,t only does nolt seek honest criticism of its programme but resents any implications of fallibility as essentially impio,us. In the minds olf labor leaders the programme of unionism is cha.racterized as one o,f "masterful and surpassing intelligence," and o,ne who, presumes to, criticize is assumed to, be insincere and regardless of the welfare o,f the toiling masses. A judge who issues an injunction distasteful to, olrganized labo,r, however exemplary and incoirruptible the life he may have led, becomes at once, ipso facto, a "capitalistic tool." T'he judge whoi refuses such an injunction is an "able and distinguished chancellor, a judge loved by all honest men, and feared by respectable criminals." The injunctio,n itself is an "outrageous, impudent, revolutionary invention of lawless plutocracy." T'he detective whoi runs down some