created or increased by favoritism in legislation for the benefit of those cities—an artificial stimulus - resulting in a feverish city life and a cramped country life, the laws will be changed. Hard times will come in the process, but hard times always have compensating benefits in bringing people back to earth again. A high protective tariff will be the first thing to go; then high railroad rates; then the wage domination by labor unions. The combination of capital and labor to maintain a high protective tariff contains seeds of dissension. The feeble effort of Congress to aid farmers by loans of money will give way to a policy of encouraging agriculture so that the farmer does not need to borrow money. Overproduction of food in an international sense never has existed and never will exist. Foreign nations today need and badly need all of our surplus food, but are handicapped by the high price. If our farmers were not in turn handicapped by high labor costs and by the decreased purchasing power of the dollar when they get it, food could be produced and exported at a reasonable price as in times past. Better this than raising the price of food still higher by decreasing farm production as advocated under the new theory of "balanced industry."

This building up of great cities at the expense of the country is a colossal mistake. It has created the evils which are a menace to American institutions. None of the dangers to the republic are due to the farmers. They are due to the cities where foreigners abound and classes clash and socialism thrives. In modern books on social problems it is astonishing how many pertain solely to the city worker and not at all to the farmers. Those who make the most noise and the greatest demands occupy the whole stage, even though they are but a small minority. The time has come to reverse the wheels of state and repeal all favoritism. Congress and the legislatures might well pay less attention to labor laws, reduced rent laws, and wage laws, under threats of strikes and stoppage of supplies, and pay more attention to the silent man who is trying to support a family on an

American farm. "The city would have died out, rotted and exploded, long ago, but that it was reinforced from the fields. It is only country which came to town day before yesterday that is city and court today." 1

I read in many books that great changes are impending in American institutions and particularly as to the Constitution; that in some way government is to be used to bring about a more equitable distribution of wealth; that the economic system is to be revolutionized. All are very careful not to predict how. The cause of this turmoil is probably the great fortunes. It is overlooked that great fortunes melt away in the hands of descendants. It is overlooked also that abuses of wealth can be corrected without disturbing the foundations of our government. It is further overlooked that the controlling power in this nation is not labor, nor capital, nor city domination, but the farmers and the small towns. As stated above, nearly one-half of our people live on the farms or small towns of less than 2500 population. Those are conservative and safe. They can be relied upon to legislate against abuses. The important point here, however, is that the safety of this country lies in building up the farming community and in checking the cities by repealing discriminations in their favor. As Petrie, an English writer says, in Rome "the first great step, which bore centuries of bitter results, was the favoring of the townsman as against the countryman. The voter in Rome could push laws to his own advantage in the hurly-burly of the public assembly, while the countryman was working hard in his furrow miles away. The conquered provinces were a great temptation; they had to yield tribute; grain came pouring into Rome, and why should not this abundance benefit the citizen by being sold at a low price? They forgot the countryman." 2

CHAPTER XLI

THE LEADERS OF THE PEOPLE

A PEOPLE without leaders is like a ship without a compass. The character of the leaders shows the character of the people and the character of the people is shown by the character of the leaders. The hereditary system changes all this and the worthless descendants of a worn-out aristocracy or monarchy deprive leadership of its value to the people.

In Rome the senators were a body of highly trained men and their leading spirits, the flower of her aristocracy, were for a long time controlled by patriotism, precedent, and inherited customs. Men of prominence, character, and ability rose from the ranks and became consuls, senators, and constitutional leaders. But there were finally six hundred or more of these senators and they were controlled by a faction of ex-consuls. It is true that by a law passed in 367 B.C. one of the two consuls had to be a plebeian, but the patricians continued to govern and control, and new men, however illustrious, were excluded, except on extraordinary occasions. However, it was not a hereditary body at first. Lecky says of the Roman Senate, "It watched, as a supreme body, over the security of the State, and had even a right in time of great danger to suspend the laws and confer absolute powers on the consuls. Though it was essentially a patrician body, it was not, until a late period of the Empire, an hereditary body. One order of magistrates possessed as such the right of entering into it; the bulk of the senators were chosen for life, first by the consuls, and afterwards by the censors, but chosen only out of particular classes. In the earlier period they were exclusively patricians; but they were afterwards chosen from those who held

magisterial functions, and, as the magistrates were elected by the whole people, though by a very unequal suffrage, the democratic influence thus obtained a real, though indirect, influence in the Senate." 1 But corruption, indolence, and unscrupulous ambition, with corruption of the people, destroyed good government. The republic could no longer govern Rome and its vast tributaries, and if the Cæsars had not prevailed Rome would have fallen to pieces and civilization put back hundreds of years. The republic had failed.

England has secured constitutional leaders by a highly educated class, actuated by a high sense of responsibility and a genuine spirit of patriotism. The English House of Lords has been hampered by superannuated noble houses, but it has been rejuvenated from year to year by promotion of commoners. It has not only regulated popular movements but has furnished statesmen, diplomats, and colonial governors. It has been based, however, on land and that basis is crumbling away under taxation.

But who is to lead in America? Great crises bring out great leaders, such as Washington and Lincoln, but it is the year-byyear leadership, always present, that molds and preserves a country's institutions. At the time of the Revolution the whole world, America included, was saturated with the idea that only the wealthy and well born were qualified to rule. Even in America the right to vote was limited to men of property and often also to members of a particular church. A practical aristocracy of some kind or other was deemed necessary in government. Lord points out that John Adams "was in no sense a democrat except in his recognition of popular political rights. He believed in the rule of character, as indicated by intellect and property." "2 John Jay often said, "Those who own the country ought to govern it."3 Of Jefferson Lord says that "instead of an aristocracy of birth and wealth, he would build up one of virtue and talent."4 Fiske correctly says that Edmund

Burke and Alexander Hamilton and John Winthrop believed "that society is most prosperous when a select portion of the community governs the whole." In other words, government by what was practically an aristocracy was almost universally deemed necessary to preserve the newly created American institutions. And such an aristocracy actually existed in the colonies; the old families in New England; the land owners and Dutch of New York; the Quakers of Philadelphia, and the coast planters of the South.

This aristocracy established American institutions and governed the country well, but gradually lost its power. Universal suffrage destroyed it in the North. In the West it never existed at all. Political offices no longer went to the wealthy and well born. The country changed, so that instead of its being ninety per cent agricultural, as in 1790, its manufacturing and mining industries became great producers of wealth and power. And yet American institutions have survived notwithstanding all the dire predictions.

The reason is first that the character and sentiments of the masses of the people favored a republic, and secondly that these masses had leaders largely from the legal profession. The public abuses the lawyers but trusts them absolutely and implicitly. This is due chiefly to the fact that the lawyers are recruited each year from the heart of the people. There is no primogeniture, no descent, no titles, no inherited power. By their origin, life, and characteristics they represent public sentiment and largely create it. Their power has already been explained elsewhere in this book and it is sufficient here to mention the fact that nearly all of our presidents have been lawyers. This is no coincidence. It is due to the fact that the legal profession has the qualities of governmental leadership, is trusted by the people, and is devoted to American institutions. There is no other way of explaining it. Hobson, an English writer, says, however, that "The evolution of democracy will continue to be mainly the