post-office. Each of these has his special task allotted to him, which he is bound to perform. The most ardent socialist in the world would very soon join in denouncing the principles of economic emancipation if a postman, who happened not to approve of socialism, threw the socialist's letters into the river instead of putting them into his letter-box. In what conceivable way, then, has a postman employed by the State any more economic freedom than the messengers of a private firm? Nor again does the manner in which the labor of the State employe is remunerated, and by which the performance of his duty is secured, differ in any way from the wage-system which prevails in a private firm. Conformity to the directions given him by some organizing authority is the condition on which this remuneration is awarded him; and though Marx and his disciples propose to substitute labor checks for dollars, this is merely the wage system called by another name. Many thoughtful socialists, though they have not been anxious to proclaim the fact too loudly, have perceived this fact themselves, and have consequently been endeavoring to formulate another scheme, by which the requisite industrial conformity to an organizing authority may be secured, and which yet will eliminate the wage-system, not only in name, but in fact. Now if we look back into the past history of mankind we shall find that there actually are two alternative systems by which such conformity may be, and has been secured. One of these is the corvee system, prevalent in the middle ages; the other system is that of slavery. Under the corvee system the peasants, who were the most numerous laboring class, owned the lands on which they lived, and were thus able to maintain themselves by working at their own discretion; but they were compelled by their tenure to place a certain part of their time at the discretion of this or that superior, and to work according to his orders. The public roads in France were once made and kept in order thus. If only a number of independent peasant proprietors could be forced to give half their time to the proprietor of a neighboring factory now, the entire use and necessity of wage-capital would, in theory at least, be gone. The same thing is true of slavery. Like the peasant proprietor who gives part of his time to his overlord, the slave is provided with the necessaries of life independently of his obedience to the detailed orders of his master. His master feeds him just as he would feed a horse; and industrial obedience is ensured by the application of force. These two coercive systems-the corvee system and the slave system, are the only alternatives to the wage-system that have been found workable in the whole past history of the world. Let us now turn to the alternative which the latest school of socialists is now proposing as an alternative in the dreamedof socialistic future. I will turn to a work called Fabian Essays, the writers of which include the best known and best educated socialists in England, amongst them being Mr. Sidney Webb, favorably known as the author of a History of Trade Unionism, and Mr. Bernard Shaw. This volume has been republished in America, and to the American edition was prefixed a special preface. In this preface it is stated, with regard to the apportionment of the means of subsistence generally, that the truly socialistic scheme is one which would absolutely abolish "all economic distinctions and prevent the possibility of their ever arising again" -and would abolish them how? "By making,” says this writer, “an equal provision for all an indefeasible condition of citizenship without any regard, whatever to the relative specific services of different citizens. The rendering of such services, on the other hand," the writer goes on, "instead of being left to the option of the citizen, with the alternative of starvation, would be secured under one uniform law, precisely like other forms of taxation of military service." Such, then, is the alternative to the wage-system put forward as the last word of the most intelligent socialists of today; and an escape from the wage system, beyond a doubt, it, out an escape into what? It is neither more nor less than an escape into one of these systems which I have just mentioned. That is to say, it is an escape into economic slavery. For the very essence of the position of the slave, as contrasted with the wage-paid laborer, in so far as the direction of his industrial actions is concerned, is that he has not to work as he is bidden in order to gain a livelihood; but that his livelihood being assured to him, no matter how he behaves himself, he is obliged to work as he is bidden in order to avoid the lash or some similar form of punishment. I have touched upon this question of how, under a regime of socialism, the socialists of today are proposing to organize industry, not for the purpose of criticising in an adverse sense the methods by which the masses are to be coerced into the performance of their duties, but merely for the purpose of illustrating what I have already said with regard to the productive functions of capitalism, as it exists today. Capitalism, regarded under its productive aspect, is essentially a device for imposing, by means of wages given or withheld in accordance to the industrial obedience of the wage-earner, the intellect and the knowledge resident in an exceptionally gifted minority, on the manual operations of the average majority of mankind; and when socialists talk about emancipation and economic freedom, the only meaning which their language can really bear is the emancipation of the average man from the aid and guidance of any intellect that is in any way superior to his own. Further, when we ask the socialists to explain their constructive program, we find that this talk about freedom is privately repudiated by themselves, and that they propose either to continue the wage-system under a thin verbal disguise, or else to abolish the wagesystem, and put universal slavery in its stead. An Incident of the Visit of King Edward, BY GEO. P. FLOYD, IN "DETROIT FREE PRESS." It is well known that King Edward VII, has always been a great lover of horses and racing. In breeding and running race horses of the first class he has followed in the foot steps of a line of royal patrons of the turf. King Edward's mother, Queen Victoria, was very fond of horses and racing. Her majesty first saw a race when a girl, at Ascot, in 1838-a very fine race for the Ascot stakes. She was much amused on that occasion by the winning jockey, a boy called Bell, to whom she gave a ten-pound note, at the same time asking him his weight. Bell replied ingenuously: "Please, ma'm, master says as how I must not tell my weight to any lady." From the first the king has proved himself an adept in all turf matters. It was cause of regret that for a long time luck was dead against him. The willo'-the-wisp, usually called "luck" by the unthinking, to my mind is nothing more nor less than fate. To be neither unduly elated by success nor dismayed by reverses has always been considered the first attribute of a good sportsman. THE PRINCE IN ST. LOUIS. The king visited this country when Prince of Wales in 1860. He was then 20 years of age. He traveled as Lord Renfrew. After an uneventful voyage on board the frigate Hero, he landed at St. Johns, Newfoundland, on July 24. The prince was escorted under the guidance of the duke of Newcastle, Gen. Bruce and Maj. Teasdale. The prince's tour through Canada was a triumphal procession. Great as was the |