solved the problem of the control and use of the natural media and the problem of the relation between the individual and the body politic. Writers like Cliffe Leslie, Arnold Toynbee, and Dr. Ingram emphasized in their day the dependence of economic science upon sociology. Their teachings are almost forgotten, and it is high time the cry were raised, Back to the sociologist!
A scientific problem cannot be solved unscientifically. No wonder practical confusion is the only visible result of the haphazard efforts of the past. To denounce union men for submitting to tyranny, as Mr. Spencer did in recent years, is as easy as it is futile. Equally futile is the preaching of moral commonplaces to employers. What is our ideal in industry? What conditions are we desirous of bringing about ? We can be certain of progress only when we have a goal in view and march toward it. Is co-operation the "coming" industrial system, as many thinkers are beginning to recognize? If so, must we count altogether on the play of private interests to produce the change, or is it possible and wise to assist nature? Crude legislation conceived in ignorance of economic and social principles is certainly not the sort of assistance one should desire, but scientific prevision is extremely valuable. If there is a science of society, such prevision is possible. If there is a science of society, the harmonizing of the interests of employers and employed is possible, though the process may involve revision of current theories of rent, interest, profits, and wages.
Chicago.
