tion. The Federal Coal Commission, which examined the coal problem in 1923, reported that the mining of anthracite was "affected with public interest." In sustaining an act of Colorado pertaining to strikes and lockouts in such business undertakings, a State court declared years ago:

We must take judicial notice of what has taken place in this and other States, and that the coal industry is vitally related, not only to other industries, but to the health and even the life of the people. Food, shelter, and heat before all others are the great necessities of life and in modern life heat means coal.

Well may the informed commentator, R. E. Cushman, add: "This is a line of reasoning which raises the query whether the courts may not yet come to the point of defining businesses affected with a public interest in simple terms of human necessity." Whatever the courts might say with respect to such a principle, it would be supreme if established by constitutional mandate. At one stroke the billions of capital now within this category will be widened to cover all enterprises fundamental to a high standard of American life, and the process of regularization, standardization, accounting, and control can be immediately set going. If a great deal of water went under the bridge, it could be later squeezed out painlessly by inheritance taxes, and the proceeds devoted to amortization of capital.

Associated with the National Economic Council will be a Board of Strategy and Planning, with approriate divisions, each headed by a production engineer. Here points of reference can be found in the War Industries Board and other Federal agencies created during the titanic effort to mobilize men and materials for the world war. The prime function of the Board of Strategy and Planning will be to make a survey of the resources and productive facilities of the country and forecast the production of consumers and capital goods, starting with obvious needs and proceeding to the possible boundaries of wealth creation under a system of efficient technology.

After this survey will come an allocation of productive and distributive activities with respect to the requirements of the plan. Procedure here will be in keeping with that already followed by large corporations in the United States-simply on a vaster scale and subject to economic, not legal, restrictions. The central concern will be not only the maximum output of goods in each division, within the limits of constantly expanding requirements, but also a steady raising of the standard of life by increasing wages and reducing prices. The tempo of the productoin machine will be, as our philosophical engineer, Ralph E. Flanders, says, "a question of values. As we value goods more and leisure less, we will lengthen our workdays. As we value leisure more and goods less, we will shorten them."

Closely affiliated with the Board of Strategy and Planning will be the Bureau of Standards in Washington, which will be strengthened by a concentration of industrial research agencies, as far as centralization will work for the elimination of duplications. Whenever it is necessary, for industrial or geographical reasons, to attach research laboratories to particular plants or, as in the case of agriculture, to experiment stations established with reference to climate and soils, there will be a planning and allocation of work at the center, under a planning staff, with a view to intense specialization and the solution of problems with the least motion. In connection with its work, the

Bureau of Standards will extend its present activities to include the standardization of all commodities produced under the jurisdiction of the National Economic Council; and goods produced outside of that jurisdiction will be subjected to the same tests as to weights, measures, composition, and quality. These will be, of course, the fundamental goods. A large part of so-called quality goods, calling for distinctive taste and esthetic characteristics, will continue in private hands, but with the decline of the plutocracy the production of articles for the demimonde will fall off.

SYNDICATED CORPORATIONS

So much for the general overhead of the new order of technological efficiency. Now let us turn to the internal structure of the great industries associated with the National Economic Council. Each will be a syndicate of affiliated corporations, in the form of a holding company, analogous to the present Electric Bond & Share Co., with large directorial and service powers. Perhaps in time a closer union will be effected, but the more freedom at the bottom the better for initiative and prompt action.

The syndicate will have its own board of strategy and planning, geared into the grand Board of the National Economic Council. The syndicate will consist of divisional or geographical corporations, or both, as the case may be, and the various plants under each corporation will be operated by corporation managers. Operating standards and efficiency tests for all plants will be set by syndicate production engineers, and competitive principles will be established, with national service medals and graduated bonuses as rewards for valorous soldiers of the forge and lathe. Since the profits of each syndicate, as a public utility, are to be limited, such surpluses as may arise will be due mainly to unexpected efficiency, and will be divided into two parts: one to go to bonuses and the other to reserves for contingencies, including unemployment arising from accidents, temporary shutdowns, changes in machinery, crop failures, and depressions, if any.

In the precise form proposed for each syndicate and corporation, there will be nothing foreign to American experience and practical achievement. Numerous examples are to be found on every hand. There is, for instance, the Inland Waterways Corporation under the management of the War Department, which operates fleets of vessels in the carrying trade between Minnesota and the Gulf of Mexico, as well as along the gulf from Alabama to New Orleans. Though a business concern making regular charges for its service, it is entirely public in nature, the Government of the United States holding all the stock in it. Another illustration is afforded by the Federal land banks, in which the Government owns part of the stock and closely supervises the issue of bonds. Possibilities are to be found in the limited-dividend corporations established for housing projects under the laws of New York.

Hints for development may also be drawn from the proposed corporation to take over transit companies in New York City, involving property worth approximately a billion dollars. Under this scheme the outstanding stocks and bonds are to be transformed into other securities, bearing a low rate of interest, and the amalgamated con

cerns are to be operated by a quasi-public directorate representing the city and the constituent companies.

From fragments gathered from holding companies and organizations mentioned above, illuminated by imagination, ideal forms for the syndicates and corporations to be established under the National Economic Council can be readily brought to blue print, without violating a single American economic tradition. Indeed, a far more tender regard could be paid to stock and bondholders than is usual in cases of bankruptcy and reorganization under private banking auspices.

Now let us consider the problem of financing. In the beginning, the financial readjustment necessary to the establishment of each syndicate or corporation might be left to private arrangement, as in the case of railway and utility enterprises under Federal and State commissions. Principles conceived in the public interest with due respect to private rights are now a part of the laws of the land. Since the new syndicates to be organized under the National Economic Council will be public utilities, it will be relatively easy to work out the financial readjustment on the basis of prudent investment and fair return. In time, however, it may be found desirable to reduce the capital charges by substituting consolidated first mortgage bonds drawing 3-percent interest, gradually extinguishing the outside stockholding groups, and providing safe investments for small savings.

Doubtless, as indicated, a lot of water would flow into the capital setup, causing a huge outcry among political democrats, but since the water could be effectively reduced by taxation, it would be better to allow a generous freedom than to stall a grand plan in a quarrel over details. As a part of the program, it would contribute to efficiency if a large amount of stocks were kept afloat, with graduated dividends based on efficiency in operation and production, especially if these stocks were distributed among the directors, managers, and employees of the several corporations. Thus the private stockholder, who ordinarily does nothing for industry but sign proxies and grumble when dividends are reduced, would be eliminated in the end, and vested interests turned over to engineers and workers, leaving the bondholder with his 3 percent and liable to a stiffer inheritance tax than is now imposed. It would also be advantageous if the proceeds from inheritance and income surtaxes were all turned over to capital account for amortization purposes or new construction, leaving the politicians to raise their current revenues from other sources.

From what has been said it is apparent that no confiscation of property is contemplated here. On the contrary, the examples set by the abolition of $3 or $4 billion worth of property in slaves during our civil conflict, and the destruction of millions invested in the liquor business by prohibition, are put aside as highly undesirable methods of operating in a technological society. It is one thing for peasants to seize land belonging to their lords and go ahead tilling it as of old; but the arbitrary seizure of property employed in complicated technical operations is an entirely different proposition. An acre of land is an acre of land, and corn or potatoes are easily produced on it. A factory or railway is, to be sure, a collection of objective utilities, but the amount of wealth it can turn out depends fundamentally on the interest, skill, and loyalty of those who manage and operate it. The loss of a few months of chaos may be equal to the entire capital value.

It has been estimated that the entire productive outfit of an industrial nation could be reproduced in 10 years.

Everything hangs on management. Violence and tyranny cannot create a spinning machine or operate one after it is built. A few years of civil conflict in a technological society, even if carried on by political methods only, might well destroy more wealth than could possibly accrue to present vested interests under the generous reorganization plan suggested above. Caveman methods on the part of capital and labor in a technological civilization indicate a lack of commonsense, if not a want of humor, to say nothing of justice and humanity. If the American economic system could be run full blast on principles of efficiency for 5 years, the surplus alone would probably extinguish half of the capital obligations, especially if coupled with a moderate use of the taxing power.

FARMING

Since American industries are far advanced along the road of technology and concentration, it is not necessary to attempt here a closer picture of the syndicate plan proposed above. But something must be said about agriculture, which is still in a primitive state of development in large sections of the country. Agriculture ought to be especially emphasized in connection with national planning, for city dwellers are woefully ignorant of the land and seem to care little for the conditions under which their basic industry is carried on. Yet it is fundamental. If agriculture perishes, as in parts of China, civilization sinks down in ruins. Rome likewise furnishes an example; our scholars well know the intimate relations between the decay of Roman agriculture and the decline of the Empire. There is also another side to the problem. The overgrown urban agglomerations of the United States, with their millions pounding pavements, toiling listlessly in poorly lighted offices and factories, and living in sunless tenements need more of the country, not less. And a rational system of industrial planning will dissolve the absurd and unwholesome slum areas of cities, carry industries out into air and sunlight, and institute a fine balance of rural and urban life.

But is it possible to plan for the individualistic anarchy of American agriculture? There are great difficulties in the way; yet they are not insurmountable to intelligence and will. Governor Roosevelt, of New York, propounded last winter in a statesmanlike manner, the beginnings of an attack on this problem. Recognizing the fact that immense areas of marginal land are now being tilled, yielding only poverty and distress to the tillers, he proposed a survey of all the agricultural resources of the State, a classification of land according to fertility and uses, and the reforestation of enormous sections now under futile cultivation. Fair compensation would be made to the owners and a recovery of outlay effected in the long run by the production of lumber. Collaterally, a great mileage of back-country roads would be closed, materially reducing the burdensome taxes now imposed on farms for maintenance. The abandonment of dirt roads could be accompanied by the extension of improved highways throughout the fertile regions according to a rational plan, thus providing rapid transportation to market and raising the standards of country life. Along the improved highways, high voltage lines could be built for the trans

mission of electricity, furnishing cheap power and light for farms power to facilitate production and light so indispensable to civilized living.

Under the Agricultural Syndicate, to be formed under the National Economic Council, plans along the above lines will be worked out for the whole country and carried into execution through Federal and State cooperation. This would, of course, be merely a start, important no doubt, but still a preliminary.

With regard to the millions of individual farms and plantations under cultivation, all is not formless and void. Powerful associations in cotton growing, wheat raising, dairying, fruit culture, and other branches are operating today in connection with the Federal Farm Board and the Department of Agriculture. Standardization, the introduction of scientific methods, and cooperative marketing are in rapid process of development and, great as are the difficulties ahead, they are by no means baffling.

But this is not enough. A more thoroughgoing rationalization is demanded by the exigencies of our industrial civilization. Efficiency calls for a concentration in certain branches of agriculture as in manufacturing and transporting. To proceed on the assumption that wheat can be profitably raised on small farms, costing sometimes $250 an acre, in competition with gigantic enterprises such as T. D. Campbell conducts in Wyoming or Hickman Price in Texas, is to pursue a delusion bound to be ruinous in the end, no matter how much money the Farm Board pours into the bottomless wheat pit. It simply cannot be done and heroic measures will be necessary to meet the situation created by technology in agriculture.

What is the way out? At best it is dimly seen, and only guesses can be made here. Yet one thing is certain: The ruthless conquest and exploitation of peasants by the urban proletariat practiced in Russia. is impossible in the United States or, if possible, a violation of every human decency cherished by the American people. Theer are, however, methods of collective action which are compatible with individual rights and long-settled traditions. In the first place, the syndicate and corporation idea to be applied in industry is applicable to important branches of agriculture is, in fact, already applied on some scale. Hence the Syndicate of Agriculture, established under the National Economic Council, will proceed as a public utility to acquire large areas of land which cannot be profitably tilled by historic methods and will work them by machinery under special corporations. Individual farmers, without surrendering their local interest, can come into a corporation on specific conditions, just as individual manufacturing plants can be taken into an appropriate industrial corporation.

In addition, one large agricultural corporation in the national syndicate could undertake large diversified farming. It might acquire by purchase thousands of farms in different parts of the country and tie different branches into one enterprise. For instance, it could operate corn farms in Iowa and dairy farms in Connecticut, shipping its feed by the trainload from the West to central depots in the dairy districts, employing improved highways in detailed distribution. Agents stationed at central points could supply standardization and efficiency methods and exercise supervision over individual dairymen. Machinery could be used cooperatively in convenient districts; insurance and