methods of teaching, formerly standardized, are undergoing serious reforms.

As population in this country increases and mortality decreases, it is not surprising that competition of all kinds increases also and that standards formerly recognized are necessarily undergoing adaptations to the needs of modern business or to the discoveries and inventions that are affecting every phase of life. As a matter of fact, practical and accurate knowledge is becoming more and more essential in the earning of a bare living. That this knowledge be not based on the superstitions of the past, but upon practical and scientific foundations, is essential also. An understanding of scientific method is as much the "irreducible minimum" of a good education now as a thorough knowledge of English was in our fathers' time.

If there is one practical fact that modern psychology stresses, it is that mental endowment is a freak of Nature. We have ceased to be surprised when we discover genius in the ranks and stupidity in office, though environment may weight the scales in favor of an opposite condition.

The tide of enlightenment is rising. If we recede now from the stand our forefathers took, we must cease to profess democracy.

I deplore all the rawness, crudity and vulgarity as much as any. Yet, because I realize that education is in a new stage of development to fit our changing conditions of life, I feel that our prospects for future betterment are great. I do not look for this improvement during my own lifetime; but I do have, pressing into my consciousness, a greater vision than I have power to depict. It is strengthened by the heartening knowledge that history does in reality repeat itself in ever widening circles. Many writers, Mr. Booth Tarkington among the last, have amused themselves by drawing likenesses between our nation to-day and Rome at the height of her glory. If there be foundation for this conception, then, as this western Rome, repeating the gestures of ancient Rome, carries her economic conquests abroad, oversteps her limits, perhaps, and retires to a period of rest or possibly a readjustment of religious concepts, then, I say, I see a new and glorious era arising. I see another Renaissance with richer and wider possibilities because an awakened people, educated to new social standards -and not partially educated but broadly so-have a collective enlightenment which will enable them to start from a more advanced point. I see all the vulgarity sifted out and the fine wheat of mature, sober thought poured into the garners of a new world intelligence, and intelligence which has wiped out all economic snobbery and class con

As a subscriber to THE CENTURY I have read with interest Henry Alan Johnston's article on the subject of prohibition. He has stated what to the layman is an obscure point in the clearest manner possible; and a little more sane dealing with a subject such as this may bring us to a sound conclusion of the whole matter. My fear is, however, that much more time will have to go by before the general public's opinions can be gotten down to cold, sane views.

I hope Mr. Johnston will continue his work in this respect, as he has already proved how eminently fitted he is for it and I would like to see him take up the cudgels from as many angles as give firm foothold for argument.

New York City.

My dear Editor,

Very truly yours, H. F. EGGERT

I have read very carefully Johnston's effusion, entitled "The Eighteenth Amendment Is Void" in THE CENTURY for April, and my comment on all of which is, Piffle!

Were not Connecticut and Rhode Island represented in both Houses of Congress, when each of them voted by a two-thirds vote to pass this Amendment?

Is the Thirteenth Amendment void because Louisiana and South Carolina cannot legislate on the regulation and control of Slavery?

The sort of reasoning displayed in this article was so effectually crushed two centuries and a half ago in Pascal's "Provincial Letters" that it has not raised its head since among thinkers with a reputation to lose.

Bangor, Maine.

My dear Editor,

Very truly yours, MARK A. BARWISE

I take this occasion to express my commendation of the Eighteenth Amendment article by Henry Alan Johnston in the April CENTURY. I think it is extremely well written and reasoned, and as far as I can see there are no legal loopholes with

the possibility of one exception. What attitude did the representatives of Connecticut and Rhode Island take when the proposed amendment to the Constitution was passed by Congress? If the representatives voted for it, it may be that would be such a consent or waiver which would prevent those States from subsequently protesting. And the further question comes up as to whether or not they did not have an opportunity to vote through their representatives and to be heard on the general question when the matter was before Congress in the first instance. I presume that the author could name a great many reasons why neither one of these questions would have any relevancy or bearing on the question. As I recall it, they were not mentioned in the article.

New York City.

My dear Editor,

Very sincerely yours, CHARLES A. TAUSSIG

Let me congratulate you on the increasing excellence of your always excellent magazine, and especially on your broad-mindedness, your openmindedness, your courage and independence, in publishing S. T.'s "A Modern in Search of Truth.” It is just such liberal thinking and frank utterance, just such breadth of understanding, that the nations now most sadly need to save them from the folly, the menacing ruin, of mutual strife and suicidal war.

This writer's experience of the "freezing disapproval and withdrawal" of certain supposedly liberal clergymen at hearing his commendation of non-Christian scriptures reminds me of a little experience of my own. A friend, out of the kindness of his heart, invited me into a Presbyterian fold. I thanked him cordially, assuring him that as a man's religion cannot but be his dearest spiritual possession, I esteemed it the highest of compliments to be deemed worthy of sharing in the blessings and privileges of my friend's faith. Then I added, for the sake of perfect frankness and fairness, that I should feel equally complimented by similar overtures from Methodist or Baptist, Catholic or Episcopalian, Buddhist or Confucianist or Shintoist. Thereupon my friend cast me into outer darkness and left me to perish in my sins. Yours with best wishes for an ever-widening circulation.

Baltimore, Md.

My dear Editor,

PERCY F. BICKNELL

family. I find we have to eat. However, I was very much interested and appreciated your article in the March CENTURY “A Modern in Search of Truth" by S. T. I am interested in knowing just what the "pulse" of the American peoples is toward S. T.'s viewpoint of religion. I am for him. It seems to me that the fundamental truths of all religions are the same conquest of the spiritual over the carnal on this earth, and spiritual life after death. Is there not some way to reach the youth of the nation; we have a wonderful school system but it lacks that vital “moral punch” which is so essential to a happy life. Wish you would see what you can do about it.

Coleman, Texas.

My dear Editor,

Very truly yours, S. W. COLLINS

THE CENTURY is congratulated on having a contributor to its columns of the caliber of the anonymous S. T. For genuine literary ability, judgment, common sense, and imperviousness to bias coupled with high intelligence, I have yet to see his equal in any of our standard publications.

But may I not gently expostulate that his reference to the "weakest point in theosophy” is an error due to slightly awry premises. "Our leaders tell us" many things to be sure, but they likewise and simultaneously tell us not to believe what they tell, because they tell it. On the contrary they invite one to prove for one's self that which they tell. Many theosophists have done so, made the necessary sacrifice, and have thereby become the knowledge themselves of their own immortality. This, it seems to me, should be sufficient "spiritual basis" for any man. The platform of the theosophical society is absolutely bare of creed, dogma or authority of any kind whatsoever. A belief in the cause of Universal Brotherhood is the sole requisite for admission into their ranks.

As for the Masters of the Wisdom, the theosophist looks upon them as an external, gracious personification of that state of consciousness he is endeavoring to reach within himself. Planes, initiations, beings high or low are simply incidental, never paramount. S. T. in his search for truth or God may in the end find a God who is intelligible to Man, but the God of the Theosophist is the Reality beyond the intelligence of Man. It is this Reality that the Theosophist seeks to cognize in his ceaseless happy service to and for humanity. GEORGE N. RAGAN

Everybody does know, however, that notable advances toward full employment always culminate in a recession of business and the loss of a large part of the gain. Prosperity breeds depression. Why? Why can we not consolidate our gains? Why must millions of workers suffer from want of wealth, while the science of creating wealth advances with giant strides? Aroused by that question half a century ago, Henry George stirred the world with his impassioned "Progress and Poverty." His solution of the problem proved unconvincing; but the problem persists. Why can we not have progress and plenty?

In seeking an answer, we may well start with the fact that the recent increase of unemployment was not precipitated by a war, or a crop failure, or a money panic, or credit stringency, or the collapse of inflation, or even the wild speculation in stocks. The major cause was the increased output per unit of labor which resulted from the use of new knowledge. The total output of factories in 1927 was five per cent above the 1923-25 record, with five per cent fewer workers. That cause of unemployment is not sporadic: it

is permanent. As it has thrown men out of work in the making of tires, shoes and textiles, in pig-iron casting, flour milling and meat packing, so it will throw more men out of work in more industries. Nobody knows where the blessing of increased knowledge will next bring the curse of unemployment.

That curse is an indictment of the present order. To that extent, at least, Henry George was right. Some unemployment, it is true, cannot be prevented; but that is a small proportion of last winter's total. The protracted, involuntary unemployment of a million or more in excess of the irreducible minimum can be explained-has, in fact, a five-footshelf of explanations-but it cannot be excused. No system should be tolerated, unchanged, which applies new knowledge to industrial processes only at the tragic cost of human suffering, the suffering of the very millions who are least able to bear it.

That is "the price of progress," we are told-have always been told; a facile answer which answers nothing; leads nowhere; satisfies nobody, except a few of the comfortable ones who do not have to pay the price. That answer does not explain why industry progresses at times and slips back at other times. Why have we slipped back during the past year? Why are there times when the Aladdin-like progress of invention merely throws men out of work? Why does it not put them to work in new industries?

The trouble cannot be lack of raw materials, for in most cases the supply exceeds the demand. Oil, leather, cotton, iron, coal, lumber,

rubber-extend the list at random; in nearly every case the problem is not how to produce enough, but how to avoid producing too much. Nor can the trouble be lack of producers' funds. As a matter of fact, the banks complain of a scarcity of commercial borrowers, and each year another billion or more of our capital is loaned abroad.

Men, machines, materials and money-all in superabundance. Why must so much productive power go unused?

219

Lack of buyers is the chief answer. Let a buyer with adequate credit call for any producible goods-a million prairie-schooners, a million totem-poles, anything—and the goods will be produced. For buyers regulate consumption, and consumption regulates production.

But why is there ever a lack of buyers? Surely not because of lack of desire on the part of consumers. In these days of radios, motionpictures, motor-cars and advertising, nearly everybody learns of things he wants to buy-always, more and more things. Nor does he curtail his buying for want of leisure. Nearly everybody already has desire enough and time enough to consume far more than he has money to buy.

Why this lack of money? How is it possible for goods to increase faster than income? We have always been led to suppose that the very process of putting goods on the market-payments of wages, interest, dividends and the rest-induces a flow of money to consumers sufficient to take the goods off the market. So we have held to the theory so forcibly expounded by John Stuart

Mill-the theory that economics is concerned only with production; consumption takes care of itself; the process is automatic.

Now we know that the old automatic-production - consumption theory is unsound. It is discredited, if for no other reason, because general overproduction, which that orthodox theory declares to be impossible, actually overwhelms us time and again. Overproduction-underconsumption-lack of buyers; call the blight what you will, it results from a flow of money to consumers which is not rightly adjusted to the flow of consumers' goods. For production does not automatically finance consumption. In other words, the money distributed to consumers in connection with making a given product in a given year is not enough to enable consumers to buy that product at a profit to the producers. Yet consumers must do precisely that with the products of industry as a whole, or else discourage further production and throw men out of work.

There are two main reasons why the money paid out in a given year in connection with creating a given supply of shoes, jewelry, canned corn -anything-is not enough to finance the sale of those goods. One reason is that producers must receive for the goods more money than it cost to make the goods; in other words, producers must realize profits. A part of the profits, moreover, must be saved. The other reason is that consumers cannot spend even as much money as they receive. They, too, must save. Yet neither corporations nor individuals can save money without thereby causing a lack of buyers,