and so putting an end to the extravagant wastefulness which has characterized the American people in its treatment of its natural resources in the past. "Hith erto, as a Nation," to quote again from Mr. Roosevelt, "we have been contented to live with an eye single to the present, and have permitted the reckless waste and destruction of much of our natural wealth." Conservation means forecasting the future and putting an end to this reckless waste and needless destruction.

But it also means securing the benefit of these National resources for the Nation. It means keeping them under National control, and dividing the profit fairly and equitably between the owner (that is, the Nation) and the operator, be he private person or public agent, who makes them available. The National Conservation Congress has no more important question to discuss, in our judgment, than the question whether these elements of National wealth shall be turned over to private enterprise, subject to some royalty to be paid to the Nation, or shall be given over to the separate States to be used as each State thinks best for the benefit of the people within whose territory the resources exist, or shall be kept under the control of the Federal Government and subject to its supervisory regulation. This is a fair question, upon which wise and patriotic men may differ. We think we

and there is no good reason why it should give its wealth away.

Because private enterprise has shown itself extraordinarily wasteful of natural resources in its haste to get rich.

Because the States have shown themselves not strong enough to furnish the kind of control which is necessary for the protection of popular rights against monopoly.

Because, in the nature of the case, neither the unproductive lands nor the water powers can be protected except by a power which can operate beyond State lines, in the one case to irrigate and drain, in the other case to preserve the reservoirs on which the water power depends.

Because, if the forests are left subject only to State control, that control, if negligently exercised, may be destructive of the water powers in another State; and if the mines are left to State control, the experience of the past shows that conflicting mining laws of contiguous States lead to endless litigation.

For these reasons The Outlook hopes that the second National Conservation Congress will see its way clear to declare emphatically for Federal ownership of our National resources and for the operation of those resources subject to Federal supervision and control.

that the marvelous progress and prosperity of the Nation in the past has been due to private enterprise, and that we had better continue to depend upon private enterprise for the development of our National resources in the future. We can understand the view of those who hold that in times past the natural resources in every State have been left to the control of the State, and that this course, which has been pursued in the fully populated States in the East, should now, in justice, be pursued in the sparsely settled and yet to be developed States of the Far West. We understand these views.

But we do not agree with them.

In our judgment, the Nation should keep control of all lands now belonging to the Nation, except those which are purely and simply agricultural. It should do this: Because the lands belong to the Nation,

INJUNCTIONS

We shall assume in this article that Congress has, under the Constitution, authority to define, direct, and limit the exercise of both executive and judicial functions, provided it does not, under the guise of defining and directing, paralyze, and, under the guise of limiting, destroy those functions. We shall assume that the Congress which has created the Federal courts, except the Supreme Court, can reconstruct them or abolish them and substitute other courts in their place, and that this power to create, abolish, and reconstruct carries with it power to define and direct the exercise of the functions of such courts. The one exception is, as we have said, the Supreme Court of

See the editorial in last week's Outlook entitled "The Power of the Courts."

the United States. That Court Congress did not create and cannot destroy, nor can it take from that Court its power to interpret the Constitution and so to define the powers of the Congress itself. Since the Constitution explicitly provides that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States," etc., and since the power of granting injunctions has always been a recognized power in equity, it may well be contended that the Congress has no authority to deprive the courts of their power to issue injunctions; but it does not follow that the Congress has no authority to determine in what cases and under what conditions injunctions may be issued. We believe it has authority to define the uses of injunctions, to extend their use on the one hand, or limit their use on the other, and corresponding power to prevent the abuse of injunctions, by such legislation as in its judgment may be necessary for that purpose. Assuming this to be true, what legislation is necessary for that purpose?

In the interesting discussion concerning the use and abuse of injunctions reported in the "Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science" for July, 1910, to which we referred last week, there are two curious positions taken by opposing advocates. Mr. Ralston contends that "the jurisdiction of equity in injunction extends only to the protection of property, the improvement or destruction of which could not adequately [meaning exactly or not at all] be compensated for in damages." He denies that courts of equity have a right to issue injunctions for the purpose of protecting personal rights by preventing injury to the person. This contention is based, not on any legal enactment, but on the traditional usage of the courts. On the other hand, Mr. James A. Emery contends that "every exercise of mind or body possessing value" is property. Therefore business is property; and the courts may enjoin any act which threatens to interfere with business. We agree with his conclusion, but not with his premiss.

The usage of the courts may perhaps sustain Mr. Ralston's contention; though we do not think that is the case. Mr.

Bernard Flexner, in a paper in this same volume, on the Juvenile Court, shows that in England courts of equity have inter'fered to protect not merely the property but the persons of children, on the ground that the State has a duty of protecting the child even from wrongs threatened to it by its lawful parent. But if tradition does not accord to courts of equity the right to issue injunctions to protect persons, that right should be accorded to them by legislation. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We are greatly extending the use of preventive medicine. We should also extend the use of preventive law. It is better to prevent a wrong before it is perpetrated than to punish the doer of it afterward.

66

Mr. Emery's claim that business is property appears to us quite as untenable as Mr. Ralston's claim that injunctions should not be issued for the protection of persons. Business is an activity. Property is a thing. Activity is not a thing. Mr. Furuseth, of Washington, in a series of definitions taken from standard authorities, makes this very clear: Property is ownership, the exclusive right of any person freely to use, enjoy, and dispose of any determinate object, whether real or personal? (English and American Encyclopædia of Law). "Business is that which occupies the time, attention, and labor of men for the purpose of liveli hood or profit and improvement." is possible that legal authority may be found for the claim that these two things are synonymous; for, among the great multiplicity of judges, legal authority may be found for almost any proposition. But certainly it is not common sense to treat business and property as identical; and, if law is common sense applied to human relations, to say that business and property are synonyms is not good law.

It

As to the use of injunctions, we hold that it is legitimate to use injunctions for the protection of business as well as of property, not because business is property, but because personal activity has the same right to the protection of law that personal property has.

How as to the abuse of injunctions? It is an abuse of injunctions to enjoin men from combining to do what it is perfectly lawful for them to do individually.

This is explicitly declared by Act of Parliament in England, which enacts that “an act done in pursuance of an agreement or combination by two or more persons shall, if done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, not be actionable unless the act, if done without any such agreement or combination, will be actionable." This seems to us absolutely just. The court should not be permitted to enjoin two or more persons from doing an act which each of them may lawfully do as individuals. If there are certain combinations which should be made illegal, they should be made so by act of the Legislature, as they have been made in England by act of Parliament.

It is therefore an abuse of the injunction to use it for the purpose of preventing a body of workingmen from doing an act which they have a legal right to do, such as to unite in leaving their employer's employment or to persuade by peaceful means others from entering that employment. If such a combination to leave employment or to persuade others from entering it is to be made illegal, it should be made so by the legislature, not by the courts. The English Parliament has made such combinations in certain cases illegal. It has, for example, made it illegal for any person to break, willfully and maliciously, a contract of service with a water or gas company, with the effect of depriving the inhabitants of the town of their supply of gas or water. And it has made it illegal for one person to attempt to compel another person from taking a job, while it at the same time explicitly declares that it shall be legal for him to use peaceful persuasion for that purpose.

It is an abuse of the injunction to use it for the purpose of enjoining a person from doing an act which is declared by law to be a criminal act, and then bringing a person accused of that act before a single judge in order to try, convict, and sentence him for what is a crime, without giving him the right of trial by jury. We pointed out the injustice of this abuse last week, and need not dwell upon it here.

It is an abuse of injunctions to grant them habitually and as matter of course, without notice, and leave the party enjoined deprived, until a postponed hearing, of what may prove to be his rights,

without having given him any opportunity to show that his rights are invaded by the injunction. Such a practice has grown up in the courts, in spite of decisions in condemnation of it. Either by court action or by legislative action this abuse should be promptly and peremptorily ended.

The alleged abuse of injunctions by the courts in trade disputes has led trades unions to ask for legislation prohibiting the use of injunctions against trade organizations. In this the trades union has taken an untenable position. This is class legislation. Class legislation is always wrong. That there is already some class legislation in America is reason, not for enacting more class legislation, but for abolishing what already exists. It is not merely the trades unions that should be protected from the abuse of injunctions. Publishers should be protected as well as printers, railways as well as trainmen, mine operators as well as mine workers. If the trades unions would abolish their demand for trade union legislation, if they would follow the example of their brothers across the sea, if they would unite their forces in a demand for legislation for the benefit of all the people, they would win. We commend to their consideration the following, which we shall venture to call the Outlook platform :

1. Congress has authority to define, direct, and limit the powers of the courts.

2. Congress should forbid the issuing of injunctions without notice except in extraordinary cases, and should in no case allow an injunction issued without notice to continue for more than two or three days without giving an opportunity for a hearing.

3. Congress should prohibit the courts from enjoining any person or combination of persons from doing acts which it is lawful to do. The courts must enforce law, not make law.

4. In case any act prohibited by an injunction is also a criminal act, for which trial by jury is guaranteed by Amendment V of the Constitution, the person accused of committing it should have a right either to have a trial before a jury by the court which enjoined the act, or to have the question whether he is guilty or not transferred to a criminal court.

Organized labor would make its demand

for these acts of justice more effective if it would accompany that demand with a proposal to incorporate in American law some of the provisions respecting public service corporations, picketing, and boycotts which have been incorporated in English law-provisions in which the lawful rights of workingmen, as well as of the community, are carefully safeguarded.

on the four hundred and ninety-first offense may indulge in vengeance. We are to do unto others as we would like them to do to us—and therefore if we like to hear our neighbor's piano at eleven o'clock at night, we may play our own although Thomas Carlyle is on the other side of the partition. To such conclusions consistent literalism would carry us.

And, as these precepts are inadequate as regulations of conduct, so they are

From the considerable number of letters which we have received about the teaching of Jesus concerning the acquisition and possession of property, we have selected the two which are published on another page. One correspondent argues that the direction "Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth" is an absolute condemnation of all acquisition of wealth; because the added clause, “where moth and rust doth corrupt and thieves break through and steal," must be either a qualification or an exception; and it cannot be a qualification, since this would imply that there are places in heaven where moth and rust corrupt and where thieves break through and steal. The other correspondent illustrates to what result men are driven by this literalism. He argues that Christianity is quite impracticable, and Jesus Christ an enthusiast and a doctrinaire, who may be compared to Dowie. In the history of the world the literalism illustrated by the one correspondent has invariably begotten the rejection of Jesus as a teacher which is illustrated by the other.

If the first correspondent is right in his method of interpretation, the second would be right in his rejection of the teaching. If Christ is to be regarded as a lawgiver and his precepts as statutes for the regulation of conduct, the man of common sense would have to reject them as both inadequate and impracticable—that is, if regarded as statutes and interpreted by the canons applied by a lawyer to the interpretation of statutes. They are inadequate as rules or statutes. If the right hand tempts us, we are to cut it off-but nothing is said against yielding to temptation by the left hand. We are to give generous measure to our neighbor-but short weights are not forbidden. We must forgive till seventy times seven-but

the one cheek should turn and invite a blow on the other would be more likely to provoke than to pacify his assailant. He who takes no thought for the morrow is likely to be a beggar in his old age. He who gives to every one that asks him would, however rich he might be, soon have nothing left to give.

And such an interpretation of Christ's precepts as regulations of conduct makes his utterances at one time wholly inconsistent with his utterances and actions at other times. He who is supposed to have forbidden all use of force drove the traders from the Temple. He who is supposed to forbid all provision for the future directed the fragments of food to be gathered up when the multitude were fed, that nothing should be lost. He who is thought to have forbidden all keeping of food and clothing in store, in his picture of the last judgment commended those who had clothed the naked and fed the hungry, which they certainly could not have done if they had not possessed clothing and food to give away. He who is supposed to have condemned all wealth, habitually accepted the hospitality of the wealthy, and was buried in a rich man's tomb.

To suppose that the instructions of Jesus are rules for the regulation of conduct is to suppose that he was simply a new kind of Pharisee, differing from the others only in giving to the world different rules. And this is exactly what his disciples sometimes thought. As when they asked him for a form of prayer, and we have taken his illustration directing us to go to our heavenly Father with our common needs—for food, guidance, strength, forgiveness—as though it were a new ritual of universal obligation. As when Peter asked for a rule specifying the number of times we are to forgive

the one who wrongs us. As when Jesus told his disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and they said, It is because we have brought with us no bread. As when he cautioned them that to follow him meant conflict and a sword, and they eagerly produced a couple of swords to show him that they were ready for the fray.

To read Christ's precepts as rules for the regulation of conduct is wholly to misunderstand the mission of Jesus Christ and the nature of Christianity. Christianity is not a rule of conduct; it is an inward life. The precepts of Jesus Christ are not statutes; they are illustrations of a spirit of life. He is not a law-giver; he is a life-giver. It is true that he gave one law; but only one. "A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another as I have loved you." He gave one test of life, and only one: "He that would be greatest among you, let him be the servant of all." Love is Christ's only law; service his only test of character. That God loves his children and serves them and suffers for them-that is the whole of Christ's theology. That we are to be God-like, are to love one another and serve one another and suffer for one another that is the whole of Christ's ethics. Love, service, sacrifice that is the whole of Christianity.

He who believes that God loves him and cares for him will not worry about the future; but he will provide for others as God has provided for him. He who loves his neighbor and cares for him will not be happy in himself faring sumptuously every day, while Lazarus lies hungry and sore at his door; but if he accumulates it will only be that he may serve, and he will make his process of accumulation itself a social service. No wise regulation of conduct will make one righteous if his inward motives are those of greed and selfaggrandizement. No unwise regulation of conduct will make one unrighteous if his inward motives are love for his fellows and ambition of service. The Christian

life Jesus compared to a spring of water within the soul. To have the spring of love within one's self and then live a free, joyous, spontaneous, Christlike life is to be a Christian.

Who supposes that it is wrong to build a hospital, equip it with beds and medicines, and endow it with interest-bearing bonds? Or to build a college and equip it with libraries and laboratories, and give it endowment ? But this is to lay up treasure on earth. And it may well be a question for one who has a million of dollars to put at the service of his fellows, whether he had better put it into a hospital for healing, a college for education, or a railway which will open up an unoccupied country that the homeless may find therein homes and the poor an opportunity to earn a livelihood. Jesus condemned drunkenness but not drinking, gluttony but not eating, selfish anger but not the wrath of love, greed and covetousness but not the acquisition of wealth and the industry which acquires it. He no more set any definite limits to the amount one might acquire than to the amount one might eat.

Christ's precepts are not rules for the regulation of conduct. They are illustrations of the spirit of life. All his instructions might be summarized in some such way as this: Believe that your Father loves you. Trust in his love. If you are in trouble, carry your trouble to him; if in sorrow, let him comfort you; if you are in the greatest of all troubles and the greatest of all sorrows, if you have fallen into sin, let not that separate you from him; go to him for forgiveness and help in beginning life afresh. Live in companionship with him. Ask him to fill you with his spirit, that others may come to you with their troubles; that others in sorrow you may comfort; that others who have fallen into sin you may help to put upon their feet again. So will you be the children of your Father which is in heaven. Love, Service, Sacrifice is the interpretation of God and the secret of

life.