But it is fairly obvious that strikes which bring about the stoppage of vital public services, such as, for example, railroad transportation upon which millions of lives depends, and strikes which paralyze the functioning of government itself, such as police strikes, for example, cannot be tolerated. We may admit an abstract "right to strike" in the same sense and way as we admit an abstract "right of revolution". There is the right, also, of society to protect itself against revolution and to crush the revolution that imperils its safety, if it can. It is not at all an exaggeration to say that the United States of America can as easily contemplate with equanimity the secession of several States, as the cessation of labor for any length of time upon our railroads or in our coal mines.

Mr. Gompers lived long enough to see the American nation begin to bestir itself to erect some protective legislative devices against this evil. His successor will have to deal with the plain and inescapable fact that, unless the unions themselves, by ways and devices of their own, protect society against the peril of such strikes, which jeopardize the very existence of civilized life and government, it will be done by legislation. Mr. Green assumes a difficult task at a critical time in the history of organized labor and in the experience of the nation. Fortunately there is every reason for confidence that he will be able to impress upon organized labor a determining sense of its obligation to society in this important particular.

I venture the prediction, therefore, that under Mr. Green's leadership organized labor in America will continue to flourish and grow; that it will stand against the formation of a political party analogous to the British Labour Party, in which the trade unions are subordinated to a small class of professional intellectuals; that it will enter upon a period of readjustment, governed by a spirit wholly constructive; and that as a result of that readjustment it will be vastly more potent for good, not alone as measured by the material gain of the wage-earners themselves, but equally as measured by the material and moral strength of the nation.

JOHN SPARGO.

THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLICAN

PARTY

BY C. REINOLD NOYES

THE most conspicuous feature of the recent election was the return to office of President Coolidge, which clearly constituted a vote of confidence by the people of the United States in a man who had been presented to them as the incumbent candidate through a combination of political accident with an act of Providence. His was a personal rather than a party victory. A less conspicuous but equally significant result was the reëlection to the Sixty-ninth Congress of most of the Senators and Representatives who made up the Sixty-eighth. So far as the Republican Party is concerned it appears to continue, as it has been during the last three or four years, a divided party, neither wing of which has rendered consistent allegiance to its elected leader. It remains to be seen whether the President will ally himself with one or the other wings of his party, or, on the other hand, whether he can preserve a position of neutrality between them and succeed in the most necessary task of healing the schism and restoring the solidarity of the Conservatives.

This division in Conservative ranks has appeared during these recent troublous years between the East and the West, or, more accurately, between the Industrial and the Agricultural districts. The alignment has been confused by its very novelty and has left room for much independence of individual action. But the clearest demonstration of its true nature occurred in the vote in the House, last spring, on the McNary-Haugen Bill for Agricultural Protection. At that time the ayes included the entire Republican delegation from every State west of the Mississippi River, with the exception of those from the industrial districts of California, and the industrial cities of Denver, Kansas City, St. Louis and Minneapolis. To these Western rural Congressmen were joined the Republicans from most of the country districts of Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia and central Pennsylvania. To

gether they constituted about half the Republican caucus. No such accurate measure was taken of the Senate, but it is supposed that there, as well, the Agriculturalists could muster about half the Republican votes. The fact is that there are two "blocs", of about equal strength, in the Republican Party, the Farm Bloc and the Business Bloc. The former has received all the advertising.

The people of the cities, whose interests are principally industrial, have largely misunderstood the character of this new political movement arising in the country districts. Two centers of Socialistic infection, developing during the years prior to 1921 in Wisconsin and North Dakota, under the leadership of LaFollette and the Non-Partisan League respectively, have been confused with and have given a Radical cast to the Farm Bloc, though they are entirely separate movements. During the hard times these Radical foci showed a tendency to spread into neighboring States, usually by capturing the Republican organization. The opportunity to do so arose through the failure of the old Republican politicians to realize that these constituencies were justified in opposing the industrial favoritism of the Republican Party, which resulted in a betrayal of the true spirit of representative government. But the LaFollette machine is a product of Wisconsin industrialism, and the Farmer-Labor leadership came from the ranks of Socialists and Labor Union officials. Their appeal to Agriculture has been disingenuous and they have been merely feeding upon discontent without expressing its true nature or desires. So far as they dared this whole Third Party group opposed and voted against the McNary-Haugen Bill.

The Farm Bloc proper is, on the other hand, composed of Conservative Republicans. At bottom the political rebellion has been against the urban management of the Republican Party. In some districts the exigencies of party politics have forced it to express itself by the election of a LaFollette or Farmer-Labor Radical who was the only opponent of an urban Conservative. But usually a rural Conservative has been returned. And it is the latter who compose the Farm Bloc. The farmer himself is not a Radical but, on the contrary, has been, here and always, the mainstay of Conservatism. He would not vote for a Radical except by way of protest. He is a staunch supporter of individualism, nationalism and the

rights of private property which are the cardinal tenets of Conservatism.

Interpreted in this way the recent election ceases to appear a paradox and takes on the most lucid consistency. The Farm Bloc States helped to reëlect President Coolidge because they are Conservative and are opposed to the programme of government ownership of railroads, subversion of constitutional guarantees and the general trades union objectives put forward by their only alternative candidate, when he shed his sheep's clothing and appeared as the lion of the new Labor Party. They favored the President because they had confidence that he meant what he said when he urged the last Congress to address itself to the relief of the farmers. And they still believe that he will eventually work out a just and wise plan for reestablishing the balance between agriculture and industry. But the West also reëlected, almost without a change, the Farm Bloc. It is certainly a clear indication of what the Western voters intended to express, that 129 of the 161 Representatives, who voted for the McNary-Haugen Bill, were returned, and that at least half the rest were succeeded by men running on the same platform.

Among the Farm Bloc from west of the Mississippi there were but six changes in the House and two in the Senate. Obviously this was a mandate to the good and faithful servants of agriculture to continue their efforts. Let those beware who read in the reelection of the President a rebuke to the Western Conservatives, an endorsement of inaction on their part, or an acceptance of the status quo by agriculture. The Congressional elections call for solidarity but not subservience. Nearly one-half the Republican majority in both Houses has its instructions from the people to demand, as the price of its coöperation, an equal share in the governance of the Conservative Party. Those in either Bloc who fail to interpret correctly the vox populi are due for a rude awakening.

Nothing is more important to the future of stable government in this country than to re-unite immediately these two wings of the Republican Party, the farmers and the business men. The LaFollette Bloc has been read out of the party in the Senate and, perhaps, in the House. Peace and reconciliation might have resulted from a rapprochement. This move compels war. At this time

there is, in many Western States, no effective opposition, such as is required for healthy party government, except the recently defeated Third Party. The Democratic organization has vanished in the greater contest between Conservative and Radical. A political vacuum exists. Drunk with victory, the Republican leaders have forced the situation in a way certain to assure the permanence and growth of the Labor Party movement, though it is a curious anomaly that it should have its rise in the section where Labor is weakest. Undoubtedly the death of Samuel Gompers will also contribute its share to the dénouement. If, in the face of this prospect, the Conservative schism is allowed to persist and grow, it will mean a divided opposition to the developing Radical movement.

Compromise is the part of wisdom at this juncture. To a large extent the breach between the farmers and the business men is due to ignorance and misunderstanding of the economic conditions which have nurtured this political rebellion. To some extent it is also due to an inherent opposition in interest between the two major members of the economic partnership. The countryside sells food and buys manufactured goods, while the city sells manufactured goods and buys food. The latter cause can only be removed by mutual forbearance and fair play; the former only by enlightenment. It is necessary that the Business Bloc should study the situation sympathetically, giving heed particularly to Agriculture's own explanations of its difficulties and proposals for relief, which are so radically different from the analyses and plans that are being foisted upon it by the business and official world.

Superficially the economic condition of agriculture seems to have changed overnight, and the ignorant, who measure agricultural conditions by prices on the Chicago Board of Trade, seem to believe that the troubles of the farmer are cured. A world shortage has doubled the price of wheat in the face of a greatly increased domestic crop, and has given the laugh to the advocates of reduced acreage. But this holds no promise for the future. Corn and hogs are skyrocketing. But the cause is a failure of the corn crop that spells disaster, not prosperity, to most of the corn belt. And the cattle men are still crying in the wilderness. The case for the farmer is as strong as it ever was, and, in the face of this temporary respite,