( ! i !

As this is a Sunday morning, and a semi-religious question, I take for my text the 38th and 39th verses in the 5th chapter of Mathew. I cannot quote it literally. It is quite a time since I have read it. But I know the import of it.

Ye have heard that it hath been said: (I am quoting from Mathew)—"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you; Resist not evil. But whosoever shall smite you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

I do not quote this because Mathew wrote it. I really do not know whether he did or not; and I care a great deal less. I could not find out whether Mathew wrote it, unless I should read Professor Foster's works on religion, and that would take too long. But I quote it because throughout all the Western world this has been the accepted statement, of the doctrine of non-resist-ance. It is, perhaps, as good a statement of that theory as one can find in a few short sentences. Mathew had no patent on it, of course. There are very few thoughts in this world that are patented and those are not worth it. It was undoubtedly very old before Mathew lived— if he lived. And it has been repeated a great many times since he died.—if he died.

The theory of non-resistance is taken, generally, as the opposite to the theory of punishment, or the theory of vengeance, which, up to the time of the Christian religion, was the theory of the world—and since that time has been doubly the theory of the world. Its announcement, as generally admitted by those who have written and spoken upon the subject, has reference, first, to the treatment of those whom society calls criminals; next, perhaps, to governments in their relations to each other and to their subjects; and then to women and children, insane, prisoners, and the like. It relates to the way those who have the power have generally exercised that power in relation to the rest of the world.

Now, I might say in the beginning that I am not quite sure of this theory, or of any other theory. I used to be a good deal more positive than I am to-day. And, especially, I am not at all sure that there is any theory in philosophy, or morals, (or laws,) that works out in sociology. The science of society, if there is such a science, is not an exact science. You cannot demonstrate any theory of society the way you can demonstrate the multiplication table, unless it is Socialism—and you Cannot demonstrate that in the same way unless you are speaking to an audience of Socialists. You might demonstrate Single Tax to a Single-Taxer, but you could not do it to anybody else. Exact science has little to do—something to do, but little to do—with the ways in which man organizes himself on the planet. He does not move in straight lines, or in regular curves, or even in crooked lines, that can be depended upon. When he learns what the crooked line is, he goes straight. And no theory of life, no theory of society can be worked out as to communal life, in the same way that you can work out the science of mathematics, or of astronomy, or geology, or any science dealing with anything that keeps still.

But the question is, whether the theory of punishment, as opposed to the theory of non-resistance, is most in harmony with life, and tends to the progress of the world; whether human life in its slow evolution is going toward the theory of non-resistance, or is going toward the theory of violence, and force, and punishment.

If one looks back at the origin of the State we do not find that it had the immaculate birth that most people believe. It was born in force and violence. The strong took a club, and made a state for himself. It was a simple state, kept there by the force of the strong man's club and his will. From that it has gone on until it takes a good many strong clubs, together with a good many armies, navies, policemen, lawyers, judges, etc., to keep the state in order. But through it all has run the theory of force, and through it all the power has come not from the people who asked it, but from the people who took it because they were the stronger. In the beginning the chief preserved order and the law, by saying what should be the law and enforcing order himself with his club.

In modern society the controlling forces arrange things as they want them, and provide that certain things are criminal. Sometimes those things have a semblance of natural crime, and sometimes not. The largest number of crimes are crimes against property. Sometimes you may trace them more or less directly to violation of some law that is in the natural world. But the fact is that the class which rules society come together and say what men must do, and what they must not do. And the man who violates it commits crime.

There are in society, and always have been, a large number of people, due mainly to conditions of society, who are what we call defectives; who are anti-social in their nature; whose life and conduct tend toward the disintegration of society, instead of the life of society. Very

largely the treatment of crime is a question of treatment of these anti-social individuals. It is a question of treatment of those who persevere, in one way or another, in violating the rules of the game which society has made.

Way back under the Mosaic Law—and Moses did not have a patent on it either—but under the law of the world, the doctrine of an "Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," prevailed. If a man killed another his life should be taken. If he stole something he should be punished. If he burglarized, then it meant something else, generally death. If he did something, the world would do something to him. And they would do that something that the world at that time thought was the right thing to do to him. In this way, even down to a hundred years ago, there were in England about two hundred crimes punishable by death. Almost everything that could be conceived was punished by death. And the lawyers, and judges, and preachers of that day had no thought that society could hang together if men were not hanged regularly for stealing sheep and anything that happened. The old doctrine of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, was the common doctrine of the world, and that doctrine prevails to-day.

All penal codes are really built upon that doctrine. When you trace penal codes back to the beginning, they mean one thing, and only one, i. e., vengeance. A man has done something. He has caused some one to suffer. Therefore society will do something to him. In the early stages, if some one slew another, the members of his tribe had the right to go and take the life of any member of the other tribe in return. It did not matter whether he had been guilty or not. It was the law of vengeance, the law of punishment—and punishment and vengeance have always meant the same thing in the world, no matter where it has been. . • i

Punishments of crimes have always been arbitrary. One man would say that for stealing a horse the somebody stealing it should go to jail for thirty days. Another would say that he should go to the penitentiary for a year; another would say five years; and somebody else would say he should be hanged by the neck until dead. Punishments have never depended upon the act done, but upon the man who saw the act done and the mind possessed by the ruling power. Of half a dozen judges given authority to administer punishment for a certain act no two judges would administer the same kind of punishment. One would say thirty days, another thirty years; just according to the mind he has. Some judge might give you less after breakfast than he would before. And another judge might give you more if he had attended a banquet through the small hours in the morning preceding, and did not feel well when he administered the sentence. All those things enter into it, and when you come to sum it all up, the real theory of it is a question of vengeance: The individual has done something. How much shall we do to him in return? How much will we make him suffer, because he has made some one else suffer?

Now, the non-resistant says, there is no such thing as crime, i. e., some of them say that. And they say that all punishment is bad, not heavy punishment alone—but all punishment; that man has no right to punish his fellow man, that only evil results from it; that the theory of vengeance and the theory of punishment is wrong; that it cures nobody, it does not tend to benefit society, it does not tend to change the defective, it does not tend to build up society. It is wrong ahd untrue in its whole theory; and the theory of non-resistance is the true theory as to crime. • Whatever you may think of the theory, the world has been steadily going that way. It has been abolisihng the death penalty, until to-day in most civilized countries there are only one or two crimes punishable by death; and it is very rarely that death is meted out for those.

Punishment has been growing less severe, and the methods of inflicting punishment are less severe. Of course, in the old days when men were less squeamish and more honest they had their hangings in broad daylight. To-day we do not do it, not because we are better, but because we are squeamish. We have hangings in the jail, so that the effects of the punishment will be entirely lost to the community.

Our terms of imprisonment are not so long- Our methods of treating the imprisoned are more humane. We sentence a man to prison. Of course, in the old time he used to be put into a vile place, where he would be half-clad and half fed, and where he would be covered with rags full of vermin, and where he would suffer all sorts of physical pain. To-day we send him to jail, and we have the jail steam heated and electric lighted. We have a doctor to take care of him if so, perchance, the penalty is death he won't die before his time comes; and if he is to be hanged he gets better food than he ever did before. So far as men are entrusted with the power of carrying out these provisions they do it as humanely as they can do it.

In the old times the insane were treated like criminals. They were locked up in cells; they were loaded with chains; they WERE criminals, because the rest of the world did not understand them. We have gotten over that. We have learned to treat them as human beings, and to treat them as those suffering from ailment, whereas once in the history of the world they were visited with the old law of vengeance, the law of force. The world some time will learn to treat all of its defectives, and all those who violate the code, the same as they treat the insane and the ill to-day. And we are learning it, more and more, every day.

The theory of non-resistance does not, necessarily, say that a man cannot be restrained, although very likely that would not be necessary under any decent law of society. It is possible there are some who are so born, and have been so treated by society, that they would need to be restrained just as those afflicted with small pox may be restrained in a hospital. But to restrain them and treat them until cured is one thing; to say that men because of some inherent wickedness deserve punishment is another thing. It would be absurd to restrain men suffering from small-pox and turn them out from a hospital in six weeks, whether cured or not. If hospitals were run in the same way as jails, we would send them up for thirty days; and if they got well in a week we would keep them there.

. The whole theory of punishment, so far as there is any theory in it—and there is not much in it, except the idea of vengeance—but the whole theory, so far as there is one, comes from the religious conception; that some people are made inherently bad, that their minds are evil, or their soul for that matter, or whatever the intangible thing about them that makes them evil. And they deserve punishment, because they have a wicked, abandoned, and malignant heart. We always have to put that "wicked, abandoned, and malignant heart" in the indictment ; otherwise it is no good. If he has that in his heart he can be punished. When twelve jurors and a judge get together, how can they tell whether his heart is bad or not? You could tell better if you dissect him. It goes upon the theory that man is apart from all the other beings that inhabit the universe; that he is a free moral agent; that he is a sort of a wild train running at large through the universe; that he is not governed by rules and conditions like the rest of the universe about us. But that the Lord created him, put a mind in him, a good heart in some of them; a wicked, abandoned, and malignant heart in others; and sent them out to run wild independent of all the universe about him. And whenever the good people catch up with these wicked, abandoned, and malignant people then we punish the wicked, because intrinsically they are bad, because they chose the evil instead of the good. They could be better if they wanted to be better, but they did not chose. Society sends them to jail, just as brutal parents whip their children because they are bad instead of good.

As a matter of fact science and evolution teach us that man is an animal, a little higher than the other orders of animals; that he is governed by the same natural laws that govern the rest of the universe; that he is governed by the same laws that govern animal life, aye, and plant life; that free moral agency is a myth, a delusion, and a snare. It teaches us that he is surrounded by environment, the product of all the past, the product of the present; that he is here just like any other subject of natural law; and that it is not goodness, it is not badness, that makes him what he is. It is the condition of life in which he lives. And if he lives unwisely, if he is a defective, if he is anti-social, it is not that he chose it; but it is due to a thousand conditions over which he has not the slightest control. And the wise society seeks to change his environment, to place him in harmony with life. They know that they can only change the man by changing the conditions under which he lives; that good and evil, so far as he is concerned, do

not exist; that right and wrong are religious myths; that it is a question of the adaptability of the individual to social life, and a gradual change of the environment under which he lives.

With the state it is the same thing. The theory of force and violence applied to the state has drenched the world in blood. It has built great navies, and great armies. One nation builds a great navy and a great army, and destroys the resources of its people to build armies and navies. And another nation must build a greater navy and a greater army, because of the first. It makes of the people of the earth armed camps, and the stronger the one arms itself, the stronger must the rest. England builds her wonderful navy out of the toil of the poor, out of what should buy food for the men who produce it. And when she builds it, then Germany must build one as large, and so must France, and so must Russia build one, too. And of course patriotic America must build one. We need a navy for fear that a band of Sene-gambians might send a fleet to devastate Chicago some night. The theory of force and violence as applied to political states has built up the navies and armies of the world, and has caused most of the bloodshed of the • human race. Is there any doubt but what nations would be stronger if they burned their battleships instead of building new ones? Can you increase the power of one nation by building ships, when you simply make others build larger? You never change the relative proportion, which alone makes the strength. If instead of adding to the navies the world over, we gradually got rid of them, the relative strength would be what it was before.

In industrial life it is the same thing. The reign of ' force, and the reign of violence, means competition, means industrial strife; is responsible for the greed and selfishness and avarice, for the fortunes of the great and the poverty of the poor. It is only in these later days, when the world is looking to something better, when they are learning that force and violence is wrong, that it is wrong that merchants compete and cut each other's throats and workmen compete against each other to show how much less they can work for; and that it is better to organize society on a co-operative basis where each man is to help his fellowman instead of fighting his fel-Iowman.

The dreams of the world may be far off, and we must fit every dream to every reality. For the world is imperfect. But if, as society progresses, there shall one day be a civilization better than the world has known, it will be a society where force and violence and bloodshed and cruelty have disappeared. It will be a world of brotherhood. A world not of destruction, of competition, of violence, of hatred, of enmity; but a world of ho-opera-tion, of mutual help, of love, of brotherliness; and that alone makes for the progress of the world.

You will hear from me a very different theory of non-resistance to the one which has just been presented. If I believed that the theory of non-resistance had been properly stated this debate would close at this point, because I have heard next to nothing from the lips of my opponent with which I am not thoroughly in harmony. Mr. Darrow is probably the first man to treat this subject as if it were a department of modern criminology, as if it were a matter of penal codes, a question of the punishment of criminals, their treatment in general, and the treatment of the sick, the insane, etc. These are tacked on to the theory by my opponent, but they have really no proper place there. In all that relates to the question of punishment of criminals I am in agreement with Mr- Darrow.

The subject of this debate is the theory expressed in the words: "Resist riot evil." What is "evil"? Does it consist chiefly in the deeds performed by criminals, as my opponent seems to think? The criminal, according to Mr. Darrow, is not responsible for what he does; the evil goes further back than the criminal; it does not consist of what the criminal does, but of the causes which lead the criminal to do as he does. What are those causes? Let us go back to the causes of crime.

It will be agreed, I have no doubt, by my opponent, and I shall maintain it whether he agrees or not, that

the criminal is the product of society, that is, the product of a society which through the instrumentality of private property in the means of life shuts out the opportunity of some men to live honestly and decently. This is the prolific source of criminals. And if there is any evil in the criminal business in my opinion it must be laid not to the criminal, but at the door of society, especially at the door of the ruling class, which is responsible for the criminal. And the question of "Resist not evil" in this field, is not, shall society resist the actions of the criminal whom it has itself produced, but shall men who have been shut off from the means of life resist the society which has so shut them off? Shall they resist the ruling class which has monopolized their means of life, and left them face to face with starvation? Shall that ruling class—the existence of which is the real evil in the problem—be resisted? This is the question of resisting evil in my use of the terms. And I say, yes; we should resist this evil to the full extent of our powers.

I am going to give you another exposition of the origin of the theory, or doctrine, of resist not evil. This theory, like all other theories, has what the philosophers would call a sufficient reason, or, as the sciensists would call it, an efficient cause. Sufficient reason and efficient cause are back of most things. This is true of all theories, without regard to whether they are true or false. In fact we can only judge the merit of a theory when we know its cause. Theories do not drop out of the clouds. They are not communicated to men by divine persons who live outside the universe. They cannot be accounted for on the ground of spontaneous generation. Theories grow out of the world of material reality, and social theories grow out of social phenomena.

The causes for the theory, put forward by Mr. Dar-row, are hazy and indistinct, and lack historical precision, and do not go back to the origin of the theory itself. This omission on the part of my opponent I shall proceed to remedy. He has given us the names of the men who are responsible for this theory—Jesus Christ and His disciples, etc. I shall endeavor to give you the forces which caused the theory to be impressed upon the minds of the men who taught it

It is generally supposed that progress is universal. So far from this being the case, the majority of the human race do not even understand the idea of progress. If it is explained to them they treat it with contempt. This is the mental attitude of all the people of the Orient. And this attitude the Orientals held in common with the ancients and with savages. Herbert Spencer, in his "Principles of Sociology," says:

"Primitive man is conservative to a degree. Even on contrasting the higher races with one another, and even on contrasting different classes in the same society, it is observable that the least developed are the most averse to change."

Walter Bagehot, in his brilliant little book, "Physics and Politics," maintains:

"Our habitual instructors, our ordinary conversation, our inevitable and ineradical prejudices, tend to make us think that 'progres' is the normal fact in hiiman society, the fact which we should all expect to see, the fact which we should all be surprised if we did not see. But history refutes this. The ancients had no conception of progress; they did not even so much as reject the idea, they did not even entertain the idea. Oriental nations are just the same now. Since history began they have always been what they are.

And the greatest of all authorities on this question, Sir Henry Sumner Maine, says:

"Vast populations, some of them with a civilization considerable but peculiar, detest that which in the language of the West would be called Reform. The entire Mohammedan world detests it. The multitudes of colored men who swarm the great continent of Africa detest it, and it is detested by that large part of mankind which we are accustomed to leave on one side as barbarous and savage. The millions and millions of men who fill the Chinese Empire loathe it (and what is more) despise it. * * * The enormous mass of the Indian population dreads change. * * * To the fact that enthusiasm for change is comparatively rare must be added the fact that it is extremely modern. It is known but to a small part of mankind, and to that part but for a short period during a history of incalculable length."

This opposition to change, which is dominant in the Oriental world, is responsible for the stagnation of the East.

Now, this stagnation is not without a cause, and the cause is not far to seek. We have only to read their literature and to examine their religions. These two are really one—the great bulk of their literature is religious. The greatest and most widespread of these religions is that of Prince Gautama Buddha—Buddhism. To-day this faith rules the minds of five hundred million men, or one-third of the entire human race. It has enough in common with all the other Oriental religions to typify them all.

The first and most fundamental of the truths of Buddhism is one called the "First of Four Noble Truths." Four truths make up the system. That first truth is, that "everything is Misery." The ruling principle of the universe is evil. You cannot be protected and guarded from misery and evil. It is inherent in all things. It cannot be escaped, it cannot be eradicated, it cannot be changed. It is the absolute and supreme law of the universe. This is the first great dogma of the Buddhist religion.

The logical consequence of this belief in the supremacy of evil is that the word "sorrow" is a great word in the Buddhist faith. In fact the faith itself is summed up in the word "sorrow."

The second of these noble truths is "Sorrow's Cause," or the "Cause of Sorrow." What is this thing that is the Cause of Sorrow? In the estimation of the Orientals it is the thing modern sociologists call "desire"—the desire

quer evil, and to put in its place happiness and joy. The desire to do this is the one damnable thing in the estimation of the Orientals. He believes that evil is so supreme that any attempt to resist it is a waste of energy, and only leads to greater evils; therefore we should stamp out and exterminate all desire, all ambition, all enterprise, all hope of defeating evil, we should crush all our yearnings and longings and wants and submit to it, practice resignation, renunciation, meekness and submission, bow to fate—"Resist not evil." Evil is so omnipotent that resistance is madness. Existence is so ruled by evil that the only salvation lies in escaping from life back into the peaceful realm of death. Edwin Arnold, in "The Light of Asia," expresses it thus:

"The aching craze to live ends, and life glides Lifeless, to Nameless quiet, Nameless peace: Blessed Nirvana, sinless, stirless rest— The change that never changes."

And yet, this desire, which is the thing condemned by the Orientals, is regarded by Lester F.Ward, and all other great sociologists, as the main-spring of social progress. Without it no progress is possible. But, according to the religion of the Orientals, there is no triumph of religion until every possible tendency, every possible impulse, that could lead to progress, stimulating human advancement and the march of mind in the conquest of matter, has been stamped out, until progress cannot be possible in any direction; not until then have we reached the third truth: "Sorrow's Ceasing." The conclusion is: Life is not worth living; evil is triumphant; we must submit while we are here, and hope to get out of it as soon as possible.

This is the origin of the doctrine of non-resistance of evil. No matter what evil may attack us we must bow in our helplessness and say with the Mohammedan, "It is Kismet"—it is fate.

The Christian religion, of which the mythical Mathew was one of the exponents, is an Oriental religion. Some of us may have forgotten that, but it is none the less true. We have corrupted it with Western ideas; that is to say, we have improved it by injecting some civilization into it. But it is none the less Oriental in all its leading features. Its petrified sacred books are just as much opposed to change as are all sacred books and all things Oriental. What horrible hells have been prepared and threatened to those who ventured to make any addition to the knowledge contained in the Scriptures. And the Hypatias, Bacons, Brunos and Ferrers who have dared to make any addition, and who have sought by the process of education to make their additions common property, have always found their Christian brothers ready to anticipate the so-called wishes of the Almighty, and pay them installments of hell in advance.

The theory of non-resistance of evil is based on theological religion. It flies in the face of all modern science. Back of it stands the dogma that the Maker of All Things must be all-wise. If evil exists in the world it can only be by His permission. Not a sparrow can fall to the ground without His knowledge; not a hair on a human head be hurt without His consent. Therefore, if cities are decimated by the plague it can only be because He is willing it should be so. The plague is evil. Nobody disputes that. But shall it be resisted? Not according to the doctrine of "Resist not evil." According to that theory, sanitation, drains, white-wash, and chloride of lime are inventions of the devil. The plague cannot be there unless the powers that rule the universe desired it. And any sanitation is an attempt to thwart the desire of these powers. And if the theory of non-resistance had not been set aside, and if men of science had not set themselves to resist the evil of the plague, the black plague, like the white plague, would be still among our visitors. Lightning which struck public buildings and laid them waste could not do so unless the Maker of the Universe consented. Benjamin Franklin, who attempted to resist with the lightning rod was regarded as one of the advance agents of his Satanic Majesty.

The evils of disease and pain, supposed to have come into the world by the will of God, take various forms. Take the pain of women in child-birth, especially in extreme cases. That pain is evil. Shall we resist it?. Or shall we, because it is a creation of the Almighty, allow it to go unresisted? Some men said: Resist! They tried anaesthetics for women in child-birth. And the theologians said that was another attempt to thwart the Almighty, and under no circumstances should it be resorted to, until Dr. Arthur Simpson Young presented the preachers an argument they could not answer. Dr. Young said: "You forget I am only imitating the Almighty Himself, who before He took the rib from Adam put him into a deep sleep."

The essential difference between science and religion gathers around this theory. Science believes in resisting evil in all its forms. Science believes not only in resisting, but in trying to conquer and abolish evil of all kinds. This is the supreme aim of science. It is the very breath of life of modern civilization. Religion, theological religion, on the contrary, with its cringing submission to' evil, meets with defeat just in proportion as science advances and knowledge spreads. All through the centuries the attitude of non-resistance to existing evils has restrained the progress of the race. Science has been successful in the Occident; it has conquered, and it is pressing Christian theories to such an extent that the modern Christian cannot now even understand or comprehend his own doctrines. Where is the Christian who can see any sense, if he is smitten on one cheek, in turning the other to his assailant? Can you imagine a Christian in a restaurant running after a man who has taken his hat> to give him his coat?

Oriental ideas have become obsolete, and the doctrine of non-resistance along with them. Only here and there do we find a really clever man, like Darrow, ready to inflict an Oriental quietism on the pulsing, throbbing life of the modern world.

Christianity is largely derived from Buddhism. The Christianity of the New Testament just as surely took its doctrine of "Resist not evil" from Buddhism as it took its personal devil from the superstition of Persia. This theory of non-resistance has passed from Buddha to Christ, from Christ to Tolstoy, and from Tolstoy to Darrow.

Sometimes a theory, born in one* society under given social and material conditions, if transplanted into another country and a different material environment, will die out. But if there happens to be something in that environment which lends color to it, it will live on indefinitely. This is why the non-resistance theory of Christ re-appears in the writings of Tolstoy. All Orientals have absolute monarchies. The monarch is all-powerful, and resistance to the evils of government is only another name for sudden suicide. The

Jews of the time of Christ were so ruled by the Roman broadsword that resistance spelled only extermination. And Christ gave the people the best advice he could have given them under the circumstances when he tried to persuade them not to resist. This condition is repeated in Russia, and it is chiefly for this reason that this theory makes its appearance in Russia. The Russian autocracy is so supreme and powerful that to resist it is only a way to a sudden grave. So the theory of non-resistance is kept alive in Russia, because it happens to harmonize with social conditions that prevail.

The great problem of America, and of Western Europe generally, is the problem of Capital versus Labor. We take our side with labor. Capital robs labor; and that robbery is evil. It is the crowning evil of the modern world. Shall we resist that evil? I say, yes. Dar-row says, yes and no; practically, yes, theoretically, no. The truth of the matter is, there are two Darrows: A Mr. Hyde, of non-resistance; and a Dr. Jekyll, full of fight. These two have both gone into print. Darrow, the Oriental poet and dreamer, wrote this book, entitled "Resist not Evil." Darrow, the American citizen, ready at all times to help the laboring class resist any and all forms of evil that the ruling class may try to heap upon it, wrote this pamphlet: "The Open Shop." The motto of this pamphlet is: "The cause combatted for is yours. The efforts and sacrifices made to win it should therefore be yours." Darrow, the man, who wrote this pamphlet is always engaged when the unions get into a tight corner. Why do you suppose they engage him? Because he is a non-resistant, and does not believe in re*

sisting evil? They engage him, because they know that in spite of his acceptance of a dreamy, poetic theory he is as full of fight as a mountain lion, and will not give up until every weapon has been tried and the last possible blow is struck. I will read one or two passages from "The Open Shop." He says, speaking of unionism, that: "Individually the man is helpless (the trade union has furnished the common workman the one institution to which he can look for friendship and protection; the one body on which he can rely for the redress of his grievances, and the protection of his rights, and if society were to remove that protection and safeguard, and cut the workman off from his fellows), and leave him to fight his individual battles against the great combination of capital for which he works, it would leave the laborer stripped and naked to commence his long and painful journey back to serfdom once again, and when he starts out upon this road, the great mass of men whose independence has been won along with the workman's struggles, the great middle class, must go back with him."

If you resist not evil, and the unorganized worker fights his battles alone, that means back to serfdom. This is the Darrow of the twentieth century. Again he says: "The history of trade unionism—as, in fact, the history of the rise of the common people toward the measure of independence they now enjoy—is one long tale of struggles, defeats, and victories, and every single step in their progress has been against the most stubborn opposition and at the greatest cost."

"The very reason that keeps men from joining the unions of their craft makes them more servile and cringing to their employers; makes them ever subservient to his demands. They have learned well the lesson of the masters that to thrive you need only work hard and do all in your power to get the good opinion of your boss. So this class is ever ready to submit to encroachments; to take longer hours; to consent to poorer conditions; to make no trouble over unsafe tools, and to even let their wages be reduced."

•These are the views of the fighting Darrow. Darrow the non-resistant has no say in this pamphlet.

In this debate you have your choice of two opposing philosophies. Mr. Darrow offers you the philosophy of the Orient; the philosophy of non-resistance; the philosophy of resignation, renunciation, helplessness, sub- • mission, and despair—the philosophy of eternal stagnation. This philosophy of stagnation is the mental reflection of the stagnant life of Asia, and, in its turn, it acts as a preservative of the stagnation which gave it birth. Japan alone, of all the Asiatic nations, has broken this long trance and thrown off the paralyzing stupor;- and this because she has responded to the example of those energetic, innovating, evil-resisting westerners, who are still regarded by China as "foreign devils."

On the other hand I offer you the philosophy of the Occident; a philosophy of the resistance of evil in all its forms. The offer is somewhat belated as you have already accepted this philosophy. By it you regulate your daily lives. If you did not, civilization would drive you to the open sky and a diet of roots and acorns. My

opponent himself has accepted this philosophy of progress and action with all that part of his brain which enables him to live and breathe and maintain his being in the metropolis of the western world. In the interior of his skull the theory of non-resistance occupies only that isolated corner where the convolutions are less deep and more rudimentary, the corner which is responsible for some of his literary productions.

In the days when we had not as yet grasped the real significance of the awakening of Japan we were greatly alarmed by the "Yellow Peril." Our alarm had its basis in the fear that the East would overrun the West; that the world would be conquered by a race which would offer no resistance to the evils of oppression and exploitation, a race that would slave from sunrise to sunset for a handful of rice.

In vain will my opponent endeavor to shake off this antithesis of Occident and Orient. You cannot travel backward upon the path that marks the genesis of his theory without discovering its Eastern birth. Darrow is a self-confessed disciple of-Tolstoy. Tolstoy's country is on the borders of Cathay. Russia finds herself caught between white and yellow; and her perpetual problem is: shall she stay back with the East or go forward with the West. Tolstoy and Darrow are, again, both disciples of an Oriental mystic, himself largely a mythical character, for whom the scenes are set at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, northeast of Egypt, southeast of Turkey —further east than either. The teachings, parables, miracles, and legends attributed to him, and recorded in the New Testament, of the non-resistance theory is an integral part of the intellectual baggage of the dreamy, credulous and uncritical East.

America, of all the Western countries, is the farthest . removed from the soporific influences and submit-to-evil attitude of the Oriental, and my opponent should have learned long before this that his theory of non-resistance to evil has no present, nor any future, in this country. The English poet Tennyson, in "Locksley Hall," contrasts these two positions, and like a true Westerner decides for a progressive, evil-resisting civilization, and against the intellectual paralysis of Orientalism and savagery. He begins by painting Oriental life in glowing colors and extolling its apparent advantages:

"There, methinks, would be enjoyment more than in this march of mind In the steamship, in the railway, in the thoughts that shake mankind.

scope and breathing space, ' I will take some savage woman, she shall rear my dusky race.

"Iron-jointed, supple-sinewed, they shall dive, and they shall run, Catch the wild goat by the hair, and hurl their lances in the sun;

Then our poet shakes himself out of his day-dream and swings back to the world of modern, progressive, . social reality:

my words are wild, But I count the gray barbarian lower than the Christian child.

"I, to herd with narrow foreheads, vacant of our glorious gains, Like a beast with lower pleasures, like a beast with lower pains!

"Men, my brothers; men, the workers, ever reaping something new That which they have done but earnest of the things which they shall do.

As near as I can find out the question, with my opponent, seems to hinge on a pedigree. I have seen some mighty poor things have good pedigrees. I never looked up the pedigree of non-resistance, and I do not care. It may have come from Asia, or from Africa, or from Europe. I do not know where it came from. I have an idea, though, that almost every prophet, and seer, and humanitarian the world over have always had a glimmering of this truth, and have taught it more or less in their philosophy; though they may not have practised it. For it is one thing to believe a thing, and another to work at it. But they have seen this vision, believed it, and wanted to help it along, and looked forward to the time when it shall be the rule, I have no doubt whether in Europe or in Asia. The real teachings of all the great men in the world have not been so much different, because after all men's thoughts come from their own conservativeness, what is inside of them—not what is outside of them. Two men see the same things, and yet they think different thoughts. That is due to the character of the mind. Prophets the world over have had rather similar thoughts, the teachings of Buddha, Confucius, Christ, and the really great teachers of the world have been wonderfully alike, and where the doctrine came from has nothing whatever to do with it.

My friend tells you in one breath that there is a small corner in my brain where I believe in non-resistance— and from that I have written this book. In the other he

tells you that he agrees with everything I have said. Now, if he agrees with all I have said on the subject of non-resistance, and all its inferences, then all there is left is a question of definiton. I do not care anything about his definition, nor my definition. And yet I think all men who have claimed to believe in it have given it the same definition. I have never read that it meant that one could not take a bath, or that one could not cure himself of a disease, or could not wear clean clothes. That has nothing to do with non-resistance.

The doctrine of non-resistance is, as a doctrine, opposed to force, violence, and punishment; and is a doctrine which teaches that the law of love is the right law of human action rather than the law of hatred, vengeance, and punishment. You may say that you can carry this theory into plant, and into animal life. But all this is largely in the realm of speculation. A man believes many things as to society, and as to human life that he cannot demonstrate, and that he can only see as visions before him of what he thinks a regenerated race will do, or some time become. You cannot apply it to all animal life, to all plant life, and to all human life, and say that if one individual should drop down into a society filled with strife and discord and combat he can live an ideal life and be governed by the rules which will one day govern the world. This fact in no way shows that this is the true rule of life, and in no way shows that the theory is the wrong theory.

Society to-day, as ever, is a mixture of the life of individual men. It is a mixture of the good and the bad, broadly speaking. It is a mixture of co-operation and

competition; it is a mixture of hatred and fear; it is a mixture of war and peace. The world has evolved from the lowest order. It is still evolving. Is there any doubt with anybody that believes in evolution that as the human race evolves it will leave war, murder, and bloodshed out; and that it will cling to co-operation, peace, and harmony, and love? If it does not do this, it will not evolve? That is what evolution means. Neither man individually, nor man mixed up in society, is able to -demonstrate or exemplify this. All he can do is to go toward it, and be as sure as possible that he is on the right road, and that so far as in him lies he is helping the world to go the right road.

Maybe there are inconsistencies in this philosophy. It may be there are inconsistencies in those who preach it and talk it. Perhaps you can take some of my writings and find some that is inconsistent. I have talked too much to make it all consistent. But if you can find some inconsistent thing that I said you would have no more right to say that makes the theory wrong than to say Benjamin Franklin was a lunatic because he thought that he could keep off lightning with a lightning rod. That was a part of the witchcraft of science.

The theory is scarcely disputed by my friend—the theory, in all that it implies, is scarcely disputed. The theory has been promulgated as against the cruelty of society, as against the doctrine of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," which is prevalent.

• He tells you this is the Christian doctrine that I am teaching. I wish it was. That is, I wish the Christian doctrine was this doctrine PW ever hear a

preacher who preached it? Did you ever hear of an orthodox preacher who would not let go of the church before the jail? Would they give up punishment? Would they give up force? Don't they love the penitentiary more than the chapel? Did you ever know of one praying that a man should not be punished; or forgiving him his faults, or not criticising him for what they considered his errors. It is not the doctrine of the Christian church at all. It is the opposite. But if it is not the doctrine of the Christian church neither is it the doctrine of China or Japan, except of a few of the wise, and great, and good, who there, as everywhere, saw what the rulers of the world have never seen, who felt what the cruel have never felt, whose minds had the imagination to feel the sufferings of their fellow men, whose hearts were so tender as to make them feel the heart throbs of the weak and poor and the suffering. But China, Japan, India, and the whole world have been ruled by hatred. They cut men's heads off in China. They send men to prison as punishment. The great religions teachers may have believed one thing, but their religious rulers have ever practised another thing. Force is the essence of government. Every government upon the face of the earth has been over the protest of the weak and the poor and of those who felt for the weak and for the poor.

Almost all men in jail believe in non-resistance. In a way they are, generally, not wise and great. They have not had the time and the money to be wise and great. But all of them have an instinctive feeling as they look back at their lives that they have had to do just as they have done. They might look at the acts that placed them where they are, and into every one of the devious places that they have trod down from their cradles to the present, and they can see thousands of circumstances which held them in the grasp and made them what they are. And they know they are not to blame for their position- They know in their hearts that the whole theory of punishment is wrong, the whole theory, though it is the theory upon which the world goes to-day.

If brother Lewis has been converted to the theory of non-resistance, in the penal code, I wish he would go to work and convert the rest of the world, for it needs it. There are only a few who have been converted to it. All the governments have been built up upon it.

What is true of jails and penitentiaries is true of the state. Men have practised force. They seem to forget that in the thousand activities of human life we go about our affairs automatically; that men turn to the right when they meet on the street, and that they go round each other the proper way. They live together automatically in most of the affairs of life. But they still seem to think that the great weight of the club, and the great power of the jail and prison, must be used or the state must fall to pieces. And so we build our armies and our navies, and make our penal statutes, and our cruel punishments, and the whole world believes in them—and the whole world practises them.

I believe with my friend that the great problem to-day is the problem of capital and labor. But how is that effected by the theory of non-resistance?

Those who think that non-resistance is a milk-and-water-theory have got another guess. It is not. I wa3 talking the other day with a man who had been a Colonel in the War. I said: "I do not know how you could get up courage to go up in the face of cannons and bayonets and take your life in your hands." He says: "I did it, because I was too big a coward to run away." And that is why most all men go to war. They are too big cowards to stay at hoem. That is why men fight They are too big cowards not to fight. Do you think it is a brave man who fights; or is it the brave man who does not fight? I will show you ten thousand men who are willing to go up in the face of hostile cannon, where you cannot find one man who will take one stick of criticism in a daily newspaper. There is not anything on earth so cheap as physical courage. Why even a bulldog can fight, but it has not got much brain. Fighting has nothing to do with the labor question, or with the question of capital and labor. How is it applied to the question as it exists to-day.

In order to change social conditions you say you must get rid of the ruling class, by force or some other way— one way or the other. Now, the weak are the poorest tmes in the world to fight. They have no guns; the other fellow has them all. They have no organization. They have no chance in a fight. But they can fight. Workingmen of to-day can fight. If all of them would refuse to work or the great majority would refuse to work and enter into passive resistance—non-resistance— quit feeding the race; that is all you need to do. You cannot, of course. Wait until you can. You can get a small minority to arm themselves with brickbats and guns. What happens? You are sending a small force, poorly armed and equipped, against all the power of the state, and you cannot succeed, and you never have suceeded.

The only force that can win is determination, non-resistance, peaceable force. There is such a thing as peaceable force that is more forcible than forcible force.

Let me give you a few illustrations. What makes life? The cold, hard, stern winter; or the sunshine and the warm rain of the summer and the spring? The one means death, and the other means life. Repression and death go together. Love and sunshine and life are born together. Do you want to change the conduct of men, whether grown individuals or children; take a child and whip the child, can you change his conduct? You may change his conduct, but can you change his heart? Conduct is only the outward manifestation of the inward individual. To change the individual you must change the heart, and then the conduct must be free. Can you cure hatred with hatred? Everybody knows it in their own life. You may force men against their will to do certain things, but their heart is a seething mass waiting for a time when they may accomplish other things by violence. Do you think you can do something for a man by sending him to penitentiary? Gentleness is the law that makes life. Cruelty and hatred and coldness is the law that makes death. The question of non-resistance or resistance means a choice between those two laws.

I wish it to be clearly understood that so far I have said nothing intended to express any agreement with Mr. Darrow as to the merits of the theory of non-resistance; but I reassert that I have no fundamental dispute with my opponent on the subject of criminology.

Mr. Darrow evidently believes that nobody ever supposed that Christianity, with its theory of non-resistance, meant the non-resistance of that form of evil called disease. The modern christian will agree with Darrow. He is a believer in baths and sanitaiton; but it was not always so. The founders of his religion regard disease as due to the possession of devils as the New Testament amply shows. With them medical science counted for nothing and was discouraged. Their only cure for disease was an appeal to a being who had power to compel the devils, to vacate human and other bodies. Medical science has only reached even its present unsatisfactory position in the teeth of theological opposition and a modern christian has only accepted scientific theories of disease because they have been thrust upon him by the progress of knowledge—a progress that was bitterly fought by his historic church. Religious opposition to cleanliness and sanitation furnishes an instructive chapter in history—a chapter which my opponent has evidently left unread.

One of the chief arguments in Mr. Darrow's last speech, as in his first, is his assumption that the theory of non-resistance is a modern product—a crown and flower of recent thought. The exact opposite is the truth. This theory belongs essentially to the ancient and primitive world. It has wide acceptance where evolution is unknown. It is as widely rejected in the modern western world where the theory of evolution is solidly established.

Force, in the estimation of my opponent, is always bad, and here I think he is wide of the truth. I will freely concede, and, if need be, maintain that the force used by a ruling class to oppress and rob a subject class, is evil. Such oppression and exploitation is very properly described as evil. This may be well described as aggression, and this class aggression is not a supposition; it is the central fact of present civilization. The question is: Should this evil be resisted? I say yes. Such resistance is the life-breath of human progress, and non-resistance, as I have already shown by my opponent's own pamphlet would lead us back to the dark ages. I am, as a Socialist, unalterably opposed to the aggression of a class, and a whole-hearted believer in resistance to that aggression. If a despotic nation seeks to tyrannize over a neighboring people because the neighbor is giving dangerous examples of the advantages of free institutions, while I would condemn the force so employed, I would applaud the force used by said neighbor if it should resist the tyranny. I am a believer in non-aggression, but opposed to the non-resistance of aggression. There is an important difference between non-aggression and non-resistance—a difference, however, which has played no part in the thinking of my opponent.

One of the points in my opponent's position seems to him to defy any contradiction. This is that whatever may be the practical shortcomings of his theory as remedy for present evils, at least it is ideally correct and will be the governing principle in the more enlightened society of the future. I regret being obliged to disappoint any expectations he may have of my acquiesence in this proposition. It is highly probably that society will not for some time rid itself of all forms of evil and of course the statement of the theory: nonresistence of evil implies the existence of evil which is, or is not, to be resisted. I cannot conceive of a society in the future adopting as a working principle so suicidal a theory as the non-resistance of evil. Any society persisting in such a policy would eventually disappear in the struggle for existence. Unceasing resistence to evil in all its forms is the first condition of human progress.

A long and profound acquaintance with the practice of law has taught my opponent certain rather clever methods of getting out of tight places. And so we are calmly informed that there is a kind of force that is not forcible, and certain forms of resistance that do not resist. Passive resistance, for example, is not resistance at all, despite its being called such. It seems to my non-legal intellect that force which is not forcible cannot properly be called force, and the quality of resisting must be present in all forms of resistance whether it be called active or passive. Contradictions of terms may serve as argument in the courts but not in this debate.

It is a very excellent commandment which says: "Thou shall not steal." Stealing is a form of agression, especially when it is practiced by the strong against the weak; and the great bulk of real stealing is of this order. Darrow will admit that the stealing by the ruling class of the wealth produced by the working class is real stealing, and he is no doubt as willing as I am to say to that ruling class: Thou shalt not steal. But suppose they ignore the injunction. What shall we do? Shall we allow their stealing to go unresisted? Our only course, it seems to me, is to fall back on the principle enunciated by Carlyle: There are two parties involved in any theft, the thief and the victim. If the robber pays no heed to our protest we must turn to the robbed worker and say: Thou shalt not be stolen from. People who allow themselves to be robbed when they could prevent it by resisting, have small claims to sympathy.

One of the aspects of non-resistance which damns the theory in my estimation is that it is so thoroughly in harmony with the desires of the ruling class.. I cannot conceive that tyrants of any kind could wish anything better than that the evil of their oppression should go unresisted. It hardly seems probable that the existing possessing class will give up without a bitter struggle and a non-resistant working class would be doomed to perpetual slavery.

Mr. Darrow seems to regard the state as having existed almost from all eternity. He regards it as a product of savagery. In this he is altogether mistaken. If the anthropologists are to be believed, the state is only about five thousand years old, while primitive communism, which had no state, endured for approximately one hundred thousand years.

The state dates from the break up of communal property and the beginning of private property in land. The principle of private property was extended to all means and modes of production as they developed and the state grew in power and importance as a consequence. Back of the state stands private property in the means of life. Capitalist property is the root from which the army, navy and police systems come forth. The state is a citadel built around capitalist property. The state is the grand weapon wielded against the workers whenever they grow restless under their heavy burdens.

Resistance to capitalist exploitation must begin at the state. The state, as a class instrument, must be wrested from the hands of its users, not to be used by its new owners to oppress others, but in order that it may be abolished. The abolition of the state is the historic task of the working class. This task can never be achieved by quiesence and non-resistance. It can only cotne as the result of long hard struggle. This sense of the necessity for resistance is already part of the worker's mental processes. He cannot comprehend the meaning of non-resistance. The thing looks futile on the face of it. He must fight back at all costs. The unions are founded on this idea. The future of the working class depends upon its ability to successfully resist oppression. Liberty and struggle are inseparably linked together. A struggling, evil-resisting working class is indispens-ible to future progress of the human race.

I am not in the least .interested in winning. It will make no difference to me who has the last speech, or who wins. .

Now, it is very evident that my friend's definition of non-resistance and mine are not the same. Perhaps this will prevent this audience from getting its money's worth. J do not know. But if you get any ideas it does not make any difference.

I do not understand non-resistance to mean that you cannot fight disease, or destroy bed-bugs, or take baths, or indulge in passive resistance. I do not think that anybody who has ever preached or taught non-resistance understood such a thing. Now, if non-resistance does include it, then I do not fully believe in non-resistance. I do not propose to run a theory down a blind alley just to hang on to something.

I think a man is not obliged to keep on working in order to practice non-resistance. He can sit down and rest if he wants to. And if all workingmen chose to sit down and rest, instead of working to satisfy the needs of the race, I would consider that was passive resistance, non-resistance. I am not in the least required to work.

Neither will I admit that non-resistance is a religious doctrine, except as the word "religion" might mean something it has never meant in practice. It might mean an aspiration for a higher fota of collective life, which it has never meant. It has always meant, a scheme for saving man's soul. But in that sense non-resistance has had nothing to do with it. Certainly these monks were not non-resistants. Because when the world was covered with the Dark Ages of religious belief and lack of intelligence, we had plenty of wars and plenty of Christianity. And the greatest wars the world has known have been fought on account of religious beliefs. Upon) one side were the non-resistant Christians, and upon the other were the Mohammedans and other religious sects.

It has never been any substantial part of the Christian religion. Now, of course, here and there great souls have been illumined with this thought and have taught it. But a religion is one thing, and a religious machine is quite another thing. And the religious machine has not only believed in resistance in this world but in the other, too; neither of which I believe in.

Whether non-resistance leads to pessimism does not interest me in the least. At least it is an open question. I believe the world is divided into two classes: the pessimists and the weak-minded. I am inclined to the pessimist side. But what that has to do with non-resistance I do not know.

My friend says he believes in non-aggression, but not in non-resistance. My friend is not a lawyer, but he acts like one.

When a couple of lawyers, twelve jurors, a judge, a bailiff, a lot of newspapers, and a religious public opinion send some poor devil to jail because he has stolen something society says they are practicing resistance to evil, because the man is a thief. My friend says that society is practicing aggression. From society's standpoint it is resistance to evil. It is dependent on the standpoint. I believe that is aggression. Society is engaged in what it believes resisting evil. They say, here is a man that has stolen something—violated some rule of the game—and we resist it by force, and we punish it. They call it resisting evil, and say it is wrong. It is wrong to commit aggression upon that man. If he stole, society is responsible, because under the arrangements of society that is the best profession he can get Or else you) might) say) with) Mr. Lewis that evolution

is responsible for it, on account of the way it shaped the skull, and the shape of the skull made the brain direct what he did. In any event, to harm a hair on his head, to inflict any pain or suffering upon the man, is wrong, and not conducing to the highest moral and physical development of the human race. The theory of resistance, and the practice of resistance of visiting force and violence and suffering upon your fellow man, is an evil theory, and can only produce evil results, near and remote, wherever you may find it

He says the commandment: "Thou shalt not steal," is no more sacred than the commandment: thou shalt resist stealing. It is just as incumbent on us not to permit stealing. True, under the moral code it is. But what are you going to do? Of course, nobody knows what stealing is. It is purely arbitrary. For a few men to fence off the earth and for another man to go over inside the fence and take something away is stealing, under the rules of the game. It is stealing from one man's standpoint, but not from that of another- The men who fence off the earth, they say the man who comes over is the thief. Mr. Lewis says the fellow who goes there should resist the other man. And society says, the man who fenced off the earth should resist the other man. It is a question of standpoint. If you admit either philosophy, then both have the right to resist, and it is a question of force, and violence, and punishment; and the question resolves down to this: under which way can justice be the best and easiest obtained.

• He says he believes in force for the working class. It has always been the same story since the world beganw and will be so long as the world lasts. Who will win? Will it be the rulers, fitted and equipped with guns, ships, policemen, and with jails; always equipped for war? Or will it be the poor, the weak, and the disinherited, who have nothing to fight with.

I would not be so much opposed to force if I thought it would win. But I have seen that game tried so often that . I know better. I think I know—that you cannot get justice that way. And suppose you could. Suppose the working class could turn society over, which they cannot—but suppose they could—and that they got the guns and cannons and swords, and they were the state, then what? Do you think they would do any better? I know them too well. Let me tell you. While the Socialist Party—I have nothing against that, except there are not enough of them vote the ticket—while they cannot muster a corporal's guard— every fellow wants to be the boss, and every fellow wants to make charges against every other fellow, and talk about him, lie about him, and gossip about him worse than a lot of women in a sewing society, and use all kinds of tactics to defeat him, and if they were running it they would not last as long as a snowball, not until they learn something. They would be just like the rest They have got to learn that the whole campaign is wrong. They have got to learn that punishment is wrong: that resisting evil is wrong. They have got to learn the fundamental things, charity, humanity, brotherly love, which is the basis of all of it.

Do you think all the trades-unionists are angels? If you do think it over again. They are not. There is a lot of them that are ignorant; some of them are brutal, and some of them are grafters.

Do you think if you stood society on its head, and gave them the guns, that all would be peace and harmony and loveliness; and that we would then practice non-aggression, if not non-resistance? No, you would be just where you were in the French revolution, where as soon as they got rid of the heads of the nobility they commenced cutting off each other's heads. It is what the whole thing leads to. It is in the theory of life as applied to the practice of man; to the doctrine they believe, and the life they live.

Do you believe in cruelty, in punishment? Do you use your tongue to condemn men and women? Do you use your efforts to get them in jail? Do you believe in punishment? If so, do you think your life and conduct conduces so well to civilization as the life and conduct of him who does not use his tongue and pen in that way? Or is the other theory right? Is the theory of love or hatred right?

My friend is wrong when he says that all strife comes from capitalism. It lurks in the human heart. It is part of the savage. It is in the beast, from there to man. You may go back to Egypt in the early scrolls and in their tombs and find the man with the spear, and the savage fights as much as the civilized. War comes from the brute, and if civilization means anything it means getting the brute out by teaching something higher.

My friend talks much about evolution. Of course I believe in evolution. Everybody does nowadays who has any sense, and that is not so very many. Is

evolution wan or is it peace? Is the tendency toward war or peace? Why, the higher the race goes upwards, the more it co-operates. There is little co-operation in plant life; there is none, except one to feed upon another. There is little co-operation in animal life; little in the lower orders of man. And what men of vision and insight and inspiration are hoping for is the time when the human race will thoroughly co-operate, when each person will not be seeking only his own good, but the good of every other man. Evolution will not be complete until war and strife and competition is banished, and cooperation and love, and fellowship shall take its place.

We are now informed that non-resistance is not a religious theory. Perhaps Mr. Darrow does not regard the New Testament, from which he took his text this morning as a religious book, or Jesus Christ as a religious character, or Christianity as a religion. Whatever I may or may not have have done I have clearly shown this theory to be an integral part of the religious systems of the Orient.

When workingmen are not satisfied with the terms offered by their employers they must decide what is to be done. If they decide to stop working their act is described by Darrow as an instance of non-resistance. Dar-row's claim cannot be sustained. If the men decide not to resist their employers they go on working. They only strike when they are determined on resistance and, in their estimation, the strike is a weapon used in a battle.

My opponent can gain nothing by calling this "passive resistance." So long as it is resistance of any kind it belongs to my side of this argument.

Mr. Darrow freely admits that society is the real aggressor in the case of the criminal, and the real evil is to be found in the behavior of society. The question of non-resistance here is: Should the individual who is denied an opportunity to live honestly by vicious social laws respect those laws and die without protest; or should he, claiming that life is above law, break through the meshwork and try to live despite the laws. According to the theory of non-resistance the individual in question should die quietly. Even Catholic theology is superior to this; the Catholic Church has always held that a starving person should steal both as a right and a duty. True, Catholics have perhaps never encouraged the practice of this precept except in the case of Cardinal Manning in the London dock strike.

Darrow would be willing for the working class to adopt force if he thought it would succeed. This is a frank admission of the validity of the argument I presented in my opening speech. Christ believed in non-resistance because he saw the strength of Rome. Tolstoy took the same theory because the Russian autocracy seemed impregnable. Darrow follows them in theory because he believes that in a trial of strength the workers would inevitably be worsted by their masters. Once more we see, this time Barrow's confession, that the philosophy of non-resistance is the philosophy of despair.

I believe in resistance. To me the hope of the workers lies in the successful issue of the class struggle. Not

the despairing Tolstoy but the courageous Marx has grasped the principles which will carry the workers to their desired goal.

The weakness of the working class is apparent rather than real. What the workers lack is not strength but intelligence. Once the worker has a real grasp of the real strength and significance of his position the bulldog and lapdog illustration will be reversed. The worker builds the cities, runs the locomotive and the steamship, maintains industry and thereby feeds, clothes and houses the inhabitants of the globe. Like Atlas, he carries the world on his shoulders. His strength is moreover steadily increasing. The capitalist class on the other hand is degenerating. The great capitalists were in many respects great men; but when their sons realize that they are beyond economic want by reason of papa's millions any strength or character that might have been forming oozes away and they become stage-door Johnnies. The workers in the final struggle will not measure blades with the real organizers of industry but with their purely parasitic, hare-brained and nerveless descendants.

Social evolution is paving the way for a new social order, an order in which there shall be no state because there will be no subject class to be kept down.. That new order will owe its birth to the long travail of the working class; it will mark the culmination a long story _# of resistance to the evils of class oppression. Then shall we close the first book of the history of the human race, a book saturated with the blood and tears of the workers of a thousand generations; we shall open a new volume and begin to write the first chapter of human liberty.

I. II.

III.

IV.

Ten of Arthur M. Lewis' Best Garrick Lectures on Questions of Supreme Importance