undermined the family morality of an entire race, instead of inculcating moral ideas.

In Africa the Negro lived in the normal stage of polygamy, which probably was no worse than the polygamy of the Mohammedans.

If the morality of the men did not reach the height of European ideals, nevertheless polygamy in all probability proved an effective safety valve. When wives were personal property the coveting of another man's wife like the coveting of another man's property called forth severe punishment. With the exception of the custom of offering one's wives to one's guest, the Negro women like the women of all polygamous races probably were more moderate in their sexual life, than their white sisters. The total and sudden destruction of the polygamous family without its substitution by a protected monogamous family could but lead to one. result irregular and promiscuous sexual relations. The African Negro was not familiar with prostitution. The Negro woman, who began as the possession of the slave owner or the overseer, and then changed hands from one owner to another, and changed husbands each time she changed her boss, and was often forced into separation from her children, even if it happened without any serious protest from her side, gradually fell to the level of a prostitute. And having caused this sexual demoralization the Southern slave owner pointed to, this lack of moral principle as an example of racial inferiority.

What wonder, that under the influence of these factors there grew the contempt for the Negro slave, which was later transfered upon the Negro freedman? Side by side with special legislation aimed at the Negro slave, the codes of the American colonies contained provisions intended for the free Negro. In the early days the freeing of the slave depended only upon the good will of the owners; and this remained the law in the Northern colonies up to the very liberation of all the slaves; but in the South an excessive number of freed slaves soon began to be considered a menace to the principle of slavery, and so the manumission of slave was made dependent upon administrative permission, to be issued by the governor. A wandering Negro had to prove that he was a free man; failing to do this he was to be sold at public auction. This is the final step in an interesting evolution of opinions. Towards the end of the 18th century the principle was established that "only Negroes could be slaves"; from this the next conclusion was drawn, that "Negroes could be slaves only"; and that each exception to that rule had to be judged on its own merits; besides the economic and social condi

tions of the Negro freedman in the South were scarcely better than those of the Negro slave. He was not permitted to travel from one colony into another; he was not permitted to own land, nor to practice professions and most trades, so that about the only trade open to him was that of a hired agricultural laborer, for wages which hardly provided him with a better living than what he had as a slave. Free Negroes could not appear as witnesses against white men, could not enter military service, had no political rights, but had to pay all the taxes on an equal basis with the white neighbors. I. M. ROBBINS.

(To be continued).

EDITOR'S CHAIR

The Political Outlook. The size of the Socialist Party vote, while not a matter of such vital importance as many take it to be, is always a matter of interest to socialists. And when all is said and done, the size of the vote depends far more on causes beyond our control than on our methods of propaganda, no matter how good nor how bad these may be. Let us take a brief glance at some of the factors that may help or hinder us this year. Our advantage four years ago was that Roosevelt and Parker alike stood for things as they were, so that the easiest way for the discontented Bryan men to voice their discontent was to vote for Debs. Now Bryan himself seems sure to be a candidate, and he will surely win back some of the old admirers who were with him in 1904. But he has been growing safe and sane these last four years, and meanwhile the Republican administration has been waging spectacular war on the Bad Trusts. So if Taft gets the Republican nomination, it should not be hard for us to show that the two old parties stand for the same things and that working people who want something different should come to

us.

If on the other hand the Magnates of the Bad Trusts succeed in putting up their own man in place of Taft, then doubtless Bryan's Third Battle will be as thrilling to the little business men and to the wage-workers with small-capitalist minds as was the first. In that case the labor conference of which our associate editor writes so hopefully on another page may even be stampeded for Bryan, and the socialist vote may drop to something like the number of revolutionists who know what they want. But this number is growing all the time, and the capitalists are giving us invaluable help from day to day in adding to its strength.

Two Points of View. When the Eisenachers and Lassallians buried the hatchet and consolidated into the Social Democratic Party of Germany, Karl Marx, an exile in England, protested. But the event seems to have proved that Marx was wrong and the German comrades were right. We are reminded of this by the contrast between the elaborate argument by Ernest Untermann contributed to this month's Review and the terse editorial by A. M. Stirton which we clip for our News aud Views department from a recent issue of The Wage Slave. Untermann is an exile in the mountains of Idaho, cut off from active work in the Party as completely as was Marx in 1875. Stirton is in the midst of the fight in the one Western state (Michigan) where the strength of the Socialist Labor Party as compared with our own party strength is the greatest, and where therefore the question of uniting or not uniting is of more practical importance than elsewhere. (And here it should be remembered t the motion for a unity conference was endorsed by the

He

committee of the Socialist Party of New York, the state in which probably half the membership of the S. L. P. is located.) We have not space for a complete review of the arguments on both sides. But Untermann's in our opinion represents the view of a scholar impatient of criticism and taking past controversies too seriously, while Stirton impresses us as a man in close touch with the vital revolutionary elements of the present hour. Only one argument offered by Comrade Untermann requires special comment. intimates that the rank and file of the S. L. P. are ignorant of socialism as compared with the rank and file of our own party. Our own impression, based on a pretty. extended acquaintance with members of both parties, is that the exact reverse is true, as should naturally be expected in view of the fact that the growth of the Socialist Party has been by far the more rapid and that it spreads over much purely agricultural territory. The average S. L. P. member, whatever unpleasant traits he may have, does usually know something of Marx, and if we could have him on the inside instead of the outside, he would be a valuable help in clearing up the ideas of new converts. With this work in hand, he would have less time left for hair-splitting, and the union of forces would thus make for general efficiency all around. Old animosities are of very small importance as compared with effective party work. Let us get together if we

can.

How to Get Socialist Unity. As we go to press, word comes that the National Committee of the Socialist Party has defeated Lee's motion authorizing the National Executive Committee to meet a committee of seven elected by the Socialist Labor Party to confer over terms of union. It has also adopted Berger's motion:

"That the sections and members of the Socialist Labor Party be invited to join our Party individually or in sections, and make their applications to our respective locals. All persons applying to pledge themselves as individuals to accept our Platform and our tactics."

It is hardly likely that this action will meet with any general and immediate response on the part of the Socialist Labor Party. The little band of enthusiasts who have strained their scanty resources for years to keep up their organization, for the sake of things that seemed vital to them, will naturally object to being swallowed so unceremoniously. Why not do as we did in 1900? The two parties which now make up the Socialist Party were then distinct. The rank and file for the most part wanted to get together. but the executive committees failed to agree, and a presidential campaign was on. What we did was to unite on the same candidates, elect joint local campaign committees wherever both parties were active, and get to work together. By the time the campaign was over, we were so well acquainted that the details of consolidation were easily settled with the best of feeling. The same plan ought to work in 1908. Let the Socialist Party adopt a clear-cut workingclass platform, and nominate two clear-headed workingmen for President and Vice-President. Let the Socialist Labor Party endorse the platform and candidates; then let each party, maintaining its own dues-paying organization, join in the work of propaganda and education until November, working together locally wherever possible. Then after election let us take up the question of organic unity again; it will be far easier than now.

Brains and Atmospheres. Put a first-class brain, with body and lungs to match, into an atmosphere heavily charged with carbonic acid gas, and it fails to turn out a superior article of brain work. And there are mental atmospheres as well as physical ones. Their

effects are not so speedy, but they are lasting. A brain receives impressions and draws conclusions from them according to the mental atmosphere in which it has moved. This is necessarily so. If a brain had to reason out each time from first principles an interpretation of each message of its senses, it would reach no conclusion till the time for action had gone by. Different mental atmospheres develop different types of brain. There is one of the big capitalist, one of the petty capitalist, the villager (probably Shaw is right in thinking this the commonest American type), one of the collegian and one of the wageworker in the great machine industry. The Socialist Party of America contains brains of all these types. Each has its own instinctive way of approaching a problem, and each is capable of modifying its instinctive way more or less by conscious effort. We are led to these reflections by the entertaining article from Charles Dobbs, published in this issue. We are not writing this paragraph to defend the comrade criticized; he is quite able to defend himself. What we hope to do here is to suggest a way to distinguish between the "intellectuals" who are worth having and the other kind. Of the social groups we have named over, all but one are survivals from past social stages, the city proletarian is the vital element of to-day and he comes nearer than any of us to the type which will decide how things shall be done in the near future. Hence we hold that, as a general rule, the proletarian's instinctive estimates of men and measures are more likely to be sound than those of people in the other social groups, unless these last have by persistent effort been able to modify their instinctive ways of thinking into something like the proletarian way. This we believe that Comrade Dobbs himself usually does, and so do some other college-bred men who are now active in the Socialist Party.

Unionism, Utopian and Scientific. A correspondent in our News and Views department insists on misunderstanding a signed article by the present editor of the Review which appeared in the December number. Any one who will take the trouble to refer to our article will see that we never said industrial unionism was utopian or futile. On the contrary we hold that industrial unionism is the logical outcome of recent changes in the mode of production. When commodities were mainly produced in small plants by small capitalists, craft unionism was logical and inevitable. Moreover it is always the case that ideas and institutions, like the organs of animals and plants, survive their usefulness for a while; they do not instantly and automatically transform themselves in response to a changed environment. So we find craft unions still the prevailing form of labor organization. But they are growing ineffective, and those that adopt the industrial form will stand the best chance of maintaining themselves in the fight against organized capital. The scientific way for those who see the desirability of industrial unionism to act is to point out this tendency; to show the practical advantages of industrial unionism right here and now, and to get real labor unions, comprising all the workmen in any one plant or industry, to reorganize themselves on an industrial basis. The utopian way is to urge the socialists in the old unions to leave them and organize rival unions, so as to be ready to run the Co-operative Commonwealth when it is voted in. When the campaign for industrial unionism in the United States is started on the scientific basis, we believe that something will happen soon. And the capitalists, as explained in our World of Labor department this month, are doing their share to help things along. Let us be duly grateful, and let us hold up our end the best

we can.