poverty. Life is by its very nature opposed to monotony. Surely a system which attempts to impose monotony upon economic life is not suitable to it, and cannot hope to survive. Egypt's art declined when the spirit of originality left her artists. Greece rose to her great heights when her citizens were free, when her restless life vibrated along old and new channels, and when the spirit of adventure carried her commerce to all parts of the ancient world. Modern life, freer still and less hindered, has surged beyond the old confinements and through the exaltation of the individual, has found "revelation" upon "revelation” of life in new and in old fields and in every clime. The spirit of life, of newness, of originality, of adventure is necessary to progress. It is necessary to the creative instinct, and creation is but the expression and the fulfillment of the individual life. Let us see how, in the dividing of the inheritances these important considerations are handled.

"Wherefore, let my servant, Edward Partridge, and those whom he has chosen, of whom I am well pleased, appoint unto this people their portion, every man equal according to their families, according to their circumstances, and their wants and needs."

The first thing that attracts the attention is that equality is the central consideration. It is the working principle on which every decision is to be made. If difference of opinion arises, solution can be found by the application of this governing proposition. Every man equal. But there are different standards or norms by which equality can be measured. In an agricultural community where fertile land is plentiful, a strictly quantitative division of, let us say, eighty acres each would roughly achieve equality. Such a quantitative measure, however, is not the measuring rod by which Bishop Partridge was to be governed. Again, income might be made the measure and the stewardships could be enlarged or cut down until all received approximately the same income. But strictly income equality is not to be the goal of the bishop's endeavors, either. Neither is equality of gross product or equality of net product contemplated. What manner of equality is then desired?

1. "Every man equal according to their families." If an eighty-acre stewardship comfortably supports a family of five, how large an acreage of equally good land will be required to provide an equal standard for a family of eight? Clearly, it must be somewhat larger, though not necessarily in the ratio of eight to five, for the larger family may be older and may, perhaps, have reached its maximum number, and be nearing the period when numbers begin gradually to decline through marriage or otherwise, whereas the smaller family may be increasing in num

1 Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 51:3.

bers and may be confronting a prospect which will require, in the near future, as big an income as the larger family. What appears to be desired is that each father shall be enabled to give each of his children, no matter how large or small his family may be, advantages in developing their capacities and in enjoying the comforts and conveniences of life that are enjoyed by the other families in the community. If it so happens that the Order is successful and a relatively high standard of life prevails, productive power will tend to be greatly increased through this provision, for all the children who possess unusual capacities will have an opportunity to develop them. As I have already pointed out, such a situation would contrast very favorably with present conditions wherein industry, trade and commerce very largely gets along without the superior abilities of the children of the poor, for these abilities are in potential form only, and because their parents have not the means to train them, dwindle and die through disuse or find limited outlet in minor fields of activity. Equality then "according to their families" means inequality measured strictly from a family unit standpoint, but provides for a better equality by taking account of each individual member. Joseph Smith's individualism again finds expression.

2. Equal according to their circumstances. Two families may be equal in number but may legitimately require different means because of different circumstances. The professional man who makes his home in the city finds that he must pay more for rent and taxes, etc., than does the farmer in the country. The father who is sending his sons to college must make greater outlays than the man whose children are in the grade schools. The voice of the singer, the art of the painter, the insight of the scientist require initial expenditures of no small amount before the community can reap the benefit of their natural endowments. If unusual talents are not to be lost through lack of opportunity for development, the bishop must take account of circumstances and apportion inheritances in harmony with them.

Equality according to circumstances may mean numerical inequality, but it means that abstract non-existing equality is thrown overboard in favor of an equality which takes account of the actualities of life as they have been and are. Again it is the individual who has consideration.

3. Equal according to their wants and needs. In this third gauge of equality or limitation of equality a very disruptive element enters, for there are few things which have a wider range than human wants, or which multiply more rapidly under favorable conditions, or which vary more as between different individuals. And yet within classes there is considerable uniformity. The addition of the word, needs, making the two go together, simplifies the bishop's task considerably, and puts a restraining

hand on flying wants. But there is much in this stipulation. For preferences vary not only with respect to the amount of income but also with the character of employment. No one is in quite as good a position to select a vocation as is the individual himself. All cannot be farmers. or merchants, or manufacturers, or transportation agents, but many can be, and quite probably all can be accomodated in harmony with their individual wants, especially if a little care is used by the bishop in guiding productive effort into those channels which market conditions demand.

Equality of inheritance, bearing in mind wants and needs, might require some further numerical inequalities. A man who has a son ready to take a course in engineering in a distant conmunity may need a stewardship somewhat larger than a man who has no such want. A man in business or in one of the professions may need a fresh collar or more expensive clothing for daily use than the farmer would care to wear at work in his field, and his laundry and tailor bills will be somewhat larger.

And so the good bishop must know his people. He must know how many mouths there are in the family to feed, what the earlier circumstances have been and what the present ones are, what the breadwinner wants to do and what his needs are. Bearing all such things in mind the bishop is to divide the "portions” and bring about as high a degree of equality as the circumstances permit.

It is well to bear in mind that no matter how equitably the bishop makes his division, a considerable difficulty cannot help but be encountered due to changing conditions as time goes on. Since the stewardships are deeded to the individual, it is difficult to change their extent to harmonize with changing conditions, and it is certain that the returns from the stewardships will vary considerably, within a few years, after the division has been made, so that full reliance on equality in holdings in order to maintain equality is not possible under the United Order, nor, perhaps, under any system, in which private property is basic. Life is shifting and seldom accomodates itself to set bounds. An inheritance is apportioned suitable to a large family. Within a few years the family dwindles away, but the large inheritance remains; circumstances temporarily require large outlays, later lesser ones perhaps; wants vary and needs change. Realizing all these things the bishop would most likely, if existing capital permitted, make the inheritances large enough so that the probable, prospective, major, legitimate wants of each particular family would be satisfied through the industry of its head and the frugality of its members. As has been already pointed out the approximate equality thus attained would be roughly maintained during the changing conditions and circumstances common to family life, through the practice of turning into the common treasury all surplus beyond family needs.

CHAPTER XVIII

CENTRAL PLANNING

A gain of prime importance, from the standpoint of stabilization in production, arises through the fact that the bishop apportions the inheritances. Under present economic conditions anyone is theoretically free to undertake any new enterprise that he may desire to engage in. If his judgment is wrong, he fails; if he has gauged the market correctly and conditions are otherwise favorable, he succeeds. Such is free enterprise. Needless to say it has most important positive advantages, as well as some serious drawbacks. Under the United Order no new stewardships, or entrepreneur undertakings, are established without a joint understanding between the individual concerned and the bishop, who together determine what the stewardship is to be, and the extent of it. While it may be presumed that the individual would make the proposals, the steadying hand of the bishop would prevent the launching out into fields already over-crowded, or in others where social needs were not such as to warrant expansion.

The potato crop furnishes a good example of the difficulty which too much freedom of enterprise brings. Each spring the farmer hazards a wild guess on how big the potato acreage is going to be and then proceeds to plant his crop. Not until sometime after every farmer has his seed in, does anyone know whether the nation's potato crop is going to be too large or too small. Entire freedom of enterprise such as the farmers enjoy often results in so large a yield that potatoes are not worth taking out of the ground. Too much free enterprise tends to destroy its usefulness. Most farmers would be very glad to get a litle good information on how many potatoes he ought to plant, before he plants. Such information can be had only by planing at the center.1

The decentralized demand for labor in America exemplifies another weakness of unrestricted freedom of enterprise. In order that the various industries may be kept moving, and wth the absence of a comprehensive organization of the labor market, it has been nececsary to keep always on hand a great labor reserve which numbers, in normal times, from one and one half to three millions of men. These workers are idle and either they, or those who take their places, to keep the quota full, must always remain idle. The lamentable position these men and their families occupy, constitutes one of the costs of a faulty system. The establishment of a strongly centralized federal employment system would greatly relieve this difficulty. A poorly organized United Order system

1 cf., Jones, Economic Crises (New York, 1900,) p. 41.

might easily fail to provide any remedy for such a situation. United Order machinery, however, would lend itself quite readily to a satisfactory solution of the problem if adequate steps were taken to achieve this result. The Central Board is not only strategically well situated to engage in central planning of the kind that would tend to lessen cyclical fluctuations and to dovetail seasonable industries but could very well turn its attention to the conservation of the Order's labor power. From its centralized position and its close connection with the various United Order units, an effective employment agency could well be operated. The fact also that in each unit or community, new stewardships are established only through the joint efforts of the steward and the bishop, would tend to stabilize the demand for labor and to diminish the need for a large standing labor reserve. An effective organization of the labor market would not be difficult under the United Order.1

The United Order offers unusual opportunity for the development of the whole field of central planning. In order to take care of the situation adequately the bishop's office would need to have, readily available, information compiled by a highly organized technical staff, which in turn would have at its immediate command accurate statistics on production and reliable information on local, national and world markets. Such a staff would probably be maintained by the Central Board. Only with this kind of help would it be possible to effectively fit the stewardships into a logical and harmonious system. Equipped with such information the bishop would be able to give to the steward concerned, just that information which under entire freedom of enterprise the individual has been so badly in need of but could not get, except in very large establishments. If a spirit of cooperation were maintained between the bishop and the stewards, there seems to be little reason for expecting much loss from the free enterprise angle. Everything depends on whether the bishop's office performs its functions as the organ of the Order and solely in its interests, or not. There appears to be no reason why it should not function in this manner. If so operated, the loss to free enterprise would be small and the gains large. Most of the present big wastes in production—crisis, depression, cyclical and seasonable unemployment of men and machines, etc., could be largely ironed out by fitting the new stewardships into a well-worked out system.

There is another point at which the cyclical problem can also be attacked under the Order; namely, in disposing of the surplus for improvements, but this will be discussed in connection with the surplus. Here it may be pointed out that, since control of the treasury into which the sulplus goes is exercised through the Order officers, these men will also have an important part in

1 cf., Lescoheir, The Labor Market (New York, 1919), pp. 161-199.