do naturally held back to see if the average would not improve so that all could be assured of a comfortable "inheritance", but the poor increased in numbers and the wealthy declined to dissipate their savings.

There is a tendency observable here, through these transactions, to lose sight of the economic motive. It may be laid down, as a safe postulate, that no plan of economic organization will permanently succeed which does not make basic strong economic motives for the individual. To be more specific, each individual has private interests and public interests. In both he is interested. As population grows, each individual's public interests tend, in the main, to grow rather more rapidly than do his private interests. Both grow as population and wealth increase. The United Order, by means of stewardships, places the essential private interests of the individual in his own hands. The econo mic motive is the making of a living for himself and family. There is no stronger economic motive known. With respect to public interests it is presumed that the civil organization would largely take care of these. Education, recreation, including parks, local transportation, communication, public health, public buildings, etc., would be among the things thus administered. They would be maintained through taxation and would be counted a part of the expenses of the individual steward in the operation of his stewardship. Other public interests of a religious nature, such as the building of temples and churches, etc., would be maintained, presumably, through donation, as has always been the custom in the church. The maintenance of the church and of the ministry could well be handled through the retention of the principle of tithing. What, then, is to be done with the surplus that goes into the treasury from those stewardships which produce a surplus? Is it to go into new stewardships for the benefit of the poor of other communities who might desire to "come to Zion"? By no means. The retention of desirable and necessary economic motives demands that the "surplus" be under the control of the members of the Order in the particular community involved. Under this arrangement the surplus would be used as capital to strengthen and enlarge the stewardships, to the end that the whole community might grow wealthy, if by any chance the effort proved successful. How, then, it may be asked are the poor of the community to obtain stewardships? Wherein is the leveling up to be? The answer is, through the consecrations. The consecrations, and the dividing of the inheritances into large or small stewardships, depending on the average size of the consecrations, is an entirely different branch of the Order from the treasury which contains the surplus. The former brings about a re-distribution of wealth, and provides

for the poor who belong to the community; the latter is made up of the surplus yield of the stewardships, and constitutes a barometer of the success of the Order. After the stewardship has been established there are two things in which the steward has a vital economic interest: his stewardship, and the surplus. If the surplus is handled by anybody other than the stewards of the community concerned, themselves, sound economic motives would be disregarded.

Again, local autonomy is a very important consideration in preserving economic motives. If there were a number of different units or communities belonging to the Order, some problems would present themselves which would require unified direction by general officers. But a certain amount of local autonomy is just as essential. To be specific, let us suppose that 1000 men with their families conclude to build a community under United Order provisions. Some are wealthy, some poor, while the majority are of moderate circumstances. When the consecrations are made and the stewardships are divided it is found that the average property value is relatively high, let us say $5,000 per stewardship. Under these circumstances the standard of living in the community would be high and if circumstances proved favorable to the Order, would tend to become higher. Suppose that the poor of other communities, in large numbers, apply for admission to this Order; and that the old members are powerless to forbid their entrance; or suppose that any other body than the 1000 who were members could determine as to whether these people should be admitted or not. From an economic standpoint such a lodgment of authority would not be desirable.

The United States, after many years of most unprofitable experience, has found it necessary to adopt stringent immigration laws. In like manner each United Order community must protect itself by proper regulations, governing membership to the end that the older members may be properly protected. Whatever gains accrue as a result of the industry of the stewards should be vouchsafed to the good of the community, and should not be allowed to become dissipated through ill-considered idealism. Poverty is a world old problem that has defied solution up to the present time. To concentrate and make cumulative the dif ficulty by congregating the poor together would be to foredoom any economic system to failure. Progress is slow. It comes through the application of effort along particular, definite lines. Seldom, if ever, does it come through unwise altruism. What a step forward it would be if a whole community, through staying close to economic fundamentals, and in consequence of intelligent leadership and industrious effort, could establish a high degree of industrial equality and at the same time gradually increase the

standard of living of each steward as the whole community grew in wealth. It would be soon enough to consider the question of gathering the poor of other communities after eliminating poverty from within. He who attempts to jump too far must expect to land in the ditch.

It must be concluded, therefore, in view of such considerations, that the action of the Hiram, Ohio, conference in attempting to handle at all the question of admission to the Order of those who, however worthy, were without property was economically unwise and tended to bring about dissatisfaction at Independence.

The establishment of the Central Board was a necessary step in the evolution of the United Order. Placing the general authorities of the church on this board was an easy and simple means of providing a way to take care of the material requirements of a number of them, which was a highly desirable and necessary thing to have done. It is open to serious question, however, as to whether the general authorities of the church who are concerned primarily with spiritual things are well constituted to do the work which such a board ought to do. The field which a central board should operate in is a highly important, but a confined one. There are certain general considerations which would affect different communities or units of the Order which such a board would be concerned with. It would also be in a position to gather material, develop statistics, and make general plans of production. Able and expert men, conversant with world conditions, the status of the various markets, and the prospect of increasing or declining production in particular lines, would be the kind of men who could do good service on such a board. Such men could not be found in this early period of church history. Practical considerations (large consecrations by these men) probably made it advisable to select such men as Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery. By concerning itself within the field which the local autonomy of the units should embrace, it would be an easy matter for a central board to wreck a system. For there is a big field which the unit itself must handle, and there are many questions which it alone should decide.1 Joseph Smith himself was not well qualified to direct a business enterprise, as experience proved. There is much to be said in favor of a central board selected because of fitness rather than because of high position in the church.

A policy has developed in recent years in the church which is full of promise. Able men in various fields of endeavor have been chosen to the apostleship and have then been assigned direction over the particular field for which their training and ex

1 Recognition of the principle of local autonomy is found in Doctrine and Covenants, Sec.. 51:10-11. where the Thomason Branch was directed to be organized.

perience have fitted them. Such a division of labor makes it possible to organize each field, and at the same time retain church control and direction of the work. Able men can be made use of under such an arrangement, and with their help greater progress becomes possible.

From a Central United Order Board with such an apostle at the head of it and with men qualified in different fields making up the balance of the Board, much might be expected. A man widely informed on the question of markets, one who could organize the field of markets, would qualify for membership on a board so organized; a man who knows the cycle, whose ear is keyed to the hints and warnings of rising and falling prices and who knows how to raise the trough of depressions and to lower the crest of inflated values, would be a logical member; a man acquainted with the problems of labor, who knows how to organize the labor market and who appreciates the wastes of labor turnover and the advantages of steady employment, would also find an attractive field awaiting him as a member of such a board; a man who has made a special study of central planning and who has the capacity to direct a department controlling the enlargement and curtailment of production in various lines would likewise find profitable work to do on this board.

Of modern nations Germany has made a much more extensive use of her men of science than have other countries, and has consequently made greater strides in diverse fields. Our increasing dependence on specialists is aptly expressed by E. A. Ross:1

"Team thinking goes on only among persons well matched in equipment. Hence, as soon as there appears in any field of special knowledge or training, with exceptional facilities in the way of collection of laboratories, travel, mutual access, and stimulating associations, the rest of us content ourselves in walking henceforth in the trails other men have blazed."

If the United Order were again placed in operation a most important and far-reaching problem would be to so choose the personnel of the central board, and to organize that board so that a favorable field would open up for the development and encouragement of technical information. Loading the board. with "general authorities" would tend to stifle progress.

1 E. A. Ross, Principles of Sociology (New York, 1920) p. 284; cf., also Robinson, Mind in the Making (New York, 1921), pp. 78-79.

CHAPTER VI

DIVIDING THE INHERITANCES

Two problems which early forced themselves upon Bishop Partridge's attention were: 1. Should those who made no consecrations (being too poor) receive an inheritance? 2. What should be the size of the inheritances? The first of these questions grew in importance as time went on, for the reason that the idea of gathering to Zion became so absorbing a one to the church membership that the poor crowded into Independence contrary to the established order of procedure, which was as follows:1

1. Those expecting to make their homes in Zion and any others who were sufficiently interested in the effort, were to send money to the church agent, Sidney Gilbert, who, as fast as possible, would purchase lands in and around Independence..

2. "From time to time" the Bishop and the Agent were to make known to the church leaders at Kirtland, how conditions were, "how many could be accommodated," etc.

3.

Before beginning the journey to "Zion" each one was expected to obtain a "recommend" from the Bishop at Kirtland or, in the branches, from three elders, who, in turn were to keep in touch with the Bishop at Kirtland. These "recommends" were to be issued only as the state of preparation in Zion warranted the giving of recommends.

By means of this arrangement it was expected that the church would be able to conduct "the gathering" in an orderly and desirable manner. But as John Corrill, who was then Bishop Partridge's second counsellor, later expressed it, "the church got crazy to go up to Zion" and the poor crowded there in large numbers. Many had sent no money ahead nor did they have anything to consecrate after arriving. To meet this situation it was pointed out to the people that the "revelations" required consecra- · tion. The leaders also decided that no one should receive an inheritance who did not consecrate. In a letter to W. W. Phelps dated Nov. 27, 1832,2 Joseph Smith acknowledged the perplexity of the problem and gave instructions that "they shall not receive

1 The details of the order of procedure are described in Corrill's Brief History of the Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints, also in the Evening and Morning Star (Independence, 1832-34) p. 15, and in the Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 57:15-16. 2 Published in Joseph Smith, op.cit., p. 298.