ce--the managers of it? Even liberal
labor men said that the idea was preposterous.

* * * * *

At this moment a citizen of East Braintree, Mass., stepped forward, and
advocated a compromise. He said in effect:

"The cause of our present industrial turmoil is this: The rulers that
govern our industries are not rightly elected. Our boards of directors
may be called our industrial legislatures; they manage a most important
part of our national life; but they are chosen by only one group of
persons. No others can vote. If Congress were elected by a class, as our
boards of directors are, this country would be constantly in a state of
revolution politically, just as it is now industrially." That was his
argument.

"Both those who do the work and those who put in the money should
rightfully be represented in these governing bodies." That was his cure.
If corporations would adopt this democratic organization, he said,
two-sided discussions would take place at their meetings. "These
discussions would tend to prevent the adoption of policies that now
create endless antagonism between labor and capital." And he went on to
point out the many other natural advantages.

This compromise was tried. At first it naturally made labor angry, labor
having been in exclusive control for so long. Many laborers declined to
have anything to do with concerns that were run by "low ignorant
speculators," as they called them, "men who knew nothing of any
concern's real needs." Ultimately, however, they yielded to the trend of
the times. Democratic instead of autocratic control brought about
team-play. Men learned to work together for their common good.

Of course capitalists and laborers did not get on any too well together.
Self-respecting men on each side hated the other side's ways--even their
ways of dressing and talking, and amusing themselves. The workers talked
of the dignity of labor and called capital selfish. On the other hand,
ardent young capitalists who loved lofty ideals, complained that the
dignity of capital was not respected by labor. These young men despised
all non-capitalists on high moral grounds. They argued that every such
man who went through life without laying aside any wealth for those to
come, must be selfish by nature and utterly unsocial at heart. There
always are plenty of high moral grounds for both sides.

But this mere surface friction was hardly heard of, except in the pages