the League, the explanation was made that the move was purely a political one and the bank was reopened. The point to be noticed, however, is that an endeavor was made to put the bank on a sound basis in accordance with good banking practice. The bank, however, was obliged to close its doors a second time, this time permanently.

A more serious indictment perhaps is the interference by the League with the courts of North Dakota. The control of the judiciary meant that the social, constitutional, and economic views of the League would be favored. This control was brought about by the election by the League of the majority of the judges. The judiciary, however, is supposed to be independent of politics and its duty is to administer and adjudicate the law according to legal precedent. The control of the judiciary by a political party means that the judge is not a judge but a representative doing the bidding of the party or faction that put him on the bench. The real function of a judge is to administer the established law, leaving it to the legislatures and to constitutional amendments to change the law and to keep it responsive to the growing needs of the age.

A fair statement concerning the League is that it was at first a movement ostensibly for the betterment of the condition of the farming classes; that

it was a protest against unfair grain grading, trading in options, and control of grain and cattle markets by outside business interests; and that it developed into a socialistic party founded on discontent and aiming at the advancement of the political and financial fortunes of its leaders and the destruction of the middleman, the industrial entrepreneur and the so-called capitalistic classes.

The weakness of the Nonpartisan movement lies in the fact that ideas and measures are handed down from a small controlling group. The idea of what is generally understood as coöperation is absent. The members of the League have no stake in the various enterprises, for the money is provided by the state. The success of such state-owned enterprises depends, of course, upon the efficiency of management and fidelity to sound business principles on the part of the men chosen to direct them. The absence of direct financial responsibility is a weak link in the chain, and, human nature being what it is, such a condition sooner or later will bring about a following whose main interest will be the loaves and fishes. Economic success and political success are different terms. Banks, flour mills, and grain elevators have little in common with politics.

It may also be said without fear of contradiction that even if all the grievances complained of

were real, there was little need of the Nonpartisan League as a political party. North Dakota is purely an agricultural state, and the farmer in the long run gets what legislation he needs, because the prosperity of the state depends on his prosperity. The real issues have been clouded and there has been too much calling of names. Economic questions ought to be settled by arguments based on facts. Vast and expensive enterprises, even if financed by a sovereign state, are doomed to failure unless wisely managed and based on sound economic principles.

VI

WHO PAYS FOR WAR

AXES are said to be unescapable, and this

TA

is especially true in war time. The matter of interest, however, is, Who really bears the burden of a tax and the further question concerning the reality of any scientific basis for taxation.

One school of economists says that no absolute rule or norm for taxation exists, and that taxation is not exact but is only a question of pulling the feathers with the least amount of squawk from the bird. On the other hand, many economists assert that taxation can and should be put on a scientific basis and that it is not merely empirical.

The question is not merely an academic one, because touching a man's pocketbook is touching a tender spot. A striking feature of public finance in recent years has been the remarkable growth of public expenditure by national, state, and local bodies. The phenomenon has been world-wide and

has been caused not only by increased preparation for war and by the burdens of past wars, but also by increased public improvements, outlays for sanitation and health, education in public schools and universities, parks and playgrounds, to mention only a few of the many causes. To this has been added the greater burden of the late war and the immediate need of adequate finances.

The present essay is an expansion of a review' of Our Money and the State, by Hartley Withers (Dutton). Mr. Withers is an international authority on finance matters and was formerly financial editor of the London Times. The book grew out of a course of lectures delivered at the London School of Economics and is marked by the same lucidity, sanity, and logic of expression found in the author's other books on public finance. The volume is a small one, but its value is in inverse ratio to its size.

The extension of governmental spending is brought out and defended in the first chapter. The state is not merely a police officer; it should provide not only for public justice and defense but for the public good in general. The most distinct and original part of the book is found in the discussion of the comparative advantages of borrowing

1 Janes, George M., "Who Pays for War?" The Dial, Oct. 5, 1918.