The two instances that have been cited of the accept ance by the public of a normal standard of living happen both to imply corresponding action on the part of the i state or its political subdivisions. In the first instance cited the state acts through its system of public charities ; in the second, through its health board or other sanitary or police authorities.
There are other equally striking instances in which the principle is enforced through wholly voluntary agencies. The agreement common in trade unions not to work for less than a prevailing rate of wages, the agreement to pur chase only in stores in which satisfactory conditions pre vail, and to purchase goods made under reasonable conditions, are illustrations. In these instances the primary object is generally supposed to be merely eco nomic gain. The concerted action is taken in part to secure an advantage over other competitors in the distri bution of the total income of industry. Very soon, how ever, when there are strikes or industrial disputes of other forms, an appeal is made to the sentiment of the community to sustain a standard of living, and statements are made, designed to show that under the prevailing conditions the income will no longer maintain the old level. Within the labor organizations the establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of living acquires constantly increasing prominence and increasing vital significance. It is more clearly recognized that the standard of living is not merely a collective name for the commodities enjoyed at a given time, but that, if it is to have real meaning, the elements which enter into the standard must be of real importance to those who enjoy them, and that they must be prepared to make real sacrifices, and to struggle, if need be, for their continued enjoyment. The method of enforc ing these considerations upon those who do not appre ciate them may be brutal, and, on the surface, uncharitable. Scorn and abuse may be the weapons adopted rather than patient and considerate attempt to enable those who fall below the standard to attain it. Gradually, however, the milder methods of education and persuasion, and, when practicable, material assistance, may be expected to take the place of the cruder and more cruel weapons.
For our present purpose, the significant fact is, that prac tically the entire body of organized labor recognizes the necessity of a standard of living, both in its material and in its psychological aspect, and may be counted upon to support a relief policy which rests upon the fundamental proposition that the community should not be indifferent to the distinction between those who have a normal stand ard and those who have not.
The first deduction from this principle to which atten tion may be called is that it is neither advisable nor necessary to provide relief for those whose standards are normal. To recognize a right to support as distinct from a right to be placed in a position in which self-support is possible, would be fatal to the continuance of those economic motives upon which our entire industrial system rests. Where there is in the family one or more able bodied, adult bread-winners, so that the natural and normal income of the family is sufficient to maintain the standard of living, charitable relief should invariably be refused' An elementary consideration is that no one should be given a choice between support of himself and family by his own efforts and support from unearned and charitable sources. Practically, it is true, the question never arises except with complications of attempted fraud or neglect of family or some other condition which may call for discipline, supplemented, if necessary, by the temporary, or even the permanent care of members of the family who can be protected, it may be, only by removal from the These modifying considerations, how ever, should not be allowed to obscure the fundamental principle.
That there is a similarity in the effect on character between charitable gifts and that which is obtained by 1 The relief, for example, supplied in the case of John Williams (p. 239) is seen to have been entirely unjustifiable.
2 The decision recorded in the case of Campbell (see p. 208) should have been that the family was entitled to no relief, unless the forcible removal of the children from the influence of such parents as are described, be re garded as relief — a step which does not seem to have been considered ad visable in this instance.