As a matter of fact the American democracy both in its central and in its local governments has always practiced both methods of selection.  The state governments have sedulously indulged in a kind of interference conspicuous both for its activity and its inefficiency.  The Federal government, on the other hand, has been permitted to interfere very much less; but even during the palmiest days of national irresponsibility it did not altogether escape active intervention.  A protective tariff is, of course, a plain case of preferential class legislation, and so was the original Inter-state Commerce Act.  They were designed to substitute artificial preferences for those effected by unregulated individual action, on the ground that the proposed modification of the natural course of trade would contribute to the general economic prosperity.  No less preferential in purpose are the measures of reform recently enacted by the central government.  The amended Inter-state Commerce Law largely increases the power of possible discrimination possessed by the Federal Commission.  The Pure Food Bill forbids many practices, which have arisen in connection with the manufacture of food products, and discriminates against the perpetrators of such practices.  Factory legislation or laws regulating the hours of labor have a similar meaning and justification.  It is not too much to say that substantially all the industrial legislation, demanded by the “people” both here and abroad and passed in the popular interest, has been based essentially on class discrimination.

The situation which these laws are supposed to meet is always the same.  A certain number of individuals enjoy, in the beginning, equal opportunities to perform certain acts; and in the competition resulting there from some of these individuals or associations obtain advantages over their competitors, or over their fellow-citizens whom they employ or serve.  Sometimes these advantages and the practices whereby they are obtained are profitable to a larger number of people than they injure.  Sometimes the reverse is true.  In either event the state is usually asked to interfere by the class whose economic position has been compromised.  It by no means follows that the state should acquiesce in this demand.  In many cases interference may be more costly than beneficial.  Each case must be considered on its merits.  But whether in any particular case the state takes sides or remains impartial, it most assuredly has a positive function to perform on the promises.  If it remains impartial, it simply agrees to abide by the results of natural selection.  If it interferes, it seeks to replace natural with artificial discrimination.  In both cases it authorizes discriminations which in their effect violate the doctrine of “equal rights.”  Of course, a reformer can always claim that any particular measure of reform proposes merely to restore to the people a “Square Deal”; but that is simply an easy and thoughtless way of concealing novel purposes under familiar formulas.  Any genuine measure of economic or political reform will, of course, give certain individuals better opportunities than those they have been recently enjoying, but it will reach this result only by depriving other individuals of advantages which they have earned.