hand of natural selection, you place him in the soft, perfumed, daintily gloved, but far more dangerous, hand of artificial selection. Unless you call science to your aid and make this artificial selection that we call civilization as efficient as the rude methods of nature, you bungle the whole colossal task. You are doing this on an immense scale in industrial America. Your four millions are decreasing while your ninety millions are increasing. Has your Excellency ever heard of a differential birth rate? As Huxley pointed out, the character of the birth rate and its relationship to the death rate are the prime, original, basic problems of all politics. Nations have often perished because of their differential birth-rate. A difference in the birth-force of one section over another of one-tenth baby per family will soon alter the whole destiny of a people. And you have established a difference of a whole baby and a half between your four millions and your ninety millions. Moreover, all modern liberal statesmanship has rested its case upon two great sentimental nebulosities: first, that all men are created equal, and, second, that God will raise up leaders for the people. Well, all men are born unequal, and leaders come not by prayer, but by germ-cells. "The most unequal thing in the world is the equal treatment of unequals." Your difficulty is not that men are too unequal, but that they not unequal enough. The more you equalize opportunity, the more you unequalize men. Indeed, the whole aim in making opportunity equal is to make men unequal. And you have failed beyond all calculation to make opportunity equal. For, when you give the born hod-carrier, the born poet, the born philosopher and the born statesman similar training and education, similar social and political privileges and obligations, you have not given unequal men equal opportunity, you have given unequal men the same opportunity. You have not equalized opportunity. You have fatuously tried to equalize men. And this 4 [end]