Was some service performed by one person for another? If so, the fact that the service was or was not accomplished by physical labor, counted for nothing. It might be equally a service deserving compensation, whether it was a physical or a purely intellectual service; nor was it held to be important whether the employer represented one or more individuals, or the employee one or more people.

On the Maxin-Stone (their legal code) was found this vital need of settlement of the fearful menace embroiling labor and capital, to wit:

“What think those who work for hire shall be oppressed, and shall rise in wrath to destroy their oppressor—lo! let their hand be stayed, that they shall obey Me. I say unto them, harm not the person or the property of any man, not even though by that man they be oppressed. For are not all brothers and sisters? Are not all the children of the one Father, even the nameless Creator? But this I command: That they destroy oppression. Shall things, which are less than man, rule over and oppress their masters? Seek diligently My meaning.”

The students of ethics interpreted this command to mean that the oppressed industrial classes should not harm the oppressing capitalists, nor their property. The rich classes were perhaps as much victims of circumstances as the poorer people; the remedy was, not in blind anarchy, but in eradicating conditions. This was easy, if properly attempted. The oppressed were a thousand to one of the oppressors. The majority of them held the elective franchise, and it was determined that as the government was the people’s servant, the proper method was to deal with the question at the polls, and not to employ violence against the rich.

Therefore the call went forth amongst all people to vote on the adoption of a code of industrial regulations, and to vote its respectful submission to the Rai (the Congress). Of the many articles and sections, I shall insert only those that are pertinent to modern times and troubles.