Sch?ffle and Wagner may be especially named as having given a large space and a respectful attention to their arguments.Inparticular，the important consideration，to which we have already referred，that the economic position of the individualdepends on the existing legal system，and notably on the existing organization of property，was first insisted on by thesocialists.They had also pointed out that the present institutions of society in relation to property，inheritance，contract，andthe like，are (to use Lassalle's phrase)"historical categories which have changed，and are subject to further change，"whilst inthe orthodox economy they are generally assumed as a fixed order of things on the basis of which the individual creates hisown position.J.S.Mill，as we have seen，called attention to the fact of the distribution of wealth depending，unlike itsproduction，not on natural laws alone，but on the ordinances of society，but it is some of the German economists of theyounger historical school who have most strongly emphasised this view.To rectify and complete the conception，however，we must bear in mind that those ordinances themselves are not arbitrarily changeable，but are conditioned by the stage ofgeneral social development.
In economic politics these writers have taken up a position between the German free-trade (or，as it is sometimes withquestionable propriety called，the Manchester)party and the democratic socialists.The latter invoke the omnipotence of theState to transform radically and immediately the present economic constitution of society in the interest of the proletariate.
The free-traders seek to minimise state action for any end except that of maintaining public order，and securing the safetyand freedom of the individual.The members of the school of which we are now speaking，when intervening in the discussionof practical questions，have occupied an intermediate standpoint.They are opposed alike to social revolution and to rigid laisser faire .Whilst rejecting the socialistic programme，they call for the intervention of the State in accordance with thetheoretic principles already mentioned，for the purpose of mitigating the pressure of the modern industrial system on itsweaker members，and extending in greater measure to the working classes the benefits of advancing civilization.Sch?ffle inhis Capitalismus und Socialismus (1870；now absorbed into a larger work)，Wagner in his Rede über die sociale Frage (1871)，and Schanberg in his Arbeits?mter：eine Aulgabe des deutschen Reichs (1871)advocated this policy in relation tothe question of the labourer.These expressions of opinion，with which most of the German professors of political economysympathised，were violently assailed by the organs of the free-trade party，who found in them "a new form of socialism."Outof this arose a lively controversy；and the necessity of a closer union and a practical political organization being felt amongstthe partisans of the new direction，a congress was held at Eisenach in October 1872，for the consideration of "the socialquestion."It was attended by almost all the professors of economic science in the German universities，by representatives ofthe several political parties，by leaders of the working men，and by some of the large capitalists.At this meeting theprinciples above explained were formulated.Those who adopted them obtained from their opponents the appellation of"Katheder-Socialisten，"or socialists of the (professorial)chair，"a nickname invented by H.B.Oppenheim，and which thoseto whom it was applied were not unwilling to accept.Since 1873this group has been united in the "Verein fürSocial-politik，"in which，as the controversy became mitigated，free-traders also have taken part.Within the Verein a divisionhas shown itself.The left wing has favoured a systematic gradual modification of the law of property in such a direction aswould tend to the fulfilment of the socialistic aspirations，so far as these are legitimate，whilst the majority advocate reformthrough state action on the basis of existing jural institutions.Sch?ffle goes so far as to maintain that the present"capitalistic"regime will be replaced by a socialistic organization；but，like J.S.Mill，he adjourns this change to a more orless remote future，and expects it as the result of a natural development，or process of "social selection；"(6)he repudiates anyimmediate or violent revolution，and rejects any system of life which would set up "abstract equality"against the claims ofindividual service and merit.
