The star. (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1874-1875, 1875-05-15

aDle anu mgnt pe safely efected. ASIDE
from necessary taxation we would MOI
take a dollar or an acre from any man
We would only so change the system
that the producers of wealth would save
to themselves amuch larger share of what
they produce. This would only agect
future acquisitions.
Mr.. Wells says that before considering
such a policy 1--WE should first find out
how much we have really got to divide"
That has nothing to do with the ques.
tion because no "divide" is thought Of by
any one except the ''man OF straw
which Mr.. Wells has set up.
He says that we have but $1,000, ,000, ,O0C
of annual income, to divide among
100000 Of people, giving but SITS to
each person, or $700 to each family,
counting, as he does, four, while the
census of 1870 gves five persons to each
family, He proceeds to say that the
average income of our laborers and com.
paratively unskilled workmen is but $10C
each, or $4OO per family; while some per-
sons get average incomes amounting to
$175 "multiplied by hundreds and even
thousands" Mr.. Wells thinks this in.
equality is necessary, in order to save
any wealth for the annual increase oi
our aggregate capital. He thinks that
equal incomes would soon send ciyiliza
ton back to barbarism, because they
would no more than support the people
while the aggregate capital would be
gradually diminished.
Mr.. Wells is here again begging a ques
tion that is not anywhere in issue. He
says that incomes can never be equal
until mems brains are equal. Who
thinks otherwiseP Why should the
President of a learned association en-
ploy his great powers on 30 foolish q
question? We have right to infer from
his argument that because incomes can
never be perfectly equal, therefore they
should forever remain as unequal as
they are now, and, indeed, that civiliza.
tion advances in proportion to the in
crease OF this lnequantyl
No; the aim Of the policy of Justice Is
to secure to every man his due; that is,
80 much of the income Of labor as right
fully belongs to him for his valuable
service. Labor reform hath this extent,
no more.
Thus, after admitting that better dis
tribution Of future production is desir-
able. Mr.. Wells not only utterly fails to
make any suggestion for that purpose,
but actually wastes his precious time in
aiscouraging any thought in that direc-
ton. He contends that all efforts of this
kind would "tend to diminish produc-
tion," and, therefore, would be calam-
itous. On the contrary, just laws under
which the wealth of the country would
have been better divided would have
nearly, if not quite, doubled our produc-
ton. They would have saved society
the many thousand times $4,000 which
he says every idler, criminal and pau
per costs the country-counting his sup
port, the loss of his labor, and the waste
which criminals commit. We could
make this clear to everyone.
Mr.. Wells says that our wealth is yet
10 limited that the time has not come
for taking hold of this question. Mis-
taken man. Fortunate would 1t have
been had the true system been estab-
lished a century ago. There would be
scarcely an idler, criminal, pauper,
or even homeless family in the whole
land to-day, and our aggregate wealth
Would be double its present amount Of
$25 ,OOO, 900, 900, as Mr.. Wells estimates 1t.
The time never will come, according to
his notion, because the number of our
poor class will be greater, in proportion
to the whole population and our aggre-
gate wealth, than it is now.
Our readers are we'll aware of the
measures by which we would diminish
the gross inequality that now exists in
this regard. We would elevate the poor
more by justice to their labor than by the
paternal care of the State to which Mr..
Wells seems to look tor all the relief
that is possible. 1t will be poor relief,
except so far as the State shall secure
the good education Of the rising gener-
alton.