The star. (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1874-1875, 1875-05-15
n \. WELLS ON CAPITAL AED Ia.
B0R-NATIORALS SOCIAL SCIENCE
ASSOCIATlON.

BoR-NATIONALS SOCIAL SCIENCH
ASSOCIATl0N.
Hon. David A. Wells, President OF the
American Social Science Association,
delivered the annual address at the OPEN
ing of it's session at Detroit, on the 11th
inst. We have space to speak OF but one
Of the topics which he brought under
rs~..ccw- to-wit: The Distribution Of
Wealth and Income.
Though MIR. Wells is a strong man In
the support OF the system of things sub
stantially as it Is, yet like all other apos-
ties Of error, he is weak enough when he
feels compelled to meet the "labor re-
farmer" in the argument. Like all the
rest Of his school he attributes to them
opinions which. they do not hold, and de-
signs which they do not mediate. He
charges them with the purpose of secur-
ing compulsory division of the wealth
Rnd income of the country among the
people.
The Hon. Ex-Commissioner should
know better than that. We have yet to
hear Of ''labor reform" who advocates
any such thing. Some of these radicals
hold opinions about the currency and
concerning interest on money which we
do not indorse; but no one of them is 80
big fool as to advocate forced divi-
sion Of property. The farthest any OF
them 90 is to insist that the State shall
see to it that work is provided for those
who are necessarily idle; that, instead
Of giving them living by charity, the
etate shall enable them to earn their own
living. The charity which these re-
formers despise is pro taato, forced divi-
sion OF wealth, because it takes from the
xich and gives to the poor. They seek
to stop this division by being provided
with work In order that they may pay
for what they consume. However i'm.
practicable this method Of relief may be
considered, it is, nevertheless, in the
opposite direction of the policy which
lr. Wells imputes to them.
But the distinguished President of the
Social Science Association admits that
the wealth of the country is not as equit.
ably distributed as 1t might be. We
qnote:
Now that more equitable distribution
Of the results of production is desirable,
and that such a distribution does no I
take place to the extent that 1t might
without impairing the exercise of indi-
vidual freedom, must be admitted; but
before undertaking to make laws on the
subject it is OF the utmost Importance to
FIRST find out how much we have really
got to divide.
On reading this we hoped for some sug-
gestions for such legal changes as would
tend toward better distribution. We
are opposed to any division Of wealth
aaready acquired. We would not take a
dollar from any one except under neces-
ssry taxation; and even in this, per.
Aaps, we would not vocate so much OF
s'tdivide" as Mr.. Wells himself, judging
from what he says in another part of his
address. After showing that every life.
long iiler, criminal and pauper is loss
n the community of at least $4,000, he
says:
And thus it is that, reasoning from g
purely economic point OF view, and leay
Ing all moral and religious conditions
out OF sight, we arrive at an absolute
demonstration that the very best thing
society can do to promote its purely ma
teriaI interests Is to so far abandon its
old principle Of s'each man for hinaself,'
that each man shall concern himself with
tie welfare of his neighbors and fellow
citizens to the extent at least of seeing
that the devil be nowhere permitted to
take even the humblest and weakest oil
Me hindermost.
Mr.. Wells may here contemplate vol
nntary benevolence instead Of making
the State more 'tpaternap than 1t is; buI
q is an easy passage from this position
tn liberal taxation for the relief of the
community from improbable citizens
xhis would increase the annual "divide'
STOUT two and half cents on She dollal
n assessed valuation.
We are sadly disappointed in not find