The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-07-17
FoLLIBs OF TIE SOCIALISTS.

A profound distrust Of the laws OF nature,
which is another term for the law of God,
and blind faith in expedients of purely hui
man invention is betrayed in the following
propositions of the Socialists:
s. Prohibition of the employment of chill
dren under fourteen years Of age Industrial
establishments.
6. Compulsory education Of all children
under fourteen years of age. All materials,
books, etc, necessary in the public schools to
be furnished free of charge.
7. Prohibition of the employment Of female
labor in occupations detrimental to health or
morality, and equalization of wOmen's wages
with those Of men where equal service is per-
formed.
8. Strict laws making employers liable for
all accidents resulting through their negli-
gence to the injury OF their employees.
Nature has planted in each Individual the
desire of life and health. The instinct of self
preservation, and cOniugal and parental love,
impel each one to preserve the life and health
of those to whom they bear the conjugal or
parental relations. The duties growing out
Of these relations cannot be safely imposed
upon public officers and in their nature can
not be delegated. 1t might perhaps be better
for the ultimate welfare of the human race If
food and raiment were 50 abundant that 1t
should never be necessary for women and
children to work at all. When improved,
leisure conduces to culture and refinement,
But human lawmakers cannot by statutes,
and pains and penalties make food more
abundant or more easily procurable. 1t Is
better for woman or q child to work than to
starve, and whenever children under four
teen years are put to labor regularly 1t is to
avoid the worse evil of starvation. There are
many occupations which children can follow
without any detriment to the health and the
parent Is much more likely to determine
wisely and we'll as to the occupation of his
children than police officer. What security
can you give that an officer of the law, who
perhaps has no children Of his own, or who
knows nothing of the mental and physical
characteristics of ones children, will know
better than the parent what is best for his
children. Is it not much wiser and safer to
trust children to parental love and care?
SO in the matter of Compulsory educa-
| tiOn." In every family of several members
the children have widely different capacities,
physical, mental and moral. A course OF
study or curriculum of discipline which woulC
be advantageous to one child would be fatal tC
another. One child is best trained by slow
and gentle steps, under the exclusive care Of
q loving mother and for the policeman to steI
in and force him into the public school would
ruin him. Another boy requires the strict dis
cipline and severe curriculum OF military
academy. Is there any reason to suppose tina
apublic officer, elected by the people at ware
primary election, would have better knowl
edge of what is best Tor the children of {
family than the father or mother? Is thu
same man, while private citizen, utterly
incompetent to manage his own family, anC
the moment he is elected to Office and becom 81
a legislator, or school inspector, clothed with
infaIlbility so that he is able to wisely man
age every body else's children?
SO of the proposed interference with thu
employment of women. Have they not suf
ficient intelligence to take care of themselves
VIII they ever engage in an employment de-
trimental to health, unless it is to escape 9