Litchfield enquirer., 1878-09-05
Possession and it's Rights.

sThe laborer is worthy of his hire"is a max i'm that no one disputes. Those who labor, in whatever capacity, are entitled to the reward of their toll, be it much or little. It belongs to them; it is theirs Ito have and to hold" to consume or to dispose of in any way they may see fit, within legal limits. But there are many who are disposed to glorify labor and to exalt the potency of this maxim, who are nev- ertheless striving to make it of no signif- canoe.
 If man by years of toll accumulates a large fortune as the reward of his labor, they are apt to deem him unworthy of it. He is looked upon as an exception to the rule, and his wealth is regarded, not as the reward of labor, but as the proceeds of the robbery of the unfortunate. Whatever he does with it, his acts are censured. If he, lives expensively, and spends hIs money freely in all directions, thus promoting the prosperity of all to whom it may go; or if he gives great dinners, keeps a coach and four, and indulges in all the lux uries which he can we'll afferd, then he is criticised as drone of the ehuman hive, and of nc advantage to the community. Some even indignantly declare that he ought to be set at work in some humble occupation which is perhaps already overcrowded. If he lends his money at the market rate, he is a Shylock if he keeps it he is miser, and if he invests it at low rate of interest-in government bonds for instance-language is scarcely sufficient to express the enormity of his offense in the eyes of many of his censors.
 And all this in the name of labor and in the defense of it's prerogatives Surely if this be reasonable, the old maxim should be changed. It should read "The laborer is only worthy of bare subsistence, for anything more than this is a reproach." But it is not reasonable. It is the mere vaporing of envy, or the delu- sion of ignorance.
 Labor is entitled to it's reward, and the cer- tainty of it's reward is the only incentive to it's exercise. If it's reward be subsistence, compe- tence or wealth, it's title is equally good, and it's possessor should not be disturbed or ham, pered in the full enjoyment of it in the one case more than in the other. Poverty is not a crime and neither is the possession of wealth They are both among the accidents of existence and to labor and the laborert they are both open and interchangeable. That the poor may be- come rich, and the rich poor, is proposition too well recognized to require demonstration.
 But while there are men who cry out against the rich, regarding them as malefactors, from whom the protection of law should be with drawn, it is a strange anomaly that all their detractors are striving for what the rich have been successful in attaining, and are only dis satisfied and discontented because of the lack of it. They may hate the rich man because 1C Lo dDlC IO ldlC CtClJ udys uuG they long to fare sumptuously too. They may jeer at him for driving out in costly equipages, but they would be glad to ride in as grand style. They reproach him for lend ing his money at interest, but if they had money they would do likewise. They may vituperate him for the way in which he sees fit to invest his money but they would claim the same privilege of private judgment which he acts upon. In fact, as one of their leading spOkesmen told them, ''Men are alike, take the small and the large. You will use the ing for himself, and the opportunities which the rich possess he said: eff held United States bonds that wouldn't waver, would like to see these panics, when could buy up my neighbours property for little or nothing" Of course he would. He has always acted upon that principle, and he has never taken a fee of $5 when he could get $5,O00. By that means he has accumulated his wealth, and by that means he retains it. But having it, he is perfectly free to invest it CT dispose of it in any way he thinks fit. If he chooses to run an expensive yacht just for pleasure no req s0nable man suggests that he should thereby be cut off from the sympathy of the communi- ty, and there are probably very few, even if they had the power, who would set him to catching porges so that he might be usefully employed.
 In short those who complain against the rich and their immunities are complaining against all that they consider most desirable In censuring methods and ways of making money or spending it, they are censuring the very means they are themselves using as far as they are able, and the privileges they would claim if their sphere of action should be en- larged And in decrying the right of owner ship in large amounts of property, whether landed or otherwise, they are disturbing the build. The fulfilment of their plans would be the death of what they desire. For any, thing which tends to render uncertain the re- ward of labor, or to imperil it's possession when attained, is an evil of greater magnitude than any of those which now confront the laboring man-BOstOn ddgertiSer