The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1883-06-13
Is Extravaganza a Blessing 2
We cut the following from the agricult-
nral department of the Freeman:

80 IL costs about Sl25, OOO a year to sail and
keep in repair the four yachts kept for the use
of Queen Victoria. That amount of money
would keep from starving five hundred fami-
lies for one year. But the dignity and pleasure
of royalty must be maintained even though
thousands of common people perish Of hunger
The above paragraph we find floating about,
showing how short-sighted some people are
The inference to be drawn from it is that by
her spending that amount of money on her
yachts, poor people must by just so much
suffer want and deprivation, while the oppo-
site is the fact. The wants and extravagances
of the rich are the blessings of the poor This
$125000 is neither thrown into the sea or
burned up. 1t pays the sailors, carpenters
rigg srs the painters, cordage makers and pro-
visioners and through them, filters back through
all industries and trades to the producers of
the raw material. Such rich people are a
blessing to the community in which they live
but unthinking people who feel that they are
misused, because somebody else has more
money than they, give voice to their discomfort
and envy in such unjust and unreasoning para
graphs as the one at the head of this article"
"In the kingdom of the blind men, the
one-eyed man is king" says an old prov
erb. Our brother agricultural editor is
thoroughly convinced that he is legiti-
mate claimant for the royal ermine as
against the "short-sighted people who
think public money might be better spent,
in the alms-house be-dotted realm of Vic
toria, than paying it out at the rate of
1925 900 dollars a year on the Q deen's
pleasure boats. This money is first
squeezed out of the people, and then paid
back to some of them for labor utterly
unproductive, and useless towards any
other end that the mere luxury of an
over-paid and practically worthless figure
head to nation perfectly capable of rul-
ing itself without any such costly excres-
cence. This case is not worth discussing.
1t gives itself away in the stating of it.
But our friend brings forward another
case, which he probably thinks a good
deal stronger. Here it is:
"a wealthy man built an elegant house, fin
ished in fine style, and when done it did not
suit him, so he had part OF 1t taken down, the
handsome costly roof taken of, and built over
with such alterations and additions as he fan
cied, and with what result Why this-that
people said how extravagant he was, Just
throwing away money, that the amount he was
spending on those needless alterations would
have built comfortable houses for several poor
men. Well, that was just what he was doing,
giving employment to a small army of me-
chanics and laborers at fair wages for labor
they could not have had if he had been more
easily suited with his house."
1t is probable that any intelligent man
of wealth who may chance to read the
above paragraph will hope for better ad-
vocate or none at ALL There is no hostil.
ity to rich men necessarily implied by the
criticisms upon the individual referred to.
In the rst place the term "rich man is
a very vague one. There are a great
many towns in which man possessing
property to the amount of $4,000 would
be called rich man, while in our great
cities million hardly entities one to that
name. We happen to have had neigh
Dor, farmer, who, having streak of
luck in growing large and very profit
able crop, tore down his old house and
built another that cost him so mnch more
than all his bonanza that when it was fin
ished he had $4,000 mortgage on it. He
was one of Brother Tinkham's public
benefactors. He never made another
good strike, and couple of years ago the
mortgage took possession, and he finds the
$4,000 house an entire hindrance to SELL
ing the farm, because money enough can
not be made upon it to keep the house in
repair. The farm will be sold without
the house, and the house will be left to rot
down, simply because nobody who will
live where it is can afford to live in it.
The fact is that labor laid out in such
foolish ways is worse than wasted, be-
cause, as in the case of queens steamers
and the millionaire's palace, not only the
first cost is gone, but there is continual
drain ever after to keep them up and it
would be a blessing to have them burned,
if we could be sure they would never be
replaced. The fact that in such work
money is distributed amongst laboring
men does deceive "shortsighted people
with the notion that it is good thing
But the public instinct goes right to the
point and hits the nail upon the head
when it protests against the waste of the
whole transaction. What constitutes the
real wealth of a nation-that wealth
which stands between the people and
want Is is palaces and steam yachts,
like Queen Victoris's, Vanderbilt's or Jaw
Gould's. No political economist will say
so. Instead of being wealth, these things
are constant drain upon the wealth of
country, because they constantly waste,
but never produce. Their first cost is
only part of the loss; they are wealth
consumers as long as they last. And who
produces the wealth thus daily wasted :?
1t is the working men of the nation, and
every dollar so wasted for luxurious pleas
ure is dollar taken from the humble
comforts that would make the poor man s
family happy.
Let us take the city of Boston for in
stance. Go up and down its hundreds of