The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1883-03-03

S pass unchallenged.
S Let us notice some distinctions whic
are of prime Importance to correct con
: sideration of the subject which we inten,
, to treat. Certain ills belong to the hard
: ships of human life. They are natural
They are part of the struggle with natur
for existence. We can not blame gu
fellow-me for our share of these NJ,
, neighbor and are both struggling to FREE
, ourselves from these ills. The fact tina
my neighbor has succeeded in thi
struggle better than I constitutes III
grievance for me. Certain other ills ar,
due to malice of men, and to the imper
fections or errors of civil institutions
These ills are an object of agitation, anG
subject of discussion. The former elias.
of ills is to be met only by manly effort
and energy. The latter may be corrected
by associated effort. The former class
of ills is constantly grouped and general
lied, and made the object of socia
schemes We shall see what that means.
The second class of ills may fall on
take the form of interference by one elias,
on behalf of another. The last fact is nc
doubt the reason why people have been
led, not noticing distinctions, to believe
that tht same method was applicable to
the other class of ills. 1t will also be
important, in order to clear up our ideas
about the notions which are in fashion.
to note the relation of the economic to
the political significance of assumed
duties of one class to another. Great
confusion and consequent errors pro-
duced by allowing these two elements to
become entangled in the discussion.
Especially we shall need to notice the at
tempts to apply legislative methods of
reform to the ills which belong to the
order of nature,
There is no possible definition of "a
poor man. A pauper is person who
can not earn his living; whose producing
powers have fallen positively below his
necessary consumption; who can not,
therefore, pay his way. A human society
needs the active cooperation and produc-
tive energy Of every person in it. A man
who is present as a consumer, yet who
does not contribute either by land, labor,
or capital to the work of society, is a
burden. On no sound political theory
ought such a person to share in the poll
teal power of the state. He drops out
of the ranks of workers and producers.
Society must support him. 1t accspts
the burden, but he must be cancelled
from the ranks of the rulers likewise.
So much for the pauper. About him no
more need be said. But he is not the
''poor man. The poor man is an elastic
term under VINO. any number orsociaT
fallacies may be hidden.
Neither is there any possible definition
of 1.-THE weak" Some are weak in one
way and some in another, and those who
are weak in one sense are strong in an
other. In general, however, it may be
said that those whom humanitarians and
philanthropisJts call the weak are the ones
through whom the productive and con-
servatIve forces of society are wasted.
They constantly neutralize and destroy
the finest efforts of the wise and indust-
rious, and are dead weight on the
society in all its struggles to realize any
better things. Whether the people who
mean no harm, but are weak in the essen
tial powers necessary to the performance
of ones duties in life, or those who are
malicious and vicious, do the more mis-
chief, is question not easy to answer.
Under the names of the poor and the
weak, the negligent, shiftless, inefficient,
silly. and imprudent are fastened upon
the industrious and prudent as respon-
sibility and duty, On the one side the
terms are extended to cover the idle, in
temperate, and vicious, who, by the
combination, gain credit which they do
not deserve, and which they could not
SSG IL NhSS Sloou alOHC. VII llC OGucT
hand, the terms are extended to include
wage-receivers of the humblest rank,
who are degraded by the combination.
The reader who desires to guard himself
against fallacies should always scrutinize
the terms ''poor" and 'weak" as used,
SO as to see which or how many of these
,Io 10 %
The humanitarians, philanthropists,
and reformers, are looking at the facts of
life as they present themselves, find
enough which is sad and unpromising in
the condition of many members of society.
They see wealth and poverty side by
side. They note great inequality of social
position and social chances. They eagerly
set about the attempt to account for
what they see, and SO devise schemes for
remedying what they do not like. In
their eagerness to recommend the less
fortunate classes to pity and consider
alton, they forget all about the rights of
other classes they gloss over all the
faults of the classes in question, and they
exaggerate their misfortunes and their
virtues. They invent new theories of
property, distorting rights and perpet-
rating injustice, as any one is sure to do
who sets about the reimbursement of
social relations with the interests of one
group distinctly before his mind, and the
interests of all other groups thrown into
the back ground. When l have read
some of these discussions | have thought
that it must be quite disreputable to be
quite dishonest to own pro-
perty, quite unjust to go ones own way
and earn ones own living, and that the
only really admirable person was the
good for nothing. The man who by his
own effort raises himself above poverty
appears in these discussions to be of no
to raise himself above poverty finds that
the social doctors flock about him, bring.
lug the capital which they have collected
from the other class, and promising him
the aid of the state to give him what the
other had to work for In all these
schemes aud projects the organized inter
vention of society through the state is
either planned or hoped for, and the
state is thus to become the protector and
guardian Of certain classes. The agents
who are to direct the state action are, of