The Labor enquirer., 1884-01-05


ma1sss bow they ars robbed ~ cheated,
and hoy arp beg giinnine "a reaIise thss
lonly through revolution viii they obtain
thsir own, consequently the more blow
o1ts, the nearer revolution. And the
sooner comes revolution the sooner will
the world BE- uprighfed and 90 on in it
proper course.
But here is the sentence to which ]
desire particularly to call the attention
Of my readers: The money spent by
millionaires goes to better and more
worthy class than the POOR To cover
up and attempt to hide the cold -biooded.
beastly meaning of that sentence, he
further says, at finds its way through
the channels of trade to the deserving
industrious" Do you see what is here
meant, you, poor, miserable, hard-work-
ing poor man7 It tmeans that you are
to blame for your poverty that if you
were industrious you need not be poor.
If you have wife and four or five chill
dren for whom you work worse than a
slave to support on $1.5U per day, are
poor, it is because you are lazy. Can you
make it out? II your master reduces
your wages, or your health is to far gone
for you to work, you are undeserving.
In other words, there is no sense in any
of you being poor, if you will only be in
dustrious. The 100000 men in the east
ern working centers who will remain in
an enforced idleness until late in the
spring will be of the undeserving poor.
The idle men in this city, who cannot
get work to do at any pay, are of the un-
deserving poor. 4
Bosh! This same editor will rant and
kick like gored OK if set Of working
men ask for a 10 per cent advance on
their wages; and will logically show the
over.production which makes the dis
charge of 100000 men necessary, and
yet he can find no excuse for present pow
erty. Why, the fool who talks supply
and demand" wouldn't make such an
ass as that of himself.
{ There seems to be difference Of
opinion between the managing editor"
Of the News and the reporter who wrote
up the account of the "poor" man starv-
ing to death on Christmas day.
The News further says, tsThere is not a
laboring man in the United States to- day
who is not as we'll off as was the founder
of either the Astor family or the Van
derbilt family two generations age" The
man who wrote that sentence is either
more ignorant than think him, or told
a willful untruth-the latter was the
case, undoubtedly. These truths are
well known. All production is the re-
suit of labor !; all wealth is the accumula-
ton of production 1t follows that he
who has the greatest means of produc-
ton, accumulates wealth with the most
ease and rapidity. Two generations ago
there was not the Capitalization of the
means of production that there is to-day
Then all men we're nearer equal in the
possession of opportunities Capital had
not concentrated itself and formed its
vast monopolistic combinations If l
thought my readers lacked the intelli-
genre to see this clearly l could go into
details and easily prove my position; but,
l am pleased to say, 1.-The workingman is
not such fool as the News would have
usbelieve. There would probably be
little ground for argument if the News
had said that all men had an equal
chance with the Astors and Vanderbilts
two generations ago; but the assertion
the laboring man of to-day has opportu-
mites equal to those of the most insig
nifcant worker of those days, is non
sensical. -ss.. -.-,
And, if the Astors and Vanderbilts
were poor two generations ago, and made
their starts in life by their own.
industry, that fact will not account
for the enormous wealth they pos
sess to-day. 1t were utterly impossible
for any family to accumulate the wealth
of the. Vanderbilt of to-day in five times
two generations and do it. honestly. i
suggest that the editor of the News take
poverty as sum, and multiply it by two
generations of industry, thrift, good
luck, the best of business qualities and
very ordinary honesty and try to figure
it up to Vanderbilt's present wealth.
over 5000, 100000. 49,.
The article closes with the very self
consoling remark that, 1T is easier and
more popular with the unthinking to be
a demagogue than to be honest in speak
ing on such matters as this" It's all
right to call the outspoken enemies of
crime and oppression "demagogues."
The history of this country, short as it is,
even shows where those men, in a few
years, have been transformed into heroes
and pride of the nation. Washington,
Jefferson, Lincoln, John Brown, Garri-
son and Phillips were "demagogues."
Where do you turn to find their names
nowH So Washington was rebel; but
Washington Is hero.
AS for it being easier and more popu-
lar" There's certainly a mistake in
that. In the eyes of the editor of the
News, wealth is the great thing; and