The Labor enquirer., 1884-06-21
capea shipwrsek by yeering 70 close to 2
rock of truth. as in the following in

Il 4f8nC8
aNeither in our state nor city govern
ments does the boasted and vaunted
division into two houses serve any useful
/ purpose Whatever. The two : : are
duplicates of each other"
He espoils it all and becomes foggy by
adding
"But If one represented heads only,
and the otherchieAy property and intel,
lligence, they would efficiently offset each
other and check the drift toward a gov
hernment by the worst
| The miracle involved in such a plan is
that ,.heads" are to be in one house and
Intelligence" in the other.
When man opposes universally ac-
cepted principles, and deals in fallacies,
| it is not to be expected that he will
always be found consistent. know
very little about the logic peculiar 10
professors, but this professor quarrels
with himself IN way that common peo-
pie easily avoid. Professor Denslow
makes no distinction between Socialism
and Communism; indeed 1 have heard
him, In lecture, speak Ola division"
of property and Socialism in the same
feonnection. No person, party, or sect,
whose theories apply to public matters,
/ has ever been found who advocates q
general and public division of wealth
yet the professor making the following
assertion = & s3a'il % 5ft 'S37 f1.sN
"No mistake in political economy can
be more wretchedly stupid than to sup
pose that the welfare of society would be
/ promoted by the dividing up of large
fortunes; and yet SO commonly is this
tenet held that not only those who have
never amassed any large fortunes,
or any fortunes whatever, but nearly
every person we have met among those
who have, hold that it would be better
for mankind" ,Gs ~ !;s% .t4. ts.is Is
Previously, in specializing on the pro-
gress of Socialism, he asks Il 4 .f-"s q
SIS the tendency to use in common
large masses of property to increase
until finally the associated mass shall
own the railroads, the mines, the manu-
factories and the land ?" :....,. ,.,...l
Now, who will claim. for an instant
that "to use in common Large masses of
property" is equivalent to "the dividing
up of large fortunes" Public wealth
(such as a sidewalk is never divided.
But this is not the worst of the pro-
fessor's blundering. He dwells On the
injustice of allowing the majority. whom
he calls 'the scum," and who pay no
taxes, the right to vote on measures
which control the property of those who
possess the wealth and pay the taxes; or
to use his own words. .i...l
"a B and C, being the majority. can
divide the garment of D among them
and cast lots upon his vesture because
they outnumber him." ....,..., ~
Involved in this, of course, is the idea
that the wealth, the garment, and the
vesture belong to D by an absolute and
unqualified right. Here we realize all
the beauties of capltalistic logic, for the
professor argues with equal emphasis in
another chapter, that wealthy man is
only custodian and not owner of public
wealth. Let US again quote his exact
words:
''The massive stores, shops and facto-
ries which he "a. T. Stewart) erected are
virtually the property of mankind in
their essential utilities. Even his marble
palace and paintings are the property Of
the world as truly as is the shell
that encases the coral insect after the
worker has shriveled in death" Further
proof is given by citing Commodore Van
derbilt and his son. ,r,.. ..,..
Observe that when the right to govern
on account of having wealth, and the
right to control the wealth, are con-
cerned, then the aristocrat is entitled to
absolute ownership ; but when his right
to the wealth is discussed he is only GUS
todian. The strange part of such s7sys-7
tenn is that the scum" the real owners,
have no vote in regard to their property,
runtil by shrewdness they arrive at the
control of it. ....., :
Another point arises. If paying taxes
gives the right to vote, what tis the stand
ing of the scum" (who of course drink
most of the whisky and chew most of
the tobacco and thus pay taxes as
against the aristocrats who are con-
stantly evading their taxes? Again, if
on the score of intelligence a man is
given a vote on account of being elected
to office three times, how many big
drunks per year ppst one of the scum"
pay taxes for, to entitle him to vote? 1
Professor Denslow actually claims that
the ability to accumulate or acquire he
never says produce) fortune by the I
doubtfully honest methods now in vogue,
should give a man more votes than real,
useful labor gives. Arrogance and false
hood are apparent in every page of his
work. Note both in the following: e.
Trade requires too much shrewdness,
and agriculture too much toll, to be
carried on by the trustees of corpora
tions:'' -. /
Trade is simply distribution, and justly !
requires no shrewdness. That trustees
should toll is entirely beyond supposi-