Martinsburg independent. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1875-1900, 1891-05-02
TIE RICH AND THE POOR.
Discussion on the Duty Of the Former
to the Latter.

April Cardinal, Gibbons, discussing
the unhappy condition Of the poor
says the rich have therein a duty to
perform. In q recent issue Of the
Neic York Sun Matthew Marshall
takes exceptions to the Cardinals
utterances, and hangs over column
on what he assumes to be the defini-
ton Of the word 1duty.n Mr.. Mar
shall is not usually 50 ssfnicky, = ard
rarely stoops to quibbling, but in
this case he certainly writes as
though he lacked confidence in his
cause or failed TO recognize the
question as at all serious one. Let
it be understood that the gentleman
who has for years written on finan-
cial and social questions in the Sun
over the name Of Matthew Mar
shall is rich man himself, well
known figure in 1.-THE street, and
fair sample Of the offspring Of CAPT.
talism. make this statement that
my readers may know in q general
way something Of the environment
Of the man whose utterances we are
now considering.
As before intimated, Mr.. Marshall
dislikes the use of the word duty
in Cardinal Gibbons article. He
also objects to 'obligation," "owe"
and fought" He is willing that the
rich should give to the poor, but it
must be understood that they are
actuated solely by feelings Of benevo
lence. The rich lowe" the poor
nothing, and what they give to alle-
viate suffering must be labelled
charity" Here are his exact
words: "The rich man owes no
duty to the poor for the non-per-
Torrance of which any other man
has right to call him to account"
When a rich man protests SO strong
ly as this it looks very much as if
his conscience had been aroused by
the grip epidemic and was troubling
him.
Cardinal Gibbons discussed the
question from the standpoint Of
Christianity, as a religious man, and
all Mr.. Marshall's juggling with
words will never alter the fact that
it is clearly the ssdutyn Of tho Chris
tian to succor the poor to the full
extent Of his ability. | need not
quote the Gospel to prove this; its
many utterances on the subject
are familiar. Mr.. Marshall knows
what the scripture lays down, but he
says the texts will not bear the
literal Interpretation put upon them.
/ don t know if he is a christian, but
judging from his writings | think be
is--one of the one-day-in seven Wall
street kind. But leaving religion
out of the discussion, and taking
the question on the ground of simple
justice, / think it possible to prove
Mr.. Marshall IN error.
he talks about "debts" and the
processes of their collection. He
does not pretend that it IS legal
question, yet at times discusses it as
II it were, and leaves the impression
that if there was law compelling
the rich to give to the poor it would
be all right and their duty SO to do.
It is really painful at times 10 wit
ness how much respect the plutocrats
and theis spokesman have for the
law-right or wrong. If the rich
"owe" the poor anything then they
are debtors, and "there cannot be a
debtor without somebody's being
creditor. and if anything is . duty
it is duty to some one who can In
sist upon its fulfllment.u Agreed.
The rich are the debtors Of the poor
because they have become rich
through appropriating the share Of
the poor in natures gifts to all her
children, and By Withholding from
actual producers the product Of their
toll. In other words. the rich
sowen the poor The wages they have
withheld, the withholding 81 hich
has made them rich.
The land barons aouen The poor
for the millions Of acres they have
gobbled up; the transportation kings
sowe' the people for the franchises
they have obtained BY bribery, and
through which they have robbed the
public; the manufacturing and min
ing lords aowen the workers whose
necessities have made them an easy
prey for the selfish and Inscriptions.
fr41 = - Il 80. ! = 4 81 -