Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1892-08-31

Carnegie had neither plant no material,
but that they have since been produced
by the toll of his laborers, 1.-The party
of the first part" and if 1t is contended
that this is not the set of hands whose
labor was mortgaged Cbonded) by Mr..
Carnegie for plant and material" then
some other set of hands produced all the
wealth Mr.. Carnegie owns and their
prospective labor was the only security
he had to offer for money to invest /
can also take the broader ground that,
as all material wealth is produced by
manual toll, men who become capital
lists must absorb wealth produced by
others
You next introduce the tariff ques-
tion. That cuts no figure, as the same
condition of affairs exists in free trade
England as in protectionist America
You then say:
If IL is that labor is entitled to a share in
the profits OF an industry over and above The
wages which It has accepted as a just compen-
Sation, that interest must be organic and re-
ciprocal II the Homestead laborers are part
ners In owners of the Carnegie steel works be-
cause they have labored in that industry, then
Mr.. Carnegie and his associates partners In
the savings and personal property of the labor
ers, because the fact that they have such pos
sessions Is PROOF InaI tney nave received from
the industry more than the cost OF living. This
Is communism pure and simple.
In this statement, or at least in all of
it but the last sentence, you are strictly
logical and fair. But Mr.. Carnegie has
had a living all this period and much
better one than his workmen have had
and he has spent much more money
than any one of his workmen has spent.
-
Mr. Carnegie is not entitled to as much
to eat and as much money to spend as
all of his workmen together, but only
to as much as each one of his worlxmen
has had upon an average. Observing
this rule it will be found that, instead
of having any interest in his workmen's
personal property or savings on account
of the past, he owes each one of them
more or less But waive that point and
see how they stand at the present. Has
any one of his workmen anything like
the amount of personal property that
Mr.. Carnegie has? Is not his personal
property and residence estates and
grounds worth more than the personal
property and savings of all his work.
men together? Is he entitled to any
more than the average for one of his
workmen? That still leaves the Joint
ownership of the steel works and Mr..
Carnegies millions of dollars unrecog-
nized and the property all in his hands
But this is not Communism pure and
simple. In fact there is no commun-
ism about it Communism demands a
common ownership of everything and
the egation of individual rights in
property. I am contending merely for
the common ownership of indivisible
wealth by those who jointly produce it
and the equitable division of divisible
property among those who jointly GRE
ate it by their labor of brain and Drawn.
There is nothing that savors of COM
munism about that
You next say:
Such joint ownership carries Joint RESPONSE
blitieS rs well Joint benefits In other |
words, as the laborers claim share in the |
profits thev must assume a share in whatever |
losses may occur. In a less prosperous enter
prise or bankrupt enterprise they would still
be partners liable for the debts of the firm.
The development of this view in the division of
profits shows it to be communism; in the diyis-
ion of losses shows it to be absurd
Your premise is well taken and your
conclusion sound; the paragraph as a |
whole is logically correct, except. as |
before, the last sentence. But do not |
the laborers assume and have they not |
always been compelled to assume "a
share in whatever losses may occurY' |
Take the very case in issue. BY reason
of improved machinery and extra skill
of his laborers, Mr.. Carnegie has been
able to greatly reduce the cost of a ton
of steel billets and at once reduced the
selling price in the market He claimed
that reduction as loss and asked his
laborers to assume a share" of it in
reduced wages Do not trusts and
combines in unprotected industries shut
down portion of their factories and
throw labor out of employment without
reimbursement? Do not single indi-
vidual factories shut down when profits
are light or nil, and thus force unem-
ployed labor to stand all the loss? Not
only is the proposition not absurd, but
1t is simply statement of the regular
actual practice in vogue. The laborer
does share the losses. Why should he
not also share the profits? and what
right has Mr.. Carnegie to declare the
partnership dissolved, but refuse to di-
vide the divisible joint property? and
can partnership be dissolved except
by mutual consent of both parties there
to?
Your next proposition is as follows:
Edltor Ward gets entirely away FROM the
OASIS OF civil and Industrial conditions which
tne news conceived in its former argument
Inc news was not discussing the abstract ius-
tlce OF the advantages which the law has given
Mr. Carnegie In the pursuit and possession of
gain Ignoring that question as practically tr-
reaevant the News only recognized his right as
r1ItH fv
enter into limited contracts with laborers the
equal rights OF laborers as citizens with the
same 1ursoictlon TO enter into limited contracts
win Mr.. carnegie and the equal rights of both
parties 10 the protection of the law in the exc
cutlon OF the contracts To revolt against this
jurisdiction is to renounce all such nrotaction
ana 70 appeal TO the arbitrament OF a more or
less rapacious and destructive anarchy
we gracefully acknowledge the point
you make The law must be remodeIed
upon the basis of exact and equal JUS
tlce ana equity to all men, as foreshad-
owed IN Senator Palmer's speech in the
United States senate. And one of the
actions which must be recognized as
opposed to the best interests of society
must be that of the scab or non-union
man, when he attempts to take his
union co-worker's job at reduced wages.
Inc law must either keep hands off or
project union labor in its rights.
You next say:
Eoltor ard forgets very important fact
, Mnen ne speaks of the justice Of a joint owner
snip IN wealth jointly produced by brain and
ofaWn, oy manual labor more less skilled
ana experimenting, eontriving and managing
intelligence. Where the contract is for wages
Inc laoorer does not put his Industrial power
INTO a joint stock and look for his remuneration
IN potential dividend from joint earnings He
taxes assurance against the risk of failure TO
realize the dividend in final balance OF re-
ceipts and expenses by discounting it in the
shape OF daily or weekly wages In this way
he consumes daily weekly what would be his
share Of capital invested in joint enterprise
If he had contracted for a proportional share Of
profits as joint stockholdeF.
Here, again, your premises are emf