, 1892-03-02
TO ABOLISH POVERTY
HOW SEVERAL WELL KNOWN WOMEN
WOULD ACCOMPLISH 1T.

aAOh dS pIcSchbCu U lntH Nlt"St IO"
30 Abolish Poverty" OF late, millions
of words have been compiled on this
subject, and all sorts of opinions have
been expressed. The latest batch of
contributors to The Worlds columns is
fnirly representative of the class which
Ina had most to say upon the question
the class composed of those who look at
poverty from the outside, so to speak,
who diagnose the disease in a sort of
professional way and consequently lack
the knowledge that actual experience
gives. However, some of these women
demonstrate that they realize that there
IS a great underlying of poverty
which must be dealt with, and all show
San earnestness emitting their views to
consideration.
Mrs. Maud B. Booth, of the Salvation
Army, naturally believes that the spread
of religious sentiment and the adoption
of the Christian code of life by the poor
will do more han anything else toward
the accomplishment of the desired end.
Speaking of the work of the Salvation
Army, she says, 1--WE nave proved in the
case of thousands of individuals that the
change of heart was followed by the
change of life, ambitions, circumstances
in fact, transforming the outcasts INTO
good citizens and Christ h~onoring sery-
ants" So far as the social and moral,
yes, and physical sides of the question
are concerned, Mrs. Booths idea is ali
right; but there is the economic side to
consider. Every good man and woman
recognizes the benefits both to the indi-
vidual and 10 society of correct living,
of the practice of temperance and moral
ity; but as Mrs. Booth says, but when
they are accomplished, there will still
be the same question to ask and answer:
How shall we abolish poverty"
Miss Frances E. Willard is a little in
consistent, for, after declaring at is my
opinion that no person of good habits
and good health need drag himself along
under the yoke of poverty in this re-
public" she enumerates several radi-
cal reforms which are essential to the
abolition of poverty. Among these are
naturalization of the means of com
munication and transit" and "co-opera-
ton instead of competition in the wage
system" While our railroads and tele-
graphs are completely monopolized and
our wage system the most u~nrelenting
competition, how can Miss Willard say
that no good and healthy man need be
poor? OF course this lady lays down as
a cardinal principle in her programme
the destruction of the liquor and tobacco
traffic. Quit drinking, smoking and
chewing tobacco, and you will be all
right, she says. Now here comes in the
economic to knock out the moral and
physical.
do not care to defend the liquor and
tobacco habits on grounds of morality
and health, but want to call attention
to one of the cruelest phases of economic
law as it operates under our system;
and its baneful effects operate not only
with regard to the two things mentioned,
but include everything not absolutely
necessary to human existence. | refer
to the effect the making of these non
essentials to existence have upon the
army of workers and what we nave
come to characterizing rs the wage mar
ket. With our present highly improved
system of production and the labor army
placed as it is, there are in this country
at present close to q million of willing
workers out of employment. l do not
think l am far out of the way when |
say that at least one-fourth of the num-
Der employed are engaged either direct
ly or indirectly in making or handling
the things which are not needed-some
of which, Miss Willard claims, are harm
full. As our system is in accordance
with the doctrine of the economists, who
treat labor as a commodity, to be regu-
lated by supply and demand, and as
wages where not kept up by combina-
tions of the workers are fixed, under the
laws of competition, by the million who
are out of work, what would be the re-
suit if these other millions engaged in the
unnecessary e~mployments were thrown
upon the labor market?
know that under a humane md scien-
tific system no such awful alternative
would be presented, but we are living
under anything but such a system. 1t is
a sad commentary upon u Christian
civilization that some of us must live
upon the weaknesses and follies-aye,
even immortality of mankind; but it is so,
and liquor and tobacco do not tell half
of the story. l do not agree with Miss
Wizards radical ideas on the tobacco
and liquor questions, but | admit that
the working people would be better off
as individuals, physically and morally,
If they drank less intoxicants. But that
the abolition of poverty lies through a
pathway of total abstinence l deny. 1t
has been said that poverty is the father
of drunkenness instead of its offspring,
and the assertion is proved a thousand
times every day.
Mrs. Belva A. Lockwood says: BE
content with your lot. Wealth and pow
erty are relative terms" So they are,
but d%estitution and starvation are not in
the comparison. The rich are no more
satisfied with their lot than the poor;
they always want more. But with such
it is the mind that is unsatisfied, not the
body. 1t is with poverty of the starva-
ton kind we nave first to deal. Would
Mrs. Lockwood tell a man who was
hungry and ragged to be content with
his lot because poverty and wealth are
only relative terms? Because if there
were no rich his poverty would not be
20 striking? Would such n contempla.