, 1892-02-19
Especial Correspondence.I

mented mt the Other.
Especial CorrespondenceJ
found in a six months old number
Of The Social Economist an article by
MIR, Ellis Merriam, in which he takes a
position regarding the economies of lux.
ury which does not seem to me logically
correct
The fact is recognized that false eco
notnic views are characteristic of many
who ever speak au~thoritatively on this
subject The confounding of ethics,
morals and economics is lamentably
ommon And unless we can agree re-.
garding the domain of each, any dis.
cussion will doubtless be very unsatis-
factory.
Put as tersely as possible, our duties
lie in the domain of ethics; general pub
lie opinion as to our duties belong to
morals, and questions of material self
interest pertain to economics. Mr.. Mer-
am practically adopts this view and
takes up the ''outcry against lavish ex-
penditure. e~nervating luxury, reckless
ness and o~stentation, and thinks that
while this is all right in the mouth of
the moralist, yet looked at from the
standpoint OF economies it is not. He
says plainly. I'VE do not want less
luxury. but more
His position, stated briefly, is: We
want civilization, refined tastes, a higher
standard of living. shorter hours of labor.
leisure and refinement, luxury. LET the
enormous middle class and the toilers
below it all demand Injuries, says he;
the expenditures sustain a thousand in
dnstries and distribute the means of
life"
The article was called forth by excep-
tons taken to the floral display and lux
urles attendant upon a large public din
ner
/ believe that the protest against this
lavish display is right, and that Mr..
Meriain's defense is wrong, ever from q
standpoint of economies, and leaving out
OF consideration all ethical and moral
questions.
As long rs present conditions remain
unchanged the miner will wear his life
away under the ground, that his wealthy
employer may live in elegance; the pearl
divers will risk everything for insignifi-
cant returns; the rich furs of the north
and the diamonds and ivory Of the south
will represent so many human lives, on
an average, sacrificed upon the altar of
luxury The same Is true of silks and
Iaces and thousands of other Injuries
and their starving producers.
Is II desirable that present conditions
should remain unchanged? Is it desir-
able that the gulf between the very
wealthy and the very poor should be still
further widened? Is 1t not a fact that
the greater the extravaganza or luxury
at one end of the scale. the greater the
poverty and misery at the other2
The aim of the true economist is to
keep necessarily striving for the more
nearly equal distribution of wealth. And
by wealth | mean the power to COM
mand the services of others. for this and
this alone is wealth, whether it come
through gold or tiocks, whether it be ex-
c~hangeable or otherwise. The equality
of the distribution should be as thorough
Iy considered as the distribution itself.
II II man had gold or diamonds untold,
and yet could not command the services
OF the humblest to bring him q glass of
water, or n loaf Of bread, or make any
other purchase, he would nave no real
wealth. A man Is wealthy according to
what he n procure. And that country
comes nearest the ideal of true economies
whcro tho wealth Is most nearly distrih-
uted with some approach to equality. If
the purchasing power-the wealth-is
concentrated in the hands of the few,
there is danger ahead, and the greater
the poverty of the masses and the wealth
OF the few. the greater the danger; it
means revolution. History shows that
fha mora lavish the a~xnanHitura Of tha
very wealthy. the more AFFECT is tho
poverty of the very poor. And the rea-
son is ev1dent. AS o on as the distribu-
tion of wealth becomes noticeably. un-
equal. the power of the wealthy over the
poor increases ever disproportionately;
30 that soon the very poor eagerly grasp
at the opportunity to gain n bare sub
slstence amid any danger and at any
risk. Every step surrendered by the
weak increases the power of the strong,
until finally each costly raiment or
sparkling gem represents the labor, suf-
fer1ng and even lives of human beings.
1t Is not economically just, nor is it
economically necessary, that the bare
chance of a miserable subsistence in one
part of the world shall depend upon the
lavish use of luxuries in another part of
the world. The statement by many
writers that the poor are as happy as the
rich the weak are as happy as the power
full, etc., / deny in spite of the fact that
IT is indorsed by many distinguished
names.
II may be said that those who produce
these Injuries undergo dangers and as
sumo risks, 1t is true, but they secure the
ne~cessaries of life thereby. To this |
answer that once in that rut their igno-
rance and bondage keeps them there so
long as they can secure s~ustenance for
life. but should this opportunity be taken
away. the tenacity with which all cling
TO life would force them into other chan
nels. and the entire class or country
would soon be advanced a full century
on the road to higher civilization and
progress, Even If my belief should be
considered too rosy hued it would be
better hat they should be eliminated
from the ranks of life's toilers than that
Their continued subserviency should re-
dound TO the injury of their more am
oitious fellows Just above them. Hence
this opportunity to risk their lives for a