The great West. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1889-18??, 1892-09-09
BOTH SIDES.

BOTH SIDES.
The Dallas Tex.) News and George q.
Ward Discuss the Ethics of the Home
stead Lockout.
10 the News, as pre-eminentlv the
falrest and most liberal democratic pa
per In the south, send this, my second
communication, trusting that it will be
published and answered in the spirit of
fairness and kindness in which it ia Of
fered.
am in receipt of the News of July
81 and note therein your eminently
courteous reply to my communication
which appears in the same issue.
Your answer mo- is sufficiently ex.
pllcia. but the reasoning you use to sup
port such an answer appears, in nv
humble Judgment, specious and sophis-
teal.
Allow me to intrude upon your valu.
able space for reproduction of the
original communication of mine with
the quotation OF that portion of your
criticism to which I took exception. as
follows:
From criticism in your columns of a
communication appearing therein clip
as follows:
Inc workmen as party Of the first part and
Mr.. Carnegie as a party Of the second mart en-
ter into partnership. The party of the first
part invests skilled labor; the party OF the
second part the plant and material The party
OF the first part is to receive stipulated sum
as profits; the party of the second part what
remains The two parties stand upon Identical
grounds Each is bound to a plain contract for
Hm1tatinn-pn = fI,o
plration OF the partnership each is restored to
liberty to make new partnership or not as he
may elect
Are you not mistaken? Did not Mr..
carnegie simply invest a superior cum
ming and an aptitude for bossing or
managing? Was he not a very poor
man twenty years ago? Did not his
laborers, skilled and unskilled, produce
or create with their labor, the plant,
material and Mr.. Garnegie's many mil
lions? Is not this wealth legally Mr..
Carnegie's only and solely because the
law protects robbers in the possession
and enjoyment of stolen goods? Is
there not in justice a joint ownership,
In fact, OF the wealth jointly produced
by brain and Drawn? Please do not
evade or dodge, but answer specifical-
ly.
10 this you answer first:
Mr.. Carnegie's financial condition twenty
years ago has nothing to do with the PROPOSE.
ton the News was discussing in the editorial
from which you have made the extracts
From this statement you must allow
me to respectfully dissent. The princi-
pal point am trying to make is, that
when Mr.. Carnegie and his skilled
laborers entered into partnership, Mr..
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 it is contended
that this is not the set of hands whose
labor was mortgaged (bonded) by Mr..
Carnegie for plant and ma terial," 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 I
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-
ton. That cuts no figure, as the same
condition of affairs exists in free trade
England as in protectionist America
You then say:
II it is true that labor is entitled to a share in
the profits of an industry over and above the
wages which it has accepted rs just compen-
sation, that interest must be organic and re-
ciprocal II the Homestead laborers are part
ners 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 that they have received from
the industry mor<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 living all this period and a much
better one than his workmen have had
and he has spent much more money
than any one of his workmen has spent.
Here we must pause to make a point
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 workmen
has had upon an average. Observing
this rule it will be found that, instead
of having any interest in his worhmen'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.
Carnegie's 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 negation of individual rights in
property. l am contending merely for
the common ownership of indivisible
wealth by those who jointly produce it
and the equitable division of Invisible
property among those who jointly Gre
b 1os,. 1o1 of ~