New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-10-14
SOCIALISM AND THE REPUBLIC
PROF. ELY'S MUCH-DISCUSSED BOON.


There are those who deal with Socialism as
though II were a natural and logical phase Oh
American republicanism. an advanced ana more
perfect type. into which the whole might pres
entity grow. one pupteer is reported 10 nave
said. not long ago. that no man can be
Christian unless he adopts the doctrines of Social
ism. Such rawlings apart. 1t may be said IN
soberness and truth that no man can ne
Socialist and at the same time loyal Ameri-
can The two systems are essentially different
and eternaly incompatible. You may nave
Socialism, or you may have the Republic; you
cannot have both. II Socialism is to prevail
roll up or tear up. the Constitution: IL VIII De
needed no more. Socialism will give us ar
ferent system Of government, OF politics. OF IN
dustry and commerce Of society. education. even
religion. 1t is folly. and folly OF criminal pro-
portions. for men TO go nosing about socialism
as abou, new chrysanthemum. as something
which might properly be planted ana cultivated
and accepted as part and parcel Of the Ameri-
can system. II they want Socialism. let 'hem
have II. But In that case the present American
system must be abandoned the experiment OF
popular government ended the very Union dis
solved. and the then chaotic whole reorganized
on a basis not only entirely new but far more
from the monarchy Of George III
Professor Ely. who has done much good work
ard written some admirable books. gives us in
his latest his least satisfactory volume II Is
book that has caused vast pother. and has
served az he corpus dellct! In n heresy trial
But We fancy most readers will lay 1t down
with sense Of disappoin mcnt-s0mc because
II is not sensational enough. some because II Is
not Socialistc enough and some because II Is too
much so: but most Of all because II contains no
sure note OF authority. II consists 81 four parts
and an appendix. The first part purports To tell
wha, Socialism Is. giving as favorable ana At
tractive a definition as the most advanced
Socialist could desire. The second presents the
arguments IN behalf OF Socialism. with the air
Of one who does not believe IN IT, but would Ike
10 II he dared The third states the case against
Socialism in the manner u one who Ia soici-
tous not to damage greatly the cause against
which he is arguing chief interest centres In
the fourth part. In which the author elurldates
what he terms the golden mean Of social reform.
and offers us he thin6s fine bending u
Socialism and Republicanlsm. OF oil and water:
much like Josh Biilings's weather. cold. but
hot"
OF the truth of his premise. no question can
be made There Is poverty and poverty II de-
plorable But he charges this state OF affairs
chiefly against the system ~ individual enterprise
and competition; OF the justice Of which charge
there is. to say the least. much doubt. When he
says the operations Of that system are as cruel
as laws o.. Nature" what exactly. are We To
suppose he means? Is Nature, are its laws.
cruel? Nature is the manifestation OF God in
material things. Natures laws are Gods laws.
Is God. or are His laws cruel? Whenever men
t, lie
because those laws have been violated or dis
regarded Nature does not go out OF it's way to
injure any one. 1t is nonsense. and indeed inn
p.ous nonsense. TO call Natures laws cruel-even
the law Of the survival Of the nttest against
which Socialists the sum Of all iniauity.
1t Is discouragins To and learned professor. In
a serious book make use Of such incorporate
and ill-adv!scd expressions.
Poverty. however. exists: and social reform Is
to abolish II; which task Professor Ely would ef-
feet. not, Ike Mr.. Howells's Altrurian and the
Anarchists. by destroying everything that now
Is. but by retaining the present system and en-
grating thereupon some OF the "strong features
Of Socialism,; as one might engraft grapes upon
thorns. or figs upon thistles. The Specialization
OF monopoly s the first OF these strong features
presented for our consideration. He would have
the Government purchase and operate all rail-
roads. tramways, telegraph and telephone sys-
tens. gas and electric light works. etc. Thus there
would be no more competition in such things.
wasteful and ruinous. and no speculation, crises
would be mitigated. and idleness diminished.
With all this we may readily agree But when
he proceeds say that under such a system
management would be more honest. and more i'm
provements and inventions would be made his
judgment IL open to challenge When we recall
the canal and aqueduct scandals OF recent years
in this very State and the gross corruption that
has marked many other. II not most other public
works. see little room to hope for superior
honesty. We know of no law by which a man who
would be knave in private employment would
be saint In public service. And one will we
fancy seriously dispute the statement that COM
petition has been the keenest and most efficient
stimulus to invention and Improvement. Under
Government control he says. these things would
be so administered to yield not the largest diT-
dends, but the largest social utility Perhaps;
but are they, In existing cases? No private cor
poration would venture to operate the Brooklyn
Bridge railroad. for example. with little social
utility and with so much contemptuous disregard
OF the public good as does the Government. No
privately owned ofice-building would give so poor
an elevator service. or have It's corridors dark
ana dirty, az tnose or our POStof1lce DulldlnSt or
II 1t did, would soon be tenantless
Taking up another class Of monopolies. Pro-
fessor Ely says plumply that distinction must
be observed between filling the surface OF the
soil and mining treasures from below. Private
ownership in the former Is all right. be-
cause production Is implied; but In the latter 1t Is
all wrong. because there is no production. but
only appropriation. Natural treasures below
the surface therefore, should be regarded as pub
lie property. But he unfortunately neGlects IL
explain how they are to be got at without invad-
Ing private property or how coal and iron below
the surface are any more natural treasures than
hay and timber above the surface; or how sink
Ing shaft and mining out coal and smelling ore
are less works Of production than moving and
raking hay or chopping down trees. To