The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-09-22
He Defines the Cause and Cure
For Universal Poverty.
PROTECTION IS NO GOOD.
FREE TRADE HAS FAULTS WHICH
DO NOT COMMEND 1T.
Socialism is Applied Christianity in
the Speakers opinion-He Thinks
Land Should BE Owned, Not By
the Individual, But the COmmu-
nity-Frank Smith Talks in Fa-
yor of Religious Reform.

Kier Hardie and Frank Smith adj
dressed an audience of about 100 peo-
pie at the Assembly hall last evening,
which listened with more or less in
terest to the speakers remarks.
Hardie is a very plausible talker, has
a pieasing and convincing delivery and
presents his arguments in way which
carries weight His audience was
thoroughly in touch with him, and
although small, the applause bestowed
was generous.
Smith is sort of second edition of
Sam Jones' He is somewhat cratic in
delivery; flies from one topic to an
other with rapidly; leaves this point
undeveloped and that one unstated.
At times he made what are designated
as hits by those who appreciate bright
sayings, but as rule they were iso-
lated expressions and had no bearing
on the main topic.
Joseph E. Taylor introduced the
speakers Hardie being the first one
to address the people.
MIR. Hardie's Address.
Mr.. Hardie began by announcing
that he had been in America four
weeks, which gave him ample time
{ to learn of the Industrial situation in
this country. The principal topic is
confined to the question: How to
abolish Poverty" While this is the
leading one it has several branches,
among which is that of alleviating the
immediate sufferingS of those who
through no fault of their own are de-
prived of the common necessities of
life
But as all branches of subject lead
UP to the main one, it will be the one
treated of.
The speaker said that in every land
there are always some who are living
! below the standard of subsistence. BY
this he did not intend to be understood
as including the habitually idle those
who would not work if they had a
chance. Those he intended to refer to
are those able bodied men who want
chance to earn their bread and have
not that opportunity.
1t is a fair and just hypothesis the
assertion that an able bodied man
should always be allowed to earn his
living and a livelihood for those de-
pendant upon him. This is especially
true when applied to this great coun-
| try, where nature has been so lavish.
But he inferred from the reports of
| conditions that it was a difficult mat
ter for many Of the people of this ma
ton to get what they were entitled to.
This condition of affairs resulted from
several causes. Prominent among
them is the labor saving machinery
which has dispensed with the manual
employment of many who hitherto pro-
duced the needed things of life by the
work of their unassisted hands.
AT the beginning of the century, the
line between poverty and wealth was
not as distinct as now. The rich were
not SO rich, nor the poor so poor as
today when the country has its thou
sands of millionaires and its hundreds
OF thousands of tramps. 1t is safe to
say that wealth is more easily pro
duced now than one hundred wears
ago. Perhaps ten to one will be a. fair
comparison. Now there is nothing
wrong IN the increase of the produc-
ton OF wealth. The fault lies in the
distribution. If the wealth, which con-
s s, IN the articles produced, was
distributed equitably, there would be
no fault; no poverty. But the chasm
between wealth and poverty seems to
be widening. Inquiries which he had
maze since coming to America con.
vlnced him that wages were not as
large by nearly one-half, as they were
twenty years ago. 1t is not denied or
the other hand that wealth has in
creased at a formidable ratio.
This condition of affairs existing
leads to the belief that something is
wrong with the system. If so what is
the remedy?
panacea, while others raise the cry OF
protection. Now in England the free
trade policy has been in vogue fol
years and years. But in England the
condition of the lahoring masses is
such that it is to be deplored In the
countries on the continent and il
America, protection seems to be the
plan. Yet the condition of the poor il
continental Europe and in America
does not materially differ from thu
condition of the poor in free trade
England. 1t follows that neither o.
these remedies are applicable Pro
lection seems to protect the rents anC
the interest derived, while free trade
merely extends the latitude of the mer
chant, as it were, so that he can find
more extensive market. But in all tn,
applications of either of the policies
mentioned, there seems to be no Drotec
ton for the laborer. This being true
we must seek deeper for relief anC
hence we come to the solution Of TIN
problem.
: Now there are certain wants common
to humanity. But we leave the produc
ton of that which satisfies these want
to chance. If We make a profit w
produce, if we do not make a prof
we do not produce.
Without land we cannot live. Ye
we fine people for living on land w
impose a tax of rent upon them. Rem
is thus a tax upon industry becaus
the land is owned by private individ
: uals.
Mr. Hardie declared that he did no
say that no rent should be collecte
,, from the occupants of land. Rem
should be paid because rent is a
economic necessity. But since land j
an indispensable factor in achieving tn
e success of a community, ergo the com
munity should own that land and col
,, lect the rents. He asserted that Wha
,, he had said in relation to land ais
:: applied to capital. If capital is re
1 quired, as it surely is, in large amount
]