The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-03-17
They Discuss Some Altruistic
Ideas of Progress
OBSTACLEST BROTHERHOOD
Byron Welcomes Study of the Features
OF Fraternity
Views Of the Latest Economic Pian-Questions
About Single Tax and
Its Results

Blanchard Fitzgerald Hall was, as usual,
filed with ladies and gentlemen last night
ut the regular weekly Single-Tax meeting,
and the proceedings were very interesting
from opening to close. The chairman
announced the Post-Widney debate next
Monday night and the Post lecture next
Wednesday night, and then the audience
listened to and heartily applauded an adj
dress from s. Byron Welcome. author of
"From Earth Center" Following is a
synopsis OF Mr.. Welcomes address on
obstacles to Brotherhood:
Fear not outrages from free men, but
tremble when slaves break their chains,
said Schiller
while freedom exists man is fitted for
universal brotherhood; enslaved, he be-
comes dangerous, ferocious animal. All
his energies are converted into wrath !;
everything must yield to his destructive
attacks. Allow hi IN his rights, and he is
inclined to be noble and just
First of all. however, man must have
his freedom. Denied access to sufficient
air, for example, he loses his calmness,
his congeniality and nobleness, and is
transformed into a fighting. struggling
machine. The perception OF right and
wrong is a natural endowment. However
corrupted through environments it may
be, the intutve sense OF justice remains.
The lowest human creature. when i'm
posed upon, will appeal to his inherent
sense OF justice. Boys on the street in
dignantly rebel against injustice, and
when wronged, an appeal to the sense of
justice of the other boys will generally re
suit in the defeat of the attempt.
"Our perception of ethics may widely
bo iptu Of in eli 10
almost universally recognized. If, then,
man is naturally a moral creature, why is
it THAT so much immortality exist?
Why are we not now brothers?
Many reformers seem to blame human
character for all the existing social ills.
This is a sweeping accusation when there
is preponderance of evidence to prove
that circumstances rather than character
regulate the conduct, and especially the
evil conduct of the people generally. Ask
one who employs questionable methods
for private gain, why he does so, and he
sustain himself and family. Can you
blame character for such conduct?
Suppose number of good men begin
an industrial enterprise. Say they start
large manufacturing community. All
enter upon their various duties in good
faith and with the best of intentions.
None of them are avaricious nor of ex
ceptionally bad judgment. AT first every
thing goes well; production increases.
and the whole enterprise assumes the APP
pearance of progress. All work hard, and
though their income is rather small, they
are satisfied because they suspect nothing
wrong. Among the number however,
are some who notice that certain members
of the community are inactive and in no
way aid in the production of wealth. Yet
these live more luxuriously than any of
the producers. The situation appears
paradoxical. All realize that wealth can
only be produced by, labor applied to
drones enjoy wealth without performing
any labor is to them beyond explanation,
and leads to agitation. reform and re-
dress. Through their inexperience much
trouble arises; quarrels over the
proper method to obtain justice; small
it is learned that the whole trouble arose
from fundamental oversight, an error
in the constitution of their organization,
which granted special privileges to who
ever should avail themselves of them. In
other words they had unconscously en-
acted unjust laws, which made it possible
for some to legally fleece others, thus pro-
ducing all the discomfort and disorder.
Just so with nations. Unjust laws
have ever been made through ignorance
rather than through greed, and injustice
causes every conceivable trouble. Is
not the experience of our little manufac-
turing community exactly that of all
civilized life?
There is one blunder which is common
to all ages. People have believed and
now believe it abstractly Just that one
half of humanity should enact the laws
under which the other half are obliged to
live. Is it true spirit of brotherhood
which refuses to admit ssterhood on
equal terms? Can we expect any better
results than our present civilization,
when only one-fifth of the population
have votes and that fifth of one sex, and
the more INSCRIPTIONS sex besides? If
women were permitted to vote for one
generation only, it would be difficult to
find any one mean or unreasonable
enough to wish to deprive them again of
this power. And the change of opinion
would be largely due to the influence of
law.
Again how can we expect to develop
spirit of universal brotherhood when each
nation fences itself in with standing
armies and protective tariff? What
stronger method could be employed to
engender hostile feelings between nations,
than to build Chinese wall around each
country and place officials at the gates to
plumber all who attempt an honest trade
across the line? Commerce is said TO be
with it? If there is anything adapted to
acquaint and to cause people of different
nations to assimilate, it is commerce.
Nothing is more calculated to produce
clannish feeling and narrow prejudice be-
tween nations than a restrictive tariff
around their boundry lines. Therefore,
there is no escape from the conclusion
that tariffs are a portion of the obstruct-
ions which must be abolished before we
can establish universal brotherhood.
There is another institution, typical
of modern civilization, which renders
brotherhood an iridescent dream. 1t is
an institution so profitable to the few, and
so unjust to the many, that the few have
long ago made laws which legalize their
system of fleeing. This being done, the
moral perceptions of the masses readily
conform to the circumstances and be-
lieve private ownership in land to be
right, as matter of course. What insti-
tuition could be contrived more contrary
to the spirit of brotherhood than that Of
parcelng out land from which all must
five, and making it private property?
Who made the earth? The landlords?
Evidently not Then where did they get
their titles in the first instance? Was l
not born with as good a right of use as
the first man who lived? Then why am
not consulted about who is to use my
share of the earth?
The land has been taken from the mass
es and divided among the few whose pos
lerity live upon rents for which they give
no equivalent. The institution is, there
fore, owing to it's injustice, contrary to.
the spirit Of brotherhood, and all consis-
tent believers in human rights must be
npnoSed tO IT,