The Advocate and news., 1898-01-26
Correspondence.


graceless task to crlticise one Of the
foremost educators Of the country, who
has journeyed some 1000 miles to give
to a Kansas audience the fruit OF his best
thought and the aid of personal contact.
Yet, II the criticism be in no captious
spirit, but prompted only by desire to
reach the real truth Of things, 1t may be
deemed mistaken, but can hardly be held
unkind.
The dire poverty OF large masses OF
people is a horrible fact, and It's striking
statement formed a fit introduction to
an earnest II not wholly adequate at
tempt to frame its remedy. When, how
ever, the outline Of the remedy itself was
reached, the opportunity for vigorous
dissent presented itself,
Without noticing Its utter barbarity,
the notion, borrowed from Malthus and
which DR.. Andrews entertalns, that the
poor have no real right to propagate and
that In this, their gradual determination,
lies the chief hope Of the abatement OF
poverty, can only be justified by premis-
ing that the possibilities OF production
are UNEQUAL 10 the actual needs OF the
earth's inhabitants. But 1t Is common
place OF economic statistics that the
earth's resources would sustain, II prop
erly utilized, a much larger population
than now encumbers 1t; and the constant
glut OF the markets under the present
system sufficiently bellies such an hy-
poLhesis. The truth is evident that the
wretchedness which DR.. Andrews de-
plores takes it's rise in the unequal and
unrighteous distribution of wealth al
ready existing, and not in any failure OF
nature to provide sustenance for her
children.
Nor does 1t occur to DR.. Andrews that
the inexplicable apathy with which the
poor regard their degradation may be,
with even greater propriety, assigned as
the effect rather than the cause OF pow
erty. The lecturer came near the truth
when he urged, as the sole means OF
overcoming this apathy, the famlliarlz-
Ing of the poor with better conditions OF
life; but this in itself involves the abol-
ishment Of poverty, so that, In inaug-
urating the means, the end sought must
first be realized.
The poor have long been taught, with
out the teaching having resulted In any
noticeable improvement in their worldly
circumstances, that II they would be
rich they must be good. DR.. Andrews
varies, not altogether, happily, this In
structlon to, "If you would be rich, you
must be nice" Yet the question cannot
but arise, are either OF these things good
40 they may be in themselves, efficient
: instruments for the elevation Of mass
Of humanity suffering, not from moral,
but from economic wrongs? And one
may be pardoned the doubt that the love
Of flowers and diligent perusal Of Sum
day school books will adequately cleanse
the ulcers or satisfy the gaunt necessi-
ties Of the social body. Besides, 1t plainly
will not be an easy matter to bring about
among the poor an esthetic culture
which even among the rich, where ample
wealth and ample leisure would seem to
provoke 1t, is limited to chosen few.
A more direct way to curtail want would
\ apparently be to supply Its needs, and, to
abolish poverty, to distribute wealth.
DR.. Andrews approached nearer to this
obvious method In his Endorsements Of
the various colonization schemes Yet,
as he noted, the poor uniformly object
to being colonized, and prefer poverty to
isolation. DR.. Andrews seemed to Won
der at this, and to grow reproachful at
what appears to be q distinct ingrati-
tude. But 1t may be questioned II DR..
Andrews himself would like to be colo
niEed, or would enjoy burying his tai
ents In some remote Kansas county,
aptly described as twenty miles from
post Office and half mile from h"
Yet why should we expect from our
poorer brethren what we would not do
ourselves, or deny to them the only
luxury they possess, for which they sac
rlflce their material welfare and which
we energetlcally claim for ourselves
the luxury OF satisfying their social in
stincts. The poor should not be re-
garded as an inferior creation, which