The Advocate and news., 1899-02-22

ing Of each day would find him tenant by
Gods bounty OF the teeming earth free
TO apply his skill and energies, prompted
by his needs, to It's multifariOus re.
sources. Nothing could Coerce or restrain
him. Beasts, or other men, slngly or In
groups, possessed OF superior strength
might defeat his purpose for the moment,
but they would hold no permanent pos
session against him, could enjoy no mo-
nOpoly, and there would be enough for
all. Earthquakes, food and cold might
assail and destroy him, but, II so, he fell
the victim of natural laws and forces and
was quickly done to death. In our highly
organized nineteenth century society his
case Is different. Each rising sun sees
him a trespasser on another's ground.
The earth Is still before him, rich and
fruitful as ever, but between him and Il is
lnterposed in restraint the ghostly hand
Of legal fat Government has interpOsed
against him and has dislnherited him. It
has not let him alone. Now, Also he may
fall, nay, will necessarily fall, and be
lingeringly done to DEATH no longer as
natures victim but as the victim Of the
State.
Against this, the government Of the
United States demands his undivided 10y
atty. It asks, not only that he shall be
law abiding and assist in working on che
public highways in time Of peace, but
that, In time of war, he shall present him
self willing sacrifice to an enemy's bull
lets in It's defense.
In all ordinary cases, wars in which
the poorer classes are called upon to do,
to dare and die, are for them devoid of
personal interest. During the late Span
ish-American war, as the intelligence OF
hostilitles progressed downwards in the
social scale 1t attracted ever diminishing
attention. The poor felt, and rightly so,
that 1t was not their affair. Success In
the conflict would not add a single relish
to their meager table; failure could not
increase the rigor of the "brazen law"
which made the returns of their labor
already but just sufficient to sustain the
spark of life. Even had an invasion
threatened and the nations homes been
endangered their concern would prob
ably have remained at minimum, for
but too many of them have no homes
The noisy patriotism of the better-to-dO
may have amused them, much as might
have done a circus parade, they not pos
sesslng the price Of admission. The
handspring of interest, the selfish motive,
was wanting, they were not called upon
to defend or to further anything which
they possessed.
Lastly, 1t might be argued that, looking
upon society as concrete and striking
expression of the universal struggle for
existence, the INDECENT poor may be taken
to represent those who have failed to sur
vive and are thereby adiudged unfit 1t
then becomes their manifest duty to take
themselves quietly and quickly from the
earth "a proceeding which, by curious
inconsistency, our charitable institutions
are intended to prevent) and no better
OF more useful death can be suggested
than that Of the patriot on the field Of
battle. But is this quite fair? Conced-
ing that the pauper Is Of the unfittest and
that his chief duty to the world Is to get
himself out Of 1t. may he not still claim
the poor prerogative OF selecting his own
manner Of exit? Is not his life, Is not
even his failure, a sufficient sacrifice,
to those who have dlstanced him in the
race, without the further exactiOn of the
further exaction of the method Of his
forfeit?
In short, II the obligation of citizen and
State are reciprocal as we have assumed
them to be, how is the pauper morally
bound, in view of his own i'll condition
either to defend his country, to support
It's institutions, or obey It's laws?
CLARENCE NELLY.
Burlington, Kas,