The representative., 1900-03-22

fssera%sers 81 7Hhs:sS Hss:, e. 49, a.;
ss:s IS s:s &: 81:
...as s.: s. -; s;;1 Is; g: T..'s AoD.l
H.sss e s.s s'i k.1s..slfss s:
unhesitatingly choose public ownership
OF the homes; but4we do not believe il
necessary to accept either of the two
conditions. s.st
To begin with, Socialists are compell-
ed to admit that they can never realize
any of their proposed reforms until sup
ported by majority vote, and this ma
jority must be large enough to over
come the corrupted vote which is ever
present.
Socialists carry too far the motto:
THE whole thing or nothing
AS a direct result of such folly they
have, up to date, taken nothing.
Populists demand public ownership of
public utilities, but insist on private
ownership Of private utilities.
Mr.. Hough fails utterly to appreciate
the hope, the ambition, the energy, the
sentiment and affection centered around
those mystic words my ranch.' The
sentiment in Home, Sweet Home" is no
dream, but is just as much an Unborn
desire as is the desire for food and
drink.
1t is this Unborn desire to own a home
that prompts the man in Mr.. Hough's
picture to toll Is years to attain it.
Stimulated by the remote possibility of
owning home man will leave child
hoods home and friends, brave all the
hardships of frontier life, and after
years of disappointments come up for
another round, even though he be bald
headed. barefooted and alone. He knows
no defeat and no disbursement, and
through life he is always doing his
best. He has an incentive to good
citizenship. even though we admit the
fruits of his good citizenship 60 largely
into the private pocket of a gang of
pirates. Socialists would take away this
mans incentive to right action. Popu-
lists would shackle the pirates and let
the farmers hopes live.
Who ever heard of man devoting a
life of toll :. to the common
profit? The idea of toiling life time
for common interest in public pas
ture, home for the aged, hotel or a
boarding house is absurd. Such a pro-
position does violence to the most uni
versal characteristics of human ma
ture.
But some Socialists will declare we
are setting up man of straw, that So
cialists do not demand public ownership
of the home, but only public ownership
OF the land upon which the home
stands. The fee would be vested in the
government and improvements be-
long to the occupant; sort of perhaps
you own it and perhaps you don't ar
rangement. But persists our friend.
the government stands guarantor
against eviction for debt. Now let us
look at this propo.,s.on. The Mime
sofa Soldiers Home is an example of
home owned by the public Every in
mate is safe from eviction. This home
has a most delightful location and has
every modern convenience, and yet we
believe there Is not one of it's inmates
who would not prefer a cottage much
less pretentious that he could cali his
own.
If public ownership of the farms and |
the little homes is really so much to !
be desired, why do our people gener-
ally have such an instructive dread of /
he poor farm or the county farm, the
soldiers home, the various asylumns
md homes of benevolence? These are
Ill Socialistic institutions and vet the
masses seek to avoid them.
There are certain objects which men
refuse to share in common
Ind for which they are ever ready to
make sacrifice, to toll, to fight and. il
iced be, to die.
The home, no less than the wife and
'abies within, has pull on the hearts
# men that needs no label to mark it's
The true man loves the babies be-
ause they are his and he can proudly
ay, my babies;" he loves and clings
o the wife and his home for the same
easons.
Take away this exclusiveness and
'ou have robbed nan of all that Is
worth living for, and the present leeches
i society could do no worse.
Let mans private rights in these
hree objects become merged in public
'roprietorship, take away the exclusive
of the home and its oc-
upants and, behold, you have results
to the entire human family:
'ou have free love. nobody's babies
nd nobody's home American voters
re not yet ready to vote these changes.
'ome crank has said we should stop
sing trust products If we would DESTROY
ne trusts. 1t seems to us equally alb
urd to give over to the state all private
ONES to destroy the monopoly of few
reedy land owners. y The same vote
ecessary to do this could limit private
oldings to a point that would give
riV9fo hnrnoc tn oil TL;. co->