The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1900-07-26

wealth it can be none other than a
public utility, and II Socialized would
break up all the ,monopolies we Popu-
lists term public utilities and put an
end to our venal cannibalism.
The third plank in our platforms Of
lands held for speculative purposes. and
by aliens, and the land of all corpora
tions not absolutely necessary for their
actual needs, shall be reclaimed by the
II the land is a heritage Of the people,
Is it not inconsistent for the government
to hold open to settlement of land so
redeemed, or any other land to be set
tied upon and owned by individuals?
Less than four per cent Of the citizens
of New York, Boston, Philadelphia,
Chicago and ST. Louis own homes. OF
these homeless millions in those and
other cities, how many would be able
to avail themselves of an acre of land
SO redeemed?
Under that clause of the third plank
of our platform which pronounces for
the redemption of land held for specu-
lation, how much would be redeemed
with the powerful machinery for
cultivating the soil and harvesting the
crops now in use? Wood Bros, Of
Stockton, CAL, manufacture combined
harvesters which, by the aid of steam
power and eight men, can cut, thresh
and sack 10 acres Of oats, barley or
wheat in 10 hours; which not only en-
ables the rich to cultivate their large
holdings in land, but each machine dis
places 1O2 harvest hands, as compared
to the method of harvesting grain when
YOU and were boys-yea, when we were
young men. Steam plows of 16-furrOw
capacity are operated by two men and
are in use in California. My ranch
joins the Murphy ranch, which embraces
$4,000 acres, which is now held for spec
ulative purposes, but for many years
utilized for the benefit of one reyeling
bachelor. The firm Of Lux & Miller, two
individuals, own 100000 acres of the
best land in California, Nevada and
Oregon; none of which is held for spec
ulation, who, by means OF these large
holdings dictate the price Of every pound
of meat consumed in all Of the cities on
the Pacific slope.
These holdings the Socialists condemn
and proclaim for the redemption of all
monopolistic holdings. They hold them
to be the heritage of the people and de-
mand the ownership of them by the peo-
pie, whilst you, if Mr.. Twitchell voices
your true inwardness, call it the "heri-
tage of the people," but to be held by
individuals in unlimited quantities, if
not held for speculation, and by corpor-
ations in quantities such as their actual
needs thereof require. And when we
read the second plank Of our platform,
which proclaims for public ownership
of all railroads and other utilities. such
as your man Twitchell classes as public
ones, we wonder why the third plank Of
our platform should make provisions
for their holding any lands.
Are we in earnest? Are our proclaim
ations serious? Or are we like the DEM
ocrats and Republicans, only shamming
to catch votes?
If you persist in proclaiming for both
Socialism and individualism it most en-
phatically becomes your imperative
duty to cite us to your dividing line be-
no c1o nf no fxxyO ,,fi1
One more question and I am done.
What you and Mr.. Barker, If elected to
the high offices you aspire to, would
do to give employment, subsistence
and comfortable homes to the unem-
ployed victims of improved machinery,
does not appear in the columns of your
paper, or in our platform, hence we ask
in behalf of the unemployed, what Pop
ulism would do for them should it OBJ
tain under the jurisdiction of Barker,
Donnelly and a Populist congress.
A. BRETT.
ANSWER: We are glad to know that
Mr.. A. Bretz is so we'll fixed financially.
We give him as large a space as he
requires to set forth his views.
If a political party should decree that
Mr.. Brett should cast his handsome
property into common pool, and should
have no more right to draw a part Of
1t than the man who had never done
anything to deserve it, would Mr.. Bretz
consider that was a just and equitable
division?
We are aware that Mr.. Bretz says that
he is "full-fedged Socialist" and
would most cheerfully relinquish all his
possessions If he could do so, il it
would be the means Of the whole COM
munity enjoying the blessings he does
now.
There are a great many "ifs" and
"buts' here. Before we could get the
title deed from Mr.. Brett for his prop
erty we would have to meet them.
How would the other proprietors Of
land act, not only those Immediately
around Mr.. Bretz, but throughout the
state?
If majority, or even q minority of
land owners refused to turn over to the
state their land, could you ask the be-
nevolent remainder to do SO?
And such a minority can do so even
now They can convey their 1opd 90