The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1901-10-03


out div. n the gentleman on the
shore. Thai minds me of the man
who got men to catch driftwood on the
shares and give him half Yes, the cases
are good deal alike, only after a
while one little smarter than the rest
happened to think that they might just
as we'll work for themselves, and have
it all. After that the only way for Mr..
Man on the bank to get any was to
catch it himself"
Let me see, pa; I've been thinking,
and"
'Well, you quit your thinking and go
to work now"
But wait minute; do you know l
fail to see a very great difference be-
tween the men who dive and the men
who dig for coal. The ones who dive
give half to man who does no work,
and the men who dig give more than
half, SO it is only a question of de-
gree"
There you are mistaken. The men
who dig coal work for man who owns
the mines, whereas no man owns the
river"
'That is strange How does it hap
pen that no man owns the Ohio river?"
"Oh, that would be against public
policy. Besides, it would never do to
have any man own the river"
"Why would it be against public poll
cy to have some one own the river"
why, because it would. He would
levy tribute on every one who used the
river. That would never do in the
world"
Don't the mine owners levy tribute
on every man who uses coal? And
don't many more people use coal than
navigate the river?"
eyes, but the sacred rights of prop
erty must be guarded against or an
archy would ensue."
"Pa, do you know, l think they have
you pretty we'll drilled"
"They! Who is they?"
"Why, the capitalists, to be sure"
what! The capitalists have me we'll
drilled! Why, you're crazy"
'If you were big capitalistic mine
owner, would you not like to have all
the property-less class think just as you
do? You would not want to have one
little smarter than the rest, happen
to think that the ones who dug the coal
had just as we'll have it all, would your"
"Why-why, we must respect the
rights of property, must we not?'
THAT is what we are taught by the
ones who own the property
What! Would you have mans
property taken from him?"
mo, I would not, ordinarily; but in
some way should have the coal mines,
oil wells, ETC., taken out of the hands of
private parties and let them be run in
the interests Of all the people, instead Of
mere handful"
I'm other words, you think it is
against public policy to have the coal
and oil controlled by few men,"
eyes, just as much so as to have the
Ohio river so controlled"
"But you seem to dislike capitalists.
How could we get along if there were
no moneyed men to hire us?"
"Well, let us see Let us take your
own case as an illustration. You are
broommaker. You take raw material
worth, say, $1oo ton and you make it
into brooms. 1t is now worth $500 a
ton. You commence Monday morning
and work till Saturday night before you
get your pay. Now, is it not a fact
that you have furnished the capital out
of which to pay yourself, and profit to
your employer besides? You take ma
terial, and by your labor you double its
value. He sells the brooms and out of
the profits pays you. He don't advance
you cent When you have earned
some money he pays you part of it and
keeps some himself"
But, see here, my son, we must have
capitalists and capital. We could not
get along without BOTH"
so the capitalists take a great deal
of pains to tell us. In fact, about all
the great metropolitan dailies do, is to
rub it in on us, that but for the rich the
poor would starve"
well, wouldn't"
''They tell us that the interests of
capital and labor are identical. That
one could not get along without the
other, etc. And millions believe it. But
it is not true. Capital cannot get along
without labor, but labor can get along
without capital. If there was no capi-
tai, labor would go to work and pro-
duce some. But if there were no la
borers, capital would be as worthless
as so many rocks. Before this capital