Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1902-08-28
The "DiVine Right" of Capital.
BY THOMAS w. LOYLESs.

hand in the development of this wealth
begin and end there; they are not capaci-
tated and they have no right to say how
1t shall be notwithstanding wages (so-
called must be the sum total Of their
life's ambition. The privileges. the luNu-
ries, the comforts of life are intended for
us; their lot is to labor and suffer and die;
content if they have enough to eat for
tunate if they pass away before old age
denies to them the privilege of working for
their daily bread"
In short, their dictum is that the masses,
the toilers, have no rights that vested
interests are bound to respect Dividends
are more to be considered than the de-
mands of nature-health, comfort, little
recreation. 1t is the will of God, they pro-
claim, that the blood and bone of the
many shall be coined into dollars for the
few. There have ever been hewers OF
wood and drawers of water to suppliantly
serve nabobs and princes. There is biblical
justification for this. Like the soldier
sent to his fate,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do-and die"
Perhaps it is the way of the world. Per-
haps custom has made it a law. But is il
possible that God ordained such condi-
tions-however much He may suffer them2
Is ii possible that He fore-doomed some
men to slavery and commissioned, others
their masters? Or is 1t more likely that
He meant what He said: do unto others
as we would they should do unto you. Is
81 ms inhumanity 10 man" a fixed law
of Providence, or is it prompted by that
satanic spirit which delights to make
countless thousands mourn
But to apply the practical for mo-
ment: Is it true that a wOrkingman, an
employee, has no other interest in his
employers business except to secure fair
wages?" Can any business ever become
permanent success that is conducted on
that basis? And can any employee ever
rise above the level of the machine or
the slave whose concern for the business
in which he is engaged ends there? Is IL
not, rather, in a measure at least, mu-
tual affair, in which the interests of the
employer and employe are identical? Do
not both contribute in relative proportion
to the success of the enterprise in which
they are engaged-the one with his capt.
tai and executive ability; the latter with
his labor and effort employed in the same
direction? IN all reason and common JUS
tice, then. even though it be impracticable
to make an exact or entirely fair divis-
ion of the profits arising therefrom, Should
not the spirit which ahln1ates both par
ties be that of mutually? Instead Of that
which, on the one hand, says; The only
interest 1 have in my employer is to get
all 1 can out of him I'm return Tor as little
service as he will accept" and which, on
the other proclaims: THE only interest
which any workingman has in the bust
ness of his employer is to secure fair
wages for the work he does?"
The application of the Golden Rule in
business pursuits may not, as many con-
tend, be entirely applica Bile. the spirit OF
mutually is the very foundation of
every success, corporate or individual,
that is worthy to live or that reflects any
real credit and brings any true satisfac-
ton to the builders. ~ ~