The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1903-04-20
The Voice of
The People
REITERATEs ARGUMENT

fIltAlflS ANU
Editor Providence News:
Mr.. Nickerson seems 10 be IN danger OF
losing his temper, so that II he Will an
swer a few very simple questions. /
think we had better close this contro-
versy. l am excessively grateful TO you
TOR allowing IL to continue so long, and
hope that my next communication will be
more interesting to your readers.
He says. that he (meaning myselD
wants some authoritive statement as TO
what hard and just lines they would pur-
sue, If we gave them the power" do
not think that this Is too much to ask.
| There he confesses that he Is unable 10
tell what will be done.
What we require are practical men or
business not theorists. Men that have
made a study OF every problem and found
a solution to most OF the difficulties that
will assuredly arise In the future. These
people seem To have got no further than
the stealing or the various business un-
dertaklngs, and after that good time
for everybody. at least this is the bait
they are dangling before the eyes Of the
people.
Let us try TO consider the cold facts OF
these good times. We will suppose that
all the good things these agitators have
longed for, have been acquired. And now
we commence, as we suppose public own
ership.
We do not know II Il is proposed in the
new era that all men and women shall
be equally paid. (which they should be II
the socialisto principle Is fully carried
out) But whether this II the case or not.
at any rate the men who have done most
OF the shouting for socialism now, VIII be
leaders then, and vested With the power
OF giving away (or selling) good SOFT JOBS.
Thus men and women who have gained
- lars will h.an nllt IN
the various places OF responsibility, su-
perseding men who have grown up In
these works; then how long would prodt-
able working be maintainedY There we
are told that four or five hours would be
all that people would have TO work, ana
that wages would be very much Increased.
! should like To know how long we could
hold our own against foreign competition
under these conditions? IL Is absurd To
think that we could consume all that we
grow, and manufacture, SO that we
should want an outlet. and this would be
closed by our short hours and big pay.
And then TO come down to these prom
ised four or five hours day. The farmer
would be as much entitled To the short
day as anybody else, and as his farm
would be under public ownership, he
would not be benefited by working longer,
so would there have 10 be relay OF farm
ers. who would work four or five hour
shifts.
The same rule would apply to soldiers,
sailors, doctors and, in fact, to every
grade OF society. All classes would have
to quit work when he or she had worked
the allotted time. for under socialism
overtime would not be allowed Even the
soldier I'm lighting would have TO quit
when his days work was done.
Mr.. Nickerson fatters me by saying
that | am contortionist j should not
have thought IL OF myself. The reason
that / am considered TO he such, is that
] am supposed TO have twisted certain
words and quotations. have two acts In
this line | will describe them.
In one of my letters / stated that the
Appeal TO Reason" said when there Is
an overproduction get more machinery.
Mr.. Nickerson takes me TO task for say
ing this, he says, IL reads IF there Is
surplus OF workers get more machinery.
Let us see what this paper says further
ON. After saying get more machinery to
employee the surplus. Ii goes on to say,
"or we would simply produce surplus OF
goods for awhile" So that there may be
n distinction between what l said and
what this paper says, but cannot see
much difference.
And the next act OF my "Contortion" Is
where | say that under socialism. there
would 'be only one-tenth OF the mar
riages that there now are" / take this
Inference from Mr.. NickeBon's former
letter, that now "nine-tenths or the mar
riages are mercenary that women mar
~ 20 get a home" and think after read
Ing this that / was justified In my state
ment.
We will see what Mr. Nickerson says IN
his last letter about this. lie says. there
would be more marriages under socialism
than there are today. for the simple rea-
son that he would be more able TO sup
port "A wife then than now. SO that he
implies that tho woman would marry for
a home His former contention was that
only one woman I'm ten marrfes for love,
the others marrying for a home.
7 followed his line OF reasoning, that
women being able 10 earn IA much as
men would have no need TO marry for
home. and therefore the tenth who were
In love would bo the only ones TO marry,
IN I have In any way twisted the subject
ho has only himself 10 blame
CHARLES L. HEWITT.