The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-07-16

many colors and enjoying privileges
and favors denied to the rest of the
people.
The defenders of imperialism or
colonialism have posed as the special
champions of commercial interest and
of property rights, and so distinguish
ed representative of the imperialists
as Senator lodge has advocated the
holding of the Philippines on the
ground that our nation must look af-
ter its pecuniary interests. No one
who will investigate the subject will
doubt that the persons benefited by
Imperialism are small in number COM
pared with the persons whose proper.
ty interests are injured by imperial
ism. Thousands pay taxes to hold the
Filipinos i'm subsection where one per.
son draws a dollars worth OF profit
out OF our occupation of the islands.
The profit realized from trade with the
Filipinos amounts to but a small per
cent upon the money that We are eX,
pending there, and all the people
spend the money while but a handful
reap the benefits. The American does
not expect to go to the Philippine is
lands 10 live If all of the F'ilipinos
were killed off. the country would
not be coloniZed by Americans "a
North America was colonized by Eu-
rope. Ahab had a far better excus.
for wanting the land of Naboth THAI
We have for wanting the Philippine
islands. Naboth's land joined the land
of Ahab and the taking of IL enlarged
the land that he cultivated. and yet
the Bible tells us that Naboth's right
to hold the land was vindicated. Who
will vindicate our right to conquer
the F'ilpinos in order to hold land
that must be worked through over
seers and protected by an alien gov
eminent and an army? The right OF
the Filipino to hold his property rests
upon the same basis that our right TO
hold property does. and we can not
ignore his property rights without en-,
oangering our own.
Every attempt to legislate in the In
terests of the laboring men is met with
the declaration that il is an interfer
ence with the right of property. How
would property be created but for Ia
Dor? And who will say that the man
who furnishes the capital should be
permitted to decide without appeal to
the conditions upon which property
shall be created by those who labor
for him? We often hear it asked by
the manufacturer: Have | not the
right to manage my own business p
That is not the question. If the man,
ufacturer Will set himself to work to
produce something with his OWL
hands. nobody will question his righs
to control his own business. But some
thing more is implied by his question.
If he would put the question fairly he
would ask, rot Have | not the right
to manage my own business" but
rather Have l not the right. in man.
aging my business, to regulate the
lives, the liberty, the hopes, the hap
piness of those whom | employ? But
to ask the question i'm this form would
be to suggest negative answer, while
he demands an affirmative answer.
These who claim the right to arbi-
trarily determine the hours, the wages
and the conditions of labor demand
the right to arbitrarily determine the
status of the laboring man and to fiN
the conditions that are to surround
him and his posterity. Is it an inter
ference with property rights to de-
mand that the laboring man shah
have a fair share of the proceeds OF
his own toil--a fair share of the prop
erty which he creates? His right to
accumulate property should not be
ignored. Not only should he be al
lowed to accumulate property, but
he should have leisure to enable him
to enjoy communion with his own
family and to fit himself for intelligent
participation in the affairs of his gov
capitalist put his claim TO larger di-
vidends above the right of the rights
of the wage earners. and the welfare
of the wage earners children?
Just now the trust magnates are
hurting epithets at those who seek To
destroy the trusts. They assume to
be the special custodians of property
rights, and charge anti-monopolists
with communistic, socialistic and an
archistic designs upon 1.-The thrifty and
the successful" AS a matter of fact