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



Whenever any vested wrong is to be
righted or any long standing abuse
corrected, those who profit by the
wrong or the abuse are prompt to
pose as the defenders of property and
to charge the reformers with attack
ing property rights. This is the his
toric attitude of those who oppose
remedial legislation. The insincerity
of the position taken is usually shown
by the arguments employed by these
self-styled champions of property, and
one of the best illustrations of these
arguments is to be found in the story
of Demetrius, the silversmith II reads
as follows:
And The same time there arose
no small stir about that way. For
a certain man named Demetrius,
a silversmith, which made silver
shrines for Diana, brought no
small gain unto the craftsmen;
whom he called together with the
workmen of like occupation, and
said, Sirs, We know that by this
craft we have our wealth. More
over, We see and hear. that not
alone at Ephesus but almost
throughout all Asia, this Paul
hath persuaded and turned away
much people, saying that they be
no gods, which are made with
hands. So that not only this our
craft Is I'm danger to be set at
naught: but also that the temple
of the great goddess Diana should
be despised and her magnificence
should be destroyed. whom all
Asia and the world worshippeth.
And when they heard these say
ings they were full of wrath
saving. Great is Diana Of the
EpheSians.
The silversmith was profitting by
the worship of idols: the making OF
images was the source of his income.
He called together those who were
engaged in the same occupation and
when all were convinced that Pauls
preaching. would bring them financial
injury they joined in a protest, but
they did not give their real reason for
opposing ristianity-namely. that 1t
would cause them a money loss, but
they pretended a fevent devotion TO
the goddess Diana. So, today. the
& lefi,,iaries of bad laws and bid
governmental systems are defending
their pecuniary interests with argu
ments that imply great devotion TO the
public welfare. Having satisfied them
selves that the reforms demanded by
the people will lessen their power to
extort from, and to tyrannize over, the
defenders shout Great is property!
Great are the rights of property
While the issue between the man and
the dollar seems to be an acute one. yet
in the last analysis there can be no
issue between human rights-and prop
erty rights. for nothing more surely
undermines property rights than the
disregard for human rights. and moth
ing brings greater security to prop
erty than a scrupulous regard for the
natural rights of each human being.
But we must always remember that
human rights are paramount. In
fact. everything depends upon the es-
adjustment of the true relation be-
tween the individual and dull, jnani-
mate property.
The house and its foundation are
connected, and we can
not think of one without the other.
So. human rights and property rights
are indissolubly connected. We can
not think of the one without the other
and as. in the building of a house, we
must think of the foundation first and
of the house as superStructure, SO
in thinking of society we must ne
cessarily think of human rights first
and of property rights as resting upon
human rights. He who talks of prop
erty rights as If they could exist with
as foolishly as one who would attempt
to build a house without considering
the foundation upon which 1t is to
stand. Lincoln discussed this subject
in his own inimitable way. In 1859.
i'm responding to an invitation to at
tend a birthday dinner given by Bos-
ton Republicans i'm honor of Thomas
Jefferson Lincoln said that the Re-
publican party believed i'm the man
In, Of
conflict he believed I'm the man be-
fore the dollar. Again in his message
to Congress in 1861 Lincoln said:
ut is not needed or fitting here
that a general argument should
be made i'm favor of popular in
situations, but there is one point
with its connection not so hack
neyed as most others, to which |
ask a brief attention. 1t is the
effort to place capital on an equal
footing with, if not above, labor
i'm the structure of government:
il is assumed that labor is avail
able only in connection with CAPT.
tall that nobody labors unless
somebody else owning capital
somehow, by the use of capital,
induces him to labor.
Labor is prior to and indie
pendent of capital. Capital is
only the 1rult ana cOulu
never have existed il labor had
not first existed. Labor is the STU
perior of capital and deserves
much the higher consideration"
1t will be seen that Lincoln believed
labor to be prior to and independent
of capital, and that he regarded capital
as only the fruit of labor. He express
only the fruit of labor. He express
ly declared labor to be not only SUI
Eerior to capital. but deserving OF
much the higher consideration. If
labor is superior to capital and de-
serving of much higher consideration,
is not the human being who stands
back of labor more important than
either capital or labor? And are not
the rights of human beings more i'm
portant than any RIGHTS which attach
TO property. If indeed, the word
right can properly be used to de.
scribe a quality or characteristic OF
The question that We have TO meet
is not really a question between the
Individual and property. but rather
question between those who own d
"a eat deal of property and those who
own but little. or il might better be
.stated as an issue between those who
are seeking TO secure property without
giving TO society an equivalent. ana