, 1907-05-20

naturally, look as far away us they
could from such a government Of des.
potism-the only one they had eve
known-to the other extreme-a coun-
try where the state should own all the
land and capital, employ all the peo-
pie and divide everything. share and
share alike, among the community.
But the spirit of revolt which, in
that case may be patriotism becomes
ridiculous, and open to the charge of
~insincerity. when the tenets of its doc
trine are transplanted n cultivated
upon American soil by our foreign pop
ulation.'
Every opportunity to achieve sue
cess and happiness abounds on every
hand, and every incentive to industry
and accomplishment awaits him, and,
II he is energetic and skilful, there is
nothing to hinder him from becoming
prosperous, or, in other words, sue.
cessful In whatever vocation in life
he may pursue. With qualities that
commend themselves to his fellow men,
there is no limit to the possibilities
has been very often the case) he may
become a leader of men. If, therefor,
he is sincere. surely he must agree
with me that, in view of these condi-
lions, this is no place for the socialist.
And does It rot sound like a paradox
to hear this cry of socialism still rend-
ing the air-while every avenue of for
tune lies open to everyone?" =
THE state of society thai the social
lists seek to establish may be benefi-
cial to a class, which, under any condi-
tons, lacks frugality, thrift and self
reliance; but just where the general
mass of humanity is to be bettered or
elevated, socially, morally or political
ly, is n point not satisfactorily explain
ed. A society in which all human be-
ings do right; for the simple reason
that it is right, cannot exist, unless hu-
man nature is recast and reconstruct
ed. Human nature must be treated as
it is found in the general makeup of
man, and therefore, a society in which
alkspecial desires, all ambition and all
self-esteem have been eliminated, pre-
cludes development and progress. 1t
reduces everything to utter shiftless-
ness and s%tagnation. In such a society
there can be no incentive to great
achievements in art, literature, mechan.
les and invention. If all are to be
placed on an equal footing, the ignor-
ant with the educated, the dullard with
the genius, and the profligate with the
provident, what encouragement is there
for special effort?
IF you render accessible to each and
every member Of the human family
the achievements and benefits of civi.
lization, holding property in common
why should a man rack his brain or
strain his muscles in producing some.
thing which he expects to prove re.
munerative to himself in some way,
but which, under the socialistic state,
would so to the equal financial benefit
of all?
Just for a moment stop to think
of the effect of bringing all men
as neal to a dead level as possible,
for l recognize that not even socialism
would secure the equality which it
seeks. If one physician is more skilful
than another, who could insist that he
receive no better reward than the less
skilful, when many would be willing to
offer it? Or how else could he avoid
having all the patients in the commun.
ity upon his hands except by charging
more for his services than an inferior
physician? If one lawyer shows great
titled to a larger fee for his talent?
And how else is he to protect himself
from taking all the business from the
lawyer of less ability? Again, if the
skill of the cabinet maker is higher
and rarer and worth more than that OF
the carpenter, how can the latter eX'
pect the same compensation as the
former? To put both on the same
plane would be unjust and would lead
to n being compelled to work beyond
his strength, while the less skilful
would probably be insuficiently occu-
pied. Socialism, you thus see, would
often place a premium upon laziness
and inefiiciency.
Socialism would benefit the shift