St. Johns review. (Saint Johns, Or.) 1904-current, 1908-09-11
TOO BAD.

In the Morning oregonian OF Sep.
tember 1, 1908, an editorial entitled
Enough to 20 Around, appears (no,
exactly In the same words, but the
same idea) Injunction Bill Taft's fam
Gus answer to the laboring mans
question: what is a laboring man to
do who Is out OF employment and is
willing to work and starving?" God
knows" says Bill. There In not
enough for all anywhere in this worlt
never has been, never will be- says
the Oregonlan. If this be true. Taft
was right. God knows But why
did not Taft tell him the rest7 Why
did he keep back a part of the truth ?
Why did Taft tell the mar he had
his sympathy? Why did lie not tell
him plainly that there was not
enough for all anywhere In the world
never had been. never will be7" and
dear reader. you know. God knows"
The republican nominee for president
knows"that the oregonian told the
truth. Just 40 long as capitalism
exists.
Ia II fact that God. who made
heaven and earth. who knew all
things is responsible for this state
OF affalrs7 " II possible that InJuno.
ton Blll Taft can be stirred with
sympathy at the sight Of ono starving
man begging for work. when God who
creates all things and IL tho per.
sonification OF love. John 10 10
Created things as they are for his
own pleasure. know that there are
millions In tho same condition. and
takes pleasure In al their sufforing7
II this ls the kind OF Goo that re.
publicans worship then we are
pleased TO be called atheist" But
hold' What was the occasion for III,
wonderful statement In tho Oregon.
Ian?
The wealth and productive power
OF the country are NO great, says a
socialist politician that there ought
10 be enough TO 40 around o 4. G.
the thing that hurts is the fact that
the socialists believe that there has
P.ways been enough and always viii
be II the right conditions prevail
Plenty for all Now. Mr.. oregonian.
II there never was a time and never
will be a time when there will be
enough for all. would II not be In line
with true justice that the man. wo.
man or child who works should have
the full value OF the product OF his
labor2 Would Il not be right that
they should own the tools they work
with? II they make them? II they
have n right To ownthe tools they
work with. and also the full value OF
the product OF their labor. who would |
be hungry? Your statement is alb, |
solutely true that Upon any division
or distribution there would never
be enough to 30 around" SO the
OF the world are against |
a division under any condition. We
believe that the producer should hold
for hi own pleasure all he creates
But II that should happen what
would become of property You say
L would perish You have answered
rightly. Then, life would be more
sacred than property and the laborer
would not be compelled To eat the
'rumbs that fall from the rich mans
able. hut there would be plenty for
al who would work, "and they shall
,uild houses and inhabit them, and
hey shall plant yinyards and eat the
uit thereof. they shall not build
ruit there of. they shall not build
liant and another eat. for as the day
4 tree are the days OF my peo-
lie and mine elect shall long enjoy
he work OF their hands, lsaiah,65;
Leg. G.L.P.