The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1908-11-05
ROOSEVELT SCORES,
Points Out the Fatal Weakness
of SOciaIiStic Schemes.

Their Own Party.
Judging from the angry replies Of
Socialists, President Roosevelt must
have struck home In the address In
which he recently paid his respects
to socialism In the following words:
I'VE have made this country what 1t
is partly because we have measurably
succeeded in securing in the past
equality Of opportunity. That Is very
different from equality of reward.
II believe emphatically In doing ev-
erything that can be done by law or
otherwise to keep the avenue of Occu-
patton, Of employment, of work, Of In
terest, so open that there shall be, so
far as 1t is humanity possible to achieve
1t, a measurable equality Of OppOrtuni
ty-equality of opportunity for each
man to show the stun that Is In him.
But when it comes to reward let him
get what by his energy, foresight, in
telligence, thrift, courage, he is able to
get If the opportunity opens. l don't
believe in cuddling any one. / would
no more permit the strong to Oppress
the weak than to tell weak man or
vicious man that he ought by rights
to have the reward due only to the
man who actually earns it. Very prop
erly we in this country set our faces
against privilege.
There can be no groSser example
of privilege than that set before us as
an ideal by certain socialiStic WRITER'S
the ideal that every man shall put into
the common fund what he can, which
would mean what he chose, and should
take out whatever he wanted In 9th
er words, this theory is that the man
who is vicious, foolish, a drag on the
whole community, who contributes less
than his share to the common good.
should take out what is not his, what
he has not earned, that he shall rob
his neighbor of what that neighbor
has earned.
This particular socialistic ideal would
be to enthrone privilege In one Of its
grossest, Crudest, most dishonest, most
harmful and most unjust forms.
Equality of opportunity to render serv-
ice-yes, will do everything can to
bring it about. Equality of reward
no, unless there is also equality of serv-
ice. If the service is equal let the re-
ward be equal, but let the reward de-
pend ON the service. And, mankind be-
ing composed as 1t is, there will be
inequality of service for a long time
fn hn
equality Of opportunity may be, and
just so long as there is inequality of
service it is eminently desirable that
there should be inequality of reward"
The tenor Of the Socialist criticisms
of this address is shown by the follow
ing quotations from replies, most of
which appeared in the New York Even
ing Call, Socialist organ:
This peculiar statement of Roose-
welt makes it clear that he does not In
the least understand socialism,
ert Hunter, Millionaire Socialist.
HE Is truly most ignorant concern
ing the principles Of the most vital
question Of our day. If Mr.. Roosevelt
wishes to abuse socialism he must
learn what socialism is."-Rose Pastor
Stokes. Wife Of Another Millionaire
Socialist.
THE presidents idea of socialism is
absurd. But who could expect him to
say anything different? He would
make people believe that Socialists
were communists. AS matter Of
fact, We want each man to get just
what he earns through his own efforts
and no more. If a man earns IS a day,
then give 1t to him. If he earns $40,
give him that. But we would assert
that one man who does inferior work
to another should not get the same
pay."-Morris Brown.
1t Is unfortunate that President
Roosevelt worded his remarks so that
they could be construed into an iden-
tihcation of socialism and communism.
He undoubtedly is we'll aware that,
while all communists are Socialists,
few American Socialists are commu-
nists. 1t Is perfectly evident that what
he was protesting against was the doc
trine that all workers should receive
the same pay without regard to the 1
quality of their work. This doctrine
is repudiated by Morris Brown and
also by Warren Atkinson, who, in a
lengthy rejoinder to President Roose-
welt, says:
THE answer is simple and conclu-
Sive to this question, how to determine
the pay i'll the industrial republic-just
as we do it now. The Socialist party
has never proposed to determine the
relative pay for different kinds of work
in any different way from the way in
which 1t is determined now by the Or
dinary action of supply and demand"
This answer is not ingenious. Mr..
Atkinson knows very well that the
Socialist party platform by no means
fully represents the ideals Of the party.
1t was toned down to catch votes
the votes Of those who have something
to lose, either of property or skill, and
are therefore more conservative than
those to whom any leveling process
would involve a betterment Of condi-
tions-the unskilled, the incompetent
and the thriftless.
The appeal that socialism makes to
this latter class will be found In its
papers and pamphlets rather than In
dts platform. If we turn to these we
shall find that the ''proletarians," as
the Socialists delight to call them, are
asked to vote for socialism because IL
puts all men on a plane of earning
equality-one days pay for one days
work, and all work, with some excep-
tions, to count as Of equal value. Even
the exceptions favor the "proletarian."
for the suggestion is that workers
In nnatfracfive emnlnvmnntS rninarn