The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1909-11-13

=
as well give up government, and If
we are not to haye government, and
are to have Anarchy and Socialism,
tosbe governed by ! committee, is
that going to app6rtion what be-
longs to eaclEman?"
Here the President resorts to the
old trick of the political spellbinder
in linking Anarchy and Socialism to-
gether as one and the same thing.
As matter OF fact. however, there
is vast distinction between the two.
Anarchy is defined as state where
every individual is to do az be pleases
unrestrained by any government
force, while Socialism is the state
where everything is managed by gov
ernmental authority. One is no law,
and the other is all law; hence it
would be impossible for the two con-
ditiOns to exist at the same time
anywhere on earth.
Mr.. Taft is apparently not aware
of the fact that some of our govern
mental institutions are examples of
legalized Socialism. For instance,
our postal service il socialistic, be-
cause it IL the business oil the people
managed by the government, and the
same thing may be said OF our public
school system, of the conservation
of our national resources, and even
Of the Presidents corporation tax,
which because of it's supervision of
corporations is socialistic in it's ten
dency.
The groundlings may be made to
believe that Anarchy and Socialism
are twin horrors that stand for red
flags, dynamite bombs, and the de-
structi0n OF all government, but the
intelligent public knows that the two
are quite unlike in ideas and purpose
and the difference between them is
very great.-New Orleans States.
As the States wisely intimates, it is
impossible for Anarchy and Socialism
to exist in their entirety and at the
same time be success in the admin
istration Of government. Neither
can they exist jointly 10 the admins
tration OF government. The samples
of "legalized Socialism" cited by the
States, namely, the postal service, the
public schools, the conservation OF
national resources, etc., are not ex-
actly socialistic, because they lack
that principle of "equal dizzy" which
Socialists advocate. 1t is straining
a point to call them legalized Social
ism. The postal officers, school off,
GERS, and the experts employed in
conservation, all get fine salaries by
virtue of their attachments. far above
the wage of the common Masses
Their attachments entitle them to
this advantage just as saving and
thrift, or Inheritance, entitle owners
OF wealth to retain it and keep what
they can meke out of it's manage
ment within legitimate bounds.
1t is very true the violent Anarch-
lst is a different thing from the So
cialist, with his time-worn theories
and impractical contentious. But is
it not also true, while the two are
different in method at the outset, in
the end Socialism has always led to
Anarchy wherever and whenever it is
sought to be applied? Is there any
reasonsto believe that Agrarian laws
can be applied in this age any more
successfully than in the days of the
ancient Grecian republics and other
historical instances of failure?
Socialism, has been transplanted
from Europe, an o0tgrowth Of condi-
tions there that do not prevail here,
aud is foreign to our shores. The
only two practical theories of gov
eminent, 80 far as American institu-
tions are concerned, is represented
by the present Democratic and Re-
publican parties. Democracy repre-
sents the peoples rule. Its motto,
"of the people, for the people, by the
people," keeps it ever in opposition
to the Republican idea OF a central
lied form of government-that pecu-
liar feature of "paternalism," upon
which the trusts grow rich.
Our Socialist friends can harp un-
til doomsday on their peculiar doc
trine OF the peoples rule. Intelligent
business men will take no stock in it.
Their paternal idea will not harmon
ize with the Republican idea; and
their Democratic profession, Of rule
of the people, is all spoiled by the in
congruity of their position. If they