New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-01-05

hut only what owns. W men ~ anu -
are anxious TO divide what they have
and give 1t to ID, instead of dividing
what c has and giving IL TO ID. We snail
reach an era in human history wheh
some Of the theories advanced by the
ProCressiyes will work In practice.
Meantime, We must proceed on the the
orv that A and are still moved by a
desire to keep to themselves what Is
theirs and to have the advantage and
happiness that may proceed from the
ownership OF the property they have
acquired.
Is there anything in the appeals which
are made by the orators for the FRO
gressive party that leads one TO tnink
that they regard their audience moved
by a elf-sacrifcing spirit to give up
what they have. to be distributed TO
others lees fortunate? On the contrary.
are not all the appeals which are made
based on the theory that the people ad-
dressed will be moved to adopt the re-
forms advocated by which they them
selves will be improved IN circumstance
and somebody else will lose what is his !!
II was urged In favor or the reel
procity agreement that 1t would reduce
the cost OF living by having free trade
in natural products between Canada
and the United States. I did not SUD-
scribe to that argument, because / did
not believe that II would do other than
make a larger reservoir, and thus steady
prices and prevent further increase IN
the cost OF living. But the argument
advanced by our Progressive brothers
against the Republican candidate with
the farmers was that he had favored
reciprocity with the idea of reducing
the prices at which the farmers SOLD
their products. Did farmers rush for
ward TO support that candidate because
OF the benefit which II was said would
be conferred upon their less fortunate
fellow men? Was not every argument
advanced In the last campaign TO induce
the votes of those who heard the argu-
ment on the ground that those who
heard would be better circumstanced
financially II they adopted the theory
which was being presented?
In other words, did not the whole
campaign illustrate In this respect the
very opposite condition from that OF
society In which men are moved In their
votes and governmental action by altru-
ist.c and not BY selfish motives? And IS
not the whole programme or the ITO
Rressive party a programme wnicn IN
It's ultimate result intends the taking
from the successful and comforting on
the unsuccessful that which the sue
cessful have earned?
IL all that IL means is that those VINO
have made their money unlawiuliy or
improperly shall be called upon 10 dis
gorge II, no one would object 10 the
proposition, however difficult II might
be to work out the theory; but when IL
Ia considered that such theories can De
satisfied only by taking all the prop
erty there is and putting IL in common
pot and distributing IL about. without
regard 10 the prudential virtues, we are
able 10 see the destruction that Will
come to modern progress By putting any
such theories into effect.
The great and tremendous advantage
OF the right OF property Is that II fur-
nishes a motive for man TO exercise IN
dustry and self-restraint. and the more
he improves the general prosperity or
the community in which he lives. and
so the more he helps his fellows lie
giyos them an opportunity TO labor and
70 save and thus TO increase the gen
eral accumulation OF capital. Its general
use and It's general product. and with
the increase in the general product tho
opportunity for better material living
grows. and with the opportunity for bet
ter material living the opportunity for
better spiritual living comes. The mo-
ment that by destroying the right OF
poverty you take away the motive for
accumulation. the motive for acquisition.
the motive for industry and self-re-
straint you take away the impulse which
has made the world what II Is. That Is
what the history OF civilization has
shown. No other theory has worked
out and has demonstrated It's useful