The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1914-10-31
tPolltieal Adyertisement.)
GRAFT AND CORRUPTlON|
Under Capitalism.
NONE UNDER SOCIALISM,


How could the Socialists eliminate
graft and corruption?
First, by eliminating the agencies
which are doing the corrupting.
Who is 1t that corrupts our judges.
our legislators, our mayors. our
councilmen? The privately owned
trusts and corporations, of course.
Who bribed the city council and the
mayor of San Francisco? Who but
the strete railway corporation Of that
city!
Who bought the city council of
3Pittsburg? Who but the business
men of Pittsburg!
Who bought the legislatures of
Pennsylvania and New York Who
but big business" in PENNSYLVANIA
and New York!
AS Lincoln Stehens SO tersely
stated, Behind every BAD PoLITI-
rCIAL is a GOOD BUSINESS MAN. :,
But when the Industries are owned
10y. the public, these publicly owned
Industries will surely not bride our
LEGISLATURES and our courts in order
to get franchises and special priVi-
fleges!
Did you ever hear of the United
States postal department. trying to
bride city council in order to get q
site for a postoffice building?
The city of Chicago owns itswater
works The gentlemen who own the
packing houses have for years been
managing to steal billions of gallons
of water.
..Ah-ha!'' say our Republican and
Democratic friends. that's what you
get from your public ownership of
the water works
NO" say the Socialists. that's
what yousg get from your private own-
ership of the packing houses.
The thing to be done is to. do away
with the PRIVATE ownership Of the
packing houses, not with the PUBLIC
ownership OF the water works.
The man who says 1t would be bet
ter to 1et3a corporation own the post
Office and what other pu blfcly owned
industries there are, because these
industries are being plundered by the
railroads and other private enter
prises. is like teh man who gave his
property away TO keep the thieves
from stealing it!
The only possible graft we could
have under Socialism would be the
sembezzlements of public funds by
public officials. A public official
might take money FOR WHICH He
Had NOT WORKED. 1t is true
that there might be found some public
official who would be mean enough to
do that. but it is quite certain that
there never has been and never will
be any public official able to get away
with, say fifty millions of dollars a
year. which is about the sum that
Mr.. Rockefeller takes from the public
every year WITHOUT WORKING
FOR IT.
The small sums that public officials
might take from the public
ILLEGALLY under Socialism, are in
significant when compared with the
millions upon millions taken from the
pu bic LEGALLY under capitalism.
Furthermore, be it remembered
that EN- bezzlement goes on in private
business to far greater extent than
in public business. There are
great many more bank cashiers alb
sconding than United States treasury
or postal employees. The graft in
the Illinois Central Railroad is also
still fresh in the public mind.
However, 1t is doubtful whether
even that sort of graft will take place
un der Socialism. It is the uncer-
tainty of making livelihood under
the present system that drives men to
dishonesty. In society in which a
man will be able to earn sufficient to
the necessities as well as the luxurfs
of life by doing few hours of labor
every day, it is not likely that men,
otherwise normal. will take their
chances at bringing down disgrace
and ostracism upon them selves by
robbing the the public.
DIR. NJ. S. Holt, of Weston, socialist
can diate for congress, spoke In the
court house last night to a well filed
house. Due to the failure of the cars
on the interurban lines, 1T was an
Inounced, the meeting was not as we'll
attended as expected. The Socialists
know of lare delegations From the
towns on the car lines that could not
get in to the meeting.
DR.. Holt came fresh from his home
city where Mr.. Nicely, his Democratic
opponenet had spoken the night be-
fore, aud from whose utterances he
had taken notes. In passing, he paid
his compliments to the issues raised
by the Republican and Progressive
can didates, but devoted most Of his
attention to the major. whom he said
that even though he was wearing the
title of military man, was not brave
enough to meet him on the platform
in joint debate
ssThe reason that Mr. Nicely did not
meet me is not that he does not con-
slider me socially his equal; not that
nv standing is not sufhciently prom
inent." said DR.. Holt. "but because he
could not answer the logic our our
economic program and because Whist