Gaylord
 
 'tf 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 I
 
 WILSHIRE EDITORIALS 
 
 BY 
 GAYLORD WILSHIRE 
 
 Editor Wilioire'* Magazine 
 
 WILSHIRE BOOK CO. 
 
 200 WILLIAM STREET 
 
 NEW YORK
 
 Copyright. 1906, by 
 GAYLORD WILSHIRE
 
 PREFACE 
 
 The contents of this volume consist almost exclusively of 
 my editorials published within the past six years either in 
 "Wilshire's Magazine" or in "The Challenge/' its predecessor. 
 
 The burden of my song, as the reader will quickly gather, 
 is that an industrial cataclysm is about to appear in the 
 United States as the result of over-production. 
 
 I predict this notwithstanding that to-day as I write we are 
 in the fever of a greater industrial expansion than the country 
 has ever before experienced. It seems impossible to supply 
 demand. Factories are over-burdened with orders. Our 
 mines of copper, lead, zinc, silver and iron are being worked 
 day and night under the stimulus of tremendously high 
 prices, and yet are unable to supply demand. 
 
 However, my endeavor is to show that all this activity is 
 ephemeral and temporary, that the great demand comes far 
 more largely from consumption by the capitalists of goods 
 for new capital expenditure than from any demand by the 
 workers for necessities of life. Shortly, the great demand is 
 for pig-iron, not pig-meat. 
 
 The essential difference between the two demands, speak- 
 ing economically, is that the one will cease as soon as the new 
 machinery is built, and that the other, based on human hun- 
 ger, can never cease. 
 
 I find in the Trust the sign that the industrial demand for 
 new machinery is coming to a close ; the Trust is manifestly a 
 necessary device of the capitalist to subdue the ill effects of 
 over-production in being or in prospect, 
 
 3 
 
 796895
 
 4 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 Our immensely increased capacity to produce, as the result 
 of the use of better and better machinery, has not been ac- 
 companied by any superior facilities for distribution and con- 
 sumption except to the extent that the capitalists have found 
 an opportunity to expand their plants. 
 
 The workers cannot, to any extent, increase their power of 
 consumption, because that power is limited by their wages, 
 and wages are forced by competition to remain at about the 
 point of subsistence. 
 
 Money wages have, indeed, increased somewhat in the last 
 few years, but the rise in price of living has kept real wages 
 down to about the same old level of subsistence. The present 
 period of great expansion is, to my mind, directly traceable 
 to the stimulus given by the three great wars with which the 
 world has lately been scourged. I refer to the Boer-British 
 South African war, the Spanish-American war, and, finally, 
 to the Kusso-Japanese war. The effect of this last war is seen 
 in our present great industrial prosperity. I think that its 
 influence cannot last much longer than a year from to-day. 
 
 I believe that when the collapse of the present boom shall 
 usher in a huge unemployed problem that the workers of the 
 United States will refuse to be placated by any reasoning of 
 the capitalists to the effect that they ought to expect to go 
 hungry, knowing that they produce so much more than they 
 can buy. 
 
 The day has passed when the people of the United States 
 will be satisfied to starve because they produce too much food. 
 
 The day has passed when the people of a whole village will 
 submit to death from typhoid fever because the doctors and 
 preachers pronounce it a visitation of God as a punishment 
 for their unrighteousness. They now know that typhoid 
 comes with polluted water supply, and they will proceed to 
 purify that supply at once. 
 
 It will be the same way with us Americans in regard to
 
 Preface. 5 
 
 death from starvation when the capitalist cannot employ us 
 owing to over-production. Some years ago we would have 
 quietly starved, thinking that such events as panics and trade 
 depressions were mysterious events sent upon man by a divine 
 providence, into whose ways it was profane to explore. 
 
 We now know differently. We know that a trade depres- 
 sion is caused by over-production, which in turn is caused 
 by the inability of the workers to buy with their low wages 
 what they produce. We know that low wages are caused by 
 competition between workers — by the competitive system. We, 
 therefore, see that the base of all the trouble is in the com- 
 petitive system. 
 
 My editorials are built upon this theory, and they try to 
 show how by the substitution of the co-operative system — 
 Socialism — we can solve the industrial problem now threaten- 
 ing us. 
 
 GAYLOKD WILSHIRE. 
 
 Bishop, Cal., Nov. 14, 1906.
 
 SOCIALISM: A RELIGION 
 
 1 THINK most Socialists would agree that until the belief 
 in Socialism gets hold of the hearts and emotions of 
 the people more as a religion than as an understanding 
 of economic events, that there is not going to be a Social 
 Eevolution. 
 
 In the first place the economics of Socialism are not suffi- 
 ciently easy of explanation to the general public for them 
 to be understood quickly enough for us to gain a large fol- 
 lowing in any short period of time. 
 
 Men usually have taken up a political faith not because v 
 they have arrived at it from a course of logical reasoning, 
 but because they have gained it through their emotions rather 
 than their reason. However, this admission does not neces- 
 sarily imply that such faith necessarily rests on a false 
 foundation. It may or may not. 
 
 Every period of depression in this country has awakened a 
 feeling of revolt among the ones affected injuriously, and they 
 have sought in the past to remedy their ills by a variety of 
 panaceas. 
 
 It is not so many years ago when faith in the greenbacks 
 was prevailing, and it seemed to many of us the great and 
 only remedy for human ills, and later on we pinned our 
 faith to Mr. Bryan and his remedy of free silver. 
 
 To-day there is a marked tendency among the people to 
 place their faith in Socialism. In each case the method by 
 which the greatest part of the believers in greenbacks, free 
 silver and Socialism arrived at their conclusions, was muchW' 
 more through their hearts and emotions than through 
 their brains and intellects. But because we have been wrong 
 at least two times out of the three it does not follow that now 
 when we decide upon Socialism that we must be again wrong 
 for the third time. 
 
 It has been rightly said that it is much easier to sym- 
 pathize with suffering than happiness; that is, where ten 
 men will sympathize with you, wishing for Socialism because 
 
 7
 
 8 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 it will alleviate suffering, there is one man who will go with 
 you because it promises a world of happiness and beauty. 
 
 The Socialist has three classes of men to whom he appeals : 
 First, the large mass of humanity who wish a change because 
 they themselves are actually suffering from poverty. Second- 
 ly, another large mass of people who, while they themselves 
 are not suffering from poverty, wish to see others' sufferings 
 alleviated. Third, a class, and a very much smaller class, 
 are those who picture the earth made into one divinely beauti- 
 ful garden for man in the state of complete happiness, and 
 this ideal makes them Socialists. 
 
 The best Socialist is one who cannot only sympathize with 
 poverty and wish to alleviate it, but who has the imagination 
 to see the world of beauty which Socialism promises as the 
 goal to be realized. 
 
 In this day of machine production it is not difficult to 
 show that we can produce more than enough to banish poverty. 
 There was a day when poverty was the result of under-pro- 
 duction, famine and war. The world was hungry, because 
 there was not enough to eat. To-day hunger and want exist 
 in civilized countries not because there is not enough pro- 
 duced, but because we don't know how to properly distribute 
 the product. If we could properly distribute what is pro- 
 duced without at the same time checking production, there 
 is no economist but would admit that the problem of poverty 
 could be solved. 
 
 Under our competitive system a man is not paid according 
 to what he produces, but according to what he may sell his 
 labor for in the competitive market. 
 
 The employer buys labor just as he buys any other material. 
 If he is making shoes he figures out how much the labor cost 
 is, how much the leather cost, how much his rent and interest 
 are, etc. He cannot pay more for his labor than his com- 
 petitors do, any more than he could pay any more for his 
 leather than they do — not if he expects to sell his shoes 
 against them in competition. 
 
 On the other hand, the man that sells his labor, just as 
 the man that sells his leather to him, must sell at the market 
 rate, otherwise he cannot dispose of his product, his labor. 
 
 If Jones offers his labor for $2 a day to the employer, 
 then it is just as hopeless for Smith to try to sell his labor
 
 Socialism : A Religion. 9 
 
 for $2.50 a day, as it would be for Smith to ask $2.50 a 
 pound for leather, which the employer could buy for $2 a 
 pound. If there are plenty of men who are willing to sell 
 their labor at $2 a day and their leather at $2 a pound, then, 
 of course, the price of leather or labor cannot rise above $2. 
 There are always many men out of employment in the United 
 States, even in times of prosperity, and, therefore, it is futile 
 to expect that wages can rise very much above what the un- 
 employed ask and they ask just about enough to keep them 
 from starving. Hence under our existing conditions remuner- 
 ation to the workingman must always remain approximately 
 at the mere point of subsistence, no matter how much more 
 than a subsistence the worker may produce. 
 
 The reason of this holding down of wages to the bare sub- 
 sistence point is the competitive system, and as long as that 
 system exists, the workingman cannot expect to get more 
 than at best a mere living. Hence, no matter how much we 
 may increase in productivity, the laborer will find it impossible 
 to share in the increase. 
 
 The average annual wage to-day is something less than 
 $500 per man; while the annual product to-day has been 
 estimated at about $2,000; but whether it is $2,000 or $20,- 
 000 makes no difference as far as the laborer is concerned, 
 because under the competitive system he cannot possibly get 
 any more than this living wage of $500. 
 
 The surplus is automatically dumped into the laps of the 
 employing class — into the hands of the owners of the ma- 
 chinery of production and the land. 
 
 Of course it often happens that some individual employer 
 may get very little, if any, of this surplus. He may have to 
 pay all his gains away to pay his landlord, if he is a manu- 
 facturer in the city of New York, or if he is a farmer in 
 the West he may be forced to pay his gains to the railroad, 
 and so on. 
 
 The employing class — the capitalist class — utilize this auto- 
 matic surplus product coming from the laborer in two ways. 
 First, they spend part of it, and second, they invest part of it. 
 We may pass by the question of what they spend as being 
 relatively of no economic importance, unimportant because it 
 is not a channel which can be automatically enlarged in times 
 of emergency.
 
 10 Wilshike Editorials. 
 
 It is the investment of capital in savings which absorbs a 
 great part of the surplus product of labor. This is the part 
 which goes to build our railroads, our manufactories and our 
 industrial undertakings as a whole. It is the opportunity for 
 investment of savings which to-day creates and is responsible 
 for our present period of prosperity. As long as the capitalist 
 can see an opportunity for the profitable investment of his 
 surplus he will invest, and this means that he will continue 
 to employ labor, build new railroads, etc.; but let it once 
 come to the point when there is no profit to be made in the 
 further building of railroads, of oil refineries, etc., then you 
 may be sure that he will stop his investing. 
 
 This is the future the Socialist sees is sooner or later going 
 to confront the capitalist class, viz., the inability to invest 
 their surplus, and therefore the inability to employ labor, 
 and therefore a great unemployed problem must ensue. 
 
 It might be thought by some that there is an unlimited 
 opportunity for the building of new machinery, but the trust 
 is in evidence as contradicting such an assumption. The 
 trust is a white flag hung out by the competitive capitalistic 
 armies announcing their surrender to monopoly and to com- 
 bination. Over-production threatens their existence. 
 
 But the trust is only a temporary remedy, for we must 
 remember that all our industrial equipment is for the pur- 
 pose of making goods to be distributed to the working class. 
 
 The working class under our original analysis have only 
 about $500 a year to buy the product, and as under our com- 
 petitive system this $500 cannot be increased, it is not at all 
 difficult to see how man with modern machinery can produce 
 more than he can buy. Therefore, the wonder is not that we 
 are threatened with over-production to-day, but that we were 
 not overwhelmed with it years ago. 
 
 However, the technical improvements in production have 
 been so revolutionary that no sooner has one piece of ma- 
 chinery been installed than another has been invented to 
 take its place, and the first piece has been torn down and the 
 new installed, thus giving employment to labor. But this 
 building of new machinery to supersede old machinery has 
 at last come to a stop, and the trust is the sign that this 
 climax has been reached. 
 
 Two years ago we were threatened with a period of great
 
 Socialism : A Religion. 11 
 
 depression, but along came the Russo-Japanese war to dis- 
 tribute goods in great quantity and at the same time draw 
 more than a million men from the labor army of the world, 
 and the result of this was a tremendous increased demand 
 for products in Western Europe and the United States. The 
 San Francisco earthquake will have a tendency to prolong 
 the stimulus given by the war. The effects of this war are 
 rapidly wearing off, however, and it will not be many months 
 before there is a great fall in prices and a great cessation of 
 the demand for labor. This means a great unemployed prob- 
 lem and means that this nation, now in its heyday of pros- 
 perity, is soon to be confronted with a terrible economic crisis. 
 In the previous periods of depression we looked to superficial 
 remedies for relief. We were like a quack who would attempt 
 to cure smallpox by treating the' eruption. V 
 
 The Socialist sees that it is useless to try to alleviate 
 poverty as long as you let rest the cause of poverty, viz., the 
 competitive system. He would abolish the competitive system 
 and substitute the co-operative system, which merely means 
 the distribution of products to men as they may produce 
 rather than distributing as little as they can live upon. To 
 do this it is necessary for us to own the machinery of pro- 
 duction ; that is, it would be absurd for us to try to establish 
 the co-operative commonwealth if we should leave the trusts 
 and railroads in the hands of the Gould- Vanderbilt-Harriman- 
 Rockefeller-Astor Company. 
 
 It is necessary for the people as a whole to own and operate 
 these great machines of production and to distribute the 
 product to ourselves as workers, not upon the basis of how 
 little we can use, but upon the basis of what we produce. If 
 by virtue of modern machinery we can produce one hundred 
 times the product we can without machinery, then let us have 
 a product one hundredfold greater instead of taking only 
 one-tenth of the product and allowing ninety per cent, of it 
 to rest in an unused accumulated heap in the hands of the 
 capitalists and justifying them in saying that there is over- 
 production and therefore no opportunity to give us work. 
 
 I have shortly sketched the economic basis of Socialism, 
 and if it be difficult of understanding to many readers my 
 original contention that Socialism will not gain the day 
 through an appeal to the understanding as much as an ap-
 
 12 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 peal to the heart will be justified. We can all feel for the 
 man that is suffering from hunger, and we can all see the 
 absurdity of his being hungry merely because there is so 
 much bread that there is no opportunity to hire him to either 
 raise the wheat or to grind the flour or to bake bread. 
 
 Even in this present period of "prosperity" the growth of 
 the Socialistic undercurrent of sentiment is apparent to every 
 one, not only in the increased Socialistic vote in all parts of 
 the world, but particularly is it exhibited in the current 
 literature of the day, not merely the literature of exposures 
 of graft, but the literature such as is produced by such as 
 our Gorkys, our Tolstois, our Zolas, our Londons, our Sin- 
 clairs and other men of genius, who are voicing the cry of 
 the disinherited. 
 
 It is impossible for a man even though he be in perfect 
 health, with the exception, say, of a crushed finger, to be 
 happy until the pain from his finger has departed. 
 
 Humanity is just as much a living organism as is a man's 
 body a living organism. We cannot have a single member of 
 our great organization of humanity hurt without all of us feel- 
 ing the pain, just as the man with the crushed finger feels pain 
 throughout his body, although only his finger is affected. 
 Even the most hard-hearted of men will admit that he could 
 not sit down to eat his dinner with any pleasure and have 
 alongside of him a hungry man who because of poverty 
 could not share his food. Fundamentally, our instinct is 
 to relieve the pain of our brother men just as much as it is 
 for us to relieve the pain in our crushed finger. 
 
 Socialism recognizes this emotional interdependence of all 
 humanity, and calls upon it to further a movement to relieve 
 all humanity of all its pain, viz., its poverty. 
 
 On the other hand, the mere relieving humanity of the 
 pain of poverty is only the first step toward putting it in 
 position to properly enjoy life. The man with the injured 
 finger does not look upon the end of life to be relieved of 
 pain. His end of life is to enjoy happiness, and that is a 
 positive condition and not a mere negative one. A man has 
 the greatest enjoyment in the exercises of his functions, first 
 of the physical, and then of the intellectual and spiritual. 
 
 With poverty abolished from the earth, men will be re- 
 lieved of the rjecessity of paying attention to material needs
 
 Socialism : A Eeligion. 13 
 
 or at least the attention necessary to be paid will be incon- 
 sequential. They will devote themselves to living their spir- 
 itual lives, and at last the souls of all men will really live. 
 
 Humanity then will become a race of gods and every man 
 will then be fit to be in communication with God. Eeligion 
 in the broader and higher sense is the relating of man to 
 the universe, and Socialism is merely the path to this great 
 end. 
 
 The poets and artists are merely men who best experience 
 an emotional contact with all humanity and who can pre- 
 cipitate their emotions in visible shape — in their poems and 
 statues — that all may see and enjoy. When Socialism comes, 
 all men will not only feel themselves individually happy, but 
 will also feel themselves perfectly related to a happy hu- 
 manity, and that humanity as a whole will feel its relation 
 to every individual man. Then all men will be poets and 
 artists, and then indeed will be the Birth of the Superman. 
 
 The greatest exaltation that can come to the spirit of man 
 is to realize himself at one with the universe. 
 
 This can only come when men are as perfectly related to 
 each other and to humanity as a whole as are the cells in the 
 living body related to each other and to the body as a whole. 
 
 Men must be united to humanity in an organization at 
 once perfectly democratic and perfectly autocratic. 
 
 All humanity will be at one with God and every man will 
 be a god. 
 
 This is the glorious ideal which spurs on the Socialist and 
 which enthuses him with a religious ecstasy comparable with 
 no emotion which has ever hitherto stirred the world.
 
 14 Wilshike Editorials. 
 
 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TRUST 
 
 THE real danger of the Trust exists not in what it is to- 
 # day, but in what it promises for to-morrow. Most 
 writers on the Trust have confined themselves too 
 much to expatiating upon its most palpable features. Anyone 
 can see the menace to our institutions involved in the change 
 from industry conducted on a competitive democratic system 
 to a monopolistic autocratic system. Anyone can see the men- 
 ace to labor if there is but one employer instead of a hundred. 
 Anyone can see that when the production of a commodity is 
 controlled by a Trust that prices may be put up to exorbitant 
 figures. All these points are so obvious that it is a waste of 
 time calling attention to them. 
 
 Not only is time wasted running over and over again the 
 obvious and manifest dangers of the Trust, but the remedies 
 suggested for its elimination are usually so absurd that their 
 proposal constitutes another waste of time. 
 
 It is the indication of what is to come that constitutes the 
 dangerous significance of the appearance of the Trust, for the 
 Trust signifies the near approach of a tremendous Unemployed 
 Problem. 
 
 A great change in public opinion regarding the Trust issue 
 has occurred in the last few years. It is not so very long ago 
 when all our public men and newspapers had but one solu- 
 tion for the problem: "The Trust must be destroyed," they 
 said. To-day nobody in his right senses looks to the possibility 
 of the destruction of Trusts, for Trusts are now admitted to 
 be the inevitable result of our competitive economic system. 
 
 I do not propose to devote any great attention to a demon- 
 stration of the inevitability of the Trust, as I regard such 
 a task as practically superfluous. The point I care more to 
 dwell upon is not the inevitability of the Trust, which will be 
 generally agreed ur>on, but upon the impossibility, in an econo- 
 mic sense, of the permanence of the Trust. Let me say at once, 
 before I raise false hopes in the breast of the classical econo- 
 mist, that I do not propose to show that Trusts must fall
 
 The Significance of the Trust. 15 
 
 to pieces of their own weight and that competition must be re- 
 stored owing to the entrance of fresh capital into the field at- 
 tempted to be monopolized. That would be an extremely fool- 
 ish position to take after having asserted the inevitability of 
 the Trust. 
 
 Neither am I attempting a glittering paradox by first as- 
 serting the inevitability of the Trust and in the next breath de- 
 claring its impossibility. The theory which I shall attempt to 
 demonstrate is that the natural and inevitable evolution of our 
 industrial system is from competition under private ownership 
 to monopoly under private ownership, and from monopoly un- 
 der private ownership to monopoly under public ownership. In 
 declaring the impossibility of the permanence of private mon- 
 opoly, I speak simply from the standpoint of the political 
 economist, and I leave out of consideration political and in- 
 dustrial changes which may or may not be brought about by 
 the uprising of a long-suffering and indignant people. 
 
 Public ownership of industry might be brought about next 
 month if the people had a sufficient desire to effect it. How- 
 ever, it is not to the "might be" I appeal, but to the "must 
 be." I shall endeavor to prove that public ownership — So- 
 cialism — is not inevitable because it is desirable, but because 
 it comes into the category of the inexorably necessary. My 
 first task will be to prove the necessity of the Trust, my next 
 to prove the necessity of Socialism. 
 
 The Trust arose from the desire of the manufacturers to 
 protect themselves from over-production and the consequent 
 mad and suicidal struggle to dispose of their surplus stock. 
 
 Over-production arises because our productive capacity has 
 been developed to the highest degree with labor-saving ma- 
 chinery operated by steam and electricity, while our consump- 
 tive capacity remains stunted by the competitive wage system 
 which limits the laborers — who constitute the bulk of our 
 consumers — to the mere necessities of life. I will not tire the 
 reader with long statistics exhibiting the enormous strides that 
 have taken place in the productive capacity of men, due to 
 modern machinery, nor will I harrow his soul with the well- 
 worn details of the narrow, sordid life of squalor lived by mil- 
 lions of our workers. It is patent to everyone that the wage 
 worker of to-day consumes but little if any more of the neces- 
 sities of life than did his grandfather of fifty years ago.
 
 16 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 The consumption, per capita, of beef, flour, potatoes, coffee, 
 tobacco, wool, etc., has varied little, if any, in the last fifty 
 years. Every student of history knows in a general way that 
 the ordinary laborers of this country fifty or one hundred 
 years ago lived in a fair degree of comfort, were warmly clad 
 in their homespun and comfortably housed in their log cabins. 
 The best proof of this is their notoriously fine physical devel- 
 opment, their longevity and freedom from disease. The aver- 
 age family was from ten to fourteen, for neither the husband 
 nor the wife felt the dread of an addition to the family that is 
 so characteristic of to-day. Eace suicide is purely a modern 
 thing. 
 
 I do not think any fair-minded person will claim that the 
 modern day laborer on his $1.50 per day, and very uncertain 
 of that, living in a city, wearing shoddy clothes, breathing 
 sewer gas, eating tuberculous beef, drinking typhoid bacilli in 
 his milk and fusel oil in his whisky, and absorbing intellectual 
 garbage from his yellow journal, has had any great augmenta- 
 tion in the pleasures of life through the inventions of the mar- 
 velous nineteenth century. 
 
 But it may be pertinently asked, "Where has disappeared 
 this immense stream of products that is the result of the labor 
 of the nation applied to modern machinery?" 
 
 Taking the product of labor as a whole, it flows into two 
 broad channels, one to the capitalists, the holders of wealth, 
 and one to the workers. The ordinary workers at best merely 
 get enough to keep them in efficient condition. Part of the 
 workers, the aristocracy of labor, the trade-unionists and 
 skilled labor generally, the proletarians who sell their brains 
 rather than their hands, may get something above the mere 
 necessities; but, broadly speaking, competition prevents any 
 great augmentation of the share that goes to labor beyond that 
 of the mere necessities of life. 
 
 The whole of the remainder of the product of labor falls 
 automatically into the lap of the holders of wealth simply as 
 a rent, with no economic necessity on their part of doing 
 anything in return for it. 
 
 Witness the enormous incomes of the Duchess of Marl- 
 borough and the Countess Castellane, representing abroad the 
 Vanderbilt and Gould wealth, and discover if you can any re- 
 turn they may make to the American people. It is possible
 
 The Significance of the Trust. 17 
 
 that somebody might strain his imagination into believing that 
 the Astors, the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts, who between 
 them have an income something like $200,000,000 per year, 
 perform some economic good in return, but I doubt if their 
 most generous retainer would say that a hundred thousand a 
 year each would not be sufficient compensation considering 
 that our college professors get on an average less than $1,000. 
 
 The stream of wealth flowing into the coffers of the rich 
 flows out again divided into two streams, one of which goes to 
 satisfy what they are pleased to regard as their necessities of 
 existence, a wonderful conglomerate of beefsteaks, truffles, 
 champagne, automobiles, private cars, steam yachts, golf balls, 
 picture galleries, food and clothing for their servants, etc., all 
 classified under the general head of consumables and paid for 
 by "spent" money. 
 
 The other division of the stream is what is termed "saved" 
 money, and goes into the building of new machinery of pro- 
 duction, new railroadSi canals, iron furnaces, mills, etc. It is 
 this last channel for the "saved" money for investments that 
 has been the great sluiceway for carrying off the surplus pro- 
 duct and avoiding a plethora in our industrial system. 
 
 Notwithstanding that the prodigality of the American rich 
 in unbounded luxury is the wonder of the age, still the per- 
 centage of the very rich is so small that all their efforts in lav- 
 ish "spending" have had little effect — economically — com- 
 pared with the wealth they are forced to "save," owing to lack 
 of ingenuity in discovering new modes for "spending." There 
 is a grim satisfaction in the reflection that the "saving" capa- 
 city of the nation is increased by the concentration of wealth. 
 Thrift is no longer a difficult virtue when it requires more 
 labor and pains to "spend" than it does to "save," and this is 
 the predicament of the very rich Americans. 
 
 No man cares for two dinners, and when Mr. Rockefeller 
 with his $100,000,000 a year income "spends" over a 
 thousand dollars per day on himself and his household, he finds 
 it both pleasanter and easier to "save" the remainder than to 
 lay awake nights devising bizarre ways to "spend" it. How- 
 ever, as .the condition of affairs now is in the business world, 
 it must be admitted that it is about as difficult for him to 
 discover channels to invest his savings as it is to invent ways 
 to "spend" it. I pity him. Some thirty years or more ago
 
 18 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 when Bockefeller went into the business of refining oil, he waa 
 not then bothered with the problem of investing his profits. 
 First, because they were not then so large as to be cumber- 
 some; and, secondly, because the oil business itself, notwith- 
 standing sharp competition, was a fairly profitable one, and he 
 had then a natural place there to reinvest his earnings. How- 
 ever, others in the oil business, his competitors, also reinvested 
 their earnings in the oil business. Finally the capacity for re- 
 fining oil became greater than the market demanded. Each 
 refiner was bound to get rid of his surplus product at any 
 price, and the price of the surplus determined the price of the 
 whole. Prices sank to a ruinously low figure and bankruptcy 
 stared them in the face. Over-production must be curtailed. 
 The Standard Oil Trust was born. 
 
 All this has been brought out time and again in the many 
 federal and state inquiries into the Standard Oil Trust. 
 Bockefeller completely proved his case in the Congressional 
 investigation of 1888, that competition was ruining his busi- 
 ness and that combination had become an absolute necessity. 
 In fact, there has never been any questioning of his testimony 
 establishing these facts. The politicians, however, thought it 
 was a chance to make political capital, and urged the de- 
 struction of the Oil Trust, not attempting in the least to con- 
 trovert Rockefeller's statement of facts showing that combi- 
 nation was an absolute necessity. But notwithstanding the 
 efforts of the politicians to overturn the laws of nature and 
 make water run up hill, Bockefeller persisted in combining 
 and making money instead of following their plan of compe- 
 ting and losing money. 
 
 The only reason that capitalists in the oil business kept on 
 investing money when they knew there was already too much 
 money in that business was because the opportunities for the 
 investment of capital in other industries promised no better 
 returns. 
 
 Capital, like water, seeks its own level. When no Trust is 
 on guard to intimidate would-be investors, abnormally large 
 profits will induce the flow of fresh capital to any business un- 
 til profits are reduced to the normal. Hence, as it may be 
 inferred, if capital was investing in oil refineries, notwith- 
 standing the unpromising outlook, it was doing so because 
 other businesses were in the same state of plethora and could
 
 The Significance of the Trust. 19 
 
 offer no better inducements. That this was true is fully sub- 
 stantiated by the subsequent formation of trusts in other lines 
 of manufacture to prevent the very same plethora of capital 
 that had been affecting the oil business. The great industrial 
 undertakings of the world are practically finished as far as 
 present developments indicate. 
 
 As the late David A. Wells says in his "Kecent Economic 
 Changes" : "It would seem indeed as if the world during all 
 the years since the inception of civilization has been working 
 upon the line of equipment for industrial effort — inventing 
 and perfecting tools and machinery, building workshops and 
 factories, and devising instrumentalities for the easy commu- 
 nication of persons and thoughts ; that this equipment having 
 at last been made ready, the work of using it has, for the first 
 time in our day and generation, fairly begun; and also that 
 every community under prior or existing conditions of use and 
 consumption, is becoming saturated, as it were, with its re- 
 sults." 
 
 There is no country in which the industrial machinery is so 
 much over-built as in the United States. We are saturated 
 with capital and can absorb no more. In normal conditions 
 the machinery of production will produce more in three days 
 than we can consume in a week. The present boom is re- 
 cognized by all as destined to be of a most ephemeral nature. 
 
 As a general law in economics it may be stated that the ten- 
 dency to combination increases as the number of competitors 
 decreases and the amount of capital for each competing plant 
 increases. 
 
 In 1890 there were 910 establishments manufacturing agri- 
 cultural implements, with a capital of 145 millions. In 1900 
 we have but 715 establishments, although the total capitaliza- 
 tion has increased to 157 millions. 
 
 In establishments manufacturing salt the number has de- 
 creased during the past ten census years from 200 to 159, 
 while the capitalization has increased over 100 per cent., from 
 13 millions to 27 millions. 
 
 Slaughtering establishments have decreased in number from 
 1.118 to 921, while their total capitalization has increased 
 from 116 millions to 189 millions. 
 
 As a matter of fact, all three of the above businesses are each 
 in the hands of a Trust.
 
 20 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 Perhaps the most striking of the returns is that from the 
 carriage and wagon factories. These have fallen in number 
 from 8,614 to 7,632, while at the same time their capitalization 
 has increased from 104 millions to 118 millions. But this is 
 not the point that is so especially noteworthy. The number of 
 wage-earners has decreased from 64,259 to 62,540, and the 
 number of "salaried" employees — clerks, salesmen, etc., is 
 now actually less than one-half what it was in 1890. They 
 now number 4,311 as against 9,194 in 1890. This cutting off 
 of "salaried" employees means a saving, according to the cen- 
 sus, of $3,459,289 a year to the carriage makers. 
 
 The figures from the flour mills also show the same trend 
 toward the elimination of superfluous employees. The total 
 capital employed in flour milling has increased in the last ten 
 years from 208 millions to 218 millions, but the number of 
 wage-earners has decreased from 47,403 to 37,073. "Salaried" 
 employees have been reduced from 16,078 to 5,790, and the 
 millers are paying out $3,492,590 less per annum for salaries 
 to-day than ten years ago. 
 
 As has been delineated, the volume of production has been 
 constantly rising owing to the development of modern ma- 
 chinery. There were two main channels to carry off these prod- 
 ucts. One channel carrying off the product destined to be 
 consumed by the workers, and the other channel carrying all 
 the remainder to the rich. The worker's channel is in rock- 
 bound banks that cannot enlarge owing to the competitive 
 wage system preventing wages rising pro rata with increased 
 efficiency. Wages are based upon cost of living, and not upon 
 efficiency of labor. The miner in the poor mine gets the same 
 wages as the miner in the adjoining rich mine. The owner of 
 the rich mine gets the advantage — not his laborer. The chan- 
 nel which conveys the goods destined to supply the rich is it- 
 self again divided into two streams. One stream carries off 
 what the rich "spend" on themselves for the necessities and 
 luxuries of life. The other is simply an "overflow" stream, 
 carrying off their "savings." The channel for spending, i. e., 
 the amount wasted by the rich in luxuries, may broaden some- 
 what, but owing to the small number of those rich enough to 
 indulge in whims it can never be greatly enlarged, and at any 
 rate it bears such a small relative proportion to the channel for 
 investment that in no event can much hope of avoiding a flood
 
 The Significance of the Trust. 21 
 
 of capital be looked for that way. The rich will never be so 
 ingenious as to spend enough to prevent over-production. The 
 great safety overflow channel which has been continuously 
 more and more widened and deepened to carry off the ever- 
 increasing flood of new capital is the channel which carries 
 the savings of the rich, and now this is not only suddenly 
 found to be incapable of further enlargement, but actually 
 seems to be in the process of being dammed up. 
 
 And why not ? Man's material wants are limited, no mat- 
 ter how unlimited may be his spiritual ones. If one bridge is 
 sufficient to carry me from New York to Brooklyn, then two 
 will be a surplus. When one car line is built on Broadway, 
 there is no room nor necessity for more. 
 
 It is superfluous to point out that with wages determined by 
 competition a workingman can create no effective demand for 
 the satisfaction of his spiritual wants. He is lucky enough 
 to get the necessities of life and is not fool enough to refuse a 
 wage because it does not afford luxuries when he sees a man 
 in waiting behind him only too willing and anxious to take his 
 place if he should give up his job. 
 
 Let us cast a broad sympathetic look over the surface of the 
 United States, with the perplexed eye of a man with a million 
 dollars or more looking for a promising and safe investment. 
 Would he care to build another transcontinental railway? I 
 think not. There are too many already. Would he care to go 
 into wheat-growing? Not if he is not in need of a guardian. 
 One year it pays, then for the next three years there is either 
 no crop on account of drought, or there is low price owing to 
 over-production, and the wheat-grower has no chance of form- 
 ing a trust. Too many farmers to combine; it is difficult 
 enough to get ten men into a combination, but when you have 
 10,000 it is manifestly an impossibility. 
 
 Is there one single industry which he could find that is of a 
 nature to warrant the investment of a large capital that is not 
 palpably over-done? As for smaller industries there is a con- 
 census of opinion in the business world that there are practi- 
 cally none promising good returns. They manage to exist, 
 like the mice in a granary, escaping destruction owing to their 
 insignificance. 
 
 The channel which carries the surplus wealth for the un- 
 building of new industries we can imagine sub-dividing itself
 
 22 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 into a many-branched delta, each mouth furnishing the supply 
 for a particular industry. When there was no over-supply of 
 capital in an industry the capitalists controlling the branch 
 of the delta flowing to their industry used all efforts to widen 
 and deepen the channel. When finally they had all the capital 
 they wished, they formed their trust, and the process was re- 
 versed. It was as if they had thrown a dam across the en- 
 trance to their branch and turned the stream back into the 
 main stream to be distributed through the other mouths 
 into the other industries. 
 
 With this metaphor before you it is easy to see that with 
 the successive closings of the mouths by the successive trusts 
 so much the greater becomes the supply for the other mouths 
 and so much the sooner does it become imperative that the 
 capitalists in the other industries throw across their protective 
 dam. As in a real river, so with our imaginary river, when a 
 number of mouths are dammed up, the river no longer can 
 find a sufficient exit through the remaining mouths, and it has 
 a strong tendency to overflow the dams, which will require 
 strengthening if they are to remain secure. 
 
 Each new trust that is born is a menace to the security of all 
 previous trusts. 
 
 Rockefeller, with his enormous surplus income, cannot find 
 room to invest in his own confessedly overdone oil business. 
 He is the modern Alexander the Great of our industrial field, 
 sighing for more worlds to conquer. He has already taken 
 possession of the electric light and gas plants of New York 
 City. He is in control of the iron industry. He owns the 
 Lake Superior mines and the lake transportation service. He 
 will soon be in complete control of the railways of the Uni- 
 ted States. He is about to control the copper mines of the 
 United States. He is in control of the largest banks in New 
 York. When Rockefeller gets control of an industry the 
 temptations for outside capital to compete against him are 
 not overpowering. 
 
 The proof that Trusts are necessary as a protection against 
 the rising flood of capital is simply overwhelming, both in 
 theory and in fact. It seems most palpable that every in- 
 dustry in this country must in time fall into the power of the 
 Trust. 
 
 The Trust with its enormous capital not only gives our
 
 The Significance of the Trust. 23 
 
 capitalists better facilities for competition with foreigners in 
 foreign neutral markets, but by damming up the old and 
 natural domestic channels for investment is actually forcing 
 them to cut out new channels for investment abroad. 
 
 The present immense flood of surplus capital in the United 
 States is shown by the treasury balance showing the greatest 
 stock of gold on hand ever known. The banks are over-laden 
 with money. American money is entering into the world's 
 markets as a buyer of bonds of foreign nations. 
 
 Chauncey Depew says that we are producing 2,000 million 
 dollars worth of goods every year more than the home market 
 can absorb; that we must extend our foreign markets if we 
 wish to avoid a great Unemployed Problem arising from our 
 domestic manufacturers being unable to hire men to make 
 goods that cannot be sold. That American capitalists fully 
 realize this is shown by their aggressive entry into foreign 
 manufacturing fields. 
 
 The late President McKinley only a month or so before his 
 death made a speech declaring that foreign markets must be 
 obtained by reciprocity treaties and that this was absolutely 
 essential to our further industrial progress. 
 
 President Roosevelt also declares that we must have an out- 
 let for our productions abroad as the domestic market no 
 longer suffices. All this is exactly in line with my argument, 
 as to premises, but I disagree as to remedy. 
 
 Foreign trade can never solve the problem of overproduc- 
 tion. In the first place most of the goods that the foreigner 
 formerly gave us in exchange for our domestic productions 
 can now be made both cheaper and better at home than abroad, 
 and therefore we do not now find the same advantage in 
 foreign trade that we did. 
 
 There was a day when we traded off our wheat for English 
 steel rail, but we can now make steel rail cheaper than Eng- 
 land. We still have our wheat to sell but we no longer find it 
 profitable to take steel rail in exchange. As will be seen from 
 the following circular recently issued by the Silk Association 
 of America, the United States is no longer dependent upon 
 France or any other country for its silk goods, and hence an- 
 other important item of foreign exchange is about to lose 
 its power as a purchasing agent of our products : 
 
 "The great equipment of the silk mills in machinery now,
 
 24 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 say 36,000 broad looms and 7,000 ribbon looms and all run by 
 power, is evidence sufficient that the domestic silk manufac- 
 tures are fully up to the demand of the consuming markets 
 of the United States." 
 
 In fact, the foreign goods that can be profitably imported 
 into our country are getting narrowed down to agricultural 
 productions from the tropics. It is evident that the importation 
 of such goods cannot offset our balance of exports. Last year 
 we exported 600 million dollars worth of commodities more 
 than we imported. After taking account of the money spent 
 by American tourists abroad, remittances for interest on 
 foreign loans and freights paid foreigners on ocean transporta- 
 tion, there is evidently still a heavy credit balance in our 
 favor. Now the foreigner may go into debt for our goods for 
 a certain period, but that cannot, on the face of things, be a 
 permanent method of trading. There must either be a settle- 
 ment some day or the other or the trading will be stopped by 
 the debtor going bankrupt. In this instance, it is Europe that 
 is goine: bankrupt, and when she confesses she cannot pay 
 America, then America herself, with her heaviest customer a 
 bankrupt, will not be very far from bankruptcy herself. 
 
 We will not take goods from Europe to settle our trade 
 balance and she cannot give us gold. How then can foreign 
 trade be any solution of our problem of over-production when 
 we cannot trade ? 
 
 However, for the moment suppose our manufacturer, 
 burdened with his surplus of American goods, as a last resort, 
 to get rid of them, exchanges them for, say, French goods. 
 He now has on the docks in New York 2,000 million dollars 
 worth of French goods instead of his 2,000 million dollars of 
 American goods. Will anyone tell me what better off he is ? 
 How is he going to get rid of those French goods ? 
 
 Americans either will not or cannot buy them. The rich 
 will not buy because they already have all the French goods 
 they want. The poor cannot buy because their wages do not 
 allow them anything to buy with. 
 
 Foreign trade is but the most ephemeral solution for the 
 problem of Over-Production. 
 
 American capitalists are to-day more in need of foreign 
 fields for investment of their capital than are European capi- 
 talists. Within the past few years the international financial
 
 The Significance of the Trust. 25 
 
 market has reversed itself, and America is now the creditor 
 instead of the debtor nation. 
 
 The "Trusts" are merely a dam built to prevent the swamp- 
 ing of our industries by the rising flood of domestic surplus 
 capital, just as the tariff is a dam to prevent them being 
 swamped by foreign capital. The "Trusts," however, do not 
 prevent the rising of this flood. 
 
 It is impossible to dam up all the mouths of the Mississippi, 
 no matter how high the dams. A flowing river must find the 
 ocean somehow, and if not by one channel, then by another. 
 The Trusts will afford but a temporary breastwork for our cap- 
 tains of industry. It will, however, be a flank movement 
 rather than a frontal attack that will finally dislodge the cap- 
 tains from their fortress. 
 
 The Trust is not only a protection against undue compe- 
 tition, but it is a labor-saving device of the highest possible 
 efficacy. The Trust pursues its end in a perfectly sane and 
 scientific manner. No longer do the old planless methods of 
 competition prevail. The Trust being the only producer in 
 the field produces exactly what the market needs. There is no 
 more danger of either an over-supply or a shortage of Stand- 
 ard Oil in any city than there is of water, gas or postage 
 stamps. The Trust no more needs canvassers and advertise- 
 ments to sell its goods than does the government to sell its 
 postal stamps. This increased industrial efficiency of the 
 Trust, together with its prevention of waste of capital in un- 
 necessary duplication of machinery, hastens by so much the 
 completion of the world's industrial outfit. 
 
 It will not be long before capital will in vain seek profitable 
 investment. Interest, which is determined by the amount of 
 gain received by the last amount borrowed, will fall to zero and 
 money will remain unlent in the banker's hands. The in- 
 centive for the poor man to be "thrifty" will perish. The 
 workers now engaged in producing new machinery of pro- 
 duction will join the unemployed army in regiments. The 
 Trust will be as defenseless against this new phase in the in- 
 dustrial strife as was the armored knight of old against hunger 
 and thirst. 
 
 Political autocracy is possible, but industrial autocracy, no 
 mater how benevolent, is impossible. At present the Trust is 
 an invaluable and absolutely necessary weapon of defense for
 
 26 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 the capitalist in the industrial warfare, but when the enemy to 
 be fought is not competing capital, but a complete cessation of 
 demand for products owing to unemployed labor having no 
 wages to buy with, its value has passed. 
 
 On board ship in mid-ocean if I have control of the water 
 supply I can demand everything in exchange for the indis- 
 pensable fluid, but when at last I have gathered everything in- 
 to my possession then my monopoly becomes of no more value, 
 for there is nothing left to be given me. If I am wise I will 
 then peaceably give up control of the water and let it be taken 
 over by the crew. I will be in great luck if they do not get 
 the fever of co-operation and come back after me for the good 
 things they have already given up for the first water they were 
 forced to buy. It is thus in the United States. The monopo- 
 lists have unwittingly run both themselves and the workers 
 into an industrial cul de sac. 
 
 The capitalists may possibly see the danger first and make 
 a turn that will give them a short and precarious lease of life 
 in their present position. An eight-hour law, a minimum 
 wage, old age pensions, etc., all such reforms might possibly 
 extend the capitalist system. 
 
 The best thing of all, however, to bolster up the capitalist 
 system is a rattling good war between the great powers. If the 
 principal industrial plants, railway shops and bridges, etc., of 
 this country were destroyed, the up-building of them would 
 give labor unlimited employment and capital great scope for 
 investment of savings. Witness the boom following our civil 
 war, also the late Spanish war, the British-Boer war, and now 
 from the Russo-Japanese war. 
 
 However, wars cannot last forever. The capitalists sooner 
 or later will be forced to face the insoluble problem of finding 
 work for men when there is absolutely no work to be found. It 
 is absurd to hire men to build oil refineries when half of 
 those already built are standing idle. The workman cannot 
 blame the capitalist for refusing to employ him at a loss. But 
 his stomach may be a better reasoner than his brain in this 
 emergency. It will demand food. He will say, "Here is 
 plenty of machinery to produce food, now why is it I can't get 
 any? You say, Mr. Capitalist, that you can't hire me at a 
 profit. That may be so, but why can't I take the machinery 
 myself and run it and take the product and feed myself ? You
 
 The Significance of the Trust. 27 
 
 say you can't run it except at a loss at present. If so, then 
 you will lose nothing by letting me run it. Anyway, I don't 
 care what you wish, I know I am starving. You admit you 
 can't give me food. Now I know and you know that my labor 
 will produce enough to feed me if only I have your machinery. 
 I propose to take it and use it for that purpose. I can do it, 
 for I am bigger than you are ! 
 
 "You say I produce too much. If that is true, then so much 
 the less fear of my starving when I produce for myself ." 
 
 The capitalist may reply: "Why, John, you can't run a 
 flour mill all alone by yourself, that takes a thousand men. 
 You cannot transport that flour on a railway by yourself, that 
 takes another thousand men to run it. You need associated 
 labor. You will be forced to run the country just as it is run 
 to-day." "Oh, no," will say John, "I will run the flour mill 
 and railways co-operatively by a public corporation, and I 
 have that corporation already formed. It is the United States 
 Government. We will all be shareholders and we will pay 
 the workmen upon the basis of what they produce and not by 
 a competitive wage determined by how little they can live 
 upon. We won't have any over-production to scare us then. 
 When we nationalize all industry that bogey man of over- 
 production will die a natural death." 
 
 Free trade is sometimes suggested as a remedy for monopoly 
 by those who do not recognize that trusts are a natural evolu- 
 tion of industry. When a trust in a protected industry is 
 formed to prevent destruction of that industry by domestic 
 competition and then, having complete control of the domestic 
 market, it raises prices abnormally, it is but natural that there 
 will be a suggestion to allow domestic consumers the benefits 
 of foreign competition by reducing the tariff. If this is done 
 no good would follow, for it would mean : — First, the foreigner 
 will destroy the Trust by his ability to sell at a lower cost; 
 second, or the Trust will destroy foreign competition by lower- 
 ing its price. 
 
 Even the most rabid of the Trust destroyers would hardly be 
 willing to destroy the whole industry to carry out his ends. 
 
 Most of the trusts in this country are abundantly able to take 
 care of themselves, not only in the domestic market, but as the 
 export returns show, are able to compete successfully with the 
 foreigner in his own country, so that the tariff to-day is of
 
 28 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 no use to the trust except as a means of allowing it to charge 
 higher prices to Americans than to the foreigner. Free trade 
 would certainly abolish this unjust absurdity, but it would as 
 certainly not accomplish the end set out for, viz., the destruc- 
 tion of the Trust. In fact, the very fact that foreign compe- 
 tition had to be met would be an additional reason for the 
 Trust's existence, for the concentration of capital would make 
 it that much the better fighting machine. 
 
 The protective tariff is, so far as it goes, a supporter of the 
 present industrial system, inasmuch as it prevents labor and 
 capital operating at the point of greatest advantage. A pro- 
 tective tariff gives better employment to labor exactly as in- 
 ferior machinery requires more men to operate it than superior. 
 
 Some have suggested that equality in freight rates obtained 
 by government-ownership of railroads would destroy Trusts. 
 The slightest investigation, however, would show that many 
 Trusts do not in the least depend upon favors from either 
 railroads or government. The taking over of the railroads by 
 the Government would, however, have farreaching and re- 
 volutionary results. The immense labor-saving that would oc- 
 cur from a centralized management would, of course, serve but 
 to accentuate the unemployed problem. This would be the 
 least of its effects. 
 
 The capital invested in railroads is half the whole industrial 
 capital of the United States. A transfer of ownership to the 
 State would mean the payment to the present railway owners 
 of an enormous sum of money that would naturally seek in- 
 vestment in other industries. 
 
 These industries are already about at the point of crystal- 
 lizing into monopolies owing to the plethora of capital, and the 
 advent of such an enormous flood of money set free by the ex- 
 propriation of the railroad owners would not only complete 
 the process, but would cause the amalgamation of all the 
 Trusts into one huge Trust, the coming Trust of Trusts. 
 Nationalization of the railways would be letting free such a 
 flood of capital that the ship of state would be immediately 
 floated into the calm sea of Socialism. 
 
 During the last twelve months, nearly $50,000,000 has been 
 paid in dividends by the Standard Oil Trust. It may be noted 
 that the investing public pay no attention to the intrinsic value 
 of a stock, i. e., to what the property owned by a corporation
 
 The Significance of the Trust. 29 
 
 cost. Nor is the "face" value of stock of any moment. A share 
 of stock may be nominally worth $100 — as is Standard Oil 
 stock, but as it pays such enormous dividends investors are 
 willing to pay $700 for each $100 share. On the other hand 
 there are some corporation stocks where each $100 share 
 actually represents $100 invested, yet owing to various con- 
 ditions dividends do not amount to 2 per cent, a year, and 
 hence the market value of the stock is not $50 per share. There 
 is no remedy to be found for Trusts by prevention of stock 
 watering. 
 
 Neither would publicity of accounts avail. Everybody knows 
 that the Standard Oil Trust is making profits of over fifty 
 million dollars a year. Yet what good does the knowledge do 
 the public ? Admitting that oil sells at double what it should, 
 what are you going to do about it ? Why has not Mr. Rocke- 
 feller as much right to the unearned increment derived from 
 his monopoly of the oil business as has Mr. Astor to the unear- 
 ned increment from his monopoly of land in New York City ? 
 
 Mr. Hearst is just now leading a great crusade in favor of 
 the municipal ownership of public utilities. He declares that 
 it will end the reign of the grafters and the bosses. 
 
 This may be true enough and nobody can deny that, speak- 
 ing generally, municipal ownership is an excellent thing and 
 a great step in the right direction, but the question I put to 
 Mr. Hearst is: "How will municipal ownership guarantee 
 work to the unemployed man ? How will it increase the work- 
 er's share of the general product ?" 
 
 If I am hungry and I take one step or even ten steps toward 
 the restaurant, no one would think of saying that the steps so 
 taken would lessen my hunger. 
 
 Municipal ownership is only a step, — a means to an end, — 
 the end is the establishment of the complete co-operative 
 system. 
 
 Look at Glasgow, the city which Mr. Hearst points out to us 
 as having so much municipal ownership and no grafters, yet 
 Glasgow has even more poverty than has New York. 
 
 However, while I readily admit that Glasgow would prob- 
 ably have still more poverty than it has now, and that i€ 
 would undoubtedly have a higher death rate than it has, if it 
 did not have public ownership, for private ownership usually 
 results in an impure water supply and badly ventilated, crowd-
 
 30 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 ed and unhealthy street cars, yet I say that this admission 
 merely grants that public ownership is a good reform. It is 
 quite inadequate to abolish poverty. 
 
 Let us by all means, I say, have municipal ownership, just 
 as I say let us have any other good reform, but do not let us 
 forget that the main evil to be abolished is the competitive 
 system, and that until we abolish that system we cannot 
 abolish poverty, no matter how much municipal ownership 
 we may inaugurate. 
 
 In order to establish the co-operative system we must have 
 not only municipal ownership of municipal utilities, but we 
 must also have national ownership of national utilities. 
 
 Let us have public ownership of all the means of production 
 as a basis for our co-operative commonwealth, but let us always 
 keep in view that the end is the abolition of poverty and not 
 merely the getting rid of grafters and political bosses. 
 
 Let Mr. Hearst declare that he is for public ownership be- 
 cause it is a means to the establishment of the entire co-opera- 
 tive system, because he knows that nothing but that system can 
 ever abolish poverty, and then his position will be much more 
 logical than it is at present. 
 
 No small and cramped ideal can nerve humanity for any 
 great upward step. 
 
 The socialist sees in the co-operative commonwealth not 
 only the abolition of poverty, but he sees a future earth 
 peopled by men who have become a race of gods, free, healthy, 
 beautiful, happy. A society where men love each other, love 
 the world, love life, for life then will be at last really worth 
 the living. 
 
 Life will be worth living because all that to-day makes it a 
 hideous mockery will have disappeared. 
 
 There will be no fear of starvation staring one in the face 
 because he cannot get work. Everyone will then be his own 
 employer. 
 
 There will be no one living in dark, noisome, unhealthy 
 tenements, all will have beautiful, light, sanitary apartments. 
 
 There will be no herding of people in cities as to-day, for 
 there will be no landlord at hand to demand rent for each 
 square foot of land, and there will be no private owner of 
 street cars and railways at hand to make profit on each mile 
 one may travel from workshop to house.
 
 The Significance of the Trust. 31 
 
 Each worker will, if he wish, live in his own cottage in the 
 green fields, miles from his work, for transportation will be 
 so rapid, so pleasant and so cheap that he will have no reason 
 to crowd into the tenements of a city. 
 
 Besides his pay — for under Socialism everyone will easily 
 earn more than what $5,000 a year now affords — will be so 
 much greater and his hours of labor so much less that he can 
 easily afford his own country home and have plenty of time to 
 enjoy it as well as to spend in getting to and fro from his 
 daily task. 
 
 He will not feel that he must "save" his earnings to provide 
 for accidents and old age. There will be no more reason for 
 "saving" under socialism than there is for a man who lives on 
 the shore of Lake Superior digging a well. 
 
 There will be plenty for all and there will always be plenty 
 more to come when men own the earth and are not under 
 tribute to landlords and capitalists. The earth produces 
 wealth in plenty for all, the problem to be solved is not pro- 
 duction, but distribution. 
 
 Municipal and national ownership of all the means of pro- 
 duction, democratically managed by the workers themselves, 
 will solve the problem of distribution by substituting co-opera- 
 tion for competition. 
 
 To resume : We are confronted by a fact and not a theory. 
 The Trust is here to stay as long as our competitive system 
 of industry endures. Democracy has been ousted from in- 
 dustry by autocracy, and as our political institutions are but a 
 reflection of our industrial institutions, we should not pretend 
 that anything but a sham democratic political state remains. 
 
 The trade-unionists pure and simple, the anti-imperialists, 
 the would-be destroyers of Trusts, are all right enough senti- 
 mentally, but are too limited in their vision. This nation has 
 the mightiest task cut out before it that the world has ever set 
 to perform. The ship of state already is in the cataract of a 
 great social Niagara. It is not too late to save her if we only 
 have the patience and brains to cut our political Welland 
 canal, and let her float gently into the Lake Ontario of So- 
 cialism. Delay is dangerous. That we shall finally get into 
 our metaphorical lake — Socialism — is absolutely certain. The 
 only question is, shall we go over Niagara or through the 
 canal?
 
 32 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 Now is the time, if ever, when this country needs earnest 
 men who know the truth, and are not afraid to cry it from the 
 house-tops. Once let us get into the rapids and nothing can 
 save us from the terrors of a violent revolution. Democracy 
 must be established in industry and re-established in politics. 
 There is really no first step to nationalization of industry ; that 
 time has passed. A half-way policy is impossible industrially, 
 unrighteous ethically, and unsound politically. The main 
 plank, and in fact the only necessary plank in our political 
 platform should be: "Let the Nation Own the Trusts and 
 Let the Workers Have All They Produce"
 
 Why A Workingman Should Be A Socialist. 33 
 
 WHY A WORKINGMAN SHOULD BE A 
 SOCIALIST. 
 
 A SOCIALIST is one who desires that the wealth of the 
 nation be owned collectively by all the people rather 
 than individually by a small fraction of them — called 
 capitalists. 
 
 By "wealth of the nation'' is meant the land, the railroads, 
 the telegraphs, the flour mills, the oil refineries; in short, 
 all those agencies by means of which food, clothing and other 
 commodities are produced. 
 
 By Socialism we mean governmental ownership and man- 
 agement of all wealth-producing industries. For instance, 
 just as some of the industries, such as the common schools, 
 the post office, etc., are now owned and managed by the people ; 
 under Socialism, not only these but also all other industries 
 would be owned and managed. In short, Socialists propose 
 instead of Morgan and Eockefeller owning the United States 
 and running it for their own selfish benefit, that we — the 
 people — shall assume possession of it ourselves and run it for 
 our own benefit. 
 
 This is such a very simple proposition that anyone should 
 be able to understand it. That every patriotic American, and 
 especially every workingman, is not in favor of Socialism can 
 only be explained by his ignorance of what Socialism really is. 
 
 It is certainly a praiseworthy sentiment for the citizens 
 and inhabitants of a nation to desire to own their own coun- 
 try. It is as natural a thing for them to so wish as it is for a 
 man to own his own house, rather than to rent it of a land- 
 lord. 
 
 The motive that inspires a father to provide a home for his 
 family is of exactly the same nature as that which animates 
 the Socialist, in desiring that all men shall have homes of 
 their own. 
 
 We said that every workingman who understood what So- 
 cialism meant would certainly be a Socialist — for assuredly
 
 34 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 your condition in life is not such that you should fear a 
 change. You are poor; you are dissatisfied, or at least you 
 ought to be dissatisfied with your lot in life ; you have a sense 
 of being unjustly dealt with by society; you know that your 
 labor alone produces all the good things of life, and you know 
 that some one else enjoys them; you know all these things, 
 and you know, or you should know, that as simple a thing as 
 casting your ballot intelligently can produce a change, so that 
 you yourself will receive and enjoy all the fruits of your labor, 
 with no necessity of giving the lion's share, or any other 
 share, to Rockefeller, Vanderbilt & Co. 
 
 It is true that there is some excuse for your not realizing 
 that the shackles which tie you to poverty are but figments of 
 your imagination. You are be-fooled and humbugged at 
 every source to which you might look for information. The 
 newspapers ostensibly devoted to the interests of the working- 
 men in reality are but the tools of the capitalists — their 
 owners. 
 
 The politicians, notoriously such liars and knaves, you 
 scarcely listen to, except to deride. Reflect on your condition, 
 and consider that you, a citizen of the United States, are an 
 inhabitant of a country possessing natural resources capable 
 of easily supporting over ten times its present population. 
 You are informed by unchallenged, by uncontrovertible sta- 
 tistics that, by the development of the steam engine and labor- 
 saving machinery, the labor of one man can to-day produce 
 commodities — food, clothing, lodging, etc. — sufficient to more 
 than comfortably provide for twenty, and yet the fact stares 
 you in the face that the return you get for your labor scarcely 
 keeps you alive. Knowing these things, can you remain con- 
 tented to live under a social system that gives you an existence 
 more miserable than that of a slave ? Do you wonder to whom 
 goes the surplus produced, and why? 
 
 Let us put the matter clearly before you. The capitalist 
 class owns the essentials of production — that is, the railways, 
 the flour mills, the oil and sugar refineries, and the land. 
 
 Now, to get clothing, food and lodging, both land and ma- 
 chinery must be employed, and if one class own these essentials 
 of production, it is evident that it can demand of you, the 
 class which does not own them, as much rent as it pleases for 
 the use of them.
 
 Why A Workingman Should Be A Socialist. 35 
 
 And what does it please to demand? 
 
 Everything that you produce, except the very small part 
 called "wages" which it allows you to keep, just sufficient to 
 sustain your existence. You are in nearly the same position 
 as horses, in that you can never expect to get any more than 
 just enough to keep you in a condition to be able to work. 
 The chief difference is that the employer of the horse feeds 
 him even when he cannot for the time being use his labor, 
 while the employer of you workingmen feeds you only when 
 you are useful to him, and when you are not — as in dull 
 seasons — he lets you out to starve, as far as he is concerned. 
 He loses money if his horse starves, but he loses nothing if 
 you die. 
 
 You ask, why don't capitalists pay higher wages? Why 
 don't they pay wages sufficient to allow you to properly feed 
 and clothe yourselves, your wives and your children? You 
 ask, why don't workingmen successfully demand wages suffi- 
 cient to enable them to educate their children in the public 
 schools? Why mock us, you cry, with free schools, when we 
 must send our children to the mine and the factory to earn 
 food for our family? 
 
 The answer is short and simple. 
 
 As long as there are millions of unemployed men in the 
 United States only too glad to get a chance to work for wages 
 that will afford the bare necessities of life, wages will never 
 rise. Consider a familiar every-day occurrence in business 
 life. A and B each own a coal mine. Owing to competition 
 each is forced to sell his coal at the lowest price possible. The 
 item of labor is the chief one in the expense of mining coal — 
 so, supposing that A pays his men less than B, then he is in 
 the position of being able to undersell B, and, unless B can 
 manage to get his labor as cheap as A, he must retire from 
 business, for he can sell no coal. The capitalists could not 
 under our competitive system pay higher wages, even though 
 they might wish to do so. 
 
 Then, on |the other hand, consider the laborer — the miner. 
 Suppose he is getting one dollar per day and some poor fel- 
 lows come along, out of employment — some emigrants, for 
 instance — who, rather than starve, offer to work for seventy- 
 five cents per day; it is certain that, as the owners of the 
 mines are forced to always buy the cheapest labor that is
 
 36 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 offered, our dollar-a-day laborer must accept a reduction in 
 his wages to seventy-five cents or be replaced by the emigrant. 
 Hence we see how it is that the pressure of the unemployed 
 upon the labor market always keeps the price of labor at the 
 lowest notch. And the more labor-saving machinery that is 
 introduced, the more men are thrown out of employment, and 
 the greater the struggle to get hired at any price. Consider- 
 ing how it is ever thus under our present competitive wage 
 system that wages must remain low, it is easily seen how ab- 
 surd it is for Democrats and Kepublicans to claim that free 
 trade or free silver, a high tariff or a low tariff can ever make 
 wages high. 
 
 Workingmen are at last coming to recognize the fact that 
 there is no reliance to be placed on either of the old parties 
 and that they must organize a party of their own which will 
 do away with the competitive wage system entirely, and sub- 
 stitute the co-operative system. 
 
 Workingmen — Americans: The issue is plain. Yours is 
 the choice — whether to remain slaves in your own country, 
 fettered by your own hands — to see your wives and your chil- 
 dren live in poverty and squalor, aye, and often starve before 
 your very eyes — or whether you will be free men, not in name 
 only, but in reality — whether you will own your own country 
 and enjoy the full fruits of your honest labor. 
 
 You may say : "Ah ! Well enough ! Those are fine words — 
 but it is impossible for anything to be done ! Workingmen 
 have always been poor and always will be poor. You Social- 
 ists merely make us feel our poverty more keenly — make us 
 discontented without showing us any practical plan to abolish 
 the causes of our discontent. Of course, we want to be in 
 better circumstances — of course, we wish to provide better for 
 our families. Certainly we would rather send our children 
 to school than to the factory. We know that we are virtually 
 slaves — and, of course, we would like to end our slavery. 
 *What fool would not have his fellow men own their own coun- 
 try, rather than let the capitalists own it ? But even suppos- 
 ing the wealth of the nation were divided up, as we suppose 
 you Socialists propose, that would simply mean a matter of 
 time before Eockefeller & Co. would have it all back again." 
 
 Workingmen, you are mistaken; Socialists do propose a 
 most practical solution of the problem of how to 'permanent-
 
 Why A Workingman Should Be A Socialist. 37 
 
 ly abolish poverty. If you will consider our plan you cannot 
 help but agree that its accomplishment would prevent any 
 fear of Eockef eller & Co. ever getting our country away from 
 us after it is once restored. 
 
 Socialism means anything but the division of wealth. So- 
 cialism means the absolute concentration of the ownership of 
 the wealth of the country into the collective control and own- 
 ership of the people themselves, through the government. 
 The only division that Socialists propose is the fair division 
 of commodities produced, but they never propose the division 
 of the ownership of the machinery that produces commodities. 
 For instance, the people (the government) will collectively 
 own the land, the grain elevators, and you and I individually 
 will own the product : the bread. 
 
 As to the practicability of collective or government owner- 
 ship of the means of production, it is best answered by the 
 consideration of the excellent management of such machinery 
 as is now managed by the government, such as the post office, 
 the public schools, the Panama Railway, etc. 
 
 When, by the mismanagement of private owners, some rail- 
 way is thrown into the bankruptcy court, and the government 
 is forced to take control and management through a receiver, 
 it is notorious that such government management has been 
 uniformly successful. If the people can successfully operate 
 bankrupt railroads, why should they not be able to operate 
 solvent and successful railroads ? 
 
 Government ownership of railways and telegraphs is the 
 usual method in Europe and Australia. However, there is 
 really no serious attempt to deny the feasibility of government 
 ownership, and what we will now demonstrate is, not the prac- 
 ticability but the absolute necessity of government ownership 
 of all the means of production — Socialism — if we wish to 
 preserve ourselves from starvation. It seems paradoxical, but 
 nevertheless it is true, that the more productive machinery 
 the more difficult it is for the laborer to get the wealth that 
 is so easily produced. Let us consider the present state of 
 industry in the United States. 
 
 Within the last few years the owners of the various great 
 industries of this country, through the tremendous develop- 
 ment of their plants and the consequent fierce competition to 
 sell goods, have been compelled to consolidate their interests
 
 38 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 into "trusts," as a matter of sheer necessity, to preserve them- 
 selves from bankruptcy owing to overproduction and the re- 
 sultant low prices. 
 
 Having in mind the millions of poorly clothed and fed 
 men, women and children, it may seem to many that the ex- 
 cuse of "overproduction" the "trusts" give for their existence 
 is the boldest of lies. But it must be remembered that the 
 owners of the sugar, beef and other trusts are not in business 
 for philanthropic motives — "not in business for their health," 
 but to make money. The mere fact of people starving for the 
 want of what their machinery produces does not constitute 
 any sound business reason for capitalists to feed them. Unless 
 people have money they have no legal right to food. So we 
 see that as far as the capitalist is concerned there is over- 
 production when he finds no "buyers," notwithstanding there 
 may be plenty of "wanters" who want but have no money to 
 buy. 
 
 In a country as productive as the United States and where 
 wage-workers — the great consuming class — are paid such a 
 small part of what is produced, there must always be danger 
 of a great surplus remaining in the hands of the capitalists 
 unless they avoid such a result by increasing consumption or 
 by restricting production — and restricting production means 
 shutting down factories — turning out of employment willing 
 workers to starve in the midst of plenty. 
 
 This critical period, viz., a great unemployed question, has 
 only been prevented from appearing long ago because the con- 
 stant progress of invention has given the capitalists an op- 
 portunity to increase consumption and at the same time to 
 make a good profit in employing workingmen both in the 
 building of new machinery and in the reconstruction of old 
 machinery. For instance, within the last few years the street 
 car lines have been transformed from horse-power systems to 
 electric power. This work has given employment to thou- 
 sands of men. As long as there was a demand for new ma- 
 chinery there was always life for the existing social system, 
 for labor could be kept satisfied by being employed. 
 
 However, the appearance of the "trust" means that the 
 making of more new machinery is unnecessary. The new 
 machines are not only finished, but the capitalists say that 
 there are in fact now already too many built. The "trust" is
 
 Why A Workingman Should Be A Socialist. 39 
 
 a necessity to them, they say, not only to prevent the produc- 
 tion of unnecessary machinery, but to prevent the operation 
 of the existing surplus machinery in producing surplus goods 
 which can only be sold at a loss. Socialists are quite in accord 
 with the capitalists who declare that anti-trust laws are ab- 
 surd, as trusts are a necessary development of our competitive 
 system, yet at the same time we realize that the trusts are 
 the forerunners of a huge unemployed problem. 
 
 The "trust" solves the problem of "overproduction" for the 
 capitalist, but it does so only by bringing up a future problem 
 of unemployment for the workingman. 
 
 "Overproduction" is caused by the competitive system pre- 
 venting the workingmen demanding enough wages to buy the 
 goods they themselves have produced. In order to prevent 
 overproduction the competitive system of distribution must be 
 abolished and a new system substituted which will allow the 
 workers to consume what they produce. 
 
 This new system is the co-operative system, the inaugura- 
 tion of which would mean that the workers would receive 
 wealth accordingly as they produced it, instead of upon the 
 present basis of allowing them the very least that will afford 
 the bare necessities of life. 
 
 However, it is evident that if the workers take all they pro- 
 duce that there will be nothing left for the capitalists. 
 
 There will be no incentive to own property privately, for 
 there will be no profit, no rent, no interest. 
 
 The abolition of the profit system practically means the end 
 of the system of the private ownership of capital. It would 
 mean the inauguration of the system of public or government 
 ownership of trusts and monopolies — in fact, of all capital. 
 
 Socialism means, in other words, the co-operative or govern- 
 ment ownership and management of all capital and the co- 
 operative distribution of the product to the workers. 
 
 Socialism means industrial democracy. We now live under 
 an industrial autocracy, with King Rockefeller as our indus- 
 trial ruler, just as before 1776 we lived under a political au- 
 tocracy with King George of England as our political ruler. 
 
 The reasons which led America to conquer for herself polit- 
 ical democracy are not nearly as strong as those which are 
 now about to force her to achieve industrial democracy. 
 
 Public ownership of monopolies, or Socialism, is an in-
 
 40 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 evitability because it affords the only possible solution for the 
 distribution of commodities when the machinery of produc- 
 tion finally develops beyond the control of the capitalists. 
 This stage in the evolution of industry is now upon us. The 
 "trust" is the significant sign of the impending collapse of 
 capitalism. 
 
 The "trust" is not only a protection against competition, 
 but it is also a labor-saving machine, effecting tremendous 
 economies in production. Just as the manual laborers of fifty 
 years ago tried to destroy the first machines which displaced 
 them, so we see a like ineffectual clamor from the smaller 
 capitalists of to-day against their inevitable displacement by 
 the trust magnates. 
 
 But monopoly is the future determining factor in produc- 
 tion, and competition is forever dethroned. We already see 
 each of our great industries controlled by one corporation 
 headed by one man — a captain of industry — and this state of 
 affairs is what more than anything else demonstrates the 
 practicability of Socialism. Certainly if a Gould can success- 
 fully manage the telegraphs of the country, there can be no 
 difficulty in the government doing the same thing. 
 
 We already manage the post office — why not the telegraphs ? 
 
 If Mr. Eockefeller manage the oil business, Mr. Vanderbilt 
 the railways, Mr. Armour the beef business, Mr. Pillsbury the 
 flour business, Mr. Schwab the iron business, Mr. Havemeyer 
 the sugar business, Mr. Frick the coal business, and Mr. Astor 
 our land ; we say, if these capitalists can manage these proper- 
 ties for their own selfish ends, that we, the people, can just 
 as well manage them for our own use and benefit. 
 
 Capitalism in its death throes tries every means to sustain 
 prices at a profitable basis against the constantly growing 
 menace of "overproduction." To this end it adopts the 
 "trust" at home, as a means of restricting domestic produc- 
 tion, and, on the other hand, it institutes a policy of "im- 
 perialism" abroad as a means of increasing foreign consump- 
 tion. Hence we see that both "trusts" and "imperialism" 
 work hand in glove and are simply results of the vain struggle 
 of the capitalists to maintain falling prices. 
 
 The Democrats are pursuing a chimera when they strive to 
 prevent these natural results of our industrial system, and the 
 Republicans adopt an even more dangerous policy when they
 
 Why A Workingman Should Be A Socialist. 41 
 
 refuse to admit that such signs are indicative of an approach- 
 ing social revolution. 
 
 All the foregoing is pretty plain talk, and should not be 
 easily misunderstood. Some, however, while following the 
 argument that (1) wages cannot, under the competitive wage 
 system, rise above the subsistence point, no matter how pro- 
 ductive labor may become, and (2) that this curtailment of 
 consumption must result in overproduction, and (3) that 
 next is the trust, and (4) the trust must be followed by (5) 
 the great unemployed problem, may not see the solution in (6) 
 the final, public ownership of the trusts and other machinery 
 of production — Socialism. 
 
 Of course, it must strike everyone as absurd that people 
 cannot get enough to eat because they produce too much, and 
 yet everyone realizes that a laborer cannot eat if he doesn't 
 get any wages to buy food. It is also plain that a laborer 
 cannot get a job of the baker to make bread if the baker 
 already has too much bread in his oven — so much that he 
 can't sell the bread already baked. 
 
 It is also pretty evident that if the laborer were his own 
 baker he would not starve for bread when it is his own oven 
 that is full of bread. 
 
 Now this is simply the Socialist argument. We say that 
 this country of ours, America, is like a grand bake-oven rilled 
 with bread, and cake, too, for that matter. That the head 
 baker of the national oven, Mr. Rockefeller, can't hire us to 
 bake bread because he can't sell us the bread we have made, 
 but that this is no reason why we should starve when all we 
 have to do is to take over the bakery ourselves and take the 
 bread out and feed ourselves with our own baking. 
 
 There really would be no opposition from Rockefeller to 
 our taking the business off his hands so long as we took it for 
 ourselves and let him have his share along with us. Rocke- 
 feller is not necessarily such a bad fellow, but he naturally 
 would object if he thought we were going to take the national 
 bakery — otherwise our own country — away from him in order 
 to give it to Carnegie or Vanderbilt, the very men from whom 
 he has just wrested it away for himself. The opposition to 
 Socialism isn't from Rockefeller & Co. It is from the stupid- 
 ity and apathy of the very people most to be benefited by it, 
 from workingmen themselves.
 
 42 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 All we have to do, in order to own our own country, is for 
 a majority to vote for the Socialist Party, the only party that 
 is pledged to carry out that idea. With the success of that 
 party, and the change that it would bring about, no one need 
 work over three hours a day, and everyone who wanted to 
 work could find it, receiving in return the full fruits of his 
 labor. Everyone would have leisure — children would be edu- 
 cated — all would be free, and happiness would reign supreme. 
 
 Workingmen, you now know the road to freedom. When 
 you pursue that path you will be f ree — before that, never.
 
 Why Save Men's Souls? 43 
 
 WHY SAVE MEN'S SOULS? 
 
 THERE was a time when talking about saving the souls of 
 men was ever wearisome to me. It seemed such a use- 
 less thing to talk of saving men's souls, when their 
 bodies gave no sign of possessing any souls worth the saving, 
 even when it was granted that they had the souls to save. 
 On the other hand, I had to admit that there really existed 
 no incentive to save men's bodies, if they had no souls to 
 make it worth while. But, later, when I came to see that it 
 was a mathematical certainty that men's bodies were going 
 to be saved, I began to consider the soul of man. 
 
 The bodies are of a certainty going to be saved. Man's 
 increasing control over natural forces will finally cause the 
 earth to produce such a vast quantity of wealth, that it will 
 finally overflow any artificial dam that men may erect in 
 the vain attempt to make it artificially scarce, in order that 
 the possessors of it might hold the non-possessors in sub- 
 jection. A dam across a mill stream is of value only when 
 there is neither too little nor too much water. It is just as 
 necessary that there be a waste-way, as that there be a fall. 
 When the stream is so full that the whole surrounding 
 country is at flood the power of the dam is gone. 
 
 Air is just as useful to man as food, but it has no value 
 since it may be had for the breathing. When food becomes 
 as plentiful and as easy to obtain as air then food will be 
 as valueless as air; but that does not mean that it will be- 
 come useless. Man will still eat and breathe. 
 
 However, on the day when food loses its value because 
 all may have it in plenty, on that day men's bodies will be 
 saved; and the earth will become peopled by a healthy, 
 strong and beautiful race of men. It will be as impossible 
 for men to be unhealthy and ugly — the words are synony- 
 mous — as for a herd of deer in the wild forest to be ugly 
 or unhealthy. The earth will sing with joy and beauty. 
 But granting that it will thus sing, why should I be inter- 
 ested in hastening the day of song? Not because of any
 
 44 Wilshire, Editorials. 
 
 hope that I individually shall be either a participant or 
 spectator. I have such hope, of course, for the day when 
 food will be as plentiful as air is near at hand. The real 
 joy of striving for a Heaven on Earth consists in the striving 
 itself, and not in the hope of realization. 
 
 It is but shifting the question to say it is natural for man 
 to strive for the beautiful. Why is it natural to strive for 
 beauty? Why do we love life? Why do we love music? 
 Because Life, the Soul of Things, is harmony. There is 
 a rhythm vibrating through the universe which causes all 
 things to vibrate in unison with it. It makes inanimate 
 Nature take form in harmonious lines of beauty. Not even 
 a snowflake but joyfully obeys this rhythmic law of beauty. 
 In response to it the butterfly paints her wings and the 
 nightingale tunes her lute. The composer arranges his 
 anthem, the painter his colors, the poet his words, and the 
 true man his deeds, to come into unison with the same 
 great song of life. The effort is with most of us unconscious 
 to-day. When we shall become conscious of what we are 
 doing we shall come into the greater joy that a Mozart pos- 
 sesses over a nightingale, or a Raphael over a butterfly. The 
 joy of the consciousness of harmony is greater than the mere 
 feeling of the harmony. It is the joy of the soul over the 
 body. Anyone may enjoy a symphony, but the greatest joy 
 is to those who understand, to musicians. There is a joy 
 of the material and a joy of the spiritual ; but the joy of the 
 spiritual must have a material base. To have spiritual 
 harmony we must have material harmony. I may enjoy 
 the symphony more in my soul than in my ears, but I must 
 have my ears to support the soul's delight. I may hear the 
 symphony but once, but I must have had ears to have heard 
 it that once if it is to light my soul through eternity. The 
 spirit must have the earth to root itself in; otherwise there 
 can be no spirit. We cannot have souls without bodies and 
 we cannot have great souls if we starve the body. 
 
 Life is the successive annihilation of shorter rhythmic 
 waves by the larger ones, a continuous progression to an 
 infinitely great vibration. You have seen a storm begin 
 at sea — first are the ripples, then the short, choppy waves, 
 and finally come the grand, heaving swells which absorb all 
 the little waves and ripples that preceded them. Humanity
 
 Why Save Men's Souls? 45 
 
 is now in the stage of the ripples, but the tide is flowing, 
 and all men are being irresistibly forced from their petty 
 vibrations with the little ripples to move with the larger and 
 larger waves of human thought and sympathy now so rapidly 
 forming on the ocean of life in response to the rising storm 
 of human thought.
 
 46 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 A PROPHECY OF 1891. 
 
 [An excerpt from my preface to the American edition of the 
 Fabian Essays published by the Humboldt Publishing Co. of New 
 York, in June, 1891.] 
 
 TO the American readers of these essays, it may prove a 
 matter of surprise to learn that English Socialists find 
 in the United States the most pronounced economic 
 phenomena, which, to their eyes at least, seem to prognosti- 
 cate the near approach of the coming social revolution. I 
 refer to the "Trusts." 
 
 It may be remarked, however, that while they consider 
 the "Trust" as a symptom that the competitive system is in 
 its last throes, they wait for the appearance of similar in- 
 dustrial combinations in England to stir Englishmen to a 
 revolt; and that Americans, as if to square the account of 
 '76, are to learn revolution from their transatlantic cousins. 
 
 By "revolution" is to be understood, of course, not violence, 
 but a complete change of system; and by "revolutionists," 
 those who advocate such a complete change. As Lassalle 
 reminded us years ago, trifling reforms may be, and often 
 have been, accompanied by excessive bloodshed, while revolu- 
 tions have worked themselves out in the profoundest tran- 
 quility. 
 
 It seems to be typical of all social revolutionists that na- 
 tional pride always asserts itself, no matter how much 
 patriotism may be decried as mere racial selfishness when- 
 ever discussion arises as to which nation is to be the first to 
 throw off the shackles of capitalism. 
 
 The Fabian essayists certainly make out a strong case in 
 England's favor. 
 
 The German points with pride to the million and a half 
 votes polled by the Socialists at the last elections for the 
 Eeichstag. 
 
 France, the mother of revolutions, sings the Marseillaise. 
 
 The Belgian asks but for universal suffrage to show the 
 world what he will do in the way of revolution.
 
 A Prophecy op 1891. 47 
 
 I, as an American Socialist, put forth my patriotic plea in 
 favor of my own country's prospects of being the first to in- 
 augurate the era of industrial emancipation. 
 
 There is one point upon which I think all Socialists are 
 agreed, namely, that it is one and the same golden chain that 
 fetters the proletariat of all nations, and that the weakest 
 link in that chain is the measure of the strength of the present 
 social system. Snap but one link in any country, and at the 
 same moment the proletariat of the world are free. 
 
 The social revolution, when it does come, must soon be 
 international (though resting perhaps for a period upon na- 
 tional Socialism). I imagine, for instance, that on gaining 
 universal suffrage, Belgium's proletariat should expropriate 
 the capitalists and inaugurate a successful co-operative com- 
 monwealth. Is it possible to conceive that workingmen of all 
 nations would not make a successful demand for the establish- 
 ment of a like social system in their own respective coun- 
 tries ? Moreover, the general industrial condition of the great 
 nations is approximately the same. All complain of over- 
 production. All are vainly trying to solve the question of the 
 unemployed; in all the tendency to great social change is 
 a marked feature. In all, the great capitalists, crushing out 
 their smaller rivals and concentrating wealth into fewer and 
 fewer hands, are the true progenitors of the revolution. 
 
 The people of the United States, the nation that certainly 
 furnishes the best educational facilities for demonstrating 
 the advantages of the concentration and crystallization of 
 capital, should naturally and logically be the first to strike 
 for economic freedom. To-day, in the United States, 50,000 
 people, out of a population of over sixty-three millions, own 
 everything worth having in the whole country. 
 
 Four men, viz. : Gould, Astor, Vanderbilt and Rockefeller, 
 practically control, and, what is more important, are rapidly 
 absorbing the wealth of this 50,000. The day is not so very 
 far distant, and a sociologist can predict almost its exact 
 appearance, just as an astronomer calculates the date of an 
 eclipse of the sun, when, if no structural change in society 
 takes place, these four men will be the sole owners of the Uni- 
 ted States. I think that, if such a state of affairs should come 
 about, no one would differ with me when I say that it would 
 force a reconstruction of society. In other words, the sixty
 
 48 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 odd millions of people in the United States may now rest 
 undisturbed, and allow a plutocracy of 50,000 to own their 
 country; but when it shall come to having only four own it, 
 patience will cease to be a virtue. 
 
 That the tendency of the wealth of the United States is 
 to concentrate into larger and larger masses, held by a con- 
 stantly diminishing number of capitalists, is not disputed by 
 anyone at all familiar with the statistics of the case. This 
 process continued and followed to its logical conclusion must 
 lead inevitably to Socialism. If Gould & Co. are not to 
 own the railways and telegraphs, the land and machinery, 
 there can be but one possible successor, viz., the people, as 
 represented by the Government 
 
 The only possible chance of retarding the approach of 
 Socialism, is to stop the tendency of capital to congeal in a 
 few hands. Some plan must be devised to prevent Gould 
 and Yanderbilt gobbling up more railways; to keep Astor's 
 hands off city lots, and to check Rockefeller's insatiable and 
 omnivorous appetite for industrial plants. It requires but 
 slight intelligence to comprehend that neither a high nor a 
 low tariff, nor free trade, would appreciably affect Vander- 
 bilt's income. Fiscal legislation, whether it takes the form 
 of free coinage of silver, lending money on crops, or increas- 
 ing paper money until the circulation is $50 or $5,000 per 
 capita, will never divert the Pactolian stream which flows into 
 Mr. Gould's golden reservoir. 
 
 Even the nationalization of the railways and telegraphs, 
 although proposed as a reactionary measure calculated to en- 
 able farmers, by obtaining lower freight rates, to increase 
 their margin of profit sufficiently to enable them to hold 
 their own as independent producers, would, if put into effect, 
 but precipitate the very event which it is hoped to retard. 
 Governmental ownership of railways would involve the pay- 
 ment of several thousand million dollars to the present owners 
 of railway securities, all of which must seek reinvestment. 
 Senator Carlisle's objection as to the difficulty of raising the 
 money ■'or such a purchase is trivial. The credit of the 
 United States is good enough to float bonds for many times 
 the amount required, although the purchase at their present 
 fancy valuation of watered stocks would be utterly unwise 
 and unnecessary.
 
 A Prophecy of 1891. 49 
 
 The great question to be answered in order to avoid a 
 great unemployed problem, as stated, is for the present 
 owners to find a safe and profitable place to reinvest the 
 thousands of millions of dollars received in exchange for their 
 railways. The channels for profitable investment of such 
 a large amount of money are certainly not visible. It could 
 not be spent in building new oil refineries, as Mr. Rocke- 
 feller, of the Standard Oil Trust, is armed with statistics 
 to prove that there are too many oil refineries already. The 
 same blockade to the entrance of fresh capital into the build- 
 ing of more sugar refineries is also sure to be encountered, 
 as Mr. Havemeyer, of that trust, says that he is compelled 
 to shut down part of the refineries already in existence, to 
 prevent the unprofitable over-production which would other- 
 wise ensue. That there is absolutely no chance at all to-day 
 to invest any considerable amount of capital in building new 
 machinery of production in the United States, is a palpable 
 truism with financiers. The only chance for an individual to 
 invest is to purchase existing plants, but that simply is shift- 
 ing the solving of the investment problem from one capitalist 
 to another, and usually from the large capitalist to the small 
 one. 
 
 Nationalization of the railways in the United States would 
 mean the immediate expropriation of all small capitalists 
 by the big ones. If Gould, Vanderbilt & Co. cannot own 
 railways, they will invest their money, both principal and 
 income, in flour mills, gas works, cotton mills, etc., and the 
 former owners of those industries will soon be enlisted in 
 the ranks of the proletariat under the banner of Socialism. 
 Nationalization of the railways could not possibly be effected 
 without causing the crystallization of all capital invested 
 in the other industries of the United States in the hands of 
 such a comparatively small number of owners that the ad- 
 vent of Socialism would certainly be almost instantaneous. 
 
 The problem of giving work to the unemployed, although 
 not at present a threatening one in the United States, is, 
 however, destined soon to become one of the utmost import- 
 ance, and at any time liable to come to the front. 
 
 There are at present, according to Carroll D. Wright's gov- 
 ernmental statistics, on an average, over one million able- 
 bodied men in the United States willing to work, yet unable
 
 50 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 to find employment. The pressure of these upon the ranks 
 of the employed effectually prevents wages rising above the 
 point of mere subsistence. Hence the very fact that we in 
 the United States have such a fertile soil, in such unlimited 
 quantities, such ingenious labor-saving machinery, together 
 with an industrious and intelligent population, tends to 
 make the problem of the unemployed but the more threaten- 
 ing, since these very elements only conduce to an enormous 
 product per capita, with no corresponding methods of dis- 
 tribution. The old-time argument, that our great farming 
 population, with its members all owning their own homes, 
 would always prove an insuperable barrier to Socialism in 
 the United States, is completely out of date nowadays, see- 
 ing that the greater part of our farmers are already prole- 
 tarians, while the few that still own their own farms are 
 hopelessly in debt, and even they are demanding the most 
 Socialistic measures, such as national warehouses for grain, 
 and nationalization of railways. Considering how near at 
 hand is the great social metamorphosis, I would earnestly 
 advise the readers of these exceedingly clever and able essays 
 to give them deepest thought. They express clearly the 
 nature of the crisis through which we are now passing, a 
 crisis in which none who well understand it can fail to be 
 vitally interested. We are now swinging on the hinge of 
 destiny, we are in the transition state of the greatest socio- 
 logic event that history has yet recorded. Let him who 
 runs, read.
 
 Hop Lee and the Pelican. 51 
 
 HOP LEE AND THE PELICAN. 
 
 HOP LEE was an intelligent young Chinaman, born of 
 poor but honest parents, upon the banks of the Yellow 
 Kiver. From early childhood he had been accustomed 
 to assist in getting a living for himself and the other mem- 
 bers of his family by fishing with the ordinary rod and line. 
 Although this primitive method of gaining a livelihood had 
 been followed by his father and by his forefathers for many 
 centuries, it remained for Hop Lee to improve upon it so 
 that it yielded such rich returns that he could live sumptu- 
 ously without working; and this tale is to show how success- 
 fully he worked out his plan. 
 
 It was not so much a brilliant burst of genius as it was 
 the spur of necessity which led Hoppy to his great discovery. 
 As he sat on the bank with his empty basket beside him, 
 and fished in vain day after day, he watched with deep 
 chagrin a gay flock of pelicans that came down upon the 
 waters in which he, alas, fished so fruitlessly, and filled them- 
 selves to repletion. 
 
 Not only was he envious of the success of the pelicans, but 
 he realized that the noise and splashing they made drove 
 away from his hook many fish which he otherwise might have 
 caught. 
 
 Poor Hoppy pondered long upon this distressing situation. 
 He watched the pelicans moodily as they gaily dived to the 
 bottom of the river, waving their web-feet in the air, and 
 triumphantly bringing up fish after fish which they stored 
 away in their pouches to be devoured at leisure when the 
 day's sport was over, or fed to their young. Finally, one 
 bright day, a brilliant idea occurred to him whereby he 
 would not only prevent the pelicans from driving away his 
 fish, but would actually compel them to deliver to him the fish 
 they caught and fill up his empty basket. But how to put his 
 ingenious plan in operation? Flattery should be the key 
 to success. 
 
 How he ever did it I don't pretend to know, but somehow
 
 52 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 or other he learned the pelican language. This was the 
 first step towards his goal. Then he provided himself with 
 a polished ring of brass, and betook himself bright and early, 
 in the morning to his usual post on the river bank. In a 
 tentative way he spoke to several pelicans as they glided 
 past him on the river, till finally one of them stopped to 
 have a little chat with him. Hoppy seized his opportunity, 
 and with soft, insidious words beguiled the foolish bird up 
 on the bank. Then he proceeded to tell it how much its 
 wonderful pelicanic beauty would be enhanced by a lovely 
 necklace like the one he held in his hand. Would the pelican 
 not allow him the pleasure of seeing the necklace around 
 its graceful neck? The pelican foolishly listened to Hoppy's 
 flattering words, and consented to be decorated. You could 
 see from the beatific expression on its face as the ring was 
 slipped over its head how pleased it was with the beautiful 
 necklet. 
 
 To Hoppy, however, the ring was strictly an object of 
 utility. As soon as the ring was around the pelican's neck, 
 the unlucky bird found it impossible to swallow the fish it 
 caught. Every time it tried it found itself almost choking 
 to death, and at last, in desperation, appealed to Hoppy to 
 save its life. Hoppy, who was at hand upon the bank 
 eagerly awaiting developments, was only too glad to spring 
 to the pelican's assistance and promptly remove the fish from 
 its throat and thus prevent its untimely demise. 
 
 The pelican's gratitude and joy were unbounded when 
 Hoppy relieved it of the fish. It felt its palpitating heart 
 go out of its throat back into its breast again; but it also 
 saw the fish go out of its throat and into Hoppy's basket. 
 Its distressed throat was relieved of a heart and a fish at 
 the same time. 
 
 Hoppy then proceeded in a friendly tone to advise the 
 pelican for its own good. *You can easily see," he said, 
 "that you cannot continue to wear that ornamental ring 
 about your throat and at the same time swallow as large a 
 fish as you used to do. Of course, I know you do not wish 
 to part with that thing of beauty about your lovely neck 
 merely for the sake of having your stomach filled. Now 
 that you have seen how beautiful it has made you, I feel that 
 there is no way of your living without it, One gets used to
 
 Hop Lee and the Pelican. 53 
 
 luxuries so quickly they become necessities. So, in future, 
 when you catch a fish you must always come to me to be 
 relieved, and I will be ready and only too glad to help you. 
 Of course, I will see that you shall be fed. I will take the 
 fish to my chopping block, and cut off and give you as large 
 a piece as you can politely swallow. In this way your life 
 will be saved, and you will be fed with food that is the right 
 size for you in your new and improved condition. At the 
 same time I, too, will be fed by taking the fish that you are 
 now unable to swallow, as a small return for the assistance 
 I shall lend you." 
 
 Hop Lee had made a grand discovery, how to live without 
 working, and at the same time had convinced the pelican 
 that it was only through the exercise of his great brain 
 power and generosity that it was able to escape being choked 
 to death when it tried to eat the fish it caught. 
 
 Hop Lee waxed fat on this arrangement. After the first 
 pelican got the ring about its neck, all the other pelicans 
 were anxious to get rings about their necks and be in the 
 fashion, and very soon Hoppy had all the pelicans on the 
 river busily and cheerfully engaged in catching fish for him. 
 And so it happens that, even to this day, Hop Lee and all 
 his descendants have a prospect of living indefinitely on the 
 banks of the Yellow Eiver in ease and plenty. 
 
 Of course, as the natural reward of his industry and ab- 
 stinence, the ingenious Hoppy speedily accumulated a for- 
 tune from the sale of the fish caught by the pelicans. In 
 time he made a tour of the world. When he visited America 
 he was introduced to Mr. Pierpont Morgan. It is related 
 on good authority that he was highly amused at the striking 
 resemblance between that gentleman's ideas and his own. 
 Hoppy saw immediately that the American workingman had 
 put a ring about his throat which forced him to give up the 
 fish he catches to Mr. Morgan and to be satisfied with a tail 
 diet. "The ring is a little less tangible, to be sure, than 
 that about the necks of our pelicans," thought Hoppy, "but 
 it amounts to the same thing. The competitive wage-system 
 forces the laborer to take a wage that will just give him a 
 living. He cannot ask for any more, because there are plenty 
 of men waiting around for the chance to work upon the basis 
 of the fish-tail diet. As long as pelicans or workingmen are
 
 54 Wilshiee Editorials. 
 
 satisfied with, fish tails there is no use giving them more, 
 whether you be a Morgan or a Hop Lee. Hence the American 
 workingman produces his $2,400 a year and gives up all hut 
 the $400 fish tail to Mr. Morgan, just as the pelican catches 
 2,400 pounds of good fish and gets only 400 pounds of fish- 
 tails in return; yet both the pelican and the American work- 
 ingman get down and thank God that such men as Morgan 
 and Hop Lee live to prevent pelicans and workingmen from 
 starving to death. 
 
 Hoppy congratulated himself, however, on being in a much 
 safer position than Mr. Morgan, for if his pelicans ever got 
 over their feeling of gratitude and pride in their rings they 
 could not get them off their necks, even if they wished; 
 whereas Mr. Morgan's pelican workingmen always have the 
 opportunity of taking the competitive ring off their necks. 
 The American pelicans have merely to "wish the ring off," 
 and off it goes. The way for them to express this wish is 
 to vote for Socialism. A great many American pelicans de- 
 cided to wish this ring off their necks at the last election. 
 Unfortunately there were still more who wished to keep it 
 about their necks, so Mr. Morgan still gets the fish and Uncle 
 Sam gets the tail.
 
 A Talk with Rockefeller. 55 
 
 A TALK WITH ROCKEFELLER. 
 
 LAST March, while on my way from Los Angeles to 
 San Francisco, I had occasion to stop over a few days 
 at Santa Barbara, one of the most famous of the 
 California resorts. Except for the want of angels, it is about 
 as near an Earthly Paradise as one can imagine. It is 
 directly on the Pacific Ocean at the opening of a lovely little 
 valley. At the head of the valley, under the mountains, 
 about two miles from the sea, is the old Franciscan monas- 
 tery built by the monks a hundred years or more ago, when 
 California was under the dominion of Spain. The Church 
 of Rome had in hand a grand plan to convert the Indians 
 to Catholicism by the establishment of a chain of semi- 
 socialistic communities, under the rule of the priests, running 
 from San Francisco all the way down to the lower end of 
 the peninsula of California. 
 
 With the ceding of California to the United States, the 
 monasteries had a hard time to survive, for the property 
 they had owned was largely lost, and the Indians, who had 
 been faithful workers in their fields and vineyards, were 
 dispersed. Probably at no time before, and certainly at no 
 time since, have the California Indians had either the ma- 
 terial or the spiritual advantages that they enjoyed under 
 the kindly rule of the old Mission Padres. 
 
 In the old days the missions were surrounded by great 
 stretches of pasture land upon which grazed countless herds 
 of sheep, cattle and horses, all the property of the Padres, 
 and used to contribute to the welfare of all. The monks 
 introduced a good system of irrigation. The fig, the vine, 
 the olive and the orange were cultivated with greatest suc- 
 cess. Then the more that was produced, the more the 
 monks and the Indians got. There was no fear of starvation 
 on account of "over-production" in those silly, primitive 
 days. They produced for use and not for profit. 
 
 I can imagine how astounded one of the old Padres would 
 have been if told that he would be forced to go without olive 
 oil some day if too many olive trees came into bearing, 
 because the price of olive oil would fall below the cost of 
 production. Such reasoning would have been absolutely in-
 
 56 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 comprehensible to him. For me to have told him that the 
 mission must go hungry simply because there were too many 
 fat cattle would have led him to regard me as a fit subject 
 for a "rest cure." However, in those careless days they 
 had no "rest cures/' for paradoxically everyone had to do 
 enough work not to require a "rest." 
 
 The people who most require a "rest" are those that do 
 not "have to" work. I don't say they do not actually work 
 hard, I say they do not "have to" work at all. There is 
 a fine distinction. Schwab never broke down until he worked 
 because he "wanted to." 
 
 However, we are in the days when people do need a "rest 
 cure," and Mr. John D. Rockefeller showed his usual good 
 judgment in picking out Santa Barbara to get his needed 
 "rest." 
 
 The Hotel Potter is directly on the .sea ; it is a fine, mod- 
 ern hotel, opened this season for the first time, and Mr. 
 Rockefeller was not by any means the only multi-millionaire 
 there enjoying the perfect climate of Santa Barbara, a 
 climate as perfect in winter as in summer. 
 
 The local Santa Barbara paper proudly printed a list of 
 our American nobility there, gauging the relative value of 
 titles by the size of the bank rolls. The total value footed 
 up to something near a thousand million dollars, which can 
 be readily believed when I say that not only were the Rocke- 
 fellers there, but also Mrs. Pierpont Morgan, Mr. Marshall 
 Field, Mr. Armour, Mr. Seward Webb, and other noble 
 multi-millionaires too numerous to mention. Robert T. Lin- 
 coln, son of Abraham, was there, and scheduled at ten million. 
 However, of all the lot, Mr. Rockefeller being the richest 
 was the noblest, and was the centre of attraction from all 
 Santa Barbara, including myself. 
 
 Mr. Rockefeller, I may say in the first place, is not by any 
 means the physical wreck that the press likes to make him 
 out. I sat at the next table to him and can vouch for the 
 strength and variety of his appetite. His color is good and 
 he looks a fairly healthy man for his age, 64, with the 
 exception that he has lost every spear of hair from his 
 head and face. He was most affable and approachable to 
 everyone and seemed to make a point of going the rounds 
 every day with a glad hand out for everyone. His interest
 
 A Talk with Rockefeller. 57 
 
 in life seems to be centered on the game of golf. Knowing 
 that his nervous system is so wrecked that he can not care 
 to burden his mind with anything very strenuous, I really />•" 
 felt conscience-stricken in ever departing from the subject 
 of the weather and golf in my talks with him. However, 
 one day I did bring up the subject of Trusts. He listened 
 with interest to my exposition of the Socialist philosophy 
 regarding monopoly and said, "Well, Mr. Wilshire, I can't 
 speak as to other Trusts, but certainly as far as the Stand- 
 ard is concerned over-production of oil led to the formation 
 of the Trust. We were producing three times as much oil 
 as could be sold and the trade was in a very bad way. The 
 Trust resulted in the greatest benefit to the refiners and at 
 the same time .the general public were also benefited by get- 
 ting lower prices." 
 
 Mr. Rockefeller inquired if I had read the articles by 
 Miss Tarbell upon the Standard Oil Trust now running in 
 McClure's Magazine. "All without foundation," he said, 
 "the idea of the Standard forcing anyone to sell his refinery 
 to it is absurd. The refiners wanted to sell to us and nobody 
 that has sold and worked with us but has made money and 
 is glad he did so. 
 
 "Now you, Mr. Wilshire, are personally acquainted with 
 so and so (mentioning men, our mutual friends, interested 
 in the Trust), and you know that such honorable men would 
 not do anything maliciously to injure anyone. You know 
 they all did well by coming into the Trust. I can tell you 
 that everyone else has done well that came in with us. It's 
 absurd to say that the Standard forced the refiners into the 
 Trust. They were only too glad to come in and they have all 
 made money by coming in. Natural conditions would have 
 ruined us all if we had not formed a combination. I thought^ 
 once of having an ansv/er made to the McClure articles," con-"~~^ 
 tinued Mr. Rockefeller, "but you know it has always been the 
 policy of the Standard to keep silent under attack and let our 
 acts speak for themselves, and I suppose it is the best policy 
 for us to continue upon that line, don't you, Mr. Wilshire ?" 
 
 I was quite overcome with confusion at having the richest 
 man in the world seek the advice of a Socialist upon a 
 question of personal conduct and could do no more than 
 blurt out a general assent to his position.
 
 58 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 "Don't you think, Mr. Rockefeller," said I, "that since 
 the Trust is, according to your own theory, a result of over- 
 production, it means we are approaching a time when the 
 general stoppage of this unnecessary production by the 
 Trusts will have the tendency to create an unemployed 
 problem ?" 
 
 "No," said Mr. Kockefeller, "I think the Trust, by regula- 
 ting industry and systematizing business, will help keep up 
 this present prosperity. We have never had such a period 
 in the history of the country before, and yet there never 
 were so many Trusts, hence it cannot be said that Trusts 
 prevent prosperity. There are less unemployed men than 
 ever before known in the history of the country. And, anyway, 
 since we are both agreed that an anti-Trust law is absurd, 
 since it is attempting to prevent the consequences of over- 
 production, how would you propose to solve the Trust 
 Problem?" 
 
 "Yes, Mr. Rockefeller, I am as much aware of the futility 
 of anti-Trust laws as you are. The Socialist remedy for the 
 Trusts is Government Ownership." 
 
 "Do you think the Government could run the Standard as 
 well as we run it?" asked Mr. Rockefeller. 
 
 "I would not be positive that the State could run the 
 Trusts any better than you and Mr. Morgan do, speaking 
 from the standpoint of industrial efficiency, but Government 
 Ownership is a necessary basis for the operation of the co- 
 operative wage system which must supersede the present com- 
 petitive system to allow us to escape an unemployed problem, 
 which is simply the result of competition among laborers, 
 forcing wages down so low that the laborer cannot buy what 
 he produces." 
 
 "But we have no 'unemployed question.' We never had 
 such a demand for labor before," returned Mr. Rockefeller. 
 
 "Yes, that is true," said I, "but I am looking into the 
 future, and I can see an inevitable unemployed problem 
 looming up there. The Trust is meeting a present emerg- 
 ency, but it is only a temporary stopgap, and it is not in the 
 least going to be able to solve the unemployed problem of 
 the future." 
 
 "Well, Mr. Wilshire, I am not looking ahead as far as 
 you are. Business is to-day good, and I think it will con-
 
 A Talk with Rockefeller. 59 
 
 tinue so. If it does not, then we must let the future settle 
 its own problems." 
 
 "Well, anyway, Mr. Rockefeller, I am very glad to have 
 had the opportunity of having had this talk with you, for 
 I feel that when the industrial crisis does come up in the 
 future, it will help very much for us to understand each 
 other's position. There is nothing better than having men 
 like you and me, who have a common interest, coming into 
 personal contact with each other. While our views are dif- 
 ferent, yet our having met will lead us to have more respect 
 for the sincerity of our mutual opinions, and our personal 
 good faith." 
 
 "That is quite right, Mr. Wilshire," said Mr. Rockefeller, 
 "and I am very glad to have had the pleasure of this talk 
 with you." 
 
 This closed the interview upon the Trust Problem, for 
 although I talked with Mr. Rockefeller a number of times 
 afterward, it was nothing but "golf and weather." 
 
 I am satisfied from my talk with Mr. Rockefeller that he 
 is true to himself. He thinks he is all right. He thinks 
 that his business methods have not only been the best for 
 himself and his fellow stockholders, but also for the public 
 generally. Mr. Rockefeller is in no sense a man of theories. 
 He sees a present necessity, and he acts upon it without 
 considering what will be the next step. He is democratic 
 and without envy in his manner and instincts, and I am 
 sure he would like to have all his brother Americans have 
 as much money as he has. Ostentation is an unknown word 
 for him. His is the instinct of the coral insect that thinks 
 of nothing more than the next infinitesimal layer it is laying 
 upon the coral reef that founds a future continent. Mr. 
 Rockefeller is the power behind Mr. Morgan's throne, and 
 he does not emerge into the light, not because he objects to 
 the world-glare in which Mr. Morgan basks, but simply 
 because pomp and glory are matters of indifference to him. 
 He has no pleasure in making a show of himself. Some 
 newly rich men envy the footmen on the box of their car- 
 riage, owing to their conspicuous position and their gaudy 
 livery. Mr. Rockefeller is not of that sort. He rides in 
 his carriage not to exhibit himself and his wealth, but to 
 "get there," and he does "get there," too.
 
 60 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 I do not think this is at all an unnatural view for me to 
 take of Mr. Rockefeller's philosophy of life. It is the phil- 
 osophy held by all normal men and I think Mr. Rockefeller 
 perfectly normal except for the having of an unusual ability 
 in the art of the making of money. 
 
 ^ "We live to live, not to let other people know we are alive. 
 I aon't wear clothes for ornament, but for warmth. I don't 
 go to the opera to exhibit myself to other people, but to 
 satisfy my ears and eyes. 
 
 The squirrel does not lay up his winter store of nuts in 
 order to make other squirrels envious of him, nor yet to 
 have them admire his wealth and foresight. He lays up 
 his nuts for the one and single purpose of feeding himself 
 when the snow covers the ground and when if he had no 
 store on hand he would starve. 
 
 The Bees act on the same instinct. In California the 
 Bees living in a climate where there are flowers all the year 
 round follow up their old instinct developed under different 
 climatic conditions, of gathering honey for a winter that 
 never comes and consequently laying up immense stores of 
 honey that is never consumed at all and simply goes to waste 
 unless man wandering in the forest happens accidentally 
 to find the bee tree. 
 
 Mr. Rockefeller is like the California Bee. He is obeying 
 a fundamental instinct to accumulate, although the original 
 incentive for laying up more wealth has long since ceased.' 
 However, it is just as much a part of his life to go on 
 accumulating wealth which he cannot consume as it is for 
 the California Bee to accumulate honey which she cannot 
 consume. You no more could reason Mr. Rockefeller out of 
 following up his irresistible instinct than you could success- 
 fully reason with a Bee. For even suppose you could teach 
 a Bee the futility of gathering honey which would never 
 be eaten, what a miserable little Bee you would make feeding 
 her on the Fruit of the Tree of Economic Knowledge. How 
 could the poor Bee pass away the time if she could not gather 
 honey? Would you teach her to play golf? Would you 
 teach her to gamble with her sister Bees, to see which Bee 
 should have the most of the Useless Honey that no Bee 
 wanted anyway because there was already too much on hand? 
 
 No, if you had a kind heart you would let the poor Bee
 
 
 A Talk with Rockefeller. 61 
 
 go on for the rest of her Bee life gathering honey, even 
 though you knew she was making something that would be of 
 no use. 
 
 For the Bee to be happy she must be a Busy Bee. Her 
 problem in life is not to own honey, but to make honey. I 
 don't know that Browning was thinking of either Busy Bees 
 or Busy Rockefellers when he wrote: — 
 
 The common problem, yours, mine, every one's* 
 Is — not to fancy what were fair in life 
 Provided it could be — but, finding first 
 What may be, then, how to make it fair 
 Up to our means; a very different thing! 
 
 But his philosophy was all right, just the same. 
 
 Now, you can't introduce any game to a Bee that will 
 let her be a Lazy Bee and yet imagine herself a Busy Bee. 
 You can't make her drunk, for instance, and make her think 
 she is doing great stunts in the honey-making line, while, 
 as a matter of fact, she is fast asleep in the club window 
 of the Hive. Neither can you get her to chase around the 
 Golf Links of a Honeyless Garden pretending to gather 
 honey, but in reality simply playing in a make-believe Game 
 of Life. 
 
 Now, with Mr. Rockefeller it's all different. He has a 
 man's imagination, and so you can fool him. On nice, 
 clear days you can set him to playing golf, and he will forget 
 all about the real Game of Life and enjoy the imitation 
 more than he ever enjoyed the real. At least, he thinks he 
 does, and this is the same thing. 
 
 Then, on rainy days, you can let him stay in the Club, 
 and by sundry and judicious Scotch High-balls you can fool 
 him into thinking he is doing things when he is, in reality, 
 not even walking around a golf links. Oh, it's a great thing 
 to be a Man rather than a Bee. 
 
 But there is another difference, too. The Bee gathers her 
 honey in a fair field, one that is freely open to all Bees. Mr. 
 Rockefeller gathers his honey from a private preserve. Here 
 we have a great United States Flower Garden and plenty 
 of Honey for All. Years ago our grandfathers made a very 
 silly arrangement with certain people, whereby Mr. Rocke- 
 feller owns this Flower Garden. We gather the Honey for 
 him, and he gives us of the Honey such a share that will
 
 62 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 keep us sufficiently alive that we may have strength enough 
 to fly around and continue the gathering of still more honey 
 for him. I say this was a silly arrangement, for there was 
 no reason why we should not, in our Own Country, our Own 
 United States, our Own Flower Garden, have all the 
 honey we might make for our own selves, instead of giving 
 up three-quarters to capitalists like Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. 
 Morgan. However, our grandfathers made the agreement 
 and we grandchildren seemed to think that neither should 
 we ourselves back out of it, and that we should, moreover, 
 pledge our own grandchildren to continue the arrangement 
 perpetually. 
 
 The trouble that is now vexing our souls, however, is a 
 very serious one. We thought our contract carried with it 
 the implication that as long as we were willing to gather 
 honey from the National Garden for Mr. Rockefeller and 
 Mr. Morgan, that they would be willing to let us in the 
 field and to gather and get our one-fourth of the gathering. 
 It appears we made a mistake. Mr. Rockefeller is now say- 
 ing that he has all the Honey he wants and that there is 
 no use of our making what he don't want. He has formed 
 his Trust for the express purpose of fencing us out of the 
 Garden of Earth. We cannot deny that he has much more 
 Honey than he can use because his big Standard Hive is 
 the most conspicuous thing in the field. 
 
 No, we cannot deny that our labor has become useless to 
 him, for he has all he wants, but, on the other hand, we 
 also cannot see how we are going to get any Honey for 
 ourselves when the big Trust Screen is completed and we 
 are denied access to the Flower Garden of Life. We are 
 very reluctantly being forced to see that we must own the 
 Earth ourselves if we expect to have the right at any and 
 all times of entry into the National Garden to supply our- 
 selves with the needful Honey. 
 
 When the Nation Owns the Trust Hive all us American 
 Busy Bees will have the right to enter and make Honey and 
 partake of the common store gathered by all. 
 
 If we wish to have what we gather let us Bees Get Busy. 
 
 "Let the Nation Own the Honey Trust,"
 
 The True Joy of Life. 63 
 
 f 
 
 THE TRUE JOY OF LIFE 
 
 THERE is but one true Elixir of Life, and that is to live. 
 A great many people think they are living when in 
 reality they are simply letting their bodies and souls 
 undergo a process of decay. Some who are sure they are 
 living are simply burning themselves up. To really live and 
 be respectable under modern conditions is possible but for a 
 favored few, favored either by heredity or environment, or 
 both, and of those few there are but a fraction who take ad- 
 vantage of their possibilities. What with the difficulties of 
 steering a career between being eminently respectable and 
 disgracefully dissipated, few escape wrecking their souls. The 
 very first requisite of respectability is to conform your 
 thoughts and actions to those of the community among whom 
 it happens to be your lot in life to be thrown. A buried 
 corpse conforms to its surrounding soil. It finally becomes 
 undistinguishable from the soil itself. It is the soil. An 
 acorn buried in the soil is a thing of life because it refuses 
 conformity. It becomes the glorious oak. The dead man is 
 always respectable; the live man never, if he really lives. On 
 the other hand, it is just as much against life to dissipate 
 and burn up your energies in living a life which the re- 
 spectable call disreputable as it is to deaden yourself by 
 leading the life the disreputable sneer at as "respectable." 
 
 To live is simply to express yourself — to express yourself 
 physically, mentally and spiritually. 
 
 You cannot live if you do not express yourself, and you 
 are not expressing yourself when you think, speak and act 
 in a certain manner — not because that is your way — but 
 because it is the way of someone else — because it is re- 
 spectable. 
 
 We live for the sake of experiencing sensations. Every 
 natural movement of the mind or body gives us a pleasurable 
 sensation. If we are unable to exercise our functions prop- 
 erly and normalty, the desire for the sensations which would
 
 64 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 have been the result of such exercise, leads us to offer our- 
 selves a sensation more or less similar to one derived from 
 exercise, but induced by the use of a narcotic or a stimulant. 
 
 A man working all day in a dismal coal mine, denied all 
 sight of the beauties of nature, develops unconsciously, per- 
 haps, an intense longing for the sight of trees and grass and 
 flowers and sunshine. He cannot satisfy that longing. To 
 support life he must stay down in the mine. Is it then a 
 wonder that he takes whiskey which will at least give a 
 certain stimulus to the sensations which his nature so im- 
 peratively demands? Granted that the exhilaration caused 
 by the whiskey is altogether of a baser kind than the exhil- 
 aration caused by the sight of a green sward, still it at least 
 does take the man away from himself and his environment, 
 and this is an effect that seems a psychological necessity to 
 men living unnatural lives. 
 
 It is well enough for the man, whose life itself is a dream 
 in the eyes of the miner, to berate the miner for his drunken- 
 ness. But he should bear in mind that the only time the 
 miner ever feels he is living, is when he can get away from 
 his real life by deadening his nerves with whiskey to such 
 an extent that his environment becomes subordinate to an 
 imaginary one. 
 
 We universally excuse a man for drugging himself when 
 he is about to undergo a surgical operation. If whiskey 
 could be used instead of ether for the anaesthetic, who would 
 blame a man for drinking it when his leg had to be sawed 
 off? After the operation, for weeks the man may be in pain. 
 We do not frown upon his taking opium. But let him re- 
 cover from the physical pain, and then take opium or whis- 
 key to rid himself of a spiritual pain and we at once view 
 him with scorn, notwithstanding that we all say the pain of 
 the mind is greater than that of the body. It is natural for 
 man to escape pain, and if he cannot escape the pain itself, 
 he will do the next best thing — deaden himself to the sen- 
 sation. 
 
 A healthy man in a natural, healthy environment will never 
 think of narcotizing himself. He will not wish to lose any 
 of his sensations — any of his life. 
 
 A man goes to the opera, but certainly does not take a 
 sleeping potion beforehand. Not at all; he wishes all his
 
 The True Joy of Life. 65 
 
 senses with him. He wants to be fully alive in order to enjoy 
 every moment. 
 
 You could not think of a man wishing to get drunk in 
 heaven. It is an absurdity. Yet, if a man happened to have 
 gone to hell, what man would blame the poor devil for get- 
 ting as drunk as he could and staying that way as long as 
 his satanic host would furnish the high-balls ? 
 
 The true course of the temperance reformer is to make 
 this world so little like hell and so near like heaven that no 
 man will dare to get drunk for fear of missing part of the 
 show. 
 
 And it must always be remembered that a heaven on this 
 earth implies something for us to do, some task to perform 
 that we feel and know is useful to ourselves and mankind 
 in general. We cannot get a full life by plowing the sands. 
 Digging post holes and filling them up again may exercise 
 our muscles, but it is deadly to the soul. Conjugating Greek 
 verbs and never getting any further in the language may be 
 very good intellectual discipline, but it would never make an 
 intellectual man. To enjoy digging the post holes we must 
 know that they are to be filled by fence posts and that the fence 
 is something that performs a useful function. We can only 
 take pleasure in the study of Greek verbs when we know it 
 will lead us to wander intelligently in Greek literature. 
 
 It is the uselessness of the sports of the rich that poisons 
 them. Young Vanderbilt feels this when he runs a stage 
 coach for hire. To drive a coach and four every day up 
 and down the pike without "paying passengers" becomes 
 monotonous, but let him know that every man has paid for 
 his seat, and immediately there is added a sense of usefulness 
 to the coach driving that gives it the zest and flavor of life. 
 
 When we have reorganized society it is quite true that the 
 demand for useful labor to produce the necessities of life 
 will be extremely small. At the outside two hours per day 
 will give every man all the food, shelter and clothing he will 
 ever wish. 
 
 Men will not wish champagne and cigars, because they will 
 not wish to deaden their senses in a world of love and beauty. 
 They will not wish to have individual ownership of expensive 
 things, because such ownership to-day is only desired for the 
 sake of ostentation, a motive that will entirely disappear
 
 66 Wilshike Editorials. 
 
 with the effaeement of a system which enables one man to 
 take the wealth produced by another. 
 
 But while the demands for necessities will be immeasurable, 
 architecture, the greatest of the arts, will consume men's 
 labor and time to an unparalleled and unimaginable extent. 
 The buildings of the World's Fair will be reproduced on a 
 far grander scale and in permanent marble in every State 
 in the Union. Built not only for the joy of men seeing them 
 after completion, but built for the actual joy and pleasure of 
 building them. 
 
 We know how the cathedrals of the middle ages were built 
 by singing workmen. If they sung and loved their work in 
 those days how much more will labor in the future enjoy its 
 work when all will be filled with that cosmic consciousness 
 of universal joy which can only come when all men are 
 brothers and join in the great work of making life beautiful ? 
 
 It is only when mankind has developed into a complete 
 and world-wide organism that man as an individual will 
 really and at last live. For not till then will his heart throb 
 in unison with the heart-beats of all humanity.
 
 Two World Conquerors. 67 
 
 TWO WORLD conquerors 
 
 ALEXANDEK sighed when he had no more worlds to 
 conquer. 
 When Morgan conquers the world, it will be the 
 world that will do the sighing. The world will sigh because 
 it will be unemployed. 
 
 That is the difference between the two world conquerors; 
 or, rather the difference between their two methods of con- 
 quest, and it is a mighty big difference, too, let me remark. 
 
 If Alexander had not gorged himself at that famous dinner 
 and died of indigestion from too much food, he might easily 
 have served out his allotted time of life reigning over this old 
 world. The dinner was an accident. There were no necessi- 
 ties of the case demanding that Alexander should gorge him- 
 self to death. He might have lived as abstemiously as John 
 D. Eockefeller if he had only had a modern liver to have 
 compelled abstemiousness. But men did not have modern 
 livers in those heroic days, and so Alexander must die ig- 
 nominiously. We have learned something in the last few 
 thousand years — thanks to Bernarr Macfadden. We now eat 
 only when we are hungry, that is, if we have the sense and 
 the cents — for we must have both. 
 
 Alexander had but to fulfil one condition to hold his throne. 
 He had to keep his health. In fact, this was about the only 
 condition imposed upon a king in feudal days. With good 
 health and reasonable luck and intelligence, most kings could 
 be pretty sure of keeping their jobs. 
 
 With our new emperor of the world, Mr. Morgan, it is not 
 a question of his health — it is a question of his wealth; of 
 his ability to continue making money out of his job. I don't 
 mean that Morgan himself would abdicate his throne if he 
 found there was nothing "in it." I mean that Morgan to-day 
 holds his sceptre by reason of his ability to give men and 
 capital employment; or, to be more correct, by reason of the 
 industrial conditions being such that men can be profitably
 
 68 Wilshiee Editorials. 
 
 employed. Morgan does not and cannot create such condi- 
 tions. He simply takes advantage of the conditions as they 
 may happen to exist in the industrial world, and it so happens 
 to-day that labor and capital can be reasonably well employed, 
 and Morgan reigns in peace. He came to his throne because 
 of a great over-production of the industrial machinery of the 
 United States. This condition necessitated the formation of 
 vast combinations of railways and industrial enterprises. 
 Morgan, as a great banker, was called in by the capitalists to 
 conduct the formation of these combinations. The war with 
 Spain coming on, followed up by the Boer war, caused a great 
 demand for commodities, which was followed up by a great 
 increase in price. The new Morgan combinations not only 
 profited by all this, but owing to their combination they could 
 effect vast economies, yet, at the same time, keep up selling 
 prices by means of their monopoly. Profits never amounted 
 to such a prodigious sum as to-day in the United States. 
 Morgan's Steel Trust is making money at the rate of nearly 
 $140,000,000 per year. The result of all this money making 
 is naturally being followed up by vast expenditures of money 
 to still further perfect the machinery of production in order 
 to still further increase profits. One railway company alone, 
 the Pennsylvania, is about to expend $100,000,000 in better- 
 ments in the next few years. 
 
 However, this cannot continue forever. There is fast ap- 
 proaching the day when the greater part of this work of per- 
 fecting the machinery of production will be finished. The 
 Pennsylvania tunnel under the Hudson River will cost $60,- 
 000,000, but certainly no one can think that when it is 
 finished there will soon be need of another tunnel nor of 
 widening the one just built. And the wildest imagination 
 can hardly dream of even a third tunnel being built in the 
 near future. It is the same way with the immense amount 
 of money now being spent upon improving our railway sys- 
 tems. Heavier bridges and heavier rails are the order of the 
 day. But when the new rails are laid and the bridges 
 strengthened it will be years before they will wear out. 
 
 That the business men of this country do not look for the 
 perpetual continuation of good times is seen from the market 
 price of the preferred stock of the United States Steel Com- 
 pany. Here is Schwab making an affidavit valuing the assets
 
 Two World Conquerors. 69 
 
 at over thirteen hundred million dollars and claiming that 
 the earnings for the year will be over one hundred and forty 
 million dollars, whereas the fixed charges are only something 
 over fifteen million dollars. Notwithstanding all this, the 
 7 per cent, preferred stock of the company sells for less than 
 90 cents while our United States bonds paying 2 per cent, 
 sell for 108. 
 
 The only possible reason why a 7 per cent, investment sells 
 for less than a 2 per cent, one is because of the uncertainty 
 of the 7 per cent, being permanent. Yet, according to Mr. 
 Schwab, the only way the Steel Company could fail to pay its 
 7 per cent, would be owing to an almost inconceivable demor- 
 alization in the iron industry of the country. And the low 
 price of steel stock to my mind indicates exactly such a feeling 
 of uncertainty and foreboding now existing in the minds of 
 the investing public. Even the "gift" of $4,000,000 per year, 
 as evidenced by Mr. Schwab's increase in the wages paid by 
 the Trust, has not to any measurable extent reassured the 
 public mind. One thing it does show, anyway, and that is, 
 that Schwab is a man of discernment. He saw that he would 
 sooner or later be forced to give higher wages, owing to the 
 increased cost of living, and he simply took time by the fore- 
 lock and forestalled the men's demands, and gets credit for 
 great philanthropy. If he had waited for a strike and then 
 given in, he would have been a poor captain. 
 
 The iron industry of this country pays the railway com- 
 panies between sixty and seventy million dollars per year for 
 transportation. 
 
 Now, then, if we are going to have such a falling off of 
 demand for iron that there is going to be a failure to pay 
 the 7 per cent, upon the preferred stock of the Steel Trust, 
 it certainly means that a great part of the millions the Steel 
 Company is now paying the railway companies is going to be 
 lost to them. 
 
 The collapse of the steel and iron industry means the col- 
 lapse of the railway industry, and in fact the collapse of the 
 steel industry means the collapse of practically all the indus- 
 tries in the country. I am predicting this by my words, but 
 our capitalists are predicting it much more effectively by 
 deeds when they refuse to buy Steel Trust stock at par. 
 
 This is the pyramid of human money bags upon which
 
 70 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 Mr. Morgan is perched and from which he views the world as 
 his own — the ability of the Steel Trust to pay dividends. 
 
 As long as capitalists want steel rail, just so long will the 
 Steel Trust employ men digging iron ore, transporting it in 
 vessels and trains to the mills and transporting the finished 
 article on the railways to their destination. 
 
 But the question of capitalists "wanting" steel is not a 
 question of volition. They only "want" when there is a 
 demand, and this demand can only exist when there are 
 economic conditions which create such a demand. It is be- 
 yond the power of the capitalists to create "conditions." It is 
 true they may by foresight and combination modify condi- 
 tions very much, but the general current of industry is quite 
 beyond their control under our existing competitive system. 
 It is true that if Mr. Morgan was the Director General of the 
 whole of the capital of the world he could manage better to 
 keep things going until all the world was perfectly equipped 
 with the latest industrial machinery. When this was finally 
 accomplished he, having nothing more to do with his income, 
 would at last be compelled from the very necessity of things 
 to introduce the co-operative wage system to get rid of his 
 money. But Morgan is not in complete control of the world's 
 capital although he seems rapidly approaching it. He must 
 consider other competing capitalists. He must both husband 
 and waste his capital as the exigencies of the competitive 
 strife demand. 
 
 He is not a free agent although freer than any capitalist 
 yet that the world has ever seen. Take his position in the 
 industrial world to-day, particularly in connection with the 
 great iron industry. He is the whole thing from beginning 
 to end. He controls the iron ore, the vessels carrying the ore, 
 the furnaces making the ore into pig iron, the conversion of 
 the iron into steel, the rolling of the steel into beams and steel 
 rail. He not only controls the railways which buy the steel 
 rail, but he controls the great construction companies which 
 use the steel which goes into the manufacture of steel build- 
 ings and steel steamships. In fact, Morgan performs every 
 act in the whole scale of industry from the very beginning up 
 to the very last act of consumption. But, Morgan, as a capi- 
 talist, is limited in his powers of consumption exactly as 
 Morgan, as an individual, is limited in powers of eating.
 
 Two World Conquerors. 71 
 
 He, as a capitalist, can have an indigestion of too much 
 capital, just as a man can have an indigestion of too much 
 food. His body is an organism, more or less perfect, that 
 will only consume so much food. The body politic likewise, 
 whether Morganized or simply organized, can consume only 
 so much capital. The best Morgan can do for his own body 
 is to keep it well organized and exercised and not to feed it 
 either too much or too little. If he could perform the same 
 service for society he would be safe in holding his throne as 
 emperor of the world — but he can't. That is, he can't unless 
 he supplants the existing competitive wage system by the 
 co-operative system, and this change can never be made for 
 society. It must make it of its own accord and motion and 
 for itself. A man may cultivate the soil and plant a rose 
 bush, but he cannot make it blossom. The bush must do that 
 for itself. All he can do is to hasten or retard the event. 
 Now, society is simply a human rose bush, with somewhat 
 more sense than the common, or garden variety. Morgan is 
 only a part of society and can only contribute his part of the 
 social consciousness which will cause us to know we are to 
 blossom into Socialism some day, and which social conscious- 
 ness will enable us to prepare for that momentous event, and 
 enable us to somewhat hasten the glad day. 
 
 Our physical body is simply an organization of living cells. 
 Each cell looks out for itself, but it can only do so by helping 
 to keep the whole body in a condition of health so that it can 
 derive its proper sustenance from it in turn for the sustenance 
 it gives the body. If anything goes wrong with a cell, for 
 instance, if the cells in the legs become tired with too much 
 walking, they first give a civil warning that they must have a 
 rest, and finally if they don't get what they want, they go on 
 a strike and won't work at all. Then the body must come 
 to their relief — it has no choice. Just as the coal miners in 
 society to-day first make a demand and then finally go on a 
 strike to get what they want. If they had the sense of the 
 cells in the body they would get what they wanted or society 
 would go cold. 
 
 The latest theory of cancer is that it is simply an ordinary 
 cell that has gone crazy and determined to set up a little 
 imperium in impetrio of its own. It wants to be the whole 
 thing itself. It levies on all the tissues of the body just as
 
 72 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 if it had the right to claim a separate organization as well 
 as the body. The body cannot stand this rebellion. It finally 
 weakens under the stress of civil war, and unless it exorcises 
 the cancer it dies and with it dies the cancer. 
 
 The Trust is simply a cancer on the body politic. It is an 
 organization gone wild which thinks that the sustenance in- 
 tended for the whole of society should be diverted to it. 
 
 At one time it was the feudal kings who took to themselves 
 the wealth intended for all, but to-day it is the money king 
 who usurps the rights of society, and right royally he does it, 
 too! 
 
 As Mr. Wayland says in the "Appeal to Keason" : 
 
 "In view of the hesitation in the world of stocks, bonds 
 and gambling occasioned by the illness of the English king, a 
 financial report says that while the king was more ornamental 
 than vital, 'he was a discreet and mute partner in many im- 
 portant enterprises.' In the olden times the king raised an 
 army of free-booters and overrun and pillaged his neighbors 
 where he could, and on the booty thus obtained lived in 
 luxury. That was at least open and in a sense honorable. He 
 made no pretenses to be otherwise. To-day he takes the ways 
 of business to accomplish the same ends. He invests in 'en- 
 terprises' that have for their object the taking away from the 
 people the results of their labor, and appropriates them to 
 his own use. He and his fellows secretly conspire against 
 the rest of the human race to cheat them in the matter of 
 price and cost, and extract millions from them to squander 
 on idle ostentatious living. The king is a mere child in this 
 to such as Morgan : combinations of men steal from the people 
 a tiny speck on every mouthful of sugar, every drop of oil, 
 every glimmer of electricity or gas, every mouthful of food, 
 every rag of clothes. In this age we have not one king but 
 many, and many whose names even we never hear, or of whose 
 existence we are unaware. Stores to-day have become so 
 many tax-collecting offices for the men who own the Trusts ; 
 the erstwhile merchant is to-day but the collector in the cun- 
 ning system of taxation without representation. We read and 
 wonder at the stupidity and patience of the past generation 
 in their submission to the tribute of kings, but they were 
 never bled to one-tenth the extent the people are to-day by 
 commercial kings, whose incomes from the people are greater
 
 Two World Conquerors. 73 
 
 than any England's kings ever dreamed. We could better 
 support five-fold the royalty and snobbery of England in their 
 present useless lives than support the tens of thousands of 
 tax-collecting vermin that swarm the industrial body of the 
 people. What we pay for national and local taxes is nothing 
 compared to the sums we have laid on us each year by the 
 lice of capitalism. Go to any city and see the long line of 
 mansions, palaces and exclusive pleasure places — inhabited 
 by human beings who never do a useful stroke of labor, whose 
 lives are spent in cunningly extracting from the workers the 
 honey of wealth they produce, and you can readily see how 
 insignificant the public taxes are compared to what it takes to 
 keep up these drones. The income of a Rockefeller or a Mor- 
 gan is greater than the royal income of all the royal families 
 of all Europe." 
 
 No, it is true that no feudal king ever had the twentieth 
 part of Rockefeller's income, and it is just owing to this 
 enormous drain upon the people that capitalism will never 
 have the long life enjoyed by feudalism. 
 
 It's on the same principle that a man can endure a wart 
 on his body much longer than he can a cancer. The kings 
 and dukes were mere little warts on society. The Rockefellers 
 and Morgans are virulent cancers. The wart remains in 
 nearly a static condition. It grows very slowly and it takes 
 but little nourishment from the system to feed it; it causes 
 little pain or discomfort. Not so with the cancer. It grows 
 every day and the older it gets the more it drains the system 
 and the more pain it causes. 
 
 Now, when a man has a cancer, he doesn't expect to get rid 
 of it by reasoning with the cancer and persuading it to leave 
 his body. Not at all. He summons up his resolution and cuts 
 it out. He never thinks of having any resentment against 
 that cell which has gone wild and made a cancer out of itself, 
 and threatens his life. If he is a scientist he knows that that 
 cell is totally irresponsible. It is simply diseased, and if 
 properly treated and put in a proper environment it will once 
 again resume its rightful status in the body. 
 
 The Trust cancer upon the American people is not yet in 
 the open virulent stage. It gives some annoyance; we all 
 know that an abnormal growth is upon us; but we will not 
 take measures for its removal, however, until the disease as-
 
 74 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 sumes the acute form and it becomes a matter of life and 
 death with "us to remove the false growth and correct the 
 tendencies that brought it on. 
 
 Now we simply let Teddy tell us that he will have Dr. 
 Knox cure us, and let it go at that.
 
 How High Can Wages Go? 75 
 
 HOW HIGH CAN WAGES GO? 
 
 AGKEAT many employers conscientiously believe that 
 wages cannot be raised if the increase will make 
 the cost of production greater than the present 
 receipts of the business will allow to be paid. 
 
 They seem to be quite oblivious to the possibility of raising 
 prices sufficiently to enable them to pay the higher wages. 
 In the last coal strike the operators said that if they paid 
 the wages demanded by the miners they could not get enough 
 for the coal to enable them to pay cost of production. 
 
 However, as soon as production was curtailed the price of 
 coal went up from $6 to $20 per ton. Here, then, was a 
 difference of $14 per ton, while the advance in cost of mining 
 coal, which would have been the result of paying the increase 
 of wages demanded by the miners, would not have amounted 
 to twenty cents per ton. 
 
 The people simply must have coal, and if the cost of oper- 
 ating the mines forces up the cost, then the people, rather 
 than go without, will pay whatever is necessary to get it 
 even if it be $20 per ton. Of course, when such a tremendous 
 rise takes place there is naturally a great diminution of 
 demand, but nevertheless this does not alter the fact that 
 for the coal that is sold the operators will be able to pay the 
 miners tremendous wages. I take the following from the 
 Toronto "World": 
 
 EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. 
 
 But no power on earth can make an industry or a business carry 
 a heavier wage burden than its strength will uphold. Overloaded, 
 it must get rid of part of the burden or it must sink. And the 
 alternative which the wage earner must choose is to lighten the 
 'burden when it is too heavy and not to increase it when it is as 
 heavy as can be tolerated, or he will do the worst thing he can do for 
 himself. He will narrow his own field of employment. He will dimin- 
 ish its fruits which may be divided with him. He will kill the goose 
 that lays the golden egg. — New York Press. 
 
 This editorial opinion is called forth by the current trend 
 of the labor situation in Great Britain and the United States. 
 According to the London, Eng., Chamber of Commerce re- 
 turns, there occurred in 1901, for the first time since 1895,
 
 76 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 a heavy fall in the total wages of British workmen. In 1901, 
 the "Chamber of Commerce Journal" computes, there was a 
 decrease in wages of £1,584,000 (about $7,900,000), as against 
 an increase in 1900 of about £6,000,000. Thus far in 1902 
 the downward tendency has continued, so that the end of 
 the year will doubtless show a further recession of the total 
 wages from the highest figures of 1901. 
 
 It is found, on looking further into the Chamber of Com- 
 merce report, that though this reduction occurred in the 
 total wages paid out, in some groups of industries the work- 
 men actually secured increased wages. In other words, while 
 wages in particular groups have advanced, the general decline 
 in wages forced the total results far down, as the statistics 
 quoted above show. 
 
 Taking these figures as a text, "The Press" warns trades 
 unions against the indiscriminate forcing up of wages in in- 
 dustries, some of which may not be able to stand the advance 
 in expenditure entailed. "The Press" then proceeds : 
 
 Because there has been a great boom in one industry, with largely 
 increased wages, not only made possible but voluntarily raised in 
 response to the universal law of supply and demand, we have seen 
 undiscriminating wage-earners taking it for granted that there 
 should be a corresponding increase in wages in industries and occu- 
 pations which have been in fact, for one reason or another, languish- 
 ing. They have attempted to enforce their demands when the tem- 
 porary enforcement of them must inevitably cripple their employers, 
 (if not drive some of them to the wall. A case in point whose 
 details we have given some study is that of the carting and truck- 
 ing business. For the last two years this business has been stag- 
 gering under burdens of exceptional disadvantage. The increased 
 cost of horses put a heavy tax on it. The increased cost of all 
 the materials used for building and repairing the equipment of 
 the business — the wood, the iron and steel of the wagons and the 
 material of the harness — added to the burden. Then the cost of 
 feed, owing to the crop failures, practically doubled, so that the 
 trucking and general delivery business was in the worst shape 
 to make money at any time in years. And at that very time of 
 distress — at the extreme depression of the business — the drivers, 
 handlers and other workmen employed in the group decided that 
 because others had been getting advances in wages — they should get 
 them. The demands were presented by the union and the choice was 
 given to the employers of granting them or of suffering a strike. 
 In one case which we examined the new scale presented to an 
 employer called for an additional wage payment of $60,000 a year. 
 The business was not making one-fourth of that sum. But the 
 scale was generally enforced, with the result that some of the
 
 How High Can Wages Go? 77 
 
 employers were compelled to cut down the number of their wagons, 
 to injure the efficiency of their service, and to reduce the scope 
 of their business, while others were put out of business entirely. 
 
 In these days of searching for a means of bringing capital 
 and labor into proper relations with each other, any illumi- 
 nating comment on the problem is of interest, and we there- 
 fore quote our contemporary on this question. 
 
 The average production per laborer according to Census 
 Bulletin 150, U. S. Reports, is $2,451 per year. The wages 
 paid average $437 per year. 
 
 Certainly if the laborers weTe completely organized, then 
 they could get the whole of the $2,451 that they produce, 
 less such sum that the capitalist needs to keep up his plant 
 and pay him wages of superintendence. 
 
 The Steel Trust to-day pays profits of over 100 millions 
 per year. If times were dull they would run the works at 
 a loss rather than shut down. 
 
 If labor could hold its own in a strike it could put up 
 wages to the extent of absorbing the whole of the present 
 100 millions profit, for it would pay Mr. Morgan better to 
 lose all his profits rather than shut down the works. 
 
 In the case of the trucking industry in New York which 
 "The Press" refers to, it can be seen upon a moment's re- 
 flection that the carriage of freight from the depot to the 
 store is an absolute necessity to the merchant. There is no 
 substitute that can be offered for transportation by the 
 trucks. He simply must pay what the teamsters demand or 
 go out of business. 
 
 He may have been basing his business upon a certain cost 
 of truckage, but if so he must re-base it upon another cost 
 and add the difference to the selling price of his goods. He 
 need not fear competitors, for the same extra cost will like- 
 wise force them to adopt the same means of preservation. 
 If the extra cost of trucking would ruin business in New 
 York, then the excessive rents paid there to the land-owners 
 would have certainly ruined business long ago. But we all 
 know that business increases every year in New York, and 
 every year up go rents. The merchants simply recoup them- 
 selves by charging higher prices. And if people cannot afford 
 to pay the prices, then they will move away and down will 
 come rents.
 
 78 Wilshiee Editorials. 
 
 COLUMBIA'S RACE FOR LIBERTY. 
 
 TO many the verse, "Sweet Land of Liberty," when applied 
 to America, seems to be the baldest irony, but there was 
 a day when it was not a joke. One of the very signifi- 
 cant features of the times is the attitude that Life, a paper 
 having its circulation almost exclusively among the "400," 
 is taking toward our modern plutocracy. One would think 
 that it would be the last paper that would publish such a 
 cartoon as that seen on another page. Just now, no doubt, 
 poor, foolish Columbia is valuing the miserable apples of 
 Greed and Avarice that her competitor, the Trust, casts in 
 her path more than she does the winning of the race for 
 Liberty. But the race is not by any means as nearly over 
 as the plutocrats in the royal box would seem to imagine. 
 The Trust has one more apple to throw, Fraud, and he will 
 needs throw it soon, too, and then his last card will have 
 been played. Columbia can win as easily as could the god- 
 dess of old, and that she will win in the long race of a 
 nation's life is certain, notwithstanding the tricks of her 
 competitor. The marvel, however, is that she allows herself 
 to be tricked even for the moment. "Why is it that a people 
 as intelligent as we Americans certainly are, allow ourselves to 
 be kept out of our inheritance by such self-evident trickery as 
 the Trust is now imposing upon us ? Here we have a country 
 that is palpably more than capable of supporting all of us 
 in affluence. The Trust, by the great economies it has been 
 able to effect in production, has confessedly made the task 
 of producing the things we want infinitely much easier than 
 ever. But notwithstanding that the Trust admits on the 
 one hand that it has enabled man to control nature that 
 much the easier, it, on the other hand, is denying men em- 
 ployment, alleging that they are no longer needed, owing 
 to these self-same economies, and this denial of employment 
 means the impossibility of men procuring the food they 
 need simply because it has become so much easier to pro- 
 duce that food. Is it not absolutely incomprehensible to,
 
 Columbia's Bace for Liberty. 79 
 
 think that we Americans can accept such a condition of 
 affairs and not see the utter absurdity of it all ? Here we are 
 in America, a land flowing with milk and honey, we have 
 given over to the Trusts the management of procuring this 
 milk and honey in the manner which will require the least 
 human exertion. We have labored for years and years con- 
 structing machinery to lessen the task of milk and honey 
 getting. We have been so busy making these machines that 
 we have almost forgotten why we started out to make them, 
 namely, in order to lighten our toil. In fact, we have 
 almost begun to think that the making of the machines was 
 an end in itself instead of being the means to an end. So 
 immersed have we been in the process of making machines 
 that when the Trusts came along and told us that more 
 machines are now built than there is any need for, and that, 
 therefore, our labor Will be no longer needed, instead of our 
 throwing up our caps with a "Huzza! Boys, the Work of 
 Man is Done! Now let us Use these Machines over the 
 Making of which We have Spent so Many Weary Years of 
 Toil !" — I say, instead of making any such an outcry of joy 
 at the completion of the task, we are terrified to death, for 
 we think unless we can continue the making of machines, 
 no matter how little they may be needed, that there is no 
 other way of our being able to use our labor in getting a 
 living. We laugh at the Irishman who thought the only 
 way to get his pig roasted was to burn down his shanty, 
 yet we Americans are just as silly. We think the only way 
 for us to get bread is to continue building superfluous ma- 
 chines. Simply because in the beginning of our industrial 
 development all our labor force could be profitably spent in 
 the making of tools for the production of bread, now that 
 we have practically completed such tools we are terrified that 
 we cannot continue getting our bread as we formerly did 
 because the work of making such tools is completed. When 
 we were building such machines, we simply made a trade 
 of our labor. Part of us worked in the fields growing the 
 wheat and another part of us were working in the machine 
 shops making mowing machines. Then we exchanged our 
 mowing machines for the wheat and fed ourselves. The 
 end was to feed ourselves, and we thought to attain that 
 end more easily by building mowing machines. We fed
 
 80 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 ourselves all right enough before we ever had any mowing 
 machines, but we were not satisfied to leave well enough 
 alone. We must do better, and we certainly can do much 
 better, for one man with modern machinery in the wheat 
 field can do the work of one hundred. And now when we 
 have quite finished building all the machines we need, we 
 find that instead of getting one hundred times as much 
 wheat as we did before we made the machines we actually 
 are told by some of our statesmen that we may not even 
 get as much as we did before we had any machines at all. 
 The only hope for us, according to some people, is that we 
 develop our foreign trade so that when we make more mow- 
 ing machines than can be used in this country, the foreigner 
 will take pity on us and use them in his country. This is called 
 by the Eoosevelt-Hanna combination salvation by reciprocity. 
 It means that the mere finishing up of sufficient mowing 
 machines to cut all our American wheat must now be fol- 
 lowed up by us Americans building mowing machines for all 
 the rest of the Earth. When we finally finish this mighty 
 task we are not told that we will then get that hundred for 
 one return that we have been waiting for, lo! now, these 
 fifty years. No, we are told that after we have built ma- 
 chines for all the world, then we will have indeed finished 
 our task and it will then be time for us to move off the 
 Earth. Just the time when we thought we were getting in 
 shape to rest and enjoy life we are told it is time to die. 
 However, we are not going to move off the Earth, and neither 
 are we going to shuffle off this mortal coil. We are going to 
 suddenly awaken to the fact that we have been fools long 
 enough, and we are going to simply let the machines do our 
 work; and we are going to eat the bread without any pangs 
 of conscience that it is produced by the harnessing of 
 Niagara rather than by the sweat of our noble brows. If 
 anybody wishes to sweat, let him take a vapor bath, but as 
 for us we see no terrors in a dry-browed future. Anyhow, 
 we are going to have one try at it, even if we lose. 
 
 All this is not saying that labor, like virtue, is not its 
 own reward, but there is such a thing as having too much of 
 a good thing. We are too apt to look upon the only possible 
 reward for work to exist in its product, but as a matter of 
 fact there is an equal reward in the very work that led to
 
 Columbia's Race for Liberty. 81 
 
 the product, although our modern methods of employment 
 quite obscure it. 
 
 For a healthy man there is a joy in digging post-holes, 
 provided there are not too many to be dug in a day. There 
 is certainly more joy in the digging of a number of post- 
 holes than there can be in any possession of the holes after 
 they are dug. What painter ever enjoyed the possession of 
 his picture as much as he did the painting of it ? I am sure 
 if Pierpont Morgan were to analyze his feelings, he would 
 admit that his pleasure in forming the United States Steel 
 Company was far greater than any he now has in possessing 
 the cash and bonds he received for doing the work. Even 
 the mere reminiscence of the performing of a good work is 
 a far greater pleasure than the possession of any reward. 
 
 This reward existing in the actual doing of the work 
 runs all through nature. We see it in the intense delight of 
 children to do something of use for their elders. What little 
 girl in fortunate circumstances does not like to make an 
 effort at cooking or sewing for her mother? But when we 
 see a little girl sewing her soul into her work in a sweater's 
 den we can hardly realize that under different conditions 
 that same work which now wears the child's life away might 
 be a joy to her. It is not work, but over-work, that is 
 painful. 
 
 The determination of when work becomes over-work is 
 also of a varying nature. A man will perform prodigies of 
 labor during a hunting trip that will but add to his health, 
 whereas the same amount of work done digging our post- 
 holes would be heart-breaking drudgery. Similarly Edison 
 working night and day perfecting an invention can do such 
 strenuous work with no ill results to his health, whereas 
 if he were without the stimulus of the pleasure in the work 
 he would break down at it. It is often said that when a 
 successful business man does far more work than his mean- 
 est employee, therefore his material reward should be justly 
 reckoned accordingly. This reasoning entirely overlooks the 
 reward that exists in his work in itself. That there is more 
 joy in giving than receiving is a truism, but that the giving 
 consists in the doing of the work which produces the gift 
 is often overlooked. However, if we analyze some of our 
 social customs we find that this idea of the pleasure of making
 
 82 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 a gift of the products of our labor, when that labor is con- 
 fessedly from its nature of a pleasurable kind, is tacitly con- 
 fessed, for such a gift is conventionally possible among equals 
 and friends, where any other would be impossible. 
 
 For instance, if I go shooting and send a brace of wild 
 ducks to my friend, they will be gladly accepted, notwith- 
 standing he may have a suspicion that I have bought them in 
 the market. However, there is a chance that I really have 
 shot them myself and anyway I have had the fun of the 
 trying, and hence he feels that in accepting them he is under 
 no obligation. If, on the other hand, I should send him a 
 pair of tame ducks with no intimation that I had acquired 
 them in any other way than by purchase, the present would 
 be regarded in the light of an insult. I can only give him 
 tame ducks if it is known that I am playing at the gentle- 
 man farmer and am raising ducks purely for amusement. 
 These customs regarding the kind of labor incorporated into 
 a thing deciding upon the possibility of its being a gift, I 
 say, have at base a clear recognition of the delights of labor 
 when clone under proper conditions. 
 
 It seems absurd to many to say that labor in the future 
 with Socialism will give quite as much pleasure, if 
 not indeed more pleasure, in the doing of it than in the 
 participation of its results. Where does the pleasure 
 come in to-day when we go off to the woods for a 
 week's picnic? It is certainly not in the eating of the 
 fish or game that may be killed. In fact, people often go 
 out camping and take all their provisions with them. Of 
 course, the change from conventional city life is a pleasure, 
 but I venture to say that a great amount of the pleasure 
 consits in the doing of the necessary camp work. I think 
 it will be admitted by those who have tried both ways that 
 when servants are taken along to do the work, half the 
 pleasure of a camping trip is lost. 
 
 It is quite true that all high civilizations in the past have 
 been based upon the servitude of man to man. A select few 
 have been permitted to live a higher life perched on the 
 backs of the many. And far be it from me to say that there is 
 not a strong argument in favor of having a small class enjoy 
 the delights of culture rather than have the whole mass 
 brutalized.
 
 Columbia's Bace for Liberty. 83 
 
 Man must have servants to take the labor of getting a 
 living off his shoulders sufficiently for him to develop his 
 intellect. However, there is no reason why man's servant 
 should not be a machine just as well as it should be a fellow 
 man. It is not the nature of the servant that gives the nec- 
 essary leisure. It is the nature of the service. I must have 
 food and clothing. It can be given to me by a slave operated 
 by muscle or by a slave operated by steam. 
 
 Even on the camping trip it must be remembered that 
 although we may take no servants with us, nevertheless we 
 take congealed labor along with us in our flour and bacon, 
 our blankets, our guns, and in fact the whole of our camp 
 accoutrements. The goods we take with us represent just 
 so much less labor for us to perform while on the trip. 
 
 I am dwelling upon this idea of the pleasure of work 
 because I feel that many of those who have wealth to-day 
 look with unnecessary horror upon a change of society which 
 will necessitate conditions in which all must work. They 
 not unnaturally think that by "work" is meant the kind of 
 work both as to time and nature such as they see laborers, 
 clerks, servants, etc., doing about them. 
 
 I don't blame a man raised in the lap of luxury looking 
 with consternation upon a future which implied that he 
 would have to do work of this kind. It is but natural that 
 he should make up his mind to fight to the death to resist 
 any such change. I know that in the days before I was a 
 Socialist and had simply a vague idea that Socialism meant 
 drudgery for everyone and that it was to come, if ever it 
 did come, through the deliberate organizing of the working 
 class to take possession of the wealth of the rich. I say 
 that when I thought this I, too, had made up my mind to 
 fight to the last ditch rather than let it occur. I felt that 
 I might as well be dead as live the life I saw the poor of 
 to-day living, and that I could risk nothing by fighting, and 
 I might gain. In those days I never had heard of social 
 evolution as something that was of present-day importance. 
 It had never been suggested to me that Socialism was com- 
 ing like the winter's snow, and that I might as well try to 
 fight off that snow with Krupp guns as to resist it. That 
 Socialism was such an inevitability and that it did not mean 
 drudgery for men, but universal joy, suddenly broke upon
 
 84 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 me one day. It was no supernatural light either, that led 
 to my conversion. It was simply deductions obtained from 
 the appearance of the trusts, and my knowledge of the 
 business conditions that led to this appearance. 
 
 I made a flop in one night, about fifteen years ago, from 
 being the most extreme follower of the laissez faire school 
 of economists to the most extreme of the collectivist school. 
 There was no step-by-step process in my evolution, and I 
 have never budged an inch in my economics since I made 
 my change of belief. Immediately I became a convert to 
 Socialism I thought that every man I talked to would see 
 things as I did and follow suit. 
 
 The economic necessity of Socialism seemed so easily 
 proven that I was really green enough to think that Mr. 
 Rockefeller himself would see the point when it was shown 
 to him, and might even join in the movement to introduce 
 Socialism. Upon this theory I actually wrote him a very 
 polite letter showing how he had a chance to go down into 
 history as the introducer of Socialism if he would but turn 
 his vast wealth to that end. I am still waiting hopefully 
 for that reply. It will soon be fifteen years, but still my 
 patience is not exhausted. In the meanwhile, however, Mr. 
 Pierpont Morgan has appeared on the financial horizon so 
 that there is a double string to my bow. It may appear to 
 some that it is the height of absurdity for me to suggest in 
 any way except as a joke that Eockefeller or Morgan should 
 ever accept the Socialist theory and would assist in its con- 
 summation. I admit that my experience in gaining converts 
 from the rich does not justify me in still having hope, but 
 hope is notorious for its triumphs over experience. 
 
 To prove that Socialism is inevitable is just as simple a 
 problem for me to demonstrate as that two and two are four. 
 If the demonstration that two and two are four should prove 
 to me something I did not like to know, and it does very 
 frequently, too, I certainly would not so stultify myself as 
 to refuse to admit that two and two continue to make four. 
 Now there is nothing particularly different in the make-up 
 of Mr. Rockefeller and myself, and whatever difference there 
 is should make him still more likely to come to my view of 
 the case. He is a better figurer than I can ever hope to be, 
 and therefore he should arrive at my conclusion upon the
 
 Columbia's Race for Liberty. 85 
 
 mathematical grounds much sooner than I did, once his at- 
 tention is called to the problem. Upon the ethical ground 
 he certainly has far more reason to come to my ground than 
 ever I had to be here. I never set myself up as a man to 
 lead the prayer meetings and as an elder in the church. I 
 never, in fact, made the least pretense of any altruism in my 
 make-up. I simply made a study of how to amuse number 
 one, and in fact I have never professed anything different, 
 even since I became a Socialist. 
 
 Hence it seems to me that Mr. Rockefeller as well as Mr. 
 Morgan, who are both good at figures as well as devoutly 
 religious, are theoretically bound to come sooner or later into 
 the collectivist school of economics, and become contributors 
 to this magazine. 
 
 They both pray every day to the Lord that His "will be 
 done on earth as it is in heaven." I would ask any good 
 Christian who is not a Socialist, if such a thing can exist, 
 what is his idea of God's will on earth? Wherein does his 
 idea of the kingdom of God on earth differ from the idea 
 that the Socialists have of the earth under Socialism? Cer- 
 tainly neither Mr. Morgan nor Mr. Rockefeller have as much 
 cause as other rich men to disagree with the Socialists be- 
 cause we say that they are the agents who are working out 
 our ideal. Of course, I can understand how Mr. Rockefeller 
 would not agree with the Democrat or the Populist who 
 wishes to destroy the trusts, but I do not see wherein he and 
 the Socialist would have any room for discussion. Even 
 upon the point of private ownership versus public ownership 
 of the Standard Oil Trust Mr. Rockefeller would be in agree- 
 ment, for we both say that the change cannot be made before 
 the people wish it done, and that after the people do so 
 declare that such is their wish, then there will be no resisting 
 their will. Probably Mr. Rockefeller would to-day not be 
 in favor of the nationalization of the trusts, but he could 
 easily excuse himself by saying that he is simply averse to 
 doing anything that the people do not wish done, and cer- 
 tainly he would be fully justified in his contention that the 
 people have done little to indicate that they wish any such 
 step taken. 
 
 Young Mr. Rockefeller declared the other day that the de- 
 velopment of the trust was like unto the development of an
 
 86 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 American Beauty rose. That to have a fine rose many buds 
 must be pinched off and their sap turned to the remaining 
 one, and he paralleled it in saying that to have one great 
 business many smaller ones must be exterminated. This 
 again is in line with the Socialist's idea. The Standard Oil 
 Trust is itself but a large bud, and it, too, must be pinched 
 off in order that its sap may flow to the American nation as 
 a whole, for the nation is the American Beauty rose that we 
 are all interested in developing to its highest possibilities. 
 
 Pinch, brothers, pinch, pinch with care, 
 Pinch every Trust that absorbs our air.
 
 Mutation Theory Applied to Society. 87 
 
 THE MUTATION THEORY APPLIED TO 
 SOCIETY 
 
 WHEN one states that it is his theory that the final 
 move of society will be in the nature of a leap 
 rather than a slow and steady progression through 
 the successive municipalization and nationalization of public 
 utilities until all wealth is finally nationalized, he is often 
 condemned as being unscientific and as being no true follower 
 of the theory of evolution. 
 
 To be called unscientific is about the greatest insult that 
 can be hurled at a Socialist, and he has felt a certain justice 
 in such a criticism when he himself feels he has failed to 
 clearly demonstrate that the same laws which govern the 
 evolutionary development of plants and animals also hold in 
 the development of the social organism of man, of society. 
 
 If, for instance, it was admitted that the development of 
 the deer or the elephant in its present form and shape from 
 lower forms of life was the result of the slow and steady 
 progress of natural selection extending over millions of years, 
 why was it not logical to insist that the move from the present 
 competitive man-eating-man society of to-day to a society of 
 brotherly love and co-operation must also require the slow 
 progress of the centuries ? 
 
 It was no particular comfort for the evolutionary yet revo- 
 lutionary Socialist to hear that the researches of Geikie, Lord 
 Kelvin and other scientists showed that the time required by 
 the theory of Darwin for the development of the higher types 
 of animals and plants, time mounting into the thousands of 
 millions of years, was simply impossible because the earth 
 as a planet in a condition cool enough for life to exist was 
 impossible a hundred million years ago. A thousand million 
 years ago the earth was an incandescent glowing sun. How- 
 ever, the scientific proofs of an evolutionary descent were so 
 positive that the educated world generally became convinced 
 of its truth, notwithstanding the objection of the lack of 
 time declared so necessary by Darwin. Then, too, there were
 
 88 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 many missing links connecting species to species, which the 
 theologians have not failed to point out, the loss of which the 
 Darwinians never were quite able to satisfactorily explain. 
 
 However, all these faults in the Darwinian theory are 
 remedied if the "mutation" theory of progress is adopted 
 instead of the theory held by Darwin of a slow and almost 
 imperceptible progress. Those holding to the mutation 
 theory, or the "jump" theory think progress from species to 
 species to have been made, not by a slow process, but by 
 sudden and unexpected jumps. Just as if, for instance, 
 there being no deer in the world, that the cows of a certain 
 herd should suddenly and unexpectedly give birth to a num- 
 ber of young deer instead of calves, and that these deer 
 should then interbreed with themselves, and so give rise to a 
 new species — to deer. 
 
 That new species should have originated in this manner 
 without apparent reason and from parents so very different 
 would have been as difficult of acceptance by the early Dar- 
 winians as the story of the creation of woman from Adam's 
 rib. 
 
 However, a number of recent experiments upon the lower 
 forms of life have shown conclusively that there, at any rate, 
 one species may by being placed in a new environment, give 
 rise to a totally new and different species, and if this may 
 happen among the lower species, there is possibly no sound 
 reason why it may not happen among the higher. 
 
 Recently there was a very interesting paper read by Dr. 
 H. C. Bastian before the Royal Society in London. The 
 Doctor is a supporter of this theory of the production of one 
 form of life from another form. Most biologists hold to 
 the hypothesis of homogenesis or the production of a given 
 form of life from the same form. Dr. Bastian has shown, 
 however, says W. E. Garrett Fisher, in the London "Mail," 
 by an experiment anyone can repeat, that one form of life 
 does at times give rise to a totally distinct form, under the 
 influence of purely physical conditions. His experiment is 
 as striking, though it deals only with microscopic and lowly 
 forms of life, as if a hen's egg were found, under special con- 
 ditions of incubation, to give birth to a duckling. 
 
 "When the eggs of a common 'wheel animalcule,' the 
 Hydatina, which is found in the stagnant water of many
 
 Mutation Theory Applied to Society. 89 
 
 ponds and ditches, are allowed to germinate in small stone 
 pots from which both light and certain invisible rays, which 
 seem to play a part in the process, are excluded, Dr. Bastian 
 finds that some of them invariably give birth to a different 
 kind of animalcule. The Hydatina is a multicellular or- 
 ganism, which belongs to a class, the rotifera, holding a place 
 of its own in the zoological scheme. "When its eggs give birth 
 to the ciliated infusoria, which Dr. Bastian has obtained from 
 them in many instances, we have offspring of a perfectly dis- 
 tinct nature from the parent. These infusoria belong to the 
 simplest class of living animals, the protozoa, each of which 
 consists of a single cell. Their bodies are not differentiated 
 into parts as is the case with all higher forms — including the 
 parent Hydatina — but the solitary cell has to perform all 
 the functions of vitality. To a biologist the case is just as 
 remarkable as if a cat gave birth to a sparrow, or a hen's egg 
 produced a frog. It is a clear case of the transmutation of 
 life, corresponding closely enough to the transmutation of 
 radium-emanation into helium. 
 
 "To the lay student of the problems of life this remarkable 
 discovery has a two-fold interest. In the first place, it helps 
 us to understand how all the wonderful varieties of life which 
 now people the globe may have developed, within the some- 
 what limited time which physicists allow for the operation, 
 from the primordial germs. In the second place, the fact 
 of the transmutation of life, once established, throws some 
 light on the question of its origin." 
 
 That heterogenesis is also a method of progress among 
 plants is being every day made clearer and clearer, and that 
 the same will be made clear regarding all life is surely only 
 a question of time, is my own belief. 
 
 To Professor Hugo De Vries the world is most indebted 
 for its knowledge of the facts as to plants in relation to this 
 profoundly interesting and far-reaching theory. 
 
 His book "Species and Varieties, Their Origin by Muta- 
 tion," published by the Open Court Publishing Co., of Chi- 
 cago ($5), marks in its way the greatest step forward we 
 have had since the publication of Darwin's epoch-making 
 "Origin of Species." It lights up many of the dark places 
 in the Darwinian theory. As the author says:
 
 90 Wilshike Editorials. 
 
 "A grave objection which has often and from the very outset been 
 urged against Darwin's conception of very slow- and nearly imper- 
 ceptible changes, is the enormously long time required. If evolution 
 does not proced any faster than w^hat w T e can see at present, and if 
 the process must be assumed to have gone on in the same slow 
 manner always, thousands of millions of years would have been 
 needed to develop the higher types of animals and plants from their 
 earliest ancestors. 
 
 Now, it is not at all probable that the duration of life on earth 
 includes such an incredibly long time. Quite on the contrary, the 
 lifetime of the earth seems to be limited to a few millions of years. 
 The researches of Lord Kelvin and other eminent physicists seem to 
 leave no doubt on this point. Of course all estimates of this kind 
 are only vague and approximate, but for our present purposes 
 they may be considered as sufficiently exact. 
 
 In a paper published in 1862 Sir William Thomson (now Lord Kel- 
 vin) first endeavored to show that great limitations had to be put 
 upon the enormous demands for time made by Lyell, Darwin and 
 other biologists. 
 
 From a consideration of a secular cooling of the earth, as deduced 
 from the increasing temperature in deep mines, he concluded that 
 the entire age of the earth must have been more than twenty and 
 less than forty millions of years, and probably much nearer twenty 
 than forty. His view T s have been much criticized by other physicists, 
 but in the main they have gained an ever-increasing support in the 
 w r ay of evidence. New mines of greater depth have been bored, and 
 their temperatures have proved that the figures of Lord Kelvin 
 are strikingly near the truth. George Darwin has calculated that the 
 separation of the moon from the earth must have taken place some 
 fifty-six millions of years ago. Geikie has estimated the existence 
 of the solid crust of the earth at the most as a hundred million 
 years. The first appearance of the crust must soon have been suc- 
 ceeded by the formation of the seas, and a long time does not seem 
 to have been required to cool the seas to such a degree that life be- 
 came possible. It is very probable that life originally commenced 
 in the great seas, and that the forms which are now usually included 
 in the plankton or floating-life included the very first living beings. 
 According to Brooks, life must have existed in this floating condi- 
 tion during long primeval epochs, and involved nearly all the main 
 branches of the animal and vegetable kingdom before sinking to the 
 bottom of the sea, and later producing the vast number of diverse 
 forms w 7 hich now adorn the sea and land. 
 
 All these evolutions, however, must have been very rapid, espe- 
 cially at the beginning, and together cannot have taken more time 
 than the figures given above. 
 
 The agency of the larger streams, and the deposits which they 
 bring into the seas, afford further evidence. The amount of dis- 
 solved salts, especially sodium chloride, common salt, has been 
 made the subject of a calculation by Joly, and the amount of time 
 has been estimated by Eugene Dubois. Joly found fifty-five and
 
 Mutation Theory Applied to Society. 91 
 
 Dubois thirty-six millions of years as the probable age of the 
 rivers, and both figures correspond to the above dates as closely as 
 might be expected from the discussion of evidence so incomplete and 
 limited. 
 
 All in all it seems evident that the duration of life does not com- 
 ply with the demands of the conception of very slow and continuous 
 evolution. Now, it is easily seen that the idea of successive muta- 
 tions is quite independent of this difficulty. Even assuming that 
 some thousands of characters must have been acquired in order to 
 produce the higher animals and plants of the present time, no valid 
 objection is raised. The demands of the biologists and the results 
 of the physicists are harmonized on the ground of the theory of mu- 
 tation. 
 
 The steps may be surmised to have never been essentially larger 
 than in the mutations now going on under our eyes, and some thou- 
 sands of them may be estimated as sufficient to account for the 
 entire organization of the higher forms. Granting betwen twenty and 
 forty millions of years since the beginning of life, the intervals be- 
 tween two successive mutations may have been centuries and even 
 thousands of years. As yet there has been no objection cited 
 against this assumption, and hence we see that the lack of harmony 
 between the demands of biologists and the result of the physicists 
 disappears in the light of the theory of mutation. 
 
 Summing up the results of this discussion, we may justifiably 
 assert that the conclusions derived from the observations and ex- 
 periments made with evening-primroses and other plants in the main 
 agree satisfactorily with the inferences drawn from paleontologic, 
 geologic and systematic evidence. Obviously these experiments are 
 wonderfully supported by the whole of our knowledge concerning evo- 
 lution. For this reason the laws discovered in the experimental gar- 
 den may be considered of great importance, and they may guide us 
 in our further inquiries. Without doubt many minor points are in 
 need of correction and elaboration, but such improvements of our 
 knowledge will gradually increase our means of discovering new 
 instances and new proofs. 
 
 The conception of mutation periods producing swarms of species 
 from time to time, among which only a few have a chance of sur- 
 vival, promises to become a basis for speculative pedigree- diagrams, 
 as well as for experimental investigations." 
 
 Professor De Vries finds that Lamarck's evening primrose 
 is at least one flower that is to-day constantly mutating, that 
 is, its seeds produce plants quite different from the parent, 
 primroses indeed, but of a different kind, and that these new 
 primroses persist in their deviation in their progeny. 
 
 This conduct of the primrose seems to be unique among 
 plants, but very probably when further and closer investiga- 
 tions are made, other plants will be found to be also con-
 
 92 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 stantly mutating. Certainly it would seem if one plant can 
 mutate, then all may mutate. 
 
 As to animals, there is no direct evidence that they have 
 mutated — but, on the other hand, development by slow degrees 
 is a question of circumstantial evidence — that is, there are 
 no data of the young of any certain animal being so different 
 as to constitute a new species. There have never been known 
 cows to bring forth deer, for instance, but because nothing 
 like this has been noted in the present, there seems no 
 reason to think that it can never have happened in the past 
 or may never happen in the futrue. 
 
 There are many missing links in the chain which leads us 
 to the little five-toed animal which was the great-great-grand- 
 pa several million years ago of the horse of to-day, and it is 
 just as likely that many of these missing links mean so many 
 mutations in the evolutionary progress of the horse. That is, 
 that the reason no links or steps are found is simply be- 
 cause there were no steps. Nature took a jump and skipped 
 a few steps. 
 
 The theory of natural selection does not attempt to give 
 a reason for the birth of a new species. A new species spon- 
 taneously appears, and if it is the fittest to live, then natural 
 selection is merely the sieve which determines that it is best 
 fitted to live, and therefore it survives, while others less fit 
 die. And it may be here said that the new variety or species 
 may or may not be a step higher in development. It may 
 be a step backward. No doubt at one time the tapeworm, 
 which now can only live as a parasite, had, far enough back, 
 a very self-respecting, hard-working worm for its grand- 
 father, who made his own living in the open, without think- 
 ing of relying upon harboring himself inside a man or dog 
 in order to get his living without work, just as many an idle 
 capitalist of to-day is the son of a workingman of yesterday. 
 
 To account for the appearance of certain species of animals 
 by any theory of an imperceptibly slow variation through the 
 workings of natural selection is quite impossible. For in- 
 stance, take the giraffe, which, owing to its long neck, can 
 browse off the branches of trees quite out of reach of other 
 animals. Now, if the first giraffe had a neck of only a foot 
 or so longer than this short-necked parent, it would not have 
 been a bit better off than with an ordinary neck. It was
 
 Mutation Theory Applied to Society. 93 
 
 three-foot neck or nothing for it. Mutate or no grazing on 
 the high trees for him. 
 
 The same with the Australian ant-eater, which has such 
 an extraordinarily long tongue that it can reach ants in the 
 most secure ant hill. That tongue had to be very long, to 
 6ay nothing of its being very glutinous, or it would have 
 been no improvement at all on a short tongue. It is cer- 
 tainly much more comfortable to have a mutation theory to 
 explain such jumps than to confess you cannot explain it 
 at all. 
 
 However, to get back to the mutation theory as applied 
 to the evolution of the organism of human society. 
 
 While nobody will ever probably be able to explain why it is 
 that a primrose mutates, because nobody can understand why 
 the cells of the primrose prefer to organize one way more 
 than another, yet when we come to the question of explaining 
 why human society mutates, we have a different proposition. 
 It has had revolutions in the past, it has mutated from 
 feudalism to capitalism, and Socialists say it must mutate 
 from capitalism to Socialism. And the reason society mu- 
 tating can be explained, is because we ourselves are the cells 
 of human society, and we know why we move from this place 
 to that, and why we organized in the past this form of 
 government in Russia and that form of government in 
 America, and why we must re-organize our governments again 
 in the future on new lines. 
 
 To-day when we look back over the pages of history we 
 can often understand why men and nations had to act just 
 as they did, yet we know that at the time the actions were 
 taking place the people of the day attributed the deeds largely 
 to the free will of man. 
 
 The French Eevolution at one time, and, in fact, even yet, 
 was thought by many good people to have been the work of a 
 few bloodthirsty demons leading on a bloodthirsty mob. 
 Nowadays we have the perspective of a century to aid our 
 vision, and we can see that, taking things as they were,, the 
 results were just about as they must have been. To-day we 
 have Miss Tarbell painting Rockefeller as the arch enemy of 
 society, a Danton, Marat and Robespierre rolled into one, 
 as the man who first brought iniquity into business, as the 
 man who is responsible for the whole corruption in our na-
 
 94 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 tional life, and particularly the man who has revolutionized 
 competition into monopoly, and, what is more to the point, 
 Miss Tarbell undoubtedly reflects the opinion of thousands 
 of her readers. Whereas, in reality, Eockefeller is merely 
 the product of our competitive system, and if he had not been 
 born, we would have had some one else who would have per- 
 formed his task of consolidating the industries of the country. 
 In a hundred years from to-day there will be sufficient per- 
 spective and enough loss of prejudice for even the Miss Tar- 
 bells to form a proper estimate of Rockefeller, who is merely 
 a cell in our social organism, which, through a fault in the 
 organism itself, is being over-fed. The result is that just now 
 he has an undue and disagreeable prominence in the national 
 economy, just as has an over-fed cell in a man's body which 
 has become a wart on his nose. We don't blame the wart, 
 why should we blame Rockefeller ? 
 
 We know what a wart is, and we know how to remove it. 
 The Socialists know that Rockefeller is merely a wart, and 
 they know the simplest way to cure it is to absorb it. 
 
 "Let the Nation Absorb Rockefeller." 
 
 Rockefeller showed us how to force the competitive business 
 man to mutate — jump — from competition to monopoly, at 
 the very time when all the scientists, all the professors of 
 political economy were gravely proving the impossibility of 
 what Rockefeller was doing with ease. But it was no miracle, 
 nor was Rockefeller either a god or a devil. The conditions 
 of business had changed, and this not only allowed him to 
 transform competition into monopoly, but actually forced him 
 to do so. To Rockefeller a change was a matter of life or 
 death, just as much as it is, when the puddle dries up, to 
 the tadpole, which must develop lungs and breathe air as a 
 toad, or die because his tadpole gills are no longer of use when 
 there is no water. With Rockefeller there was no oppor- 
 tunity of half-way measures, no chance for half competition 
 and half monopoly, no more than there was with the tadpole, 
 when the puddle went dry, to partly use gills and partly lungs. 
 It was mutate or die, and mutate instantly, too, for both. 
 
 Society must jump from Capitalism to Socialism in much 
 the same manner. The capitalist will persist in building up 
 the industrial plant to the highest degree of perfection, he 
 will give employment to all up to the last, and then suddenly
 
 Mutation Theory Applied to Society. 95 
 
 he will find it does not pay him to build another factory or 
 another railway. There will be a huge and insoluble unem- 
 ployed problem. Then will come the crash, like a bolt from 
 the blue. It will be mutate into Socialism for society or die, 
 and it will be a question of "do it now. 7 ' The tadpole had to 
 get very busy changing into a toad, for he could not last very 
 long without air, and it was, no lungs, no air, and man will 
 have to get just as busy, for he cannot last very long without 
 food, and it will be, no Socialism, no food. 
 
 As interesting reading along with Professor De Tries' great 
 work, I would recommend a little book just published by 
 C. H. Kerr & Co., of Chicago, written by William Boelsche, 
 entitled "The Evolution of Man." In fact, for many it may 
 be a better investment to buy it at fifty cents than to spend 
 five dollars upon the De Vries book. 
 
 It must not be thought that an adherence to the mutation 
 theory in either biology or sociology excludes a belief in 
 progress by slow changes. Not at all; there is progress by 
 slow stages and there is also progress by jumps. 
 
 Countless changes occur in plants and animal life, some 
 imperceptibly small and some extraordinarily large. Those 
 changes which better adapt the organism to live are filtered 
 out by the sieve of Natural Selection, and so are perpetuated. 
 
 In plants and animals we simply know that such changes 
 occur, but why they occur is a mystery. Why they continue 
 after being made is easily explainable : they live because they 
 are the fittest to live. 
 
 However, we can not only explain why certain changes in 
 society persist, for natural selection quite accounts for it, but 
 we can also explain why the changes occur, and also predict 
 positively their appearance. Give a people a certain economic 
 environment for a long enough time, and it will be sure to 
 develop a certain political life, as certain as an apple tree is 
 to bear apples when planted in the right soil and climate. 
 
 When Luther Burbank wishes to develop a new fruit he 
 plants thousands of seeds, and out of the thousands of prog- 
 eny he may find one plant he thinks worth preserving. He 
 makes a bonfire of the rejected. If he does not find the plant 
 he wishes he repeats the process next season and keeps it up 
 until he at last gets what he wishes. This is artificial selec- 
 tion, that is, selection of the fittest according to what man
 
 96 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 thinks best rather than selection by nature of what can best 
 survive in competition with other plants. 
 
 Burbank now promises us a thornless, edible cactus which 
 will allow man to use the deserts for his food supply. Now 
 this spineless or thornless cactus could have only been devel- 
 oped by artificial selection, for a thornless cactus in the desert 
 with hungry, grazing animals all about would hardly be able 
 to demonstrate its being the fittest to survive. 
 
 Because a cactus without thorns is the fittest to eat is just 
 the reason why nature decides it has the least chance of 
 living and propagating its kind. 
 
 In to-day's competitive strife the man who is the fittest to 
 live is not the soundest, sweetest and most beautiful fruit on 
 the tree of humanity, but the one with the most thorns, the 
 thickest skin and hardest heart. 
 
 However, just as Burbank has shown us that the most 
 thorny cactus may develop into the least thorny one when 
 the necessity for thorns has passed away, so we may look for 
 man to drop his thorns, too, when the competition which 
 makes them necessary passes away. In fact, Burbank himself 
 has recently said that just as wonderful changes might be 
 made in man as he is making in flowers, if only the children 
 of man were as carefully reared and protected as are the 
 flowers in his California nursery. 
 
 How wretchedly we are caring for our children of to-day 
 may be judged by the following from a recent issue of the 
 New York "Sun": 
 
 The health authorities under the direction of Dr. Herman Biggs 
 have just completed a very important investigation into the health 
 of some of the school children of this city, which has shown a preva- 
 lence of disease exceeding their expectations. 
 
 The figures compiled by the medical inspectors and now in Dr. 
 Bigg's possession show that out of almost 14,000 children examined 
 more than 6,000, or almost half, had something the matter with 
 them. 
 
 While the health authorities have been gradually extending their 
 work of looking after the health of school children, they have never 
 gone so far as to make the general physical condition of a child 
 part of the work of the Health Department. Until recent years all 
 that the medical inspectors in the schools did was to examine all 
 cases reported by the teacher as being possibly infections. This 
 work in itself requires a lot of inspectors. Later, skin diseases and 
 pediculosis, which was especially prevalent, were included.
 
 Mutation Theory Applied to Society. 97 
 
 This should demonstrate pretty thoroughly that our chil- 
 dren should not fear a mutation into a different life from the 
 present. 
 
 The mutation theory of evolution in biology seems un- 
 doubtedly the true theory, for by it all the lapses hitherto in- 
 explicable in the "slow progress," "step by step" theory of 
 Darwin are explained. Darwin is not overthrown by it, he is 
 merely put on a foundation of rock. The theory certainly 
 affords a stronger analogy for the comparison of social 
 changes with biologic changes. 
 
 When the mutation theory is at last accepted it will remove 
 one of the strongest objections to the theory of the early ap- 
 pearance of Socialism made by certain evolutionists who have 
 been insisting that such a tremendous change as that from 
 capitalism to Socialism could only be accomplished by the 
 lapse of eons of years. Right now when this nation is in the 
 heyday of industrial prosperity, with prices never so high, 
 crops never so good, labor never in such demand, the day 
 when all will be changed seems to me almost as near as 
 to-morrow, the day when prices will be at the lowest ebb, 
 and yet labor will gain nothing, for it will be unemployed 
 and have no money to buy. 
 
 Let peace be made between Japan and Russia, and let no 
 new war break out, and let no revolutionary inventions be 
 made in industrial development, and the time when pro- 
 duction will far exceed demand seems to me to be almost with- 
 in the year. Let a huge unemployed army rise in the United 
 States, let thousands upon thousands of our smaller capitalists 
 and farmers become bankrupt, then will the lessons that the 
 Tarbells, the Steffens, the Russells, the Phillips's, the Sin- 
 clairs, the Moffets and the Tom Lawsons are to-day teaching 
 the public bring their logical result. 
 
 The public mind is being prepared, in a way almost miracu- 
 lous, to receive the theories of the Socialist when the next 
 industrial crisis — and at this hour I can hear its approach- 
 ing rumble — appears. 
 
 Let the capitalist look well upon his present sun of capitalist 
 prosperity, for when it next sinks it may sink forever and 
 Socialism rise to light the world for all.
 
 98 Wilshihe Editorials. 
 
 IS SOCIALISM PRACTICAL? 
 
 BEFORE deciding whether Socialism is practical, we 
 must first define Socialism: 
 "Socialism means the government ownership of 
 railways, factories, land and other instruments of production 
 and the payment of wages upon the co-operative system in- 
 stead of the competitive system." 
 
 Shortly, instead of letting Vanderbilt own the railways 
 and charge high freight and passenger rates, taking the profit 
 to himself, Socialists say: Let the people own the railways 
 and fix the rates on the basis of cost, instead of the Vander- 
 bilt basis "of all the traffic will bear." 
 
 Now, nobody will say that it is unpracticable for our gov- 
 ernment to own and operate railways. 
 
 Why more impracticable for us to operate the railways than 
 to operate our post-office, or our lighthouses, or our city fire 
 department, or our public schools ? 
 
 Excepting England, most other nations already operate 
 their own railway systems. Is our American government 
 more incompetent than Italy, Germany, Eussia, Japan? 
 
 If we now operate and own a railway in Panama, why can't 
 we own and operate a railway in Missouri ? 
 
 When we do operate our railways, can we not charge living 
 and reasonable rates for freight and passengers instead of 
 extortionate rates? 
 
 But it may be said that, even admitting the government 
 can own and operate railways, it does not follow that it can 
 own and operate a match factory, or a cigar factory, or a 
 bakery. 
 
 I cannot see why. In fact, all three of the industries 
 named are already operated by some government somewhere. 
 
 Russia makes matches, Austria makes cigars, Italian cities 
 bake bread in public bakeries. 
 
 But, granting that public ownership is practical, it may be 
 asked what good will public ownership accomplish?
 
 Is Socialism Practical? 99 
 
 Socialists want public ownership because it is a necessary 
 prerequisite to the co-operative payment to the workers. 
 
 With Rockefeller & Co. owning the nation, how can we 
 have a co-operative commonwealth? 
 
 To have co-operative distribution, we must have co-oper- 
 ative (government) ownership of the railways, the factories 
 and other means of production. 
 
 Competition keeps us poor to-day. 
 
 One laborer competes against another laborer for a chance 
 to work and consequently wages are always kept down to the 
 point where they allow the laborer only the mere necessities 
 of life. 
 
 Under competition increased production benefits only the 
 capitalist, never the laborer. 
 
 In fact, the machine displaces the worker, deprives him of 
 his employment, with the result that an increase of production 
 often actually means less product for the worker. 
 
 Under Socialism — co-operation — all would benefit when 
 production was increased. 
 
 To-day the United States is the richest country in the 
 world ; it has the power, not only to make all our own eighty- 
 million people free from want, but five hundred millions. 
 
 But instead of all of us having all we want, ten millions of 
 our citizens are in abject poverty and forty millions more of 
 us are in fear of poverty. 
 
 Socialism affords us a plan of using what we can produce. 
 
 Socialism would abolish poverty.
 
 100 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 DISTRIBUTION THE PROBLEM 
 
 IT is especially the province of this journal to point out 
 that whereas we Americans as a nation have made in 
 the past fifty years immense progress in the rapidity of 
 our ability to produce wealth, yet we have made nothing like 
 the same progress in our ability to distribute that wealth to 
 the working class that so rapidly, by the aid of modern ma- 
 chinery, produces it. 
 
 The editor of this journal has also not neglected to point 
 out that this failure of the working class to get what it 
 produces is entirely owing to the fact that it does not own 
 this modern machinery which enables it to produce wealth so 
 rapidly. 
 
 The modern machinery referred to we have defined broadly 
 as being our railways, our steamships, our oil refineries, our 
 steel mills, our cotton and woolen mills, our flour mills, etc., 
 etc. In other words what we mean when we say capital. 
 And of course we include in this broad definition of capital 
 our dwelling houses and the land upon which our houses and 
 the railways, the mills and the factories stand. 
 
 These various forms of capital are today almost exclusively 
 owned by certain corporations which, owing to their great 
 size, are essentially monopolistic in their character, and hence 
 are generally known and designated under the name of 
 "Trusts." 
 
 If then the workers owned the trusts that would prac- 
 tically mean their owning the machinery of production. 
 
 The only practical way this ownership by the working- 
 class can occur and exist is through the mediumship of the 
 state, the government, the nation. 
 
 If the government or nation owned the trusts it would 
 mean that each and every citizen would have an equal and 
 joint ownership in all capital and an equal right to use it 
 for his own benefit without being under the necessity of 
 paying rent, profit or interest for such use to Astor, Rocke- 
 feller, Rothschild & Co. 
 
 Therefore we have adopted as the shibboleth of this journal 
 the words, "Let the Nation Own the Trusts," as expressing
 
 Distribution the Problem. 101 
 
 in the shortest manner possible what we are fighting for and 
 why we journalistically exist. 
 
 We would further go on to say that the only way to estab- 
 lish this ownership is for all those who wish all capital to be 
 collectively owned by the nation, to assist and vote for the 
 Socialist Party, which is the only party which clearly and 
 unqualifiedly demands such complete government ownership. 
 
 While we may concede that a partial ownership of capital 
 by the state, such as municipal ownership of gas and water- 
 works, street cars, etc., and the national ownership of rail- 
 roads is somewhat better than no public ownership at all, yet 
 we unhesitatingly declare that the advantages of such partial 
 public ownership are so slight when compared with complete 
 public ownership that no one who has read and fully under- 
 stood the foregoing, and especially no one who calls himself 
 a socialist, can justify himself in voting for a partial public 
 ownership when he has an opportunity of voting for com- 
 plete ownership through voting for the Socialist Party. 
 
 As long as any capital at all is not owned by the nation, 
 then the capitalists owning that capital can demand tribute 
 from the workers for the use of said capital and thus per- 
 petuate the present regime of exploiters and exploited. 
 
 The emancipation of labor can only be accomplished when 
 all capital is owned by labor. That this fundamental propo- 
 sition is quite lost sight of and misunderstood by such ad- 
 vocates of municipal and national ownership as Mr. Hearst 
 can be seen from the following striking and suggestive edi- 
 torial taken from the New York American of June 7: 
 
 THE WONDERFUL STORY OF MODERN PROGRESS. 
 
 Somewhere in the body of some human being there is lying a 
 germ that will produce a brain able to emancipate the whole of 
 mankind from all kinds of slavery except that which comes wholly 
 from superstition and ignorance. 
 
 It will be the brain of a chemist, not that of a warrior, a states- 
 man or an artist. 
 
 Human slavery exists because a few control the necessaries of 
 human life that are indispensable to the multitude. 
 
 Invent a scheme by which all may secure the necessaries of life, 
 and money will no longer be able to control the terms on which we 
 must labor for food, clothes and shelter. 
 
 If one by twenty days' pleasant work in the Spring and Fall could 
 secure food, clothes and shelter for the year, it would be hard to
 
 102 Wilshike Editorials. 
 
 induce him to labor twelve hours a day in the Subway or fourteen 
 hours daily in a sweatshop. 
 
 Is such a thing possible? 
 
 Certainly, and it is nearer consummation than most of us imagine. 
 
 A hundred thousand of the greatest men in the world are work- 
 ing along the lines of such a discovery, and the strides in advance 
 they have made during the last twenty years have put behind them 
 a greater space than remains in front of them. 
 
 Let us glance at a few that have come to the notice of the people 
 through the daily press. 
 
 Production of butter or cheese quintupled by the selection of 
 suitable cows. 
 
 Chinchona trees by selection forced to yield forty times the 
 normal amount of quinine. 
 
 Wheat and corn forced by selection to triple the product of each 
 ear. 
 
 Clover and legumes by inoculation with benign bacilli forced to 
 gather from the air ten times the usual amout of nitrogen. 
 
 Fruit pests destroyed by other insects. 
 
 Germany, short of fuel, forces her soil to produce twice the com- 
 mon crop of potatoes that will secrete four times the usual amount 
 !of alcohol. 
 
 Meat and other foods saved from spoiling by the inventions of 
 Pasteur. 
 
 Artificial germination of marine animals by Loeb. 
 
 Percentage of sugar in cane and beets multiplied fourfold. 
 
 Twelve years' needed growth of an edible nut reduced to eighteen 
 months by Burbank, the greatest living man, who, after wasting a 
 life on fruits and flowers, is beginning to devote his gigantic mind 
 to lowering the cost of a food supply. 
 
 Greatest of all — the discovery that an atom is not an atom, but 
 the smallest of atoms is made up of seven hundred electrons and 
 an ion. 
 
 A few common elements compose all things. 
 
 We know how to make a beefsteak out of a barrowful of dirt and 
 a few tiny seeds. When we can dispense with the aid of the cow and 
 make the steak direct out of the sulphur, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, 
 phosphorous and hydrogen that are its chief elements, we will not 
 have to work in sweatshops. 
 
 When we can make electricity from common hydrocarbons direct, 
 we will not have to pay five cents for a ride in the Subway. 
 
 The secret is almost within our reach; a hundred or more of the 
 chemists have it nearly within their grasp. It is not a folly, like 
 the philosopher's stone, but a certainty to those who have faith. 
 
 What will there be left to do when food and shelter are practically 
 free? 
 
 Plenty! 
 
 There is disease to conquer, vice to eradicate, pain to eliminate, 
 and all evil to be put out of the world, and when that is done no 
 doubt those who are living will find something to be looked after.
 
 Distribution the Problem. 103 
 
 Mr. Hearst seems to think the reason poverty exists is 
 owing to the fact that man does not produce enough. He 
 looks to the emancipation of mankind by some heaven-born 
 to be chemist who will show us how to make beef-steak direct 
 from the original elements, the carbon and nitrogen, without 
 thanks to any cow. 
 
 Mr. Hearst goes even further and says no statesman will 
 have a hand in the emancipating of mankind. 
 
 Now this is exactly one of the points where we beg to 
 differ from Mr. Hearst. 
 
 Already chemists and other scientific men have shown us 
 how to easily produce enough to abolish poverty, but we have 
 had no statesman who knows how, and at the same time has 
 been able to get the ear of the workingman to tell him how 
 to keep what he produces. 
 
 Mr. Hearst says, "Human slavery exists because a few con- 
 trol the necessaries of life." Yes, this is true, but he should 
 have explained that the few have this control because they own 
 the capital and land necessary to produce the necessities. 
 
 If Bnrbank invents a walnut tree that develops in eighteen 
 months, as fast as an ordinary walnut tree does in ten years, 
 then the owner of the land upon which the tree is planted, 
 the walnut grower makes the gain, if there is any gain, and 
 not the working-class which owns no walnut groves. We say 
 if there is any gain, for we know that competition between 
 the owners of walnut groves will soon be so keen that it 
 will not be long before there will be over-production of wal- 
 nuts in the long run of the increased walnut yield, and the 
 only gainers will be the trusts. 
 
 The funniest and most absurd prediction Mr. Hearst makes 
 is that the direct production from coal of electricity will 
 reduce the five-cent rates on the New York Subway. 
 
 Mr. Hearst has printed dozens and dozens of editorials 
 showing by the published statements of the company, that the 
 cost per passenger is now only two cents each, and that the 
 five-cent rate is the result of the private ownership of the 
 subway by Mr. Belmont. 
 
 If direct production of electricity reduced the cost of car- 
 rying each passenger one cent, does Mr. Hearst think that 
 Mr. Belmont would be more likely to reduce fares or put 
 the cent into his pocket?
 
 104 Wilshiee Editorials. 
 
 However, we do not wish to be too hard on Mr. Hearst 
 for this lapse, for we know that it is an error of one of his 
 young men. Mr. Hearst is now in Europe and cannot revise 
 every editorial, and Mr. Brisbane has so much of his time 
 taken up with the Evening Journal that he cannot look 
 after the morning edition. 
 
 Mr. Hearst has so often before declared that municipal 
 ownership was the remedy for extortion by Belmont that it 
 would be unfair of us to take him up for what is evidently 
 a mistake of a sub-editor. However, the main indictment 
 against Mr. Hearst and the other municipal ownership people 
 stands. Namely, that municipal ownership itself is at best 
 but a reform measure, and does not touch the fringe of the 
 problem of poverty. 
 
 Poverty exists owing to the capitalist class owning the 
 machinery necessary for the production of the means of life, 
 thus making the working-class their dependants, virtually 
 their slaves. 
 
 Municipal ownership of street cars, even if the city should 
 make transportation absolutely free, would not tend to abol- 
 ish poverty any more than free transportation upon the 
 elevators in an office sky-scraper tends to abolish poverty. 
 Free street cars would mean higher rent in the suburbs, 
 just as a free elevator means more rent in the top floors. 
 The landlord skims the cream every time. 
 
 Municipal ownership of street cars will conduce to better 
 services, cheaper fares, better wages and conditions of work 
 for the employees and to the elimination of corruption of 
 our aldermen by the street car lobby, and especially to the 
 education of the general public in the control of an industrial 
 function. 
 
 All this is to the good, but it is not the abolition of poverty, 
 it is not Socialism, and while we recognize and admit the good 
 of municipal ownership, yet we must at the same time point 
 out the impossibility of anyone rightfully cleaiming to be a 
 Socialist who votes for any reform such as municipal owner- 
 ship at the expense of casting his ballot for the Socialist Party. 
 
 A Socialist should always vote for the Socialist Party. 
 
 This is the only way for him to make a positive and un- 
 equivocal declaration that he wishes to have Socialism in- 
 stituted.
 
 Wallace's Great Book. 105 
 
 WALLACE'S GREAT BOOK 
 
 I SUPPOSE many have gone through the same evolution of 
 thought as myself. Born and raised in an orthodox fam- 
 ily, which held firmly to the Mosaic account of creation 
 and the anthropomorphic conception of a deity, it was natural 
 that when I threw off such superstitions that I should tend to 
 regard everything along the line of conventional religious 
 belief as absurd and unworthy of reverence. I think this is 
 the course that most Socialists have gone through. First we 
 throw off conventional belief in religion, and then we throw 
 off conventional belief in economics. 
 
 We first see the utterly unscientific basis of orthodox 
 religions, and then we see the like unscientific basis of ortho- 
 dox economic theories. 
 
 However, strange as it may seem, the more a man studies 
 Socialism the more he finally comes to understand and sym- 
 pathize with many orthodox religious ideas that in an early 
 period of his evolution of thought he scorned. For instance, 
 he finds men talking the Golden Rule and practising Cut 
 Your Neighbor's Throat, and when he finds that the practice 
 is necessary to preserve existence, while the theory means 
 suicide, he says that this preaching a Golden Rule that can 
 never be practised is the limit of absurdity. Later on he be- 
 comes a Socialist and finds that the theory would work all 
 right if we only had a socialistic world to practice it in, and 
 when he sees we should have such a world, and moreover that 
 we must eventually have such a world, he commences to have 
 more respect for the Golden Rule than he did when he re- 
 garded it as an impossibility either now or at any time in the 
 future. 
 
 Before he understands Socialism he scoffs at thanking God 
 for daily bread, when he doesn't get the bread, and he will 
 blame God for not giving him bread. Later on he sees that 
 it is man's fault and not God's that he goes hungry, and also 
 he understands that he himself is one of the very men who
 
 106 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 have been supporting a system which makes men go hungry 
 when God has done his part in providing plenty for all. 
 
 And so on, from day to day, he gets to realize that after all 
 there is a much better basis for certain religious theories than 
 he had at one time thought possible, although he also knows 
 that his reason for increasing respect for such theories does 
 not in the least justify the blind believers in religious dogma 
 who accept things upon faith rather than reason. 
 
 One of the chief tenets of most religions is that this planet 
 Earth which we inherit is the centre of the universe, and that 
 the sun revolves around it and that the moon and stars are 
 simply created to light it up and make the heavens more 
 beautiful for the edification and enjoyment of the greatest 
 thing ever created, namely, Man. That it was all done for 
 man, and that man is the image of God, and the next thing 
 to divinity itself. 
 
 The early astronomical discoveries in the Middle Ages so 
 upset conventional beliefs of this kind that astronomers such 
 as Galileo had a most difficult time of it with the Church 
 when they announced that the earth moved around the sun 
 instead of vice versa. Time passed, and discovery after dis- 
 covery was made, and instead of the earth being the centre 
 of things, about which all revolved, it was found that it was 
 simply a grain of sand in a universe of apparently infinite 
 matter. That it was not to be compared in size with many of 
 the planets in our own solar system, while in comparison with 
 the sun it was less than a pea to an orange. 
 
 And then, when we found that the fixed stars were millions 
 in number, and mostly all larger than our own sun, we nat- 
 urally jumped at the conclusion that these other suns, so much 
 larger than ours, must have systems of planets of their own, 
 and that, therefore, there were millions and millions of 
 planets like the earth all just as suitable for human life, and 
 that, therefore, it was most likely life did exist upon them, for 
 otherwise why should they have been created ? 
 
 The next step in reasoning from the "most likely" was to 
 the "without doubt," and from that to the "unquestionably" 
 was a small step. 
 
 And all these steps were much the more easily taken by 
 men like myself who — I confess it to my shame — were nat- 
 urally disposed to adopt any theory which would still further
 
 Wallace's Great Book. 107 
 
 discredit the orthodox religious view that the earth was the 
 centre of things and that man was the only thing worth while 
 on the earth. 
 
 It has been so long since I have taken much interest in 
 things religious, if I ever did take much interest, that when a 
 book* like Wallace's comes along and tends to upset all my 
 old ideas upon the subject of "Other Worlds Than Ours" it 
 is naturally of intense interest. 
 
 Dr. Wallace's conclusions are: (1) The stellar universe 
 forms one collective whole, and, though of enormous extent, 
 is yet finite, its extent being determinable. (2) The solar 
 system is situated in the plane of the Milky Way, and not far 
 removed from the centre of that plane. (3) The universe 
 throughout consists of the same kind of matter, and is subject 
 to the same physical and chemical laws. These are the first 
 three conclusions he arrives at. There are three more in 
 favor of which the author claims there are great probabilities. 
 (4) The only planet in our solar system inhabited or inhabit- 
 able is our Earth. (5) The probabilities are almost as great 
 against any other sun possessing inhabited planets. (6) The 
 nearly central position of our Sun is probably a permanent 
 one, and has been specially favorable — perhaps absolutely es- 
 sential — to life-development on the Earth. 
 
 His first proposition, viz., that the universe is finite and not 
 infinite, as is generally held, is of the greatest interest and 
 importance. The theory of a finite universe is in line with 
 Socialist philosophy, which regards the human race as an 
 organism, and also with my own particular theory that the 
 universe itself is an organism. 
 
 It is manifestly incongruous to think of a thing being 
 an organism and at the same time as being infinite. If 
 the stellar universe is one collective whole then it must be 
 finite. 
 
 When a little child looks out on the Earth he at first thinks 
 it infinite. He looks upon it as unorganized and unrelated. 
 
 * "Man's Place in the Universe: A Study of the results of 
 Scientific Research in Relation to the Unity or Plurality of 
 Worlds." By Alfred R. Wallace, LL.D., D.C.L., F.R.S., etc. 
 Cloth, 326 pp. Price, ?2.50 net. McClure, Phillips & Co.
 
 108 Wilshike Editorials. 
 
 Only with increasing age and understanding can he ever 
 realize that it is finite and organized. 
 
 So when Rockefeller as a lad went into the oil business it 
 seemed to him that there was infinite scope for the extension 
 of the oil business. That the oil business would ever be so 
 organized and extended until it was only limited by its taking 
 in all the Earth was quite beyond the wildest of his specula- 
 tions, and yet it has all occurred within his own lifetime, and 
 it was he himself who was largely responsible for hastening 
 the result. The logic of events was his best instructor in the 
 philosophy of the oil business. Just as the oil business ex- 
 tended its conscious organization, so have other businesses 
 extended theirs, until to-day it is only one of many businesses 
 that are probably on the road to a worldwide sphere of opera- 
 tion. Now, it is apparent that Mr. Rockefeller can never 
 have complete knowledge and control of the oil business 
 until he has a world organization of the oil business. To 
 know it he must know its limitations. Similarly we cannot 
 understand the universe unless we know its limitations. 
 
 To me this Wallace theory of a finite universe must be 
 true because it accords with my deepest philosophy of life. 
 
 If the universe is infinite and, therefore, unorganized, then 
 there would be no motive — that is, no valid fundamental mo- 
 tive — for men to work for Socialism, or in fact to even desire 
 to live. For of what use is Socialism if it is simply to make 
 this world a better place for men to live and nothing more ? 
 
 Upon such a theory of life we are simply intelligent cattle 
 preparing a more comfortable stable for ourselves. 
 
 Suppose we do introduce Socialism and abolish poverty? 
 This can be done easily enough, but why should we wish to 
 do it? It's no answer to say that we do it to increase the 
 stock of human happiness, for then I will ask why should 
 anyone wish to increase human happiness? The reason one 
 wishes to increase human happiness is fundamentally a selfish 
 one; it is to increase his own happiness by becoming a cell 
 in a healthier organization of human society than that which 
 now exists. If your finger is crushed the ceils in your injured 
 finger are not more anxious to become well again than are 
 the uninjured cells in your uninjured finger to have them 
 made well. There is no single uninjured cell in your whole 
 body that is not as much interested in having the injured
 
 Wallace's Great Book. 109 
 
 cells made whole as if it itself were injured. Now, why is 
 this ? Simply that the body is an organism and a very self- 
 conscious organism. It knows that for the whole to be well, 
 the parts must be well. There are some insects which are or- 
 ganized well enough physically, but whose nerve centres are 
 so badly correlated that they have little or no consciousness 
 of an injury to themselves. Some wasps, for instance, may 
 be beheaded and the head will go on unconcernedly taking 
 food with no body attached to feed. A body must not only be 
 organized but also conscious of its organism to really live. 
 As individual men we are simply cells in the greater organ- 
 ism, human society, and only as we feel this do we tend to 
 realize the highest life. It is impossible for any single cell 
 in an undeveloped organism simply by its own will to realize 
 itself. It can only do so by the organism itself developing. 
 I may wish to send a telegram from New York to Boston, 
 but the mere wish is not enough to accomplish the act. Wires 
 must be laid and the instruments made and men must be 
 ready to co-operate in the work before the message can go. 
 However, if I never had the wish to send any message and if 
 no one else ever had or ever would have any wish to send tele- 
 grams from New York to Boston, there never would have 
 been any telegraph wires laid. Therefore, to realize my de- 
 sires I must first have the wish, and then have an organism 
 that I can use to consummate my desires. 
 
 Man as a unit is nothing. It is only as he is useful to the 
 whole that he lives. Only as he is useful is he happy. 
 
 Again, he cannot be of much use if the whole is badly or- 
 ganized. I may have a perfect foot, but if my leg is broken 
 the foot is of little use and I am little use. I may be a perfect 
 man, but if society is so badly organized that I am not fed 
 then I am of no more use to society than if I did not exist, 
 no more than would be the perfect foot to the body if the 
 blood did not flow to feed the foot. The foot, to support the 
 body, must first be supported by the body. 
 
 All this is axiomatic and has been said, and better said, 
 many times before, but that the individual is merely a cell 
 in human society is more quickly recognized than that he is 
 merely a cell in a much greater organism, that of the universe 
 itself. We are the result of evolutionary development in 
 adapting ourselves to our environment. That we have
 
 110 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 adapted oiirselves to live on the land instead of the water is 
 one of the commonplaces of evolution. It is obvious that we 
 are land animals and that we need land to live upon. 
 
 That we have temporarily given up our title to land to a 
 small class of people called landlords is beside the mark. We 
 will take it back whenever we really want it. 
 
 However, that we must have land, I say is obvious, and it 
 is likewise obvious that we must have air. And, more than 
 that, as Professor Wallace remarks, we must to live have the 
 small amount of carbonic acid gas that is in the air. If it 
 were not there then plants could not live, and if there were 
 no plants there would be no food for animals. 
 
 Wallace goes on pointing out one thing after another in 
 our physical universe that is necessary to our existence that 
 we ourselves hardly think of at all. For instance, such a 
 small thing as the atmospheric dust he shows is absolutely 
 necessary to life, for otherwise there would be no clouds, and 
 without clouds we would be in all kinds of a muss, for the 
 details of which I must refer the curious to the book itself. 
 And not only is the atmospheric dust a good thing physically, 
 but it is the dust that gives us the blue of our skies. And 
 further it might be remarked that not only is the material 
 universe necessary to us physically, but it also has an aesthetic 
 and spiritual value of perhaps vital importance. Suppose 
 you were fed properly, that you had all the physical necessi- 
 ties of life, but you were told that you and all humanity 
 would forever be denied any contact whatsoever with a mate- 
 rial universe ? That you would never see the sea, nor moun- 
 tains, nor birds, nor animals, nor flowers, nor stars, nor 
 moon, nor sun; how would such a prospect strike you? You 
 would be likely to feel that you might as well be dead as live 
 such a life. Or suppose you successively suffered a painless 
 amputation of the various members of your body. First you 
 lose a hand, then a foot, then an ear, and so on until "you" 
 finally are reduced to a trunkless head; would you consider 
 life worth living? 
 
 Professor Wallace suggests that it is quite possible that 
 the remotest star is just as necessary to our physical life as 
 is the minute quantity of carbonic acid gas in our atmosphere. 
 The only difference maybe being that in one case we know 
 that one is a necessity and with the other we may yet have to
 
 Wallace's Great Book. Ill 
 
 find it out. He puts the suggestion purely upon the physical 
 basis, whereas I extend the possibility to the star not only 
 being a physical but a spiritual necessity. It is possible that 
 the spiritual and physical are the same. 
 
 It seems to me that the only sane hypothesis of life is that 
 each individual life is dependent upon the universe for its 
 existence, and that we have no right to suppose the slightest 
 grain of matter could be lost from the remotest star without 
 its having a profound effect upon all life, upon the physical 
 basis as well as the spiritual basis of life. And that just as 
 we cannot imagine any adequate life, either intellectual or 
 spiritual, pertaining to the individual cells in our body except 
 the body itself be alive, and alive spiritually as well as men- 
 tally and physically, so we really are just as wrong in think- 
 ing it possible for individual man to be really alive unless 
 human society is also alive and conscious. And, moreover, 
 just as man is conscious of being a part of society, and that 
 society is conscious that each and every man is a part of it, 
 so does the life of man increase. 
 
 As man becomes more and more conscious of the relation 
 he bears to human society in particular and the universe in 
 general he increases his capacity of life. 
 
 The greatest capacity for life would exist in a man developed 
 to the highest degree spiritually, mentally and physically, and 
 living in a self-conscious society having the most perfect 
 command of and knowledge of itself and of its own relation 
 to the universe. 
 
 And this, then, takes us back to the original premise, 
 namely, that the universe must be finite if it is an organism, 
 and it must be an organism, otherwise man would lose his 
 motive to live. 
 
 Man lives in order to unite himself as a harmonious chord 
 to a harmonious universe. 
 
 He lives that one day he may hear the morning stars sing, 
 and that he may sing in unison with them. He lives that he 
 may be one of the pipes in the organ of the universe, and he 
 lives that he may play that organ. In the day to come man 
 will feel himself as a part of a conscious universe, and the 
 universe will feel that each man is a part of it, just as to-day 
 the hand is now conscious of being a part of the body. 
 
 Socialism as a movement towards the harmonious organi-
 
 112 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 zation of human society is, then, but one step toward the 
 greatest of all ends : the harmonious organization of the uni- 
 verse. 
 
 Wallace is right in his theory that the universe is finite, 
 for otherwise there would be no reason for man. However, 
 altogether aside from any metaphysical predilections in favor 
 of Wallace's theory that the universe is limited, I must hasten 
 to say that his physical arguments in favor of that view 
 seem to me to be unanswerable. He frankly confesses that 
 not being an astronomer he has no right to speak with 
 authority, and that therefore he must rely upon those who 
 have authority to speak for him, and the names of prac- 
 tically all the great astronomers he ranges upon the side of 
 a finite universe. 
 
 To think of an infinite universe is about as difficult as 
 thinking of a snake with an endless tail. But I have dwelt 
 so long upon the first proposition of Dr. Wallace that I have 
 given myself little space for his other propositions. 
 
 His second proposition is somewhat analogous to his sixth, 
 practically, and depends upon the acceptance of the first. If 
 the Earth is near the centre of the universe, then we must 
 first conceive of the universe as finite, for it is not possible 
 to conceive a centre to infinity. Where there are no bounds, 
 there can be no centre. The Earth is at the approximate 
 centre of the universe in Wallace's theory, and he supports it 
 with the dicta of most of the heavy-weights among the astron- 
 omers. In fact, Wallace throughout the book disarms the 
 criticism that he is no astronomer by frankly admitting that 
 he himself has no right to speak authoritatively upon astro- 
 nomical subjects, and that, therefore, whatever he may state 
 upon such subjects in corroboration of his statements he in- 
 variably quotes astronomers whose reputation gives them a 
 right to be considered. However, notwithstanding all his 
 care, the critics who disagree with his conclusions, and hardly 
 any of them agree, have quite ignored his authorities for his 
 astronomical statements, and have taken them as originating 
 with Wallace himself. 
 
 Wallace's fourth proposition that the Earth is the only 
 planet in our solar system that is inhabitable is easy of 
 demonstration. This, in fact, is accepted as a fact by prac- 
 tically all astronomers with the exception of my friend Pro-
 
 Wallace's Great Book. 113 
 
 fessor Lowell, who clings tenaciously to his theory that Mars 
 is inhabited. Its small size, it being but one-ninth the size of 
 the Earth, means, however, that the atmosphere, if Mars has 
 any at all, other than carbonic acid gas, must be so rare that 
 the planet cannot retain its heat by night, and, therefore, its 
 surface temperature, during the greater part of the twenty- 
 four hours, is below the freezing point, and this, of course, 
 is hardly favorable to life. 
 
 Wallace further points out by what a set of curious coinci- 
 dences the Earth is habitable for man, and that none of these 
 conditions exist on the other solar planets and are very un- 
 likely to exist upon the planets, if any such exist, of any other 
 solar system. All this is so contrary to the ideas of modern 
 men of science that there has naturally been raised a wail of 
 protest that is more pathetic than convincing. 
 
 I can say that I for one approached Wallace's book with a 
 strong belief in the theory that there were very likely millions 
 of worlds all about as suitable for man as is the Earth, and 
 that it was more than likely that several millions of these 
 worlds were inhabited not only by beings equal to man but 
 probably very much higher in development, physically and 
 mentally. Wallace has convinced me that I was wrong, 
 and I know of nothing more stimulating to the intellect than 
 to run across a book that upsets all your preconceived ideas. 
 I am only too glad to urge all our readers not to fail to read 
 the book before they make up their minds that Wallace is 
 wrong. If they depend upon the criticisms, especially this 
 criticism, they will get no idea of the strength of his argu- 
 ment. 
 
 Wallace is the most distinguished scientist of the age; he 
 is the co-discoverer with Darwin of the theory of the origin 
 of species, and it is only through his great modesty that 
 he is not so well known in that connection as is Darwin. 
 
 He is an avowed Socialist, and one of the most delightful 
 and lovable of men it has ever been my privilege to meet.
 
 114 ,Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 r 
 
 L 
 
 JANE ADDAMS, ARTIST 
 
 WHILE in Chicago last month, I had the pleasure of 
 meeting Miss Jane Addams and incidentally seeing 
 her creation, Hull House. I am sure that if every 
 one felt as I do, the great artists would have little time for 
 work, for their lives would be one long, tiresome exhibition 
 of themselves rather than their creations. 
 
 To me the artist is always so much greater than his work, 
 that I never care for the one if I can experience the other. 
 
 However, fortunately for the artists, all men are not of 
 my mind and hence they escape a perpetual race to be free 
 from boredom, and are allowed time to exhibit themselves in 
 other shapes than their flesh and blood. 
 
 One of the ways that Miss Addams has thus had time in 
 which to exhibit her soul in material shape, is in the bricks and 
 mortar of Hull House, and in the society she has gathered 
 there to carry out her program. 
 
 In styling Miss Addams an artist, and a great one, too, I 
 do not wish the unthinking to gather that I mean she paints 
 pictures. When one says an artist, without explanation, this 
 is usually what is thought to be meant. Of course it is a 
 mistake. 
 
 An artist is one who precipitates ideal forms upon man- 
 kind. He may work on a canvas with paints, a painter; he 
 may work on his body, an actor; he may simply work upon 
 society, an j^itator. 
 
 Miss Addams may he a worker in paints, she is a worker 
 in mankind. It is the success with which the ideal is pre- 
 sented that constitutes the success of the artist, and the 
 greater and grander the ideal, and the more successfully it is 
 presented, the greater the artist. 
 
 The Socialist, having for his material to mould into his 
 ideal the whole of human society, if not, indeed, the whole 
 universe, certainly has the grandest ideal that it is possible 
 for a human mind to conceive. However, he only becomes 
 an artist when he presents his ideal in a material shape that
 
 Jane Addams, Artist. 115 
 
 the world may see beauties which hitherto have existed hid- 
 den within his mind. 
 
 I may have a picture of a horse within my mind's eye 
 quite as fine as any that Rosa Bonheur ever put upon canvas, 
 but until I can precipitate in material shape my ideal of the 
 horse upon canvas I am not an artist. 
 
 The personality of the artist is attractive on account of the u 
 reciprocity existing between the creator and the creature. 
 
 An artist cannot create a work of art without enriching . 
 his own soul as much, subjectively, as he has enriched the J 
 soul of the world objectively. 
 
 The world cannot reward the artist, for his reward comes, 
 not only in the joy of creation, but in the contemplation of 
 his own soul, which he sees shining in his work. 
 
 A work of art is a mirror reflecting the artist's soul to the 
 world in general and to himself in particular. 
 
 The artist focalizes the ideals of a people. If a people 
 have inharmonious social relations their ideals are shattered 
 and there cannot be the great works of art produced that 
 are seen as a resultant of more perfect social relations. 
 
 I have this morning's Toronto "World" in my hand and 
 notice the following item: 
 
 Athens, Oct. 27. — The beautiful broken bronze statue of Mercury 
 which was found at the bottom of the sea near the island of Anti- 
 cythera, south of Cape Matapan, in the spring of 1901, has been 
 pieced together by M. Andre, a French expert. The task has been 
 performed with skill, and it is difficult to believe that the statue 
 was reconstructed from numerous fragments. 
 
 It is rather more than life size, and is of the finest Greek 
 workmanship. It is considered to rival the exquisite marble Mer- 
 cury of Praxiteles, which was found at Mount Olympus in 1877 
 and which has hitherto been deemed the most beautiful statue in 
 the world. Apart from its singular beauty it has a peculiar value 
 as being the only extant example of an undoubted original bronze 
 statue of the fourth century before Christ. 
 
 I wonder if it has never struck with wonder many people 
 who are so proud of the material progress of the Twentieth 
 Century that when we come to art we cannot chip out a 
 single statue having the glory of one little pieced-together 
 Mercury fished out of the sea in fragments, wherein it has 
 lain for over two thousand years. Here we have the marble, 
 the tools — pneumatic chisels if need- be — the leisure, the
 
 116 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 desire, and even the artists, but we cannot, with all our 
 work, get results that were simply play for the Greeks. It is 
 simply because our artists have no audience. They have no 
 artistic society to stimulate them. When Praxiteles worked 
 he felt the applause, the cultivated applause, of all the Greek 
 nation saturated to its core with love for beauty. To-day 
 a few of us think we enjoy beautiful things, and more of us 
 pretend to enjoy them, but most of us never have a chance 
 to realize that beauty exists to enjoy. 
 
 The Greek society was a healthy one and one in which 
 all, except the slaves who were unconsidered, had a pleasur- 
 able part to play. The differences in individual fortunes 
 were not such that the mass of society was continually at 
 the verge of starvation while a few had so much wealth that 
 they did not know what to do with it. They were continually 
 at war with other nations and had come to feel the absolute 
 necessity of being interested in and caring for each other's 
 welfare if they wished to preserve their own welfare. 
 
 War is, in itself, inartistic, but it has been the main factor 
 in the past of welding societies together, which was a neces- 
 sary preliminary for them to produce Art. 
 
 However, I am a long time coming to my point regarding 
 Miss Addams and Art. I certainly did not anticipate taking 
 ' in Athens when I began to speak of Chicago. 
 
 Miss Addams is trying to form a nucleus for an Art Center 
 in' Chicago, and while from a certain point of view her task 
 is an absolutely hopeless one, considering the hostility of 
 the environment, yet there is a view of her work that per- 
 haps may justify it. 
 
 Certainly we would hardly think of ever making hell any 
 cooler by dropping snowballs into it. But if the Devil or 
 his friends there ever happened to be struck by one of the 
 snowballs, he might be brought into the way of thinking 
 that it would be desirable to seek means of rendering the 
 temperature cooler. On a hot day a man finds by accident, 
 possibly, that waving a palm leaf makes him more com- 
 fortable. He invents the palm-leaf fan, later on he calls 
 electricity to his aid and has the electric fan, and some day 
 he will cool his house in summer as much as a matter of 
 course as he now, Baer willing, heats it in winter. 
 
 Man must first have the wish for a thing before he can
 
 Jane Addams, Artist. 11? 
 
 get it. He will not wish it until he has reason to know its 
 possession is both pleasurable and possible. 
 
 The Chicago proletariat would all want the beautiful 
 life that Miss Addams presents to them in Hull House as a 
 possibility, if they could all see it. The trouble is that after 
 all there are but few that ever see it, and those that do see it 
 have no practical plan presented to them for attaining it. 
 
 This plan of Hull House to-day to realize a better life 
 for the poor is apparently largely dependent upon the re- 
 establishment of primitive industries in Chicago, the making 
 of pottery and the weaving of cloth by hand, and the sale 
 of such hand-made goods to rich people who have a fancy 
 for them and who can afford to pay for hand labor to make 
 a thing that a machine will make for about one per cent, of 
 the cost, and of a quality that will impress most people as 
 of a superior utility value. 
 
 Now I do not wish to create the impression that a* gifted 
 woman like Miss Addams thinks such a work as being of 
 any good except as leading to the desire for those social con- 
 ditions which will enable all of us to make what we please 
 for the joy of making. My only difference with her is as to 
 whether the time, money and talent she is devoting to Hull 
 House could not probably be used to a greater advantage in 
 another way to attain the same end. 
 
 Our end is the same — the Kingdom of God on Earth — 
 we differ as to the best means.
 
 118 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 AN INTERNATIONAL OFFICE SEEKER 
 
 New York, Sept. 12th, 1902. 
 H. Gaylord Wilshire, Esq., 
 
 125 East 23d Street, New York City. 
 
 Dear Comrade: — The undersigned were appointed as a committee 
 to notify you that the Social Democratic Party Convention of the 
 Tenth Congressional District of Manhattan, held on September 5th, 
 1902, at 60 Second Ave., New York City, unanimously nominated 
 you as candidate for Congress of the Social Democratic Party in 
 that district. The nomination was made in the interest of the 
 Socialist cause which, we believe, will be furthered by your candi- 
 dacy, and this we submit to your consideration as the chief induce- 
 ment for your acceptance. There is no place in this country, and, 
 therefore, in the world, where a Socialist gain or a Socialist victory 
 can be of greater consequence to Socialism than in New York City, 
 for New York City is incontestably the nervous centre of the 
 United States. A blow struck at the capitalist system here will 
 have the most telling effect. A Socialist victory in New York will 
 thrill our friends the world over with joy and fill our foes with 
 dismay. For a Socialist who can and will make a hard fight, such 
 a victory in the Tenth District is undoubtedly possible. 
 
 There is no necessity to dwell long on the reasons why we have 
 chosen you for our standard bearer. For many years you have 
 fought for the cause fearlessly and ably, both with speech and pen. 
 Your name needs no introduction. It has become synonymous with 
 Socialism. All who know you, know you as a true comrade in the 
 : Socialist ranks and a Royal Socialist in the Socialist movement. 
 
 We urge you to accept the nomination offered to you, not as a 
 favor, but in the interest of Socialism. 
 
 We remain fraternally yours, 
 
 Herman Rich, et al., Committee. 
 
 I think I must certainly be classed as the Champion 
 International Peripatetic Office Seeker. 
 
 Here I am again running for office in New York City, for 
 I, of course, accepted the above invitation. Nobody ever 
 refuses any nomination for office except to the Vice-Presi- 
 
 * Socialist Party is the name of the political organization of the 
 Socialists in the United States, but owing to technical reasons 
 which existed at that time in New York State, the name Social 
 Democratic Party was used instead of Socialist Party.
 
 An International Office Seeker. 119 
 
 dency. Only six months ago I was worrying the Canadian 
 public seeking their suffrages for Parliament. Two years 
 ago I was running for Congress in California., and this was 
 my second offense, as I did the same thing there twelve years 
 ago. Ten years ago I ran for Attorney General of New York, 
 and eight years ago I was standing as a Parliamentary candi- 
 date in Manchester, England. 
 
 Let him who can, challenge this record! 
 
 Of course, I always stood as a Socialist, and, needless to 
 say, I was always successful, although never elected. 
 
 We Socialists don't run for office primarily to get elected. 
 That is quite a secondary consideration. We go into politics 
 for the educational advantages of a Socialist campaign. The 
 '.elections give us an excuse to talk, and at such times we 
 excite the interest of the people sufficiently for them to 
 listen more readily to what we have to say. The mere 
 power to act, even if never exercised, will always interest the 
 possessor in considering a possible action, whereas if he were 
 powerless he would be dead to your appeals. 
 
 There is only one day in the year when the American 
 People have any power, and that is on Election Day. For 
 all the use they ever make of it, they might just as well never 
 have it ; but you don't cut off a baby's legs because he don't 
 use them the first month, and it would be equally as silly to 
 say our right to vote is useless simply because we have not 
 yet the sense to use it. 
 
 I am simply one of the nurses teaching the American 
 Voting Baby how to use his Voting Legs. I am trying to 
 induce him to struggle out of the Slough of Poverty, in 
 which he is now mired, up to the Table Land of Universal 
 Wealth and Happiness. 
 
 If we go far enough back in the development of man we 
 will find that our ancestors had their beginning in the 
 water. There was a time when there was no land, and, 
 naturally, there were no land animals. When the waters 
 receded and the land appeared, there was no wild rush of 
 water animals to leave the water and live on dry land, no 
 more than there is to-day. However, there was warfare 
 going on between the different water animals, and at times 
 some of them had to crawl out on the land to escape those 
 enemies in the water who could not follow them there —
 
 120 Wilshiee Editorials. 
 
 something like the flying fish nowadays, leaving the sea for 
 a flight in the air to escape its foes. These first chaps never 
 went on the land because they liked it better than the water. 
 On the contrary I have no doubt but that they felt almost like 
 the typical fish out of water. But it was dry land or death, 
 and they took the lesser of the two evils. 
 
 We ourselves are to-day land animals, not because our re- 
 mote ancestors deliberately decided that land was a pleasanter 
 abode than water, but simply because they had no other 
 choice if they wanted to be ancestors. Man is like the rest 
 of all living creatures — he seldom moves unless he must. 
 When the puddle dries up, the tadpole must take to the 
 land and be a froggy or he will die in the mud and never 
 live to "a-wooing go." 
 
 However, all the frogs in the world might croak their 
 lungs out in praise of land over water, but never a young tad- 
 pole will ever leave that water until the time comes. 
 
 While I confess all this, and admit that I am simply the 
 Bullfrog on the Bank Singing to the Tadpole in the Pool, 
 yet I say it is just as useless to argue with me as to the 
 futility of such singing, as it is to argue with a bullfrog as 
 to the futility of croaking. It's a stunt we both, froggy and 
 I, like to do, quite irrespective of any apparent result, and 
 anyway it is not useless. 
 
 Even if the tadpole will not leave the pool until its legs 
 commence to sprout, no one can say how much influence the 
 frog's song on the bank has not had to do with the hastening 
 of that sprouting. The mind controls the body of frogs as 
 well as of men. 
 
 It may likewise be said that the body controls the mind. 
 If you cut off a tadpole's tail he will live all right, but he 
 never becomes- a frog. His legs never develop, nor does his 
 mind. He lives and dies a tadpole. 
 
 It's the same way with a man. If you cut off the oppor- 
 tunities for his physical development you at the same time, 
 and in almost a like degree, cut off his possibilities for in- 
 tellectual development. It is most important that we in 
 our education of our children, our little human tadpoles, 
 give them a full chance of physical development, if we expect 
 an intellectual development. And if we expect a spiritual and 
 moral development we must have an intellectual development.
 
 An International Office Seeker. 121 
 
 For the soul's sake we must let our legs have a chance to 
 develop. 
 
 Here in New York we send our children to schools having 
 illy ventilated and poorly lighted rooms, and worse than all, 
 very often absolutely no playgrounds, and we look for a crop 
 of souls! 
 
 If I had my way I would give every school-house a whole 
 block for a playground, and devote two-thirds of the time 
 now fruitlessly spent on the development of our children's 
 minds to the development of their bodies. A child with a 
 good physique may have a good brain and be a useful citizen. 
 A child with no physique will be useless even if it has a good 
 brain. 
 
 However, when I started this article, I had no idea of 
 discoursing upon either evolution, psychology, mental science, 
 education or physical culture. 
 
 I simply wished to say that I felt myself to be like the 
 bullfrog on the bank calling on the little tadpoles in the 
 pool to come out of the slime and enjoy the air and sun- 
 shine. I know they can't come out until they are ready to 
 come, but before the tadpole comes out he must have the 
 wish to come. I am trying to inspire my fellow Americans 
 with the wish to get out of the Slime of the Marsh of Poverty. 
 If I can show them the possibility of another life, a happier 
 life, they will wish for such a life. They will struggle for it. 
 They will vote for it. The Wish is Father to the Deed. 
 
 I know that the American Voting Tadpoles are now about 
 ready to drop their competitive tails and put on their co- 
 operative legs. They are physically and intellectually ready 
 for such a change, and all that is needed is to show them 
 that the Bank of Socialism is at hand for them to climb out 
 upon, and that the climbing is easy. Of course, as the 
 waters are dried up by the fierce blasts of monopoly, there 
 is coming a time when these Voting Tadpoles will be forced 
 to come out in the free air of Socialism, for if they wait too 
 long there may be such a sudden drying up of the puddles 
 that some of them will perish in the mud before they learn 
 how to live in the air. 
 
 It is my mission to get them out of the pool and into the 
 air, before the water goes down so far that many are mired 
 and perish.
 
 122 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP— ITS MEANING. 
 
 MUNICIPAL ownership is admittedly the political 
 question of the hour, and the problem our politicians 
 are now bothering their heads about is whether it is 
 destined to be the question of the future, or will it, like the 
 silver issue, burn fiercely for a while and then die out with- 
 out a flicker left to remind us of its existence. 
 
 For years prior to 1896 the politicians of both parties 
 were flirting with free silver. The good or bad of the free 
 coinage of silver was not a question with them. Free silver 
 was popular with many of the people, and as the advocacy of 
 it seemed so remotely connected with any possibility of reali- 
 zation, those against silver did not take the advocacy of it 
 seriously enough to deny their votes to its advocates. 
 
 Advocating free silver was all to the good for the politician 
 until, at last, the nomination of Bryan upon the free-silver 
 platform adopted by the Democratic party suddenly made 
 silver a living issue. The politicians were then forced to 
 reverse their positions, for a man could no longer fervidly 
 declare himself for free silver and take the chance that the 
 sincerity of his sentiments would never be put to the test. 
 It became evident to all that unless the most strenuous work 
 was done the Democrats would win and the country go upon 
 a silver basis. However, the strenuous work was done, as 
 we all know, most of the politicians eating their words 
 wherein they had declared fealty to silver, and becoming 
 earnest advocates of "honest money/' It may be remem- 
 bered that President McKinley himself, not so many years 
 before, had cast his vote in Congress for free silver. But 
 the campaign was not carried on upon what men had ad- 
 vocated before 1896, but upon what they advocated in 1896. 
 
 Municipal ownership as a political policy has a number 
 of features not altogether different from free silver. Until 
 recently it has been an issue so remote that the politicians 
 felt no fear in advocating it. However, like the free-silver 
 question, which was once looked upon as merely the dream-
 
 Municipal Ownership — Its Meaning. 123 
 
 ing of faddists, it has all at once become the active political 
 issue of the day, but, unlike free silver, it has so much the 
 stronger economic basis, that the hostility of the larger capi- 
 talists cannot defeat it by an array of statistics and appeals 
 to sound common sense and "strenuous work/' such as were 
 found so effective in the Bryan campaign of 1896. 
 
 Now that the silver fever is dead and passed away, most 
 of its advocates will usually admit that it was really an 
 economic heresy, and an extremely fortunate thing for the 
 country that a Mark Hanna was at hand with his general- 
 ship and his immense contributions from the Trusts in hand 
 to show the nation the errors of sixteen to one and the ne- 
 cessity of defeating Bryan. 
 
 It is noteworthy that most of the old free-silver shouters 
 are in line for municipal ownership. The explanation of 
 the connection between free silver and municipal ownership 
 is found in the fact that there is a tendency for a political 
 party to form in this country as representative of the moder- 
 ately well-to-do-people as against the very rich. 
 
 The free coinage of silver was an attempt of the poorer 
 classes to put themselves more upon an economic equality 
 with the richer classes, and the only reason it has been 
 abandoned is that it was recognized to be a futile method, 
 an attempting to raise oneself by one's bootstraps. 
 
 It was not an impossible task to show the American voter 
 that as long as Mr. Rockefeller owned the oil refineries, and 
 Mr. Vanderbilt owned the railways, and Mr. Belmont owned 
 the street cars, and as long as the American voter himself 
 owned practically nothing, no matter whether his wages were 
 paid in silver or in gold, he was sure to be rapidly separated 
 from his money whenever he bought oil or rode on a rail- 
 way or street car. 
 
 Before 1896 there were many men who had a kind of a 
 hazy idea that some sort of juggling with the medium of 
 exchange would institute a millennium, wherein the common 
 people would have all the comforts of life and some of the 
 luxuries, while at the same time the rich people would not 
 only have all they have to-day, but more too. The Repub- 
 lican party and Mr. Hanna forever dissipated all such crude 
 ideas. The people generally now see that there is but one 
 earth, and that if Rockefeller owns it, the other fellow can-
 
 124 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 not own it, any more than the baby can have his cake and 
 eat it too. However, while there is a pretty fair knowledge 
 of this very elementary proposition, the impossibility of get- 
 ting the earth away from Mr. Rockefeller by any commercial 
 method is so palpable, and the possibility of taking it away 
 from him by any political method appears so dangerous that 
 the people are rather in despair as to getting a better share 
 of wealth. Rockefeller certainly does not spend the half, or 
 even a tenth, of his income; in fact, he cannot spend it, 
 and no one could spend a hundred million a year, and as 
 long as he is "saving" up so many millions a year, there is 
 no hope of getting or of his losing his wealth. The old 
 theory of the decentralization of wealth by waste and ex- 
 travagance does not apply to such fortunes as Rockefeller's. 
 
 As for his losing it by investing in foolish ventures, that, 
 too, is impossible. First, because with his income of a hun- 
 dred millions a year he can afford to lose tens of millions 
 annually and still have millions left to add to his capital. 
 Secondly, the investment of his surplus is in the hands of 
 his own staff of experts, who go about the matter so scienti- 
 fically and mathematically — taking no chances and nothing 
 for granted — that where a poorer man will find it cheaper 
 to forego investigation and chance a loss, with Rockefeller, 
 such is the magnitude of his investments, that he can always 
 afford such a careful investigation of every proposed invest- 
 ment that a loss is practically impossible. And what is said 
 regarding Rockefeller applies in only a slightly minor degree 
 to many others of our larger capitalists. Then, again, many 
 of the smaller capitalists invest their savings co-operatively, 
 so to speak, in a trust company, which, making large invest- 
 ments, can afford to apply the Rockefeller method of scrutiny 
 to its ventures, thus giving to the small capitalist something 
 of the safety enjoyed by Mr. Rockefeller. 
 
 It is evident that by no commercial methods now prevail- 
 ing will the people ever see Rockefeller & Co. lose their grip 
 on the wealth of the country. 
 
 When a political method to effect a fairer distribution of 
 wealth is suggested without any specific details, the ordinary 
 citizen has a horrid vision of the country having fallen into 
 the hands of a mob, and a holiday set when all the property 
 of the rich will be divided up among the poor.
 
 Municipal Ownership — Its Meaning. 125 
 
 He not only knows that any such division would be futile, 
 inasmuch as it would not be many years before Rockefeller 
 or somebody worse would have all the money again, but he 
 also objects to throwing his own wealth into the pile with 
 no certainty of getting back in the grand division as much 
 as he is now in possession of. 
 
 Thus, while there is certainly a general desire for a better 
 distribution of wealth, still the method of obtaining it seems 
 so impossible that the desire has not as yet come into the 
 realm of practical politics. Free silver, as said before, had 
 its run of popularity because of this underlying feeling of 
 the people that something should be done to establish more 
 of an economic equality. 
 
 Now, while it can be easily shown that municipal owner- 
 ship is unquestionably a very important step toward an 
 equalization of economic opportunity, it is doubtful if its 
 popularity as a movement can be rightly ascribed to any 
 definite knowledge on the part of its advocates to this effect. 
 
 In fact, a great many of them — such as Judge Dunne, of 
 Chicago, and Mayor Johnson, of Cleveland, would no doubt 
 attempt to deny it, or, admitting it, would minimize it. 
 
 But that such is really the truth regarding municipal 
 ownership can be seen by a moment's reflection. 
 
 Now, when we speak of a great capitalist like Rockefeller 
 owning the earth, what do we really mean? We mean he 
 owns some land, some railways, some oil refineries, some 
 street-car lines, etc. Or, rather, we mean he has large 
 amounts of stock in certain corporations which own such 
 properties. 
 
 If the city of Chicago buys the street-car lines from Mr. 
 Rockefeller, it certainly is self-evident that each and every 
 citizen of Chicago has acquired by that operation a share with 
 his fellow citizens in the ownership and management of a 
 property where formerly he had neither ownership nor di- 
 rection. 
 
 There will have unquestionably been a transfer of wealth 
 and power from Rockefeller to himself, and, although the 
 citizen may hardly realize the import of the transaction, 
 there is little doubt but that Mr. Rockefeller understands it, 
 and very thoroughly, too. 
 
 There has been no confiscation of the street-car line, for
 
 126 Wilshirb Editorials. 
 
 Mr. Rockefeller will have been paid full value in money or 
 bonds for his property, but the fact remains that the property 
 itself has had a change of ownership from him to the public. 
 
 It might here be remarked en passant that the changing 
 of the coinage from gold to silver would have accomplished 
 no such change of ownership of property, and as it is this 
 latent desire of the people to equalize the ownership of prop- 
 erty that is, in my estimation, forming the basic impulse of 
 the movement for public ownership, I therefore see for it a 
 great and growing future success where the free-silver move- 
 ment met with dismal failure. However, while this vague 
 desire of the people for economic equality is the power behind 
 the municipal ownership movement, still I would be the last 
 to deny that there are certain superficial conditions connected 
 with the private ownership of public utilities which have 
 given municipal ownership its present importance. 
 
 In the first place, the bad service rendered by the private 
 corporation has been a powerful stimulus to the desire for 
 a change. 
 
 When Yerkes said, "The dividends are in the straps," he 
 gave us the whole theory of private ownership of street-car 
 lines. It is not to serve the public that the private corpora- 
 tion was formed, but to make dividends for the private 
 stockholders. If one car can be used to carry a double load 
 by the simple expedient of making half of the occupants 
 stand up and hang on to straps, then why should money be 
 wasted in buying more cars and paying wages to two con- 
 ductors and two motormen instead of to one? 
 
 If people must have water, anyway, pure or impure, then 
 why waste money upon a filtration plant, which may save 
 lives from typhoid, but will never increase the profits of 
 the private corporations owning the water works? 
 
 The water works were not built by the private company 
 to furnish pure water, but to pay dividends. 
 
 Every organism must obey the fundamental law of its 
 existence. The fundamental law of a private corporation is 
 to develop profits, while the fundamental law of a public 
 corporation is to develop life. 
 
 When the water works are privately owned profits come 
 first, and when the works are publicly owned pure water and 
 good health come first. And this law of the private corpora-
 
 Municipal Ownership — Its Meaning. 127 
 
 tion holds good even when the stockholders are of the greatest 
 virtue and respectability. 
 
 For instance, take the following case of private ownership 
 of water in Ithaca, New York, given by Samuel Hopkins 
 Adams, in a recent number of McClure's Magazine: 
 
 For two years, in Ithaca, in 1903, the water had been so 
 obviously unfit to drink that the water company, a private 
 enterprise, was constantly in receipt of complaints from the 
 local board of health and from private citizens. Its contract 
 called for water free from disease-producing organisms; the 
 State has required reasonable guardianship of its water-shed. 
 Contract and law seem to have been matters of equal indif- 
 ference to the corporation. As subsequent testimony showed 
 — after the tragedy was over — the watershed which supplied 
 the city was lined with pig-styes, manure piles, garbage heaps, 
 cattle pen6 and outhouses, many of them discharging their 
 contents, with only a few yards' flow, direct into Six-Mile 
 Creek, or the streams that supplied it. Whosoever reads the 
 evidence adduced at the investigation needs to have a strong 
 stomach. For some years intestinal diseases and "enteric 
 fever," also called "Ithaca fever" — another phase of the polite 
 fiction that we have found in Cleveland — had been common. 
 In the winter of 1902-1903 the water company was aroused 
 to action and began work upon a dam preparatory to installing 
 a filtration plant. It was just a trifle too late. Whether 
 from a little group of shanties back of Six-Mile Creek, 
 which had been throwing slops from the sick rooms of several 
 typhoid patients into the stream emptying close to the in- 
 take, or from the Italians employed on the dam who estab- 
 lished their sinks within a few yards of the bank — an 
 illuminating instance of the kind of protection afforded by 
 the water company — the fever appeared in epidemic form 
 in the middle of January, 1903. By the time the disease 
 had run its course, there were 1,380 known cases out of a 
 population of 15,800; more than one to every dozen in- 
 habitants. Happily, the fever was not of the most virulent 
 type; only about eight per cent of the reported cases died. 
 But even with that low rate the mortality reached the ap- 
 palling ratio of nearly 725 per 100,000. 
 
 Early in this trouble Cornell University assumed a promi- 
 nent part in the management of affairs. Fortunately, the
 
 128 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 water of the campus, supplied by a separate system, was not 
 contaminated, though it was far from clear; so that among 
 those students who used the campus water exclusively there 
 were no cases. Only a small part of the student body, how- 
 ever, lives on the college grounds. The rest are scattered 
 among them. The disease early appeared among them. 
 Therefore, it was only natural that President Schurman and 
 the trustees of the university should have taken an active 
 interest. Unhappily this took the form of minimizing the 
 peril, a policy which may well have cost a number of lives. 
 It is but fair to the university authorities to say that at this 
 time they utterly failed to appreciate the gravity of the situ- 
 ation. While the health authorities were warning the public 
 in terms which seemed to the university "sensational," there 
 emanated from Cornell reassuring statements. The attitude 
 of the institution was, frankly, that there was no great 
 danger. It strove to allay the rising panic, "in the interests 
 of the college," just as Cleveland, St. Louis and other cities 
 have kept down their typhoid rates "for the good of the 
 city"; but with this difference that the institution must be 
 credited with insistence upon the utmost precautions. 
 
 In the latter part of February the State Board of Health 
 looked into the situation at Ithaca, and its official head was 
 closeted for some time with President Schurman. Imme- 
 diately after this conference the following statement was 
 given out in pamphlet form from the president's office: 
 
 "Dr. Daniel Lewis, the State Commissioner of Health, who 
 is here to-day, after having studied the situation carefully 
 from every side, makes the statement that the plans which 
 are already in operation, and which are this day being ex- 
 tended by the city authorities, make it perfectly safe for any- 
 one to return to Ithaca who so desires." 
 
 At this time there were 400 to 500 fever cases in the city; 
 new cases were appearing in large numbers every day, and 
 every weary and overworked physician in the place knew that 
 never had the disease been less under control. Some miscon- 
 ception seems to have entered into the conference between 
 Dr. Schurman and Dr. Lewis, for, as soon as the optimistic 
 pamphlet appeared, the local board of health wired the State 
 Commissioner, asking if he were willing to go on record as 
 saying that students might safely return to town. Response
 
 Municipal Ownership — Its Meaning. 129 
 
 came promptly; he was not. Until certain measures should 
 have been taken he would not regard it as safe. Thereupon 
 the pamphlet was withdrawn from circulation and another 
 substituted. 
 
 The Cornell Infirmary, to which many of the students were 
 taken, was under lay management. There seems to have 
 been little regard for professional opinion. One member 
 of the medical faculty of Cornell resigned from the manag- 
 ing committee because "the opinions of a physician were not 
 worthy of the consideration of the laymen of the committee." 
 Another was rebuked in writing because he took a member 
 of the New York Cornell medical faculty to the hospital, 
 which seems, curiously enough, to be against the rules. At 
 a time when all the obtainable aid was necessary, the medical 
 faculty was, as far as possible, excluded from any direction 
 of the infirmary. The result: 
 
 Percentage of deaths to cases among students treated at 
 the Cornell Infirmary, 11.5; percentage of deaths to cases 
 among students treated at the City Hospital, 6.7. 
 
 Conditions of overcrowding and the class of patients con- 
 sidered were the same. That nearly seventy-five per cent 
 more cases were lost in the Cornell institution than in the 
 City Hospital may fairly be regarded as the measure of dif- 
 ference between efficient and inefficient management. Finally, 
 the death-rate of the infirmary was one and one-half per 
 cent higher than that of outside non-hospital treatment. 
 That is, putting it barely, it was somewhat better not to go 
 to a hospital at all than to trust to the management of the 
 well-meaning trustees of the university institution. 
 
 For six weeks the epidemic raged; then subsided, though 
 its effects were felt far into the summer. The stricken town 
 had time to consider. Investigation followed. As I have 
 said, the testimony does not make pleasant reading. It 
 proved, with iterated and heaped-up evidence, that the water 
 company was either culpably ignorant or culpably negligent 
 of the watershed which had been intrusted to its care. On 
 my visit to Ithaca I asked several representative citizens 
 what was done with the responsible managers of the com- 
 pany. They seemed surprised. 
 
 "Nothing," they said. 
 
 "Was no attempt made to call them to account?"
 
 130 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 "Certainly not." 
 
 "Weren't they even indicted?" 
 
 "Indicted? Why, the very best people in town were in 
 that water company.* Our leading financiers, merchants, 
 church members, etc." (The list is a familiar one; it's the 
 same kind of list that one finds owning the disease-breeding 
 tenements in Chicago, New York and Philadelphia.) 
 
 Punishment did follow the crime, however. But not the 
 crime of poisoning the water, the crime of honestly attempt- 
 ing to let people know the truth of their peril. A member 
 of the faculty of Cornell University printed in the local paper 
 which he owned the facts of the typhoid epidemic. Warned 
 that he was jeopardizing his university interest by this course, 
 that the policy of the university "deprecated sensational re- 
 ports tending to incite alarm," he replied that the policy 
 of his paper was to tell the truth as it appeared. After the 
 scourge had passed this man found himself persona non grata 
 with the controlling interests of the institution. Owing to 
 the unusual success of his department, he was in line for a 
 full professorship. Now he learned that as long as he re- 
 mained at the head of the department it would continue to 
 be merely an assistant professor's department. He resigned. 
 
 One of the Ithaca physicians had for years been connected 
 with Cornell University on the medical side. When Cornell 
 began its policy of optimism at the height of the epidemic, 
 this physician took the other side. Optimism seemed to him 
 out of place under the circumstances. He supported the 
 policy of the local health board. Despite warnings he con- 
 tinued to hold to his course. Toward the end of the year 
 his friends learned that he need not expect a reappointment 
 to the university staff. To save himself humiliation he re- 
 signed. Other cases might be cited where the outspoken 
 were penalized socially, commercially and even politically. 
 
 Ithaca has learned its lesson now; witness its vote of 
 1,335 for municipal ownership. Cornell has its own filtration 
 plant, which bears Carnegie's name, in agreeable variation 
 to the long line of libraries. 
 
 * The secretary and treasurer of Cornell University was at that 
 time a director of the water company; several of the university 
 trustees had been directors up to within a short time, and their 
 families were still financially interested in the company.
 
 Municipal Ownership — Its Meaning. 131 
 
 I give the case of Ithaca at length because it must at once 
 be admitted, if a place with as high a standard of intelligence 
 as that university city finds it impossible to get pure water 
 with private ownership, how much more impossible must it 
 be for our large cities with a much lower standard of in- 
 telligence ? 
 
 The case of Ithaca is also illustrative of the demoraliza- 
 tion of university life itself as the result of the private owner- 
 ship of Cornell University. It is true that Cornell is not 
 operated for the sake of profit, but it is true, on the other 
 hand, that such was the fear of the diminution of prestige 
 and income owing to the students leaving if they should gain 
 knowledge of a bad water supply, that President Schurman 
 was willing to suppress the information and fatally risk the 
 lives of his students. 
 
 The public is not only dissatisfied with private ownership 
 of public utilities, because of the bad service rendered, but 
 it has another and a greater and deeper grievance — namely, 
 the corruption of public officials by the private corporations. 
 
 It is notorious that practically all our larger American 
 cities are each in the control of a boss who derives his political 
 power from the private corporations which own the public 
 utilities. 
 
 The boss often has the control of the machinery of not 
 only one, but both of the great political parties. The mayor 
 and the aldermen are his creatures. Dependent upon him 
 for their places, the least infraction of his wish means the 
 loss of their political heads. The boss deals directly with 
 the gas company when it wishes to lay more mains or to do 
 anything requiring political consent or action; a new fran- 
 chise, for instance. The same is true of the electric light 
 company, the street car companies, the telephone and other 
 companies owning the public utilities. The boss directly or 
 indirectly gets money from the corporations, and he has the 
 power not only of appointment to the usual political offices 
 of the city, but also to the many positions with corporations. 
 
 Boss Cox, for instance, can get his man a place upon the 
 police force of Cincinnati, or a place as a street-car conductor, 
 or a lineman with the telephone company, with equal facility. 
 
 The control of a man's job means very nearly the control 
 of his life, and hence it is not surprising that the giving of
 
 132 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 so small a commodity as one's vote to the boss in exchange 
 for the job is a very ordinary and usual transaction with 
 many thousands of our fellow American citizens. 
 
 The private corporations are under compulsion to play 
 politics as much in order to prevent themselves being black- 
 mailed as they are to gain illegal rights. 
 
 Buying the good graces of the boss is never, of course, 
 entered upon the books of a corporation in such a manner 
 that the uninitiated would know what the money went for. 
 Legal expense is a broad, elastic term that can cover all such 
 underground expense. 
 
 While the facts of corruption by our private corporations 
 are not denied, the opponents of municipal ownership reply 
 that if the public officials of to-day are so easily corrupted, 
 what hope is there in putting still more power into their 
 hands? They forget that the source of the corruption is 
 in the private ownership of public utilities, and the more of 
 these utilities that are municipalized, the more will the cor- 
 rupting stream be narrowed. When one impure rivulet poi- 
 sons a great river, and gives a city an epidemic of typhoid 
 fever, it is no argument against purifying the other con- 
 tributory rivulets, but is merely an argument for the purify- 
 ing of the single impure rivulet, so when we find, notwith- 
 standing the municipal ownership of certain utilities, that 
 corruption still continues, our remedy is not to stop our 
 work, but to still further pursue our purifying process. 
 
 For instance, C. E. Russell, in Everybody's Magazine, de- 
 clares that the Beef Trust in Chicago to-day steals thousands 
 of gallons from the city watermains without making any 
 payment. It has bribed the city officials to wink at the 
 stealing. This state of affairs certainly shows a state of 
 corruption in Chicago waterworks, notwithstanding muni- 
 cipal ownership. But who does the corrupting? 
 
 Is it not owing to the private ownership of the other 
 public utilities, such as the gasworks, the street cars, the 
 telephones, and particularly the stock yards? 
 
 In many European cities every one of these public utilities 
 is municipally owned, so to propose the municipal ownership 
 of such utilities by our American cities is proposing no un- 
 tried experiment. The argument regarding the saving to 
 the individual as the result of public ownership, I will not
 
 Municipal Ownership — Its Meaning. 133 
 
 dwell upon further than to say that, universally wherever 
 there is municipal ownership, the price of gas, of water, of 
 telephones, of street-car transportation, etc., is lower than 
 under private ownership, and the service is always better. 
 But I must return to my original argument for prophesying 
 that municipal ownership is sure to be the next great and 
 successful political movement in the United States; namely, 
 because it tends to effect a wider and more equitable distri- 
 bution of the wealth of the country. 
 
 Man is a land animal, and land is his first requisite for 
 existence. Next he must have the tools wherewith to work 
 the land. 
 
 In primitive days, man's tools were primitive. He had a 
 pine knot for his gasworks, he had a gourd for his water- 
 works, he had his donkey for his street car, he had his own 
 knife and his own back yard for his stock yards. 
 
 These tools were his own, and he could use them without 
 asking any man's or any trust's permission. Land was his 
 for the walking to the westward a few miles. The American 
 then was indeed a free man, who owed no man obeisance. 
 But to-day, if he would use land, he must first ask permis- 
 sion of an Astor; if he would have light and heat, he must 
 ask permission of a Rockefeller; if he would go from place 
 to place, he must bend the knee to a Vanderbilt, and so on, 
 and so on. 
 
 Man has always resented serfdom, his eternal struggle has 
 been for liberty, and so to-day the struggle is still for liberty ; 
 for economic liberty; for liberty to use the earth, to use the 
 necessary tools to produce wealth, without asking the leave 
 of an owner. 
 
 Municipal ownership to the extent that it gives men the 
 ownership of certain tools — to wit, waterworks, gasworks, 
 street cars, telephones, etc. — frees man from bending the 
 knee to any private owners thereof, and to that extent is 
 an onward step to the complete emancipation of man from 
 thraldom to man, from thraldom to poverty. 
 
 It is because it is such a forward step that it is bound 
 to be made, (for the course of man has ever been onward. 
 But, after all, it must always be remembered that it is but 
 a step to the goal and not the goal itself of complete economic 
 freedom and of the abolition of poverty.
 
 134 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 VIRCHOW'S CELL THEORY 
 
 THE Trust is at once a normal and an abnormal devel- 
 opment accordingly as we may look upon it. 
 It is abnormal to the social system if we look upon 
 it as a cancer eating out the heart of society, abstracting 
 to itself wealth that should go to all. 
 
 It is normal if we look upon it as the natural evolution 
 of a system of competition which gives to the greedy rather 
 than the needy. 
 
 The Trust is the most perfect engine that greed has ever 
 devised, and as we have been striving to develop the best 
 machine to satisfy the greedy it is no wonder that we have 
 finally invented an instrument that operates so automatically 
 and with such intelligence that we are terrified at our 
 Frankenstein and now seek its destruction. 
 
 However, it is perfectly natural for a man to be greedy 
 when in an environment that threatens him with starvation 
 if he does not grab. The most perfect-mannered man in the 
 world becomes a hog if failure to be a hog means death. 
 
 Life is merely adaptation to environment. A cell in the 
 body is bruised and bruised again; it demands more nutri- 
 ment to restore its equilibrium. At first the result is a 
 simple inflammation; then, as the bruising takes place again 
 and again upon the inflamed spot, the inflammation finally 
 becomes chronic. Let the spot be bruised again and it may 
 become cancer. The original cell that started out merely 
 to protect itself by taking a little extra blood while it was 
 recovering from a slight temporary mishap has now become 
 the militant and malignant cancer cell threatening the whole 
 body. The friend has become a deadly foe. 
 
 Similarly Rockefeller started out as a simple business 
 man trying to save a few dollars to protect himself against 
 old age. He got the habit of saving money. At the same 
 time he was surrounded by a sea of fiery, deadly competitors. 
 He made deeper the channels which guided the protecting 
 dollars to his savings bank. More and more money came
 
 Virchow's Cell Theory. 135 
 
 and at the same time more and more was the need of money 
 to protect himself from powerful competitors. Finally came 
 the Trust, and now money flows to him in a stream of a vol- 
 ume quite undreamt of even by Rockefeller, and he has 
 neither the will nor the power to stop the flow. 
 
 Rockefeller was once a healthy cell of our industrial organ- 
 ism; that he has become an abnormal one is not Rockefeller's 
 fault; it is owing to the unhealthy state of our industrial 
 organism. To cure Rockefeller we must not apply the rem- 
 edy to him individually, as would the Republicans and 
 Democrats. We must apply it to society. 
 
 To cure a boil we do not have the best effect by treating 
 the boil. We seek to build up a debilitated system of which 
 the boil is the symptom. Rockefeller is an effect, not a 
 cause. Prof. Virchow was the originator of the modern 
 theory of disease. His views have been briefly stated by 
 Prof. Legge as follows: 
 
 Until Virchow's time it seemed to have been thought 
 that disease was caused by some foreign substance inimical 
 to life, seating itself within the tissues of the body, and 
 thence proceeding to conquer by degrees the whole organ- 
 ism. But Virchow showed that the process had been mis- 
 interpreted. 
 
 The diseased structures of the body, he affirmed, con- 
 sisted of cells like the healthy or undiseased, and these 
 cells must once have sprung, as do all cells, from others. 
 And as those parent cells can have, in their turn, no other 
 origin than the original cell out of which the whole 
 structure develops, it follows that the cells of diseased 
 tissues must have developed in the normal way from 
 the cells of the healthy tissues, "driven," as Lord Lister 
 has said in this connection, to abnormal development by 
 injurious agencies. 
 
 Thus we see that the whole theory of disease is pushed 
 further back, and that we must look for its origin, not in 
 the diseased structure, but in the agency which caused 
 the cells of the diseased structure to develop in an ab- 
 normal way. 
 
 Let us see, for example, how this explains the morbid 
 process called inflammation. It was once held that this
 
 136 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 in itself was a diseased condition of the part affected, 
 and that the appropriate remedy was, as was said, to 
 "reduce the inflammation by treating the local symptoms." 
 But Virchow showed that the efficient cause must be an 
 irritation of the local cells, which causes them, as does all 
 irritation, to increase their own nutrition by subtracting 
 from the blood and the neighboring tissue a greater supply 
 than before of substance to be assimilated. Hencefor- 
 ward the congestion of blood in the inflamed part, 
 and the consequent nervous and vascular disturbance, be- 
 come a matter of very small importance for the cure. To 
 find and remove the cause of the irritation of the cells 
 is now the care of the pathologist, conscious as he must 
 be that when this is done, all local symptoms may be 
 trusted to cure themselves. 
 
 Just as it is the function of the scientific physician to seek 
 the cause of inflammation when the trouble is with the in- 
 dividual man, so should it be the function of the scientific 
 politician to seek the cause of disturbance in the social 
 organism. 
 
 But it is not as hopeless as it might seem. The scientific 
 man is not essentially different from the ordinary man. He 
 has simply had his attention directed to certain phenomena 
 and by giving them careful attention he has noticed and 
 jotted down certain relations between these phenomena. The 
 first relation noticed will probably be so very obvious that 
 one of the simplest powers of observation could not help 
 seeing it. For instance, in determining the scientific descrip- 
 tion of a bird you notice that it has two legs ; now certainly 
 this fact takes little powers of observation to ascertain. To 
 discover that it belongs to an egg-laying species is but little 
 more difficult. To discover that a bird's bones are much 
 lighter than those of a non-flying animal of the same weight 
 takes considerably more powers of observation, but still it 
 does not indicate anything superhuman in the observer. The 
 same remark applies to discovering that the temperature of 
 a bird's blood is higher than that of a mammal. And so on 
 from step to step the patient scientific investigator adds 
 facts to facts about birds and finally makes out general laws 
 for birds in their various characteristics which may seem to
 
 Virchow's Cell Theory. 137 
 
 require great ability on his part, but which really takes great 
 patience rather more than great intellect. 
 
 A general view of the knowledge of a scientific man gives 
 the impression to the ordinary man that no one except a 
 genius could know so much. But the scientific man has 
 no such exalted opinion of himself. He knows only too 
 well the shortness and the number of steps by which he 
 attained his eminence. He knows that it only took a plain, 
 ordinary every-day man to advance these steps, one at a time, 
 and that he, the great scientific man, is merely the ordinary 
 man gifted with patience and having had his work directed 
 in a certain direction. 
 
 To-day there is no incentive for a politician to have a 
 scientific knowledge of economics. To-day knowledge not 
 only does not give him his place, but too much knowledge 
 may lose it for him, for it is often as dangerous to know 
 too much as it was to Galileo in the middle ages. 
 
 When the church had charge of astronomy it was heresy 
 punishable with death to disagree with Ptolemy that the sun 
 went round the earth; therefore the astronomers of those 
 days were not very particular to have another theory. There 
 was no demand for science in the field of astronomy; faith 
 alone was wanted. 
 
 To-day we are conducting our politics as we once con- 
 ducted our astronomy, our chemistry, our medicine, on faith, 
 not science. The results is our politicians know as much 
 about the science of politics as did the old-time astrologers 
 know of the science of astronomy.
 
 138 Wilshike Editorials. 
 
 WHITE COLLARS AND A YELLOW PRESS 
 
 TO those not behind the scenes the editorial course of 
 the Hearst papers seems absolutely without reason. 
 One day they favor one thing and the next day the 
 opposite. One day they advocate the destruction of the 
 Trusts, and the next day the national ownership of the 
 Trusts. All of which is very confusing. But when one re- 
 members that in order to make a great paper successful it is 
 necessary to have the backing of one of the great political 
 parties, a light is thrown upon the mystery. Mr. Hearst is 
 shrewd enough to know that the current of public opinion 
 in this country is rapidly setting toward public ownership 
 not only of municipal utilities but also of railways and Trusts. 
 He also knows that there are millions of people in this 
 country who favor this, without realizing that it is Socialistic, 
 or that it tends toward Socialism. He would catch this class 
 of ignorant readers for his newspapers, and he would have 
 them believe that he is the chief and only exponent of such 
 views. If he should let them know that the platform he 
 stands on, in this particular, is practically the same as that 
 of the Socialists, he fears not only the connection of his 
 name with Socialism, but also that he would not get full 
 credit for originating the views presented in his editorial 
 columns. 
 
 The Socialist Party is a comparatively small one, and 
 obscure as yet, and for Hearst to wind up his Socialist 
 editorials with the advice that his readers should vote the 
 Socialist ticket would undoubtedly alienate from him the 
 support of a great many Democratic followers and would 
 certainly be entirely inconsistent with his program of being 
 the next Democratic nominee for President. It is, therefore, 
 clear that Hearst is perfectly logical in his apparently illogical 
 course of glorifying theoretical Socialism but damning So- 
 cialists, who propose to put it in practice. 
 
 The following editorial taken from the "New York Journal"
 
 White Collars and a Yellow Press. 139 
 
 of September 18th, is a striking corroboration of the fore- 
 going: 
 
 The Social Democratic Party in Germany is a powerful 
 and splendid proof of German courage and independence. 
 
 In the face of government oppression, in the face of mili- 
 tary oppression, in the face of aristocratic pretensions and 
 snubs and sneers, in the face of clerical oppression — the 
 Social Democrats of Germany have built themselves into 
 the greatest political party in the land, three millions of 
 earnest, unselfish, thinking men. This great body of the 
 actual common people can be looked upon only with respect 
 and reverence here in America, where all our sympathies 
 must be with the class that fights imperialism. 
 
 The leading Social Democrats of Germany are great men 
 and educated men. Herr Bebel, Herr von Vollmar and the 
 other leaders are men of unselfish devotion, and at the same 
 time of earnest thought and thorough education. 
 
 The future of Germany is in their hands. They will solve 
 the military and all other German questions. In the mean- 
 time the army, pride of the Emperor's heart, is manufactur- 
 ing Social Democrats every day, catching the peasant boy, 
 awkward and ungainly, in his country village, kicking him 
 and cuffing him simultaneously into a trained soldier and a 
 Social Democrat who hates the laws that cuffed him. 
 
 We wish to-day to speak of the statement made by an 
 American Socialist at the Germans' Socialistic Congress at 
 Dresden. 
 
 This individual, alleged to represent the United States 
 Socialists, declared that a Socialistic crisis would come first 
 in America, that the development of the trusts would bring 
 about Socialism in this country. 
 
 We cannot express for the American Socialist Party the 
 same admiration as we feel for the Social Democrats of Ger- 
 many. 
 
 'The German Social Democrat is a serious, earnest man, 
 protesting against imperialism, militarism, special privileges 
 for the noble, special oppressions for the people. 
 
 What he asks for, any decent American citizen would ask 
 for, if he lived in Germany. 
 
 The American Socialist is, with honorable exceptions, not 
 to be classed with the Social Democrat of Germanv.
 
 140 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 He is a man who often expresses a social dissatisfaction 
 based upon personal failure. He is very apt to be loud 
 rather than profound. He is as a rule not an educated man, 
 and his demands and urgings are based too often on ignor- 
 ance. 
 
 The statement that the trusts in the United States will 
 bring about Socialism in the United States is ignorant; it 
 shows a lack of understanding of to-day's problems. 
 
 Socialism properly understood ought to mean the better- 
 ment of social conditions. 
 
 If Socialism be defined as the improvement of social con- 
 ditions, then, of course, every good citizen is a Socialist. For 
 every good citizen knows that social conditions ought to be 
 better. 
 
 Admitting such a definition of Socialism, it may truthfully 
 be said that the trusts will bring about Socialism; that is to 
 say, better social conditions. 
 
 We believe that industry among human beings is destined 
 to pass through three phases — the phases of competition, of 
 organization, of emulation. 
 
 Civilization has spent thousands of years in the competitive 
 system. Out of a hundred business men ninety-nine have 
 failed — one hundred business enterprises have landed ninety- 
 nine men with broken hearts, broken hopes, and one man 
 with money in his pocket and a broken digestion. 
 
 Competition encouraged the merchant to sell adulterated 
 goods, bogus goods, worthless goods. It encouraged him to 
 pay his employees as little as he could in order to compete 
 with others who hired employees, and to charge his customers 
 as much as he could. 
 
 The competitive system is now dying a slow death. 
 
 Already the system of organization has arrived and the 
 trusts represent this system. 
 
 It is crude and selfish, it takes for a few big organized 
 pirates the enormous sums that used to be distributed among 
 a great many little competitive pirates. 
 
 But organization, even under trust management, is a step 
 in the right direction. 
 
 The trust that is combining the nation's industries into a 
 few companies paves the way certainly and surely for national 
 ownership.
 
 White Collars and a Yellow Press. 141 
 
 When one man, or half a dozen men, shall own all the 
 railroads of the United States there will be interference 
 by the people sooner or later. When one man, or a few men, 
 shall own all the steel mills, all the coal mines and all the 
 oil wells, all the street-car lines — there will be interference 
 by the people sooner or later. 
 
 When it is clearly proved that one man, or a few men, 
 can run the business of a nation, that the much vaunted 
 competition is not the life of trade but an indication of 
 savagery, then the people will say to the one man, or the 
 few men, "We, the people, will own the business of the 
 people, and not you, an individual." 
 
 In pursuance of his policy of not mentioning the names 
 of Socialists any more than is absolutely necessary, it will be 
 noticed in the first place that Hearst alludes to the editor of 
 this paper, who happened to be the American delegate at 
 the convention referred to, as "this individual." In the cable- 
 gram from Germany, upon which the editorial was based, 
 published in another column of the same issue, however, he 
 was forced to allow the name Wilshire to appear. 
 
 IJe__says that the American Socialists are not good enough 
 to be classed with the Socialists of Germany. Whatever Mr. 
 Hearst may say, it is certain that the German Socialists 
 themselves accept us American Socialists as equals, as 
 brothers, and are only too glad to seat us at their conven- 
 tions and extend to us all the courtesies customary between 
 members of the same party. 
 
 Pursuing his general policy of misrepresentation, Hearst 
 naturally meets with the difficulty encountered by all 
 imaginative writers, of making his stories agree at every 
 point. It will be seen that the editorial starts out by saying 
 "the statement that the trusts in the United States will 
 bring about Socialism in the United States is ignorant, and 
 shows lack of understanding of to-day's problems." This is 
 followed, a little later on, by a statement of his own that 
 "the Trust that is combining the nation's industries into a 
 few companies, is paving the way certainly and surely for 
 national ownership .... When one man or a few men shall 
 own all the steel mills, all the coal mines, all the oil wells 
 and all the street-car lines, there will be interference by the 
 people sooner or later, When it is clearly proved that one
 
 142 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 man, or a few men, can run the business of the nation .... 
 then the people will say to the one man, or the few men, 
 "We, the people, will own the business of the people, and not 
 you, an individual." 
 
 The distinction, in Mr. Hearst's mind, between the two 
 statements seems to be that one is made by a member of the 
 Socialist Party and the other is not. When "this individual" 
 says that the Trusts are paving the way for Socialism it is 
 "ignorant," but when he makes the statement himself it is 
 the quintessence of wisdom. For complete public ownership 
 is simply Socialism. 
 
 Again, he says that the Socialists are men who have failed 
 in life, and who neglect to wash their hands or wear clean 
 collars. Granting this to be true it would not invalidate the 
 arguments of the Socialists. A great many men in the 
 world's history, who have not been noted for clean collars, 
 have given to the world the profoundest truths. We do not 
 judge of Truth by the source from which it comes. Truth 
 speaks for herself. Mr. Hearst may congratulate himself 
 that we have passed the stage where the truth of a man's 
 statement is determined either by the whiteness of his collar 
 or the yellowness of his journal.
 
 Shaw's "Super-Man." 143 
 
 SHAW'S "SUPER-MAN" 
 
 BERNARD SHAW has at last arrived. I speak meta- 
 phorically. Years ago, when I first visited London, it 
 was in the beginnings of the socialist movement, and 
 Shaw was then a young Irish newspaper man finding it diffi- 
 cult to make ends meet. However, it never daunted his spir- 
 its, and Shaw was then as he is now the bright particular wit 
 in our London socialist set. We all recognized his brilliancy; 
 in fact, Shaw himself recognized it and joined with us in a 
 general regret that the public were so blind to it. Not that ^ 
 we cared so much about Shaw's personal loss in his failure to 
 get recognition, but we felt that if he were recognized then 
 he would be able to get so much the better audience to 
 which he might expound our and his socialist views. I was 
 not in great hopes, however, for I confess that I did not 
 credit London and New York for the wit shown in at last 
 giving Shaw recognition. His plays were really too clever, it 
 seemed to me, for them to be adapted to a general audience ; 
 this quite apart from whether they are really good plays any- 
 way from purely the dramatic standpoint. 
 
 However, as said, Shaw has arrived, not only with his 
 plays, but with anything that he now may write. 
 
 That he is using his pinnacle to disseminate Socialism, al- 
 though after his own particular method of disseminating it, 
 is unnecessary to state. 
 
 Shaw and I were never altogether at one upon our Social- 
 ism, and I am not sure that either he or I are at one with any 
 one in particular. 
 
 Shaw never would grasp the meaning of the economic de- 
 velopment of the Trust in the United States. Way back in 
 1890, when I was lecturing in London, he took the stage 
 against me one night and endeavored to show that I was all 
 wrong in my statement of America being industrially in ad- 
 vance of Europe and that it was this superiority of America 
 which had caused the Trust. Since then the American In- 
 vasion of Europe has convinced Shaw that I was right in my 
 facts, but I doubt if he yet agrees with me in my conclusions. 
 
 y
 
 144 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 Shaw started out with the rest of the Fabians as a Utopian 
 revolutionist. The Fabian society took its name from the 
 Fabian motto to make ready slowly but surely, to be able to 
 finally give a sudden and deadly stroke. The Fabians have 
 done with revolutionaryism nowadays and no longer quote 
 their motto, although they still stick to the name. 
 
 Last summer, when I was in London, I tried to explain to 
 Shaw and other Fabians that the revolution which I was 
 predicting in America was not going to come from any slow 
 preparation by the Socialists and then finally a terrible blow, 
 but that it was brewing within the industrial development of 
 the country. That the nearness of a climax was not due to any 
 determination of the people to throw off their yoke, but was 
 going to be due owing to the absolute necessity of revolution 
 in order to meet a great unemployed problem. 
 
 However, all my talk was vain. The English Fabian classi- 
 fies all revolutions together. He insists that by revolution one 
 must mean the sudden uprising of the working class, the bar- 
 ricading of streets, the upsetting of the government and the 
 instituting of Socialism over night forcibly by the working 
 class and all against the will of all the other classes in the 
 community. 
 
 Such a programme no one is more willing than myself to 
 admit is a silly, ridiculous one. None but the very young 
 Socialists have any such ideas. 
 
 Socialism when it comes will come with the practical as- 
 sent of the whole community, although this assent will be only 
 given when it is self-evident to all that Socialism has become 
 an absolute economic necessity. 
 
 This day according to my theory of economics is not so far 
 off, and the Trust, in which Shaw sees nothing, is the sign 
 that the day is not so far off. 
 
 However, whether Shaw or myself are right upon the 
 question of the Trust, there is no question but that Shaw is 
 doing some great literary work and incidentally is teaching the 
 public a great many things that they should know. 
 
 Arnold Daly made a great success last winter in New York 
 in the production of Shaw's "Candida." The discussion of 
 the sociologic points raised by the play was of great value to 
 all America. 
 
 Shaw has just written another new play, "Man and Super-
 
 Shaw's "Super-Man." 145 
 
 Man." (Published by Brentano's, New York, $1.25.) It 
 certainly is high-water mark for Shaw, and those of my 
 readers who are wishing to see why it is that Shaw has set the 
 literary world afire must read it. Even if Shaw does not un- 
 derstand the Trust Problem, he does understand the Life 
 Problem, and that is the more important. Here is a brief ex- 
 tract giving a dialogue in hell which takes place between Don 
 Juan and the Devil (both characters in "Man and Super- 
 Man") : 
 
 Don Juan. What you call bosh is the only thing men dare for. 
 Later on, Liberty will not be catholic enough: men will die for 
 human perfection, to which they will sacrifice all their liberties 
 gladly. 
 
 The Devil. Ah ! they will never be at a loss for an excuse for 
 killing one another. 
 
 Don Juan. What of that? It is not death that matters, but the 
 fear of death. It is not killing and dying that degrades us, but base 
 living, and accepting the wages and profits and degradation. Better 
 ten men dead than one live slave of his master. Men shall yet rise 
 up, father against son and brother against brother, and kill one 
 another for the great catholic idea of abolishing slavery. 
 
 The Devil. Yes, when Liberty and Equality of you which prate 
 shall have made free white Christians cheaper in the labor market 
 than black heathen slaves sold by auction at the block. 
 
 Don Juan. Never fear.' the white laborer shall have his turn 
 too. But I am not now defending the illusory forms of the great 
 ideas take. I am giving you examples of the fact that this creature 
 Man, who in his own selfish affairs is a coward to the backbone, 
 will fight for an idea like a hero. He may be abject as a citizen; 
 but he is dangerous as a fanatic. He can only be enslaved whilst 
 he is spiritually weak enough to listen to reason. I tell you, gentle- 
 men, if you can show a man a piece of what he calls God's work to 
 do, and what he will later on call by many new names, you can 
 make him entirely reckless of the consequences to himself per- 
 sonally. 
 
 What can be deeper than his lines that man can only be 
 enslaved when listening to reason ? It sounds straining for a 
 paradox, but it's not ; it's merely the bald truth. 
 
 Man does his noblest work when he apparently is to the 
 world the most unreasonable fanatic. The reasonable man 
 tries to save his own soul, the unreasoning man saves the soul 
 of man and thus gains his own salvation. 
 
 I had but little opportunity to see much of Shaw last year. 
 Only time for a lunch with him and Mrs. Shaw, a delightful 
 acquisition he has made since the old days, at his apartments
 
 146 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 on Adelphi Terrace. He is in much better health than for- 
 merly, owing, I am sure, to Mrs. Shaw's care in seeing that 
 his carrots and beets are sufficiently boiled, for Shaw is still a 
 hot vegetarian. Formerly when he accepted my invitation fo 
 dinner he would note, "No corpses, please." 
 
 I wish Shaw would come to this country and lecture. It 
 matters not what his subject would be; he would be sure to 
 talk Socialism, and his name would attract big audiences.
 
 What Men Vote Fob. 147 
 
 WHAT MEN VOTE FOR 
 
 THE great mass of voters, whether of the two old parties 
 or of the independents or of the Socialist Party, cast 
 their votes in the way that the voter thinks will be of 
 greatest benefit to the country as a whole. 
 
 The strongest and most fundamental instinct of man is the 
 instinct to act so as best to preserve the race. A man's instinct 
 is to preserve the race, for his own preservation can only be 
 accomplished by racial preservation. It is true that there are 
 always a few who will leave the front and betray their fellow 
 men in order to save themselves, but such men are the excep- 
 tion. From the earliest history of man all records show that 
 the individual man has laid down his life that the greater 
 man, the race or the nation might live. 
 
 The old rallying cry, For God, King and Country! was 
 quite as perfect a rallying cry as if it had been scientifically 
 concocted with complete knowledge of the history of the 
 evolution of man. And the cry is just as good to-day in our 
 sordid material struggle for wealth as it was in the days of 
 Charlemagne. 
 
 Wars with cross-bows, with modern rifles or with the ballot 
 are all fundamentally of the same nature. 
 
 We vote, as we fought, for God, King, Country. By God I 
 mean the highest spiritual ideal we are capable of conceiving. 
 By King I mean the material manifestation of this ideal in 
 the shape of our candidates and our party. By our Country 
 I mean the particular organization of society to which we 
 happen to be individually attached and which we naturally 
 think as the most important one for the race as a whole to be 
 preserved. 
 
 "Our Country" is of course a very elastic term and means a 
 very different thing to men of different nations, and it is not 
 always mere birth or abode that determines a man's definition 
 of his country. 
 
 Before the Revolutionary War in this country most men 
 would have defined their own particular colony to be "Our 
 Country" for them. Before the Civil War a citizen of Vir-
 
 148 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 ginia would have probably called Virginia "Our Country" 
 rather than the whole of the nation. He certainly would 
 have considered the Southern States, taken as a whole, as a 
 much more important organism to be held intact and to be 
 fought for than the nation as a whole. His willingness to die 
 for the South in the Civil War was pretty well shown by the 
 Civil War. If we go back into the time when men wandered 
 in nomadic tribes, we will find that then "Our Country" was 
 simply the tribal organization, which was attached to no 
 particular part of the earth. Men showed just as willing a 
 nature to die for their tribe as any Virginian did for the 
 sacred soil. 
 
 It seems funny to say triat the man who votes for a Roose- 
 velt or a Parker is impelled to do so by the same fundamental 
 motive that impels a man to die for his country, and yet such 
 is really the case. 
 
 To the man who has given the question of our economic and 
 social conditions intelligent and careful attention and who 
 knows that with the continuance. of our competitive system the 
 nation must remain in pain and poverty, it is folly to vote 
 for either Parker or Roosevelt, for neither advocates a change 
 of system. A vote for Parker or Roosevelt is for the perpe- 
 tuation of poverty, and the only excuse for such a vote is ig- 
 norance. And this is the true explanation of most of the 
 votes cast for the Republican and Democratic parties. It is 
 not that the voters are aware of what those parties stand for 
 and that they wish things to remain as they are, although 
 knowing they could be changed for the better. Not at all. The 
 Republican is just as sincere in his idea that by voting for 
 Roosevelt he is doing what is best for the country as is the 
 Socialist who votes for Debs. The only difference between 
 them is one of knowledge. 
 
 A good many Socialists have an erroneous theory that all 
 Republicans and Democrats are aware the present competitive 
 system robs the producers and vote for its continuance because 
 they think that they themselves are participants in the swag. 
 As a matter of fact I doubt if th*ere is a single individual in 
 either the Republican or Democratic Party, not even Rocke- 
 feller or Morgan, who understands the necessary exploitation 
 of the producers through the natural workings of the compe- 
 titive system.
 
 What Men Vote For. 149 
 
 Workingmen by the thousands are going to vote for Roosevelt 
 who have practically the same economic views as those held 
 by Rockefeller and Morgan. They no more realize that they 
 are living under a peculiar system of industry than a codfish 
 realizes it lives in water. They think the present order is a 
 permanent one for all time to come. That it is the natural 
 and perpetual order of industry. Therefore their only aim is 
 to so arrange business that the capitalist may be prosperous in 
 order that he may employ workingmen at high wages and 
 short hours. 
 
 It is the aim of the politicians to convince the voters that 
 their particular man, Parker or Roosevelt, as the case may 
 be, is the man who will best conduct the country that the 
 capitalist will make the most money. The capitalist will be 
 swayed by such arguments because he wishes to make money, 
 and the workingman because he wishes the capitalist to make 
 the money that he may get better wages. 
 
 It is the mission of the Socialist to make plain to people, 
 whether they be capitalists or workingmen, exactly what the 
 competitive system means. That the workingman should be 
 and is more receptive than the capitalist to the socialist philos- 
 ophy goes without saying ; but that the capitalist, once intel- 
 lectually convinced of the iniquity of the competitive system 
 and the superiority and practicability of Socialism, is sure to 
 be averse to a change is an assumption entirely without war- 
 rant. 
 
 It is difficult to make a workingman understand the pos- 
 sibility and desirability of change, but nobody would think of 
 attributing his slowness to understand to his thought that he 
 is a beneficiary of the present system and therefore unwilling 
 to understand. It is plainly mere rank stupidity. With the 
 capitalist this may be true and then his unwillingness en- 
 hances his stupidity, but the truth usually remains that he 
 does not understand and therefore opposes rather than that 
 he opposes under standingly. 
 
 That it is impossible to make a capitalist a Socialist is false 
 both from experience and from theory. 
 
 Let us all then make it our business to show all men, 
 whether they be rich or poor, the injustice of the present com- 
 petitive system and the justice of Socialism. 
 
 Let us show that under Socialism all men will be benefited
 
 150 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 beyond words. That not only will the workingman receive his 
 just dues, his full product, but that he will live in a world 
 where all men will be friends one to the other and where the 
 fear of want will be abolished from the land. Let the rich 
 man understand that although he will lose the opportunity of 
 appropriating to himself the earnings of others, yet he will be 
 immeasurably happier in a world where men are no longer 
 watching for a chance to rob each other and where the result 
 of a successful robbery gives no pleasure to the robber. 
 
 Let us convince the voter that it is up to him to decide with 
 his ballot whether poverty shall continue or not and then the 
 question of the strenuosity of a Eoosevelt melts into obscurity 
 before the question of Justice to Man.
 
 A Financial Cataclysm Inevitable. 151 
 
 a financial cataclysm inevitable 
 
 ALL POLITICAL questions to-day resolve themselves 
 into the solution of the problem of how a man can 
 get a just equivalent for his labor. I doubt if a single 
 one, upon analysis, cannot be reduced to this simple proposi- 
 tion. 
 
 The problem of the production of commodities sufficient 
 for the wants of men upon this planet has been completely 
 solved. We no longer talk about the growth of population ex- 
 ceeding productivity. We recognize fully that the only 
 Problem to-day has to solve is that of distribution. It would 
 seem to any reasonable man that the mere pointing out of 
 the fact that our competitive wage system, by limiting the 
 laborer to a wage demanded by his unemployed fellow-laborer, 
 necessarily restricts his powers of consumption to the mere 
 minimum of existence. While this is apparently a self-evi- 
 dent fact, yet it is one that is being constantly overlooked, and 
 the overlooking of it will be found to be at the base of all our 
 errors in the science of political economy. There was a time 
 when all the professors of political economy said that any 
 theory which involved the admission that there could be 
 such a thing as general overproduction was, upon the face of 
 it, absurd ; that it was impossible and absurd to conceive that 
 the earth should produce so much food and clothing that the 
 people could not get enough. They said that the explana- 
 tion of an apparent condition of overproduction was that it 
 was purely local. If the Canadians, for instance, were pro- 
 ducing more wheat than they wanted, and the Cubans were 
 growing more bananas than they wanted, matters would adjust 
 themselves as soon as a knowledge of actual conditions was in 
 possession of both Canadians and Cubans. As soon as this 
 knowledge should prevail, an exchange would be made and 
 the whole problem would be solved. Of course it is true 
 enough that even under our competitive system there are con- 
 ditions where there is overproduction of a certain commodity 
 in a certain place, and that the proper commercial knowledge
 
 152 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 of this condition would so facilitate the distribution of the 
 local over-production that it would be relieved, and normal 
 conditions would be re-established. But looking at the world 
 as a whole, and realizing that the competitive wage system 
 exists throughout the civilized part of it, it cannot be lost 
 sight of for a moment that it is easily possible to have general 
 "overproduction" simply because we have a system of distri- 
 bution which prevents any large distribution of the products 
 of labor to those who produce, viz., the workers. It will at 
 once be urged that if this competitive system limits the 
 laborers' consumption so that overproduction must ensue, how 
 is it that we do not have overproduction continuously, and 
 why have we not been compelled long ago to abandon our 
 competitive system? The reason is simply that overproduc- 
 tion arises from the use of machinery, and as we have been 
 using machinery, that is, steam engines, electricity, etc., for 
 only fifty years, we could not have the problem before that 
 time, and since then we have been utilizing the surplus above 
 and beyond what the laborers produce in the production of 
 more and more machinery. If this process of the transfor- 
 mation of the surplus into new machinery could continue for- 
 ever there would never be any permanently insoluble unem- 
 ployed problem. There might be temporary crises and there 
 might be local states of overproduction, but finally the capita- 
 lists would discover where machinery was most needed, and 
 would so direct labor that it would function at that point and 
 so alleviate any local unemployed problems. But the capita- 
 list to-day has a universal eye that takes in a world-wide view, 
 Railroads in China, oil refineries in Russia, cotton mills in 
 India, he furnishes them all, quite indifferent as to nation- 
 ality. When a system of underground electric railroads is 
 needed in London and the British capitalist cannot see that it 
 will be a profitable undertaking, then an American sees it and 
 builds the railroad. The capitalist is a man to whom patrio- 
 tism is not even a last refuge ; he never considers it at all. 
 Whatever country needs his money gets it, the only condition 
 being that he is guaranteed safety and a return of dividends. 
 However, in whatever country he invests his money, it will 
 be found upon ultimate analysis that he is building this ma- 
 chinery in order to feed and clothe the working class and the 
 farmers. Not that he has any philanthropic ideas regarding
 
 A Financial Cataclysm Inevitable. 153 
 
 such a procedure, but because these constitute the only body 
 of consumers that is of sufficient importance to be considered. 
 It is true that capital may be invested in building a steel mill 
 in Pittsburg, and it may appear that because the steel rail is 
 sold to the Vanderbilts for their railways, this is an under- 
 taking which cannot be classed as giving food and clothing 
 to the working class; but it must be remembered that Van- 
 derbilt only buys steel rails for use upon railroads which are 
 largely to be used to carry wheat and pork and cloth for 
 distribution to the aforesaid workers. So, whatever way we 
 may look we will always discover that although the commodity 
 itself turned out by the capitalist cannot be consumed directly 
 by the workers, still it is only one or two removes back where 
 it will be found to be simply a means of giving some com- 
 modity for the workingman's direct consumption, that is, his 
 food, his clothing, or his house. Hence our whole system of 
 industry is an inverted pyramid, its apex being the con- 
 sumptive ability of the worker. This ability to consume being 
 strictly limited by the competitive system the pyramid can 
 only remain where it is by means of the continued production 
 of labor-saving machinery. For example, we build a steel 
 rail mill, and find out that by building a larger and better one, 
 we can save labor. We dismantle the first mill and build a 
 second and better one; and when this is finished we may 
 again go through a similar process and even build a third 
 still better. We started out fifty years ago and built an Erie 
 Canal which carried water four feet in depth and a canal boat 
 of 75 tons. Then we enlarged it so that it carried seven feet 
 of water in depth and a canal boat of 250 tons, and now we 
 are getting ready to make our Erie Canal twelve feet deep and 
 able to carry boats of a thousand tons. Of course it is pos- 
 sible that in ten or fifteen years, we may decide to enlarge 
 again and have boats of 2,000 tons. 
 
 Now all this construction of new iron mills and of new 
 canals, etc., means the opening of so many new channels for 
 the distribution of the surplus products made by labor, and if, 
 as said, this could be continued indefinitely and upon a large 
 enough scale there would never be any question about the con- 
 tinuance of prosperity and laborers having constant employ- 
 ment. Of course this would be simply building canals and 
 mills in order to give ourselves employment. It would be very
 
 154 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 much like the way the men upon a man-of-war are kept con- 
 tented by making them holystone the decks of the ship ; but 
 there are a good many people who imagine that this is the 
 highest and best we can get. 
 
 However, as the machinery is simply built to furnish goods 
 to the laborers, and as the laborers' capacity to consume is 
 limited by their wages to a mere minimum of existence, it is 
 evident the day will finally come when we have too much 
 machinery. The Trust is the significant sign that that day is 
 at hand, for the reason that the Trust exists is the recognition 
 of a state of overproduction. The basic reason of the ex- 
 istence of the Trust lies in the recognition by the capitalist 
 class that our industrial machinery has attained a stage of 
 practical completion. 
 
 That continued expansion is as necessary as it is impossible 
 for the perpetuation of the existing commercial system is 
 well known and admitted by all competent writers upon the 
 subject. For instance, there was recently a very striking ar- 
 ticle in the New York Sim, which is so able that I have de- 
 cided to incorporate it bodily herewith : 
 
 WE NEED LARGER FOREIGN MARKETS. 
 
 The market value of the manufactured products of the United 
 States for 1902 was, approximately, $15,000,000,000. This is the 
 product of more than half a million establishments, whose total 
 capitalization exceeds $10,000,000,000, and in which some seven 
 million of our people find employment. This truly enormous busi- 
 ness becomes only the more imposing when one realizes how large 
 a percentage of it is of recent development. Within a quarter of a 
 century the number of our factories has doubled, their capitaliza- 
 tion has quadrupled, the number of their employees has increased 
 nearly three times, and the value of their output has grown from 
 the $5,500,000,000 of 1880 to the $15,000,000,000 of 1902. 
 
 In connection with such a statement there arises, naturally, a 
 question of the disposition of so enormous a quantity of merchan- 
 dise. Where does it go? Who uses it? It is probable that the off- 
 hand judgment of many would declare that much of the increase 
 was due to the increase in our export trade. Yet the fact is that 
 we export only about 3 per cent, of it. Of the American manufac- 
 tured wares of 1902, 97 per cent, in value was consumed in the best 
 market which the United States has — the domestic. It went to a 
 trade with which the American manufacturer is familiar — to cus- 
 tomers whose wants, habits and tastes he understands. It was 
 sold under commercial laws and financial conditions with which he 
 i3 fully acquainted. The American manufacturer knows his home 
 trade, knows how to get it, and caters to it. He studies the re-
 
 A Financial Cataclysm Inevitable. 155 
 
 quireraents of his market, and that market is at all times quickly 
 and easily reached. Credit systems, banking and transportation 
 facilities make his domestic trade a simple process in comparison 
 with export trade. For these reasons American energy is bent 
 toward securing and holding American trade against both domestic 
 and foreign competition. 
 
 But there is another side to this trade question which is growing 
 beyond general realization. Within a quarter of a century the output 
 of manufactured products has increased 200 per cent. Actual pro- 
 ducing capacity has probably increased much beyond that, inasmuch 
 as few establishments are run continually to the full extent of their 
 producing power. But the number of domestic consumers has in- 
 creased only a little more than 50 per cent, within the same period. 
 Two influences appear. One is that we now manufacture at home 
 many of those articles which twenty-five years ago we imported. 
 The other is that the consuming capacity of our population has in- 
 creased more rapidly than has the number of consumers. Stand- 
 ards of living are higher and individual requirements are greater 
 than they were a quarter of a century ago. Individual wants in- 
 crease with the ability of the individual to gratify them, and 
 national prosperity has transformed much that was a luxury of the 
 last generation into an ordinary comfort or a seeming necessity 
 for the present generation. Yet, even with these important influ- 
 ences, the fact stands that consuming power has not kept pace 
 with the vast increase in producing power, and American manu- 
 facturers are coming into more and more direct confrontation 
 with an ever-increasing surplus of manufactured wares beyond the 
 requirements of the home market. 
 
 There are two lines of possible determination of the question, and 
 only two. One is limitation of output, the other an extension of 
 markets. 
 
 We look at our export trade in manufactured goods and see its 
 increase from $100,000,000 in 1880 to $150,000,000 in 1890, and then 
 its tremendous leap to more than $400,000,000 in 1902. The dazzle 
 of these figures blinds us to their real significance. Diverted by a 
 striking incident, we lose sight of the main issue That issue does 
 not lie in the mere fact that there has been a very gratifying in- 
 crease. It rests in the question of the great probability of serious 
 reaction upon domestic interests if that export trade be not in- 
 definitely extended within the near future. 
 
 Already careful students of the situation are asking each other 
 how long we can continue to absorb at home a percentage of our 
 products which will avert glutted markets and depreciated prices. 
 Let there be assumed a continuance of our present prosperity, of 
 big crops and busy mills and well paid labor. There must be an 
 even greater prosperity and even bigger crops, with a profitable 
 market for them, if the ever-increasing mills are to find a domestic 
 market for their ever-increasing production. Closely interwoven as 
 our industries are, a cessation of activity in any one of our leading 
 lines reacts upon other lines. The cry of "overproduction" or of 
 "underproduction," call it which you will, is quickly raised, and
 
 156 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 commercial uncertainty paves the way to commercial stagnation. 
 A market clogged with the products of our factories compels the 
 stoppage of production, limits the general consuming power, en- 
 forces general economy in the household, and opens the door to 
 hard times. 
 
 It has pleased various writers and public officials to regale ns 
 with exuberant tales of the "American invasion" of this, that and 
 the other market. As yet our exports of manufactured goods fill 
 only a very small hole in the world's markets, and our increased 
 exports are not due so much to our inroads upon the trade of our 
 competitors as they are to our participation in a general increase 
 of world business. That our export trade in manufactured goods 
 has grown is as gratifying as it is undeniable. But there are these 
 three facts which remain for the thoughtful consideration of our 
 commercial and financial classes: 
 
 1. That we now export only 3 per cent, of the products of our 
 shops, mills and factories. 
 
 2. That we now secure only about 10 per cent, of the world's 
 import trade in manufactured goods. 
 
 3. That our market is not keeping pace with our increasing fa- 
 cilities for production. 
 
 Stagnation in American factories is now only less pregnant with 
 menace to American interests than is failure in our crops. 
 
 It will be noticed that the Sun never considers that the only 
 way to get a greater domestic market is to increase the wages 
 of what it terms "well-paid labor." The ignoring of this pal- 
 pable solution is characteristic of all such attempts to solve the 
 current industrial problem. Of course to increase the wages 
 to any considerable degree under a competitive system is 
 practically impossible. The trades unions are doing a great 
 deal, but their efforts apply to only a small proportion of the 
 wage-earning class, and even when they do get what they de- 
 mand, the total increase is so small that it cuts no appreciable 
 figure in reducing the surplus that is being produced above and 
 beyond what their wages allow them to buy. 
 
 The solution of the problem can only be found in the co- 
 operative wage system, and this system can only be introduced 
 by the establishment of public ownership of the means of pro- 
 duction. 
 
 The inevitable solution of the next economic crisis is to be 
 found in the motto of this Magazine: "Let the Nation Own 
 the Trusts."
 
 Money under Socialism. 157 
 
 M 
 
 MONEY UNDER SOCIALISM. 
 
 ONEY should rightly be merely a tool to facilitate 
 exchange. Suppose I am a conductor on a passenger 
 train, the time I give to the community on this work 
 should be recompensed by the community giving me the time 
 of another man, or parts of the time of a number of men 
 equal to the time I have put in on the train. I have created 
 no product that is of value to me, but I have performed work 
 of value to society. That is, if I work ten hours on the 
 railroad train, I should, in equity, be able to command the 
 product of ten hours of labor from other men. 
 
 Suppose I have worked ten hours on the train and I want 
 some sugar, some cloth, some potatoes. The railway com- 
 pany gives me a $5.00 gold piece for my time, and with this 
 money I buy the sugar, cloth and potatoes wanted. 
 
 The gold in the $5 required a certain amount of labor in 
 its production, and the general, but quite erroneous assump- 
 tion is that the labor time involved in getting the gold out 
 of the ground and refining it, is about equivalent to the 
 labor time involved in producing the sugar, cloth and pota- 
 toes which I get for the gold piece, or the time I worked on the 
 train, viz., ten hours. 
 
 In other words, it is assumed that the gold piece merely 
 enables me to get a fair equivalent in goods that I want, 
 calculating the value by the labor of others, in exchange for 
 the time I spend as conductor upon the passenger train. 
 
 If this exchange of labor for labor were really made, as 
 is assumed, then there would be no complaint made about 
 the equity of our present competitive system ; but as a matter 
 of fact, the exchange is not made in that manner at all. 
 It is assumed that if instead of my working ten hours on 
 the railway, I spent ten hours working in a gold mine, that 
 the time so. spent would on an average produce about $5.00 
 worth of gold, which I would get. 
 
 As a matter of fact, if I should leave the railway train and 
 go to the gold diggings, I would find that all the good gold
 
 158 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 mines were owned by private individuals, and that I would 
 not be free to dig where I wanted. Besides, even if there 
 were good ground open, I would require a great outlay of 
 capital in the way of tunnels, hoisting machines, smelters, 
 railways to carry the ore, etc., etc., before I would be able 
 to use the ground. To work on rich ground with proper 
 tools I must hire myself out to a mining company. 
 
 However, I might be able to go to work on ground which 
 was not taken up and which could be used without machinery, 
 and the result of my labor there would probably be about the 
 same amount per day as if I had taken wages and worked 
 for one of the mining companies. 
 
 In many of the mining camps of California there are 
 thousands of men working on their own hook, with no more 
 capital than a pick and a pan, upon the poorer ground and 
 tailings already once worked, and the average amount they 
 get out per day is about what they would get if they hired 
 out for wages. If they worked for one of the big companies, 
 naturally, they might produce from three to fifty times as 
 much as if they worked individually, but the large production 
 would do them no good, as it would go to the mining com- 
 pany owning the mines. Wages are just the same, whether 
 the mine pays big profits or pays no profits at all. 
 
 So it is true that the individual miner, with no machinery, 
 on poor land, working on his own hook in the production 
 of gold, gets about what his wages would have been if he 
 had worked for a mining company, yet it is not true by 
 any means that the average production per day per capita 
 of the whole mining camp fixes his daily wages. The aver- 
 age production of the entire camp per capita per day may be 
 $50.00, yet the average daily wage be only $5.00 per day. 
 The owner of. the mines absorbs the $45 difference. 
 
 However, the individual miner working on his own hook 
 not only does not get a fair deal in the payment for his 
 labor, but he also gets robbed when he exchanges his gold 
 for articles he wishes. 
 
 With his $5.00 in gold he buys so much cloth, sugar and 
 potatoes. Upon every one of those articles he pays a monop- 
 oly profit, owing to the railway charges for freight. He 
 must reimburse the producers for all the tribute that they 
 have paid to the railways for the carriage of the goods. The
 
 Money under Socialism. 159 
 
 railway has robbed the wool grower in excessive charge upon 
 the wool it carried from the farmer to the manufacturer. It 
 has robbed the manufacturer when it carried the cloth from 
 him to the retail dealer, and it again has robbed the retail 
 dealer when he shipped his goods to the miner. The poor 
 miner must pay back to the various producers all these 
 amounts, otherwise he cannot get his cloth. 
 
 If there has been any machinery manufactured by a Trust 
 used in the production of any of the articles he buys, of 
 course an excessive charge has been made for it, and he 
 must reimburse the retailer in the mining camp who sells 
 the goods. He must reimburse the farmer for the excessive 
 price the farmer has paid for the use of the mowing ma- 
 chine made by the Agricultural Machine Trust. Indirectly 
 it pays tribute to the Steel Trust, which has held up the 
 railway when it bought its steel rails; the railway, in turn, 
 must hold up the farmer in order to pay for those dearly 
 bought rails, and then the farmer must hold up the dealers 
 that buy the potatoes, in order for him to get even. 
 
 The Sugar Trust puts up its price far beyond the labor 
 cost of manufacturing sugar, and when the miner gives up 
 his gold for sugar, he must pay an extra price that the 
 Sugar Trust may pay its dividends on watered stock. 
 
 Hence we say that the miner is not only robbed in the be- 
 ginning by being forced to take only $5.00 worth of gold 
 when he may have produced $50.00 worth, but he is robbed 
 again when he spends his $5.00, inasmuch as he has to pay 
 tribute to every Trust in the country. 
 
 He must also pay tribute to the various landlords. Not 
 only does he pay the landlord for the ground upon which the 
 potatoes are raised, but he pays the rent of the commission 
 agent's store in the great city, and he pays the rent of the 
 commission agent's house; he also pays a monopoly price 
 for not only his own gas, but he pays for the gas used by 
 all the people who are engaged in selling and producing his 
 cloth. 
 
 However, the amount of gold the miner gets as wages 
 determines what the conductor gets as his wages. If the 
 conductor were not satisfied with his payment and felt he 
 could get fairer treatment by going to the mines, he would 
 immediately leave the train and go to the mines; but when
 
 160 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 he knows the miner is robbed just as much as he is, he stays 
 where he is on his railway train. 
 
 So that, under our present system, the daily wage, while 
 nominally giving to the wage-earner the equivalent to what 
 he produces, does nothing of the sort, and therefore, under 
 Socialism, we must find some better method of payment if 
 we expect to establish equity. 
 
 Socialists say that when a man works he should get the 
 equivalent of his work either in goods of his own production 
 or of other people's production at his option.
 
 Class Vs. Class : Resultant. 161 
 
 CLASS VS. CLASS: RESULTANT 
 
 SOMETIMES people under the impulse of the moment 
 enroll themselves as Socialists, but when later on, after 
 attending some Socialist meeting and hearing a 
 speaker declare the absolute necessity of one's accepting the 
 "class struggle" as prerequisite to being labeled as a good, 
 sound Socialist, and hearing class struggle at the same time 
 defined upon very strict lines, come to the conclusion that they 
 are not really Socialists after all. 
 
 They may have accepted the necessity of the abolition of the 
 competitive system and the introduction of the co-operative 
 system based upon the public ownership of the means of pro- 
 duction, and they have thought that this was enough to con- 
 stitute them as sound Socialists, but when they find that not 
 only must they accept Socialism, but that they must agree 
 that it shall be brought about in one particular way and no 
 other, viz., by the working class organizing and forcibly taking 
 possession of the earth in spite of the active and continued 
 opposition- of the capitalist class, they may recoil. 
 
 Then they find heaped upon them the scorn of the "ortho- 
 dox" Socialist and are told that they do not understand So- 
 cialism as laid down by Marx. 
 
 Now what is the Marxian position ? Let me give a statement 
 of it, with which I myself entirely agree, taken from a recent 
 editorial in Justice, the official organ of the English Socialists. 
 
 Briefly stated, the Marxian proposition amounts to this: All 
 wealth is the result of labor applied to natural objects. It is as im- 
 possible to differentiate between the proportion of wealth due to 
 natural objects and that due to labor as it is to say how much of 
 a child belongs to the father and how much to the mother. Labor 
 is the father and earth the mother of all wealth. Capital is that 
 part of the product which is set aside for reproductive purposes. 
 In itself it is part of the product of labor. The total product, 
 therefore, is due to labor and belongs to labor. In private hands, 
 however, capital becomes not only a means of reproduction, an 
 accessory to labor, but al?o a means for exploiting labor. All 
 wealth, therefore, which goes to others than the workers, is so 
 much robbery of labor. It is in antagonism to this theory of labor
 
 162 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 that modern Socialism takes its stand. It insists upon the class an- 
 tagonism necessarily arising from the exploitation and robbery of 
 labor through the class ownership of the means of production, and 
 aims at the extinction of this class struggle by the emancipation 
 of the proletariat and the abolition of the class ownership of the 
 means of production. 
 
 One who cannot see the necessity of a class struggle prece- 
 ding the institution of Socialism has a very poor idea of the 
 Marxian position, and in fact he must be going through the 
 world of to-day with closed eyes and ears. 
 
 It is not necessary that a man be a Socialist, however, that 
 he see the class feeling existing between the rich and the poor. 
 But while it may be regarded as extremely improbable, yet it 
 is not absolutely impossible that what with the palpable in- 
 justice of the present system appealing to the higher natures 
 of the rich and at the same time the evolution of economic 
 conditions convincing them that the present system must soon 
 give way of its own weight and that meanwhile pending the 
 giving way it may be a time of great danger and hardship to 
 both rich and poor, a very considerable proportion of the rich 
 themselves will join with the working class and assist actively 
 in the bringing about of Socialism. It is my own belief that 
 such may occur and yet I am a believer in the "class struggle." 
 
 I am not Utopian enough to believe that any considerable 
 body of the rich will ever advocate Socialism until it is evident, 
 to them that the ship of capitalism is about to founder and 
 that it is time for all sensible rats to desert the ship. But 
 simply because I believe that many capitalists have the brains 
 of rats and quite a number have the hearts of ordinary men, 
 I have had it thrown at me that I was relying upon the rich 
 to hand us Socialism upon a silver platter. This is absurd. 
 We will get nothing except that which must from the inexor- 
 able course of evolutionary progress be given us. 
 
 We must get our exact due ; no more, no less. 
 
 Socialism is something that will essentially be of benefit to 
 the whole human race, and inasmuch as the individual only 
 lives by and through the racial life it is fundamentally in- 
 stinctive with him to sacrifice his individual life for the sake 
 of the racial life. 
 
 This racial instinct for the individual to sacrifice himself 
 for the whole is equally strong within all of us as far as class
 
 Class Vs. Class: Resultant. 163 
 
 distinctions are concerned. It may vary in individuals, but 
 I doubt if any particular variance can be found according to 
 class. This instinct manifests itself in many ways; going to 
 war "to save the Union" was a very popular way to display it 
 about forty years ago. Certainly no one would say that either 
 in the South or the North was the eagerness to enlist deter- 
 mined by the fact a man was in the working class or the 
 capitalist class. A child falls off a ferryboat ; a man plunges 
 in to save it. The chances are the plunger is a poor man, but 
 the chances are such simply because there are many more poor 
 than rich and not because a rich man is not about as likely to 
 risk his life to save the child as a poor man. 
 
 Hence simply as far as racial instinct is concerned, a rich 
 man may be as likely to advocate Socialism as a poor man, 
 and the fact that certain rich men do advocate Socialism is in 
 evidence. 
 
 But Socialism like war not only affects the race as a whole, 
 but the individuals in particular. 
 
 The individual may be more influenced by the effect on him- 
 self or his class in particular than by the effect upon the race 
 in general. If he is a working man, he has, as Marx de- 
 clared, nothing but his chains to lose and a world to gain. The 
 only excuse an American working man can have for not being 
 a Socialist is a defective intellect. If he is a rich man, he may 
 hastily conclude that it is better to let things remain un- 
 disturbed, bad as they are for most people, as long as they are 
 fairly good for him. He is not forced to do disagreeable 
 work ; he has all the good things of life that he wants. His 
 racial consciousness is not so pronounced as to make him feel 
 that he cannot enjoy his life without having all other men en- 
 joy it. Thus it may be and usually is that the rich man op- 
 poses socialistic legislation inasmuch as it tends to diminish 
 his present-day pleasures. 
 
 However, in this same rich, selfish man the racial instinct 
 exists even though it may lie dormant. We have often had 
 examples of rich men pursuing their end of money-getting in 
 a most relentless way and then bequeathing their wealth for \ 
 the general good. 
 
 There is no man but that would do good for the race if lie 
 felt the doing of it would not result in evil to himself indi- 
 vidually, and there are many men who will do good for the
 
 164 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 race even if it mean death to themselves individually. Be- 
 tween these extremes lies all human nature. 
 
 I may not willingly give up my bag of gold, but if I find 
 myself in danger of drowning from its weighing me down, it 
 does not mean I have suddenly become of a more generous 
 nature when I then willingly give it up. 
 
 I believe the industrial evolution has proceeded so far that 
 a crisis is about at hand that will practically make all of us 
 see the absolute necessity of most heroic measures being taken 
 to meet it. I think a huge unemployed problem of unex- 
 ampled proportions is about to develop. It would be here now 
 were it not that certain unanticipated events having raised the 
 price of wheat and cotton so high that our farmers are in po- 
 sition to buy goods of our manufacturers for home consump- 
 tion to such an extent that overproduction is being unex- 
 pectedly relieved. However, all this is but temporary. The 
 day of joy for the cotton and wheat growers will not last 
 forever. 
 
 When this crisis occurs, it will not take any study of Marx 
 for the people to understand that something must be done to 
 relieve the situation. 
 
 Millions of unemployed men mean millions of dollars lost to 
 the capitalists. 
 
 There will be a national demand for national action, much 
 as there was a national demand for the President to intervene 
 at the time of the great coal strike. 
 
 This will not be particularly a class demand, it will be a 
 demand from the whole nation, because the whole nation will 
 be affected. The demand for the settlement of the coal strike 
 was not a working-class demand, it was a national demand. 
 It was particularly a demand from the general public, who 
 were being put to such inconvenience by the stoppage of the 
 coal supply. 
 
 When the demand for national action becomes pressing 
 enough, then if the President does not appoint a National 
 Committee there will be a Committee formed somehow and 
 some way. The National Demand must have an organ to 
 express that demand, and not only to express it, but to carry 
 out its wishes. 
 
 This demand in the early stages of the crisis will be very in- 
 definite. It will be merely a demand that "something" be
 
 Class Vs. Class: Resultant. 165 
 
 done, something, anything to relieve the crisis. It will be a 
 demand of such an indefinite character and there will be so 
 little revolutionary in it that the most conservative people will 
 join in the cry for it. It may be nothing more than a general 
 plan for the Nation to give work at nominal pay to the un- 
 employed. It will be such a mild demand that even the most 
 religious and charitable people will join in the movement. 
 However, as the first attempts to brush back the sea of revo- 
 lution with the broom of charity will be seen to be ineffectual, 
 more decided measures will be agreed upon as being necessary. 
 I say "agreed" upon, for my picture of the future is a 
 NATIONAL COMMITTEE hastily called together by the 
 nation and having a mandate to settle the crisis. If mild re- 
 medies do not avail, then severer and severer ones must be 
 used until at last the heroic dose of Socialism will be ad- 
 ministered as the only possible remedy adequate to save the 
 nation's life. 
 
 At the beginning of things Socialism will not be generally 
 thought of. It will only be the inexorable logic of events 
 piling upon themselves with terrifying rapidity that will 
 finally bring the conservative members of the Revolutionary 
 National Committee to see the necessity of Socialism. And 
 even when they do "see it" they will probably only regard it as 
 a temporary remedy and think that conditions will after 
 awhile simmer down so that we may go back to the old times 
 of competition and private ownership. 
 
 It will be necessary to give bread to the workers in New 
 York City. Wheat in Minnesota must be requisitioned, eleva- 
 tors must be operated to transfer the wheat from boats to cars, 
 Vanderbilt's railways must be taken and operated by the 
 Government as if in war time to bring the wheat from the 
 West to the Atlantic. This will be at the final stage of the 
 crisis, when trying to feed the people with the machinery of 
 production under private guidance has proved a failure. The 
 Government is forced to take over the machinery. This taking 
 over will most probably be looked upon, as said, as quite as 
 much a mere temporary affair, such as was the taking over of 
 a railway in the Civil War. But there will never recur a time 
 when the steps can be retraced and private ownership re- 
 stored. This to me is the likely course of the revolutionary 
 process by which we will be landed into Socialism.
 
 166 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 I think we will never have Socialism until the working 
 class become conscious of being a class and a disinherited class, 
 and until as the result of this class consciousness they struggle 
 as a class for the institution of a society in which they will 
 be equal participators with all at the festal board of humanity. 
 
 But I do not think the working class will become class-con- 
 scious until material conditions, in the course of economic evo- 
 lution, have prepared the ground for this consciousness to 
 manifest itself. The chicken's brain is not developed until 
 after its body is developed and until it is physically ready to 
 emerge from its shell and live a new life. But the very econo- 
 mic conditions which develop the class consciousness of the 
 poor also develop the class consciousness of the rich. When the 
 poor realize that the present competitive system means death 
 to society, the rich will also realize it, and they too will see 
 the necessity of surrendering to the inevitable. 
 
 It is true that inasmuch as the poor are in the vast nu- 
 merical majority it may be argued that even if the rich do not 
 peaceably surrender they can be forced to do so by the superior 
 power of the poor. True enough, but that the rich should 
 enter into a palpably hopeless struggle against both the Will 
 of Man and the Will of God is too insane an idea to be enter- 
 tained. 
 
 I say the Will of God, and by that I mean the economic 
 development of industry, for after all when we say God's Law 
 or God's Will we simply mean a progress of events which is 
 so in the nature of things that no one who recognizes the 
 reason of the progression will attempt to interfere with it. 
 There are not many Canutes who nowadays try to force back 
 the tide with a broom. 
 
 We Socialists, who hold to the materialistic conception of 
 history, would have to admit of having a ridiculously low 
 conception of the intelligence of the rich if we would deny 
 the possibility of the rich recognizing the break down of the 
 present system when the evidences of it were so palpable that 
 an idiot could not fail to see them. 
 
 As materialists we must concede that both a rich man and 
 a poor man must at a certain final stage of the progress of 
 evolutionary development of society see the inevitability of the 
 wreck of our competitive ship of state. 
 
 A land lubber may not see any cause for worry when he
 
 Class Vs. Class: Eesultant. 167 
 
 hears a distant sound and yet the captain may know that the 
 sound is of breakers upon a reef and that the ship cannot pos- 
 sibly escape. The lubber may not see danger this moment, but 
 it only requires a near enough approach to the reef and a loud 
 enough roar of the breakers to make him see danger just as 
 clearly as the captain. 
 
 The lubber may be in the steerage or in the first cabin, but 
 whatever his status, when the ship is near the rocks, he will 
 know that it must be wrecked. 
 
 If in the steerage, it may be that the food and lodging 
 he is getting are such that he would be looking forward to the 
 termination of his voyage with more impatience than if he 
 were in the cabin. He might therefore see the shore quicker 
 because he would be wishing for the voyage end more intently, 
 but even so it's only a question of hours when the man in the 
 cabin will see the shore, be it reef or dock, quite as plainly as 
 the steerage passenger. 
 
 This metaphor is not exact; no metaphor is. Perhaps, if 
 I had used the word galley-slave instead of steerage passenger, 
 it would have been nearer the mark, but even that would not 
 be quite exact. 
 
 The ship of state is not being propelled onward by forces 
 with which the passengers have nothing to do. Its movement 
 is the resultant of the action of class upon class. It becomes 
 socially conscious as the resultant of such interaction. So- 
 cialism will result when we become socially conscious of its 
 desirability and its necessity. 
 
 This social consciousness is the resultant of the class con- 
 sciousness of the poor working upon and against the class 
 consciousness of the rich. 
 
 It is absurd to deny that class consciousness will not develop 
 with either rich or poor, and it is absurd to deny that the two 
 classes will not as classes oppose each other, but it is also ab- 
 surd to say that there will be no resultant as the effect of the 
 meeting of these two opposing forces. 
 
 The resultant is the social consciousness that will make us 
 realize the necessity of Socialism. 
 
 Those young beginners in Socialism who deny the necessity 
 of the class struggle and class consciousness, however, are no 
 more unscientific than those older heads who would have us 
 believe that it is merelv the class consciousness of the working
 
 168 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 class that is to guide society in its final movement to Social- 
 ism. 
 
 We must finally depend upon the social consciousness, but 
 to-day it is too early to rely upon that force. We must first 
 have each class conscious of its position and have a definite 
 struggle between these two classes before we can look for any 
 effective social consciousness. 
 
 Meanwhile the position of the Socialist must necessarily be 
 upon the side of the working class, even though he may look 
 forward to a future where there will be no classes and no 
 class struggles. 
 
 The class struggle is a necessity to develop that class con- 
 sciousness which is the prelude to the social consciousness 
 which will lead society to welcome the change to Socialism.
 
 Effect of the Earthquake on Socialism. 169 
 
 EFFECT OF THE EARTHQUAKE ON 
 SOCIALISM 
 
 THE earthquake in California by the destruction of some 
 hundreds of millions of dollars of property will help 
 enormously toward continuing "prosperity" in this 
 country. What the present competitive system needs above 
 all things else is a "market." The earthquake will force 
 California to be the largest and best buyer in the world for 
 the next two years. The rebuilding of her fallen cities will 
 stimulate business not only throughout the United States, 
 but indeed throughout the world. California will not only 
 have the hundreds of millions of insurance money to spend, 
 but she will borrow millions in addition. There will be 
 no shortage of money. I have been saying that unless we 
 had a great war that a profound period of depression was 
 sure to appear within two years in this country as the result 
 of an inevitable over-production. I now retract my prophesy. 
 I did not count on an earthquake. I now wish to extend 
 the time; the California earthquake should put off the crisis 
 at least one year longer. In the meanwhile there should be 
 a great boom in the stocks of all kinds of railways and in- 
 dustrial corporations and real estate. Even land values in 
 San Francisco will finally rise far beyond values just before 
 the earthquake. 
 
 There is now some twaddle about San Francisco not being 
 rebuilt, because people, it is said, will be afraid to live there 
 hereafter. 
 
 The man that talks this way must have a theory that men 
 live in certain particular places because they are health resorts. 
 Men must live where they do to get a living. 
 
 San Francisco is the natural port of the Pacific Ocean, 
 she has the best harbor in the world, with such advantages 
 it will always pay men to trade there, and therefore there will 
 always be men to be found where there is good pay. 
 
 It will not be six months before we will sing the praises o£
 
 170 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 the courageous men who, as if by magic, made San Francisco 
 spring from its ashes. 
 
 If danger would keep men away from their occupations 
 there would be few men working in our white lead factories, 
 our coal mines, our tunnel work under rivers. 
 
 Does the fact that every year tens of thousands of men are 
 killed and injured prevent our railways from hiring all the 
 men they want? 
 
 San Francisco might have an earthquake every month and 
 yet there would be no difficulty in hiring all the men one 
 might want there. 
 
 The aid extended from all parts of the world to the stricken 
 people in California shows how strong is the instinct of the 
 brotherhood of humanity which lies latent in the breast of all 
 of us. It also showed us that the brotherhood does not stop 
 at national boundary lines, as Roosevelt by his negation of 
 foreign aid for California would have it do. 
 
 Without that instinct the world indeed would be a chaos. 
 On the other hand, the necessity of martial law to prevent 
 looting of the ruins by thieves shows that the competitive 
 system has so deeply demoralized men that they will take 
 advantage of their brother men even in such a state of uni- 
 versal calamity. 
 
 The earthquake has at once shown us the best and the 
 worst in us. 
 
 The world lost far more in the death in Paris of Professor 
 Curie, the man who with his wife discovered radium, than 
 it lost in all the burnt buildings of San Francisco.
 
 The Fallacy of Public Ownership. 171 
 
 THE FALLACY OF PUBLIC OWNERSHIP 
 
 AS an interested spectator I attended a convention called 
 last month at Louisville, Ky., to effect a union of all 
 reform parties with the Populist party. The so-called 
 Public Ownership party, however, was the only party besides 
 the Populist party that sent official representation. There 
 were about 75 delegates in all, and they adopted the name 
 of Allied People's Party as their future cognomen, with a 
 platform which had little in it beyond a demand for Public 
 Ownership of Public Utilities and for the Initiative and Ref- 
 erendum. The convention adjourned on April 5, and that 
 night an open meeting was held in the convention hall at 
 which I had the honor of being the principal speaker. I was 
 very glad of the opportunity afforded me to explain to the 
 Populist delegates the difference between the Socialist theory 
 of politics and that of the Populists, and I am confident 
 that my remarks will bear considerable fruition. 
 
 The Populists are to-day ripe for Socialism, and in fact 
 all of them are rather hurt if you question their Socialism. 
 However, as a matter of fact, I think very few of them have 
 any political ideal other than the present competitive system, 
 tempered with Public Ownership and controlled by the 
 Initiative and Referendum. 
 
 Now, let me say at once that I, too, am in favor of the 
 Initiative and Referendum and of Public Ownership. I advo- 
 cated on the stump and in the press both these important 
 measures five years before the Populist party was born, and 
 I to-day would be the first to agree that of all reform meas- 
 ures these are probably the most important. I would not 
 say that if I thought either one of them could be gained 
 at once by dropping the Socialist program and concentrating 
 upon them I would not feel justified in joining in such a 
 policy. It is not that I am impatient for the whole program 
 or that I decry the importance of these measures that I re- 
 fuse to bother with them, but it is because I think the best 
 way to get the part is to demand the whole, if it is not
 
 172 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 indeed easier to get the whole than any of its parts. In the 
 first place, in order to get the people to move you must 
 give them a reason for moving. 
 
 The mere fact that a man has arms is no reason why 
 he will work unless he finds some reason for the working. 
 I use my arms to get my dinner, and if there is no dinner 
 in prospect my arms will not be used. It is so with the 
 Initiative and Eeferendum. I must first have something to 
 get by political power before I will want political power. 
 Then if I find that the present representative system does 
 not afford me the machinery to get what I want, and I think 
 that Direct Legislation will enable me to accomplish my 
 desires, I will work for the Initiative and Eeferendum. But 
 in order to get me to work for it you must first show me 
 what I am to get by having such a political reform. 
 
 Now, every Socialist sees a great ideal in Socialism, and 
 therefore he takes a great interest in any political measure 
 that promises him an easier method than he now has of 
 gaining his ideal. Hence we see in certain European coun- 
 tries, notably Belgium at present, that the Socialists are at 
 the forefront in demanding universal suffrage. 
 
 In this country we have universal suffrage, but the people 
 are such fools that they do not know how to use such a 
 complicated weapon, and so Socialists favor giving them a 
 more simple way of expressing their views at the polls; and 
 therefore they are in full sympathy with the demand for 
 Direct Legislation. It has been a cardinal plank in their 
 political platforms for twenty years or more. Now, the 
 ideal that the Populists are holding up to the people to be 
 gained by Direct Legislation is that of Public Ownership of 
 Monopolies. The question to be decided is whether such 
 an ideal in any way can be held to be a better vote-getter 
 than that of Socialism. Granting that both Public Owner- 
 ship and Socialism are equal in their practicability, and that 
 one could be put in operation, if the people willed it, as soon 
 as the other, there is absolutely no comparison between the 
 two programs simply as ideals. Socialism is heaven. Public 
 Ownership, at best, is a third-rate boarding house. However, 
 the Populist would answer that Public Ownership has the 
 advantage of being more easily understood and that it is 
 something the people are ready to adopt right now, whereas
 
 The Fallacy of Public Ownership. 173 
 
 Socialism is now looked upon by most people, at best, as only 
 a beautiful dream and quite outside the realm of practical 
 politics. That the tremendous majorities given last month in 
 Chicago for Public Ownership is conclusive evidence that 
 the people are ready right now for such a program. Now, 
 facts are stubborn things, and if the vote expressed by the 
 Referendum in Chicago is indicative of the sentiment 
 throughout the United States, and I admit it is to a certain 
 extent, and if a political party can be built upon such a 
 sentiment, then certainly the Public Ownership policy is a 
 good political policy for the new Allied People's party to 
 adopt. However, I doubt if any political party can be built 
 upon a policy of Public ownership. I believe that both 
 Democrats and Republicans will adopt such a program in 
 its entirety if they see that they must do so in order to win. 
 The vote in Chicago was not a party vote, and I do not 
 think there has yet ever developed a division between the 
 old parties on the question of Public Ownership. No sooner 
 will the sentiment of Public Ownership become powerful 
 enough than every candidate of every party will declare in 
 its favor. He will do this to insure his election, and even 
 though he may not intend at the time of his declaration 
 to carry out his pledge, yet with the growth of sentiment 
 upon the subject there can be no fear of the ■will of the 
 people not being carried into effect. The movement toward 
 Public Ownership coincides with the interests of such a large 
 proportion of the population and runs counter to so few 
 that I cannot see the possibility of any party being formed 
 to oppose it. It would seem if no party will take ground 
 against Public Ownership, that then it would follow that 
 there is no necessity to form a party to carry it into effect, 
 simply because the existing parties will carry it forward to 
 preserve their existence. 
 
 Moreover, the sentiment for Public Ownership, with the 
 exception as far as it relates to railroads and telegraphs, is 
 very likely to be of a local nature. Chicago demands Public 
 Ownership, not so much because she has any great idea of 
 the benefits of such ownership, but because she has had a 
 very full experience of the iniquity of private ownership. 
 Many cities have not had the advantage of such able and 
 courageous instructors in political economics as has Chicago
 
 174 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 with her hoodie aldermen. And even where a city has had 
 considerable attention paid to her education in this regard, 
 like my native city of Cincinnati, for instance, it does not 
 6eem to follow that any great amount of benefit always re- 
 sults. I was in Cincinnati last month at the time the election 
 returns from Chicago came in, and was informed by people, 
 who seemed competent to judge, that there was no such 
 sentiment in Cincinnati as was shown in Chicago for Public 
 Ownership. Now, Cincinnati has been for years notoriously 
 under the domination of the Gas Co., the Street Railway 
 Co. and the Telephone Co., who have a beautiful combina- 
 tion to rob her of all she may possess, yet she has not even 
 yet made up her mind to have a change. Then there are 
 many cities that either do not have such a particularly bad 
 service from their private corporations that there has been 
 any sentiment aroused, and what occurs in Chicago or Cin- 
 cinnati has no direct interest to them. Then, again, it might 
 be that Chicago would be successful in her demand for the 
 municipal ownership of her public utilities. The moment 
 this occurred she would fall out of line from those fighting 
 for Public Ownership, as she, having gained her own ends, 
 would have nothing to fight for; and no matter how much 
 6he might be interested from the altruistic standpoint, in, 
 say, Cincinnati, since she could not vote in the Cincinnati 
 elections, such feelings wouH not carry much political 
 weight. It also must be remembered that more than half 
 the population of the country live on farms and in small 
 villages, where there is not now, nor ever can be, any purely 
 municipal problems to be solved, hence as the Populist party 
 is born of the farmers, it cannot look for farmers' support 
 upon a municipal public ownership platform. 
 
 There then remains the consideration of a platform being 
 successful with the people that depends upon a demand for 
 public ownership of railways and telegraphs and natural 
 monopolies. That the sentiment in this direction is grow- 
 ing very fast cannot be denied, but that it will crystallize 
 into a party platform and be opposed by other party plat- 
 forms I very much doubt. There are vast numbers of people 
 who are so indirectly affected by the railway tariffs that it 
 will probably be very difficult to arouse their support. For 
 instance, a city laborer will be a very difficult man to con-
 
 The Fallacy of Public Ownership. 175 
 
 vince that government ownership of railways would help him 
 as much as a ton of coal in the cellar sent around by "Bath- 
 House Tim," the president of Tammany Club No. 6. What 
 the laborer is interested in is not the farmer nor the mer- 
 chant, but himself. He wants first and foremost a job, and 
 after he has a reasonable assurance of the job he then com- 
 mences to think of a little better wages. Beyond this idea 
 the average laborer seldom rises, and nobody can blame him 
 who remembers that self-preservation is the first law of 
 nature. 
 
 Let us, for the moment, consider the ideal presented by 
 a complete system of public ownership of "monopolies,*' 
 both municipal and national. And by "monopolies" I mean 
 not all the means of production and distribution, but a 
 selected few, such as the gas and water supplies, etc., of 
 cities, the railroads of the country and possibly a few of 
 the trusts. We already know from the experience of other 
 cities and countries that Public Ownership, while having 
 many advantages over private ownership, is no solution of 
 the labor problem. I remember well that the one sight that 
 impressed itself upon me in Glasgow was the number of 
 miserable women seen in the wet streets puddling about with 
 bare feet, and usually with bare heads. This is something 
 I have never seen in Paris or London or New York. Now, 
 such a picture is not a reassuring one of the benefit to labor 
 flowing from municipal ownership. It must be remembered 
 that Glasgow owns all her public utilities, including the 
 street-car lines. To-day we are hearing of a threatened so- 
 cial revolution in Belgium, yet Belgium is par excellence 
 the country of Public Ownership. Not only are the muni- 
 cipal utilities owned by the cities, but the State owns the 
 railways and telegraphs, and yet Belgium is no Utopia. 
 
 Public Ownership upon the lines laid down as above sim- 
 ply means a certain probable benefit to those workmen who 
 happen to be employed in the utilities taken over by the 
 public, and a further benefit to the public that is served by 
 the said utilities. However, this last benefit may be of but 
 very temporary duration as far as the economy of the serv- 
 ice is concerned. In the first place, it is not at all certain 
 that the economy will be very great if wages of employees 
 are raised and hours shortened, and even if it is marked,
 
 176 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 then it is almost a certainty that the price received by the 
 shippers will in most cases recede by competition to a point 
 where all that was gained by a lowering of freight rates will 
 be lost. 
 
 As far as the trusts go they now charge all the traffic 
 will bear for their goods, and those that are not nationalized 
 will naturally gain for themselves any advantage in the lower- 
 ing of freight rates; but I do not see where either their em- 
 ployees or the consumer will come in. The farmer shipping 
 wheat would, of course, gain by a lowered freight rate, as 
 the price of wheat is not fixed by competition limited to 
 this country, but is fixed in the world market. Hence, any- 
 thing he may gain in economy of transportation or produc- 
 tion he will get. But the wheat farmer is not the typical 
 farmer. If he were, then certainly the farmers would be 
 fools not to favor nationalizing railways. If the Public 
 Ownership policy were carried into effect it would simply 
 mean that those holders of the private wealth not national- 
 ized would get all the profits that now go to the whole 
 body of the holders of private wealth. 
 
 If the Vanderbilt railways were nationalized, then Vander- 
 bilt would buy up the flour mills and get his profits out of 
 them instead of out of the railways. 
 
 It must always be remembered that under the competitive 
 wage system the whole of the product, above and beyond 
 what must be given as wages to the laborers in order that 
 they can buy enough to keep themselves alive, falls to the 
 capitalist class, under the various names of rent, interest 
 and profits. Public Ownership can do nothing but effect a 
 different method of division among the capitalists. The la- 
 borers must remain where they are as long as the competi- 
 tive wage system prevails. To-day we see the beef trust 
 raising its prices to unheard-of rates. What does this mean? 
 Does it mean that the workman will eat less meat? Not 
 necessarily; he may think that he must have what he has 
 been accustomed to, and that if he must pay more, then 
 he will either strike for higher wages to allow a continuance 
 of his usual rations of beef or he will cut off on some other 
 portion of his expenditure, say his sugar or his coal oil. 
 But whatever he does, it means that for the time being, 
 until some other trust puts up its price, the Beef Trust will
 
 The Fallacy of Public Ownership. 177 
 
 be just so much ahead on account of its raise of price if 
 the workman eats as much meat as he did before. Now, 
 suppose the Sugar Trust pumps up its price. Again, the 
 workman may either strike for more wages or he may eat 
 less sugar, or he may eat the same amount and cut down his 
 bread allowance. If he eat the same amount, then the Sugar 
 Trust gains so much and some other trust loses so much. 
 It's a very pretty game this now being played by the Trusts, 
 one against the other, each seeing how high he can put prices 
 and each knowing that the higher he puts his price to the 
 workman, then the less there is for the other fellows. 
 
 Now, if we had municipal ownership of street cars and 
 Tom Johnson's 3-cent-fare program, it would simply mean 
 that there would be a swoop of the capitalists down upon 
 that two cents the workingman saved, each trying to carry 
 off the whole of it. The workman would not hold it long 
 enough to get it warm before the landlord would tell him 
 that, owing to the great demand for houses incident to the 
 lower street-car fares he was very sorry to inform him that 
 land values and rents had gone up, and that, therefore, 
 hereafter he must expect to pay an advanced rent for his 
 house. The landlord might also tell him that it would not 
 be felt because the saving on car fare that he and his family 
 would make every month would offset the increase in rent. 
 Then, if there were anything left, the Beef Trust might 
 find it out and put up the price of his beef, and so on right 
 down along the line until the two cents would simply be 
 a misty memory. 
 
 However, the main indictment I have against a political 
 program limiting itself to Public Ownership is the one I 
 dwelt mostly upon in my speech before the Allied Party 
 Convention. It is that it takes no note of the tendency of 
 our industrial development to shortly present to this coun- 
 try for solution a great unemployed problem. The trusts 
 mean that the creation of new machinery, which, has so long 
 given employment to labor, is now about to come to an end 
 simply because there is no new machinery to create. Public 
 Ownership is absolutely no solution of this problem, inas- 
 much as the reason of the unemployed exists in the com- 
 petitive wage system which the Public Ownership people 
 do not seem to have the faintest idea of abolishing. There
 
 178 Wilshiee Editorials. 
 
 is but one way of abolishing the competitive "wage system, 
 and that is by the substitution of the co-operative wage 
 system, otherwise Socialism. 
 
 The argument that Socialism is impracticable, while Public 
 Ownership is practicable, is just the reverse of the truth. In 
 the first place, as said, it is Public Ownership that is im- 
 practicable, because it will fail to answer the most important 
 of all the political questions of the future, namely, that of 
 the unemployed problem. In the next place, even if we 
 had no unemployed problem, the Nationalization of Industry, 
 if put into effect upon any considerable scale, would create 
 such a revolutionary change in our industrial and financial 
 affairs that it would surely be a precursor of a revolutionary 
 social movement. 
 
 Suppose we accomplish the first impossibility and get the 
 trustowned TJ. S. Congress to either grant us the Initiative 
 and Referendum, by which we could get Public Ownership 
 ourselves, or grant it to us direct. 
 
 To me it seems absurd that either of these events could 
 take place. The trusts may make some concessions to public 
 opinion, but they will hardly commit suicide. 
 
 However, suppose Congress does Nationalize the Trusts 
 and the Railroads. Of course, in any partial nationalizing 
 process manifestly we must pay the owners for their prop- 
 erty. They must be paid, for confiscation would mean revo- 
 lution right then and there. Hence, there would be placed 
 in their hands an enormous sum of floating capital in the 
 shape of cash or bonds, and those owners would have the 
 rest of the world at their mercy. 
 
 It would mean that when Mr. Rockefeller sold his Stand- 
 ard Oil Trust, and Mr. Morgan his Steel Trust, and Mr. 
 Vanderbilt his Railway Trust to Uncle Sam, that those 
 three gentlemen would have in their hands funds enough to 
 give them the control of the whole of the remaining industries 
 in the United States that had not been nationalized. Those 
 three men could — and not only could but undoubtedly would 
 — expropriate every last one of the smaller capitalists whoso 
 business had not been sufficiently trustified to make the 
 Public Ownership people think that it was necessary to 
 nationalize them. 
 
 Hence I declare that Public Ownership is a poor platform
 
 The Fallacy of Public Ownership. 179 
 
 politically because it fails to hold up any great ideal to 
 arouse the enthusiasm of the people. It is a poor platform 
 economically, because it would fail to answer the unemployed 
 problem, and moreover, it could not possibly be put in 
 operation without causing a social revolution. It is a poor 
 platform ethically becauses it recognizes the right of a class, 
 and a class no better because somewhat smaller than the 
 present capitalist class, to live off the fruits of the toil of 
 another class.
 
 180 lWilshiee Ediioeials. 
 
 COFFEE, CURRANTS AND ORANGES 
 
 AS a very tangible evidence of the inability of society to 
 distribute the wealth that is produced under our pres- 
 ent competitive system, it is interesting to note the 
 overproduction of three great staple products, viz. : coffee in 
 Brazil, currants in Greece, and oranges in California. 
 
 Ordinary agricultural products, such as wheat or corn, 
 which are planted from year to year, can be restricted in pro- 
 duction when the price falls too low by the simple process of 
 refraining from planting. But with a crop like oranges, 
 growing in orchards requiring great expense in the planting 
 and culture for years before maturity, it is self-evident that 
 one or two years of low prices will not incite the growers to 
 lose all the money invested by abandoning their orchards. The 
 same applies to the coffee plantations and currant vineyards. 
 It is to be remembered that an orchard neglected goes to ruin. 
 Hence when overproduction ensues in crops of this nature the 
 planter is face to face with a very serious problem. He must 
 go to the expense of taking care of his orchard and he has a 
 crop forced on his hands which he cannot dispose of. 
 
 From the following item, taken from the New York Com- 
 mercial of recent date, it will be seen the conditions m Brazil 
 are so desperate that the Government is proposing to destroy 
 one-fifth of the crop : 
 
 The forty-fifth annual report of the Chamber of Commerce for the 
 official year 1902-3 was made public yesterday. The proceedings of 
 the Chamber for the year ending April 30, 1903, together with the 
 roll of members, officers and committees, constitution and by-laws, 
 comprise the first part of the volume. The second part contains 
 trade reviews and statistical statements of trade and finance. 
 
 The report says: "The coffee markets of the world have been 
 overshadowed by the enormous yield of the Brazilian crop, which 
 has been of increasing rather than of diminishing proportions, and 
 has afforded very little opportunity for the development of bullish 
 features. The crop of 1901-1902 was more than the whole world's 
 yearly consumption, and this was followed by a crop that very 
 nearly equaled it in size, while the present prospect is that the 
 crop due July 1 will exceed all its predecessors^ the estimates fore- 
 shadowing a production of 16,000,000 bags,
 
 Coffee, Currants and Oranges. 181 
 
 "This enormous expansion is the result of the plan of agricultural 
 development adopted several years ago, and which resulted in con- 
 verting a large acreage of wild land into coffee plantations. The 
 new trees, which require three years to mature, have gradually 
 swelled the proportions of the crop, until now planters are just as 
 anxious to restrict the yield, and various plans have been discussed, 
 but the only one that has in any way materialized is the tax in 
 kind levied in the State of San Paulo, which is to go in operation 
 July 1 ; under the provisions of this law planters will be required to 
 hand over to the Government 20 per cent, of their shipments. 
 
 "Thus, if an order for 1,000 bags is received, the planter will be 
 required to send to the Government agent 200 bags to be destroyed, 
 that is, burned up. It is said that this measure cannot be practi- 
 cally carried out, and that it will fail, especially as it is to be en- 
 forced in only one of the five coffee-growing States. During the 
 month of August a New York syndicate, that had a large specu- 
 lative interest in the market, endeavored to advance prices by 
 manipulation, but although they were aided by a temporary drought 
 and a light frost, they relinquished the contract." 
 
 In Greece, where there is an overproduction of currants — it 
 may be said the currants of commerce are not currants in the 
 American sense of the word, but are a small grape, grown upon 
 a vine like any other grape — the Government is also arranging 
 to have part of the crop destroyed and passing strict laws 
 against the further extension of planting. In California the 
 orange growers are not sufficiently organized as yet to have 
 part of the oranges destroyed in order to be able to sell the 
 remainder at a living profit, but there is no question but this 
 is what must be done ultimately. The price of the surplus 
 determines the price of the whole. If the surplus sells at a 
 loss, the whole crop sells at a loss. If, for instance, there are 
 a million boxes of oranges for sale, and there is a demand for 
 only 900,000, then the extra hundred thousand must be 
 slaughtered at any price, and the price upon this hundred 
 thousand will make the price for the whole million. It is evi- 
 dent, therefore, there being a market for 900,000, that it is 
 better to destroy the 100,000 and get a living price for the re- 
 maining 900,000 than to try and sell the whole million at a 
 loss. The total returns to trie growers for the 900,000 boxes at 
 a high price, will be much better than for the million boxes at 
 a low price. 
 
 The problem the California growers have to solve, how- 
 ever, is how shall the growers of the 100,000 boxes which 
 would be destroyed, be compensated. To-day this would
 
 182 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 necessitate a close organization of the growers, and in fact 
 such a compact organization that it is very problematical 
 whether it can yet be formed. The growers have not had 
 enough discipline yet. 
 
 Of course all this discussion about destroying the fruits of 
 the earth when so many people need them, would seem ab- 
 surd if it be not always remembered that we are living under 
 an absurd system. Here we have the earth so prolific that 
 we are actually threatened with starvation unless we destroy 
 some of the food which we have produced. When we abolish 
 our competitive system and introduce a co-operative system 
 of distribution, we will never raise more than we need, be- 
 cause production will be systematically planned; and if at 
 any time we find that more labor is directed toward the pro- 
 duction of a certain commodity than is needed, it will mean 
 either a reduction in the hours of labor or the transfer of labor 
 to some other industry. To-day our competitive wage system 
 so limits the effective demand of the people that it is folly for 
 us to expect consumption to keep up with production.
 
 Feudalism Vs. Capitalism in Russia. 183 
 
 FEUDALISM VERSUS CAPITALISM IN 
 RUSSIA 
 
 THE time is ripe for Capitalism in Russia to displace 
 feudalism. Her industry is now far enough advanced 
 to absolutely require Capitalism for further develop- 
 ment, but hardly far enough advanced to require Socialism. 
 
 Feudalism was good enough for society when there were no 
 machinery, no railroads, no factories ; but with the growth of 
 capital as the result of the invention and use of the steam 
 engine and labor saving devices, Capitalism has developed, and 
 naturally capitalists. The capitalistic class in Russia is a 
 comparatively new class of men. The old ruling class, the 
 nobility, the land-owning class, are now sneering and looking 
 down upon them. Finally, however, when the value of capital 
 becomes more weighty than the value of land, the capitalists 
 of Russia will dominate the land owners, and capitalism sup- 
 plant feudalism just as it has done in the rest of Europe. 
 
 However, that the Russian government does not foresee nor 
 understand all this, is certain. For instance, such a little 
 event as the following chronicled recently in the press is sug- 
 gestive : 
 
 The Communal Court at Widzewo has ordered the Messrs. Coates, 
 thread manufacturers, to pay their 800 employees for the time they 
 have lost since December 30, when the factory was closed, until 
 to-day. 
 
 The Court held that the plea offered by the manufecturers for 
 closing their factory, that there was a scarcity of coal, was insuffi- 
 cient reason for shutting down their works, as coal was obtainable 
 at high prices. 
 
 It seems to that feudalistic court of Widzewo that Coates & 
 Co. ought to run their factory whether they make money or 
 not, merely to keep their men employed and to avoid any 
 disturbance to society. The mere fact that coal is high in 
 price argues nothing to the court. The bankruptcy of 
 capitalists like Coates & Co. is of no moment to it compared 
 with the bankruptcy of the feudal system. In the feudal re-
 
 184 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 gime there was no such thing as people starving as long as 
 there was food. Starvation then came from famine and un- 
 der-production. To-day starvation comes from people being 
 out of work merely because capitalists cannot make profits out 
 of hiring them. Such a condition is quite incapable of being 
 explained to one who entertains the feudal notion of things as 
 does the Eussian Government. 
 
 When the capitalist class supplants the land-owning class 
 as the controlling force in politics, then there will be no more 
 such absurdity as ordering the capitalist to run his mill when 
 he cannot run it without losing money. In other words, the 
 capitalist government will understand what is possible in the 
 capitalist business, whereas the present feudal government of 
 the Czar does not understand it. However, the mere under- 
 standing by a capitalist government of the impossibility of 
 employing labor at any and all times under the capitalist 
 system, does not go very far toward feeding the unem- 
 ployed laborer. When he, too, understands this impossibility, 
 he will be the first in demanding the abolition of the capitalist 
 system itself and the inauguration of the Socialist system. 
 This is what is now happening in America and is the logical 
 sequence of events in Eussia. 
 
 It might be cited that the interference of President Eoose- 
 velt between the strikers and the coal operators was only the 
 same as that the Czar exercised in his interference with the 
 strikers and the Coates Co. The essential difference, however, 
 is in the fact that in one case the Czar ordered the capitalists 
 to give work, whereas Eoosevelt merely suggested that it be 
 done. 
 
 Eoosevelt has no power to do anything beyond mere sug- 
 gestion. The assumption that the President is the head of the 
 nation is quite absurd. The time when our political officers 
 controlled things has passed coincident with the appearance of 
 our Captains of Industry. They are the men who are now our 
 real political leaders. 
 
 To-day the man that can give valid orders that workmen 
 shall or shall not go to work in America, as does the Czar in 
 Eussia, is not Eoosevelt, he is the capitalist, the man who owns 
 the machinery of production. He is the only one who is in po- 
 sition to make his order effective. For instance, Mr. Eoose- 
 velt suggested that the operators arbitrate, whereas Mr. Corey,
 
 Feudalism Vs. Capitalism in Eussia. 185 
 
 the President of the Steel Trust, autocratically ordered the 
 coal operators to arbitrate with the miners, saying that if they 
 did not do so, he would break his coal contract. 
 
 "The Steel Trust must have coal, and you must pay your 
 workmen sufficient wages to get it. We pay you enough for 
 your coal, and we will not allow you to cut us off of coal and 
 make us shut down our steel mills, in order that you can gouge 
 a little more profit out of your workingmen." 
 
 This order from Corey to Baer was imperative and had its 
 immediate effect whereas the suggestion from Eoosevelt was 1 
 received with considerable irritation by many of the coal oper- 
 ators who said the President had no right to interfere. It 
 was none of his business ; but when Corey, the president of the 
 Billion Dollar Steel Trust, spoke, there was not a single coal 
 operator that dared peep.
 
 186 Wilshieb Editorials. 
 
 AN EASY WAY TO WEALTH, WISH FOR IT 
 
 THERE are very few satisfied in this world, whether they 
 be rich or poor, although most of the poor think if 
 they were only rich, they would have no trouble in 
 finding the joy of life. 
 
 Inasmuch, as is well known, 1 per cent, of the population of 
 the United States own more property than the whole of the 
 remaining 99 per cent., it is a one hundred to one shot that the 
 one who is reading this article will belong to the 99 per cent, 
 class, and it is to him that I address myself. 
 
 You are dissatisfied, and if you are not, you ought to 
 be dissatisfied because you are not rich, and now I am going to 
 show you why you are poor, and how to get rich easily. This 
 is not any programme, such as is usually presented, of saving 
 your money and investing it in a deferred dividend policy in 
 Papa McCurdy's New York Mutual Life Insurance Co. 
 
 You probably are either getting wages or a salary of some 
 sort. I say this because most of the people who are poor in 
 this country belong to the wage-earning class. You are, of 
 course, a reader of the newspapers, and love to hear about the 
 enormous material prosperity of this country. For instance, I 
 quote the following from the morning "Tribune" of October 
 5th: 
 
 "AN ERA OF PROSPERITY."" 
 
 "There are signs on every hand these days of overflowing 
 national prosperity. The United States is to harvest this 
 year the biggest corn crop it has ever grown and the biggest 
 wheat crop in its history, with one exception. Our exports 
 and imports will break all records. Immigration is reaching 
 a new high-water mark. Our iron and steel output will be 
 the largest ever known, and we shall touch a new high level 
 in coal production. It was announced the other day that 
 postal receipts for 1904-05 had exceeded those for 1903-04 
 by $10,000,000. The Post Office Department's money-order 
 business showed a gain for the year of 20 per cent. — an un- 
 erring evidence of widely diffused prosperity. Now come
 
 An Easy Way to Wealth: Wish for It. 187 
 
 Dun's and Bradstreet's reports on commercial failures in the 
 United States for the first nine months of 1905 to testify 
 to steadily improving trade conditions." 
 
 There is no questioning these statements. That the nation is 
 certainly getting richer is unquestionable, but the question is 
 not about the nation, but about you, little you, are you getting 
 richer? The statistics issued by the United States Commis- 
 sioner of Labor show that during the last year wages have been 
 practically at a standstill, although the cost of living has 
 materially advanced. Hence, if you are the average man of 
 the wage-earning class, you are not as well off as you were last 
 year, notwithstanding the increasing prosperity of the country. 
 No one takes less wages than he can get, or pays more for his 
 beefsteak and his potatoes than he must. The condition which 
 forces you to take a low wage is that you know the job will be 
 filled by some other man unless you accept what is offered, and' 
 the condition which makes you pay more for your food is that 
 you go hungry unless you pay the price asked. 
 
 What I am trying to get at is that you have no choice in 
 the matter at all. You have to accept conditions as they are, 
 and what applies to you applies to all other members of the 
 working class. The reason wages are low is merely because 
 there are plenty of men who are willing to accept low wages, 
 and if one refuses to take what is offered, he finds the place 
 filled by some one else who will take what is offered. 
 
 It is competition against the unemployed man that makes 
 wages low, and unless you can remedy this competition, it is 
 obvious there is no way of your becoming better off, no matter 
 how prosperous the country may become. 
 
 In other words, what must be done is to get rid of the "un- 
 employed" man. That is the problem. What do you mean by 
 an unemployed man ? You do not think of a man who is of a 
 leisure class and who does not work because he has an inde- 
 pendent income, as being of the class designated by the word 
 "unemployed." Mr. Vanderbilt's son or Mr. Rockefeller's 
 son may be quite "unemployed," and yet you do not feel any 
 competition from them. The unemployed man you fear is 
 the man who has no income unless he is at work. There can 
 be no doubt that if a man is hungry and wishes food, he will 
 not stay long in that condition, if he can work and get some- 
 thing to feed himself. A savage in the woods will catch a fish
 
 183 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 or shoot a deer, and thus satisfy his hunger. But the modern 
 civilized man cannot go out and catch fish or shoot deer when- 
 ever he happens to be hungry. He must get food the way 
 everyone else does ; that is, by earning money. The only way 
 he has of getting money is to sell his labor to someone who will 
 buy it, and with the wages which are paid him in exchange for 
 his labor he will buy the food he wishes. However, it often 
 happens that it is not so easy to find a man who wishes to hire 
 him. Some political economists have endeavored to prove that 
 somewhere in the world there is always an employer ready to 
 hire the unemployed man if one only knew where to find the 
 employer. They make it appear that the reason there is diffi- 
 culty in getting employment is solely on account of lack of 
 knowledge of where work is in demand. This is quite a 
 mistake. The employer himself can only give employment 
 when he can sell what is produced, and as the working class 
 are the principal consumers, since they constitute the greater 
 part of the community, and as their powers of buying are re- 
 stricted by the competitive wage system, it is not difficult to 
 see that the employer himself has not an unlimited market 
 for his goods, and, therefore, cannot furnish unlimited em- 
 ployment. 
 
 The earth is so very productive when man's labor is applied 
 to it with modern machinery that it is very easy to produce 
 more to eat and more to wear, that is, more of the plain neces- 
 sities, than man needs or wants, and especially is it easy to 
 produce more than he can buy, when we remember that his 
 powers of buying are so limited by the Competitive Wage 
 System. Therefore, it is clear that the employers are not in 
 control of the situation, but can only hire men under certain 
 conditions, viz. : That they can sell what is produced. There- 
 fore, it is seen that the Competitive System not only prevents 
 you from getting a decent wage when you are employed, but it 
 also makes it often difficult for you to get any wages at all, 
 owing to the fact that the employer cannot sell what is pro- 
 duced, and, therefore, cannot hire you to work. It is evident, 
 therefore, if you wish to abolish poverty, the first thing to do 
 is to consider a method of abolishing the Competitive System. 
 However, the Competitive System does give us a method of 
 distributing what is produced — although a very poor one — 
 and, therefore, if you abolish it, you must be ready to sub-
 
 An Easy Wat to Wealth : Wish for It. 189 
 
 stitute some other system to do the distributing. The Social- 
 ists propose that we substitute the Co-operative System for 
 the Competitive System. This merely means that, instead of 
 paying men upon the basis of how little their labor can be 
 bought for, that they be paid upon the basis of what they ac- 
 tually produce. To-day the more a man produces, the more 
 difficult it may be for him to get any wages at all, because the 
 market may be flooded with goods, perhaps the very goods 
 that he himself has produced, and, therefore, he cannot sell 
 his labor, owing to there being no demand for his labor. Under 
 the Co-operative System, the more he produces, the more he 
 gets, because goods will be produced for consumption and not 
 for profit. 
 
 To-day if you are working in a shoe factory and there is an 
 over-production of shoes, it does not mean that you get more 
 shoes than you know what to do with. 
 
 It means you lose your job. It means there are more shoes 
 produced than can be sold, and, therefore, you do not get any 
 shoes at all, for, naturally, you do not get money to buy shoe? 
 when you are out of work. If we had Socialism and there was 
 over-production of goods, the hours of labor would be reduced 
 to make consumption equal demand. 
 
 One essential point in connection with the Co-operative 
 System which I have omitted to state, and which is a necessary 
 part for a success of its operations, is the Public Ownership 
 of the Means of Production. You have heard a great deal re- 
 cently of Public Ownership. No doubt it has puzzled many 
 people to understand how it is that Public Ownership is to be 
 of any benefit to the working man, and especially to the unem- 
 ployed man. One reason of this lack of ability to understand 
 the advantage of Public Ownership is that it usually is not 
 clearly explained. We to-day have Public Ownership of the 
 Post Office, and yet that does not mean that a man can get 
 employed at the Post Office at good wages merely because he 
 is out of a job and the Post Office belongs to the Government. 
 But if we had the Co-operative System co-joined with Public 
 Ownership it would mean that any one wanting food or 
 clothing, or any other form of wealth, would be at liberty to 
 demand work from the community, and would be sure of not 
 only getting work, but also of getting the full value of the 
 work he might perform. He would be sure of this because it
 
 190 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 would be simply utilizing for his own benefit the machinery of 
 production, of which he himself would be one of the joint 
 owners. Just exactly as the savage went out with his bow and 
 arrow and shot the deer for his dinner. The bow and arrow 
 were his "means of production," and the earth upon which the 
 deer fed was also his without the asking of any permission 
 from any landlord. However, although the savage had a com- 
 plete ownership of his means of production, viz., his bow and 
 arrow, yet he could only gain a most meagre living by the 
 most strenuous work, because a bow and arrow are very poor 
 tools of production compared with the modern machinery of 
 to-day. 
 
 To-day the workingman, by his knowledge of labor-sav- 
 ing machinery, of steam and electricity, can produce a hun- 
 dred times as much as the man in the days of savagery and 
 the bow and arrow, but the trouble is that, with this increased 
 production, he has lost the ownership of the means of pro- 
 duction. 
 
 The tools of production to-day are the railroad, the grain 
 elevator, the Steel Trust, the Sugar Trust, the Oil Trust, and 
 various other great combinations of capital. The workingman 
 cannot use machinery without first getting the permission of a 
 capitalist owner, and getting that permission means being 
 hired by the capitalists when they find that they can buy his 
 labor and sell the product at a profit. Even though a rail- 
 road or a shoe factory were given to the individual working- 
 man, absolutely free of cost, he would find it useless to him if 
 he had to work it independently, inasmuch as the machinery 
 of to-day requires collective management upon a large scale. 
 If the workingman wishes to be able to use the modern tools 
 of production, it is evident that not only must he own them in 
 order to be free to use them, but also that he must organize 
 with other workingmen upon a large scale in order to be able 
 to use them. Capitalism has not only developed the tools, but 
 has also developed the organization of workingmen to operate 
 the tools; but it has not developed a system to equitably 
 distribute what is produced. The only system which can 
 properly and equitably distribute is, as has been heretofore 
 stated, the Co-operative System. In order that the working- 
 man may not only be able to operate the modern tools of pro- 
 duction co-operatively, but to have the free use of these tools,
 
 An Easy Way to Wealth: Wish for It. 191 
 
 he must be the owner of the tools, and he must be organized 
 with his fellow workingmen. 
 
 To go back to the illustration of the savage. Suppose there 
 were two savages, and that the bow was so large that it re- 
 quired both men to bend it, and that the ownership of the bow 
 vested in one of the men. It is obvious that the other man 
 would not only have to get the permission of the owner of the 
 bow, but, before he could use it, he would also have to get 
 his help to bend it. Therefore, if he wished to be on the safe 
 side regarding his supply of food, he would form a com- 
 bination with the other savage, so that they would own the 
 bow in partnership, and would agree to work it jointly and 
 co-operatively and divide whatever game might be killed 
 by it. 
 
 Similarly to-day, in order for the workingman to be sure of 
 getting his food and clothing and other goods that he wishes, 
 he must own the machinery of production, and must be or- 
 ganized to operate the machinery on the co-operative plan. 
 
 The only feasible way for such machinery as railroads and 
 other great modern tools of production to be owned publicly is 
 through the medium of government ownership. Public own- 
 ership is not such a difficult proposition to work out practically 
 as it might seem to one who takes up the idea for the first time. 
 Public ownership of the means of production is already in 
 practical operation in a limited way in this country^ as well 
 as in foreign countries. We have the government ownership of 
 the Post Office, and municipal ownership of gas and water 
 works, and a few other such utilities. In Europe many cities 
 own and operate their own street cars and telephone lines; 
 some cities run public bakeries, and, in fact, there is hardly any 
 single operation which is not carried on in one way or another 
 in some part of the world by the government. There is little 
 difficulty in showing that there is no machinery which cannot 
 be operated by the government. The difficulty is to convince 
 the people of the advantage in the government taking over the 
 ownership and management of the public utilities, and it is 
 indeed a very difficult task to show that there is any good in 
 government ownership in itself. For instance, the English 
 Government owns the telegraph system, whereas in this 
 country it is in private hands, and yet the mere fact of public 
 ownership in England of the telegraph system has not made
 
 192 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 poverty any less prevalent there than it is in this country, 
 where there is private ownership of the telegraph system. The 
 point that is continually being missed is that it is not merely 
 government ownership in itself that is to solve the problem of 
 poverty; it is the Co-operative System that is to do it, and 
 public ownership is the necessary basis for the Co-operative 
 System. In other words, public ownership is distinctly a 
 means and not an end. It is clear that as long as Mr. Rocke- 
 feller and other capitalists continue in the ownership of rail- 
 roads and the great trusts of this country, there can be no 
 co-operative system. They as owners, could refuse to allow 
 the workingmen to use these necessary means of production, 
 and that would end the dream of co-operative distribution, for, 
 without the machinery, there would be nothing produced to 
 distribute. 
 
 I promised in the beginning of this article to show you how 
 to get rich without any great exertion, and it seems to me that 
 if you have followed my argument you will see that I have 
 fulfilled my promise. 
 
 Labor and capital in this country can obviously produce 
 much more food and clothing and other ordinary necessities 
 of life than the public can ever consume. I say obviously, be- 
 cause, a hundred years ago, before we had much of any ma- 
 chinery, everyone in the country had a fair living, and as with 
 the use of present machinery labor is at least twenty times as 
 effective as it was before we had the machinery, it may be 
 safely said that it will require only one-twentieth the work per 
 capita required to produce the same quantities per capita of 
 goods a hundred years ago. 
 
 The wealth of the country is here at the disposal of the 
 voters, and, as the working class constitute the vast majority 
 of the voters, it is merely a question of them realizing how to 
 vote in order for them to inaugurate the Socialist System. Let 
 them support the only party which demands the public owner- 
 ship of the means of production and the co-operative system of 
 distribution. This party is the Socialist Party. As long as we 
 have our Competitive System, we must necessarily have the 
 unemployed man. To get rid of the unemployed man we must 
 place the ownership of the tools of production of the country 
 in his hands and let him produce for himself what he wishes. 
 With modern machinery this can only be done through collec-
 
 An Easy Way to Wealth: Wish for It. 193 
 
 tive action of the people, viz.: public ownership and the 
 establishment of the Co-operative Commonwealth. 
 
 It seems to me that I have given a very straight statement of 
 how we may abolish poverty, how we may acquire wealth with 
 practically no exertion. We simply have to wish for the earth 
 in order to get it, and there is but one way to wish effectively 
 for it ; that is to vote for the Socialist Party. 
 
 Let the Nation Own the Eesources of the Earth, the land, 
 the machinery, the water power, the coal mines ; let us make 
 these natural powers work for us and produce the wealth that 
 we all wish, and let us distribute that wealth co-operatively to 
 ourselves.
 
 194 Wilshike Editorials. 
 
 THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A RUSSIAN SOCIAL 
 REVOLUTION 
 
 THE seizure of the Potemkin, the Russian battleship, by 
 mutineers, and the cruising of it for ten days on the 
 Black Sea, under the red flag of revolution, and its 
 final surrender to Roumania, was somewhat more dramatic 
 than significant. 
 
 The sailors did not revolt because of any abstract love of 
 liberty and humanity, but because they were fed on rotten 
 food, the result of their captain having grafted on the food 
 contract. 
 
 The terrible economic conditions in Russia, combined with 
 the supreme political power being in the hands of a weak, 
 imbecile Czar, have naturally developed a large number of 
 people with strong leanings to Socialism. Hence, when the 
 mutiny on account of bad food occurred, the revolt not un- 
 naturally partook of the appearance of a revolution. That 
 the mutineers were scientific Socialists, bent upon organizing 
 a social revolution in Russia, with a deliberately planned 
 mutiny, is impossible. 
 
 As we have said before, we do not think a social revolution 
 possible in Russia within the next twenty years, no matter 
 how bad conditions may be. That the Czar may be deposed 
 and in fact the whole Romanoff family driven from Russia, 
 we admit is extremely likely. There may be even a consider- 
 able measure of nationalization of the land of the aristocracy, 
 but this is as far as Socialism can go now in Russia. The 
 establishment of a limited monarchy, let alone establishing a 
 republic, seems to us almost impossible. 
 
 When peace is declared with Japan, and the army returns 
 from Manchuria, no doubt Linevitch, or some other general, 
 will make himself a dictator. There will be a general house- 
 cleaning of the corrupt bureaucracy, and a man like De Witte 
 will be put at the head of a general industrial reorganization, 
 and, after a long period of turmoil, Russia will proceed upon
 
 Impossibility of a Russian Social Revolution. 195 
 
 its inevitable course of economic evolution under the present 
 competitive system of private property until she has devel- 
 oped sufficiently to make the taking over of the machinery of 
 production not only practicable and desirable, but absolutely 
 necessary. 
 
 Socialism is impossible in Russia at present except on one 
 condition. The only thing that could possibly make Russia 
 to-day a Socialist nation would be a social revolution in West- 
 ern Europe, which, of course, may occur any day, since the 
 economic conditions are already sufficiently ripened and the 
 whole proletariat is impregnated with the Socialist ideal. 
 
 The following from the Review of Reviews throws light 
 upon the question of a peasant revolt in Russia: 
 
 "A careful study of the entire peasant agrarian movement 
 in Russia appears in the Russhiya Vyedomosti, by Dr. Mak- 
 simovich, a condensation of which is made by the monthly 
 Oorazovanie. We summarize the version of the latter. 
 
 "The general features of the agrarian disorders have been 
 practically the same all over the country, we are informed. 
 
 "The peasants usually informed the landlord in advance 
 as to their proposed visit to his estate. In some cases a com- 
 mittee of peasants came and inspected the place and then 
 announced that the peasants would come on a certain day. 
 At the appointed time a stack of straw was set on fire, a 
 bonfire built, or merely a large bundle of straw tied to a long 
 pole and ignited, and at this signal a crowd of peasants 
 gathered with their wagons. In some cases there were from 
 five hundred to seven hundred of the latter. In one case (at 
 Romano vka) the signal was given by sounding the fire alarm. 
 The assembled peasants advanced on the estate, discharged 
 guns at their approach, broke the locks of the granaries, loaded 
 the grain on their wagons, and departed. The presence of 
 the estate owner, or of the manager, did not at all embarrass 
 them. They permitted him to witness the proceedings, and 
 made no attempt to drive him off the place, yet they offered 
 no explanations to him. They pillaged mainly the grain 
 stores; other farm products were taken by them only in rare 
 instances. Hence, they seldom disturbed any of the other 
 farm buildings. In Prilyepy, the peasants carried off the 
 grains, but did not molest the sugar refinery; in Petrovsk, 
 they did likewise without disturbing the whiskey distillery.
 
 196 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 They made no attempt, as a rule, to enter the dwellings. 
 They demanded no money, with perhaps one exception. No 
 violence was attempted, although in Vitich the local con- 
 stable received a slight wound. As a rule, the peasants be- 
 haved with moderation. The same attitude was observed to- 
 ward the government liquor stores. The peasants came there 
 at night, previous to the descent on some estate, and de- 
 manded that the store be opened. After drinking whiskey, 
 always in great quantities, they paid for it and departed. 
 No violence was attempted against schools and hospitals, so 
 that in a number of cases the estate-owners sought refuge in 
 schoolhouses. The pillage was participated in by entire vil- 
 lages — men, women and youths. Among those arrested for 
 robbery and confined in the prison at Syevsk there is a blind 
 beggar. His fellow-villagers had supplied him with a horse 
 and wagon and helped him to load it with grain. In some 
 cases only a part of the peasants in the village engaged in 
 the pillaging of some estate, but later the remaining peasants, 
 tempted by the example of their fellow-villagers, made a 
 similar descent on some other estate. There was no systematic 
 apportionment of estates among the different villagers, who 
 at times came from distant places. It is stated that single 
 peasants were compelled to join these pillaging expeditions 
 under threat of violence, yet it is difficult to determine 
 whether this was really so. 
 
 "As stated above, the peasants endeavored, on the whole, 
 not to exceed certain limits, though they were not always 
 successful in this. At times, under the stress of excitement, 
 or under the influence of liquor, moderation was thrown to 
 the winds and riot ran its course unchecked. In Glamazdin, 
 the peasants not only pillaged the granaries, but set fire to 
 the dwellings, outbuildings and distillery. The same fate 
 overtook the distillery at Khinel, and the sugar refinery at 
 Mikhailovsk. The riot at Khinel assumed a terrifying char- 
 acter. The mob, mad with drink, destroyed everything in 
 their reach. The effect of these disorders on the estate-owners 
 may be easily imagined. No one dreamed of resistance. With 
 the arrival of larger bodies of troops the disorder ceased, but 
 many disquieting rumors still persist. The peasants are said 
 to have openly declared that they would not permit any 
 spring operations on estate lands, and it is also stated that
 
 Impossibility of a Russian Social Revolution. 197 
 
 they are trying to secure money in advance on work to be 
 performed later in the season, boasting, meanwhile, that they 
 would make no attempt to do that work. 
 
 "The causes of the disorders, both general and local, are 
 quite complex, and are difficult to determine in all cases. 
 One of them, indirectly is the war. The mobilization in the 
 district of Dmitriev caused marked discontent among the 
 peasants. Moreover, there are many wounded there returned 
 from the Far East, who are in a miserable condition and 
 desperate over their fate. Finally, something should be at- 
 tributed to the belief prevailing among the peasantry that 
 but few soldiers now remain in European Russia, for 'they 
 are all in the Far East/ 
 
 WHY THESE MOVEMENTS FAIL. 
 
 "One of the questions that must have occurred to every 
 one who has given any thought to these peasant movements 
 is why we do not see more far-reaching consequences from 
 them. Mr. Wolf Dohm, writing in the Hilfe (Berlin), points 
 out that the occurrences in one place have ceased being news 
 before reaching the next one. 
 
 "This became strikingly manifest during the disorders in 
 Gomel. The property where I was stationed at that time is 
 situated about one hundred kilometers from the town, a 
 6teamer running daily up the river, and the steamboat office 
 is thirty kilometers from the estate. Yet the news about 
 the massacre reached us first after a period of three to four 
 weeks. Who is going to care any more about it after such a 
 long time ? People shake their heads, comment and criticize, 
 but for prompt action the urgent necessity of the moment is 
 gone. The impulse dies before it has been awakened. It is 
 necessary to keep in memory the fact that 80 per cent of the 
 whole population in Russia is scattered over the vast plains 
 in little villages protected by the popes (priests). If there 
 is revolution in Paris, it is revolution in France. Not so in 
 Russia. The cries of the flogged and massacred people in 
 the cities are not heard on the immense plains. 
 
 "The Russian peasant, the writer declares, is pious, patrio- 
 tic, and devoted to the Czar. When the fall comes and the 
 harvest has been gathered in, the functionaries of the gov- 
 ernment arrive and rob him of the toilsome profit of his work.
 
 198 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 During the winter he suffers, consequently, great need. Yet 
 the peasant is patient and hungers through the winter with 
 his cattle. In the spring, weakened by the long fasting, 
 it often happens that the cattle fall to the ground and die 
 on the green meadow. The peasant suffers thus because he is 
 by no means able to see the connection. 
 
 "And how can he ? In this century of public-school educa- 
 tion anybody would realize that the government is the cause 
 of the evil. The Russian peasant thinks different. No, he 
 says, the Czar and the government are not guilty. Guilty 
 are the tax officers, because they steal ; guilty are the judges, 
 because they are bribed; guilty are, above all, the landlords, 
 because they have much land, much corn, and many horses. 
 If we only had more land, it would be different; but why 
 do we not possess more land? The country is great, but 
 it is divided since many years. Our children must go to the 
 factories or emigrate to Siberia or the West. Land is too 
 small, harvest is too small, and if I did not work in the 
 woods during the winter I could not support my family. 
 And why is this ? Did not Czar Alexander give us the land, 
 and did he not take it from the landlords? Why does not 
 Czar Nicholas do the same? Whence does the landlord get 
 the land? Land belongs. naturally to man, and not to land- 
 lords. Does my field belong to me? No, it is county prop- 
 erty. But why does the landlord own his land? 
 
 "Thus reasons the Russian peasant. When he is hungry, 
 or when the military commission levies all men able to work 
 and nobody is left to cultivate the land, he does not raise the 
 cry of the intelligent laborers for a constitution, but calls 
 for — bread. The peasant goes now to the property of the 
 landlord and demands corn. If it happens to be no holiday 
 and the peasant is sober, he is satisfied if he gets it and re- 
 turns home. Furthermore, . much will depend on how the 
 new military commission will go to work. If they only take 
 a few out of every village, the writer claims, everything will 
 remain quiet. If they take many, the peasant will say, and 
 we hear it already, If the government takes our men, we 
 will take corn from the landlords, for how shall our wives 
 and our children live? 
 
 "Here is indeed the key to the great Russian problem. So 
 long as the government has nothing to fear from the peasantry,
 
 Impossibility of a Kussian Social Eevolution. 199 
 
 it can without conscience continue the foul play of promises 
 of improvements. This is the truth, and it is serious for 
 many that are ready to sacrifice life and liberty for their 
 country. On the vast plains sleeps the future of Kussia — 
 but where is the man to awaken it ?" 
 
 This fully corroborates the position Wilshire's has taken. 
 
 The peasants cannot successfully revolt because Eussia is 
 not sufficiently industrially organized and educated to be 
 nationally conscious. It is a jelly fish.
 
 200 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 A WORLD TRUST 
 
 Boston, Sept. 23.— A dispatch to the Transcript from Pittsburg 
 says that two Pittsburg men, President James A. Chambers and 
 Vice-President M. K. McMullin of the American Window Glass 
 Co., are at the head of the effort to form a world's trust in 
 window glass. A dispatch from Brussels says they have a four 
 months' option in which to purchase all the salable glass fac- 
 tories in Belgium. When Messrs. Chambers and McMullin went 
 abroad, it was with a view to making an agreement to curtail 
 production and maintain prices at a profitable point. It is expected 
 that they will return to Belgium in December. 
 
 The negotiations with independents, co-operatives and workers 
 in America last spring were notably successful. A short fire has 
 been secured, as the plants will not resume operations till No- 
 vember 1. All surplus stocks can be absorbed, and prices main- 
 tained at the present high level. Last year the window-glass 
 business in America was aided by the Belgian strike. 
 
 I take the above from the Evening Post. It is always a 
 matter of wonderment to me that the editor of that staid old 
 paper can give such an item of news indicating a new and 
 remarkable development of industry and then not give even 
 a line of comment in his editorial column. 
 
 However, it is easy enough of explanation. He has noth- 
 ing to say. The Evening Post for many years was the lead- 
 ing exponent of the laissez faire theory of political economy, 
 (jive us free trade and an honest administration and the so- 
 cial problem is solved, it said. When the trusts first appeared 
 no paper was louder than it in denunciation of what it called 
 the '^brigands of commerce." Up to that time I myself had 
 been more or less an admirer of the Post. ' I still persisted 
 in the delusion that it was at least honest in its wrong the- 
 ories. I wrote a number of letters to it in 1884-85 on the 
 subject of trusts showing the injustice of blaming the cap- 
 italists for doing what the inexorable laws of trade forced 
 them to do. 
 
 I was not a Socialist then, but had sense enough anyway 
 to see the absolute necessity of the trust to the capitalist. 
 The Post refused to publish any of my letters, much to my
 
 A World Trust. 201 
 
 astonishment, as I had thought until then that any one 
 writing to them upon such an important subject as the trust 
 would be sure of publication. 
 
 I have learned more about the art of modern journalism 
 since then. The newspaper of to-day never, except as a 
 matter of necessity, tells the truth unless the truth happens 
 to correspond with what it thinks its readers like. At that 
 time the Post thought its readers wanted the trusts de- 
 nounced as inexcusable nuisances. To have me come along 
 and offer a reasonable excuse for their formation and ex- 
 istence made it out silly to call for the abolition of the trust. 
 As it could not answer me, it took the shortest way out of the 
 difficulty by suppressing my letters. 
 
 I am the only editor who always stands by and publishes 
 anybody's letter on any side of the political question. 
 
 However, I must withdraw part of my criticism of the si- 
 lence of the Post. It at last delivered itself a week after the 
 news of the International Glass combination and after I had 
 written the foregoing. This is from its editorial of October 1: 
 
 The rapidity with which the Trust question has been coming 
 to the front in Mexico has been plain from the progress recently 
 made in railway consolidation in that country and the total 
 reorganization of the country's industry upon the basis of the 
 "community-of-interests" principle. The "small producer" is, as 
 usual, putting in his complaint, and his request for relief. Mine- 
 owners urge that the American Smelting and Refining Company, 
 which has absorbed most of the mines and nearly all of the 
 smelters in Mexico, is now closing some of the best mines in 
 the Sierra Mojada region, in its effort to control the output and 
 the price of ores. It is now stated that President Diaz is con- 
 sidering the advisability of putting a check upon the growth of 
 trusts by officially prohibiting them. President Diaz may learn 
 a useful lesson from the experience of the United States Congress, 
 which prohibited Trusts by the Sherman Law with such effect 
 that by 1900, according to Senator Hanna, "there was not a Trust 
 in the United States." As it appears to be Americn capitalists 
 that are causing trouble in Mexico, it may be that the Trusts 
 have been driven to that country from the United States. It will 
 be interesting to see where they will go when they have been 
 driven out of Mexico by President Diaz. 
 
 Further dispatches attest the progress that is being made by 
 American capital in competition with foreign. Recent announce- 
 ments have given good ground for the belief that Americans may 
 prove dangerous, not merely as sellers in European markets, but 
 also as competitive producers on foreign soil. The most note-
 
 202 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 worthy development of the sort was seen in the recent pur- 
 chase of the English firm of Ogden's, Limited, by the American 
 Tobacco Company — a step which has aroused serious appre- 
 hension not merely among English tobacco manufacturers, 
 but generally throughout the whole field of British indus- 
 try. Further progress in the direction of American control 
 of foreign industry has now been made by the Glass Trust's 
 acquisition of the Belgian glass factories at Charleroi. While the 
 Trust has not succeeded in obtaining the entire ownership of the 
 factories, it has acquired a large, if not controlling, interest. The 
 Trust, with its enlarged scope, will now, it is thought, be able to 
 govern the market and control wages. Taken in connection with 
 other transfers of American capital to foreign fields of investment, 
 these two encroachments must be regarded as highly significant. 
 They indicate where the headship of industry is likely to be found 
 in the future. They will be a source of disappointment to those 
 who have laid stress on the difficulty of forming international 
 combinations of capital. They will, however, bring new problems 
 to the attention of governments, and may raise the practical 
 question whether the governments themselves are stronger than 
 the Trusts. 
 
 The Post is not unamusing when it wonders where the dear 
 little trust birds will roost when Hanna shoos them out of 
 this country and Diaz shoos them from Mexico. 
 
 It is still more amusing, although quite unconscious of it, 
 however, in its plaintive query whether the trusts are stronger 
 than the governments or not. The trusts some day may shoo 
 the governments away and roost in the coop themselves, the 
 Post evidently thinks. 
 
 Let me tell you, Dear Post, that the trusts moved in long 
 ago and the governments are simply their tenants at will. 
 
 " You don't believe it? Well, you did not believe me when I 
 predicted ten years ago that American capital would be so 
 superabundant in this country that it would be forced to in- 
 vest in Europe.
 
 Left at the Evening Post. 203 
 
 LEFT AT THE EVENING POST 
 
 With a suddenness that must be startling to those who note 
 only the surface of events, Socialism has become a factor in our 
 moral, political and industrial life. The Socialist vote for Presi- 
 dent last fall attracted a good deal of attention — more, perhaps, 
 than in itself it deserved — but it was in no way a measure of the 
 importance of the Socialist movement. And year by year, as 
 science compels consolidations and co-operations on a scale im- 
 possible in the past, the collectivist proposals formulated by the 
 German Jew, Karl Marx, out of the theorizings of the great 
 French economists of the eighteenth century, are bound to receive 
 more and more attention. 
 
 Whatever one believes about it, he must inform himself. For, 
 while Mark Hanna's prediction that Socialism would be the storm 
 center of the next great political battle in this country seemed 
 exaggerated when he made it a few years ago, his farsightedness 
 is already vindicated. To fight for Socialism, you must under- 
 stand it; to fight against Socialism, you must understand it. 
 
 When I read the above in the Saturday Evening Post, I, 
 naturally, came to the conclusion that Mr. Lorimer, the ed- 
 itor, meant what he said. I thought he was anxious that his 
 readers should learn what Socialism really means. 
 
 He certainly says so plainly enough. He advises them 
 that, whether they are for or against Socialism, it is neces- 
 sary they should be properly informed about it. Mr. Lor- 
 imer did not attempt to tell them what it is, and thereby he 
 rose still higher in my estimation, for it is a wise man who 
 knows what he doesn't know. 
 
 Eegarding Mr. Lorimer's editorial as an invitation to 
 spread the doctrine of Socialism before the eyes of his read- 
 ers I prepared a modest little advertisement of Wilshire's 
 Magazine for the Post, and requested its insertion at the 
 usual rates. It read about as follows : 
 
 SOCIALISM ! Head it up ! Ten cents for a whole year. 
 WILSHIRE'S MAGAZINE, New York. 
 
 To my surprise the advertisement was refused. I say to 
 my surprise because the same advertisement was readily taken 
 by other magazines such as The Outlook, The Independent, 
 Success, Public Opinion, The Literary Digest, etc.
 
 204 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 I inquired for the reason of the turndown, offering to 
 change the wording, but the Post replied that they "did not 
 like the theme/' which meant there was no loophole for Wil- 
 shire to enter. 
 
 Of course, all this is merely a surprising exhibition of busi- 
 ness stupidity by people who are, usually, considered very 
 up-to-date, yet who are so out of touch with the movement of 
 the times that they do not know that the word "Socialism" is 
 no longer a bogy to scare away readers and advertisers. 
 
 For instance items like this taken from the New York 
 Evening Post are getting too common for us Socialists to 
 quote : 
 
 The word Socialism pointed at any scheme ten years ago, 
 would knock the scheme into a cocked hat. Now the word So- 
 cialism doesn't scare 'em. No one jumps when a scheme to buy 
 the street railways of Chicago is proposed and voted on and 
 carried. No one doubts but that municipal ownership of street 
 railroads, gas, water, lights ard power will be as prevalent in 
 America twenty years from now as any political custom. — 
 Emporia Gazette (Rep.). 
 
 The Post did not reject the advertisement because it is op- 
 posed to Socialism, for the Post is not opposed to anything 
 that does not affect its pocketbook. It simply classes the 
 word, or theme as it calls it, Socialism as it would class Hyp- 
 notism, or Matrimony, or Astrology, or Clairvoyancy, and 
 other such words which are used in connection with certain 
 advertisements which the publishing world dubs as "bad 
 copy." 
 
 By this is meant copy that tends to lower the tone of the 
 publication, and causes the withdrawal of higher-class adver- 
 tisers, such as automobile manufacturers, etc. 
 
 But the Post is learning things, for I have in hand this 
 moment its edition of May 13th. Its leading editorial is 
 upon the Chicago election, and it is significant of the trend 
 of the public opinion to see the Post speak so favorably of 
 "municipal ownership." The cat has jumped and the Post 
 at last knows which way to run. It says : "Voters of all cities 
 everywhere are all in sympathy with Chicago. The people 
 must reclaim their streets." It will some day say they must 
 reclaim not only their streets but all their wealth.
 
 Left at the Evening Post. 205 
 
 It's only a step from municipal ownership to national 
 ownership, and from national ownership to Socialism is only 
 another step. 
 
 I have hopes that after we have Socialism the Post may let 
 me use the word Socialism in its sacred columns. Who 
 knows ?
 
 206 WlLSHIEE EDITOEIALS. 
 
 THE STRIKERS AND THE MEAT TRUST 
 
 THE strike of the Meat Trust workers and the conse- 
 quential alarming and almost prohibitive rise in the 
 price of meat throughout the country is a very clear 
 illustration of the danger into which the trusts are dragging 
 the country. When a few men can prohibit the nation from 
 eating meat, and a few others can prohibit us from eating 
 bread, we are not far off from a much more effective despotism 
 than Nero ever conceived. 
 
 That the workers on strike have a most just cause is ad- 
 mitted by any impartial observer. The following, by Joseph 
 Wanhope, is written by one who is perfectly familiar with the 
 dreadful conditions of the trade in Chicago: 
 
 It is a strike against a reduction of wages, involving a cent 
 per hour, but so narrow is the margin on which these hunger- 
 tortured wretches exist, that the difference of a cent probably 
 means life or death to them. At any rate, it was the last straw. 
 They are now out, and the contest between empty stomachs and 
 the capitalists' dollar is on. 
 
 Few people have any idea of the indescribable wretchedness 
 in which these Chicago workers live. Right under the walls of 
 the district, where perhaps more food is stored than on any other 
 spot of a similar size on earth, the children of the unskilled 
 workers precariously employed in the monster packing houses, 
 may be seen standing at the gates begging for the scraps of food 
 that might be left in the dinner-pails of the better-paid working- 
 men. The district in which these unfortunates live is known in 
 Chicago parlance as "back of the dump," a spot several acres in 
 extent covered with the reeking garbage of the great city, and 
 mixing its fetid odors with the ever-present stock-yard stench. 
 Unpaved streets, with unfathomable mud-holes, dilapidated and 
 unsanitary hovels, cheap saloons and gorgeous churches, most of 
 the latter subsidized by the packers, abound. Politically, the 
 district belongs to one Carey, a saloon-keeping alderman, who is 
 hand in glove with the packers, the clergy and the thugs of the 
 neighborhood, and whose political agents, locally known as 
 "Carey's Indians," serve to keep the "boss" in power as agent
 
 Strikers and Meat Trust. 207 
 
 for the packers, and terrorize any intruders who would poach on 
 his political domain. 
 
 In this dreary and hideous district, the light of Socialism has 
 never yet penetrated. Years of work and effort by the local 
 comrades have failed to secure a foothold there. And the in- 
 habitants of this region, starved in body, stunted in mind, a 
 combination of slavery, brutality, and ignorance, in about equal 
 proportions, have at last rebelled, and are now ready to give 
 what battle they can to their pious exploiters. 
 
 The outcome will be interesting, though there is little doubt 
 but that these wretched people will be crushed back in sullen 
 despair into their hideous dens, after an exhibition of "lawless- 
 ness" that will afford the capitalists all the excuse they need for 
 "taking vigorous measures for their repression," and for the 
 maintenance of "law and order." 
 
 But that they have rebelled at all is a hopeful sign. It may 
 give the Socialists the long-desired opportunity to teach the 
 only way out of the festering mass of misery and want that 
 exists under the shadow of a mighty food reservoir, of which 
 it is boasted that the armies of Europe must first make applica- 
 tion before they can march, and which sends provisions by the 
 millions of pounds to the uttermost ends of the earth. What- 
 ever the intellectual capacity of these suffering people may be, 
 there is no doubt, however, that the Chicago stock-yards fur- 
 nishes an indictment against the damnable system of capitalism 
 that cannot be paralleled elsewhere on the face of the earth. 
 
 But fundamentally, the question of whether the strikers 
 are right or wrong is of minor import to the question of 
 whether the nation as a whole should or should not control 
 the supply of such a vital necessity as beef. 
 
 Under private ownership the assumption is that the pro- 
 duction of goods is of interest only to the workers engaged in 
 such production, and of their employers. 
 
 It is assumed that what with competition between the work- 
 ers for work, and competition between the employers for work- 
 ers, that things will automatically adjust themselves to the end 
 that the general public will get its coal and beef and other 
 things it may want and will buy. But when we have com- 
 petition eliminated between the workers by a Trade Union, 
 and when we have competition eliminated between the em- 
 ployers by a Trust, I would like to ask where does the dear 
 public get off. 
 
 The evolution of our industrial system necessitates both 
 Trusts and Trade Unions, but does the reiteration of this 
 theory to a public shivering without coal and hungry with-
 
 208 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 out meat reconcile it to the predicament in which it finds 
 itself? 
 
 There is but one sure way for the dear public to warm it- 
 self and feed itself, and that is to teach itself to take care of 
 itself. Paddle its own canoe, so to speak. Let the Public 
 Own the Coal Trust and the Beef Trust. Let the Nation 
 Own All the Trusts.
 
 The Ten Hode Decision. 209 
 
 THE TEN HOUR DECISION 
 
 THE Supreme Court of the United States, by a vote of 
 5 to 4, has decided that the New York State law, lim- 
 iting the work-day to ten hours for bakers, is unconsti- 
 tutional. The general ground taken by the majority of the 
 court is that such a law, by preventing a man working as long 
 as he chooses, is not only a curtailment of his liberty, but is 
 an infringement upon his property rights. The court assumes 
 that a man's body is his own private property, to do with it 
 as he may please, and that any denial of his right to use it for 
 over ten hours a day is virtually an infringement upon the 
 divine right of private property. 
 
 The court scouted the idea that the bill was intended to 
 protect either the health of the bakers or of the bread-eating 
 public. 
 
 Justice Harlan, in voicing the dissenting minority, pleaded 
 that the bill was unquestionably a "health bill," and there- 
 fore being within the police power of the State, the federal 
 government had not the right to intervene. 
 
 It may here be stated that eight-hour laws in Kansas and 
 Utah, limiting the time for miners, have been declared by 
 the United States Supreme Court valid, on the ground that 
 more than eight hours' work underground is unhealthy, and 
 therefore the States had the right to pass such laws. 
 
 It would appear then that any law limiting the workday 
 must, to be valid, show that it protects the health of the 
 workers ; the leisure or pleasure is unimportant. 
 
 This is a pretty fine distinction. I have no doubt but that 
 if good Justice Peckham, of the Honorable Supreme Court 
 of the United States, should be compelled to make his living 
 by kneading bread in the ordinary and average hot, bad-smell- 
 ing, underground, dusty bakery in New York City he would 
 revise his opinion about ten hours of such work not being
 
 210 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 too long for one's health, and come to the conclusion that 
 ten minutes would be more than enough for his health. 
 
 However, from the socialist standpoint the view taken by 
 the majority of the Supreme Court is sound; that is, it is 
 sound constitutionally. 
 
 Unquestionably, the makers of our constitution never 
 thought of any such future of this country, as is seen to-day, 
 where the lack of ownership of property would make the mass 
 of the people dependent upon a small class of owners of 
 property. 
 
 In those days the only property of any account was land, 
 and land could be had on the western frontier for the asking. 
 If a man did not like the wages prescribed by his employer, he 
 could break in his own farm on the public domain and become 
 his own boss. 
 
 Under such conditions, and our forefathers thought they 
 would be permanent, it would have been unquestionably a 
 very direct infringement upon a man's liberty to pass a law 
 preventing him working as long as he pleased. 
 
 But those primitive conditions are not the conditions of 
 to-day, although the Supreme Court assumes them to be, and 
 it is probably bound to make such an assumption. 
 
 To-day not only does a small minority own all the land> 
 but it owns all the tools necessary to work the land and bring 
 the product to market. 
 
 Hence, even if a man did have the free access to the land, 
 which formerly was the opportunity of all, he would still be 
 in economic servitude to the capitalists who own the necessary 
 machinery to work the land. 
 
 In our grandfathers' days the "necessary machinery" meant 
 an axe, a hoe, and a log-cabin, all of which were easy of in- 
 dividual production and ownership. To-day "necessary ma- 
 chinery" means a combined reaper and harvester, made by a 
 one-hundred-million-dollar trust, a one-hundred-million-dol- 
 lar railway to haul the wheat to market, a million-dollar ele- 
 vator to unload it, and a million-dollar mill to grind it into 
 flour, and finally a hundred-million-dollar trust to bake it 
 into biscuits for all America. 
 
 It is self-evident that there are not, and cannot be, enough 
 million-dollar "trusts" to allow every man to own his own 
 "trust." In fact, the essential idea of a "trust" is not so
 
 The Ten Hour Decision. 211 
 
 much organization of property as it is orgainzation of men. 
 It is as absurd to think of every man owning his own trust, 
 no matter how much wealth there may be, as it is to think 
 of every private soldier being a general of the army. 
 
 But if you don't own your own trust, you must, when you 
 wish to gain your living, go to some one who does own a trust, 
 and beg for permission to use it; in other words, you must 
 beg him for a job. 
 
 It may be that you will approach the Biscuit Trust. It 
 will reply and say that all its employees work eleven hours a 
 day, and that it can only give you work on condition of your 
 working the regulation number of hours. 
 
 You are hungry, and no other trust will offer anything 
 better, so you accept the conditions and work the eleven hours 
 per day. Perhaps, after you have worked for a few years 
 eleven hours per day, you and your fellow bakers organize 
 and send up a delegation to the State capitol, and after years 
 of work they persuade the legislature to pass a law limiting 
 the workday for bakers to ten hours per day. 
 
 Suppose after your great legislative victory the court sets 
 aside your law because it infringes upon your right to work 
 for eleven hours a day? 
 
 And yet, if you have followed up all the foregoing, you 
 may see why the decision of the court is strictly "constitu- 
 tional." Now, what are you going to do about it ? It's stupid 
 to say you will change the membership of the Supreme Court. 
 The judges are there for life, and few die and none resigns; 
 and, anyway, they have only said that black is black, and you 
 should not demand that they say black is white, merely be- 
 cause you don't want to work eleven hours a day. 
 
 May be you will think of amending the constitution? 
 After you look into the matter and see what a gigantic task 
 that would be, I think you will give up the idea. It would 
 be about as difficult to amend the constitution of the United 
 States, in such a way as to make a ten-hour bill constitutional, 
 as it would be for Rockefeller to get a pass into heaven from 
 the Reverend Washington Gladden. 
 
 But you say you must find some way out. Here you are a 
 citizen of the richest country under the sun. You can pro- 
 duce more wealth in a minute with your modern machinery 
 than your grandfather could, one hundred years ago, in an
 
 212 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 hour, and yet your Supreme Court says no matter how fast 
 you can produce with your labor-saving inventions, you must 
 work eleven hours a day anyway. 
 
 If there is any labor to be saved, it is evidently not to be 
 your labor, not if the court knows itself. One hundred years 
 ago your grandfather worked eleven hours a day; to-day you 
 produce sixty times as much and you must also work eleven 
 hours a day. In one hundred years the progress of invention 
 may quadruple your present product, but you must still buckle 
 down to that inexorable eleven-hour workday. 
 
 May be in another hundred years your grandson will pro- 
 duce a thousand times as much as you produce to-day, but 
 nevertheless his nose, too, must touch the grindstone for 
 eleven hours a day, and Rockefeller's grandson will be worth 
 ten billion dollars. 
 
 Of course, you know that the increased product does not 
 mean increased pay for you. You are paid according to how 
 cheap the trust can get some other fellow to take your place. 
 How much you produce has nothing to do with your pay. 
 
 If you are a baker and an automatic kneading machine is 
 installed, increasing the product ten times, allowing the trust 
 to discharge nine out of its ten bakers, do you think the lucky 
 tenth man, who is kept, will regard it as an opportune time 
 to ask for more pay ? Not when he thinks of those nine men 
 just let out, every one of whom wants to get back at any wage 
 that will feed him. 
 
 You may well despair if you look upon existing conditions 
 of trust ownership as permanent. But did you ever think of 
 the possibility of a change from private ownership to public 
 ownership ?
 
 Wall Street Journal Turns Moralist. 213 
 
 WALL STREET JOURNAL TURNS 
 MORALIST 
 
 1 BELIEVE in playing a game fair or not at all. If you 
 enter into a contest, certain rules of play have been 
 agreed upon beforehand, and you find yourself getting 
 beaten, if you have any sand, you will stick by your agree- 
 ment and take your medicine. You must either do that or 
 play the baby act and ask for a modification of the rules to fit 
 your special case. 
 
 If you want to play, stick to the rules. 
 
 If you do not want to play then say so, ask for a new deal 
 and a new set of rules. 
 
 Now we Americans a long time ago entered upon a game 
 of competition in money-making. We fixed upon certain 
 rules at the beginning of the game, and now we have no right 
 to whine about Rockefeller and Morgan beating us at our 
 own game and with our own rules, and at the same time insist 
 upon going on with the game. 
 
 The general rule of the game was competition to a finish; 
 let the best man win; the fellow who could quote the lowest 
 price should have the market. Let bankruptcy engulf the 
 high-price man. 
 
 I, myself, am perfectly consistent in my attitude. Let 
 others be the same. 
 
 I say that Rockefeller and Morgan and Gates and Hill and 
 that gang, with their immense bank accounts, can get away 
 with the rest of us poor small fry in this competitive game, 
 and that I for one have had enough of it. I am licked, I 
 confess it; and I have sense enough to throw up the sponge. 
 
 I call for a new deal and new rules. 
 
 I want the earth made subject to a redivision and I wish 
 new rules made that will forever prevent its ownership being 
 again alienated from the common ownership of the people. 
 
 I say that when the government owns the capital of this 
 country just as it owns our national parks and our post office, 
 that then will be established an everlasting equality of all
 
 214 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 wealth; and never until this is done will men be content, 
 for before that time justice will not be done. 
 
 Now if we should try and think up some one person who 
 is satisfied with the existing order of things and upon whose 
 lips is the cry: "Let well enough alone, Stand pat," we 
 would most likely have thought that we should find him in 
 the editor of the Wall Street Journal. 
 
 But if we did, then we have another thing coming, for 
 this is the cry-baby talk I find in this morning's (Dec. 16) 
 editorial: 
 
 BUSINESS AND THE LAW. 
 
 We observe that several papers which have reprinted and 
 commented upon the little anecdote printed in this column some 
 time ago, dealing with two factories and the method by which a 
 capitalist proposed to acquire the prosperous factory, have ap- 
 parently misunderstood the general drift of our remarks there- 
 upon. We printed the story mainly to point out that the law 
 permitted the doing of a great many things in the way of busi- 
 ness, which were, in a moral sense, nothing better than highway 
 robbery. We did not, as one or two of our more ingenuous, if 
 hasty, commentators assumed, at all venture to justify such acts. 
 
 To speak plainly, we see no essential difference between the 
 taking of a competitor's business away from him by extreme 
 competition, that is, by competition not warranted on any other 
 motive, and the forcible abstraction of portable property from 
 one man by another man stronger than himself. We do not regard 
 it as morally defensible, for example, for a man to establish 
 himself alongside someone else and proceed to take away the 
 business of that someone else, using for that purpose the brute 
 force of money spent in selling at a loss, any more than we should 
 regard it as morally defensible for him to accomplish the same 
 purpose by brute force of arms. The purpo'se is immoral. It 
 involves the taking away of that which belongs to someone else 
 by other than fair competition. Of course, such a process is as 
 common as can be in the business world, and is perfectly legal. 
 The Standard Oil Company was charged with this kind of thing 
 at practically all stages of its existence. Apparently no Standard 
 Oil representative has ever felt it necessary to deny the charge. 
 
 The fact of the matter is that the conventions of the business 
 world, expressed in the law, have simply replaced the exercise of 
 mere brute force, leaving the article of the decalogue against 
 stealing expressed only so far as the stealing is accomplished by 
 actual physical force or by absolute fraud. Beyond this the 
 moral law finds no expression in the law of business. 
 
 Now, I have often read such tommy-rot before, but usually 
 in such periodicals as the Christian Herald or the Salva-
 
 Wall Street Journal Turns Moralist. 215 
 
 tion Army War Cry. To find it in the Wall Street Journal 
 is too funny for words. 
 
 The Journal believes in competition all right, as long as 
 you do not compete in order to take away the other fellows' 
 business by selling below cost. He wants a fight, but insists 
 on no broken heads. Pray, what right has the Journal to 
 tell me how I am to spend my money and how I am to fix 
 my selling price? And anyway how is he to determine what 
 my "cost" price is? I may be selling at a price which renders 
 me a profit, but which would mean a loss to my competitor. 
 I may have a superior process, I may own the sources of sup- 
 ply, I may own my own property while he must pay rent, I 
 may have a much bigger plant; and so simply because I have 
 more money and can afford to sell for less, my selling for 
 less of necessity captures my competitor's business. 
 
 Now, why do I have a bigger capital? Why, in fact, do I 
 have any capital at all? Do I own capital for the purpose of 
 fulfilling the moral law? 
 
 Not at all. I own capital to make money with and for 
 that purpose only. 
 
 It is true that it is not so very many years ago when men 
 were wont to think of the moral law and the business law 
 as much the same thing. It is a comparatively modern view, 
 this of the Wall Street Journal's, that a man owning the 
 superior capital and taking away another man's capital is 
 morally in the same class as a highwayman, but financially 
 eligible to be a member of young Mr. Rockefeller's Bible 
 class. 
 
 If we are to have private capital and competition, then let 
 us have it and play the game according to rule. Let the big 
 man devour the little man; he has a right to his prey. It's 
 too late altogether for the Wall Street Journal, speaking for 
 the smaller capitalists who are being driven to cover by the 
 superior capital of Rockefeller, to cry "quarter." There is no 
 quarter. It is war to the knife and the knife to the hilt. I 
 cry not for quarter. There can be no quarter under capital- 
 ism and competition. I demand justice, and justice can come 
 only with Socialism-
 
 216 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 THE INEXORABLE TRUST 
 
 THE EVENING POST of New York is one of the jour- 
 nals to whom a considerable number of people look for 
 guidance in their political and economic creeds. It 
 sets itself up as an oracle upon all theories of political econ- 
 omy, and especially does it think itself "IT" when such sub- 
 jects as the tariff, free silver and trusts are concerned. I am 
 bound to say that its views are usually stated vigorously and 
 to the point, and that it is not always wrong. However, upon 
 the real vital question of the hour— the trusts — it' hides itself 
 in a cloud of words so that no man can tell what it proposes 
 as a remedy other than it thinks the disease is not so very bad 
 and that the best thing is to forego doctoring and let it wear 
 itself out. Now, this is not a bad program, provided the 
 patient doesn't die before the disease wears out, but upon 
 such a contingency the Post utters no warning. 
 
 As to the Trust wearing itself out with old age I would 
 like to call the attention of the Post to the following item 
 taken from its columns of a recent issue: 
 
 The "irrepressible conflict," as one dealer termed it, which is 
 taking place between the International Salt Company and the 
 independent producers, has resulted not only in forcing the price 
 far below the cost of production, with a consequent overproduc- 
 tion of about 100 per cent., but in convincing the independents 
 that they cannot engage in a campaign of the survival of the 
 fittest unless they organize themselves. There is just now a 
 great deal of talk among them of conferring with the Interna- 
 tional Company for the purpose of making some sort of deal 
 as to prices. But, as it was pointed out by a leading manufacturer 
 in this city, there is little hope of success even after a so-called 
 organization of independents. When he was asked why, he 
 replied: 
 
 "For the very simple reason that some one in the organization 
 is always ready to cut the price to get more than his share of 
 the tonnage. That is history. It is a fact that there have been 
 times when, at meetings of salt men to decide upon prices, some 
 have not even waited for the meeting to close before going out 
 to telegraph their houses to cut the prices just agreed upon. 
 
 "The International Company is the aggressor in the campaign, 
 and there is little doubt in my mind that it is at the bottom 
 of this week's reduction of price, salt having declined to $1.50
 
 The Inexorable Trust. 217 
 
 per ton at the works, a drop of about 30 cents. One advantage 
 the International has over the independents is that it supplies 
 certain trades with mined salt, as well as producing evaporated 
 salt, and it controls all the mines in operation in New York State. 
 Also, it has large interests in the salt regions of Michigan, Kan- 
 sas, and Texas, where the independents do not enter. 
 
 "The Michigan salt, however, is of inferior grade, and while 
 it may be unloaded upon the East in such a way as to demoralize 
 prices, it can do so only for a brief time, owing to its quality, 
 or lack of it. The Michigan, Kansas and Texas stations can 
 supply the Central West, and the International establishments 
 at Watkins Glen, Ithaca and Warsaw, New York, are sufficiently 
 great to supply the Eastern seaboard and the Middle States. As 
 for the independents, their large evaporating plants at Akron, 
 Wadsworth and Cleveland, Ohio, and Watkins, Leroy and Perry, 
 New York, place them in a position to supply the entire Eastern 
 trade and that of the Middle States. 
 
 "So the situation is this: There are two factors capable of 
 supplying the trade east of the Mississippi, and each is doing 
 what it can to supply it. The consequence is an overproduction 
 of about 100 per cent, and a very natural drop in the price. What 
 remains to be seen now is how long the independents can stand 
 the pace. With its profits on mined salt the International can 
 probably pay the interest on its bonds, and it would seem, there- 
 fore, that this company is in a position to fight the fight on 
 these lines if it takes all winter. The independents cannot hope 
 to accomplish anything unless they get together and that very 
 close and very earnestly. 
 
 The International Salt Company, which has offices at No. 170 
 Broadway, is incorporated under New Jersey laws with a capital 
 stock of $30,000,000. It has acquired the securities of the Nation- 
 al Salt Company and its constituent concerns, and of the Retsof 
 Mining Company, miners of rock salt. It also controls the Inter- 
 national Salt Company of Illinois. 
 
 Without dwelling upon the ridiculous logic of the Post, 
 which has it that the low price of salt has resulted in a con- 
 sequent over-production instead of the very reverse being 
 true, I would like the Post to point out how it is possible 
 for there not to be finally born a Salt Trust which will put 
 an end to what it calls the "irrepressible conflict." 
 
 It must be remembered that the capitalists engaged in the 
 salt business are engaged therein, not for the purpose of giv- 
 ing the dear public salt, as our political economists would 
 have us believe, but for the purpose of making money. If it 
 happens that they can make more money by not making salt 
 than they can by the making of it, then it won't take them 
 long to shut down their salt mines,
 
 218 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 There is more salt being produced than the public can buy, 
 even when the salt is sold at less than cost. 
 
 Some people would have us believe that there is never an 
 over-production of a commodity when the selling price is not 
 placed too much above cost. They seem to think the public 
 buy upon the plan of only paying a fair profit and that when 
 the price is fixed at this figure the public will buy unlimited 
 quantities, in fact just as much as is produced. 
 
 Of course this is all rubbish. The public buy as little as 
 they can get along with. I want just so much salt on my 
 potatoes, and if salt were ten cents a ton I would not use a 
 pinch more because it was cheap. 
 
 However, there is a capacity in our salt mines to give us 
 more salt in a week than we can use in a week. The salt was 
 put there in those mines to last man on this earth for the 
 next million years; if so we can naturally mine more of it 
 out in a week than we can use up in a week. 
 
 However, the salt manufacturers are not concerned with 
 the next million years, they can only make money by mining 
 salt right now in the year of our Lord 1905, and mine salt 
 they intend to do if every man jack of them goes bankrupt, 
 unless they can come to an agreement which will result in 
 their making just as much money by refraining from mining 
 salt as they could if they mined it. The Post may say, "Very 
 well, let the Kilkenny salt cats compete themselves to death ; 
 the community is the gainer, and the sooner such fools are 
 off the earth the better." But it must be remembered that it's 
 only the little salt fools that are competed off the earth. The 
 big International Salt Company, which is the aggressor in 
 the struggle now going on, wishes just this result. When the 
 fight is over it will be the sole survivor, and salt will be a 
 commodity the mining of which will be a monopoly resting 
 entirely in its hands. 
 
 Is not this an absolutely necessary result of the continuance 
 of the existing struggle, I would ask the omniscient Post ? 
 
 If it is the inevitable finality, I would like to ask the Post 
 what, then, is its solution of the Trust Problem? Let the 
 Trust wear itself out? That is absurd, for the Trust is the 
 result of entirely natural conditions and no more can wear 
 itself out than ice can melt when the thermometer remains 
 below zero.
 
 Good Old Kockefeller. 219 
 
 GOOD OLD ROCKEFELLER 
 
 ONE of the most fortunate occurrences that could hap- 
 pen for Socialism is that the man who has most 
 profited by the existing competitive system is one 
 who so strictly conforms to the conventional ideas of religion 
 and morality. If Mr. Kockefeller were noted for his pro- 
 fligacy or his violation of the ordinary business rules of life 
 we might be able to blame the individual rather than the 
 system, but as a matter of fact even the most searching scru- 
 tiny into his methods, which is being given by Miss Tarbell 
 in McClure's Magazine, discloses no such moral or legal de- 
 linquency of which so many other of our great capitalists 
 are guilty. Miss Tarbell's story of Rockefeller which is con- 
 tinued in last month's McClure's, is simply a long recital of 
 the attempt of the various refiners and producers of oil to 
 keep up an independent existence. She says that up to 1887 
 Mr. Rockefeller had confined his attention to refining of oil 
 and had not gone into the production of the raw material. 
 In that year, for the first time, he was compelled to purchase 
 oil bearing lands, inasmuch as the oil producers were form- 
 ing a monopoly which threatened to cut him off from his 
 supply of crude oil. Oil had always been at such a very low 
 price, owing to overproduction, there was no reason for 
 Rockefeller producing himself. There were complaints as to 
 the low price of oil and Rockefeller was blamed for this 
 condition. He replied when asked by an investigating com- 
 mittee, "the dear people, if they had produced less oil than 
 they require, we would have given their full price; no com- 
 bination in the world could have prevented that if they had 
 produced less oil than the world requires." That this is true 
 can be seen by the fact that the yearly production of crude 
 oil had risen from five and a half million barrels to thirty 
 million barrels and in 1883 thirty-five million barrels 
 were above ground in stock. Mr. Rockefeller could not be 
 blamed for this great surplus of oil being produced, inas- 
 much as he had nothing to do with production. It is true
 
 220 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 that he did limit the distribution to a certain extent 
 by putting up the price of his refined oil, but even if 
 he had sold at absolute cost there would have been over-pro- 
 duction anyway. The lowering of the price a few cents a gal- 
 lon would have undoubtedly stimulated somewhat the demand 
 for oil, but not nearly enough to have absorbed the total pro- 
 duction. The earth has in its oil fields a great deal more 
 oil than people can burn up this year, but the oil producers 
 do not seem to think so. It is absurd to think that all you 
 have to do is to reduce the price enough to use up at once the 
 earth's store for the ages. Not only can the earth yield a 
 great deal more than the people can possibly burn, but our 
 competitive system prevents people from having means 
 enough to buy what they want, so that there are two very 
 good reasons, either of which is quite sufiicient to account 
 for overproduction. Mr. Rockefeller has been absolutely re- 
 lentless in his determination to prevent and exterminate com- 
 petition in the oil business, but that he has done anything 
 that any ordinary business man would not do to beat a com- 
 petitor in a similar case is not very clear. The great differ- 
 ence between Mr. Rockefeller and most men is that he has 
 had the courage and ability to resort to such measures. It 
 has been alleged that Mr. Rockefeller was instrumental in 
 having certain opposing refiners in Rochester blown up in 
 order to get rid of them, but Miss Tarbell has sifted the 
 evidence pretty closely and comes to the conclusion that there 
 is no ground for this charge. However, it is admitted that 
 Wilshire's Magazine is rather a prejudiced witness in fa- 
 vor of Mr. Rockefeller, inasmuch as we are endeavoring to 
 show that the fault exists not in the individual but in the 
 system. We are of the opinion that the day is not so very 
 far distant when McClure's Magazine will also come to the 
 same opinion. Their brilliant contributor Lincoln Steffens 
 does not hesitate to declare that the source of corruption 
 does not exist in the innate wickedness of man, but in the 
 innate wickedness* of the competitive system under which 
 man labors.
 
 Wilshire's Exile to End. 221 
 
 WILSHIRE'S EXILE TO END 
 
 THIS Magazine is printed in Canada and edited in New 
 York. This anomaly, however, is going to end, as we 
 have just received the gracious permission of His Im- 
 perial Highness, President Roosevelt, conveyed through his 
 Third Assistant Postmaster General, Mr. Madden, that he 
 has decided, in his infinite wisdom and goodness, to allow 
 me to print in New York. It's very good of the Strenuous 
 One to allow a Socialist devil like Wilshire to ink his edi- 
 torial sheets in the same city where he thinks his thinks. 
 That the approaching November election has had anything 
 to do with this awakening of the conscience of His Strenu- 
 osity is, of course, not to be mentioned. The President had 
 "to have time to consider, that's all. With the press of in- 
 digent Republicans seeking the job of caring for the Post 
 Office of Podunk, how could he, with all his Strenuosity, look 
 into a matter so trifling as that of Suppression of the Press, 
 and particularly the Socialist Press? 
 
 I will not weary the air with telling of my woes at length, 
 but some of our readers are unfamiliar with the tale. Let 
 the others be patient while I groan. 
 
 In December, 1900, I began to publish this magazine — ' 
 or rather its weekly predecessor, The Challenge — in Los An- 
 geles. Things soon began to boom, and I decided New York 
 was a better field from which to enlighten the Dear Pub- 
 lic. I moved my printing office from Los Angeles and issued 
 my first number in New York in September, 1901. I had 
 secured my second class publishers' rate in California, and 
 took it for granted that I would have no trouble in getting 
 a transfer from the Los Angeles Post Office to the New York 
 Post Office. I think this would have happened, but unfor- 
 tunately the very week my application for a transfer went in 
 the assassination of President McKinley occurred. This may 
 have been simply a coincidence, but if so it was a very re- 
 markable one. The Post Office refused me a transfer. At the 
 time there was a hue and cry all over the nation that the
 
 222 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 assassination was the result of the pernicious teaching of the 
 doctrines of Socialism, and Anarchism, and that all papers 
 advocating such doctrines should be suppressed. At that time 
 a good many people did not distinguish between Socialism 
 and Anarchism, and it looked to me as if the Post Office 
 thought it would be a good opportunity to injure the cause of 
 Socialism by suppressing this, a Socialist magazine. How- 
 ever, they have always denied this. They claim that the 
 paper was not suppressed on account of its socialistic views, 
 but because of its Wilshire views. Its views were so Wil- 
 \J shiresque that the magazine in their eyes was simply an ad- 
 vertising circular for the spread of Wilshire ideas, and as 
 such had no right to newspaper postal rates but must pay 
 "advertising circular" rates. When I say "suppressed" I 
 wish to explain the word. The paper was not suppressed, 
 but its rate of postage was raised from one cent per pound 
 to eight cents per pound. This is really equivalent to sup- 
 pression, inasmuch as the postage cost at the 8-cent rate was 
 practically prohibitory. 
 
 I tried to have the decision reversed, but all effort was un- 
 availing. I appealed to the President. He refused to either 
 see me or take up my case in any manner. My letters to 
 him complaining of Mr. Madden's act were turned over to 
 Mr. Madden himself to answer. This was probably as insult- 
 ing a way of denying a citizen the right of petition as even 
 strenuosity could devise. I went to the United States Courts, 
 but obtaining justice that way is too long-winded a pro- 
 cedure for a monthly magazine. My case is yet pending, hav- 
 ing never even come to trial. After exhausting every device 
 I could think of, I finally appealed to the Post Master Gen- 
 eral of Canada. I asked him if he would give me second 
 class entry there. He promptly decided that Wilshire's 
 Magazine was eligible to entry, even after I carefully ex- 
 plained to him that Mr. Madden had decided it was merely 
 an advertising circular to advertise Wilshire's ideas. How- 
 ever, the Canadian law requires that a periodical taking ad- 
 vantage of second class entry at the Canadian Post Office 
 be printed in Canada. I must right here explain that the 
 postal reciprocity treaty between Canada and the United 
 States makes each country the judge of its own classifica- 
 tions and what postage shall be charged. I hied myself to
 
 Wilshire's Exile to End. 223 
 
 Canada and issued my first number there in January, 1902, 
 and have been printing there ever since. My editorial and 
 publishing offices remain in New York. My printing and 
 mailing are done in Toronto. 
 
 I might mention that just prior to my going to Canada a 
 certain Mr. Harrison J. Barrett, an attorney of Baltimore — 
 a nephew of Judge Tyner, the recently deposed Attorney 
 General of the Post Office — offered to take up my case and 
 obtain me my entry in New York for the modest fee of 
 $5,000. Mr. Barrett has since been disbarred for connec- 
 tion with the Post Office frauds. I declined to be bled. 
 So for the past two years and more I have had the unique 
 distinction of thinking in New York and printing my thinks 
 in Canada. 
 
 All the time I have been trying to get back, but hitherto 
 unavailingly. But at last I found the right path. It was 
 a happy inspiration. I had called the matter to the attention 
 of all the Congressmen, but never a one budged to help me 
 upon the general grounds of freedom of the press. That was 
 simply a question of principle, and who bothers about prin- 
 ciples these days? Consequently I tried business. A certain 
 printer in New York, not knowing of my enforced exile, came 
 to me and solicited the job of printing the magazine. I said 
 I would be glad to consider his bid if he could arrange that 
 the New York Post Office would allow me second class entry. 
 Mr. Printer writes to Senator Tom Piatt of New York. He 
 complains of the gross injustice done to the printing trade 
 of New York in forcing me to give out work to Canada which 
 should be kept at home. Could Senator Piatt not rectify 
 such an outrage? 
 
 "Well, I guess I can," says the Senator. "What am I here 
 for except to look after my constituents and see that they 
 can have every opportunity to make a living?" 
 
 Well, that's all. In short order I had a most polite letter 
 from Mr. Madden saying that anything he could do for me to 
 help me get back in New York would be done instanter. As 
 a preliminary he granted me the right of "foreign entry." 
 This means he has decided that the magazine is all right as 
 now printed in a "foreign" country — Canada — and is a tacit 
 admission from him that if it is printed in New York that I 
 will have entry there.
 
 224 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 So good-bye, dear Canada. I have many pleasant recollec- 
 tions of you. You have treated me much better than my own 
 country ever did. I shall never forget how you sheltered me, 
 a poor exile. I would stay with you longer, but it's too trou- 
 blesome, this sending manuscript to and fro between New 
 York and Toronto. I may have to print my next number 
 in Toronto, but after that I shall remain in New York un- 
 less Mr. Madden decides that I have again become too Gay 
 for New York, and then I may come back. Leave your 
 latch-string out, Dear Lady of the Snows.
 
 Bbyan Will Discuss Socialism. 225 
 
 BRYAN WILL DISCUSS SOCIALISM 
 
 WHEN we say that Bryan will discuss Socialism we 
 must hasten to qualify, and add without delay that 
 there is a saving clause to this announcement, for 
 the discussion is to be in "due time." He probably means 
 that he will discuss Socialism when Socialism is due. We 
 gather this information from a Sandusky, Ohio, paper. 
 Thomas H. Cowens, a prominent and wealthy Sandusky 
 young man and an ardent Socialist who takes great interest in 
 questions of the day, recently wrote to Bryan, asking him 
 whether it was true that he refused to debate with Gaylord 
 Wilshire. Bryan replied: 
 
 I will say that it is true that I refused to debate with Mr. 
 Wilshire, as I have refused to debate with a great many 
 others. 
 
 Answering your other questions, I beg to say that the 
 question of Socialism will be discussed in due time, but I do 
 not accept the theory that the trust is an economic evolution. 
 
 Mr. Bryan enclosed a cartoon from his paper, the Com- 
 moner, which he says is an illustration of the "manner in 
 which the water is being squeezed out of the trusts," and 
 adds that "this would indicate that they are anything but nat- 
 ural or legitimate." 
 
 In the above Mr. Bryan at last admits he refused to debate 
 with Mr. Wilshire. This is the first time we ever knew he 
 would even admit having received the challenge. Yes, we 
 agree it is wearisome debating with every obscure crank who 
 comes trotting down the pike, wishing to gain notoriety by 
 a debate with a great man. We heartily sympathize with Mr. 
 Bryan's disinclination to accept such challenges. But Mr, 
 Wilshire's challenge was not exactly of the ordinary variety, 
 There was money to be paid to Mr. Bryan for wearying him- 
 self, if talking can be said to weary W. J. Mr. Wilshire 
 offered Mr. Bryan $10,000 for a short, but painful, two hours 
 of Mr. Bryan's time. A large cash deposit was put up with 
 Mr. Bryan's friend, Editor W. R. Hearst, as a guarantee of
 
 226 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 good faith, upon Mr. Wilshire's part, so there could be no 
 doubt that the money would be forthcoming if Mr. Bryan 
 would accept the challenge. Mr. Bryan simply paid no at- 
 tention whatsoever to the challenge though it was made in 
 such a way that he could accept the money either in his 
 capacity as a speaker or as a lawyer. 
 
 However, when it appears that even at this belated hour 
 Mr. Bryan does not yet accept the theory that Trusts are a 
 result of economic evolution, and as evidence of the sound- 
 ness of his views we see that he refers to the falling value of 
 Trust stocks upon the stock exchange it is not difficult for 
 us to determine why Mr. Bryan refuses ten thousand dollars 
 to debate the Trust Problem. He knows nothing about 
 Trusts, he knows nothing about "economic evolution," and 
 knowing enough to know that he doesn't know, he is wise 
 enough to do all he can to keep the public dark as to his 
 ignorance. It is worth a good deal more than ten thousand 
 dollars to Mr. Bryan to prevent the world knowing how much 
 he doesn't know. A debate would lift the cover off his brain 
 and let us see what a yawning vacuum exists there. It's 
 both money and fame to him to prevent a call that will show 
 what a bluff he makes in pretending he has gray matter to 
 burn. The squeezing of water out of Trust stocks means 
 nothing at all. When the Steel Trust or the Oil Trust or the 
 Sugar Trust disintegrates and resolves itself into its com- 
 ponent parts, and these parts once again compete with each 
 other, then will we admit that the Trusts are not the result 
 of economic evolution. In the meanwhile we maintain that 
 the Steel Trust is just as much a monopoly to-day, with its 
 shares selling at $10, as it was a monopoly last summer, when 
 its shares sold at $40. 
 
 It is the dividends that determine stock values, and it is the 
 centralization of industry that determines monopoly.
 
 America Suffocating With Wealth. 227 
 
 AMERICA SUFFOCATING WITH WEALTH 
 
 THE particular mission that this magazine has taken 
 upon itself is to show the people of the United States 
 that their capacity to produce has so far outrun their 
 capacity to consume under the limitations of the existing 
 wage system that there is necessarily piling up a huge mass 
 of unconsumed products which will soon cause a cry of "over- 
 production." This will be followed by a tremendous fall in 
 prices, accompanied by a terrible unemployed problem. 
 
 "We cannot employ men to make unsalable goods," will 
 say the employers. 
 
 We present all the facts in the world to support our con- 
 tention, but the most ominous fact of all that we present is 
 the blindness of the American Public in failing to see the 
 significance of these facts. And when we say the American 
 Public we wish it to be understood that we include every 
 class, and those of every belief, economic and social as well 
 as religious. 
 
 It might be thought by some that inasmuch as we are 
 proposing Socialism as the remedy for this impending calam- 
 ity, that all Socialists, or at any rate a great part of them, 
 share with us our belief in the imminence of the collapse of 
 our existing industrial and financial structure. 
 
 This we reluctantly confess is not the case. The vast 
 majority of the Socialists, as far as we can ascertain, no 
 more believe in the imminence of any unprecedented in- 
 dustrial crisis than do the general public. The Socialist 
 theory, as delineated by Marx, it is true, compels them to a 
 pious belief that at some old day and at some old time or 
 other we will necessarily face such a crisis as we ourselves 
 believe is right here now and impending. That it is really 
 now at hand there are few Socialists who agree. If Gabriel 
 should blow his trumpet to-day most men would say, "Hear 
 that big megaphone." We speak of this merely to show that 
 a belief in the theory of Socialism derived from the study of 
 books written fifty years ago, unless fortified by reading un-
 
 228 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 derstandingly the facts of to-day, is of little value to a man 
 in interpreting current economic events and their bearing 
 upon Socialism. 
 
 The people of the United States seem about to plunge 
 into the greatest crisis known in the history of man with 
 practically no warning, not even from the very one whose 
 object in life should be to give the warning. 
 
 In confirmation we give a short resume of the last U. S. 
 census report: 
 
 The population in 1903 is estimated at 80,372,000, against 
 23,191,876 in 1850 and 5,308,483 in 1800. The wealth of 
 the country is stated at $94,000,000,000 in 1900, and it is 
 declared that presumably $100,000,000,000 would not be an 
 unreasonable estimate for 1903, while for 1850 the wealth 
 of the country stood at $7,000,000,000. The per capita wealth 
 is set down at $1,235 in 1900 and $307 in 1850, having thus 
 more than quadrupled. The interest-bearing debt in 1903 
 is $914,000,000 against $1,724,000,000 in 1880 and $2,046,- 
 000,000 in 1870. The per capita indebtedness of the country 
 in 1903 is $11.51, against $60.46 in 1870. 
 
 Gold and gold certificates in circulation in 1903 for the 
 first time exceeded $1,000,000,000, or, to be exact, $1,031,- 
 000,000, against $810,000,000 in 1900 and $232,000,000 in 
 1880. The total money in circulation in 1903 was $2,367,- 
 000,000, against $1,429,000,000 in 1890, $973,000,000 in 
 1880, $675,000,000 in 1870, and $435,000,000 in 1860. De- 
 posits in savings banks in 1903 were $2,935,000,000, against 
 $1,524,000,000 in 1890, $550,000,000 in 1870, and $149,- 
 000,000 m 1860. 
 
 The value of manufactures for the census year 1900 is 
 given at $13,000,000,000, against $5,333,000,000 in 1880, and 
 less than $2,000,000,000 in 1860. Railways in operation in 
 1902 had 203,132 miles of track, against 166,703 in 1890, 
 93,262 miles in 1880, 52,922 miles in 1870, 30,626 miles in 
 1860, and 9,021 in 1850. 
 
 Coal production increased in nine years from 162,814,977 
 tons in 1893 to 269,081,049 in 1902. Steel shows an increase 
 from 4,019,995 tons in 1893 to 14,947,250 tons in 1902. In 
 the same nine years exported manufactures increased from 
 $158,023,118 to $407,526,159, and total imports from $866,- 
 400,922 to $1,025,719,237.
 
 America Suffocating With Wealth. 229 
 
 The excess of total exports over total imports in 1903 was 
 $394,422,442. In 1893 the imports exceeded the exports by 
 $18,735,728. 
 
 How anyone, after reading these figures, particularly those 
 comparing 1890 with 1900, can fail to see the overwhelming 
 support they give to our argument we cannot understand. 
 
 In 1893 we were in the dregs of despair from an economic 
 standpoint. We seemed to have built everything that was 
 to be built and there was no employment for either labor or 
 capital. The figures show us how much we were mistaken 
 when we compare 1900 with 1890 and notice the enormous 
 amount of capital that has found its way into almost every 
 conceivable trade channel from banking to railways. 
 
 Some might say that if it is admitted that in 1893 we 
 were mistaken in thinking capital could not be consumed, 
 then may we not be equally mistaken in 1904? 
 
 We answer that the conditions are different. In the first 
 place the tremendous augmentation of our capital which has 
 occurred in the last ten years affords a great bar to additional 
 capital being similarly consumed. The trusts are the tangible 
 evidence of this. The trust is the sign of over-production. 
 That there will be some capital used, that there will be im- 
 mense sums used, we do not for a moment deny, but that 
 there will be enough capital consumed adequately to employ 
 labor we absolutely refuse to believe, unless a great European 
 war intervenes. 
 
 Barring a great war nothing can keep our capitalist system 
 alive for another ten years. 
 
 In order for capitalism to live men must die. Men have 
 long died for capitalism in the fetid sweat shop, in the deadly 
 dust of the cotton mill, and the poison of the lead factories. 
 Men have long died of starvation from unemployment, but 
 with all the slaughter of the past it is nothing to what will 
 be necessary for the future if capitalism is to have a longer 
 lease of life, and even with all the slaughtering we shall find 
 the task in vain, for Socialism is bound to come in any event. 
 Let no one think we are referring to any slaughter coming 
 as the result of an attempt at forcing a change from capitalism 
 to Socialism. We do not anticipate anything of the sort. 
 It will be unnecessary and impossible. The slaughtering of 
 men on our railways and women and children in our bake-
 
 230 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 oven Chicago theatres, let alone the slaughter of war, is quite 
 enough without any more slaughter being necessary. 
 
 The next great upward move of humanity must not, and 
 shall not, be begun by a sacrifice of life. If anyone wishes 
 to do any sacrificing, let him begin on himself. 
 
 But why talk about "sacrifice" — sacrifice of either life or 
 happiness? What we propose is just the opposite. Here is 
 a vast nation — the United States — proven by every form of 
 statistics to be rich beyond measure in every thing that makes 
 for health, happiness and life. 
 
 The wealth is the Nation's. 
 
 We are the Nation. 
 
 Ergo: Let us have what is ours. 
 
 Let the Nation Own the Trusts, then "we" will own the 
 Trusts — then "we" will be happy for we will have abolished 
 the great cause of unhappiness, "Poverty."
 
 A Psychological Problem. 231 
 
 A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEM 
 
 T 
 
 HE claim of the inevitability of Socialism places it upon 
 a somewhat different plane than that of any other eco- 
 nomic doctrine. No protectionist ever claims that "pro- 
 tection" is the result of industrial evolution, and that hence 
 all the world must adopt it. No "single-tax" man thinks that 
 his plan of taxation will come about as a natural process of 
 human thought. 
 
 This insistence of the inevitability of Socialism by So- 
 cialists often gives rise to the query, which is seen in the fol- 
 lowing letter : — 
 
 Boston, Mass., Oct. 21, 1901. 
 22 Worcester Sq. 
 H. Gaylord Wilshire, Esq. 
 
 Dear Sir: — I attended the lecture given by you last evening 
 (Oct. 20), in Paine Memorial, by invitation of a friend of mine. 
 I have belonged to the Democratic party, but am now very much 
 interested in Socialism. There was a statement, if I remember, 
 made by you, in the course of your lecture, that Socialism was 
 inevitable — something which the laws of nature would force 
 to come to pass. Now, if you really think so, "why not let 
 things take their course? The ultimate result will be the same?" 
 By way of explanation I will say that I don't ask you this ques- 
 tion for the purpose of "sticking" you, as the small boy says, 
 but as a matter of information for myself and others who are 
 interested in the movement. Hoping you will oblige by answer- 
 ing this question, I am, 
 
 Yours sincerely, 
 
 Thos. J. Smith. 
 
 <<> 
 This is at base a problem in psychology. If you wish a 
 man to perform a task is he more likely to do it if you tell 
 him beforehand that it will be very easy, or if you tell him 
 it will be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible? 
 
 Of course, there can be but one answer. The easier a de- 
 sirable thing is to acquire, the more likely is the man to at- 
 tempt it. 
 
 The baby wants the moon and reaches for it until he grows 
 old enough to learn he cannot get it. Then he tries for the 
 earth, and finds that Morgan has been there first. It is, of
 
 232 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 course, true that if I think my breakfast is going to fall down 
 from heaven whenever I wish it, and exactly in the form, 
 place and time that I wish it, then it might appear that I 
 will not be likely to work for it. However, we do know that 
 as a matter of fact the rich man will spend long hours of the 
 most arduous labor stalking deer, or killing salmon, when no 
 motive of the knowledge that he will go hungry unless he does 
 such work, can be alleged. He simply obeys a natural and 
 irresistible instinct to work for his living, notwithstanding 
 that he is under no necessity of doing so. 
 
 Man's pleasure in life is the exercise of his activities, and 
 inasmuch as the problem of getting food has for so many 
 thousands of years been his greatest stimulus to activity he 
 cannot resist continuing in that mode of action, even when 
 the immediate stimulus is withdrawn. He acts simply from 
 the momentum gained through his forefathers. The very 
 phrase, "pleasures of the chase" shows the imperative nature 
 of this call to the rich. 
 
 It is evident that there would be no fun hunting deer if 
 you knew positively that there were no deer in the forest. 
 So with Socialism. The reason we want it is not only be- 
 cause we think that it will benefit humanity, but also because 
 we think we can get it. Take either one of these factors 
 away and we would never struggle for it. The nearer at hand 
 it is the more we will struggle for it. It is notorious that 
 those men who have the clearest conception of the economic 
 inevitability of Socialism are always the most persistent 
 workers for it. 
 
 For instance, there has never been a man in England that 
 has devoted so much of his life to Socialism as Hyndman, 
 yet he himself always declares that it is his knowledge of the 
 inevitability of the advent of Socialism in a comparatively 
 short period of time that keeps him active in the movement. 
 I myself have probably always been, and am yet, the most 
 optimistic man in the whole Socialist movement. Since the 
 time I became a Socialist I have never placed the social rev- 
 olution away over five years, and the mere fact that it has 
 never come off according to my predictions has never daunted 
 me. I am still a "five year man, with a possibility of three," 
 and I will never be anything else. If I had to be in "the 
 hundred year, step at a time, take-what-you-can-get" class,
 
 A Psychological Problem. 233 
 
 you would find me automobiling my life away down at New- 1 
 port with Reggie Vanderbilt instead of editing this maga- \ 
 zine. There is nothing of the Salvation Army stuff about [ 
 me — preaching to save a man's life after he is dead. Nor I 
 is there anything of the Seth Low-Jerome business either — 
 grubbing away trying to reform the Crokers, Platts and Dev- 
 erys. That sort of thing may amuse Jacob A. Riis, and Carl 
 Schurz, and President Roosevelt, but it has no attractions 
 for me. As said, I would rather chase down the pike on my 
 Red Dragon at 'steen hundred miles an hour, terrifying the 
 farmers, than go in for any "reform game." Socialism is 
 the only game that amuses me, and humanity the only stake 
 worth my while wasting my time playing for. Let the 
 Schwabs go in for Monte Carlo if they will. They are fools 
 to be ignorant of what America can furnish in the way of 
 sport with its Maddens and Roosevelts. I will take my 
 chances on a man working for Socialism if I can shove the 
 economics into him far enough, while I won't give a cent for 
 a man who will only get along far enough to admit that it is 
 a "good thing." He must not only see that it is "good," but 
 that it is "coming." Show me a man who is a Marxian in 
 economics, and who knows the extent of our industrial evolu- 
 tion — who understands the significance of the trust, and I 
 will show you a good Socialist. I am not afraid that such a 
 man will not work for the cause simply because he thinks it 
 will come anyway. 
 
 Socialism will not come without our working for it any 
 more than the egg would be hatched unless the chick worked 
 itself out of its shell. However, the chick, we know, will 
 work itself out at the proper time, because we know it must 
 obey an irresistible instinct. 
 
 The same with humanity, when it is ready to be hatched 
 from the shell of capitalism into the new life of Socialism 
 it will instinctively work its own salvation. Humanity will 
 struggle to free itself from the shell, simply because it can- 
 not help obeying the irresistible instinct of self-preservation, 
 which is just as strong a social instinct as it is an individual 
 instinct. 
 
 It is quite true that the particular class of humanity which 
 will bear the brunt of the struggle will be the working-class, 
 and it is to that class we must look for the great organiza-
 
 234 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 tion which is to form from the result of the industrial evolu- 
 tion. Again referring back to the chick breaking out of its 
 shell, we may think the bill or the legs have more to do with 
 the breaking out than the feathers or the lungs, but we know 
 that back of all the struggle is the nervous organization, the 
 brain, which must first be formed before any concerted action 
 can take place. So it is with the working class. They must 
 first become conscious of their class. They must become 
 "class-conscious" before we can expect intelligent action 
 from them. The chick will have motion within the shell 
 long days before its brain is formed — the brain comes last 
 in development in all life — but this motion will not be in- 
 telligently directed to break the shell until the brain is suffi- 
 ciently developed to give it this conscious direction. It is 
 the same way with the labor movement of to-day. It stag- 
 gers blindly. When the labor giant is hurt it strikes out 
 blindly, like a man half paralyzed, as liable to hurt itself as 
 its enemy. Labor's brain is as yet undeveloped. It has now 
 reached the "trade-union" stage of development, which is as 
 far from maturity as is the brain of a week-old infant. How- 
 ever "trade-unionism" is a necessary stage in the progress of 
 the labor brain, and it is as foolish to think that this step 
 could be skipped as it is to think that while labor has this 
 kind of a brain that it can think out clearly the Socialist 
 program. 
 
 A smart child will learn to read without a teacher, but he 
 will learn more rapidly if he has one. Socialists are the in- 
 ( structors of ignorant and immature humanity.
 
 New Shoes for Old Ballots. 235 
 
 NEW SHOES FOR OLD BALLOTS 
 
 DURING the decadence of the Roman empire it was cus- 
 tomary to suppress the clamor of the proletariat by 
 giving them free bread and free circuses — partem et 
 circenses. 
 
 Practically the same thing now goes on in New York City 
 to-day. There are a few dozen men in New York City, 
 mostly Tammany "leaders," each of whom has a following 
 of from a few hundred to several thousand, whom they en- 
 tertain during the summer months by taking them up the 
 Hudson river for excursions, giving them free lunch and free 
 beer. During the winter free clothing is distributed. 
 
 In return for this these thousands of men deliver up their 
 votes to the givers of the excursions and food. Then the 
 "leader" sells the votes to Belmont & Co. for so much hard 
 cash. For instance, the following is taken from the New 
 York Sun, February 7, 1906 : 
 
 When Congressman Big Tim Sullivan gave a Christmas din- 
 ner the 5,000 participants received each a ticket calling for a 
 pair of shoes. At the dinner Big Tim said to his constituents: 
 
 "Boys, I think we're going to have another long stretch of 
 mild weather, and you won't need the shoes as much now as 
 when it gets good and cold in February." 
 
 He announced that the shoes would be given out on February 
 6. That Tim is a good weather prophet was the unanimous opin- 
 ion of the Bowery yesterday afternoon when 4,800 men, each sup- 
 plied with one of his cards, showed up at the club house at 207 
 Bowery. Each man except two one-legged men, who took one 
 each, got a good pair of shoes in which there was a pair of 
 woolen socks. As they left the club house the men were passed 
 through the assembly room on the second floor, where hot coffee 
 and sandwiches awaited them. Big Tim was present with all the 
 other Sullivans. 
 
 It is not for Wilshire's to find fault with these poor men 
 who get something returnable for their votes in the way of 
 something so very tangible as a pair of shoes, when the rest of 
 the world does not find fault with the other hundreds of
 
 236 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 thousands of our fellow citizens who give away their vote 
 without getting anything at all for it. Dry Shoes and Free 
 Sandwiches beat nothing. 
 
 We Americans could just as well have the ownership of 
 our own country and a guarantee of at least $10,000 apiece 
 for everyone of us per year income, instead of a chance at a 
 sandwich, if enough of us would only mark our ballots right, 
 if the majority of us voted for the Socialist party. We 
 would then have Socialism, and poverty would be abolished. 
 Meanwhile we 'don't do it, and the great part of us throw 
 away our ballot without even getting the pair of shoes which 
 big Tim Sullivan gives his constituents.
 
 Disadvantage of not Being A Princess. 237 
 
 DISADVANTAGE OF NOT BEING A 
 PRINCESS 
 
 DEMOCRACY has its disadvantages without mistake. 
 Here has been poor little Miss Alice Roosevelt de- 
 lighting her heart with the promise of being the dis- 
 tinguished guest at the coronation, when suddenly her dream 
 is cut short, and she is told she can't go, forsooth, be- 
 cause her going might cause her pa to lose the Irish vote. 
 Now, if she were a real princess instead of only a four-year- 
 term one, like her pa is a king, they could both snap their 
 fingers at votes of all kinds and she could go to all the cor- 
 onations she had a mind to. 
 
 Why should not the American people have their own home- 
 made Princess Alices and Heir-Apparent Teds just as well 
 as the effete monarchies of Europe? We have demonstrated 
 that we can beat the world in the making of anything we 
 turn our hands to, and why should we quail at making a 
 princess? Why? We have been long enough complaining 
 of the great drain upon the country from the export of gold 
 sent to Europe to support the daughters of our millionaires 
 who have not only been forced to go abroad for husbands 
 possessing the necessary rank to comport with a millionaire 
 wife, but have also actually been compelled to remain and 
 live abroad in order to procure a fitting environing society 
 to properly set off their exalted position in life. Why should 
 we send William Waldorf Astor an exile to England, with 
 his hundred million dollars of American money, to buy a 
 title when we can supply the demand at home? It is true 
 that there is some sort or other of an antiquated clause in our 
 constitution that prevents any titles being granted by the 
 government, but I have no doubt but that the U. S. Supreme 
 Court could find a way round a little obstacle like that easily 
 enough. Let the administration drop a hint as to what its 
 wishes are and the thing is done. 
 
 One good argument against the present system of our de- 
 pendence upon Europe for our titles of nobility is that our
 
 238 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 men are at such a disadvantage compared with our women. 
 An American girl can make herself a duchess any time she 
 will put up the price sufficiently high to induce a duke to 
 marry her, but the American man has no such matrimonial 
 highway open to his dukedom. He must in the first place 
 take another man's wife to get a woman with the title of 
 duchess, and when he gets her he don't get the title. This 
 is not right. 
 
 The American man has a natural right to be a duke, just 
 as much as the American girl has to be a duchess, and this 
 country should open the way to him. We ought to start 
 right in upon this proposition of manufacturing an Amer- 
 ican nobility before any more of our money goes to Europe. 
 Inasmuch as the idea of instituting this order of American 
 nobility is simply to keep our millionaires' money at home, 
 it would manifestly be absurd to grant a title to a person 
 who has not enough money to buy one abroad in case one 
 could not be obtained at home. I would not have the titles 
 sold. Let them come as a matter of right, simply from the 
 possession of so much money. To begin with, anyone who 
 could prove a million would be a baronet. Then we could 
 have larger amounts for marquises and earls and such like, 
 winding up with, say, a requirement of fifty million dollars 
 for the dukes. I think one hundred million would be about 
 right to make a man a prince. A thousand million would, 
 of course, make a fellow anything he cared to pick, Sultan, 
 Tsar, King or Emperor. 
 
 I do not suggest that the holding of a title should confer 
 any peculiar political powers on the holder. I would not in- 
 stitute any new House of Lords. It would be a useless addi- 
 tion. The rich already are members ex-officio of a third 
 house which is easily more powerful than all the other 
 branches of our government. This house has no duties or 
 responsibilities; it has nothing but rights and powers. It 
 is a much more attractive legislative house to the rich than 
 any new one that could possibly be devised. 
 
 No, I would make the ownership of a title convey no rights 
 not already enjoyed. In point of fact the political power 
 of those who would fall into the titles could not well be in- 
 creased anyway. I would not even make it compulsory upon 
 anyone to refer to the holders by their new titles. I am too
 
 Disadvantage of not Being A Princess. 239 
 
 much a believer in American freedom to suggest such a thing 
 as that. Of course if anyone should fail to call a duke "duke" 
 he would naturally be apt to lose his job, but that would 
 mean nothing much unless he failed to get another one, and 
 even then it would only mean starvation. No, I would not 
 force anyone to notice the new titles who did not wish to do so. 
 It should be provided that the loss of money that entitled 
 the holder to a certain title should carry with it the loss of the 
 title. There is no sense in having a title unless you have 
 the money necessary to live up to it. Our American no- 
 bility must never become shabby. To be shoddy is quite a 
 bad enough handicap.
 
 240 Wilshiee Editorials. 
 
 WHEN MEN LOVE NATURE 
 
 ONE of the delights of walking in Central Park, New 
 York, is the confident tameness of the squirrels. The 
 pretty little creatures, so wild in the woods that only 
 glimpses can be seen of them, are here as familiar with you as 
 so many kittens. They have learned that man is not neces- 
 sarily an enemy, a squirrel-killing monster to be avoided with 
 the greatest care. On the contrary, he is regarded as their 
 special friend and provider. Every man that approaches the 
 squirrel is regarded as a possible dispenser of delightful pea- 
 nuts, and treated with becoming politeness and courtesy. It's 
 a small thing apparently — this friendship of the park squir- 
 rels — but it makes us understand how much pleasure man 
 loses by not being on like good terms with all the harmless 
 wild animals. 
 
 Mr. Harold J. Bolce has a most interesting account in the 
 Scientific American of naturalists commissioned by the 
 United Sates government on the distant island of Laysan, in 
 the Pacific, where they have discovered some new birds, and 
 many novel facts in regard to known species. The visiting 
 scientists were perhaps the first human beings whom the 
 myriads of birds that crowd this tiny speck of land had ever 
 seen. In consequence, the visitors enjoyed an experience un- 
 usual in modern adventures. Birds representing species 
 which in other lands wing hurriedly away at the sight of 
 man, came up to the naturalists, looked curiously into their 
 faces, perched on their writing tables, wonderingly inspected 
 the tripod and other accessories of the cameras, and permitted 
 themselves to be stroked. 
 
 The fact that these birds are ordinarily regarded as the wildest 
 kind of species made a profound impression on the visiting 
 scientists. "Wherever we went," said Walter K. Fisher, who 
 under Dr. Charles H. Gilbert directed the Laysan expedition, "we 
 were free to watch and learn, and were trusted by the birds. It 
 was a most touching and unique experience, and one which 
 demonstrates all too forcibly the attitude of wild creatures which 
 have not yet learned that man is usually an enemy.
 
 When Men Love Nature. 241 
 
 Whenever a nest of white tern was approached, the birds would 
 come and hover in front of the explorers. They would peer in- 
 tently into the faces of the naturalists, as if attempting to dis- 
 cover the purpose of the unusual intrusion. Among the odd 
 instances of lack of fear on the part of these birds of Laysan, 
 was the action of an albatross which came up and peeped into 
 Mr. Fisher's face, and finding that he was disposed to be friendly 
 began to make a critical examination of his camera. Many of the 
 young birds of this species on the island permitted themselves 
 to be stroked and soon acted as if they had been reared as pets. 
 
 Some day when man ceases to murder his fellow man for 
 money and to shoot the wild birds for sport, the earth may 
 become all like Laysan. 
 
 It sounds Utopian to think of a future when men will be 
 friendly with each other, and it sounds still more Utopian 
 to predict that man and birds and animals will be friendly; 
 but it is not a Utopian prediction. Nothing is really more 
 scientific, for it is subject to proof.
 
 242 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 THE DEATH OF THE DEMOCRATIC 
 PARTY 
 
 IF ever the Socialist philosophy was justified by election 
 result it was by that of November 8, 1904. Political 
 parties are merely the organs of different groups of men 
 who are more or less conscious of what they want, and have 
 organized a party to attain these wants by political action. 
 However, just as organs in the human body will persist for 
 a while after their reason for existence has departed, so will 
 political organs or parties persist for a while when the reason 
 for their existence has departed. 
 
 We have muscles to move our ears, yet we have no reason 
 for such muscles, as we never have use for them. But there 
 was a day when our remote ancestors could and did prick 
 their ears as well as any horse, and in those days ear muscles 
 were manifestly a necessity. Finally when we ceased to prick 
 our ears our ear muscles gradually lost their power of contrac- 
 tion, but they are still with us, although probably diminishing 
 in size from century to century, and some day they will no 
 doubt completely disappear from the human anatomy in the 
 process of evolution. 
 
 The Democratic Party has been swept off the political 
 board. It is true that it remains in the Solid South, yet it 
 simply lives there as a makeshift barrier against negro dom- 
 ination and as a convenient crowbar for certain politicians 
 to break into fat political jobs. Neither in the North nor the 
 South does it justify its further existence, for it has ceased 
 to be the representative of the ideas of any particular eco- 
 nomic class, and nothing else can justify life in a political 
 party. 
 
 When the Democratic Party was the representative of the 
 slave power and the agricultural interests of the South as 
 opposed to the manufacturing interests of the North, it had 
 a right to live. 
 
 When the slave power died, the Democratic Party still jus- 
 tified its right to live by continuing to represent the economic
 
 Death of the Democratic Party. 243 
 
 class in this country that found its interest in a low tariff as 
 opposed to the high tariff demanded by the manufacturers 
 through the Kepublican Party. But finally, with the prac- 
 tical acceptance of all classes in this country of the permanent 
 economic value under our present competitive system of a 
 high tariff, the reason for the existence of the Democratic 
 Party was once more in question, and had it not gained a new 
 lease of life by taking up Free Silver and suddenly posing as 
 the representative of our rapidly decaying class of small 
 capitalists, it would have died a natural death in 1896. A 
 rare stroke of pure luck saved it from death. The magical 
 oratory of Bryan and the silver craze artificially galvanized 
 it into the appearance of life. Many thought it meant the 
 rejuvenation of the old and dying party. 
 
 However, after two tries at the Presidency under the semi- 
 radical banner of Bryan, it was seen that a silver brick would 
 never win the Presidential game, and the Democratic leaders 
 decided that the party must make a new move. The Hearst 
 wing said forward, the Hill-Belmont-Cleveland wing said 
 backward, and Hill won, nominated Parker on the "sane and 
 safe" platform, sent out a gold brick telegram, and backward 
 the Democratic Party went, so far backward, indeed, that it 
 has gone out of sight. 
 
 But let it not be supposed that if the Hearst "forward 
 policy" had been adopted, the result would have been mate- 
 rially different. The Democratic defeat would have been as 
 great if not greater, but there would have been a somewhat 
 different lot of political corpses on the battle-field, that's all. 
 Parker sought to revive the old-time Democratic party, not 
 understanding that the reason for its life had departed, 
 and therefore that it could not possibly be resuscitated. The 
 reason Parker got any votes at all in the North was simply a 
 case of persistence of an organ after its function had been 
 lost, like the aforementioned human ear muscles that remain 
 without reason. The Democratic Party is like the turtle that 
 would walk about after having lost its head, dead but doesn't 
 know it. 
 
 On the other hand, Hearst with his programme of public 
 ownership and of denunciation of private wealth could not 
 have attracted a much larger vote because he presents no 
 tangible relief to any particular class.
 
 244 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 It is true that the people as a whole are probably tepidly 
 in favor of public ownership, and most of ns will say that 
 it's a scandal that Kockefeller has so much money, but we 
 are not sufficiently exercised over the matter to organize into 
 a political party and express such views at the polls. 
 
 Why? 
 
 Simply because the Hearst programme cannot be shown 
 to lead anywhere. We have poverty amongst us; we see our 
 country given over hand and body to the rich; but seeing all 
 this does not make us to see that denunciation of the rich or 
 even the public ownership of trusts and railways will help 
 matters much. 
 
 Public ownership of a part of the machinery of production 
 simply means that the owners of the part remaining in private 
 hands will reap the share of profits that formerly went to 
 the owners of the property taken over by the government. 
 
 The people generally who are not owners of property of any 
 kind will get absolutely no benefit from the Hearst pro- 
 gramme of public ownership. 
 
 What is needed is the abolition of the competitive wage 
 system. Socialists demand public ownership merely as a 
 necessary basis for the substitution of the co-operative sys- 
 tem in place of the competitive system. 
 
 We demand this change in the name of the propertyless 
 class, the proletariat, and have organized the Socialist Party 
 as the organ to effect it politically. 
 
 We see that no help can come to us as a class nor to the 
 people as a nation for our economic ills, but by the complete 
 abolition of the competitive system, together with the private 
 ownership of property upon which it is based, and the substi- 
 tution of the co-operative system based upon the public own- 
 ership of property. 
 
 The Socialist Party has a sound and logical reason for its 
 existence. 
 
 We have a distinct class to represent, and we know what 
 will benefit that class, namely, Socialism. The immense vote 
 for the Socialist Party shows that the people have at last 
 begun to recognize our contention. 
 
 On the other hand, the Democratic Party represents neither 
 a part of the people as a class nor the whole of the people as 
 a nation. It represents nothing and therefore it logically
 
 Death of the Democratic Party. 245 
 
 should receive no support, and the results of the election 
 show that it will no longer receive any support. 
 
 The Republican Party represents the people who wish the 
 present capitalist system to continue and to work along as 
 smoothly as possible. Its supporters are capitalists who look 
 no further ahead than profits, and wage earners whose ideal 
 is a full dinner pail. 
 
 It has had its great victory because the mass of the people 
 have no idea of the possibility of changing from the present 
 competitive system to a better system, and who understand 
 that if the present system is to continue then there is no better 
 organ for the capitalists to make the wheels run smooth than 
 that furnished by the Republican Party. 
 
 If we want things as they are, then we should all be Re- 
 publicans. 
 
 If we want things as they cannot be and should not be any- 
 way, then let us cling to the corpse of the Democratic Party. 
 
 If we want things as they must be and should be, then we 
 must all become Socialists. 
 
 This election really for the first time gave the world a good 
 view of the new Socialist Party. It was the first Presidential 
 election in which a ballot was cast for candidates nominated 
 by a party of that name. 
 
 It is significant that what is practically the birthday of 
 the Socialist Party should be practically the death-night of 
 the Democratic Party.
 
 246 WlLSHIEE Editoeials. 
 
 THE "RIGHT TO WORK" 
 
 ON" no subject has there been delivered quite so much 
 flap-doodle as on the so-called "right-to-work." The 
 last deliverance on the subject to which any one paid 
 attention, was that of Jas. M. Beck, ex-Assistant Attorney- 
 General of the United States, at the annual dinner of the Hol- 
 land Society in New York. Mr. Beck in the course of his 
 speech got rid of this burden on his mind : 
 
 If I do not misread history, the prosperity of the Dutch people 
 was founded upon a principle which is vitally essential to the 
 progress and happiness of any people, and that is the inalienable 
 right of every man to work for whom he pleases and at what 
 wage he pleases, and to enjoy freely the fruit of his toil. This 
 principle is in some need of vindication in this country and at 
 this hour. Man was brought into the world to work. It is not 
 only his burden, it is his right, and any form of social tyranny 
 which contravenes this right is infinitely mischievous. In vain 
 are written constitutions, with their paper guarantee of life, lib- 
 erty, and pursuit of happiness, if the right of the humblest citi- 
 zen to earn his bread in the sweat of his brow is thus denied. 
 
 In the above Mr. Beck reveals the same queer mental twist 
 that characterizes all of those speakers, who, like himself, are 
 trust attorneys, or in some other way are moved to "bend 
 the pregnant hinges of the knee, that thrift may follow fawn- 
 ing." There is no record that any of these twisted reasoners 
 have answered the question that why, if it is "the inalienable 
 right of every man to work for whom he pleases and at what 
 wage he pleases," that the constantly increasing army of un- 
 employed is forced to go hungry for the lack of opportunity 
 to exercise this "inalienable right." As Mr. Beck, and those 
 like him, interpret the doctrine of the "inalienable right to 
 work," the theory is sheer nonsense and is simply a perver- 
 sion of the theoretically admitted right of every man to life, 
 which, of course, he cannot enjoy without work. Mr. Beck, 
 and those of his kind, seem to be very indignant when they 
 talk about somebody being denied the right to work, but of
 
 The Eight to Work. 247 
 
 course all their clamor is simply due to the fact that they want 
 unrestricted competition in the labor market. They don't 
 want any labor organization trying to control the labor mar- 
 ket because that means Mr. Beck or his employers will have 
 to pay higher wages, whereas if the power of the labor unions 
 is crushed, the capitalists can get labor on their own terms 
 and conditions. That is the whole milk in the cocoanut.
 
 248 Wllshibe Editorials. 
 
 THE "MERGER" DECISION 
 
 THE decision of the United States Court against the va- 
 lidity of the Northern Securities Company is, as has 
 been well said, a most revolutionary departure in legal 
 matters, in fact it is so very revolutionary that it is palpably 
 unconstitutional, and I have no doubt that the Supreme Court, 
 upon appeal, will so declare it to be. The very essence of the 
 right of private property is the right of disposal, and if a 
 law preventing disposal of property is declared unconstitu- 
 tional, then the constitution must part with its time-honored 
 label of "protector of private property." The decision is in 
 effect that certain private persons, to wit, Mr. Hill, Mr. Mor- 
 gan and others have not the right to dispose of their stock in 
 the Great Northern Railway, the Burlington Railway and 
 the Northern Pacific Railway to the Northern Securities Co., 
 because that company, by holding the stocks in those various 
 competitive roads, effects a combination of competitive rail- 
 ways and hence deprives the public of the currently supposed 
 benefits of competition in railway rates. It seems to me that 
 there could hardly be conceived a more absurd law than one 
 which says to a man, "You must not sell your horse to a man 
 who already owns a horse, for if you do we will make that man 
 hunt you up and return you your horse and take your money 
 back. If you happened to have spent the money meanwhile 
 he must keep the horse until you got some more money." By 
 substituting horse for railway, the old for the modern method 
 of transportation, we have the command that the Circuit 
 Court has issued to railway owners. Of course the decision 
 will embarrass Mr. Morgan until he gets a reversal from the 
 Supreme Court, but to think that it will have any effect to 
 permanently prevent "mergers" is purely childish. For the 
 time being Mr. Morgan may be held up in his great work of 
 unifying and systematizing the railway systems on this con- 
 tinent, but to think a process in the natural development of 
 industry can be permanently prevented is manifestly an ab- 
 surdity. Even in the unexpected event of the United States 
 Supreme Court affirming the decision of the Circuit Court
 
 The Merger Decision. 249 
 
 the general result must finally be exactly the same, viz., the 
 process of concentration and consolidation will proceed, al- 
 though with a possible halt until Mr. Morgan can find a way 
 around the obstacle. When a huge boulder rolls down the 
 mountain side into the stream it may block the downward 
 course of the water until a new channel is cut out. The 
 "merger" decision may in the same way delay Mr. Morgan 
 until he can cut out a new channel for the rising flood of 
 combination. To think that a new channel will not be found 
 by the water blocked by the boulder is no more silly than to 
 think that a new channel will not be found by Mr. Morgan. 
 Necessity makes new laws. 
 
 The president of the Seaboard Air Line, one of the south- 
 ern railways that Mr. Morgan is preparing to merge in his 
 Southern Securities Co., as soon as he sees the legal coast 
 clear, has expressed great satisfaction at the "merger" deci- 
 sion. Quite naturally, he is one of the useless presidents that 
 Mr. Morgan will eliminate when he effects his Southern com- 
 bination. He is not the only railway president of the smaller 
 roads that would like to stop the Morgan's onward march of 
 combination. No doubt the little retail dry goods merchants 
 who are being displaced by the big department stores would 
 like a "merger" decision that would guarantee them their po- 
 sitions. However, I have no doubt that the Seaboard Presi- 
 dent, a Southern Colonel, sah, would be deadly insulted if 
 he knew I classed him, a railway president, with a miserable 
 little dry goods merchant. I also have no doubt that a few 
 years ago he would not have thought it possible that he, a 
 great capitalist, would have been using such revolutionary 
 language as the following which the press ascribes to him : 
 
 "It is idle to talk of a political republic with a financial ty- 
 ranny; there is no more safety in having commerce at the mercy 
 of an absolute ruler than there would be in having our govern- 
 ment controlled by a czar which might be a benevolent or cruel 
 one, according to his whim or ability, or to the circumstances." 
 
 It's amusing that he seems to think that the United States 
 is not already under an industrial tyranny simply because 
 he happens to belong to the tyrants himself. Let Mr. Mor- 
 gan absorb the Seaboard Air Line and throw him out and 
 then the shoe is on the other foot and the Colonel roars 
 "TYRANNY !"
 
 250 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 WILSHIRE'S AND THE CRISIS 
 
 WILSHIRE'S MAGAZINE is not dwelling upon the 
 coming unemployed problem because it thinks that 
 nothing but the appearance of that event will bring 
 on Socialism, but because it thinks that this coming unem- 
 ployed problem is absolutely inevitable. 
 
 We do not look for such people as ordinarily compose the 
 unemployed army which is always with us to be revolution- 
 ists. We know the ones who have made a failure of life un- 
 der our present competitive system are not likely to be the 
 ones who are to carry on most of the work of Socialism. But 
 we do say that when the economic crisis does come and hun- 
 dreds of thousands of men will be hungry for the first time, 
 men who have heretofore considered themselves successes in 
 life — that then such men as these will be the very finest re- 
 cruits possible for our Socialist army of the future. 
 
 Wilshire's does not look to misery and poverty progress- 
 ively increasing and so finally forcing the nation to revolt. 
 As a matter of fact, it might even be willing to admit with- 
 out prejudice the claim made by some that labor is possi- 
 bly better off to-day than it was formerly, and that it may be 
 getting better off from year to year. It is not progressive 
 misery that we look forward to for the stimulating of men 
 to see the necessity of Socialism, but it is the sudden transi- 
 tion from prosperity to hard times which we think will do 
 the work. 
 
 In the meanwhile, in order that the work may be done prop- 
 erly when the crisis comes, we Socialists are educating the 
 working class so that they may realize how to act. We don't 
 think the mass of men will act unless there is a strong im- 
 pulse for them to move. On the other hand, we don't think 
 that they will then move in the right direction unless they 
 have been instructed. The mission of the Socialists is to show 
 the workingman how the competitive system robs him and 
 how he can liberate himself by being the owner of machinery 
 of production himself. The workingman is to-day being
 
 Wilshire's and the Crisis. 251 
 
 slowly taught, but no one can question that it will be much 
 easier to teach him in times of an economic crisis. 
 
 We are ready to admit that Socialism can come without a 
 crisis, but we declare it will take a much longer period to get 
 the working class to listen to the Socialist speaker without a 
 crisis than with one. 
 
 In the meanwhile, we Socialists should act as if a crisis will 
 never come. Keep on plugging along and never stop.
 
 252 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 VOTE FOR DEBS 
 
 ONCE again the people of this Republic are to go to 
 the polling booths in order to declare their wishes 
 as to how our affairs, industrial and political, shall 
 be managed. There is no doubt what the verdict will be. 
 We shall declare that we are quite satisfied with things as 
 they are and that we see no reason for making any change 
 in the established order of things. Fourteen million voters 
 out of the fifteen million will vote either for Roosevelt or 
 Parker. Some one reading this will possibly object to the 
 statement that we Americans will by our votes declare that 
 we are satisfied. He may say that it is perfectly known to 
 every one that 90 per cent, of us Americans are anything 
 but satisfied with things as they are, and that our votes one 
 way or the other do not by any means indicate our state of 
 satisfaction. That because a man votes for Roosevelt it does 
 not mean he is satisfied with his position in life, not at all. 
 It simply means that he votes for Roosevelt because he knows 
 that electing Parker will do him no more good than the 
 electing of Roosevelt, and as he has always been a Repub- 
 lican, therefore he can see no reason for switching. The 
 man that votes for Parker will tell exactly the same story. 
 Nobody votes to-day for a party because he votes for a 
 principle he likes. A man votes to-day for his party simply 
 because he has always voted that way, and he has always 
 voted that way because his father voted that way. The reason 
 of his voting without an end in view is simply the stupidity 
 of the masses, and it is such a gross stupidity that the op- 
 ponents of extension of the franchise to the propertyless 
 classes, when arguing the question a century ago, never 
 thought of it as a factor that would render the franchise 
 valueless. And they were no admirers of the intellect of the 
 masses, either. Before the masses had the vote it was always 
 argued that the giving them the power to vote was giving 
 them the power to take property from the rich by law, and
 
 Vote for Debs. 253 
 
 it was assumed that once they were given such power it 
 would not be long before the power would be exercised. 
 However, this assumption was baseless, for it was made with- 
 out any taking into account the conservative stupidity of the 
 human ass. For years the masses have had the power to 
 vote away the poverty under which they sweat and groan, 
 and yet they never attempt to exercise this power. Instead 
 of voting for what they want they simply kick between 
 election days and then on election day they vote for four 
 years more of Poverty and Eoosevelt. If a five-year-old boy 
 were informed that he could have an apple whenever he 
 asked for it, and if when he became hungry he did not ask 
 for it, we would judge him mentally deficient. But when 
 we full-grown Americans don't ask for our apple when it 
 can be had for the asking we are insulted if we are called 
 idiots. The apple that will abolish our poverty is merely 
 the adoption of a different method of distribution of the 
 wealth we produce. There is no necessity of inventing any 
 more new processes of producing things. We already produce 
 fast enough to abolish want. We don't distribute fast enough 
 to keep up with production. That's our trouble. To-day 
 we distribute under a competitive wage system which limits 
 us at best to a wage just above starvation no matter how 
 much we may produce. In fact we think we are rather lucky 
 to be sure of getting wages at all under our present com- 
 petitive system. Now, all this can and will be changed as 
 soon as we wish to make the change, and not before. The 
 way to make the change is to say to ourselves that we wish 
 to make it and the way to talk thusly to ourselves is to cast 
 our ballot for a political party that advocates the abolition 
 of the competitive system of distribution and the substitu- 
 tion of the co-operative system of distribution. That party 
 is the Socialist Party, and their candidate at the next Presi- 
 dential election is Mr. Debs. If you wish to abolish pov- 
 erty, Vote for Debs.
 
 254 IWilshire Editorials. 
 
 WAR OR SOCIALISM A NECESSITY 
 
 WE are seeing to-day one of the greatest booms ever 
 known on the New York stock market. Prices in 
 many cases have doubled during the last two years. 
 It is an historical fact that every great war has been followed 
 by a period of great prosperity, and it is equally true that as 
 soon as the effects of the war wore off a period of depression 
 followed. 
 
 The Spanish-American War began April, 1898, and closed 
 in August of the same year. 
 
 The British war with the Boers in South Africa began in 
 October, 1899, and was concluded in May, 1902. 
 
 Within two years (in 1903) of the close of the Boer War the 
 boom which it had caused had worn off, and things com- 
 mercially in this country were looking very black. 
 
 Two years ago the prices of stocks were almost at their 
 lowest, and had it not been for the Russian-Japanese War, 
 which commenced in February, 1904, and closed in Septem- 
 ber, 1905, there is no doubt but that the depression of 1903-04 
 would have by this time become most acute. Judging from 
 the past, we are to have, by September, 1907, or two years 
 after the conclusion of the Russian-Japanese War, a period of 
 great trade depression, which maybe can only be relieved by 
 one or two things, viz. — another war or Socialism. 
 
 It is up to the working class of this country to decide 
 whether they prefer being decimated by war in order that the 
 survivors may have such "prosperity" as we have to-day, or 
 whether they prefer to have Socialism and real prosperity 
 for all.
 
 We Feed Our Buffaloes But Starve Ourselves. 255 
 
 WE FEED OUR BUFFALOES, BUT STARVE 
 OURSELVES 
 
 E Americans are all right when it comes to raising 
 buffaloes, according to the following from the New 
 York Commercial'. 
 
 W 
 
 The buffalo herd in Yellowstone Park, started by the United 
 States Government and during the past few years very carefully 
 watched to prevent the death of the young, is increasing rapidly, 
 and will this year number between 20 and 25 more animals than 
 a year ago at this time. The herd is in excellent condition. It 
 has wintered well, and the calves are growing fast and appear 
 to be sound and strong. It has been the wish of the government 
 officers to increase the herd until it resembles the old-time herds 
 which covered the western prairies. The experiment of pro- 
 pagating the animals is definitely a success, and the army offi- 
 cers, upon whom the work has largely devolved, are correspond- 
 ingly pleased. Major Pitcher of the United States army repre- 
 sents the government in the park, and is practically and offi- 
 cially the custodian of the herd. 
 
 The buffalo don't need to struggle for a living. Feed is good; 
 the valleys give them splendid shelter, and they have the pick of 
 grazing lands over which to roam. 
 
 It's very funny that our government can see the advantage 
 of feeding its buffalo babies, fixing things so "the buffalo don't 
 have to struggle for a living when feed is good and plenty," 
 and yet when it comes to fixing things for its voters' babies it 
 treats them so badly that* the infant death-rate in New York 
 and our other big Eastern cities beats the world. 
 
 If the government can see that a buffalo baby to live needs 
 good food and fresh air, why can it not see that a boy or girl 
 baby wants good food and fresh air ? Why is it ? 
 
 If good food is good for buffaloes, why does Congress re- 
 fuse to pass a pure food bill that would give men good food? 
 
 It's also interesting to note that the federal army is used 
 to protect the lives of buffaloes, whereas its common use for 
 men is to slaughter them.
 
 256 Wilshiee Editorials. 
 
 THAT 5x4 MERGER JOKE 
 
 THE Merger decision of the Supreme Court in the North- 
 ern Securities case has many funny sides to those who 
 have read the dissenting justices' opinions. 
 In the first place to understand properly the joke we must 
 never lose sight of the fundamental cause of the merger ; viz., 
 over-production of railroads. There were too many roads in 
 the Northwest and unless they combined there would be a 
 scramble for freight, a cutting of prices, general demoraliza- 
 tion and bankruptcy. We must remember that this terror 
 of rate-cutting was the cause of the merger, and that there ex- 
 ists to-day the very same necessity for combination that there 
 did when the merger was formed. The Supreme Court de- 
 cision cannot alter that condition in the least. Either a new 
 method of combination must be arranged or the roads will 
 soon be fighting again like Kilkenny cats and the fight will 
 continue till the death — death meaning the absorption of the 
 dead by the living. As a matter of fact, when we remember 
 that the fight is between Morgan on the one side and Kocke- 
 feller on the other and that neither one of these giants would 
 dare engage in any serious encounter one with the other for 
 fear the fall of the vanquished would bring down the whole 
 financial firmament, we can see how absurd it is even to con- 
 ceive of any real fight starting up. Men do not commit sui- 
 cide, financial or physical, at the order of Congress, or even 
 of a 5x4 Supreme Court. 
 
 The fact of the matter is that there are more than enough 
 roads in the West to do the business, and this must result 
 either in a suicidal cutting of rates or a combination — either 
 life or death. If we are to have railroads we must have a 
 combination, and whether it takes the temporary form of a 
 "gentlemen's agreement" — we say temporary, for such agree- 
 ments never last long — or whether it takes the form of a 
 permanent holding company, such as would have been the 
 Northern Securities Company had it been allowed to live, 
 is of no great moment.
 
 That 5x4 Merger Joke. 257 
 
 Just now it looks to us that inasmuch as the Securities 
 Company must part with the control of either the Northern 
 Pacific Railway or the Great Northern Railway because it 
 was formed to take over competing and parallel roads that the 
 simplest way out of the difficulty would be for the Union 
 Pacific Railway to issue bonds and take over all the securities 
 now held by the Securities Company. The Union Pacific 
 Railway Company has been in existence for years, and no one 
 could allege that it had been formed to effect the combina- 
 tion, and as the Supreme Court* seems to base its decision 
 largely upon what the indent of the incorporators of the com- 
 pany was at the time of the incorporation the purchase of the 
 assets of the Northern Securities Company by the Union Pa- 
 cific would be legal from that point of view. The Union Pa- 
 cific already owns one-fifth of the Northern Securities Com- 
 pany. Why should it not own the whole issue ? However, we 
 make no charge for this advice to Rockefeller, Morgan & 
 Co., so they are at liberty to disregard it. 
 
 A similar view is held by our old friend Walter S. Logan, 
 President of the National Bar Association, a man — consid- 
 ering the position he holds, a corporation lawyer — who is 
 probably the greatest radical we know. He talks the talk 
 of a Socialist when it comes to denouncing wealth, but when 
 it comes to suggesting a remedy Logan is as great a child as 
 Hearst. 
 
 Logan says that the decision will cause a re-adjustment of 
 political lines, but when he adds that after all it amounts 
 to nothing because the law can be so easily evaded we do 
 not grasp his logic. Logan sys: 
 
 "But the law does not go far enough. If Morgan and Rocke- 
 feller adopt one of the several ways that are open for evasion 
 of the law the people will have no remedy. Any trust company, 
 for instance, that has been in existence for some time and that 
 was organized for general business, could buy the assets of the 
 Northern Securities Company at a receiver's sale, and that 
 method, it seems to me, will be the one adopted as being most 
 simple. The Erie Railroad could also, I presume, buy it if its 
 charter is broad enough to permit of such investments. But there 
 would be no doubt about such a company as the Union Trust 
 Company, for instance, having the power." 
 
 If this, then, is the true state of the case, and the vaunted 
 decision simply means an auction of the Northern Securities
 
 258 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 Company to some Trust Company, to what end has been all 
 this rejoicing of the Hearst journals, and why has it been 
 necessary for Attorney-General Knox to hasten to announce 
 that he and Roosevelt were not going to "run amuck" ? One 
 would think auctions were dangerous. The great advance 
 in the price of the Northern Securities stock after the deci- 
 sion does not seem to indicate any great fear of either auctions 
 or amucks.
 
 How We Will Divide. 259 
 
 HOW WE WILL DIVIDE 
 
 THE standard of value can be determined by the human 
 labor time required to make the article. It is im- 
 probable that there will be any difference in the valu- 
 ation of one man's time over that of another. In the first 
 place, under Socialism, everyone will be educated and fitted 
 to do what he is capable of doing. To-day there is many a 
 man who might have been a good doctor or a lawyer or an 
 artist, who owing to poverty could not educate himself and so 
 is merely a common laborer. 
 
 Under Socialism a man can always develop the best that 
 is within him, and the system of education will be such that 
 it will be developed. Instead of men being divided into hod- 
 carriers and musicians it will be the labor that will be divided 
 and not the laborers. A man can have his life so ordered 
 that he may have all his faculties, mental, physical and 
 spiritual, developed by the exercise of his daily work. There 
 is many a professional man to-day whose brain would be 
 stronger, health better, and life longer if he had the oppor- 
 tunity to perform some useful outdoor work. He himself 
 knows it too, and wishes it, but the conditions of our com- 
 petitive system are such that it is practically impossible for 
 him to join the two lives, the physical and the mental. As 
 for the hod-carrier of to-day trying to exercise his brain and 
 soul by painting a few Madonnas or composing a Ninth Sym- 
 phony, the mere mention of the idea conveys its absurd im- 
 possibility. Under Socialism work will be so varied, so pleas- 
 ant, so light, that it will be done as a pleasure and not as a 
 task. Men will feel that work then is just as much a ne- 
 cessity of their life as do their own hearts find it a necessity 
 for the heart's life to pump blood. Does your heart ask pay 
 for beating ? Man in a natural state will ask for nothing bet- 
 ter than the opportunity to work. A bee or an ant or a beaver 
 finds no greater pleasure in life than to work. Man, after all, 
 is simply an animal with a soul — what is fundamental to 
 the animal is fundamental to man. Work is life.
 
 260 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 Hence under Socialism the idea of work as a task to be 
 avoided will be as absurd as thinking of a honey-bee flitting 
 from flower to flower sipping honey as performing a task 
 intensely disagreeable to it, and that if it could it would be 
 playing golf or driving an automobile instead of gathering 
 honey. 
 
 All this may sound too dreamy for the man who to-day 
 is so saturated with ideas, the result of his present environ- 
 ment, that he cannot imagine how men would act in another 
 state. 
 
 It would be hard to convince a bull-head fish that if he had 
 lungs instead of gills he would prefer living upon dry land. 
 Some men are merelv advanced bull-heads. You cannot 
 argue with them. All you can do is to use a scoop-net and 
 dip them out of their slime and land them gently and firmly 
 in another life. 
 
 Mr. Eockefeller with his trusts is the simoon which is go- 
 ing to dry up the slime wherein these human bull-heads wal- 
 low. The first thing they will know they will be kicking 
 around on a dust heap and must develop Socialist lungs, for 
 they will find their old capitalist gills will be no good. We 
 will not be doing much calculating about the exact division 
 of things produced when we have Socialism. The scramble 
 will be for the privilege of working; not for the privilege 
 of taking. The fun will be more in the making of the pud- 
 ding than in the eating of it. These people who are worry- 
 ing so much about how they are going to divide up the ome- 
 lette before they find the eggs to make the omelette, should 
 remember that to-day they at best can only get the egg shells, 
 and that they can't lose very much by taking a chance of adopt- 
 ing a plan which promises them the eggs. To-day we do not 
 profess to give products according as a man has produced. 
 We simply hand the eggs over to the capitalist and stand 
 on our hind legs begging and whining for the shells. When 
 it amuses him to toss them to us we gratefully wag our little 
 tails. Under Socialism we would at least live under a system 
 that professed to give to the workers and did not profess to 
 give to drones simply because they happened to have a rich 
 father. 
 
 The theory is amusing that Socialism by enforcing econ- 
 omy will cut off demand for luxuries, for variety, so that a
 
 How We Will Divide. 261 
 
 man will be compelled to wear a home-spun suit, eat oatmeal, 
 drink water, stop smoking, and buy only of the state store. 
 Under Socialism a man will get what he produces. If he 
 wishes champagne, cigars, automobiles, diamonds, etc., no- 
 body will object either to the wish or its realization, but the 
 condition upon which he gets them will be the giving of his 
 labor in exchange for the labor which produces what he gets. 
 For instance, if he wants a pink pearl ground up in his 
 coffee every morning then he will either have to fish for the 
 pearl himself or give up his labor to the chap who does the 
 pearl fishing. As pearls are not found in every oyster, and 
 as it takes, say, a week's hard and dangerous labor to get one 
 pearl it means that the man with a penchant for drinking 
 ground pearls would have to work a week to pay for one 
 drink. Probably after a few such drinks and after working 
 a few months to pay for them he would decide of his own 
 accord to give up his extravagant taste. Under Socialism the 
 ordinary worker's income will be augmented many times its 
 present size, and he will spend it -as he pleases/ The com- 
 ing of Socialism will not be so very different from what would 
 happen to the man who is now getting two dollars a day 
 and who had a sudden raise to twenty dollars a day. The 
 usual thing to-day is that he promptly raises his standard 
 of living to correspond to his larger income. He could if he 
 chose work only one-tenth of the time, but he rarely makes 
 such a choice. He will stop living at cheap restaurants and 
 patronize better ones. It will be the same under Socialism — 
 exactly the same. Man will have more and he will spend 
 more. Supply will increase and with increased supply will 
 come increased demand to equalize things. 
 
 Private business under Socialism will not necessarily be 
 wiped out. I may like a peculiar brand of wine or an odd 
 kind of cheese or rag-time music. The state may not bother 
 to furnish me with such things. Do I lose them ? Not much. 
 I have plenty of money — Socialist money — and I use it to pay 
 the maker of my peculiar wine, my cheese, my music. I am 
 satisfied, for I get what I want. He is satisfied, for he gets 
 paid for his work and he produces what he likes to produce. 
 If I want merely pure water the state will be pretty sure to 
 be in a position to give me what I want for a reasonable pay- 
 ment in Socialist money — time checks, earned by me with
 
 262 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 my work. My work may be in the state water works, or it 
 may be singing rag-time music for Jones who has given me 
 his time checks which he may have earned working in the 
 city gas works. 
 
 The time-check system offers a simple mechanical system 
 for determining what each man should get. That we shall 
 ever use any such a system for any great length of time I 
 hardly believe. 
 
 Your heart doesn't wake you up in the morning by a 
 knock on your ribs and demand pay for the work it did while 
 you slept. If you had to busy yourself determining exactly 
 how much blood you should give to each of your organs every 
 day according to the work that organ did for you, then your 
 life would indeed be a burden. It would be less wearisome 
 for you to say "grab wha£ you can and let the slow grabber 
 starve." Similarly, if we are going forever to minutely ap- 
 portion to each according as he produces, fhe bore of it all 
 for eternity is worse than letting Rockefeller and Morgan 
 grab what they can and then our grabbing what is left. 
 Socialism means the extermination of grab as well as of 
 graft.
 
 What Good Is Government Ownership. 263 
 
 WHAT GOOD IS GOVERNMENT OWNER- 
 
 SHIP? 
 
 WHAT good would the government ownership of utili- 
 ties be? 
 I must say that the answers given by many Social- 
 ists to this reasonable question are not as convincing as 
 might be. 
 
 With the present competitive system remaining in opera- 
 tion government ownership is not necessarily any better for 
 the people than private ownership. It might, and probably 
 would, be somewhat better, but I am not talking about the 
 "might be's," I speak of the "must be's." As often pointed 
 out, the Post Office is a nest of mismanagement and cor- 
 ruption, and yet it is under government ownership. Then 
 why urge that the railroads or other public utilities be put 
 under government ownership? 
 
 I don't. That is, I don't urge very hard. 
 
 I can see some of my readers gasp with astonishment. 
 
 What's this ? Wilshire not urging government ownership ! 
 Why, we thought that government ownership was an essential 
 part of the Socialist program! 
 
 Not at all. If these gaspers would read my editorials 
 long enough and carefully enough they would see that I am 
 after the establishment of the co-operative commonwealth, 
 and it is simply in order to have a basis for this co-operative 
 commonwealth that I declare for the government ownership* 
 of the machinery of production. I am cold; and to prevent 
 myself perishing of cold I demand clothing. Incidentally 
 the clothing may make me more beautiful to look upon at the 
 Horse Show; it also may satisfy my ideas of modesty, but 
 fundamentally it is neither modesty nor appearance that 
 necessitates the clothing. It is absolute necessity of pro- 
 tection from cold. But why do I wish protection from 
 cold? Simply because I have an instinct which urges me to 
 live rather than die. So that when I ask for clothing it ia
 
 264 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 really asking for life, and yet some might be short-sighted 
 enough to think that the only reason I wished clothing was 
 for the appearance of things. 
 
 Government ownership might and probably would be of 
 general benefit to the community under our competitive sys- 
 tem. We would probably have better rates and more com- 
 fortable transportation. The roads would be run for the 
 benefit of the public instead of to make dividends for the 
 Vanderbilts. At least that would be the theory. It might 
 not work out that way, however, because the same interests 
 which now control the post office might control the railways. 
 
 If the people were as negligent of their interests then as 
 they are now, government ownership of railways under the 
 existing competitive system might give us no benefits at all. 
 This, I admit, is unlikely, but still it is not impossible. 
 However, under a co-operative system it would be different. 
 In the first place, inasmuch as all property would be owned 
 by the State, there would be no powerful group of private 
 property owners to dictate the policy of the State for their 
 own benefit at the expense of the non-property owners as to- 
 day, for instance, the railway owners dictate the policy of 
 the government regarding post office affairs so that the rail- 
 ways get eAcessive rates for carrying mail. 
 
 Again, with a co-operative system the products of industry 
 would of necessity be distributed to the workers, as there 
 would be no one else having any claim upon such products. 
 
 If we allowed private ownership of the railways and other 
 machinery to remain, then those owners would naturally have 
 some rights accruing from their title of ownership; other- 
 wise what would be the use of their having a title? Now, 
 the only rights that we can conceive of as being of any par- 
 ticular use would be the rights entitling them to the products 
 of labor without themselves working. If such were the case 
 and they took such products it is evident that the workers 
 would not be getting all their share of the product and we 
 would not be enjoying the co-operative system which we set 
 out to establish. The absolute necessity of public ownership 
 is palpable if we wish to establish the co-operative system. 
 Of course, as long as we have our competitive wage system, 
 which keeps wages down to the mere level of subsistence, we 
 cannot hope to abolish poverty, and therefore it is superfluous
 
 What Good Is Government Ownership. 265 
 
 to argue as to the advantage of substituting the co-operation 
 for competition. 
 
 The present government office-holders outside the classified 
 service are naturally an incompetent lot of grafters, taking 
 them as a whole, for they are not there to serve the State but 
 to rob it. This is bound to continue as long as we have our 
 system of private ownership of capital. Private owners of 
 capital will always corrupt our political officials as long as 
 we have on the one side men with money who will pay it to 
 buy franchises and on the other side aldermen without money 
 having franchises to dispose of, in which their individual in- 
 terest as one of a large community is much smaller than 
 their individual interest in getting the whole of the bribe 
 from the capitalist. 
 
 A Broadway franchise may be worth five million dollars 
 to the City of New York. To me as alderman, it is worth 
 exactly one five-millionth part of the five million dollars, or 
 one dollar, for there are five million citizens to share it with 
 me. Therefore, if I am paid anything over the dollar for 
 my vote in favor of granting the franchise I am so much 
 ahead. As long as this condition of affairs exists there will 
 always be men who will buy aldermen, and there will always 
 be salable aldermen. Hence, if we wish to have honest alder- 
 men we must have complete public ownership, in order to do 
 away with the men who do the buying of aldermen. Where 
 there are no buyers, of necessity there can be no sellers. 
 
 Now, as to the harm combinations do the public. The 
 Socialists hold that the combination of capitalists does not 
 necessarily do any more harm to the people than does the 
 single capitalist, but that the combination has more power 
 to do such harm, and when it is to its interest to do it, it is 
 in a much better position to do the harm. However, it is 
 not the harm that any particular combination can do or 
 actually does do that is of such great importance anyway. 
 The mere matter as to whether the Standard Oil Company 
 charges an exorbitant price for oil, or whether it sells it for 
 only a fair price, is of no great economic import. If it 
 charges too much, that is, if it charges a profit that is greater 
 than what a capitalist ordinarily expects from the sale of his 
 manufactures, then it simply means that the workman who 
 buys the oil must get higher wages to pay for it, and this
 
 266 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 higher wage comes out of his employer for the benefit of the 
 Standard Oil Company. This means that Rockefeller comes 
 into possession of so many more dollars to invest than he 
 otherwise would have had, and that the employer who paid 
 the excess wages has so many dollars less to invest. Of course, 
 it may be that the immediate employer may not be the loser, 
 for he may add to the price of his goods the excess of wages he 
 has to pay, and so shift the burden to some other capitalist. 
 The point is that the high price of oil does not economically 
 hurt the workman because his wages are based on the cost of 
 living. Oil is a necessity of life, just as is water, or bread, or 
 meat. He must have sufficient wages to buy these necessities. 
 If the price goes up his wages must go up or he will starve 
 to death, for there is practically no margin for him to in- 
 fringe upon. A high price of oil is a price made at the 
 general expense of the capitalist class for the benefit of the 
 Standard Oil Company. But this only means that the Stand- 
 ard stockholders have the directing of the investment or the 
 spending of a certain greater portion of the surplus products 
 called profits, instead of a certain other set of capitalists hav- 
 ing it. To the community as a whole it is of no practical 
 importance whether capitalist Rockefeller or capitalist Mor- 
 gan gets the surplus. 
 
 And, it is asked, are not Rockefeller and Morgan "the peo- 
 ple" ? And, if so, what do we mean by saying that the people 
 should own the trusts when they already own them? Yes, 
 Rockefeller and Morgan are the people, or rather, some of 
 them, but the trouble is that the people are not Rockefeller 
 and Morgan. The Morgans are very considerably less than 
 ten per cent, of the people. We wish to make one hundred 
 per cent, of the people Morgans. 
 
 And why do not laborers combine and set up shop for 
 themselves? Why, this is exactly what the Socialists pro- 
 pose. Only we do not propose that the shops should be small 
 competing ones. That would not make things any better 
 than they are to-day. Suppose a few hundred workers should 
 combine and try to run a blast furnace. Where would they 
 land, with pig iron selling at less than cost, as it is to-day, 
 through competition and over-production? Would the fact 
 that they owned the furnace do the workers any good? Not 
 at all ; for instead of getting wages for their work they would
 
 What Good Is Government Ownership. 267 
 
 be forced to pay assessments to keep the furnace in blast. 
 Of course, this is an unusual case. Pig iron is not always 
 selling less than cost; but on the other hand, there is now a 
 strong tendency for prices of all commodities to fall below 
 cost, and there is no economic reason why, if production 
 keeps up to the present standard, we should not have over- 
 production and a general statj of prices being less than cost. 
 
 No, we do not wish any small production, with the co-op- 
 erative owners competing for the sale of their products in the 
 existing capitalistic field. We wish national ownership and 
 the complete elimination of competition in the sale of prod- 
 ucts as well as in the sale of labor. 
 
 We do not look forward to trade-unions taking the place 
 of capitalists. We look forward to the people as a whole tak- 
 ing charge of the great industrial functions, and regulating 
 production upon the basis of what the laborers desire, and 
 regulating distribution upon the basis of what they produce.
 
 268 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 THE TWO NATIONS 
 
 FOR many years, until 1902, a certain man Loud has rep- 
 resented the Southern Pacific Railway and Wells, Fargo 
 & Co.'s Express in Congress, although nominally repre- 
 senting the people of California. Loud has been notorious for 
 his attacks on any project that might extend the utility of the 
 post-office, and has publicly declared that it would be a good 
 thing if the post-office were in the hands of a private corpora- 
 tion. He not only antagonized the post-office generally, but 
 he incautiously went so far as to extend his antagonism to 
 the post-office employees. They wanted fair pay for their 
 work, and would probably have gained their point had not 
 Loud taken it upon himself to defeat their bill. The result 
 was that the post-office employees "banded" together and two 
 years ago made a fight on Loud's re-election and defeated him. 
 There is no charge that money or undue influence was used 
 against Loud. The post-office employees simply pleaded with 
 the voters in Loud's district to send some man to Congress 
 that would stand for labor instead of capital. The electors 
 responded and Loud was defeated. But Loud was a particular 
 friend of the President; so he did not lose his grip at the 
 public crib. He has been appointed, of all men, at a salary 
 of $7,500 a year, to represent the TJnited States at the In- 
 ternational Postal Congress which meets at Rome next sum- 
 mer. Loud will no doubt tell the congress that the United 
 States is contemplating selling the post-office to Wells, Fargo 
 & Co/s Express Co. He will certainly say we ought to make 
 such a sale. 
 
 The temerity of the working men taking to the ballot as a 
 method of obtaining their rights strikes President Roosevelt 
 as most, unmannerly and dishonorable. 
 
 The letter carriers, both municipal and rural, are as a whole 
 an excellent body of public servants. They should be amply 
 paid. But their payment must be obtained by arguing their 
 claims fairly and honorably before the Congress, and not band- 
 ing together for the defeat of those Congressmen who refuse to 
 give promises which they cannot in conscience give. 
 
 Working men are to politely stand hat in hand before their 
 servants, for a Congressman is but a public servant, and to
 
 The Two Nations. 269 
 
 humbly plead their wishes and then bow themselves out with 
 an apology for giving trouble, and then wait results. If no 
 results come, they must be patient and not presume to send 
 some one else to Congress who will be more open to sugges- 
 tions even after they have tried the bowing and scraping game 
 unsuccessfully for years. 
 
 This idea of Koosevelfs that a Congressman has a divine 
 right to rule instead of being merely a public servant to obey 
 the public will, is about the most remarkable utterance ever 
 given forth by an American President. Not only does Koose- 
 velt object to political action of working men, but he is espe- 
 cially severe upon any resort to violence. He says : 
 
 But when any labor union seeks improper ends, or seeks to 
 achieve proper ends by improper means, all good citizens and 
 more especially all honorable public servants must oppose the 
 wrongdoing as resolutely as they would oppose the wrongdoing 
 of any great corporation. Of course any violence, brutality, or 
 corruption should not for one moment be tolerated. 
 
 Mr. Eoosevelt says nothing about corruption or violence if 
 committed by capitalists. He has nothing to say about the 
 action of General Bell of Colorado. 
 
 But while he denounces violence by trade unions, no mat- 
 ter how just may be their cause, he commends violence if done 
 by a nation in the cause of justice. 
 
 There are kinds of peace which are highly undesirable, which 
 are in the long run as destructive as any war. Tyrants and op- 
 pressors have many times made a wilderness and call it peace. 
 Many times peoples who were slothful or timid or shortsighted, 
 who had been enervated by ease or luxury, or misled by false 
 teachings, have shrunk in ud manly fashion from doing duty that 
 was stern and that needed self-sacrifice, and have sought to hide 
 from their own minds their shortcomings, their ignoble motives, 
 by calling them love of peace. The peace of tyrannous terror, 
 the peace of craven weakness, the peace of injustice, all these 
 should be shunned as we shun unrighteous war. The goal to set 
 before us as a nation, the goal which should be set before all 
 mankind, is the attainment of the peace of justice, of the peace 
 which comes when each nation is not merely safeguarded in its 
 own rights, but scrupulously recognizes and performs its duty 
 toward others. Generally peace tells for righteousness; but if 
 there is conflict between the two, then our fealty is due first to 
 the cause of righteousness. Unrighteous wars are common, and 
 unrighteous peace is rare; but both should be shunned. The 
 right of freedom and the responsibility for the exercise of that 
 right cannot be divorced. One of our great poets has well and
 
 270 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 finely said that freedom is not a gift that tarries long in the 
 hands of cowards. 
 
 Why do nations fight ? Usually because one nation thinks 
 it will experience an economic gain by resorting to violence. 
 Because it thinks, or at any rate alleges it thinks, that justice 
 will not prevail unless it goes to war. There was never a war 
 except both belligerents stoutly maintained that each was 
 fighting for justice, and the onlooker has usually a difficult 
 problem in deciding which, if either, is in the right. 
 
 But when we look at the two nations within each and every 
 nation, the nation of the rich and the nation of the poor, we 
 never can have any doubt as to which is the oppressed and 
 which the oppressor, as io which does the work and as to 
 which gets the reward. 
 
 The fact that both rich and poor live within the same na- 
 tional borders blinds the sense of justice in many. If all the 
 rich Americans lived abroad, as do William Waldorf Astor, 
 W. K. Vanderbilt, the Countess de Castellane, and other well- 
 known members of the various "American colonies," no doubt 
 these blind ones might see that we have a nation of poor Amer- 
 icans who are subject to a nation of rich Americans. Sup- 
 pose all our rich did emigrate, although of course still keep- 
 ing their property and taking their rents and dividends, I 
 would like to ask Mr. Roosevelt if he would then say we Amer- 
 icans who remained on this side of the Atlantic would not be 
 cowards if we did not end the "peace of injustice" which 
 would let a situation continue by which we who remained 
 at home did all the work while those who lived abroad did all 
 the playing. 
 
 If it is plain that we would be cowards in this case, is it 
 not equally true we are cowards to-day in letting continue a 
 "peace of craven weakness, this peace of injustice" when we 
 know that its continuance means that thousands of our fel- 
 low-countrymen must work and get nothing that other thou- 
 sands may play and get everything? 
 
 This is the "peace of injustice" that Socialists are warring 
 against, and if the President Is sincere in his striving for 
 the goal of the "peace of justice" I would counsel him to be- 
 gin at home and cast his lot with those who are warring for 
 justice to the Nation of the Poor.
 
 Roosevelt's Muck Rake. 271 
 
 ROOSEVELT'S MUCK RAKE 
 
 1AM in agreement with the President on the muck-rake 
 question on one point at least, namely, that the question 
 now is more how to get rid of the muck than to merely 
 stir it up and leave it where found to remain a stench to the 
 nostrils. Everyone knows by this time that the muck is here. 
 
 President Eoosevelt suggests the cause of the muck and 
 likewise the remedy, and here I am again in agreement with 
 him. 
 
 He says: "Materially we must strive to secure a broader 
 economic opportunity for all men, so that each shall have a 
 better chance to show the stuff of which he is made." 
 
 That's good Socialistic doctrine. That's pretty nearly 
 what I say: "Let all men have an equal economic oppor- 
 tunity/' is the way I would have put it. 
 
 The reason of "muck" is merely because some men have 
 a much better opportunity than other men and can buy or 
 bully the other men into economic submission. For instance, 
 Vanderbilt owns a railway — this gives him superior economic 
 opportunity — with it he extorts "muck" from the public and 
 with the "muck" he buys our legislators, who make his man 
 Depew a Senator. The "muck-rake man" comes along, tells 
 the public all about the transaction, stirs up the muck, and 
 leaves us with our handkerchiefs to our noses to find out how 
 much better we are off than we were before he raked the 
 muck. But he makes us sure that the muck is there. Now 
 the President is not this kind of a muck-raker. When he 
 rakes muck he knows where he is going to dump it. He is 
 not only going to show us how to get rid of the muck, but is 
 also going to show us how to prevent future accumulation of 
 muck. 
 
 President Eoosevelt clearly sees the source of muck to be 
 in the existence of large fortunes ; that it lies' in the fact that 
 we allow our railways to be owned by a Vanderbilt, our oil 
 refineries by a Rockefeller, our sugar refineries by a Have-
 
 272 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 meyer, etc. Roosevelt says we must take these properties away 
 from them, not now, but soon, when they die. 
 
 I quote again : "We must have a tax to put it out of the 
 power of the owners of these immense fortunes to pass on 
 more than a certain amount to any one individual." 
 
 It seems to me that if I found a muck heap under my win- 
 dow I would not wait until somebody died before I would 
 try to remove it. I would rake off the muck at once. Why 
 endure the stench a moment longer than necessary? 
 
 If Eoosevelt sees that private ownership — an overgrown 
 fortune — of wealth causes the muck, then he has no more 
 reason to ask us to wait for the owner to die than he would 
 have to ask a city to continue drinking water known to be 
 polluted with typhoid germs coming from the drainage of 
 certain houses because the owner of the houses was not yet 
 dead. 
 
 It may be true the greater the fortune the more the muck, 
 yet it is also true that even a very little muck is disagreeable 
 just as a very little typhoid fever is disagreeable. No one 
 would advise letting even one house drain into and pollute a 
 city's water supply. No one would allow the smallest muck 
 in his house if he could throw it out. If small fortunes give 
 an economic opportunity to the class that own them to create 
 even a little muck while we are cleaning house, why not make 
 it thorough? 
 
 Let us do away with all fortunes and all muck, and do 
 away with all at once. Let the nation own the fortunes, both 
 big and little, the little railways and the big railways. Let 
 the muck-rake gather them all in. Let us have a clean house.
 
 The Boom of 1906. 273 
 
 THE BOOM OF 1906 
 
 SOME day, and a not very distant day either, people will 
 be talking of how crazy investors were in the "boom of 
 1906." We are right now in the midst of the greatest 
 period of insane speculation that this American nation of 
 speculators has ever experienced, and the singular part of it 
 is that notwithstanding all we should have learned from the 
 past about the ephemeral character of such booms there is 
 hardly a warning voice. 
 
 The big financiers and bankers who should be the men 
 to warn us of an impending panic are the very ones who are 
 pushing along the boom harder than any other class. 
 
 What, may I ask, is there to justify all this construction 
 of new houses, new stores, factories, and railways from one 
 end of the country to the other? Certainly not the increase 
 of population, either natural or from immigration. For every 
 American new born and for every foreign immigrant we are 
 to-day building five times the house-room commercially 
 necessary. 
 
 And yet only two years ago we were practically facing a 
 commercial depression, a condition of apparent over-pro- 
 duction. We apparently had then too many houses, railways 
 and factories. Does anyone mean to say that in the inter- 
 vening two years population has so increased that all this 
 tremendous demand for goods is justified? Of course not. 
 
 If two years ago we could not use up what we were pro- 
 ducing and if conditions to-day were practically the same, 
 then how is it that now we do not seem able to produce 
 enough for consumption? Why such a change? 
 
 It all begun from the demand upon us to supply the waste 
 of the Japanese-Russian war. From that demand there arose 
 the necessity for more manufacturing establishments, while 
 at the same time the export demand for our farm products to 
 feed the belligerents caused a rise in the price of farm 
 products. 
 
 This demand for the building of factories meant an in- 
 creased demand for labor, and the demand for labor meant 
 higher wages.
 
 274 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 Both, the American farmer and the American laborer at 
 one and the same time have had more money to spend, and 
 they have spent it. Goods of all kinds as a consequence have 
 been in demand. More shoes wanted, more theatres patron- 
 ized, more luxuries bought. It has meant a further demand 
 for more factories to still further facilitate the making of 
 foods. 
 
 Each factory that has been built means the building of 
 still other factories to furnish the machinery to build the first 
 factories. 
 
 When a new factory is built it creates a demand for lum- 
 ber; this may mean the building of a new railway into a new 
 lumber camp to haul out the lumber, the building of the 
 railway may mean the building of a new steel rail mill to 
 make more rail, the building of the rail mill may mean the 
 opening of a new iron-ore mine and the opening of the new 
 mine may mean the building of still another new railway to 
 haul the ore, of new steamships to carry the ore on the 
 lakes, of new piers for the steamers. New steamers need 
 paint, more paint means more lead and zinc mines must be 
 opened. 
 
 And again these new railways, mines, etc., mean still more 
 demand for labor, still higher wages, more demand for farm 
 products and higher prices all along the line for all com- 
 modities. 
 
 At first the demand caused by the Japanese war was met 
 by our selling goods and farm products at the normal price 
 prevailing two years ago, then, as the demand increased, prices 
 naturally rose and traders and manufacturers made more 
 and more profits. Then, as prices of secondary commodities 
 needed in the production of the primary products also rose in 
 price, profits fell off and a further rise in the price of primary 
 goods took place to restore profits to the original status. For 
 instance, first the price of steel advanced, then the price of 
 iron ore went up, then the price of steel again advanced on 
 account of the higher price of ore. 
 
 Labor at first was sold in the form of wages at the old 
 level, but the increased demand, and especially the increased 
 cost of living, caused wages finally to rise along with the 
 general rise in price of other commodities, although wages 
 have not risen in any like degree with the increased cost of
 
 The Boom of 1906. 275 
 
 living. This means that labor is really not consuming any 
 more than it did before the boom, because the higher wages 
 it now gets do not give it any more real purchasing power 
 on account of the higher prices. The largely increased 
 production is altogether absorbed by the increased invest- 
 ments of the capitalists in new machinery of consumption, 
 new railways, etc. However, as shown, the starting point for 
 all this boom was the Japanese war, and with the ending 
 of that war the impulse to the present commercial boom 
 ended. 
 
 We are now running on the start which was given us by 
 that war, and unless another war comes along to give us 
 another boost our boom is as sure to soon stop short as is a 
 clock sure to run down unless some one re-winds it. There 
 is no more possibility of perpetual motion in connection with 
 the present system than there is with an 8-day clock. 
 
 The question to be presently up to us Americans is what 
 to do when our industrial clock runs down and stops. 
 
 As I write these lines the first of July, 1906, when prices 
 are booming as never before, when there has never been such 
 building activity, when the banks and the United States 
 treasury were never so flooded with money, when corpora- 
 tion dividends were never so great, when there is an un- 
 precedented boom in real estate throughout the whole Amer- 
 ican continent, for, Canada, too, is with the United States 
 in the same mad race, I say when with all these such favor- 
 able conditions in trade and without a cloud upon the finan- 
 cial sky, it seems madness to predict that within a twelve- 
 month all will be reversed and the country will be in a state 
 of panic. However, I give the present boom just one year 
 to reach its zenith and collapse. 
 
 I predict also that when the collapse does come it will have 
 an infinitely greater social effect than any other previous 
 crisis. We are to suddenly plunge from the present condi- 
 tion of unbounded prosperity to unprecedented depression. 
 
 Merchants and manufacturers who to-day hardly know 
 what to do with their enormous profits will then be terrified 
 to know how to avoid bankruptcy. 
 
 Workingmen who are now scorning the highest wages ever 
 paid in the history of the country will then be cringing at 
 soup kitchens, glad to be fed by charity on any terms. The
 
 276 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 trade-unions will be wrecks. The Socialist Party and the 
 Socialist Press alone will be booming. 
 
 Now, we have had previous times of crisis in this country 
 when times have been as hard and bad as I have just pre- 
 dicted as to shortly again to come upon us, but in those times 
 in the past the people generally and labor particularly looked 
 upon a crisis as an unavoidable natural event. Men regarded 
 hard times then as they regard, say, yellow fever two years 
 ago in New Orleans before the infection was found to lie 
 in the bite of a mosquito. A panic and yellow fever were 
 alike a visitation of God for which there was little or nothing 
 to be done but to sit down and wait until it passed, then 
 get up, bury the dead and count the survivors and wait for 
 it to again appear. 
 
 But to-day, when yellow fever comes to New Orleans, they 
 don't sit down and wail and do nothing, nor do they take a 
 hundred different quack medicines, — they get busy, they get 
 rid of the mosquito breeding pools, they screen the cisterns 
 where mosquitos breed, they screen their bedrooms to protect 
 themselves from mosquitos. 
 
 It is now recognized that without the mosquitos yellow 
 fever cannot be conveyed from person to person. The mos- 
 quito bites a person infected with fever, then bites a well 
 person and thus is the disease conveyed. It took quite a little 
 time to educate the people of New Orleans about the danger 
 of the mosquito, and the mosquito theory met with all kinds 
 of ridicule, but the last epidemic convinced all classes as to 
 the soundness of the theory. 
 
 The Fear of Death is a great Schoolmaster. 
 
 It will be the fear of death which will teach the American 
 people in our next economic crisis the correct scientific remedy 
 to avoid starvation. 
 
 We will at last see that the Mosquitos which sap our 
 strength and poison our blood are the Capitalists. We will 
 finally see that as long as we suffer the capitalist mosquito 
 to puncture our veins and drain our blood we must necessarily 
 be poverty-stricken. We will see that to get rid of the capi- 
 talist mosquito is impossible as long as we allow the pools 
 and gutters of competition and private ownership of capital 
 to remain. We will set to work and drain our pools as did 
 the people of New Orleans. We will turn to and fill up the
 
 The Boom of 1906. 277 
 
 capitalist swamps which breed our capitalist mosquitos. We 
 will open up the mighty river of Socialism, a great clear 
 running stream, breeding no capitalist mosquitos, which will 
 carry man upon its broad bosom to a land of peace and plenty 
 for all. 
 
 All this literature of exposure which is now going on, all 
 the muck-raking, the beef-trust business, the Life Insurance 
 frauds, the railway rebating, all, all is slowly educating the 
 public to the nature of our present system. We no longer 
 venerate our capitalist leaders any more than do the Eussians 
 of to-day venerate the Tsar. We are merely patiently waiting 
 and looking for an opportunity to get rid of them. Just now 
 we are like a man carrying a pack through the Canadian 
 woods during the black-fly season. He is bitten to distraction 
 by the flies, but he cannot stop to fight them on account of 
 the pack. But because he doesn't brush them off doesn't 
 mean he doesn't want to brush them off. He is merely biding 
 his time. Just now he is too busy. That is just our position. 
 We are too busy making money and drawing wages to attend 
 to our capitalist mosquitos. But we know they are biting 
 us all right. And we know they are of no more benefit to 
 us than are the black flies of benefit to the man carrying the 
 pack. We know they are annoying pests, but we don't know 
 yet that they are as deadly as the yellow fever mosquitos. 
 New Orleans never liked the mosquito, but it never really 
 fought them until it found them not only annoying but 
 deadly. 
 
 Let the next crisis come, and my prediction is that it will 
 be here before August, 1907, unless another great war breaks 
 out, and we will see the American people do some much 
 more lively mosquito hunting than any one to-day would 
 think possible. 
 
 We are to-day producing wealth in unprecedented quantity, 
 no one can deny that everyone could be provided for in the 
 most generous manner with our present labor power and 
 machinery. And notwithstanding that we are producing so 
 much food and clothing for actual day-to-day consumption 
 we are at the same time diverting an enormous quantity of 
 our labor force to the building of more machinery for use 
 in the future. We are building a two hundred million dollar 
 canal at Panama, a new hundred million dollar steel plant
 
 278 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 at Gary, Indiana, half a dozen railway enterprises are going 
 on and each costs over a hundred million dollars. Millions 
 and millions are going into new houses and factories. If one- 
 quarter of the millions we are now putting into new machinery 
 were devoted to the making of more goods for immediate con- 
 sumption by the working class, it is difficult to compute how 
 great would be the ensuing good and comfort to the recipients. 
 
 In addition to these immense "savings" being made, our 
 millionaires are wasting millions and millions on luxuries. No 
 one can say that we are not producing enough and more than 
 enough for all. Unquestionably we have right now both labor 
 and capital at hand sufficient to give us all a good living. 
 
 Suppose in a year from to-day there is a crisis, and instead 
 of labor and capital being well employed, both are idle. Sup- 
 pose, instead of the greater part of the working class being 
 comparatively well clothed and well fed, the greater part of 
 them are hungry and out of work. 
 
 Does any one think that the workers will have memories 
 so short as not to be able to look back one short year and 
 contrast their position then and now? Does any one think 
 that the working class in their present frame of mind in 
 regard to the capitalist class are going to submit to starva- 
 tion for any considerable time and be calmed by the explana- 
 tion that the whole trouble is "overproduction"? It may 
 be asked, "What are they going to do about it?" I can 
 answer right now what they are going to do about it. They 
 are going to demand Socialism, and they are going to insist 
 on their demand, too. It may be said that they cannot do 
 anything without organization. To this I reply, the germ 
 of the future organization which is to free the workers is 
 already at hand, namely, the Socialist Party. It is true that 
 to-day it is of comparatively insignificant size and strength. 
 But it is merely so because conditions have been unfavorable 
 to its growth. Too much prosperity. It has the right frame- 
 work, it has the right principles, it is headed in the right 
 direction. Let the winds of an economic crisis blow and you 
 will be astonished to see how the driftwood in the labor stream 
 will come together in a compact mass to form a great raft 
 under the guidance of the Socialist Party to ferry us across 
 the Eiver Styx of Capitalism to the Elysian Fields of 
 Socialism.
 
 Herbert Spencer. 27 d 
 
 HERBERT SPENCER 
 
 WE are all too apt to think that when a man does not 
 agTee with us that there are reasons other than pure 
 which cause the difference of opinion, and that this 
 is a fault to which we Socialists are prone is readily admitted. 
 
 But we have more cause than most people. It is not to 
 the interest of a man of property or position to agree with us, 
 and since the economic basis of Socialism is so plain and 
 simple we have a good reason to question either the brains 
 or the honesty of a man who disagrees with us. Suppose 
 you claim the right and title to four apples, and four only. 
 Now suppose that by actual count I show you that you really 
 possess five apples. I then say you have an apple to which 
 you have no right. Then if you say you fail to understand 
 either my mathematics or my ethics I have a right to question 
 your sanity, or if not your sanity your honesty. 
 
 Socialism to a Socialist is like unto this problem of the 
 four apples in its simplicity, and it is always hard for us to 
 understand that it is not all just as plain to others as it is 
 to us. 
 
 Now Herbert Spencer was always a conundrum to us 
 Socialists. Here was a man, one of the foremost thinkers of 
 the day, and a man who bowed the knee to neither priest nor 
 millionaire nor king. A man who preceded Darwin in his 
 adherence to the theory of evolution. A man who at one 
 time was heading straight for Socialism. He was apparently 
 logically bound to apply his theory of social evolution to the 
 social organization of man as well as to his individual or- 
 ganization. If man was developing, then so was society. He 
 had said that the "cardinal trait in all advancing organiza- 
 tions is the development of the regulative apparatus," but 
 when the trust appeared as the great regulator of industry, 
 and a fulfilment of his prophecy, he refused to recognize it 
 as a fulfilment, but persisted in looking at it through the 
 blind and prejudiced eyes of an American politician. He
 
 280 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 called the trust an unnatural phenomenon which should be 
 suppressed by the police powers of the State. Then when 
 some fifty years ago he went so far as to demand the nation- 
 alization of land as a necessary concomitant of his theories 
 of exact and equal justice, he later on recanted his demand, 
 lamely excusing himself by saying that it was "simpler" to 
 leave the existing owners in possession than to take the 
 trouble of expropriating them. 
 
 Of course, in a way, he was right. That is, if we are to 
 leave private capital except land in the hands of private 
 owners and continue with our present competitive system, 
 then it's hardly worth while to upset things for the little 
 good that land nationalization would do. But by leaving 
 things as they are we give up all our ideas of exact justice, 
 and for a man holding the high ethical standard held by 
 Herbert Spencer his recantation was incongruous and in- 
 explicable. 
 
 The man was a great disappointment; but this is not say- 
 .-. ing that he has not performed a great and monumental work 
 for humanity. He made many good bricks, and even if they 
 do not go to construct the building he designed, they have 
 come into good use constructing our Socialist house of the 
 future.
 
 How to be Happy. 281 
 
 HOW TO BE HAPPY 
 
 THE rich are above the law, and no better illustration 
 could be had than the action of the directors of the 
 corporation which owned the steamer General Slocum, 
 which recently burnt up, with the loss of a thousand lives. 
 The evidence showed such criminal negligence to provide life 
 preservers and proper fire apparatus that the directors have 
 been indicted for manslaughter. After the indictment it 
 was common talk that nothing would come of it all, and 
 that the directors themselves are unafraid can be seen from 
 the way they are acting regarding another steamboat they 
 own, the Grand Republic, a sister ship to the General Slocum. 
 The Grand Republic is used exclusively for excursions and 
 has a legal carrying capacity of 3,700 passengers. Some weeks 
 previous to the Slocum disaster I myself was a passenger 
 upon the Grand Republic on an excursion up the Hudson 
 River. There were at least 2,000 more on board than the 
 law allowed, and there was not the least attempt even to 
 prevent still more crowding upon her. The only reason 
 there were no more on board was that no more tickets were 
 in demand. It was so crowded that when she made her stop 
 at 125th street — she started from *Twenty-third street — a 
 great many more got off there than got on, as many had an 
 opportunity to realize by that time that the crowd was too 
 great for comfort, quite apart from considering the danger 
 of it, and they preferred to forfeit their fares rather than 
 continue the trip. If a fire had occurred that day, even if 
 there had been plenty of good life preservers, there would 
 certainly have been an immense loss of life, for the boat was 
 so overcrowded that it would have been impossible to have 
 gotten near a preserver. This kind of overcrowding is the 
 rule with excursion boats, not only about New York, but 
 about every other American city. There is no country in the 
 world where profits are put so far ahead of human life as in 
 our dear land of Colorado Bull Pen Liberty.
 
 282 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 However, to continue my story. After the burning of the 
 Slocum there was a demand for general reinspection of all ex- 
 cursion steamers about New York harbor. I am not very inno- 
 cent, but I admit that I thought to myself that the 
 lesson of the Slocum would certainly warn the directors to get 
 the Grand Kepublic in ship-shape to pass the reinspection, 
 sure to come shortly. I did think a man under indictment 
 for manslaughter would be careful to avoid another indict- 
 ment. Not at all. Did the directors turn to and fix up the 
 Grand Eepublic after the burning of the Slocum? Not only 
 did they fail to prepare her for reinspection, but they 
 actually contested the right of the government to reinspect ! 
 However, the reinspection was made and what the same in- 
 spector two months ago pronounced safe he now pronounces 
 unsafe. The life preservers were found absolutely rotten and 
 incapable of sustaining even twenty-four pounds of lead, and 
 the fire hose was as rotten as the life preservers. As for a 
 fire drill, the crew never had heard of such a thing. Now it 
 must be borne in mind that all this criminal negligence is 
 found on the Grand Republic a full month or more after her 
 owners had been indicted for criminal negligence regarding 
 the Slocum. If this conduct does not show a contempt for 
 the power of the law when it comes to the protection of the 
 weak from the strong, then there has never been an example 
 of it. 
 
 Money has now become such a power in this country, 
 it has such an absolute dominance over our courts, that it is 
 almost hopeless to look for any good results from the passage 
 of laws designed to protect man as against the money-bag. We 
 have seen how the trade unions are being crippled by one 
 decision after the other. We have seen how in Colorado the 
 referendum is disregarded by the corporations and the con- 
 situation scoffed at. The nation may not be ruled by Money, 
 but it is certainly ruled by the Men who rule Money. The 
 only men who can rule money are those who own money. 
 Ergo, if the Nation would rule money, it must own money. 
 What is money? When we say Rockefeller is worth lots of 
 money what do we mean? Do we mean he has lots of dollar 
 bills in his vest pocket? Of course not. Rockefeller might 
 be worth a billion dollars of money and yet not have 
 ten dollars in bank. Let him own the Trusts and the
 
 How To Be Happy. 283 
 
 Eailways and he can own a billion of money when- 
 ever he will. The Trusts command money and money com- 
 mands the Nation. When we use the word money we use it 
 metaphorically. We don't mean actual dollars and cents, but 
 we mean railways and other forms of capital, the ownership 
 of which gives the owner the power of extracting the dollars 
 from the people. Therefore, when I say, Let the Nation Own 
 the Money, I do not mean to cry, Let the Nation Own the 
 Gold Dollars and the Greenbacks, I mean, Let the Nation 
 Own the Trusts. Once owning the Trusts, the Nation will 
 have no more difficulty commanding money than has Mr. 
 Kockefeller commanding it. If we do not wish any more 
 burning up of the people in Iroquois theatres or Slocum 
 steamboats, then let us do away with the profit system which 
 causes men to burn up their fellow-men for the sake of a few 
 half-dollars. If we do not wish to shorten the lives of millions 
 of our fellow-men who are wearing out their lives working 
 unnecessarily long hours and in unnecessarily unhealthy fac- 
 tories, then let us be the owners of those factories ourselves 
 and regulate our hours and the conditions of our labor. In- 
 stead of allowing a few soulless corporations to sweat and 
 murder us on the plan of making the most profit without 
 regard to the loss of life, let us be our own masters. 
 
 If we wish this Earth to be our Paradise for men, then Let 
 the Nation Own the Trusts. This sounds hifalutin. Is it ? What 
 is Paradise but a place where you do what you like? And 
 what you like is obedience to God. Obedience to God has an 
 ugly sound for most of us. It usually means doing something 
 you do not wish to do, in order that someone else may have 
 the fruit of your work. Be unhappy yourself that someone 
 else may be happy. But this is not obedience to God. God's 
 law is simply the law that impels us all to do what is best 
 for the social organism, not for our own selves, not for our 
 neighbors, but for the general good. When we do what is 
 best for all, we are doing what is best for ourselves and what 
 renders us the most happy. However, we cannot under pres- 
 ent conditions either do what is best for ourselves, nor for 
 our neighbors, nor for humanity. Therefore we are un- 
 happy and this world is not Paradise. We simply cannot be 
 good as things are to-day, and unless we are good we cannot 
 be happy. Therefore no one is happy. If we would be good
 
 284 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 we must have the conditions which allow of Goodness. The 
 primary condition is liberty for each individual to be able to 
 work to the best advantage for humanity as a whole, for by 
 so doing he is working the best for himself. To do this we 
 must control the earth and manage it for ourselves. Some- 
 one else cannot do this for us any more than someone else 
 can be good and happy for us. To control and manage the 
 earth we must own it. The first step toward ownership will 
 come only when we cry, "Let the Nation Own the Trusts."
 
 Mr. Gompers and His Little Plan. 285 
 
 MR. GOMPERS AND HIS LITTLE PLAN 
 
 THE American Federation of Labor, by a vote of over 
 five to one, has decided that it doesn't want any 
 close connection between the political and the eco- 
 nomic movements of the working class. 
 
 Mr. Gompers, the president of the Federation, took occa- 
 sion during the debate on the subject to declare to the So- 
 cialists: "Economically you are unsound, socially you 
 are wrong and industrially you are an impossibility." 
 Such remarks from Mr. Gompers naturally aroused more 
 or less annoyance among the Socialist delegates at the 
 convention, and among the Socialists generally throughout 
 the country. But what else could we anticipate? Mr. 
 Gompers spoke from his own particular trade-union stand- 
 point. The trade-union movement is essentially a move- 
 ment to raise wages. That this is a difficult task goes with- 
 out saying. It is difficult enough when the whole attention 
 of organized labor is devoted to this one object, and dividing 
 the attention certainly would not make the task any lighter. 
 This is essentially the position taken by Mr. Gompers and 
 Mr. Mitchell and the rest of the trades unionists pure and 
 simple, and there is more or less logic in it. Neither Mr. 
 Gompers nor Mr. Mitchell understands the present economic 
 situation and its natural evolution. They look upon So- 
 cialism as if it were a scheme of industrial government to 
 be imposed upon us by the conscious action of the working 
 class, along the line of a predetermined plan. That it is 
 coming about as a natural and inevitable result of industrial 
 and social evolution never occurs to them. 
 
 The Socialist Party at the last election cast a very small 
 percentage of the general vote. If Gompers should advocate 
 that trades unionists attach themselves to this small party, 
 he knows enough to know that his advocacy would influence 
 only a small percentage of the trades unionists, and that lit- 
 tle good could accrue to the Socialist movement, and much 
 harm to the trades union movement. He also knows that
 
 286 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 such advocacy would cost him his office. Many of the trades 
 unionists are good Democrats or good Republicans, as the 
 case may be, and have as much affiliation for their respect- 
 ive parties as a Methodist has for his church. Some would 
 rather abandon their trades union than to abandon their 
 party. To ask a Republican trades unionist to attach him- 
 self to the Socialist Party would be almost like asking a 
 Methodist to become a Roman Catholic. It takes a long 
 process of education to make a Socialist. This is particularly 
 true when the man has been doing as well as the average 
 trades unionist has been doing for the last four or five years. 
 He is quite satisfied with the existing system which has 
 given him a good job for the last four years. Of course, he 
 asks for more, but often in his inmost heart, he thinks he 
 is getting all that is his due, and he is simply asking for more 
 because he thinks he can get it. 
 
 The knowledge that he produces a great deal more than 
 the very best paid trades unionist gets, and the conviction 
 that he should get the whole of his product, is not as yet 
 widely prevalent among the trades unionists. However, 
 President Gompers himself admitted that conditions for the 
 next year are not going to be analogous to those of the past 
 four years. He knows that we are approaching a period 
 of great depression; and he has warned the capitalists that 
 they ought not to meet this by reducing wages. He has 
 adopted the Socialist argument, that inasmuch as the work- 
 ing class constitutes the great bulk of consumers, any re- 
 duction in wages will reduce the demand for commodities 
 to just the extent of the reduction; and render the problem 
 of over-production still more insoluble. 
 
 The idea of Gompers appealing to the capitalists to keep 
 up wages in a time of falling prices and over-production is a 
 more palpably Utopian scheme than anything the Socialists 
 ever dreamed of presenting. For instance, here are, say, the 
 cotton mills encountering a reduction in the price of cotton 
 cloth. They have two alternatives, either to shut down the 
 mills altogether or to reduce wages, so as to decrease the 
 fcost of the cloth, and enable them to make and sell their 
 product without loss. 
 
 According to Gompers' plan they would go ahead paying 
 the same wages as at present, in order to give the mill-work-
 
 Mr. Gompers and his Little Plan. 287 
 
 ers an opportunity of buying more cloth than they could if 
 wages were reduced. If the cotton mill owners were the 
 only employers of labor in the world, this plan might work 
 well enough; but inasmuch as they are engaged in com- 
 petition with all the rest of the world, and as the laborers 
 spend but a very small proportion of their wages in buying 
 cotton cloth, and the far greater proportion in buying bread 
 and meat and sugar and paying rent, it can be seen that the 
 cotton mill owners personally would get a very small direct 
 benefit through keeping up wages in the cotton mills. It is 
 self-evident that the Gompers' plan is an impossibility. 
 With the period of depression and falling prices that we are 
 now entering upon in the United States, the capitalists must 
 either reduce wages or shut down the factories. The reduc- 
 tion of wages would be at best only a temporary expedient, 
 and we would finally have to shut down the factories any- 
 way. 
 
 Gompers is right in saying that the working class con- 
 stitutes the bulk of the consumers, and that cutting down 
 their wages will hasten the coming of the unemployed prob- 
 lem; but in the meantime cutting down the wages does give 
 the capitalist a chance to breathe a little longer, and the 
 meantime is very important. 
 
 "When the Federation of Labor meets next year conditions 
 are going to be very different from what they are at this 
 meeting. There will be no mutual congratulations next 
 year about the prosperity of trades unionism, increase of 
 wages and winning of strikes. On the contrary it will be a 
 very mournful tale of the breaking up of the trades unions, 
 a large decrease in the membership of the Federation, a great 
 reduction of wages and hundreds of thousands of members 
 out of employment. Gompers' absurd plan of having the 
 capitalists pay high wages during periods of depression will 
 not even be mentioned. 
 
 The question as to whether Socialism is an industrial im- 
 possibility, as Mr. Gompers has proclaimed, will probably be 
 the particular subject of discussion. Certainly the existing 
 system of competition will have proved itself to be an im- 
 possibility and will be so realized by a great many out-of- 
 work trades unionists next year. When a man is out of em- 
 ployment he is very apt to have his ideas shaken as to the
 
 288 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 eternal goodness of the existing system, even if he does adore 
 Mr. Gompers. 
 
 With competition found to be impossible and Socialism 
 declared by Gompers to be impractical, the trades unionist 
 will be indeed in a perplexed state of mind. Whatever way 
 he may look he will see no land in sight. However, with 
 the collapse of the present wage system, it is probable that 
 the deference he now shows to Mr. Gompers' view of So- 
 cialism may be considerably modified. 
 
 So long as we can get along at all with the present sys- 
 tem, no change will be made. Man, as a rule, is loath to do 
 anything until he has to do it, and naturally when it comes to 
 making such a vast change as that from one social system 
 to another, he is not likely to do it until it has become a 
 vital necessity. And this is the point, it seems to me, which 
 is likely to be reached before a great many years. 
 
 Trades unions are only of benefit to the laborer when there 
 is a demand for labor, just as the Trust is only of benefit to 
 the capitalist when there is a demand for capital. The trades 
 union prevents competition among laborers cutting the price 
 of labor below the point of subsistence. The Trust prevents 
 capitalists selling their capital below cost. In both cases 
 the premise is that there is a demand. If there is no de- 
 mand for labor, the trades union naturally cannot protect 
 the laborer. When there is no demand for capital for the 
 production of commodities because of there being no sale 
 for them, there is no reason why there should be any Trust 
 among capitalists to prevent too much capital going into 
 that industry. 
 
 The crisis just now impending over the United States can- 
 not be obviated by action of either the trades unions or the 
 Trusts. They are equally helpless before the situation which 
 arises from non-demand for their respective commodities. 
 
 Some people have argued that the Trusts, by regulating 
 the production of commodities, can institute some sort of 
 industrial feudalism which will result in the permanence of 
 the existing competitive system. 
 
 There is no doubt at all that the existing Trusts, by virtue 
 of their monopoly, have been able to make much greater 
 profits than they would have made under competition, and 
 to a certain very limited extent they have divided these
 
 Mr. Gompers and his Little Plan. 289 
 
 profits among their respective employees by the payment of 
 somewhat higher wages. This sop, though small, had some- 
 thing to do with the Federation's declaration against anti- 
 Trust legislation, alleging that such legislation would be 
 turned against the trades unions rather than against the 
 capitalists. No doubt there is some truth in this allegation; 
 but it is also true that the trades unions themselves feel 
 somewhat kindly toward the Trust form of industry which 
 has enabled them to get higher wages than might possibly 
 have fallen to them otherwise. The employer when he re- 
 duces wages invariably excuses himself to his workmen by 
 declaring that he is reluctantly forced to it by the lowering of 
 prices. The Trust, by being the only employer of labor, 
 might oppress labor, but so far it has not exercised its power 
 that way. The trades unionists are apparently grateful to 
 the Trusts for the favor they have received, and the adoption 
 of the resolutions by the Federation of Labor is more or les3 
 tangible evidence of this gratitude. 
 
 The recent disclosures ventilated in McClure's Magazine 
 about the combination of the trades unionists and the trust 
 of the coal dealers in Chicago, by which the coal dealers 
 raised the price of coal, and then, through their tremendous 
 profits, were enabled to pay higher prices for union labor, is 
 still fresh in our memories, and is a concrete example of what 
 Mr. Gompers is grateful for. 
 
 With a constantly growing demand for commodities the 
 Trust could hold a monopoly price upon sales, and if they 
 were entrenched still further in their monopoly by an alliance 
 with the trades unions, and in return for this alliance gave 
 higher wages, then, indeed, we would be in danger of the 
 so-called "industrial feudalism." And it is not owing to the 
 reluctance of the capitalists or of the trades unionists that 
 such a system of industry may not some day be imposed upon 
 us. That there is no danger of such a fate befalling us is 
 owing to the fact that such a state of affairs is an economic 
 impossibility. Of this the existing industrial situation alone 
 is sufficient evidence. 
 
 Here we have the Steel Trust finding the market flooded 
 with steel products, because the capitalists who have been 
 building steel buildings and laying steel rail find that there 
 is no longer any chance of profitable extension of their busi-
 
 290 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 ness. Therefore they don't buy steel; therefore the steel 
 mills don't make steel; therefore the steel trust 'cannot em- 
 ploy men. So that even if the steel trust were willing to 
 pay the highest-asked wages, it could not do so, simply be- 
 cause it cannot pay even the lowest wages, because it cannot 
 sell its product. Hence any combination between the steel 
 trust and its employees must finally fall to the ground as 
 soon as the market for steel collapses; and such is the case 
 to-day. 
 
 We could only have an industrial feudalism by the total 
 elimination of competition between the capitalists,, as well as 
 between the laborers, and not only through our own nation, 
 but throughout the whole world. 
 
 It must be remembered that there is one great class of 
 competitors whom no union can ever save from competition, 
 and that is the farmers. The farmer is statistically shown to 
 get less return from his farm than the average laborer gets 
 from his labor. The farmer is really engaged in selling his 
 labor, just as much as the laborer is; he merely doesn't sell 
 it directly to the capitalist as does the laborer. The wheat 
 farmers of the world are engaged in competition, one against 
 the other, in the sale of their wheat; Liverpool fixing the 
 world price of wheat. The price is determined by the 
 cost of production at the margin of cultivation. The 
 great majority of farmers are working at approximately this 
 margin of cultivation. They are, hence, compelled to work 
 for a mere subsistence wage like the city laborers. The mere 
 fact that the farmer gets paid for his wheat instead of for his 
 labor does not alter the fact that he is really paid a com- 
 petitive wage, just as much as is the day laborer. Now, with 
 the farming class so ground down to the verge of mere sub- 
 sistence through competition in the sale of their products, 
 it is at once evident that they cannot get enough of their 
 product to avoid over-production, unless a world-union of 
 farmers to hold up the price of their agricultural products 
 can be formed. This, on the face of it, is an impossibility. 
 And it is not only the farmers who are cutting their own 
 throats by competition. There is an immense body of small 
 middle-class men, merchants, etc., who, through competition, 
 are also selling their services at a mere subsistence living. 
 Then, of course, there are hundreds of thousands of laborers
 
 Mr. Gompers and His Little Plan. 291 
 
 who can never be organized into a trade union and who are 
 getting mere subsistence wages. The only people who can 
 be raised above the mere subsistence wage are practically 
 those who are already organized in the trades unions, and 
 these constitute only about one-ninth of the wage-workers 
 of the United States. And even with the trades unionists, 
 their own estimate of what they should have is so very low, 
 being only a few cents a day above a subsistence wage, that 
 even if all the organized workers got trade-union wages it 
 would have little effect in relieving the glutted market of the 
 world. 
 
 Again, we have not taken into consideration the competi- 
 tion of the capitalist who is removed from the possibility of 
 entering into a trust and has the price of his products low- 
 ered by competition exactly as are those of the farmer. The 
 capitalist himself lowers his prices in the struggle for a 
 market. 
 
 This theory of an industrial feudalism is one of the wildest 
 and most ridiculous ones that has ever originated in the 
 mind of man; but, luckily, outside of a few dreamy socialists 
 of the half-baked variety, who are so far removed from the 
 actual affairs of this world, that what they think is of no 
 importance, it is held by no one. 
 
 Another idea that is being suggested in this connection is 
 equally absurd. It is that the capitalists when they find a 
 period of depression coming on, and that they cannot utilize 
 labor in productive enterprises, will transfer it from produc- 
 tive occupation and use it creating luxuries. To speak con- 
 cretely: if Mr. Schwab, who is a large holder of steel trust 
 stock, finds that there is a slack in the demand for steel, and 
 that he cannot employ laborers to make more steel, he would 
 take five thousand men away from the steel mills and set them 
 to work raising roses in his garden. 
 
 The absurdity of this- is at once evident when it is remem- 
 bered that when over-production of steel exhibits itself it 
 means that a much lower price will be paid for steel. This 
 means a tremendous falling off in the profits of the steel 
 trust and naturally a great diminution of Mr. Schwab's in- 
 come. It may be that his income may sink to practically 
 nothing, if all his capital is invested in the steel trust. So 
 that these Utopian dreamers would argue that the moment
 
 292 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 Schwab's income sinks to zero, it will be the signal for him 
 to employ thousands of men in growing roses, merely to keep 
 them employed. Just when Schwab would naturally econ- 
 omize he is to splurge. Further analysis of this absurd idea 
 is quite unnecessary. It is even more absurd than Mr. Gom- 
 pers' idea of the capitalists keeping up high wages on a fall- 
 ing market. There is no future for this country except so- 
 cialism, and there is no possibility of benevolent feudalism 
 or any other thing, side-tracking the irresistible movement 
 of humanity to its inevitable goal of socialism.
 
 Monopoly a Necessity. 293 
 
 MONOPOLY A NECESSITY 
 
 THE series of interesting articles upon Mr. Rockefeller 
 is still running in McClure's Magazine. The author 
 is Miss Tarbell, and her story certainly shows great 
 ability in the gathering of information. It would seem, how- 
 ever, that if Miss Tarbell could understand better that Mr. 
 Rockefeller was forced by unavoidable circumstances to pur- 
 sue his path of consolidation, she would write a more sym- 
 pathetic article and one in which the philosophy would be 
 more apparent. No causality permeates her story. She does 
 not correlate her facts, as she might easily do by making the 
 predominating note the necessity of things. 
 
 If a leak be found in a Mississippi River levee it becomes 
 imperative that it be stopped at once, for every drop of water 
 that goes through increases the opening, until finally the 
 crevice becomes so great that nothing can prevent the ruin 
 of the fertile fields that lie beyond the levee. No sacrifice is 
 too great for the planters to make to prevent such a leak, and 
 nothing is considered a greater crime than to weaken the 
 levee. During periods of flood, patrols walk up and down on 
 the levee, armed with rifles, to shoot down any pilot who 
 runs his steamboat so near to the levee that the wash from 
 the boat damages it. 
 
 Competition in a business like the oil business, or, in fact, 
 any business furnishing a commodity of which price is a de- 
 termining factor in finding a market, is just as dangerous 
 to the stability of that business as a break in the levee is to 
 a plantation on the banks of the Mississippi. If competition 
 is not stopped at once, it grows worse and worse, until 
 finally the business is swamped. For instance, here is Mr. 
 Rockefeller with a monopoly of the oil business. A small 
 refiner, say, like Mr. George Rice of Marietta, competes with 
 him. Mr. Rice, in order to sell his oil, sells it at a little 
 lower price than Mr. Rockefeller sells his. Mr. Rockefeller 
 holds up the price, so that Mr. Rice can make money, even
 
 294 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 if he must take a cent per gallon less than Mr. Rockefeller 
 gets. Then Mr. Rice uses the profits that he so makes in 
 enlarging his refinery and next month he sells still more oil 
 and again uses the profits for still further enlargements. 
 Meanwhile, it must be understood that Mr. Rockefeller has 
 more refineries than enough to supply the market. He sees 
 his own refineries standing idle because he has closed them 
 to prevent the lowering of price by the production of too 
 much oil. Mr. Rice takes advantage of the situation to pro- 
 duce more and more oil. Rockefeller holds up the umbrella 
 to protect Rice. His profit is the result of Mr. Rockefeller's 
 restricting production. What would happen if Mr. Rockefel- 
 ler allowed this thing to go on? Mr. Rice would finally have 
 just as large a plant as Mr. Rockefeller and the market would 
 soon be flooded, and both would go down in a common sea of 
 bankruptcy through the ruinous prices made as the result 
 of this overproduction. 
 
 "We justify a man going to any extreme to preserve his own 
 life and that of his familty. Self-preservation is the first law 
 of nature. A man's business is his support in life, and if you 
 take that away you take away his life. It may seem absurd 
 to talk about such a small competitor as Mr. Rice taking 
 away the life of the Standard Oil Trust; but a little mole 
 may start a hole in the levee which will develop into a cre- 
 vasse allowing the Mississippi to sweep away a whole country. 
 Hence, when we hear tales of the Standard Oil Trust having 
 gone to the utmost extreme in order to exterminate com- 
 petitors, even to blowing up their oil refineries with dyn- 
 amite, we need not be astonished at the heroic measures em- 
 ployed. It is simply a question of self-preservation. When the 
 trades unions resort to every possible means, legal or illegal, 
 to prevent even one "scab" doing work in competition with 
 the union, they are pursuing exactly the same policy. They 
 know that if one scab is allowed to work, more scabs will 
 come in, and finally there will be enough at work to break up 
 the union. The number of non-union men employed in a 
 shop may be insignificant as compared with the number of 
 union men, but it presents just the same kind of danger that 
 Mr. Rice's small capital against the enormous capital of the 
 Standard Oil Company does, if allowed to exist in competition 
 with it.
 
 Monopoly a Necessity. 295 
 
 This necessity for the extermination of competitors in the 
 capitalistic world is going to be brought very clearly before 
 us during the next year, when profits and interest approach 
 the vanishing point, coincident with the disappearance of 
 prosperity. The necessity for monopoly is going to be in- 
 finitely more apparent in the near future than it has ever 
 been in the past. This will apply to the trades unionists as 
 well as to the capitalists, and all possible means to secure it 
 will probably be used by both sides.
 
 296 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 UNDIGESTED SECURITIES 
 
 THERE has been considerable discussion in the news- 
 papers about the menace to our industrial situation 
 resulting from the public being unable or unwilling 
 to buy a large mass of securities, bonds, stocks, etc., which 
 Mr. Morgan and his associates have recently issued, based 
 upon various enterprises incorporated by those esteemed 
 gentlemen. 
 
 In order to understand the economic position clearly, let 
 us suppose that there are but three capitalists in the world, 
 viz., Morgan, Vanderbilt and Rockefeller, and that these 
 three men own the whole earth. They look over this sphere 
 and determine that certain railroads and canals and steel 
 works can be built which would give certain facilities for 
 the production of material commodities better than those 
 now existing. Suppose they detail, after a careful calcula- 
 tion, say, two-thirds of the inhabitants of the earth to the 
 work of manufacturing the food, clothing, housing, etc., 
 which they find necessary for the whole of the inhabitants. 
 They divide the remaining one-third of the people into two 
 parts, detailing one part, i. e., one-sixth of the whole, to con- 
 struct such new industries as they may think are wanted, and 
 then they set the other half to work producing luxuries for 
 themselves or working as their servants, footmen, coach- 
 men, etc. 
 
 This is practically the industrial process now going on. 
 As long as Vanderbilt, Morgan and Rockefeller can keep the 
 whole six-sixths of us employed, there is no danger of any 
 unemployed problem or any trouble about undigested securi- 
 ties. If it take a full three-thirds of the earth's population 
 to produce wealth enough for the whole two-thirds, it is evi- 
 dent that if any larger part than the remaining one-third 
 were devoted to the production of new machinery or of 
 luxuries, then the excess must be subtracted from the two- 
 thirds, the number necessary to feed the whole three-thirds.
 
 Undigested Securities. 297 
 
 However, supposing the capitalists were so eager to build 
 new railroads or so greedy to enjoy luxuries that they would 
 employ more than the one-third at such occupations, the result 
 would be a diminution in the amount of grain and pork pro- 
 duced, since the necessary two-thirds would not be working, 
 which would force part of the world to go hungry. This 
 would be the condition which is described in the economic 
 phraseology: "Too much floating capital has become fixed 
 capital." That is, we would be building railroads more rap- 
 idly than we could afford. Now, supposing Mr. Vanderbilt 
 had desired to build more railroads than Mr. Kockefeller 
 thought the world could afford to build, and Mr. Kockefeller 
 therefore would not join him; and he would say to Mr. Van- 
 derbilt: "Look here, Vanderbilt, you may go ahead and 
 build as many railroads as you wish or you think needed. 
 I will lend you money to do it with, if you will pledge your 
 part of the world to me as security for repayment." In other 
 words, Vanderbilt assumes the risk and will get the profits 
 or meet the losses, while Kockefeller advances the money 
 and gets simply interest. This advance of money simply 
 means that Kockefeller allows Vanderbilt part of his share of 
 the products of his laborers to feed and clothe his, Vander- 
 bilfs, laborers in payment for their producing more railroads 
 for Vanderbilt. 
 
 If before the completion of the railroad, or even after it, 
 Rockefeller should demand payment from Vanderbilt of what 
 had been lent' to him, and Vanderbilt could not pay, of 
 course Rockefeller would be in a position to force Vander- 
 bilt to give up a part of his share of the earth, Rockefeller 
 would foreclose his mortgage. Of course, if Rockefeller would 
 give Vanderbilt time, Vanderbilt might finally pay him off, 
 but it might be that conditions would be such that Rocke- 
 feller would insist upon immediate payment, and Vanderbilt 
 would be in a bad way. By immediate payment, as thing3 
 go to-day, we mean payment in gold. But gold is obtained 
 from the laborer who mines it by the exchange of other com- 
 modities produced by other laborers; so that Vanderbilt's 
 laborers in time would produce sufficient food to feed other 
 laborers digging out gold, and this gold would first go into 
 Vanderbilt's hands and then come into Rockefeller's hands 
 in payment of the debt. But all this takes time, and time
 
 298 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 might be the element most important in the case and be 
 vital to Vanderbilt's being able to liquidate his indebtedness 
 to Kockefeller. 
 
 Suppose Vanderbilt is building railroads to-day, that he is 
 issuing bonds and stocks upon these railroads, which are vir- 
 tually notes of indebtedness, and that he expects to sell these 
 stocks and bonds to Rockefeller. But Rockefeller does not 
 buy with the avidity that he might be expected to do. Vander- 
 bilt would find himself with a lot of "undigested securities" 
 on hand which he could not dispose of. In the course of 
 time Vanderbilt himself could take up his own- undigested 
 securities, so to speak, from the income of his own properties, 
 and also in course of time Rockefeller and Morgan, from the 
 income of their properties, would have a surplus on hand to 
 buy such securities, because they would have no other place to 
 invest their surplus incomes. But again, this is all a ques- 
 tion of "time." Therefore, the problem of "undigested se- 
 curities" is, like any other question of digestion, one of time. 
 A man eats a hearty dinner; if he is in a healthy state and 
 you give him time he will digest it, and nothing else but time 
 can effect the digestion. 
 
 "Undigested securities" simply mean that a certain part of 
 the capitalists have overbuilt the machinery of production 
 and their bonds and securities issued upon this footing have 
 not been sold to other capitalists as readily as was anticipated. 
 However, unless financial disturbance takes place, this con- 
 dition is of no material consequence, inasmuch as it only re- 
 quires time to straighten matters out. That is, this will be 
 true if the inordinate construction of new machinery be 
 abated. 
 
 Another phrase, which is often used when issuing bonds 
 for the payment of certain improvements, is "we will let 
 posterity pay for the said improvements." As a matter of 
 fact, any work that is being done on earth to-day, building 
 railroads or anything else, must be and can only be done by 
 the present generation, and it is absurd to talk about a 
 generation which is yet unborn doing any work for us. If 
 bonds are issued by a city in order to pay for its sewer system, 
 it simply means that labor is being performed in some other 
 part of the world, for instance, raising wheat and pork — and 
 this food is lent by the capitalist constructing such improve-
 
 Undigested Securities. 299 
 
 merits to the citizen of that town to feed them while they 
 are building their sewer, upon the pledge that the said pork 
 and wheat shall be paid back at some future day with an 
 added percentage in the way of interest. Taking the earth 
 as a whole, however, it is absurd to talk about posterity con- 
 structing any present-day improvements. The "posterity" 
 that works for us is simply the present generation in a differ- 
 ent locality. 
 
 The danger of to-day consists not in undigested securities, 
 but rather in capitalist society not having enough securities 
 furnished it to feed it. Of course, as in the case of an indi- 
 vidual laborer, there are times when he may surfer from indi- 
 gestion from eating too much food, but his great danger is 
 not over-eating, but in the possibility that some day he will 
 not have enough to eat. The continuance of our capitalist sys- 
 tem depends upon the construction of more and more machin- 
 ery, and this machinery, whether it be a new railroad or a new 
 telegraph cable, is represented by new securities, bonds and 
 stocks, and when the world reaches the point where no more 
 of these machines are needed, there will be no more bonds 
 thrown on the market. The consequence will be that the 
 stock market will be suffering from a scarcity of stocks rather 
 than from a surplus. The immediate result will be a great 
 rise in the price of existing stocks and bonds; unless, which is 
 very possible, there should be a period of great commercial 
 depression owing to general overproduction, which will so re- 
 duce the earnings of existing stocks that prices fall, notwith- 
 standing that no more stocks are being added to the general 
 market. The moment the process of construction of new 
 machinery ceases, and it must cease owing to the practical 
 completion of the industrial equipment, then we will be 
 confronted with a great unemployed problem. While this 
 unemployed problem may take place coincidently with the 
 phenomenon of "undigested securities," the only reason that 
 they are coincident is that the securities have been issued 
 upon the last lot of machinery constructed, and which has 
 failed to pay dividends owing to there having been no com- 
 mercial demand for such machinery. 
 
 Every day there are less and less opportunities for the in- 
 vestment of capital in enterprises which promise safety and 
 security. The result is that a great deal of machinery ia
 
 300 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 likely to be built for which there is no demand, in the capi- 
 talistic sense; and upon this machinery there will be floated 
 stocks and bonds which will probably in very many instances 
 never pay any dividends. Such securities will, of course, 
 remain "undigested/' for they are of the nature of food known 
 to be innutritious and indigestible, and consequently in no 
 demand. In the continued manifestation and appearance of 
 this kind of undigested securities there is indeed a menace 
 to our whole financial structure; and it is probable that many 
 of the securities which are classed to-day among the "un- 
 digested" are of this nature. In fact, the recent failure of 
 the Shipbuilding Trust and of several other great corpora- 
 tions would seem to indicate that even though time were 
 given, the public would be very unlikely to take over such 
 securities, inasmuch as they are not of a nature to attract in- 
 vestors, since they would have very little likelihood of ever 
 paying dividends. 
 
 Thus, one sees that the cry of "undigested securities" is of 
 no especial menace if the securities are based upon legitimate 
 financial operations, provided we have time to allow the pub- 
 lic to gradually absorb such securities. On the other hand, 
 if they represent such wildcat concerns as the Shipbuilding 
 Trust, they are a menace to our financial system and a 
 prophecy of its early collapse. 
 
 The financial system and the industrial system, though 
 closely related, are not necessarily affected by the same con- 
 ditions. The financial systems of the world, and especially 
 those of the United States, are of a much more delicate 
 nature and more liable to derangement than the industrial 
 system. Our industrial system will break down only when 
 we finally reach the stage of complete overproduction of 
 mechanical equipment. Our financial system can break down 
 from a number of causes, at any time, and it is very likely that 
 a violent financial crisis will be precipitated upon us some 
 years ahead of the inevitable and final industrial crisis. Of 
 course, it is understood that a financial crisis must bring on 
 our industrial crisis. Any day might see some great banking 
 concern break, which would pull down other banking con- 
 cerns, and throw the whole financial world into a state of 
 collapse. This collapse would naturally bring down at the 
 same time our industrial structure; and we may not have to
 
 Undigested Securities. 301 
 
 wait until the industrial structure is completed before we 
 shall see the end of our competitive system. 
 
 As a matter of fact, the industrial structure is already in 
 a state so near completion, that any great financial crisis is 
 very likely to usher in the transformation of society from 
 Capitalism into Socialism.
 
 302 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 TESLA'S GREAT PROMISE 
 
 NIKOLA TESLA has recently announced that he is 
 about to perfect an invention which will distribute 
 electric power from a central plant throughout the 
 earth, so that, for instance, the electricity may be developed 
 at Niagara and that it may be used in London. Not only 
 that, but we will send news, without wires, to any part of the 
 world. A man may be isolated in the heart of Africa and 
 yet be in perfect communication with New York or London. 
 It is said that whatever the mind of man conceives he can 
 put into operation, so that even if Mr. Tesla does not realize 
 his hopes at present, then some other man will do so some 
 day. Human society as a whole is an organism and it is cer- 
 tainly in the line of development that every portion of that 
 organism should be in intellectual touch with every other 
 portion. To-day large portions of humanity are quite sep- 
 arated from the whole, and even those portions which are 
 most closely in contact, as for instance society as organized 
 within the United States, where we have telegraphic and 
 telephonic communication, there is left much to be desired. 
 Perfection for the human race will not come until each in- 
 dividual human being will be as consciously in touch with 
 every other human being as is each cell in his body con- 
 sciously related to every other cell in his body. It will be just 
 as impossible for a man to be happy when he knows that 
 another man is unhappy while it is possible for him to be 
 relieved of pain, as it is for an individual to be happy when 
 any part of his physical body is in pain. In the lowest form 
 of life, the amoeba, there is no organic connection between 
 the members. One part may be injured and the rest of the 
 body not know it, nor have any care for the injured part. 
 The amoeba may be cut into four or five different pieces and 
 each part will become an organism by itself as complete and 
 perfect as the parent organism. As the amoeba has devel- 
 oped higher and higher in the scale of life, it becomes more 
 and more organized and different parts assume particular
 
 Tesla's Great Promise. 303 
 
 functions. Instead of every part being an eye and every part 
 being a stomach, one part specializes and becomes an eye, 
 and another part specializes and becomes a stomach, etc. 
 In this higher form of life we see, for instance, that it is 
 manifestly impossible to injure any part without the rest of 
 the parts suffering. It is ridiculous to think of cutting a 
 dog into five different pieces and making five new dogs. 
 Human society is analogous in its development to the 
 amoeba. Fifty years ago; before we had railways, we could 
 have divided the United States into different sections and 
 it would have made little difference to the country as a 
 whole, inasmuch as communication was so infrequent and 
 difficult between the sections that they were in no way inter- 
 dependent upon each other as to-day. There was neither the 
 exchange of goods nor the exchange of intelligence which 
 is now prevailing. In the same way, as the different nations 
 of the earth have become more organically united within 
 themselves, they have become also organically united nation 
 to nation in a world trade federation. Just as industry has 
 progressed from the national stage to the world stage, so has 
 human sympathy made like progress, and now the perfection 
 of the means for the conyevance of this organic world 
 thought seems to be about to be disclosed to us by Nikola 
 Tesla.
 
 304 Wilshibe Editorials. 
 
 BRYAN EXPLAINS SOCIALISM 
 
 ME. BRYAN has at last been driven from cover by the 
 attacks of the Chicago Chronicle denouncing him 
 as a Socialist. He has a long editorial in the 
 late Commoner, in which he explains why he is not a So- 
 cialist. He admitted that he has come to the conclusion that 
 monopoly in railroads and telephones and telegraphs has come 
 to stay, and that, therefore, it is better to have public mon- 
 opoly than private monopoly. But he is not prepared to 
 admit that there is any economic necessity for trusts in the 
 manufacture of cotton and woolen goods, whiskey, or oil, or 
 tobacco, etc. He says: "These trusts are organized not be- 
 cause of any economic necessity, but for the purpose of de- 
 stroying competition. " The question I would like to put to 
 Mr. Bryan is: That if it becomes an economic necessity to 
 destroy competition, is not then the trust an economic neces- 
 sity? Mr. Bryan does not understand that the accumulation 
 of surplus capital in this country, which has hitherto been 
 poured into the building of productive machinery, has now 
 finally rendered it much greater than any economic demand. 
 Over-production has ensued and over-production means cut- 
 throat competition and cut-throat competition means bank- 
 ruptcy unless it is prevented. If Mr. Bryan could only un- 
 derstand that the trust is an absolute economic necessity to 
 prevent over-production, we would have him right in line 
 in seeing the necessity of the trust. When he sees the neces- 
 sity of the trust in manufacturing enterprises he will be 
 compelled to logically conclude with the Socialists that such 
 monopolies along with railroad monopolies should be nation- 
 alized. Mr. Bryan is moving, but moving slowly. He says 
 he now sees that the borrower is not on the same footing as 
 the lender, therefore he favors limiting the rate of interest. 
 He sees that the employee is not on the same footing as the 
 employer, therefore he favors the limitation of the hours of 
 labor and the prevention of the employment of children. 
 These are great steps in advance for Mr. Bryan, who, only
 
 Bryan Explains Socialism. 305 
 
 a few years ago, was declaring for free trade in everything, 
 silver, as well as labor. He belonged to the old Adam Smith 
 school of laissez-faire economists. However, now that he 
 sees that the employee is not on a footing with the employer, 
 and is attempting to put him more on an equality, we would 
 like to ask him if the best way to get him there is not to put 
 him on an equality of wealth. This is what public ownership 
 of the means of production would do. It is a pity that Bryan 
 does not understand his economics better than he does, as 
 there is no one in the country who has a better opportunity 
 of getting his views heard.
 
 306 Wilshike Editorials, 
 
 THE RIGHTS OF A WHEELBARROW 
 
 THE way the President is absorbing the spirit of the 
 times, the rapidity with which he is moving along 
 to the Socialist position, is a mile-post showing us 
 how rapidly the whole nation is commencing to take a new 
 viewpoint. 
 
 The President speaks of "organized capital" and "organ- 
 ized" labor. What does he really mean? 
 
 What is capital? A wheelbarrow is capital. What is "organ- 
 ized" capital. A number of wheelbarrows or cars pushed by 
 a steam engine over an iron roadbed is a railway, it is capital, 
 it is "organized" capital. 
 
 What rights has a wheelbarrow? Can it vote? 
 
 What is labor? It is men. You say you will hire labor to 
 build a house. What do you mean? You mean you will hire 
 men. What is "organized" labor? It is men who have 
 assembled together for the purpose of systematically carrying 
 out a certain project. 
 
 Suppose you were cast away on an island all alone with one 
 wheelbarrow. Suppose some fine day the wheelbarrow should 
 say to you, "See here, young man, you are Labor and I am 
 Capital, and I wish you to understand that I have just as 
 many rights as you have. In fact, I have more rights, for 
 I have the right of doing nothing and being kept in good 
 condition and well oiled, while you get nothing unless you 
 work. You have no right to use me to wheel dirt or to do 
 anything else until you get my permission." You say that 
 only one having a disordered brain would ever seriously think 
 of a wheelbarrow having a personality, a few sticks of wood 
 and an iron hoop stuck together as having rights. Very well. 
 Then let us suppose that a ship is wrecked on your island; 
 the passengers and crew escape and join you in the work of 
 making the problem of gaining food supply simpler by build- 
 ing all sorts of ingenious machinery. In other words, they
 
 The Eights of a Wheelbarrow. 307 
 
 become "organized labor" and the wheelbarrow is transformed 
 into a railway and becomes "organized capital." 
 
 Now you who laughed to scorn the idea of the wheelbarrow 
 as capital asserting its rights, what would you say to the rail- 
 way as "organized" capital asserting its rights? Would you 
 not say it is just as absurd to talk of rights of a wheelbarrow 
 as rights of capital? 
 
 Now then, if you see the absurdity of rights of capital upon 
 a hypothetical island, then why can you not see the same 
 absurdity when your President talks about the rights of 
 capital in your own country? 
 
 You may explain that he does not really mean rights of 
 capital, but rights of the men who own capital, or capitalists. 
 I ask then if the man who owns capital has any rights that 
 the man who does not own capital is not entitled to, then is it 
 not really capital that has the superior rights and not the 
 owner ? Suppose he lose his capital on Wall Street ? 
 
 August Belmont lost the Louisville and Nashville railway 
 over night last winter when John W. Gates made his famous 
 raid. Do not the rights which he held by virtue of his owner- 
 ship of capital depart with the capital? Admitting this, can 
 you still say that it is not capital, but the man who owns the 
 capital, that has the rights? 
 
 The President is not wrong in speaking of the rights of 
 capital, for capital has rights which are very superior to the 
 rights of man. 
 
 However, when the President uses sucb phrases as "organ- 
 ized labor" and "organized capital" and puts them in anti- 
 thesis as having respective rights, it means the day when 
 some inquisitive man will be inquiring, "Why should not 
 Organized Capital be Owned and Controlled by Organized 
 Labor? and then we will have no more of this absurd discus- 
 sion about the rights of capital."
 
 308 Wilshike Editoeials. 
 
 TO THE VOTERS OF THE 10th CONGRES- 
 SIONAL DISTRICT, NEW YORK 
 
 DO you wish, to abolish poverty? You will say, of course, 
 you do. 
 But you will add that it can't be done. This is a 
 mistake. 
 
 It is true you cannot, and neither can I, abolish poverty, 
 but, nevertheless, poverty can be abolished if you and I can 
 get enough other people to help us in the task. 
 
 There is nothing impossible about abolishing poverty. The 
 only difficulty lies in getting people to see that it can be done. 
 There is enough of wealth in the world to make everybody 
 wealthy if it were only properly distributed. The trouble is 
 that those who produce the wealth don't get it. 
 
 It is not owing to "under-production" that we have pov- 
 erty. On the contrary, what we all fear to-day is "over-pro- 
 duction/' for when that happens men cannot get work, and 
 so they starve to death because there is too much food. 
 
 See what a vicious circle we are in. Is it not an absurd- 
 ity that because the baker has more bread than he can sell, 
 you cannot get a job baking bread, and, therefore, you can't 
 get the wages to buy bread, and, therefore, since he has more 
 bread than he can sell, and as you can't buy the bread you 
 want for the lack of wages, you must starve, because there is 
 too much bread? How ridiculous! You might say that you 
 would never see yourself starving if you knew there was 
 bread at hand. This is precisely what everybody else thinks, 
 but we all know that plenty of people do starve every month, 
 here in New York City, notwithstanding there is plenty of 
 bread here. However, it would not help general conditions 
 any if a few of us did make a raid on the bakeries and take 
 the bread when we were hungry. We could not do it more 
 than once, for the next tame the baker would either have 
 plenty of police to guard his shop, and if he did not then 
 feel safe, he would buy no flour and bake no bread for us 
 to take.
 
 To Voters of 10th Congressional Dist., N. Y. 309 
 
 It is not the fault of the baker that we don't get bread. 
 We all know that he is simply subject to the same condition 
 that all the rest of us are. He must find a market for his 
 bread or he will go bankrupt, exactly as the workman must 
 find a market for his labor or go hungry. 
 
 The reason why we don't get food in the midst of plenty 
 is simply because our competitive wage system prevents us 
 distributing to ourselves what we produce. 
 
 A man's labor is valued not at what it produces, but at 
 what the employer can hire an unemployed man for to take 
 his place. There are always plenty of unemployed men who 
 are forced to take any wage that will give them simply a 
 bare living, and as long as such labor is to be had in abund- 
 ance no employer will pay a higher wage. 
 
 As the workers are the great consuming class, it follows 
 that when the wages they are paid do not allow them to 
 buy back the enormous product which is now the result of 
 their labor, assisted by modern machinery, then a glut in 
 the market must result. More is produced than can be sold. 
 We then have what is called "over-production," which sim- 
 ply means that we have produced more than the existing 
 competitive system allows us to distribute. The remedy is 
 not to be found in diminishing production, but in increas- 
 ing the facilities of distribution. Shortly, to give every man 
 what he produces. 
 
 The only way to effect this is by the abolition of the com- 
 petitive wage system, which makes men starve because they 
 produce in abundance, and the substitution of the co-opera- 
 tive system which will allow them to get what they produce. 
 However, in order to . have co-opexation in distribution, we 
 must first have the public ownership of the means of pro- 
 duction. 
 
 We must have governmental oAvnership of the railways, 
 coal mines, oil refineries, etc. 
 
 We can grow the wheat and grind the flour and bake the 
 bread in plenty for all, but we have not yet learned the 
 lesson of how to get the bread after we bake it. The reason 
 why we don't get the bread is because we don't own the 
 fields that grow the wheat, the mills that grind the flour, and 
 the bakeries that bake the bread. 
 
 You never hear of a rich man starving or freezing. Why?
 
 310 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 Simply because he owns the machinery that produces what 
 he wants. If you own a coal mine you will never freeze for 
 the want of coal. 
 
 However, man wants more than coal. He wants more 
 than bread. He, therefore, must own more than a coal mine 
 and a bake oven. He must own all the machinery of pro- 
 duction if he wishes to enjoy all the fruits of the earth. He 
 must own the land, the railways, the wheat fields, the coal 
 mines, the great flour mills, the sugar refineries; in fact, all 
 that is necessary to produce what he wants. He must own 
 the trusts. 
 
 When he owns all these things, all this wealth, he will 
 certainly be freed from the dread of poverty, and particu- 
 larly from the fear of starving because of his producing too 
 much to eat. 
 
 Now, to own all these great machines, the railways and 
 the coal mines, etc., we must abolish the individual owner- 
 ship of this wealth by Morgan & Co. 
 
 It would do no good to divide up Morgan's railways among 
 us. We could not give every man a spike, or a rail, or a car- 
 wheel, or a brick out of a railway depot and effect an equal- 
 ity ownership of railways by any such absurd method. The 
 railway systems must be kept intact as a great organization 
 of industry, but instead of letting them remain in Morgan's 
 ownership, we must place them in Uncle Sam's ownership. 
 We must own them ourselves instead of Morgan. 
 
 We must have governmental ownership of the railways, 
 just as we have governmental ownership of the post office and 
 the city ownership of public schools and public parks. 
 
 This is the Socialist solution of the problem of "How to 
 Abolish Poverty." 
 
 Let the American people own America instead of letting 
 Morgan own America. 
 
 "Let the Nation Oicn the Trusts." 
 
 Let the products of industry be distributed to the pro- 
 ducers upon the basis of what they produce, under a co-op- 
 erative plan, instead of under the present competitive plan, 
 which forces the workers to accept wages that merely allow 
 them the very least they can subsist upon. 
 
 If you wish to own your country and get what you pro- 
 duce, you have only to say so in order to realize your wish.
 
 To Voters of 10th Congressional Dist., N. Y. 311 
 
 The way to say so is by voting for the Social Democratic 
 Party. That is the party which stands for the public own- 
 ership of the United States by the people, instead of the 
 present private ownership by Morgan & Co. 
 
 If you vote for the Republican party or for the Democratic 
 party you are simply declaring that you prefer Morgan, Van- 
 derbilt, Gould & Company owning the country rather than 
 own it yourself. 
 
 You vote to perpetuate poverty. 
 
 If you wish to abolish poverty, the way for you to say so 
 is by voting the Social Democratic ticket. 
 
 It is true that the Democratic party is now advocating 
 the government ownership of coal mines. It is taking up 
 an issue that the Social Democratic Party has been advocat- 
 ing for the last twenty years. It is a good issue, too; that 
 is, as far as it goes; but it really don't go very far. Man 
 wants coal, and he should own the mines from whence it is 
 dug if he wishes to be sure of getting it, but coal is not 
 everything in life. 
 
 Man wants other things than coal. He wants bread; he 
 wants meat. Why, if it is right that the Government should 
 own the Coal Trust, is it not right that the Government 
 should own the Flour Trust and the Beef Trust? 
 
 The Democrats promise you a hod of coal, the Republic- 
 ans promise you a tin bucket of cold victuals, the Socialist 
 promises you all the wealth of the earth. It is for you to 
 make the choice. Let men have all the fruits of the earth. 
 
 While the Social Democratic Party emphasizes principles 
 rather than men, yet we recognize that the electors should 
 have some assurance that the candidate will faithfully en- 
 deavor to carry out the platform upon which he is elected. 
 
 I may say, that in soliciting the suffrages of the voters of 
 the Tenth District of New York, to be returned to the Con- 
 gress of the United States, that I have a consistent record in 
 the advocacy of Socialism for the last fifteen years. 
 
 Let your souls have bodies fit to inhabit. 
 
 This is my programme, and if you wish it carried out, then 
 vote for Wilshire. 
 
 Twelve years ago I was nominated by the Socialists for 
 Congress in California. Eleven years ago I made Socialist 
 speeches in this very Tenth District of New York, when a
 
 312 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 Socialist candidate for Attorney-General of the State of 
 New York. Since then I have been a candidate for office a 
 number of times, and always as the regular Socialist 
 nominee. 
 
 I formerly published a magazine in New York, known as 
 Wilshire's Magazine, but as it has been denied publishers' 
 rates by the United States Post-Office, owing to its advo- 
 cacy of Socialism, I have been forced to take it to Canada 
 to print, in order to continue its publication. It seems to 
 me, that with such a record, no voter can have the excuse 
 that he believes in Socialism, but is not sure that I will carry 
 out its mandates if I am elected. 
 
 I can only ask you to take a chance upon voting for what 
 you want, even if you don't get it, rather than voting for 
 poverty, and being sure of getting it. 
 
 Faithfully yours, 
 
 H. Gaylord Wilshire, 
 
 Social Democratic Candidate for Congress, Tenth District, 
 New York. 
 
 Note.— When this was written, the Socialist Party in New York State was 
 legally known as the "Social Democratic Party."
 
 ROCKEFELLER INCOGNITO. 313 
 
 ROCKEFELLER INCOGNITO 
 
 IN the course of the injunction proceedings against the issue 
 of bonds to supersede the preferred stock of the U. S. 
 Steel Co., it came to light that a certain hitherto un- 
 known man, a Bertram Cutler, held over twelve million dollars 
 worth of steel stock. There was great curiosity for a while 
 to determine who this unknown millionaire might be. The 
 N. Y. Journal soon discovered, in its mind, that Bertram 
 Cutler was none other than another name for Andrew Car- 
 negie. It then proceeded to get up a scare-head story of a 
 big fight brewing between the Carnegie and Morgan interests 
 in the Steel Trust which, was about to cause the said trust 
 to be split in twain. It was a good enough story, but it only 
 lasted one day, for the next morning it had to acknowledge 
 that Bertram Cutler was simply a young clerk in the em- 
 ploy of Mr. John D. Rockefeller, and that the stock in ques- 
 tion belonged to John D., but was placed in the name of 
 Cutler for unknown reasons. 
 
 The incident points out the ease with which the holdings 
 of the wealth of the country can be kept in anonymous 
 hands. I do not question at all but that very much more of 
 the wealth now owned by Mr. John D. Rockefeller is cov- 
 ered up in many unexpected places. I feel confident that 
 sooner or later it will be discovered that it is the wealth of 
 Rockefeller which is back of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan in all 
 his gigantic deals. 
 
 This game of pretending the Morgan and Rockefeller in- 
 terests to be at odds is simply a fake. The two great banks 
 in New York, one ostensibly controlled by Morgan and the 
 other by Rockefeller, are simply parts of the stage para- 
 phernalia used to delude the public into thinking that there 
 still exists some competition among the great financiers. 
 
 Mr. Rockefeller is to-day the most powerful man in the 
 world because he is the richest. J. Pierpont Morgan is sim- 
 ply his agent. Rockefeller is the substance, Morgan the 
 shadow. Rockefeller is a man with absolutely no ambition
 
 314 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 for mere ostentatious display. To him it is a matter of no 
 moment whether the great Colossus Morgan borrows his 
 insignia of power or whether it be the unknown type-writer, 
 Bertram Cutler. 
 
 Morgan, of course, is an immensely rich man in his own 
 right, but his wealth is insignificant compared with that of 
 Rockefeller, and without Rockefeller at his back he would 
 have never been able to have entered upon his conquest of 
 the world. He not only would have been unable but would 
 not have dared to have even contemplated such a thing. 
 With Rockefeller at his back he can defy the world. Not 
 only has he Rockefeller's wealth, but what is almost as val- 
 uable, he has Rockefeller's advice. 
 
 A New York writer on financial affairs says it has been 
 made plain that J. Pierpont Morgan's real intention is to 
 girdle the globe and capture the carrying trade of the world. 
 All he needs, he says, is the Russian trans-Siberian road. 
 
 Morgan is planning to build railways in China, He has 
 asked China for a permit. Last week he secured the trans- 
 Atlantic steamers. This week he was after the South Amer- 
 ican ships and railways. 
 
 What next he will do no man knows. 
 
 Almost every kind of man who labors works for Morgan 
 through some of his companies. Rudyard Kipling, Lew 
 Wallace — all of the geniuses who in fine frenzy dash off 
 poetry and write stories for Harper's are working for Mor- 
 gan. The patient scientists are digging out minute facts for 
 Morgan to scatter to the world. The artist with pencil and 
 brush draws and paints, and Morgan pays him. 
 
 So absolute has he become that while he is personally 
 worth perhaps not more than $100,000,000, corporations 
 over which he has control possess more wealth than there is 
 gold on earth. 
 
 The total capitalization of all the companies he controls is 
 $5,210,993,386 — and all the gold, coined and uncoined, in all 
 the nations, including the populous East, is estimated at 
 $4,841,000,000. 
 
 There are in the whole known world about 1,320,000,000 
 human beings. Morgan controls enough to give each $4.00. 
 
 More than a million are employed by the companies Mor- 
 gan controls. This means that 5,000,000 men, women and
 
 ROCKEFELLER INCOGNITO. 315 
 
 children axe dependent on him for a living — or rather that 
 5,000,000 persons contribute to his comfort. 
 
 Three hundred of the largest steamships in the world and 
 30,000 of the best equipped passenger and freight trains 
 take orders from them. 
 
 Fourteen steamship lines and forty-four railroad systems 
 belong to them. 
 
 On land a mileage of 108,500 and on sea a tonnage of 
 1,200,000 are in their control. 
 
 This railway mileage is greater than the combined mileage 
 of Russia, Great Britain, Germany, Holland, Spain and Bel- 
 gium. And more than three hundred vessels which will sail 
 under its orders cannot be duplicated from the merchant ma- 
 rine of every ocean. 
 
 A world-wide transportation trust has long been Morgan's 
 dream. English newspapers are making comically pitiful 
 pleas to Morgan to let England come into the new trust. 
 The fact that Morgan is addressed in tones of supplication 
 shows that he is absolute master. 
 
 Not Alexander, in all his glory; not Caesar Augustus, not 
 even Napoleon, with all his mighty armies, was such a con- 
 queror as J. P. Morgan with his little "yes" and "no" that 
 makes or unmakes. 
 
 No king is one-tenth so powerful as Morgan. Edward 
 VII., Emperor William, Nicolas of Russia — any one of these 
 is a pigmy in real power compared with Morgan. 
 
 Continuing he declares, that Morgan and six other Amer- 
 ican citizens have now become more powerful than all the 
 Congresses and Parliaments in the world. 
 
 All this is true enough, only Rockefeller's, name should 
 be substituted for that of Morgan. 
 
 Mr. Duke, the president of the American Tobacco Co., is 
 another man who owes his strength, I have no doubt, to Mr. 
 Rockefeller. The campaign that the American Tobacco 
 Trust is now carrying on throughout the world requires a 
 colossal sum of money, and it is certain that the earnings of 
 the Trust itself are not affording the money that is being 
 spent like water. 
 
 Another man whom I believe is working in the interests 
 of Rockefeller is the Mr. Morse, who every day or so buys 
 up a new bank. Mr. Morse, while admittedly a rich man,
 
 316 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 has neither the money nor the motive to acquire the im- 
 mense chain of banks which he is gathering under one con- 
 trol. In my mind he is working for Mr. Eockefeller, and 
 sooner or later the Morse banks will fall into the ownership 
 of the great City National Bank of New York, of which 
 Eockefeller is the principal owner. This move is preliminary 
 to the establishment of a great central United States Bank, 
 with headquarters in New York and branches in every city 
 of the Union, as well as in the greater cities of Europe. The 
 Fowler Bill, which is now before Congress, is a sign of what 
 is coming. At present National Banks are not allowed to 
 have branches, so the only way for them to attain the ad- 
 vantages of branches is to own stock in the banks in the 
 smaller towns. The small banks are then legally separate 
 entities, but are in reality simply branches of the central 
 bank, their own. The Fowler Bill simply aims to legalize 
 actions that are already of every-day occurrence. The small 
 bankers all over the country are up in arms against the bill, 
 as they see its enactment means so much the quicker a finish 
 for them. However, they are fighting against the current, 
 and they might as well accept the inevitable now as later. 
 Concentration is the order of the day, and the small banker 
 must go as well as the small manufacturer.
 
 The Mysterious Me. Heaest. 317 
 
 THE MYSTERIOUS MR. HEARST 
 
 ME. HEARST is more or less a mystery to certain ad- 
 vanced thinkers. They see him publishing a great 
 paper, with an enormous circulation, and with a 
 policy which is, on the whole, very Socialistic, and whose 
 editorials are the strongest to be found in any American 
 daily, and yet they are always prepared for the most glaring 
 inconsistency on his part at any moment. For instance, 
 one day they find him showing up the absolute impossibility 
 of doing anything in the way of destroying the Trust, be- 
 cause the Trust represents the natural evolution of indus- 
 try, and the next day he comes out with an editorial declaring 
 for the destruction of so-called Criminal Trusts, whereas by 
 his own analysis he has shown that the Trust cannot be 
 criminal, because it is simply a creation of natural law. 
 Again, he will show the impossibility of one's obtaining jus- 
 tice under the existing competitive system, when the ma- 
 chinery of production is owned by a few great monopolists, 
 and then he follows with an editorial to the effect that all one 
 has to do in order to get along, is to attend strictly to the 
 employment in which God has seen fit to place him in this 
 world. Later on, he will have an editorial showing that all 
 the poverty on this earth is not traceable to the monopoly 
 of the earth by the Vanderbilts* and the Bockef ellers, but to 
 the drinking of whiskey by the workingmen; and then, to cap 
 the climax, if more were needed to confuse people as to his 
 sincerity, he keeps on putting before the public in a delicate 
 manner, by quoting from other papers, the great desirability 
 of Mr. Hearst being elected President of the United States. 
 It seems to me that from his own standpoint, and from 
 whatever way we may look at it, this last stroke is the worst 
 possible policy. I can conceive how, in order to keep all 
 classes of readers and hold his advertisers, he must give all 
 sorts of views as to what should be done, and advocate tem- 
 perance, the destruction of Trusts, national ownership of 
 Trusts, Tariff Eeform, and everything else which will bring
 
 318 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 fish into his net, but when he utilizes his paper to boom 
 himself for the Presidency, he immediately makes a large 
 number of people feel that after all he does not mean any- 
 thing he says, but simply says his say in order to place him- 
 self in the Presidential chair. 
 
 My own theory regarding Mr. Hearst is a very simple one. 
 He is following an irresistible law of his nature to bring 
 about harmony in the universe, but. he is ignorant as to how 
 to do it. He is also following an irresistible law which 
 forces him to take care of his own individuality, and the re- 
 sult of his ignorance of economic laws on the one hand, 
 together with his extreme egotism on the other, has the 
 effect of making many people misunderstand him.
 
 Classes in America. 319 
 
 CLASSES IN AMERICA 
 
 WE Americans have a great advantage over other 
 nations in our unconsciousness of classes. That 
 we have rich and poor is not denied, but that we 
 have classes and class feeling is almost as vigorously denied 
 by the poor as by the rich. And this denial of the palpable 
 has an effect upon the social consciousness that it is hard to 
 over-estimate. 
 
 In Europe classes are a recognized institution. The 
 peasant never thinks that he is anything but a peasant, nor 
 does the nobleman ever think he is anything but a noble- 
 man. Even the very rich capitalist feels that he is hardly 
 as good as the poor aristocrat. 
 
 In America., while differences in wealth have really made 
 very distinct class cleavages, we refuse to recognize this con- 
 dition; and there is no doubt that this refusal will sooner 
 or later have a considerable political effect. We deny that 
 Mr. Rockefeller's money was ever given to him except for 
 the benefit of the whole people, and we have been insisting 
 that the wealth of such men would be. distributed by nat- 
 ural laws in the course of time, and the sons of other men 
 would be quite as liable to own Rockefeller's wealth as his 
 own descendants. This, indeed, is the stock argument of 
 almost all opponents of Socialism. They insist that while 
 there is great wealth in a few hands, this is simply an ephem- 
 eral condition of affairs, and that no one family will hold 
 great wealth any length of time. So long as people gen- 
 erally believe this, it is not difficult to understand why it is 
 they refuse to consider any change of society which would 
 aim at preventing the concentration of wealth, feeling, as 
 they do, that it will regulate itself automatically. How- 
 ever, we are now realizing that this concentration of wealth, 
 and the holding of the natural resources of the country by a 
 few immensely rich families, not only gives no- sign of being 
 an ephemeral state of affairs, but has every indication of 
 being a permanency. Every year the very rich are becoming
 
 320 Wilshiee Editorials. 
 
 more and more strongly intrenched behind their ramparts of 
 gold, and the public are generally recognizing that under 
 our existing social system there is no possible remedy for the 
 inequality of wealth. It is true we have anti-Trust bills 
 galore introduced in our Houses of Congress, having for 
 their object the levelling of the great fortunes, but these 
 bills are felt by every one to be of no possible avail in that 
 direction. Concentration of wealth is an inevitable result of 
 our economic system, and we can no more make effective 
 laws to prevent it than we can make laws to prevent 
 the sun shining. However, the introduction of these anti- 
 Trust bills year after year in our Congress indicates 
 strongly the wish of the people to level wealth and 
 to abolish conditions which make classes. They are also a 
 very reluctant confession that there is such a thing as a 
 class cleavage in the United States. Our sentiments are too 
 strongly democratic to allow any classes to remain if we can 
 possibly prevent it, because we are fundamentally opposed 
 to classes, and to this extent Socialism, which aims to abolish 
 classes, will have a spiritual significance to the people of the 
 United States which it has not in European countries where 
 aristocracy is a recognized institution. There has never 
 been a nation of free people, such as we Americans are, 
 resolving year after year that they wished to do a certain 
 thing, and having every reason to get their wish, and also 
 having every means for carrying it into effect, but what 
 finally succeeded in their desires. While we scoff at the 
 anti-Trust laws as being ridiculous, yet we can see behind 
 them the determination of the people to accomplish the es- 
 tablishment of an economic equality among the people of 
 this country. One hundred years or more ago, in colonial 
 days, and before we separated from England, there was a 
 long period of time in which we kept on passing resolutions 
 and having meetings, and even having physical encounters 
 with her. It was with the greatest reluctance we ever finally 
 considered the possibility of separation from the mother 
 country. In fact, it was once considered rank treason to 
 refer to independence as an ultimate outcome of the agita- 
 tion against England's tyranny. We expected to make some 
 sort of a compromise by which we would still remain colonies 
 and yet participate in all the advantages of an independent
 
 Classes in America. 321 
 
 country. It is the same to-day. We expect to allow the 
 Rockefellers and Morgans to own us, and yet we expect to 
 have all the luxuries of complete independence which can 
 only accompany self-ownership. It will finally be found 
 to be just as impossible for us to remain free and independ- 
 ent under King Morgan as it was for us to remain free and 
 independent under King George. In fact, theoretically, as 
 has been proven by the English colonies — Canada and Aus- 
 tralia, New Zealand, etc. — it would have been much more 
 possible for us to remain under King George than it will 
 be for us to remain under King Morgan. King George did 
 not need to have been even a benevolent despot to have 
 kept the American colonies; he needed but to have been 
 sane. King Morgan, with all his benevolence, can never 
 keep his American colonies, simply because the economic 
 system will prevent him from devising a plan which can 
 avert the great unemployed problem. He cannot feed us. 
 Under King George the economic problem was how we 
 could produce enough to give us the luxuries and comforts 
 of life. Under King Morgan the problem is: — How can we 
 prevent ourselves producing too much? Our fear is that we 
 will be swamped in a rising sea of wealth. 
 
 What we must do is not to try and prevent the sea of 
 wealth from rising, but to construct the bark of Socialism 
 which wall float us safely upon it, so that instead of wealth 
 being a menace to us we will be borne forward upon it to the 
 Golden Age of Man.
 
 322 'Wilshiee Editorials. 
 
 THE SIPPERS OF CARLSBAD 
 
 TOO much eating and too little exercise does not fall to 
 the lot of everyone in Austria. The standard of wages 
 is not conducive to the laying up of too much adipose 
 tissue on the bones of the ordinary laborer, nor has he such 
 short hours of work that he fails to get enough daily exercise. 
 However true all this may be, there are, out of the forty 
 million population of the Austrian Empire, a good many 
 thousands of people who are unlucky enough not to belong 
 to the wage-earning class; consequently many of them are 
 forced to seek an alternative to hard work and plain living in 
 taking "die Kur" at Carlsbad. 
 
 There are about fifty thousand visitors to the springs an- 
 nually. While all the world contributes, the great bulk of the 
 visitors — four fifths — are Germans and Austrians. There are 
 about one thousand Englishmen and a little over two thousand 
 Americans. The season opens in May, is at its height about 
 the 20th of July, when 12,000 are here, and closes in Octo- 
 ber. The water is just as good in winter and quite as hot, 
 for the Sprudel spring has a constant temperature of 163 
 degrees Fahrenheit, but man does not live by bread alone 
 and neither is he cured by Carlsbad water alone. 
 
 How much of the cure comes from the water and how much 
 from the regimen will ever remain a vexed question. 
 
 Shortly, the cure consists in getting up at six in the morn- 
 ing, walking down to one of the various springs, where the 
 water gushes out, dipping up a cup of water, and slowly 
 drinking it by sips, until four or five cups are swallowed. 
 This should take say half an hour, during which you are 
 parading up and down a fine covered colonnade, with thou- 
 sands of other drinkers, each holding his cup in hand, and 
 taking an occasional sip. Meanwhile, the City of Carlsbad 
 Band plays most delightful music every morning for you 
 and the other peripatetic sippers. 
 
 When the water is all down you take a walk for one hour 
 and then have a light breakfast, no sweets and no coffee. At
 
 The Sippers of Carlsbad. 323 
 
 two you dine, then take another walk and at seven you sup 
 lightly, and after another walk you go to bed. The water is 
 only taken once a day, in the morning. 
 
 The cure takes at least four weeks and preferably six. 
 
 Carlsbad is in itself a delightful resort, beautiful shady 
 walks and excellent hotels, with accommodations suited to all 
 kinds of purses. For while the rich are much in evidence, 
 it would be unfair not to state that at least half, if not more, 
 are invalids who are far from rich. In fact, it is quite prob- 
 able that poor food and over-work have driven just as many 
 to Carlsbad as have rich food and no work. Indeed, the trou- 
 ble with modern life is that it is all extremes and no middle. 
 A man is ill either from too much work or from too little 
 work. 
 
 Carlsbad is a good example of the possibilities of municipal 
 Socialism. The city owns the springs, the gas and electric 
 lights, the magnificent bath house, and one of the most beauti- 
 ful and best arranged theatres in the world. 
 
 But the wages paid employees by the city are no better nor 
 are the hours any shorter than with private employers. 
 
 Going through Belgium, I asked the guard upon the Bel- 
 gium National Railway about his wages, etc. He said he was 
 now getting $216 a year, that he had started in at $180 a 
 year ; that at the end of forty years service he would be getting 
 $510 a year, and then he could retire upon a pension of $360 
 a year. 
 
 He paid $12 for his uniform, which lasted two years. 
 Board and lodging cost him $11 per month. 
 
 He was liable to 13 hours work a day, 7 days in the week, 
 but said that the actual hours of work did not average over 
 10 a day. 
 
 He was quite an intelligent young fellow of twenty-three, 
 and seemed quite content ; so much so that he was not a So- 
 cialist and took no interest in the subject.
 
 ;324 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 THE SEQUEL TO A MODERN ROMANCE 
 
 COMING from Venice to Vienna, after a few days in 
 the Austrian Tyrol, I had two delightful days in 
 Munich with Mr. and Mrs. Serge von Sheviteh. 
 
 Fourteen years ago, and for the ten preceding years, She- 
 vitch, although a Russian by birth, was the leader of, and 
 the greatest man in, the American Socialist movement, and 
 thereby hangs our tale. 
 
 The year 1877 first saw him in the United States, 
 a Eussian nobleman, a tall, handsome young fellow of 
 twenty-nine. With him was his bride, the world-famous 
 beauty, Princess Racowitz, the widow of the Roumanian 
 Prince Racowitz, the woman with whom the great Ferdinand 
 Lasalle had been so passionately in love and on whose ac- 
 count he lost his life in the historic duel. 
 
 I will not go over in detail the story of that bit of ro- 
 mance in the development of Socialism. It has already 
 been too fully exploited to bear tedious repetition. Shortly, 
 I may narrate, for the benefit of the few who may be un- 
 familiar with the tale, that some forty years ago a young 
 German, Ferdinand Lasalle, the most gifted man of his 
 time, as philosopher, orator and politician, organized a great 
 working-class party in Germany, the progenitor of the ex- 
 isting powerful German Socialist Party. 
 
 Lasalle's influence became such that even the great Bis- 
 marck, then at the height of his power, became terrified and 
 made him all sorts of most tempting offers of alliance. 
 
 In the period of his political activity, Lasalle met and at 
 sight fell violently in love with the brilliant and beautiful 
 daughter of Count Von Donniges, a distinguished member 
 of the old German nobility, and Secretary of State for Ba- 
 varia. His love was returned, with nothing lost in wear and 
 tear by the transfer. It looked as if the world's dream of the 
 union of her greatest man to her most beautiful woman, was 
 at last, at the end of the ages, to be realized. The lady's 
 practical and aristocratic father, however, dreamed differ-
 
 The Sequel to a Modern Romance. 325 
 
 ently and less romantically. A title and wealth were in his 
 dream, and he saw them in material shape realized in the 
 person of Prince Racowitz, who had long been a persistent, 
 but hitherto unsuccessful, suitor for his fair daughter's 
 heart and hand. The father would not listen to the idea 
 of having a mere Socialist agitator for a son-in-law, when a 
 Prince could be had for the word. 
 
 Before 1870 a father's power over a daughter in Europe, 
 and especially in Germany, was greater than nowadays. His 
 answer to Lasalle's demands and his daughter's lamenta- 
 tions was the practical incarceration of the obdurate maiden 
 in the old ancestral castle. 
 
 One night, after many days of durance vile, she eluded 
 the guard and escaped. Lasalle was in Switzerland. She 
 flew to him and proposed immediate marriage, but Lasalle's 
 pride had been wounded by the attitude taken by her father, 
 and he said, "No, go back to the castle. I will not take you 
 by stealth. I will force him to give you to me regularly and 
 conventionally as a matter of justice and right." Of course, 
 this was all false pride, and consciously or unconsciously 
 must have dampened the lady's ardor. 
 
 A man doesn't improve his position with his lady-love 
 by bringing in the question of his pride. When the lady 
 had braved all and fled to him, it was a cruel bit of weak- 
 ness and conceit for Lasalle to cast her back to her father's 
 hands on the chance that he could force his consent. 
 
 This episode naturally enraged the old father more than 
 ever. The second incarceration of his daughter was much 
 more rigid than the first. His remarks regarding Lasalle 
 were so insulting that when they were carried to Lasalle's 
 ears a challenge to a duel was the reply. 
 
 Then the Prince Racowitz steps to the front of the stage. 
 The father is too old and feeble to fight. Lasalle is re- 
 nowned as the best shot and best swordsman in Germany. 
 He, the Prince, the father's choice for a son-in-law, is a 
 natural substitute, and will accept the challenge. Lasalle 
 consents to the chansre. As the challenger, he must allow 
 the Prince to select the weapons. The Prince says pistols. 
 Swords would have been certain suicide for him. 
 
 Pistols were bad enough with such a shot as Lasalle, but 
 there was a chance in a thousand. The duel came off and
 
 326 "Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 the great Lasalle fell mortally wounded at the first exchange 
 of 6hots. The Prince was untouched. 
 
 Then after many bitter ■ days with her old father, the 
 lady's spirit was conquered and she consented to marry the 
 Prince. After another two years the Prince died and she 
 was a widow. 
 
 And this is where all the other narrators of this "Ro- 
 mance of the Nineteenth Century" have laid down their 
 pens. 
 
 I will now give the Twentieth Century Sequel. 
 
 Some years after her husband's death the Princess went 
 to Paris, where she soon became a center of attraction ow- 
 ing to her beauty, grace and accomplishments, and above 
 all, to her romantic history, which all the Parisian world 
 so well knew. 
 
 Serge von Shevitch, a rich young Russian nobleman, was 
 then a new arrival in Paris, the handsomest and most bril- 
 liant one of all the jeunesse doree. A few years form the 
 university in Russia, where he and Stepniak, already a rev- 
 olutionist, afterwards well known as a Nihilist and who re- 
 cently was killed by a locomotive in England, had been 
 classmates. Shevitch was a Socialist, and this at once put 
 him on a good footing with the old sweetheart of Lasalle. 
 The courtship was fast and furious. The United States was 
 their dream of Utopia. Marriage ensued, and New York be- 
 came the home of the young couple. 
 
 The Socialist Party of America was then in its infancy. 
 The Volkszeitung, the German Socialist daily of New York, 
 had only just been launched, and was struggling in a very 
 stormy sea. An editor was badly needed. The appearance 
 in New York of Shevitch seemed to the Socialists as a gift 
 sent by the gods. He soon became not only the life of the 
 paper, but the whole Socialist movement in New York, and 
 New York spelled America for Socialism thirty years ago. 
 
 A brilliant writer and eloquent orator, of commanding 
 personal appearance, equally at home in the German and 
 English languages, Shevitch was indeed a gift of the gods. 
 From 1879 to 1890 he was editor of the Volkszeitung. Pos- 
 sibly the best remembered event, of which he was the hero, 
 was the memorable debate in Cooper Union, when he so 
 completely crushed the late Henry George, the great single
 
 The Sequel to a Modern Romance. 327 
 
 taxer. Mrs. Shevitch, like her husband, became a figure in 
 New York and is still remembered by the many American 
 friends she gathered about her. 
 
 In 1890 the Shevitches left New York and returned to 
 Russia, much to the consternation and sorrow of the New 
 York Socialists. However, the change was imperative. She- 
 vitch had inherited large estates, and the Russian law pro- 
 vides that if an owner remains absent from Russia over a 
 certain fixed period of time, the estate becomes forfeited to 
 the crown. After living quietly a few years in Russia on his 
 estate, just sufficient to allow him to dispose to advantage 
 of his lands, Shevitch and his wife removed to Munich, 
 where they have been living ever since, and where I had 
 the pleasure of visiting them the other day. Shevitch is 
 still as vigorous and handsome as ever. He is now fifty-five, 
 and Madam Shevitch possesses all the old charm which ren- 
 dered her so irresistible in years gone by. They live de- 
 lightfully in Munich — their dinners are quite the best I 
 have had in Europe — but I am in hopes of some day seeing 
 them back again in America — if not permanently, at least 
 for a long visit. 
 
 Shevitch is taking little or no part in the active move- 
 ment at present. The German government does not allow 
 aliens to participate in German politics, and as they have 
 at the same time also refused him naturalization papers, he 
 is quite cut off from active participation in German So- 
 cialist politics. 
 
 Shevitch looks forward to the granting of a constitution 
 in Russia within such a limited number of years that he 
 himself will be able to return to his native land and take 
 an active part in the rapidly growing movement for So- 
 cialism, now gaining such headway in Russia. 
 
 He says that practically all the educated men in Russia, 
 outside of the bureaucracy, are in favor of a constitution, 
 and that the pressure is becoming too great for the au- 
 tocracy to much longer successfully resist. 
 
 He has promised to write up for Wilshire's a general 
 review of the Socialist position both in Germany and Russia, 
 which, I am sure, our readers will look forward to with the 
 greatest delight and interest.
 
 328 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 MUNICH-A PROPHECY OF THE FUTURE 
 
 1CAN quite understand how cosmopolites like the 
 Shevitches, speaking all languages and at home in any 
 intellectual and artistic center, should have settled upon 
 Munich as the most delightful city in the world wherein to 
 pitch their tent. It is the most uniformly beautiful city in 
 Europe. There may be slums, but they are not in evidence to 
 the stranger. 
 
 The streets are wider and better laid out, the distribution 
 of the public buildings and parks is more convenient and 
 effectual, and the architecture of the buildings, both public 
 and private, in better taste in Munich than any other city in 
 Europe. 
 
 The sad thing of it all, too, is the reflection that one must 
 admit that nearly all of this beauty and convenience is the 
 result of the method in the madness of the late King Ludwig, 
 who recently commited suicide while in an insane fit. 
 
 A city can only be beautiful by becoming socially conscious 
 and letting this social consciousness externalize itself, so to 
 speak. To-day the European cities owe nearly all their su- 
 periority in beauty over our American cities to the fact that 
 this social consciousness was able to translate itself into 
 action through the medium of an autocrat, such, for instance, 
 as Ludwig was here in Munich, and as Napoleon the Third 
 was in Paris. 
 
 It is almost impossible for what we call "democracy" to 
 make a city beautiful. 
 
 In the first place, it is not democracy that we have in our 
 American cities anyway. It is the rule of the private corpo- 
 rations through the medium of a corrupt political machine. 
 The aim of the private corporations is to make as much 
 money in as short a time as possible, and the 'best argument to 
 get them to allow the city to have parks or other municipal 
 improvements, is to urge that by making the city more at- 
 tractive you will draw outside capital and people to the city.
 
 Munich — A Prophecy of the Future. 329 
 
 More people will make their town lots and their gas and 
 street-car stock more valuable, and this is a final argument 
 if anything at all will convince. 
 
 King Ludwig made Munich beautiful, not because he was 
 looking for a raise in his kingly salary, or because he wished 
 to increase the value of his royal palace, but because he had 
 a love for beauty as an end in itself. He patronized Richard 
 Wagner not because he had figured out that he was going to 
 get his money back from the American tourists who now 
 flock to Munich for the Wagner operas, but because he loved 
 beautiful music. 
 
 Let us be fair and give the man his due, even though he 
 be a king and mad. 
 
 In addition to what Ludwig did for Munich, God himself 
 also did one or two things. It has a delightful summer 
 climate, very like New York in early May. It is true, the 
 winters are cold, but the cold is not the raw, biting cold of 
 New York. 
 
 The magnificent river Isar springs from its mountain 
 gorge, fed by eternal glaciers,, only five miles from the city, 
 and with its rushing current flowing through, gives perfect 
 drainage and unlimited possibilities of power and water to 
 Munich. 
 
 I doubt if any city in the world of its size (500,000) has 
 the water power within its walls that Munich possesses. How- 
 ever, with the exception of furnishing power for the electric 
 cars and light, it is not as yet much utilized. Munich is 
 not much of a manufacturing center yet, but with its cheap 
 water power and its cheap labor power, for wages are low in 
 Munich, manufacturing should develop there rapidly. The 
 common, ordinary, everyday laborer gets from 50 to 75 cents 
 a day. I asked Shevitch the question that always bothers me : 
 "How does the European laborer getting such low wages 
 and at the same time paying such high prices for food, still 
 keep himself and his family in as good, if not better, physical 
 condition than the American, and quite as well dressed, who, 
 with twice or three times the wages, has practically no 
 margin for saving." Shevitch quite agreed with me as to 
 the superior appearance, as to health, of the European laborer 
 generally, and said the mystery as to how he managed it all 
 was as insoluble to him as to me. Rents are lower in Europe
 
 330 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 and that goes to explain where part of the American's wages 
 are absorbed. 
 
 The street-car system of Munich is about to be taken over 
 by the municipality. At present the conductors get about 
 $25 a month wages for a ten-hour day, and then by a peculiar 
 and universal system of tips from passengers, they get about 
 $20 a month in addition to their wages, but one-quarter of 
 this is by custom handed over to the motorman. 
 
 There is a very general impression held by Americans 
 who have not lived abroad, that living for the average middle- 
 class family is much cheaper in Europe than in the United 
 States. This is all a mistake. For a man expending, say 
 $1,500 to $2,500 a year on his family and taking the main 
 comforts, it is practically the same thing, Europe and 
 America. The American who saves money by living in 
 Europe does so by living in worse style than he would live 
 at home. One may save a little in rent, servant hire and 
 clothing, but food is higher in Europe, and there are other 
 items of increased expense to balance the gain. 
 
 The Wagner operas were being given in Munich while I 
 was there. The Opera House, completed in 1900, is quite 
 the best building for the purpose in a way that I have ever 
 seen, not excepting the Grand Opera House of Paris. The 
 orchestra is below the level of the floor and is quite hidden 
 by an overhanging screen. There are no boxes or loges, 
 nor any division of seats in any way, no balcony or gallery. 
 The seats are sold at a uniform price of five dollars each, 
 first come, first served. Now I will admit that I have never 
 seen opera so well staged — the scenery was wonderful — nor 
 ever heard such a perfect orchestra, nor better voices. The 
 tout ensemble of the opera was as nearly perfect as can be 
 imagined, but with it all five dollars a seat is not in consonance 
 with the American idea of opera being so cheap in Germany 
 that one may go with all his family every night. The Ger- 
 mans take their opera in heroic doses. It was "Das Ehein- 
 gold." The performance began at 5 and went straight 
 through, without intermission, to the end, the curtain falling 
 at 7.50. I must say that while I am an admirer of Wagnerian 
 music, still this was too large a dose for me. 
 
 The next night at the theater we saw Maeterlinck's new 
 drama, "Monna Vanna," translated from the French into
 
 Munich — A Prophecy of the Future. 331 
 
 German. It was given extremely well, and seems to me to 
 be a play that will take well when brought out in America. 
 Here, too, the seats were not given away for a song, as 
 American travelers so often would have us believe. All the 
 good seats were two dollars each. The acting, as in all 
 German companies that I have seen, was on a decidedly 
 higher average plane than in our American companies, with 
 their one star performer supported by a lot of sticks. 
 
 Munich supports a daily Socialist paper, and both of its 
 members to the Reichstag are Socialists. 
 
 It seems absurd that a city of 500,000, like Munich, should 
 be allowed but two members, when, if there were an equitable 
 division of seats, it would have nearly twenty. A redistribu- 
 tion of seats in the Reichstag will not be made because it 
 would inure immensely to the advantage of the Socialists, 
 who are relatively much stronger in the German cities than 
 in the country districts. 
 
 Society in Munich is upon a very democratic basis. Its 
 doors are open to anyone of education and refinement. There 
 is little of that nonsense about birth which is growing so 
 rapidly in America, and none at all regarding money. 
 
 It has a fine university — 3,500 students — and magnificent 
 art galleries, the collection of pictures by Rubens being 
 especially good. There are also a few Murillos. I was 
 especially struck with the picture of a young girl by Fritz 
 Kaulbach exhibited in this year's salon and of which a half- 
 tone is given on another page. 
 
 From Munich I took the train direct to Vienna, a ten hours' 
 journey. I only wish our American farmers, everyone of 
 them, could have the country intervening put under their eye 
 as it has been before mine. 
 
 The next election time, when the Republican city politician 
 would come out to them and ask for a return of the Republi- 
 can Party to power on account of what Republicanism had 
 done for the farmer in America, their happy position com- 
 pared with the German and Austrian farmer, he would get a 
 jolt from his audience that would shock him. 
 
 As I have said in another article, I have never seen the ex- 
 ternal evidence of comfort in farm dwellings in America that 
 I have seen here. The houses are all, as far as appearance 
 goes, suitable for summer villas for those of our American
 
 332 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 city men who farm for pastime rather than profit. Where the 
 farm laborers live in houses separate from the farmer's family, 
 which is apparently very seldom, as the farms are too small 
 to require much help outside the family, the standard of com- 
 fort for him is on exactly the same plan as for his employer. 
 The buildings used by many of our American farmers 
 in the West, and particularly those furnished for the 
 hired men, would simply not be tolerated in any part of 
 Europe. 
 
 Another thing that strikes one is the comfortable houses af- 
 forded by the railway companies to their employees, along the 
 line. At the smallest stations where the train stops, there is 
 always a large two or three-story handsome stone structure. 
 The lower part is used for a ticket office, etc., and the upper 
 rooms for the ticket agent and his family. 
 
 There is always a nice garden plot about the house, and the 
 windows look very home-like with their flower-boxes and lace 
 curtains. At every little cross-road there is also a nice com- 
 fortable stone house with garden for the man who lowers the 
 bar when the train crosses the road. 
 
 There is many a free and mighty American citizen in the 
 west who thinks the railway company exceedingly generous 
 when they allow him one room in the station for his bedroom. 
 If he has a family then he must rent a private house. Some- 
 times, if he is lucky, he may get the company to allow him 
 an old freight car to be lifted from its trucks and set along- 
 side the track to be modeled into a castle suitable to him as 
 an American voting king. 
 
 It might be remarked in passing that the railway companies 
 in Germany and Austria that furnish these fine, comfortable 
 houses for their employees are state railways. 
 
 We Americans are all right, but we are not exactly "it" on 
 everything. 
 
 Vienna I reserve for another letter. I have already had the 
 pleasure of meeting Dr. Lorenz here, the great expert in so- 
 called bloodless surgery, who recently had such a triumphant 
 tour through America. He went there originally, it may be 
 remembered, to treat the little Armour child, of Chicago, for 
 congenital hip joint dislocation. He tells me the operation on 
 the child has been a great and complete success. His rocms 
 here comprise a large outside flat in the centre of town, having
 
 Munich — A Prophecy of the Future. 333 
 
 forty outside windows, giving light such as one rarely gets in 
 an American city, as he reminded me. 
 
 He has a number of rooms fitted with apparatus for carry- 
 ing out exercises for his patients taking his special line of 
 treatment. He showed me one little girl of twelve that he had 
 operated upon about six months ago for congenital hip joint 
 dislocation, and who was rapidly progressing, but, of course, 
 she will never be as well as she would have been if the opera- 
 tion had been done at a much younger age. In this case there 
 was no excuse except the timidity of the child's parents. They 
 had personally known Lorenz and his method for ten years, 
 ever since the child was two years old, and yet they had hesita- 
 ted from year to year, and now, when the child is twelve, they 
 bring her in when the chances of success are so little that the 
 doctor as a rule would have refused the case. In America Dr. 
 Lorenz gave free treatment to hundreds of poor children at 
 the public clinics, but in those cases he made it a practice not 
 to take on any child who was over seven years of age, as the 
 chances of success were so remote and the difficulty of the 
 operation at ages over seven so greatly enhanced. 
 
 To-morrow is to be a great day for Vienna. The King of 
 England is to arrive here and be the guest of the Emperor of 
 Austria.
 
 334 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 THE AMERICAN IDEAL 
 
 IT is cynically remarked by many that we Americans have 
 lost our ideals. As a matter of fact, it is absolutely 
 impossible for a man to lose his ideals, although condi- 
 tions may be such that unless he sees or thinks he sees the 
 possibility of realizing them he feels it futile to dwell upon 
 them. We Americans are to-day largely of the opinion 
 that our old ideal of freedom for the citizen seems to have 
 become an impossibility. There was a time when we all 
 thought that individual energy and talent on the part of the 
 citizen were all that was necessary for him to acquire an 
 independence and be as good as anybody else. 
 
 We always realized that economic independence depended 
 upon the possession of wealth; and now, inasmuch as a great 
 part of the wealth of this country has passed into the hands 
 of the Trusts, the individual acquisition of wealth has be- 
 come an impossibility to the great mass of the people. We 
 have given up hope of any distribution of the wealth held 
 by the Trusts through the enforcement of anti-Trust laws, 
 and but few of us yet see that this distribution can be effected 
 by State Ownership. 
 
 Judge Grosscup, who recently made a very learned speech 
 about the Trusts, a resume of which has already been given 
 in this magazine, says that the first step toward the regula- 
 tion of the Trusts should be the repeal of the Sherman 
 Anti-Trust law. Of course he is right ; but since he does not 
 propose any other law to take its place, it is really a con- 
 fession of a most pessimistic attitude on the part of a man 
 who should be thoroughly competent to judge of the situa- 
 tion. His logic, however, is keener and clearer than that of 
 President Roosevelt, who proposes all sorts of remedies, and 
 each one only more manifestly impossible than the previous 
 one, for the solution of the Trust problem. As between 
 President Roosevelt and Judge Grosscup I prefer Gross- 
 cup's position, for he realizes the futility of things as they 
 are, and I take it the great mass of the American people are
 
 The American Ideal. 335 
 
 in agreement with him on this point. We no longer have 
 any confidence in Roosevelt and his political confreres who 
 talk about proceeding against the Trusts on the old lines. 
 We have largely resigned ourselves to Grosseup's position 
 that nothing can be done. We do feel, however, that there 
 is a future which is going to be different from what the 
 present is. This feeling is inborn with us. We cannot get 
 rid of the idea that America means something more than a 
 mere pleasure ground for a few Goulds and Vanderbilts to 
 use as a pleasure park. That the public ownership of mo- 
 nopolies would be a great step toward the attainment of our 
 ideals would hardly be questioned by any one who has given 
 the Trust problem any thought. 
 
 I appeal to the young men of America to come forward 
 and help toward the realization of the American ideal of 
 freedom. It is really you who should bear the brunt of 
 assisting in making the change from the present autocratic 
 industrial condition to a democratic one. You realize well 
 enough that the country is certainly rich enough to make 
 the very suggestion of the necessity of poverty a ghastly 
 mockery. If your grandfathers could look to a future of hap- 
 piness and freedom and wealth, when they had no dream 
 of the labor-saving machinery of to-day, then certainly it is 
 not flattering to your intelligence if you think that poverty 
 is necessary when we have at hand such abundant means to 
 prevent it. 
 
 What is the young man of America doing to-day to realize 
 the ideal which must be within his breast? 
 
 Practically nothing. Instead of paying attention to po- 
 litical and industrial developments he is more apt to be spec- 
 ulating on the result of a football game or what horse* will 
 win the race to-morrow. Instead of having pity for the poor 
 of the country who are suffering from unnecessary poverty, 
 he is wasting his life in pool and billiard rooms, smoking 
 cigarettes. 
 
 He goes to school and college, and his main idea is not 
 to acquire culture or learning, but to get sufficient credit 
 marks to graduate him with the least possible work, that 
 he may have the greatest possible amount of time to devote 
 to dissipation. This is certainly no flattering picture; and 
 it has a very depressing effect upon those people who, as they
 
 336 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 view the country, do not see any reason for a change in the 
 sentiment and conduct of our young men. However, I can 
 see that the mode of life of the young man of America to- 
 day, while most deplorable, has not quite succeeded in ut- 
 terly destroying his ideals. The trouble is simply that the 
 conditions which may look to their realization seem so im- 
 possible to him that he is now dissipating energies which 
 would under other conditions be turned into better and 
 nobler channels. It is not that the young American does 
 not wish to control his own country and his own destiny, but 
 simply that he does not see how to do it. It is the mission 
 of the Socialist not only to inspire these young men with the 
 ideal of commanding their own destin}^, but also to show 
 them how this command can be attained. The "reform" 
 school of politics, some twenty-five years ago, attempted 
 to appeal to our young men by holding up to them the ideal 
 of honesty in office as the great ultimate. This movement 
 has failed of its purpose, and in consequence a great many 
 of the men of the Carl Schurz type, and those whose views 
 are represented by the editorials of the New York Evening 
 Post, are becoming exceedingly pessimistic. After all, this 
 is but natural. The average young man of to-day has no 
 property. He knows if he goes into politics he loses caste 
 with his business associates, the general theory throughout 
 the country being — and it is a well-founded one — that "pol- 
 itics ruin a man." This, of course, refers to going into pol- 
 itics with one of the old parties; for no one goes into politics 
 with one of the old parties except with the idea of getting 
 an office or bettering his individual condition. Going into 
 '"reform" politics has no attractions, because it only means 
 that certain men are elected to office who pretend to be 
 more honest than the "old party" men, and if elected ex- 
 perience goes to show that they do not make good; and, 
 even if they did, the benefit accruing from an honest admin- 
 istration falls largely to the few who own property, lather 
 than to the great mass of the people. 
 
 Thus it is easy enough to see why neither "old party'' pol- 
 itics nor "reform" politics attracts the young man. Socialist 
 politics would attract him if he had given it sufficient 
 thought to know what Socialism meant, but he hasn't. He 
 regards the Socialist as a crank with some wild visions of
 
 - The American Ideal. 337 
 
 an impossible Utopia that is to be reached some time after 
 the next thousand years. He does not understand that the 
 Trust is the greatest argument the Socialist uses to prove 
 the inevitability of Socialism; and the chances are that he 
 will not realize the force of this argument until the Trust 
 itself finally throws him out of his job. There is no doubt 
 that we are now rapidly approaching a great unemployed 
 problem. When this occurs, these young Americans, who 
 now give no attention to Socialism, will give it plenty of 
 attention when they find their own bread-and-butter is at 
 stake. 
 
 All mankind has an ideal of a paradise on earth; and if 
 we analyze our idea of paradise it resolves itself into a con- 
 dition of existence where every one is on an economic equal- 
 ity, where there is no danger of starvation, where there is 
 not too much work and where everybody is happy. Now, 
 in order to banish fear of starvation it is necessary 
 to have the earth on which to raise the food, and 
 to raise food with ease it is necessary to have ma- 
 chinery. We Americans certainly have provided the earth 
 with machinery in a larger degree than has ever been 
 done before. We know how to produce the greatest 
 quantity of wealth with the least amount of human labor 
 that has ever been required in the world's history. We 
 have made the first great step toward our Earthly Paradise. 
 The only thing that remains for us to do now is to devise a 
 plan by which we can distribute this wealth which we so 
 easily produce. When we achieve that end, we shall realize 
 the American ideal. 
 
 Our work is to make the young American see that his 
 ideal can only be reached through the advent of Socialism.
 
 338 Wilshiee Editorials. 
 
 THE TRUST OVERSHADOWS ALL ISSUES 
 
 THAT the Trust would sooner or later be the great issue 
 in American politics I have never once doubted for 
 the last fifteen years. My surprise to-day is not that 
 it has suddenly become so important an issue, but that it has 
 been so long in becoming such. In 1884 I was managing- 
 director of the Eiverside Rolling Mill Co., of Cincinnati, 
 Ohio. The price of iron was steadily falling and there 
 seemed an end to things. If we wished to sell our iron we 
 must meet a market that already forced us to manufacture 
 at less than cost, and there seemed no prospect of the future 
 being any better than the present. There was no way that 
 we could lower the cost of producing. We bought our ore 
 and coal at the lowest market price, and our day labor was 
 at a price that only too obviously admitted of no reduction. 
 The men were already at the margin of starvation. Our 
 skilled labor was paid upon the scale of the Amalgamated 
 Iron Workers that allowed us no option about reduction. 
 We must either pay the scale or shut up shop. I was young 
 in business in those days, fresh from Harvard College, and I 
 used to puzzle over the question of how long the world 
 could get along on the basis of everybody losing money. 
 For after rinding out there was nothing in the iron business 
 I naturally looked into other businesses and my inquiries 
 showed me that the iron business was in no exceptional con- 
 dition. Every manufacturer that I talked with had the same 
 story to tell of the impossibility of making a living with the 
 existing low prices. I was so discouraged with the outlook 
 for making money in ordinary business that I made up my 
 mind that the only thing to produce that seemed to be 
 sure of a market at a standard price was gold. Therefore I 
 decided to go into gold mining. When you got your 
 ounce of gold it was always worth your $20 and this sort 
 of a business seemed infinitely better than the iron business 
 where you had to sell your iron ten per cent, less every three 
 months than you originally expected for it.
 
 The Trust Overshadows All Issues. 3j39 
 
 It is true that Mr. Rockefeller and his Standard Oil Trust 
 had already even in that early day shown me and the rest of 
 the world how to prevent over-production and get a fixed 
 price for our product, but I did not see how I could ever 
 wait long enough for the iron men to get sense enough to 
 follow Mr. Rockefeller's example. 
 
 It is well, too, that I did not wait. It took those iron 
 manufacturers eighteen years, from 1884 to 1902, to do what 
 they should have had the sense to have done at once. How 
 they ever managed to survive all those eighteen years has 
 been a great surprise to me, although I know that it has not 
 been four years since a good many of them, who are now on 
 Easy street through the forming of the Morgan Trust, were 
 on the verge of bankruptcy. 
 
 While I was investigating gold mining prospects, which, 
 by the way, did not prove to be particularly rosy because 
 the uncertainty of your product fully offset the certainty 
 of your selling price, I happened to be chucked off a frac- 
 tious horse in the mountains of California and suffered a 
 broken jaw. Although I was not an "agitator" in those days, 
 nevertheless I felt my jaw an important enough member 
 of my ego to justify a trip to Southern California to allow 
 it an opportunity to consolidate, to form a little trust of its 
 own, so to speak. While there, the real estate boom came on 
 and I, at last, saw an opportunity of buying something — 
 land — which looked as if one could be sure of selling it for 
 more than he paid for it. I gave up my determination to 
 go in for gold mining and became a real estate shark. It 
 was possible for a year or so to buy land and sell it at a 
 considerably larger price than you paid for it; then the 
 "boom busted" and as far as I could see, the problem of 
 selling for more than you gave was as impossible of solution 
 as ever, unless you could form a trust. This was in 1888. 
 Since then there have been ups and downs 1 in business, prin- 
 cipally "downs," though, for most men, and the "downs" 
 had all the game to themselves, apparently, until after Mc- 
 Kinley's first election, when the Cuban war stirred up trade 
 so much by the destruction of property and the consequent 
 demand for things of all kinds, that ever since the "ups" 
 have been very much in evidence for most American busi- 
 ness men.
 
 340 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 However, a little prosperity has not made them blind to 
 the advantages a trust has in making assurance doubly sure. 
 If we had not had the war, the trusts would certainly have 
 been formed as a matter of absolute necessity. As it is, they 
 may possibly have been formed as a matter of expediency 
 in some cases, although I think most of the insiders on the 
 trusts of to-day would admit that they had in forming their 
 trusts only forestalled an inevitability. 
 
 I think my own experience in business life in America 
 since the year 1884 is more or less typical of all other busi- 
 ness men. We all realize that the only way to make money 
 is to get into a monopoly, and if that cannot be done then 
 the best thing is to stay out of business. However, there 
 happen to be so many people who must make a living some- 
 how, that neither get into a trust nor stay out of business, 
 that there is considerable dissatisfaction in the land among 
 these outsiders. They may be very rude to make their 
 weeping and wailing such an offence to the eye and ear, but 
 we must take men as they are. 
 
 Man is primarily and above all things an eating animal, 
 and after all an animal is simply an intelligent automobile 
 carrying around an ever greedy stomach. If a man cannot 
 feed himself he is sure to make unpleasant remarks. If to 
 feed oneself one must own a trust, and there are not enough 
 trusts to go around, then those fellows who fail to draw a 
 trust are sure to become ill-natured and generally inconsid- 
 erate. However, the mere matter of men being inconsid- 
 erate would be of no particular moment, — men are usually 
 that way anyhow, some people think, — did it not happen 
 that these fellows propose to take their inconsiderateness 
 into the political field. 
 
 It so happens that the fellows who draw blanks in the 
 trust lottery are so far in the majority of those who draw 
 prizes that if it came to a matter of voting there is not the 
 remotest doubt as to who would win out. However, while 
 the winners of the trust prizes are few in number they 
 make up in brains what they lack in numbers, and they also 
 have brains enough to know where to hire other brains to 
 do some of their thinking for them. What they are mor- 
 tally afraid of just now is that the business men who are not 
 in on the draw will throw down their cards and demand a
 
 The Trust Overshadows All Issues. 341 
 
 new deal. Hence the main object of the winners is to per- 
 suade the losers to continue in the game by feeding them 
 with fairy stories of how, by some change in the rules, they 
 will be able once again to win back their losings. 
 
 In the present stage of the trust problem the working- 
 man is largely a disinterested onlooker. The people who are 
 objecting to trusts are not the workingmen, but the capital- 
 ists who have been squeezed by the trusts. It is true that 
 the beef trust has called attention to itself by the high price 
 of beef and many workingmen have suddenly become aware 
 of their interest in the trust problem on that account who 
 hitherto had regarded the trust problem as one of simply 
 academic interest with no immediate application to their 
 daily life. However, the price of beef will fall or wages will 
 adapt themselves, and that episode was and is simply an 
 accidental note in the song of monopoly. The merchants 
 and manufacturers who have lost their power to conduct 
 an independent competitive business alongside of the trust, 
 however, are naturally up in arms against an invasion which 
 threatens their commercial existence. Thus, when the trust 
 problem is represented as overshadowing all other issues of 
 to-day what is really meant is that the smaller capitalists, 
 and they are vastly in the numerical majortiy, are demand- 
 ing legislation to curtail the growth of monopoly. So far in 
 the United States political issues have always been simply 
 clashes between the different interests of certain capitalists. 
 It is true that the interest of the workingman and the coun- 
 try as a whole has always been the ostensible interest in 
 concern by both parties, but this has always been a palpable 
 mask used for the purpose of gaining votes. For instance, 
 take the tariff issue. The manufacturers wanted a high 
 tariff to increase their profits, but they said they wanted it 
 in order to pay higher wages. On the other hand the farm- 
 ers wanted a low tariff in order to reduce the cost of the 
 various articles they required and the price of which was 
 raised by the tariff, but they said they wanted a lower tariff 
 in order that the workingmen could buy the necessities of 
 life, including farm products, at a lower price. 
 
 So it is to-day the smaller capitalists want the trusts 
 crushed because if they are not crushed, they themselves 
 will be crushed. It would never do for these capitalists to
 
 342 Wilshike Editorials. 
 
 go before the country with, such a purely selfish cry that they 
 wanted legislation simply in order to protect their own par- 
 ticular class, so they add to the causes which impel them 
 to attack the trust on their own account the additional ones 
 which they think will make workingmen and the country at 
 large rally to their support. 
 
 First, they say the trust, by holding a complete monopoly 
 of the sources of life, is putting the whole country at its 
 mercy. 
 
 Second, they say that by reason of the undoubted economies 
 the trust introduced in the production of goods it is threat- 
 ening the working class with a huge unemployed problem. 
 
 Of course both these indictments are correct, but what I 
 wish to call attention to is that the smaller capitalists would 
 never have paid attention to the "country as a whole," nor 
 the working class in particular, unless they had seen their own 
 interests in jeopardy and wished to call to their political sup- 
 port other interests outside of their own particular circle. 
 
 I am not blaming them for this course. It is simply a 
 natural human phenomenon. Men never look much after 
 other people's interests; they are usually too busy looking 
 after their own. 
 
 However, just as these same smaller capitalists could never 
 be induced to take action until the trust had actually com- 
 pelled them to look financial death in the face, just so will 
 the working class never take action until they, too, are 
 placed in the same relative position that these capitalists are 
 in. The appeal to the working class to rally to the support 
 of the smaller capitalists will be in vain. The workingman 
 will vote just as he has been voting until an economic con- 
 dition presents itself directly to him, that will compel his 
 attention. 
 
 Judging from the following editorial the Detroit Tribune 
 thinks that such a condition has already presented itself. 
 
 THE ALARM OF LABOR IS NATURAL. 
 
 Trust control of any industry means the application of trust 
 methods. Trust method means the systematic elimination of 
 every item of cost that can be dispensed with. It means the 
 substitution of cunning mechanism for human handiwork as far 
 as possible. It means the substitution of women and children for 
 men in every department where men can be thus displaced. It
 
 The Trust Overshadows All Issues. 343 
 
 means a reduction of prices just to the exact point that will 
 squeeze out competition. Then follows absolute control of price 
 and product. 
 
 A case that is very much in the public eye is that of the Brown 
 cigar factory. It was operated under a system by which young 
 girls became competitors of men in cigar making. Their product 
 went out in competition with that of skilled laborers. Now an- 
 other step is being taken which will multiply the effectiveness 
 of the trust operative. The displacing of a certain number of girls 
 from their employment in a given factory is the lesser evil, 
 although that is bad enough for those who are dependent upon 
 such employment and are the support or partial support of a 
 family. Trust control must by its constant reduction in the cost 
 of production seriously affect the independent factories and their 
 workmen who make a specialty of hand work. It is possible that 
 the future of such industries may not be as bad as it looks, but 
 the operatives cannot be blamed for exhibiting serious alarm 
 for their jobs and hostility to the new system. 
 
 Passing by the complacent manner with which the Trihune 
 regards a system which forces girls to support their families 
 as a perfect natural and satisfactory one, and that anything 
 which tends to prevent the perpetuation of such a system 
 must be viewed with abhorrence, I would deny the general 
 proposition that the working class as a class are 
 ready to take any decided stand against the trust 
 in its present stage of development. I say this simply 
 because the problem of unemployment is not sufficiently 
 large to induce any considerable part of them to 
 think. The capitalist's political brains are found in his 
 pocket-book; the workingman's brains are in his stomach. 
 The capitalist is finding the trust emptying his pocket- 
 book. I have been warning him that this event was sure to 
 happen, warning him for fifteen years or more, but he. would 
 never listen. In fact now that his pocket-book is actually 
 being emptied, while he is kicking hard enough, he has 
 hardly yet come to listen to the advice I offer him. He still 
 wishes to destroy the trusts ; I tell him, "Let the Nation Own 
 the Trust." 
 
 This is too radical a solution yet for him to adopt, although, 
 judging from the editorials appearing in the Hearst papers 
 demanding National Ownership of Trusts, I should judge 
 that the tide is setting pretty strong in that direction now-a- 
 days. 
 
 Mr. Hearst has too much good newspaper sense to run
 
 344 Wilshike Editorials. 
 
 -very far ahead of public opinion. Mr. Hearst gives his readers 
 such ideas as he thinks are in commercial demand, albeit he 
 usually selects the more radical kind. I, on the other hand, 
 give my readers the kind of ideas they ought to like. I am 
 like a temperance bar-keeper, who, when a customer asks for 
 whiskey, puts him off by giving out ginger-ale. This is not 
 usually a good commercial policy, and, in fact, is so unheard 
 of that when Mr. Madden refused me the use of the United 
 States Post-office to carry on such an unusual business of 
 selling my own hand-made ideas instead of the ordinary ones 
 manufactured in quantities for the general newspaper trade, 
 he had the endorsement of President Roosevelt and the 
 whole tribe of American politicians, together with the daily 
 press. In Canada all manufacturing processes are somewhat 
 backward compared with the United States and home-made 
 articles are still in demand, hence, owing to this primitive 
 state of affairs they let me publish and manufacture home- 
 made ideas and send them through the mails to a degree of 
 liberality that must be quite shocking to the firm of Madden, 
 Roosevelt & Co. 
 
 However, while the small capitalist is shilly-shallying with 
 the trust problem and letting President Roosevelt fool him 
 with ridiculous feints through palpably impossible actions in 
 the United States Supreme Court against the beef trust, the 
 steady march of economic evolution goes on apace and condi- 
 tions are fast becoming so ripe that they will force the work- 
 ing class to act. 
 
 The small capitalist is at present praying to the working- 
 man to come to his aid and destroy the trust in order that 
 he, the small capitalist, may once more go into business. 
 The promise made to the workingman is that the waste of 
 labor engendered by this going back to the methods of pro- 
 duction on a small scale will be sure to make his labor much 
 more in demand than at present. He will have good wages 
 and a steady job if he destroys the trust. That there is some- 
 thing in this argument cannot be denied. There was some- 
 thing in the logic of the hand- weavers who in 1838 tried to 
 destroy the machinery that was taking away their livelihood. 
 The proposition, viewing it politically, is simply this, "Can 
 there be a sufficient number rallied to the support of a move- 
 ment to prevent an economic development?" If not, then
 
 The Trust Overshadows All Issues. 345 
 
 the movement must proceed. The growth of the use of ma- 
 chinery has never yet been stayed, because men were thrown 
 out of employment by its use, and there is no reason why the 
 future should differ from the past. A boy may wish to remain 
 a boy, but he grows into a man all the same. 
 
 I referred to the steady growth of the process of economic 
 evolution finally forcing the working class into a very pro- 
 nounced attitude on the question of the trusts. 
 
 The stage in which this event will occur is not during a 
 stage or period of so-called prosperity such as we are now 
 enjoying. It will come during a time of depression. De- 
 pression will only come when the demand for new machinery 
 has so decreased that the demand for labor to build such 
 machinery falls off to a degree to create an unemployed 
 problem. The trust presages that such a condition is rapidly 
 approaching. 
 
 The trust is primarily simply a device on the part of the 
 capitalists to prevent price-cutting as the result of over-pro- 
 duction. Over-production is caused by the competitive wage 
 system limiting wages to approximately what it cost the 
 workingman to live. We have by the use of machinery largely 
 augmented the product of the workingman, but he has shared 
 hardly at all in this increased productivity. The increase has 
 gone to the capitalist who has used it in the production of 
 new machinery. He has had finally piled up for him more 
 capital in the shape of new machinery than he can use, and 
 therefore he has been compelled to form a trust to prevent 
 over-production. The first economic effect of the trust is to 
 force the surrender of other manufacturing capitalists en- 
 gaged in the same line of production. The next point of 
 attack is the capitalists engaged in distributing its products. 
 For instance, the American Tobacco Trust first captured most 
 of the competing establishments manufacturing tobacco. 
 After that it went after the wholesalers and jobbers and forced 
 them to abandon handling any competitive brands. By this 
 means it forced the surrender of those recalcitrant competi- 
 tive manufacturing establishments who would not surrender 
 on direct assault. They were starved out by a siege. Their 
 sources of supply were withdrawn by taking away from them 
 the avenue by which they sold their goods and derived their 
 profits.
 
 346 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 It is thus seen that the first people to be up in arms against 
 the trust are naturally those first attacked, namely, the smal- 
 ler competing establishments and the distributive establish- 
 ments, that is, they are capitalists and not workingmen. These 
 are the men who are now doing most of the howling, and 
 from them very largely comes the cry for workingmen in 
 particular, and the public in general to rush to their aid and 
 destroy the trust in order that they, the capitalists, may live. 
 
 When the people at large and the workingmen do not 
 respond with that alacrity which they supposed they would 
 show, these small fry capitalists throw up their hands to 
 heaven and cry that the country is "going to destruction." 
 
 They confuse their own petty interests with those of the 
 country at large. 
 
 We can dispense with these little capitalists and we can 
 see the jobbers and wholesalers enslaved by the trust and still 
 see how the country can live. It is the usual process of 
 nature to eliminate the unnecessary. Years ago the farmer 
 cried that the middle man must go. He is going. However, 
 the day will come, and it is rapidly approaching, when the 
 trust will say to the working class, "You have built up the 
 manufacturing plants of this country to such an extent and 
 to such perfection that we do not require your service to build 
 any more and we do not require many of you to operate those 
 already built, so automatic has your ingenuity made them'* 
 then may we expect the working class to at last awaken to 
 the real significance of the trust. The workingman will only 
 vote for the Public Ownership of Trusts when lack of em- 
 ployment will force him to do so in order to preserve his 
 existence. The smaller capitalists never made a move when 
 they simply had the theory of the trust expounded to them. 
 We had to see the trust actually throttle them before they 
 could realize their danger. Why should the working class be 
 any clearer sighted than those capitalists? There is no 
 reason to expect it. They, too, will decline to move until 
 conditions force them to, and the only hope I have of soon 
 seeing any movement from them is simply because I foresee 
 conditions where they will have but one chance of escaping 
 starvation from an unemployed problem. That chance will 
 be the adoption of the Co-operative Wage System, Public 
 Ownership of the Trusts and Means of Production.
 
 The Trust Overshadows All Issues. 347 
 
 The co-operative wage system will do away with the over- 
 production, for over-production is simply the result of the 
 competitive wage system preventing the laborer buying back 
 what he produces. By the aid of machinery the worker pro- 
 duces far more than he gets. The surplus has been handed 
 over to the capitalist, who in turn has used it up in the pro- 
 duction of more and more machinery. He has been "building 
 up the country." As long as the capitalist could use this 
 surplus in this manner there would never be any permanent 
 unemployed problem, because when the laborer had produced 
 enough to feed himself the capitalist would set him to work 
 producing more machinery. 
 
 But now comes the trust as the sign that this production 
 of new machinery must come to an end for the simple reason 
 that no more machinery is needed. 
 
 This is why the Trust signifies an Unemployed Problem. 
 
 However, until this problem of unemployment is right 
 upon the laborer as a fact, and not as a theory in "Wilshire's 
 Magazine," history teaches us that he will do nothing. I 
 therefore do not look for any great political movement as the 
 result of the trust until this unemployed problem actually 
 makes its appearance. When this event does occur, and it 
 cannot be many years away, then it is evident that a solution 
 must be found. 
 
 I myself take the scientific Socialist stand that no solution 
 can be found other than the establishment of the co-operative 
 commonwealth. 
 
 However, while I declare that this catastrophic theory is 
 the only true theory from a scientific economic standpoint, 
 yet I admit that from the purely political standpoint there 
 are many reasons why I should favor trying to make steps 
 toward the co-operative commonwealth, even though I do not 
 think those steps will ever be built, or, if built, will be ever 
 used to assist us in gaining the aforesaid co-operative com- 
 monwealth. 
 
 I do not believe there will ever be a single trust or a single 
 railway nationalized in the United States before the whole of 
 industry is nationalized, yet I know that there are many peo- 
 ple who can never see how we can nationalize all industry un- 
 til they are first convinced of the good and the practicability 
 of nationalizing railroads. For such people we need a kinder-
 
 348 Wilshiee Editorials. 
 
 garten method of teaching, but because a kindergarten is 
 needed is no reason for us to refuse to educate children at all. 
 The man is only the outcome of the child, both physically 
 and mentally, and many a man has the frame of an adult, con- 
 cealing the brain of a boy, and especially is this true of his 
 capacity to absorb a theory in economics. We must take men 
 as they are, and not as we would have them. Just as I know 
 the small capitalists will never be able to rally the working- 
 class to their support on any theory of economics, so do I 
 know that until those same capitalists see that their economic 
 salvation depends upon the nationalization of the trusts 
 they will never favor such legislation. However, the day is 
 now at hand when such capitalists will favor such a measure, 
 and they will be enforced in their demand by the farmers. 
 There will also be a number of workingmen who will join 
 them in this demand. It is true that these people will be 
 demanding nationalization simply as a reform of our pres- 
 ent competitive system, and with no thought of its leading to 
 the co-operative commonwealth, but even so, that, to my mind, 
 is no reason why I should not do all I can to help them along 
 with their movement, and utilize their platform to affirm the 
 necessity of still further steps in order to introduce what will 
 be finally necessary, viz., the Abolition of the Competitive 
 Wage System. 
 
 Let us get down to Earth in our dealings with men, and 
 always remember that you can do much more toward teaching 
 a man a new idea if you start out by humoring his prejudices 
 rather than by antagonizing them. 
 
 This magazine is published for the purpose of extending 
 the idea of the Necessity of Socialism. I am lucky to be in 
 Canada when I say this, because in the United States you 
 must declare you publish a paper to make money, otherwise 
 the Madden-Roosevelt Post Office will rule you from the sec- 
 ond-class privilege because your primary object is not to make 
 money but to advertise ideas. This sounds funny, but it's 
 simply a solemn fact. I say this for the information of my 
 foreign readers who have been accustomed to think America 
 free. 
 
 However, this magazine is published to advertise the 
 theories of Socialism, and that being its primary object, I re- 
 gard any honorable means justified to attain my end.
 
 The Trust Overshadows All Issues. 349 
 
 One of those means is the use of people who will help it 
 along because it gives voice to their ideas as to the practicabil- 
 ity and desirability of Public Ownership, of some Public 
 Utilities. 
 
 I consider any movement toward nationalization of in- 
 dustry an unmixed good, and will do all I can to push it along 
 without qualification. 
 
 I regard every step taken in that direction in the United 
 States as of almost certain good to the people, and in any 
 case, of great value as an object lesson in the practicability of 
 complete Socialism. I say this, too, after full experience of 
 the brutalities that may exist from a Post Office owned and 
 operated by the People. 
 
 I say, frankly, however, to my Public Ownership friends, 
 that I do not look for any measure of success from their pro- 
 gram simply because I do not think the people generally will 
 move until an unemployed problem forces them to move, and 
 that when this occurs no measure of Public Ownership will 
 be of any avail short of complete Public Ownership of All the 
 Means of Production and Distribution, and this program 
 necessarily carries with it the introduction of the Co-opera- 
 tive Commonwealth.
 
 350 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 A HEART-TO-HEART TALK 
 
 THE CITY OF CLEVELAND 
 
 mayor's office 
 
 Tom L. Johnson, mayor 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio, August 1, 1902. 
 My Dear Mr. Wilshire: — 
 
 After the thundering challenge of last year I was agreeably sur- 
 prised to receive your very warm letter of the 29th ult. and am 
 answering it in the same kindly spirit. 
 
 I haven't the slightest doubt of your earnestness and sincerity 
 in advocating the Socialist program. I don't agree, however, with 
 the Socialistic doctrine which seeks to destroy competition. We, 
 the followers of Henry George, see in the denial of competition 
 the evils that you charge to one of Nature's laws. 
 
 The ownership of public utilities we agree about, but our rea- 
 sons are different. I understand that the Socialists would have 
 the people own and operate municipal monopolies so that the 
 State should become the sole employer, while we advocate it as 
 the means of destroying monopoly and only desire the State to 
 control and operate those utilities in which competition cannot 
 well enter. 
 
 But I did not intend to write you this sort of a letter when I 
 began. I merely wanted, in a friendly way, to point out to you 
 that I did not write articles; my field of usefulness being in a dif- 
 ferent direction. 
 
 While the Socialists and ourselves are antagonistic in our ulti- 
 mate aims, a part of our program lies along the same road. To 
 this extent, I hope we shall be able to co-operate and I always 
 welcome the aid of men, called by any name, who desire to break 
 down the power of privilege; that is, to take away the advantages 
 conferred on some men by law that all men cannot enjoy. 
 
 Very truly yours, Tom L. Johnson. 
 
 It is said to be hard to forgive a man whom you have in- 
 sulted. I exemplify the truth of the rule by being a brilliant 
 exception. I always forgive people whom I insult, but I am 
 never sure they will accept my forgiveness, no matter how 
 freely offered. 
 
 Some moons since I insulted Mr. Bryan by offering him 
 $10,000 to debate with me. By rights I should never have 
 Bpoken to him again, but I did. I sympathized with him in
 
 A Heart-to-Heart Talk. 351 
 
 his little trouble with the Post-office where they threatened 
 him with suppression if he did not stop sending out a "few" 
 papers to Congressmen and then refused to tell him how 
 many constitute a "few." I never have any animosity, but 
 I must say that I feel that I must sometimes give to others 
 what I do not have myself, and when I find that men like Mr. 
 Bryan and now Mr. Johnson are broad-minded enough to 
 forget and forgive such grievous insults as they received from 
 me, I feel that the Brotherhood of Man is nearer than I ever 
 hoped — and this is saying a good deal for me. 
 
 I have much more hope of converting Mr. Johnson to So- 
 cialism than I have Mr. Bryan. Not that he is more of an 
 idealist or that he will trim his political sails to the growing 
 Socialistic breezes more quickly, but because he is a business 
 man, while Mr. Bryan is a lawyer. Being a business man, Mr. 
 Johnson is conversant with facts in business life that to Mr. 
 Bryan are simply unproven theories. His business experi- 
 ence has cultivated and prepared Mr. Johnson's mind for the 
 sowing of seed that would be entirely wasted upon Mr. Bryan. 
 This is no reflection upon Mr. Bryan's native ability, but 
 simply upon his misfortune in being a lawyer rather than a 
 business man. 
 
 This is no joke, let me say, but is said in all seriousness. 
 I have had a great many talks upon the Trust question with 
 lawyers and business men and it has been almost my uni- 
 versal experience to find that the lawyers simply cannot un- 
 derstand that the reason the Trust exists lies in overproduc- 
 tion. They are apt to regard the Trust as simply a con- 
 spiracy of capitalists, voluntarily formed to limit production 
 and raise prices. 
 
 For instance, last August I had the pleasure of talking on 
 the Trust problem with the Hon. Chas. E. Littlefield, at his 
 home in Eockland, Me. He it is who has been selected by 
 President Eoosevelt to formulate new anti-Trust legislation 
 for the next sitting of Congress. With such a commission one 
 might consider Mr. Littlefield as being prepared to say the 
 last word for the Eoosevelt administration upon the Trust 
 problem. I can only warn the Trusts to stand from under if 
 they have any fear of Mr. Littlefield having his way with 
 them, for if he does there will be ructions to pay and no mis- 
 take. However, he will never have his way, for, although he
 
 352 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 is a lawyer, and an honest one too, so the Rockland people all 
 say, he will never be able to draft any legislation that will 
 ever have enough force after it goes through the Supreme 
 Court to hurt any Trust or make Mr. Morgan lose any sleep. 
 Mr. Littlefield did not agree at all with me that over-produc- 
 tion was at base the cause of the Trust. He thinks Mr. 
 Rockefeller was not compelled to form his Trusts and that a 
 good strong anti-Trust law can be drawn up that will end all 
 such pernicious combinations. 
 
 In fact, Mr. Littlefield has apparently not learned a single 
 lesson from the industrial history of the United States in the 
 last ten or fifteen years. 
 
 It is one of the delightful ironies of our present political 
 and industrial situation that the man who is called upon to 
 solve the mightiest problem ever set before the world has not 
 the first inkling of the necessity of public ownership. It was 
 rather funny that when I suggested public ownership Mr. Lit- 
 tlefield declared that public ownership of wealth meant prac- 
 tically the annihilation of wealth. Wealth to him was non- 
 existent unless in the hands of private owners. 
 
 However, to go back to Mr. Johnson, as I have no doubt 
 that Mr. Littlefield's views will be sufficiently aired in a few 
 months. 
 
 Now Mr. Johnson, you are an eminently practical business 
 man. You want facts and not theories. You are quoted as 
 saying that the present system gives capitalists opportunities 
 to exploit the public and that you take advantage of those 
 opportunities and exploit them, although at the same time 
 you are advising the public not to be such fools as to tolerate 
 being robbed by you or anyone else. This is a perfectly con- 
 sistent attitude. It's my own position, so naturally it is right. 
 
 You and I both seek to abolish special privileges. Our dif- 
 ference is that you would nationalize and municipalize certain 
 industries and leave others in private hands and then let com- 
 petition work its way; and you hope that then labor will get 
 its just rewards. 
 
 I, on the other hand, would nationalize and municipalize 
 everything and would institute co-operation instead of com- 
 petition. 
 
 This you regard as Utopian. 
 
 Brushing aside the glory of my ideal of the future of so-
 
 A Heart-to-Heart Talk. 353 
 
 ciety, where all men have plenty and are in a vast brother- 
 hood of love, and yours, where they spend their time — when 
 they have any to spend apart from your competitive struggle 
 — in determining how much to tax each other, let us con- 
 sider co-operation from the viewpoint of necessity, not as a 
 luxury. If it becomes a necessity, then of course you must 
 become a Socialist. 
 
 Now, Mr. Johnson, I never natter anyone, so you know, 
 when I say that you are worthy of having time spent upon 
 your conversion, I must have a good opinion of you. You 
 are today doing a greater work and probably a more useful 
 work in your sphere of directing attention to the advantages 
 of municipal ownership than anyone in the United States. 
 I may include also the work you are doing for the equaliza- 
 tion of taxation. However, when you have finished there is 
 the greater problem to solve for the nation and you are as 
 likely as not to be called upon to have a great hand in the 
 settling of it. 
 
 If the Democratic Party had any brains they would nom- 
 inate you for President, but they haven't, and if they should 
 nominate Hill or Gorman you will have but one refuge, 
 namely the Socialist Party. 
 
 I have in my hand the New York Commercial of today's 
 date, August 18th. The Commercial is a good reliable busi- 
 ness man's paper, and I would like to call your attention to 
 the tremendous lesson that can be drawn from its pages of a 
 single issue. You want facts and not theories and I will give 
 them to you. If you will not admit that co-operation is soon 
 to become a necessity, you do admit that you have no doubt of 
 my sincerity in advocating Socialism. Of course you have 
 no doubt of it. No more have I of Mr. Littlefield's honesty 
 in advocating anti-trust laws, or Mr. Bryan and his free 
 silver, or you and your single tax. The question of the in- 
 dividual honesty of the advocates of certain remedies is unim- 
 portant when compared to the honesty of the remedies them- 
 selves. 
 
 You no doubt think I am a dreamer of dreams that might 
 be realized if all men were angels. Let us see how the dreams 
 are being realized today when men are just as "good devils" 
 as Mary MacLane could wish for. 
 
 My position is that we are now producing so much wealth
 
 354 Wilshiee Editorials. 
 
 that we cannot distribute it under our competitive wage sys- 
 tem. Let us see what the Commercial says about the produc- 
 tion of wealth. I take this from its editorial : 
 
 The productiveness of our agricultural industry was nearly 
 doubled within a decade. This fact is fine evidence of the energy 
 and progressiveness of our farmer population. No such record 
 would have been possible to any but a people imbued with a 
 spirit of modern progress and determined to take advantage of 
 every discovery in science that could add to the fruitfulness of 
 their fields. There is no such thing as rigid conservatism having 
 a place in modern industry. 
 
 The American farmer understands this necessity, and it is be- 
 cause he understands it that he has made such a magnificent 
 record in the last decade. He stands at the head of the agricul- 
 tural world, and he will continue to hold this proud position so 
 long as he stands firmly on the principle that has placed him 
 there. We are almost feeding the whole world to-day. It is by 
 no means impossible that in the future we may be the absolute 
 source of supply for the foodstuffs of the globe. 
 
 This looks as though the United States should be able to 
 provide for its people. However, it appears as if the little 
 fellows in fruit raising were being crowded pretty hard by 
 the big ones. Single tax would not help the small farmer, 
 because the big one, while he would pay more taxes, would 
 be able to pay more owing to decreased cost through larger 
 production. 
 
 I quote the Commercial again, showing this tendency to 
 farming on a big scale : 
 
 Hartville, Mo., Aug 17. — A contract has been closed by a Des 
 Moines syndicate for a 5,000-acre tract of land lying north of here 
 on Bear Creek for a mammoth fruit farm. The syndicate has 
 contracted with the Frisco to build a spur, leaving that road three 
 miles west of Sleeper station, in Laclede county, and running 
 through the orchard. 
 
 Orders have been received for the manager to employ hands 
 and clear off 1,000 acres of the land, which the syndicate proposes 
 to put in apple trees next Spring. A steam stump-puller will 
 be used in clearing off the ground, and a disk gang plow operated 
 by an engine will, be used to plow the land. 
 
 Two thousand additional acres are to be ready for planting 
 during 1904, and the remaining 2,000 acres a year later. 
 
 Now, of course I could have made my facts much stronger 
 had I not determined to limit them to the issue of a single 
 day. We have had statistics showing how much more we are
 
 A Heart-to-Heart Talk. 355 
 
 producing, and how we are doing it. I will now show some 
 of the results of this tremendous production. Again I quote 
 the Commercial: 
 
 San Francisco, Aug. 17.— In Napa Valley there are a great 
 many prune orchards in which the fruit is falling from the trees 
 and rotting on the ground. The low price makes it hardly worth 
 while to attempt to handle the crop. 
 
 So you see, Mr. Johnson, it is one thing to produce and 
 quite another thing to sell. Those poor prune growers might 
 have their land presented to them tax free and yet they would 
 go bankrupt because prices are less than cost, owing to over- 
 production. There is no use of your saying that they might 
 have raised something else, because if they had they would 
 have been just as likely to have been swamped by over-pro- 
 duction. There is not a single agricultural product raised in 
 California that is not liable to over-production, and none that 
 have not in the past been, during certain years, absolutely 
 valueless from that cause. One year it is barley, another cab- 
 bages. This year it is lemons and prunes, two years ago it 
 was oranges, a little before that it was walnuts. 
 
 You may think the farmers ought to have gone into some 
 other business than farming. It's all overdone. Even those 
 capitalists who, like yourself, were clever enough to have 
 gone into transportation sometimes lose their heads and ruin 
 themselves with competition. Of course they usually com- 
 bine; they can combine easily enough because they are few 
 in numbers. Farmers cannot. Too many to get together. 
 However, sometimes even railway men fight and lose money. 
 Once more I go to my ever faithful Commercial : 
 
 Houston, Tex., Aug. 17.— Five hundred tickets were sold to 
 Chicago yesterday at startling prices as the result of a war of 
 ticket brokers, the outgrowth of the fight of the Missouri, Kan- 
 sas & Texas, the International & Great Northern, the Cotton 
 Belt and the Santa Fe for Northern passenger business. 
 
 The lowest rate before yesterday was $18.00 for the round trip. 
 One broker cut it to $8.00. Another broker at once cut it to 
 $4.00. Yet another announced Houston to 'Chicago, 30 cents; 
 Houston to St. Louis, 20 cents; Houston to Kansas City, 10 cents. 
 
 Another met the cut and offered a $5.00 box of cigars with 
 each ticket. 
 
 But it is not the war of the capitalists that I am counting 
 upon to cause over-production. It is the war between work-
 
 356 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 ingmen to get a job that will do the trick. The capitalists 
 soon get over their foolish disposition to fight, and form a 
 combine, as you will see once again in our Commercial: 
 
 Chicago, Aug. 17.— Following the International Harvester Co.'s 
 public declaration that economy in the manufacture and distri- 
 bution of agricultural machinery was the motive for effecting 
 the $120,000,000 merger, several of the Chicago companies in the 
 combine have issued letters to their agents throughout the coun- 
 try ordering a reduction of about three-fourths in the number of 
 employees representing them in the field. The other companies 
 in the combine are preparing to follow their example. Ten thou- 
 sand men in all are expected to lose their jobs. 
 
 The men whose services are to be dispensed with are the can- 
 vassers and traveling salesmen, whose work has been to solicit 
 orders from small dealers and farmers. The reduction is also 
 expected to lessen materially the volume of correspondence and 
 thus render unnecessary the employment of as large an office 
 force as heretofore. 
 
 But you will also notice that at the very same time it gives 
 a notice of a cessation of war between the capitalists it shows 
 how by the discharge of ten thousand employees or more that 
 the war between workingmen redoubles in fury. If this item 
 is not sufficient to show you, Mr. Johnson, that we can have a 
 great production and yet have it neither benefit the farmer 
 who raises prunes nor the workingman who makes farm ma- 
 chinery, possibly this interesting little item may awaken your 
 interest. Again from the Commercial: 
 
 Chicago, Aug. 17.— The employees of the First National Bank 
 are said to be in revolt because the bank has a rule which pro- 
 hibits employees from marrying until they receive a salary of at 
 least $1,000 a year. This obstacle is said to have barred the way 
 to maiy weddings recently. The bank officials deny the existence 
 of the rule, but employees say that matrimony on less than $1,000 
 a year is almost certain to result in dismissal. An open protest 
 was made and a strike was threatened yesterday. 
 
 Now you know pretty well, Mr. Johnson, that a thousand 
 dollars is very little for a bank clerk to keep a family on. He 
 must for the sake of the good name of the bank dress himself 
 fairly well, and by the time he feeds himself there is very lit- 
 tle left for the family. The bank doesn't want a lot of shabby 
 looking half-starved clerks in its palace of marble and brass 
 rails. It's much cheaper to make a rule of firing a clerk that 
 enters a course of starving himself by getting married than
 
 A Heart-to-Heart Talk. 357 
 
 it is to raise his salary. There are plenty of men who will be 
 glad to take the $1,000 and stay single. But it is this very 
 competition that keeps the clerks and workingmen generally 
 down to the point where they can't even buy prunes. 
 
 It seems to me I have shown pretty well by my facts from 
 one issue of the Commercial the cause of over-production and 
 the necessity of the Trust, and I have at the same time shown 
 how the Trust does not in the least prevent an unemployed 
 problem, although it may for the time being solve the problem 
 of the capitalist of how to avoid bankruptcy. 
 
 But while there is so much food in the land that the bank- 
 ers are unable to allow their clerks to marry, it would seem 
 from this item that the state can arrange to feed its citizens 
 well enough and make money into the bargain. 
 
 Jackson, Miss., Aug. 17.— The report of the warden of the peni- 
 tentiary for the first six months of the present year shows that 
 the total cash receipts from the farming system were $190,436.32, 
 against expenses amounting to $89,004.23, leaving a net profit 
 on the labor of the convicts of $101,432,05. 
 
 Of course, you may reply that you would rather be a dead 
 free man than a live convict, but I don't think you would, my 
 dear Mr. Johnson, stoop to such an argument to win applause 
 from an unthinking audience. Certainly, if the State can 
 take its most unwilling, ignorant and vicious citizens and by 
 co-operation not only give them employment, but make 
 money, while the farmer in California, working under private 
 ownership and initiative, loses money, there is some argument 
 for public ownership of even that most difficult business, 
 farming. 
 
 But it is not only the competition between workmen, limit- 
 ing demand for products, that is causing over-production. It 
 is also the approaching completion of the machinery of pro- 
 duction that is causing trouble by throwing men out of em- 
 ployment. I showed how it was working in the Harvester 
 Combine. The machinery necessary to build new harvesters 
 is more than enough, therefore a combine is a necessity, and 
 out go 10,000 men. Here is another item from the same old 
 mine, the Commercial: 
 
 Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., Aug 17.— The great water power canal 
 of the Soo, which has just been finished, after four years of con-
 
 358 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 struction and an expenditure of $5,000,000, is regarded by en- 
 gineers as one of the most magnificent works of its kind in the 
 world. 
 
 Everything is now in readiness for the final stroke by which 
 the waters of Lake Superior will be turned into the broad, deep, 
 smooth channel, and soon thereafter the wheels of immense in- 
 dustries will begin to turn under the power of the mighty flow. 
 This will be accomplished in a few days after the work shall 
 have been thoroughly inspected by F. H. Clergue, president of 
 the Michigan Lake Superior Co. Like a river, 220 feet broad, 
 and deep enough to float the biggest vessel that sails the lakes, 
 it divides Sault Ste. Marie into a city of two parts, with the island 
 portion now for the first time completely surrounded by water. 
 
 It is the completion of our great industrial plants the 
 world over that presages the great world problem of the un- 
 employed. It is upon this, Mr. Johnson, that I base my 
 theory of the necessity of public ownership in order that we 
 have a co-operative wage system to distribute the enormous 
 wealth now being produced. 
 
 As long as this wealth could find its way into new machin- 
 ery, new canals, railways, etc., even though the laborer did 
 get but a small wage there was no over-production. I insist 
 that the facts of today show that this method of disposing of 
 our surplus wealth is now about ended and that the laborers' 
 share of the product must be enormously increased to absorb 
 the wealth that formerly went into the building of new 
 machinery. 
 
 You say you don't write, Mr. Johnson. Well, you read the 
 papers. I wish you would see if events are not shaping them- 
 selves my way. I am counting on you later on when this 
 country gets into a tight box and wants men to show her how 
 to get out of it. 
 
 I am sure you will not find that the capitalists will ever 
 take up again with competition, and I am equally sure that 
 the laborers are not going to starve in order to prove the 
 value of a theory that you single taxers uphold, viz., the de- 
 sirability of competition. The people of America are going 
 to say that they want America for themselves and that they 
 are tired of giving up all they produce to Morgan & Co. 
 simply for the pleasure of starving in their own country 
 because they produce too much to eat.
 
 Science Benefits the Rich. 359 
 
 SCIENCE BENEFITS THE RICH 
 
 OUR good clergymen and professors of political economy 
 never weary of telling us that Rockefeller and others 
 have their great incomes as the reward of what they 
 have done for the public in organizing the labor of society. 
 They would have us infer that a man is paid pro rata with 
 his ability. They never give us a glimmer that the immense 
 mass of humanity are not paid according to their product, 
 but according to how little they can live upon. It is strange 
 that Mr. Hearst, with all his zeal for the toiling masses, 
 should not take a moment of time, while he is twirling his 
 cap on high for his new friend, Parker, and explain to his 
 readers the impossibility of the working-class ever being able 
 to better their condition as long as the competitive wage sys- 
 stem lasts. However, Hearst does see some things correctly. 
 For instance, he takes note that Professor 0. F. Cook, by the 
 introduction of the Guatemalan ant, which destroys the boll 
 weevil, saving the nation forty million a year to the cotton 
 planters, will get nothing for his labor above and beyond his 
 regular government salary. If Professor Cook were to be 
 paid on an interest basis he should be given two thousand mil- 
 lion dollars worth of two per cent, government bonds. As 
 it is he gets merely a living, and when he gets old in the 
 service he will be turned adrift without a pension. He had 
 better been a Filipino killer. It is to be noted that Professor 
 Cook made his discovery when working, not for a competitive 
 capitalistic corporation, but for the State. The same remark 
 applies to Professor Koerberle, the man who discovered a 
 remedy for the white scale bug which was destroying the 
 orange groves of California some ten years ago. Koerberle 
 heard that while there were scale bugs in Australia, yet they 
 did not seem to bother the oranges there. . He rightly guessed 
 there must be some countervailing influence. He found it to 
 be in a lady bug, the vedolia cardinalis. This little insect 
 makes a business of eating the white scale. Koerberle sent 
 over a colony of the Australian lady bugs to California, and
 
 360 iWilshire Editorials. 
 
 the little chaps throve so well in their new home and ate so 
 many white scales that in a few months California was rid 
 of the pest. What Koerberle did for the orange crop Cook 
 now promises to do for the cotton crop. These two men have 
 saved the country millions of dollars, and yet neither will 
 benefit personally to the extent of one cent. And yet I 
 doubt if either of them would not feel completely 
 rewarded if they could only have a guarantee from 
 society that they would be supported while they could 
 continue to make scientific discoveries for the benefit 
 of man. However, it is also noteworthy that as long as 
 the competitive system and private ownership of property 
 continues all these and other great discoveries do not inure 
 to the benefit of society as a whole but merely to the rich. The 
 extinction of the boll weevil will not add much to the pay of 
 the negro cotton pickers, but it means much gain to the own- 
 ers of the cotton fields and much more gain to the railways 
 which have a monopoly of the cotton carrying. Similarly, 
 the extinction of the orange scale in California gives the 
 railways, which carry the oranges, the bulk of the gain. Com- 
 petition keeps the rate of wages and the price of oranges so 
 low that neither the orange grower nor the orange picker get 
 much of anything. But the railways get ninety cents on 
 every box of oranges that California exports, and this price 
 has remained uniform for twenty years, although the price 
 of oranges has decreased from $5 a box to less than $1.50. 
 The railways have advanced sufficiently to know the beauty 
 of combination, while the ordinary people are still working 
 along on the old starvation competitive basis. The evolution 
 of the human mind is a slow process.
 
 What Is Religion ? 361 
 
 WHAT IS RELIGION? 
 
 AS long as commercial success is generally thought to be 
 synonymous with rendering the earth better adapted 
 for man, so long will commercial success, generally 
 speaking, be a pleasure to the individuals making it. It is 
 only when the commercial success of the individual becomes 
 generally incompatible with the welfare of the race that the 
 pursuit of wealth will become unendurable to those engaged 
 in it. It is freely admitted that a great deal of the business 
 success of to-day depends upon the obstruction rather than 
 the production of wealth. A Trust insures profits by its abil- 
 ity to curtail production. But this is the accident of busi- 
 ness rather than its normal course. However, accidents of 
 this nature are sure to become increasingly frequent as, owing 
 to the workings of the competitive system, the capactiy to 
 consume becomes more and more limited compared with the 
 capacity to produce. 
 
 As this condition of affairs becomes more and more evident 
 it will come to pass in the natural course of events that men 
 who have formerly been devoting their lives to the accumula- 
 tion of wealth will have their energies diverted to the social- 
 ization of wealth. That this is the case may be seen already 
 in the actions of a certain part of the capitalists of the United 
 States. It is said that during the last year over $90,000,000 
 were distributed in various benefactions and charities, and it 
 is well known that Mr. Carnegie himself has given away 
 nearly a hundred million dollars to date. Of course all this 
 charity and philanthropy is only a feeble indication of a 
 social tendency, but it is a very striking one and should be 
 appreciated at its full value. 
 
 That the individual can only attain complete happiness by 
 being himself in perfect accord with his environment is 
 axiomatic. The individual, no matter how harmonious he 
 may be in himself, cannot be happy unless he has an 
 environment which is harmonious.
 
 362 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 The boundary lines of one's environment are illimitable. 
 A rich man's house may be pleasant and his family agreeable, 
 but if his neighborhood is disagreeable it is evident that he 
 is not in a favorable position for happiness. Again, though 
 he should make his entire neighborhood conform to his ideas 
 of beauty and happiness, he would still have to consider the 
 city, and the city cannot be happy if the nation is unhappy. 
 
 The task of the man who sets out to beautify his environ- 
 ment can be ended only when all the world is beautified. 
 
 The increasing sensitiveness of the nation as a whole was 
 strikingly shown here in the United States when we felt our- 
 selves impelled to demand that Spain should cease its perse- 
 cution of Cuba, and this sentiment was one of the factors 
 which finally led us into war. The same thing was seen again 
 in the attitude of the United States toward Eussia in regard 
 to the Kishineff affair. 
 
 The happiness of the individual depends upon his being 
 in harmony with a harmonious universe. 
 
 Socialism then is, in its higher sense, the science of plac- 
 ing man in harmonious relation to a perfected universe. Com- 
 ing back to the concrete, it is evident that one of the first 
 steps toward this is the harmonious arrangement of things 
 upon this earth that man may freely participate to the fullest 
 extent in all the possibilities of his environment. The So- 
 cialist demands that the worker shall have what he produces 
 and sees that this demand can only come through the in- 
 stitution of a harmonious industrial system. But this at- 
 tained he by no means considers that he has reached the end. 
 
 Socialism is only a first step toward bringing man into a 
 more perfect relation to the whole universe. 
 
 There is no greater fallacy than to assume that because 
 the Socialist sees that man must be fed before he can be 
 happy, that he therefore imagines that the mere feeding 
 of man is an end in itself. 
 
 Feeding is simply a means to an end and that end is the 
 greatest that the mind of man can conceive — the perfect 
 relating of perfected man to a perfected universe. The birth 
 of the Super-Man. 
 
 The striving for this is Eeligion. 
 
 It is the True Worship of God.
 
 Steike to Set Them Free. 363 
 
 STRIKE TO SET THEM FREE 
 
 THE secret night arrest and deportation from Colorado 
 to Idaho of Haywood, Moyer and Pettibone, of the 
 Western Federation of Miners, is an event not only 
 of the greatest interest to the labor movement of the United 
 States, but is an act menacing the whole fabric of our present 
 industrial and social structure. 
 
 Society to-day is held together by the large majority of the 
 people feeling that if substantial equity is not done to every 
 man by our present laws and customs, at any rate the equity 
 is about as near as can be expected, taking one thing with 
 another. 
 
 We Socialists know and are trying to make the people 
 know, that the present economic inequality and injustice is 
 the direct consequence of our competitive system, and we are 
 endeavoring to show the people that the only way to avoid 
 inequity is to establish Socialism, but it is admittedly a long, 
 tedious, slow process to teach the people the economics of 
 Socialism. 
 
 But when it comes to a question of the people deciding 
 about life or death for a man, they do not hesitate a single 
 moment. If the people think that a man has committed a 
 crime against an individual or the commonwealth, there is 
 practically a consensus for his execution. If, upon the other 
 hand, they think he is not guilty, they have no hesitancy in 
 expressing their feelings against the carrying out of the 
 sentence. The common instinct of humanity is aroused at 
 the thought of killing an innocent man, no matter who he 
 may be. But when the man threatened is one who is known 
 to have devoted his life for the good of his fellow men, and 
 when the people feel that not only has he committed no crime, 
 but that he is picked out for slaughter merely because he has 
 devoted himself to their interests, then may we expect a great 
 wave of indignant protest to sweep the nation. 
 
 Never before the arrest of Haywood, Moyer and Pettibone, 
 has such a condition as this ever been presented before to the
 
 364 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 American nation. The nearest approach to it was probably 
 when the Southern Confederacy threatened with execution a 
 number of captured Union officers upon the false charge that 
 they were spies. This so aroused the whole country that 
 Lincoln, in response, advised the Confederacy that he would 
 execute certain Confederate officers then held in captivity by 
 the North, if the South should carry out its threat. This 
 act of Lincoln's caused the South to change its mind, and 
 the incident was over. 
 
 The execution of the Anarchists in Chicago, in 1886, was 
 similar in certain respects to the threatened execution of 
 Moyer and Haywood. However, the execution in 1886 did 
 not excite any great national protest — first, because the labor 
 movement was not developed to the extent that it is to-day, 
 and, secondly, because the men accused had associated them- 
 selves, in the public mind, with the advocacy of bomb throw- 
 ing, and the public felt that their execution, after a bomb 
 throwing actually did take place, was only a matter of just 
 retribution. The public felt that, even if the individuals 
 accused were not guilty, they had at any rate incited some 
 other man to throw the bomb, and to have deserved the 
 hanging. 
 
 As I said before, the present Haywood-Moyer-Pettibone 
 case is upon quite a different footing. The labor movement 
 of America is to-day infinitely better organized than it was 
 twenty years ago ; not only is labor organized, but the people 
 generally have had so many striking indictments of the pres- 
 ent capitalistic system by such writers as Lawson, Sinclair, 
 Steffens, Phillips, and others, and have seen so many of their 
 idols fall, like Senator Depew, and have been enlightened by 
 the insurance investigations as to how graft permeates 
 throughout our whole political and industrial structure, that 
 they no longer feel that keen resentment against the criti- 
 cizers of the present system of society that they did at one 
 time. 
 
 Instead of looking upon America as the perfection of all 
 things, as we did in 1886, and looking upon the man who 
 criticized us as one quite worthy of hanging, we now place 
 our critics on the pinnacle of public esteem. 
 
 We no longer have the respect for the courts that we did 
 have. We can no longer doubt that they are corrupt and
 
 Strike to Set Them Free. 365 
 
 venial. We cannot doubt that the money interest of the 
 country controls them. Twenty years ago the courts were 
 still an honored institution. 
 
 Then the growth of Socialism has made such progress in 
 twenty years that thousands of people are to-day ready for a 
 Social devolution, and eager to listen to the words of a Revo- 
 lutionist, where twenty years ago they would have mobbed 
 him. 
 
 The public protest of to-day about the Haywood-Moyer 
 affair is infinitely greater and more powerful than any similar 
 protest. The labor unions from one end of the country to 
 the other are making the case of Haywood and Moyer their 
 own. At this writing $200,000 have been subscribed for the 
 defense fund, and $1,000,000 can be had, if necessary. 
 
 As Gov. Gooding, of Idaho, and his servile judges push 
 onward the trial of the accused men, there is no telling how 
 high public indignation may run. No one can say if this 
 event may not be the spark which will inflame the American 
 people to the inevitable Social Revolution. 
 
 The greatest crime against a free people in modern history 
 is threatened in the trial of Haywood, Moyer and Pettibone 
 for murder. No one who knows anything about the character 
 of the men and the circumstances of the crime, can believe 
 that they were connected with the assassination of Gov. 
 Steunenberg. The trial is merely an attempt on the part of 
 the mine owners of Idaho and Colorado to intimidate the 
 labor unions. They think that the hanging of the leaders 
 will mean such a complete cowing of labor that capital will 
 forever have it at its mercy. If the working class of America 
 do not make their protest sufficiently vigorous to prevent 
 the possibility of this judicial crime, then the execution of 
 Haywood and Moyer may be the beginning of a series of 
 executions of labor union leaders from one end of the coun- 
 try to the other. 
 
 The time for us to make our protest is now, and not after 
 the men are in their coffins. If we wish to prevent the 
 murder of the men who have been fighting for us, then the 
 time for us to act is right here and now. 
 
 Let indignation meetings be held from Maine to California. 
 Let money be collected. Let parades be made in our great 
 cities, parades in such numbers that their immense size
 
 366 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 will intimidate the capitalist class from carrying out their 
 infamous program. 
 
 If the trial proceeds and if such a terrible event as con- 
 viction by the servile minions of plutocracy should follow, 
 and if a single one of our comrades, Haywood, Moyer or 
 Pettibone, is condemned, it should be the signal for the work- 
 ing class of America to rise — let that mark the date for the 
 beginning of a Great National General Strike. Let every 
 working man who has a heart in his breast make a mighty 
 oath that not a wheel shall turn in this country from ocean 
 to ocean until the verdict is set aside and every one of the 
 accused is set free. Let our factories be closed; let our mills 
 stop grinding flour, and our bakeries stop baking bread. 
 Let there be a complete paralysis of railway transportation 
 and telegraphic information. Let our coal mines close, and 
 let us die of hunger and cold if necessary to make our protest 
 heeded. 
 
 The working class of this country have it in their power 
 to say to the plutocracy, "You shall starve to death if a hair 
 on the head of either Haywood, Moyer or Pettibone is in- 
 jured." 
 
 Let us show the world that the workingmen of America 
 are not so lost to shame, not so devoid of the red blood of 
 courage, that they will allow one of their comrades to suffer 
 death at the hands of their enemies, when they have at their 
 command a weapon which will set them free. 
 
 Hurrah for the General Strike !
 
 Salutatory. 36? 
 
 (Editorials From "Challenge.") 
 
 SALUTATORY 
 
 The Challenge has been given life in order to voice for 
 this community certain thoughts and ideas of a rad- 
 ical nature that are either suppressed altogether in the 
 daily press or are published in such a desultory manner that 
 those in sympathy with such thought suffer from the lack of 
 continuity. 
 
 The editor of this paper thinks that a crisis in the political 
 and industrial history of the United States is rapidly ap- 
 proaching and that it is of the utmost importance for the peo- 
 ple to be informed of this fact. Society is an organism, and 
 is governed by the same evolutionary laws determining the 
 development of other organisms. It will be the mission of 
 The Challenge to expound these laws. 
 
 Certain people who consider themselves scientific are ready 
 enough to admit an inevitable and evolutionary change in so- 
 ciety, but say that the changes of nature are so slow that it 
 will take thousands of years before we can expect any con- 
 siderable change in the form of our human society. 
 * * * 
 
 The Challenge considers such views as essentially super- 
 ficial. There is a critical point in all natural movements. 
 Hydrogen and oxygen, if mixed in exact proportions of two 
 to one and brought into contact with an electric spark, will 
 explode and form water. When water is heated to 212 de- 
 grees it boils and becomes steam. After the hen sets on her 
 eggs three weeeks they are hatched into chickens. Apparently 
 in each of these cases there was no outward change until the 
 critical point was reached and then there was a sudden trans- 
 formation. 
 
 We believe that society is approaching its critical point and 
 that a transformation must ensue. That the present competi- 
 tive system, embracing the private ownership of capital, is 
 simply like the shell of an egg and is protecting the forma- 
 tion of a new and better society within itself. When this new
 
 368 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 society is ready to be born it will burst its shell and step forth, 
 Minerva-like, fully formed and completed. 
 
 With such ideas it can necessarily be seen that The Chal- 
 lenge can hardly be classed under the head of "reform" jour- 
 nals. A "reform" paper is one that hopes to make better pres- 
 ent society and usually thinks we simply have to put honest 
 men into office to secure this betterment. The Challenge 
 has very little sympathy with such views. It is true we wish 
 honest men in public life, but we also want them in private 
 life and are rather inclined to think that honesty in private 
 life is probably of more importance to-day to the general pub- 
 lic than in life. We look upon the existing form of society as 
 one would look at an old coat about to be discarded. It is not 
 worth much patching, yet as the time for changing to a new 
 coat is not absolutely determined it is felt that both decency 
 and comfort demand the old one to be kept in as good order as 
 possible until that new coat is actually finished and ready to 
 be worn. It would be folly to spend all one's energies in fix- 
 ing up the old at the expense of delaying the completion of a 
 newer and infinitely better one. 
 
 We think the trust is the significant sign of the approach- 
 ing completion of this new social coat. We have no fault to 
 find with the trust for sending us this message. To attempt 
 to destroy the trust is as absurd as to batter up one's office 
 telephone because unwelcome news comes over it. All innova- 
 tions, no matter how good they may be, are usually instinc- 
 tively rejected, when first proposed, by the innate conservatism 
 of mankind. The opposition which greeted the introduction 
 of railways in England from the educated country gentlemen, 
 the cream of the English people, was almost as great as that 
 exhibited to-day by the Chinese Boxers to the introduction of 
 railways in China. The trust conveys an unwelcome message 
 to many of us simply because we are of the conservative 
 "Boxer" temperament and are opposed to all innovations upon 
 general principles. The trust is the most perfect labor-sav- 
 ing device ever perfected by the mind of man, and to a certain 
 extent it is opposed from jealousy simply because it is such a 
 perfect machine, yet such a costly one that very few can afford 
 the initial outlay to own one. 
 
 We can imagine a newspaper man opposing linotypes not
 
 Salutatory. 369 
 
 because they are bad in themselves but because he is too poor 
 to buy one and without one he cannot meet his competitors. 
 He will say that there will no longer be a free press when it 
 first requires a man of money rather than of brains to estab- 
 lish a paper. The small business man has long been crying 
 out against corporations on the same ground, viz. : that plenty 
 of capital is more of a requisite for success than brains in the 
 business world. The trust not only still further accentuates 
 this view, but has brought him to see that not only is it diffi- 
 cult for the man without money to establish himself, but it is 
 
 now absolutely impossible. 
 
 * * * 
 
 Business to-day has assumed the monarchial form. Any 
 man may be president of the United States, at any rate birth 
 is not a barrier, but a man has as much chance of being the 
 president of the Standard Oil trust as he has of being called 
 to the throne of England. But it is not so much that the 
 chance of advancement is closed by the appearance of the 
 trust. Not only does the trust prevent advancement, but it in- 
 sists upon the outsiders retiring altogether from the field. The 
 trust has made the knowledge of the dynamic condition of in- 
 dustry too painfully apparent for it to be denied. If a man 
 could hold his own he might consent to lose his ambition, but 
 when he finds his very livelihood threatened by the trust he 
 is forced into active opposition. At present it is principally 
 the small business men and jobbers who are in opposition to 
 the trust. They wish the trust destroyed and hope for a re- 
 turn to the old days of free competition. However, these are 
 mostly men of business training, and the simple business argu- 
 ments in favor of the formation and perpetuation of the trust 
 are so convincing to them that they are ceasing to protest 
 against the inevitable. 
 
 The workingman will be the next to feel the results of the 
 economies effected in demand for labor by the trust. At pres- 
 ent, owing to the industrial boom in progress, the trusts are 
 pushed to their utmost to fill orders and hence there is no 
 opportunity to diminish the use of labor notwithstanding the 
 economies effected by concentration. It has simply resulted 
 in a larger product with the same number of employees. This 
 conditions of affairs, however, will only last as long as times 
 are good. As soon as the boom is over the trusts will be com-
 
 370 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 pelled to discharge unnecessary workers and then will be the 
 time when workingmen will begin to clamor against the trust. 
 They will act the part of the dog biting a stone that hit him 
 instead of going after the man who threw it. To-day the 
 workingmen as a class are rather favorably disposed than 
 otherwise to the trust. It has apparently given them more 
 employment and it certainly has given them steadier employ- 
 ment. Let this condition once change, and change it must, 
 and there will no longer be a McKinley carried triumphantly 
 
 to the presidential chair. 
 
 * * * 
 
 The republicans played their trump card when they asked 
 to be returned to power because they had made times good 
 and upon the promise that they would continue such good 
 times in the future. They have frankly accepted the onus 
 now of any bad times that the future may bring, and that the 
 future will bring such times is as sure as fate. Then will the 
 republicans be called to their accounting. 
 
 Will the people be so foolish as to return the democrats to 
 power simply upon a program of negation? We think not. 
 We think that the political party of the future must have an 
 intelligent constructive program if it is to be successful.
 
 The Old Lady's Ailment. 371 
 
 THE OLD LADY'S AILMENT 
 
 THE United States is a nation approaching the throes of 
 giving birth to a new social system. We are like an old 
 woman who has all sorts of pains and all sorts of 
 quacks prescribing for her. She is a foolish old thing with 
 hardly sense enough to know the difference between a quack 
 and a real physician, and she does not yet dare to- make her 
 choice. The quacks say she has all sorts of diseases and try 
 to force all sorts of absurd remedies down her throat. She 
 herself does not know exactly what ails her, but she sees the 
 quacks don't know either, although she takes some of their 
 medicine from time to time to get rid of them. She hears 
 with wondering delight and surprise the theory of the Social- 
 ist as to the cause of her ill-health, but she thinks he must be 
 a base flatterer. How could she, a miserable, beastly, selfish, 
 ugly old thing, ever think that there was any reason for her 
 being so delicately indisposed? She admits she rather likes 
 the idea, but she resolutely refuses belief. "The trust certainly 
 signifies, my dear madam," says the Socialist to her, whenever 
 he gets a chance at her ear between so many consultants, "that 
 you are to give birth to Socialism." "No, no," cries one of the 
 quacks, "nothing of the sort. The trust is a dangerous for- 
 eign growth, a tumor that should be destroyed before it grows 
 bigger and destroys the patient." Then another quack steps 
 up elbowing the first one aside, and says, "Don't listen to him, 
 madam, he would destroy your life. The trust is now too large 
 a body to take from you without causing death. Let it alone 
 and it will gradually pass away of itself. It will die a nat- 
 ural death." "But," says the patient, "that is just what you 
 have been telling me for fifteen years, and I am getting worse 
 and worse, and the trust bigger every year. Why, it seems to 
 be actually getting to be bigger than I am myself." 
 
 "Ah, my dear madam, that is all in the course of nature, 
 and anyway it is rather an ornament, and a useful one, too, 
 to you than otherwise. Don't be alarmed, you would not
 
 372 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 know what to do without it. What would become of all your 
 life's blood if it did not go to feed that tumor ? You would 
 die of apoplexy. You would wear yourself out with natural 
 exuberance if you should rid yourself of it. It gives steady 
 employment to all your natural functions. Your heart, your 
 lungs, even your brains are all now well employed keeping 
 this tumor in vigorous health. If you should lose it your heart 
 would only have half time work demanded of it, and it might 
 stop beating altogether. I really think at times, madam, that 
 this tumor, which you are pleased to call a 'foreign growth,' 
 is quite as important to be kept alive as you yourself. You 
 have burdened yourself so long with it that you are no longer 
 beautiful and strong as you were when you were young and 
 healthy, and I don't think your life worth so very much, any- 
 way. In fact, the only reason I can see for your living at all 
 is to keep the tumor alive." The old woman is rather shocked 
 at such a frank statement from the doctor, but he is the old 
 family physician and she is so ill that she has lost the courage 
 to discharge him. The Socialist doctor is persistent, however, 
 in whispering to her the real meaning of her pains, and while 
 she does not take his advice in discharging her quacks, she at 
 any rate commences to do some thinking on her own account. 
 Every day makes her condition more and more critical, and, 
 strange to say, it seems to corroborate both the theory of the 
 quack and the Socialist. 
 
 The trust tumor seems more and more an inseperable part 
 of the body, yet it drains more and more upon the resources 
 of a physique less and less able to bear the strain. However, 
 in such ambiguous cases a true diagnosis is but a question of 
 time, and in this particular case the Socialist doctor knows 
 that the time when the patient will determine for herself what 
 ails her is rapidly approaching. Selah.
 
 Why a Peacock? 373 
 
 WHY A PEACOCK? 
 
 Ventura, Cal., April 4th, 1901. 
 H. Gaylord Wilshire: 
 
 Dear Sir: Enclosed find order for $1.25, for which send The 
 Challenge to S. B. Bagnall, Oxnard, Cal. And send the balance 
 to my address, Ventura, in subscription postal cards. 
 
 Why, in the name of all that's curious, don't you let up on 
 this "Challenge of Debate" business? You certainly make your- 
 self absurd and silly to the minds of sensible people, and the 
 other fellow don't count. 
 
 Get in and dig after the brains. You can make The Chal- 
 lenge, by good hard work, leaving out the bombast, the greatest 
 power for Socialism in the United States. Truly your friend, 
 
 R. E. Brakey. 
 
 Now, dear Brake}'', you have just said exactly what I have 
 been wondering many other old time Socialists have not al- 
 ready said. It has been a matter of rather delighted surprise 
 to receive letters from nearly every leading Socialist in Amer- 
 ica singing the same song. "The Challenge is all right." 
 Now you and I have been m "the movement" for many years. 
 You were my chairman in Ventura over ten years ago when 
 I ran as a Socialist for Congress from this district, and again 
 a few months ago you acted in the same capacity. We both 
 well know with what intense and rightful jealousy the So- 
 cialists beyond all other men scrutinize another Socialist's 
 action to determine whether he is "for himself" or for "the 
 Movement." You and I both know that nothing will kill a 
 man quicker than for him to attempt the "leadership act." If 
 we are consistent in any one thing.it is our democracy among 
 our own selves. I know as well as you do that conceit and 
 bombast will never go when a Socialist talks to Socialists, but 
 you must remember that when I talk through The Chal- 
 lenge I am not trying to teach or impress Socialists. They 
 are not worth bothering about, their education is finished. 
 They don't need any talk from me. It is the unconverted, the 
 Philistines, that I am thinking about and talking to. For 
 instance, I have offered Bryan $5,000 to debate with me and
 
 \ 
 
 4 
 
 374 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 another $5,000 if he can defeat me. Now yon know, and I 
 know, and all Socialists know, that he will never dare accept 
 my challenge. You and other Socialists may be bored at my 
 making it and more bored upon my dwelling upon it. But 
 remember, other people are not bored. They are either 
 astounded at my audacity or think that it is a bluff that would 
 never be made good if Bryan should call me. I admit that 
 such a manner of advertising the strength of the Socialist 
 argument is sensational, is vulgar, is silly and absurd, as you 
 say, but the question is not as to manner, but the effectiveness 
 of the advertisement. The people generally are a lot of un- 
 thinking fools. We both agree in that estimate of them. Now 
 these fools are the very ones who "do count," if I may differ 
 from you. If they had the brains you and I and the Social- 
 ists, your "sensible people", generally possess, they would need 
 no Challenge or any other Socialist paper to awaken them. 
 They would go to the polls the very next election and vote in 
 Socialism unanimously. I, myself, never saw a Socialist paper 
 or a Socialist book, in fact, did not know such existed when I 
 became a Socialist. The logic of events was quite a sufficient 
 teacher for me. However, everybody is not that smart, and 
 so for the fellows that are not smart enough to be Socialists 
 without teaching you often must attract their attention by 
 very bizarre methods. I have no doubt but that those poor 
 fanatics who beat the cymbals in the Salvation Army use pre- 
 cisely the same argument in their defense. They don't think 
 cymbals make delightful music, but they think that the noise 
 will attract the attention of the unregenerate to their talk. I 
 recognize well enough that I am making more or less an ass 
 of myself in making these bombastic challenges. I don't like 
 to make a fool of myself, either, any more than you do, but I 
 think with the Salvation Army lassie that the question of mak- 
 ing a fool of yourself should be quite subsidiary to making a 
 success of beguiling people to listen to your tale. In other 
 words, in order to attract attention to Socialism, I put on the 
 cap and bells and parade up and down the columns of The 
 Challenge. However, while I can call myself an ass with 
 impunity, I dare anyone, not a Socialist, to come into my col- 
 umns and repeat the word. He may find a helmet underneath 
 the cap. That the method is a good one is proven by results. 
 We have had Socialist journals without number for years and
 
 Why a Peacock? 375 
 
 years that have said what I am saying quite as well, and often 
 much better, yet they have never "caught on" with the out- 
 side public. The Challenge, on the other hand, is meeting 
 with a most phenomenal success, both among Socialists and 
 with rank outsiders. Whatever else may be said of me I can 
 lay claim to having started the first successful newspaper 
 ever printed in the English language that has an avowed, 
 clean cut, scientific, revolutionary Socialistic policy. It is re- 
 ally remarkable considering the very ultra position I take in 
 economics and politics that I should have met with such an 
 enthusiastic reception from people who have never identified 
 themselves with us before. I won't be so silly as to claim that 
 these people were attracted by the "cap and bells," but at any 
 rate they were not repelled. I would like to lay off the bells 
 forever as I do now in talking to you behind the scenes, as it 
 were, but I know the people generally demand a costume. You 
 can read Hamlet in your study, but you like to see it better 
 behind the footlights. You, dear Brakey, know the strength 
 of the Socialist argument, you need no pictorial demonstra- 
 tion of it, but you are not everybody. There is many a man 
 who will never believe that a Socialist is right until he is con- 
 vinced that nobody dare argue with him. Such men are but 
 too common. The man who relies on another to make up his IV" 
 mind for him is at every street corner. I am simply trying 
 to graphically impress upon him a pictorial personal demon- 
 stration of the strength of Socialism. In doing this I neces- 
 sarily bring myself into vulgar notoriety. It's an unpleasant 
 sight to you, my dear Brakey, but I should think you might 
 have imagination enough to understand that it is not a pure 
 delight to me. Do you think after we have Socialism that I 
 will continue to act the conceited pup I do today? I make a 
 bargain with you that after we get Socialism I will never 
 write another line nor make another speech. I will work my 
 hour a day digging a sewer and put in the rest of my time 
 playing golf. 
 
 In the meantime I must beg leave to pursue my own 
 methods of "getting my name up" so that a vulgar public 
 will be curious enough to listen to me. 
 
 I shall continue the program of challenging everybody in 
 sight whom I consider the public will think ought to meet me. 
 I don't challenge Mr. McKinley because it would be on the
 
 376 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 L face of it mere bombast, real bombast. It would be bombast 
 because it would be so evident to everyone that nothing would 
 draw him out. It would be as absurd to ask him to debate 
 upon trusts as it would to ask the King of England to debate 
 upon royalty. With Mr. Bryan it is quite different as it is 
 with the college professors to whom I offer double their reg- 
 ular lecturing fee to meet me. The public, when they hear of 
 such challenges, can regard them as bombastic only when they 
 think I don't mean what I say. If I can convince the Ameri- 
 can public that there is not a college professor in the land that 
 will debate with a Socialist, even when offered double his usual 
 pay, and that Bryan will not dare take $5,000 for a single 
 night's work, it's certainly going to make them ponder a little. 
 It is certainly going to make them think that Socialism is not 
 to be waved aside as an iridescent dream. The chase for the 
 almighty dollar is too serious a pursuit in this country for 
 money to be scorned if there is no reason given for the scorn. 
 You, my dear Brakey, know that Socialism has but to be pre- 
 sented properly to any American audience to carry them right 
 off their feet. I never, in my twelve years' experience in pub- 
 lic speaking to promiscuous audiences, have ever failed to 
 carry them en masse with me as far as I could judge by the 
 failure of opposition to develop. I never made a speech, and I 
 have made thousands, but that I offered my platform to op- 
 ponents when I closed, and I never have had a single accep- 
 tance of my offer. Now this is not owing to matchless and 
 surpassing oratory. My friends say I am awkward, hesitat- 
 ing, cold and unimpassioned. There is no "cross of gold on 
 the brow of labor" business about me. I have quite an unim- 
 pressive manner and appearance, in fact I have nothing to go 
 * on except Socialism. But that's enough for any speaker if 
 he knows how to use it. 
 
 It is a David's sling which will enable him to prevail over 
 any Goliath of the debating world. 
 
 Yes, I admit I am an editorial peacock, but anyway the 
 spreading of the peacock's tail makes many people listen to a 
 voice that otherwise would never be allowed within hearing 
 distance. 
 
 A wise physician will sugar a needed pill rather than have 
 his patient refuse it altogether. Now, dear Brakey, I have 
 gone at considerable trouble to take you behind the scenes of
 
 Why a Peacock? 377 
 
 The Challenge to explain to you how I effect the illusion of 
 thunder and lightning for a gullible public. It is unnecessary 
 to say that no prestidigitateur can hope for an audience if he 
 always explains his tricks after his performance. I now in- 
 tend going back once more into my bells and cap, and I hope 
 you and other Socialists will not force me to again change my 
 costume outside my dressing room and in full glare of the 
 footlights. I am not acting for "the like of you" anyway. If 
 you don't like my play, pass The Challenge on to some one 
 who will either take it as a comedy or a tragedy, but don't 
 waste it on a man who can't laugh at a joke nor frown at a 
 wrong. There is such a thing as being too "sensible." Half 
 our life belongs to the imagination.
 
 378 Wilshiee Editorials. 
 
 A MODERN "ABBOT OF UNREASON" 
 
 New York, April 30, 1901. 
 Dear Mr. Wilshire: — 
 
 I send you a dollar with pleasure, to pay for "The Challenge." 
 It is certainly unique, and I like a great deal in it immensely. 
 Typographically and artistically (as well as in size) it is almost 
 perfect. Most, though by no means all, of the matter you put 
 in the paper is excellent. I find your egotism, however, at times 
 insufferable! And why do you fill your pages with empty screeds 
 and fulsome eulogies of capitalistic notabilities of the Earl Rus- 
 sell, W. S. Caine and James Bryce type! In addition, all this 
 stuff about "America's Economic Supremacy" is merely the 
 ordinary plutocratic cant and braggadocio, unless it is clearly 
 related to Socialism. In your articles on this subject you have 
 generally failed to clinch this point, the only essential one. And 
 what does the Socialist care about Bishop Potter's windbag 
 "fraternalism"? Everybody knows that Bishop Potter is a hum- 
 bug, and his name should not appear in a Socialist paper, without 
 this fact appearing there, too. And why do you commend the 
 "Bellamy Review," which stands for a "no-party" Socialism and 
 general muddle-headedness a la Mayor Jones! 
 
 You know that you would have done better and more solid 
 work for the cause of Socialism if you had put your money into 
 the "Advance," and made one splendid, clear-cut Social Demo- 
 cratic organ for the Pacific Coast. 
 
 Now that I have had my growl, I may add that you are really 
 doing a great work; that I handle with pleasure, and read with 
 avidity, every number of "The Challenge"; and that in some 
 respects you have made a new era in Socialist journalism. 
 
 Yours fraternally, 
 
 Leonakd D. Abbott. 
 
 The organ of the single-taxers, The Public, is really not a 
 bad paper considering its creed, but it's too modest a violet. 
 It plaintively announces that it lays no claim to infallibility. 
 Now this is where "The Challenge" scores. We are the 
 greatest sunflower in the patch; we are quite confident of it, 
 and as for infallibility, it would be supremely ridiculous to 
 deny it. Of course we are, and we will, moreover, bet on it. 
 This always settles it. When a man offers to bet on himself
 
 A Modern Abbot of Unreason. 379 
 
 and can find no takers, he is simply "it." There can be no 
 question after that. "The Challenge" is "it." Now, Mr. 
 Leonard D. Abbott, put that in your pipe and smoke it. 
 
 You don't like my egotism, eh? Well, read my article on 
 "Why a Peacock." If you don't like it any better after that, 
 then I cannot prescribe anything that will break you of the 
 habit of reading "The Challenge" "with avidity." 
 
 However, as you come up on bended knee to partake of the 
 bread of knowledge from my editorial altar, I will tell you 
 why I talk about my dukes and other "capitalistic notabili- 
 ties." 
 
 Before I start in I would like to know why you call them 
 "capitalistic." Earl Russell, W. S. Caine and James Bryce, 
 the three men you mention, are none of them rich, and cer- 
 tainly none of them could be called capitalistic on the score 
 of any particular proclivities. They are not Socialists, it's 
 true ; but simply not being a Socialist confers no title of "cap- 
 italistic notability." I simply gave a most condensed account 
 from the book "Who's Who?" of what and who they are. 
 There was nothing fulsome nor empty. It was the barest ac- 
 count possible. However, you are a little hot, as a good and 
 true Social Democrat, that I should have published a letter 
 from the Earl which indicated we are on dining terms. Well, 
 I must explain. You are an Englishman, my dear Abbott, 
 and have not been over in this snob-ridden country long 
 enough to understand and properly appreciate the great ad- 
 vantage it is to an editor, and particularly a Socialist editor, 
 to be in position to blow about having dined with a peer of 
 England. You see, most editors feel that the people think 
 them very small potatoes — a Socialist editor doesn't even 
 dare assume the people know he exists — and if an editor can 
 drop a remark in a very casual way about having had a drink 
 with Lord Montmorency, he feels he can impress his auditors 
 more by that little remark than he could by a mile of edi- 
 torial writing. Now, that was my idea. Some jackasses 
 might read my editorials all their lives and wind up by think- 
 ing me a jackass myself. But let them hear that Earl Rus- 
 sell had me to dine with him at his club, and then I am re- 
 ally quite the brainiest man they happen to know, you know. 
 Then there are some people who hold themselves quite above 
 the influence of an aristocracy of birth but readily pay defer-
 
 380 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 ence to what they consider the aristocracy of intellect. Now, 
 to such people James Bryce, by virtue of his authorship of the 
 American Commonwealth is a "top-notcher." You know the 
 breed of "intellectuels" I refer to — the editors of The Na- 
 tion, of The Atlantic, the members of The Century Club, the 
 college professors, etc. Now, those chaps would give their 
 eyes for a letter to them such as Bryce wrote to me. Again, 
 I might write acres of editorials and they would never con- 
 sider it worth reading until they happened to hear that the 
 great James Bryce had pronounced it worth while. Then 
 they would read "The Challenge" as a kind of religious duty, 
 and as I try to make its editorial columns very easy to under- 
 stand, and use as few big words as possible, I have no doubt 
 that some of them are commencing to know what I say even 
 if they don't quite comprehend what I mean. Now this ex- 
 plains how I sugar my Challenge to catch both the aristo- 
 cratic and the intellectual snobs. 
 
 The same argument applies to my using Bishop Potter to 
 catch the religious snobs. As for The Bellamy Review and 
 Mayor Jones, I don't agree with them, but I consider them 
 useful, nevertheless. I don't care who speaks a truth, whether 
 it is Hearst or Karl Marx. If it suits my purpose to quote 
 him with credit I will do so. Very often the fact that 
 Hearst says a thing poorly is of more use to me in a quotation 
 than to use what Marx says much better. I have not the fear 
 that some Socialists have of booming people who don't agree 
 with us and, in fact, who spit upon us. I myself am uninsur- 
 able. I know, as well as you fellows in New York do, what 
 manner of a man Hearst is. He is like all men; has several 
 sides to his character, and he seems to take great delight in 
 exhibiting his meanest sides to the organized Socialists in 
 New York. However, you will never hurt him by ignoring 
 him. That is simply following Hadley's policy of ostraciz- 
 ing the Rockefeller family. Some day I will show you how 
 to prod Mr. Hearst where he will feel it. I have it up my 
 sleeve all right, and also something there for several other fel- 
 lows who labor under the delusion that I am too mild a 
 scoundrel to say what I think. 
 
 Now, about my "braggadocio" regarding America's econ- 
 omic supremacy. I won't again lay it to your being an Eng- 
 lishman that you don't like it, but you do need some excuse.
 
 A Modern Abbot of Unreason. 381 
 
 In my January number I delivered myself editorially as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 When we give an item indicating the industrial supremacy of 
 America in the world's industrial field, we are not guilty of 
 spread-eagleism. We simply wish the moral to be drawn that 
 America will be the first to embrace Socialism, because of this 
 industrial supremacy. It means so much the greater hiatus be- 
 tween what the laborer produces and what he gets. The greater 
 this hiatus, the greater the surplus for the capitalists, the greater 
 the surplus the greater the difficulty of profitable investment. 
 It is more difficult, first, because there is more capital, but prin- 
 cipally because the very presence of this enormous surplus has 
 enabled the American capitalist to perfect his machinery of pro- 
 duction to a higher degree than any other capitalist, and to this 
 extent has satisfied his wants for new machinery that much 
 the sooner. Machines are used to make machines. The better 
 machines you have, the quicker and better you can make more 
 machines. When we give an item showing the enormous amounts 
 of capital lying in the banks of America, we are proving our 
 case. When we show that American capital is a drug on the 
 home market, and is being lent in Europe, we are proving our 
 case that the machinery of production in America is so nearly 
 finished that there is no longer any opportunity for profitable 
 investment at home, and therefore it naturally is sent abroad, 
 where machinery has not been developed to the same degree of 
 perfection. 
 
 I have a number of readers of "The Challenge" who seem 
 to remember what I say from week to week, and I don't wish 
 to bore them to death by senseless reiteration of the moral 
 to my facts. They know and you know that I don't talk about 
 America's economic supremacy in order to blow about my 
 native land. I regard the growing predominance of America 
 in the world's industrial field of most absorbing interest to 
 the scientific Socialist mind. In fact, it is "the" fact of facts 
 to me. It is the very fact that will usher in the social revolu- 
 tion. We are the Samson of the world's industrial temple. 
 We destroy Europe and in her fall we ourselves are buried 
 in the ruins. Europe will soon be bankrupted, and her in- 
 ability to buy of us will bankrupt us. 
 
 And finally, you say that if I had given my support to 
 The Advance of San Francisco instead of starting "The 
 Challenge," that I would have done a greater work. Now, 
 in the first place, I suppose it will be admitted that no one 
 has done more for The Advance financially than myself. It
 
 382 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 is now a really first-class paper in every respect. I can sug- 
 gest nothing more for it to properly fulfill its function of a 
 party organ. It is set up on the "lino" and is printed on 
 good paper. There is always plenty of good matter for a So- 
 cialist paper — that's the least trouble an editor encounters. 
 However, I feel assured that a man might spend a million 
 dollars upon a "party organ" and yet fail to reach many peo- 
 ple that I can with a "personal" organ like "The Challenge." 
 You yourself are a living demonstration of my theory. You 
 admit you read "The Challenge" with "avidity." Now, why ? 
 Simply because of its personality. There is nothing new you 
 wish to read on theory. You know it all. The facts likewise 
 I give are stale to you. The only thing you can read with 
 "avidity" is the personal part. Now, consider if you, with all 
 your work and the thousands of papers that pass through 
 your hands every week in the pursuit of your profession 
 of editing the Literary Digest; I say if you neverthe- 
 less, in all this disgusting surfeit of newspapers, find the 
 time to read "The Challenge," you must admit that I have 
 a fine lot of bait for gudgeons. 
 
 If I were editor of The Worker or The Advance, with all 
 the money of Eockefeller, and Morgan, too, for that mat- 
 ter, I could not get up a paper that you would read with 
 "avidity." Your story is the universal one. Everybody reads 
 "The Challenge" with "avidity." I will bet odds there is no 
 paper of any description published today that is read so thor- 
 oughly by its readers as "The Challenge." You ask people 
 who get it, and see if they don't bear me out. I know one 
 fellow who reads it with "avidity," but he will never tell 
 about it. It is William J. Bryan.
 
 Not Striving for "Good Form." 383 
 
 NOT STRIVING FOR "GOOD FORM" 
 
 IN one of my preceding issues I spoke of the attitude of a 
 Socialist pressing forward his own individuality, his 
 printing his picture for instance as I am doing upon the 
 title page. I said with him it was simply a question as to 
 whether he was the better advertising his article — Socialism, 
 he wished to draw to the attention of the public. The matter 
 of whether he was in good form himself was entirely sec- 
 ondary. It is not a question of principle. It is simply a ques- 
 tion of judgment. I again print my challenge to Mr. Bryan 
 for a debate, and I confess to a certain lack of dignity in the 
 manner of its presentation that may shock the more elegant 
 of my readers. All this challenging and offering a thousand 
 dollars for Mr. Bryan to get on the platform with me smacks 
 strongly, possibly, of a modern Bombastes Furioso; but the 
 excuse for it lies in my belief that it is the simplest and quick- 
 est way to get the general public to understand that he must 
 have a. very weak case if he refuses me attention. Of course 
 if, as it has been intimated to me, I am making the matter 
 in this paper so largely personal and so disgustingly egotis- 
 tical, that intelligent people will refuse to read it, then I have 
 overdone the matter. However, let me ask these people who 
 would stickle for good form even if stickling meant the fall of 
 a nation, if they think that if I would gain the attention of the 
 public as well by sedate conservative methods as I do by the 
 one adopted? 
 
 I am not endeavoring to conform to convention. This 
 paper is published for the one and single purpose of drawing 
 the attention of the world to the social effects which must fol- 
 low from the concentration of industry in America. Its mis- 
 sion has been somewhat simplified from that announced in the 
 first number some few months ago. Then I proposed first to 
 draw attention to the imminence of important combinations 
 in industry and to convince the public of the inevitability not 
 only of such combinations, but of their result. Since I began 
 to publish this paper the combinations in railways and steel
 
 384 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 have been of such tremendous importance that the task of 
 convincing the public that such combinations are to occur has 
 been practically done for me by the actual fulfillment of my 
 prophecy. All that remains for me now is to show the logical 
 inevitability of the result. xAh«i..» *n 
 
 The Vatican sagaciously employs an advocatus dmbolus to 
 paradoxically prove the sanctity of a candidate for canoniza- 
 tion by alleging every possible unsamtly episode in the can- 
 didate's character. For the want of a better one I will now 
 act as my own advocatus dmlolus, not so much to prove that 
 I am a fit subject for canonization— that goes without saying; 
 but that I am justified as the editor of this paper in adopting 
 more or less spectacular methods in attracting the attention 01 
 
 IUs horribly bad form to force one's self upon the public. 
 No gentleman would ever do such a thing If the gentleman 
 should accidentally be a cog in the wheel that performed some 
 meritorious act in life,, and his name was mentioned in con- 
 nection therewith, that would possibly be excused A gentle- 
 man will not do anything simply for the sake of being con- 
 spicuous, and in fact, some think that a gentleman should 
 never do anything, no matter how good it may be if it may 
 by any possibility render him conspicuous. To this 1 simply 
 answer that I am not striving to get up a reputation of being 
 a gentleman. I am endeavoring to warn the public of an im- 
 pending social and economic crisis. A gentleman will not 
 wear clothes that render him ridiculously conspicuous I 
 would willingly wear a cap and bells and parade down a city s 
 thoroughfare delivering my message on the trust at every 
 street corner if I thought such a method would accomplish 
 mv end It is not because I am ashamed to make such an 
 exhibition of myself that I do not do it. It is simply because 
 I do not consider it would accomplish my purpose. 
 
 It is "bad form" to talk about one's self It is worse than 
 "bad form"— it's "uninteresting." I would say to that that it 
 depends upon what you say about yourself. It has been said 
 that anybody could write an interesting autobiography if he 
 would tell the whole story. Now I do not Propose to tell the 
 whole story and make a test of that proverb, but I do mtend 
 injecting whatever there is of my own personality that in my 
 
 opinion will serve to elucidate my economic argument. One
 
 Not Striving for "Good Form/' 385 
 
 cannot get away from one's self. My own experiences are of 
 more value to me for illustrative purposes than any second- 
 hand ones. 
 
 I disarm my critics by acknowledging the justice of their 
 criticisms when looking from their own standpoint, but our 
 standpoints are different. I would even be more patient with 
 my Beau Brummels if the cause of Socialism as it is now 
 presented to me would brook patience. If I were exploiting 
 my own peculiar views as some have taken me to be doing, and 
 if these peculiar views were to be taken up at some distant 
 time in the future after people had read The Challenge for 
 a century or so, I might reconcile myself to conform to the 
 usages of polite journalism. 
 
 When P. T. Barnum intended to exhibit his circus in a 
 town he knew that he must let everyone know that he was 
 coming, and that he must let them know at once. There 
 would be no profit nor use in letting people hear about his 
 show the day after it was over. 
 
 On the other hand, if Barnum had been a young doctor in- 
 tending to settle in the same town and spend the rest of his 
 life there building up a regular practice, he would not adver- 
 tise his entry into town the same way he would coming with 
 his circus. In the circus case he must let people know at 
 once or his efforts would be fruitless. In the case of the young 
 doctor he had his life before him to do his advertising. 
 
 If Socialism were a doctrine that depended solely upon edu- 
 cating people up to it and I had a life time to do it in, then 
 the more sedate and regular methods of advertising it might 
 be logically used. But Socialism today is nothing of the sort. 
 Socialism is not only an inexorable and inevitable necessity, 
 but it is a necessity that is now about to burst immediately 
 upon us. 
 
 I say this because I consider the great transformation scene 
 in industry now being engineered by Pierpont Morgan must 
 inevitably reflect itself in a social transformation. How long 
 did it take Morgan to take over the great Carnegie steel plant? 
 About one short month after he made up his mind the time 
 was ripe. How long did it take him to take over the great 
 railway systems? About the same time. 
 
 Why should it take longer for Uncle Sam to take over the 
 same properties when he makes up his mind?
 
 386 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 Did not people who admitted that some day or other there 
 would be a unity of interests in railways in this country al- 
 ways say that it would take years to accomplish it ? The best 
 posted men said this. Even shrewd old Uncle Russell Sage 
 did not think Morgan was going to do it in such a jiffy. 
 
 It was not that Morgan was such a wonderful man. He is 
 no more wonderful than is the man who takes the kettle off 
 the fire when the water is ready to boil over. The point had 
 been reached in railroading when consolidation was a neces- 
 sity and he was at hand to take advantage of it. Morgan did 
 not create the conditions which led to consolidation. He 
 simply was a natural agent. 
 
 Every editorial hen coop in this country is in a great tur- 
 moil of fuss and feathers. All the old editorial hens are cluck- 
 ing in a most bewildered way over Morgan's vigorous brushing 
 aside of their old saws about the permanence of competition 
 and the equitable distribution of wealth in this country. The 
 chorus of clucks has no one single note of accord except that 
 of bewilderment. Some say with a bold front that if Morgan 
 keeps up his career he will make the people actually restless. 
 Most of the wiser papers, however, cluck so unintelligently 
 that nobody can make out what they think and none of them 
 cluck intelligently enough for us to see that the editor under- 
 stands that Socialism is an inevitability. 
 
 Whatever else may be said of The Challenge, I think that 
 at any rate its interpretation of the meaning of the trust is not 
 easily misunderstood. We may be wrong, but at any rate we 
 are not covering up our meaning in unintelligible clucking. 
 
 As to the question of good taste displayed in these columns, 
 we think that that is quite a subordinate issue. The main 
 question is whether what we say is true or false. Some men 
 are more disturbed at being accused of wearing a made cravat 
 than they are of being called a liar.
 
 Capitalism Beeeds No Horatios. 387 
 
 CAPITALISM BREEDS NO HORATIOS 
 
 MY experience with men has taught me that in regard 
 to the fundamental realities of life there is little dif- 
 ference between them which can be traceable to edu- 
 cation or environment. Given certain situations and men 
 will act very much alike, no matter what their condition of 
 life. If a vessel is stranded on a lone island in the Pacific 
 ocean, and the survivors have every reason to believe that their 
 stay upon that island may be indefinitely prolonged, then all 
 will set to work together to provide the necessities of life in 
 very much the same way and without much reference to their 
 previous social or economic condition. The rich and the poor, 
 men, women and children all will do their share, and if there 
 are any shirks it will not be any more likely to find them 
 among the ones who were formerly rich than among the 
 poor. 
 
 Today if a poor man unexpectedly falls heir to a fortune, 
 he likewise falls into the ways of the rich in living a life of 
 doing nothing beyond vainly striving to amuse himself, not- 
 withstanding that before his windfall his life may have been 
 that of most strenuous exertion. Men first do what they 
 must; secondly, they do what they like, if they can. The 
 poor man must do almost everything he does, the rich man 
 has practically nothing he must do in life except perform cer- 
 tain natural functions. I say all this because some people 
 seem to think that because a man is rich, therefore he neces- 
 sarily is a very different sort of an animal, owing to his eco- 
 nomic condition. Some people who, either poor in spirit, or 
 health or wealth and from one or all of these reasons being 
 unable to enjoy life after the same manner as their more for- 
 tunate brothers are often inclined to flatter themselves that 
 this is an evidence of superior virtue on their part. They are 
 like the wicked old lady who prided herself on forsaking vice 
 when in reality vice had forsaken her. 
 
 There are any amount of men who don't drink whiskey
 
 388 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 simply because their livers don't allow them to do it, and 
 such men are not unusually the ones who parade their en- 
 forced abstemiousness as a great virtue, and will sometimes 
 join others to obtain the passage of legislation to prevent the 
 consumption of whiskey. I am not intimating by this remark 
 that the possession of a disordered liver is the necessary equip- 
 ment of a thorough-going prohibitionist, as I readily admit 
 that most prohibitionists have healthy livers, but I must say 
 that most of the men I have known who like whiskey have 
 certain fundamental differences in physique from those who 
 do not, and that this difference is inherited and not acquired. 
 
 When one is aboard ship and sea-sick it is very easy to be 
 abstemious, and it is also very natural to look with great dis- 
 gust at the gross materialism of some old sea-dog who prides 
 himself on never* missing a meal. 
 
 All the foregoing is apropos of determining how the rich 
 are going to. act when the time shall arrive for the transfer 
 of their wealth to the nation. The only way for a poor man 
 to determine how they will act is to put himself in the boots 
 of a rich man and imagine the revolution is palpably at 
 hand, and then think what he would do himself if he were 
 the rich man in whose boots he is standing. Most men who 
 have never had money, think rich men have one grand round 
 of pleasure; that the rich man regards this world's life as a 
 regular snap. As a matter of fact, most of them regard it as 
 a bore. This is particularly true of the rich American. His 
 whole life is artificial. He has no friends in the true sense 
 of the word, male or female. Travel seems a wonderful and 
 never-ending source of amusement to those who cannot afford 
 it, but to those who can, it soon loses its charm when long 
 pursued. He makes the pursuit of pleasure a business, and 
 as a result he loses the very end he aimed at. The pursuit of 
 art is too tedious and involves too much hard work to attract 
 many of the rich, and unless one does give it the labor it de- 
 mands there is no real charm .in its pursuit. The rich man 
 who gives, his life to art is almost anknown. Even the pleas- 
 ure of children is marred by the inevitable frivolity of the 
 daughters and the dissipation of the sons. A man's pride 
 in life is to have a noble son. Tell me the rich men of 
 America who have sons that you think they can take pride 
 in. The rich read the same classical literature that is the
 
 Capitalism Breeds No Horatios. 389 
 
 common heritage of all of us. "Horatio at the Bridge" is 
 just as much a hero with the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts 
 as he is in any poor family. Regulus is not the private hero 
 of a class. All the heroes of history are just as much the 
 heritage of the rich as they are of the poor, and the failure 
 of an Astor or a Morgan to see any traits of the hero in his 
 son makes him feel that he has lost just that much of the 
 possibilities of life. I don't think Mr. Pierpont Morgan 
 spends many days in regretting that conditions do not favor 
 young Ponty being a modern Horatio, but, nevertheless, the 
 fact that young Ponty knows it, to that very extent weakens 
 the idea that either old or young Pont will spend much time 
 at any bridge holding back the great army of disinherited 
 Americans when they come marching along to claim their 
 own. In the first place, neither one of the Ponts will think 
 there is much worth fighting for, anyway, and besides they 
 
 will say that they will be d d if they see anything in it 
 
 fighting for a lot of Rockefellers, Astors and Vanderbilts. 
 When Horatio battled at the bridge he was not only a hero, 
 but he was of a race of heroes, and was fighting for heroes. 
 There were plenty of Horatios in those days. Conditions 
 bred Horatios. The every-day life of the Roman was to 
 exercise at arms and imagine himself a hero and in the 
 position that Horatio actually found himself. Now, old 
 Ponty never thinks of such life for him or young Pont. 
 They fight battles at the stock exchange, but that's not 
 exactly the same thing as the Horatio kind of fighting. 
 
 Men do not change, but conditions do. The Morgans and 
 Vanderbilts have nothing to fight for, and they have neither 
 the desire to fight themselves, nor have they anyone who 
 will fight for them. Some of my enthusiastic friends who 
 look for rivers of blood, etc., when Uncle Sam and Uncle 
 Ponty swap railroads and trusts may exhibit courage by 
 making up their minds for barricades, but they are exercising 
 their imaginations more than their reason. There is no man 
 who will know quicker when to lay down than Pierpont 
 Morgan or John D. Rockefeller when the time comes. They 
 are the unbeaten generals, because they have never under- 
 estimated their antagonists. When Carnegie saw what he 
 was up against he laid down his cards without a murmur. 
 Rockefeller took the pot, and gave Carnegie his I. 0. U.,
 
 390 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 two hundred million five per cent, bonds. Uncle Sam will 
 simply do the same thing to Eocky that Eocky himself has 
 just done to old Skibo Castle. I won't say what kind of an 
 I. 0. TJ. Uncle Sam will issue to Ponty, Eocky & Co., but 
 I will bet my hat when it comes to a show-down, there won't 
 be any scrapping over the terms.
 
 Bearding the Nebraska Lion. 391 
 
 BEARDING THE NEBRASKA LION 
 
 DEAR Mr. Bryan: I have engaged the Oliver Opera 
 House in Lincoln, Nebraska, for the evening of the 
 21st inst., and it occurred to me that you might be 
 kind enough to say you will be on hand to hear me. I shall 
 take great pleasure in reserving a stage box for yourself and 
 family, and, in fact, would be only too delighted if you would 
 consent to be my chairman. I think you know more about 
 me than any one else in Lincoln, and your introductory speech 
 could not help being most felicitous. 
 
 From Lincoln I am going on to the Detroit Conference, 
 where I am to hold forth at Philharmonic Hall upon the 
 third of July. I did intend having your successor, Mr. Tom 
 L. Johnson, have a debate with me that evening, but inas- 
 much as he is "too busy," as you will see by his "very polite" 
 telegram, I would suggest that you come along on the train 
 with me and hear me say what I would have said to Tom. I 
 put the "very polite" in inverted commas, not for the sake of 
 irony, for I wish to cast no such undeserved insinuation at 
 Mr. Johnson, but simply to show how much a tenderling like 
 myself likes the slightest recognition from the great ones of 
 the earth. You, Mr. Bryan, should not crush young patriots 
 anxious to get before the public, like me, by failing to answer 
 their beseeching letters to you. 
 
 Now, I could, of course, make a great flourish of this com- 
 ing to Lincoln and bearding you in your den, but candidly I 
 hate making myself ridiculous to myself. Perhaps you don't 
 understand this feeling. I will explain: If I talked like 
 you do I would feel myself a fool, but at the same time I 
 would know that in the eyes and ears of many in my audience 
 I would be the wise man from California just as you are 
 thought by them the wise man from Nebraska. In other 
 words, what people think of me has practically no effect upon 
 my feelings comparable with what I think of myself. This, 
 however, is true of all great artists. I have heard great opera
 
 392 Wilshiee Editorials. 
 
 singers, who have told me that they have sung most wretch- 
 edly certain evenings, yet the crowd would howl themselves 
 hoarse with applause and the papers next day would have 
 nothing but panegyrics, yet the diva would have no satisfac- 
 tion in it at all. The only person worth satisfying is yourself 
 in any real analysis of life. 
 
 With such a theory you can see that I must regard you as 
 of particularly inferior intellect. If you are satisfying your- 
 self by making your absurd speeches, then very little satisfies 
 you. If you think you are satisfying your audiences, al- 
 though you really believe as I do, then you are acting the part 
 of a hypocrite, denying your soul its rightful demands for its 
 self-realization, and generally starving your spiritual self and 
 making a donkey of yourself. Hence no matter how I may 
 view your performances, you can see that from my standpoint 
 you are living a very meager life, a false life. 
 
 Therefore, if I should blow about bearding the lion in his 
 Nebraska den, I should feel myself an ass if I did not let 
 everyone know that I really felt that I was more like the city 
 scavenger who has been sent for to drag out a dead mule to 
 the crematory than a gladiator leaping into an arena. How- 
 ever, what I think is not always what other people think, un- 
 fortunately for them, and therefore I am going to Lincoln 
 to make a speech in your Opera House, and I herewith pres- 
 ent to you the freedom of the house that evening to do as you 
 please with it: pack it with your friends, take the platform 
 yourself, take the chair yourself or appoint your own chair- 
 man, make as long a speech as you like. I only stipulate that 
 I may have a half-hour's time for reply. If I cannot carry 
 that audience in your own town and under your own manage- 
 ment against you, I will — well, I don't know what to say I 
 will do, for no matter what I offer, I know you will never 
 accept. A thousand dollars would be a mere bagatelle for me 
 to give or you to take, but it's yours for the asking. I would 
 give you almost anything you might ask. What do you 
 want? Confide to me your heart's desire. How would you 
 like me to further extend that porch on your house built to 
 receive "visiting statesmen"? 
 
 Of course, all this is insulting, and I myself feel like I am 
 the donkey kicking the dead lion. [How does that suit you?] 
 However, it's a foregone conclusion that you will not appear
 
 Bearding the Nebraska Lion. 393 
 
 in any public function at the Opera House on the 21st of 
 June. Will you come privately ? I dare you to take the box 
 I offer you. I dare you to come in and stand behind the 
 orchestra chairs. I dare you to stay in Lincoln town that 
 night. I prophesy, and I have some regard for my reputa- 
 tion for infallibility, that "business" will take you not only 
 out of town that night, but out of the State of Nebraska. I 
 might be wrong, however, as your son and heir, Baby Bryan, 
 might have the croup and you would be compelled to stay at 
 home and rock the cradle. You see I am anticipating your 
 excuses. I wish there were a "man" in the Democratic party. 
 There ought to be some way of getting you into debate. A 
 man that cannot be stung with an insult, nor coaxed with 
 flattery, nor bribed with money, nor urged by ambition, nor 
 led by duty, nor impelled by honor, is too great a curio for me 
 to credit Nebraska with producing. It must be a great soil 
 to grow such a wonderful plant. However, Mr. Bryan, I 
 think you are "IT."
 
 394 Wilshike Editorials. 
 
 HOW HEARST WASTES HIS GOOD 
 MONEY 
 
 IT shows how hard up the case against Socialism is when 
 Mr. Hearst, with his unlimited millions to command the 
 best talent in the world to argue against it, is forced to 
 fall back on Jim Creelman to champion competition. Now, I 
 am not decrying Jim's talents as a general practitioner in 
 journalism, but when Hearst puts him up against writing 
 upon economics, it serves more to illustrate Jim's courage than 
 his knowledge. Yes, Jim has courage, all right, and it is mean 
 of Hearst to put him to the test again by asking him to take 
 up the cudgels against the Socialist. The last time I saw Jim 
 was on the roof-garden of the Waldorf-Astoria, the summer 
 of the Spanish war. Jim and I and my old Harvard comrade 
 Jack Follansbee (Jim Keene's nephew) and Jim Keene's 
 brother were dining there together. Follansbee and Hearst 
 are great cronies, and he had just returned from off Santiago, 
 where he had been with Hearst to see the scrapping and to 
 bring back in Hearst's yacht, Creelman, who had been 
 wounded at San Juan while acting as a reporter for Hearst. 
 Jim did not then have much to say about Socialism ; nobody 
 did, in fact ; war was the absorbing topic. Jim had the dis- 
 tinction of being the first man to get within the Spanish fort 
 which was taken by assault at El Caney. It really was a 
 splendid piece of recklessness to run up that hill in a shower 
 of bullets, away ahead of the American troops, and jump into 
 the hostile fort armed with a lead pencil. He was shot in the 
 shoulder, however, as a reminder that not every Spanish 
 bullet was made of wood, and what with his wound and his 
 fever he was in anything but fit condition. However, all this 
 is past, and evidently he must think himself in the very pink 
 of condition to tackle Socialism. I feel sorry to slaughter 
 such a brave fellow and, withal, not without pretensions in 
 directions other than economic. The cause is inexorable, 
 however, so here goes the guillotine. I will reprieve him for
 
 How Hearst Wastes His Good Money. 395 
 
 a moment to tell another story of our dinner that is worth 
 the telling for its amusement, although there is a hidden 
 moral, too. Mr. Keene, who, it is unnecessary to say, is not 
 bothered with the vulgar necessity of considering the cost of 
 things, called up the waiter after dinner and told him to bring 
 a certain brand of cigars. Now, there was no excuse for the 
 waiter not recognizing Keene as a millionaire, simply by his 
 looks. He wears those peculiar earmarks that a good diges- 
 tion and plenty of money always seem to impress on the New 
 York variety of millionaires. However, the waiter was evi- 
 dently unobservant, and quite probably a new hand on the 
 roof, for he leaned over to Keene and, in a most audible stage 
 whisper, said, "Beg pardon, sir, but do you know those cigars 
 will cost you fifty cents each?" 
 
 Now, Mr. Creelman, I have given you time to make your 
 peace with the world while I went off into these diversions 
 before proceeding to your execution, and I hope if we ever 
 meet again across the Stygian pool I may make my peace with 
 you by offering you one of "them fifty-centers," although pos- 
 sibly there will be too much smoke about us to incite us to the 
 desire of augmenting it. However, Jim, we both have been 
 used to "hot times" on top the earth, and it might make us 
 homesick to be deprived of our accustomed pleasures when 
 we go under it. But good-by, Jim, you die in an ignoble 
 cause. Now, for the sake of amusing the public, I have de- 
 cided to torture you to death with slow fire. I don't get many 
 victims, and I cannot afford to waste them by any method of 
 happy dispatch. I must make you go as far as I can, for 
 God knows when I will ever get another sacrificial lamb. I 
 am offering $10,000 just now for one, and can't touch him; 
 so if this price of mutton is to keep up, I will be forced to 
 let Hearst always find my sheep, like you, for me, and then 
 take them second-hand like, as cold victuals. However, Jim, 
 if you are well deviled and hashed fine, I think the delicate 
 palates of my readers will be able to stand it for once. 
 
 I give you the first say, and you head your article in bold 
 type "The Fallacies of Socialism," take up a half column to 
 say nothing, and only redeem things by inserting in the mid- 
 dle of it a lovely picture of your own dear self. 
 
 The war of the trusts upon the competitive system in the 
 United States has at last directed the attention of the country
 
 396 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 to State Socialism as a refuge from the strangling effects ot 
 private monopoly. 
 
 There is not an observant political leader in America to-day 
 who does not see the Socialistic idea spreading among persons 
 who, five years ago, were staunch advocates of the competitive 
 system under which the American people have grown and pros- 
 pered. 
 
 By State Socialism I do not mean the movement for the public 
 ownership of street railways, water systems and lighting plants 
 in cities and towns. These forms of local monopoly may be 
 justified by considerations that would not apply to the national- 
 ization of the steel, sugar, oil, tobacco, leather and other similar 
 industries. 
 
 Not even the monstrous power of the billion-dollar steel trust 
 should frighten American citizens from continuing the struggle 
 in defense of the competitive system, the only system under 
 which individual liberty and progress is possible. It is the only 
 path to individual and national safety. 
 
 State Socialism is as unsound as the trust system. They are 
 both hatched out of the same false philosophy. They are both 
 enemies of freedom and progressive civilization. The are the 
 most damnable heresies of the time, pregnant with endless misery 
 for the human race. They are steps backward, not steps forward. 
 
 You say Socialism and trusts are both hatched out of the 
 same false philosophy; that they are both damnable heresies 
 and are steps backward. Inasmuch as it would involve un- 
 necessary discussion as to connotation, I will pass over your 
 adjective "false" and simply agree with you that trusts and 
 Socialism do spring from the same philosophy. But what 
 is this philosophy, may I ask ? It is the philosophy of neces- 
 sity. Of course, Jim, we know you are merely a newspaper 
 man, ready to write on any subject, at so much per, but to 
 make our discussion seem more real, I will assume you know 
 something of the laws of business and what is actually the 
 state of things industrially in the United States today. It 
 is one in which the machinery of production is far greater 
 than is needed to supply the normal demands of the market. 
 There is constantly a threat of over-production unless means 
 are taken to prevent all the machinery being operated that is 
 possible of operation. Now the owners of this machinery 
 have no more liking to produce iron, or sugar, etc., and not 
 be able to sell it except at a loss owing to over-production, 
 than would you, Jim, like to write articles for Hearst and 
 get nothing for them. Business men, Jim, strange to say, 
 don't care any more about working simply for their health
 
 How Hearst Wastes His Good Money. 397 
 
 than do newspaper men. They are sordid souls like you, 
 Jim, and they want the dough every time. Now, since over- 
 production is the cause of their getting no dough, they natur- 
 ally have devised a plan to prevent it, hence the trust. The 
 trust is primarily a device to prevent the production of goods 
 beyond what the market can absorb, although, secondarily, 
 and to a certain extent incidentally, it is a labor-saving de- 
 vice also, owing to the natural economies effected by produc- 
 tion on the largest possible scale. Now you know, Jim, that 
 you cannot find fault with men for doing that which neces- 
 sity compels them to do, and, therefore, Jim, now that I have 
 explained the necessity the capitalist had for the trust, you 
 must give up finding fault with him for creating it. But if 
 you forgive the capitalist for adopting the trust, you must 
 logically forgive the people for adopting Socialism, because 
 the same reason, viz., necessity, will force the people to adopt 
 Socialism. You ask Why? I will tell you. The capitalists 
 have been hiring a large part of the people making these very 
 machines, that they now find they have too many of. When 
 the capitalists form their trust to prevent the making of any 
 more machines, they are simply hanging out a notice to those 
 of the people whom they had formerly been employing in 
 making the machines, that their labor is no longer wanted. 
 Now, then, these poor devils are out of a job, and the problem 
 is, how are they going to get another ? . You can't answer 
 this, Jim; nobody can answer except a Socialist. The cap- 
 italists certainly cannot, for have they not just told us that 
 they cannot hire them? The Socialist says, let the nation 
 own these machines and let these poor devils who are out of a 
 job step up to the machines and relieve those fellows, who are 
 now operating them, for half the time ; everybody would then 
 have a job. You will naturally say, "Oh, yes, that's very fine, 
 but they would only get half pay if they only worked half 
 time, and that would be very hard to live upon." You, Jim, 
 would say that you would prefer the present system, under 
 which, while there may be a lot of devils who get nothing, 
 there are at least a few lucky devils like you and me and 
 Jack, who can go up on the roof of the Waldorf, have a good 
 dinner and top it with a cigar, the cost of the latter alone be- 
 ing more than the poor devil has for his whole day's work. 
 Now, Jim, I am just as much of a Sybarite as you are. I
 
 V 
 
 398 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 don't know whether I would want Socialism or not if I 
 thought that the equality we would have under it would mean 
 all hands on not simply equal rations, but half rations. I 
 would not be such a fool as not to see that Socialism was just 
 as much an inevitability, all the same, but I might not have 
 the ideal to inspire me to work for it that I have at present. 
 I know that with even the present machinery already exist- 
 ing, that we can produce enough to give everybody the luxu- 
 ries as well as the necessities of life. Simply from the purely 
 material standpoint, I consider that there is no man who will 
 not have the opportunity to enjoy life more than he does to- 
 day. What fun does Ponty Morgan have, cooped up in his 
 glass cage all day? What fun does John D. have? What 
 fun does Willy Wally Astor have, an outcast in Paris ? The 
 only fellow, to my mind, who can have any fun in this world, 
 as it is constituted today, is a Socialist like myself, who is 
 fortunate enough to have the brains and money to run a paper 
 like "The Challenge." I would not trade places with any 
 man on earth. The trouble is that it is more or less a mon- 
 opolistic kind of a position. There are not many places open 
 for such editors, and a man to be happy must feel that every- 
 body else can enjoy life as much as he can, and I know no- 
 body can compete with me, hence I am unhappy after all. 
 HajDpiness has the peculiar faculty of increasing by division. 
 
 First— One great fallacy of State Socialism is the idea that 
 competition is wasteful. That is also the defense of the trust 
 system. Nothing is wasteful, nothing is extravagant which de- 
 velops individual ambition, individual capacity, individual cour- 
 age or individual character. Human nature is so constructed that 
 the average man will not exert his full powers of mind and body, 
 will not bring to his work the passionate energy of which he may 
 be capable, unless he sees before him some great individual prize. 
 
 It is not necessary to look at your neighbor to understand this. 
 Look at yourself. Is it not true that your greatest efforts have 
 been inspired by the hope of wealth or power greater than that 
 of your fellow men? Be honest with yourself. Is it not a fact 
 that whatever development you have made in your abilities has 
 been the direct result of your struggle for personal wealth or 
 personal influence? 
 
 The genius of Mr. Carnegie and Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Mor- 
 gan was awakened by the competitive system, which gave to 
 them the opportunities which they now deny to others on the 
 ground that competition is wasteful. 
 
 Nothing is wasteful which preserves individual liberty. All the
 
 How Hearst Wastes His Good Money. 399 
 
 wars that have been waged for human freedom since the world 
 began are justified before God and man. Even war is not waste- 
 ful when its purpose is the enlargement of human rights. Money 
 and material count for nothing against the development of the 
 race. 
 
 Now, Jim, dear, we will start out with your firstly. By 
 the way, it must seem funny, Jim, for an old soldier like you 
 to fall into the ministerial firstly, secondly, etc. You say 
 that it's a great fallacy for Socialists to think that competi- 
 tion is wasteful. Now, Socialists are not the only fellows 
 who have wheels in their head on that subject. Of course, 
 Ponty Morgan and Carnegie have long ago delivered them- 
 selves upon the economies that can be and are effected by co- 
 operation, you may think them prejudiced, however, but any- 
 way they have the power just now, of making us eliminate 
 competition whether it prevents waste or not. Just as long 
 as they think competition is wasteful and say it must go, you, 
 Jim, might as well say good-by to the old lady. When Ponty 
 says a thing is to go, you can bet it goes, good or bad. How- 
 ever, it happens that a chap named James Creelman, who is 
 held up as a great authority on economics by Mr. Hearst, 
 also says competition is wasteful. You ought to read your 
 own articles, Jim, for at times you do speak the truth with- 
 out its being a typographical error. Here is what James 
 Creelman says : "Under the competitive system, a large part 
 of wealth produced went to managers, clerks, agents and 
 other employees who are eliminated by the trust system." 
 Now, by your own admission, Jim, you say that competition, 
 then, is wasteful, but you excuse it by intimating that the 
 waste goes to poor devils who need it a good deal more than 
 Rockefeller, Morgan & Co. do, who get it when it is saved 
 by the trust. The question as to who gets the saving is 
 not to the point just now. The question is, is competition 
 wasteful, and, as James Creelman says it is, I suppose you, 
 dear Jim, had better lay down and come into camp. As to 
 your objection to Rocky getting the saving, I am with you in 
 that, but I say that the best way is to let the saving be made 
 for the benefit of the people, by their owning the trust ; while 
 you say, let the waste continue, in order to give people a job. 
 
 The trust, Jimmy, dear boy, is simply as you suggest your- 
 self, a labor-saving device ; and as you would not destroy the
 
 400 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 linotype machines or trolley cars, why should you destroy the 
 trust ? Of course, Jim, you know all this is a joke, my ask- 
 ing you these questions. Hearst simply has hired you to write 
 upon a certain subject in a certain way, and you are doing the 
 best you can; that's all any man can do. When next we 
 meet, we won't be discussing trusts or socialism. If I should 
 start on that, you would say, "For God's sake, Gay, give me 
 a rest. Don't talk shop during dinner." 
 
 Second— Another fallacy of State Socialism is the theory that 
 men collectively are superior to men individually. The Socialist 
 in the United States to-day tells you that if all the great indus- 
 tries in the country were owned and operated by the government 
 the workers would be protected from injustice. 
 
 But if there is not enough virtue, intelligence and courage In 
 the masses to induce them to prevent the evils of the trust 
 system now by voting out of office men or parties controlled by 
 the trusts, where will the masses get virtue, intelligence and 
 courage sufficient to prevent the Rockefellers and Morgans from 
 dominating the Socialist commonwealth? If the great leaders 
 of the Republican party can influence and organize a majority 
 of the people to support the trust system at the polls, what 
 miracle will avert similar combinations under any form of popu- 
 lar government that can be devised? 
 
 The people of the United States are free now, and have always 
 been free to control their own affairs. Why don't they do it? 
 Will they be any wiser under a system of common ownership? 
 
 Then you continue, secondly: Socialists make a mistake 
 in thinking that men are superior collectively to men indi- 
 vidually. Well, that depends, I will admit, on what we are 
 talking about. I think that men collectively can probably 
 run the railroads of this country somewhat better than they 
 can individually. You, Jim, are a great man, but you would 
 hardly attempt to get out the JN\ Y. Journal all by yourself, 
 would you ? 1 mean you would not go up into the Maine for- 
 ests, cut down the trees, grind them into pulp, make the pulp 
 into paper, carry the paper on your back to N. Y., take it 
 down into the cellar, hoist it on to the great Hoe presses, turn 
 the wheels yourself, do everything, write all the news, the 
 editorials, the cablegrams, and after all is done, go out on the 
 street corners and sell a million copies a day. No, Jim, on a 
 program of such a nature you would probably admit that the 
 Socialists are right in their contention that there are circum- 
 stances in which collective labor would beat out individual
 
 How Hearst Wastes His Good Money. 401 
 
 effort. However, Jim, if it were a question of Whistler paint- 
 ing a picture, the Socialist would say that he could paint it 
 alone better than he could with ten men to help him. I 
 think Edwin Markham can write his poems alone and un- 
 aided better than he could with an editor to help him. You 
 must explain yourself, Jim, when you lay down your dogmas. 
 You are not always and necessarily wrong. Yes, Jim, I quite 
 agree with you in your low estimate of the intelligence of the 
 masses in not voting out of office men controlled by the trusts. 
 The first fellow I would vote out of office would be Ponty 
 Morgan, and the next would be John D. Kocky. Or, rather, 
 I would say to them, "Now, Ponty and Kocky, you are nice, 
 bright boys, and know a good deal about trusts and railways ; 
 more than anybody I know. However, you have had nobody 
 to hold you down. You are spoilt. I am now going to make 
 a new rule. You are to run the trusts for the benefit of the 
 people instead of for yourselves. You are to clear out when- 
 ever the people tell you to 'git/ You are, in fact, to become 
 the servants of the people instead of their masters. I will 
 give you one chance to keep your job, simply because I think 
 the man in the place who has already shown his capacity for 
 management should not be fired before he has had a chance 
 to show if he will conform to the new rules. You lived up 
 to the old competitive rule, all right enough. You never 
 lost a trick. Now, if you play the new game of co-operation 
 as well as you played the old one of competition, you can hold 
 your job ; but, if not, then the people will press the button and 
 you get the sack." Ponty and Rocky might say that they did 
 not care to hold the job on any such terms. They might truly 
 say that, inasmuch as at present their functions are financial 
 rather than industrial, that under Socialism their experience 
 would not be of much value, anyway. They have both 
 reached the age limit, so if they preferred a pension with no 
 work, I think, Jim, you and I would not kick about letting 
 them retire in peace and play golf for the rest of their lives. 
 
 Third— Still another fallacy of the State Socialists is the theory 
 that the trust system has demonstrated its right to live by its 
 superior facilities for producing wealth. 
 
 I absolutely deny this. The individual and small incorporated 
 industries of the United States produced, relatively in the same 
 number of working hours, as much wealth when they existed
 
 402 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 separately as they do now combined under single managers. 
 That is a statement that no well informed man will dispute. 
 
 The real difference between the wealth producing power of 
 individual industries is to be found in the profits of the pro- 
 prietors or stockholders. Under the competitive system a large 
 part of wealth produced went to managers, clerks, agents and 
 other employees who are eliminated by the trust system. But 
 the wealth was produced. It was simply distributed more among 
 the workers. The trust system dazzles the public by total figures. 
 
 The only material advantage which the trust system has 
 brought to the United States is to be found in the growth of our 
 export trade, and that is an advantage which must disappear 
 with the hostile tariffs which all the great commercial nations 
 are getting ready to levy on our foreign trade. 
 
 I will not dwell upon your thirdly, Jim, because James 
 Creelman has disposed of you, as heretofore related. 
 
 Fourth — The State Socialist's supreme plea just now is that 
 the trust system cannot be controlled or destroyed, and there- 
 fore the only thing to do is to encourage the concentration of 
 industrial wealth until it has reached a stage of national monop- 
 oly that will make the transfer of ownership to the people easy 
 and natural. 
 
 If this were true I would be a State Socialist. But it is not 
 true. It is a falsehood born of laziness and cowardice. It is the 
 argument of the man who is tired of the struggle, of the man 
 who shrinks from, the firing line of human progress. The same 
 man would have told you a hundred and twenty-five years ago 
 that it was useless to attempt to resist the authority of George 
 the Third. 
 
 As between private monopolies and public monopolies, I am in 
 favor of public monopolies. To that extent the argument of the 
 State Socialist is sound. But national monopolies are a curse, 
 only to be tolerated when they are unavoidable. A man has only 
 to travel through France, Italy, Germany, Russia and other 
 European countries to see the damning effect of national monopo- 
 lies upon human endeavor and human progress. 
 
 The people of the United States are free to change their 
 national constitution and laws. If they wish to be rid of indus- 
 trial monopolies they have the power to do it. It is absurd to 
 say that they are controlled by the trusts. How can the trusts 
 prevent them from casting their ballots for whom they please? 
 If they do not preserve their individual liberties, they do not 
 deserve freedom and are incapable of securing happiness or 
 safety in any state, Socialist or otherwise. 
 
 As to your fourthly, I would say that you and that distin- 
 guished statesman, the Honorable William Jennings Bryan, 
 of Lincoln, Nebraska, editor of the Commoner, Refuser of
 
 How Hearst Wastes His Good Money. 403 
 
 $10,000 for one speech, Colonel of the Nebraska Musketeers, 
 etc., etc., are the only two men on earth who publicly have the 
 temerity to contend against the world for the possibility of 
 the destruction of trusts. I again admire your courage, Jim, 
 but it's a shame, Jim, that you should be in such straits that 
 you are forced to make a jackass of yourself at so much per 
 from W. R. Hearst. You would have been the man, Jim, a 
 hundred years ago, telling us it was useless to resist George 
 the Third, if you, today, sincerely are telling us it is useless 
 to resist Ponty the First. Yes, the people are free to vote 
 for whom they please. Just now they vote year after year to 
 keep Ponty on his throne, but some day, Jimmy dear, they 
 may vote to enthrone themselves. 
 
 Fifth— The State Socialist argues that there is no ground upon 
 which laws restraining or abolishing private monopolies can 
 stand in the present state of government. That is another 
 hallucination. 
 
 It is a well recognized principle of government that it is the 
 supreme right and duty of organized society to preserve the 
 rights of each individual against any or all individuals. 
 
 If the trust system takes away from the individual American 
 citizen the opportunity to compete — not the assurance of success, 
 but the opportunity to engage in business on his own account — 
 if it destroys the citizen's hope of independence, then it is the 
 duty of society, its highest duty, to pass laws that will prevent 
 the trespass of corporate wealth upon private right, to reopen 
 the gate of opportunity. No nation can be greater than the 
 individuals of which it is formed. If the individual is cramped 
 and dwarfed, if all incentive to mighty endeavor is taken from 
 him, the nation must wither. 
 
 Let no American citizen accept or encourage this Socialist 
 gospel of sloth and despair. Paternal governments are for 
 children, not for men. 
 
 Fifthly : I will only touch upon your last fling at Social- 
 ism being "paternal." Now the very best example of pater- 
 nalism, Jim, is your own story of yourself and your dear old 
 daddy on the farm. You remember, you had a disagreement 
 about milking the cow. You thought the old man might do 
 it himself; he thought otherwise. Finally, he said, "Jim, if 
 you don't like things on this farm, you can lump them. 
 Please remember that I am not only your father, but, what 
 is more to the point, I own the farm. Now, you can either 
 get up at five o'clock to-morrow morning and milk that cow, 
 or you can get off the farm." Now, Jim, that was paternal-
 
 404 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 ism with a vengeance. Later on, when the old man died and 
 you and your brother inherited the farm, neither one of you 
 could order the other to milk the cow or "git off." You ar- 
 ranged things on a mutual basis of justice and right. Well, 
 that was f raternalism. Now, today, Jim, old Daddy Morgan 
 owns this great American farm, and you and I are living on 
 it under sufferance. He can order most of us off any day he 
 gets huffy simply because his liver disagrees with him. This 
 is the kind of paternalism that I and other Socialists don t 
 want. We want to come into our inheritance at once; we 
 don't want to wait till old Ponty dies, for if he did die today, 
 it would simplv mean young Ponty would take his place. 
 
 We wish to institute, at once, a fraternal management and 
 ownership of our national farm. Competition, Jim, is the 
 "real thing" in paternalism, with old Ponty as our dad. So- 
 cialism, Jim, is fraternalism with all men as brothers and 
 nobody as "dad."
 
 A Chance for Prof. Laughlin. 405 
 
 A CHANCE FOR PROF. LAUGHLIN 
 
 To J. Lawrence Laughlin, Esq., Professor of Political Econ- 
 omy, University of Chicago, Chicago, III. 
 
 Dear Professor : — You do not remember me, but I remem- 
 ber you all right. I was in your class in Political Economy 
 at Harvard University in 1881 and 1882. Twenty years ago 
 seems quite a time, but it seems but yesterday to me when 
 you were up on your professorial platform laying down the 
 laws of industry to us infants. You were a fine, young, 
 cock-sure professor in those days, just over thirty. I thought 
 you a world-beater on such busted theories as the now de- 
 funct "wages fund" which you used to delight to parade 
 before our awe-struck eyes. If some one had told me then 
 that twenty years later I would be the "parader" and that 
 you would be the "awe-struck" one, I would have thought 
 him as crazy as you now affect to think me. It's really amus- 
 ing to think how political economy was taught in those days. 
 You began at the beginning of the art and taught as truth all 
 the old played-out theories, and then the second year you had 
 what you called an "advanced" course when you knocked out 
 most of your first year theories. Just think of the absurdity 
 of this method; and I have no doubt that dear old Harvard, 
 with its delightful conservatism, is still pursuing it. It's like 
 teaching a class in astronomy during the first year that 
 Ptolemy was all right, and the next year having an "ad- 
 vanced" class in which you tell them that Copernicus was 
 the real thing. Most men never heard you correct your 
 errors, as very few of the men in the "polycon" class had 
 any inclination to spend another year on an "advanced" 
 course. The result was that I never knew until years after- 
 ward that what I was taught about the "wages fund" 
 was simply rubbish and that you knew it all the time, 
 but intended to correct my ideas the following year and 
 never did so, as I never came back to you. Your system of 
 teaching political economy reminds me of the story of the 
 editor short of copy and ordering his reporter to invent a 
 "horrible murder" story to do two days' issues, the first day 
 for the story and the second for its denial. 
 
 Some years after I left Harvard I found out what a fool 
 you had been making of me and wrote you for explanations.
 
 406 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 You answered very crushingly that you "were happy to relieve 
 my anxiety by informing me that advanced students were 
 allowed an option reading Karl Marx." I can imagine how 
 much good Karl Marx would do the poor devils who would 
 have it explained to them by such sympathetic "know-it- 
 alls" as you. 
 
 Now, my dear Professor, if I have not made myself safe 
 by insulting you, I would propose we have a little test while 
 I am in Chicago, this summer, to see whether a Chicago 
 audience will think you or I know the most about political 
 economy. I will hire the Auditorium and will pay you to 
 deliver a lecture there any day you name. I will pay you, 
 don't fear. I don't know what you get a month from the 
 University — about $5,000 per year, I guess. I have no doubt 
 but that whatever it is, you spend it all. It's so expensive 
 living in Chicago. Now, suppose I give you a chance to pay 
 for your holiday outing? I will pay you for one night's lec- 
 ture an amount equal to your whole month's salary, call it 
 $500 in round figures. That's pretty good, is it not, to take 
 down in a single night as much as you earn in a month? 
 The only condition I make is that you are to allow me equal 
 time with you, at appropriate intervals during the evening, 
 to explain to the audience why I think you don't know as 
 much as you think you do. Your subject for the night shall 
 be "The Evolution of Monopoly in America, and the Out- 
 come." 
 
 I suppose you may say you think it will be a loss of personal 
 dignity for you to appear as I propose. I quite agree that 
 before the evening is over that you will be thoroughly con- 
 vinced that you have lost your dignity, for I would make 
 the same "monkey of you" as I have seen you make of other 
 men when they argued with you in the class. Before the 
 performance begins I will deposit in the hands of the chair- 
 man — said chairman being your own appointee — the sum of 
 $1,000. If the audience, at the close of the remarks, votes 
 that you have demonstrated to them that you know more 
 than I do on the subject that you are paid by Mr. Eockefeller 
 to teach, then the chairman is to hand over to you the $1,000. 
 This means that you will get $500 in any event, and if you 
 have the ability you think you have, you will get $1,000 in 
 addition, or $1,500 in all.
 
 A Chance for Prof. Laughlin. 407 
 
 In conclusion, I would say that I know perfectly well that 
 you know that I know that you will never pick up the gaunt- 
 let- However, there are people in this world who don't know 
 as much as you and I do. We are both trying to enlighten 
 them about various things, and the particular subject I am 
 trying to enlighten them upon is what hollow shams you 
 college professors are. They know it about their politicians; 
 they guess it about most of their preachers; but it's wonder- 
 ful what erroneous ideas they still retain for the knowledge 
 and earnestness of purpose that you professors have. I can 
 understand well enough that the esprit de corps among you 
 professors allows you to excuse yourself from debating with 
 outsiders upon subjects which you profess to have more or 
 less a monopoly of the knowledge. 
 
 If you debated with me I would show to the world what a 
 ridiculous pretender you are. I would not only demolish you, 
 but I would at the same time create a doubt among the 
 people as to the honesty and knowledge possessed by the 
 whole lot of your learned brethren. Your ignominious de- 
 feat before a crowded audience in the great Auditorium hall 
 in Chicago would have a great effect in shattering the false 
 ideals held by many as to the omniscience of college pro- 
 fessors. It's true that I am making excuses for you to ignore 
 my challenge, and if I had the slightest idea you would 
 accept if I were more polite, I assure you that I would cease 
 my insults. But I know too well that wild horses would 
 not drag you to the Auditorium, and hence I feel serene in 
 saying what I think about you to your face, with no mis- 
 givings about my scaring away the game. 
 
 However, Professor, I am sorry to make you feel uncom- 
 fortable. It's too bad, but you will have some consolation 
 in reflecting that some people may never see "The Challenge," 
 and that you will be able to play your part with comparative 
 safety if you are only careful to arrange a properly selected 
 and restricted audience. I hope now I have "relieved your 
 mind" as you relieved mine some years ago. 
 
 Faithfully yours, 
 
 Gaylord Wilshibe. 
 
 P. S. — You can address me at Auditorium Hotel, Chicago, 
 after the 22d inst. G. W.
 
 INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Addams, Jane — Artist (December, 1902) 114 
 
 An Easy Way to Wealth, Wish For It (December, 1905).... 186 
 
 An International Office Seeker (November, 1902) 118 
 
 America Suffocating: With Wealth (February, 1904) 227 
 
 American Ideal The (February, 1903) 334 
 
 Bearding the Nebraska Lion 398 
 
 Boom of 1906, The (July, 1906) 273 
 
 Bryan Explains Socialism (July, 1904) 304 
 
 Bryan Will Discuss Socialism (April, 1904) 225 
 
 Capitalism Breeds no Horatios 401 
 
 Chance for Prof. Laughlin, A (July, 1901) 405 
 
 Class vs. Class: Resultant (November, 1904) 161 
 
 Classes in America (March, 1903) 319 
 
 Coffee, Currants and Oranges (August, 1903) 180 
 
 Columbia's Race for Liberty (rxpril, 1902) 78 
 
 Death of the Democratic Party, The (December, 1904) 242 
 
 Disadvantage of not Being a Princess (May, 1902) 237 
 
 Distribution the Problem (July, 1905) 100 
 
 ; Effect of the Earthquake on Socialism (May, 1906) 169 
 
 t- Fallacy of Public Ownership, The (May, 1902) 171 
 
 Feudalism Versus Capitalism in Russia (May, 1906) 183 
 
 Financial Cataclysm Inevitable, A (August, 1903) 151 
 
 Gompers and His Little Plan, Mr. (January, 1904) 285 
 
 Good Old Rockefeller (July, 1904) 219 
 
 Heart to Heart Talk, A (October, 1902) 350 
 
 Hop Lee and the Pelican (Leaflet), (May, 1903) 51 
 
 How Hearst Wastes His Good Money 382 
 
 How High Can Wages Go? (December, 1902) 75 
 
 How to Be Happy (September, 1904) 281 
 
 How We Will Divide (April, 1904) 259 
 
 Impossibility of a Russian Social Revolution, The (August, 
 
 1905) 194 
 
 Inexorable Trust, The (February, 1905) 216 
 
 Is Socialism Practical? (May, 1905) 98 
 
 Left at The Evening Post (June, 1905) 203 
 
 ' "Merger" Decision, The (May, 1903) 248 
 
 Modern "Abbot of Unreason", A 393 
 
 Money Under Socialism (February, 1906) 157 
 
 Monopoly a Necessity (January, 1904) 293 
 
 409
 
 410 Wilshire Editorials. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Munich— A Prophecy of the Future (November, 1903) 328 
 
 Municipal Ownership — Its Meaning (January, 1906) 122 
 
 Mutation Theory Applied to Society, The (September, 1905). 87 
 
 i Mysterious Mr. Hearst, The (April, 1903) 317 
 
 New Shoes for Old Ballots (March, 1906) 235 
 
 Not Striving for Good Form 378 
 
 Old Lady's Ailment, The 376 
 
 Prophecy of 1891, A (August, 1902) 46 
 
 Psychological Problem, A (March, 1902) 231 
 
 "Right to Work", The (March, 1904) 246 
 
 Rights of a Wheelbarrow, The (March, 1905) 306 
 
 Rockefeller Incognito (August, 1902) 313 
 
 Roosevelt's Muck Rake (April, 1906) 271 
 
 Salutatory (December, 1900) 367 
 
 Science Benefits the Rich (August, 1904) 359 
 
 Sequel to a Modern Romance^ The (November, 1903) 324 
 
 Shaw's "Super-Man" (October, 1904) 143 
 
 Significance of the Trust, The (Pamphlet) 14 
 
 Sippers of Carlsbad, The (December, 1903) 322 
 
 Socialism: A Religion (June, 1906) 8 
 
 Spencer, Herbert (February, 1904) 279 
 
 Strikers and the Meat Trust, The (August, 1904) 206 
 
 Strike to Set Them Free (April, 1906) 363 
 
 Talk with Rockefeller, A (May, 1903) 55 
 
 Ten Hour Decision, The (June, 1905) 209 
 
 Tesla's Great Promise (July, 1904) 302 
 
 That 5x4 Merger Joke (May, 1904) 256 
 
 To the Voters of the 10th Congressional District, New 
 
 York (November, 1902) 308 
 
 True Joy of Life, The (September, 1902) 63 
 
 Trust Overshadows All Issues, The (July, 1902) 338 
 
 Two Nations, The (January, 1905) 268 
 
 Two World Conquerors (September, 1902) 67 
 
 Undigested Securities (October, 1903) 296 
 
 Virchow's Cell Theory (May, 1905) 134 
 
 Vote for Debs (September, 1904) 252 
 
 Wall Street Journal Turns Moralist (February, 1904) 213 
 
 Wallace's Great Book (February, 1904) 105 
 
 War or Socialism a Necessity (March, 1906) 254 
 
 We Feed Our Buffaloes, but Starve Ourselves (April, 1905) 255 
 
 What Good Is Government Ownership? (August, 1904) 263 
 
 What Is Religion? (April, 1905) 361 
 
 What Men Vote For (October, 1904) 147 
 
 When Men Love Nature (September, 1904) 240 
 
 White Collars and a Yellow Press (December, 1903) 138 
 
 Why a Peacock 371 
 
 Why a Workingman Should Be a Socialist (Leaflet) 33 
 
 Why Save Men's Soul's? (December, 1902) 43 
 
 Wilshire's and the Crisis (March, 1906) 250 
 
 Wilshire's Exile to End (April, 1904) 221 
 
 World Trust, A (November, 1904) 200
 
 "LET THE NATION OWN THE TRUSTS 
 
 WILTSHIRE'S MAGAZINE 
 
 GAYLORD WILSHIRE, Editor 
 
 Is the leading Socialist Magazine in the world. 
 
 Has a circulation in excess of 300,000. Finely illustrated. Pub- 
 lished monthly. 
 
 If you wish to keep up to date on this most important subject, 
 subscribe to-day — or better still, get a half dozen or so of 
 your neighbors to subscribe with you. 
 
 Subscription Price: 25 Gents for a Whole Year 
 
 AT THE BAR OF PUBLIC OPINION 
 
 SIR CHARLES DILKE, M. P.: I read Wilshire's Magazine with interest. 
 
 S. M. JONES, Mayor of Toledo: It will help keep the great ball of truth 
 rolling. 
 
 EARL RUSSELL: I read your magazine with pleasure and interest. 
 
 WALTER CRANE, the great English artist: Your excellent and striking 
 article on the trusts. 
 
 PROF. GEORGE D. HERRON: I am extremely well pleased with Wilshire's 
 Magazine. 
 
 PROF. N. A. RICHARDSON, Superintendent San Bernardino Public Schools: 
 You are issuing the ablest Socialist paper. 
 
 EDMUND C. STEDMAN, the "Banker Poet": I have read with interest 
 your article on the "Significance of the Trust," and agree with much of it. 
 
 JULIAN HAWTHORNE, distinguished novelist: I read your magazine with 
 interest and am in complete sympathy with you in your attitude toward 
 the American post-office people. 
 
 BARONESS VON SUTTNER, President Austrian Peace Society: I thank 
 you most warmly for sending me your brilliant paper. I feel as if some 
 one had given me a box full of precious stones and pearls. 
 
 411
 
 EDWIN MARKHAM, author of "Man With the Hoe": Its typographical 
 appearance is excellent, and I have not seen a paper more stimulating and 
 suggestive on questions of progressive politics. 
 
 LEONARD D. ABBOTT, Staff of "Current Literature": American Socialists 
 want such literature, imbued with deep Socialist spirit, and with a clear 
 concept of the history, the philosophy, the ethics and the economics of the 
 international Socialist movement. 
 
 H. M. HYNDMAN, "England's Greatest Socialist": As to yourself, you 
 have seen much of both worlds, the old and the new. You are experienced 
 in business, have studied widely and have thought a great deal. Soundly 
 and broadly based upon the true theories of material and industrial evolu- 
 tion, you can bring your fully developed mind to bear with ripe theoretical 
 insight upon the last stage of capitalism, now extending all round you. 
 You are thus able to keep constantly before your countrymen the true 
 meaning of events which at present they scarcely appreciate, and through 
 your magazine can thus help them to rise to the level of their opportunities 
 as educated and class conscious citizens of the world. I know none who 
 is better capable than yourself of rendering this great service to the workers 
 of America and to mankind at large. 
 
 W. S. CAINE, M. P., member Royal Indian Finance Commission: I have been 
 much interested in reading a copy of Wilshire's Magazine. 
 
 EUGENE V. DEBS: You are storming the strongholds of the enemy and you 
 keep the air filled with grape and canister and heavier missiles. Wilshire's 
 Magazine is a credit to you and to the cause. It means business, and says 
 so in plain language. 
 
 E. BELFORT BAX, London: You have succeeded in starting a thoroughly 
 
 sound and uncompromising party organ. Hardly the most enraged of 
 Socialists will be able to deny that you are fighting a good fight and keep- 
 ing the faith of Social Democracy without any shirking. Long life and 
 prosperity to Wilshire's Magazine. 
 
 A. M. SIMONS, editor "International Socialist Review": Permit me to con- 
 gratulate you on the appearance of Wilshire's Magazine. "It fills a long- 
 felt want," and will make Socialists wherever it finds readers who know 
 enough to draw conclusions from facts so submitted to them. It is cer- 
 tainly the "warmest number" of the Socialist press circle. 
 
 JACK LONDON, author of "The Son of the Wolf": Wilshire's Magazine 
 seems the incarnation of the push and go of the period. I saw the first 
 copies this morning and send in my subscription at once. There is a snap 
 and go about your new venture which I must say I like, to say nothing 
 of its intrinsic worth. 1 know I shall get my money back manyfold ere 
 the year is out. 
 
 F. YORK POWELL, M. A., Regius Professor of Modern History, Oxford Uni- 
 
 versity, England: Christ Church, Oxford, March 23, 1901 — Dear Wil- 
 shire: — I am glad you and your paper are doing well. You always prophe- 
 sied that the trusts would go on till they got into one or two hands, and 
 then the nation would take them over. It looks like happening now fairly 
 soon. Keep pegging away at the monstrous industrial slavery you have 
 exposed at Chicago so ably. I wish you all luck. 
 
 J. A. HOBSON, the distinguished English economist, author of "The Evolu^ 
 tion of Modern Capitalism": Your article, "Significance of the Trusf," 
 which I have just read, is the straightest, strongest, most convincing, and 
 most scientifically accurate account of the relation between capital and 
 imperialism that has yet appeared. 
 
 412
 
 PROGRESS 
 
 A NEW SOCIALIST MAGAZINE 
 
 Edited by Gaylord Wilshire 
 
 At present a quarterly, but will be changed to a monthly as 
 soon as a circulation of 100,000 is obtained. 
 
 It is intended to make this magazine indicative of Progress 
 along the lines of Science, Art and Literature; and as Socialism 
 is the most progressive of all sciences, it will be dealt with prom- 
 inently. 
 
 Subscription price, so long as the magazine is a quarterly, 
 will be only 10c. per year. Send your subscription at once to the 
 
 WILSHIRE BOOK COMPANY 
 
 200 William Street, New York City 
 
 413
 
 WILSHIRE LEAFLETS 
 
 1. Why Workingmen Should be Socialists. By Gaylord Wil- 
 shire. Price, 2c; 75c. per 100, postpaid. 
 
 This is one of the classics of the literature on Socialism in 
 America. 
 
 It was written over fifteen years ago, and has been printed by 
 many different publishing houses, and, so far as is known, the cir- 
 culation to-day has been ten or eleven million copies. 
 
 For simplicity and completeness it cannot be beaten. An 
 excellent pamphlet to circulate in large quantities. 
 
 2. The Significance of the Trust. By Gaylord Wilshire. Price, 
 
 5c; $2.00 per 100, postpaid. 
 
 In this pamphlet the author defines the trust question and 
 makes it plain that the inevitable outcome is Socialism. Written 
 in a simple, popular style. It is a most excellent pamphlet for 
 distribution. Give this pamphlet to the man who says Socialism 
 won't work, and, after he has studied it, he will abandon all such 
 arguments. 
 
 3. WiIshire=Seligman Debate. Price, 5c; $2.00 per 100, postpaid. 
 
 This debate is a verbatim report of a memorable debate be- 
 tween Gaylord Wilshire, Editor of "Wilshire's Magazine," and 
 Professor Seligman, of Columbia College. 
 
 It is very good reading for the man who wants to hear "both 
 sides." 
 
 4. Hop Lee and the Pelican. By Gaylord Wilshire. Price, 2c; 
 
 75c. per 100, postpaid. 
 
 This pamphlet is illustrated in an interesting manner. It is a 
 fable illustrating how Hop Lee makes the pelican work for him. 
 and has a very apt moral. 
 
 414
 
 5. The Tramp. By Jack London. Price, 5c; $2.00 per 100, 
 
 postpaid. 
 
 This pamphlet is by the well-known novelist and author of 
 "The Sea Wolf," "Call of the Wild," "War of the Classes," etc., etc. 
 
 In it the development of the tramp is traced. The book has 
 many valuable statistics and altogether is a terrible indictment of 
 
 the capitalist system. 
 
 6. Wilshire=Carver Debate. Price, 5c; 100 copies, $2.00, postpaid. 
 
 T. N. Carver, Professor of Political Economy, Harvard Uni- 
 versity, vs. Gaylord Wilshire, Editor "Wilshire's Magazine." 
 
 A debate on Socialism held January 15, 1906, at Hartford, 
 Conn., before the "Get-Together Club," between Professor 
 Thomas Nixon Carver, Professor of Political Economy, Harvard 
 University, and Gaylord Wilshire, Editor of "Wilshire's Maga- 
 zine." 
 
 Professor Gustavus A. Kleene, Professor of Economics, Trin- 
 ity College, presided as chairman. 
 
 7. Why Save Men's Souls? By Gaylord Wilshire. Price, 50c. 
 
 per 100, postpaid. 
 
 This is a reprint of a very good editorial that appeared in 
 "Wilshire's Magazine." An excellent thing to give to those re- 
 ligiously inclined. 
 
 8. A B C of Socialism. By H. P. Moyer. Price, 2c; $1.00 per 
 
 100, postpaid. 
 
 A pamphlet that is good to distribute among people who wish 
 a simple treatise on the subject. 
 
 9. Easy Lessons in Socialism. By Wm. H. Leffingwell. Price, 
 
 5c; $2.25 per 100, postpaid. 
 
 In this booklet the essential principles of Socialism are stated 
 in five simple lessons, each containing four propositions. It is 
 specially adapted to put in the hands of those who have never yet 
 done any reading on the subject of Socialism. 
 
 10. Socialism a Religion. A new pamphlet by Gaylord Wilshire. 
 
 2c. each; $1.00 per 100; $7.50 per 1,000. 
 
 REAL RELIGION is something which finds a man, rather 
 than something which he finds. Mr. Wilshire and most good 
 
 415
 
 Socialists agree that until the belief in Socialism gets hold of the 
 hearts and emotions of the people, more as a religion than as an 
 understanding of economic events, there is not going to be a 
 social revolution. 
 
 The best Socialist is one who cannot only sympathize with 
 poverty and wish to alleviate it, but who has the imagination to 
 see the world of beauty which Socialism promises as the goal to 
 be realized. 
 
 With poverty abolished from the earth, men will devote them- 
 selves to living their spiritual lives, and Socialism is merely a 
 path to this end. 
 
 It is just the pamphlet to pass along to your "church-going 
 friend." 
 
 11. My Master the Machine. By Roy O. Ackley. Reprint of 
 
 an excellent propaganda article that appeared in Wilshire's 
 Magazine, October, 1906. Price, 2c. per copy; $1.00 per 
 100; $7.50 per 1,000. 
 
 12. Socialism, The Hope of the World. By Eugene Wood, author 
 
 of "Back Home," etc Reprint of an article in Wilshire's 
 Magazine, November, 1906. Price, 5c. a copy; $2.00 per 100. 
 
 13. The Haywood-Moyer Outrage. By Joseph Wanhope. $2.50 
 
 per 100, postpaid. 
 
 A more important pamphlet concerning the labor movement 
 has never been issued. 
 
 It is a trenchant indictment of capitalism. 
 
 It will "sell like hot cakes" at your meetings. Especially good 
 for outdoor meetings. You should see that every union man in 
 town gets one. 
 
 It has gone through two editions. 
 Now is the time to order. 
 
 Entire Set of These Leaflets Sent Postpaid for 15 Cents. 
 WILSHIRE BOOK CO., NEW YORK. 
 
 416
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 APR 9-19 
 1 1960 
 
 APR H I860. 
 231960 
 
 NOV 9 I960 
 
 DEC 
 
 ^^irfl "IS 
 
 
 recd ld-URI JUL 3 1975 
 
 HMiKi- MAY 3 
 
 IHWIW* 
 
 SI 1979" 
 
 DISCHAR6E 
 
 QCT 61982 
 
 ! 
 
 U«l JUL 3 1&B7 
 *««.5 OCT 
 
 12 
 
 /% 
 
 HAY 6 3 1988 
 
 ORION n*«fc— 
 ID/URL JW0*8| 
 
 Form L9-100m-9,'52(A3105)444
 
 4 JBI 
 
 ** 3 11 
 
 58 00425 8058 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.