rAGE 7
SEPTEMBER 21, 1905
6e Nobraoka. Indopondont
i Letters From The People
' &&e
The Independent solicits from its readers
brief letters on current topics and practical re
forms. Such letters should not contain more than
500 words. There are many subscribers to The
Independent who can give in simple language
helpful views as to the v.:; s and means of improv
ing social, political and economic conditions in
this country. Letters must be typewritten or writ
ten legibly in ink and only one side of the paper
must be used. The Independent cannot under
take to return manuscripts. Ed.
Thinks Obenchaln Pessimistic
Chicago, 111., Sept. 18. To the Editor of The
Independent:; I read your editorial "The Lot of .
the Toiler" with much interest, for it touched the
right spot in at least one workingman ;s heart. I
was surprised, therefore, when C. E. Obenchain
criticised you so severely for writing it. I think
that he entirely misconstrues its meaning. "I take
it that your object was to show that under the
present industrial system the workman has com
pensations which should prevent him from being
pessimistic and constantly unhappy.
Mr. Obenchain's criticism that your editorial
was pessimistic is unfair. It is he who is pessi
mistic. He complains because you say that "the
lot of the laboring man has slowly but, surely
improved in the last 200 or 300 years." He thinks
this a bit of "cynical humor," and yet industrial
progress must be slow. Socialism, of which Mr.
Obenchain is such a stout advocate, is founded
on the . theory of evolution and your critic should
know that if we are to have socialism it must be
a gradual development such as that which in the
last 300 years has evolved the -wage-earner from
the feudal serf. Socialism could not be made ef
fective at once even by revolution. It is still in
the theoretical state and many years would be
reuired to perfect the socialistic organization
even if it were practicable. "Why, then, should
Mr. Obenchain be so angry because you frankly
admit that conditions are improving slowly. If
socialism improved the lot of the toiler it would
be by a slow process. If the workingman is to
find no cause for cheer until we have socialism
he will be unhappy for many long years. Your
editorial made it clear that the workman has rea
sons for happiness and it was therefore decided
ly optimistic, and did not in the least cover up
or minimize the hard lot of the workmen ninety
six per cent of the entire population who -must
earn their bread by the sweat of their brows.
You showed that a workman's health, skill,
energy, etc, are as good to him as is the capital
of the employer, that they take the place of cap
ital and cannot he as easily impaired by hard
times. Very unfairly, I think, Mr. Obenchain says
"of course it is self-evident that if the workman
has nothing he can lose nothing." You proved
that the workingman has something of such stable
value that it is not as susceptible to hard times as
capital. Your critic declares that the capitalist
has money to buy bread in hard times and the
workingman has not. You were demonstrating
that the capitalists by thi thousands fail in hard
times, losing all their money. Where then do
they get the money to buy bread? Let us hark
back to the hard times In the nineties. I knew
scores of workmen who could not obtain posi
tions.' I was one of them. I lived through the
iiard times just as the others did. They were
fearful days. But I knew capitalists who had
lost their all and they were making their way
through the hard times just as I was. And some
of those capitalists of other days are workmen
now and are earning small salaries because they
.were and are unskilled.
Mr. Obenchain may say that it Is indeed a
hard world under the competitive system. Even
capitalists are slaves to its cruel laws. But I am
not taking Issue with him on that point and in,
your editorial you did not try to conceal the fact
that "man was made to mourn." You simply tried
" to indicate that there were good - things in life
that many men wilfully overlook. And I am of
the opinion that socialists make their chief error
in contending that the greatest measure of our
unhappiness comes from inequality of wealth. I
was taught, and still believe, that most of our
misery comes from breaking the laws of God.
Lust, intemperance, sloth, pride, envy, hate, de
sire for revenge and other evil passions produce
the greatest amount of unhappiness. No social
ist can convince me that these passions would
be absent -under socialism, and they would do
more to disturb the equilbrium of a socialistic
state than they do now to disturb our present
system.
Now for some of Mr. Obenchain's economics.
He declares that "labor today Is dispossessed of
the power to consume to the extent machinery
has usurped production in all lines of industry."
That is only a half truth. It loses sight of the
fact that demand constantly increases and also
that new occupations are supplied by new inven
tions. .Think of the new occupations afforded by
such industries as the telephone, telegraph, elec
tric lighting, railway and other new industries.
They have Increased production but they have also
supplied a new demand.
Mr. Obenchain writes: "Labor, receiving a
reward of but one-fifth of what with the aid of
machinery it produces, can buy back but one
fifth, leaving the other four-fifths as a surplus."
Such an argument fails to take Into consideration
the fact that much wealth Is consumed and much
is wasted. Is the portion that goes to capital,
viz., such wealth as is neither wasted nor con
sumed, stored up and never used by any save
capitalists? To argue thus would be to argue
that wealth is never redistributed by vast ex
penditures, by mischance, failures and the con
sequent dissolution of large fortunes. Much of
that wealth is re-employed to produce new wealth
and wears out just as tools wear Out.
After developing his argument Mr. Obenchain
declares that wealth is constantly accumulating
in fewer and fewer hands. This is perfectly true,
but it is not because of the process which he has
described. It is the inevitable tendency of the
profit system, if not controlled by restrictive laws,
to concentrate wealth, but the law, is not stated
broadly by Mr. Obenchain nor by the most radical
socialists. Much of the concentration in this
country is .due to special privileges such as the
tariff, rebates and exemptions from just taxation.
Wealth is concentrating in this country more
rapidly than in most of the European countries
because of these special privileges which have
built up the trusts. These special privileges can
be taken away from them by the law. Some think
that regulation by law is the , right corrective.
Others pin their faith to the state ownership of
land and all instruments of production and dis
- tribution. Still others contend that regulation by
law and a measure of state socialism will do much
to remedy, present industrial ills. Your paper
seems to occupy the ground last named. You
favor government ownership of railways, of tele
graph and telephone systems and of a parcels post.
You favor the municipal ownership of public utili
ties. You oppose a robber tariff, free passes, re
bates and all unjust discriminations and you ad
vocate laws that will remove these Injustices and
demand public officials who will enforce these
laws after they are made. I am with you in thi3
program because I believe it to be right and
practical. If socialism is to come and is to prove
a universal remedy it must be by a slow process,
and I cannot understand why Mr. Obenchain
should indulge in such a heated criticism of an
editorial that contained so much truth.
H. B. MAXWELL.
fatherly care being exercised. But what would
"be thought of that father, that would have the
weak, helpless members of his family tolK and ,
drudge for the strong and Independent portion.
Yet that is the way our government is dealing r
with Its subjects. I claim that there never has
been, nor is today a democratic financial system
in the world. But if our government will estab
lish the system I gave you in my other contribu
tions; then regulate it tX $50 per capita: and
establish postal savings banks at convenient dis
tances all over the country, where all could get
money to a limited amount, at two per cent per
.annum on gilt-edged security there would then
be a democratic financial system. If it should be
let out in unlimited amounts, the rich would form
syndicates and take it all out, and control it as
they do now. And the penalty against dishonesty
would have to be so severe, that there would bo
little inducement for thieving.
Of course, this system Is hinged on the assump
tion that money is a mere medium of exchange,
that within Itself It has no Intrinsic value. But if
the substance of which the coin is made makes it
money, then it Is all a fallacy. And the man who
argued with me, a short time back, that gold could
not be demonetized, and that it was always of tho
same value in all countries, was correct, thus
making gold an infallible standard in finance. But
I will not believe this doctrine till some one brings
more light to prove it than I have ever yet had.
The people here are not nearly as well in
formed as to the needed reforms, as they are iu
Oklahoma. They seem to have more confidence
in the efficiency of the old parties. Now if this
system I have given is unsound or will not work,
let some one say so, and point It out. And then
give us something better.
But it will not do to merely say we want an
irredeemable government money, for there is too
much diffrence of opinion as to what it takes to
make that kind of money. But with the systea
I have given, we could regulate the circulation to
just what is needed. We would then have sound
money, for one dollar would be as good as another
no matter what it is made of, and it would be
honest money, and that is something that we have
not often had, for whenever the circulating medium
is being inflated, and contracted, the money Is not
honest; it is a great deal worse when contracted
than when inflated. For in inflation all property
is increased in value and the debtor pays his debts
more easily, but the creditor's property is in
creased in value, and he does . not feel the loss.
But then in a contraction, all property shrinks in
value. The debtor has to dispose of much more
stock and produce to satisfy the same amount of
liability. Thus the burden comes on those who
are least able to bear it. In this way hundreds of
thousands of people were driven to poverty, and
financial ruin in the contraction to bring the
specie resumption back in the seventies. We have
had a money panic and consequently a contraction
of the circulating medium on an average of once
every ten years ever since I can remember.
A. E. CAMPBELL.
Speaks for a People's Money
Olympia, Washington, September 12. To
the Editor of The Independent: As I did not in
my last contribution say all I wished to say on
the financial system, I will make some additions
in this, for I consider the financial question the
greatest issue confronting us. Although we need
many other reforms, yet if we secure all other
reforms and leave the financial system as it is,
it would build up an aristocratic class. ,
The financial system we have was initiated
under despotic government. But to my
mind It would be too hard to concoct
a worse system of robbing th3 tolling millions, and
turning this wealth over to the favored class than
. we have. , Under it the money flows into the cof
, fers of the rich as naturally as water flows down
hill. They not only draw, interest on vlrtualy
all the money In circulation, but also on billion3
of the people's credit. It amounts to several hun
dred millions of dollars every year. Then that
goes in as capital for the next year, and soon, in
this way, the favored classes are piling up their
wealth all the time, and the tolling people are
being drained out all the time.
Talk abut paternalism! I am rot opposed to
Progress Made in Last Decade
Syracuse, N. Y., September 18. To the Edi
tor of The Independent: A few years ago I
thought that the election of senators by direct
vote of the people was a debatable question. At
all event3, I engaged in a debate at university,
taking the side that the present system was
satisfactory. The other day I read the speech
I made on that occasion and some of the state
ments in it are highly amusing in the light of
history. For example, I declared that the best
argument in favor of our present system was
the honesty, efficiency and keen sense of honor
that had always distinguished United States sen
ators. We had not heard of Mitchell, Depew,
Burton and Dietrich in those days, and there
fore the argument sounded impressive.
I maintained that it would be as easy to buy
political machines as to buy legislatures, ignor
ant of the fact that political machines exist only
when the people do not have direct control of
their political affairs. It is, of course, absolutely
necessary for the people to have direct prima
ries If they wish t omake the direct election of
senators effective. Ten years ago there was lit
tle talk of the direct primary, the initiative and
referendum or even of the -election of senators
by direct vote. It ik plain, therefore, that we
have made substantial progress in the last de
cade. The direct primary has been tried in many
cities and in not a few states. Defects have been
found, but they have been corrected. The in
itiative and referendum seems to be winning its
way nobly and I think the election of senators
by direct vote will come within the next decade
in spite of the railways and trusts. After that
we will make up our minds to elect our presi
dents by direct vote so that we shall not have
in the White. House any man whose election has
been secured by a minority vote.
RICHARD B. CATERON.
