16
UNIVERSITY COURIER.
the radical nihilists be adopted. This admits injustice and admits it to be invincible.
In all the great business enterprises of to-day production is secured by a combination of Labor and Capital. Now, I maintain that Labor has a moral right to a portion of the profits of the work on which it is engaged. Capital's claim to profits is based on assumption of the liability to loss. But I think it demonstrable that Labor assumes a greater risk than Capital. I cannot deal with these points at length, but ask you to take them with you. The laborers connected with any great enterprise establish homes in the immediate vicinity, have families, and associations. Furthermore, these laborers become specialists, materially reducing their capacity to other work. Finally, they expose themselves ot personal danger from bad air, explosions, fires. Now, if the business runs low the first place for reduction is the employes' wages. If the business fails, the laborers lose their maintenance. With homes and families hard to move, themselves incapacitated for other work, tell me whether the laborers have not risked more than the Capitalist—their homes, the support of their families, their own health. It seems to me this is so plain as to need no more words. On the ground of Capital's own claim, then, Labor has a right to a portion of the profits.
Scientists know what they call a good working hypothesis. If a theory, a priori undemonstrable, works well, explains phenomena before inexplicable, there is strong presumption in favor of the correctness of the theory. The theory I have just attempted to prove has also this support. Some large mercantile houses in the east have adopted the plan of distributing among their employes a percentage of the net profits. The result is that the work done is more hearty and more thorough, the employees are more loyal to their employers, and the profits of Capital have actually increased in gross. Several of the largest manufacturing establishments in Connecticut have adopted this practice. Another case is that of the extensive wholesale house of Hovey & Co., in Boston, whose establishment was saved in the great fire by the exertions of the employes, thus also checking the progress of the conflagration in the city.
I admit that the question, "What, then, shall be the shares of the parties?" becomes a perplexing one, but study, perhaps, and experience, certainly, can solve it. A small percentage for Labor may be the rule in the beginning. When Capital refuses to go into the business that will show that the limits have been reached.
But how to bring this relation into practice? I would have it taught, if it seems true. Let the preachers of Political Economy impress it upon incipient labor and capital alike, that it is just, and upon capital especially, that it is profitable. And, secondly, if necessary when sufficient study shows the right methods, I would have it enforced by Government. Government makes careful provision for the protection of manufacturers, for the collection of debts, for the security of property, for the privileges of corporations—why should it hesitate to aid the laborer in securing his own. I am aware of the difficulty of securing by law what the common conscience does not hold to be just, but I believe the justice of this will be felt, when fairly stated.
Several methods of checking the vast accumulations of wealth in this country have already been proposed by
those who, though unable to find the source, have felt the danger that threatens our society. A law forbidding the holding of more than a certain amount by one person is the most direct, though the most impracticable. A graded income tax has been supported by all great writers on Political Economy, the most serious objection to it being the difficulty of collection. Mr. Henry George proposes to abolish private land-holdings. The theory, after study, may seem good, but the practical difficulties in the way of getting it adopted seem insuperable. However, a book which has filled the landholders of all Great Britain with alarm and consternation, deserves to be looked after.
What seems to me the most feasible method is the limitation of the amount which may be bequeathed to any one child. All experience shows that the possession of a fortune that has not been earned, especially by the young, is almost invariably disastrous to the character. The effect upon parents would be to check the mad desire to accumulate fortunes for unripe children to waste, and to turn more of the paternal income to the education of the children. Ten thousand dollars spent upon the training of a child in an investment that pays sure returns, while ten thousand dollars left to the child is likely to prove its ruin. German parents, as a rule, put every dollar into a child that his abilities will warrant, and I challenge you to find one German boy among the idlers on our streets. It is a wholesome lesson that they teach Americans, none the less so if it can be enforced by law. I do not believe that any of these measures would check enterprise—or at least beyond a limited and perhaps a very healthy amount. For "I think God made the earth for man, not trade."
None of these measures strike at the root of the matter, but they approximate justice, and they deserve study and consideration. This problem has got to be solved and any reasonable proposition should be received with joy.
But if you propose any adjustment of the inequalities of the present system requiring governmental sanction or interference you will be crushed by the convincing argument of Laissez-faire. Now in many cases Laissezfaire, translated into English, simply means, "Let us alone." "Laissez-faire' is the doctrine the horse-thief believes in as he escapes with the animal. "Laissezfaire" is the policy the Southern States wanted the government to adopt in 1861. "Laissez-faire," if you could understand him, is the petition of the wolf as he makes off with your chicken.—"Let us alone,"—it is everywhere the shout of those who have the advantage, who have arranged things to suit themselves at the expense of others. The weak and the down-trodden, you will find, never shout, "Let us alone." "Laissezfaire," is a bug-bear, but no argument. Whenever a man tries to suppress you with Laissez-faire," be sure he is short of ammunition—this is a blank-cartridge, always ask him "Why laissez-faire?"
Let Labor and Capital both be taught that the profits of business belong to both of them-not to one as at present-that justice demands a division between partners; and let Capital especially be taught that in the long run, justice pays. If we could only see far enough we would all be just-even merciful-from pure selfishness.
If the glories of a future heaven have ceased to attract the struggling masses of our New World, let us show