With no more war debts to cumber the ground, there will be no . more wars. Not "On to Richmond;" but "On to The Hague!" will be the cry in case of international disputes. The usurer is the instigator of all the wars among civilized peoples today. "No more bonds, no more wars," as the boy said who was given whisky to "bring him to consciousness when he had fits." The whisky out, he said: more whisky, no more fits."

"No

YE 135TH LESSON.

What is Just?

A wonderful change is taking place in the ideas of mankind as a result of the increased intelligence of the masses, consequent upon extended education, the common schools reducing illiteracy to the minimum. The common rights of man are more considered than ever before. Government, however, does not fully reflect advanced opinion, because the governing class is not the many. But this situation will not last long. Public opinion is bound to become crystallized in laws and institutions sooner or later. Everything must be logical-that is what may be called evolution-movement in logical order.

Is it logical that the conditions of war demand of the individual to give his life and not in the same way his property? But all are expected to give of property-each about the same. But war takes not an equal portion from each of sacred life-wealth. The richest give all.

See how this is exacted: the best men must go to the field. These tender all. But do the "richest men" (so-called) come forward and make a like tender of all their property?

Am I obscure in my language? Who is in fact the richest man? Positively not he who has the most money and property; but he who has the greatest fund of true manhood-health, strength, intelligence these three. He is the richest man, though he may be as poor in property as was Jesus Christ.

But has not the government the same right to say, "None will be required to give of money to support the war but a select few"-____ the (so-called) "richest men," as it has to say, "None shall go to the front but the choicest of our youth?"-those richest in manhood? Ah, which is superior, manhood or money? Life or property?

But the youth volunteer and the money-giver does not volunteerthe youth to give his life-the money-giver his property.

The money-giver ought to volunteer to give his money as the young men do their lives.

the

If the youth did not volunteer they would be drafted. The government takes only the best fitted-the healthiest best qualified physically. Why does it not say also: "I will take the money to support the war of only the wealthiest men?" This is what ought to be done. No man ought to be compelled to give a cent to support the war but the wealthiest, as no man is compelled to serve but the healthiest.

It takes from the top down of manhood-why not so of property? Is money superior? The rights of property above the right of man? Would not the government do right to say: "If the surplus above

a million dollars of wealth owned by the individual citizens be sufficient to support the war not a cent will be exacted of any one worth less than a million dollars; but every cent beyond and above the million mark will be taken for the support of government, till no one person can be said to be worth more than that sum?"

When that sum is exhausted then from each worth above five

hundred thousand dollars, take all in excess of that amount. If that be not sufficient to meet the demands of the occasion, then from each worth two hundred and fifty thousand take all in excess of that amount. If not sufficient, take from each worth over a hundred thousand dollars, and so on, down till no man is left worth over five thousand dollars; when, if the enemy be not subdued and our cause victorious, it may be time to hang out the white flag.

Such a system of taxation as the above would be as just as it is to draft the individual, exacting his life for his country. And it would have the effect of equalizing the possessions of the people. But under the system of bond issues and taxation as practiced now. the poor bear all the burdens. The stamp tax comes off the many and taxation of imports does the same. As it is today, the rich grow richer as the effect of wars-the poor poorer.

Indeed, a just system taxing only the rich would put an end to all wars. The war with Spain, if it had borne down alone on Wall street for support would not have been declared.

Suppose upon the declaration of war by the President he had called for seventy-five thousand men and two hundred millions of money. Suppose it had been understood that if both men and money were not forthcoming voluntarily in a given time a draft of both would be made, and as to the money what is outlined above would be carried out-would not the money have been volunteered as well as the men-rather then that the leveling process be put in effect?

Every intelligent person will say this is just take the wealth of the wealthiest, as well as the lives of the healthiest, for the common defense.

As long as we have rich men in America who owe their all to their country, we should not borrow money for war purposes any more than we hire mercenary Hessians to fight our battles for us when we have millions of stalwart young men of our own able to carry muskets.

Let the millions of our "common men" that have to carry the muskets get together at the ballot box and take control of the government, change the laws and Constitution, if need be, so as to have justice done; then will all bonded debt be wiped out and the rich made to bear all the burdens of taxation until we have reached the equality the fathers designed this republic to stand for.

It ought to be plain to every man with a grain of patriotism in his heart and of sense in his head that bond issues and the taxing of the poor are, like gold standard, the spawn of effete monarchies and aristocracies, where all the burdens fall upon the poor. Let us go on with the work that Jefferson so grandly began and in a considerable way carried out-rid America of the blight of the Old World curse ancient wrong and mediaeval tyranny.

YE 136TH LESSON.

The Law of Growth and Decay.

Toward what are we drifting? It is said by the author of the "History of European Civilization"-Guizot that during the Dark Ages, when there appeared to be no law, and universal anarchy seemed to prevail, our present order was evolved. The law of progress, unseen and unrecognized by the people of that age, lifting up to a higher level the tide of civilization, as the moon influences the ocean's waters, made the Christian world what it now is. The order of birth, growth, decay and death of nations is in accordance with a fixed and immutable law, as with individuals.

Is the United States now in its period of youth, growth and ad

THE LAW OF GROWTH AND DECAY.

191

vancement, or has it passed into its decline? There is wonderful progress in inventions that increase material wealth; but millionaires abound on the one hand and tramps on the other. Pauperism is increasing; marriages are becoming less frequent in ratio to population; families are growing smaller and smaller, and children fewer and fewer. Of course, this implies decay. Is the increase of material wealth and its centralization in few hands about to do for us what it did for ancient Rome-destroy civilization?

I do not want to take a pessimistic view of things; but if the good sense of the masses-the religious instinct, patriotism and public spirit-do not lead them to call a halt all will be lost. There must be a radical change made in our social order to save us. The old order is outgrown, as in France prior to 1789. Nothing short of a radical social reorganization-a reconstruction of social relations, an overturning and rebuilding of the structure of so-called society will suffice. The change from our present order to the new that is to be, must be as great as was the change in France from the old to the new, produced by the revolution.

Definitely speaking, the new order will give: First, free lands; second, free tools; third, free money.

"Free lands, free tools and free money" are the ends that must be sought by the friends of man-the true reformers of today.

What need to argue the necessity of free lands when "bonanza farming" is becoming the system of agriculture in the West and soon will be the common system of the United States? Already only one-third of the actual plow-holders own, free from incumbrance, their farms. One-third are encumbered by mortgages that amount to an extortionate rent, and one-third are renters. Land monopoly must be brought to an end.

That capitalists are cormorants preying on labor is made plain by the following from Ricardo's "Economy and Taxation," p. 74-75. He says: "It has been my endeavor to show throughout this work that the rate of profits can never be increased but by a fall in wages." And John Stuart Mill (Political Economy, vol. 1, p. 511) says: "We thus arrive at the conclusion of Ricardo and others that the rate of profit depends upon wages-rising as wages fall and falling as wages rise."

The profits of investments in the tools of production depend then upon how great a per cent may be held back from the grasp of the creators of wealth. Hence, to emancipate labor it is essential that the tools of production be free. Whatever shall be paid for the use of lands, tools and money must be paid into the common treasury and not to private individuals. We pay today to capitalists interest averaging annually not less than 6 per cent on $33,000,000,000. The amount of the yearly tax paid by the producers of America for the use of money is $1,980,000,000. The interest may be reduced to 1 per cent and the people be relieved of an annual interest burden of $1,650,000,000, reducing the annual tribute paid for the use of the tool money to $330,000,000, and this will be paid to the government in lieu of other taxes.

But what does it mean to free the "tools of production?" First. it means government ownership of railroads, the biggest "tool of production" that has fallen under private and corporate control. Divert the cash paid to railroad corporations to enrich the Goulds and Vanderbilts into the national treasury. Then we must build up cooperative manufacturing and so do away with private capital employing labor.

But what is the end of all this?

"Bear ye one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ." That is and ever has been the labor movement-the fulfilling of the law of Christ. All things will one day flow like a great river in the channel of the common weal-the condition of the first Christian society-the primitive apostolic church.

YE 137TH LESSON.

What the People May Do.

The grand illustrations of Dante's Paradise by Gustave Dore, rise in memory.—the multitudes in clouds and circles, myriads of angels --so I see the mighty multitudes of angelic beings-souls of the millions that have suffered from the oppression of Dives. Are they not "legions of angels" fighting on the side of the people for the cause of Christ for the setting up of his glorious kingdom among men-the re-establishment of the Pentecostal commonwealth, that shall become world-wide and bring in the glorious "second coming" of the Divine Master? The grand reformation of the fifteenth century was not so important a movement for the advancement of mankind as is the great "labor movement" now under way in all civilized countries.

What the people may do, if they will, is the task of ye old schoolmaster of ye olden time to show. and when that is shown, the seed is planted that will bear fruit. Who may not predict that the great advancement made during the past half century in all civilized lands along the line of invention increasing an hundred fold the production of the essentials of human existence on earth will not compel an equal advance along the line of social improvement? What is the use of increased production if the producers be not benefited? Are the toilers of England better off now than they were centuries ago? It is admitted that they are worse off. Time was in England when the common people were very much better off than now. And yet it is said that today machinery produces in England alone as much as could have been produced by a billion of men with the old machinery of a century ago-produces of articles of human comfort and necessity. Those products are shipped abroad for the benefit solely of the speculators who have bought stock in the manufactories -and the toilers that manipulate the machinery are not better off than the toilers of old, when they sat in front of the hand-loom to throw its shuttle in old England.

Who cannot see that if speculative investments are put aside and the manufactories are conducted co-operatively, the producers will then get all the benefits of invention? Who cannot see that they will be better clothed and better fed and better housed, when they get all they produce, than when, as now, they do not get a tithe of their product? And are they not able to conduct the business-to manage the buying and selling through their unions as well as the business is done now by "companies limited" of sordid speculators? The trades have no more use for capitalistic "bosses" than have domestic animals for blood-sucking flies. The truth is the bosses have proven to labor about as fatal as the tetse fly is to cattle in central Africa. The social body has no manner of use for private speculators. It has no manner of use for any kind of private transactions. Everything must be hereafter done co-operatively and nothing between individuals. We will borrow no money of "capitalists;" we will not work for "capitalists" for wages; we will not sell our labor products to "capitalists;" we will not buy goods of "capitalists;" in short, we will have no dealings with "capitalists." It is our purpose to abolish that order of individuals. Let it be fixed in the minds of all men that man and his fellow man will stand in the relation of brother to brother, and all business will be carried on co-operatively under the aegis of a fraternity. Such a thing as competition will never again be heard of and the word "speculation" will become obsolete.

But this sort of society will destroy "individual enterprise." Yes. it will destroy it. What is and ever has been individual enterprise? It is individual enterprise that floods Africa with alcoholic liquors. It is individual enterprise that fights "prohibition" in civilized Amer

CONFIDENCE IN THE PEOPLE.

193

ica, Europe and Australia. It is individual enterprise that distributes opium-that forces it on China. It is individual enterprise that established African slavery, carrying it into all the colonies, in the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It is individual enterprise that has oppressed the people in all climes and at all times. But what will we put in the place of individual enterprise? Christian co-operation, brotherly love, love of country, love of humanity, the common welfare. Private enterprise is the effort of man to over-reach his fellow man. The James brothers of Missouri were men of "enterprise." The Bender family of Kansas was an "enterprising family." We will abolish private enterprise.

What else will we do? We will abolish the slums. How? We will see that every family has a comfortable home. Who will build the homes? Who does build them? Labor. And labor will still build them. But who will own them? The community. Will not capitalists own and rent the flats as now? No. Whatever is paid of rent will be paid to the community. Whatever is paid of money interest will be paid to the community. Whatever is paid of profits on goods purchased, will be paid to the community. Whatever is paid of fare on railroads or street cars will be paid to the community. No man will monopolize anything but what is his by natural right. A home will be his. But a bonanza farm will not be his. The lands will not be monopolized. The tools of production will not be monopolized. And the money of business will not be monopolized.

YE 138TH LESSON.

Confidence in the People.

Who are the people? Everybody. In what respect ought we have confidence in them? In respect of public spirit and good intentions. It is not the poor man or the rich man especially, but all men individually, we may rely upon. When the fife and drum were heard in 1861 who came forward to join the ranks of the army? All. There were exceptions, but not of any class. We had no classes, but only the masses. I speak from my own personal knowledge and observation. I know that the rich men of today, pioneers of Iowa, were poor fifty years ago. They have lost none of their public spirit. What one is at twenty he is in character all the balance of his life. The intentions of all are good-is the rule of life.

Not of the burglar, surely? No; he is demoralized, hence he is an exception to the rule. Fifty years ago we read of John Murrell. He was a highwayman. It was said: "He robbed the rich that he might give to the poor." It was thought that his intentions were good. And, if the "end justified the means," he was not a bad man. I believe that John Murrell was no worse a man than he who lets buildings for immoral purposes today; than the employer who said to his employes, "if you refuse to sign petitions for saloons to be licensed in Des Moines I will fire you from your job." The wrong is in the motive. This employer, a very rich man, said: "It is thirty thousand a year in my pocket to have saloons opened in the cityprofits to me on rents of the buildings. He that gets his living at my expense is not my friend if he refuse to sign the saloon petitions, and he shall be discharged from my employ." He that places private interest above his love for the common weal is a bad man.

Our fathers could not have a log-rolling or house-raising without a jug of whisky and, on election day, many of them got "full" and showed their zeal for Jackson or Clay by fist-fights. They were not the less patriotic. No one is so unlettered or besotted as not to understand when his rights are in jeopardy. And he who gives his vote for a treat to a cigar or a dram of liquor is no worse a