OCR Text |
Show WANTED: SOME DEFINITIONS. "The monopoly privilege is constantly writ down as the bano of our American system. However, it is not the use but the abuso of the monopoly privilege priv-ilege that is abhorred of men today. Notwithstanding Notwithstand-ing the great hue and cry over the ownership of public ultilities, the sound sense of the American public is not prepared to crush private enterprise. It were suicidal to discourage private initiative. It is the office of well ordered government not to crush but to' protect and encourage private enterprise. enter-prise. The day is far distant when the government, is going to enter on the role of a manufacturer or merchant. The advocates of the doctrine of individual in-dividual energy arc not all converts to theories the while triumphant in Chicago." After reading the above editorial in the Catholic Transcript we were sorely perplexed in mind. Prone touil the inauguration of the public ownership owner-ship of public utilities as a much-desired economic readjustment a reform measure destined to secure to the toiling and producing masses of the country a more just and equitable share of the fruits of their toil than has been their meed under the present lamentable la-mentable conditions, the assurance that the proposed pro-posed "system involved the entire abrogation of "private initiative" came as a surprise and a shock to our intellect. ioovft an, tins, contusion ot tttougnt iorcioiv suggested the need of more accurate definitions bearing upon "public ownership" than was, at the time, at our command. Long and earnestly we pondered pon-dered the problem, but no satisfactory solution presented pre-sented itself to the mind. The conviction was forced upon us that upon one more competent must devolve the task of drawing the line of deniarkation that divides 'public utilities' and the legitimate field of the "manufacturer or merchant." - . In the piidst of our perplexed ruminations, the words of Mayor Dunne that came to us, seemed strikingly providential: "Every privilege that carries with it the permanent perma-nent use of public property should be owned and exercised by the public." Is not this inmost admirable elucidation of the j problem ? j As this proposed reform is one that the American Ameri-can public will be called upon, in the not remote future, to either sanction or repudiate at the polls, it is of the utmost importance that its scope should be clearly defined in the minds of the people. Mayor Dunne is ackndwledged to be the foremost authority in America on this question: hence his succinct and lucid definition of what constitutes a public utility will no doubt be accepted as final, conclusive and satisfactory. ' ' In the light of -this very satisfactory elucidation of this erstwhile vexed problem, it may be taken for granted that the editor above quoted will no longer feel disposed to. combat the proposed reform on the ground that it would, if put into operation, do away with private initiative and enterprise. Such a "result would, undeniably, be most regrettable. re-grettable. Preserving, however, this very essential and very desirable incentive to individual effort, which is the law of progress and individual growth, the proposed reform, we are abidingly, convinced, would opera to" to the almost incalculable advantage pecuniary, moral and spiritual of human society. so-ciety. The fact that our present system is so inexorably inexor-ably subversive of all Christian ideals inasmuch as it is .the prolific and unconquerable breeder of cor-rupiion, cor-rupiion, in the form of wholesale and almost perennial per-ennial bribery, perjury and kindred crimes and vices is the pricipal and most important reason why this proposed reform should be accorded the advocacy of the religious press. It is safe to assume as-sume that this salutary and "beneficent reform will meet with the opposition of a very few if any of our Catholic journalists. , Now 'that we are afforded a distinctive definition defini-tion of "public, ownership," it is to be regretted that -vve are not equally fortunate in reference to the term "Socialism." A striking illustration of the confusion of thought due to the ambiguity that attaches to this term is afforded by the tenor of a recent editorial ...i w. aiuuiiK, vui;u vi auiiwauKee, imputing to Mayor Dunne the' advocacy of socialistic principles princi-ples and that gentleman's categorcal denial that he is a Socialist, and that "public ownership" implies even state socialism. In the editorial just alluded to we are taken to task, in a mildly derisive tone, for presuming to congratulate the people of the country because Mayor Dunne's election could not be said to be a victory for the "revolutionary Socialists." X'ow, this particular term, we are led to believe, has a very precise and well understood significance. Said the editor of a Socialistic organ in a conversation only a few days since: "We do not object to being styled 'revolutionary Socialists.' Thoroughly convinced con-vinced that 'capitalism1 cannot be downed by any of the Utopian methods advocated by various visionary vis-ionary schools of would-be reformers, we propose to inaugurate a physical revolution just as soon as we are thoroughly organized." We are disposed to graciously forgive the editor of the Citizen for his strictures upon our utter ances, auuougli lie misquoted us in the sentence he published, and then magnamimously ( ?) pronounced 'truly unctious." , It is, however, of the utmost importance that we, of the Catholic press, arrive, at some agreement as to the true significance of the term "Socialism.'' This, in order that we may "pull all together" in the advocacy of rational economic reform and the determined de-termined opposition to all efforts at the upheaval of society. As for ourself, we insist that no propaganda propa-ganda styling itself "socialism" should, for a moment, mo-ment, receive the countenance of any institution that is distinctly Christian. For the same reason that we, who hold communion with the Church whose visible, head is the Roman Pontiff claim as exclusively our own the title "Catholic," wc may justly maintain that "Socialism" is the proper designation, exclusively, of tfiat cult which has rendered itself intollcrably obnoxious to all who cherish order and revere religion. If we may prevail pre-vail in this course, he, different movements of reform re-form will be clearly defined, and we will notrun the risk of inadvertantly aiding and abetting our sworn foes, the "revolutionary Socialists." 'May - Pot hmu to n0KWptf, p,,Tf)to rational re-' form without being suspected of favoriu-r fanous cult ? The Democratic party may be depn.j, ., . champion the public ownership .f puMir . i-.j':.- Mayor Dunne will see' to that. Why nit. ,., c j insist that all who favor and will ..- , ,,,,,, , . .rc ? . . wi;'i I rational economic relorm. ally theni- !v. , ; , ' ll;t f" ' legitimate movement ? We mav then i : , ; I 1 ! " "iip righteous warfare upon all sociali-i i,- .., , . . ' , , , , - 'i'''--U... i ists, without opposing such legitimate -,;.,! I forms to which the people are justly' Mi.i',., 1 which not one of us. if we could, v.uH ,,., ... , I . . 11 :KX I |