CHAPTER IV.

LEGAL AND ILLEGAL ROBBERY COMPARED.

PREVIOUS to proceeding further, it is necessary to clear up a difficulty in respect to compulsory human action, which, in reality, cannot possibly exist, because no man can make another do an act which he will not do: he must will before he can act. This is so plain, that none need err, as every one may convince himself, by appealing to his own experience: he will find that the will is the cause of the act. Therefore, if he performs the least voluntary act, it must be in accordance with the will, or willingly. Suppose a robber meets a defenceless man on the highway, and demands his purse; at the same time, presents a pistol: the man, perhaps, hesitates, but presently deliberately hands it over to the robber, thinking it better to lose his purse, than his life; the mental conclusion he comes to, being the motive which causes the will to produce the muscular act of handing over the purse. In this case, there is no positive compulsion; the robber has only given him the choice of two evils-the man choosing the least, as a matter of course, or what he thinks the least evil at the time. This is all the kind of compulsory action that can exist, or approximate towards it.

Let us suppose, in the case above, that the man should complain of the injustice of the act; the robber might answer thus: I have the power, therefore the right; you happen to be weak and defenceless; I happen to be armed, and can protect myself, and, as you cannot defend yourself, you must submit to the terms which I dictate: you ought not complain; because, if you have ingenuity enough to make, or money to buy a pistol, you can do as I do rob others, and get your money back again; you have the same right that I have. Now, what would an honest man think of such reasoning? Would he not be shocked? Would he not pronounce it perfect sophistry? Besides this, what kind of consolation could an honest man derive from the consideration, that, if he could only get a

pistol, he might rob others, on the ground that himself had been robbed! Ought such consideration reconcile him to the injustice of the outrage? Surely not. Let men of honest feeling answer.

The reasoning of the robber is similar to that of the capitalist: the difference, which is slight, will be shown presently.

Suppose A should meet B in a solitary place; A has a pistol, but destitute of money or bread; B has three dollars in his pocket; A says, deliver your money, presenting the pistol, and thereby putting B in fear of a sudden death, but who, rather than suffer, is willing to part with his purse. In common language, we would call this compulsion; yet, in reality, it is only choosing between two evils. Let us suppose, further, that B remonstrates, and says, do not rob me entirely, or I shall be ruined; I shall want for bread. A then sympathizes with B, and finally takes but two dollars, leaving him one to sustain him on his journey. This kind of transaction A performs each day in succession, but every day finds a new victim. Again suppose: C, having all the comforts of life in abundance, much more than he can consume, finds D in a ditch, unable to get out, in fear of starvation, and begs C to help him out. What will you pay me?.says C. I have nothing to pay with, which is the reason that I am lying here, answers D. Can you spin out dollars? and how many can you spin out in a day? D answers, I can spin out three dollars a day; but I have nothing to buy fuel with, to set me in motion. Well, my good fellow, says C, if you will set yourself to work, and spin out three dollars a day, (but mind, all the dollars are mine, except the cost of the fuel which is necessary to keep you in motion,) I will have the generosity to help you out. Well, the poor fellow, after considering the matter over, and being in fear of a painful, lingering death by starvation, rather than suffer which, is willing to accept C's terms. In this case, there is as much compulsory action as there is in the case of A and B, with but this difference: A runs some risk in challenging B, because he does not know whether he is armed or not, until he tries the experiment. Again he runs a great risk in regard to the law he also well knows that B has a remedy, in law, against him. To meet these dangers, it is necessary to evince a spirit of enterprize and courage: in fact, it re

quires some bravery. In both cases, the victims suffer the loss of the same amount of property; but A's victim goes on his way rejoicing, while, on the other hand, C's victim is consigned to everlasting slavery, without hope of redemption. In both cases, they are conquered by the fear of death in B's case, the fear of death is produced, at the time, by the courage and bravery of his conquerer; but in D's case, the fear of death has been produced as certainly by his conquerer, as in the case of B, but in a different manner, to wit: by C's influence in contriving those paradoxical and unnatural institutions, which were intended to consign him to the ditch. Our paradoxical and unnatural institutions of society consign A to a dungeon, and to C they award riches, honor, dignity and respect. Why these decisions? we ask. Is A condemned for his courage and bravery, and for risking his life to get bread; and C rewarded for his cowardly treason, in laying secret and unseen contrivances to bring his victim to the fear of death, though he is himself in want of nothing? for this appears to be all the real difference in the two cases. If these be the true grounds of the decisions, Mr. Paley may well call such institutions "paradoxical and unnatural."

We contend that this is no overdrawn picture: it is true to experience, and such characters abound in all civil communities. We now ask every honest man that has any regard for the attributes which adorn and dignify human nature, which of these two characters is the most of a Man, and is most worthy of our trust and respect? A, the robber, or C, the capitalist? We let others decide.

CHAPTER V.

SLAVERY TO CAPITAL.

A VERY interesting piece of intelligence lately appeared in the public papers, entitled "First Men of Boston," setting forth, that 142 persons were in possession of $12,604,000, to which we add John Jacob Astor, of New York. Then we have 143 persons owning forty-two millions five hundred and three thousand and five hundred dollars. This sum, divided equally among the whole, will give $29,723 apiece; but, for the convenience of round numbers, we will assume $30,000 each.

Now, what is the object of this announcement? Is it to show the great prosperity of the country, and the growing happiness of the people? Perhaps it is. If so, then we should like if some of those gentlemen who understand the subject, would show us in what way the happiness of the mass of the people is promoted by concentrating so much wealth in the hands of so few persons. We are decidedly at a loss: it is a mystery to us. However, we will endeavor to solve this seeming mystery.

No capitalist in this country is satisfied with less than 6 per cent. interest on his capital; and if he could not, at least, get this, he would imagine that beggary was staring him in the face, no matter what might be his possessions. He would consider it a certain indication of the speedy dissolution of all earthly things; much more so than Miller's prophecy of the end of the world.

The interest on five thousand dollars is three hundred. With this sum, a capitalist will be enabled to supply with fuel one man-money-making-machine, (taking women into the account,) for one year. Now, this human machine is virtually and positively as much a slave to the capitalist, as any chattel slave is to his master; in either case, they are controlled by the will of their masters, in all their actions, with this difference: the hired slave can leave his master; but, if he does, he runs the risk of finding another, which is often very difficult to accomplish; still he wants

fuel, or bread; he must have a master: the chattel slave can run away; so that the servitude, as far as effects are involved, are alike compulsory in both cases, and the difference is scarcely worth a straw. In neither case would the victims consent to part with the produce of their own labor, if they could help it, except for an equivalent; but the masters, having virtually made the laws, have taken good care to protect themselves from violence, while they commit the injustice.

From what has just been said, it must be evident to all, that the capitalist, for every five thousand dollars he has invested, virtually owns or controls a slave, whom he purchases daily with the interest, which costs him nothing, being solely produced by other men's labor; so that, in reality, the capitalist never virtually pays for anything, not even his personal taxes, strictly speaking. Consequently, any capitalist possessing one million dollars, virtually owns and controls two hundred slaves. All the wealth which is produced by them, he claims as his own, though it costs him nothing; for even the fuel which is necessary to keep these man machines in action, is furnished at the expense of others, which has been fully proved. This being all true and self-evident, the capitalist of thirty millions owns and controls at least six thousand of his fellow beings in perpetual slavery; and this power to enslave does not die with the capitalist, but is transmitted to posterity by the law of inheritance; so that one portion of mankind are born with saddles on their backs, and another portion, ready booted and spurred, to ride them. All this is done, too, in a land of liberty and equal rights, while our Fourth of July orators complain, that the Declaration of Independence has been commented upon so much, that the subject has been completely exhausted. We think it high time they had their eyes open.

Now we should like to know in what manner the happiness of the community is promoted by the existence of these things. Those who know, ought to tell and explain it the public good requi res it: they are culpable, if they do not do it. But, until they do, we shall stick firmly to our text. "We will not bate a single word, nor take one letter back."

Capital, in its true sense and nature, is no evil, but a good in itself, being nothing more than a concentrated or