S C R I B N E R ' S M A G A Z I N E Important ... - Rparchives.org

September 24, 1912.
A l'''A\lli.', PAPER.
Here again one must appeal lo the facts to
settle the question.
While it is quite true that in some industries
the number of concerns hias decreased
through the years it is also true that the number
of owners has increased. Railroad's havei
been swallowing each other until almost any
trunk line contains, witbin it a score of defunct
roads, but at the same time the ownership
is' distributed by means of the stock
among an increasing number of people.
There is centralization in management going
on continually because of the economy it af-
•'fords, but the number of capitalistic owners is
increasing in spite of Marx. What is true of
railroad ownership is also true in farming
During the last fifty years, excepting one
decade, there has been an increase* in fli'e
number of farmers and a decrease in the
average size of tlhe farm,, while, according to
Marx, it should be working exactly the other
way. As shown by tax returns in Germany
and England, thte number of those belonging
to the tax paying classes is steadily growing.
Especially ia that true of the owners of small
properties'.
Now if the capitalistic class is actually increasing
it does not look hopeful for those
whcj believe that class struggle will work
their •salvation.
3. A third inevitable of Scientific Socialism
is that there will be a continually increasing-
number of unemployed. Here again is
opportunity to appeal to the facts. In this
year 1913, after a century and a half of capitalism,
where is the increasing! number of
men looking for work ?
That there always are unemployed in our
cities is a fact which should be admitted and
lamented, but where has the number been increasing
for one hlundred and fifty years, or
fifty years? In almost any line of business,
except in the trades w.hich depend on particular
seasons for employment, dO' we not find
employers looking for laborers? Our industrial
system is in urgent need of improvement,
l)ut it does not seem to. help us forward in
any wi-se to put up unsupported and unsupportable
claims against it.
As a matter of fact any thoughtful man
knows that the claims of Marx do not fit the
facts. The unemployed ane not increasing,
not all laborers are paupers, wages are not
Ming actually and relatively. The luxuries
of fiftyyears ago are regarded as necessaries
now. This does not mean that the wage system
is a good system, nor the best possible
system, but the system, as well as the devil,
should have its due.
According to Marx, the crisis of the class
struggle will come when the capitalists becoming
ever fewer, wlhile thb proletariat laborers
are ever more numerous,, will give rise
to a revolution in which! the laborers will recognize
their power and will take possession
of all the socially productive wealth in the
land. Then only will class struggle end with
the destruction of the capitalistic class and
the order wbich; it has maintained.
Now when one who chooses to call himself
a Christian Socialist is forced to defend these
doctrines of Marx, he usually insists that it
is not necessary to stick by the teachings of
men v\-h,io lived a half century ago and yet he
is ready, as the editor of the Christian Socialist,
to put up the Marxian theories as the
creed which every Socialist must adopt.
It is the beUef of 'tlhe writer that there is a
place for Soialism based on tbe teachings of
Christ, and that it will at some time be realized,
but that is as far as possiible from tbe
position that the godless society proposed by
Marx and brought in by h,is godless methods
is to be realized on earthi As soon would
one propose Dante's Inferno as a social ideal.
MORE MESSAGES FROM CHINA.
By the Rev. W. J. McKnight.
The first letter from which I quote is interesting
for what the writer has to say about our
Chinese Restriction Laws. It is always well to
hear the other side. And whether or not we
may be able to see as he sees, the advisability
of putting our Church's views of the Chinese
Restriction laws into the Chinese language is
certainly worthy of our careful consideration. The
writer of this letter, as will be noted, says again
that he cannot see how any good, but possibly
harm-, would be likely to come from translating
our "critical views" into Chinese. Some time
ago, 1 wrote to our Moderator, Dr. A. I. Robb,
asking him for his candid opinion about the booklet.
In his reply (I know he will not object
to my quoting his words) he said, among other
things: "Billy Sunday's 'imperative mood' would
be better than long argument, however good and
extensive the quotations. I mean by that that
a simple statement of the truth, unsupported by
argument or quotation, would probably have
greater weight than a manner of presentation
which itself would indicate that the matter is
open to debate." Now these two men are saying
practically the same thing, and their views
when once brought to mind, seem to me to be
self-evident. In fact, the booklet, as it now
stands, was introduced more for the missionaries
in China than for the Chinese, or rather for the
Chinese through the medium of the missionaries.
One has to have an occasion for doing
certain things. Here is the letter—the first part
of it, the latter half being an elaboration of
what is quite fully stated in the part quoted:
China New Testament Miss'on,
Pakhoi, China, July 29th, 1913.
W. J. McKnight,
2849 S. Salina St..
Syracuse, N. Y., U. S. A,
Dear Brother in Christ:
The nice little book: "A Message to China"
reached and interested me a few days since,
and now an hour is being stolen to formulate
a word of reply, in accord with the request received
therewith.
It has been my privilege to be in this country
but a little more than four years and since my
travels could not be called extensive, therefore
these opinions are not offered in confidence of
a full apprehension, but with a knowledge that
even so brief a residence in China has greatly
changed some of my former views. For instan-ce,
when living in Los Angeles, your views of our
Chinese restriction laws were quite fully shared
by me, and weeks of time were spent helping Chinese
boys to establish their right (which I never
doubted, and ,vhicn, in some instances, was a
fact) to remain in America. I have appeared
weekly before the U. S. District Court for successive
months taking Chinese to have their
cases continued so that they might not have to
be detained in jail. I have secured bonds for them,
and deemed the terms and amounts C?2,5iJ0.l 0
each) unjust and excessive, but after seeing
from what environment those boys came and becoming
somewhat familiar with their tricks,
characteristics and aspirations, the conclusion is
forced home: "that restriction laws were a right
effort to meet an absolute necessity." That
hardship might be put upon some, and unnece-gsary
harshness should occasionally appear among
the U. S. Ofiicials, is almost certain, but that
some such measures were inevitable for the preservation
of America's institutions, and that these
restrictions will ultimately benefit the Chinese
themselves, is no longer any doubt in my mind.
China and Japan could land on shores not their
own, ten millions per year for the next ten years;
not their good men, however, but men accustomed
to do the work that is done by machinery
and beasts in many countries—awaiting no Invitation,
caring for no welcome, but with ivare
permission. In these days of easy ocean transportation,
U. S. would without doubt, be made
the delta for an ever growing stream of immigration,
with the result that the eventual restrictions
would be much more of a struggle and
would affect a multitude within our borders,
brought there largely by the enterprise and particularly
for the benefit of Steamship Companies.
From the foregoing, it is doubtless clear, that
in my opinion, your criticism of U. S. restriction
laws ought not to be printed in the Chinese
language. They are expert copyists and wonderful
memorizers as compare with their disposition
to follow difficult or obstruse propositions
through to a logical conclusion. Thus for one of
the few who could read your article with the
least discernment of your motive, there are ten
thousand who could be influenced by unscrupulous
talkers into the thought that U. S. citizens
themselves are acknowledging unjust laws
against China, and that to break such laws would
be a righteous act. This might lessen their already
pitifully small regard for any authority
aside from actual force. In the Review of Reviews
for June (Page 648) may be seen these
significant words: "Both shores of the Pacific
may belong to Asiatic peoples two hundred
years hence or even within a shorter time." Will
existing facts allow us to easily persuade ourselves
that this is not a possibility?
As to our Constitution's non-recognition of the
Deity, I can see eye to eye with you, and am
led to wonder how any true Christian can fall
to regret this almost inconceivable omission by
men known to fear God. And while longing to
see public acknowledgment of our dependence
upon God written on our basic law, I cannot perceive
any help or good to come from a translation
of your critical views into Chinese, but
on the contrary, believe that harm might be done
by taking that course. The Chinese have seen
fit to follow the Constitution of U. S. somewhat
in framing one for their new republic, but China
is not a unit; dissentions project themselves persistently
from many quarters, and to put into the
hands of would-be leaders here, differing or critical
views as expressed by the citizens of U. S.,
is to certainly augment 'contention and afford material
for self-seeking politicians.
Your appeal to the people to recognize in their
written law, God, as the source of all government,
and for an upright walk before Him, is too
good and clear to be lost. Untold blessing might
bo derived from a translation and liberal djstrl-