tical, philanthropic, fat persons
whom the people of Mugsborough had elected to manage their affairs--or
whom they permitted to manage them without being elected--continued to
grapple, or to pretend to grapple, with the 'problem' of unemployment
and poverty. They continued to hold meetings, rummage and jumble
sales, entertainments and special services. They continued to
distribute the rotten cast-off clothing and boots, and the nourishment
tickets. They were all so sorry for the poor, especially for the 'dear
little children'. They did all sorts of things to help the children.
In fact, there was nothing that they would not do for them except levy
a halfpenny rate. It would never do to do that. It might pauperize
the parents and destroy parental responsibility. They evidently
thought that it would be better to destroy the health or even the lives
of the 'dear little children' than to pauperize the parents or
undermine parental responsibility. These people seemed to think that
the children were the property of their parents. They did not have
sense enough to see that the children are not the property of their
parents at all, but the property of the community. When they attain to
manhood and womanhood they will be, if mentally or physically
inefficient, a burden on the community; if they become criminals, they
will prey upon the community, and if they are healthy, educated and
brought up in good surroundings, they will become useful citizens, able
to render valuable service, not merely to their parents, but to the
community. Therefore the children are the property of the community,
and it is the business and to the interest of the community to see that
their constitutions are not undermined by starvation. The Secretary of
the local Trades Council, a body formed of delegates from all the
different trades unions in the town, wrote a letter to the Obscurer,
setting forth this view. He pointed out that a halfpenny rate in that
town would produce a sum of L800, which would be more than sufficient
to provide food for all the hungry schoolchildren. In the next issue
of the paper several other letters appeared from leading citizens,
including, of course, Sweater, Rushton, Didlum and Grinder, ridiculing
the proposal of the Trades Council, who were insultingly alluded to as
'pothouse politicians', 'beer-sodden agitators' and so forth. Their
right to be regarded as representatives of the working men was denied,
and Grind