e
liberal, a source of anger first, and only on further contemplation, of
pity. He will exert all his energies to remove every obstacle from out
of the way of his poorer brethren; he will preach wise economy, and
facilitate it by personal sacrifices and legislative inducements; but he
will not tempt the government of his country to act as a second
providence for the operative classes. Quite the reverse is Bismarck's
opinion. According to him, the state should exercise "practical
Christianity." With Titanic resolution to drive out Satan through
Beelzebub, he does not shrink from acknowledging and proclaiming the
"right of labor." There is probably nothing left to say after your lips
have spoken these unholy, blood-stained words. If there was, he would be
the man to say it rather than allow himself to be outbid by mob-leaders
of the socialistic feather. _Droit au travail_, forsooth! The phrase has
cost thousands their lives in the Parisian carnage of June, 1848. In the
mouth of Karl Marx and other outspoken champions of his cause, it means
absorption by the state of all the _sources_ of labor, such as land and
factories, because by such absorption only can the state insure work for
the unemployed. In the mouth of Bismarck it means a lesser thing, of
course, in extent, but not in its essence. As chief minister of Prussia
he has ably brought about the purchase of nearly all lines of railway
within that monarchy. As chancellor of the empire he has tried his very
best to obtain a monopoly on tobacco. All accident insurance companies
have already been ruined and their place taken, so far as accidents to
factory-hands, etc., are concerned, by an imperial office. His mighty
hand is stretched out already to suppress and absorb all other
insurances. The kingdom of the Incas, in ancient Peru, as described in
Prescott's volumes, has probably not done more work for its subjects
than Bismarck's ideal of a German empire would do for its inhabitants.
With every species of occupation or enterprise managed directly by
government, why should the ruler of an empire, or of a socialist
republic, hesitate about proclaiming a right to labor? A critic might
object that its proclamation by Bismarck, in 1884, was premature,
inasmuch as he had failed in carrying his Monopoly bill, and could not
be certain of success regarding other state encroachments. Granted. But
a "first-cousinship" between his views on social reform and those of
Messrs. Bebel an