fender of the child from exploitation, friend of the poor and downtrodden and yet expect to defeat them at the polls in a period characterized by growing humane feeling? Can we wrap in a parcel everything which Christianity has approved since the time of the Great Founder and label it, "Socialism, don't touch"? When it comes to the attainment of any reasonable legislation for the true betterment of human beings, the only way to beat the Socialists "is to beat them to it."
The hardy woodsman, the sturdy American who has battled with the elements, swift rivers and vast forests, may frown at the suggestion of legislation mentioned here. This man in the legislature, powerful in his own strength, frowns upon laws for the limiting of hours of labor for women and children as "un-American." It will be felt by men of this kind (and they have been the sturdy old oaks of American life after all) that there is something very softening in this kind of legislation. Indeed a weakening influence may occasionally creep in but by looking over long periods of time we find that selfishness has always won, so it is not the softening influence that we need to fear but the pauperizing influence, which comes from another kind of paternalism—that of the largess of the great millionnaire or the successful proconsul of ancient Rome. The pages of Gibbon and Ferrero are full of instances which are comparable to actual conditions in our own country to-day.
