Page:Oregon Historical Quarterly volume 14.djvu/224

 ters defining socialism each for himself. "Every writer," replied Mr. Scott (April 15, 1901), "has his own definition. Some go no farther than general opposition to private ownership of land and productive plants. Some go so far as the platform of the Social Democratic Party in 1900, which demands public ownership not only of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, water works, gas and electric plants and public utilities generally, but also of all mines, oil and gas wells. Some advocate community ownership of all desirable things, including women." Mr. Scott admitted that the negation of the idea of private property is not the intent of socialism, but averred that such would be the logical and inevitable result, because no property could be used as a private source of income and because personal goods would soon wear out and could not be renewed, since the state would possess the means of production. Hence, there would be no way to acquire property beyond the barest means and needs of living and no person could have more or better things than his neighbor. "It is astonishing that this scheme to narrow human life to one type, and that the poorest, should have any support at all. It would be useless for anyone to make effort, for he would have nothing to gain for himself and nothing to leave to descendants" (November 22, 1904). Once when a socialist writer called civilization a "monstrous disease," Mr. Scott retorted (December 17, 1907): "It may be supposed the writer never saw uncivilized conditions, such, for example, as those in which the tribes of Clatsop and Puget Sound lived, in the former day. That state of life seemed to be a real disease."

We cannot epitomize the whole range of argument which Mr. Scott employed against socialism, nor does space permit. His articles on this ramified subject cover more than thirty years. He knew he could stop the then forward march of the idea not at all nor retard it even slightly. It would have to run its course, he said. In concrete practice, Mr. Scott resisted the idea in its continuous enlargement of governmental function. He declared that public ownership of complicated utilities, such as lighting