will coin their own word with which to designate—­as they think appropriately—­the policies opposed to ours.  The resulting epithet I do not care to mention; every one will think of it himself.  When afterwards a newspaper like the Tribune, which is said to be owned by Mr. Bamberger, makes itself the mouthpiece of Mr. Lasker’s expression, claiming it to be correct, and hailing the invention of this word as a discovery worthy of Columbus, and when the Tribune finally asserts that “care for the poor” and “aristocracy” cannot exist in the same train of thought, can you not imagine what will happen when all this is turned around, and altered by an anti-semite?  Are you in doubt what he will substitute for “aristocracy,” and do you not know that he will repeat every twist and turn of speech with which Mr. Bamberger’s sheet imputes selfish injustice to the aristocracy?

The representative Mr. Richter has called attention to the responsibility of the State for everything it does in the field on which it is entering today.  Well, gentlemen, I feel that the State may become responsible also for the things it does not do.  I do not believe that the “laissez faire, laissez aller, theory,” and the unadulterated political theories of Manchester, such as “let each one do what he chooses, and fare as he will,” or “who is not strong enough to stand, let him be crushed,” or “he who has will receive more, and he who has not from him let us take,” can be practised in any State, least of all in a monarchical State, governed by the father of his country.  On the contrary, I believe that those who shudder at the State exerting its influence for the protection of the weaker brethren, themselves intend to capitalize their strength—­be it financial, rhetorical, or what not—­that they may gain a following, or oppress the rest, or smooth their own way to party control.  They become angry, of course, as soon as their plans are spoiled by the rising influence of the State.

The representative Mr. Richter says this legislation does not go far enough.  If he will have patience, we may perhaps be able to satisfy him a little later—­one should not be hasty or try to do everything at once!  Such laws are not made arbitrarily out of theories and as the result of asking “what kind of law would it be wise to make now?” They are the gradual outgrowth of earlier events.  The reason why we come to you today only with an accident-insurance law is because this branch of the care of the poor and the weak was especially vigorous even before I seriously concerned myself with such matters.  Bequests, suggestions, and notes for such a bill were on file when I assumed office.  According to the records this bill was needed more than any other.  When I began to study it, I must confess that it did not seem to me to go far enough in theory, and that I was tempted to change the words which occur, I believe in the first paragraph, “every workingman who”