writings of Most, and the revolutionary conspiracies of the Congress of Wyden; and that even this distance would soon disappear.  Well, gentlemen, this is, of course, the very opposite of true.  Those who fight with such oratorical and meaningless niceties are counting on the many meanings of the word “socialism.”  As a result of the kind of programs which the Socialists have issued, this term is, in our public opinion today, almost synonymous with “criminal.”  If the government endeavors to treat the injured workingmen better in the future, and especially more becomingly, and not to offer to their as yet vigorous brethren the spectacle, as it were, of an old man on the dump heap slowly starving to death, this cannot be called socialistic in the sense in which that murderous band was painted to us the other day.  People are playing a cheap game with the shadow on the wall when they call our endeavors socialistic.

If the representative Mr. Bamberger, who took no offense at the word “Christian,” wishes to give a name to our endeavors which I could cheerfully accept, let it be:  “Practical Christianity,” but sans phrase, for we shall not pay the people with words and speeches, but with actual improvements.  Yet, death alone is had for the asking.  If you refuse to reach into your pocketbook, or that of the State, you will not accomplish anything.  If you should place the whole burden on the industries, I do not know whether they could bear it.  Some might be able to do it, but not all.  Those who could do it are the industries where the wages are but a small fraction of the total cost of production.  Among such I mention the chemical factories, and the mills which with twenty mill hands can do an annual business of several million marks.  The great mass of laborers, however, does not work in such establishments, which I am tempted to call aristocratic—­without wishing to excite any class-hatred.  They are in industries where the wages amount to 80 or 90 per cent, of the cost of production.  Whether the latter can bear the additional burden I do not know.

It is, moreover, perfectly immaterial whether the assessment is made on the employer or on the employee.  In either case the industry will have to bear it, for the contribution of the laborer will eventually, and of necessity, be added to the expenses of the industry.  There is a general complaint that the average wages of the laborers make the saving of a surplus impossible.  If you wish, therefore, to add a burden to the laborers whose present wages are no more than sufficient, the employers will have to increase the wages, or the laborers will leave them for other occupations.