vidualism, under which our country has grown to be the greatest nation of the
world, let us now turn to Socialism—a system which, if adopted, would call a bait
to our progress, tear down our established institutions, and turn our great pros¬
perity into ruin and decay.

It is difficult to tell just what is lAeant by Socialism in the more modern sense
of the term.

It has appeared in the United States under five different and almost totally dis¬
connected forms. It has appeared as a movement towards the establishment of
Socialistic communities or communisms; it has appeared as Fourierism, as German
or International Socialism, as Nihilism and Christian Socialism.

Prof. Mallock, the eminent English writer, in his lectures in New York, made
a careful analysis of Socialism, and exposed its plausible sophistries, some of which.
Socialists boast, are grounded on our defined principles ot political economy, which
the learned writer asserts are rather incomplete. It may be admitted that this is
so, and that fuller and clearer distinctions could well be added to our text books
on the subject. But, joining the issue in a clean-cut way, between Individualism
and Socialism, obviates all necessity at this time of further considering such dis¬
tinctions, and clarifies our respective positions in this debate.

It was noticeable that, during the delivery of these lectures, hints and remon¬
strances were freely thrown out that the structure that Dr. Mallock was attacking
was not Socialism at all, in the modern acceptation ot the term, but something else
that had long ago been abandoned.

Now, while I have no unfriendliness whatever with the honest Socialist (mis¬
taken, deluded and sadly out of place in this grand Republic, as he may be), I do
say, that this position is but too often the wily subterfuge, sought to be taken ad¬
vantage of by the Insincere agitator or pretended reformer, when he sees that he
is beaten. His invariable answer to an irrefutable argument is: "Oh, that which
you talked about is not modern Socialism!"

For the purpose of this discussion, however, we can agree that, as contradis¬
tinguished from Individualism, Socialism opposes and denounces competition as an
Injurious and unnecessary force in society, and advocates the collective ownership,
through the State, of all the means ot production and distribution.

Socialists would, in other words, fence up the great field oi free opportunity,
deaden all incentive or inspiration for great achievement and not only curtail, but
wholly remove, the right to compete and excel, and make it impossible to write
"success" as the result of individual effort.

Just think of it! Why the very thing that the Socialists attack, as untenable
and wrong in government—Individual competition—has done more than anything
else to make us what we are as a nation, to-day; has kept alive the precious fires
of liberty and freedom and has preserved the institutions oi our country. Take
away the spirit of Individualism from the people, and you at once eliminate the
American Spirit,—the love of ireedom,—of free industry,—tree and unfettered
opportunity,—you take away freedom itself!

And right here, I take the position and shall ever contend, that the United
States (of all countries in the world) is no place for Socialism.   Let us never forget