— 10 —
to give the evidence of this man—and in the course of this letter will do it again and again—and for the reason that, standing as he does on a different elevation from mine, whatever of suspicion might attach of my regarding what he would say as of smaller importance, through prejudice on my part, might be avoided. His views, politically as well as economically, are different from mine; but he possesses in an eminent degree the frankness to truthfully discuss, on national and economic grounds, the questions forced by the Liberal School, pointing to what, in his judgment, might mislead and disappoint the workingman.
In his "Concordia," Professor Huber says: "Without, then, overlooking the relative benefit, as far as it really goes, of Savings, Help and Sick societies, I insist that these good things can bring with them great negative hindrances, standing, as they may, in the way of something better."
And surely these negative hindrances alluded to never could take place to a greater degree as obstacles in the way of something better than with the forces of the workingmen's movement concentrated upon, or even shared with these projects.
But you should—say the newspapers—and this your own letter to me mentions as strongly recommended by many—take into consideration the organizations of Schultze Delitzsch—his Land and Credit Associations, his Raw Material and Consuming Associations—in order to better the condition of the working class.
Let us examine this a little more closely:
Schultze Delitzsch can be regarded in three relations:
In his politics he belongs to the Pro, Party already alluded to.
Secondly, he has claims-as a national economist; standing as such upon the ground occupied by the Liberal School; sharing alike their errors, their mistakes and their blindness. The lectures he has given before the workingmen afford too convincing proofs of that charge: making his efforts a bundle of distorted presentations with conclusions having no connection whatever with the premises. However, it is Neither your desire nor yet my aim to give a criticism of the theory of the National Economists or of the lectures of Delitzsch in particular, to prove how wide of the mark and self-blinding are the arguments used by that school of philosophers. My duty to
