into account. Society has given every sanction that it can give to these acquisitions, and we don't propose to steal them."
When actual dispossession is necessary, a system of "bond issues to be paid out of profits in the industry" or various forms of "annuities" are proposed by many socialist writers.
There are most formidable financial difficulties connected with these proposals, but they put no affront on our sense of fair dealing. So far as we can believe that socialism, once in power, would "take over" the mills, mines and other industries with the same consideration toward present ownership, we could all look on unalarmed, except as we doubted the later results of such a policy.
If, then, socialism wins power enough, will the determining majorities vote as fairly as these soberer adherents now talk? That is not a frivolous inquiry. There are not merely "five-foot libraries," but ten-foot libraries filled with very different opinions as to how the great private properties are to be taken over. Socialists generally do not suggest taking them without "some" return. If for no other reason, they hesitate because of the practical political difficulties sure to attend an outright confiscation. "Even if right, it would not be politic," is a very common sentence. Very carefully the question of "how" is avoided by this large intermediate section. Again and again we read, "It must be left to the future;" "We will cross that bridge when we get to it;" which means that the dominating political opinion of that future will decide how little or how much shall be paid to pres-
