timentalism to allow him to say what shall be done with them after his death."
What, I ask, is it probable that popular majorities would decide on the case as here presented? The property to be taken over was first gained in "conscious violation of the Federal law." It is all "stolen labor-power" and could be "confiscated by the State" with "perfect justice." Could any eloquent foe of compensation have a better case than this? What would one possessed of the passion of a great tribune do with the hesitations and apologies of more conservative men as they met in popular debate?
From the whole nebulous zone of wobbly socialist opinions on compensation, we may now pass to the I. W. W. where there is neither variableness nor shadow of turning. There is little enough harmony in syndicalist ideas on many points, but that present capitalist possessors got their belongings through what in last analysis is fraud and force is a fixed and vehement belief. "Are we then to pay market values or any values to swindlers and highwaymen who have filched our properties?" One rarely hears a more effective gallery stroke than this question, "Do you compensate pick-pockets?" "Do you piously discuss financial methods for recompensing the man who lifted your watch or stole your bicycle?" I have many times listened to discussions of this question of compensation before general socialist audiences. "Shall capitalistic owners be paid? If so, how much?" is one wording that I heard discussed between conservative and radical socialists. It was not because the radical had more nimble wit or keener forensic ability; he caught and
