PAGE TWO
CHATHAM RECORD
o. J. PETERSON
Editor and Publisher
SUBSCRIPTION PRICE:
One Year ••■•••• $ l5O
Six Months ■•••
THURSDAY ANGUST 7,1930
Bible Thought and Prayer
■» » ■
I PROCLAMATION OF PEACE—;>
Glory be to God in tbe highest, and ~
on earth peace, good will toward “
men. —Luke 2:14. “
♦ PRAYER—Our loving Father, we ;
I thank Thee for: “Peace, perfect
j peace, our future ■ all unknown, ,
2 Jesus, we know, and He Is on the
? throne.” 11
®
HEALTH AND MONEY
In addition to his . many
gifts of charity and other so
cial service, John D. Rocke
feller, Sr., one of the richest
men in the world, has shown
by reaching his 92st birthday
anniversary that money
doesn't necessarily make men
die young. His sober life has
served to dispel the thought
that wealth either necessarily
lowers one's moral standards
or contributes to physical de
cay. It is the use, not the
possession of money. that
counts for good or evil. The
name Rockefeller has been a
houseword for finance for
more than a quarter of a cen
tury. Notwithstanding some of
the events of his life seemed to
crush the financial power of
others, there abides .in the
public mind a conviction that
there is considerably more
good than bad about the man.
Above all he seems not to
have grown cynical or sour
with age. His official birthday
statement was graced and
made even beautiful by these
phrases: “I have naught but
good will toward all. I am
unspeakably greatful:"
When these is a deeper
depression in business it’s too
bad for the business man if
he does not put forth every
effort to make a surer impres
sion upon the buying public.
®
We have received a letter
from Editor Rowland Beasley
of the Monroe Journal which
will make good reading for
next week.
“WORTHY OF ALL
ACCEPTATION"
As a prophet is not without
honor except in his own coun
try and as there are people
right in Pittsboro who have no
idea how thinking men esti
mate the Chatham Record
and have been so “busy" that
they have never discovered
the>. editorial department in
this paper, we below give
an estimate of Attorney B. C.
Beckwith of Raleigh, confirm
ing that so often expressed by
Dr. G. W. Paschal. As Dr.
Paschal is a classmate of the
editor, his enthusiasm has
been attributed, in a measure,
to partiality; but the editor
of the Record would not know
Mr. Beckwith if he should
step into the sanctum. Let
us say that such commenda
tions help a man, as they con
firm him in the opinion that
his work is worth-while and
give incentive for continued
thought and effort. But we
do wish that our home folk
would wake up to the fact
that the Chatham Record is
more than a little neighbor
hood news sheet.
Mr. Beckwith writes: “Dr.
G- W. Paschal’s opinion that
the editoral page of the Chat
ham Record is the strongest
in the state is worthy of all
acceptation. And my opinion
is that the editorial in yester
day’s issue of the Record,
captioned “The Fictional
Value . Ascribed to a College
Education", is worth many
times the subscription price of
the paper.
“After the manner of Rip-
Vaji Winkle, Here’s to your
health and your family’s. And
may you live long and pros
per. Renew my subscription
and send the bill. I am a sub
scriber so long as you edit
the paper.
Truly,
B. C. Beckwith’’
“Raleigh, August 1, 1930."*
THE TEST OF UNIVERSALITY
The test of a physical law is
the universality of its applica
tion. The laws of gravity are
true everywhere and if they
are operating in every cubic
foot but one in the universe
that fact will not prevent
their operating in that cubic
foot.. Also, no physical law
fails in one place because it
is operating too generously
in other places.
The, same test applied to
some generally accepted econ
omic laws, or practices, read
ily proves their invalidity.
Take the principle of econ
omy, saving, or stinting, that
is now being popularly urged
as a remedy for economic ills.
It will work in individual
cases in restoring or building
the fortunes of its devotees,
but applied generally it not
only would not work to the
end of either general or in
dividual prosperity, but bn
the contrary would impover
ish the whole world. The ex
ceptional individual, continu
ally producing his share and
using less than his share, can
forge ahead. But so soon as
his method should be uni
versally applied his surplus
production becomes dead on
his hands. For most products
of industry are perishable,
and, as recently pointed out
in these columns, the world
lives from hand to mouth, and
if "half the wheat, the corn,
the automobiles, the clothing,
or anything else except what
is used in providing homes
and further facilities for pro
duction, transportation, and
exchange, should be saved
this year, it would inevitably
mean one of two things—
either production to that
extent would be cut off next
year or the so called saving
would be utterly useless. For .
if production should maintain
itself and the saving continue,
the surplus would have to
rot, and the stinting would be
worse than useless.
The general misconception
of the validity of the principle
of stinting is due to the mis
conception of money as wealth,
as is the fact in respect to
most of the economic falacies
of the age.
Just there we note that
the American people are
carrying a hundred billion of
insurance, and an editorial
writer says that means sav
ings and protection. That is
true but with respect only to
the few who are carrying
insurance; but let everybody
carry insurance, providing
that they can, and the invalid
ity of the principle of insur
ance would be easily demon
strable. Only the loan of the
insurance funds makes it
possible for the premiums to
meet the expense of the polic
ies and final payment. Now,
let everybody have paid in
$5,000 in premiums, or have
that much to his credit on
his policy, and it is evident
that everybody, on the aver
age, must borrow $5,000 at
a higher rate of interest than
he is securing on his insur
ance funds, or the insurance
companies would become
bankrupt. Thus it would be
that the immense insurance
machinery would be support
ed by the insurers at an abso
lute loss. Saving utterly de
pends upon loans, and loans
depend upon borrowing for
production purposes or for
current expenditures, and
neither increase in production
facilities nor borrowing for
living expenses is consistent
with a general program of
saving or stinting. If every
family in the States
should pay SIOO a year in
insurance premiums, the pur
chasing power of the public
would be so materially dimin
ished as to disrupt practically
every business in the country.
Only the borrowing back of
the money at a higher rate
than received in order to con
tinue purchases would pre
' vent that catastrophe, and
that would be folly supreme.
But who hold these polic
■ ies for a hundred billion
. dollars? Hardly one family
■ in fifty who really need the
i protection, except possibly to
• the extent of a burial fund,
; for which the poor devils are
paying most dearly. It is the
policies from SIO,OOO up to a
million that make up the
bulk of the insurance total,
THE CHATHAM RECORD, PITTSBORO, N. C.
and the potentiality of those
policies is utterly dependent
upon the fact that insurance
is not universal, just as is the
effectiveness of stinting on the
part of the miser due to the
fact that all the people are .
not misers.
The misconception of money
and securities as wealth has
led to the conception that the
world can lay up in store for
the future in that form, which
can be really done by the
exceptional individual but not
universally. Again, the world
lives from hand to mouth, and
the greatest urge to produc
tion of plenty next year is
the consumption of this year’s
product. But a consumption
that pushes production must
be universal, and is altogeth
er inconsistent with a gen
eral saving program.
Then, if individual saving
or individual insurance, as
now practiced, cannot become
universal and, accordingly,
the majority of the people
must remain poor or get rich
in the grab game of the com
petitive system; if consump
tion must be maintained at
the maximum to assure pro
duction at a maximum, and
if that cannot be done unless
provision is made for the rainy
day or for the family upon
the death of the bread-winner;
what is the remedy?
Certainly, a piling up of
money or securities, by the
individual who happens to be
lucky enough to do so, which
has an impoverishing effect
upon the general public, is not
the way out. In the first place,
it cannot become universal
and it means that provision
is made through a lessening
of the wealth that is to ,be
depended upon for the pro
tection sought in the hoarding
of gold or the provision of
insurance funds. On the con
trary, the sensible method is
to secure the protection by
a means that assures an ever
increasing annual supply of
goods, which is simply through
the encouragement of pro
duction by means of maintain
ing a maximum but legitimate
consumption. For, mind you,
wastefulness is not contem
plated; yet a healthful share
in recreations, means of cul
ture, etc-, are to be included
in the term consumption.
As each year’s product can
be made readily equal to the
demands of a full consump
tion, even if the deadening
surpluses that now exist do
not argue such a state already
existing (which they by no
means do), it should be clear
that the true economic prin
ciple is to provide from the
general annual store for the
unfortunate, or those indivi
duals who have reached the
stage when their miserly laid
up hoardings on their insur
ance policies, if they have
either, is supposed to become
effective. That time is at hand
when the bread-winner be
comes disabled, when fire,
flood, wind, or hail destroys
his source of living, when old
age has destroyed his ability
to earn what he needs, or
when death takes him from
a dependent family. In short,
state allowances for disability,
for providential handicaps,
for old age, and widows and
dependent children, should
provide for those who could
have provided for themselves
only by impoverishing their
own lives by miserliness and
that at the loss to the general
wealth-production, and can do
so from the annual overflow
of products.
But the opposer of these
pensions urge that such a
means would lead to the
pauperizing of the people, or
to the production of a horde
of parasites. Yet they are
perfectly willing for judges to
accept pensions, and if one,
readily accepts it himself;
they are willing for the old
soldiers to have pensions, even
when they don’t need them;
they are willing for govern
ment employes to receive old
age pensions, and even presi
dents widows’ have not been
averse to sharing in such
parasitism. But when it comes
to the ordinary producer, who
has provided for himself dur
ing many years and taken
care of his share of depen
dents, to give him a pension
in old age or to provide for
f CAROLINIANS-Know Your State! Hr
1 COPYRICHT l<J}o BY BOYCE & RANKIN ,
m eim,iwiittii —nnriii 1 I '■ mnt imiwmmmmm n— mmm wwmmm——ri iwn it . ■»— tTrnr.im.
BBC? w y 1
GOOD ROADS
A HUNDRED years ago a trip across North Carolina was a month’s journey;
today it is only a day’s drive. No state in the union has a more extensive or
comprehensive plan of highway building. North Carolina has been known as the
"Good Roads State” since the State Highway program was begun in 1921. Over
7,500 miles of hard-surfaced and highly improved State roads connect practically
every county seat and principal city. The State is constantly improving its network
of roads and is endeavoring to connect all important points with the main highways
of the neighboring states.
The State spent more on highways in 1926 than any other in the South; $125,-
000,000 in five years. State highways are built maintained.out of revenue from
and gas taxes alone.
any remaining dependents, is
to make him or them a para
site or parasites.
But, in our mind, an econo
mic system that will maintain
a full consumption is the
surest means of providing a
sale for every man’s labor or
product, and therefore the
surest means that he shall be
able to provide himself a
home and some capital that
may be turned to the support
of dependents in cases of
death or misfortunes. For
since modern means make it
exceedingly easy to produce
plenty of food and clothing,
a full production would in
clude the building of homes
and the making of comfort
able household fittings. Only
that would provide work for
all, and only work for all
would enable all to have their
homes.
The same test of universal
ity of application would
demonstrate the invalidity of
other generally accepted
economic principles. Yet a
man like Raskob could argue
that all may be rich, , when
no one can be rich in the
accepted sense without a ser
vant, or many servants, or
without monopolizing portions
of the production of many!
Try that scheme on all and
see how it would work!
<S>
Chatham county feed deal
ers should buy wheat to sell
for chicken feed. The best
price the writer can get a
mixed feed of wheat and
broken corn for is $2.50 a
hundred, or two and a half
cents a pound. Wheat 1 at that
rate is $1.50 a bushel, and
it is evident that the vcheat
in the chicken feed is of poor
quality, probably Screening.
Our merchants can afford to
pay Chatham county farmers
a good price for wheat and
sell it cheaper than they are
selling the inferior grade in
the chicken feed. Cooperation
will help all parties.
®
Not all knocks are boosts,
some are genuine injuries.
®
If every 50th man is a
bootlegger, every 49th. is a
federal prohibition agent look
ing for him. Only about 24
of the remaining 48 care a
hang whether he is caught or
not. And then some people
wonder what’s wrong with the
country.
®
With all of the marathons,
walkathons, non-stop flights,
etc., going on, the Hamlet
News-Messenger believes it is
justified in looking for more
non-stop advertisers and sub
scribers.
- ■ -
It takes a woman’s sewing
circle to develop a lot of con
versational halitosis.
®
Many a man who is a good
shot in this world hopes he
will miss fire in the next.
A man gets into trouble
marrying two wives. Some get
into trouble marrying one.
TWO AND TWO STILL MAKE FOUR
It is a pity that the world
cannot become convinced that
two and two make four, or
that four cannot be divided
into three and two. The old
school of political economists
were confident that the
amassing of great wealth in
the hands of the few had noth
ing to do with the prevalence
of poverty among the masses,
and one of them, Malthus,
wrought out his famed thesis
of the poverty’s being due to
the decreasing returns from
application of labor and capi
tal to land. But the Malthusian
theory has been absolutely
disproved in this day of the
machine, of synthetic ferti
lizers, improved varieties of
plants, and the application of
science to agriculture. !No
longer is the danger in in
ability to produce enough.
Yet poverty still exists amid
plenty, and the stone which
was rejected by the earlier
economists must now become
the head of the corner,
namely, that the unequal, or
unfair, distribution of wealth
is the cause of the prevalence
of poverty. Yet the opinion
seems still to prevail that the
few can become extremely
rich without impoverishing the
many, that is, that three can
be taken from four and still
leave two.
The truth is (and it must
be recognized before poverty
can be relieved) that every
time one gets more than
enough another must be sat
isfied with less than enough.
If there were just food enough
produced for all, it is clear
that anyone who consumed
or wasted more than his
share would deprive some one
else of what he actually
needed. But it is not so clear
to the average mind that the
man who gets more than his
share converted into money
likewise deprives -another of
his adequate part of feed and
other essentials.
A man might produce a
million bushels of wheat and
sell it and appear to have
done more than his part to
feed humanity. But has he?
' The food, it is true, exists,
but it takes money for the
consumer to get it, and the
consumer can get only by
selling his own products. With
the same amount of wheat
produced and sold by a thou
sand men, a thousand would
have the wherewith to buy
the essential products of the
consumers of the millions of
bushels of wheat, and in al
most as large a degree as the
seller of the million bushels,
since the normal requirements
of the millionaire is little
greater than that of any of
the thousand producers of the
million bushels. Accordingly,
it should be clear that if all
the wheat in the country were
produced by one man, much
of it could not be bought and
consumed, because of the in
THURSDAY, AUGUST 7. iqqa
ability of tens of thousands
of consumers to sell their own
products, which formerly were
sold to the small producers
of wheat, and thus a surplus
in both wheat and the various
products of the consumers of
wheat would accrue, while
many would have a scant
bread supply.
Accordingly, it should be
clear that monopolization of
wealth, of production, or of
money necessarily limits con
sumption, which in turn, in
the long run, limits produc
tion and necessarily produces
poverty of the masses. Videli
cet Ford.
The point is this: Whoever
gets more than he can spend
discreetly for essentials neces
sarily robs others of a portion
of his essentials, and it makes
no difference in what shape
the accumulation is created,
whether in lands, houses, food
and raiment, or in the form of
money or securities. It is
simply a matter of taking more
than two from four and neces
sarily leaves less than two.
That being true, the state,
in all its departments and sub
divisions, when it pays more
than a living salary to its
employees, is necessarily rob
bing others of its citizens. The
state employee who can lay
up $5,000 a year is necessarily
depriving the rest of the peo
ple of what it takes to sup
port five families in an or
dinary degree of comfort, and
is contributing to the forma
tion of an unsalable surplus.
Hence, if Governor Gardner
wishes to encourage living at
home or living well in any
wise on the part of the general
run of North Carolina people,
he should see the importance
of clipping salaries of all
state employees to a mere
adequacy for essentials, and
essentials include a home —
but not out of one year’s sal
ary, since no one man could,
within a year, do all the work
from the tree and the clay,
the iron, in the mine, to the
turning of the key on a com
pleted eight-room modern
structure, say, and make food
and clothing for himself and
family at the same time, nor
could the job be completed by
the allotment of the time of
one year for one man to the
hundreds which ordinarily
have taken part in the P re '
paration of the material and
in the structure of a home.
But North Carolina is stiH
more liberal than in giving a
salary more than adequate
for the essentials. When n
has paid a superior com
judge a salary sufficient for a
good living and for the ac
quirement of a home for hi>
family, in the course of a
years, and also for provision
for moderate comfort in 0
age, it releases him from ser\
ice at seventy, if he wishes,
and still heaps upon n- 1
PLEASE TURN TO PAGE TKLL^