Jo.—Yes, it does seem so, but if we did not succeed in holding on to what we dug from the earth, at any rate we have the satisfaction of knowing that our friends here in the East got their share of it in the course of their business transactions.
W.—Oh, well, that’s very generous of you old miners, and no doubt is a great satisfaction.
Jo.—Yes, and I hope that you received your share; did you not?
W.—Oh, well, yes, yes, moderately! only moderately so; but then I’ve no cause to complain; no cause to complain. But tell me, Jo, why it was that you boys who dug it out of the earth didn’t keep your share, too?
Jo.—That I will endeavor to do if you will explain to me why it was that after we had dug it from the earth, and had shipped it to you here in the East by the ton, so small a proportion of you succeeded in getting a share of it?
W.—Does the idea seem to strike you that our great prosperity here is not general, and that only a small portion of us are enjoying the advantages of the great gold circulation.
Jo.—Yes, from all the evidences, with a money circulation of nearly fifteen hundred millions of gold that has been sent to you here at the East, there does not appear to exist a general prosperity, for the strikes, the great labor organizations, and the various theories adopted by your agitators and explained from the platform are evidence of the fact that a great portion, at least, do not share in the general prosperity. Now, why is this?
W.—Well, I must admit that such is really the case, and that there should exist so much poverty with such a great money circulation is difficult of comprehension. Can you explain the phenomenon, Jo?
Jo.—Hardly, William, for you know that it is the business of the miner to dig the gold from the earth only, and for the business men of the country, who use it, to devise the proper means for its use and distribution.
W.—Yes, that is true enough, true enough; and that it is not equally distributed, and that all portions of our country and persons do not share in the use and possession of it, is, in my opinion, an evidence that the conditions created by the improper use of it are not well understood. Is that your opinion?