[49] President Lincoln was shot while in his private box at Ford's Theatre, Washington, on the night of April 14, 1865, and died early the next morning. His assassin, J. Wilkes Booth, was pursued to Caroline County, Virginia, where he was fired on by the soldiery and killed. A letter was found upon him ascribing his conduct to his devotion to the Southern States. [50] The bracketed [_sic_] interpolations are the remarks of the _Gazette_. [51] One of the instances given by the _Gazette_ on this point was that a sovereign made of Californian gold will not buy more wool at Sydney than a sovereign made of Australian gold, although far more labor will have been expended in bringing it to Sydney. [52] The _Gazette's_ criticism on the previous letter had concluded thus: The following questions exhaust the points at issue between Mr. Ruskin and ourselves: Is every man bound to purchase any service or any goods offered him at a "just" price, he having the money? If yes, there is an end of private property. If no, the purchaser must be at liberty to refuse to buy if it suits his interest to do so. Suppose he does refuse, and thereupon the seller offers to lower his price, it being his interest to do so, is the purchaser at liberty to accept that offer? If yes, the whole principle of bargaining is admitted, and the "justice" of the price becomes immaterial. If no, each party of the supposition is compelled by justice to sacrifice their interest. Why should they do so? The following is an example: The "just" price of a guide up Mont Blanc is (suppose) 100 francs. I have only 50 francs to spare. May I without injustice offer the 50 francs to a guide, who would otherwise get nothing, and may he without injustice accept my offer? If not, I lose my excursion, and he loses his opportunity of earning 50 francs. Why should this be? In addition to the above interpolations, the _Gazette_ appended a note to this letter, in which it declared its definition of justice to be a quotation from memory of Austin's definition adopted by him from Hobbes, and after referring Mr. Ruskin to Austin for the _moral_ bearings of the question, concluded by summing up its views, which it doubted if Mr. Ruskin understood, and insisting on the definition of "justice" as "conformity with any rule whatever, good or bad," and on that of _good_ rules as "those which promote the general happiness of those whom they affect." (See the next letter.) [From "The Pall Mall Gazette," May 9, 1865.] _WORK AND WAGES._ _To the Editor of "The Pall Mall Gazette."_ SIR: I am under the impression that we are both getting prosy, or, at all events, that no one will read either my last letter, or your comments upon it, in the places in which you have so gracefully introduced them. For which I am sorry, and you, I imagine, are not.