There was a farmer who grew the raw fiber. There was a railroad that transported the fiber. There was a long list of workmen who did various things in the preparation of that fiber. It took several classes of men to convert that fiber into yarn. Some men dug the coal and a railroad hauled it. It took a good many men a considerable time to build the loom and the engine and the mill, and all of them have got to be paid. The men who have paid all these previous classes of workers may reimburse themselves out of a part of the proceeds of the bolt of cloth without committing any robbery. What are the dividends but the reimbursement of the people that have paid the miners and mechanics and builders for their work before the cloth was sold? The report of the Comptroller of the Currency shows that the average return on all the shares and bonds of all the corporations in the United States is 4.3 per cent. That doesn't look unreasonable. It isn't very much more than savings-bank interest. Of course, some corporations make very much more, but many must make nothing in order to bring the average down to 4.3 per cent. Besides, there are a few bonds that do not pay 4.5 per cent or more, so that the average return on the shares, which represent the ownership of the mills and factories, would be less than 4.3 per cent. What does a man produce? Well, put a man with only his bare hands upon a spot of earth, or in a mine hole, or by the side of a stream and how much will he produce? What are the chances that he will not starve to death before he can produce anything? If you give him tools, and "grub-stake" him, in mining lingo, or support him until he has produced something and it has been marketed, the produce of other men has been given him. They have got to be paid for their produce in some way. The man in question can't have all he produces without defrauding the men who produced the tools and food which he used during the time he was getting his product made or extracted.[14]--_Philadelphia Record._ [14] Reprinted by permission of the _Philadelphia Record_. VII. Analysis 1. What is proved by this editorial? 2. The method of Model I consists of overwhelming the enemy with an avalanche of examples. The method of Model II is to define the words used by an opponent and, by analyzing the meaning of what he asserts, to prove that he does not see his way through the question. 3. Note the framework: (Par. 1) "Four W's"; (Par. 2) Statement of Positions of Opponent and Writer; (Par. 3) Exposition of Writer's Position; (Par. 4) Refutation of Opponent's Idea; (Par. 5) Conclusion. VIII. Exercises