There follows a detailed argument to the effect that the farmers who raised the raw fibre and the railway men who transported it are entitled to their share of the product. And after the pupils have read and assimilated this marvelous discovery, they are asked the question: “What is proved by this editorial?” Let me tell Mr. Miller’s future pupils what is proved—that the editorial-writer of the Philadelphia “Record” is an ignoramus. I challenge Professor Miller and the “Record” both, to find anywhere in the world a Socialist authority who does not plainly state that the Socialist demand is for the _collective_ workers to receive the full value of their _collective_ product. Under Socialism, as a matter of course, all workers of whatever sort, whether of hand or brain, who contribute to the making of finished products, will receive their proportionate share of the value they have created. The only people who will be left out are the owners of stocks and bonds and other pieces of paper, who under the present system of wage-slavery draw off the surplus product of the collective labor, and use this unearned wealth to hire educational experts to misrepresent the cause of social justice. Or take the volume entitled “Representative Modern Constitutions,” extensively used in the colleges and high schools in Southern California. It is edited by two instructors at the Southern Branch of the University of California, and published, of course, by the Los Angeles “Times.” Among the constitutions of a dozen different European countries is included that of Russia; but our “Times” is not content to print the constitution of Russia and let it speak for itself, it is necessary to provide an antidote in the form of a preface by W. J. Ghent, retired Socialist who is introduced as “a distinguished authority on Russian affairs.” Ex-Comrade Ghent’s preface elaborately explains to the student that the Russian constitution doesn’t really mean anything. He talks about its “safeguards against democracy,” as if such safeguards were obviously wicked; overlooking that other text-book published by the “Times,” “Back to the Republic,” by Harry Atwood—which compares democracy with promiscuity, free love, gluttony, drunkenness, discord and insanity!