* * * * * =Cazalet, Edward Alexander.= (President of the Anglo-Russian Literary Society, Imperial Institute, London.) Socialism has been defined as the name given to schemes for regenerating society by a more equal distribution of property and especially by substituting the principle of association for that of competition. A great statesman and author, M. de Tocqueville, branded Socialism as an energetic and pernicious appeal to the lower passions of mankind; as a system of which the basis was a thorough mistrust of liberty, a hearty contempt of man individually. The shrewd and experienced L.A. Thiers in his treatise "De la Propriete," also combats the maxim: "La propriete c'est le vol." He depicted the universal poverty and barbarism that would follow from such notions being adopted. Robert Owen, the enthusiastic and practical Socialist, was not successful in his colony of New Harmony in United States. The improvement of his workmen's material interests in the New Lanark Mill in Scotland, finally proved a disappointment. (See also "Why I am in Favor of Socialism.") * * * * * =Purrington, William Archer.= (Lawyer and Author.) I do not know of any practicable scheme of Socialism, or of any satisfactory definition of the term upon which Socialists agree; an accurate definition is the necessary basis of intelligent expression of opinion. Apparently, Socialists in general believe, or at least preach that the State should own the material and means of production, to the end that all should share what is now enjoyed by the few. I doubt if the proposed means would achieve the desired end. At present the United States Government supplies us with postage stamps. The stamps will not stick. Socialism will be practicable, if ever, only when "The roughs, as we call them, grown loving and dutiful, Worship the true and the good and the beautiful. And preying no longer, as tiger and vulture do, Read the Atlantic, as persons of culture do." That day is far distant, and even when it comes the man of brains will assert his individualism. * * * * * =Screws, William Wallace.= (Editor The Montgomery Advertiser.) I am opposed to Socialism because I believe in conservatism. We are drifting too far already away from precepts and principles which guided us safely as long as they were adhered to. I am opposed to Socialism because I believe in individualism. Each man in the community should do something for it instead of each man in the community expecting the community to do something for him. I could give many other reasons, but these are enough to convince me that Socialism engrafted in our laws would be dangerous to government and society. * * * * * =Burke, John Butler, M.A.= (Author and Scientist.)