“When would Socialists allow anyone to have a machine?” “When a person can use a machine for her own use. For instance, Socialists would let a dressmaker have a machine for her own work, but not for the purpose of employing others to exploit and rob them,” is the answer. How craftily the Socialist school-teachers impart their philosophy of destruction to the boys and girls who are so unfortunate as to come within their sphere of influence is told by a story, the truth of which is vouched for by the special commissioners of the London _Standard_--a paper which recently conducted a painstaking investigation of the menacing character of Socialism. A well-known Socialist speaker and writer was addressing a meeting in Islington, attended chiefly by children. A portion of his address ran somewhat as follows: “The most interesting event of the week has been the train murder, of which most of you have no doubt heard. Two men were seated in a railway carriage. The one was rich; he had a diamond pin in his tie, a thick gold chain across his waistcoat, money jingled in his pockets when he moved. The other was poor, miserably poor; he wanted money for everything--food, clothes, lodging. He asked the rich man to give him of his superfluity; the rich man refused and so the poor man took by force what he could not get by entreaty, and in the use of that force--the only effective argument which the poor possess--the rich man was killed. The shedding of blood is always to be deplored, but there are times when it is warranted. Violence is a legitimate weapon for the righting of social wrongs.” The address over, the lecturer went about among the children questioning them with the object of finding out whether they had grasped the meaning of his address. To a bright intelligent girl of twelve, he said: “You heard what I said about the two men in the train?” “Yes,” was the reply. “Did you understand what I meant by my story?” “Oh, yes,” answered the girl. “You meant that if we hadn’t got something that we wanted, and somebody else has got it, we could go and take it from them.” And the lecturer, smiling his approval, passed on. There are Socialists who will indignantly repudiate all such ideas; yet we have but to turn to some of the most respectable authorities on Socialism to find ample evidence that the gentleman who lectured before the children of Islington was scarcely more radical than many of the more eminent advocates of Marxism. Bax, for example, in his “Ethics of Socialism,” admits that “for him [the Socialist] it is indifferent whether social and political ends are realized by lawful or lawless means.”