not only is a very substantial
reform of the existing political conditions of the factory population
practicable in such a measure as to bring about an elevation of their
entire social and economic situation, but such a reform is to be looked
for as in the natural course of things the assured outcome of the
growth of labor organizations."

Here we have a prediction of a thoroughgoing social transmutation
spoken of as the assured outcome of the labor-organization movement
working out its effects simply within the lines of the peaceable and
conventional course of things. But how if I, with all the stronger
reason, had spoken of a prospective social change that might be
expected to result from the combined force of the two factors,
organized labor and universal suffrage?

But how can I be held accountable for the public prosecutor's literary
limitations? for his lack of acquaintance with what is going on all
around us in modern times and what science has already accepted and
made a matter of record? Am I the scientific whipping-boy of the
public prosecutor? If that were the case, the punishment which it
would be for you, Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Court, to mete
out to me would be something stupendous. But all that apart, how can
an allusion to an imminent social revolution, even to a pitchfork
revolution, constitute an instigation to hatred and contempt of the
bourgeoisie? And this is, after all, what the public prosecutor must
be held to allege in the passage cited, and this in fact is what he
does allege. Hatred and contempt can be aroused against any man only
by his own acts and their publicity. But how can anything done by
Peter excite the hatred and contempt of Paul? If any one were to tell
us: "The workingmen are going to get up a social revolution," how
could that remark arouse hatred and contempt of the bourgeoisie? The
passage in question, then, shows itself to have been one that makes no
sense, either in point of grammar or in point of logic. It is not only
untrue with a threefold untruth, but it is contradictory and
meaningless. At least it is quite unintelligible to me.

I have as great difficulty in understanding the public prosecutor's
language as he has in understanding mine. The Greeks were in the habit
of calling any one _barbaros_ (a barbarian) who did not understand the
current speech. So the public prosecutor and I are both barbarians,
the one to the other.

But this passage in