4. Every petty contractor, garage-keeper, or other person employing any
hired help whatever, including the professional writer who hires a
stenographer, the doctor who hires a chauffeur, and the dentist who hires a
mechanic assistant.

5. Every clergyman and minister of the Gospel.

6. Every person whose income is derived from inherited wealth or from
invested earnings, including all who live upon annuities provided by gift
or bequest.

7. Every person engaged in housekeeping for persons included in any of the
foregoing six categories--including the wives of such disqualified persons.

There are many occupational groups whose civic status is not so easily
defined. The worker engaged in making articles of luxury, enjoyed only by
the privileged few, could hardly have a better claim to a vote than the
housekeeper of a man whose income was derived from foreign investments, or
than the chauffeur of a man whose income was derived from government bonds.
All three represent, presumably, types of that parasitic labor which
subjects those engaged in it to disfranchisement. Apparently, though not
certainly, then, the following would also be disfranchised:

1. All lawyers except those engaged by the public authorities for the
public service.

2. All teachers and educators other than those engaged in the public
service.

3. All bankers, managers of industries, commercial travelers, experts, and
accountants except those employed in the public service, or whose labor is
judged by a competent tribunal to be necessary and useful.

4. All editors, journalists, authors of books and plays, except as special
provision might be provided for individuals.

5. All persons engaged in occupations which a competent tribunal decided to
classify as non-essential or non-productive.

Any serious attempt to introduce such restrictions and limitations of the
right of suffrage in America would provoke irresistible revolt. It would be
justly and properly regarded as an attempt to arrest the forward march of
the nation and to turn its energies in a backward direction. It would be
just as reactionary in the political world as it would be in the industrial
world to revert back to hand-tool production; to substitute the ox-team for
the railway system, the hand-loom for the power-loom, the flail for the
threshing-machine, the sickle for the modern harvesting-machine, the human
courier for the electric telegraph.

Yet we find a radical like Mr. Ma