»Why, naturally,« I said, »inasmuch as they are incapable of self-support.«
    But here the doctor took me up quickly.
    »Who is capable of self-support?« he demanded. »There is no such thing in a
civilized society as self-support. In a state of society so barbarous as not
even to know family coöperation, each individual may possibly support himself,
though even then for a part of his life only; but from the moment that men begin
to live together, and constitute even the rudest sort of society, self-support
becomes impossible. As men grow more civilized, and the subdivision of
occupations and services is carried out, a complex mutual dependence becomes the
universal rule. Every man, however solitary may seem his occupation, is a member
of a vast industrial partnership, as large as the nation, as large as humanity.
The necessity of mutual dependence should imply the duty and guarantee of mutual
support; and that it did not in your day constituted the essential cruelty and
unreason of your system.«
    »That may all be so,« I replied, »but it does not touch the case of those
who are unable to contribute anything to the product of industry.«
    »Surely I told you this morning, at least I thought I did,« replied Dr.
Leete, »that the right of a man to maintenance at the nation's table depends on
the fact that he is a man, and not on the amount of health and strength he may
have, so long as he does his best.«
    »You said so,« I answered, »but I supposed the rule applied only to the
workers of different ability. Does it also hold of those who can do nothing at
all?«
    »Are they not also men?«
    »I am to understand, then, that the lame, the blind, the sick, and the
impotent, are as well off as the most efficient, and have the same income?«
    »Certainly,« was the reply.
    »The idea of charity on such a scale,« I answered, »would have made our most
enthusiastic philanthropists gasp.«
    »If you had a sick brother at home,« replied Dr. Leete, »unable to work,
would you feed him on less dainty food, and lodge and clothe him more poorly,
than yourself? More likely far, you would give him the preference; nor would you
think of calling it charity. Would not the word, in that connection, fill you
with indignation