The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1877-11-15
THE p: p. .iNSWERED.

neer-Press quoted repeatedly, and in
capitals. with q grand flourish, and
any number of exclamation points,
certain errors into which we fell four
years ago, when we began to study the
financial question. The P. P. did not
attempt to prove that those hurried
ly adopted and ill-considered opinions
were right; it was content to show
that we did not hold the same opin-
ions now that we did four years ago!
We have never claimed infallibili-
ty. The dogma of the Ecumenical
Council did not refer to the editor of
THE ANTI-MoNoPOLIsT. All we
claim is a desire to be right and will
lingness to unlearn our errors. Our
readers we'll remember when, for the
first time.we began to study the great
financial issues Of the day. Hon. Jo-
seph Goar of Morristown, Rice coun-
ty. wrote some letters to this paper i'm
which he discussed those questions
and we replied to him. It was q
new subject to us and the further
we went the more we knew. We had
that capacity for acquiring informa-
ton which the p. 2. seems to regard
as disgrace to human nature; and in
replying to Mr.. Goar, we converted
ourself to the Greenback doctrine.
We do not think there is anything to-
be ashamed of in this. The opinions
of the first man differed in every con-
ceivable respect from the opinions Of
his civilized successor. The ass. the
OK, the sheep and the ourang-outang
hold precisely the same views held by
their most remote progenitors. Even
the editors of the p. p. las we showed
the other day, } have been forced along
the path of events to some change of
opinions. Holding an intermediate
position between civilized man and
the animals we have enumerated their
progress has been necessarily slow
and painful, but nevertheless you can
measure their advance as AgassiZ
| measured the movement Of the Al
pine glaciers, by driving stakes along
the bank. A file of their paper shows
that they do advance. But they never
acknowledge it.
The particular fallacy of ours over
which the p. p. smacked it's lips was,
that the discount on greenbacks was
taken out Of the farmer. It is true
that time and time again, in these
columns, we have explained how we
came to fall into this plausible error,
and we have proved that the discount
is really premium on wheat raising.
The 2. 2. has never quoted Or an
swered these articles, but it takes up
casual expression of ours, made
four years ago, and dances. around it
like Sioux savage around scalp.
The question is not, are we cOnsls-
tent. but are we right. And on this
point we beg leave to call attention to
the following from the Indianapolis
Sun:
1t is to the interest of the farmer to get just
|
/ possible. It is to his interest to increase the
purchasing power of wheat if possible, and
that implies OF course decrease in purchas-
ing power of the greenback. The farmer is
, producer of wheat and not greenbacks
Take an instance: If farmer Jones owes a
! thousand dollars Of debt or taxes and has a
, thousand bushels Of wheat, it is evidently to
his interest to get as many dollars IS posi-
| for his wheat If he gets dollar bushel
he will have just dollars enough to pay The
debt. If he gets 81 80 per bushel which i'm
} plies decrease in the purchasing power OF
the greenbacks, or, what is the same in effect
an increase in the purchasing power Of the
, wheat, then farmer Jones will realize $500
and with those greenback dollars can paw his
debt and taxes and have $500 lett. But sup
!. pose on the contrary that the purchasing
power of the greenback money is increased
and Mr.. Jones gets but 80 cents per bushel
for his wheat. He will only have $500 with
{ which to pay his debt and taxes. That will
pay just half Of it and the remaining $500
Of his debt with its growing interest, must be
| taken out Of his next years labor and its pro-
ducts.
Now let the P. P. stop discussing
the very unimportant! Question of our
consistency, and answer this very i'm
, portant statement.