The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-12-07
"I,IsING TO EXPLAIN."

~ 10 Iob oul Haplt, HoT IL III EOou pOlCy
for any paper to enter into a discussion OF
the why's and wherefores of positions as
sumed editorially in its columns, when par
ties differ Herewith, and request a reason
or an explanation of the same. Life is too
short to give detailed accounts of ones
views to those who may question their wis
dom or propriety, but we are in receipt of a
communication from source and of a
character that demands brief answer.
Some few days since we took the ground
under the interrogatory title "WhatWill He
DO With it?' that the new Secretary of the
Treasury should see to it that there was
reduction of the burdens upon the
people governmentally as there was locked
up in the vault of the department at Wash
ington large surplus of revenue, and we
incidentally made use of the expression that
seems TO be peculiarly Objectionable to our
critical questioner. We said, referring to
the use of the funds in payment of the
national bonds, that it was, perhaps but
just to say that we were doing in this gen
Grafton and had done about all in that par
ticular that could be demanded of us.
Whereupon our contributor very uniustly
and incorrectly intimates that We were
influenced by the fear of the loss of
patronage of the moneyed interest We
are sorry that he is not better posted
as to the attitude of the thinking public
on that proposition, and suspect that
his fancied reason for our.position thereon,
springs from a short-sightcd style some
good men have of doubling the honesty OF
any views contrary to their own. or he
may believe that we were helping Wander.
bilt individually to eat up the interest on
the public debt, and were personally inter
eSted. We fail to catch his exact meaning,
but very readily give an explanation of the
real import of the remark. Some of the
first minds of this and other countries con-
tend that it is n sound political principle
that those who enjoy the blessings of n good
government, ought to share in the trouble
and expense of making ii such. We do not
of course know whether this idea or
proposition has occurred to our questioner
or not, but If so he must appreciate the
correctness Of the conclusion that no one
section or generation ought to be held in
justice to pay the whole of two or three
thousand millions Of debt created directly
in maintaining the unity and integrity OF
the government and in perpetuating for
their posterity the benefcent provisions oil
the system. There was a political house.
hold in the United States aycar or so ago who
thought that this ought to be done, in effect
and at a stroke of the pen, but somehow OF
other it failed of popular favor, and We
might claim this determination of III.
country as somewhat corroborative of the
principle, but we do not. We simply
base our view upon the conclusion
Of common reason and Justice.
But "Coniver" concludes that such q
policy is only calculated to benefit a
"shody, non.producing aristocraey," How
ever, shoddy or not, non-producing or not,
aristocratic or not, the men who hold the
bonds of this people are the moneyed class
and the payment of 800, 900 out of ST.
10000, 900 would hardly affect the debt and
take only 100000 or 100000 out of the
annual income Of those "aristocrats," n
tric in their vast wealth scarcely percept.
ibe to them. On the other hand, to remove
at one blow, in one year, siOoooo,0OO from
the taxes OF the masses, whether direct
or indirect taxes, could not but be felt from
one end OF the country TO the other, but
would be merited removal Of that
amount of subsidy to the really "aristo-
cratic class the manufacturers and menop-
olis,s, the money-kings and heads of the
great pampercd corporations and industries
ofthe United States who grind the sweat
and blood out of the toiling poor. Does our
,ritic now appreciate the real significance