Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1883-06-09
A CRITIC REPLIED TO-.

VQx44O ~ AAAN
> "God did anoint Thee with his odorous oil
To wrestle, not to reign"
:. One intelligent gentleman asked o
another, Hast Saturday, "Haye yos
seen the Intelligencer this morning 2
"Yes.n "Did you red the editoria
l on the hog question p eyes, swell
it seems to me that he spiritsef tina
article tends toward and encourages
communism, in that it advocates = Law
because It would benefit the poor
The poor. are alw1ysina majority, ant
if this were made asbasis for Legislation
it would lead to tho division among
them Of the wealth Of their more fortu'
nate neighbors." azt E
The conversation was repeated to us
by The person addressed, q gentleman
whom we esteem very highly, but who
Idiffered from rs on the question
ct issue last Tuesday. We only regrst
that when gentleman entertain such
opinions of anything which appears in
these columns they do not sit down
and write them to ms in . few words.
The Intelligencer haa ts-views on pub
lie questions. It expresses them freely.
But it does not believe in its own
infallibility any more than It does in
that Of any other human tribunal. It
Is sery 1effarsonian in its ideas. In
none more 10 than in the visw that
public questions should have thrown
upon them the broad light of discus
sion. We r always Is ready to print
views adverse to orr own q if they
were in accord with US. Any idea that a
newspaper may have that will not bear
discussion must be unworthy. We
hope never to entertain any such.
Now, let US examine the objection
urged in the conversation quoted. 1t
is unnecessary here to- define what
communism is. Taking the common
acceptation of the thing-the equal
distribution Of. property among men
merely because of their existencs-we
can say that we know. Of no doctrine
moro pernicious, more unjust, more
tyrannical, more -demoralizing, more
debasing.- The ides that the indolent
drinking, staggering, profane loafer
shall enjoy the fruits Of the labor Of
the industrious, frugal and v~irtuous
man is totally fereign-to cur estimate
of right, and we could not advocate
anything that would tend toward such
an end.
We have carefully. read over the
article in question, and we can find no
justification for such a criticism of it.
When the entire, county is concerned
we clearly stated that we favored the |
restraining Of swine, because there it
was unquestionably "the greatest good
to tho greatest NUMBER" but when the
question affected the city alone we
said, and this is the language criticised,
s'The advantages and disadvantages of
combining the hogs seems to us to be SO
equally balanced that where many
poor persons can be benefited by it we,
for one, though never having hogs at
large, r willing to permit others to
have them" Is there any communism
about that ? Cannot the weak be
favored by the strong, even at some
sacrifice; without involving the latter
in a pernicious political principle ?. We
acknowledge feeling sympathy for the
poor. We cheerfhlly assume all res
possibility that properly belongs to us
for advocating their cause. They
are unable to appear in Hobbies, or to
pay attorneysto represent their interests
in securing legislation. IF the press is
not the champion of the common
where shall they find onep
The poor have no rights that infringe
upon the rights Of the rich. We have
The most lively contempt for demagog-
lcal demands for the poor which are
unreasonable; or which infringe upon
he rights of others; but SO long as we
have strength to WELD a pen, so long
IS it is vouchsafsd US to control the
columns of a newspaper, we shall
never advocate a measure which op-
presses the poor simply because the rich
1emand it. We have no respect for
he demagogue, but we have nothing
contempt for the sycophant, or for
he person who measures manhood by
dollars and cents. The man who
would array the poor against the richis
enemy to his country. The man
Who would on the other hand array the
.ich against the poor is no less a foe to
public order. No generous man will
sver oppose the principle that where
phases of public Measure are debat- /,
Ible, and where one view will benefit
he poor that that view should be adopt
ID. There is no communism in such q
course, nor even a squint toward it. :
Alexander Hamilton held that the ,
wealthy and educated should govern, !
icing especially fitted therefor because l
# their training, and becanse their ::
eisure affords them the opportunity for !.
and reflection. Macauley has !
expressed the view that the time
veuld yet come In this country when !,
Universal suffrage, placing the power
n the hands Of the uneducated masses, '
would wreck our system of govern =.
nent. But Thomas jefferson, that .
'reat apostle Of liberty, the grandest = =
mind that our phenomenal country has ,
PRODUCED, indeed so far as the anchor =
of the condition of man
ind is concerned the greatest j
mind of which history gives us a rec. c
'rd, took the position that the people, f
he common people, were capable of s
elf-government. Our critics fear is,
hat the poor, being in the majority will &
egislate againstth the interests Of the rich. {
This is the Hamiltonian view. It is not 7
'orne out by facts. The poor have no
indicates to build up railroad and |
telegraph monopolies to declare divi-
lends upon millions ofdollars worth of
vatered stock The poor. have no s
himble- rigging machinery whereby to {
axe out Of the pockets Of the rich mil. s