The Labor enquirer., 1883-08-18
The Greenb.ck Papers.

know how they looked upon the late
anti-monopoly convention. ! find them
divided into three parties on the sub
iect. One party is ready to assimilate
with the workers of the convention,
willing to lay aside party names and
give their influence heart and soul, for
the universal good, believing that such
good can be accomplished better under
the name anti-monopoly than under
that of greenback. This party, SO far as
I am able to Judge, is represented by at
least one half of the greenbaek editors
The second division is quite large one.
It consists of the weakened crowd
who always wait to see how things are
going before venturing upon an opinion.
Indeed, as rule, they are not capable
of forming an opinion themselves, but
stand ready to cheer the side that wins.
The third division, very small one,
consists of perhaps dozen would-be
leaders, who feel themselves at home
in the greenback party: simply because
the party is 50 small they are in no pres
ent danger of being lost sight of. These
men, not content with confning them
selves to facts about the convention and
it's work, have published whole pages Of
lies concerning it which hundreds of
candid people can retute. The animos-
ity they display proves more conclus-
lively than anything else their real fear
that greenbackism will be swallowed up
in anti-monopoly. They claim that the
anti-monopoly platform scarcely differs
from their own. Then why their vim
dictiveness.
see very little difference in the two
platforms myself, except that the new
one is broader and more comprehensive,
offering greater inducements for the dis
affected of the old parties to stand upon,
and from this fact holding out greater
promise of success than the greenback
party can do.
For,my part, I was greenbacker and
am yet. 1t was as noble little party of
principles as ever existed But its main
theory seemed too intricate for the 'peo-
pie and required so much explanation
they would not listen. Though our
papers gave it to them line upon line
and precept upon precept, they tired of
it as children tire of old-time catechism.
A few thinking men we're converted now
and then, but as party it had no popu-
larity, can never have. Its name alone
preiudiced it with the great body of the
people.
"But," you say, "this is no argument
against the party" 1t is no argument
against the principles of the party, every
one of which is incorporated in the new
anti-monopoly party, but it is an argu-
ment against the party itself as being an
utterly 1mpracticable thing for the &C
complishment of the work now neces-
sary to be done.
Gentlemen, work increases rapidly. In
every department of life monopolies are
thickening, doubling up and intensity
ing their power year by year. Do you
mean to stand quibbling on a name
while the people are being sold out of
their rights-their very lives even-by
lot of political knaves, for whom hang
ing is too good? The man who holds
back his influence from petty vanity or
personal pique at time like this should
be branded as traitor to the party he
proposes to represent. He is no true
greenbacker who would not give his
support to his party principles, strength
ened by grandly popular name and re-
inforced by many of the best and wisest
men in the nation.
AS to the charge that the convention
was composed of a lot of dudes and half
fedged aristocrats, want to say that l
have never met finer set Of men and
women than were there present as dele
gates. They were nearly all farmers.
Their faces were open and honest and
bronzed with sun and weather, and the
hearty clasp of their yellow hands was
like life and inspiration to me. And it
was because they were staunch and true
men that an organization was formed at
all in the face of the almost oVerwhelm-
ing influence brought to bear against it.
Denis Kearney was not the only repre-
sentative Of Ypnopolistic money pres
ont There we're democrats, republicans