The Labor enquirer., 1885-03-07
honest = ! republican and Is honsA
nov, but It Is not very difficult to esti-

sA>A4ess - = VSSAAs4es4 - -
nov, but it is not very difficult to esti-
mste tho calSbef OF 1 man who can write
more than three columns to proye . cor
tain case and not reach single point
Tho Non-Co man set out 10 demolish
the republican party. The sins Of that
party are numerous enough but none of
them were touched in the little friendly
sayp with Mr. Tompkins The writer
says: "The war came, and we have for
many years been well satisfied that there
would have been no war but for the re-
publican party" Unquestionably. With
out the republican, or some party hold
ing similar views, there would have been
no war for the preservation Of the Union,
and every staunch republican living to-
day is proud to acknowledge that fact
The south would have seeded, new adj
|justments would have been made and
all would have been quiet-for season.
How long, no man can tell. I make no
reflections on loyal democrats without
whose assistance the north would have
been beaten. If the Non Con- believes
the Union ought to have been severed,
les it come ont and say so in plain words.
This fanclfnl writer says that republican,
ism originated the greenback. and lead
ers afterwards deprecated them to IS
cents on the dollar This was republi-
canism. There was no other party to do
it." It was not repub.i,anism; it was
necessity, and such rubbish shows that
the writer has not learned the first rudi-
iments of 6nanciering. As if the party
in power could put up and knock down
greenbacks at will, like ten-pins. He
says that the bankers IN 1854 under the
pretenseo of lending money to the govern
ment, bought bonds to the amount of
1881 ,292, ,250 and paid for them only $3.50,
594,614. The interest on these bonds was
$l14, ,056, ,75s, making clear steal for that
one, transaction to the amount of $780,
551 1882" He makes mistake (?( of
nearly million dollars in his figuring,
but that doesn't matter, it is the princi-
pie we are after.
The year 1854 was no year for "pre-
tense" The government was obliged to
have money or 90 under, and fits bonds
were deprecated to the extent above
indicated, it showed that the case was
becoming desperate, but why was the
taking of interest necessarily stealing !?
Is the Non-Con. prepared to loan money
fiat or otherwise without interest 2
Whether or not the rate of interest on the
bonds was excessive, is wholly differ
ent question, butt it will be seen that this
enthusiast calls all interest stolen money.
He gives some startling figures from Pet
| ter Cooper's work to show the enormity
of republicanism, but he does not point
out the fact that Peter Cooper was in
favor ofprotection, a cardinal doctrine of
republicanism. After some more wild
raving about terrific stealing and
"slayery," he tells us that the republican
party abolished slavery mot out of re-
gard for the slaves but as means to get
votes to enable the, republican party to
carry them under a worse system Of
slavery than they were under before and
to help take the white laboring popula-
ton along with them" Does the Non
Con man know this to be a fact? If 80,
let us have the proofs or let him cease
such empty vaporings. Was that the
Non-C Con. mans design when he was a
Garrison abolitionist, to bring the
negroes under worse slavery than they
were then enduring 4? Consistency, nay
friend. is rare jewel. Then follows an
imaginary colloquy between the o. s..
Treasurer and bondhoder, 1t is too
long to quote, but those who want to see
the silliest thing that has issued from an
editorial sanctum for a year, should read
it. 1t is reiterated with wearisome fire.
quency to show the enormity of the fact,
that banknotes are not money. What
do ] care whether they are money or
not, if they will buy as much as SO called
arealp, money! Of what use is tpaper)
money, "real" or otherwise, except to ex-
change for what we need or desire? 1
am not defending the republican party
nor attacking any other. I only want to
see truth and justice prevail. I cannot
accept lot of spread eagle statements
for proof no matter how vehemently
uttered nor how often repeated. can
not fail to notice the absurdity of emu
merating a catalogue of evils, real or i'm
aginary, some of which are from causes
beyond mans influence, and saying,
"This is republicanlsm," ," or any other ism.
There are said to be 100000 persons out
of employment in Paris. Is the republic
can party wholly responsible for that !?
To say yes would be no more absurd than
some of the charges that are made.
Where has the great and venerable dem
ocratic party been for the last fifteen or
twenty years2 Have the democrats
stood quietly BY and interposed no word
against the gigantic steals Of these bank
ers? Are there no democratic bankers
In this country? Is the Non Con. not
aware that the house of representatives
|ofthe XLY1IT congress had large DEM
ocratic majority and the senate was
nearly equally divided2 Where are the