St. Paul daily globe., 1885-12-27
LAMBS LACONICS.
How ssEnlightened CiviliZation''
Would Strike a Bright Rushmau.

Would Strike a Bright Bushman.
To the Editor of the Globe:
When 1 was school boy my little book
contained very funny story about the ex-
perience of an African missionary. He was
teaching class of young Bushmen, and
took occasion to ask them, What is the
chief end of man? After some deep think
ing one of the boys, presuming, no doubt,
that the occupation which most of his tribe
followed must be their object on earth, an
Swered, 1.-The chief end Of man is to steal
oxen."
How we used to laugh at that silly little
Bushman! How limited his comprehension!
How vague his conception of origin and
destinyI have often thought since, how
ever, that the silly little Bushman could
have better laugh at US, should he be
blown across the water by hurricane, and
find, on his arrival, that the chief end of
man is to get money. Picking up piece
of coin, or slip of paper containing
printed printed promise to pay signed by
some banker in remote part of the coun-
try, he would say: In Gods name what
is this thing that the American people are
fighting like tigers to obtain? A slip of pa
per; a piece of useless metal! Why, there
is some sense in stealing an OK. You can
work him; you can eat him; you can use
his hair his hide, his horns, his feet, his
bones; even his tail makes mighty good
soup; but this miserable piece of metal,
which supplies neither food, clothing,
or shelter to man, from which no
crop can be raised, no houses built, no
clothing manufactured; whose chief utility
consists in the power given it by law to
| control things of utility, and this promise
by some banker to pay, which he really
uses as an actual payment.
Why, in Afraca if man gives his note
promising to pay it is customary to charge
him interest until he does pay; but there we
are thoughtless barbarians; we have not yet
hit upon the smart Yankee trick of permit
| ting certain class of men to issue their
promises to pay, circulate these promises as
money, and actually draw perpetual in
terest on them, without any prospect of
ever paying the principal. But how is it
| that these promises to pay are accepted as
money? Are they floated by the credit of
the bankers? Oh, no. They are secured
by previous promise Of the people to pay
the bankers with interest. These promises
of the people are called national bonds.
Oh. no! Then it appears that when the
people issue their notes to the bankers the
bankers receive interest on them, and
| the people pay it. Just so; and when the
bankers issue their notes to the people the
bankers also receive interest on them, and
the people pay it. Precisely so. But how
| do the people float their notes? Why, upon
their own credit, of course. How do
the bankers float their notes? Evidently
upon the credit of the people, for they are
grounded upon the peoples promise to pay.
| The whole business, then, stands thus: The
people have issued their notes, based on
| their own credit, to the bankers Upon
these notes the people pay interest The
bankers have issued their notes, based upon
the credit of the people, to the people
Upon these notes the bankers draw in
| tereSt.
Well. if the credit of the people can float
the national bonds, and these bonds in turn
float the bank notes, upon which the peo-
pie pay interest to the bankers, why in the
name of all that's idoiotic may not the
credit of the people float volume of legal
tender notes equal to the entire quantity. of
bank notes, and of what utility is the serv-
ice of the banker, except to pocket the in
terest on the notes of the people, and his
own notes besides? l am strongly tempted
| to go back to Africa.
have noticed another very strange thing
in this country. In Africa. if Jim wants
to exchange his cow for Jacks OK. he goes
directly to Jack, gives him the cow and
takes the OK; always provided that he can
not get chance to steal the OK But here
they never steal oxen. Oh. no. They ex-
change them. Why (heaven save the
mark, if Jim wants to exchange his
cow for Jacks OK. he goes and
sells the cow to Peter. Peter cuts a
hindquarter, and passes the cow to Jake.
Jake takes the other hindquarter, and sells
the COW to Jack, who thankfully accepts
the remains. Jack probably feels like the
pastor who sent his hat around among his
hearers. The hat came back without a
penny in it. Throwing up his hands, be
cried aloud: $50. God, I thank thee that l
got my hat back from this congregationi
But the exchange does not end here. Jacks
OK has to go back to Jim. Jim sells him to
Jake, who cuts a forequarter of. Jake
passes him to Peter, who takes the other
forequarter. Peter then sells him to Jim,
who receives an OK that hobbies about on
his hind legs. Some days later Jack and
Jim have talk about it:
''Well, Jack, how do you like that cow?''
81 received only the fraction of a COW.
Her hind legs are gone. How does that OF
suit you?"
''Well, he would pull better load if he
had four legs instead of two."
rs it possible, Jim? 'Tis very expensive
to exchange products. Let us not exchange
again. but splice the remains together ani
have one animal from the two.n
But you forget, Jack, that we have az
extra head and carcass"
Don't worry about that, Jim. We vii