St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-05-08
THE PLUroCRAT's REPLY.

the opportunity presented him by an
interview in last Sundays issue of the
New York World to make formal and
length reply to Bishop PoTTER's cen
tennial sermon, in which he defends
modern plutocracy with all the skill
and ability OF an experienced debater.
With the possible exception of LEVI T.
MORTON or JOHN WANAMAKER, there
is no one who has better right to take
up the cudgel on this occasion in de-
Tense of the class of which he is so
prominent type; nor is it possible that
Bishop PoTTER's trenchant blows could
have been parted more skilfully than
the king of Wall street has done it.
AS was naturally to be expected, MIR.
GOULD expresses no reverence for the
fathers of the republic, nor does he
hold the constitution itself in special
veneration. His is not an emotional
nature. consequently centennial mem
orIes are not calculated to bias his
Judgment or prejudice his opinions. He
thinks that WASHINGTON was an over
rated man and possessed of a good many
vices that posterity has kindly forgotten.
In his day great men were few. Just as
population was scarce. and very rev
big men made big show. According
to Mr.. GoULD's opinion. men who
shone in WAsHIN GToN's time as great
and prominent figures would hardly be
noticed among the army of reasonably
able and prominent men in this great
sixty million nation of ours to-day.
JEFFERSON, HAMILTON and ADAMS
might possibly have held their own
with BLAINE, WINDOW and MATT
QUAY, but he has serious doubts
about it. "Of course" he adds, ''this
question as TO the standard of political
morals is one more OF less based upon
individual estimate. 1t is not thing
that can be settled by books or by the
rule of three. 1t is not fixed standard;
but, in my humble judgment, we have
as pure and noble men in public life
and trade to-day as ever have been
born or developed in any country on
the face of the earth"
Neither does Mr.. GOULD conceal his
contempt for the critics whose learning
is acquired from books, and who have no
practical knowledge of the things which
they .criticise. ''Critics of the age and
the people should mix with men, real
men, says Mr.. GOULD. coincidence
in mankind is chiefly a matter of eX-
perience. 1t is not wholly matter of
faith. There is such a thing as being
too Intellectual; such visionary science
as the politics of the study" 1t is this
visionary science of the politics of the
study with which he thinks Bishop
POTTER is afflicted. For he proceeds to
relate the material development Of the
country and to argue that with such
wonderful progress in every other direc
ton it would be impossible that the
science of government alone had retro
graded. Then he produces book,
written fifty-nine years ago, in
which the author discusses at great
length, affirmatively and negatively,
whether it would be better policy to
draw trains upon the projected railways
by mules or by steam engines. The au-
thor was con 6dent that it would not do
to mix the mule and locomotive service,
for the mules would raise dust, and
that this dust, collecting upon the rails,
would destroy the traction power of the
locomotive. "Of course this is all silly
to us noW," continues Mr.. GOULD; ''but
when we recall that only fifty-nine
discussed in scientific books, we see
that the people of this day are better
prepared to do their own thinking. We
wouldn't allow such man to think for
us now. Why, then, do we sigh for tine
political science of a century past?"
Then, addressing himself to Bishop
PoTTER's charge that there is dam
gerous plutocracy growing up in the
land, Mr.. GOULD affects ignorance Of
the meaning of the term ''plutOcracy::"
but if the bishop meant that class of
rich men who use their wealth to secure
Legislation in their own interests, theu
he was prepared to defend the pluto
Gratis. He defines corporations to be
great commercial enterprises whose ex-
istence is essential to the transaction of
business in this age of industrial growth
and development, and we must recog-
nize the fact that they have done some
thing for this country. Then he says:
'If men grow rich for all plutocrats
were once poOr) and build railroads and
the railroads prosper, who is benefited?
Are not the people at large the real
gamers? 1t is generally idle to give
money to the poor. The benefit is only
temporary, and the reaction generally
makes the recipient more Wretched than
he was before. The noblest ambition
that a man can have is to devise sue
ceSsful scheme for the employment of
his fellow men, whereby they earn
a living for themselves and. their
families" This, according to Mr..
GoULD's idea, is what the plutocrats
are doing, and in that sense are public
benefactOrS. He does not believe that
the men who create the wealth and the
values are dangerous to the community.
All governments, and all forms of gov
eminent, are liable to suffer from cor
rupt use of money. Ours is no exeep-
ton, but he does not think it right to
charge the folly wholly upon one class
of the commercial community. ''Money
has always been raised to conduct po-
litical campaigns" he says, though
different party managers may hold diff
ferent views on the question:
There is a great deal of that sterling
common sense for which Mr.. GOULD is
noted in his interview; but still he is
oblivious to the fact that the funda-
mental principles of good government
are ever the same and cannot be sub
ject to the charges that he speaks OF.
1t is the same in the science of govern
ment that it is in the law of physics
there are few positive primary
principles which must be considered
and raSnentad in evarN ara NJ amnnt