The Carbon advocate. [volume] (Lehighton, Pa.) 1872-1924, 1890-03-15
From Current Comment and LEGAL Miscellany.
WHY DENoUNCE PATERNAL GOVERN
MENT2

WHY DENoUNCE PATERNAL GOVERN
MENT2
During a recent period many of the
newspapers and magazines Of the United
States, with some European periodicals, as
well as large class Of politicians, have on
every notable occasion, when a new idea in
legislation, political economy, or any varia-
tion in the conddct Of governmental affairs,
has been suggested not strictly in the old
well worn rut, set up the familiar and I'M
ceasing cry, 1T is paternal government" "
''It is paternalsm run mad" "It is only
a step from socialism and communism, +"
and other similar expressions of ridicule
and contempt. It is proper TO designate a
few of the leading public measures pro
posed Of late years, which invariably brine
forth the potential charge and familiar re-
frain, that they are of a socialistic tendency
and would, If adopted, surely lead to ruin
and ''paternal government" For instance,
Senator Blair's bill which proposed ito dis
tribute the "surplus" in the United States
Treasury among the several States of the
Union in aid of the cause of public educa-
tion, seems to be peculiarly obnoxious to
many people in this respect. The fact
that the United States Government has
practically done this very thing many
timessand many years ago, by giving to the
several States Of the Union vast tracts Of
public lands and public land scrip, to aid
and encourage the cause of education,
appears either to have been forgotten By
these anti-paternalists, or else they regard
it ae not in point. But why is it not in
pointp 1t Is ''on all fours" with IT,
At the time when the United States
Government gave such liberal and invalu-
able aid to the cause of public education in
the States, the newspaper press did moi
raise the cry Of "paternalism run mad.''
With hardly an exception the press wisely
favored the necessary legislation. If the
General Government has surplus funds in
the Treasury, it would be interesting tC
have some able opponent of "paternalism'
point out either an economic, a legal or a
constitutional distinction between the past
legislation of Congress on this subject OF
aiding education, and Senator Blair's pro-
posed plan for the distribution of the sur
plus. / mean distinction with a differ
ence. Again, the bill for the proposed
establishment Of Postal Telegraph Sys.
thm," to be owned and operated by the
Government, brings forth the same identi
cal lamentations in an emphasized torn
because 1t is plainly stab at a big mono
poy.
1t may be observed, however, that, al
the present time, there is an objection oi
some force to this idea of having a Govern.
mnnt fpIHnFA np hn az
ia to a certain degree justified in declaring
that If u probably would cause as much
trouble and turmoil to fill the offices in the
proposed telegraph system as it now does
to fill the postotfices, then the Govern.
ment should let il alone. The N ain OBJ
lection is, that to make the Genera
Government do 8, h things sis to involve
us in sea of trouble and end in a cast
iron despotism," because of the vast power
which the control of the official patronage
would give to unscrupulous politicians
But the remedy for this great administra
tive evil is easy and simple--make the
"Civil Service Laws as firm and inflexi
ble as the United States Army regulations
and the epoils system with its attendant
train of eYils, and the oh ections tC
"Paternal Goyernment' will be immensel,
reduced. The nightmare of "a heavy cast
iron despotism" will vanish under com
plete 'Civil Service Laws, THAT is, un
der purified system of government, jusl
as surely as Nightmares will depart from
the vision of man when his physical sys
tenn is made healthy and pure. We yer,
much need education on this feature of the
administration of the Government, anC
Senator Blair's idea to educate the people,
tends In the right direction of a great
public need, whether it be practicable ol
not. And until "CiYil Service Reform
becomes a genuine reality, the less legisla
tion we haYe of the so-called paterna
tendency the better, except it be in the
matter of more universal education. But
just think how many things the Govern,
ment now does, and attempts to do, thai
are of a much more "paternap character
than those aforesaid. For example, collect
ing private debts for private individuals
and enforcing contracts between indi
Viduals, even whether they be citizens OF
not, with all the power of the Government
1t even looks after the food and health oi
individuals. But will not enlarge.
Again, the loudest shrleks against
''paternalism" are heard when 1t is pro
posed to prevent the formation and con.
tinuation of the colossal monopol!stiC
trusts" of our day, by legislative enact
ments, so as to crush out those semi-con
spiracies and soulless entities organized
contrary TO the unwritten law of the land
with vast aggregations of capital, con
trolled by the keenest and most unscrupu
l0us brains, for the aYowed purpose
raising and maintaining the prices of the
necessaries Of life, Of transportation rates
and traffic generally, contrary to the laws
OF supply and demand. 1t is urged thai
such prohibit0rY legislation is paternal
dangerous and impolltic, because it pre-
sumes TO interfere with private busines:
enterprises.
Do such objections constitute the sort Of
craftsmanship that should be encouraged
as we draw near the close of the nineteenth
century, in an age Of steam and electricity;
regard government as quasi corporation
established by mankind for the purpose OF
attaining a civilizing and moral object,
One party deories II as teeming with mis-
chief to man, while another lauds It as the
means by which he will attain his highest
dignity and excellence. But be this as II
may, society may take such measures as
seem fitting for the attainment of thai
which the governing voice decides to be
for the good Of the greatest number.
That the sufIage of the majority is by
no means a scientific test of social good and
eYil, is unfortunately too true; but, in
practice, 1t Is the only test we can apply
and the refusal to abide by 1t means re-
violation or anarchy. The purest despotism
that ever existed is in its ideal historical
conception as much based upon that will
of the majority, as the republic of the
United States, although It may not at first
blush seem 80. Law is the expression OF
the opinion Of the majority, and 1t is law,
and not mere opinion, because the many
are strong enough TO enforce 1t.
fortifY my views inter ala with Prof.
7. ii. HuxleY's. He says: 81 am as
strongly convinced as the most pronounced
indlvidualist can be, that 1t is desirable
that every man should be free to act in
every way which do not limit the cores
pondlng freedom Of his fellow man. But
I fail 10 connect that great induction OF
sociology with the practical corollary
which Is frequently drawn from IT, chat
the State hat is, the people in Its corpor-
ate capacity-has no business 10 meddle
a. H. II T. a