The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1890-08-28
Why Not Sub-Treasury Bill?

Editor Salesman:
AUSTIN, Tex, Aug. 81, 1890.
In this mornings issue I read ar
editorial against paternalism in gen.
eral and the sub. treasury bill in par
ticular. Permit me to continue the
subject impartially.
The sub-treasury bill is in the inter
est of the producing class and antago
nistic to the non-producing class. II
would cut off the usurious profits
absorbed by all the spectators, from
Wall street down to the men who buy
cotton, corn, wheat, ETC., from the
producers at low prices, corner the
market and fleece the consumers
This paternal plan would both
enhance the price to the producer and
cheaper the articles to the consumers.
Would that be beneficial to the
majority of the people?
The silver bill just lately passed by
congress IS almost precisely like the
sub-treasury bill. The owener of
a silver mine takes his product
of the mine to the government
warehouse, the secretary of the treas
ury weighs it, tests it quality, and is
sues to the customer United States
treasury Interchangeable this
money is redeemable in coin on de-
mand. Is that paternalism, or is it
class legislation in the interest of the
producers of silver? Are they more
deserving OF assistance than the far
mer? And again, the government
furnishedSthe money-guaranteed the
payment of the bonds-to build the
Union Pacific railroads, and the bond
holders are reaping the benefit.
How about the paternal help OF the
government extended to the centen-
NAL expositions, the last one at
Chicago? Let's not forget the whisky
interests. Uncle Sam builds good
strong warehouse for the distiller to
store whisky in, furnishes man to
take charge of it and care for it, gives
the owner receipt which is negotiable
at the bank; the distiller pays no
taxes, while his product is in bond,
one, two or three years, and the gov
ornment advances money for his ben
eft in salaries TO storekeepers and
gaugers, and as soon as it is placed on
the market the consumers pay all the
taxes, as they are added to the price
of the product. / did not hear you
remark anything about paternalism
there. Is the man who produces
whisky more deserving of support
from the government than the men
who produce corn, wheat and rye,
from which the razzle dazzle stuff is
manufactured?
How about our postoffice depart
ment, contolled by the government
and administered in the interest of the
whole people? Who would say abolish
it and farm the business out to con-
tractors?
Be fair, Mr.. Editor, and if
you are really honestly OPP
posed to phternalism, turn your gat-
ling gnn battery of editorial wisdom
against these overgrown pampered
children of parental government,
and you will hear thu people say
amen! But don't jump with both
feet on the unborn scheme that was
honestly intended to remedy the evils
of paternalism that is surely impover
ishing the producing classes. A scheme
that even in It's embryo. condition is
commanding the attention of many
people from the Atlantic
coast of the South to the limits of
the Northwest. Let us have the
clearest light on these subjects.
Awaken old madam justice and put
the demon prejudice to sleep, and l be-
Iieve the intelligence of this country
will steer the ship clear of the danger
Gus rocks and land us in haven of
safety and prosperity. Yours for the
right, deacon" JONES.