The farmers' union. (Memphis, Mo.) 1891-1895, 1891-11-19
tions to about twenty of the most blat-
ant Of the clamorous for more money
that is based on nothing"

tions to about twenty of the most blat-
ant Of the clamorous for more money
that is based on nothing"
The sam made no comments, but
published the whole as above. It will
be seen that to the Inter- Ocean, a Re
publican paper, they stated the Green
back party would sell out to the Dem
ocrats, and to the Sun, Democratic
paper, they stated that the sale was to
be made to the Republicans.
Has human eye ever seen a greater,
more infamous falsehood and decep-
ton? Yet these notices printed in
thousands of smaller papers did their
deadly work among the mass of the
people and had the effect of withdraw
ing them from the support of the only
party that was their friend in need.
The daily papers of to-day are filled
with similar editorial % utterances
as regards the Peoples party. One
paper says we are selling to the Re
publicans and another to the Demo-
Gratis.
My God! Where will this lead TO :?
l. nv tNoblt are IaoN oll TIC NCISt VI
ruin, starvation and despair. Will
they allow themselves to be fooled
again, or will they iberate themselves
with the ballot this fall. or must it
come to revolution? l do not believe
that they are yet ready to submit to
ahject slavery. | believe that there is
yet patriotism enough left in the Amer
lean people to strike down the tyrants
who are endeavoring to starve them
into submission. HuGo PREYER.
There is much said for Jest or in
anger, but now let us try for once to
speak in pure reason on the Alliance
measures. In our country government
is for the people. 1t is reasonable to
suppose that any government which is
based on the will Of the people will
sooner or later be used for their bene-
fit. To say that a government shall be
by the people, but not for them would
b, unreasonable, untenable and i'm
possible. The government by the
people must be for the people. This
much seems plain. 1t is plain. and
our national constitution recognizes it
when it declares that among the OBJ
iec,s sought bY the formation of the
constitution is the promotion of the
general welfare.
But what does "for the people mean,
or the general welfare?" Do we mean
all the people? Must law that is to
benefit the people include benefits to
every one of the population? Does
the general welfare mean equal vel
fare to every soul in the nation? The
question answers itself by the impossi
| bility of framing such laws The postal
system does not benefit all alike. The
public schools do not benefit all alike
Public roads do not benefit all alike
Bridges may be used by but few
Thousands OF laws clearly necessary
for the general welfare affect only a
part of the people. How, then, shall
we define "the people?' How shall
we declare what the common good
includes? The answer is simple II
is not definite, binding definition
| that is sought. But one that is prac
teal and in harmony with the principle
that the people must rule. The rule
law or definition must be that, what
ever the majority of the votes declare
to be for the good of the people OF
welfare of the community" must be
accepted as such. 1t must be done
| legally by certain forms, sa,
constitutionally, but in the last
resort, fundamentally, it is the
will of the majority that must ex
press what for the people" means, Of
the general welfare" There can be
no other rule consistent with q practi
cal, real government Of the people. The
authority of a majority and the judg
n1ent of the majority go together
There are, and properly are, restraints
on the majority, but all must and will
yield to it if it chooses to assert itself
1t is trve many laws are made neve
even discussed by voters. The de
monetization of silver, for instance
But even this was the work of the rep
resentatives of the majority of voters
or theoretically by them. If the voter
disapproved their action they coult
change their representatives,. Th
sharper. the quicker. the surer th
4 NoGclS CAC1NlSS tillc iit w hlStulS
the representatives who go contrary t,
their wishes, or their interests, tn
more will the government 1e by tn
people and almost necessarily 70
them.
Whatever interferes with this fre
exercise of the voters rights an.
duties, whether physical, legal o
sentimental impediment is an obstacl
to the development of government 70
the people.
Any principle, as of party govern
ment, or of doctrine, or the inculcatioI
of maxims which tend to deaden voters
sense of responsibility or deceive ther
as to their duties or their powers, is a
obstacle to the application of tn
principles of government for the pee
pie.
Hence the party spirit has justl
been held to be the greatest danger t
government for the people. since it dc
strovs the voters sense of responsible
ity as we'll as the representatives fee
ing Of accountability. The party vote
accepts everything his party favor
and legislative wrong doing goes ur
restrained. Corruption comes natr
rally with partisanship. Party r,il
and corruption are inseparable.
Insidious arguments to turn voter
away from the consideration of mea:
ures are only secondary obstacles t
the triumph of government for tn
people. THAT is paternalism, is n
epithet often used against measures
benefit the people, when all legislatio
to promote the general welfare" cal
} not be anything but paternal. "Ths
is the best government which govern
least" is a barbarous maxim ofte
: heard, yet wholly untenable and iral
plicable 1t is seldom used excel
when laws granting special privilege
J are sought to be remedied. In our da
special privileges are often defende
by the old stop thief argument. "Yu
| would grant special privileges to I'll
| masses, to labor" says one of sma
number who are growing Eich at tt
expense of the many. But all sue