The Sully County watchman. (Clifton, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1894, 1892-10-15

nundreds or millions upon scheme of
doubtful expediency, q scheme that
does not meet the approval of a fourth
of the people, is piece Of demagog-
uery that argues the presence of some
sinister purpose behind it.-June l9,
1891.
Another Of the Journals objections
to the sub treasury bill in addition to
the class legislation clause IS that 1T
pre-supposes that the farmers as a class
are to forever remain borro wers.-May
Is, 1891.
The Journal believes the advocacy
Of the measure will be more dangerous
to the party advocating it than it will
be to the nation. Its advocates are
gradually meeting with defeat. The
'sober second thought of the farmers
will make an end to the whole scheme
March 7, 1891.
There has been labor movements IN
profusion, but one after another they
have given way to some new cOncep-
tlOn that in turn has run its course and
| followed It's predecessor into decay.
There have also been labor tickets IN
the political field but one after another
they have gone to wreck. The Journal
believes the chief cause Of all this
failure is the stubbornness or muhsh-
ness Of those who assume to lead these
movements. Nearly every one has q
| different hobby and is determined to
have it recognized and Incorporated in
TO the platform of the party, whether
anything else goes in or not. 1t is a
matter of record that the declaration of
principles of labor party antagonize
not only the greatest portion Of the
people in general but of some of the
classes of the very party in which 1t
originated. We might learn a whole
some political lesson from the old par
ties themselves. When their conven-
tions assemble each member does not
expect to have his own way. They
just enquire what kind Of a platform
can We hlui3 that will antagonize the
fewest number Of people and Will Sc
cure the largest number of votes.
When through with their deliberations
their platforms may have one conspicu-
Gus plank and it may not. But the
leaders of the Peoples party are not
satisfied with such simplicity. They
want matters just to suit them or they
are pretty sure to make bedlam of ev-
cry movement with which they are
connected. They enter the movement
with the sound Of trumpet and faunt
of banner upon which is inscribed their
''new idea" which is to bring the mil
lenlum by some sort Of process and
within few months. One of the vagaries
inscribed On their banner reads as fol-
lows:
What logical reason can be given that
it would not be right for the government
to loan money to deserving people, in re-
stricted amounts on bona fide security?
The question arises at once: What
is bona fide security? Would it be
proper and justly equitable to extend
the patcrnal functions of government
beyond the point which places the same
service within the reach of every citi-
zen without discrimination? Why
should the government loan money to
the owners of real estate any more than
to the merchant who offers good nego-
table paper? Why should the wheat
grower or cotton planter borrow mon
ey from the government at low rate
of interest and the beef and pork pro-
ducers and the products of orchard and
the garden be excluded.
Under our form Of government office
holders are already too numerous, but
to meet this new demand they would
haye to be indefinitely increased until
the ruling element IN politics would
dominate the policy of the government,
and in time become more powerful and
oppressive than any monarchy that
ever existed.
Another vagary is that the govern
ment own the railroads, express and
telegraph companies.
The United States government has
in its gift something like one hundred
and twenty thousand offices, which are
susceptible to change with every in
coming administration. The enact
ment of a sub-treasury law would
double this number. If the govern
ment had charge of the railroads and
telegraph companies business, and
with it the appointment of employees of
every grade, it would increase the num-
Der of offices in the aggregate to about
one and a quarter millions. If the
present administration had under it's
control that number of offices in it's
gift, would it be likely to use them to
perpetuate its own lease of power?
Would the last administration not
have done so? Would the next not do
so? DO the American people wish to
bind themselves hand and foot to one
party or administration by conferrlng
on 1T unlimited power? If not, they
had better let the companies manage
their own business subject to the re-
straint of wholesome laws.-Dec. II
1891.