St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-08-24
NOT SAUCE FOR THE GANDER.

1t has been matter of common re-
mark in the past that our esteemed con-
temporary the Pioneer Press was very
sound in its economics except when an
election was approaching. Democrats
have expressed their view this way,
while Republicans have put it that the
paper was Democratic all the time eX-
cept between the conventions and the
elections.
These possibly captious criticisms are
recalled by reading its very excellent
and sound editorial of yesterday on the
''RightS of the Unemployed" in the
course of which il says, and correctly,
that they, the Unemployed, are tut
terry, Enthusiastically, hopelessly wrong
I'D their inclination to appeal to any
government. local, state or federal, for
employment. 1t is lamentable =
that any man should need be told that
there are no resources of any kind in
government itself. aud that the people
must support the government. and not
the government the people,
This is absolute truth, but it is not
Republican doctrine. 1t is a well-eX-
doctrine. The words 1.-The people should
support the government, not the gov
eminent the people," were those used
by President CLEVELAND in vetoing
the Texas seed bill. While we are glad
to have, if for restricted periods only, the
aid of our contemporary in the disSem-
ination of the basal principles of Demo-
cratic government, and only regret that
any emergencies ever arise to oblige it
to give over its teachings for season,
we appreheDd that the Unemployed
might ask the Pioneer Press sOme-ques-
tons that point to an inconsistency be-
tween its attitude toward them and
that it takes at intervals towards 9TH
ers-questions which get their point
from the devotion of our contemporary
to its party.
Suppose that the Spokesman of the
Unemployed should ask why taxes
should not be levied on the rest of the
people to give them work, but may be
levied to foster and encourage and build
up our industries-tin plate factories.
for example-so that they could give
employment 10 workmen at wages
above the pauper level of Europe?
What reply would our neighbor make
him?
Suppose again he should ask: If the
state or nation cannot raise money by
taxation to be used in works that will
enable us to earn bread for our fam
lies, why should the same nation raise
money by taxation to pay bounties to
those engaged in making sugar, thereby
sustaining their industry and enabling
them TO give labor to the Unemployed
in the sugar belt? What answer would
our contemporary give him?
Suppose once more that the SpokeS-
man should ask: If the government
must not support the people, why should
the government compel the people to
buy approximately all the product of
the silver mines in order that the price
of their product might be maintained
and the continuance of the labor of the
miners be assured? Where can the line
be clearly and Enthusiastically drawn be-
tween the policy of protective tariff
ana the policy of the government itself
engaging i'll works directly having the
double purpose of public benefit and
employment for the Unemployed?
In short. the Spokesman OF the Unem-
ployed might pertlnently ask why what
is sauce for the goose is not sauce for
the gander?