St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-27
SOME FIRST PRINCIPLES.

OAA
the immutable laws and facts that
lie at the base of these affairs of the
people, they would make it impos-
sible ever after for these spiders to
weave again their webs in the cham
bers of their brains.
First of all is the right idea of
what a government is, what it is for,
and out Of this will come a clear idea
of it's limitations, the things it can
not do and the things which, If 1t
attempts, will bring only disaster. 1t
is not the repository of all poWer-+or
all wisdom. 1t is merely a number
of men, not the wiSeSt or the fool
ishest, just about the average of us
all, to whom, in a republic, are COM
mitted the charge of those matters
that concern us all, chiefly the pre-
vention of the interference by any
with the liberty of action not sur
rendered to form society and called
law, but reserved to the individual
citizen. In the opposite line of af-
ffrmative action it is a proper prov
ince of government to take charge
of those matters of common interest
like education, in which all are con-
cerned, but which, owing to the ext
gencies of life, each cannot attend
to properly.
When it comes to further use of
this aggregated power of all of us
called government the limitations ap-
pear. Being only an aggregation of
units, it has no power that the unit
has not. 1t can do nothing that he
cannot without bringing injury or
disaster on himself. What would be
harmful for one man or government
al unit to do is equally injurious for
all to attempt to do, and what is
beneficial for is equally good for ALL
To go from generalities to particu-
lars and apply them to existing ques-
tons. Can one man oblige another
to buy of him anything at a price
above that which the latter thinks
is its value? Can, say dozen men,
by agreement, unite and oblige the
one to take it at their agreed price?
If one or a dozen cannot, how can
any greater number do it? Or, if
all agreed to it, would it not involve
the concession of the right of the
one to make the others take what
1t should have? Again, imagine our
coins without legal tender backing,
the stamp being but a certificate of
number of grains Of metal in each.
They would then be in fact COM
what they are, but for the
two causes, the reception at par by
the government for taxes, and the
general confidence that all will be
maintained at equal values. Could
one or more men oblfge any man ito
take any coin at more than the value
of the metal in it? If one or more
could not, how could the aggregation
called government do or attempt it?
Can one man, or, under freedom of
competition, any number of men,
give to any product a value above
that determined by such competi- .
ton? AS long as he does not offer
it for sale a man may say his horse
is worth a thousand dollars. When
alton may be hundred dollars.
Can he. by mere declaration, make
it worth more? If one cannot, how
can a majority of all do it? If they
did, could they compel any one to
buy the horse at their decreed price?
A government is but a majority Of
all, and can do nothing they cannot.
So a government cannot create val
ues by exercise of it's will power any
more than an individual can by the
same means.
When it comes to matters of eX-
change it is the same. That which
is best or bad for one is good or bad
for all. If A has produced anything
by his labor, it is incontrovertibly
good for him to be able to get for
1t the largest quantity of the things
he needs in exchange that can be
had under the freest possible COM
petition of the sellers of those things.
By this his capacity for producing
and consuming is enlarged, and thus
his capacity to be helpful to others
is increased. If it IS best for one in
dlvldual to get the best price for
his products obtainable anywhere, it
is equally the best for his .neighbor.
and one will search in vain for the
line dividing aggregations of men be-
You'd Which this liberty would be in
furious.
Conversely, if it is bad for the indi-
vldual to be obliged to give more of
the products of his labor to another
IN exchange for the product of the
latter, it is equally bad for his neigh
Dor, and running the line out, for each
and every individual unit Or the ag-
gregation of men forming a state
or nation. The natural balance is
disturbed. The one is deprived Of the
means of developing his greatest
usefulness, while to the other is
given something he has not earned
with all the demoralizing effects of
such result. So it follows that tbe
widest possible liberty of trade is
best for the individual, and, by con-
sequence, for all the individuals COM
blned under the name of government
and, necessarily, restrictions on this
rlgnt are equally bad for one and all
All this, of course, is elementary
out 1t is because the things funda-
mental are forgotten or lost sight Of
IN the considerations Of public cues
tlons ike money and finance and
tariffs, wrong conceptions of govern
ments' their functions and powers.
are accepted, visions of impossible
ssSSs'RssssaSas9sSS