The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1895-12-25
PATERNALISM.
AN ANSWER TO CLEVELAND.
The Government Paternalistic to
Soldiers and Congressman.
The Helena. Montana. News.


Cleveland in his message says he is OPP
posed to paternalism. He seems to think
that the principles of paternalism should
not be introduced into government. 1t
is true that he does not define paternalism,
and we are somewhat at loss to know
what he means, but it is evident that he
thinks the government should do nothing
for the people that they can do for them
selves. Our idea of government is quite
different. Government is for the benefit
of the people, and when government can
do any thing for the people better than the
people can do for themselves, the people
ought to have the government do it. For
instance the government carries the mail
for the people; it does it far better than PR
vate individuals or corporations could pos
sibly do. The same can be said of the
public schools; the state is educating the
youth better than their parents could
that is, more people are learning to read
and write and cypher than would be posi-
BILE under any other system. Now, if
the government can carry our mails so sue
cessfully, why can it not carry our
freights? Is there any difference in prin
ciple between carrying letter and carry
sing heavier package? If the govern
men can conduct our postoffices SO salts
factory, why cannot it conduct our tele
graph offices as satisfactory to the people?
And why not our telephone lines We
pay millions every year for freight, for tel
egrams and for telephone service more
than it ought to cost us. At the same
time we are building up colossal fortunes
which are used 10 control political parties
and corrupt the people, that the fellows
may continue their piundering methods.
Is it not time the people were taking
thought to stop these methods that have
enabled the plutocrats to plumber them
Of course the plutocrats will oppose any
such move. 1t is to their interest to OPP
pose everything of that sort. Whoever
heard of any one who enjoyed an ncome
without working for It, who was willing to
give it up? Hundreds of years ago the
government of England gave pensions to
persons for their votes Or Influence or some
good they were supposed to have done the
state, and made the pensions perpetual, de-
scending to their heirs to the latest genera
ton. Did these hears, who lived snugly
off pensions paid by their fellow-ctizens,
for which they rendered no service what
ever, and which no service has been
rendered for Hundreds Of years, willingly
give up their pensions? Not at ALL In
mani instances the government bought
their pensions for a lump sum- but never
has one of them been patriotic enough or
manifested self-respec. enough to say, Il
have not earned this money; it is not mine;
| bestow it on the state Privilege and
favoriteis1n never let go what they get
possession of, no matter how unjustly they
hold it, or how unfair TO others may be
their possession.
The government, SO far as the army is
concerned, is a rankly paternal one. 1t
clothes feeds pensions and buries its sol,
diers. 1t provides supplies for it's Of
ficers, which they may purchase at an ad-
vance of 10 per cent over the cos. price,
not including freight. II provides butch
er shops where they can purchase meats,
etc., on the same terms The president of
the United States, by virtue of being COM
mander-n-chef Of the army, is entitled
to the privilege of purchasing army stores,
provisions, groceries, butcher meats, etc.,
and every president uses that privilege.
Nearly everything that is furnished the
White House comes from the quartermas-
ter or commissary department of the army.
Yet we find the same president, who uses
the supplies the army furnishes in his own
house, privilege denied to any other civil
officer or citizen is opposed to paternalism.
He has privilege that saves him a heap
of money every year, but he is not willing
that 1t should be shared by his fellow-cit-
iZen. It is not paternalism for him 20
have such privilege, but it would be the
grossest paternalism for any other citizen
70 have such privilege. If the govern
ment can furnish hay, grain, -four prOvis-
ions, groceries, butcher meats kerosene,
harness, horses, mules, cattle. whisky,
brandy, wine and beer 10 men connected
with the army to better advantage than the
users could procure them of private par
ties why could it not furnish the same
things to citizens? Let Mr.. Cleveland
and his ant!-paternalstic supporters an
swer this before condemning paternal-
ism.
The government does more for the SOL
der. Il takes his money and keeps it as
safely as any savings bank could and pays
him interest upon it. Why can it not do
the same thing for the people? It re-
ceives deposits from the soldiers and
there is no loss; why can it not receive
deposits from the citizens? Will some
anti-paternalst explain? It is all right
for favored persons to receive privileges
from government but all wrong for others
to do so. The fat hog is to be cared for:
the lean must root or de-
But the government does other acts of
paternalsm. Each senator and member
of congress gets 1925 year in addition to
his salary for stationery, etc. Many of
them draw this allowance in money and
then bunco the government out of the STA
tionery they use by stealing from the al
lowance made to committees, and in other
ways that are dark. Both the senate
and the house Of representatives have
stores where, members can purchase sta
tionery and almost everything else. After
exhausting their $125 allowance they get
as much more as they please, and it is
taken out of their salaries when final SET
Element is made. Why should the con-
gress provide stores where congressman
can purchase at cost what they need. and
refuse the same privilege to other office
holders and ordinary citizens? Can the
opponents of paterlalism tell us? No:
and no one will attemp. the task; burt they
viii yell loud and long against paternal-
ism, just the same. If all had the same