The Saint Paul globe., 1896-11-30
Some More Criticism.
70 the Editor of the Globe

To the Editor of the Globe.
The G o b e is in the habit Of making
frequent use of the terms paterna1 and
'tpaternalism'' in such a way as to preclude
the idea that 1t favors that which these words
represent. l have not seen any attempt at
definition of the above terms in the
G o De. 1 would really like to know what
the l o G means when it denounces any
political measure as pure paternalism.'
would like also to ask the G o b to name
single function of government that is not
pure paternalism What is the primal
duty of government? To protect it's citizens
first from external foes, second from one
another That is precisely fathers first
duty to his family and that duty of pro-
lection becomes perpetual in cases where
children develop physical mental imbe-
ciiity. All our institutions of learning, of
reform, of asylum and of penalty purely
paternal The postofice system is paternal;
all the departments of government, both
state and national, are paternal in their
nature and practice. For the life of me,
cannot see why the G o b or any other
person should deem it sufficient condemna-
ton Of a measure to stamp it paternalism.
That ought to be its highest passport to
popular favor. Whatever is ''pure pater-
nalism' ought to prevail in law and in just
ice. A true paternalism never fayors some
children at the expense of others. Indeed,
it does not indulge in favoritism. An ideal
government is an ideal paternalism.
But l notice that when the o b e states
its objections it is combating ''favoritism''
and not ''paternalism. Why not use the
proper TERM! l am OppOS6u TO protective
tariff because it has always proved to be an
aggravated form of favoritism. If you could
construct a tariff that would protect all
alike I should have but little to say against
it. Even then, | would doubt the principle
And right here let me say that so far as I
can see the silver standard in those countries
now using only silver standard currency
seem to be enjoying protection that is
universal in its benefits. If must have
protection in this country, l vote for silver
monometallism as the nearest approach to
an equitable protection ever yet put in
practice.
I think the G l O b e goes badly wrong when
1t undertakes to show that the free silvertes
are attempting to protect the silver producer
at the expense of the people. Has it not oc-
CURED to the G b that the gold pro-
ducers during these twenty three years have
been protected as no other single interest
ever has The law Of 1873 struck down the
only competition gold had. The men and
governments who did that thing favored the
gold miner at the expense Of the silver miner
and by raising the price of gold injured
every other species of property in the land.
Let me say that this is the worst case of pro-
lection on record. Now, when the silverites
come In and demand that this nefarious busi-
ness must stop, and that the silver producer
Is entitled to equal rights with the gold pro-
ducer, we are told by the G o Q and others
that our demand is paternalsm of the most
pronounced type. Beg pardon; we are de-
mand1ng justice only. But the thing we now
have Is not paternalism. 1t is not ordinary
favoritism; 1T is diabolism, rank and terrible.
lively uOlldI VIC put INTO lH0 silver INNER 8
pocket viii come out of the gold miners
pocket for expect to bring down the
price of gold by much as we advance the
price of silver. The metal which now makes
a dollar of gold and a dollar Of silver is
equal to two honest dollars, always was and
always will be. Whatever degrades one en-
hances the other. Our claim is for Justice
1t is curious to note how easily the o g
can discover Inconsistencies in Others and
how unconscious it seems to be Of its own
inconsistencies.
There is direct, persistent and eternal an
tagonism between an opposition to protection
and support of the gold standard. This
collision of ideas in the brain of the
G l o b ought to wake it up to a sense of
its rank inconsistency. That it does not is
evidence that it must be deaf dumb and
blind to its own weaknesses. Nevertheless,
believe there is yet hope for the G O b e.
Thomas c. Hodgson.
Herman, MINI.