St. Paul daily globe., 1896-04-18
IS PINGREEIsM DANGEROUS.
Arguments of Gregory Smith Re-
ceive Support.

s"hehts OF Gregory Smith Re-
ceive Support.
To the Editor of the Globe.
IN last Sundays G o b e appears an edito-
ous' in answer to a correspondent who had
read communication in Garden and Forest
IN which the writer takes exception to an
editorial in that journal approving the Pin
gree potato-patch plan Of aiding the poor of
our c1ties, and asks whether the writer is
IN IN earnest ea or is darkly yelling his sarcasm
journal and says that there is danger in
the proposal to allow the poor to have the
gratuitous use Of vacant land to raise food
confiscatton. Let the masses once realize
that, with free access to land, they can make
their own living, give them that free access
long before the philanthropic feature Of the
case will be forgotten, and access to land
VIII be demanded as matter Of right, and
questions OF title between the state and the
morseless scrutiny and review as similar
questions between individuals are decided
now
In your comments on the above and other
questions closely akin thereto 1t does not
take very keen-minded person to perceive
tnat you thoroughly understand the current
questlons or the day-questions which will
nave to be solved sooner or later, and solved
equitably. But you leave your readers in
doubt of your sincerity.
You throw the gauntlet of Democracy down
ana challenge your opponent, to square
and open fight with no favors. Your democ-
Tacy is the ideal democracy and is not to-
try to persuade yourself and your readers
that the party which sails under that ban
ner is still true to the doctrines of JEFF
ferson and Paine. The truth is. we have
never had a true Democracy in this coun-
try All impartial students of jefferson ad-
init that his doctrines were closely akin to
bulls Life of Jefferson plainly points that
out. l am fully persuaded from the trend of
the G o b e editorials that you have not the
popular ,l conception Of anarchtsm., 1t is not
the part of the daily press to pander to the
prejudices Of the masses. Under Republic
for that matter-the press should not only
be free, but should be outspoken and thor
oughly impartial, not in advocating the
tights Iig so OF th the oppressed alone but in submit
Inls connection to quote the words of Thomas
Paine when movement was on foot petit
toning the throne Of Great Britain for the
suppression of his works: "It is dangerous
In any government to say to nation thou
shalt not read. This is now done in Spain.
and was formerly done under the old govern
ment or France; but 1t served to procure the
downfall Of the latter, and is subverting that
OF the former; and it will have the same
tendency in all countries; because thought,
by some means or other, is got abroad in
the world and cannot be restrained, though
reading may
Reverting again to the article in question
you you quote the author as saying in substance
so rent, reasonable rent. should be ex-
acted as the only means Of preventing the
development of dangerous spirit of inde-
pendence among the classes whose necessi-
tles are now the subject of philanthropic So
licitude, and remark that 1--WE are in
clined to think that Gregory Smith, the pro-
testor test. az against Pingreeism, is not dallying
close to the border as to take on the SEM
plance OF sincerity. We believe he is really
IN earnest" You then point out how all this
x1yffh
spirit OF Republicanism, with "Hamilton's
theory that governments to be stable must
interest the wealthy in their stability, make
it profitable for them to sustain it, and that
this can best be accomplished by minimiz-
ing, as Iar as possible in a republic, the idea
OF self,dependence in the masses. He would
ernment as benign entity, from whose
gracious hands they receive as gifts their
life, liberty and chance to join in the
es this idea as the conviction among men
that they have to and can depend on them
selves; This is that dangerous spirit Of in
sprouting in and being simultaneously cul-
tivated. with the potatoes on the Pingree
patches That this point Of view is utterly
wrong %rahg our readers know already. without
Is this your final word on this momentous
awen question: Is the matter to be SO lightly
the equity, or inequity of public ownership
OF land? Are all Of the men who have made
this question life study and those who
are devoting their time and means to the
enuneiation of this doctrine, crack Drained
fanatics? Is the religion Of Jesus and the
apostles a mere Utopfan dream, or are the
arguments on this side unanswerable? Bv
what right do men hold property? In this
connection I am reminded Of a story that
IN humorous way exposes the whole falIacy
of private land ownership better than any
argument that could be adduced. An English
landlord found a tramp on his estate one
day and ordered him off, but the tramp re-
fused to go. and asked the landlord whose
property T;Is It E was He, of course, replied 1T is
e aid Won pet ne T. ., ,s,,amR again asked Where
where did your father get it?" ''From his
father" And where did his father yet it ?'
He fought for it." Well. take off your
In conclusion I would say that the nosi-
ton taken, by the writer Of the article in
Garden and Forest is correct from his stand
point Pingreeism, or the object lessons taught
Dy that experiment are dangerous but only to
the few, whose object 1t is to keep the mass
es IN Ignorance Of their true Condition
thereby prolonging their servitude. But Pin,
greeism or no Pingreeism, that final day of
settlement is coming, and the privileged few
are working against their true interests in
striving to prevent it.
w. MaoEror