The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1896-04-15
THE DIFFERENCE.
SHALL 1T BE GOVERNMENT OF THE
FEW OR THE MANY?


FEW OR THE MANY?
We order our printing paper from
Dallas. Tex, a distance of $50 miles.
Each bundle makes Loo copies of the
paper when printed.
The express charge on each bundle
is $l.40. The express company is a
SIDE attachment Of the railroad cor
poration. When each bundle is print
ed and made into 600 Real Repub-
lies" we wrap and address to as many
different subscribers in all parts of
the Union.
The government distributes the
bundle as printed for SO cents. Each
and trouble to handle as did the
bundle, and the most of the papers
are carried much farther. The ques-
ton is: Why does the government
carry this same bundle of paper so
much farther and so much cheaper
than the express corporation? The
explanation is very easy to make. The
government operates the post-office at
cost for the convenience Of the people,
while the express company operates
it's line for the money it can make out
Of the people. That is the reason why
the express charges are three times
greater for much less service than the
government postage charges -Real
Republic Texas.
And the results are that in the one
case the whole people are better off;
in the other few individuals are en-
riched.
Where the whole people are prosper
Gus there is contentment, happiness,
peace and good will. Where the few
are enriched, at the expense Of the
many, an aristocracy is built up, which
regards the disconnected, turbulent
mass with suspicion and distrust; and
insists on standing army to protect
it in its so-called "rights." II the few
succeed in pressing the multitude
still lower, in the scale, all the fea-
lures Of republican form Of govern
ment will gradually disappear;-and
then there are but two alternatives
before the nation;-despotism or an
archy:-and one is about as destruc-
tive as the other.
If we do not use the powers Of gov
eminent to do that which the pre-
be one Of the great objects of govern.
ment, wit:-'to promote the general
welfare, I've permit the ariStocracy
to use those powers, Indirectly to pro-
mote the particular welfare of few,
and the degradation of the many.
But some good people shrink back
and say,-"Why enlarge the powers of
the government?-That is paternal-
ism"
What is the government but the
people? And when we say. "enlarge
the powers Of the government" we
simply mean to say,-enlarge the
powers Of the people. And why should
not the powers Of the people be en-
larged? Who has any better right to
govern than this people? Is that not
the foundation stone of this Republic?
And ii the powers Of the people are
not to be enlarged, to keep pace with
the new necessities and growing civil
ization of the age, whose powers are
to be enlarged? The powers Of the
money-lenders? The powers Of those
who prey on the people?
The men who made our constitu-
ton lived before the era of the dis
coveries of steam power and cleo
tricity. These have revolutionized
our industrial conditions. Now who
ought TO benefit by these mighty
agencies,-the many or the few? II
the few monopolize them then they
become source of oppression to the
mass Of mankind, land are the breeders
Of princes; and the human race re-