The Dalles times-mountaineer. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1882-1904, 1897-06-26
WHO MADE POPULISTSs


|
Both democrats and republicans
have time and again asserted that
there was no excuse for the formation
OF the populist party, and possibly
there was not. In fact we believe
there was little excuse for the exis-
tence OF that party, for the reforms
that were sought could more readily
have been accomplished by righting
the evils that existed in the other par
ties, by taking the management out of
the hands of bosses, and placing it in
the hands OF men less inclined to work
politics for personal aggrandizement.
be that as it may, We cannot deny that
reformation was needed when the pop
ullst party sprung into existence, and
that need still exists. We must also
admit that, through the system of gov
ernment that has existed the past
thirty years, the people who formed
the populist party had been educated
to believe the government was great
beneficent institution, capable of favor
ing certain classes, therefore capable
of extending favors to all.
We cannot, therefore, agree with
( the Oregonian that the populists have
utterly no right to exist as a party,
| or TO: their belief that individuals are
entitled to special favors from the goY-
| ernment, whether it be through the
| workings of a protective tariff Or the
| direct loan of money to the needy.
But, on the contrary, insist that the
systems adopted by the republican
party, of which the Oregonian is a
strong advocate, are exactly what
planted the seeds of populism in this
country and are responsible for the ex-
istence of the podulist party with all |
its ''isms."
In TRADE upon Governor Rogers,
of Washington, the Oregonian, after |
declaring that he is the Daniel of Pop |
ulists, says:
"He is of those who do all in their
power to encourage the people, to
give up effort in their own behalf and |
to lie down on the government. A
leading part of this prenicious scheme
is denunciation of all those persons who
still insist on the old and well proven
principle that the mans esources are
in himself, in his own calculated and
steady effort, and not in society or the
state. This time-honored principle
till recently was never questioned by
anybody. Every poor man was proud
in his independence and self-reliance.
But scurvy politicians and shabby DEM
agogues have preached the doctrine
of personal dependence and un manli-
ness, until not few have surrendered
all pride of spirit, have accepted beg
gary as profession, with q vague
hope of plunder or robbery as pos
sible resource in addition, and are not
ashamed"
But who first instituted these ideas
into the minds of men? Was it not
those who, for thirty years past. have
been demanding from the government
exactly what the most radical populist
is today, though in a different form?
The protectionist, when he demanded
protection to foster his individual in
dustry, said that the government was
a great benefcient institution, capable
of fostering his interests and placing
him in a position to rob the people,
who are only the government. The
most radical populist today asks moth
ing more, when he demands direct
loan from the government or asks that
an export bounty be paid upon his
products.
Had not the protectionists made just
such demands upon the federal govern
ment and received what they demand
ed, populists would not today be ask
ing the paternal assistance of the
nation. The populists have seen the
beneficiaries of protection thrive and
grow rich under its workings, and
they have been educated to believe
that like favors could be bestowed up
on them. They have been taught a
lesson in economies, that self-reliance !
was not necessary to any individual
who could secure favors from the gov
ernment that would enhance his in
terests. The system of protection
has been great educator in con-
vincing people that this is pater-
nal form of government, and had
it not been for this education there
would be no such ideas advocated as a
direct loan to the people or many other
of the isms of the populists. Had the
government been conducted upon the
democratic principle of special privil-
eyes to none, there would today be
no populists, for the real seeds OF. popu-
lism were sown and nurtured by the