The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1899-02-01
BATEMAN DEFENDS BARKER.
1t Is Not a Crime to Be Rich, and if II
Is, Wharton Barker Is Not Rich.

IL IS NOl II OElInc ~ DE NAChs aHu IL II
Is, Wharton Barker Is Not Rich.
Editor Representatives:
In a recent issue Of your paper a New
Jersey correspondent repeats the stale false
hood that Wharton Barker is banker and
capitalist. I will do him the justice to
assume that he erred through ignorance
AS matter of fact, Mr.. Barker is not =
banker, nor never was. His father has been
a banker, and when Wharton Barker was
the financial agent of the Russian govern
ment his business was transacted through
that bank. Will some kindly explain
what wrong there was in that? Even adj
hitting that Mr.. Barker is a rich man,
will your New Jersey correspondent in
form US if that is a crime? Peter Cooper
was a rich man, but does any one doubt
his sincerity as a reformer on that ac-
count? Henry D. Lloyd is rich man, but
who will accuse the brilliant author of
wealth VS.. Commonwealth" of being a
hypocrite? The late John p. ST. John was
a New York banker but a truer reformer
never lived Wendal Phillips and VIM
Lloyd Garrison were rich men, but their
places in the history Of reform is secure
No one but narrow minded bigot would
condemn man simply because he happened
to have a little money
AS a matter of fact however Wharton
Barker is a poor man. He was once in good
financial circumstances. but his espousal OF
the peoples cause and his bold advocacy
of radical reform measures caused a COM
bination of New York and Philadelphia
bankers to conspire against him. The final
result Of this conspiracy was his financial
ruin. Had he been willing to sacrifice his
principles and join the ranks of plutocracy
he might be multi-milionaire today. The
very fact that he scorned such treachery is
what entities him to our love and conf
dence. To condemn him under such cir
cumstances is act of ingratitude that
should bring a blush Of shame to the cheek
of every decent man.
Your correspondent further acknowledges
that he is a Democrat and looks to that
party for the carrying out of these great
reform measures. If he will kindly look
at the teachings of history he will learn
that no reform was ever yet accomplished
by an old party. In order to carry for
ward any great reform there must be COM
plete unity of sentiment in the party that
is its champion. The WING party was ut
terly incapable Of dealing with the ques-
ton of slavery. In it's ranks We're many
noble minded abotionists, but they were
absolutely helpless. In the North the
Wings claimed to be friendly to the slave;
but IN the South and the border states
they boldly bid for the slave holders vote.
1t was a house divided against itself, and
it fell. 1t required party to settle
the issue and the Republican party sprung
into existence as result of this demand.
History is repeating itself. The slavery
question Is settled, but another and might
Ter issue has arisen. We see the Demo-
cratic party occupying exactly the same po-
sition on that question that the Wing party
occupied on the slavery question in 1852.
The final result will be the In the
West, where the Democrats are IN q hope
less minority, that party claims to be in
favor OF these reforms. But in the North
and East, where the strength and brains of
the party can be found, 1t is almost wholly
devoted to the cause Of plutocracy. To
claim that such a party would carry out
this reform. even if placed in power, is sim
ply childish
No. The Democracy will never become
reform party. Our only hope is to build up
and strengthen the Peoples party, and to
that end our energies should be extended.
1t is equally useless to talk about uniting the
two wings of the Peoples party. IT we could
win back every fusionist it would weaken
instead of strengthening US. Those men
would watch their chance and fuse again the
moment an opportunity presented itself. The