The representative., 1900-01-25
A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION
We have received the following letter:
Hon. I. Donnelly-
Dear Sir-EnclOsed please find check of
So for subscription, which please credit to
my account. I hope you will pardon me
for Offering a word of criticism regarding
the stand taken by your paper lin which
l find so many good things both editorally
and Otherwise) towards so many worthy
co-laborers in the reform movement. 1t is
painful to constantly see your severe CEN
sure which often takes the form of per-
sonal abuse. for differing from you in the
method of accomplishing the same end as
you claim to strive for This certainly is
discOuraging to many who feel friendly to-
ward the reform movement, for it is hard
Tor you to convince them that these men
are not as honest in their position as you
are in yours. for you we'll know that the
more you split up men in parties the weak
er they are and no party can accomplish
anything until it commands majority of
the peoples good opinion. / do not believe
with many that you aim to help the other
side, but 1t certainly looks like a house
divided against itself, for which I can see
no occasion, when there is so large a COM
mon ground to stand ON. It seems that
petty differences and jealousy could be we'll
laid aside in the interest of the common
cause.
l hope you will not take offence at this,
my hasty scribbling, for l do not claim
the right to either advise or dictate your
course. l have most always voted with the
Republican party but recent developments
both at home and abroad forbid me to sup
port Its nefarious and treacherous conduct
both towards the common people of our
own country and the people of other lands
whom it seeks to conquer by an unholy and
cruel war. Yours,
c. J. SWANSON.
While we have great respect for the
honest criticism of our correspondent,
we nevertheless believe he is mistaken
in his criticism.
1t is easy for private citizen to pass
through life without any harsh express
sions towards anyone. It is the police
man, whose duty it is to maintain the
peace and protect the lives of the pe0-
pie, and to use his club occasionally. IT,
from tender-heartedness, he refuses to
do so, the town will soon be in an up
roar and no mans life or property
would be safe
1t is not incumbent on our friend to
own or use gun or cannon, but if he
was soldier, defending fortified place
from the assaults of an enemy, he might
have to resort to both, and thank God
that he had them.
The salvation of free institutions in
this country depends upon the establish
ment of proper principles. The editor
of paper is the commander of an
army; it is his business to defend those
principles, not only from open attack,
but from secret Vaccinations. If he is
a corrupt man he can take bribe from
the enemy, as Benedict Arnold did from
the British, and win their praises,
while not, perhaps, arousing the hos
tility of those whom he has secretly
betrayed.
If certain line of action is necessary
for the defense of the people, the man
who rerverts or opposes that policy is
an enemy of mankind, whether he in
tends to be such or not, and in either
case it is right to expose him, even to
the extent of personal denunciation.
The Peoples party was started to de-
fend the life of the nation against two
old party organizations that had, time
after time, betrayed and sought to ruin
it. One Of these organizations, the Re-
publican party, has openly opposed our
principles; and the other, whenever it
ha0 the opportunity, has deserted the
cause of the people. When it is proven
that the Democratic party defeated Is
different measures in congress for the
reconciliation Of silver, we have fur
nished 100000 reasons why it should
never be trusted again. 1t is an old
saying that If man cheats me once
1t is his fault; il he cheats me twice, it
is ,ny fault" How can any sensible
man propose the abandonment of the
Peoples party and merger with the
Democratic party to obtain the remone-
ti2ation of silver when that party has
Is times defeated such bills? Does not
our friend see that it would be criminal
on our part not to denounce the men
personally who are trying to lead us
into that abyss?
Is there no distinction between right
and wrong? Should the sinner be treat
ed as well as the saint? Should
namby-pamby sentimentality induce
the historian to speak of the
Tories OF the revolution with
the same tender and loving regard
that he gives to George Washington
and his followers? Should we worship
the devil in our churches Instead of God
because his imps say. 1--WE all think
alike" and "the spirit of Christian
charity demands that we all march to-
gether under the same banner.
No, no. friend Swanson; the man who
defends the right must meet the advo-
Gates of wrong, not with mint-stfcks
and molasses candy, but with a battle-
az.
For our cart, we have given UP all the
ambitions Of life to defend the right,
and, God helping US. We will smite ire
& zs sg#ss