Year: 1875

umns of the EUeaing Express of this
city contained, few weeks ago, an
article eulogistic of the business tact,
management and financial ability of
the noted banking and mining firm of
FLOOD & O'BRIEN of San Francisco.
The article was characteristic of it's
source and was therefore fulsome and
nauseating to degree that must have
caused smile to fit over the faces of
its subjects did they ever chance to
read it. Remembering this etfusion
we were amused and astonished on
glancing at later production which
served as q leader in Thursday even
ing's issue of the ErpresS, in which
Messrs. FLOOD & OBRIEN are pointed
out by name as money tyrants and
oppressors, to suppress whom the Leg
islature and mob violence were in-
voked. The article is an embodiment
of the strongest kind of Communist
doctrine. ii the power of the cypress
could be made proportionate with its
egotism, we should soon have an equal
division ofpropel ty, and the man who
has devoted the best years of his life
to the accumulation of competency
would be called upon to share his
means with the spendthrift, the prof
ligate and the loafer. You men who
have been guilty of the objectionable
crime of acquiring property, read this
threat from the Communist lumi-
nary:


In times of famine, the law may be properly
invoked to forbid Incorporation and to COM
pelthe fair distribution of food. II the hoard
Ing and locking up of money can be carried 10
an extent that produces a wide stretch ofruin
and universal suffering, the same principle
can be justly invoked and the laws fashioned
TO prevent individuals from exercising pow
er so prejudicial and destructive.


FLOOD 4 O'BRIEN, who seem to be
the parties at whom the great leveler
is aiming its shafts, come in for the fol-
lowing:


1t is generally said and universally believed
that the great mining and banking firm of
Flood q O'Bren have no less than thirteen
million of dollars which they have withdrawn
and now keep from circulation. If this report
is true, and we are inclined TO credit it, these
men are possessed of power which is so colos-
sal and so wide-reaching in Its character that
their conduct becomes the proper subject of
public criticism. The accidental possession
of great wealth, when IL Is used to cripple and
oppress the affairs of an entire people, be-
comes misfortune SO far-reachng in its eff
fects as to justify the discussion OF new
principle i'm social comfy, and TO cause us to
seriously determine how far the individual
right of possession shall be permitted to in
terfere with the general wealth of the COM
munity.


And then they are notified of what
maybe their fate unless they consent
to dispense their money to whomever
may demand it, in the following
threatening manner:


Inordinate wealth in the hands of a few in
dividuals can be made an engine of great op-
preston, as we see in the present instance,
and as society is organized not for the benefit
of q few men but for the whole, the question
naturally arises how far are the great mass Of
the people bound to suffer so that the few
who may carry out their personal and oppres-
slve designs? As the great mass of society
are those who would have TO determine this
question when forced to a definite issue, il is
easy to foretell in what way they would de-
eide 1t. The few would have TO go TO the wall.


We have before alluded to the cloven
foot which so frequently presented it.
self under the present management of
the Express, but the article from
which we make the above extracts is
the strongest evidence that there is q
large-sized donkey beneath the spa
cious lions skin that has yet present.
ed itself. DANToN and RoBEsPIERRE,
in their widest strides at leveling,
never expressed sentiments so destruc-
tive to society as are embodied in the
editorial in question. If the people of
the United States have to inquire into
the amount of money the citizens pos
sess, and limit industry and enter
prise to the gauge fixed by this COM
munist organ, we have arrived at q
pretty pass indeed. What have FLOOD
& O'BRIEN and MACKEY & FAIR done
that the next Legislature and mob
violence must be invoked to curtail
their progress? What have MILTON
s. LATHAM and the London and San
Francisco Bank done that they must
give an account of the motives that
impelled them to retain sufficient
sum in their vaults to meet the recent
run, and thus protect themselves, their
depOsitOrs, creditors and correspond
ents against loss? Does the Express
wish its readers to understand that its
onslaught is made upon FLOOD &
O'BRIEN because they have refused to
loan money on unsatisfactory secu-
rity?