People's Pilot, Volume 5, Number 29, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 23 January 1896 — PATERNALISM. [ARTICLE]

PATERNALISM.

THE GOVERNMENT PATERNALISTIC TO SOLDIERS. Giving to Tract*, Banka. Syndicate* and Corporations the Rankest Kind of Paternalism and Dangeis to the People’s Liberties. The Helena, Montana, News. Cleveland in his message says he is opposed to paternalism. He seems to i think that the principals of paternalism should not be introduced into govern- | ment. It ie true that he does not define I paternalism, and we are somewhat at a loss to know what he means, but it is evident that he thinks the governnfent should do nothing for the people that they can do for themselves. Our idea of government is quite different. Government is for the benefit of the people, and when government can do anything for the people better than the people can do for themselves, the people ought to have the government do It. For instance, the government carries the mail for the people; it does it far better than private individuals or corporations could possibly do. The same can be said of the public schools; the state is educating the youth better than their parents could, that is, more people are learning to read and cypher than would be possible under any other system. Now, if the government can carry our mails so successfully, why cannot it carry our freights? Is there any difference in principle between carrying a letter and carrying a heavier package? If the government can conduct our postoffices so satisfactory, why cannot it conduct our telegraph offices as satisfactory to the people? And why not our telephone lines? We pay millions every year for freight, for telegrams and for telephone service, more than it ought to cost us. At the same time we are building up colossal fortunes which are used to control political parties and corrupt the people, that the fellows may continue their plundering methods. Is it not time the people ■ were taking thought to stop these methods that have enabled the plutocrats to plunder them? Of course the plutocrats will oppose any such move. It is to their interest to oppose everything of that sort. Whoever heard of any one who enjoyed an income without working for it, who was willing to give it up? Hundreds of years ago the government of England gave pensions to persons for their votes or influence or some good they were supposed to have done the state, and made the pensions perpetual, descending to their heirs to the latest generation. Did these heirs, who lived snugly off pensions paid by their fellow-citizens, for which they rendered no service whatever, and for which no service has been rendered for hundreds of years, willingly give up their pensions? Not at all. In many instances the government bought their pensions for a lump sum, but never has one of them been patriotic enough, of manifested self-respect enough to say, “I have not earned this money; it is not mine; I bestow it on the state.” Privilege and favoritism never let go what they get possession of, no matter how unjustly they hold it, or how unfair to others may be their possession. The government, so far as the army is concerned, is a rankly paternal one. It clothes, feeds, pensions and buries its soldiers. It provides supplies for its officers, which they may purchase at an advance of 10 per cent over the cost price, not including freight. It provides butcher shops where they can purchase meats, etc., on the same terms. The president of the United States, by virtue of being commander-in-chief of the army, is entitled to the privilege of purchasing army stores, provisions, groceries, butcher meats, etc., and every president uses that privilege. Nearly everything that is furnishtu the White House comes from the quartermaster or commissary department of the army. Yet we find the same president, who uses the supplies the army furnishes in his own house, a privilege denied to ' any other civil officer or citizen, is opposed to paternalism. He has a privilege that him a heap of money every year, but he is not willing that it should be shared by his fellow-citL zen. It is not paternalism for him to have such a privilege, but it would be the grossest paternalism for any other citizen to have such privilege. If the government can furnish hay, grain, flour, provisions, groceries, butcher meats, kerosene, harness, horses, mules, cattle, whisky, brandy, wine and beer to men connected with the army to better advantage than the users could procure them of private parties, why could it not furnish the same things to citizens? Let Mr. Cleveland and his anti-paternalistic supporters answer this before condemning paternalism. The government does more for the soldier. It takes his money and keeps it as safely as savings bank could and pays him interest upon it. Why can it not do the same thing for the people? It receives deposits from the soldiers and there is no loss; why can it not receive deposits from the citizens? Will some anti-paternalist explain? It is all right for favored persons to receive privileges from government, but all wrong for others to do so. The fat hog is to be cared: for; the lean must “root or die.” But the government does other acts of paternalism. Each senator and mem ber of congress gets $125 a year in addition to his salary for stationery, etc. Many of them draw this allowancein money and then bunco the govermfieiit out of the stationery they use by stealing from the allowance made to committees, and in other “ways that are dark.” Both the senate and the house of representatives have stores where members can purchase stationery and almost everything else. After exhausting their $125 allowance they get as much more as they please, and It Is

taken out of their salaries when final settlement is made. Why should the congress provide stores where congressmen can purchase at cost what they need, and refuse the same privilege to other office-holders and ordinary citizens? Can the opponents of paternalism tell us? No; and no one will attempt the task; but they will yell loud and long against paternalism, just the same. If all had the same privilege, then the privilege which the army and congressmen enjoy would not be a privilege, and there would be “Naething to ken them by Fra ony unregenerate heathen Like you and I.” Paternalism! Paternalism!! Paternalism!!’, is y died and yelled until our ears are deafened, when the people we fit the government to help them; but ■ hen it is helping the office-holder, or he army officer, or the contractor, or worse still, the banker, bondholder and all-around thief, then the men who do the yelling are as mum as oysters. It is time the people were to do a little yelling for themselves.