Rensselaer Union, Volume 8, Number 51, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 September 1876 — Teaching Politics by Parables. [ARTICLE]

Teaching Politics by Parables.

Suppose a man were to approach another and say: “ When I was in your employ before, Itried to bum your barn, and my chief regret is that I did not succeed; but I am poor now, and I demand your watchman’s place, because I have a suspicion that he sometimes feeds his horses out of your oats”—would it be a convincing argument to a sane man? Suppose a man were to approach another and say: “Once, when you and your wife and little children were asleep, I set fire to your house. But for vour watchman and his brother, I should have destroyed your whole family. I killed the brother, but this watchman finally put out the fire and drove me away ; and now, in your own behalf, I demand that youidischarge that watchman, for I have been told that he sometimes takes a pie out of the pantry and goes down to share it with the cook in the kitchen”— would that argument probably be effective with a careful man ? Suppose a man were to approach another and say: “ I was in your employ for twenty years. Because of my inherent cussedness and my natural and acquired vices, you discharged me. As I left I stole your best horses, robbed your safe and your smoke-house, and fired your bam; but things have gone wrong with me since, and I want my old place, because I am anxious that you should be honestly served”—would that be considered the best logic in the worid ? Suppose a man should approach another and say: “ Some years ago I set fire to your grain as it was shocked in the field; the fire unread beyond your lines and destroyed myhouse and bam. I think it is now only fair for you to pay me the full value of my oroperty, with legal interest, and for the rest of your natural life give me charge of your property and all the net

profits arising from it!”—would that be held as reasonable talk? Suppose a man were to approach another anu say: “ A few years ago, when your sons had gone to d rive away some scoundrels who had tom down your inclosure and were slaughtering your herds, and when you liegged me to assist you in your distress, I answered that I would not. I told you I hoped your sons would be killed and that your property would all be destroyed, and I have never taken back a word, but I honestly think now that it is your duty to drive from home those sons and give me charge of your business”—would that appeal be liable to have weight with a tender-hearted parent? Suppose a man should come to another and say: “I wa» in league with a band of robbers. When they were seeking to rob your house and steal your stock, I pretended to be your frienu, but told you the best way to deal with them was to let them have their own way. You would not listen to me, but drove them oft', though before that was accomplished they killed your firstborn and destroyed so much of your property that it has been hard times w ith you ever since. lam still a partner with these fellows, but they are good men now, and have delegated me to say to you that if you will turn off your remaining sons and leave your business to them and to me, we will put you on your feet again”— would that be convincing proof for the listener? Suppose a man should go to another and say: “Some years since, when you were fighting for your life and your property, a neighbor came to your side. He rushed into tlio flames to save your house; he charged upon and routed the foes who were assailing you, and at last, when all was peace, broken and sorely wounded he went aw r ay. Another went up into the observatory of his house to see your house burn. He forbade all his employes going to your support; said it was a shame to fight with, pitchforks when he had shovels in plenty, and at last demanded, for the peace of the neighborhood, that you should let your house burn and should ask of the robbers on what terms they would desist from burning your mill. Now both these men want the position of confidential bookkeeper from you, and I came to say that your business interests would be greatly enhanced by employing the man who staid at home when you were in trouble, because he is a very sharp man and shrewd business man, ana besides is the intimate friend of the fellow who fired your house” —how would that seem for logic ? And yet we are treated to columns of the same argument every day by the Democratic journals in the country. —Virginia (Neo.) Enterprise.