him plainly." But toward open-minded ignorance, Mr. Scott was always kind. Challenged in 1896 as "abusive," he retorted that plain statement of "fundamental principles" ought not to be termed abusive and he then proceeded to state the "principles":
"The Oregonian does not use abuse as a weapon against anybody. Persons have the habit of using the words 'abuseand 'abusive' too freely. Plain statement of unpalatable facts, clear presentation of fundamental laws which contradict popular prejudice or excite popular passion, are resented as "abusive.' The Oregonian pleads guilty to a certain dogmatism in discussing the silver question. There is no other method than the dogmatic in dealing with fixed and unchangeable principles. . . . . That the purchasing power of money is exactly equal to the commercial value of the material of which it is made; that when two kinds of money of different value are given free coinage and unlimited circulation, the cheaper being preferred in payment of debts, drives the dearer out of use—these are laws as absolute and inexpugnable as those of gravity and chemical affinity As well indict the fairness and temper of the teacher of mathematics who declines to discuss patiently the proposition that with support of a government fiat, two and two might make five. . . The Oregonian has no original knowledge on these subjects. Its wisdom is all secondhand. It has no information not accessible to every student. It knows that the fundamental principles of monetary science are absolute, because human experience for 2500 years so teaches. . . . They are the property of the human race. Only ignorance, presumptuous folly or selfish interest ignore or defy them."
Popular resistance to "inexorable laws" of money and value he declared futile, no matter what election majorities might be and disaster's that would come to a people from such resistance are inevitable (August 27, 1893):
"In every country and in every age there have been attempts to introduce cheap substitutes for money and the results have always been the same—failure and disaster. Yet there is an instinctive popular feeling, and often a popular revolt, against the inexorable law of values, and multitudes, instead of conforming to it and working in accord with it, try in vain to get
