SUPPLEMENT TO THE
O’NEILL FRONTIER
TutnsJay, October 29,1890.
TO WAVE OLD GLORY.
Chairman Hanna Names October
31 Flag Day for Loyal
Republicans.
DUTY OF PATRIOTIC CITIZENS.
. Recognition of the Fact that the
Party is Fighting for Na
tional Honor.
One doos not have to go very far to
.“('ok the reason for the profuse display
of the national emblem in this campaign.
It can be found in the Chicago platform.
The spontaneity of its selection as the
appropriate badge of sound-money cham
pions is wonderfully significant. There
scorns to have been little inclination on
the part of Mr. ltryan’s followers to
ipiosiion the right of the advocates of
sound money and protection to display
the national colors its the proper insignia
of their cause. The only lamentation
heard was the Altgeldian wail, which
is always expected when the stars and
stripes are flung to the breeze.
The rivalry as to who could make the
most lavish display of the national em
blem has been confined to the ranks of
tile supporters of McKinley. There has
been no perceptible effort on the part of
the I’onocrats to wrest it from those
who are fighting to maintain the na
tional credit. There seems to ho a gen
eral assent to the proposition that the
ilag does not go with the Chicago plat
form
This tacit recognition of the fact that
the flag is the one suitable emblem of the
issues for. which our party is contending
is something new in our American poli
tics. Heretofore there lias been a pa
triotic rivarly between the Republicans
and the Democrats in our national cam
paigns as to which side could make most
profuse display of the stars and stripes.
It is a circumstance that will mean much
to loyal friends of {food govornment and
will be a potential factor at the polls in
November. ,
Recognizing this fact, Chairman Han
na of the national committee suggests
that October 31. the Saturday before
election, he observed as “flag day" jf 4
every city and town, on which day eyrfy
person who intends to vote for f jitl'i
money and national prosperity shah'dls-y
play the national colors from MfefWnn
and his place of business. TheffcOggis
tion is a most commendable <me\ and
should meet with an enthusiasjiil re
sponse all over the nation. £ 1
Let every man who intends to vftilfot
the preservation of our national Ihmior
signify his patriotic intention bw dis
playing a flag on Saturday. Octolifc $1.
It will he a significant object lesson fin
patriotism to hundreds of thousandsW^o
may bo wavering between sound mqpuy
and repudiation. T
Remember the day—Saturday, OetAcr
ol.—Chicago Tiines-IIerald. *
THE FARMERS’ TOOLS.
Efficiency of Agricultural Imple
ments Greatly Increased
Since 1873.
1
I
i
s
The silver advocates have had so many
of their ]>et theories absolutely deinoi
ished by collision with hard facts that
they are now resorting to deliberate mis
representation in hope of breaking the
force of the various exposures they are
meeting. They have attempted to make
much capital out of the decline iu the
price of wheat during the last few years
and when attention has been called to
the cheapening in the cost of production
by the use of new and improved machin
ery and the rapid enlargement of the
commercial surplus of wheat in other
wheat-growing countries than the United
States they have undertaken to deny
both propositions.
In a speech at the Central Music hall
on September 19. Gov. Altgeld in at
tempting to answer the arguments pre
sented by Carl Sehurz iu an address in
the same hall earlier in the campaign
speaking of the decline in wheat said'
“The truth is that there has been scarce
ly any improvement in machinery for
raising and harvesting,wheat in .ho last
twenty years.”
Such a statement is a severe reflection
either upon the inventive genius of
American manufacturers and the pro
gressive spirit of American farme-s or
upon the sincerity of Gov. Altgehl bun
self.
The truth is that the greatest improve
ments in farm implements and machinery
that have marked the latter half of the
Nineteenth century have been made
1873. Not only has the retail price
of nil classes of implements used «.q i
farm been very much reduced during
that time, but the efficiency of the inn
chinery itself lias been even more enor
mously increased. Taking the harvester
alone it has been so improved during the
last twenty years that one man can now
accomplish what required the labor of
live in 1873, so that instead of there
being • scarcely any improvement in ma
chinery for harvesting wheat, the im
provements in the harvester alone are
shown fully. In other words, it todnv
only requires one-fifth of the labor cost
to harvest grain that it did twenty years
To entirely overthrow this last perver
sion of truth, with which silver men art
trying to bolster up a losing cause re
tail prices of some of the principal farm
machinery have been secured from lead
mg manufacturers showing the cost ft
Hie farmer in 1873 and the cost in 189(1
As the wheat crop begins with the plow!
take the following statement from tin
Oliver Chilled Plow works of Smith
Bend. Ind., and see Ik w the cost ot
plows lias boon deduced.
“Wo manufacture plows alone and in
the year 187'* chilled plows of the mini
hers 30 and 4O' were the leading mt
terns. The same numbers are very
largely used at this time and our com
parisons are accordingly based on them'
^ In 1873 the retail price ot the No. 30 was
lu 1873 the retail price of the No. 40 was
The same plows now retail at SS.oO each
( just shares for these* plows in is7:i
tailed at 80 cents each; now retail at
cents each.
Jointers for these plows hi 1878 retailed nr
83.30 each; now retail at $3 each
Wheels for these plows in IS73 rctuPod at
$1..iO each: now retail at .ft each
Clevises for these plows in 1873 retailed at
$1 each: now retail at 38 cents each.
And other items in about the same ratio.
The construction and quality of the
goods tire far better than in 1873.”
P. M. Osborne and Company of Au
burn, N. Y.. the great niiinufa. Hirers of
harvesting machinery, quoting from their
IT WILL BE A “STRIKE.”
wou\/ion«*
—Cincinnati Times and Star.
own retail prices show the enormous re
duction of the price to the farmer. Their
statement in full is as follows:
“Farm machinery is not only very
much cheaper hut far more efficient at
the present time than it was in 1873.
There is hardly any comparison between
the two. Tile harvesters and hinders
which now harvest the great wheat crops
of this country and Europe, were not
known until 1878, but the best of farm
implements and machinery made in 1873,
when compared with those made in 1896
by the leading manufacturers of the
country, would look coarse and cumber
some and would not be purchased and
used by any farmers at the present time
at any price.
The difference in retail prices Is also
very markco:
Mowers.$100
Reapers . 125
Combined inower and reap
% «r.. _. ITS
Harvester and bttuJeVi, ...,*500
Tedders.. .i 75'
Rakes. 60
•1878.
$35 to $40
50 to GO
75 to 85
100 to 125
■ 32 to 38
20 to' 25
The Deering Harvester company of
Chicago, quoting from their retail prices
of_their various classes of machinery in
1S73 and 1S96, make the following state
ment, showing the decreased cost and in
creased efficiency of farm machinery:
twirm liiiulnr ivna iinbnnivn 5
The twine binder was unknown in
1873, but the Marsh harvester, n much
more primitive machine, in which the
binding was done by men riding on the
machine, retailed at $200 to ¥225. The
twine binder retails today at from $100
for cheaper machines to $145 for the
Deering roller and ball-bearing ma
i chines. ■>
[ “The self-rake reaper, which is now
.sold at from $60 to $70, sold for $180 to
*210 in 1873.
] Mowers sold in 1873 for from $90 to
All5, according to the mnke and width
[cf the cut. Machines of vastly greater
i,efficiency sell today at from $35 for
•taper machines to $45 for the Deering
“er and ball bearings.
hen the wire binding attachment was
ed to the old Marsh harvester from
to 1879 the combined machine sold
1800, of which $120 was for the nt
inent and $1S0 for the harvester,
^binders are not sold now. havin
been sdiiffsedttUJjythe twine binder. In
878 we int ro.hiceiT't'be'Vwiine binder
the machine that now cuts the grafti'-isf
the world. Its retail price was then
$310 to $325. A better and more capable
machine is sold today, as above inti
mated, at but little over one-third that
price. Binder twine, for use on these
machines, sold in 1883 at from 15 to 25
cents per pound. It was, of course, un
known in 1873. Today a much better
twine retails at from (1% to 12 cents per
pound, according to quality.
This steady decrease in price does not
mean a decrease in quality and efficiency.
On the contrary an Howard tendency in
tlie mechanical construction and quality
of material has been as marked as the
downward movement in prices. This
fact—the advance in value coincident
with the decline in price—has been made
possible by the use of economical meth
ods in construction, and by labor-saving
machinery, rather than by any decrease
in wages paid. The cost of'producing
each machine has also been reduced by
the tremendous number of machine's
turned out by a single firm.
The old mower, for which the farmer
paid in the neighborhood of $100, had
but meager means for adjustment, ami
were neither as efficient nor aS durable
as machines that retail today at $40.
Tlie old self-rake reapers \\ liich retailed
at $200 were primitive and clumsy as
compared with the $05 machines of to
day.
1 he Peering twine hinder today, run
ning on roller and hull he;i■•inn's, cost
$100 less tliiin the old .Marsh harvester
and requires two Jess men and (wo less
horses than did that niaohine. In other
words, one man and two horses can
handle more main with the Peering roll
er-hearing twine binder than three men 1
and three horses could handle in 1S75 I
with a Marsh harvester that cost the
farmer $100 more money.”
These statements of leading maiiu
faetiirers of high-grade farm machinery,
nvi-ely emphasizes what any man of or
dinary intelligence already knew in a
general way and what every wheat-grow
er in the emmtry knew by practical ex
perience. that the last twenty years have
iieen marked by wonderful improvements
ill the eilieieney of fanning tools accom
panied hy no less marked reduction in
the retail price. When <!ov. Altgcld
and the lesser lights of I’op.dism claim
that no part of the decline in wheat is
the result of improved machinery and
methods, they simply run contrary to
facts which are patent to every observer
and put themselves in a false position by
denying truths that are as well known
as the multiplication table.
A little over a year ago Candidate
Bryan applied for the press agency of
a theatrical company, ami failed to get
it. Hut his present advertisement is
such Mint he could have a score of such
agencies hy asking. He has the talking
Miialitie-s of a lirst-clnss agent for theat
ricals.
Col. Ingersoil says to one of his ardent
•diver critics: "Yes. many things are
cheaper sine" the crime of JS7,‘i, cspi dai
ly talk." Bryan ought to be able to
testify to that fact.
A Comparison Between the Policy
of the Republican and
Democratic Parties.
LEGISLATED FOR AGRICULTURE
John M. Stahl Tells Why the Farmer
Should Stand by His
Friends.
■John M.'"StaW, a prartical Illinois
farmer, and a land owner in Missouri,
Kansas and Nebraska, who is the editor,
of the Farmers’ Call. Quincy, and also
secretary of the Farmers’ National Con
gress, is a man who has made his way
from poverty to affluence, by the use
of his own head and hands. His promi
nence in the Grange, Farmers’ insti
tutes and all movements calculated to
better the condition of American agri
culture, gives weight to his judgment
and makes his v. -vs on all public ques
tions of value.
In a recent interview he discnsses the
relation of the American farmer to the
two great political parties and points
out the fact that in legislation the Re
publican party has always kept the in
terests'of agriculture in view. He says:
“It must be said to the credit of the
farmers of the United States that they
have never asked for more at the hands
of Congress or lesser legislative bodies
than they were ready to have granted
to others, or for legislation that they
did not believe would be of benefit to
all the people. No exception to this is
flrr»i»h«d. lay the tariff, which has been
the most perafStfliS-poUtical question in
our history. No other questloh'ha*-!*^
an important issue in so many cam-1
paigns. The second act passed by tile
Congress of the United States was a
tariff act. The bill was introduced and
discussed before Gen. Washington was
inaugurated President and the bill was
enacted into law two months before tin
passage of the law creating a treason
department. Tariff for protection and
tariff for revenue, ad valorem dutic
and specific duties, etc., were thorough
ly discussed while the first tariff bill
was pending; and there have been few
years since in which these questions
did not engage the lively attention of
the American people. It was inevitable,
therefore, that the tariff should have
the frequent consideration of a repre
sentative agricultural body meeting to
discuss proposed legislation and to rec
ommend to the favorable consideration
of legislative bodies such measures as
are deemed worthy of that recommenda
tion. Such a body is the Farmers’ Na
tional Congress and at its last annual
meeting it adopted the following reso
lution:
Whereas, It Is nn established principle
with both of the print political parties that
a tariff oil Imported poods adequate to meet
the expenses of the government should la
levied; then fore.
Unsolved, that ive demand the same meas
ure of protection for agricultural industries
that is given to other industries.
At tlte meet ills referred to there were
delegates from states in which are more
thui! four-fifths of the farmers of the
country, from <,'aliforuia to Florida and
from North Dakota to Texas. The reso
lution was adopted without one dissent
ing vote. As the honorable gentleman
who has been master of the National
(irunge for eight years past and many
other prominent ollieials of the Grange
were present ns delegates, the resolu
tion may justly l.e taken as expressing
the sentiments of the Grange also. Cor- ;
tainly the Farmers’ National congress,
being compmed of fnrmeis, should not !
have demanded less; and. ns it is non- j
political and Hhpurtisnn. it could not eon- 1
sisfently say more. Similar resolutions
have been adopted tit previous meetings.
Protection ruder McKinley j„,v
The McKinley law gave to agricultural
industries the same measure of protee
tion that it gave to other industries
Horses, luty. potatoes, onions, eggs, bar
ley-, fruits, pool and other products ol
our farms, the producers of which de
rive a direil benefit from a piofeetivt
duty on those articles, were given just
and satisfactory protection; and tints the
McKinley taw un-t the proper wishes and
the just tilid reason;!ide demands of the
farmers. As soon as they had the power,
tin- Democrats hastened to remove the
duties on farm products or to remove
them altogether, and the Wilson law doe
not give the same measure of protection I
to agrietiiruf.-tl industries that it gives t->
other industries. Wool is a striking ex
ample ot this. The McKinley law gave
it proper protection, and while that law
was in eflvet ottiv a very short time. It .
was in effect long enough to show tlml
iinilor its operation onr proiluction of
wool would rapidly incrense to the ulti
mate benefit of the entire community,
i lie lit pioornts hastened to put wool on
the free list, while retaining a substantial
duty on the product of the mill and the
mine. In 188!) there were in the United
States 42,5!K),07S) sheep, valued at $!K).
(>40,.'{tit); in 181)15 there were 47,273,553
sheep, valued at $125,001),204; in 1800
'sre 158,208,780 sheep, valued at
$(>o,lfii,7155. Under the McKinley law
the value of our sheep increased $35,2l>8,
805; the Wilson law has taken from the
value of our sheep $00,741,520. or very
nearly one-hnlf. Under the Wilson law
the importation of wool has doubled and
the price of the domestic product has
been halved. The McKinley law gnvo
to wool and other farm products the just
and equal protection demanded by farm
ers; the Wilson law removed this pro
tection, and, discriminating against the
farmer, singled out wool growing as the
one considerable industry to feel the full
force of a disastrous free trade policy.
Reciprocity.
-vAtits annual meeting in 1800 the
congress passed a
resolution In fivot of
that it yet vors ree1„
by the following resolu
meeting:
Resolved, that the Farmerl
gress has listened with prof
liprocity; and
city is shown
its last
•eci
oc
n,
Hatlonnl con
indl Interest to
,„ of Senor
ene/.uubj on
“ leiican Re
y
grocnl trade
fie Spanish
the able and Instructive ad
Francisco Javier Yanes of
I “The Commercial Relations of
I publics.”
Resolved, that to secure rec
between the United States and
American republics, this cougffrs* ‘favors
leg] slat ion for reciprocity, commoicial treat
les, and aid for steamship lines sufficient to
answer all the purposes of such t.-gde.
The benefits to our agriculture from
fair reciprocal arrangements were so ap
parent that the resolutions were adopted
by a practically unanimous vote; though
in the congress were delegates If all
shades of political belief. The btt'ulinr
relation of reciprocity to agricuHtSc ap
pears from a reading of the recipiocity
section of the McKinley law: 'ill
That with a view to secure i&giiroenl
trade with countries producing the ftdMwIiig
articles, and for this purpose, on and after
the first day of January, 1802. whenever
and so often ns the President shall he Satis
fied that the government of any country pro
ducing and exporting sugar, molasses; cof
fee, ten, and hides, raw and uneured, or any
of sueli articles. Imposes duties or other ex
actions upon the agricultural or other pro
ductions of the United Slates, whlchJn view
free Introduction of such sugar, mo
lasses, coffee, and hides Into ttJmulted
States may deem T6 7>e')*i>«UwoiJtllf#i*teiitinl
or tin reasonable, lie shall haverTlt- power
and It shall be Ills duty to suspend by
proclamation to that effect, the provisions
of this act relating to the free introduction
of such sugar, molasses, coffee, tea and
hides, the production ijf such country, for
such time as lie shall deem Just, etc.
Although in effect only a short time
(he reciprocity arrangement made under
(lie McKinley law demonstrated the
great benefit that reciprocity would be
to our agricultural interests. Space will
permit of the citation of only one case in
point: Our production of wheat so far
exceeds our needs, while the exportation
of Russia and Argentine has so rapidlv
increased that it is of the highest im
portance to our farmers that our wheat
markets he enlarged. The ability of re
ciprocity to do this is shown by our flour
trade with Cuba. In less than four
years under a reciprocity arrangement
this trade increased 480 per cent., while
in the first year after the arrangement
was terminated it decreased 42 per cent
All the reciprocity arrangements would
have been of much benefit to onr agri
cultural interests; and the Democrats
hastened to terminate them.
Home or Foreign Sueur, Which?
Kneli year wc send abroad more then
$100,000,000 for sugar. All doubt of our
possessing the soil and climate over a
sufficient area to produce from beet the
sugar we now import, has been removed
Our natural advantages for the produc
tion of beet sugar are such that not
withstanding the higher wages paid’here
aid given our beet sugar industry r.iuiv
alent to that which has been given to
their beet sugar industries by l’ram-e ami
Oermany by means of bounties, exemp
tion of land from taxation, etc., would
undoubtedly rapidly build up our sugar
production. The McKinley law, "by
means of a bounty, gave to our’beet
sugar industry the encouragement that
the history of the industry in Oertmnv
and Frame lias shown til be wise anil
highly advantageous to the nation
1'nder the operation of the McKinley
law our production of licet sugar "vapidly
increased. Here are the figures: '
1’omuls.
. 12.oot.vts
^ . 27.oo:t.:(22
Hail the McKinley law bounties been
continued, we would in a comparatively
few years have produced at home, not
only the four thousand million pounds of
sugar we now consume, hut the increased
consumption due to our increased popu
lation. It is probal le that no other
piece of legislation in our h'story has
shown a greater lack of business sense
than the repeal of the sugar bounties
and certainly few other legislative en
actments in our I !st >ry have done our
agricultural it.}* rests a greater injury or
subjected the country to greater ultimate
financial loss. To pro.luce four thousand
m llion pounds of beet sugar would re
quire-one million acres of land and the
wages paid to f:mii ami factory labor
would amount to $75,000,000 per annum.
Laud nud labor now devoted to crops of
small protit and of which wo produce an
excess, like wheat, would be put to a
more profitable use. The $7o.000,000
each year would swell our domestic com
merce by at least four times that
amount. If we had produced our own
susar instead of gold having been ex
ported during the past three years—an
export that has widely hurt our indus
tries and business—gold Would have been
imported, for the more than one hundred
million .dollars of gold or its equivalent
sent abroad each year for sugar would
have been kept at home.
Home or Foreign Wool, Which?
All these advantages—the use of land,
the employment of labor, the increase of
domestic'Commerce and of our circulat
ing medium, the retention of gold—
would follow also from a production of
the 250,000,000 pounds of wool that we
annually import under the Wilson law;
a production that would follow from the
steady and continued aid of sueli protec
tion as was given by the McKinley law.
Surely so far as tariff legislation is con
cerned. the former, whether he regards
only his own interests or looks beyond
them to the interest of his country,’will
have no difficulty iu deciding which par
ty should have his vote. Ilis decision
"ill he all the easier and surer because
el the record of the candidates for Presi
dent. Mr. Itrynn declared in Congress,
January la, 1SIM, “It is immaterial in
m.v judgment whether the sheep-grower
receives uny benefit from the tariff or
net * * * I am for free wool.” He
voted for free wool, for the repeal of the
sugar bounties and for thu abrogation of
the reciprocity arrangements. Mr. Mc
Kinley, it is needless to say, has been
am! is, in favor of reciprocity, just pro
tection to wool nud other farm products,
and such reasonable encouragement of
out beet-sugar industry us other coun
tries have found jiroiitnhle. In eon
trast with what Air. Itrynn said about
tariff on wool is what Mr. McKinley said
''.hen introducing his turiff bill into the
House:
If there Is any one Industry which appeals
i I!1 mure force than another for defensive
I,. , s this, and to no class of citizens
should this House more cheerfully lend legis
lative assistance, where It can properly he
done, than to the million furmers who own
sloop In the United States. We cannot af
ford as a nation to permit this Industry to
be longer crippled.
Ibis shows Mr. McKinley’s regard for
the welfare of agricultural industries;
and Mr. Bryan, also, may be judged by
his utterances on the same subject.
iiepubucttni and Trusts.
Farmers have been consistently and
persistently opposed to trusts. This hos
tility has been exaggerated in the voci
ferous nnd sweeping denunciations of
trusts by the Populists. The farmers of
this country are well aware that there
are more trusts that, while nearly and
quite controlling the production and sale
of certain articles to their sure and lib
eral profit, have nevertheless, by reason
of the economies of the aggregation of
•capital, the employment of best talent in
directing, and of producing and hand
ling large quantities, made the prices of
tne articles to the consumers less than
they were before and probably less than
they would lie if tile trusts were not in
existence. Nevertheless, the farmers of
nnlrivi^1^ bt;llevc thut the Principles
underljing trusts are wrong and that in
the aggregate trusts are a serious injury
to business and wield a power that will
Btr'miH .t0 i{unian nature a temptation too
stroug to he resisted, except in a few
eases, to use that power with political
parties and legislative bodies, for im
proper ends; m short, that the trust is an
enemy to the people und a menace to the
nation, there being some exceptions to
InreT ,th<;. ruIr- Representative agricul
tural bodies have very frequently eon
demned trusts and asked for legislation
that would eml them, or at the least
would subject their affairs to such public
knowledge and control ns would remove
their power for evil. A represcnuHw
agricultural body has never prouounced
in fn\or of trusts. The position of the
farmer as regards trusts is that occupied
by our econoin ami _ ‘;_uc,
by our economists and by nearlyTl" on,
paimlatam, hence, it is sanctioned |jy
seieiAiiic research’and r^asniXg and hy
the common sense. In accord with the
wishes of farmers and in compliance
with their requests, the Fifty-first
gress, which was the first Congress I e‘
publican m both branches since trusts
had assumed prominence in this country
haste nod at its hrst session to pass "a
1 . *•’ protect trade and commerce
Ue^whiih 'docIarc-fTha1^ “Ud mono*’°
pi m„tVs.llor0wl,Ch°mfo11Sl
hereby declared to be Illegal "
« iaW-SS
said fPiuIshments In the discretion ot ,hi
to monopolize any part of the tr.i,n?°US
$o000. or by Imprisonment not exceeding one
d! srr et°lo t^o f /heon uit.
i.liut word person” or <lnersonH ** n,i.„_
ever used in this act, shall be deemed mT
elude corporations and associations existlr
under nr authorised by the laws of lit ,
he United States, th/ laws ,>fm,yofH
territories, the laws of any state- or tl
laws of any foreign country. 0r "
This act is so comprehensive in its del
uition of a trust, which it made illeJn
that it was clearly the purpose of thoi
escape13*16 * ° la'V’ ,bnt 1,0 tr,,st shoul
Democracy and Trusts.
Contrast with the action of the Fiftv.
first Congress the action of (lie
tlnnl Congress—the first one Democratfe
ill both branches Since trusts attained
to prominence in this comitry-whichnt
its regular session, put into the coffer of
lie .Sugar trust, by means of the W L,
bnv, a bonus of.$18,000.000 on the sS
ihen ill its bands; and by the same law
made a profit for the Whisky trust of
about $10,000,000 on the whisky with
druwn from bond after it became eer
lain that the tax on whisky would lie
increased and before the law went in,
effect, and, in addition, the Whson law
increased the allowance for wastage
voile in bond and lengthened the bonded
■er,or from three to eight years T ,!
iftv-third Congress legislated against
in,sis, but only those of which import
■rs are members and which deal in m
ported articles. Domestic trusts have re
iiinuicd undisturbed by Democratic le-is
.'ms I’ecu made by'the
Democratic administration to enforce the
inti-trust legislation of either the I-'iftv
lust or the I'itty-third Congress, though
lrefluently reminded of its duty bv the
igricultural and other capers.inc‘ml
ven a leading New York Dcnmcr tic
paper. So far as their attitude toward
rusts is concerned, the farmer ought not
!o have any difficulty in deciding wldeh
‘ , Dvo leading political parses
iliould have Ins vote. 1 *L‘
On questions that have not had the
long and general attention bestowed on
lie tilrift or in the treatment of evil"
hat have been so acridly denounced »«■
die trusts, hut that farmers have rig,,*
fully considered to haven direct and eon
■adorable effect on agricultural interests
he Democralie and the ISepnbliein par'
ICS have recently made records equa'lv
;»!nin ami significant. * *
Who Favor** Kural Mail Delivery?
In the delate on the* postofiice appro
Dotation bill in the House March 0 last,
Mr. l’icklor said: “It scorns that thrrt
is no effort to improve the service for
country people,” nnd on the same dajt
Mr. I,oud, chairman of the House cam- J
mittee on postoffices nnd postroads, nid
in the course of the debate:
The Increase In the appropriations for the
star route service during the last four year*
has arisen from the fact that money was
taken from that service nnd devoted to rsg>
ulatlon. screen, and other wagon service.
In other words, while' you gentlemen froa
the country have been persistently Increas
ing appropriations for the star route service,
all of that Increase has been used Id the
large cities.
In fact, the amount thus diverted dur
ing the last fiscal year was $610,0001.
whereas the increase in the appropria
tion for country mail service was only
$500,000; so that notwithstanding the
successful efforts of the friends of the
farmers to secure an appropriation to
better his mail service, there was actual
ly less money spent on that service than
before, because the Democratic adminia
tration of the postoffice department mad
elsewhere, as it has in previous years,
the money specifically appropriated for,
the improvement of country mail service.”
This is in striking contrast with the
Republican administration of the poat
office department. Mr. Wnunmaker ae
cured appropriations for experiments in
free mail delivery in villages nnd he
faithfully expended these appropriations
In a communication to the Senate he
stated that after making an allowance
equal to the previous average annual
increase of the bnsiness of the offices, it
was found that the increase of the busi
ness of the offices due to tile free daily
delivery had more than paid for that
delivery. In some cases the profit from
free delivery wns quite large. Iu New
Caiman, Conn., for exnmplc. the village
iu which free daily delivery was first ins
trodueed, and in which the experiments
were conducted for five years, the aver
age annua] income of the office wan
$523, while tiie free delivery cost only
$200. A business that yields an average
annual profit of 101 ^ per cent., port ot
the period being a time of panic and de
pression, is a good business indeed; yet
the present administration cf the post
oltice department lias discontinued the
free delivery in the villages in which it
was established by Mr. Wnlmmaker.
The results from experiments in vil
lages indicated, as Mr. Wauamaker fore
saw that they would, the practirability
of free daily delivery to farmers; and
he secured from the Fifty-second Con
gress an appropriation for experiment*
in free mail delivery to farmers, and an
appropriation for this purpose was made
by the Fifty-third Congress at both
sessions. The language of the appro
priations was mandatory, but both Ur.
Bissell and Mr. Wilson have refused to
expend thc3e appropriations. The ™H
hns become a very important factor la
the prosperity, welfare and enjoyment
of the people. In the attitnde of the
Republican and Democratic administra
tions toward rural mail service and the
efforts made fo improve it, the fanner
will find excellent aid in deciding far
which party to vote.
”»o forfeits Land Grants?
For some years the farmers of the
country have boon demanding that the
grants of lands to aid in the construction
of certain railroads, should he declared
forfeited where the conditions of thn
grants had not been complied with. Tha
Fifty-first Congress—the first Congresa
Republican in both branches Bince the
demands for the annulment of these
grants had been made—at its first se»>
sion enacted a law
That there Is hereby forfeited to the
United States, and the United States hereby
resumes the title thereto, all lands hereto
fore granted to any state or to any corpora
tion to aid in the construction of a railroad,
opposite to and coterminous with the por
tion of any such railroad not now completed
and lit operation, for the construction or
benefit or which such lands were granted:
and all such lauds are declared to be a pare
of the public domain.
This law should have much weight
with the farmer iu determining what
ticket he will vote, for, aside from re
storing considerable areas to the public
domain to the profit of the national treas
ury, it showed that a Republican Con
gress did not fear to enact righteous laws
for the people and against some of ths
most powerful corporations iu the coun
try—in marked contrast to the subservi
ency to trusts nnd corporations of the
Democratic Congress that we have had
since.
Who Opened Foreign Markets?
For some years certain European na
tions—one of which, -at least, while
preaching free trade, practiced the pro
tection of certain farm products 10 the
extent of prohibitory decrees—had ex
cluded our animal products and live ani
mals for their markets or had subjected
them to vexatious nnd profit-destroying
regulations, because it was alleged, ibey
were frequently unwholesome or din
eased. Our farmers were well nwars
that this allegation was an untruthful
subterfuge, nnd they demanded such in
spection of our slaughtered animals and
live,animals offered for export that for
eign governments could not plead Jisease
among our animals as a justification for
excluding those products of our farms
from their murkets. Everyone familiar
with our live stock interests, knows that
this was n mntter of great moment to
them. The Fifty-first Congress, that did
so much for the farmer, made meat in
spection laws that fully met the wishes
of our stock-raisers, and that, being
faithfully administered by Secretary
Rusk, accomplished all thnt was expect
ed of them. It is unfortunate that'by
his own utterances and actions the pres
ent secretary of agriculture should nuTe
shown a different attitude toward those
wise laws. In determining which ticket
ho shall vote, the farmer will certainly
compare the department of agriculture
under Secretary Rusk with it under his
successor, who began his career as sec
retary of agriculture by insulting organ
ized farmers, and who has made the
truly remarkable record of not missing
even one opportunity to show, along with
his total lack of sympathy with farmers,
not only his complete ignorance of our
agricultural interests, but either an utter
incapacity or a completely successful in
disposition to learu.
10 to 1 Not Wauted,
The currency plank of tin Chicago
platform certainly does not express the
sentiments of the National Grange; and
at its last annual meeting, in Atlanta.
Ga., October 10-10, 1805, the Farmenr
National congress voted down all of the
10 to 1 free silver coinage resolutions
presented, and adopted resolutions:1 in
which it declared that it was emphatical
ly in favor of the use of both gold and
silver as the money of ultimate' redemp
tion and was in favor of the free coinage
of silver by international agreement at
a ratio to be agreed upon.
It is but justice to the Democratic
party to say that, until recently, through
its long career, it was friendly to ngri
■ ulture. As long ns it was inspired by
Jefferson and Jackson it had a jealooa
regard for our agricultural interest, but
■,t has drifted away from its old course;
it is inspired by those who hold strange
doctrines; and while thousands and hnn
dreds of thousands of Democrats are the
friends of the farmer, the present Demo
vatic party, as an organization to elect
men to enact laws and others to ndmin
w.ter them, is, as eomnared with the Re
publican party, enielcss of the welfare
of our agricultural industries; and. of
i ven greater weight with the American
f»rmer, careless of that financial integ
t w. that must underlie the welfare of
a.I industries attd which is essential to
the honor and glory of all nations.
NINE.
