-t i
.MTltta
klj
total
MAT..
il
i hi f il i i -in'"iii
. b laiJR a
A
rfc, -
"v "- .--
.
. -- j. j
"."Tggy
SUPPLEMENT TOTHE
COLUMBUS JOURNA.I
Wednesday, October 28, 1896.
TO IAYE OLD GLORY.
Chairnm Hanm Name3 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 docs not have to go very far to
seek the reason for the profuse display
of the national ensblem 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
teems to have been little inclination on
the part of Mr. Bryan's followers to
question the right of the advoca'S of
sound money and protection to display
the national colors as the proper insignia
ef their cause. The only lamentation
heard was the Altgeldian wail, which
is always expected when the stars and
striae are flung to the breeze.
The rivalry as to who could make the
lavish display of the national em
has been confined to the ranks of
supporters of McKinley. There has
no perceptible effort on the part of
the Popocrats to wrest it from those
are ngnting to maintain tne na-
eredit. There seems to be a gen-
assent to the proposition that the
does cot go with the Chicago plat-
This tacit recognition of the fact that
tte flag is the one suitable emblem of the
lasses for which our party is contending
is something new in our American poli
tics. Heretofore there has been a pa
tristic rivarly between the Republicans
ami the Democrats in our national cam
sangns as to which side could make most
nnafase display of the stars and stripes.
It is a circumstance that will mean much
fa feral friends of good government and
wal be a potential factor at the polls in
Mereaiber.
. Xecognizing this fact, Chairman Han
as of the national committee suggests
thst October 31. the Saturday before
election, be observed as "flag day" in
mji city and town, on which day every
act son who intends to vote for sound
ey and national prosperity snail ais-
tne national colors trom nis nome
his place of business. The sugges
ts a most commendable one anu
meet with an enthusiastic re
all over the nation.
liet every man who intends to vote fot
preservation of our national Honor
snpufy his patriotic intention by uis
ntsying a flag on Saturday. October 31.
It will be a significant object lesson in
patriotism to hundreds of thousands who
say be wavering between sound money
sad repudiation.
Remember the day Saturday, October
H. Chicago Times-Herald.
THE FARMERS' TOOLS.
Efficiency of Agricultural Imple
ments Greatly Increased
Since 1873.
silver advocates have had so many
their pet theories absolutely demol-
by collision with bard facts that
are now resorting to deliberate mis-
entation in hope of breaking the
of the various exposures they are
itniiL They have attempted to make
capital oat of toe decline in the
' of wheat during the last few years.
when attention has been called to
cheapening in the cost of production
the use of new and improved machia
r and the rapid enlargement of the
Trial surplus of wheat in other
beat-growing countries than the United
ates they have undertaken to deny
propositions.
la a speech at the Central Music hall
September 19. Gov. Altgeld in at-
ting to answer tne arguments prc
ed by Cart Schnrz in an address in
same hall earlier in the campaign.
lg or tne decline in wheat, said:
truth is that there has been scarce
ly say improvement in machinery for
raising and harvesting wheat in the last
tweaty years."
8ach a statement is a severe reflection
either upon the inventive genius of
WTJcan manufacturers and the pro
gressive spirit of American farmers or
asea the sincerity of Gov. Altgeld Llai
sett. The truth is that the greatest improve
aseats in farm implements and machinery
that have marked the latter half of the
Nineteenth century have been made
siace 1S73. Not only has the retail price
ef all classes of implements used on the
farm been very mnch reduced during
that time, but the efficiency of the mi
ehinery itself has been even more euor
anaasly increased. Taking the harvester
lone it has been so improved during the
last twenty years that oue man can now
accsaiplish what required the labor of
fire in 1873. so that instead of there
being "scarcely any improvement in ma-rhisrry-
for harvesting wheat, the im
provements in the harvester alone are
shewn fully. In other words, it todav
enly requires one-fifth of the labor eos"t
to harvest grain that it did twenty years
ao.
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
nr manufacturers showing the cost to
the farmer in 1S73 and the cost in 1S96.
As the wheat crop begins with the plow.
take the following statement from the
Oliver Chilled Plow works of South
Head. Ind., and soe hrw the cost of
plows has been reduced.
"We manufacture plows alone and in
the year 1S73 chilled plows of the num
bers 30 and 40 were the leading pat
terns. The same numbers are very
largely used at this time and our com
aarisons are accordingly based on them:"
Xa 1S73 the retail price of the Xo. 30 was
$25-
In 1873 the retail price of the Xo. 40 was
ft.
Tie same plows now retail at 8..V each.
Cast shares for these plows in 1S73 re
tailed at 10 cents each; now retail at 30
cents each.
Jointers for these plows la 1873 retailed at
$X5Q each: now retail at $2 each.
Wheels for these plows in 1ST! retailed at
$LSO each: cow retail at $1 each.
Clevises for thee plows in 1873 retailed at
SI each: now retail at 2S cents each.
And other items In about the same ratio.
The construction and quality of the
goods are far better than in 1S73.
D. M. Osborne and Company of An
nam, X. Y the great manufacturers of
harvesting machinery, quoting from their
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
mnch cheaper but far more efficient at
the present time than it was in 1S73.
There is hardly any comparison between
the two. The harvesters and binders
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 marked:
Mowers. 1100 $33 to $40
Beapers 125 50 to 60
Combined mower and reap
er 175 75 to 85
Harvester and binder 300 100 to 125
Tedders. 73 32 to 38
Rakes 20to 25
1878.
The Deering Harvester company of
Chicago, quoting from their retail prices
of their various classes of machinery in
1873 and 1896, make the following state
ment, showing the decreased cost and in
creased etSciency of farm machinery:
"The twine binder was unknown in
1873. but the Marsh harvester, a 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
chines. "The. self-rake reaper, which is now
sold at from $00 to $70, sold for $180 to
$210 in 1873.
Blowers sold in 1873 for from $90 to
$115. according to the make and width
of the cut. Machines of vastly greater
efficiency sell today at from $35 for
cheaper machines to $45 for the Deering
roller .and ball bearings.
When the wire binding attachment was
added to the old Marsh harvester from
1876 to 1879 the combined machine sold
for $300. of which $120 was for the at
tachment and $180 for the harvester.
Wire binders are not sold now. having
been superseded by the twine binder. In
1878 we introduced the twine binder
the machine that now cuts the grain of
the world. Its retail price was then
$310 to $325. A better and more capable
machine is sold today, as above inti
mated, at bat 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 ia 1873. Today a much better
twine retails at from 6$4 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 upward tendency in
the mechanical construction and quality
of raaterialnas been as marked as the
downward movement in prices. This
fact the advance in value coincident
with the decline ia 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 machines
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, and
were neither as efficient nor as durable
as machines that retail today at $40.
The old self-rake reapers which retailed
at $200 were primitive and clumsy as
compared with the $05 machines of to
day. The Deenng twine Dinuer today, run
ning on roller and ball bearings, cost
$100 less than the old Marsh harvester
and requires two less men and two less
horses than did that machine. In other
words, one man and two hordes can
handle more grain with the Deering roller-bearing
twine binder than three men
and three horses could handle in 1875
with a Marsh harvester that cost the
farmer $100 more money."
These statements of leading manu
facturers of high-grade farm machinery,
merely emphasizes what any man of or
dinary intelligence already knew in a
general way and what every wheat-grower
in the country knew by practical ex
perience, that the last twenty years have
been marked by wonderful improvements
in the efficiency of farming tools accom
panied by no less marked reduction in
the retail price. When Gov. Altgeld
and the lesser lights of Populism claim
that no part of the decline in wheat is
the result of improved machinery and
methods, they simply rtin 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, and failed to get
it. But his present advertisement is
such that he could have a score of such
agencits by asking. He has the talking
qualities of a first-class agent for theat
ricals. GoL Ingersoll says to one of his ardent
silver critics: "Yes. many things are
cheaper since the crime of 1S73. especial
ly talk." Bryan ought to be able to
testify to that fact.
IT WILL BE A "STRIKE."
THE FARMERS' FRIEND
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. Stahl. a practical 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 bis 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. ts on all public ques
tions of value.
In a recent interview he discusses 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
furnished by the tariff, which has been
the most persistent political question in
our history. No other question has been
an important issue in so many cam
paigns. The second act passed by the
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 the
passage of the law creating a treasury
department. Tariff for protection and
tariff for revenue, ad valorem duties
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 an established principle
with both of the great political parties that
a tariff on Imported goods adequate to meet
the expenses of the government should be
levied: therefore.
Resolved, that we demand the same meas
ure of protection for agricultural industries
that is given to other industries.
At the meeting referred to there were
delegates from states Jn which are more
than four-fifths of the farmers of the
country, from California to Florida and
from North Dakota to Texas. The reso
lution was adopted without one dissent-
i ing vote. As tne Honorable gentleman
who nas oeen master ot tne National
Grange for eight years past and many
other prominent officials of the Grange
were present as delegates, the resolu
tion may justly be taken as expressing
the sentiments of the Grange also. Cer
tainly the Farmers National, congress.
being composed of farmers, should not
have demanded less; and. as it is non
political and unpactisan. it could not con
sistently say more. Similar resolutions
have been adopted at previous meetings.
Protect io a Under McKinley Lav.
The McKinley law gave to agricultural
industries the same measure of protec
tion that it gave to other industries.
Horses, hay. potatoes, onions, eggs, bar
ley, fruits, wool and other products of
our farms, the producers of which de
rive a direct benefit from a protective
duty on those articles, were given just
and satisfactory protection: and thus the
McKinley law met the proper wishes and
the just and reasonable demands of. the
farmers. As soon as they had the power,
the Democrats hastened to remove the
duties on farm products or to remove
them altogether, and the Wilson law does
not give the same measure of protection
to agricultural industries, that it gives to
other industries. Wool is a striking ex
ample of this. The McKinley law gave
it proper protection, and while that law
1 was in effect only a very short time, it
Cincinnati Times and Star.
was in effect long enough to show that
under its operation our production of
wool would rapidly increase to the ulti
mate benefit of the entire community.
The Democrats hastened to put wool on
the free list, while retaining a substantial
duty on the product of the mill and the
mine. In 1889 there were in the United
States 42.599.079 sheep, valued at $80,
640.369; in 1893 there were 47.273.553
sheep, valued at $125,909,264; in 1806
there are 3898.783 sheep, valued at
$65,167,735. Under the McKinley law
the value of our sheep increased $35,268,
895; the Wilson law has taken from the
value of our sheep $60,741,529. or very
nearly one-half. Under the Wilson law
the importation of wool has doubled and
the price of the domestic product has
been halved. The McKinley law gave
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.
Kecinroeity.
At its annual meeting in 1890 the
Farmers' National congress passed a
resolution in favor of reciprocity; and
that it yet J-vors reciprocity is shown
by the following resolution at its last
meeting:
Resolved, that the Farmers Xational con
gress has listened with profound interest to
the able and instructive address of Senor
Francisco Javier Yanes of Venezuela on
"The Commercial Relations of American Re
publics." Resolved, that to secure reciprocal trade
between the United States and the Spanish
American republics, this congress favors
legislation for reciprocity, commercial treat
ies, and aid for steamship lines sufficient to
answer all the purposes of such trade.
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 of all
shades of political belief. The peculiar
relation of reciprocity to agriculture ap
pears from a reading of the- reciprocity
section of the McKinley law:
That with a view to secure reciprocal
trade with countries producing the following
articles, and for this purpose, on anil after
the first day of January. 1892. whenever,
and so often as the President shall be satis
fied that the government or any country pro
ducing and exporting sugar, molasses, cof
fee, tea. aad hides, raw and nncured. or any
of such articles, imposes duties or other ex
actions upon the agricultural or other pro
ductions of the United States, which in view
of the free Introduction of such sugar, mo
lasses, coffee, tea and bides into the United
States may deem to be reciprocally unequal
or unreasonable, he shall have the power
and It shall be his duty to suspend, by
proclamation to that effect, the provisions
of this act relating to the free introduction
of sach sugar, molasses, coffee, tea and
hides, the production o such country, for
such time as he shall deem Just, etc
Although in effect only a short time,
the reciprocity arrangement made under
the 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 rapidly
increased that it is of the highest im
portance to our farmers that our wheat
markets be enlarged. The ability ot" re
ciprocity to do this is shown by our riour
trade with Cuba. In less than fnnr
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 our agri
cultural interests; and the Democrats
hastened to terminate them.
Home or Foreign Sugar, Which?
Each year we send abroad more than
$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 equiv
alent to that which has been given to
their beet sugar industries by France and
Germany by means of bounties, exemp
tion of land from taxation, etc.. vould
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 Germany
and France has shown to b wise and
highly advantageous to the nation.
Under the operation of the McKinley
law our production of beet sugar rapidly
increased. Here are the figures:
"Ponnd..
1801 12.004.83S
1S32 27.003.322
Had the McKinley Jaw bounties been
continued, we would in a comparatively
few years have prodneed at home., not
only the four thousand million pounds of
sugar we now consume, but the increased
consumption due to our increased popu
lation. It is probable that no other
piece of legislation in our history has
shown a greater lack of business sense
than the repeal of the sugar bounties,
and certainly few other legislative en
actments in our history have done our
agricultural interests a greater injury or
subjected the country to greater ultimate
financial loss. To produce four thousand
million pounds of beet sugar would re
quire one million acres of land and the
wages paid to farm and factory labor
would amount to $T5.0U0.000 per annua.
Land aad labor now devoted to crops of
small profit ami of which we produce an
excess, like wheat, woaki be put tit a
more profitable use. The $75,000,000
each year would swell our domestic com
merce by at least four times that
amount. If wo had produced our own
sugar instead of gold having been ex
ported during the past three years an
export that has widely hurt our indus
tries and business gokl would hare been
imported, for the more than one" hundred
million dollar of gold or its equivalent
sent abroad eaeh 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 such protec
tion as was given by the BIcKinley law.
Surely so far as tariff legislation is con
cerned, the farmer, whether he regards
only his own interests or looks beyond
them to the interest of his country, will
have no difficulty in deciding which par
ty should have his vote. His decision
will be all the easier and surer because
of the record of the candidates for Presi
dent. BIr. Bryan declared in Congress,
January 13, 1894. "It is immaterial in
my judgment whether the sheep-grower
receives any benefit from the tariff or
not I am for free wool." He
voted for free wool, for the repeal of the
sugar bounties and for the abrogation of
the reciprocity arrangements. Mr. BIc
Kinley, it is needless to say. has been
and is, in favor of reciprocity, just pro-;
tection to wool and other farm products,
and such reasonable encouragement of
out beet-sugar industry as other coun
tries have found profitable. In con
trast with what Mr. Bryun said about
tariff on wool is what Mr. McKinley said
when introducing his tariff bill into the
House:
If there is any one Industry which appeals
with more force than another for defensive
duties it is this, and to no class of citlsens
should this House more cheerfully lend legis
lative assistance, where it can properly be
done, than to the million fanners who own
sheep In the United States. We cannot af
ford as a nation to permit this industry to
be longer crippled.
This 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.
Keanhlicaas and Trnsts.
J fl pmop hvo twMin nnafnntlf- tnT
persistently opposed to trusts. This hos
tility has been exaggerated in the voci
ferons and 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
capita!, the employment of best talent in
directing; and of producing and hand
ling large quantities, made the prices of
the articles to the consumers less than
they were before and probably less than
they would be if the trusts were not in
existence. Nevertheless, the farmers of
this country believe that the principles
underlying trusts are wrong and that in
the aggregate trnsts are a serious injury
to business ami wield a power that will
present to human nature a temptation too
strong to be resisted, execot in a few
cases, to use tha't power with political-
IKiraes ana legislative Domes, for im
proper ends; in short, that the trust is an
enemy to the people and a menace to the
nation, there being some exceptions to
prove the rule. Representative agricul
tural bodies have very frequently con
demned trusts and asked for legislation
that would end them, or at the least,
would subject their affairs to such public
knowledge and control as would remove
their power for eviL A representative
agricultural body has never prononnced
in favor of trusts. The position of the
farmer as regards trusts is that occupied
by our economists and by nearly all our
population, hence, it is sanctioned by
scientific research and reasoning and by
the common sense. In accord with the
wishes of farmers and in compliance
with their requests, the Fifty-first Con
gress, which was the first Congress Re
Eublican in both branches since trusts
ad assumed prominence in this country
hastened at its first session to pass "a
bill to protect trade and commerce
against unlawful restraints and monopo
lies," which declares that:
Every contract, combination In form of
trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, ia re
straint of trade or commerce anion the
several states, or with foreign nations Is
who snail make any such contract or engage
la any such combination or conspiracy shall
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and. on
conviction thereof, shall be punished bV a
fine not exceeedlag $3000. or by imprison
ment not exceeding one year, or by both of
said punishments in the discretion of the
court.
EtT person who shall monopolise or
shall attempt to monopolize, or combine or
conspire with any other person or persons
to monopolise any part of the trade or
commerce among the several states
or with foreign nations, shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor anil on convii-Hnn th.,
Shall be punished by fine not exceeding
SoOOO. or by imprisonment not exceeding one'
year, or by both said punishments, la the
discretion of the court.
That word "person" or "persons." wher
ever used in this act. shall b deemed to In
clude corporations and associations existia
under or authorised by the laws of either
the United States. th laws of any of the
territories, the laws of any state, or the
laws of any forpign country.
This act is so comprehensive in its defi
nition of a trust, which it made illegal
that it was clearly the purpose of those
who made it a law, that no trust should
escape.
Democracy aad Trnsts.
Contrast with the action of the Fifty
first Congress the action of the Fifty
third Congress the first one Democratic
in both branches since trusts attained
to prominence in this country which at
its regular session, put into the coffer of
the Sugar trust, by means of the WiIon
law. a bonus of $18,000,000 on the su-ar
then in its hands; and by the same law
made a profit for the Whisky trust of
about $10,000,000 on the whisfcv with
drawn from bond after it became cer
tain that the tax on whisky would be
increased and before the law went into
effect, and. in addition, the Wilson law
increased the allowance for wastage
while in bond and lengthened the bonded
nerior from three to eight years. The
Fifty-third Congress legislated against
trusts, but only those of which import
ers are members and which deal ia im
ported articles. Domestic trusts have re
mained undisturbed by Democratic legis
lation. No effort has been made by "the
Democratic administration to enforce the
anti-trust legislation of either the Fifty
first or the Fifty-third Congress, though
frequently reminded of its duty by the
agricultural and other papers, inefud in
even a leading New York Democratic
paper. So far as their attitude toward
trusts is concerned, the farmer ought not
to have any difficulty in deciding which
of the two leading political parties
shonld have his vote.
On questions that have not had the
long and general attention bestowed on
the tariff or in the treatment of evilr
that have been so acridly denounced
the trusts, but that farmers have right
fully considered to have a direct and con
siderable effect on agricultural interest,
the Democratic and the Republican par
ties have recently made records cqnally
plain and significant.
Wka Favors Kara! JCall Deliverv?
In the debate on the postoffice appro
priation bill in the House March 6 last.
Mr. rickler said: "It seems that thei
is no effort to improve the service for
country people." and on the saaw say
Mr. Load, chairman of the House esav
suttee a postolfices aad poatroads, said
in the course of the debate:
The Increase in the appropriations for th
star route service during the last four years
has arisen from the fact that money was
t.iken from that service and devoted to reg
ulation, screen, and other wagon service.
Iu other words, while you gentlemen front
the country have been persistently increas
ing jppnpriat!on.s for the star route service.,
all of that Increase has been used lathe
large cities.
In fact, the amount. thus diverted dur
iug the last fiscal year was $670,000.
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 adminis
tration of the postoffice department used
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 administratiun of the post
office department. Mr. Wanamaker se
cured appropriations for experiments ia
free mail delivery in villages and he
fai th fully expended these appropriations.
In a communication to the Senate he
stated that after making an allowance
equal to the previous average annua!
increase of the business of the offices, it
was found that the increase of the busi
ness of the offices due to the free daily
delivery had more than aid for that
delivery. In some eases the profit from
free delivery was quite large. In New
Canaan. Conn., tor example, the village
in which free daily delivery was first in
troduced, and in which the experiments
were conducted for fire years, the aver
age annua! income of the office was
$523. while the free delivery cost only
$200. A business that yields an average
annual profit of 161 per cent., part of
the period being a time of panic and de
pression, is a good business indeed: yet
the present administration of the post
office department has discontinued the
free delivery in the villages in which it
was established by Mr. Wanamaker.
The results from experiments in vil
lages indicated, as Mr. Wanamaker fore
saw that they would, the practicability
of free daily delivery ro farmers; and
he secured from the Fifty-second Con
gress an appropriation for experiments
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-appropriations
was mandatory, but both Mr.
Bissell and Mr. WiNon have refused to
expend these appropriations. The anil
has become a very important factor in
the prosperity, welfare and enjoyment
of the people. In the attitude of the
Republican and Democratic administra
tions toward rural mail service and the
efforts made to improve it. the farmer
will find excellent aid ia deciding; for
which party to vote.
Who Forfeits Land Grants?
For some years the farmers of the
country have been demanding that the
grants of lands to aid in the const rue tioa
of certain railroads, should be declared
forfeited where the conditions of the
grants had not been complied with. The
Fifty-first Congress the first Congress
Republican in both branches since the
demands for the annulment of these
grants had been made at its first ses
sion enaeted a law
That there Is hereby forfeited to th
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 In operation, for the construction or
benefit of which such lands were granted:
and all snch lands are declared to bt? a par:
of the public domain.
This law should have much weight
with the farmer in determining what
ticket he will vote, for. aside from re
storing considerable arras 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 the
most powerful corporations in the coun
try in marked contrast to the subservi
ency to trusts and corporations of the
Democratic Congress that we have had
since.
Who Opened Farcins Markets?
For some years certain European na
tionsone of which, at least, while
preaching free trade, practiced the pro
tection of certain farm products io Ihe
extent of prohibitory decrees had ex
cluded our animal products and live ani
mals for their markets or had subjected
them to vexatious and profit-destroying;
regulations, because it was alleged, they
were frequently unwholesome or dis
eased. Our farmers were well aware
that this allegation was an untruthful
subterfuge, and they demanded such in
spection of our slaughtered animals and
live animals offered for export that for
eign governments could not plead disease
among our animals as a justification for
p-rrlndinr those products of our farms
from their markets. Everyone familiar
with our live stock interests, knows that
this was a matter 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 onr stock-raisers, and that, being:
faithfully administered by Secretary
Rusk, accomplished all that was expect
ed of them. It is unfortunate ihat by
his own utterances and actions the pres
ent secretary of agricnlture should have
shown a different attitude toward -hose
wise laws. In determining which 'i'-ket
he 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
hia 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 learn.
16 to 1 ot Wanted.
The currency plank of the Chicago
platform certainly does not express the
sentiments of the National Grange; and
at its last annual mating, in Atlanta.
Ga.. October 10-16. 1S95. the F.-.rnn-rs
National congress voted down j'.l or the
1 to 1 free silver coinage resolutions
presented, and adopted resolutions in
which it declared that it was emphatical
Iv in favor of the nse 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 agri
culture. As long as it was inspired by
Jefferson and Jackson it had a jealous
regard for onr agricultural interest, but
it has drifted away from its old course;
it is inspired by those who hold strange
doctrines; and while thousands and hun
dreds of thousands of Democrats are the
friends of the farmer, the present Demo
cratic party, a-s an organization to elect
men to enact laws and others to admin
ister them. i. a edmpared with the Re
publican party, careless of the welfare
of our agricultural industries: and. of
even greater weight with the American
farmer, careless of that financial integ
rl;y that must underlie the welfare of
a',1 industries and which is essential to
the honor and glory of all nations.
NINE.
j. t ,
V ---
1
.'
-
:---,.. -r-
i - v -C
. .- - .
jer-z
JaaS3SE-aJS.-J
.. .-m -7
1 - i
J2 '-
m
"
