Newspaper Page Text
PAGE TWO
What Our Farmers Are Saying and Doing
A Talk to the Farmers
On every 500 pounds of lint cot
the Foxy Farmer loses 30 pounds,
under the Liverpool rule governing
buying. He also loses freight and
insurance, —a large fact seldom
mentioned.
Now, as Foxy has to lose 30
pounds (for no other reason than
that the buyer says he must), it is
manifestly to his interest to lose the
cheaper commodity—bagging and
ties —rather than the dearer one,
lint cotton.
See it, Foxy?
When the Exchanges order you to
put on no more than six yards,
weighing, say 12 pounds; and six
ties, weighing, say nine pounds, you
have only 21 pounds of the cheaper
stuff, going to Liverpool or Lowell.
As you are made to lose 30 pounds
of something on each bale, and as
the loss is defended upon the ground
that it is a deduction for bagging
and ties, it is awfully unjust to us,
and hard on us, to be ordered to use
only 21 pounds of the cheaper stuff.
The new rules amount to an arbi
trary demand that we shall lose, in
addition to the bagging and ties, 9
pounds of cotton on each bale.
This will mean that we are to be
robbed of at least a dollar on every
bale produced, over and above the
cost of the bagging and ties.
It is a fine thing for the Farmers’
Union and kindred organizations to
hold big and expensive conventions,
and listen to speeches on diversified
Farming, Hog and Hominy, the his
torical record of the Farmer, how to
organize a Warehouse System, and
all that; but it seems to me that it
is about time for the Farmers’ Union
to buckle down to business, and do
something worth while, for the farm
er himself.
The Ship Subsidy campaign which
I fear is going to be successful, is
nothing but a move to benefit the
Steel Trust, the Transcontinental
railroads, and the Labor Unions of
the big cities, beyond the Cotton
Belt.
Anybody who will study the Ship
Subsidy literature and speeches can
see that. Yet the Birmingham
Convention went a long way to
bringing about compromising rela
tions between the Farmers’ Union
(composed of landowning capital
ists) and the Federation of Labor,
which at a recent national conven
tion virtually declared that the pres
ent system of privately owned rail
roads should not be disturbed.
When the Georgia Farmers’
Union was making its fight for lower
passenger rates, the Labor Unions
came out on the other side. The
Wall Street Magnates confidently
count on the support of the Labor
Unions every time the merchants
and farmers make an effort to put
an end to railroad extortion.
This is no attack on organized
labor. I heartily favor it, and have
fought, to my cost, for the Labor
Unions, in all of their righteous bat
tles. But I think it well to stress
the fact that, at bottom, there is no
common bond of mutual interest that
can unite the rural proprietor and
the city mechanic.
Yet the Birmingham Convention
voted to send a delegate to the Labor
Convention which is to be held at
Toronto, Canada, —and the delegate
whom they elected is a city me
chanic.
That’s funny. What earthly in
terest have the country landowners
in a Canadian meeting of city labor
ers?
I see very well how the Labor
Unions are making use of the men
who represent the farmer. I see it
in the legislatures, and in Congres
sional proceedings. I see_it in the
efforts of the Labor Unions to se
cure the co-operation of the Farm
ers’ Union in compelling everybody
to use the Union label.
But while it is easy enough to see
what the city workman is getting
out of the farmer, I can not see that
the farmer is getting a blessed thing
in return.
Do you?
The farmers should steer clear of
all entangling alliances. They should
have an organization all to them
selves.
In the old days I had different no
tions. It seemed to me that the
Knights of Labor and the Farmers’
Alliance were natural allies. In Con
gress, we who represented agricul
tural districts worked hard for eight
hour laws, automatic car-couplers,
and against Pinkerton deputies and
Child Slavery. I am not regretting
this; but what I want to say is,
that the Farmers’ Alliance and Peo
ple’s Party got nothing from the
Knights of Labor. In Augusta, Ga.,
the working class stood gallantly by
us, but in nearly every other city of
the United States the laborers were
almost solidly against us.
It is natural that the Federation
of Labor should desire to make a
cat's-paw out of the Farmers’ Union,
just as the Knights of Labor did out
of the Farmers’ Alliance; but it
seems to me altogether dangerous
to the farmers to have for their at
torney a city lawyer who is attorney
for Union Labor; or to be sending
to Canadian conventions a delegate
whose interest is wholly with the la
boring class of the cities.
Last year, the head of the Fed
eration of Labor used the brutal
bludgeon of the Boycott to ruin a
certain firm’s business. To me it
seems that the black-list is no more
indefensible than the Boycott. To
destroy your business with the one
is as cruelly barbarous as to deprive
you of work by the other.
A judge, before whom the case
was brought, ordered Mr. Gompers,
President of the Federation of La
bor, to discontinue the publication
of the Boycott notice. Mr. Gompers
refused to obey. Was that right?
Is a labor leader above the law?
The rest of us have to obey the
courts, —why should Mr. Gompers
be a law unto himself?
During the excitement which fol-
Ttyt. 'Seffcrsonlan
lowed the trial and fining of Mr.
Gompers (and Mitchell), the Labor
leaders got the full benefit of the
moral support of the Farmers’
Union.
How?
The attorney of the National
Farmers’ Union sent a telegram to
the Labor leaders, in the name of
the National Farmers’ Union, ex
pressing the heartiest approval of
Gompers’ course!
What authority did the attorney
have to commit the farmers to an
endorsement of defiance of the
courts?
None whatever. But he did it, all
the same. At whose instance?
Doubtless at that of the Labor lead
ers of Atlanta, whose attorney he is.
Such as this results from trying to
serve two masters.
I was glad to see Mr. Duckworth’s
editorial denouncing the Ship Sub
sidy thieves. The Texas papers had
reported him as making “an enthu
siastic speech,’’ in the Galveston Con
vention, in support of the resolu
tions which these adroit and persist
ent thieves got the farmers to adopt.
The Houston Post reports the pro
ceedings of the Convention and,
while it calls him N. A. Duckworth,
shows whom they mean by saying
that he is President of the Farmers’
Union of Georgia. Apparently the
Post does not know that Mr. Duck
worth is an ex-President; and the
impression has been made that the
President of the Farmers’ Union of
Georgia favors this infamous steal.
The Galveston News, reporting the
proceedings of the Convention, con
tains the same statement about Mr.
Duckworth.
In the American Flag, the editor
alludes joyously to the adoption of
the Ship Subsidy resolutions, and
gives the credit to two men —Mr.
Jackson and Mr. Duckworth.
In fact, jubilations have been loud
among the editors, pamphleteers and
lobbyists of the Steel Trust, the Wall
Street railroaders and the Labor
leaders of the large Northern and
Western cities.
We hope that Mr. Duckworth will
promptly demand that those who
have misrepresented his Galveston
speech make the proper corrections.
I am your friend, Foxy, and have
the scars to show for it. I am also
the friend of the wage-earner and
under-dog, generally. But I believe
that it is best for the farmers to give
their aid to all just demands of the
Labor Unions without mixing up the
two organizations. The law-abiding
elements of this country can not stand
ior the Labor Union bill, now pend
ing, which declares that a man’s
“business” is not as much entitled to
the protection of the Courts as his
person and property.
Suppose the law does not shield
your “business” of growing corn,
cotton and wheat from some brutal
Boycott of negro laborers, —what
would the farm be worth? There
are even now strong organizations
among the blacks, and the black
workman and female house-servant
are inching up. You know that.
Now, suppose the Labor Unions make
use of your Congressmen to pass the
Pearre bill, which seeks to deprive
the courts of the authority to throw
the protecting arm around a man’s
“business;” and suppose the Labor
Unions establish all over the coun
try the despotism which they set up
in Los Angeles and San Francisco, —
how long would it be before the ne
gro unions would follow the example,
and establish a similar despotism on
the farms. In the towns and cities,
the white women have to submit to
everything nearly. The negro “la
dies” are becoming too proud to be
criticised, and almost too nice to
work. Frequently, your wife or
daughter will receive an insulting re
ply, when she offers to hire the eb
ony duchess.
The man who works for wages on
the farm, whether white or black, has
a class-interest akin to that of the
city mechanics; but the owners of the
farms, and the renters of the same,
have none.
Where, then, is the wisdom of mix
ing up with Gompers and his Fed
eration? Or, of spending a consider
able sum to pay the railroad fare,
Pullman fare, Pullman meals, and
Toronto hotel bills of an Atlanta la
boring man sent to represent the
proprietors of the farms?
Charley Barrett is pure gold. We
have no straighter, sincerer man.
But he has lots of scheming, de
signing, selfish, unprincipled men to
deal with. And he has not yet got
rid of all of them. Some of them,
he has not yet found out.
Doubleday, Page & Co. offered
Barrett $5,000 for his book; and he
refused to take this clean money,
because that firm would not or could
not put the Union label on it. Why
should any farmer decline a large
amount of money for his book on
that ground?
What right did anybody have tc\
say when, where, to whom, and on<
what terms Barrett should sell his
book or publish it himself?
He lost $5,000 of untainted cash,
because he felt that the Union label
ought to be on the volume. What
made him think that? Because
the Farmers’ Union had got tangled
up with the American Federation
of Labor; the good-hearted man did
not want to hurt feelings., or seem
to act inconsistently. I wonder how
much appreciation he got. Are the
Labor Unions all buying your book,
Charley?
You lost sa,ooo of honest money
to get the Union label on; how much
has it helped the sale of your book?
How many copies have the Union
Labor men bought?
I’m your friend, Farmer, and al
ways have been. My interest is the
same as yours. Excepting a few
shares of stock in a little, one-hoss,
state bank, I own no stocks of any
kind; no bonds; no share in any
kind of company or corporation.
Have enough of the filthy stuff to
meet my modest requirements, and
am not trying to make any more.
Consequently my advice to you is
perfectly disinterested. I’ve no
schemes to get you into, and no sort
of inclination to exploit you.
But, for some time, I have been
(Continued on Page 3)