Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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)