Newspaper Page Text
FARMERS’ ALLIANCE.
GRANGES IN FRANCE.
How Our French Brethren Manage Their
Affairs.
Depression in agriculture seems not
confined to America, but is general in
Europe. The producing and laboring
classes, over the world, seem at a disad
vantage and struggling with unneces
sary hindrances.
French agriculture approaches more
nearly to ours than English agriculture,
as the farms in France are mainly small
and owned by those who cultivate them,
while, in England, they are owned in
large estates and run by tenants and
those whom they hire as laborers.
The agricultural department at
Washington has given comprehensive
accounts of efforts to elevate and im
prove the condition of the farmers in
France and, thereby, advance the in
terests of the government. The pro
jectors of this movement are found
among the leading men of France, who
saw in it the means of elevating the
farmers by giving them advantages in
trade, in the purchase of their necessi
ties 'and the sale of their products, as
well as the improvement of their condi
tion generally.
The multiplication of these Syndicats
Agricolaa has been wonderful, and the
good accomplished has been more than
gratifying. One of them, which had 730
members five years ago, now has 3,600.
Another with 300 members three years
ago, now has 6,000, and another that be
gan in 1884 with 442 members now has
7,500. These Granges make their pur
chases together, and unite in the sale
of their products to great advantage to
themselves. In joint purchase of raw
material to be used upon the farms, one
of these Granges expended 885,000 the
last year, and another expended $178,000
for the same purpose and $1,600 for
agricultural implements.
By this joint purchase thousands of
dollars were saved to the members, and
fully as much more made under the
joint sales of products from the farm.
The policy adopted is quite similar to
the plan now followed by the Alliance
organization in the States, and the suc
■cess of the movement, under wise busi
ness management, encourages the suc
cess of the enterprise undertaken with 1
us.
The Grange is in position to know the
financial standing of its members. Ithas
also the power of holding them to the
performance of their contracts and the
full payment of their obligations. This
tends greatly to strengthen confidence
and, therefore, to lessen prices of
articles to be purchased. In the
absence of such information and aid in
the collection of debts, merchants claim
the necessity for excessive charges on
time sales, in order to cover possible
losses from bad debts. Information
freely given by authority, as to the
business standing of a granger, amounts
almost to indorsement and secures a '
reduction of chayges to all purchasers.
A man without character is, very prop- '
«erly, left to take care of himself, with
out sympathy and without help.
Another feature quite commendable 1
in the French Granges is the aid ex
tended unfortunate members. Worthy
men who suffer unexpected misfort
unes receive not only the sympathy but
the active help of their associates;
they are put upon foot and started off
again, equipped for the struggles be
fore them.
This co-operative effort, under or
ganization, seems a necessity in all sec
tions and all countries. Business now
has grown so sharp and advantages are
so unscrupulously sought, not only in
market, but under government enact
ment, that nothing short of organiza
tion among producers will protect from
oppression and misfortune. Selfish
ness and ambition, if left with
out restraint, will override the privi
leges and rights of the weak and de
stroy the good order of communitiesand
the thrift of State by making burdens
of men, who should be helpful citizens,
advancing the prosperity of all classes !
of people. If all mon were wise, merci- I
ful and human there would be no need
in France or America for protection
against avarice in money or agreed in
power; but as long as there are specula
tors to devour, like lacusts, the sub
stance of the land, and unscrupulous
combinations to absorb the limited
resources of the weak, there will al
ways be necessity for co-operative effort
on the part of the oppressed, and wise
enactment in the Government to pre
vent the aggressions of the unscrupu
lous.—W. .1. Northen, in Southern
Cultivator.
“WONDER WHY?"
An Old-Fashioned Woman Wonders Why
Some Things are So.
I wonder why farmers are so deeply
in debt? I wonder why the Farmers’
Alliance platform and the Union Labor
platform are so much alike? 1 wonder
why there are so many members of the
Union Labor party in this vicinity so
averse to labor? I wonder if they are
in other places? I wonder if they
worked on their farms instead of abus
ing the bankers, if their debts would
not grow less? I wonder if there were
less whisky and tobacco used if
times would not be better. I
wonder if men would renew the
old-fashioned faith in God—and
deep plowing, if our farms would not
give better returns? I wonder how
many will say that I am an enemy to
the Alliance and Grange and Union La
borers? lam opposed to a man calling
himself a Union Laborer when he will
not labor, or a member of the Farmers'
Alliance or Grange when he is not a
farmer. lam not an enemy to any or
ganization that will help to bettor the
condition of the farmer’s home, finan
cially, mentally or morally. I be
believe in progression, in higher
moral standards, in truer, purer
home life and happier homes.
How can we have happy homes, or good
and happy children, when every nerve
is strained, every thought given to
money-making, either to pay off the
debts that are hanging like an incubus
about the throat, or to make a better
appearance than our neighbor? I am
only a woman, and so have agreatmany
things to wonder about. Perhaps if I
were a man I might gather with others
a%a street corner, or before a saloon (or
in one), or at some Alliance or Grange
store, and I might learn not to wonder
so much.
We have very little fruit in this
vicinity yet, but most of the oldest set
tlers are putting in trees and bushes,
or have done so already. I hope they
may succeed in raising plenty of fruit,
as it is such a help to the perplexed
housewife in getting a healthy and ap- I
petizing meal, and I hope the burden of
debt may soon be rolled away. lam an
old-fashioned woman, and have my old
Puritan ancestors' horror of debt, and I
believe with them it is better to go with
out some things that we want, toliveand
dress plainly, work a little harder and
worry less, pay the debts we owe as
fast as may be, and not contract others
if it be possible to live without. Let
us learn to live for a higher purpose
than money-making for the money’s
sake, or for the show we can make with
it. May the day be near (when our
farmers’ organizations will meet to learn
all they can of a better method of farm
ing, of a better way of helping their
neighbor than quarreling with him or
slandering him, and walk in the way of
peace and pleasantness.—Theodocia, in
Western Rural.
THEY MEAN BUSINESS.
A Missouri Banker Tells How the Alli,
ance Struck His Section.
Colonel John Richey, a prominent
Missourian, and director of a bank, talk
ing of the Farmers’ Alliance, said:
“I am in a section where it is in full
operation. It has come up like one of
those cyclones such as struck Louis
ville. Six months ago there was not a
member in my county. To-day they
have an enrollment of over one-half
the voters of the county and three
fourths the voters of the district.
They mean business, I tell you,
and I know they have reason to
come together for common action. I
am a director of a bank and take occa
sion to observe the loans we make. I
have found, time and again, that loans
have been made to farmers on mort
gages to pay their taxes. The farmers
believe that the railroads and the cor
porations and the wealthy men of the
country are not paying their share of the
taxes, when the land will not produce
enough to pay taxes on it. They are
mighty near right too. There is
something wrong about it. The Farm
ers' Alliance people have a long-headed
leadership. They select the best
men among themselves as leaders in
each county, and farmers are pretty
hard-headed and level-headed old fel
lows as a rule. It is entirely different
from the labor movement. In the lat
ter the associated members were men
who get their living by days’ wages
They are subject to temptations. Their
leaders could be bought if the price
was large enough. You will find the
farmer combination too strong for that.
Money temptation will not reach them.
Then, too. they know their power.
There are 7,000,000 men in the United
States, according to the census of 1880.
engaged in farming. There are only
14,000,000 engaged in all pursuits. The
farmers are half the entire voting pop
ulation. They can revolutionize the en
tire Government—executive, legislative
and judicial. They will capture Con
gress this fall as sure as fate. The
■ chances are that the labor interests
| will be allied with them in their move
ment. If they stand together thay can
carry nearly every State in the Union.
They are banded together for political
action to secure greater favor to them
selves as a class in legislation, and they
have the votes to get it.”
Will Begin to Apply the Remedies.
I have been farming for forty years
and I think I can truthfully say that 1
never saw farmers in the condition we
are in here in Kansas to-day. We have
a fine farming country and an industri
ous and energetic class of farmers as
there is in the West. But, alas, they
are ground down and oppressed with
debt, paying exorbitant interest and
not getting for their products what it
costs to produce them. Met on every
hand by monopoly, trusts and combina
tions. But we begin to feel that a bet
ter day is dawning upon us. Out
county is well organized in the F.
M. B. A. We have about 1,200
i members in this (Neosho) county.
Our neighbor county (Wilson) is a
pretty solid Alliance. We mean busi
ness. We expect to let our old political
parties hear from us, if they don’t give
us relief soon.
The Frenchman, in describing the
difference between the rheumatism and
the gout said, put your finger in the
vise and screw it up as long as you can
, bear it and that was rheumatism. Give
it another turn and that is gout. Well
i we have had the rheumatism and now
our masters have given us the gout, and
now we propose to begin to apply reme
dies.—Cor. Western Rural.
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
A Very Badly Muddled Man Set Aright.
From the Standard.
Langdon House, St. Anne’s Hill,
Wandsworth, 8. W., England. —Will
you kindly answer the following ques
tions propounded by Mr. T. Nicholson?
Thos. Briggs.
1. A tax upon land values can only be
paid out of the prices obtained for the
produce of land.
This is true. If we were to say thata
land value tax must be paid out of the
produce of labor applied to land, we
should be more exact, but would proba
bly mean nothing different from what
Mr. Nicholson means.
2. The produce of .land is the necessa
ries of life.
Construing the term “necessaries of
life” broadly, so as to include all the
material things which we desire, this
also is true.
3. A tax on land value is. therefore, a
tax on the necessaries of life.
By no means. Mr. Nicholson errs in
assuming that the thing with which a
tax is paid is the thing taxed. A tax on
tobacco, if paid in corn or the price of
corn, is not a tax on corn. A tax on
bachelors, though paid out of the price
obtained for pork, would not be a tax on
pork. This tax on bachelors, recently
proposed in France for the purpose of
promoting marriages, admirably illus
trates Mr. Nicholson's fallacy. It would
have to be paid out of the products of
labor applied to land, but it is plain
that it would not in any sense be a tax
on these products. It would be a tax
simply and solely upon the privilege of
remaining unmarried, just as a marriage
license tax is a tax on the privilege of
getting married. So a tax on land
values, though paid w'ith products of
labor, is not a tax on those products. It
is a tax on the privilege of monopolizing
valuable land.
4. A tax, if of considerable amount,
increases the cost of the article taxed.
This is true of all articles produced in
competition. But it is not true of mo
nopolized articles. To tax corn is to
increase its price, because the tax makes
it more difficult to produce corn, and
therefore tends to lower the market
supply. But to tax land values is to de
crease the price of land, because the
tax makes it more difficult to keep land
out of its best use and, therefore, tends
to increase the market supply.
5. Therefore a tax on the necessaries
of life increases the cost of those neces
saries.
Yes.
6. The necessaries of life are articles
of trade, and any action of government
which increases their cost is against
freedom of trade.
Yes.
7. A tax levied upon necessaries pro
duced in this country, and not upon
those received from abroad, is a protect
ive duty against home growths.
Yes.
8. The British farmer would have a
right to demand that corn coming from
abroad should bear a tax equal to the
proportion of single tax he had to pay
out of his corn.
No. Though he pays the land value
tax with corn this does not increase the
cost of producing home grown corn.
The price of corn is regulated by cost of
production from the best land of no
value. To tax corn is to increase the
cost of production of corn from all land,
the poorest as well as the best. But to
tax land values does not affect cost of
production from land of no value, since
that kind of land does not come under
the tax, and, therefore, it can not affect
cost of production from any land. Its
effect is to lessen the rent which would
otherwise go to the land owner by vir
tue, not of his labor, but of his owner
ship.
If we are correctly informed, most
British farmers now pay the single tax
out of their corn to landlords in the
name of rent. Does that increase the
price of corn, or give them a right to de
mand that corn coming from abroad
shall be taxed?
9. Both by increasing the cost of pro
duce and necessitating an equal tax up
on foreign produce, the single tax idea
is contrary to the principles of free
trade.
When Mr. Nicholson comes to under
stand the incidence of taxation he will
see that this question needs no answer.
The single tax does not increase the
price of production or necessitate any
tax whatever on foreign produce.
10. Political economy requires that
the expenses of government should be
borne by the citizens in proportion to
I their wealth.
I It would be better to say that the ex
penses of the government should be
borne by the citizens in proportion to
the value of the special privileges gov
ernment secures to them. But as owners
of the most valuable special privileges
are certain soon to become the wealth
iest men in a community unless com
pelled to bear the burden of taxation, it
is not important to deny this postulate.
This is, of course, not true. A tax
that does not increase the cost of the
necessaries of life can have no such ef
fect.
11. The single tax would cast the
heaviest burden on the man whose fam
ily consumed the necessaries of life.
12. Political economy demands that the
wages of the working classes shall enable
them to get as much as possible of those
things that will keep them in health
and strength and enable them to rear
families, so that wealth producers shall
be as efficient and numerous as possible.
It demands that they ehall get all
they can earn, and that they shall not
be required to pay any thing out of
what they produce, even for the sup*
port of government, unless government
gives them advantages—not bene
fits, but advantages. It is desirable,
in normal social conditions, that wealth
producers shall be efficient and numer
ous; but in the conditions that prevail,
under which the single tax (rent.) goes
to private land owners, increase of pro
ductive power presses against monopoly
of land, until growth of population
seems to he an evil, to be offset by such
comparative blessings as pestilence and
war.
13. The single tax would raise the
cost of necessaries and thus reduce the
purchasing power of wages, and would
tax a man in proportion to the number
of children he rears.
This is precisely what present systems
of taxation do. But the single tax, fall
ing solely' upon the rent w'hich now
goes almost untaxed to landlords, would
tax a man according to the value of his
government privileges, and not accord
ing to what ho consumed, nor according
to what he produced.
14. The single tax is therefore against
political economy, as well as against
free trade.
Against one as much as against the
other.
If Mr. Nicholson will take the trouble
to read Chapter VI of book 11, and
chapter I of book V of Mill’s “Princl
cles of Political Economy,” he will soon
understand that a tax on land values
does not increase the cost or price of
products; and when he once understands
that, he will see that what remains of
his argument favors the single tax.
MR. BROWN ON PROPERTY.
He States the Attitude of the Single Taxet
Toward Private Ownership of Wealth.
Edward Osgood Brown made a five
minutes’ speech on single tax before the
Sunset Club of Chicago on the night of
April 24, the occasion being a discussion
of taxation. Many persons present, un
acquainted with the single tax theory,
were interested to learn that it is not at
war with the right of private property.
Mr. Brown said:
A personal property tax is not only
impolitic, because it can not be collect
ed and will always be evaded, but it is
wrong in ethical principle, and this is
the case with every other tax on the
product of man’s industry and energy
applied to natural opportunities or upon
the free exchange of such products. It
is wrong because it interferes with the
sacred right of property, which is a di
vine right, and can be no more justly
interfered with by a king or an aristoc
racy, or a majority in a democracy than
by any other superior force. That which
a man produces or gets in exchange for
what he produces is absolutely his own
against all the world. It is wrong to
take it by superior force for purposes
which he does not approve.
But this does not entail anarchy or
lack of government, because there are
other things which the community col
lectively owns, and a revenue coining
from them which the community has a
right to dispose of by any properly
authorized expression of its will. Just
as a corporation has the moral right by
the action of a majority of its stock
holders to dispose of its corporate prop
erty, but no right to dispose of the indi
vidual fortunes of its members, so the
community or the State, by a majority
vote in a democracy, has the right to
settle the disposition of the revenues
which belong to it.
And those revenues which do belong
to it are sufficient to pay all the ex
penses of government without levying
any tax upon what properly belongs to
the individual. Those revenues are not
only the profits of those things which,
being in their nature monopolies and in
capable therefore of being subject to
free competition, should either be done
by the State for its own account or be
given as a franchise to the highest bid
der for a yearly rental, but the price
which should be paid to the State for all
special privileges granted by it. Special
privileges are sometimes necessary upon
grounds of expediency, but the only just
method of granting them is in exchange
for a proper compensation to be paid to
the community. The greatest of these
special privileges is the individal posses
sion and so-called ownership of land. It is
necessary as a matter of expediency, but
it is based upon no natural right of
property. No such thing as absolute
ownership of land is recognized by the
human law or the divine law. By the
human law land is held from the State
in return for services rendered to it.
That service in these days should be
the payment of the economic rent of the
land to the State. By the divine law
the earth belongs to all men: every man
has an interest in every piece of land.
Therefore justice requires that the pos
session being parceled out to individu
als should be paid for to the State ac
cording to the relative advantages en
joyed. Thus economic rent would go to
the State.
From these sources of revenue which
belong to it, the State will receive all
that it needs. The true solution of the
problem of taxation is not to tax at all,
but to “renderunto Caesar the things that
are Caesar’s, and toGodthethingsthatare
God’s,” is to allow every man his natu
ral, inalienable and divine right of in
dividual property in those things which
are the proper subject of individual
property; “to render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar’s,” is to pay to the
State all that belongs to the community
collectively—first and chief of which
things is economic rent.
SCHOOL BOOKS.
A Subject nt General Interest <.o Parente
and Others Having Children to Edu*
sate.
The four loading school book publish
ing houses of the country which have
heretofore been known under the fol
lowing styles and titles, viz:
Van Antwerp, Bragg & Co., Cincin
nati; Ivison, Blakeman & Co., New
York; A. S. Barnes <fc Co., New York;
D. Appleton & Co.. Now York, after a
full and careful consideration of all the
circumstances, have decided to form
an incorporated company for the prose
cution of the school book business. They
realize that the time has come when
something must bo done and some
means devised for reducing the cost of
school books to the people and for
enabling the patrons of the schools
to purchase their supplies of books di
rect from the publishers at net prices
wherever they desiro so to do. They
have felt that the future of their busi
ness is seriously threatened by the pop
ular prejudice which has been created
by the exorbitant prices charged for
school books by the local retailer.
There have been too many profits made
off of school books, and in reorganizing
their business into this new stock com
pany they do so for the purpose and
with the determination to establish
closer relations with the actual purchas
srs of the books and give them the ben
efit of the lowest possible prices. To
accomplish this new departure in the
manner of furnishing school books at
reduced prices, a greater economy
in manufacturing the books and
in conducting the business must be
practiced, and this is the object held in
view by the firms above named in
forming the new company. Under this
new organization one plant and one
force of clerks and agents will do the
business which has heretofore required
several expensive establishments. The
saving of expense in this direction will
be evident to any one, and beside this
there will also be a material advantage
to the new company in the fact that it
will be able to get better terms in pur
chasing the paper, printers’ ink and
other material used in the manufacture
of the books.
It has been stated by the competitors
and opponents of this new company
that as soon as it gets control of the
trade in a State it will at once increase
the price of books. The falsity of
this criticism can not be better proven
than by the willingness of the new com
pany to give guaranty with satisfactory
bond in any reasonable amount, con
tracting as follows:
First, that there will be no increase
in prices for five, ten or even twenty
years if desired; and second, that if at
anytime the new company’s prices shall
be reduced to a lower figure, that re
duced price will at once become the
established price under all contracts.
To those who are informed in the
matter it is well known that th®
majority of the school books now
in use in the schools throughout
the country are published by the four
houses which have formed the new com
pany. It is the earnest desire of the
company to have these books contin
ued in use in the schools, and it will
aim to make it for the interest of the
public to use them.
By a generous policy the new com
pany expects to increase its busi
ness and to secure the widest possible
sale for its books, realizing that the
only way in which this can be accom
plished is by furnishing the books to the
people direct and at lower prices than
school books have ever been bought.
Wealthy United State Senators.
The stately homes and princely enter
tainments of some of the millionaire
Senators in these days offer a striking
contrast to the plain, simple lives of the
great Senators of fifty years ago, when
Henry Clay had his modest room at the
National Hotel, and John C. Calhoun
“messed” at a boarding house on Capitol
Hill. The wealthy Senators, as a rule,
have not contributed any thing to th®
honor and glory of the Senate. One of
them when reminded that he was fre
quently absent from his seat, replied
that as he had bought his seat in the
Senate, he thought he had a right to sit
in it or not just as he pleased. Senator
Sherman is an exception among the
millionaire Senators. He takes a most
active part in the business of the Sen
ate. He has a cold exterior and an icy
manner which have not made him per
sonally popular either in public or pri
vate life. He is so tall and thin that he
is called “the bean pole of the Senate,”
as Senator Voorhees is known as
“the sycamore of the Wabash.” Sher
man has a beautiful house in Washing
ton, crowded with art and choice bric-a
brac. Il is library is the finest in the
city, and contains many paintings, by
Mrs. Sherman. —Chautauquan.
—American Business Man— Now, sir,
you have all the details of my new man
ufacturingscheme. If we succeed, we’ll
make millions. Timid Capitalist—But
if wo should fail? American Business
Man —Fail? In the bright lexicon of
American enterprise there’s no such
word as fail—because whenever a thing
don’t pay we can always unload it on an
English syndicate.—N. Y. Weekly.
—When a scientific lecturer in Ken
tucky declared that “the amount of wa
ter on the surface of the earth has been
steadily diminishing for many thou
sands of years, a pink-nosed individual
on the back seat got up and hiccoughed:
‘Well, Colonel, you can’t (hie) blame it
on our people, anyhow.’”—Norristown
Herald.