Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.