Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

and child employed, after paying for all the material consumed, there re mains a net profit to the manufacturer of $1,929,000,000, a clear profit of near ly 30 per cent upon the capital in vested. That was the year, as you will remember, when in agricultural pursuits, 8,500,000 people toiled all the year, representing a capital invested of $16,000,000,000, and the gross prod uct sold for not enough to pay wages, but left a deficit of $498,000,000. Let us take the year 1900, as shown in Uncle Sam’s Statistical Abstract. The amount of capital invested in manufactures has been increased un til it has reached $10,000,000,000. The number of employes has increased un til it is nearly 6.000.000; the gross product sells for $13,000,000,000. After deducting wages and cost of materials, as above, we have remaining, as noted, $2,888,000,000, nearly 29 per cent on the enormous investment of ten bil lion dollars. That was the year, the comparatively prosperous year, in which the agricultural classes had nearly twice as many workers engag ed, had more than twice as much cap ital invested, and did not make, after allowing for taxes and repairs, more than 2 per cent upon the amount in vested. Let us carry these comparisons a little further. Between the years 1880 and 1890 the census reports show that the one little manufacturing state of Massachusetts gained greater increase of wealth than nine of the great agri cultural states of this republic. Group ing four of the great western agri cultural states with five of the great southern agricultural states, we find that Massachusetts, the manufactur ing state, outstripped the nine agricul ’"’al states by a tremendous sum of 00,000,000. Is that sufficient to show id convince you that the tariff sys em is eating the life out of the farm er? Is that sufficient to put you upon inquiry as to whether the manufactur ing classes are not devouring the ag ricultural classes? But let us apply the probe once again. In 1880 the amount of capital invested in agricultural pursuit in New England was practicallv the same as that invested in manufactur ing industries. In other words, they started upon the decade equal. At the end of the ten year period, let us take note of the relative conditions of these two runners of the race of material prosperity. Discarding the mere sys tem of numerals, I simplv tell you that in these ten years, the census renorts reveal the fact that the manu facturing classes of New England had doubled their estate, whereas, the Yankee farmers had not onlv NOT earned one penny of net profit, but had lost one-fourth of their capital, and had abandoned 4,160 of their homes and farms. Coming on down another decade to study their condition in the year 1900 as revealed in the census reports. I find that the manufacturing classes of New England have again doubled their estate, whereas the Yankee farm er has worked ten years without earn ing one dollar of net nrofit and has barely been able to hold his estate at a stand-still. How different it was before these tremendous burdens of privilege were thrown upon the backs of the agricul tural classes! In 1850 the entire wealth of the country, as above stated, was $7,000,000,000. in round numbers. Os this, the south had almost exactly half, while the north held the other half. Tn 1860 the north had been en abled to increase her estate a few hun dred millions, but she still owned only $3,460,000. whereas, the south possessed $4,620,000. Thus, it appears that if the south only had to carry a handicap of twenty cents on the dol lar, if she only had to pay a tribute to the north to the extent of twenty cents on the dollar, she could give the north that much the start and beat her to the goal. George McDuffie used to say that or every one hundred bales of cotton pro duced in the south, the north took twenty under the tariff laws. The statement is true or not according to the amount of the tariff. At the time McDuffie made the statement, it was absolutely true. Under the Walker tariff 20 per cent. McDuffie s state ment, while true in substance, was misleading as to amount under the Morrill tariff, which was enacted in 1861. McDuffie’s statement again be came true, and tariff dues began to climb with the Morrill tariff of 1861, which made a discrimination in favor of the north against the south of about 30 per cent. With the enactment of the infamous McKinley bill began a new era, an era of madness, of harsh ness, of favoritism and class law which ruins the victim of those special priv ileges granted under the law. In the days of Calhoun, and Clay and Web ster, there was no dream of such tar iffs as we have today; there was no dream of passing laws for the sole purpose of allowing the trust to glut its monstrous appetite upon the unor ganized industries cf the country or the organized masses of the people. Consider for a moment some of the monstrosities of our present tariff system. Suppose you go to buy a pair of blankets. For convenience sake, let us say the price of them is $4.60. When you lay down the $4.60 and take over to yourself the bundle in which your blankets are wrapped, how much of your money is represented by act ual blanket and how much by tariff tribute? Two dollars is the amount of actual blanket you get. The other $2.60 represents the amount of tri bute which you pay to the manufact urer to protect him from imaginary competition from across the big water, and the awful irony of the situation is that this very foreigner across the big water can buy these blankets from the American manufacturer at a lower price than the home consumer can get them. The same monstrosities occur all along the line, un and down the entire scale of more than three thou sand articles which have their place in the protected list. Dress goods of a certain grade are protected bv a duty of 157 per cent, dress goods of another grade. 165 ner cent, blankets of a cer tain grade 125 ner cent, blankets of an other grade 159 per cent, cloths, wor sted and wollen, 151 per cent; other manufactures of wool 143 per cent; flannels for underwear 130 ner cent, yarns 138 per cent, shoddy, the neces sary material in the manufacture of those cheaner goods which are de signed and intended for the use of the poor people, 250 per cent. To demonstrate the outrageous in justice of such a system as this, con sider the Steel Trust. In 1904 it sold abroad $32 000.000 of its product. These goods were sold to South Amer ican farmers. Central American farm ers and consumers in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, at lower prices than they sold for at home. Anywhere from 20 per cent to 40 ner cent lower than we can get the goods here at the door of the factory, your competitors in rais ing cotton and wheat and other agri cultural products c=n secure them abroad. the officials of the Steel Trust admit that they had a clear nrof. it of $4,000,000 upon the $32 000 000 worth of goods which they sold abroad. The Chicago Chronicle, the mouthpiece of the cvctem. savs that the profit on the $32 000 000 worth of goods sold abroad was 40 per cent. It further savs that the net profit on the domestic trade is 80 ner cent to the Steel Trust. No wnnder the benefi ciaries of class legislation have built a plutocracy the I'ke of which has never been seen before in the history of the wo r ld. Now, my friends, Tam going to give you a common sense talk, without any effort at rhetoric as to what you should do to be saved. Tn the first place, you must organ ize a strictly Farmers’ Union. Your organization must reoresent your class interest. Every other interest is or ganized in just that wav. Unless you want to be the victims of their organi zations you have got to fight the devil with fire. At present, as compared to the organizations which represent other interests, you are a mob at the mercy of a disclaimed army. Labor, as such, has its federations. The farm er has not been invited to enter it. The banker has not been invited to enter it. The manufacturer is not an expected guest, the railroad boss might knock very long and very loud indeed before he got in. Tn like man ner, the banks have their organiza tions. How manv farmers have they taken into it? Don’t you think it a very cheeky thing for the bankers to be taking the lead of the cotton grow- THE WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN. ers’ organization when they them selves confine their organization to bankers? The manufacturers have their organization, and a few years ago they so far forgot themselves as to tell the real truth as to the purpose of their union. In 1898 —as I remem ber it —they declared in one of their published statements that their object is to monopolize the domestic market. In other words, no American citizen shall buy any article of necessity, com fort or luxury without doing so upon the terms dictated by the Manufactur ers’ Association. The Manufacturers’ Association has been taking farmers into their family, and yet every one of Harvie Jordan’s conventions have been more or less dominated by mem bers of the Manufacturers’ Associa tion. Now, if it be such a good thing for the manufacturers and the bank ers to come into the cotton growers’ association to direct its movements, why should not we have some reci procity about it? Why should not some of you farmers be taken into the bankers’ and manufacturers’ associa tion, and why should not they put you up as speaker at their national conventions to tell them how to man age their business? It is all nonsense to say that spinner and grower must get together. The interests of the two are competitive. Tn the very na ture of things, there is a struggle be tween the two. When the urer comes into the cotton growers’ association, he has the cotton growers at a disadvantage. Why? Because the manufacturer will be looking into your hand and seeing what cards have been dealt to you, whereas he never lets you see his cards. He will always know what is in your hand, and you will never know what is in his. Do you think you can win the game if you play it that way? Systematize your buying and sell ing. Bring into the business the co operative principle which has worked such wonders in certain parts of Eu rope. Let each buyer and each seller among the farmers have behind him the strength of all the buyers and all the sellers. Learn to move with pre cision, like soldeirs of an army march ing under uniform orders to a com mon objective, rather than as detach ed individuals moving without plan or purpose, never accomplishing what would be so easily done if you would do just as the other classes have done —organize along the line of class in terest. Study the labor problem. Watch these negro secret societies. Compel the legislature to pass a law requiring each society, white or black, to take out a license from the ordinary. Re quire each society to make a sworn statement of its purpose. Give to the ordinary visitorial power. Let it be within his province to supervise these societies and to call in the aid of the sheriff and a posse whenever it be comes necessary to break up night meetings of suspicious character. This thing of holding night meetings among the negroes, with armed senti nels on the watch-out, should be stopped. No civilized community should tolerate conspirator-like meth ods of .this kind. Comoel the negroes to do their political talking in public, just as we do ours. Study the immigration question. Do not allow the steamship companies to make of the south a dumping ground for the pauperism, anarchism and the criminality of Europe. Rather than have certain kinds of immigrants come here to the south, to make w r ar upon all established order and to de moralize our social organization, I would rather see one-half of the south grow up in old field pines to enrich the generation which shall walk over our graves. Bring as many industri ous, sober, honest Swedes as you can get to come. Bring as many Danes and Norwegians of good character as will come. Bring as many thrifty Germans and Dutchmen as will come. Bring the better class of English and Irish laborers, when they will come; but for God’s sake, beware of the low er orders and lawless classes of Eu rope, especially of Southern Europe, represented by the lower class immi grants of Southern Italy, Hungary and Poland. Waste no time and effort in try ing to limit the amount of the cotton crop. That is all childish dribble. There are eighty million people, and more, in this country today, and it would be an extremely moderate esti mate to say that the average amount of cotton goods which they should be enabled to use every year is $lO apiece. God knows that is a small allowance, but yet if we could so change conditions that the purchasing power of the people could be increased so that they can buy $lO apiece of cotton goods, you will see at a glance that we could consume here at home 16,000,000 bales of cotton, to say noth ing of Great Britain, to say nothing of continental Europe, to say nothing of Central and South America, to say nothing of the five hundred millions of people in China, Japan and the isl ands of the sea. Instead of making too much cotton we are not making one-half enough. The trouble is that the market has been destroyed, as fast as you have been increasing the goods that go to market. Bend every ener gy of your mind and soul to the great indispensable task of controlling your market. How can this be done? By lowering those high tariff walls which seal you up within a monopolized mar ket and deliver you an easy victim to the monstrous rapacity of the trusts. Let me give you an example. A few years ago President McKinley saw the necessity of making treaties with for eign countries which would enable the producers of the country to escape some of the awful conditions which had resulted from his own act. James G. Blaine, perhaps the broadest mind ed Republican which this country has ever seen until the era of Roosevelt, was in favor of reciprocity treaties. Hon. John A. Kasson was appointed to go abroad and to agree with for eign nations upon commercial treaties which would be reciprocally beneficial to the treaty making powers. One of these treaties was made by Mr. Kas son with France. France asked a slightly reduced tariff on cotton stock ings. In return she agreed to better terms for cotton seed oil. It is esti mated by those who have examined the subject carefully that the Kasson treaty would have increased the mar ket for cotton seed oil, there by benefiting every cotton grow er in the market to the ex tent of $20,000,000 per year. Did the treaty go into effect. No. Why? .Be cause a little cotton mill in New Eng land, which was engaged in manufac ture of cotton stockings, saw that it would not make its 50 per cent profit if the duties were reduced, and would probably have to content itself with the net gain of only 30 per cent. It is the disposition of the stand patter to keep all that he has got, and to grab everything else that is left, so that he will hog the whole situation. The New England cotton mill which was engaged in the manufacture of hosi ery, applied, of course, to the manu facturers’ association. The manufac turers’ association heeded the wail and the prayer of one of its members, and the consequence was that a pow erful pressure was brought to bear upon congress. Obedient to this pow erful organization of manufacturers, the senate rejected the Kasson treaty. Thus, one little New England mill by organization knocked out all the mil lions of cotton growers who were not organized, and who had no powerful associations to tell congress to kill that treaty at its peril. The cotton growers of the south lost annually a trade of $20,000,000, and it was be cause one little New England cotton mill objected to the treaty. Where were the senators of the south, that they did not h ed your in terest? Where were the great leaders of the Democratic party of the south, that they did not stand up and demand the passage of that treaty on the prin ciple of the “Greatest good to the greatest number”? The mighty voice of the manufacturers’ association spoke for the little New England cotr ton mill —not a single vcice spoke for you. If the tariff duties were lowered there would be a reduction in the price of manufactured goods. There fore a greater number of people could buy a greater amount of goods, there fore, as a child need not be told, there would be a greater demand for raw cotton, and thus of course, the price (Continued on page 12.) 5