Newspaper Page Text
PAGE SIX
Tarniers’ Union Department
THE FARMERS UNION AND IMMI
GRATION.
(Columbia Sentinel.)
From the Sentinel's standpoint it
is gratifying to see the stand taken
by the Farmers’ Union in a recent
resolution against immigration, so
much talked of through the press and
generally backed up by the daily pa
pers of the state.
If there was a guarantee that all the
immigrants would be of the right kind,
then it might be well to agitate and
push the movement, but this, accord
ing to our way of thinking, is one
of the very serious unknown quanti
ties. To have a nationality of people
brought into this state and put in
association with our people that in a
few years may give us a great deal
of trouble is not one of the desirable
things, as we see it; and, then, if
they come here as skilled workmen,
having been accustomed to lower
wages than that obtained here, it will
bring on discontent and friction.
If it is to take place of the negro and
do the work he is doing on the farm
and elsewhere, where is the assurance
that they will do, for any length of
time, that class of work any more sat
isfactorily than the negro is doing it?
Take the generality of farmers ami
they will tell you that the negro as
a farm laborer, properly controlled,
is the best class of labor that can be
obtained, that is, best suited to our
habits and customs.
To come to the point, plainly and
frankly, the immigration of a foreign
element into this state, as we see
it, is not only not needed, but unde
sirable. Too frequently have the re
ports of anarchy, disruption and blood
shed come to us from other states
and sections, growing out of such an
element.
The better plan, in our judgment,
is to endeavor to improve our methods
with the labor we already have until
better and more satisfactory results
are obtained.
Again, we say the Farmers’ Union
did the right thing in declaring against
the immigration business.
(Seattle Patriarch.)
The four most most prominent fig
ures before the American people to
day are: President Roosevelt, Tom
Watson, W. J. Bryan, W. R. Hearst,
The first of these (the president)
whatever he proclaims is from prin
ciple, not from policy; whatever Tom
Watson declares, it is from principle,
not policy; whatever W. J. Bryan
says is from policy, not from principle,
he is bringing up in the rear, and he
is echoing the principles of the other
two, from policy. W. J. B. is not a
fearless leader of the vanguard. It is
amusing to hear the Democratic party
slave, with his parroting keg meg
(which is a choice morsel to him) de
clare that “Bryan is not greater than
his party.’’ Never was a plainer truth
spoken. Bryan cannot rise above
those who have manipulated him for
years; directly or indirectly he must
wear their collar. W. .1. Bryan is not
a “beacon light.” President Roosevelt
is "greater than his party.” Tom Wat
son is “greater than his party.” These
two great men are “greater than their
party,” as a husband and father is
greater than his family, or as the
captain of a ship is greater than the
crew, or as a general is greater than
the whole rank and file of the army.
Every one of the greatest presidents
has been greater than his party, as
much so as Moses, the great law giver,
' & L ! i j|||i
/ a drearu look J i Hill
\And robs life j
♦of ilc cheer %l iL |||||
To close lhe id He red
lesson book
find leave our leader -* uu
I But best of friends A
I must sone time part i /L
| find so I'll say I I
That such a sadness /SB wwlflr
/ills my heart iWWvk i/fe® ffl
/ don't knoiu uihai I 0 ' iwfffllL’ wv t
> iodo.
JF| wWWj
fi
THE LAST DAY.
From Fort Worth Telegram.
was greater than the people of Israel,
whom he “took out of bondage,” and
so it ever has been, and ever will be
with “great leaders.” Now let the de
generate “levelers” shout “hero wor
ship.” Os the three aforementioned
we can write intelligently and main
tain our premises, but of W. R. Hearst;
we are not so sure. He creates in
our mind admiration, speculation and
doubt, but we must give him the bene
fit of the doubt, for the last four years
of his public life he has shown a
worthy ambition, associated with un
common valor.
OUT IN WASHINGTON.
(Farmers’ Advocate.)
“Organization and co-operation” was
the slogan at. the court house this af
ternoon when nearly 100 farmers met
to join the Farmers’ Co-operative and
Educational Union of America.
Seldom has the old court house held
such an interested audience of repre
sentative grain growers and producers
as listened to strong and pointed ad
dresses by leading farmers of the com
munity on the necessity of united ef
fort to meet the changed conditions of
the twentieth century.
State Organizer Wayman again ex
plained his object in coming here and
after a lucid and brief talk he gave the
floor to President Scott of (he local
union and other well known men of
the country who have already joined.
It will be the aim of every mem
ber present to interest his neighbors
who have not joined the union in an
effort to make Walla Walla the fore
most center of the organization in the
state and every member who spoke ex
pressed the firmest convictions that
this object will be attained as soon as
the advantages offered are made
known to everybody.
So rapidly has the union taken hold
around Waitsburg and Prescott that
nearly 200 farmers have joined the or
der, about 75 going in at each place
today.
WATSON'S WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN.
One of the strongest arguments used
in favor of the association was that
illustrated by Local Organizer Cox,
who recalled Congressman Ellis’
speech to the commercial club. Ellis
said while he was trying to get a bill
passed opening the Columbia river a
delegation arrived from New York, and
after getting the floor for a few min
utes succeeded in having a bill simi
lar to EHis’ passed almost unanimous
ly. When his bill came up immediate
ly afterwards it received two votes, his
own and the other Oregon senator. The
first bill was passed because of organi
zation, the second was lost for lack of
it. —Walla Walla Statesman.
INCOME TAX.
(Birmingham Age-Herald.)
The French people have incopor
ated an income tax in their fiscal
scheme, and they expect to collect
$24,000,000 a year from 10,000,000 tax
able families. The exemption of in
comes does not extend beyond SI,OOO,
and in France wealth is more evenly
distributed than it is in this country
of Dingley duties, trusts and fran
chises.
Os civilized countries there are now
only five that do not derive revenue
from an income tak, the most easily
borne and justest tax in the world,
Those five countries are the United
States, Russia, Belgium, Hungary and
Portugal. It is high time the United
States drew out of the Russian-Portu
gal class, and when the people gain
control of this country it will be taken
out.
The wonder is that the French peo
ple did not long ago adopt an income
tax. They are thrifty and they have a
great deal of business sense. They
sometimes invest in Panama canal
bonds, which did not pan out, but as
a rule their investments are sound and
satisfactory. They will certainly re
tain their new income tax after they
see how easily it is borne.
THE LAW OF PRICE.
(By T. J. Brooks, state secretary Farm
ers’ Union, Atwood, Tenn.)
One of three things or a com
bination of them controls the price
of absolutely everything bought and
sold.
1. The law of supply and demand.
2. A trust.
3. Speculation.
When not interfered with by arti
ficial means the law of supply and de
mand regulates price (not forgetting
that the supply and demand of money
acts conjointly with the supply and de
mand of that which money buys). But
very few articles of modern commerce
are not interfered with by artificial
means. Articles perishable in quality
and limited in use —truck gardening
products, strawberries, tomatoes, etc.
—are subject to the fluctuations of
spasmodic supplies and sporadic de
mands. But articles non-perishable in
quality and in general use, such as
cotton, grain, meats, machinery, coal,
etc., are not subject to violent fluctu
ations in the market if the price is con
trolled by the law of supply and de
mand or regulated by a trust. Only
speculation operates to suddenly
change price on that for which is a
constant demand and a general sup
ply. So that when commodities of
this kind vary in price so as to bring
about “bucket shop” quotations on
“futures” you may know that specula
tion is setting the price. The law of
supply does not operate that way.
Nor does a trust allow its output to
vary in value by the “clicker's” points
manipulated by “riggers” on ’change.
You do not buy futures on coal oil,
beef, steel, or any of the great com
modities handled by trusts. The supply
is regulated to demand at a fixed scale
of prices and furnished to consumers
only as they pay the price. A trust
does not allow itself to be bankrupt
by overproduction. It matters not how
many new oil wells are developed it
does not tumble the price of oil below
the cost of production—the trust sees
after the supply and the price. Go
through the list of trust-handled ar
ticles of commerce and the underly
ing business principle is the same —
regulate supply to demand according
to the law of controlled markets.
It is not a question with the con
sumer whether or not he wants to pat
ronize the trusts —he has it to do.
Nor is it a matter of choice whether
any of us or all of us want to patron
ize the farmer —we simply have it to
de or change worlds.
The condition calls for a system of
self-defense on the part of the farmer,
and the Farmers Educational and Co
operative Union of America is supply
ing this system. If the farmer ever ex
pects to avoid the calamities of spec
ulation, which does not add one cent
to the wealth of any country—he must
go into the regulating business. It
does not remedy things to complain of
the other fellow. That has been tried
and laughed at as being childish. He
goes right on just the same. We as
producers can either match the day in
which we live, through co-operation, or
take the consequence, whichever we
prefer. It is a matter of choice to be
determined by the degree of business
intelligence possessed by the produc
ers.
The city wage earner, in all the
trades, the miner, the corporation em
ploye, all organize and place a value
upon their time. They do not own the
articles they make, so they can only
price time. The employer prices the