Newspaper Page Text
PAGE SIX
Os INTEREST TO WEALTH CREATORS
THE FARMERS’ UNION AND
POLITICS.
One of the primary purposes and
cardinal principles of the Fanners’
Union is expressed in No. 8 of the
declaration of purposes, viz.:
“To advance our membership in a
correct knowledge of political econ
omy without in any sense permitting
the discussion of partisan politics or
partyism. ’ ’
This is one of the most striking
examples of “holding a promise to
the ear and breaking it to the hope”
that we ever came in contact with.
“What is political economy?” And
how is one to go about arriving at a
correct understanding of it unless he
studies and discusses it from the
standpoint of partyism?
Political economy is considered by
some to be an exact science, and
were it as exact as the science of
mathematics, there would be no diffi
culty in discussing it from a non
partisan standpoint. But political
economy is the basic principle in the
theory of government of every polit
ical organization in the universe. It
takes on as many forms and assumes
as many degrees of principle as there
are different systems and interests of
government among mankind. No two
political parties agree in their opin
ions on political economy. It is the
one fundamental principle of party
ism that keeps them all separate.
When two opposing political parties
arrive at an agreement, their amalga
mation is imminent, if indeed not al
ready cemented; for their economic
interests have become identical, as
this is what distinguishes parties.
Political principles as outlined in
party platforms merely reflect the
economic interests of the men advo
cating the respective parties. And,
as stated, the basic theory of all po
litical creeds is political economy, a
science wonderfully flexible and sub
ject to special definition by every in
dividual, class and party under or
ganized government.
There can —except in one way—be
no such thing as a “correct know
ledge of political economy,” for it is
not an established, science; there are no
fundamental, unchangeable laws
and principles establishing and defin
ing it beyond doubt and criticism.
The only way to obtain a correct
knowledge of political economy is for
all political parties to agree on a
system of finance for government;
and that is a long way off.
Political economy is the science
that affects the financing of a gov
ernment ; and every person who
knows anything about political affairs
is aware that the question of finances
is the chief point at issue between
all parties. Therefore when one dis
cusses political economy he necessar
ily invades the field of partisan poli
tics.
Os course he may skirt around the
edges and dodge in and out of the
fence corners while he talks or writes;
but there is mighty little information
to be had from such a mode of de
bate, and precious small satisfaction
to a man having a fair knowledge of
affairs of world interest, and there
is absolutely no hope of reaching a
“correct knowledge of political econ
•
WATSON’S WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN.
omy” by such method of topical dis
cussion.
Yet we do not advocate discussioi
inside the 'Union on partisan politi
cal subjects. We believe in and have
maintained a strictly neutral atti
tude with reference to politics and
the different theories of civil govern
ment.
But in discussing political issues,
it will be found impossible to under
stand all that this particular phil
osophy implies without in a general
way touching on partisan ideas; and
in doing this, it should be in the
broadest spirit of charity. It is not
necessary to speak disparagingly of
any party’s code of principles in or
der to allude casually to a specific
conception and position on a general
proposition.
The farmers, universally, favor an
income tax; none but the millionaire
oppose it. They favor the election
of United States senators by a direct
vote. None oppose the removal of
itariff taxes from the necessaries of
life. All look upon the national
banking system as an outrageous class
privilege. None oppose governmen
tal control of the railroads, or gov
ernmental loans to farmers at 2 per
cent interest. These are all questions
of political economy; in fact there
is no topic in all the wide range of
subjects affected by “political econ
omy” which can be discussed intelli
gently and with profit, unless a gen
eral review of party creeds is per
mitted. But let it be done as the
student, the philosopher, the patriot
seeking after knowledge, groping to
ward the light of economic truth,
with no bitterness in his heart nor
criticism on his tongue, with malice
toward none and with charity for all.
Then, and not until then, will the
members of the Farmers’ Union be
able to gather a correct knowledge of
“political economy.”—Oklahoma Un
ion Gazette.
MINIMUM OF THE FARMERS.
The growth of the Farmers 9 Un
ion is one of the wonders of these
times. From a quiet but earnest talk
in which five farmers participated it
has grown to be a mierhty organiza
tion numbering 1,400,000 members in
twenty-three states. The south is
fairly covered by it, and it remains
today an organization of farmers, by
farmers, for farmers. There are few
or no demagogues or politicians in
it. It stands for everything that will
help the farmer, and the south has
no organization that is more efficient
today or that promises to be more
helnful in the future. It aims to in
duce the farmers who grow cotton
to act as one man in the marketing
of their chief cash crop, and its suc
cess in that direction has been satis
factory and beneficial.
The organization sittincr at Little
Rock has just placed a 15-cent min
imum upon the new cotton crop.
There are plenty of men who will at
tack this minimum, but the assail
ants are not farmers. The farmers
think that when all other products
are commanding higher prices cot
ton should bring 15 cents. The farm
ers are entitled to a larger compen
sation in an expensive era, and the
law of supply and demand is sup
porting them in their reasonable de
mands. The minimum named at Lit
tle Rock was not hurriedly or care
lessly determined. It is the result
of a cautious and comprehensive sur
vey of the entire situation, and if the
members of the union will stand loy
ally up to it surprising good may
flow from it. The prosperity of the
south is tied up in the proposition,
and cardial co-operation on the part
of the members of the Farmers’ Un
ion can carry it to a glorious consum
mation.—Age Herad.
COTTON CROP OF 1906-07.
The annual statement of the New
York Financial Chronicle relative to
the last cotton crop is in print, and
its figures do not uphold ‘ those of
Secretary Hester in all respects. The
Chronicle makes the crop of last
year 3,550,760 bales as against* the
crop of 3,556,841 bales, grown in
1904. The two crops were almost
equal, but that of 1904 still stands
as the record of the American cotton
’ fields.
The Chronicle shows that there
was no recession last year among
southern cotton mills. They took 2,-
203,406 bales in 1904-05; in 1905-06
they took 2,398,004 bales, and in
1906-07 their consumption was 2,-
487,088 bales. These figures are sat
isfactory, for they show that the
southern mills are still cimbing up
wards. They were surpassed, it is
true, last year by the northern mills,
but that is immaterial so long as the
southern mills continue to consume
more cotton each year. The takings
of the northern and southern mills to
gether were 5,088,822 bales, or about
41 per cent of the entire American
crop. Producers of the raw material
received good prices last year, and
the mill men made money because
goods were in demand at profitable
figures. No one now fears that spin
dles will be unduly multiplied. The
chief fear is that the south with its
limited labor supply will not be able
to grow as much cotton as the world
demands. The Chronicle presents
this table of spindles in the coun
try.
Spindles— 1906-07 1905-06
North 16,200,000 15,500,000
South 9,924,245 3,181,207
Total spindles 26,124,245 24,781207
V
Spindles— 1904-05 1903-04
North 16,200,000 15,600,000
South 8,747,810 7,963,866
Total spinde Is 26,124,245 24,781,207
The Chronicle puts the number of
spindles in Alabama at 897,768 in
62 mills. These mills consumed last
year 249,119 bales, or about one-fifth
of the state’s crop. We are still the
fourth state, being outranked in or
der by North Carolina, South Caro
lina and Georgia in cotton manufac
turing.
THE COST OF PICKING THE
COTTON OROP.
For many years inventors have
been at work trying to make a ma
chine that would pick cotton. Many
such machines have been built, after
many different plans/ but none has
ever been built that would do the
work successfully. Nor is it proba
ble that a successful cotton picking
machine will ever be built, that is, a
machine which will pick all the cot
ton in a field and render picking by
hand unnecessary.
The reason for this is the fact
that the bolls on a stalk do not all
open at the same time. If cotton is
not picked soon after it opens the
greater part will fall out on the
ground under the first wind or rain.
The farmer cannot wait with his
picking until all the cotton is open,
on this account, and any machine
that is built, to drive through a cot
ton field and gather all the open cot
to nhanging irregularly on the stalks,
must necessarily ruin all that re
mains unopened. Some sort of hand
machine may be invented some time
which will assist the picker in his
work, but a cotton picking machine,
to take the place of hand picking,
will never be built.
The cost of cotton picking is a
heavy item of expense to the cot
ton grower. It takes 1,500 'pounds
of seed cotton to gin out a bale of
lint, and the price of picking now is
about 75 cents per hundred pounds.
This makes the cost of picking $11.25
per bale, or for a ten million bale
crop, $112,500,000. Cotton pickers
averaging about 100 pounds per day,
it requires fifteen days’ work for the
picking of a bale, or during a pick
ing season of ninety working days,
with an average picking of four
bales to the hand, it requires the work
of 2,500,000 hands for the entirte
time. This gives an idea of the
amount of labor and the cost of pick
ing the crop; and when it is consid
ered that cotton cannot be picked on
rainy days, and that cotton not
promptly picked suffers heavy loss,
the desire of the farmers for a cot-1
ton picking machine can be better un
derstood.
There are those who affect to be
lieve that a cotton picking machine,
if one should be invented, would ruin
the country, but such fears are idle.
It would materially cheapen the cost
of production and it would largely
increase the yield, for that is now re
stricted, not by the capacity or limit
of production, but by the limit of
ithe picking capacity. Almost every
planter could and would plant more
cotton could he have the assurance,
which a successfully working picking
machine would give, of having his
cotton promptly picked out But a
cotton picking machine could not
revolutionize the cotton growing in
dustry more than did the cotton gin,
and just as the business adjusted it
self to suit the gin, so it would ad
just itself to suit the cotton picker.
But, as stated above, it seems im
possible that a successful cotton pick
ing machine will ever be built, and
the hundred million dollars or more
which is now annually paid the cot
ton pickers will remain, to go imme
diately and directly into the chan
nels of trade in the cotton belt each
season.—Augusta Herald.
At a recent Newport dinner, a nibn
key was the lion of the evening; and ’
that’s no nature fake, either.