Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.