CAPITAL AND LABOR— THE FARMER'S RELATION TO BOTH. 23 



price of products. Cheap labor is obliged to curtail all its expenses. The pro- 

 duct of the farm or factory must lose its labor patron if that patron is not 

 given a remunerative wage for his share in producing that product. Labor 

 drops from the list of consumers when you deny it a purchasing power. This 

 power comes only from a proper remuneration for work performed. High 

 wages must of necessity increase the co>^t and thereby the price of production. 

 Does this mean that increased wages, increasing the price of productions will 

 benefit both capital and labor? We think it does. Capital, by increasing 

 wages, increases a demand for its productions. The per cent of expense added 

 to the cost of production by an increase of wages is very much less than 

 the per cent, of increase of labor's power to purchase, while the increase of 

 demand causes also an increase in the employment of labor and further power 

 of purchase. 



Then capital, having to supply a demand at fair prices, is accumulating, and 

 labor, with fair wages, is having a life with its rightful share of blessings, and 

 is also accumulating. At this stage capital and labor assimilate and both are 

 prosperous. As the first drops out of active life labor takes it place, for by 

 .accumulation of savings over consumption, it has become capital. This capital 

 is not necessarily in money form; it may be in merchandise, or machinery, or 

 acres of laud. We said that to take advantage of an over-supply of labor by 

 the reduction of wages was to oppress labor. If you have in your minds the 

 question as to how we would treat labor when the supply is greater tlian the 

 demand, if not by a reduction of its cost, we answer, it should not be treated as 

 a commodity that can be dispensed with, but as an essential, which alone can 

 place a commodity in the market. 



Before closing this talk it may be our privilege to give some figures showing 

 what creates surplus labor, but at present we remark, if capital will refuse to 

 be influenced by the surplus quantity and pay labor the highest wage consistent 

 with the transaction of a profitable business, then both will be benefited. 

 Depression in busines may arise from various causes. Time will not permit 

 entering into a discussion of those causes. In the overcoming of the ditficul- 

 ties superinduced by depression of business, let the retrenchment of the expense 

 account cover every other point before labor is encroached upon. When such 

 action influences capital then labor can not complain of oppression. The poet, 

 Lowell, says: 



" The moral question's oUus plain enough — 

 It's jes' the human natur' side that's tough'; 

 Wut's best to think mayn't puzzle me nor you, — 

 The pinch comes in decidin' wut to dw." 



Suppose now that when the " pinch " comes we apply the Golden Eule, liave 

 we not a remedy? By doing unto or treating with others as we would that 

 they should do unto or treat with us, can we not dissolve the " tough " side of 

 .nature and remove all oppression either real or imaginary? 



We come now to the second part of our subject — the relation of the farmer 

 to both capitol and labor. We will confine ourselves in this talk to our own 

 State except when speaking of imigration to the United States or giving brief 

 accounts of farm Avork in other foreign countries. 



First. The relation of the farmer to capital. What is it? We answer, 

 ownership! The farm is capital; the farmer possesses capital; therefore, if Web- 

 ster rightly defines the word, the farmer is a capitalist. I am aware that I am 

 speaking to a greater number of farmers, either active or retired, than any 



