FARMERS TO THE FRONT 169 



there is no tendency to the confiscation of property 

 nor anything that will check enterprise, nor limit 

 ambition or kill incentive to efforts. But if two 

 classes of citizens got into a controversy causing in- 

 convenience and loss to the whole community, it is 

 very probable that all the people, acting through 

 their government, would intervene to protect them- 

 selves and to end the quarrel. The Interstate Com- 

 merce Commission even now may say that a certain 

 railroad rate is unreasonable, though it may not fix 

 a reasonable rate. Under the new order the nation 

 might do the latter thing — and it would be no very 

 great extension of power. If it were found that the 

 butchers were charging prices for meat out of all 

 proportion to the cost of the cattle that they bought 

 — as they have been known to do — the government, 

 in the interest of all, would almost certainly order 

 the price to be reduced. The coal strike of 1902-3 

 could have been ended before the evil effects of it 

 were felt outside of the neighborhood where it start- 

 ed ; and who will claim that immeasurable suffering, 

 inconvenience and financial loss all over the country 

 should be endured just because a few miners and 

 operators disagree? If a government is not for this 

 purpose, pray, what is it for? In the controversy, 

 which it has been suggested might arise between the 

 farmers and the consumers as to the price of farm 

 products, the government would impose its just will 

 on both parties to the quarrel and see that a fair and 

 reasonable price was established. In a word, it would 



