4 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
Farm Politics. 
Here it is proposed to discuss with freedom and fairness, ques¬ 
tions of National or State policy that particularly concern farm¬ 
ers. The editors disclaim responsibility for the opinions of cor¬ 
respondents. The object is to develop a true and fair basis for 
organization among farmers. Let us think out just what we want 
and then strive for it. 
PAY THAT DEBT ! 
It is thought by many that the present monetary 
stringency is partially due to the last election and the fear 
inspired by the cheap money advocates. Quite as many 
people think that the government should in some way 
pour out more money and that the present crisis is the re¬ 
sult of lack of money. Without going into any of the 
generally alleged causes, here are a few suggestions. The 
whole savings of the United States is only five cents a day 
for each person or 25 cents for a family of five, and yet 
this small increment includes the net income from our im¬ 
mense extent of railroads, telegraphs, etc., and the in¬ 
crease of wealth in our numerous cities with all their 
private buildings and public works. If the government 
should increase the amount of money during the coming 
year one cent per day for each person, it would increase 
the volume of currency $200,000,000. But the reverse of 
the case is equally true: If every person hoards an extra 
one cent per day the currency is contracted $200,000,000. 
Now I believe in economy and am not arguing against it 
in any form; but there is in the house or pocketbook of 
every average reader of this paper $10 or $20, and every 
average reader owes somebody either that or some other 
amount. Don’t delay payment, anticipate payment 
whenever possible. If every person will follow this ad¬ 
vice it will do more for relieving hard times and more for 
increasing the prices of agricultural products than all the 
farmers’ conventions. That farmer who owes a bill and 
can pay it to-day but puts it off till to-morrow commits a 
crime against society. Connecticut farmer. 
“THE PATENT IS A TAX.” 
I was favorably impressed by The Rural’s remarks 
upon the patent abuses in a recent issue. Under our 
present system we virtually give to the holders of United 
States patents the right to tax us at their own discretion ; 
in fact, we give to them governmental powers over us, the 
general public. I think the best solution of this matter 
would be the appointment or election of a board of 
commissioners to examine all inventions, put a value 
upon them, the government to take any it may want at 
this valuation for the free use of the whole people. If we 
are to become democratic in reality we must utterly 
abolish governmental powers by one individual over 
another, or over the masses, and by giving anybody the 
right of taxation, we give him this. We must remember 
that the assumption of such a right of taxation without 
representation was the main cause of the separation of the 
13 colonies from the Mother Country in 1776, which, after 
a long and bloody war, resulted in the establishment of 
our present republican form of government. The moment 
we grant a monopoly to any individual, that moment we 
in a degree become the slaves of that monopoly. Just 
government was instituted and should be maintained for 
the equal protection of all in the procurement and 
maintenance of life, liberty and happiness. The sole 
proper object of all social regulation is the enforcement 
of the recognition of these rights of the individual. 
When society becomes fully educated as to its proper 
rights and duties and fully recognizes the rights of the 
individual, we shall have the true ideal of a just and equal 
government, and not before. william HANCOCK. 
Luzerne County, Pa. 
R. N.-Y.—The Scientific American informs us that it is 
proposed to celebrate at Washington, in April 1891, the 
centennial of the United States Patent System, though 
this will mark the 101st year of the system’s life. On 
July 31, 1790, one Samuel Hopkins was awarded a patent 
for making pot and pearl ashes. There were but three 
other patents issued during that year. In 1791, 33 patents 
were issued with 11 in 1792. For the single week, ending 
December 16, ’90, 484 patents were issued. The S. A. goes on 
to say that “the whole modern system of existence de¬ 
pends on the inventors.” We are not disposed to question 
that statement at all, but this existence certainly does not 
depend upon our present patent system. We do not ob¬ 
ject to the wealth created by the inventors, but we do ob¬ 
ject to the present mode in which that wealth is divided. 
ARGUMENTS FOR THE “SINGLE TAX.” 
I think The Rural New-Yorker of December 6 makes 
a rather low estimate of the number of people in this 
country who believe in absolute free trade. Why is not a 
system of direct taxation far preferable to any tariff that 
human ingenuity can devise ? Tariffs may protect the 
manufacturer and the landlord, but a tariff for the benefit 
of the laborer and the consumer never existed. The aver¬ 
age farmer’s interest as a laborer and consumer is larger 
than his interest as a manufacturer or a landlord, there¬ 
fore he will be benefited by free trade and direct taxation. 
As the New York Times has stated: “The ideal of taxation 
lies in the single tax on land laid exclusively on its rental 
value, independent of improvements.” 
Let those who say that the single tax would burden the 
farmer remember that it is a tax not on the area hut on 
the value of the land. When values rather than areas are 
considered the farmer is a small user of land. Boston 
alone contains 45 per cent of the land values of Massachu¬ 
setts. This whole township of 9,000 acres contains less 
land value than one-fourth of an acre anywhere along 
Washington Street, and it would take the land in 35 towns 
like this, to equal in value a certain acre m New York city. 
In nearly every case land forms a larger proportion of the 
whole valuation in the city than in the country. Land con¬ 
stitutes 45 per cent of the valuation of Boston, while it 
forms but 31 per cent of the value of the farming township 
in which I write. With 45 per cent of the land values, 
Boston pays but 35 per cent of the direct taxes levied in 
Massachusetts, and the 25 cities of that State with 77 per 
cent of the land values, pay but 70 per cent of the taxes. 
Do not these figures prove that the single tax would 
shift some part of the weight of taxation from country to 
city ? But whether the taxes fell on country or city, they 
would never be a burden. They would not fall on produc¬ 
tion, but on opportunities for labor. The productive en¬ 
terprises of country or city would not be burdened, those 
alone would suffer who are not putting their land to its 
best use. 
There is another way of getting at the farmer’s share of 
the single tax. To find the site value of land it is neces¬ 
sary to consider it as stripped of all its buildings and 
stock, fences, stone walls, etc., and of all the improve¬ 
ments which have been made upon it. Consider how 
much it would bring on account of its location in its 
natural state before it was touched by the hand of man. 
Take five per cent on that value which will be a fair rental. 
That will be the tax. Consider what is now paid in direct 
taxes on buildings and personal property; in taxes which 
are shifted upon the farmer by the grocer, the butcher, the 
dry goods dealer, the plumber and others; in tariffs and 
internal revenue taxes and the profits on them, which are 
realized by every one who handles the goods, from the 
producer or the importer to the consumer; in the high 
price of coal and other mineral products caused by land 
monopoly, and in the freights made heavy by the franchise 
monopoly. Then consider whether taxes would be higher 
than they are now. 
The working farmer’s interest as a laborer and capitalist 
is always greater than his interest as a landlord. As a 
laborer, as a capitalist, as a consumer, he will be benefited 
by the single tax. As a landlord he will find his occupa¬ 
tion gone. If his unearned increment is larger than the 
product of his labor and the earnings of the money he has 
invested, it is for his interest financially to have the 
present system continued. Otherwise it is not. [The 
“unearned increment” is the value added to the “site 
value” by the buildings or other improvements made on 
the adjacent property. This “ increment” of value is due 
to the labors or expenditures of others, and is therefore 
unearned by the occupant of the land. Under the single 
tax system this would have to bear the chief burden of 
taxation.—E ds.] 
In looking at this question let him consider the social 
and moral advantages which the “single tax” will bring ; 
let him consider the prospects of his children and he will 
not oppose it. s. h. howes. 
Worcester County, Mass. 
A FOREIGNER HAS HIS SAY. 
A Wisconsin writer on page 854 appears patriotically 
to disapprove alike of “whisky” and foreigners. Does he 
for a moment suppose there is any connection between the 
two ? Of course, some foreigners are just as big fools as 
most natives in drinking the stuff, but while indulging in 
the vice they don’t boast of the opposite virtue. Among 
such people as that Wisconsin correspondent there’s a 
great deal of talk of temperance, teetotalism, etc.; how do 
they put their boasted morality into practice ? At the 
last election in this State there were three candidates for 
governor—a Republican, a Democrat, who was also a 
Farmers’ Alliance man, and a Prohibitionist. The Dem¬ 
ocrat received about 120,000 votes; the Republican about 
70,000 and the Prohibitionist less than 10,000 1 There are 
but few foreigners here, and all of these cannot vote. Were 
they to blame for the shameful defeat of Prohibition ? 
Our friend tells us that the Americans in Wisconsin are 
selling out, and that foreigners are taking their places. 
Are the Americans disposing of their homesteads at a loss, 
and are the naughty foreigners “jumping” their lands or 
forcing the owners to sell them for a “song ” ? Are the 
newcomers supplanting the old because they are lazier, 
boozier, and more prodigal, or because they are more indus¬ 
trious, sober and thrifty ? Is the land promised to the good 
or the bad ? Shouldn’t Americans who know the country 
and its ways and the soil and its capabilities ; who profess 
to be the smartest and best educated people on the globe, 
blush to own that they cannot hold their own, though 
already in possession, against poor strangers who, accord¬ 
ing to them, are much worse fitted to cope with the diffi¬ 
culties of the agricultural or any other situation? After all, 
aren’t Americans a trifle inconsistent? The making of 
money appears to be the great object of their lives, and a 
soon as they cease to make or begin to lose it, they are 
ever ready to attribute the blame to somebody else, and 
look about for somebody to kick for their own mishaps. 
Of course as long as there is a ryot in Bengal, or a mujikin 
the Crimea to raise competing wheat; a coolie in Cuba or 
Hawaii to raise competing sugar, or a peon to raise com¬ 
peting wool in the Argentine Republic, the American 
farmer will find somebody to kick for his misfortunes, 
when he is not bestowing the same attention on his own 
government 
Then again, how inconsistent to rail at foreign immigrants 
after spending thousands of dollars to tempt them to these 
shores. In what corner of Europe are not the laboring 
people and the lower middle classes as well as the ad¬ 
venturous and enterprising—all those who wish to better 
their condition and have spirit enough to risk a long 
journey and a residence in a strange land among a strange 
people with strange customs and a strange language—in 
what corner of Europe are not these tempted to come hither 
by the alluring representations of the agents of many of 
your States, your railroads and your vast land syndicates? 
From one end of the world to the other Americans adver¬ 
tise their country as the land of cheap homes, of high 
JAN. 3 
wages, of long credit, the land where all are welcome, 
where the “ good time ” that has long been “ comiDg ” is 
at length realized; “where a man is a man if he is willing 
to toil, and the humblest may gather the fruits of the soil;” 
and then, forsooth, they are astonished and alarmed at 
the multitude who take advantage of their offers and put 
faith in their vaporings. Is it necessary to speak English 
to be a good citizen of a republic ? Is it necessary for all to 
speak a single language ? For a model republic who would 
look to America with its 100 years of slavery, fratricide 
and turmoil rather than to Switzerland with its 500 years 
of patriotic independence and individual contentment ? 
For centuries some of the Swiss have spoken German, 
some French and some Italian; but all have always been 
staunch brother republicans. Is it necessary to be able to 
read and write the English language to cast an intelligent 
vote? Some years ago Americans spent tens of thousands 
of lives and billions of money in cash and other property 
to make the negroes their equals. Well, they are nomin¬ 
ally equal politically now, and each of the adult colored 
males has at least the right to cast a vote which will count 
as much as that of any scientist, statesman or other wise¬ 
acre in the land, yet how many of them can read and write 
the English or any other language? Is an educated man 
who can read and write thoroughly from one to a dozen 
other languages, but whose knowledge of English is im¬ 
perfect, less able to vote intelligently on political or other 
subjects in this country than a Congo field hand who 
in 25 years of freedom has not learnt even the 
alphabet of any language ? There is little immigra¬ 
tion to the South because white immigrants will 
not compete with the dusky descendants of Ham. If the 
Northern people, who are so much in love with the negro 
as to make such enormous sacrifices to put him on a level 
with themselves, but who object to white immigrants 
from across the Atlantic,wish to prevent the inrush of the 
latter, let them cease to spread misrepresentations broad¬ 
cast in every corner of the world ; or, better still, let them 
import 5,000,000 or so of their favorites from the Niger or 
Congo and scatter them through the land, and few Euro¬ 
peans will come to oust them from their chores or shanties. 
Williamson County, Tenn. j. BUCHI. 
A VOICE FROM CONNECTICUT. 
It seems as if no one could be otherwise than interested 
in the departments of The Rural devoted to farm poli¬ 
tics. It is astonishing, however, with what tenacity many 
of our farmers still stick to their old party affiliations. 
There are some of us here in Connecticut who think we 
know that to the farmers does not belong the credit of the 
political overturning which occurred in November. Not 
many weeks ago the R. N.-Y. in speaking of the results of 
the late elections said: “There is no disguising the fact 
that the country has pronounced against the McKinley 
Tariff Bill.” “ This sentence is most pronounced in New 
England, the results in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New 
Hampshire and Rhode Island being directly attributable 
to the tariff discussioos.” That the results are attribu¬ 
table to the tariff discussions I will admit, but that to the 
farmers belongs this credit, if credit it may be called, I 
deny, and in order to prove my position I am prepared to 
quote facts. 
The Congressional district in which I reside is now rep¬ 
resented by Hon. Wm. E. Simonds, a Republican, but a 
man who has done more to uphold and protect the inter¬ 
ests of farmers in his district than any other man that has 
been elected to fill the same position in years. At the late 
election he was again the Republican candidate, but was 
defeated by the Democratic nominee. This is a represen¬ 
tative agricultural as well as a representative manufactur¬ 
ing district of the State and of New England. During 
much of the time in the past this district has been repre¬ 
sented by Republican candidates, but four years ago Rob¬ 
ert E. Vance, the Democratic nominee, was elected on ac¬ 
count of his known affiliation with the labor party. Two 
years ago, however, he was defeated by Simonds, for at 
that time, while his known affiliations were with the labor 
element, yet the workingmen were afraid of him on ac¬ 
count of his Democratic (free trade) tendencies, and hence 
voted for Simonds, the Protectionist, they having been 
taught to believe that free trade meant low prices, while 
protection, on the other hand, assured them high prices for 
their labor. 
Again, then, this same element which four years ago 
changed the political aspect of the district and elected a 
Democrat, two years ago returned a Republican on the 
ground that protection was a necessity, and now again 
this year defeated the same man, fearing the results of 
protection and high prices. To the farmer does not belong 
the credit of such changeability,hence I say to the farmers 
of New England does not belong the credit of the politi¬ 
cal overturning which occurred a few weeks ago, but 
rather to the laboring classes, who saw in the high 
prices demanded by the McKinley Tariff Bill harder 
times (with no corresponding increase of wages) than they 
had.everseen before! It is true, however, that some of our 
farmers are abandoning their farms and moving to the 
villages in order to secure a livelihood from work in the 
shops at uncertain wages. This is our boasted New Eng¬ 
land of to day ! _ geo. j. hadsell. 
The Election of a United States Senator in Kan¬ 
sas to succeed Ingalls is arousing more excitemenr among 
Alliance men everywhere, but particularly in the West, 
than even the election of Tillman in South Carolina or 
Gordon in Georgia. Not only are the Alliance men in the 
State bitterly opposed to the reelection of the present 
vitriolic Senator, but advices from Dakota to Oregon, and 
Virginia to Texas, urge them to stand firm and never sur¬ 
render. Ingalls, however, professes to feel sure of his 
reelection, chiefly through the expected defection of some 
of the Alliance members of the legislature. 
