24 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. JAN. io 
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. 
ONE THING AT A TIME. 
I think no one can dispute the soundness of the state¬ 
ments made by Prof. Sanborn in The R. N.-Y. of Decem¬ 
ber 20. The most earnest Alliance man would hardly “de¬ 
mand a whit more than absolute equity.” But what is 
absolute equity ? What is “ the useful—the end of politi¬ 
cal economy?” There’s the rub. To determine this is the 
object of all political discussion, and I am sure Prof. San¬ 
born can help us in the matter. We must remember, too, 
that in our country the only way to get anything settled 
is to talk about it, get everybody to talk about it and 
think about it. When this sort of thing has gone on long 
enough we register our decision at the polls, and that ques¬ 
tion is disposed of. 
From this it follows that we cannot profitably talk in 
politics of many things at once. If we do, we get none of 
them settled. One thing at a time seems a safe rule, and 
for this reason I am led to ask : “ Is not the Alliance at¬ 
tempting too much ?” If we thoroughly talk over the 
principles that underlie the question of national taxation, 
and discuss them from a business point of view to the end 
that we may wisely determine what is right and useful 
and bo prepared to intelligently direct the policy of the 
government on these lines as regards this question, will 
not that fully occupy our spare time for the next two 
years? When this question is definitely and finally 
settled, we can then take up some one of the other ques¬ 
tions propounded by the Alliance, and talk it over in the 
same way, the object always being to find out what is just 
aud useful and thus wisely and definitely determine the 
policy of the government. On this plan, I see no need for 
a Farmers’ Alliance as a third political party; but great 
need of such an organization to carry on such discussion of 
political questions as The Rural has begun. 
In such a discussion of the tariff question, how would 
this statement suit Geo. F. Marshall? “A tariff for 
revenue, sufficient for the needs of the government eco¬ 
nomically administered, and so adjusted as to make the 
least possible interference with business.” Suppose 
we begin as farmers to talk about such a tariff, or a differ¬ 
ent kind of tariff in the light of what is just and useful, 
not for farmers as farmers alone; but for farmers as citizens 
of the republic, and for all other citizens of the republic. 
For a starter I will ask : What is the basis of all trade, 
foreign or domestic ? Is it not a benefit—a profit ? In the 
case of foreign trade, if the profit to us ceases,will not the 
trade stop ? 
Do we then need the wisdom of Congress to direct us as 
to when aud with whom we should trade ? w. T. RIGBY. 
Cedar County, Iowa. 
NO STOCK IN “ CLASS LEGISLATION.” 
I do not take any stock in those farmers who clamor for 
class legislation in their favor. There never has been 
more infamous class legislation than that which taxes the 
lard of the hog and the tallow of the cow for the beuefit of 
the butter of the cow: or, in other words, the.oleomargar- 
ine laws. [Was there ever a greater fraud than that prac¬ 
ticed for years by the makers and dealers in this product, 
in palming off their concoction on the public as genuine 
butter aud usually at butter prices or, at any rate, at 
prices only so little under butter prices as to leave them a 
large margin of profit while driving the imitated article 
out of the market ? Every means was tried in vain to 
put an end to such trickery, and the anti-oleo law was 
passed as likely to be the least ineffective. Had not the 
“oleo” business been nurtured and grown monstrous by 
fraud, the anti-oleo laws could never have been passed. 
There doubtless are some strong objections to them ; but 
who can suggest a better mode of checking this fraud ?— 
Eds.] That legislation which is asked to tax cotton-seed 
oil for the benefit of the hog is just as bad. That which is 
asked to practically donate the public funds to farmers 
and not to others is 10 times worse and fraught with 
financial ruin to the men who ask it and everybody else. 
The condition of farmers and laboring men as compared 
with other classes has been steadily improving ever since 
I can remember. The produce of the farm and of man’s 
labor will bring him more of everything he needs to buy 
than ever it would before within my knowledge, and yet 
these men are howling worse than ever over their miser¬ 
able condition, i. e., some of them are. The more circum¬ 
stances favor them, the worse they howl. Men who are 
receiving salaries of $3 to $10 per day are foremost in de¬ 
manding more. There never has been ranker injustice 
done by anybody than is daily being done by the labor or¬ 
ganizations, which would starve a fellow-workman and 
his family if he did not belong to their organization. No 
abuse or maltreatment is too bad for these men to inflict 
on such of their fellow men as do not wish to join in their 
system of strikes. It is perfectly right and proper that 
men of any class or condition should band together for 
their own good so long as they seek to advance their inter¬ 
ests only by honorable, upright means. It is perfectly 
right and proper that every article sold for food, medicine 
or any other use should be sold for just what it is and that 
laws to that effect should be enforced. There should be 
general laws for that purpose instead of special acts lim¬ 
ited to single articles. But those men who would tax one 
food product for the special benefit of those producing an¬ 
other food product all within our own territory, and those 
men who undertake to say that their neighbors shall not be 
permitted to work for such wages as they choose to accept 
ought to be summarily squelched. There is a good deal of 
vicious humbuggery being advocated now-a-days by pro¬ 
fessional jawsmiths, that is a deal worse than any of the 
present abuses of which legitimate complaint is made. 
Kalamazoo County, Mich. F. hodgman. 
WAS IT A LESSON IN POLITICAL ECONOMY ? 
About 20 years ago I was teaching a school in a New 
England village. Many of the 121 pupils enrolled were 
poor and bought writing paper by the sheet, and other 
school supplies in the smallest possible quantities, at the 
highest possible prices. Every day several children would 
ask permission to step across the street to purchase some 
trifle. The habit had been formed and proved annoying. 
The teacher proposed that some one of the older scholars 
should open a supply store in the school room, where, at 
intermissions, needed supplies could be purchased cheaply 
and with little trouble. For some reason no one of the 
boys would agree to open such a store. The teacher then 
said: “ I will do it.” Accordingly slate pencils were pur¬ 
chased wholesale at 16 cents per hundred and sold without 
profit, six pencils for one cent, and other articles propor¬ 
tionately cheap, the teacher thinking that perhaps public 
sentiment would object to his making a profit from the 
children under his charge. The outcome was wholly un¬ 
expected. Did the pupils hoard or economize their sup¬ 
plies ? It may be depended upon that the son and daugh¬ 
ter of Patrick McPeters, lately from Galway, who earned 
$100 per month, and loaded his table the day after pay-day 
with plum-pudding, mince pie, roast beef, halibut, turkey 
and whatever else seemed to him good to eat, and contented 
himself, perforce, the day before pay-day with codfish and 
potatoes, did not hoard or economize their cheap pencils. 
In the midst of abundance there was a greater number of 
requests for the loan of pencils than had ever before been 
known in that school. They were scattered about the floor, 
a broken pencil not being worth stooping for. It went with¬ 
out saying that the pencil had no value which the average 
pupil felt bound to respect. Some neglected to supply 
themselves, trusting to chance to make good their needs. 
Was notthatschool typical of the great world outside? The 
pupils were not careful, economical, prudent from teaching 
and principle—in fact, they had small ideas of true econ¬ 
omy; living in a poor way from necessity, many of them 
never having had a surplus to handle; some of them the 
representatives of the nations whose peasants are near the 
starvation line, were less economical than they whose lives 
are cast in the midst of abundance. It may be asked, if 
ever since the world began any people has had such treas¬ 
ures of food as our own. And was ever any people, as a 
whole, so wasteful? Food, educational and religious op¬ 
portunities, freedom of thought and action and thousands 
of other precious things, common, abundant and free, are 
not properly appreciated and utilized, and are least 
appreciated and utilized by those who have here¬ 
tofore had the least chance in life. The mind-cramped 
and body-starved races of the Old World cannot quickly 
receive and assimilate all the good things, at once, that 
the New World offers them. But our conglomerate 
people will come out all right in the end, the true appre¬ 
ciation of a free government Increasing with the exercise 
of its functions. The starved animal or plant cannot be 
made to thrive generously. The liberal-minded devise 
liberal things. Great-lovers of mankind are never devel¬ 
oped from beings who have not basked in the rays of a 
potential love. o. Howard. 
Weld County, Colorado. 
INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS CO-OPERATION. 
John Warr’s letter, on page 876, interests me. But he 
does not understand the American character, or he would 
not plead for cooperative action, beyond the absolute ne¬ 
cessity for it. Almost every one of a kindly disposition 
begins life as a cooperationist, but before he gets half way 
through he finds it impracticable, even in a single family 
—with just enough exceptions to prove the rule. Among 
both the cultivated and the rude, cooperation has been 
tried; but only under the pressure of strong religious feel¬ 
ing has it ever been even temporarily successful. The 
Shakers are our best example; but though by cooperation 
the Shakers live easy and get rich, they cannot keep their 
numbers good, even among a rapidly increasing popula¬ 
tion. Christ was unquestionably a socialist; but all his 
followers, with but few and slight exceptions, have ignored 
that part of his doctrine. Even the pressure of poverty in 
the most crowded parts of Europe cannot force the people 
into adopting the principles of socialism, though they 
starve in the refusal. Notwithstanding all this, I believe 
that in future ages the dream may become a reality. 
Farmers are trying what they can do by cooperative 
efforts, both in business and politics. But American 
farmers are by nature and education the most individual¬ 
istic part of our people. They try the Grange, the Alliance, 
and the other organizations for their troubles, just as they 
try quack medicines, because they are well advertised; 
but they have very little faith in them. They don’t enlist 
for the war—they are only going as far as Washington on 
a little trip, as it were. The leaders (except a few philan¬ 
thropists among them) understand the matter. They get 
a good deal of free advertising, and a notoriety which will 
help them on the way to importance in the political field. 
All this will sound very pessimistic to my friend Warr; 
but I am not a pessimist. I believe in growth and progress; 
but they can come only as man, the individual,is developed 
up to the point where he can get rid of, or subordinate 
his selfishness. If we were all like Washington or Lin¬ 
coln, socialism would be easy. But for a long time yet we 
have to travel the thorny path of egotism. We have to 
get our education, and there is no other way. 
Every man who is trying, with might and main, to work 
out his own earthly salvation, has times when the cold, 
dead selfishness which he finds all about him, (and, if he 
be honest with himself, in his own heart no less,) presses 
upon him like a pall. Once in a while the sight or expe¬ 
rience of a kind action, and still more an impulse within 
himself to do kindness, send fitful gleams of light across 
his path. If his thoughts dwell much on the subject, he 
can imagine at times “ what a world this might be, if only 
man were kind ;” but he knows that human society, in its 
slow march toward better things, has an immense space 
to pass over before the promised land is reached. Mean¬ 
time, and as a mighty means toward the desired end, it is 
every man’s duty to make the most of himself. This hard 
world that we are set to get the better of, seems to me a 
school to teach every one who will learn that in truth 
“ charity begins at home,” in the sense that in an orderly 
way the man who is of the most use to himself is of the 
most use to the world. Take the great originator of trusts 
as an illustration. With the clear head and mighty hand 
of a great organizer, entirely ruthless as to means so he 
keeps within the law, he has shown us what immense 
economies are possible by cobperation, and has put all the 
profit in his own pocket ! Cannot mankind learn a little 
by the lightning-like success of this man. who deposes 
upon oath that he cannot tell within $12,000,000 how much 
he is worth ? The oil producers were all fighting one 
another at a great cost to themselves and the public. 
Rockefeller sees the possibility, and devises the means to 
overthrow them, and monopolize the business. In doing 
so, he has rather benefited than harmed the public, and 
that is probably the secret of his impunity. But truly the 
object-lesson he has given us is of immense value. He 
will reap the profit of his method, but he has also taught 
us what society might do for itself if it were only capable 
of self-organization after the manner of the forced 
organization of the oil business under Rockefeller’s 
dictatorship. He is as great in business as Napoleon in 
war, greater, in fact, for Napoleon could not keep what he 
had won. 
We must all be content to remain subject and tributary 
to our Vanderbilts and Rockefellers and Goulds until we 
have learned to organize ourselves as effectually as they 
organize us. We are their servants, because we are not 
the masters of ourselves. A society which is never more 
than 18 months from starvation can never be really free ; 
and it is only a very fully developed race of freemen who 
can understand cooperation and make it successful, except 
under mastership. 
Now, friend Warr, I think you will better understand 
why I insist so much upon a trained individualism as 
preparatory to a successful socialism. As water can rise 
only to the level of its source, so it must be with the social 
organism. No matter how we may desire it otherwise, we 
must be under mastership until we can be masters of our¬ 
selves. Political freedom in an imperfect form we have 
attained. Social freedom, with personal development as 
its foundation, we have yet to work for. 
BUCEPHALUS BROWN. 
NOTES. 
Bell Telephone Patents.— The original Bell telephone 
patent will expire in 1893. Many people fondly imagine 
that after that date competition between rival companies 
will make the service as cheap as it ought to be. They 
will be disappointed. The original Bell patent was for the 
simple principle of telephony—the transmission of sound 
waves. The writer talked over the first permanent tele¬ 
phone wire that was ever used in this country—running 
between the publishing house of Osgood & Co. in Boston 
and the University Press in Cambridge. It was very 
imperfect, yet it was all that was embraced in the original 
patent and all that will expire in 1893. The improvements 
made since then have made the telephone what it is, and 
these improvements have about all been bought in by the 
Bell Company. For example, the Blake transmitter-the 
best yet invented—is in the hands of the Bell Company and 
the patent does not expire till 1895, and so with other inven 
tions—the patents have all been assigned to the Bell 
Company and we shall be compelled to pay it royalties that 
will keep it out of the poorhouse for many years. The 
patent system is a tax ! 
That Patent Tax.— On reading the comments on the 
patent system in The R. N.-Y , it seems to me that the 
paper is somewhat hard on the class of men known as 
inventors, by pointing out certain lines of changes in the 
patent system whereby more harm would be done than 
good to the masses, who now profit by their skill and in¬ 
vention. Undoubtedly there are but comparatively few 
articles in common use that are not taxed to some extent 
by the patent system; but, shall we do without the con¬ 
veniences yet to come, under the present system, or pay 
for them, as we do for those that are now being manufac¬ 
tured ? From the fact that thousands of useless patents 
are issued and immense sums of money expended in fight¬ 
ing infringements, it does not follow that the patent 
system is wrong or that consumers foot the bill. A patent 
without merit taxes only the patentee. The surplus of the 
Patent Bureau can certainly be put to better use than 
buying up worthless, unexpired patents. No doubt, the 
patent laws should be revised in some particulars, but not 
to the detriment of inventors. Patent monopoly can be 
controlled without placing the inventor in irons, and when 
patents run for only five years under the friendly (?) care 
of manufacturers and patent lawyers, without substantial 
remuneration in view for the inventor, the little labor- 
saving contrivances that now appear, one after another, 
will be “ few and far between ” and invention rare. 
Greene County, N. Y. s. Clifford hall. 
A New York subscriber asks the following: “ What is 
The Rural’s opinion in regard to bringing politics into 
the farmers’ institutes ? I notice an article in a late num¬ 
ber of an agricultural paper, which states substantially 
