io4 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
FEB. 7 
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. 
THE NICARAGUA CANAL. 
Will It be of Any Benefit to the Eastern Farmer? 
Will It Not Bring Him Into Closer Competition 
with the Pacific Coast Farmer without Com¬ 
pensating Benefits? 
The Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua has begun a serious and 
determined campaign for the completion of Its canal, under the sanction 
and protection of the United States Government, and with Us financial 
assistance. In Its exhaustive circulars it refers to the fact that with the 
canal open, ships can be loaded anywhere on the Pacific coast and sailed 
directly to any port on the Eastern coast. The ocean, it says, is ‘'God’s 
great highway— Nature’s anti monopoly route— a road that never wears 
oui.” Twenty-five days of steaming will be saved on each passage, and 
there will be no cost of unloading and reloading. The vast lumber 
forests of the far Northwest will be tapped, the great wheat fields of 
Oregon and Washington will find a new outlet and refrigerators will 
permit shipments of meat and fruit from new pastures and vineyards. 
How is this to affect the Eastern farmer is the question we want an¬ 
swered.-Eos. H. N.-Y. 
Benefit Rather Than Injury. 
My opinion is that some Eastern farmers will be ben¬ 
efited, some injured, and some not affected by the comple¬ 
tion of the canal, and that, on the whole, the farmers east 
of Lake Erie and north of Florida will be benefited more 
than they will be injured; but that the effect will not be 
great either way. My belief is that the canal will not 
greatly cheapen slow freights; it will do so to some ex¬ 
tent, but not enough to injure Eastern farmers more than 
they will be compensated for by the advantages of quicker 
communication, and the possibilities of wider markets for 
the country. The chief effects on the farmers will, I be¬ 
lieve, be indirect rather than the results of direct 
competition. [PROF.] WM. H. BREWER. 
Yale College. 
“A Benefit to American Commerce.” 
Regarding the Nicaragua Canal, I think it would 
greatly benefit American commerce, and aid to secure the 
predominance of our country over the American Conti¬ 
nent. Regarding the Atlantic slope, including the great 
valley, as the best part of the continent, and destined 
always to control its affairs, I have no fears that anything 
we can do to promote the interests of our Pacific coast 
States can injure any Eastern industry, least of all agri¬ 
culture. Nothing can hurt us but our own follies. Let 
every section do all it can to help every other section, and 
all sections will profit by it. These narrow, sectional 
jealousies are as harmful and dangerous in a family of 
federated States as in single families. My motto for the 
American people is, All for each, and each for all.” 
Orleans County, Vt. [dr.] t. h. hoskins. 
Not Much To Fear From It. 
“ Will the proposed Nicaragua Canal be of any benefit 
to the Eastern farmer ?” No! If we can say the same to the 
question, “ Will it be a disadvantage—a positive injury in 
fact to the farmer of the Eastern section of ourcountry ?” 
we might dismiss the subject as of no particular account 
to us; and I am inclined to believe it will not be of much, 
if any, disadvantage to us. Products that perish quickly 
cannot be shipped in that way. It would be too slow. As 
to wheat, we are growing less and less of it in our sea¬ 
board and New England States, and will consequently 
nee d—even more than we do now—much more than we will 
raise. The cheaper it may be the better for us. It will 
pay us better to grow other products. The limit of beef 
production on government land has, I hope, been reached. If 
so, this industry must revive here, and should. I do not 
think we have much to fear from the possibilities of the 
canal in this particular. In general, it will add another 
line to commerce; divide the carrying trade; give work to 
men now unemployed; populate the Pacific coast, and may 
in general do more good to the many than injury to the few. 
Secretary New Jersey Board of Agriculture. F. DYE. 
Too Slow to be Injurious. 
In my opinion the proposed Nicaragua Canal will not 
prove of any serious detriment to the farmers of New Eng¬ 
land and the Middle States. It surely cannot affect the 
price of wheat, as, under present conditions, the price of all 
wheat grown in the United States, that of California in¬ 
cluded, is fixed by the very small exportable surplus in 
the Liverpool market. Just as soon as we have reached 
the point (now claimed to be only six to eight years off), 
when our rapidly increasing population will consume all 
we produce, including our present small surplus of about 
seven bushels in the hundred, then we will fix our own 
prices, and the question of cheaper transportation between 
different States and sections of our country will play a 
more important part. Another point to be remembered in 
considering the California wheat crop, is that tens of 
thousands of acres of what were, first, grazing lands, then 
wheat lands, are now being planted to raisin and other 
grapes, and orchard fruits of all kinds, while the rapidly 
growing cities and villages in the Pacific States require a 
larger portion each year of their wheat product for home 
consumption. 
As to meat, we need have no fear of competition in that 
direction by reason of cheaper transportation. The lands 
of our sister States “ over there” are worth too much for 
use in producing the more valuable “ specialties ” to which 
they are adapted, so that each passing year will see a 
smaller area used for meat production. True, better meth¬ 
ods may result in raising more cattle to the square mile in 
some sections, but the rapidly growing home market will 
take increasing quantities of meat products. 
As to fruits, the longer and slower route by the canal 
would almost entiiely prevent the transportation of fresh, 
or green fruits. The millions of boxes of raisins, the dried 
and canned fruits, nuts, olive oil, etc., could come by 
water, and perhaps cheaper than, as at present, by rail; 
but, unlike the fresh or green fruits, these others are in a 
much more condensed or compressed form, and with con¬ 
stantly decreasing trans-continental freight rates by rail— 
by reason of more business, local and through—the item 
of freight, without the canal, will play a less important 
part, at least as far as the condensed forms of fruit are 
concerned. The fruits and wines of the Pacific coast are 
yet to become important items in our exports to other 
countries, and cheaper transportation via the proposed 
canal will be a help. The use for fruit-growing of every 
acre of the lands of the Pacific States now used in growing 
wheat in competition with farmers east of the Rockies, 
that can be used for growing raisins, olives, nuts, oranges, 
lemons, wines, etc. (products that, with few exceptions, 
can be successfully grown only on the Pacific), will help 
the farmers of our Eastern land by taking away just that 
much competition. California fruits will come; we can’t 
stop them. We must grow a better quality, and then with 
our vast home markets we can successfully compete with 
our brethren on the Pacific, as their distance, either by 
canal or rail, will always be a very considerable “ protec 
tion ” to our “ American industries ” on this side of the 
continent. 
In common with other fruit growers, I have for a num¬ 
ber of years felt the effects of cheap transportation of 
fruits and vegetables from other countries far more than 
those of the products of the orchards and vineyards 
near the setting sun. When we remember that for several 
years past ship loads of jams, jellies, and other fruit pro¬ 
ducts have been reaching our shores from England, Scot¬ 
land, France, Spain, Italy and other countries, and paying 
very small freights, and almost free of such effective pro¬ 
tective duties as are awarded manufactures—one dis¬ 
trict in England alone employing over 50,000 persons 
in the jam business—when we see these foreign goods fill¬ 
ing the shelves of our stores ; when we remember the tens 
of thousands of barrels of Canada and Nova Scotia apples 
that have been coming in free of duty ; the millions of 
bushels of potatoes, onions, boxes of oranges and lemons, 
ship-loads of cabbages, etc., that have been coming to us 
by cheap ocean transportation on foreign vessels, some 
duty free, others nearly so; I say, when we remember all 
this, we must realize that these other countries are by far 
more dangerous competitors than our brethren on the 
Pacific slope. Our new tariff bill has helped to give us 
Eastern and Middle States farmers, some of the “ protec¬ 
tion ” on our fruits and vegetables that manufacturers 
have enjoyed on their products, and I believe great good is 
coming to us through our share of this “ protection,” and 
to an amount that will much more than make up for any 
competition resulting from our progressive people in Cali¬ 
fornia, Washington and Oregon. I do not fear the Nicar¬ 
agua Canal. I am for American farmers and American 
products all the time. 
Lecturer National Grange. Mortimer whitehead. 
SHORT STORIES. 
Correction.— By an unnoticed typographical error in 
the article on the ‘‘Demonetization of Silver” in last 
week’s issue, the writer was made to say : “ Then, in 1805, 
President Jefferson suspended silver coinage, and not an¬ 
other silver dollar was coined until 1834,” etc. It should 
have been: “Suspended silver dollar coinage and not 
another dollar was coined,” etc. Jefferson did not suspend 
the coinage of silver altogether, only the coinage of the 
silver dollar; because from 1792 to 1805 the ratio of gold 
and silver being 1 to 15, the silver dollar was driving gold 
out of circulation. Fractional silver currency, however, 
continued to be coined in large quantities, over $100,000,000 
of coins worth half a dollar and under, having been issued 
between 1805 and 1860. 
The Canadian Tariff.— The American farmers’ move¬ 
ment is one of great interest to us in Canada; as the 
United States tariff was the excuse for the imposition of 
our own that is so opposed to British principles and ex¬ 
ample. “ If we cannot get reciprocity of trade, let us have 
reciprocity of tariffs,” said Sir J. A. Macdonald in 1878, at 
the commencement of our so-called "National Policy.” 
Since then a number of protected manufacturers have 
arisen, abounding in the fat so useful for the lubrication of 
the party machine wheels, and have succeeded in getting 
their interests identified with the government, and by a 
hazy but vehement appealing to what they call “ loyalty ” 
and “ patriotism,” they prevent the discussion of their re¬ 
lation to the people on its merits. In their efforts in this 
line they have a great advantage, in that one paper man¬ 
ufacturer can make more noise than 50,000 farmers. Many 
of the leaders of the Opposition ignore the question of free 
trade; but advocate reciprocity with the United States as 
a shorter cut to office. There appears to be little hope for 
legislation providing equal rights for all in Canada, until 
it prevails in the United States, and for that reason non¬ 
partisan Canadians will observe the farmers’ movement 
there not only with interest but concern. 
York County, Ontario. ADAM russell. 
Reform Yourself First.— Thanks to Mr. Green for 
his views and position in regard to “’crats,” on page 64 of 
The Rural. He expresses my heartful sentiments when 
he says: “ It doesn’t do much good to try to reform any¬ 
body but myself.” Very well, Mr. Green ; let you in New 
York and I in Pennsylvania, each act upon that principle, 
and anybody else, no matter where he is in this broad land, 
who tries to reform himself,will naturally be joined hand 
and heart with us. Let us, then, carefully and prayer¬ 
fully, aim to find out what our duties are to ourselves, 
our fellow men and to God, and then let each of us, indi¬ 
vidually, do his duty, and with the help of God the moun¬ 
tains will be removed, farming will pay, success as far as 
we need and deserve it (and we have no right to ask for 
more) will be sure to come. Let us leave the “ ’crats,” the 
gangs, the kings, the “rings,” the “bulls” and the “bears” 
alone, and they will have to leave us alone. [They ought, 
but, alas 1 they won’t.— Eds.] No need of party platforms, 
by-laws and constitutions, and high-sounding resolutions ! 
A man who knows and does his duty in a neighborhood 
independently of what thoughtless people think and talk 
about him, teaches more by example than could be done 
by any industrial organization, because people feel he is 
right. The upright and honest will have to follow his 
example. [That will be easy for them ; but how about the 
other class—the “gangs,” the “rings,” the “bulls,” the 
“bears,” the “ ’crat’s,” etc. It is not the “upright and 
honest” that bother and swindle the farmer, it’s the other 
sort altogether. Will they follow that admirable example? 
—Eds.] Let us wake up ! Let us walk straight. Let our 
example and influence, as far as they reach, teach whole¬ 
some truth, and let us watch and pray that we be not 
blind, “leaders of the blind,” and we will have an or¬ 
ganization against which all the trusts, monopolies, and 
railroad combinations in the land cannot prevail. 
Dauphin County, Pa. • C. G. SHENK. 
Elections by the People. —Why does our constitu¬ 
tion provide that our President and Senators shall not be 
elected by a popular vote ? What would be the differ¬ 
ence in effect if they were so elected ? Do the same rea¬ 
sons for this mode of election hold good at the present 
time? C. B. CAMPBELL. 
Clinton County, Mo. 
R. N.-Y.—This question was debated at length when the 
constitution was adopted. A good many members of the 
Congress which approved the original constitution were in 
favor of direct elections of all public servants, but the 
more conservative element prevailed and the present sys¬ 
tem was adopted. At that time the great fear was that 
the government would not hold together, and the framers 
of the constitution aimed to devise a form of government, 
one part of which should serve as a check on the others. 
For this reason different methods were provided for 
electing Representatives, Senators and the President and 
Vice President. The result is that it is very difficult for 
one party to control every branch of the government. 
Presidents have been elected by a minority vote of the 
people, while in many States we see one Senator from each 
party, a majority for a Republican President and a mi¬ 
nority of Republican Representatives. The system is com¬ 
plicated and slow and has some serious defects, yet it un¬ 
doubtedly saved the government in its early days. 
Whether it is best suited to our present political needs is 
a question that will bear much discussing. 
The Single-Tax Question.— In The R. N.-Y. for Janu¬ 
ary 3, Mr. S. H. Howes advocates the “ single tax ” system, 
which I understand to mean the levying of all taxes on 
land values. He says that five per cent of land values 
would be a fair rental, and that would be the tax ; but he 
does not in any way show that the revenue raised in this 
way would be sufficient for the purposes needed. But 
suppose the rental value of the land should be sufficient 
for all purposes of taxation, he does not show that it 
would all be rented. What do we hear about abandoned 
farms of late ? And if Mr. Howes would come to the city in 
which I live he would find many acres idle ; though all 
have a rental value, no one occupies them. What would 
my land be worth to me if its rental value went to the tax 
gatherer ? I would have nothing left. It would be to my 
interest to own no land; Mr. Howes has well said that the 
“ landlords’ occupation ” would be gone; who would be so 
unwise as to invest in land when its annual value would 
be all taken for taxes ? Surely the landlords’ occupation 
would be gone, for his possessions would be confiscated, 
and what a gross piece of injustice that would be—to take 
from the freeholder his possessions for the benefit of other 
classes of property and persons. 
To find the tax value of land, Mr. Howes considers all 
improvements removed, so that it would be in a state of 
nature, as it was, say 400 years ago, or at the time of its 
original discovery by Europeans. Then how much would 
one-quarter of an acre on Washington Street, Boston, be 
worth, or how would it compare in value at that time 
with a whole township of 9,000 acres in Massachusetts, or 
where in New York at that time was that acre which was 
equal in value to 35 townships of 9,000 acres each anywhere 
in these United States ? 
In his last paragraph Mr. Howes wishes me to consider 
the social and moral advantages which the “ single tax ” 
will bring. Now, when the stimulus and desire to own 
some small portion of real estate in his own right and un¬ 
der his own control are taken from an American citizen, as 
they are by the “ single tax ” system, his birthright has 
been lowered and he must degenerate into the condition 
of a serf and heathen. Such a measure, not having the 
semblance of equity or justice, would become destructive 
to all forms of civilization. o. P. reeves. 
Orange County, N. Y. 
R. N.-Y.—To obtain a clear and full idea of the proposed 
“ single tax ” system, a study of the original authority is 
necessary. One cannot get it from a cursory perusal of re¬ 
views or abstracts of the work, whether hostile or friendly; 
or from quotations from it, however lengthy. It is hardly 
fair to the system to condemn or approve it on such a 
basis. There are hundreds of very strong objections to it, 
and most of them have been very forcibly published, some¬ 
times in book or pamphlet form ; but there are also strong 
arguments in its favor, and these have been also widely 
ventilated. To be even fairly equipped for public discus¬ 
sion of the subject, surely one should have carefully stud¬ 
ied the work in which the author of it has embodied his 
ideas, even if one has not read the arguments already 
urged by others on both sides of the question, 
