762 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
NOV. 8 
THE PIE HUNTERS’ PROFIT. 
A TALE OF PLUNDER. 
Being an account of the Farmers' Movement of 1890- 
1900, viewed from the standpoint of a citizen of 
America, A.D. 1930. 
( Continued.) 
“ But the sons of these rich men ! Did not they spend 
their fathers’ money and thus send it back into circula¬ 
tion, so to speak ?” 
“ Yes, and no. The sons seldom equaled their fathers in 
rugged strength of character; but the fathers provided for 
that. 
“ It became more and more the custom to frame laws 
that would hold these great fortunes together. They were 
seldom divided, even when the owners died and left 
several heirs. The income or interest was divided, but the 
capital itself was tied securely together. Money and 
investment laws were so manipulated that men were not 
born equal, though they were, so far as the law went, free." 
“ But how did this unequal division of property begin ? 
Of course, I understand that there must always have been 
rich men and poor men; but the Constitution was not 
framed for a country that showed such a wide difference 
between classes.” 
“Well, It is almost the old story of the pie hunters over 
again. The war of the Rebellion broke out 70 years ago. 
The country—that is, the government—needed immense 
sums of money to build ships, pay soldiers and sailors, buy 
arms, etc., etc. The government itself had no money. 
Tax laws were supposed to be arranged so that just 
enough for the ordinary expenses would be raised. This 
sudden war doubled or tripled the expense, and took away 
at least one-third of the taxable property. What was to 
be done ? The government did not dare to make direct 
taxes three or four times as heavy as before—that would 
have caused another rebellion at home. They raised the 
money by indirect taxation,—increasing the tariff on im¬ 
ported goods and placing an internal revenue tax on such 
articles as tobacco, matches, patent medicines, etc., etc.,— 
and by borrowing either from foreign countries or at 
home. Now, one would naturally suppose that loyal 
American citizens who loved their country and thoroughly 
believed in it, would have rushed forward with their 
money and aid in manufacturing supplies. Not at all 1 
While thousands of noble fellows gave up business, 
homes, health and life itself without even asking what 
they were to receive in return, there were other shrewd, 
keen men who saw, in their country’s peril, a chance to 
make fortunes. Great factories sprang up like magic. 
Exorbitant prices were charged for goods, and those who 
lent their country money demanded interest and security 
that they could never have forced from her in times of 
peace. People grew reckless as this great volume of bor¬ 
rowed money poured into the public treasury. The result 
was an almost insane rush to get all of it that could be 
handled. Those who made this rush did not seem to 
realize that all this money would have to be paid back 
with interest— that every cent of the increased price or 
wages which they obtained was borrowed money, which 
they would be called upon to pay back. Nobody thought 
of that but the money lenders and manufacturers, who 
knew that the more the people demanded, the greater and 
greater would be their share of the profits ” 
“ I can see how this started; but when this debt was paid, 
did not these heavy money holders have to pay the greater 
share of it ?” 
“No. In the first place the government bonds were not 
taxed at all. All the holders had to do was to collect in¬ 
terest on them. The sum thus relieved from taxation was 
simply enormous. Then again, with mortgages and loaus 
the laws were made to favor the lender. The borrower had 
to pay a double tax—that on the property held in his name 
and interest to the lender as well. People tried to put their 
money into such shape that it could be concealed and still 
draw interest.” 
“ Well, do you mean to tell me that such people boasted 
of their patriotism and love of country ? ” 
“ Certainly they did—louder than at any other time in 
the Nation’s history. ‘Why,’ said the bond holders, ‘we 
came forward and risked our money when the government 
needed it. But for that risk the Union would have been 
broken, of course, therefore it is our right to name the 
value of that risk. The government is under obligations 
to us and by all laws of business it is right that we should 
receive $2 for every $1 we loaned.” 
“ Why that is the old pie hunter right over again! These 
men might have seen that if the country had been ruined 
they would have lost everything. Advancing their money 
was nothing but common self-defense.” 
“ Exactly! The people of that age could not seem to 
understand the real meaning of the word brotherhood. 
As we look at such things, it was simply their duty to 
come forward with all the help and sympathy they could 
bestow when the country needed help. The possibility of 
having a home which the government had provided for 
years, should have outweighed anything they could be 
called upon to do for the country. As you see, society was 
based upon the mistaken idea that brotherhoods are all 
one sided—meant only for accumulation—to gather but 
not to spend.” 
“ But how long did this continue? ” 
“ For 30 years the monied people had comparatively 
plain sailing. It is true that there were loud grumblings 
from the farmers and laborers, but while the land con¬ 
tinued fairly productive and the manure bill cut but little 
figure, there was not much beside grumbling. Slowly, 
however, crops began to fail and a share of the farm profits 
had to go for manure—not in cash perhaps, but it was 
necessary to keep up stock feeding and the growing of 
crops that paid no profit at all. From natural causes too, 
prices for farm products fell, and the debt-ridden farmer, 
who in more prosperous times thought nothing of borrow¬ 
ing money, now had to face the stern necessity of paying 
dimes for borrowed nickels.” 
“ But did the money lenders push their claims in full 
when they saw the farms failing in productiveness ?” 
“ Certainly. In fact, as the possibility of their losing 
their investments grew, they tried to make more stringent 
laws for collections. The tariff and manufacturing sys¬ 
tems had the effect of building up great towns and cities 
which drew to them the best country boys, consolidated 
the money power, and built up a most perfect political or¬ 
ganization that was naturally used to further the inter¬ 
ests of the city as against the country.” 
“ But, of course, there were more country people than 
town dwellers ?” * 
“ Certainly, but just as the two pie hunters with their 
few friends controlled the mining camp, so the city men 
controlled the country. It was just as difficult to change 
the National Constitution as it was to change that of the 
old mining company. The existing laws, with a few 
amendments, were strong enough for the monied minority, 
so that all they had to do was to resist changes.” 
“ But what did the farmers try to do ?” 
“ Dozens of things. It was generally admitted by all 
thoughtful men that an organization of some sort must be 
made, but almost all bad in mind a one sided organization 
—like the miners they proposed to organize to accumulate 
and then separate to spend. The ‘ agricultural depression ’ 
as it was called, came upon farmers in such a way that 
nine out of ten did not recognize the real cause or the 
proper remedy. Most of them only felt that it was abso¬ 
lutely necessary for them to make some violent change in 
the public policy. There were a good many farmers— 
naturally smart business men and excellent managers— 
who were still successful on the farm. These could see but 
one side to the matter—the debt-ridden and complaining 
farmers were in their opinion, largely to blame for their 
own misfortune. They had not farmed properly—they had 
been shiftless, unbusiness like, ignorant and stingy. These 
men, mostly money-lenders themselves in a small way, had 
all the legislation they needed. Their remedy was ‘ better 
farming.’ They would have their poorer neighbors think 
more, work to better advantage, use better stock, better 
tools and better methods and thus secure larger crops at 
little extra expense. Their advice was sound enough for men 
like themselves, but it fell upon dull ears when it reached 
their neighbors. There were too many sick and discour¬ 
aged men; there were too many men on farms who were 
utterly unfitted by nature for a farmer’s duties; there were 
too many opinionated and hard headed men who would 
not admit the possibility of a flaw in their own views and 
too many men whose education and habits of life had made 
it impossible for them to be logical or fair in their argu¬ 
ments. The good farmers themselves did not seem to 
realize these facts and the result was that the ‘ better farm¬ 
ing’ plan found comparatively few supporters.’ 1 
The vast majority of the farmers decided that some form 
of legislation must be enacted in order to save them, and 
because the “monopolists,” as the money-lenders were 
called, had gained their ends by tricky legislation, thous¬ 
ands of farmers felt that they would be justified in resort¬ 
ing to similar tricks. But the trouble was that they could 
not agree on a suitable law that should relieve their 
troubles. 
“Some favored Prohibition, arguing that if no liquor was 
sold the money previously spent for it would at once flow 
back to the farms in the form of increased prices; others 
were sure that the tariff was the cause of all their troubles 
because it strengthened the power of the manufacturers 
and consequently gave aid to the money-lending class ; 
others were sure that there was not enough money In cir¬ 
culation and were in favor of increasing the circulating 
medium which, they said, would prevent money from be¬ 
coming ‘tight’ and consequently reduce the rates of in¬ 
terest ; others wanted first to overhaul the system of taxa¬ 
tion and pass laws that would compel personal property to 
pay a larger percentage of the public revenues. And so it 
went on, one demanding this and another that and each 
refusing to admit that another’s views might be better.” 
“ Then no good came from this movement?” 
“ Yes, indeed. Unconsciously, as they talked and 
thought and debated, the true purpose and spirit of organ¬ 
ization came to them. It was not long before the farmers 
divided into two sections, each holding definite views as to 
the proper course to take in politics.” 
“ What was the difference between them?” 
“One counseled immediate action and the other pro 
posed to go slow. The first comprised the majority, taking 
the country at large. They decided to demand at once two 
things of vital importance : more money, and government 
ownership of railroads, telegraphs, the express business, 
and the coal and oil products of the country. The other 
section declared that the farmers were not yet prepared 
to take such hasty action. They counseled moderation, 
growth, enlightenment, perfect organization and a careful 
study of the matter before action.” 
“ What plans did they have to provide more money?” 
“After much discussion, they decided to push the sub 
Treasury scheme that I have mentioned before. As finally 
modified, this bill required the government to erect in 
every agricultural county a building or warehouse suitable 
for storing the products of that county. There the gov¬ 
ernment oflicers received farm products, stored them away 
and issued certificates for 75 per cent, of their value ; these 
certificates to be considered money, negotiable for all debts. 
Whoever brought the certificates back to the warehouse 
should have the farm produce.” * 
(To be continued.) 
To make the best of everything while striving constantly 
to better one’s surroundings, is often one of the greatest 
helps to success. Patient waiting is not idleness. 
PVomans IVork. 
IN THE SANCTUM. 
WRITER, who in discussing the subject of “Woman’s 
Work in Public,” shows more strong common 
sense than is the case with many writers on this much- 
mooted topic, has this to say : “ As long as women remain 
single I would deny them no place or position which they 
would or could fill creditably, but * * * no woman can 
do very much public work, and do her home work well at 
the same time.” Here is a real chance for that army of 
“ superfluous women ” of whom we hear so often. Here, 
evidently, is a place where they “belong,” and when they 
attain to the honor of helping to do the public work of 
the nation, surely no one will dare venture a sneering 
whisper about “old maids.” 
* * * 
Another thought put forth by this woman of ideas, in 
connection with women’s voting, takes shape as follows : 
“Just as soon as they have the ballot, there is a class of 
them who would not be able to ‘ rest well’ unless they 
could have some office. We all know the woman who 
wishes to manage her neighbors’ affairs. * * * There 
are many women who like office so much that they would 
be willing to sit on a jury over a dog-fight rather than 
nothing.” Alas for lovely woman I How shall we sit still 
and calmly endure such defamation of our sex! But, 
what if it were true ? Are man nature and woman nature 
alike human nature ? Do men ever covet public office 
from the Presidency to the umpireship of a dogfight, or 
lower still, a prize-fight ? 
* -x- * 
Again : “My idea is that it would be of far greater bene¬ 
fit if suffrage were limited to those who could read and 
write.” We are rather of opinion that the common sense 
of most of our readers will say “ amen ” to this proposi¬ 
tion. This is a standard qualification which none would 
feel compelled to apologize for, none to antagonize (for all 
could qualify themselves in a short time, if in earnest to do 
so); while the affairs of State, being wholly in the hauds 
of the intelligent, could not fail of better administration 
than can possibly be the case when the most ignorant im¬ 
migrant’s vote nullifies that of the most honest and intel¬ 
ligent patriot. Do the women of The Rural family sub¬ 
scribe to all the above propositions ? 
* * * 
“O” HAS fallen into trouble through having a part of 
the oil cloth refuse to part company with the floor when 
the rest was removed, and would like to know how to get 
it loose. We suppose that the portion still clinging to 
the floor is simply paint, and that turpentine, kerosene, 
alcohol, or any of the standard solvents of paint would re¬ 
move the difficulty. If any of our readers have had expe¬ 
rience in this line, our columns are open for definite help, 
in this, as in all other cases. 
* * * 
In consequence of our notes on training schools for 
nurses, we have a note from a correspondent who thinks 
she possesses all the qualifications necessary for entrance 
upon the work of training, except the education. She 
asks the advice of any member of The Rural family who 
may have a word for her, and desires that if auy one 
knows of a hospital where one having little education 
can enter the course, she may be informed of it through 
our columns. _ 
Prize CookBooks. —Several frjends have sent inquiries 
to The R. N.-Y. desiring to know where the prize cook¬ 
book mentioned some time ago can be obtained. The ad¬ 
dress is: “Essay Department, American Public Health 
Association, P. O. Drawer 289, Rochester, N. Y.” We 
would also commend to the notice of our subscribers, Mrs. 
Parker’s Cook Book, offered in our premium list for 75 cents, 
or for obtaining one new subscriber for us. 
^Ui.otdlnncmt.o’ <3Umti£ing. 
In writing to advertisers, please mention The K. N.-Y. 
PACKER’S 
Cutaneous Charm. 
ECZEMA: Mr. Samuel E. Burr, Hurd- 
ware Merchant, Bordetilowu, N. J., says: "I 
have been a sufferer the past IT years with Ec¬ 
zema on the back of my hands. I have taken 
treatment, used all kinds of ointments, etc., 
without any permanent good. One mouth 
ago my hauds looked like raw beef, and gave 
me a great deal of trouble. Upon the advice 
of a friend I commenced using Packer’s Tar 
Soap and Packer’s Cutaneous Charm. To my 
utter astonishment within one week my hands 
were well, and are now soft, smooth and 
pliable. I cannot say too much for Packer’s 
Charm and Tar Soap.” 
Packer’s Cutaneous CnARM is sold by Druggists at 
25 and 50 ceuts per bottle. Special bottles in wood case 
only are mailable. Price, 35 ceuts, postage paid. Remit 
in postal note or stamps. 
PACKER M'F’G CO., No. 100 Fulton Street, NEW-Y0RK. 
Hard, cracked 
and sore hands 
become smooth 
and pliable 
under its use. 
Pleasant, Safe and 
almost Magical 
in its rapid 
effects. 
