8l2 
NOV. 29 
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. 
The complete census returns show that two States, 
Nevada and Vermont, have lost in population. Nevada’s 
population has been reduced from 62,266 to 44,327; while 
Vermont has lost just 81 in ten years. Some weeks ago, 
Cassius M. Clay gave us some new thoughts about popula¬ 
tion. France, he said, was the wisest of nations if she had 
not increased her population. Is the same true of A r ermont? 
Is one reason for her “ abandoned farms ” and deserted 
homes the fact that Vermont has reached the limit of her 
population ? This seems like an absurd question; but is 
it ? Do we know anything about the limit of population 
for any State or county in this country ? A review of the 
census returns for the earlier part of this century will 
show that up to 1840 Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine 
gained in population far more rapidly than did Massachu¬ 
setts, Rhode Island and Connecticut. Since then the gain 
has been in the lower States, while the northern portion 
of New Englan d has been slowly reaching the point of barely 
holding its own ? Has it reached the limit of its popula¬ 
tion ? Will not those who remain in the State be more 
prosperous than if the population had increased ? 
A Voice from Wisconsin.— I am much pleased at the 
stand The R. N.- Y. is taking with regard to the tariff and 
the governmental control of the railroads. There is no 
doubt that within a few years we must either become a 
nation of paupers, with a few rich rulers, or else the 
people must stand up for their rights, and put down the 
two great tyrants that rule our land to day. It is no use 
to call our country a Republic any longer, for it is not one. 
Money is king, and rum is prime-minister, and we must 
fight both to the wall, or they will do the same by us. It 
is already claimed that 25,000 men own one half of the 
wealth of the country, or as much as the other 63,000,000. 
This vast accumulation has been secured within about 
30 years ; how long will it take them to get the other half ? 
It will not be long, if we do not at once combine at the 
ballot box, and send to our State and National legislatures 
such men as can be trusted to vote in the interests of 
the people. H - REAI) . 
Jefferson County, Wis. 
A Connecticut Farmer Talks Tariff.— On page 767 
an extract from the Philadelphia Record says; “The 
tariff mongers boast of the blessings of protection and yet 
point to the enlargement of the free list.” Certainly. 
The duty is increased on velvet and Brussels carpets, 
while floor matting, etc., which formerly paid 20 per cent, 
are put on the free list. Would it not be wiser to reserve the 
name “tariff monger” for the party who would tax floor 
matting and let in velvet carpets free ? Or does argument 
consist in calling names ? [What party would be likely 
to tax “ necessaries ” while putting “ luxuries ” on the free 
list ? Its tenure of power would be brief.— Eds.] 
On the same page the New York World asks: “Does 
any Republican farmer believe that any American citizen 
can get $1,000 worth of Brazilian coffee without paying for 
It in goods or gold ? ” The farmer or citizen gets just as 
many pounds of coffee tor $1,000 as he did when coffee was 
taxed. But the United States as a nation does not get as 
many; for when the import duty was taken off here, 
Brazil put on an export duty. Brazil gets the revenue 
which the United States received; but how does this 
benefit the United States ? [We give it up ; except that 
perhaps it offers an argument in favor of Blaine’s reci¬ 
procity, which would prevent such action on the part of 
Brazil.—E ds.1 
On the same page the Chicago Times exclaims: “ Fuel 
is up.” If fuel is up, what put it up ? The duty on coal 
has not been increased. Hard coal is on the free list, and 
Canada has, in consequence of the reciprocity clause, re¬ 
duced her duty on logs. The fuel that is up is the fuel of 
partisanship; or possibly that in the fragrant Havana 
cigar which, possibly, the editor smokes. [A petty Con¬ 
gress of half a dozen Pennsylvania and Ohio coal barons 
lately imposed a personal revenue tax on domestic coals, 
which at once raised their price, and the Illinois coal 
barons promptly followed their example. The tariff can 
hardly be charged with that outrage.— Eds.]' It is not 
easy to frame a bill to which there shall be no objection. 
It is always easier to pull down than build up; but it 
would seem easy to extract clippings from free trade news¬ 
papers that had more argument in them. Any sound 
protectionist can find much more justifiable faults with 
the bill. Every revenue bill is a compromise between 
extremists, and the best bill, like a good watch, may not 
be absolutely correct at any point, or, if correct to-day, 
may not be to morrow. While riding to town this morn¬ 
ing, I met a farmer with some lumber and nails. He com¬ 
plained of the price he had to pay and laid it to the 
McKinley Bill. He was quite surprised to find that the 
duty on his nails was 20 per cent less than formerly ; and 
that the duty on his lumber and shingles had been reduced 
from 35 to 20 per cent. Possibly it will pay us all when 
we complain that oats are high “ owing to the McKinley 
Bill,” to examine and see if there is not also a shortage of 
the crop. osborne. 
[There is no doubt that a large number of dealers 
who wanted to fleece the dear public a little more heavily, 
have made use of the passage of the McKinley Bill as an 
excuse for doing so. Some of these have already put up 
prices on goods which will not come under the McKinley 
Tariff for months to come. In other cases where the 
McKinley Bill raises the duty by cents, the dealers have 
raised the prices by dimes; while in many cases the 
passage of the measure has been made an excuse for rais¬ 
ing the prices of commodities which are in no way affected 
by it. Indeed, in some instances prices have been raised, 
nominally on account of the tariff, on goods the import 
duties on which have been lowered or actually removed 
altogether by the McKinley Bill. The matter will, to 
some extent at least, be righted before very long by com¬ 
petition, if not by a sense of justice. It cannot, however, 
be denied, that the prices of many things have been 
honestly raised on account of the new tariff, and in many 
cases the increase has been so great that many Republicans 
as well as all Democrats protest against what they con¬ 
sider excessive additions to the import duties.— Eds.] 
One of Many.—I have been a life-long Republican, and 
cast my first ballot for Abraham Lincoln in ’64, while 
serving in the ranks with the troops from my State (Iowa). _ 
Like many other Republicans of my temperament I am 
growing dissatisfied with many of our party measures, 
particularly the McKinley Tariff Bill and our silver legis¬ 
lation. My line of reasoning for a tariff is one founded 
upon the principle of protection without extortion. I can 
see no “ logic ” in a tariff upon articles we manufacture in 
excess of our home consumption, or upon raw materials 
we import for manufacture. [Are manufacturers alone to 
be “ protected” by the tariff ? This must be the case if 
the producers of “raw materials” are to receive no pro 
tection; for all those who change the form of any “raw 
material ” so that it can no longer be classed under that 
name, are, to a greater or less extent, manufacturers. 
Why shouldn’t the man who raises wool be protected as 
well as the man who converts that wool into yarn or cloth 
or clothes ? Why shouldn’t the thousands who produce 
wheat be protected, as well as the hundreds who convert it 
into flour or bread ? Nearly every thing which the farmer 
produces is a “ raw material,” and if the taxes are abol¬ 
ished on “raw materials” the farmer must go unprotected. 
A few vegetables for the table embrace nearly the entire 
list of raw materials that are not introduced for manufac¬ 
ture. This is a matter on which the farmers should ponder 
and come to a conclusion, for there is little doubt that the 
first attack of the “tariff reformers” will be on some of 
the raw materials most needed in manufacture, and if the 
duties on these are abolished, there seems to be no logical 
reason why those on the others, too, should not meet the 
same fate. Of course, the producers of raw materials here 
can be protected by a bounty on the amount they produce 
ag well as by a tax on imports that compete with their own 
products. The producers of raw sugar have been pro¬ 
tected in this way by the McKinley Bill. Are the produc¬ 
ers of wool, eggs and other “raw materials” to be pro¬ 
tected in the same manner after they have been deprived 
of tariff protections?— Eds.] The present tariff maybeagood 
engine to coerce a few small powers, in a decade or two, into 
commercial treaties providing for reciprocity, but our 
laboring population demands immediate rather than pro¬ 
spective relief. No tariff should be greater on any article 
than the difference between the cost of its manufacture in 
this country (on the basis of fair wages and a moderate in¬ 
terest on the capital invested) and the cost of the same 
article laid down in New York from abroad. Anything 
beyond this is a burden upon the consumer and a protec¬ 
tion to trusts. Congress should establish a Bureau of In¬ 
formation for the collection of facts upon which a tariff 
might be based and constantly kept within the lines I 
have indicated. 
Our silver legislation has been most pernicious indeed, 
affording a fine field for “bull” and “bear” speculators 
at the expense of the public, and keeping the mining in¬ 
dustry of the country in constant hot water. I caunot 
understand the statesmanship that oppresses any one of 
our great industries, or the logic of demonetizing silver 
so long as we produce nearly one half of the world’s out¬ 
put. The present stringency in the money market is 
attributed by financial editors to the more rapid increase 
in the volume of business than in the circulating mediums 
i. e. our increase in money is not keeping pace with the 
expansion of our business. Then why demonetize one of 
our metals ? JOHN A. miller. 
New Mexico. 
Likes “ Farm Politics.”— The grandest undertaking of 
any paper devoted to the farmers’ interests is the political 
department In The Rural. Here a better opportunity of 
expressing their views is presented to farmers than has 
ever been given them heretofore. We had politics, so- 
called, dished up for us by the subsidized press, and it was 
almost impossible for the ordinary busy farmer to get at 
the truth. It was the habit of many farm papers to fre¬ 
quently print a few political and frequently misleading 
paragraphs. For instance, some wily politician, or office- 
seeker, started that paragraph on the wonderful effect the 
Silver Act had on our grain markets. I noticed it in at 
least a dozen agricultural papers, and The Rural is the 
only one so far that has shown that it was all a hoax. 
All the benefit that the actual farmer will reap 
from the Silver Bill will simply amount to zero. 
[The Silver Act was designed to increase the volume of the 
currency, which has, for some time, been so inadequate to 
the business and population of the country, that the value 
of money has been disproportionately increased in com¬ 
parison with that of other products. Reports just received 
from Washington declare that even the Administration, 
owing in part, no doubt, to the current financial trouble 
in Wall Street and, to a less extent, in the other money 
centers of the country, has become so impressed with the 
inadequacy of the “ medium of exchange,” that it will 
urge upon the next Congress some means for increasing the 
amount of it. With a larger volume of currency in circu¬ 
lation, the value of money would, the inflationists iusist, 
decrease in comparison with that of other things. This 
would be equivalent to an increase in the price of the 
latter, and hence, it is maintained, the farmers, who have 
to pay interest, taxes and all other debts from the returns 
from their products, would be benefited. Why then 
haven’t they been benefited already by the Silver Act, 
which has been in force several months? Because, although 
under ordinary conditions it would already have caused a 
small increase in the currency, under the existing con¬ 
ditions it has not done so, though it has, to a great extent, 
checked the contraction of the currency which has been 
going on for years to the advantage of the creditor, and, of 
course, to the disadvantage of the debtor class. Under it 
silver coin or silver Treasury notes have been issued at the 
rate of about $55,000,000 a year. Since 1883, however, there 
has been a steady decline in the circulation of National 
bank notes. During the last fiscal year this amounted 
to about $35,000,000, and there are now over $80,000,000 of 
such notes in process of retirement. Then again, the 
mere growth of our business and population calls for an 
average addition of over $20,000,000 each year to our cur¬ 
rency. Then there is a heavy annual decrease owing to the 
hoarding away, destruction and loss of the currency in the 
hands of the people. Thus the annual addition of $55,000,000 
to the currency under the Silver Act is counterbalanced 
by the yearly curtailment of the National bank note circu¬ 
lation and the constantly growing money needs of the 
country. This is one of the strongest arguments used 
by the advocates of the free coinage of silver.— Eds.] 
The grain and fruit crops were short over the entire coun¬ 
try, and naturally there would be a rise in prices, as 
the relation of supply and demand always regulates 
them, the silver kings’ paragraph to the contrary notwith¬ 
standing. Practical politicians have much faith in the 
gullibility of the average farmer; but he is becoming wide¬ 
awake. I have had considerable experience with farmers 
in organizing work, and after they have once opened their 
eyes they are not so easily put to sleep again. The big 
trouble is to get them awake in the first place. If only 
enough would read The Rural, the question would soon 
be solved, but that if - ! Well, I promise to get at least 
one new subscriber, and if each one will do just so much, 
The Rural family will do a noble work for humanity. 
When we find a paper that has back bone enough to tell the 
truth, let us have back-bone enough to help it along. 
York County, Pa. __ L - w - LIGHTY. 
VARIOUS QUESTIONS DISCUSSED. 
As The RURAL has added some questions to my letter 
published in its pages under the caption, “ Large Crops or 
More Money Wanted,” I answer the questions and give a 
few more ideas. 
Would “ I have the government take other imperishable 
products besides grain and issue certificates therefor f ” 
Certainly ; to be just, this would have to be done whenever 
the public, and especially the interests of the persons 
engaged in producing such articles, would be benefited by 
such an arrangement. Whether farmers and other pro¬ 
ducers would be benefited by such a change just at pres¬ 
ent, I can not say, but I think not. I believe there are 
other things that should be done first. 
But when I said that we “ needed more money,” “ cir¬ 
culating medium” or “ certificates of value” which should 
be issued on the value of imperishable and immovable 
property, I spoke my honest conviction, and I certainly 
would not create another monopoly by issuing them to no 
one except farmers. 
In “ Some Popular Fallacies about Money, etc.,” iu The 
Rural of November 1, C. M. Clay says: “ The idea that 
a certain amount is ’needed ’ per capita is a fallacy.’ Is 
it ? Why then coin an ounce of silver or gold, or allow a 
paper certificate or note to be issued ? When the same ar¬ 
ticle says, “A man uses (is entitled to) just as much 
money as he has, or can get upon honest credit, and no 
more,” it tells the truth, and if “ a man is entitled to 
what he can get upon honest credit ” he should have it 
from the government (no one else can furnish it), and at 
the lowest possible rate of interest. But it might be said 
that this would be class legislation, and against the banks 
and money lenders. I think it would be just legislation, 
annulling previous class legislation. I see no justice in 
subsidizing bank companies by an arrangement whereby 
they obtain nine per cent or more on their capital. Our 
banking and money system is a scheme which was orig¬ 
inated by English capitalists who saw in it a grand chance 
for making their gold bring them in millions which it did 
not earn. Every dollar of interest is a tax laid upon labor 
and productive enterprise by the system. 
The writer of “ Agricultural Depression,” in a late 
Rural, is right. “ Legislation will never cure all the ills 
flesh is heir to,” but if we are to have legislation, let it be 
just, and who dares to say that the money system of this 
country is just? Wbre not the United States greenbacks 
as good as a government bond. To be sure there is no ac¬ 
tual intrinsic value in either; but one represents just as 
much value as the other. The main difference is that the 
bonds cost the government (the people) millions of dollars 
each year, whereas the greenbacks cost comparatively 
nothing. 
I am glad so many writers agree as to the government 
ownership of the telegraph and railroad lines, and every 
honest citizen should be thankful for the fair, able and 
comprehensive way in which The Rural has discussed 
this subject. 
Malthus may have been correct when he said that popu¬ 
lation increased faster than the means of sustenance, but 
I think we never have seen any absolute proof of the as¬ 
sertion, and I don’t think we ever shall. Shame upon us 
for mentioning such an idea as the partial destruction or 
the partial prevention of the increase of the human race in 
this day and generation. Never have I seen recorded in 
history or told in story a time when the people of any 
nation or country could not by intelligently applying their 
labor to the natural resources of their land obtain plenty 
of the necessaries of life for all, although by faulty or 
insufficient means of distribution or individual neglect 
