832 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
DEC. 6 
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. 
HOW IT HAPPENED. 
“ What does it mean ?” The R. N.-Y. made this the 
subject of an editorial just after the recent election. Al¬ 
most every voter has his own peculiar answer to this 
conundrum. The R. N.-Y. gave several general reasons 
for the revolution, and has seen little evidence to change 
its mind, except the facts that thousands of Republicans 
stayed at home, and that manufacturers and dealers took 
advantage of the “McKinley Bill scare” to raise prices 
higher than they had any business to. The Republicans 
seemed to stay at home out of pure indolence or out of 
disgust at some of their candidates. We give place to the 
following opinions. They will help to an intelligent dis¬ 
cussion of the subject. We are not afraid of printing every 
side of these National questions. That is why this depart¬ 
ment of Farm Politics was created. Let us come together 
fairly, frankly and candidly, and try to find what is best 
for the American farmer. Having found it, let us stick 
to it till it is ours. These very opinions will indicate what 
a “ compromise ” we have before us : 
The Force Educational Law. 
Yes, it is true, as The Rural says on page 776, that “the 
great body of independent voters will not submit to arro¬ 
gant and arbitrary rule.” This is why the Force Educa¬ 
tion Law was rebuked in Illinois and Wisconsin. A man 
would be foolish (wouldn’t he ?) to surrender the govern¬ 
ment of his family to others when he could help himself 
by voting against such legislation. Such a law is as 
dangerous on the one hand as the “ States rights ” 
doctrine is on the other. benj. buckmAN. 
Sangamon County, Ill. 
Mr. Cannon Like Actseon. 
I note that The Rural, in a late issue, says that Cannon 
lost his place because of his foul language on the floor of 
the House of Representatives. I don’t think so, and. be¬ 
ing on the ground, my testimony is entitled to some 
weight. Cannon met the fate of Actseon of old who was 
devoured by his own dogs; he had not meat enough to 
feed the whole pack and they turned upon him. [Oh no ; 
Act aeon was punished, not for being short of dog meat, 
but for doing a foul deed just as Cannon was punished, in 
part at least, for uttering foul words. The grandson of 
Cadmus secretly watched the goddess Diana while bathing 
and, as punishment, was transformed into a stag and de¬ 
voured by his own dogs.—E ds.] For the last three terms 
Cannon was not the choice of the Republicans of the 
Fifteenth District, but his men so managed as to control 
conventions and secure him the nomination, but they were 
overthrown at last. The corn crop being a very good one 
and prices more than double those of ’89, talk about the 
rise in prices on account of the tariff had very little effect 
toward determining the vote. Cannon was misled as to 
the magnitude of the revolt in his own party; had he been 
correctly informed and withdrawn from the canvass, his 
substitute would have been elected and no one would be so 
likely to succeed in the next election for the House of 
Representatives as Cannon. 
A FIFTEENTH DISTRICT YOTER. 
A Kansas Fence Broken. 
The Rural of November 15, inquires about our fences. 
The vote of Willowdale Township, cast November 4, is as 
follows: For Governor—Willetts, 89, People’s party; 
Humphrey, 24, Republican; Robinson, 14, Democrat. The 
Republicans have usually polled about 90 votes. We want 
the fences lower. I cast my first vote for Garfield, second 
for Blaine, and third for Harrison. I want a change. 
Dickinson County, Kansas. G. h. cheney. 
Protection Saves Us From Becoming Plugs. 
One of the chief reasons given by The Rural for the 
result of the last election is that “ the country demands a 
reduction of the tariff rather than an Increase.” Well, has 
there not been a reduction? What about sugar? Tin is 
not to be touched until 1893. I think that there were three 
reasons for such a result: 1. Dense ignorance as to the 
provisions of the McKinley Bill; 2, absolute indolence and 
indifference on the part of Republican voters; and, 3, 
gross trickery and fraud by false assertions and paster bal¬ 
lots. The great Napoleon said: “Though a nation be 
made of adamant, free trade will grind it to powder,” and 
the writer thinks that free trade or a tariff for revenue 
only would surely grind this nation to powder. [Though 
^free trade, in one sense, has existed from the earliest times 
in certain countries, with occasional temporary inter¬ 
ruptions, yet the present acceptation of the term dates 
back only to the publication of Adam Smith’s well known 
work, “The Wealth of Nations,” which was published 
some time after Napoleon’s death. The latter’s idea of 
free trade, as illustrated in his Berlin and Milan decrees 
shutting English goods out of the Continent, would be 
considered rather peculiar to-day.—E ds.] Does The 
Rural know what the sentiment of the farmer really is 
as to whether he wants a manufactory in close contiguity 
to his farm or 3,000 miles from it ? The McKinley Bill is 
the embodiment of the best spirit of protection for the la¬ 
borer, farmer, editor and capitalist, and experience 
teaches The Rural full well that nothing thrives without 
protection. Man is in need of it from his birth. Trees, 
etc., must have care and protection, and The Rural, in its 
article on “ The Son of a Well bred Trotter,” asserts that 
foals must have “protection” when it says: “If neg¬ 
lected or exposed to inclement weather at this time, they 
are sure to be stunted, and, instead of making roadsters 
worth $250 apiece, they become simply plugs worth about 
$80.” Mr. McKinley et al. know that if the farmer and 
workman of this nation are neglected and exposed to the 
inclement and selfish action of the farmer and manufac¬ 
turer of other nations, they will become simply common 
plugs. 
[The sheet bearing the address of this writer and a por¬ 
tion of his article has been unfortunately lost. 
Unquestionably any farmer would like to be located 
near a factory where he can sell his produce to non pro¬ 
ducers. Does our friend realize that a majority of the 
farmers of this country are so far from a direct market 
that they are practically at the mercy of railroads, middle¬ 
men and speculators ? How about these men ? They are 
the ones who have given the Farmers’ Alliance its wonder¬ 
ful force and are prepared to absolutely upset the calcula¬ 
tions of old party leaders. The Rural New-Yorker en¬ 
deavors to give a fair and honest review of the feeling 
among farmers. It is very evident to us that thousands 
of thinking men—at the West particularly—have come to 
the conclusion that our tariff laws have proven of direct 
benefit to manufacturers and indirect benefit to farmers. 
Without knowing precisely how to effect the change, they 
want this state of things reversed and the farmer to 
receive a direct benefit. It is for this reason that Mr. 
Blaine’s plan of reciprocity or tariff-trading is popular, 
being supported by thousands of men who believe in the 
spirit of just and fair protection and yet object to lowering 
duties without some adequate compensation in trade. As 
to protecting the colt—exactly, but we do not believe in 
spending so much time and food on the colt that the cow 
will suffer. Do you ?— Eds ] 
A SON OF VERMONT TALKS. 
I have recently returned from a trip to the East, 
where, for the first time in 30 years, I revisited the “scenes 
of my childhood ” in Vermont. 
In traveling through that State, as well as New Hamp¬ 
shire and Massachusetts, there are to be found many 
specimens of The Rural’s talking parrot with the ever- 
reourring phrase, “ farmin’ don’t pay,” and it seems ob¬ 
vious that the bird was more nearly correct there than his 
opponents allowed. Take, for instance, that little State of 
Vermont. Notwithstanding the fact of the growth of 
such towns as Burlington, Barre, St. Albans and others 
in the last decade, the total population of the State is less 
than it was ten years ago, and the decrease has been 
mainly if not entirely among the farming communities. 
The growth of New Hampshire is found to be in the man¬ 
ufacturing towns, and it may be presumed that the same 
can be said of Massachusetts and, in fact, of all of the 
Eastern States. Many of the hill-side farms that were 
under cultivation 10 to 20 or 30 years ago, first reverted to 
grazing lands and are now growing up to the various 
shrubs and trees best suited to the localities. It was ex¬ 
pected that there would be found a cordon of successful 
farmers at least around some of the great manufacturing 
towns; but, instead, there were railway side-tracks filled 
with train loads of dressed beef and pork from Chicago, 
and flour from Minneapolis. It seems that the question 
for the Eastern farmer to consider is what can he produce 
most successfully in competition with his brother in the 
West. As transportation rates become lower, the East 
and the West come nearer together. There is and natur¬ 
ally must be a constant readjustment of values, not only 
between the products of the Eastern and Western farms, 
but between the farms themselves; and until the very 
lowest cost of transportation Is reached, it must be ex¬ 
pected that while the agricultural lands of the West are 
increasing in value, those of the East will do well if they 
remain simply at a stand still instead of continuing on the 
down grade. 
These are the facts, but it Is not always the physician 
who points out the true condition of his patients that is 
the most popular. In some Eastern localities this Western 
competition is acknowledged and deplored and even an un¬ 
reasonable enmity is expressed towards the Occidental 
farmers. But these natural conditions must be under¬ 
stood and faced. We of the West think the battle of life 
goes roughly enough here, although we have not yet had 
to experience a shrinkage of value of our farms of from 25 
to 75 per cent, and probably such a thing will never be seen 
here, for it may be reasonably expected that the next 
decade will witness as large an increase in the farming 
population of the United States as the last has seen in the 
growth of the great cities. 
Whatever is to the permanent advantage of any one 
farmer, is to the advantage of all, East, West, North and 
South. The producers of wheat or corn or cotton are all 
naturally “ in the same boat,” and the farmers on the op¬ 
posite side of Mason and Dixon’s line, who quarrel to day 
about the issues of 30 years ago, are putting in their time 
to the very poor advantage of everybody except the profes¬ 
sional politicians. There is no single interest and there 
cannot be any comparable in importance with that of agri¬ 
culture, at least in the United States. The question as to 
whether the majority of farmers are in a prosperous con¬ 
dition or not need not at this time be argued; yet it follows 
that if any class of population needs particular legislation 
in its favor, it is the agricultural. But, in general, the 
farmers do not ask that; they ask only for a fair field for 
their exertions, and object only to have the support of any 
other class or special interest fastened upon their already 
burdened shoulders. 
We of the West are beginning to think that tariff legis¬ 
lation should be in the line of lowering the duties upon 
those articles which enter into our every-day consumption 
rather than in raising them; that the simplest form of tax 
collection is the best, and that when the strong arm of the 
General Government, which we cannot evade or resist, 
goes down into the pockets of one class of citizens to trans - 
fer their contents into the pockets of another class, there 
is about the action a hardship and injustice that cannot be 
forgotten in a moment. The deliberate convictions of the 
farming classes upon questions of such governmental 
policy as this, are most likely to be correct. There is 
plenty of time for thought and study while following the 
plow and kicking over the stubborn clods. And if there is 
selfishness in it, it is such selfishness as is expressed in the 
axiom that “self-preservation is the first law of nature.” 
Did you hear anything drop last election day ? Any 
“dull thud” so to speak, that emphasized the fact that 
the political complexion of the House of Representatives 
had changed since the passage of the so-called McKinley 
Bill ? It was nothing,—only that the patient camel, in¬ 
stead of allowing its back to be broken by this last straw, 
as by all tradition and practice it should have done, made 
a somewhat spasmodic, and yet, to a certain extent, 
effective kick ; and a suggestion merely as to what may be 
looked for two years later. Charles j. wright. 
THE FARMERS’ ALLIANCE’S CONGRESS. 
The national congress of the Farmers’ Alliance will 
convene in its regular annual session at Ocala, Florida, on 
Tuesday, December 2. About 200 delegates are expected 
to attend. The basis of representation is two delegates at 
large from each State having a State organization, and one 
additional delegate for each 20,000 male members. All the 
other farmers’ associations will have held their annual 
conventions before that of the Alliance will begin, and all 
have been invited to send delegates to confer with the Alli¬ 
ance representatives at Ocala upon a proposal to form a fed¬ 
eration of the farmers of the entire country in one gigantic 
organization, to be known as the American Federation of 
Agricultural Associations, or by any other name that may 
be considered more appropriate. Its purposes would be 
social, economical and educational as well as political. It 
would be a mighty defensive, and perhaps offensive, league 
of the farmers of the country. It is thought that the 
results of the late elections demonstrate the feasibility of 
forming a vast, practical combination of wealth producers 
even when the individual members are widely scattered. 
The Alliance, the Grange, the Patrons of Industry, the 
Farmers’ Mutual Benefit Association and various minor 
organizations are now each earnestly laboring for the farm¬ 
ers’ social, financial and educational advancement. They 
are all non partisan. They are distinctly business organi¬ 
zations, and until of late have taken part in politics only 
when the business interests of the members reudtred it 
necessary. They all work for the same object, but in dif¬ 
ferent lines, and the rivalry between them has been nearly 
always of a friendly nature, and has stimulated them to 
more strenuous efforts. Still there are too many little 
jealousies and diversities of opinion, interests and aims to 
permit an amalgamation of all to be harmonious and per¬ 
manent. There is, however, no reason why all should not 
be united in one grand federation, with an executive board 
composed of the executive officers of the various national 
agricultural associations. This supreme council could 
devise means for general cobperation on all questions on 
which all the associations could agree, while measures on 
which they could not act harmoniously might be left to 
their own management. Thus all would work together 
for the achievement of the objects of common interest, 
while each would continue to carry out its special objects 
in its own way. This is the plan which has proved emi¬ 
nently successful in case of the societies that compose the 
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 
as well as the trades-unions composing the most power¬ 
ful labor organization, the Federation of Labor. The 
new organization, the National Farmers’ League, which is 
devoted exclusively to politics in the interests of agricul¬ 
ture, and which did such yeoman’s service in New Eng¬ 
land during the recent elections, would, of course, be a 
member of the federation. Of course, in so vast a project 
only the preliminary steps can be taken at the approach¬ 
ing session of the Alliance ; but it is likely that the con¬ 
ference of the delegates of the various organizations will 
demonstrate its feasibility and shape its character, leav¬ 
ing the perfection o£the plan for a subsequent convention. 
It is thought that such a vast federation of farmers would 
afford exceptional opportunities for cooperation iu buying 
and selling, so that a great saving might be rnado not only 
in the purchase of commodities at wholesale, but also on 
freight charges on them as well as on farm products in 
their way to market, and, moreover, arrangements could, 
it is believed, be made by which the surplus of our crops 
sold in Liverpool, would no longer fix the price of the vast 
bulk of our produce marketed at home. To perfect such 
a gigantic scheme, however, would require great skill and 
financial ability, inexhaustible patience and sterling in¬ 
tegrity, and its multifarious aspects can only be discussed 
at the Ocala convention. 
Many, especially in Kansas, propose to advocate the 
foundation of a People’s party to take part in the political 
contest in 1892. These classify the present electoral votes as 
follows: 
Surely Republican in 1892: Maine, 6; Vermont, 4; Penn¬ 
sylvania, 30; Ohio, 23. Total 63. 
Surely Democratic: New York, 36; New Jersey, 9; Dela¬ 
ware, 8 ; Maryland, 8 ; Texas, 13 ; Kentucky, 9. Total, 78. 
Sure for the People’s party : North Carolina, 11; South 
Carolina, 9; Georgia, 12; Kansas, 9; Nebraska, 5; Mich¬ 
igan. 13; Mississippi. 9; North Dakota, 3 ; South Dakota, 
4; Minnesota, 7. Total, 82. 
Good fighting grounds: Alabama, 10 ; Arkansas, 7; Cali¬ 
fornia, 8 ; Colorado, 3; Florida, 4 ; Illinois, 22; Indiaua, 15 ; 
Iowa, 13; Louisiana, 8; Missouri, 16; Tennessee, 12; Vir¬ 
ginia, 12; West Virginia, 6; Wisconsin, 11. Total, 147. 
It is argued that in all the States classed as “ fighting 
ground,” the farmers’ and laborers’ organizations are, or 
will be, strong onough to hold the balance of power. A 
