Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1879-12-24
Farmers and Produce Spectators.

Farmers and Produce Spectators.
FRIEND TINKHAM see you are still
active in exposing my many misdoings
In fact, you seem to have devoted Yourself
10 it as life work. l don't object. but
would like, with your permission, to offer
Il few words of reply 10 your last indict.
ment, under the title Of " LOGIC.n It is
not, if | may be Judge, so much a want OF
agricultural as of commercial knowledge
which you display in this article. The
short piece which you make the subject of
your comments was almost wholly made
up of extracts from commercial papers,
and in the few words added l did not 90
in any degree beyond my authorities in
condemnation of the proceedings of the
operation that is, the spectators, or
more properly the gamblers. of the prod
uce exchange of Chicago ard New York.
Your argument that these gambling oper-
ations benefit the farmers is quite on Il
par with the claim that the gambling and
horse racing at fairs is of similar benefit,
and do not see how | am more obnoX
ious to the charge Of attempting to " en-
bitter and set one class against another
by these quotations and comments, than
certain editors | know of are by their at
tacks upon horse racing and gambling at
fairs. | should certainly judge, from
what | have heard them say, that these
fair gamblers are very much "embittered'
against you, and | hope You have also
succeeded in " embttering the public
against them. am quite in sympathy
with you on the subject; but when make
Il modest complaint against gambling on
Il much more extensive scale, and, rs |
think. quite us harmful TO the agricultural
interests of the country, you fiercoly attack
my Logic" 1t is only by misunderstood
ing or mistating the facts and he views
expressed that you make even IL seeming
impeachment of my reasoning in this
connection. But will not take up space
by adverting more particularly to that; ;
| would far rather we might each of US
90 peacefully on in our efforts to promote
the purposes we have at heart for the
benefit of our fellow farmers, without
spending time and space, that might be
better used in controversies that are not
likely to be of much practical advantage.
| think our readers are quite as compe-
tent to detect our errors of " logic" as
we are to do it for each other, and proba-
bly, just as impartial, Yours truly,
T. IL. IL,
FRIEND HOSKINs;-I very chcerlully
print your note above, the more so that it
crilicises my own article. The jury gcner-
ally hear both sides and so should our
readers. The misfortune in my case is
that years, ability and attachments give
you so much the advantage in discussion.
But it is not poor complime Mt to be con.
sidered foeman worthy Of your steel.
| hope it may be Il part OF my life work
to expose aud combat what | consider er-
ror whether held by friends or strangers.
That the article was largely extracts from
other papers appeared on its face, but ii
was not more likely to prove true from
that fact, and still the simple questions re-
themselves" Is a rise of five hundred
millions of dollars in the price of farmers
produce still IN their hands IN injury to
the farmer? That is simply what has
happened, and that is the question to be
answered. The other question is one Of
the meaning Of language and is simply
stated. A Chicago banker says, If the
farmers were out of debt they could hold
their wheat and corn and derive the nat.
ural benefit of the inevitable rise in prices
before another harvest" which you hold
to mean 1.-THE ayowed object of keeping
the farmers poor" We think it Is not
properly chargable with such meaning.
Again, do not believe there is class in
our country who have II desire to keep
the farmers poor, for everybody knows
that our whole country in all its industries
must flourish or decline rs agriculture
flourishes or declines, and nobody knows
it better than the bankers.
| may have misunderstood, but can
hardly have misstated your views, as
have ARRAYS given verbatim extracts
and not my version of your views.
heartily endorse your idea of going
peacefully on in our efforts to promote
the purposes we have at heart for the
benefit of our fellow farmers" and have
had no other idea from the first notice
in your last issue, published since your
note was received, an explanation of your
idea Of going peacefully ON, and rather
like it, especially as verbatim extracts Of
my articles arc given. 1t begins:
We are glad to see our friend Tinkham
at last discussing the question of industrial
education with an appearance of serious
purpose, rather than wasting ink in rellec-
tons upon those who favor it.
again:
So we do not expect opposition from the
friends of classical education to the "acad-
emies, normal schools and colleges; " but
we do find the more narrow-minded
among them opposing Industrial schools
and the introduction of science.teaching
in public schools, and mourning because
our town high schools and the upper de.
partmens of our graded schools are kill
ing out the classical academies. That is
the point, but it is rs hard to make Mr..
llnkham see 1t as 10 get an owl to look at
the sun
and still further on:
We have long ceased to look for any
approach to consistency in our amiable
and versatile friend, but who would expect
to find in the next column to the above
the following:
That's right; let us each 60 peacefully
on in our efforts" and perhaps the owl
may yet see the sun and attain some of
the virtue of consistency. Don't hesitate
to criticise my numerous errors, nor fear
l shall attribute TO unfriendliness your
naturally forcible style of expression.
Yours very truly,
0. NJ. TINKHAM.