Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-10-10


of business were equally liable to legisla-
| tive interference. Under that decision it
is unquestionably open to any State Legis-
lature to fix the price of wheat; but if
such measure should be proposed in any
Legislature, it needs no gift of prophecy to
foresee that the farmers would be in arms
instantly. Yet from an anti.monopoly
standpoint it is possible to advance some
very strong arguments in favor of just such
measures. The farmers would probably
say that they ought not to be regulated
because the public had not subsidized or
aided them. But in saying that they
would be mistaken. For il is perfectly
clear that inasmuch as the United States
Government fixes the price of the public
lands at nominal rate, in order to encour-
age settlement, every man who pre-empts
farm receives bounty from the Govern
ment, and is therefore in the same cate.
CORY with the subsidized railroads.
And why, it may be asked by consistent
aASi'AAlOIOPoiisbS, Suuuiu bnU5e VINO nave
monopoiizsd the land, and who owe all
they possess to this monopoly, not be com.
| PEELED to sell their wheat and other prod
uce at fixed reasonable rate? They did
not make the land. According to Henry
George they cannot have Just title TO it.
Their position is that of usurpers and mo-
I np,olioto Of kta =.
fest that SO dangerous set of men ought
to be curbed by the legislative power of
the State. These farmers have, by taking
possession of large tracts of land, prevent
ed thousand Of people from owning any
land at all. They have established a mo.
nopoly OF the means whereby the food of
the whole population is produced, and
they ought, even if they are left in pos.
session of the land, to be compelled to sell
their produce to the people cheaply. The
| Supreme Court of the United States has
| declared that such regulation is lawful
and proper. 1t cannot be denied for an
instant that there is public use" in
grain growing. Why, then, should bloated
monopolists like our friend Tom McCon.
nell be allowed to grind the faces OF the
poor by charging all they can get for
their produce? As anti.monopolists they
are committed to the principle OF regulat.
ing railroad charges by the cost Of serv.
"ice." The same principle can be applied
to themselves. Is it tolerabe or to be
endured that these grasping farmers should
be allowed to hold their grain for rise !;
that they should be permitted to take the
very highest price they can get for IL !;
whereas according TO their own doctrine
they have no claim to more than a reason
able percentage mot to be fixed by them.
selves) over the cost of production ?
Consistent anti.monopolists must hold
that the business of wheat growing calls
for regulation no less than that of trans.
| portation. For what is the great end and
aim Of all regulative legislation? Clearly
it is to secure the greatest good to the
| greatest number. And who are the great
est number? Clearly the consumers. Yet
in the face of these facts the rapacious
Tom McConnells and their kind shut
their eyes to the best interests of their
fellow citizens, and persist in making all
the profit possible ont of their business.
They will take 81 70, 50, 50 50, in fact
any uncomfortable rate per GENITAL the con-
] IIfTnn Of fba rIar .fT,-ls
they obtain the happier they are. They
have no bowels of compassion. They do
not care for the fact that what brings pros
perlty to them makes life harder to thou
sands OF poor, struggling people. Evil
IDENTIFY it is against public policy to leave
so selfish and greedy class unregulated.
Evidently, according to their own doctrine
of anti.monopoly, they ought to be regu.
lated. And if we regard them from Henry
Georges standpoint, the necessity of regu-
lation appears still palmer For he has
written book to prove that it is the duty
OF Government to confiscate the land, and
to turn all the proprietors off without any
compensation. This is the theory of land
naturalization, and compared to it the
proposal to regulate the price of wheat and
corn seems culpably mild and moderate.
We, however, are content to view the stu.
alton from the anti-monopoly standpoint
alone. and from that standpoint we think
1t apparent that the Farmers Convention
was the most inconsistent of bodies. 1t.
self avowedly composed Of the most bale
| ful class of monopolists-a class which
thrives best when the poor mans loaf is
dearest-this preposterous Convention
fulmin ated profuseiy against railroads but
refused to admit any considerations bear.
ing upon land. We are not surprised that
those who believe in the overshgdowing evil
of land monopoly should look upon this
Convention with contempt and indignation.
and it would scarcely astonish anyone if
some real reformer who owned no land
himself should presently undertake to de.
montrate his patriotism by proposing the
| legislative regulation of farming. The
subject has not hitherto been much con.
sidered, but we have in this article shown
ttat it affords rich field for reflection and
| inquiry, and that as matter of fact al.
most every anti-monopoly argument that
has ever been employed against the rail-
roads may be directed, with precisely the
same force, against the farmers. The lat
Ger We have no doubt would laugh to scorn
any suggestion IS to regulating them, and
many strong objections to any such
course would occur to them on
the instant. But all such OBJ
jections apply equally to the regulation
of the railroads, aud in fact it is impossi-
bic, when once the barrier which projects
private property is broken down, to set
limit to the interference and to the Iegiti-
mixed robbery which may be perpetrated
by legislatures. When auti-monopoly in
the abstract comes to be examined il must
be perceived very quickly that nine.t enshs
OF the talk about it in the concrete is dems-
gogisn, and the other tenth nonsense. The