The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1890-09-09
JET US REASON TOGETHER.

to the very verge Of bankruptcy. This
has not only been freely admitted by
Senator Vance, but it has been charged
by him, and all thinking, patriotic
men, time and time again. Forty
years ago the farmers of the United
States owned 70 per cent. Of is wealth
to.day they W less than % Fer cent.
of It's wealth and pay over 80 per cent.
of it's taxes. From 1850 to 1850, as.
ricultural values increased l0l per
cent; from 1870 to 1880, they in.
creased only 9 per cent, and to day
the struggle with a large majority of
the farmers of the country is, not to
make money, but to save their homes
from the sherif's hammer and to feed
and clothe their families. This con
dition of affairs, was known to our
Congressman. They well knew and
understood the causes which %conspired
to bring it about. They knew that
its chief cause was to be found in the
corrupt manipulation of the financial
system of the government. What
then was the plain duty of the National
representatives in Congress ? Plainly,
it was not to sit there and wait for the
people to find it out, and wait for the
people to ask, that justice be done
them. But they did wait. They
ignored the expressions and the in.
justice under which the farmers sui
fered instead of coming to their relief
as faithfulrepresentatives should have
done. They waited until the farmers
actually walked into the Capitol with
a bill of their own devising, ana asked
for its consideration and adoption.
| How was that bill received ? 1t went
into the hands of a committee Of each
House aoout the middle of February
last, and it lies there yet, to sleep the
eternal legislative death. Why has
it not oeen reported upon? Why is
it thus buried? Why is it thus
ignored? Why has it not been dis
Gu ssed, that the people might be shown
its merits or defects ? Any Senator,
under the rules of that body, could
have forced the Senate Committee to
make a report on it by resolution and
then it could have been discussed.
Why has it not been done 2 Senator
Vance says: off it were once re
ported from the committee it would
have received thorough discussion,
and the country could see for itself"
Why, we ask, then, has not Senator
Vance or some other Senator, intro
duced a resolution compelling the
committee to report, 10 it might be
discussed 2 The history of this bill
indie ites a settled purpose on the part
of the politicians not to allow this meas
ure to be discussed before the people. A
correspondent of this paper showed
last week how Col. Harry Skinner, a
prominent lawyer and a friend of this
measure, ~endeavored, by the introduc
ton Of a resolution, to have it dis
cussed before the late State Demo
cratic Convention, and how that effort
of his was thwarted. They are
afraid to discuss it. They have sup
pressed its discussion in Congress;
they suppress it in State conventions,
and they will not discuss it through
the press. Why? The rational con
clusiou is, that they are AFRAID to haze 1t
discussed 6efore the people.
Senator Vance, Mr.. Henderson and
others say they are not opposed to the
principle of the measure, but they
cannot support it in its present shape.
Then why do they not put it in proper
shape? Is it not their plain duty to
do so? Did any of these gentlemen
ever vote for any great and important
measure, either i'm a legislature or in
Congress, just as it was originally
drawn and presented 2 Are they
not almost invariably changed or
amended? Is this not true of all bills
involving great interests, even though
they be drawn by the best and ablest
lawyers? In our case, Congress sits
back and legislates for all other classes
and all other interests, and waits for
the farmer to find out his trouble and
to offer a remedy. And when he
presents his remedy, it is rejected, not
because the principle is wrong, but
because 1t IS not IN proper shape. Whose
business was it to put it in proper
shape? Must the farmers, to rid
themselves of the great evils with
which they are cursed, get up their
own bills, and must they oe so precise
as to have every "I" dotted and every
IT" crossed, and have it punctuated
properly before it is in good enough
shape" to receive the attention of
Congressman? At lie EAST a dozen Con
gressmen have pronounced the meas
ure unconstitutional. How many of
them have attempted to prove it ? If
the principle of the bill is right, and
1t IS presented in unconstitutional
4" shape" why have they not given it
constitutional "shape p If, as they
assert, it is impraeticable, why have
they not given it a practicable