The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1890-03-25
No 7

/ priated fyr the District Of Columbia
alone IN ten years as much ag the
warehouses will cost. 1t gave the Pa.
ciic Railroad an empire Of land and
appropriated more money for the
railroad referred to than it would cost
to build the warehouses.
Congress by law has collected in
forms of tax from the people and paid
in interest for these Pacific railroads
thirty millions more than we ask for.
We have collected from the people
in ten years, as shown by the treas
urer's report, over $4,000, 1000. 600 in
the tariff tax; we have collected from
the people in ten years twelve hundred
millions in internal revenue, and sure
ly the farmers have paid some little of
this enormous tax. Now we certainly
think we are entitled to some consid-
Grafton. We ask a respectful hearing,
and really think if the principle of
"the greatest good to the greatest
number is not obsolete, that if we
can prove in Congress our system to
be a good one, we are entitled to the
expense without further argument in
that line. There is no good reason
why the bed rock" of our country
should be ignored.
Third. 1t is said by others that this
is paternalism Is it paternalism for
us to be prOvident? Is it not wise to
prepare tor emergencies ? Is it more
paternal to issue money on products
of value than to issu0 to banks ON
evidences of debt? Is it more pater-
nal for the government to look after
| food products than to look after whis
ky in warehouses? Is it more paternal
to aid the farmer than it is to aid the
manufacturer r? Is it more paternal
to aid the farmer than to aid the Pa
cifc railroads? If so call it paternal-
ism and make the most of it.
Other plans are being offered.
Show us better plan and we will
adopt it. We want relief and want it
quickly. Most important of these is
the plan for loaning money on land.
We canvassed that plan in our conven-
tion in St. Louis. It was found that
a large per cent. of the farmers in the
South (mainly colored) and very
large per cent. in the North and West
were renters and croppers, and if
money was loaned on real property it
would exclude those that were too
poor to own farms of their own from
be benefits of low rate of interest.
The Alliance seeks to extend to the
j. lest toiler the same advantages
u Ia. 'ffers the largest planter If
pro1esaj94A politicians would IL us
alone W., th. Jan s15 All. nee, wCu17
quickly settle the race question. The
Alliance has already done more for
the colored man than all Congression-
al legislation from 1870 until now.
Again, it was said "that if money
was issued on lands that much of it
would go into the hands of the large
holder, and that if those who were al
ready in debt were desirous of availing
themselves of the privilege they could
not do so, for the government could
not accept property as security that
was not free from al forms of liens
against it. Again, if a landowner
was Ill debt and the debts were due,
there would be foreclosures on the
part of the money-loaners with the
view of getting the lands in at low
rates, when there was certainty that
they could borrow money of the gov
ernment on them at one per cent.
Again, this would not give US a fexi-
ble volume of currency, which we
claim is desirable. The press dis
patches in reference to the California
Senator'S resolutions say that bankers
are flooding the Senator with tele-
grams, saying: "This plan of yours
would ruin banking"
Shall farmers be ruined to make
the bankers prosperous Is that to
be the issue? Is it wrong to issue
money on produce or lands and right
to issue it to bankers at one per cent,
and then loan millions more on no
per cent. at all2 Will you please tell
US if our plan is not wise what the
present plan is like unto?
OLD FoGY.
Washington, March IL.