The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1890-05-01
For fae N,.mh'.p I,MHH.
1 FARMER" speaks Again.

- l. HIl:i%. rcC""'' fS''
Tile Democratic party (or white !
people Of South C:;!o!ina) have con
troleI tie State Government since
1876. 4 fiction or thai party. ssy'- /
inr themselves The Farmers Asso.
ciation," claim that the barlen OF
taxation is rouFfold greater now lila"
it was under Radical Tor negTo) ru!o'
Yet, they propose to stick to the
Democratic rartv, which imposes n
ro4rfold hur,icn mp n thcm. Are
they sincere in their charges against
the party, and in their declaration o!
intentions 10 stick to il! What have
they do:c 10 reform the party daring
the fourteen years Of their connec-
ticn with It? rncy claim to repre-
Sent So per cent, OF the membership
of the party; then arc they no. re:
sponsible for the acts of the party!
They admit that the tax levy Is about
the same as unticr Radical rnie, but
claim that one dollar will purchase
us much rs two W uld in 1876. This
is rot true, but admit it for tho sake
Of argamert, and it proves the reverse
OF what they claim. The bArAen ol
farmers dcbs, Of taxation, is properly
measured by the amount OF lthor
necessarily expended in the produc'
ton of commodities III value sufll
cient to liquidato the debt or tax.
In 1876 CON. h5ur and bacon, al
though not double, yet were higher
in price tLan at tic present. ton3e-
ouentIy the cost OF producing tale
Of cotton Was greater then than new,
and the price, or valur,of the cotton
was about ghe same as now. Q..e., II
was quoted in New York at ii to -
being highest and lowest prices in
1876 Farm wages, i'll many local
itics. are lower thin in 1876, AMI the
reduced price in corn, bacon and
hour reduces the expenses If cotsnn
pro Iuction. Therefore, il we meas
ure the sin oerit; ~ wisdom Of. this
faction By shn assertion Ci its chair
man, we could noS commend It's
teachings as u safe guide to be foi.
lowed by the Democratic voters OF
the State. If it was not ignorance,
then what could have prompted Mr
Shell 10 SO falsely charge the Dcmo'
cratic party with increasing the bur
den of taxstion? Was be practising
The art of Il demagugue to weaken
the rAi,h OF the unsuspeating farmers
in tile party as organized, and win
them over to a fiction whose purpose
is to secure Office for themselves? Or
has he no tru'hfu! charges Of dc!ln'
quencics 20 bring against the Demo
cratic party? Why dill he not tell
lis that the State expenditures fpl
fiscal year ending October 5lst 1883,
was Sl,l9N. .l32.G3, us tolluws: Fol
Stite expenses, S5J3,JSj.lG; for IN
terest and redemption Of s:tnte bonds
$506,40717? The interest alone OH
the bonded debt vi the State is about
S350,uOO. Did lie not know that this
legacy Of debt was left us by the Hadl
cal party? 1t he is good Democrat
why does he make such inyidlons
comparisons between his own aad
the Radical PARTY so niuch to the
detrin.ent of tho Democratic party!
Who does lie expect to defend the
Democratic party (his osn patty,
rrola false charges Of its friends:
Notwithstanding our large per cent
Of negro population, which furnishse
80 per cent of the criminal class oI
the Stble, and thereby adds to oal
tax burden, yet there arc but two
States in the United States That pays
less tax per capita t'an South Care
lima. When We consider the interest
on the Radical legacy" we arc srr'
prised that faction Calming to be
friends TO the farmer and members
Of the Democratic party should bring
suck charges against their own par
.v FARMER.