The Dalles times-mountaineer. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1882-1904, 1890-03-29
senator stanford's scheme.


Editor TINES -MoUNrAlNEER:
Anent Senator Stanford's SCHEME" as
the Oregonian has it in the issue
of March 2lst you say ''that a lot
in Portland, Seattle, or any growing
city may be worth as much as a thousand
acres in the interior, and so soon as law of
congress pledges the government to issue
tenders equal to half the value of the land
that value would be immeasurably en-.
hanced." Are you sure that the senator
meant to include town, or other incorporated
property, in the law?
As for the Oregonian's comments in the
weekly of the 2lst inst, wherein, among
Others, the objection is made that the gov
ernment hasn't any money to loan, etc., !"
how Is it that bills ready for signature were
and are still issued broadcast over the land
to the national banks? Are not the people
taxed, not alone to pay the interest on the
bonds which secure the issue mentioned,
but also to justify the quarterly turning of
the bank funds which are available for the
movement of enterprises wholly supported
by the people? The Oregonian says the gov
ernment has no right to tax one man, who
is an Garner, for the relief of another who
is a non-earner. Now, who is this "non-
earner?" Surely not the farmer Though
deep in debt and his farm mortgaged, does
he earn nothing for the country? Are not
his products just as valuable in the marts of
the world, without reference to his tenn
porary tinapcial condition? This question,
however, Is not relevant, since the senator
does not propose to tax the so-called
learner" for the benefit of the ''non- Garner"
But the fact remains that the farming lands
are mortgaged to an alarming extent and is
mainly attributable to circumstances oyer
which the farmer mas not exerted sufficient
control, such as the demonstration of
silver, the tariff, railroad charges, etc.
are to-day paying ten per cent. interest.
high insurance rates and exorbltant COM
missions for money loaned, In many in
stances, by foreign corporations. How
many farmers will succeed in paying their
mortgages and the enormous earnings"
thereon under existing difficulties? Is there
any serious danger in the risk, which the
Oregoaian pretends Senator Stanford's plan
INVOLVES, of the government "owning all the
lands?" How much better, or worse, would
it be if the lands get into possession of mon
eyed corporations, either at home or abroad?
Further, who can doubt, under reasonable
safeguards, that the farmers would, in due
time. with few exceptions, repay their debts
to the government? As for the insurance
item, that can be fully met by the farmers
themselves through well organized mutual
insurance system. Under Senator Stan
ford's plan they would not be compelled to
annually pay enormous profits to the thou
sands of non-earners" who compose exist
ing insurance companies For we do not
suppose that corporate loan establishments
will accept any farmers mutual insurance
guarantee. That would be depriving the
so.called learners" of their revenue where
with to direct legislation, pave the way for
future profits and forever establish the cap
italist's hold upon the producing classes.
As for the redemption of the bills to be is
sued and loaned farmers, it appears that the
Oregonidn is fearful that every farmer In the
United States would rush to mortgage his
land upon the enactment of the law sug.
gested. That paper may also entertain the
idea that the majority of farmers would let
their lands slide as an avalanche upon the
government without attempting to redeem
their notes. If SO the Oregonian has a very
poor estimation of the farming classes. The
farmers gave thousands of lives, but few
years since, to defend and uphold the very
homes which are to-day threatened by a
danger quite as serious as that which called
them to the battle front to fare the storm
of open. though misguided spollmsnt.
We see no harm in the resolution and |
therefore vote in the affirmative.