Evening capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1888-1893, 1890-03-22
The Stanford Bill.

ED. JoURNAL:-having noticed
in your paper that 1t is being said
that "Salem grange favors the STAN
ford BILL" 1 having been present,
ought to know something about it,
The question was up for debate in
the afternoon, (cannot speak for the
forenoon) several spoke upon said
bill, and more was said as to the
probable motive Stanford had in
view, in offering such bill than IN
favoring the bill. In fact l do not
believe, that if carefully and can
didly considered by Salem grange,
that it will favor the bill, though it
might. There was no action taken
by the grange. Ifthese government
issues are to be redeemable amen
might be said to the blll-other-
wise the Rural Press quotes from
the San Francisco Call, to the point:
The idea that the agricultural
population of the United States
would enrich themselves by borrow
ing money on bond and mortgage
implies that the more a man owes
the better off he is; whereas the ex-
act opposite is the truth. 1t is all
very we'll TO talk about money
meaning currency-incleasing the
force of the toiler; but the fact is
that the man who owes debt has
parted with his force, and cannot re-
gain it until the debt is paid. 1t is
he who owes nothing, even though
he have but nickel in his pocket,
who is an active force in the COM
munity.
1t is n common idea among farm
ers that if they could only borrow
money at a reasonable rate of in
terest they would increase their
acreage, improve their buildings,
add to their stock and grow rich as
a matter of course. But, in real life,
the farmers who do grow rich are
they who keep out of debt; who cut
down expenses when crops fail, aud
put by money when they are good,
and who go throgh life beholden to
no man. The "enterprising" farmer
who plasters his farm with mort
cages in order to buy more land, and
plant more trees and build more
barns, is apt to find that he not only
does not own his farm, but does not
even own himself. He is working
for a creditor, By whose good will he
tolls year in ard year out on land
which was once his own.
1t is hardly necessary to discuss
the proposition that the govern
ment should go into the money
lending business, because no such
power has been conferred upon the
government by the Constitution,
and because, under the supreme
court decision, no new issue of
treasury notes for such a purpose
would be constitutional. But sup
pose the government had the power
and authority, where would pol
ley of lending public money to
farmers land us? The government
is, after all, nothing but the people,
in II condensed shape. If the gov
ernment issued paper money and
loaned it to farmers, it would be the
people lending TO the people, 1t
would be as if John Smith, mer-
chant, made his note for $4,000 pay
able to himself, put it in his pocket,
and fancied that he was $4,000 better
off. Government paper loaned TO
farmers would haye to be redeemed
some day, or it would possess no
purchasing power. 1t would be the
farmers who would have to redeem
it. If Senator Stanford carried out
his scheme, and induced congress to
sanction an issue of a couple of
hundred millions of treasury notes
to be loaned to farmers, taxes would
have to be levied to redeem and can
Gel the notes, and the farmers would
have to pay them. What they bor-
row with one hand, they would
have to pay back with the other,
plus the interest and expenses Of
collection. What would they gain