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

were children-did not know what
they want-and their bill as the off
spring of stupidity, To my way of
thinking, this was not true statesman
ship nor patriotic.
The Alliance is composed of the
staunchest patriots and best citizens
IN this and in all counties, | mean the
agricultural class. They did most of
the fighting in '76 and l86l-65, North
and South. On their valor rests the
glory of our generals, whose names
fill the trump of fame, while the rank
and file remain unknown. They bear
the heaviest of taxation. They pro
duce our wealth. They have had a
fearful awakening by the pinch of
poverty and the sheriff's hammer
They have organized for self protec
tion and the welfare of us all. Out of
hundreds of thousands of voting men,
a select, intelligent body was sent to
ST. Louis, Mo-, and devised plan for
relief. 1t has been treated as If the
production of lunatic asylum. The
treatment of that bill, in my judg
ment, is unwise, impoite, unjust, un-
statesman like and unpatriotic. It has
been laughed at and sneered at and
why?
" Pardon me for giving a brief
analysis of it. It's object is three fold
l. To relieve the farmers from being
forced to sell at the time and for the
price named by the purchaser. Is
not that result necessary to keep the
producers from rapidly approaching
bankruptcy
90. To prevent depreciation of
values by the arbitrary contraction of
the currency by Wall stree; and,
third, to increase the volume of the
currency.
Would no. the first benefit the
producers directly ? and would not
the second and third be a blessing to
the whole country except Wall
street
"And yet the whole bill, framed by
men far above the average in inselli-
gence and presented by hundreds Of
thousands of suffering men and fami
lies, is waved off with the back Of the
hand, and the petitioners are informed
that they ask for what they know
nothing about.
"For instance, they are told they
would become the prey of spectators.
That is not certain. 1t is a bare as,
sumption. But, admit it, in the name
of mercy, are not the farmers already
the prey of spectators and mort
gagers ?
az. They are told that 80 per cent.
is too large an advance. That does
not give the merits of the question.
1t is mere detail. If too much, that
per cent. can be reasonably reduced.
"3. That it is unconstitutional to
elect warehouse keepers-that they
must be appointed by the President
Admit it. Would not the representa-
tive recommend to the President the
man recommended by the depositors
of produce, and the President appoint
that man, just as postmasters are ap,
pointed
GA. The bill invokes governmental
paternalism. Well, grant it. What
has this government been for thirty
years but paternal in the most unjust
way I? Has it not been forcing it's
sons, who are farmers, to deliver over
all their net earnings to their brothers
who own factories ? Can any pater-
nal injustice outstrip that 2 If pater-
nalism is to continue. let all the chill
dren share alike.
' "But that is perfectly absurd, i'm
possible, says the statesman. Suppose
it is, the best way to expose bad
proposition is to show the reductio ad
abSwrdwna. The best way to get rid
of bad law is to enforce it rigidly,
said President Grant. The best way
to get rid of the paternalism of the
tariff, bounties, ETC., is to insist on
universal paternalism, or no paternal-
ism. If this bill involves paternalism,
then it or something as good is neces-
sary to save the farmer. from ruin. 1t
deserves a trial. If it is only evil,
discussion will show it. If good in
part and bad in part, discard the bad
and put something good IN It's place. "
THE QUESTION OF CoNsTITUTIoNALITY
"Of all the objectors to this bill,
not one has stopped to frame better,
They say it is unconstitutional So
it is to hold negroes in slavery. Why?
Because the Cons tltution was amended
to prohibit slavery. So it is to deny
to negroes any political right enjoyed
by white citizens. Why? Because
the Constitution was amended. If
the Constitution can be amended
three times in three years to protect
100000 negroes from slavery, can t
it be amended once in 100 years to
save 100000 whites from slavery ?
i" l revere the Con stitution as much
| as aav one. The troable is. we are