The advocate., 1891-05-06


ness In the principles OF the above bill, and
whatever we may nnd to be wrong to drop It.
Iadmit the unrighteous condition Of the hu-
man race and the unjust oppression Of the work
Ing clauses, and we must have and win have re-
form; but we must reform ourselves by getting
away from seltishness and rid ourselves Of It.
am farmer and interested In wheat growing
more than anything else / am heartily In SYM
p&thy with the laboring classes and am earnestly
working In the Alliance and also In the Peoples
party for both Industrial and mental emancipa-
don; but cannot approve the Plckler sub-treas-
ury bill No. 1852. We must be consistent, other
wise we cannot expect to command that high re-
spect and implicit confidence, which 10 really
very necessary for us to merit and have before
We can hope or expect to successfully accom-
pllsh the object principles Of the Peoples party,
the Farmers Alliance. the industrial classes and
pure reform.
In our declaration Of purposes our first de-
mand is "Equal rights to all and special favOrs to
none" Again, In the fifth plank OF our platform
We profess TO believe "in the doctrine OF equal
rights TO all and special privileges to none" ETC.
In fact class legislation, special privileges, self
lshnesS and greed neceSSltated the formation Of
new political party-the Peoples party.
We have declared against class legislation and
special privileges for any branch Of industry. 1t
Is both inconsistent and wrong to ask for special
privileges and legislation for very limited num-
Der OF agricultural products, and to advocate It
is only to put club In the hands Of our enemies,
to be used upon us at time when It may hurt
the most; and 1t would naturally open wide
field In all other branches Of industry for them
to work In, and no opportunity would be lost In
exciting and antagonizlng the working people
against the agricultural classes.
We shall never get what the bill asks for. 1t
is too narrow and incomplete; in fact so appears
to me, 1t would only be In favor Of those who are
interested In cotton, wheat, oats, corn and TO-
bacco. Those who are raising corn and feeding
It to hogs and cattle could not derive any benefit
from it whatever; and In all the corn growing
states there Ia great interest and large amount
Of wealth invested In fsttening hogs and cattle.
II we had such law as the sub-treasury bill
asks for, l am satisfied It would cause . great
deal Of jealousy, OF discomfort and would even
dlsappoint It's friends; and would fail to remedy
the evils and redress the wrongs of the agricul.
tural classes.
With all due respect for the opinions and ideas
of those who may differ with me, feel sure the
system would cause great fuctustlOn In cur
rency. If did not need the money would haul
my wheat from the thrashing machine into the
government warehouse; It would be safer and
would need no granary. Money would flow out
from the Sub-treasury into circulation when
crops were being harvested and warehoused;
but when sold the money would have 70 90 back
into the SubtreaSury or at least 80 per cent. Of It,
hence, we would have about four months infa-
tion and eight months contraction.
am sure much more consistent and salts
factory system can be formulated. But 1 am
not through with the Bub-treaSury yet and must
ask to be allowed to continue In another issue
for must not encroach too much at once upon
your valuable space and indulgence. Respect
fully, I'D. COOPER.
DelphOs, Kansas.
Our readers will observe by Pc
rusal Of the foregoing article that the
writer makes the same mistake that
all writer's against the sub-treasury
plan always have made. He assumes
without even attempting to introduce
single iots Of evidence, that such q
bill would be class Legislation, and
then proceeds to show that class leg
islation is not in accord with our
principles. He will find his objec-
tions thoroughly answered in our
issue of April %. In order to give
his argument any force whatever it is
necessary for him To first CLEARLY and