The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-01-10

The farmers of the United States. in the
current movement to separate themselves
from the body of their fellow-citizens and
form a distinct political organization. have
alleged many grievances in justification of
their course, but seem to have strangely
overlooked a principal one within their
own ranks. Even Ignatius Donnelly, in
his long and carefully prepared address to
large and noteworthy gathering of farm
ers in Minnesota the other day, made
elaborate reference to railroad grievances,
the watering of stock, alleged tariff dis
ordinations, financial errors and the like,
but never the slightest allusion to the
farming land monopoly.
And directly TO those who farm on a small
scale, and indirectly TO the community at
large and to every branch of business, this
fraught with the most serious conse-
quences. There is no foreign producer of
farm products similar to those produced in
this country, who completes 50 ruinously
with the American farmer who is limited
20 the cultivation of loo acres or there
about, as does the American farmer who
cultivates his thousands or tens of thou
sands OF acres.
This must become apparent TO all who
| will give the matter fair consideration.
| The man of family. who farms his own
land and has TO depend upon its product
| for livelihood, and who is limited BY his
means to the possession and cultivation
1 80 =
the product first make a support for him.
self and his family, for the housing, food
| and clothing for all, and for the education
| of the younger members, before attempt
ing or hoping to realize any return for the
| value of his land. At the start, and for
many years, the money invested and the
time spent in building dwelling and out
houses must be dead capital to him.
For a multiplication of these small
holdings there is multiplication of these
dead investments, and of these demands
for support in advance of other returns on
time, money and labor invested. But
the big farmer-he who owns and farms
10000 acres for instance.-as compared
| with those who are limited TO Quarter
section or such matter has less to exact
| from the the product Of his farming to az
| least the extent of support for sixty
families or more. He has ali the adj
vantage which exemption from the sun
port Of sixty families affords.
1t is clear that the small farmer cannot
compete on anything like equal or living
terms with those who farm on this scale.
At the lowest estimate for support of a
family the aEnount required would be ex-
oreitant interest on the value of a Quarter
section. The big farmer can thrive and
grow rich on prices which the small farmer
cannot afford 70 take unless he and his
fsmlly are unhorsed and unfed. One
thing Is certain: Ii they do compete and
sell At equal prices, either the small
farmers must starve, or at least viii no.
prosper, or the big farmer VIII grow fsbu-
lousy rich.
The comparative effect on the general
! public requires no argument Its merely
| question Of the presence, and patronage
/ and social intercourse, and ciyilizine ana
/ refining influence of sixty-two selfsup-
/ porting and well-to-do families, or Of one
/ man, or perhaps only of the capital Of an
absentee landlord spending his profits
/ elsewhere.
For al OF which there is much SIMMER
and more effective remedy than many that
have been proposed for other of the farm
ers' real or fancied grievances. Nothing
can be done 10 prevent men from selling
small holdings or others from aecnnalarine
large ones, but graduated taxation can dis
courage the latter course, and tax upon
iegaeies can be 50 adjusted as to virtually