Dodge City times. [volume] (Dodge City, Kan.) 1876-1892, 1891-08-21
sue-rREAsvRv PLAN.


Relief Of the Producers-Weak and Fal-
lzcious Arguments Advanced BY Its
Opponents.
Col S. F. Norton is out in his paper,
the Chicago Sentinel, in quite a lengthy
article in opposition to the sub-treasury
plan. from which article it is the pur-
pose of the writer to quote quite freely.
in order to show the weakness and fal.
lacy of the arguments advanced therein,
and the ease with which these argu-
ments may be utterly demolished. 1t
may, however, be just to Mr.. Norton,
to state that his arguments are based
upon an entire misconception of what
the sub-treasury plan really is Mr..
Norton takes as his text the following
editorial from President Folks paper,
The Progressive Farmer, of Raleigh,
N. c.:
We have noticed with great pain that the
discussion of the sub-treasury bill, now be-
fore congress, is being made the occasion
and means OF division among ailiancemen-
The warmest friends Of the pending bill do
not hesitate to admit that It is not a perfect
bill, and We know OF no one in the alliance
who will contend for this specific bill for
one moment IL q better bill can be brought
forward. The end sought in the sub treas
nry bill is more money. And to secure that
end every allianceman is pledged; and for
Its securement every allianceman, no matter
what his opinion of the present bill may be.
will fight and strive
Mr.. Norton then proceeds as follows:
The above from the Raleigh (N. c Pro-
gressive Farmer (COl l. l. Folks paper is
worth more than passing notice II it means
exactly what It says-and will stand by it
there can be no difference between the Sem
tinei and advocates of the SUBJ treasury bill.
II the end sought by the sub treasury bill is
simply "more money" then, of course. II
any better method Of accomplishing the
purpose can be shown, the advocates of the
bill will NO: persist in its support
Right here. it may not be out of place
to say. that those advocates of the sub
treasury plan who say that the end
sought in such plan is simply more
money" do not themselves comprehend
the true scope and aims of the plan.
They have no conception of the height
and depth, the power or vast possibili-
ties of the sub-treasury plan The end
sought is not simply more money"
The plan aims at nothing short of the
rescue of the American farmer from
the clutches of specializing gamblers
bulls and bears-and the restoration to
him of his prerogativc of himself affix-
ing a price upon the product of his Ia
bors It also contempiates the issu-
ance by the government of q sufficient
volume of legal tender money to do the
business of the country upon a cash
basis, and the keeping such volume of
money at all times at the service of the
people at low rate of interest, thus
robbing money of its ''power to op-
press" which is its unrestricted power
to draw interest
Some there arc (Col. W. A. Harris, of
Leavenworth county, is quoted as one
of their number, who say that the sub
treasury plan is scheme to tax the
many for the benefit of few" Those
who advance this absurd argument are
in bondage to superstition and blinded
by the sophistry of the money power.
They forget that the people, through
their congress, possess the sole preroga-
tive ''Of coming (stampingl and issuing
money. and regulating the value there
of" and that no money was ever yet
taken from the people by taxation that
was not first issued to them by the gov
ernment
This, however. is by the way.
Mr.. Norton then comedies the cOnsti-
nationality and Righteousness of the
plan in the following language:
That the government has a right to loan
money on the sub treasury plan there can
not be the slightest doubt. For twenty eight
years it has been lOanins money to national
banks-on the sub-trcasury plan.
Continuing, he says:
The sub.treasury plan is Objectionable
chiefly for its impracticability. 1t is not
sanctioned by one single sound business
principle-from the standpoint of the loaner
or from the standpoint of the borrower.
Nor Is it good, sound public policy.
In the first place it Is a make shift loan II
Is simply a method of "shinniny" over
present pinch. It gives temporary aid
only to leave the borrower in n much
worse condition when his temporary loan
expires
ers of the northwest borrow money on
their wheat crop. They will all borrow
at about the same time and for the same
time. Their temporary indebtedness to the
government will fall due ut about the same
time
When Is this wheat going to be disposed
of Most assuredly the bMyer-for in the end
it must be sold, which means that there must
be buyer-is not going to buy till he can
buy cheapest When will that be? Why,
just about that time that the temporary
loan falls due-and all fall due about the
same time The government can sell and
will sell-else must itself become the pur-
chaser-the security (wheat) at what it will
bring. at whatever figure the buyer will
payi The buyer has been watching his op-
portunity His opportunity Is when the gov
eminent must sell The government has ad-
vanced eighty per cent Of the value of the
wheat
II It now sells at Just enough to "get out
whole" the farmer has lost-for he has sold
his wheat at twenty per cent. discount His
temporary loan has cost him twenty per
cent. The buyer-nine times in ten specu-
lator-is the man who mrkes the money, just
hundred to one that either the government
or the farmer loses In the transaction. The
government will either advance too much
and will have to sell at sacrifice; or it is too
cautious and does not advance enough and
the farmer loses.
Bosh! Mr.. Norton here betrays his
utter ignorance of the elementary
principles underlying the sub-treasury
plan. What put it into his head that
this wheat must be sold by the govern
ment? BY what process of reasoning
does he arrive at the conclusion that
the crop of wheat must be all sold at
the same time and that time at the end
Of twelve months. when the loans fall
due?
Does he not know that his italicized
factor. the buyers, will be the consum-
ers of America; those who eat the farm
ers' wheat? And is he not aware that
they must eat or die? Or does he sup
pose that the American consumers will
starve for twelve months in order to
buy when they can buy cheapest? In
this mighty exhibition of parsimonious
abstinence DR.. Tanners record would
be nowhere.
The whole argument is q string of
fimsy fallacies Under the benign op-
GRAFTON Of the sub-treasury plan. the
farmers being in position to hold their
wheat can afford to play waiting game
and leave their wheat in the nations
care, subject to the memorable demand
Of legitimate assumption. With eighty
per cent of the value of their products