Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1891-08-26
SUB-TREASURY PLAN.

-
neueI OF tho PrOducers-Weak and Fall
IaciOus Arguments Advanced BY Its
Opponents.
Col 5. +. Norton is out in his paper,
the Chicago Sentinel, in quite 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 fall
lacy of the arguments advanced therein,
and the ease with which these argu-
ments may be utterly demolished It
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. MIR.
Norton takes as his text the following
editorial from President Polk's paper,
The Progressive Farmer, of Raleigh.
n. c.:
we have noticed with great palm that the
discussion of the sub treasury BILL now be.
lore congress, is bring made the occasion
Hnd means of division amony alliancemeu
Ihe Warmest friends of the pending bill do
not hesitate to admit that it is not a perfect
DILL and we know of no one in the allianc,
who will contend for this specific bill for
one moment if better bill cIn b. brought
forwarL The end S ught in the sub. treas
ury Dill is more money. And to secure that
cnd every al'iarceman Is pledged; and for
ITS securement ev ry alliancrman, no matter
what his opinion of the present bill NAV be-
VIII hight and strive
MIR. 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. If it means
e1acrly what it SayS-and will stand by it
there can be no difference between the SEN
tinci and advocates of the SUBJ b-treasury bill
hos a1h. M Is
simply more money!" then, of course. Il
any Deter method of accomplishing the
purpose can be shown, the advocates of the
bill Will not 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 prerogative of himself affix-
ing price upon the product of his Ia
bors- 1t also contemplates the issu.
ance by the government of a sufficient
volume of legal tender money to do the
business of the country upon cash
basis, and the keeping such volume OF
money at all times at the service of the
people at a low rate of interest, thus
robbing money of its power to op-
press" which is it's unrestricted power
to draw interest.
Some there are (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 tstamping) 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.
tutionality 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 dSubt. For twenty Eight
years it has been loaning money to national
banks-on the sub-treasury plan.
Continuing, he says:
The sub-treasury plan is Objectionable
chiefly for its impracticabilty. 1t is not
sanctioned by one single sound business
prnciple-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 make shift loan 1t
is simply a method of "shinninR" over a
present pinch. 1t gives temporary aid
only to leave the borrower in a much
worse condition when his temporary loan
expires.
Let us suppose for instance, that tho farm
ers of tho 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 at about the same
time.
When is this wheat going to be disposed
of? Most assuredly the buyer-for in the end
1t 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
chaser-the security (wheat) at what it will
bring, at whatever figure the buyer will
payi The buyer has been watching his on
portunity. His opportunity is when the gov
ernment must sell. The government has ad-
vanced eighty per cent. of the value OF the
wheat
IL 1t now sells at just enough to 9.pet 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 a specu.
lator-is the man who mrkes the money inst
the same as now. And the chances are a
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 a sacrifice; or it Is too
cautious and does not advance enOuOh and
the farmer loses.
Bosh! Mr.. Norton here betrays his
ntter 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 ana 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
srs' wheat? And is he aot awsse that
they must eat or die? Or does he sub
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
ahstinanne Dc. Tanners pecard would
be noWhere ''::'''
The whole argument is a string of
fiimsy fallacies. Under the benign op-
grafton of the suh-tressuFy plan, the
farmers being in a position to hold their
wheat can afford to play waiting game
and leave their wheat in the nations
care, subject to the inexorable demand
of legitimate consumption. With eighty
per cent. of the value of their products