The farmers' union. (Memphis, Mo.) 1891-1895, 1891-06-25

their selfish ends to do so. IN the t
light of such well known preccdents.
where the power of the government !
to protect and aid special classes of !
property under conditions of pecul- |
lar disability has been repeatedly OK
erciscd, how can any earnest. candid |
Judge of the law and the facts deny |
the RICH: of agriculture, fulfilling like
conditions, to receive similar aid. |
Particularly SO since it has already |
enjoyed partial recognition of lis |
rights in this respect some of its
projects, notably sugar, having been
on the duty list for years, and to-day
a bounty CT two cents Il pound is
paid on all sugar raised in the Unit
ed States.
The sub-trcasury and land loan
bills are denounced as ',class legisla-
ton in government, and therefore
unconstitutional. just how sincere
ly this charge is made may be inferr-
cd from the fact that many of those
who make the charge have supported
either in whole or in part the policies
pursued by the administrative and
Legislative branches of the govern
,nent during the last thirty years,
within which time the greatest evils
OF class legislation and strong GOV
/ eminent have sprung up. Where is
the Senator or Congressman who has
hot at some stage of the contest Civ
en- his support to Il class measure. if
/ not rs legislator then IS au active
partisan of men or measures fayOra
! bic to their enactment or execution,
1t is a sad thought. and hesitate to
give it expression but it does seem
TO me that we have approached that
period IN our history when it is al
most Impossible to say just how far
a mere class measure cannot be press
ed INTO the vitals of the law and vet
be justified by some preccdents or
policies either iii legislation or in the
administration Of government. And
it is equally lamentahIe that 50 few
of our public men have kept their
skirts entirely clear Many of the
most vehement opponents Of the sub
treasury bill are men whose names
are suggestive of the very worst feat
ures of paternalism. Others there
are who have not gone so far, yet
have not hesitated to trim when it
was in aid of their locality or some
friendly interest
! The cry unconstitutional ought
to have been raised earlier in the his
tory of the government il the demand
OF the farmers are to he thrown out
Of court on that plea. They have
haen taxed with the support of too
many needy enterprises; hEvc done
too much toward enriching he man
ufacturer, to extend and diversity
trade and commerce under the 'delu-
SION. if it be such, that the le:5isIa-
tive ana executive departments were
proceeding III a constitutional way.
to be sllenccd now with such 4 one
sided decree.
But the constitutionai:ty Of legisla-
tive Interference to relieve agricul-
t"rt Of its present distress and aa-
vance anl protect it against adverse
policies, and SO far as practicable
place it upon enduring foundations
Of prosperity is no: dependent alone
for its verifcation upon precclcnts
above re,ited Policies An! practic
es running through the entire history
Of the governm 2nt attest the legal
right Of agriculture to the protection
demanded in tie measures advanced
by them The first president of the
United States commended to the M
r tona. Legislature the interests Of az
r.cul,urc. commerce and maHufac-
= lures rs deserving special care and
protection at its hands.
, In 1880 the House OF Represents,
tiyes, replying to 4 message Of The
presidents stated: I'VE concur with
: YOU IN tie sentiment that agricul
: tarc, commerce and manufactures
: are entitled 10 Legislative protec
ton" President Washington ant
} both branches of Congress held te
j the view that agriculture. commerce
: and manufactures form the basis OF
: the wealth and strength Of the repub
. lie. and should be advanced by al
: proper means in their power. soucl
/ was the sentiment Of the fathers o
/ the government, based upon a con
G sc;entious view of the constitutions
: questions involved. 1t is with this
: construction in view, and i'll the !igh
s Of their recommendations and az
8 acknowledgements touching the RICH
/ Of agriculture to Legislative protec
Q ton, and not on account so much o
/ any of the questionable acts tia
, sight b. cited as prece;'ents justify
G ing their demands, that the ailianc
{ proposes something GA the order Q
IS the subtreasury.
a Bat manufactures and commerce
It being controlled and directed by Oh
Il uanizeG business bodies 500
e made their superior influence felt i
&c securing Legislative grants Of speci;
IS privileges. whereby their individu1
!" interests have greatly advanced Owe
!" that of agriculture, And these pri,
ilt-StS iIstN L itIt'i iihitip4iSt ttitkt u
= tended until they have absorbed tn
ii Greater part Ct the wealth of til
s. country. They were not Statistic
re with the reasonable protection accor,
e ed them by the trainers of govern
mcnt, but have encroached upon til
= rights Of others to such an extent :
II to bring into disrepute the policy {
a protection, and enC'angcr its futul
II usefulness.
rs The protection asked for the fart
Ell cr by the Alliance is not such ;
In would come to him through an il
n; port tax or IL bounty fund. He wan
ld no pension out of the public treasur
H. no donation of government lands; !
Ell gratuitics in the shape of loans wi
ut out interest, cxorbitant premiums III
lr endorsement Of his speculate