The Forrest City times., 1892-06-03
ALLIANCE LEGISLATION.

Mtcne! All1ance NO. S52. Tn Ureene county, at a meeting on May 20 adopted the following:
 WHEREAS. Tho combine of money power has brought our cotton 90 much below the cost Of productions and has brought the cot ton raisers of this section of the county to the verge of ruin; and has dieabled them from paying their debts; and leaves them with the curse Of interest hanging over them, and pow erty and starvation staring them in the lace, therefore, be it by this body
 Resolved, That we ask our state legislature to pass bin or enact law that will prohibit our cotton from being taken from us by any process Of law, unless we arc paid reasonable margin above the cost of production.
 Resolved. That we produce this resolution Go our county candidates and if they do not endorse fl end pledge themselves to use their greatest influence 10 have such law enacted, we wilt not vote for them. We also ask all cotton-growing states 10 pass similar resou- tions.
 Our friends of Mitchell Alliance would probably resent the charge that they favor class legislation, bat the above suggestion, if carried out, would result in class legislation of the most pronounced type. If a farmer mort gages his cotton crop and the mortgage is foreclosed at time when the market price of cotton is five cents per pound, he will receive five cents per pound for 1t. It would probably cost him more than five cents per pound to raise the cotton, but that is all he could get for it in the market. It is all his unmort- gagged neighbor could get for his crop of the same grade. Yet here comes this Alliance and demands that, if a farmers cotton is taken from him by process Of law," he shall receive more for the cotton than it would bring in any market in the country. In other words, the buyer would be compelled by law to pay more for cotton sold under an execution than the same arti- cle could be purchased for at private sale. Who would purchase cotton thus offered for sale? Do the framers of the above resolutions contemplate that the state will become the pur- chaser, or do they demand that law shall be passed compelling the mort gaeee to pay higher price than is cur rent in open marketp Would this be right? Would it be according to busi- ness principles? Would the distressed farmer, whose wife and children were suffering for the necessarics of life, be able to find mortgagee under the operation of such law? No, gentle men, you must seek elsewhere for re. lief from the financial burdens which oppress you. Such law as suggested above would work to your detriment on ali sides.
 It would be as reasonable to ask the legislature to fix the price of producing cotton--to pass a law providing that no man should expend more than, say three cents Der pound in preparing his crop for market, that bagging and ties should be sold for two ceuts per pound; that laborers should be paid not less than fifty cents. one dollar or five dol lars per day; that merchants should be compelled to sell bacon at four cents per pound, -four at one dollar per bar rel, sugar at fifty cents per hundred calico at one-half cent per yard and clothing at ten cents per suit. It would De as reasonable for merchants to de. mand of legislators law fixing ths prices of goods sold under attachment The price of cotton and every othel article of merchandise will always bs controlled by the law of supply VIhd de nan6. If the framers of the resolu tons adopted by Mitchell Alliance would do their farming upon bushes. principles would raise their suppiie. at home and refuse to mortgage tbeil crops--they could snap their fingers at the sheriff, defy executions and be as independent and happy as God in tended they should be. On these lines alone can the problem be solved. and all the class legislation demanded by their most demagogic, their most pru. rient leaders can never change the lssilp