The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1894-05-15

the Alliance, II i CannOg Du6 Soo GnaV
it would be a grand thing for the farm
ers. OF course moneyed powers, banks,
corporations, etc., will kick against
this. but let us look att few moments
from the farmers standpoint-she
grandest standpointof all. 1t proposes
to lend money to the farmer at a rate
not to exceed Q per cent, provided he
he secures it by unperishable products
or by real estate. To guard against
the government losing anything, he
would only receive 80 per cent. OF the
gold value of his products. Let US see
how it would benefit you: You all
know that at certain times of the year
there is less money in circulation than
at other times. There is a time when
the farmer needs ready money to run
his farm. This Sub Treasury would,
at this time, supply him his ready
money at 2 per cent. interest or less,
while now he has to mortgage his land
or his communicated mule OF his
wife's muley COW and gets goods at 40
or so per cent. Is not this worth some
thing9 Again, at certain times of the
year, there is a greater demand for
money than at other times. During
three months of the year the farmers
offer seven billion dollars worth Of
products for sale. Now this coming
upon the market at one time and money
being scarce, it necessarily lowers the
price of the products, while if this
could be held and sold gradually along
we see at once that we could get the
highest pri ses all the year round. For
instance, look at the price of cotton
futures as quoted in any newspaper
during the various months of the year.
See what a difference there isl When
it is first put upon the market it is low,
but little by little it climbs till several
cents some times mark the difference
in price. If this was in effect, we could
get the higher prices all the year round
because we could hold till there VS.
more money in circulation and a greater
demand for the products. Again we
would be upon an equal footing with
the national banks, and why not9 Why
should the government favor rich liz
situations and not the farmer3 If it
showed any favors at all why not sh> w
them to a class that needs aid, and not
to moneyed corporations9 The Sub
Treasury would, also, increase the Cir
culating medium OF money, but this
should more properly be treated under
the head of finance. The greatest OBJ
lection urged against it is that it is un-
constitutional; but l think I can prove
that it is constitutional. The principles
involved are these: Is it constitutional
for the government, LIST, to build ware
housesl 2nd, to appoint agentsi 9rd, to
buy land7 4th, to receive deposits9 5Eh,
to loan money!
Sirs, we only have to look at the in
ternal revenue department, the custom
house department and the treasury de-
partment to show that the government
does these very things every day, and
if it Gar appoint agents at every little
still house in America and receive de-
posits at these, certainly it eau receive
the products of an honeet husbandry.
In 1876 the government loaned the
Centennial Exposition million five
hundred thousand dollars to be repaid
the close of the exposition. In 1884
the government loaned the Cotton Elk
position at New Orleans one million
dollars. Now if it has the right to loan
money or such occasions as these, Ger
tainly it a loan money when good
security is given. Then away with the
idea Of it's unconstitutionality, for if it
was constitutional once, yea twice, it
must be again. According to the
nat onal banking system, a man may
own every acre of land in North Caro-
nne, he may own the gold beneath q
thousand hilltops and the corn that
sWays In a thousand valleys, he may
own stacks and stacks of cotton and
tobacco till they tip the highest star of
Heaven and he can't get one cent from
them by giving these thingsas security.
Is this right, is it just7
ITO BE CONTINUED.