Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1897-04-23
NOTES BY THE WAY.

The Loud postal bill is measure
designed to further the plutocratic
, monopolization of the newspaper bust
ness. 1t has passed the house, and
when it makes It's next appearance in
the senate, genuine public sentiment
should make stand against it. All
possibly pressure should be brought TO
bear upon each individual senator to
induce him to vote mo" when the roll
call comes.
Senator Hanna has established an ed
itorial bureau at Washington, from
which high priced writer's will send out
to the subsidized press during the next
four years articles explaining the non
arrival of the prosperity wave.
Under the guise of an antitrust law,
measure has been introduced in the
Massachusetts legislature which would
make any labor union conspiracy,
both as to civil and criminal action,
in case of it's supporting strike. This
is the kind of legislation workingmen,
who cast large majority of the votes
| UUlltt III Niii oN' 49,
long as they vote tickets nominated
by allied monopolists. What else can
be expected?
Senator Wolcott, who has been repu-
dated by all parties in his own state,
is the sponsor in the senate of the in
famous Loud bill, the design of which
is to prevent competition in the news
paper business and the transmission of
cheap postage rates of reform litera-
ture.
Those who plead that spending vast
sums upon fancy dress balls, such as
that given recently by Mrs. Bradlty
Martin, distributes money among the
poor, should read the following from
the great John Ruskin:
do not cheat yourself into thinking
that all the finery you can wear is so
much put into the hungry mouths of
those beneath you. 1t is not so, it is
what you yourselves, whether you will
or no, must some time instinctively
feel it to bet is what those who
stand shivering in the streets, forming
line to watch you as you step out of
your carriage-know it to be. Those
fine dresses do not mean that so much
has been put into their mouths, but
that so much has been taken out OF
their mouths"
1t is very simply question. Who
produces the wealth expended and de-
et, in fan halo Evi-
IDENTIFY not the Bradley Martin class,
because they do no productive work
whatever And is it not clear that
the producers of that wealth would
have been better of if it had been left
in their possession.
when it is said that the percent
age of wealth gain in the new states of
the west has been greater than that OF
the old states Of the East and that
therefore our gain has been greater
than theirs it is equivalent to saying
that when John buys jack-knife for
cents and sells for 10 cents, gaining
100 per cent, he has gained more than
James, who bought knife for ST. and
oOlh L. ioi priv, thUiSpy 6uihih5 O'iiJ
10 per cent The Western states have
gained from 80 per cent to more than
100 per cent in material wealth dur
ing the last Is years, while the Eastern
states have gained about 40 to 45 per
cent during the same time; yet the gain
of the old states has been vastly more
than that of the new. Massachusetts,
for example, gained four and a half
times as much wealth in the ten years
from 1880 to 1890 as Kansas did, though
our percentage Of gain was more than
twice that of the little New England
state. Topeka Advocate.
1t must be remembered, too, that the
large increase in taxable values in
western states has been caused largely
by the increase in land values, due SIM
ply to the settling of the country. And
the lands, improvements and chattels
of the West are mortgaged for sums
which it will be practically impossible
to pay under gold standard policy