Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1900-07-11
TRUSTS AND FARMERS.
How the Creations OF McKinIeyism
Have Increased AEricul-
N turists' Burdens.

In speech delivered in the house
OF representatives on the I'd inst. Con-
gresham Clayton, of Alabama, proved
by facts and figures that while trusts
have been the bene6ciaries of McKin-
ley prosperity" farmers have been
its victims. :. H. !
The Year Book of the department
of agriculture for 1899, which has just
been issued, shows that the farm prod
ucts and farm animals in 1899, al
though vastly increased in quantity
since $780, had fallen off in value to
the extent of $706,9;o,971. This only
counts as farm products corn, wheat,
oats, barley, rye, buckwheat, pota-
toes, hay and cotton. If the farm
products of 1899 had brought the same
prices as did the same products in
1890 they would have brought more
than they did by the sum of $780,
437, 5S4
The farmers raised 1913 ,00O, 900 more
bushels of produce in 1899 than they
did in 1890, and yet this produce was
worth $2O5, 100000 less than was the
smaller crop of 1890. This only cal
culates the cereals.
The farmers of the United States
are paying more for all they consume
than they were when the present ad-
ministration went into power on
March 4, 1897, and have lost during the
present administration nearly $2,OOO,-
100000 by the decline in prices of farm
products. In this calculation the sta
tistics of 1897, the first year of the
present administration, are used.
The wheat in the farmers hands in
1897 was valued at $42s, 547,121. The
wheat in the farmers hands in 1899
was valued at $319,545,259. The farm
ers lost $109,0o0,000 in the value of
wheat alone, and yet the yield of
wheat was increased.
The value of the cotton crop in
1897 was 1919 ZOO, 900, and it had fallen
off $14,oOO,o0o the next year, while
the crop of 1899 is not yet calculated.
The average price of wheat in 1897
was sos cents bushel, while in 1899
it was only 1914 cents a bushel.
These are the figures given by the
republican secretary of agriculture,
and it cannot be said that they were
concocted for democratic campaign
argument.
By the decline in the price of their
products the farmers have lost 81, O00,-
100000 since McKinley's Inaugural ton,
while in 1899 alone the prices of trust
YN,,rohoco1, 70 ,.so o1r
cent. simultaneously with cheaper
ing of the things he raises to sell, the
things the farmer must buy become
dearer. In control of both branches
of congress and of the executive de-
partment, it was within the power of
the republican party to lessen the
price of trust-made goods by repeal
ing, or authorizing the president to
suspend, the duties on similar i'm
ported goods. But this power the par
ty did not exercise. It refrained be-
cause it wanted the pecuniary sup
port of the trusts in the ensuing
campaign, and if it crippled the trusts
by withdrawing the protection that
sustains them it would not have re-
ceived it. Rather than injure the
trusts, it preferred to inflict injus-
tice upon the farmers, to continue the
conditions which while forcing down
the things the farmer sells forces up
the things he must buy.
Nevertheless, after thus discriminate
ing against aim and in favor of the
combinations that are dishonesty ap-
propriating the fruits of his labor, the
party will have the effrontery to ask
the farmer for his vote. The trusts
would not support the party if it had
legislated in the interests of the soil
tillers and against them. Why should
the farmer support the party when it
has legislated for the trusts and
against him? The trusts are pros
porous because they act concertedly
in rewarding their friends and pun
ishing their enemies. Farmers and
others, who, unprotected, must sell
their labor or the products of their
labor in open competition, can expe-
rience prosperity only by emulating
the trust example. If they support
those who are despoiling them they
will be robbed perennially, and de-
serve to be robbed. They are a ire
mendous power at the polls. If they
vote right the trusts will disappear
and the robbery cease.