The representative., 1901-03-14


ST. PAUL Mimi. March editor Rep
resentative--Dear Sir: In the last issue
editorially severely, arraigning me as a
friend Of the ship subsidy BILL which does
me gross injustice.
II you can find one word in which that
conclusion can be arrived at 1t is certainly
beyond my comprehension. The fact is that
l was sent as the representative of our
Allied Agricultural Associations to Wash
1ngton last winter to oppose this bill,
which did to the best Of my ability and
have the credit and satisfaction of knowing
that the bill cannot pass without it becomes
satisfactory to our associations. Why has
not the measure passed. IL as you say that
the measure is administration measure
and with large enough majority to pass
all the legislation they desire? 1t Is be-
cause our associations have sufficient in
huence in congress to convert enough Re-
publican senators and congressman to our
side that will not permit it to pass until
the farmers are protected far as poss-
ble If then, under those circumstances
our farmers associations have publicly in
dorsed any senator or congressman because
he'fs friend of the farmer, the wisdom or
folly of this action will appeal to fntelli-
gent men and requires no defense from me-
our associations, as l said before are
composed OF more elements than Populists
and Socialists. All partisan measures and
cont over les are eliminated from farm rs
meeting. In the discussion of this measure
and other measures it must be borne in mind
that we not In a Populist meeting
The issues which most interest the farmers
OF the nation is how can we get better prices
Tor our products? If the Republican party
will bring us dollar wheat 1 venture to saw
that no Populist farmer nor Socialist would
OBJECT because it did not come from the
Socialist or Populist or for that matter. the
Democratic party. What we are aiming to
do is to convert all parties to advocate
measures and legislation which will make
the farmers prosperous. In that event it
VIII not make any difference to the farmer
winch party wins, the farmer will win
= 1t would appear from your article that anv
semblance OF amending this measure was
akin to crime, when you say in the same
breath that the Republican party would
pass 1t, which we also admit, and which we
could not stop entirely, but which we did
the best we could do to make it do some
good for the farmers, who had no legisla-
tion to protect their industry. While near
ly every article and necessity which the
farmers use is protected by tariffs and pro-
tective legislation, until those same in
dustries have grown so great that the peo-
pie are now almost overwhelmed by trusts
and combines while the producer Is growing
poorer each year.
Thus, this bill, while 1t IL aimed to bene-
fit the farmers as far as our amendments
go, TO aid in building American ships that
will carry his products to new markets and
thus secure new people to consume his
vastly increasing surplus crops, which the
volume now goes to destroy the values of
his products and makes him part with his
products at less than 1t costs him to pro-
duce, ard because this measure may bring
him better prices for his products the
measure should be denounced simply to be
consistent with the past, in denying any
new legislation for fear that the farmer
njpht bo hopo foN u,b}1 oil
of the other industries goes on robbing the
farmer, who pays tribute to all rather than
give him any protection let him die or rot
rather than we would take away what is
already lavished In such abundance other
industries who need no protection.
l am opposed personally to the whole idea
of protection. but if we will and must have
it, then l propose that it shall cover every
thing and everybody and not stop at the
farmer, that we will strive to secure some
of this protection for the farmer while 1t
lasts. and when it goes to remove it en-
tirely.
But I can not see the wisdom of permit
ting this condition to continue with such
generous aid to some industries and draw
the line at the producer of all wealth, the
farmer and laborer. II $4,000, 100000 is to be
spent for the benefit of few ships whether
we like it or not, then 1t Is our duty to
so arrange 1t that the farmers will get some
of the benefits from same, which was never
This is a matter which our farmers as
sociations are agreed and and 1 am not
apoligizing for their attitude policies.
They are in harmony with good sound sense
and wisdom. in taking what we can get
for our benefit and be thankful to any party
that will advance and protect our in
terests.
AS for my policies I have no apology to
offer, nor do I accept as final the edict of
any Socialist that / am not a reformer
leave my record as such to be it's own
defense. I propose to continue as l have
always done to take an active part In public
affairs.
And for the further information of those
whom it may interest, I will state that both
Senator Knute Nelson and Clapp have op-
posed this ship subsidy bill in company
with many other Northwestern Republican
senators and congressman.
Should farmers denOunce those men for
the reason that they pledged to support
amendment which was in the interests of
the farmers. simply because they are Re-
publicans? This is the best evidence that
our associations are non partisan.
AS to discussing the inside workings and
policies of our associations publicly or pri
vately with those outside of our Nassocia-
tions, it is prohibited and on that part of
your criticisms you are at liberty to think
as you please. 1t does not effect me.
am responsible only to our associations for
any act connected with my official position.
Hoping that you will be fair with me in
giving me a chance to reply as you were
in your attack, l remain, yours respectfully
J. @. HANLEY.