The Mt. Sterling advocate. (Mt. Sterling, Ky.) 1890-current, 1909-09-22
MISS LLOYO'S REPLY To
HON. CASs|Us CLAY

Continued from Fifth Page
serves me well. Mr.. Clay declared
against retaining the expression in the
bill of rights saying that man had
no inalienabie- rights but only such
rights as he could win from opposing
forces and hold. | received this I'M
Ipression at the time and remember
the shock that it gave me. have since
come to better understanding of MIR
Clays alleged views on the subject, at
least / now and then catch inklings of
what he might have meant; but | say
now as | said at Versailles, a good
definition of natural and inalienable
rights" that would define the term
without using it would be helpful in
this study.
Danger Of Power in Farmers Hands.
And now Mr.. Clay raises a very in
lteresting question and sounds pecu-
! liar note of warning. He believes that
the Burley Tobacco Society may in
the end become so strong as to protect
tobacco growers against the American
| Tobacco Company and even other ag-
igregations of wealth that tamper with
our legislation. Mr.. Clay sees in a
strong toabcco organization possibili-
ties of political domination of the
State by tobacco growers. If time
should come when the farmers have
as much influence in the making and
administering of our laws as the cor
poration lobbyists that infest our
State and national legislative halls, II
will forbode no i'll 10 the country.
Kentucky An Agricultural State.
This Kentuckian warns against the
Burley Tobacco Society lest it by union
with other tobacco organizations should
become powerful enough 10 influence
the making and the administration of
laws in Kentucky. And pray who
should make and administer laws in
Kentucky. distinctly agricultural
state if not the farmers? DO not the
manufacturers influence legislation
both state and national? Why should
the farmer take orders from others?
Does not every principe of common
sense and self-preservatiOn call on him
Ito protect his own interests? This
farmer fears power in the hands of his
own industrial class and intimates that
power in the hands of farmers tends
toward Communism | could not give
a definition of Communism or state the
Communists platform if to do so were
the price of my life. | do not know
then just what Mr.. Clay charges me
with when he says ! have somewhere
declared for one plank in the Com
munsts platform, but whatever it is
il cannot be worse than the Plutocratic
Oligarchy toward which we are drift
i,,r 81
domination The average farmer is
fast losing his fair heritage, the evo-
luton of centuries of Anglican effort
through blood and treasure" Any
movement that has for its ultimate
aim the elevation Of the masses must
have preference over system that
makes the masses practically vassals
o. a powerful few. The power with
out us that makes for righteousness,
the race instinct, will take care Of
that.
Approves Labor Unions, Deories
Farmers Unions.
Mr.. Clay tacitly approves labor
unions while he decries farmers unions
because he says. THE produce Of the
land, men are forced TO buy; labor
unions have only labor TO sell and no
man is forced TO buy it,
Mr.. Clay contemplates either very
primitive or very advanced state of
civilization in which no man is forced
to buy labor. If II be not savagery it
must be Socialism or Communism.
Without labor what would the produce
of the land be? A few berries, nuts
and edible roots. and pasture for some
wild sheep, wild horses and wild cat
tile. Each man must gather his nuts
and berries. dig his own roots. shear
his own sheep, butcher his own beef
and mutton. pillow. SOW, reap and mar
ket his own crops; card. spin, weave
and manufacture his own cloth, in
short perform all the many and varied
functions that labOr-hired labor now
performs. One moments reflection
shows that labor is as necessary in
the production of wealth as land or
any other form Of capital. What would
become OF the mills and factories with
out labor? Indeed where would the
raw material that tho mill and !actCry
use come from without labor? Indeed
how would the very buildings and ma
chinery come into existence without
labor, indeed they would never come
to be. The difference between the
richest man IN the world and the poor
est man in the world would be but little
if no man bought labor or there were
no labor that could be bought
New York Editor.
Mr.. Clay writes like n certain New
York editor who says farmers com.
binations should be prohibited by state
and federal legislation This editor
says that unions in other industrial
lines are alright but when it comes to
controlling the prices Of free pro
ducts Of the soil such control should
be prohibited. Subtract from the
free products of the soil" the element
of human toll from o'clock in the
morning until s o'clock at night and
much earlier and much later for the
woman who cooks the breakfast and
the supper and washes the dishes after
the men have gone to rest and what
would the free products Of the
soil" be?
Surely this argument against a farm
ers' union was a derniere resort. made
more in desperation than reflection.
After all a farmers union is for the
most part a labor union since the ma.
joritY of farmers are as much or more