Daily Kennebec journal., 1911-02-27
Monday, February 81, 1911.
A Latter and the Answer.

lcnge to print il. 1t is signed by
man whom we believe to be We
known in Augusta, Rev. r. B. Natl
cws of Ellsworth. From the readir
of the letter we judge Mr. Mathews
be man of broad intelligence. a
though we have not the pleasure
his acquaintance.
We publish the letter without fet
Of its wording placing us in a falls
position. and we believe We shall
able to show our Ellsworth friend sex
eral points which he seems 10 hay
missed altogether.
Editor, kennebec Journal:
have been exceedingly inter
ested in the discussion taking
place in your columns concerning
reciprocity with Canada, and have
also been conscious of keen re-
gret that the powerful influence of
the Jouranl has been turned
against the Administration. and
that it has arrayed itself among
those hostile to the man whom
you have so often held up in your
columns as a model of Republic
canisrn. | also regret that the
e Journal in this instance stands
forth as so strong and passionate
a protagonist for class legislation.
For the farmers of Maine, though
numerous. are but one class in its
population. Moreover. their in
terests are protected by the most
efficient labor organization in the
country today-the Patrons of
Husbandry.
Originally devoted largely to the
social development of the farmer
and his wife, today 1t stands
forth as a mighty political factor:
a forcefm propagandist; and a
keen defender of the corporate in
terests of agriculture. Has the
consumer-the man of average
income-crushed between the up
per and the neither milestone in
this day of high prices. no de-
fender? AS between the Trust
and the Farmer the common
householder is being pushed hard
er by the latter than by the for
mer in foodstuffs, save only in the
matter of meat.
A comparison of prices in farm
products as they were in 1906 and
today is luminous. At that date
| paid % cents per pound for the
best creamery butter brought to
my door; today l must pay 3S
for the same artiele-35 for dairy.
Then ! paid 6 cents for large
quart of milk; today l pay s for
a short quart. Then I paid 10
cents per pound for pork; today I
pay 10. Then l paid II cents for
lard; today I pay 10.
II l compare the prices of arti-
cles produced by Trusts I get
another shock of different kind.
Then ! paid cents per pound for
sugar; today 1 pay 6. For tea and
coffee l pay the same prices I
paid then. Flour that l paid $500
per barrel for in the year above
named l can buy today for $3.50
and $500. Oil for which I paid
Il cents per gallon i'll 1905 buy
today for 10. Molasses is no
more: tobacco is no more. And
yet. If I want a pound of cheese
must pay 6 cents per pound
more than six years ago.
Questioned, my agricultural
friend says he keeps the prices up
because il costs him SO much
more to feed his stock than it did
in '05. Let LIS see: (The follow
ing prices Of feed were procured
from one of the largest wholesale
dealers in Hancock county.)
Corn retailed in 1905 for $l.35 per
bag: today it is si.15. Oats were
sl.3S; today $l.25. Meal was
$1.35: now it is $115. Cotton
D, seed meal shows a rise in five
years of Is cents per bag; from
sl.6a to $3.50. Hay could be
bought for $40 to $12 then; today
averages $l2. What becomes then
of the farmers reason for high
prices? 1t must be that his time
is infinitely more valuable than it
was In 1867 and measured by the
prices he obtains for his produc-
tions that argument certainly
holds.
As matter of fact there is not
purveyor to the people who lets
go of high prices so reluctantly as
the farmer. Further. if the
farmers of Maine had raised the
beef they might have raised they
would have had large. influence
in controlling prices in that
products in the Stated trust that
your zeal for the burdened agri-
culturist will not lead you to for
get the man who stands between
the devil and the deep sea-"
A Subscriber in Hancock County.
The very fact that every reader {
the Kennebec Journal knows that til
paper has been an ardent admirer {
the good and great man who is Presi
dent of this country. aequits us of an
malicious purpose in upholding III
rights OF the farmers Of Maine. W
consider il no disgrace to him or TO u
that We should disagree on a loc;
nuestion of which We have a vastl
better opportunity to understand tina
lie. We have not attempted to attac
The reciprocity question as a Who'll
only sc far az il affects Maine farmer
and others like them along the Amer