The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1912-10-03
SHOULD NOT Drive
PROSPERITY AWAY
Farmers Have Little to Fear
From Taft Policies.
Thurman Miller, In Clinton
Republican,

The last few years have been the
: most prosperous the American farmer
has ever known. Men who have been
in the business for so or 60 years say
so. The prosperity of the farmer is
one of the most talked of things.
Crops have been good and prices
have been remarkably good Mort
cages have been paid off and farms,
purchased on mortgages, have been
paid fo- in a miraculously short time,
1t is generally conceded that the
! farmers are opposed to the admins
tration. They are against Taft be-
cause he favored the reciprocity bill.
The argument is that the bill pro-
posing reciprocity with Canada was
against the interests of the American
farmer Strangely, the Canadian
farmers opposed the bill on the same
grounds-it was held to be against
their interests. Canada had the last
word and, through the influence of
her farmers who insisted that the
agreement would ruin them and en-
rich the United States farmer at
their expense, the bill was defeated.
Without denying the right of the
farmer to his own opinion, we see a
big inconsistency in his attitude
toward the administration. 1t is
claimed that the Republican farmers
will vote for Wilson rather than Taft,
who incurred their enmity by the
reciprocity measure. But Wilson is a
free trader, a demo-populist, running
on a platform that advocates tariff
for revenue only. Nothing more detri-
mental to the farmer can be
imagined. The reciprocity creed of
Wilson-all food products on the free
LISTS a deadly blow to the farmer.
Food products are the farmers stock
In trade, to refuse to protect him is
to smite him.
The farmers of America never
faced such crisis. But it is situa-
ton to which they hold the key. The
situation, simply stated is: the farm
ers oppose Taft solely because of the
ghost of reciprocity with Canada,
they have nothing else against him;
they propose to vote for Wilson and
against Taft without reasoning that
Wilson is pledged to tinker with the
tariff. The farmer is to choose be-
tween voting for Taft, whom he dis
likes and whom he would like to help
defeat, and voting for Wilson, who
avows by principle and platform that
he will trample them under foot.
The nineties are not so far away
that they cannot be wildly remem-
bered. Those who farmed under
Cleveland have not forgotten the IT.
cent corn and the Scent hogs; they
recall the low values of realty and
live stock; they remember the dead
days when the factories were stifled
and the mills silent. 1t is not a pes
simistic dream. There is no solace in
the thought that it cannot happen.
1t happened in the nineties with less
provocation than it has now, with a
Democratic administration and a free
trade platform on the political hori-
zon. Take away confidence from
business and stagnation follows. Bus
mess puts it's hands to its pockets
and waits-and the farmer bears the
burden.
Party loyalty is virtue in national
politics. There is no more excuse for
forsaking the party because its head
Is unpopular than there is for leaving
the church because the preacher has
done something displeasing. The sol
dier who sulks in his tent does not
deserve the blessings of the liberty
for which his fellows are fighting.
For his own sake, the Republican
farmer should vote with his party A
vote for Wilson, against Taft, will be
reflexive. Wilson cannot aid the
farmer-his partys platform prevents
him. Reciprocity is dead. Canada
killed it. Nobody was hurt.
If it remains problem of two evils
with the farmer, good judgment will
lead him to choose the lesser II he
dislikes to vote for Taft, he should
weigh Taft and his faults and the Re-
publican platform in the balance with
Wilson and free trade and crippled
farming conditions. Then it's up to
the farmers judgment.