The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1913-01-28


under cultivation and above all, to give
us more farms and more farmers. 1t
will make it possible for the farmer
to return to the cultivation of the
abandoned lands Of the east and open
west" He says further: 1T is nat
ural that some of the European gov
ernments should have extended a pa
ternal protection over the system of
agricultural finance and to have given
them financial as we'll as legal assist
ance. This, however, must be guarded
against in this country. 1t were bet
ter otherwise not to have considered
the matter at all. In appreciating
what this amortization plan would
mean to this country 1t is only neces-
sary to consider the mortgage fore
closure records of some Of our states"
The above in short form are the
presidents S why some plan
should be worked out SO the American
farmer can borrow money at a less
rate. He says the country is prosper
Gus, and that we now consider the
farmer a prosperous citizen. He places
the. farmers debts at the low estimate
of Sc, 500, 900, 900, with interest rates
averaging Sh per cent. AS proof that
something should be done he cites our
foreclosure records. He argues that a
IOW tlLSI SSL IdIS IlSdIlo pOIll " III
better farming. To use his W words
the productivity of the country must
be increased to guard against increas-
ed value of farm products. But worst
of all, he says this government must
give no financial aid or protection to
the establishment of this kind Of u
system" This comes out Of the mouth
and from the heart of a republican
president; the president of a country
NH ora Tho shIIcn Nf tho nTnfo CtiUn "a riff
policy has become a national disgrace.
Are we as farmers no part or parcel of
the government? Are we in no way
entitled to its beneficial aid and assist
ance? Is it not shown clearly by his
own arguments that the desire to
lessen the cost of living to the IN
sumner is the real anxiety, by increased
production n the interest in the
farmer or the betterment of his con-
! dition has little or nothing to do with
it. Does he not say, Its not to sub
| sidize the farmer" and further feeds
us with the f1attery that we would not
accept it? Does he not know that he
! and his great party were removed from
their sphere of stewardship and activ-
ity because the American farmer re-
fused longer to consider the division
of governmental subsidy or assistance
] equal? We are entitled to lower inter
est rates through the assistance Of our
government, because Jul competitors
have lower rates of interest; and our
fellow American citizens have the ben
fit of cheaper money. And not be-
cause we a produce more so our fell
lows and the world can buy their needs
cheaper. What difference will it make
to you or me if reducing u interest
is only a means of reducing the selling
price of our product? Might we not
be worse off under the new order of
things than now? No country needs
to substitute a mob. The farmers
without any organization or common
interest constitute a mob. Nc apology
is offered that even governmental sug-
gestion is offered 100 years late. Nor
is there evidence Of any regret that we
have so long borne this unnecessary
load. To one cursed with a suspicious
disposition, might not this last move
look like another effort to appease and
satisfy that august person, the con-
sumer at the expense of the producer
Our prosperity as a class depends on
our selling our product at a profit. Our
crops cost more in prosperous times
than in hard times. We alone take the
chances of our business and are en-
titled to the benefit Of large crops and
the losses of poor years. We should
know by this time that it is our owr
business to look after and protect oul
own interests. We must soon both
learn how and do it.
There are some ways to make g
start. We must make it understood
that farming is a business, and not
simply a way by which a farmer car