The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1914-02-13
THE B0GIE-MAN.
"a. B. Reeves, Of Dodge City, Kan
sas in the st. Louis Republic.)

In seeking to justify his vote
against~the Underwood tariff bill, Sen
ator Bristow rests his defense upon
the following:
"The meat production in our COM
petiting countries is controlled by the
same gigantic packing-house combi-
nation, and free meat simply gives
this combination the opportunity to
buy cattle in Argentina, manufacture
them into meats at much less cost to
the packers than if they bought the
cattle in Kansas or Nebraska.
The result has been that the Ameri-
can industrial centers are being fed
with foreign grown meat, and our
farmers cattle have been reduced in
price to Approximately that Of Ar
gentine cattle while the price of meat
is kept as high as it was put on the
free list"
This is to say:
First, that the price of cattle has
pSSh iShuNtut actpilH, bihl tit plltS
Of cattle in Argentina is, at this time,
practically the same; third, that since
packing combinations exact an extor-
Tomato price for meat, the Govern
ment should exact tribute for the con-
sumner to pay.
Taking up these propositions in or
der, has anybody noticed any mater
ial reduction in the price Of cattle :?
Is anybody complaining that cattle
are too low? Most certainly not.
Everybody knows that cattle are
high. That is one answer
And if cattle are high, and if, as, the
Senator admits, the price of Argen-
tine cattle is Approximately the same,
then whatwhat have we to fear from
Argentine cattle?
The third reason assigned, that be-
cause the packers exact an extortion-
ate price for meat, the government
should levy tribute upon the con-
,, sumner is, when analysed, most aston
ishing.
1t is the same old argument that
we are justified in doing wrong be-
cause, if we don't somebody else will.
1t is plainly saying that the packers
vii "do us" and that for this reason
the Government should do us" first.
This sort of morals is bad enough
when used by the individual to justi-
fly his wrong doing. But for the
Government to adopt such morals is
infinitely worse. If gigantic combi-
nation exists among the packers, as
the Senator says. II they exist harm
fully it is because the Government has
not protected the people as it should
have protected them. If they exist
harmfuly it is because the Govern
ment has wrongfully permitted them
to exist and to operate, And for the
Government to permit the formation
the continuance and the domination
Of such combinations, and permit them
to exact extortion from the people
whom the Government has not pro-
tected, and then for it, instead of re-
moving the evil, TO levy tribute up
on its citizens, because it does not the
malefactor whom it permits to exist
will do so-this is indefensible and
intolerable. What would be said of a
citizen who, having assumed the pro-
lection of the weak, would permit
others to wrong his charge, and then
seek to justify his conduct with the
excuse that if he did not do it others
would? And yet this is the Senator s
sole defense, both as to meat and
flour. The trusts will get it, he says,
and for this reason the Government
should take it. The Government
shuld take the meat from the poor
mans child because if it doesn't the
trusts-which the poor man depends
upon the government to protect him
from--will take it. And this is state
manship? Lord help US! Even if we
knew that the trusts would continue
to operate as they have bern doing it
is intolerable. But it is more. 1t is
cowardly. 1t is simply assuming that
we are to take to the woods and let
things go on as they have. Clearly
that is what the Senator means: has
to mean: If we are to end the nefar-
ious practices of the trust then the
argument, his argument, falls. There
will no longer exist the argument
that the Government may levy trib-
ute because il it doesn't the trusts
will do it. The country isnot disposed
to follow the Senator to the woods.
1t thinks it has found the men to
do it, and it is going to give them a
fair chance.
Upon the subject of wheat and
flour the Senator is equally unfortu-
nate. He bases his defense upon the
statement:
"The result--of the tariff BILLS a
reduced price for the farmers wheat
but no red "tion in the price of