Newspaper Page Text
The Belding Banner.
SUITLEMKNT. TO WAVE OLD GLORY. Chairman Hanna Names October 31 Flag Day for Loyal Republicans. DUTY OF PATRIOTIC CITIZENS. Recognition of the Fact that the Party is Fighting; for Na tional Honor. One does not have to go Tory far to seek tli reason for the profuse display of the national emblem in this campaign. It can bo found in the Chicago platform. The spontaneity of its selection as the appropriate badge of sound-money chain pions is wonderfully siguilieant. There seems to have been little inclination on the part of Mr. llryan's followers to question the right of the advocates of Bound money and protection to display the national colors us the primer insignia of their cause. The only lamentation heart was the Altgeldian wail, which is always expected when the slurs und strides are thing to the breeze. The rivalry as to who could make the most lavish display of the national em blem has been confined to the ranks of the supporters of McKinlcy. There lias been no perceptible effort on the part of the lVmcrnts to wrest it from those who are fighting to maintain the na tional credit. There seems to lie a gen eral assent to the proposition that the ilag does not go with the Chicago plat form This tacit recognition of the fact that the Hag is the one suitable emblem of the issues for which our party is contending is (something new in our American poli ties. Heretofore there lias been a pa triotic rivnrly between the Republicans and the democrats in our national cam paigns as to which side could make most refuse display of the stars ami stripes, t is a circumstance that will mean much to loyal friends of good government and will be a potential factor at the polls in November. Keeognizing this fact, Chairman Han n.l of the national committee suggests that October .'51. the Saturday before (lection, be observed as "Mag day" in every city and town, on which day every person who intends to vote for sound money and national prosperity shall dis. play ihe national colors from his home and his place of business. The sugges tion is a most commendable one and should meet witlr an enthusiastic re sponse all over the nation. Let every man who intends to vote foi the preservation of our national honor signify his patriotic intention by dis playing a llag on Saturday, October III. It will be a significant object lesson in patriotism to hundreds of thousands who may lie wavering between sound money und repudiation. Kemember the day Saturday, October SI. Chicago Times-Herald. THE FARMERS' TOOLS. Efficiency of Agricultural Imple ments Greatly Increased Since 1873. The silver advocates have had so ninny of their pet theories absolutely demol ished by collision with hard facts that they are now resorting to deliberate mis representation in hope of breaking the force of the various exposures they are meeting. They have attempted to make much capital out of the decline in the price of wheat during the last few years, and when attention has been called to the cheapening in the cost of production by the use of new and improved machin ery and the rapid enlargement of the commercial surplus of wheat in other wheat-growing countries than the United States they have undertaken to deny both propositions. In a speech nt the Central Music hall on September 1!, (Jov. Altgeld in at tempting to answer the argument pre sented by Carl Schurz in an address in the same hall earlier in the ennmaign, speaking of the .decline in wheat, said: "The truth is that there has been Mnrce ly any improvement in machinery for raising ami harvesting wheat in 'hi last twenty years." Such a statement is n severe reflection either upon the inventive, genius of American manufacturers and the pro gressive spirit of American farmers or upon the sincerity of (Jov. Altgeld Lini self. The truth is that the greatest improve ments in farm implements nnd machinery that have marked the latter half of the Nineteenth century hnve been made since lMT.'l. Not only has the retail price of all classes of implements used o;i the farm been very much reduced during that time, but the efficiency of the ma chinery itself has been even more enor mously increased. Taking the harvester alone it has been so improved during the last twenty years mat one man enn now accomplish what required the labor of five in 1S73, so that instead of there being 'scarcely any improvement in ma chinery" for harvesting wheat, ihe im provements in the harvester alone are shown fully. In other words, it today only requires one-fifth of the labor cost to harvest grain that it did twenty years uo. To entirely overthrow this Inst normr. sion of truth, with which silver men are trying to tw ister up a losing rause. re tail prices of some of the principal farm machinery have been secured from lend. ing manufacturers showing the cost to the farmer in 1 S7:i and the cot in I Six;. .s tne wiieat crop l.egins with the plow, take the following statement from the Oliver Chilled How works of South Itend. Intl.. and see how the cost of plows has been reduced. "We manufacture plows alone and in the year IMT.'l chilled plows of the num bers ;;o nnd 40 were the leading pat terns. The same numbers nre vcrv largely used nt this time jind our com", parisons nre accordingly based on them: In 173 the retail price of the No. yo was f l.Y Iii 1S73 the retail price of the No. 1C wns The same plows now retail nt fH.."H) each fast slmres for these plows In 17:5 r,, tnlletl nt Hi cents each; now retail at :;o cents each. Jointers for these plows hi 1S7.T retailed nt $ .' each: now retail at 92 each. Wheels for these plows In ls. retailed at l.oOeach: now retail at fl each. t'leiNea for thine plow In 17.1 retaibd at $1 en' h: now retail at 'JS cent each. And other Items In about the same ratio. The construction ami quality of the poods are far better than in 1S7.i." I). M. Osborne nnd Company of An. burn, N. Y., the great manufacturers of harvesting machinery, quoting from their m i own retail prices show the enormous re duction of the price to the farmer. Their statement in full is as follows: "rami machinery is not only very much cheaper but far more cllicient nt the present time than it was in 1S7;I. There is hardly any comparison between the two. The harvesters an 1 bin lers which now harvest the great wheat crops of this country and Unripe, were not known until 1S7S, but tl.e best of farm implements ami machinery made in when compared with those made in 1NM by the leading manufacturers of the country, would look coarse and cumber some and would not be purchased and used by any farmers ut the present time at any price. The difference 'n retail prices Is also very marked: Mowers $100 frTitoJMi Ueapers V2T 50 to GO Combined mower and reap er 1"." "." to S." Harvester and hinder :!h loo to ll'.'i Tedders 7." .TJ to lis Itakes GO '20 Xo 2T 1N7S. The Peering Harvester company of Chicago, quoting from their retail prices of their various classes of machinery in IST.'l and 1N4K5, make the following state ment, showing the decreased cost nnd in creased elliciency of farm machinery: "The twine binder was unknown in ISTo, but the Marsh harvester, n much more primitive machine, in which the landing was done by men riding on the machine, retailed at $'JtM) to '2'27. The twine binder retails today nt from $H0 for cheaper machines to $14." for the Peering roller and ball-bearing ma chines. "The self-rake reaper, which is now sold nt from !r'10 to S7, sold for $1S0 to $1!10 in INT.".. Mowers sold in IS".'' for from $J0 to $11.". according to the make and width of the cut. Machines of vastly creator efficiency sell today nt from $.".." for chcapcr ninchinos to $!." for the Peering roller and ball bearings. When the wire binding attachment was ntblid to the old Marsh harvester from 1S7 to 1 S7! the combined machine sold for J?."! Hi, of which 1110 was for the at tachment and JflNI for the harvester. Wire binders nre not sold now, having been superseded by the twine binder. In JN7N we intioduceil the twine binder the machine that now cuts the grain of the world. Its retail price was then $.'10 to $:Y27i. A better nnd more capable machine is sold today, as nl ove inti mated, nt but little over one-third that price. Hinder twine, for use on these machines, sold in ISNJI nt from l." to 1!" cents per pound. It was, of course, un known in lS7-t. Today a much better twine retails at from V' to 12 cents per pound, according to quality. This steady decrease in price does not mean a decrease in quality and cflieicncy. On the contrary on inward tendency in the mechanical construction nnd quality of material has been as marked as the downward movement in prices. This fact the ndvnnce in value coincident with the decline In price has been made possible by the use of economical meth ods in construction, and by labor-saving machinery, rather than by any decrease in wages paid. The cost of producing eneh machine has nlso been reduced by the tremendous number of machines turned out by a single firm. The old mower, for which the farmer paid in the neighborhood of $100, had but meager means for adjustment, nnd were neither as efficient nor ns durable ns machines that retail today nt $40. The old self-rhe renpers which retailed nt $'J00 were primitive and clumsy ns compared with the $03 machines of to day. The Peering twine binder today, run ning on roller nnd ball bearings, cost $1H) less thnti the old Marsh harvester nnd requires two less men nnd two less horses than did that machine. In other words, one man and two horses can handle more grain with the Peering roll erbearing twine binder than three men nnd three horses could ha mile in 1N7. with n Marsh harvester that cost the farmer $1m more money." These statements of leading manu facturers of high-grade farm machinery, merely emphasizes what any man of or dinary intelligence already knew in a general way and what every wheat-grower in the country knew by practical ex perience, that the last twenty years have been marked by wonderful improvements in the elliciency of farming tools accom panied by no less -marked reduction in the retail price. When (Jov. Altgeld and the lesser lights of Populism claim that no part of the decline in wheat is tlie result of improved machinery ami metho.li. they simply run contrary to facts which are patent to every observer nnd put themselves in n false position by denying truths that are as well known as the multiplication table. A little over a year ago Candidate r.rynn applied for the press agency of a theatrical company, nnd failed to get it. Put his present ml vertisenient is such that lie could have a score of such ngcnciis by asking. He hn the talking qualities of n first-class ngent for theat ricals. Col. Ingersoll says to one of -his ardent silver critics: "Yes, many things nre cheaper since the crime of 1N7M, especial ly talk." Ilryan ought to be able to Unify to that fact. IT WILL BE A "STRIKE.1 A Comparison Between the Policy of the Republican and Democratic Parties. LEGISLATED FOR AGRICULTURE John M. Stahl Tells Why the Farmer Should Stand by His Friends. John M. Stahl, a practical Illinois farmer, and a land owner in Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska, who is the editor of the Farmers' Call, (Juiney, and also secretary of the Farmers' National Con gress, is n man who has made his way from poverty to nllluence, by the use of his own head ami hands. His promi nence in the Orange, Farmers' insti tutes and all movements calculated to better the condition of Atnericnn agri culture, gives vn-ight to his judgment and makes his v. vs on all public ques tions of value. In a recent interview he discusses the relation of the American fanner to the two great political parties nnd points out the fact that in legislation the He publican party has always kept the in terests of agriculture in view. He says: "It must be said to the credit of the farmers of the I'nited States that they have never asked for more at the hands of Congress or lesser legislative bodies than they were ready to have granted to others, or for legislation that they did not believe would be of benefit to all the people. No exception to this is furnished by the tariff, which has been the most persistent political question in our history. No other question has been an important issue in so many cam paigns. The second act passed by the Congress of the United States was n tariff act. The bill was introduYcd and discussed before (Jen. .Washington was inaugurated President and the bill was enacted into law two months before the passage of the law creating a treasury department. Tariff for protection and tariff for revenue, ad valorem duties and specific duties, etc., were thorough ly discussed while the first tariff bill was pending; and there have been few years since in which these questions did not engage the lively attention of the American people. It was inevitable, therefore, that the tariff should have the frequent consideration of a repre sentative agricultural body meeting to discuss proposed legislation and to rec ommend to the favorable consideration of legislative bodies such measures as are deemed worthy of that recommenda tion. Such a body Is the Farmers' Na tional Congress ami at its last annual meeting it adopted the following reso lution: Whereas, It Is an established principle With oth of the great political parties that a tariff on Imported goods adequate to meet the expenses of the government should be levied; therefore, Kesolved. that we demand the same meas ure of protection for agricultural Industries that Is given toother Industries. At the meeting referred to there were delegates from states in which are more ths.il four-fifths of the farmers of the country, from California to Florida and from North Dakota to Texas. The reso lution was adopted without one dissent ing vote. As the honorable gentleman who has been master of the National Orange for eight years past and many other prominent officials of the Orange were present as delegates, the resolu tion may justly le taken us expressing the sentiments :f the Orange also. Cer tainly the Farmers' National congress, being composed of farmers, should not have demanded less; nnd. as it is non political and unpartisnn, it could not con sistently say more. Similar resolutions have been adopted at previous meetings. Protection I'nder MrKlnley ,HW The McKinlcy law gave to agricultural .industries the same measure of protec tion that it gave to other industries. Horses, hay, potatoes, onions, eggs, bar ley, fruits, wool and other products of ciir farms, the producers of which de rive a direct benefit from n protective duty on those articles, were gion just and satisfaitory protection; and thus tin McKinlcy law met the proper wishes and the just and reasonable demands ,f the farmer. As soon ns they had the power, the Democrats hastened to remove the duties on farm product or to remove them altogether, and the Wilson law does not give the same measure of protection to Agricultural industries that it gives to other industries. Wool is a striking ex ample of this. The McKinlcy law j'ave it proper protection, and while that Lv was in effect only a very short time, it Cincinnati Times and Star. was in effect long enough to show that under its operation our production of wool would rapidly increase to the ulti mate benefit of the entire community. The Democrats hastened to put wool on the free list, while retaining a substantial duty on the product of the mill and the mine. In ISSU there were in the United States 41,..7.1U7! slice;), valued at $!M. t'.10.:t;!; in 1S!. there were 47.,J7.,..r.7 sheep, valued at SCFJ.VHKM'lVI; in ISiKi there nre ;w,i!!N.7S.'J sheep, valued at .SJ.",107,7o.". Under the McKinlcy law the value of our sheep increased $.".'i.-H,-MCJ; the Wilson law has taken from the value of our sheep $;o.741,.rl!!. or very nearly one-half. Under the Wilson law the importation of wool has doubled ami the juice of the domestic product has been halved. The McKinlcy law gave to wool and other farm products the just and equal protection demanded by farm ers; the ilson law removed this pro tection, ami. discriminating against the farmer, singled out wool growing as the one considerable industry to feel the full force of a disastrous free trade isjlicy. Itf elprnelty. At its annual meeting in 1S00 the Farmers' National congress passed a resolution in favor of reciprocity; nnd that it yet vors reciprocity is shown by the following resolution at its last meeting: Resolved, that the FAirners National con gress has listened with profound Interest to t ho able and Instructive address of Senor Francisco Javier Vanes of Venezuela on "The Commercial Relations of American Ue puldics." Resolved, that to secure reciprocal trado between the I'nited States nnd the Spanish American republics, this congress favors legislation for reciprocity, commercial treat ies, and aid for steamship lines sutllcleut to answer all the purposes of such trade. The benefits to our agriculture from fair reciprocal arrangements were so ap parent that the resolutions were adopted by n practically unanimous vote, though in the congress were delegates of all shades of political belief. The peculiar nlation of reciprocity to agriculture ap pears from a reading of the reciprocity section of the McKinlcy law: That with a view to secure reciprocal trade with countries prodc.-lng the following articles, ami for thls-purpose. on and after the tlrst day of January. ls:c whenever, and so often ns the President shall lie satis fied that the government of any country pro ducing and exporting sugar, molasses, cof fee, tea, and hides, raw and uncured. or any of such articles. Impose duties or oilier ex actions upon the agricultural or other pro ductions of ihe I'nited States, which In view of the free introduction of such sugar, mo lasses, colli e. tea and hides Into the I'nited States may deem to be reciprocally unequal or unreasonable, he shall have the power and It shall be his duty to suspend, by proclamation to that effect, the provisions of this act relating to the free Introduction of such sugar, molasses, coffee, tea and hides, the production yf such country, for such time as he shall deem Just. etc. Although in effect only a short time, the reciprocity arrangement made under the McKinUy law demonstrated the great benefit that reciprocity would be to our agricultural interests. Space will permit of the citation of only one case in point: Our production of wheat so fur exceeds our needs, while the exiortation of Kussia and Argentine has so rapidly increased that it is of the highest im portance to our farmers that our wheat markets be enlarged. The ability of re ciprocity to do this is shown by our tlour trade with Cuba. In less than four years under n reciprocity arrangement this trade increased 4S0 per cent., while in the first year after the arrangement was terminated it decreased 42 per cent. AH the reciprocity arrangements would have been of much benefit to our agri cultural interests; nnd the Democrats hastened to terminate thetn. Hume or Foreign aingitr, Which Kach year we send abroad more than $1(K).(hKI,(MMI for sugar. All doubt of our possessing the soil nnd climate ;ver n sufficient area to produce from beet the sugar we now import, has been removed. Our natural advantages for the produc tion of beet sugar are such tha. not withstanding the higher wages paid here, aid given our beet sugar industry iquiv Blent to that which has been given to their beet sugar industries by France r.nd Oermany by means of bounties, exemp tion of bind from taxation, etc.. would undoubtedly rapidly build up our sugar production. The McKinlcy law, by means of n bounty, gave to our bee't sugar industry the encouragement ;hat the history of the industry in Oernriny and France has shown to be wise hu highly niivamageous to tne nation. Under the operation of the McKinlcy law our production of beet sugar t-ipidly increased. Here nre the figures: Founds. isoi 1-,.oo.h:'.s lsM'2 -7.i'nit.:;j lv.i.t Il.s:tn.r,j7 Hnd the McKinlcy law iKtunties been continued, we would in a comparatively few years have produced at home, not only the four thousand million pmrnds of sugar we now consume, but the increased consumption due to our increased popu lation. It is probable that no other piece of legislation in our history has shown a greater lack of business dense than the rejwal of the sugar bounties, nnd certainly few other legislative en actments in our history have done our agricultural interests n grcnter injury or diibjetted the country to grcnter ultimate financial loss. To produce four thousand million pounds of beet sugar would re quire one million acres of laud nnd the wages paid to farm and factory labor would amount to ?7.VxU per annum. Land nnd labor now devoted to crops of small profit ami of which we' produce an excess, like wheat, would be put to a more profitable use. The ?7i.M)0,0O0 each year would swell our domestic com merce by at least four times that amount. If we hail produced our own sugar instead of gold having Wen ex ported during the past three years an export that has widely hurt our imlus tries ami business gold would have leen inijMirtcd. for the more than one hundred million dollars of gold or its equivalent sent abroad each year for sugar would have been kept at home. lloiufi or I'orelgn Woil, Which T All these at vantages the use of land, the employment of labor, the increase of domestic commerce ami of our circulat ing medium, the retention of gold would follow also from a production of the 1!."0,4MM),1MNI pounds of wool that we annually import under the Wilson law; a production that would follow from the steady and continued aid of such protec tion its was given by the McKinlcy law. Surely so far as tariff legislation is con cerned, the farmer, whether he regards only his own interests or looks beyond them to the interest of his country, will have no difficulty in deciding which par ty should have his vote. His decision will be all the easier and surer because of the record of the candidates for Presi dent. Mr. Ilryan declared in Congress, Junuary l.'I. lN'.M. "It is immaterial in my judgment whether the sheep-grower receives any benefit from the tariff or not I am for free wool." He voted for free wool, for the repeal of the sugar bounties ami for the abrogation of the reciprocity arrangements. Mr. Mc Kinlcy, it is needless to say, has been and is, in favor of reciprocity, just pro tection to wool and other farm products, and such reasonable encouragement of out beet-sugar industry as other coun tries have found profitable. In con trast with what Mr. Ilrynn said about tariff on wool is what Mr. .McKinlcy said when introducing his tariff bill into the House: If there Is any one Industry which appeals with more force than nnother for defensive duties it Is this, and to no elas of citizens should this House more cheerfully lend legls. lathe assistance, where It can properly be done, than to the million farmers who own sheep In the I'nited States. We cannot af ford as a nation to permit this industry to be longer crippled. This shows Mr. McKinlcy's regard for the welfare of agricultural industries; and Mr. Ilrynn. also, may be judged by his utterances on the same subject. Republican Mini Trust. Farmers have been consistently nnd persistently opposed to trusts. This hos tility has been exaggerated in the voci ferous and sweeping denunciations of trusts by the Populists. The farmers of this country are well aware that there nre more trusts that, while nearly and quite controlling the production and sale of certain articles to their sure and lib eral profit, have nevertheless, by reason of the economies of the aggregation of capita', the employment of best talent in directing, and of producing and hand ling large quantities, made the prices of the articles to the consumers less than they were before and probably less than they would be if the trusts were not in existence. Nevertheless, the farmers' of this country believe that the principles underlying trusts are wrong and that in the aggregate trusts are n serious injurv to business and wield a power that will present to human nature n temptation too strong to be resisted, except in n few cases, to us: that power with political parties and legislative bodies, for im proper ends; in short, that the trust is an enemy to the people and a menace to the nation, there being some exceptions to prove the rule. Representative agricul tural bodies have very frequently con demned trusts ami asked for legislation that would end them, or nt the least would subject their nfTairs to such public knowledge and control as would remove thejr power for evil. A representative agricultural body has never pronounced in favor of trusts. The position of the farmer as regards trusts is that occupied by our economists and by nenrlv all our population, hence, it is sanctioned l.v scientific research and reasoning and by the common sense. In acenrd ti-;i, w-.smch oi iarmcrs and in compliance with their requests, the Fiftv-first Con gress, which was the first Congress Re publican in both branches since trusts had assumed prominence in this country hastened ut its first session to pass "a bill to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopo lies, which declares that: F.very contract, combination In form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy. In re straint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations N hereby declared to be Illegal. F.very person who shall make any such contract or engage In any such eomblnatton or conipiru-v shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, a'nd on conviction thereof, slmll be punished b'v i fine not exceeedlng J.Mnmi. or by Imnrlsoii ment not exceeding one year, or by both of said punishments In the discretion of tin. court. F.very person who sliill monopolize or shall attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with uny other person or persons to monopolize auy part of thp trade or commerce among the sevprni or with foreign nations, shall be guilt v of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof. f.rfXKi, or by Imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments In the discretion of the court. That word "person" or "persona." wher ever used In this act. shall be deemed to In elude corporations and associations exlstlnir under or authorized by the laws of either the Fnlted States, the laws of any of the territories, the laws of any state, or the laws of any foreign country. This net is so comprehensive in its defi nition of a trust, which it made illegal that it was clearly the purpose of those who made it a law, that no trust should escape. Democracy nt Trusts. Contrast with the action of the Fiftv first Congress the nction of the Fifty third Congressthe first one Denmerntie in both branches since trusts ttttnined to prominence in this country which nt its regular session, put into the coffer of the Sugar trust, by means of the Wilson law, a bonus of $1.S.(mmUKn) on the sugar then in its hands; and by the same law ninde n profit for the Whisky trust of about $1UMMKHI on the whisky with drawn from bond after it became cer tain that the tax on whisky would be increased and before the law Ment into effect, ntid, in addition, the Wilson law im reused the allowance fr wastage while in bond and lengthened the bonded perior from three to eight years. The Fifty-third Congress legislated against trusts, but only those of which import ers nre members and which dcnl in im ported nrticles. Domestic trusts have re mained undisturbed by Democratic Icjfjd. latioti. No effort has been made bv tlie Democratic administration to enforce the anti-trust legislation of either the Fiftv first or the Fifty-third Congress, though frequently reminded of its duty by the agricultural and other nnpers. 'including even a leading New York Democratic paper. So far as their attitude toward trusts is concerned, the farmer ought not to hnve nny difficulty in bcidiiif? who t. of the two leading political parties should have his vote. On questions that have not had the long nnd general Attention bestowed on the tariff or in the treatment of evilr that have been so acridly denounced h the trusts, but that farmers have right fully considered to have a direct ntnl con siderable effect on agricultural interests, the Democratic and the Kepublican pir ties have recently made records equally plain nnd f igniticunf. Who Favors Itiirnl MU Delivery? In the debate on the postoffice appro priation biU In the House March G last, Mr. I'ickler said: "It seems that thero is no effort to imprbve the service fo country people," und on the same day Mr. Loud, chairman of the House com mittee on postotlices und postrouds, saidjV in the course of the debate: The Increase In the appropriations for th star route service during the last four year has arisen from the fact that money was taken from thut service ami devoted to reg illation, screen, and other wagon sen Ice. In other words, while you gentlemen from the country have been persistently Increas lug appropriations for the star route service, all of thut increase has becu used lu tbw large cities. In fact, the amount thus diverted dur ing the last fiscal year was .C70,000, whereas the increase in the appropria tion for country mail service was only $r(M),lM0; so that notwithstanding the successful efforts of the friends of the farmers to secure an appropriation, to better his mail service, there was actual ly less money sKnt on that service than before, because the Democratic adminis tration of the postoflice department used elsewhere, as it has in previous years, tse money specifically appropriated for the improvement of country mail service. This is in striking contrast with the Kermblican administration of the post office department. Mr. Wanamaker se cured appropriations for experiments in free mail delivery in villages and he faithfully extended these appropriations. In a communication to the Senate he stated that after making an allowance equal to the previous average annual increase of the business of the offices, it was found that the increase of the busi ness of the offices due to the free daily delivery had more than paid for that delivery. In some cases the profit from free delivery was quite large. In New Cannon.' Conn., for example, the village in which free daily delivery was first in troduced, und in which the experiments were conducted for five years, the aver age annua income of the ofjice was SriU.1, while the free delivery cost only $1I(M). A business that yields nn average annual profit of KiDj per cent., part of the period being a time of panic and de pression, is a good business indeed; yet the present administration of the post office department has discontinued the free delivery in the villages in which it was established by Mr. Wanumakcr. The results from experiments in vil lages indicated, as Mr. Wanamaker fore saw that they would, the practicability of free daily delivery to farmers; jind he secured from the Fifty-second Con gress an appropriation for experiments in free mail delivery to farmers, and an appropriation for this purpose was made by the Fifty-third Congress at both sessions. The language of the appro priations wns mandatory, but both Mr. Itissell and Mr. Wilson have refused to expend these appropriations. The mail has become n very important factor in the prosperity, welfare and enjoyment of the people. In the attitude of the Itepublican and Democratic administra tions toward rural mail service and the efforts made to improve it, the farmer will find excellent aid in deciding for which party to vote. AVIio Forfeits I. a ml C.rants? For some years the farmers of the country have been demanding that the grants of lands to aid in the construction of certain railroads, should be declared forfeited where the conditions of the grants had not been complied with. The Fifty-first Congress the first Congress Kepublican in both branches since the demands for the annulment of these grants had been made at .its first ses sion enacted a law That there Is hereby forfeited to the I'nited States, nnd the I'nited States hereby resumes the title thereto, nil lands hereto fore granted to nny state or to any corpora tion to aid in the construction of a railroad opposite to and coterminous with the por tion of any such railroad not now completed and In operation, for the construction or benefit of which such lands were granted; nnd all such lauds nre declared to be a part of the public- domain. This law should have much weight with the farmer in determining what ticket lie will vote, for, aside from re storing considerable anas to the public domain to the profit of the national treas ury, it showed that n Kepublican Con gress did not fear to enact righteous laws for the people and against some of tho most powerful corporations in the coun try in marked contrast to the subservi ency to trusts and corporations of the Democratic Congress that we have had since. Who Opened Foreign Markets? For some years certain Kuropenn na tionsone of which, at least, while preaching free trade, practiced the pro tection of certain farm products io the extent of prohibitory decrees had ex cluded our animal products and live ani mals for their markets or had subjected them to vexatious and profit-destroyiug regulations, because it was alleged, they were frequently unwholesome or dis eased. Our farmers were well nwsre that this allegation was an untruthful subterfuge, nnd they demanded such in spection of our slaughtered animals und live animals offered for export that for eign governments could not plead disease among our animals ns a justification for excluding those products of our farms from their markets. Fveryone familiar with our live stock interests, knows that this was n matter of great moment to them. The Fifty-first Congress, that did so much for the farmer, made me.it in spection laws that fully met the wishes of our stock-raisers, nnd that, being faithfully administered by Secretary Itusk, accomplished all that was expect ed of them. It is unfortunate that by his own utterances and actions tho pres ent secretary of agriculture should have shown a different attitude toward those wise laws. In determining which ticket he shall vote, the farmer will certainly compare the department of agriculture under Secretary Husk with it under his successor, who began his career ns sec retary of agriculture by insulting organ ized farmers, and who has made the truly remarkable record of not missing even one opportunity to show, along with his total lack of sympathy with farmers, not only his complete ignorance of our agricultural interests, but either an utter incapacity or a completely successful in disposition to learn. 10 to 1 Not Wanted. The currency plank of the Chicago platform certainly docs not express the sentiments of the National Orange: and at its lest annual meeting, in Atlanta. Oa.. October 10-HI, ls.i.r. the Farmers National congress voted down all of the 1(5 to 1 free silver coinage resolutions presented, nnd ndopted resolutions in which it declared that it wns emphatical ly in favor of the use of both gold and silver ns the money of ultimate redemp tion and was in favor of the free coinage of silver by internationnl agreement at a ratio to be agreed upon. It is but justice to the Democratic party to say that, until recently, through its long career, it was friendly to ngri ulture. As long as it was inspired by Jefferson nnd Jackson it had a jealous regard for our agricultural interest, but it has drifted away from its old course: it is inspired by those who hold strange doctrines; and while thousands nnd hun dreds of thousands of Democrats are the friends of the farmer, the present Demo cratic party, as nn organization to elect men to enact laws and others to admin-k-tcr them, is. ns compared with the Ke publican iarty. careless of the welfare of our agricultural industries; nnd. of even grcnter weight with the American farmer, careless of that financial integ rity that must underlie the welfare of nil industries and which is essential to' t.'ie honor and glory of all nations. NINE.