The Southern Mercury. (Dallas, Tex.), Vol. 10, No. 42, Ed. 1 Thursday, October 15, 1891 Page: 1 of 16
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
r
* §
W ®*
I?
*Organize, Educate and Co-Operate. Official Journal of the Farmers State Alliance of Texas. •j "Libeily. Justice end Eciahly.
DALLAS, TEXAS, THURSDAY, OCT. 15, 1891.
YOL. I, HO. 42.
WHOLE NO. 494.
About the Sub-treasury Scheme—
An Open Letter to Con-
gressman Crain.
BETTIE GAY.
To Hon. William H. Crain, Member of Co",
gress:
I have received your letter, osten-
sibly to the Farmer's Alliance,
but really to the non-Alliance
voters of this district. The line of
argument pursued by you can not
for a moment bewilder any Alliance
man, for they are too well informed
on the important issues of the day
for that, but it may be that
many who have not studied any
about the matter may c nsider
views coming from a congressman
to be final.
There is an expression current
among congressmen that suits the
case exactly; it is called "fixing
fences." I do not hesitate to in-
flict a rejoinder upon the public,
for it is not the policy of the
Farmer's Alliance to allow adverse
views to go unanswered. Above
all things they desire that their de-
mands be discussed. They would
much rather you would assault
them than to remain silent. They
think that truth gains by being
ventilated among an intelligent
people. Though the champion for
the Farmer's Alliance be weak, a
discriminating public can judge
for itself of the issues at stake.
The Ocala platform lies in your
path; it may not be a lion, or even
a stumbling stone, but it is there,
and its advocates believe that they
are right, and are in earnest as
tiiey never were politically before,
and will be heard. They are de-
termined that a decision shall be
reached in their case and will allow
no "sidetracking."
I am not accustomed to writing.
My time is fully occupied in man-
ual labor, in the constant, increas-
ing battle for bread, made harder
year after year by such statesmen
as you; and in your blindnesss and
your folly it will grow harder until
the end is reached. I know I am
no match for you, but suchas I am
will lift lance against you until an
abler champion appears he—will
come.
You say you fail to see any good
reason for asking your views, etc.
The reason is plain: We wish to
know whether to support you or
not, if you ever again become a
candidate.
You say the democratic party
will condemn the main feature of
the Ocala platform. How do you
know? Are you congressmen the
democratic party?
If you have been in the past,
maybe things will work around so
that the people will run the party
hereafter. You misrepresent the
sixth demand, and speak of govern-
ment ownership of railroads, "con-
trol of transportation" is the word;
If the people in electing Hogg
governor last fall didn't endorse
that demand I'd like to know why.
Read up a little on your state
polities. How can you say what
the democraic platform will be.
The republicans believe the demo-
crats would endorse the devil if that
endorsement would corral the loaves
and fishes and visa versa. When a
majority of the people are convinc-
ed that the Ocala demands are ir,
the interest of a majority of the
people, then the democratic party
will be on it with both feet,
swearing the were always there,
and cite Jefferson to prove it.
If no candidate offers that we can
support, what is to prevent us from
scratching the ticket?
"As a democrat I can safely re-
ly upon the unconstitutionality of
the sub-treasury plan." Why as a
democrat? Couldn't you as a re-
publican, or an anarchist, or a
citizen? That "a^ a democrat" is
as sounding brass and tinkling
cymbal. It gives a sort of dig, i-
fied fullness to the expression,
hence "as a democrat."
"The constitution no where gi ?es
congress power to loan money."
Which is worse to give it away or
loan it? "Every true democrat
(why democrat?) resisls with
patriotic indignation each assault
upon the constitution." Fiddle-
sticks! Where was your patriotic
democratic indignation, when you
were voting that Si, 500,000 to the
Chicago fair? Where was Morgan's
when he was urging that Nicaragua
canal with its 8100,000,000 gift or
loan?
You speak of the
Conger
lard
bill "seriously crippling the cot-
ton industry of the South." That
will do for congress, but who has
seen the "industry limping around
here on account of the lard bill?
Not the cotton producers. It never
has been unconstitutional for con-
gress to give money, loan money,
act as a pawnbroker, distillery
agent or anything else until the the
sub-treasury plan was projected in-
to politics. If the sub-treasury
plan is unconstitutional, you and
other democrats have violated the
constitution, and I can prove it on
you to the satisfaction of every con-
stituent you have. You say other
instances of loans don't justify
loans to agriculturists. You are a
lawyer and, half your plead-
ing is built up with precedents.
Why not an Alliance man plead
precedents also? "What is sauce
for the goose should be sauce for
the gander." If loans by congress,
and appropriations, are not for the
general welfare, why hasn't the
supreme court said so?
The sub-treasury is "paternal,"
too.
Now the democratic party a1
San Antonio sat down with a
squelch upon "paternalism in all
its forms," and still allows men in
its ranks who are in favor of public
schools. Such men ought to be
kicked out of the party. Whal
laws are paternal and what are not?
Can our government be a kind
father to our citizens in furnishing
free delivery with its "hosts of
governmental employes," place
its strong arm around national
banks and distilleries, subsidize
steamship lines and rich sugar
maker.), and be such a stern step-
father to the laboring man? What
laboring man can, with the
perpetuation of such infernal
policy, be a democrat or a repub-
lican. "Paternalism! Bosh. Any
alliance schoolboy knows the
weight exactly of such a flimsy < b-
jection.
"Class legislation." Ain't about
all legislation class? Who can
draw the line. The money ex-
pended on the jetties at the mouth
of the Mississippi river does not
benefit all the people. Why give Gai
veston $6,000,000; the and mouth
of the Brazos nothing? Soldiers
on the frontier don't protect every
man in the nation. The Chicago
fair don't put a cent in my pocket.
Why continue, when "class is
written all over the congressional
record.
Some of your constituents may
think your letter very strong and
wise, one of "whom I am not
which." Hash and chestnuts, all.
The stock raisers hnven't asked for
pastures yet, have they? Well,
plenty of them have been having
free pasturage on goverment lands
a long time any way,and when a man
steals a calf worth $2.50 he goes to
the penitentiary, (unless he has
money) and when he t-teals a
drove of hogs worth.19 50 he don't.
Do you see the cat? Why shouldn't
the farmer's hogs be protected as
the stockraistr's calf.
You hint that the Knights of
Labor are not as smart as they
ought to be in endorsing the Ocala
platform. Let us give them cr< dit
for sense enough to know their in-
terests, and not be too certain that
all the brains and wisdom of the
country is monopolized by a few
congressmen. They understand
the financial problem rather better
than you appear to do, although 1
do suppose that if each one of them
had $5000 per year for wagging his
chin instead of a twentieth part of
that amount for the hardest kind
of labor, he'd think there was
plenty of money in circulation and
be as ardent an anti-sub-treasury
man as you are.
You sum up the sub-treasury
thusly: "Tbo whole scheme seems
to have been gotten up in the in-
terest of the large land owner, for
the tenant and farm laborer can
not derive any benefit from it."
You prove (that is say) no man
can use the sub-treasury except
the man who won't, and send up a
wail for the losses to the poor
tax payers.
Where would the losses come
in when a part can't and the bal-
ance won'tjstore^their cotton? Don't
you lean over a little to far some-
times? I might have saved you
about four-fifths of your letter by
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View four places within this issue that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Park, Milton. The Southern Mercury. (Dallas, Tex.), Vol. 10, No. 42, Ed. 1 Thursday, October 15, 1891, newspaper, October 15, 1891; Dallas, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth185434/m1/1/?q=%22Business%2C+Economics+and+Finance+-+Journalism%22: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .