“Didn’t what, Jo?” she asked.
“That I didn’t make it two bushels instead of one,” I answered.
W.—Well, it is very evident that the conditions under which we are now existing must be changed, for society, as well as the future welfare of our country, demands it.
Jo.—Well, what is your opinion of the various theories advanced by George, Bellamy and others. Would they not afford relief if adopted?
W.—That is possible, but a transient relief only, for they do not remove the absolute cause of it all; these remedies advocated by them are to our national, political and social organizations, what the drug of the physician is to the human or physical organization; while they may afford relief, they do not effect a permanent cure, or remove the cause of the disease. Now, according to our present state and condition of affairs, whilst our commercial interests are of first importance, and the building up of our great cities, with their 14 and 16 story buildings, the chief aim and consideration, the agricultural interests are entirely overlooked, and rich farming districts are almost entirely depopulated or occupied by a foreign race. I know that to the great mass of bustling business men in our cities, these facts seem of very trifling importance, but, Jo, what would your gold of California be good for without the products of the soil to give it value, for the value of gold and silver is dependent upon, and determined entirely by, the amount of such productions. Why, Jo, if the wheat crop of the world should from any cause be reduced one-half, the amount of gold in circulation being relatively greater it would consequently be cheaper, and would require a hatful of it to purchase a barrel of flour, and if the crops were an entire failure you couldn’t sell your gold for more than 25 cents a bushel.
Jo.—I don’t exactly understand why it is, or what possible reason these socialist reformers can have for maintaining that the private ownership of land is the chief cause of the existence of poverty and distress among us, when there are millions of acres of unoccupied lands now open to settlement, with labor in demand in the farming districts, as well as good opportunities for renting, leasing, or for working upon shares good farming lands within a short distance from our large cities.
W.—Yes, yes, that is all true enough, but these agitators in saying that the private ownership of land is the cause of poverty have no reference whatever, Jo, to farming lands, but only to city lots, for their ideas do not extend beyond the city limits. Why, did you ever hear of one of these men advising the unemployed workingmen to go into the country, occupy the public lands, and live by the cultivation of the soil? No, you never did.
Jo.—Well, I suppose that it would be a useless undertaking to try to induce persons, even those who were brought up and raised upon a farm (as no doubt the great majority of the idle men in your cities were), to leave the bustle and excitement of a city life and to live in solitude upon a farm.
W.—Yes, no doubt it would, and could hardly be expected of them; but the inducements should be such that the rising generation of the farming districts will be satisfied and content to remain there in the future, and this can in my opinion be accomplished by remitting all taxes upon farming land for a certain number of years, that is, upon such lands as are located in the more remote sections of the country, and including, of course, also the adoption of the double standard of money.
Jo.—Do you mean that the present money circulation should be increased by an equal amount of silver?