Why the President Said No; G. Cleveland

Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people's needs in the local ities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already fur nished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight. And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose. [254 ] I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A preva lent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Gov ernment should not support the people. [Emphasis added.] The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Govern ment and weakens the sturdiness of our national char acter, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

[255 ] AGRICULTURE'S SACRED SEVENTH tg ~ A. JJarper THE AMERICAN farmer has long been considered the most likely guardian of the last bastion of freedom. But under the spell of some political "economists" and farm leaders who believe in mystic numbers and other such forms of superstition, he is more and more surrendering any claim to that honor. In the recent vote of farmers to have the government dictate how much wheat each of them shall be allowed to grow, it is true that many farmers voted "No." Many upheld vigorously their individual rights to manage their own farms as they alone deem wise. Knowing, perhaps, that the plan on which they were voting is patterned closely after the Gosplan of the Soviet Union, they see little sense in draining our resources to nght communism abroad while adopting it piecemeal at home. But under the concept that the might of the majority makes right, the beliefs of this opposing minority are now to be dis regarded. They were outvoted by the 87 per cent who apparently lack confidence in themselves and their fel low farmers to manage their own farms. They were outvoted by those who rely, instead, on political farm [256 ] management. There are ample instances like this to show that a revolution has occurred among American farmers.