should appear that, while the income is not sufficient to pay everything, it can be made to produce a good part of the indebtedness, some kind of compromise will be made which will enable the farmer to go on. All that can be got out of a place is what it will yield after supporting the family which works it. As various considerations will impel the indebted farmer to work cheaper than any one else, and with a better understanding of the capabilities of the farm, there is nearly always a ground for such a settlement and reduction of liabilities as will, under the circumstances, be best for all. If the settlement is complete, and the margin for living is not cut too close, the advantage to all will be great. What kills debtors is not hard work but worry. No man can endure continuous attempts to achieve the impossible with a penalty overhanging in case of failure. When the task is reduced to what can be done, the hard work continues but not the worry. Life takes on a different aspect. The arriving mail is no longer looked to with dread nor the calling stranger feared as one who may have papers to serve. Hope takes the place of despair, and the old renew their youth. Misfortune has befallen and has been bravely met. The best that could be done has been done, and there are respect and esteem in place of suspicion and doubt.

The above is the course always taken by good business men in financial difficulties. It should be imitated by farmers. In attempting such settlement, legal advice should be secured. In most country towns there is some elderly, sensible lawyer whom everybody knows and respects, and who makes his living by keeping people out of lawsuits. Go to him, and to the principal creditor. Lay all the facts before them, and trust your legal adviser and your principal creditor to reach. an agreement and bring in the rest.

The relation of the embarrassed farmer to his creditors must be one of perfect frankness and honesty. Many lose their homes who need not do so.

B

CHAPTER V.

THE FARMER AND THE POLITICIAN.

Y "politician" I mean a person who habitually seeks to obtain a livelihood from the emoluments of public office

or to influence the bestowal of office. He may and probably will have some other ostensible or actual means of support, and is quite certain to be an alert and capable person, entirely competent to live independent of office, but he has acquired the office-seeking habit, which is one of the hardest habits to break. A politician may become a statesman, and as such one of the most honored and useful members of society. Most of them do not, but at the same time it must be recognized that the majority of the office-seeking class are intelligent and honest, and faithfully discharge the duties of any position to which they may be elected or appointed. At any rate, they must have the appearance and reputation of so doing or they could not, at least outside the large cities, hope to succeed. In the aggregate there is doubtless a good deal of official corruption in most countries, but in the main I believe our officials personally discharge the duties of their offices with zeal and fidelity.

And yet it is true that when once an honorable man becomes a candidate for an elective office, or a "worker" who expects, in case of the success of his party, to be rewarded by an appointive office, he becomes possessed of an absorbing desire to win. This feeling is by no means wholly mercenary. The joy of overcoming is of itself a sufficient inducement to 'many, and, once engaged in a contest, all means esteemed honest within the purview of the very loose code of political morals are freely employed.

There is no doubt that in the long run the means deemed most certain to lead to success are what is commonly spoken of as "humbug," and of all classes that deemed most suscep(113)

tible to the influence of political deception is the farming class. Whether right or wrong, this opinion is practically universal among political managers, and party platforms are framed, and political addresses delivered to rural audiences, upon the assumption that those audiences are easily deceived. Public questions are almost never fairly presented by political speakers, and it is rare that political platforms unequivocally pledge parties to definite courses of action on strongly controverted topics. The art of drawing a political platform consists largely in skill to frame language in such a way as to appear to be very binding, while in reality it leaves candidates elected nearly free to do as they please.

The relation, therefore, of the farmer to the politician should be one of profound distrust. He must be recognized as one who means first of all to win if he can, and who believes the surest way to success is rather to excite and play upon prejudice than to appeal to reason. He probably will not lie outright, for this is bad policy, and hence not good politics, but if he can deceive without actually lying he will do so freely where he thinks it desirable, and if he does his work skilfully, he will stand the higher in the councils of his party. Of course many politicians in heated campaigns do not hesitate to lie outright, but these are always the small fry, and in the long run they fail. But the farmer must never expect a fair presentation of a public question from any political orator or political journal. What he must expect, and what, in nine cases out of ten, he will get from both these sources is, first, flattery, to gain his good-will, and, next, rhetorical appeals, more or less effective, according to the ability of the speaker or writer, to his passions. and his prejudice. The first thought of the political orator is to arouse enthusiasm-to "bring the house down;" now candid argument can never have this effect, while rhetorical praise or denunciation always has it. It is natural, therefore, that those who desire to win over an audience or excite it to greater endeavor, should employ the means which experience has shown to be successful, rather than to employ others which are known to be less productive of results. All popular

audiences are susceptible to this play upon emotions, but it is a fact that must be reckoned with that among all classes of politicians it is considered that farmers above all others can most certainly be led captive by the use of bold, unblushing humbug. I am not guessing at these things. I have myself helped to make party platforms, and have appreciated the grim humor of astute politicians as they suggested phrases which we all knew to be meaningless, but well adapted to catch the rural vote. I have heard good political orators arouse an audience to enthusiasm, and afterwards discussed with the speakers the tricks which they employed. I know that shrewd politicians have a very low estimate of the intelligence of the farmer, and that those are in most demand by party managers who have most skill in playing upon rural prejudice and passion.

Now all this has its effect on the farmer's pocket, and it is only from this standpoint that I wish to consider it. The farmer is at every election called upon to vote upon the adoption of policies which will affect his material welfare, and for the election of men by the exercise of whose judgment his income and taxation will be affected. If he will impartially examine facts before voting, his common sense may in the main be relied on to lead him right. There is no important public question which does not involve an economic question, and it is certain that nearly all who really understand how the result will affect their pockets, will vote as they think their interests dictate. I think this right, because if all vote intelligently as their pecuniary interests require, the greatest good of the greatest number will result, which is the aim of all good government. But if people vote after considering but one side of a question, or if the habit of voting with a party leads them to knowingly vote for unworthy men, they must take the consequences.

The most important offices to the farmer are those nearest to him. It is of vastly more importance to him to secure a good road-master than a good governor. In voting for a member of the Legislature, it is of far more consequence that he elect one who will be effective and influential in state affairs than one who is sure to vote for the senator of his party;

and yet it is the fact that whenever a United States senator is to be chosen, the members of all parties are frantically adjured to let nothing prevent voting for the nominees of their party for legislative positions, whatever may be their opinion of the candidate or however much his opponent is the better man. And these exhortations have a tremendous effect.

I do not belittle the importance of national issues, but it is very rare that they are overpowering. As a rule, when he must choose between them, local and state issues are far more important to the farmer. A good governor is of more importance to him than a good President under ordinary peaceful conditions. I fully recognize the necessity of party organizations and the wisdom of party nominations for state and even local offices. A party organization is a great power, and it is important to have some responsible organization stand as sponsor for candidates, to be held responsible if they are derelict in office, but party "loyalty" should not be expected from the mass of voters unless it deserves it, not only by adherence to party principles, but by the nomination of upright and capable men for office. Nor will anything have so great an influence in preventing improper nominations as knowledge on the part of party managers that voters will not accept bad men for the sake of sustaining a good principle, and that they will place more importance on state and local issues than on those of a strictly national character. first thought of a politician is the success of his party, to which he looks for his reward. What the voter most needs is good government, regardless of party. I belong to a certain political party with which in the main I am in accord upon national issues, and from habit, if for no other reason, I prefer to vote for its nominees, but if it by its nominations sacrifices my important local interests to my less important national interests, I will not go with it. I will vote with my party for President and congressman, but if it nominates a bad or weak man for the Legislature I will vote for his opponent if a better man, regardless of its effect on the United States Senate. I believe that to be the proper course for all men. If the states are well governed, the country will be well governed.

The