Obrázky na stránke

cil combined, included the most prominent men of the colony: Governor Bradford presided, and. Edward Wins low, Thomas Prince, and Captain Miles Standish were present. In the first case Doty was directed to pay John Jenney the balance of three pounds due; in the second, one of his debtors, George. Clarke, was directed to pay; and, finally, Doty was warned, upon a neighbor's complaint, that since he did not hire a man to herd his cattle and did not keep them fenced in, he would be

liable for damages to other men's corn or cattle. A little later he had to pay Edward Grey and Samuel Cutbert each a bushel of corn for damages done to their gardens by his calves.

In 1647, when Doty was nearly fifty years old, his neighbor, Samuel Cut bert, complained that he had taken wood from his land, and he was fined seven shillings and costs.

So this doughty Pilgrim Father continued to drive hard bargains in Plymouth and Yarmouth, paying and col

lecting at the point of the law, and making free use of his fists when his feelings required. He died August 23, 1655, fifty-six years old, leaving his widow and seven children-William, Faith, Edward, John, Isaac, Desire, Thomas, and Joseph-to carry on the tradition of their Pilgrim Father.

And they did not entirely fail him, for perhaps we see some of Doty's militant traits in the Revolutionary activities of one of his great-grandsons, the patriot James Otis.

[merged small][graphic][merged small]

George H. Boughcompany

were Separatists who left the Church,

Tton representing a small went to Holland, where there was re

of early New England settlers marching through the snow to church led by their minister and accompanied by men in arms is familiar to all. The title of the painting is commonly but erroneously given as "The Pilgrims Going to Church." The picture has already been republished a number of times during the current year on account of the observance of the tercentennial of the landing of the Pilgrims, and will probably appear again many times before the last exercises are over. In the interests of historical accuracy and a more critical, attitude toward pictorial expression, the following statements are offered.

The correct title of the painting, which is the property of the New York Public Library, is "Puritans Going to Church." There is a clear distinction between Puritans and Pilgrims. The former were members of the established Church of England who maintained their allegiance to that Church, but sought to purify it as to certain of its forms and practices. The latter

ligious toleration, and finally migrated to America, where they made a settlement at Plymouth-1620. A few years later Puritans began coming to what is now Massachusetts, and this sect became widely distributed through New England. Obviously there is only one body of Pilgrims, the 102 persons who came over on the Mayflower.

When the Boughton painting was first exhibited at the Royal Academy, England, in 1867, it bore the following title: "Early Puritans of New England Going to Worship, Armed to Protect Themselves from Indians and Wild Beasts." The paper label on the back of the picture bears the same description, and seems to have been written about the same time, possibly by Boughton himself.

In examining the picture for its historical significance, the interpreter should have in mind that the Plymouth settlement was small and not widely scattered, that the church the Pilgrims attended was within the village, and attended was within the village, and that the minister would hardly have

gone out to conduct to service such persons as may have built cabins at a distance from Plymouth. Further, it must be borne in mind that the Indians around Plymouth received the Pilgrims in a kindly manner and continued to be friendly for a long time.

On the other hand, fifty years after the settlement of Plymouth small groups of Puritans had moved inland and come into contact with the Indians there, who by this time began to look with disfavor upon the coming of persons who seemed likely to dispossess them of their hunting grounds. These persons were in constant danger, and had to be on their guard at all times. The scene of this painting fits very exactly the period of King Philip's War; it does not express characteristic aspects of the Pilgrims' settlement.

The use thus made of this picture is a fair illustration of the loose way in which pictorial expression is commonly employed, and the fact that in the examination of such expression the same standards of truthfulness, authenticity, and significance are not applied as are exacted for verbal expression.

[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][graphic]

Colin Clout's come home again,
Loping up the rutted lane,
Past the farmhouse and the pool,
Smiling at the village fool,
Past the thatched and yarded stack
With his bundle on his back.
Little girls in gingham frocks
Played around the pillar-box.
Colin spoke to them and passed,
For he's come back home at last.
St. John's College, Cambridge, England.


Nancy, now that Colin's here,
Take the jug and get some beer,
Then put on your pinafore,
Heat the oven, shut the door,
Take your biggest apples down,
Bake the dumplings crisp and brown.
Colin kissed you when he came,
Called you by your pretty name,
And he gave you a new shawl.
Colin hasn't changed at all!

Wind the clock up, make a stir,
Busier be and busier

Till his supper's done, and then
Just you kiss him back again!
Say it's time to go to bed,
Wrap your apron round your head,
Scramble up your cottage stairs,
Turn the lamp out, say your prayers;
Tell God that the best of men,
Colin Clout's come home again!




[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]

HERE are certain financial interests and speculators in this country who are doing their darnedest to put agriculture on the bum," said a farmer to me. The enemies of American agriculture, and therefore the enemies of our entire population, are attempting to smash the Federal Farm Loan System, established in 1917. Ever since then it has been under the fire of the American Farm Mortgage Bankers' Association. These men intend to destroy it if they can."

These remarks were made so vigorously and sincerely that I asked for further information.

"What is this Farm Loan System, and how does it operate?" I asked. "Why is this banking association against the Farm Loan System, and what would be the result if the American Farm Mortgage Bankers' Associa tion should win? You understand, do you not," I said, " that you have made a very serious charge against bankers, and that I am to report what you say

[ocr errors]



(C) Harris & Ewing

Hon. Edwin Thomas Meredith


in one of America's most influential

"I understand perfectly," replied the

other, "and what I have to say will bear rigid inspection. I am not accus ing all American bankers of being in a plot to down the Federal Farm Loan System. Many of them are loaning liberally to farmers, particularly where farmers are organized. But certainly the American Farm Mortgage Bankers Association is a deadly opponent of the Federal method of loaning money to farmers.

"The reason is simple enough. Since March, 1917, the Government has been loaning money to farmers at five per cent interest, with a one per cent amortization charge. This enables farmers to pay off loans in about thirty-five years. Back of this Federal plan lies the idea of building up the farm credit of the country with loaning organizations ultimately owned by the farmers themselves, but operated always under such Government supervision as to guarantee the soundness of their opera tions and securities. It is not intendel that it shall be Government money that is to be loaned to the farmers,

espite the fact that the Central Govnment subscribed about $9,000,000 capital stock to initiate the system. his subscription is being paid back to e Government already. The Federal and Bank of Spokane as early as pril, 1919, distributed dividends mounting to $60,000. The Federal and Bank of Houston declared a vidend in October, 1918.

"Only one per cent spread is peritted between the bank loan rate and e bond rate. There is already ample roof that the Federal Farm Loan sysm is a financial success, and can be ade self-supporting on less than a e per cent margin. The money aned to the farmers comes from the le of bonds, exempt from all kinds of xation.



Now, in order that private comanies might not be put out of business 7 Federal competition, the Federal arm Loan Act provided for a system joint-stock land banks into which e old mortgage companies might ter. But if the private companies me into the Federal system, they ere not allowed to charge the farmers ore than the Federal rate of interest, nd have to submit to the regulation of e Federal Farm Loan Board. "Most of the private farm mortgage mpanies, I believe, have stayed out the Federal System, and are conductg an insidious propaganda to ruin it. hey are operating in many of our tates, and charge farmers as high as ght and ten per cent interest. They onsider that the Federal Government a meddler in their lucrative business. ou see, the Federal system operates pon a fixed basis of income, and rules hat any excess of income over expenses nd a fixed reserve must go back to the Orrowers in the form of dividends. Of ourse it is natural to consider the GovEnment your financial enemy if you nd it difficult to loan money at a high terest rate in competition with lowterest long-time Federal loans to our patrons.


"The Federal Government is no nger considering the thousands of ew applications from farmers for loans at are pouring into Washington. Why? The Farm Mortgage Bankers' ssociation is responsible for a suit ow pending in the Supreme Court to est the constitutionality of that proision of the Federal Farm Loan Act hich exempts the Federal Farm Loan ud the joint-stock land bank bonds rom taxation. Until the Court has anded down its decision no further loans will be made, although more than one undred and thirty thousand farmers

the last three years have already een helped financially to the extent of more than $500,000,000 by the Federal and banks and the various joint-stock and banks.

Paul Thompson


"As a result of this suit interest rates have already been raised by private money-lenders and banks from one to four per cent on loans to farmers.

"If the Farm Mortgage Bankers' Association should win this suit, consumers would be the worst sufferers. The farmer is the first to be fed and the last to starve; the consumer is the last to be fed and the first to starve. It would further discourage an already discouraged class of basic workers, and mean a serious setback to the ownership of farms by farmers, particularly young farmers. If this suit should go against the farmer, it would mean a serious decrease in food production, which would mean higher cost of food products to the higher cost of food products to the consumer. Or it might mean that the higher rate of interest which the farmers would be compelled to pay would result in increased cost of raising farm products. In any case, a decision adverse to the farmer will come home hard to the consumer. The country and the city are inseparably linked together," concluded my informant.

I asked a number of farmers if the Federal Farm Loan Act, with its taxexemption clause, was not a piece of class legislation. I do not know how sound the opinion of these farmers is, but this is what they think: "Class legislation! We know that some bankers and other money-lenders regard it as such. They are much wrought up about the $500,000,000 Farm Loan bonds representing class legislation. But how much are these same persons wrought


about the more than $4,000,000,000 of municipal bonds that are exempt from Federal taxation being class legis lation? Or the more than $1,750,000,000 worth of mortgages held by mutual building and loan associations that are exempt from taxation? Or the more than $2,000,000,000 worth of mutual savings banks mortgages that are exempted? Or the stock in the Federal Reserve Banks and the income therefrom that are exempt from all taxation?

Where the money-grabbers have one chance to secure a farm bond free from taxation they have twenty or more chances to secure municipal and other bonds free from taxation. Then how about Government aid furnished in the form of a protective tariff for manufacturers and their employees since the days of Alexander Hamilton? Isn't it about time agriculture was given as much consideration as other business?"


No less an authority than the Secretary of Agriculture has recently made public that certain food interests, particularly the large food speculators, have at times attempted the suppression of the crop reports. What difference would it make to the consuming public if these reports were suppressed? The Secretary holds, in substance, that speculation in food products depends and thrives upon lack of information, uncertainty, and confusion on the part of farmers and the public. Were it not for the crop reports, the public would be at the mercy of the speculators, who would be free to issue any sort of misleading reports designed to influence prices. Congress has played right into the hands of the food speculators by refusing to appropriate sufficient funds to make the Federal crop reporting service more useful.

The Secretary of Agriculture complains that the last Congress failed by about $6,000,000 to appropriate the money necessary to carry on fifty essential activities of the Department. This has proved harmful both to our domestic needs and to our export trade. Lack of funds has seriously handicapped the eradication of hog cholera and footand-mouth disease. It has interfered with co-operative cow testing. It has checked the prevention of cereal diseases and the enforcement of the Federal Pure Food and Drugs Act. The sweet-potato weevil gets a new lease on

« PredošláPokračovať »