OCR Text |
Show (Released by Western Newspaper Uiuon.) SOME REMINDERS OF OLD, WAR NO. 1 SPEECHES DIGGING THROUGH some old rubbish a few days ago, I discovered discov-ered a number of clippings from English papers, containing accounts of the visit of a party of American journalists, of which I was one. During the days spent in England that party of Americans listened to many speeches and, in view of intervening in-tervening and present-day events, these clippings made interesting reading. Arthur Balfour, in a speech made at a luncheon, forecast the difficult problems to be faced at the peace table and what would happen in the future should hatred have a place in peace negotiations. The kind of peace he warned against was made and his prophecy for the future has been realized in a second World war. Lord Northcliffe, in a speech at a luncheon in the London Times building, forecast a League of Nations Na-tions that, with America as a participant, par-ticipant, would solve all future international problems. America did not join the League and the League did not prevent a second World war. American navy in Europe, explained the work of the British navy, i He said there were never more than 13 German subs at sea at any one time and that England had some 5,000 vessels of various classes searching for these subs and protecting merchant mer-chant ships. Admiral Sims said it was the English navy that would make victory for the Allied cause possible by maintaining control of the seas. It was true at that time, and is true again now with just about the same conditions. World War I, and the peace that grew out of it, did not prevent war but, rather, encouraged more wars, including the present conflict. What will follow the peace of this war only the future can tell. The sentiment now in the democracies is for generous gen-erous terms, with Roosevelt-Churchill pronouncement as a basis, but the bombs are still falling. With either side achieving a military victory, the hatreds of Europe may again, as in 1919, dominate toe peace terms. FARMERS DEFINITELY AFFECTED AFFECT-ED BY RAILROAD WAGES THE FARMER is the one producer pro-ducer in America who does not, and cannot, determine the price at which his commodity will be sold. He sows in the spring, with a hope that Nature will enable him to produce a crop, and consumer demand will assure him a fair price. When, with the assistance of Nature, his acres have produced a crop, he must reap in the fall, regardless of what the price may be. The price is made at Chicago, at Tidewater or at Liverpool, and the farmer pays the transportation. From the price paid is deducted the delivery costs. The manufacturer can, and does fix the price at which he will sell his product. If there is not a consumer con-sumer demand at the price he names, he can lay off his help, close his factory and await better conditions. To the price the manufacturer manu-facturer names, the local merchant adds the cost of transportation of the product in fixing his price to the consumer. The farmer pays the freight on what he sells and also nn what he buys. The farmer has a definite financial finan-cial interest In the proposed wage increase asked by the railroad employees em-ployees of the nation. That increase represents more than the railroads are earning. They cannot absorb it and continue to operate. It means increased cost of transportation on what the farmer sells and on what he buys. He will get less for what his factory his acres produce, and pay more for the commodities of other factories the things he and his family need and use, and the equipment needed to operate his farm. The increased freight both ways will amount to a considerable number of dollars per year for every one of the more than six million farms in America. Without that proposed increase, the average railroad rail-road employee is far better off financially finan-cially than is the average farmer, who, collectively, will pay a considerable con-siderable portion of the increase. WHERE'S THE CEILING? WHAT DOES a surplus of food and continuously increasing prices mean if not inflation? Where is the ceiling ceil-ing they talk about, and over what is it to be placed? The farmer cannot can-not be the only one who is to be limited in the price he receives. STATES PILE IT UP ALSO FOR 1930 the per capita state tax collections averaged $14.52 and by 1940 had jumped to $23.02. With the exception of but a few states, the increase was reasonably even. In Missouri the jump, as reported by the Tax Foundation, was from $10.61 in 1930 to $81.92 in 1940, and in Alabama Ala-bama from $8.29 to $53.31. Aside from these states, the range of 1940 state tax collections was from $33.88 in Nevada down to $14.38 in South Carolina and $14.80 in Nebraska. cone increases are not UncleSam's. |