Written for the Indiana Farmer.
Transportation—No. 4.
BY JOHN M. STAHL.
My second plan for reducing transportation chargos is to make the Government
owner of the railways. At once I will be
met with the cry of "concentration" and
"paternalism." In a country where the
people are supposed to govern, and certainly may govern if they choose, this opposition to the extension of government
functions is silly, to say tho least. It is a
prejudice inherited from tho time when
the people were king-ridden; when the
Government was something outside of
and beyond the people, bent on oppressing
them; when, naturally, there was a continual conllict between the people and the
Government, one continually endeavoring
to gain rights, the other to retain prerogatives; and when rights and justice were
obtained only by suffering, bloodshed, and
revolution. But our circumstances are altogether different. "We are the Government; we may change policy, restrict
functions, or take back powers, every two
years, and by the easy and peaceable
means of the ballot. If the Government
is arrayed against us, then we are fools
enough to antagonize ourselves. If we
dare not grant to Government certain
powers, we dare not allow ourselves in
our organized capacity to do those things
that we attempt unorganized. It is to be
hoped that we have got beyond such silly
ideas, proper onough in Russia, but altogether out of place in the   United  States.
It is hard to understand why our owning and controlling railways, we acting in
our organized capacity as the State, should
be "paternalism." If our conducting our
business by those means and methods that
secure justice to all and the greatest prosperity to the public, be paternalism, let us
have more of it. Goodness knows, we
need more of it! Greece and Rome are
cited as "fearful examples" of paternalism, by the stump orators that know the
cry against paternalism is a winning trick.
It is true that the Grecian people, acting
in their capacity as the State, accomplished many undertakings and built harbors and public edifices at great cost, some
of which are yet, in their ruins the admiration of mankind. But instead of these
leading to the downfall of Greece, they
strengthened her, and Greece declined because of altogether different circumstances. So the building of roads to all parts
of the Roman empire and the building of
the great sewer and magnificent public
edifices of Rome did not cause the downfall gl the Roman empire, but strengthened it. Rome fell, not because of these
things, but in spite of them. That which
was the beginning of the weakness of Rome
may have been paternalism, but if it
were, then our owning railways and improving water-ways, acting in our capacity as the government, is far removed
from paternalism. Slavery in Rome drove
farmers from their faims and mechanics
from their trades, creating a city rabble,
beggars, most unwisely fed at the public
cost, at the suggestion of demagogues who
thereby bought the support of the city
rabble. I believe this is properly termed
paternalism and it is" certainly dangerous,
but we as the government owning and
operating railroads are far removed from
feeding tens of thousands of vicious beggars.
I hold that railroads should "be owned
and controlled by the Government because
first, they are monopolies. All monopolies should be Government property. It
might not be good policy to make them so
at once, but we should make Government
ownership and complete control of monopolies our objective. We have found
Government control, to a certain extent,
absolutely necessary, else we would suffer
great wrongs.  Take railroads, for example.
Wo first require permission to build tho
road, a charter must be granted; then we
have found it necessary to prescribe how
the road shall be mado and operated—cattle guards, fences, danger signals, speed of
trains at certain places, etc. Wo have
found it necessary in many of the States to
fix a maximum rate, to have a board of
railway commissioners to supervise the
workings of the railways, and we havo
found an inter-State Commerce law and
commission also necessary. It will be
found that "the Government" has had to
interfere a great deal with railways, and
so it has to interfere with gas, telephones,
telegraphs, water, etc. Now, whenever
the Government has to interfere in the
management of a business it would better conduct the business altogether.
First, the Government altogether controlling the business will diffuse the income among the community, and prevent
tho undue concentration of wealth that
ow takes place. The Government could
^iffuse the income in two ways: By mak-
ng tho charges so low that thoy will
simply cover cost—the plan pursued by
our postoflice and the English telegraph
and East India railway system,orbyusing
the profit derived to lower taxation or to
do things of benefit to the peoplo as a
whole. Or a middle course might be pursued. Would not this be better—giving
the profit to the people, diffusing it among
them than to allow it to grow into colossal
private fortunes, as now, to produce discontent, and often to be used for selfish
or unjust ends?
Other advantages of Government ownership of railroads in our next.
Quincy, 111.
Organize Home Insurance Companies.
Editors Indiana Farmer:
In your issue of March 15th a communication signed J. N. C. asked an amendment to our insurance laws. The picture
he gives is not over drawn by any means,
but true in every case. He suggests that
the law be so amended that insurance
companies be required to pay the full
amount of the policy. There are serious
objections to a law of that kind. It would
place an insurance company at the mercy
of unscrupulous insurance agents, working as they do on a per cent. It is to their
interest to make the business pay them a
good salary, and the companies, to protect
themselves, have a rule to examine and
adjust the damage or loss after the fire occurs. While it seems hard when a man pays
on a high insurance, and the property is destroyed, to have his risk cut down to one-
half or two-thirds the amount; but it is
his own fault. He certainly has as good
an idea of what his property is worth as
the agent. And again the owner may bo
as unscrupulous as the agent. He thinks
by insuring his property at its full cash
value, if destroyed the company will pay
the full amount, and Jie will not be the
looser by any great amount and can replace his building for the insurance, in
better style and more to his  convenience.
So a law of that kind would work great
hardship on the companies that they
could not in any way avoid. I suggest as
a remedy that the farmers organize
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES
in each county and insure farm property
only. Let the cities take care of themselves. Insure the property at only two-
thirds of its cash value, and then In cuse of
loss pay the full amount of the insured
value of the property. Such companies
have been formed all over tho State, and
have, so far as I have heard, proven satisfactory, saving at least 50 per cent of the
cost in old companies. In tho State of
Michigan they have been in existence for
25 years and have saved to tho farmers of
that State over three millions annually,
and the showing is equally as good in
other States.   Taking  the   report  of  the
commissioner of insurance and comparing the cost of insuring in old line companies and that of Mutnals, in the United
States, we find that the rate on the average
in the old companies is IM per cent for
five years, and the cost in tho Mutuals only three-fourths of ono per cent for tho
same time. The evidence is overwhelming everywhere that the farmers are paying too much for insurance. It is seen in
the large dividends declared by the old
line companies, which aro from 20 to 40
per cent; in the magnificent buildings
owned by them in our large cities, in the
high salaries paid the officers of the companies, equal to tho salary of the President
of the United States; in the high commissions paid their agents, and in their liberal and extensive advertising.
In view of these facts I ask you brother
farmers, what right or claim havo they on
you that you should
SUPPORT AN ARMY OF   INSURANCE   AGENTS
arrayed in fine linen and faring sumptuously every day, while you sweat to earn
your bread? It costs the peoplo of this
country over 100,000,000 dollars annually
to insure tlieir propery, and there is paid
back to them only about 50,000,000, for
property destroyed by fire.
Is it any wonder that foreign insurance
companies have so much money to loan
on farm mortgages? And you brother
farmers are helping to pile up the amount.
Let the law alone, but organize homo mutual companies and keep the monoy in
your own pockets, attend to your
business and don't pay some fino gent
to transact it for you and my word
for it you will not be troubled by Mr. Adjuster or tho smooth tounged agent.
Call the farmers in yourcounty together,
apoint a committee to draft a constitution
and by laws, have your company incorporated under the statutes of the State
and you aro ready for business. Don't
bother about the law.
Woodson Hamilton,
Sec'y P. of II. Insurance Company.
Decatur County.
is a joy forever, is often, very often not a
thing of beauty. A white cow that has
been kept in au uncleaned stablo, minus
bedding, becomes an unsightly animal.
Then, again, she ought always to be tied.
I find there are many owners, who, although they do not reverence her as did
the Egyptians, regard tlieir cow as they do
themselves—a free agent. A loose cow in
a stable is a nuisance; get a strong strap
IS inches long; put it through a ring and
buckle snugly around her horns. If she is
dehorned or amulle3*use neck chains, then
use a three-fourths inch ropo witli a stout
snap in ono end, and do not tie very long.
Then whon you enter her stall you can say
with Alexander Selkirk "I am monarch of
all I survey," and, with duo kindness
shown, your subject will respond to your
supremacy. A. B. M.
Gosport.
 »     <S»     .	
Written for the Indiana Farmer.
Planting too Thick.
11Y N. J SHEPHERD.
Have Str-aw For Bedding, Etc.
Editors Indiana Farmer:
It is a surprise to me that so many farmers, who can do better, are so careless in
regard to furnishing their stock with good
dry bedding.
Men who have large straw stacks and
acres of woodland, that in the fall are
covered inches deep with leaves, allow
their horses and cows to lie down nightly
in filthy stables, from which thoy arise,
hips and sides reeking with manure, solid
and liquid.
A.half day's hauling of straw last August furnished me with bedding for five
head of horses and one cow all winter,
keeping them comfortablo besides adding
to the manure heap, and shaking up the
straw stack so that it kept better. Often
in threshing in topping out, a load or two
of straw must be thrown off. All this
should be carefully cleaned up and hauled
to the barn. It will take a little effort, for
you and the boys are tired harvesting and
threshing and it is so easy to let things
go—but do it. Forest leaves are an excellent absorbent and make the best of manure but they trample down easily and do
not go as far as straw.
The average farmer, who perhaps has
little help through feeding time, finds the
care of his stable in winter and spring a
hard and unpleasant task. I am not a
strong advocato for floors in the horse
stables, but the cow stalls ought to be
floored with 114 inch oak plank with no
sap wood about it. If horses are fed timothy hay, manure hauled out twice a week
directly to the fields, weather permitting,
and kept well bedded daily, they will keep
quite clean. When regular work comes
they will have extra care, currying etc.
If fed on clover or fodder the stable will
probably need to bo floored.
The cow to the average farmer, albeit she
How thick the difierent varieties of
plants should grow depends considerably
upon the fertility of the soil. With grains
of all kinds if planted or sown too thick
thore will be an excessive growth of stalk
at tho expense of the grain. With corn
thore will be plenty of fodder but nubbins
usually instead of good sized ears. Oats
sown too thick will not make a good growth
of straw or mature a good yield of grain.
While the condition of the soil as regards
the work of preparation has considerable
to do with the amount of seed that should
be used, because it afl'ects to a moro or less
extent the germination, yet if the soil is
prepared in good tilth and caro is taken to
sow the seed in good season aud to cover
properly, using a good quality of seed, the
amount of seed sown should be largely determined by the fertility.
Witli small grain, especially oats and
wheat, a less quantity is needed than in a
thinner soil, becauso in a richer soil the
plants will shoot out much more. The
plants will grow thriftier and larger and
require more room. With corn less plants
should be allowed in a thin soil. Often a
better yield of graincan be secured by thinning to only ono stalk in each hill than to
leave two or three. In a moderately rich
soil two stalks in each will be sufficient,
while in what may be termed a good rich
soil three stalks may be left.
One of the advantages in drill planting
is that each plant stands to itself aud a
larger number of stalks in. proportion to
the acreage can bo allowed to grow and
mature, than if planted in hills sufficiently far apart to cultivate both ways. With
corn and potatoes usually the bettor plan
is to plant in drills. I prefer to plant potatoes about eighteen inches apart in the
row, and the rows about three feet apart.
With corn or beans the rows should bo
about three or three and a half foot apart,
and let the plants stand from eight to
twelve inches apart in tho rows. With
these three crops especially, I have always
found it most profitable, taking tho yield
into consideration, to plant in drills. I
have tried planting iu hills so as to cultivate each way, but one trial was sufficient.
With corn the fertility and conditions of
the soil should be taken into consideration
in determining this. Better to give the
plants plenty of room than to crowd with
crops of any kind.
—Ono trial of planting in hills,as against
rows, would be hardly enough to satisfy
us of its being the inferior method. The
season of the single trial might have been
especially favorable for the row planting
method, or the ground that particular year
might have been more free from weed
seed than usual. We should like to see a
comparison of the two methods made for
a number of years, and side by side. We
are not yet satisfied which is tho better
method on the whole, either as regards
labor or yield, and should like to have a
general discussion of the subject by a number of our readers.—Eds.