January was our best month for subscriptions at the time I wrote for the March number, but I guessed that February would be better still—and I guessed correctly. Although January had 27 business days, as against 22 in February (Lincoln’s and Washington’s birthdays cut in on the little, short month), yet we received nearly fifty-one per cent more renewals and new subscriptions in the latter month. And if we may judge the March business by the first three days (I write this March 4), the stormy month will bring more subscriptions than January and February combined. It may possibly be a case of “coming in like a lion and going out like a lamb”—but I do not think so. Our subscribers, agents, and clubbing newspapers are showing a much greater interest than formerly—and as the list grows our field of opportunity broadens.

One would naturally suppose that every subscription received would narrow our field—but it doesn’t. On the contrary. I can imagine a state of affairs—a list so large—that every subscriber secured would make it harder to get another, for we can’t expect every man, woman and child to take any one publication. But no magazine ever reached that dizzy height. Practically every subscriber we get is a missionary who brings in at least one convert within the year, and many of them send in dozens of new subscriptions. I need hardly use space in saying that we thoroughly appreciate these kindnesses and endeavor to show our appreciation by making Watson’s Magazine better and better each month. That’s a foregone conclusion.

Temporarily, however, we are embarrassed by the great influx of subscriptions, and for a little while we ask the kind indulgence of our friends. Everything shall be taken care of, but for a few weeks there may be some delays. It takes time to train new subscription clerks.

Our one weakness heretofore has been lack of proper organization to keep in touch with and look after the interests of the news-dealers. This has been remedied by placing a thoroughly competent man in charge of the news-dealer circulation. A complete roster of the news-dealers is being made and every effort will be put forth to increase news-stand sales. The tens of thousands of booksellers and news-dealers throughout the United States, supplied by the American News Company and its branches, constitute an army of distribution which has taken many years and an immense sum of money to raise and equip. We want to make use of that army to the best advantage of our patrons, the dealers and ourselves. Probably more than one-half of the reading public buys regularly of news-dealers, and a much larger percentage buys occasionally. Wherever our friends prefer to buy of the dealer, we earnestly wish them to do so; and if at any time there is any difficulty in securing Watson’s at the news stands, write us about it. We are now equipped to take care of all complaints of this character promptly.

There is, however, an immense reading public receiving mail on R. F. D. routes—yet it is only thirteen years ago that Mr. Watson, after a hard fight, secured a small appropriation in Congress to be used in experiments with rural free delivery of mail—real “rural” delivery, not the kind Mr. Wanamaker had tried in the small towns previously. But even after Mr. Watson got the appropriation, Cleveland’s Postmaster-General refused to use it. “Scandalous use of the people’s money,” he doubtless argued, “and, besides, it might develop into something which would hurt the express companies.” To Mr. Watson is due the credit for securing the first appropriation for rural free delivery. He is the father. But we must give the devil his due—the Republican Party built up the system Mr. Watson originated. Well, that party never was afraid to spend the people’s money.

Now, these R. F. D. patrons get mail at their respective doors every weekday. They need not, and do not, go often to the nearest village or town. Hence, they cannot so well depend upon news-dealers for Watson’s. They are best served by subscribing and having Uncle Sam’s mail-carrier bring it to the door.

The news-stand buyer pays thirty cents a year more for Watson’s than does his rural brother—but he invests a much smaller amount each time, so the two sacrifices (but it isn’t exactly correct to call buying Watson’s a “sacrifice”) are about equal. This calls to mind a suggestion, that has been made several times, to allow taxes to be paid in instalments. Cold-blooded figures say that it is exactly the same whether one pays a $24 tax in one payment, or in four of $6 each, or in 12 of $2 each; but actual experience says, No; there is a difference.

Funny, isn’t it, how the Republican Party denounces some proposition as a Populistic vagary—and then turns ’round and does the very thing it has denounced! In 1896 we were told that the people would have none of silver—those “fifty-cent dollars”; yet between 1897 and 1903 the Republican Party coined more silver than in any other seven years of the country’s history. Not “free coinage,” of course, but that Sherman silver which was stacked up in vaults, and which no one wanted.

Public ownership was denounced as “confiscation,” anarchy, socialism, paternalism, and so on. But Teddy and Uncle Sam went into the railroad business down in Panama, and only recently that fat boy, Taft, bought 300 acres of coal lands at Batan, Philippine Islands, for $50,000, money voted by Congress for the purpose, and it is given out flatly that “it is the intention of the Government not to relinquish title to the mines.” They will be leased to competitive bidders. The Secretary of War is drawing a bill to provide for this leasing, and says, oh, ye gods, listen: That the Government will regulate the price of coal in the Philippines!

Didn’t we hear something about the impossibility of doing such a stunt as “regulating prices” away back in 1896 and later? Couldn’t regulate the price of silver by letting it into the mints at $1.39 plus an ounce. Oh, no! Seems to me we ought to have an “International agreement” on the price of coal. Otherwise, what’s to prevent those disreputable “furriners” from dumping their pauper-mined coal into the Philippines, and carrying away every ounce of our gold?

Who said the People’s Party is dead? Out in Coal City, Ill., the Populists recently nominated the following village ticket:

Some call it the decadence of party spirit, but others believe it a recovery from partisan insanity—this independent attitude of men who formerly wore a party collar with meekness, if not with actual pride. A year or more ago Dr. Engelhard, of Rising City, Neb., expressed it in the picturesque language of the West, thus: “I am now a political maverick.” At a recent dinner of the Wisconsin Society of New York, Representative Henry C. Adams, of the Badger State, pleading for the “insurgents” who are in rebellion, not “against good government but against bad government,” graphically described the political situation of today as follows:

In Mr. Edgerton’s excellent article on “Farmers’ Organizations” (February number) he failed to mention a very strong one in the grain belt—the American Society of Equity, with headquarters at Indianapolis. It claims a membership of over 200,000 farmers, and its president, J. A. Everitt, asserts that its members will hold their wheat for $1.00 and other cereals correspondingly—and that they expect to win. Let’s hope they may.

But let’s think a little. That won’t cut down railroad dividends, or make kerosene and rent any cheaper; and it will make bread higher. So suppose the Farmers’ Union, down South, pushes cotton up to 15 cents; and the American Society of Equity pushes wheat up to a dollar; and the “Big 6” here wins its fight for an 8-hour day at 9 hours’ pay—won’t all these wealth-producers, after matters get readjusted, be about where they were before? I’m not throwing cold water on the efforts of any of these organizations, for I glory in their fighting proclivities—but I can’t see any permanent advantage accruing to any of them so long as the railroads and the banks are armed with letters of marque and reprisal, and legally empowered to rob every actual producer and every consumer. Each of these organizations carefully avoids politics. Is that wise? Possibly; but I can’t see it that way.

“How shall I remit for subscriptions?” ask a number of agents. Well, most anything that will bring the money will do, but we have this preference: A United States Post Office Money Order, made out to Tom Watson’s Magazine. That will give us your name on the order, making it easy to trace errors—and our bank charges no exchange for handling. But we never refuse cheques, drafts, express orders, currency, or postage stamps, if sent us in good condition.

“But,” I hear a chorus of voices saying, “we thought you’d changed the name, and just now you said ‘Tom Watson’s Magazine.’” Just so, I did. That is the name of the corporation which publishes Watson’s Magazine. The corporation known as Tom Watson’s Magazine has not changed its name. It has five offices: President, vice-president, secretary, treasurer and cashier. These offices are held by three Populists, as follows:

President, Thomas E. Watson.

Vice-President and Treasurer, H. C. S. Stimpson.

Secretary and Cashier, C. Q. de France.

I need not introduce Mr. Watson. Mr. Stimpson is secretary of the People’s Party in New York State; and I am secretary of the National Committee.

Don’t make your remittance payable to any of the officers, but simply to the company, Tom Watson’s Magazine, and address your communications to the Magazine—not to individuals.