The weakness of the comruon argument of the farmers that good roads are of benefit to -wheelrnen only is briefly and foroibly shown by a writer in the Chicago Record. Hesays: "To one who is accustomed to hard roads the discussious of Illinois farmers on the futility of constructing them seem ridiculous. It would seem as if the reason would teach them that it would be more pleasant, to say the least, to drive over a hard road that would only become a trifle sloppy in the worst weather than tp struggle through the stickiest of mud. It is scarcely better when it freezes. I have known farmers in western Illinois to completely wear out a new buggy by driving over the rough roads, where on hard roads the winter season would have been but little harder upon a vehicle than any other. ' 'Hard roads should be looked upon not as a luxury alone, but as a matter of economy, although luxuries they undoubtedly are. But -let the Illinois farmer consider in how many ways he is hampered, his work hindered, perhaps his crops sold at a loss, all on count of bad roads, and he will come to the conclusión that bicyclists are not the only ones interested in the good roads moveinent. ' 'It seems a weak sort of argument upon which to base opposition to this much needed reform that farmers ought to oppose the movement because bicyclists are in favor of it so strongly. Yet such an argument we find advanced at an Illinois farmers' institute, the speaker considering the wheelman as the enemy of the farmer because the use of sicycles has to a certain degree aided in oringing about the present low price of aorses. And we find another rnaking ;he preposterous statement that bicyclists and the manufacturera of stone crushers and of brick are the only ones ienefited by good roads. So long as the 'armer stands in his own light after ;his fashion and refuses to lend his encouragement to a movement intended ;o benefit him more than any one else ïow can he expect to better his present lard lot? Others are not goiug to do it :or him."