Hannibal journal and western union. (Hannibal, Mo.) 1851-1852, 1851-09-04
Frosa Hunts Meschants Magazine.
The Study Of Political ECONOMY.


tscouomy having been crltized at some length
in the juno number Of the Merchants Maga-
zine, and evidently misunderstood, viii en-
deavor in this 20 explain what may appear OBJ
scure, and place the science Of agricultural
Ptoduction on its true basis. The theory Of
Mr.. Mllihus, which was substantially adopted
by Ricardo and McCuIloch, is, that population
aztarally increases. from year to year, while
tllogc for the production OF human food and
ratmnut tends to diminish che natural fruitful
ncsss Of the earth; and that the necessary effect
Of these apparently conflicting laws is TO restrain
The MULTIPLICATION Of the human family within
scersain limits, not well defined. On the other
band, the theory of Messrs. Carey, Bastiat and
others is that food tends to increase faster than
population. creating surplus, which encourages
She wiihdrawal of labor from agriculture TO be
employed in mechanical and manufacturing pur-
suits. Having studied this subject with some
care, the undersigned ventures TO express the
opinion that both Of the above named theories
are erroneous, and that the truth in this case, as
in many others, lies between the extremes Of
contending partizans. Although :" r. S." fan
cies that he can detect " Inconsistencies " in my
statements about the chemical and mechanical
results of good and bad husbandry, yet no such
Inconsistencies exist.
Let us first inquire, what is production in an
agricultural sense? More than two-thirds of
the labor and capital of the Union are employed
in tillagc and husbandry; but with what results
IN the way Of producing and consuming national
wealth?
There are not far from five millions Of farm
laborers in the United States, and they have in
pastures, meadows and cultivation, probably not
Tess than l20,000,000 acres. Can that labor be
regarded as truly productive, whose proceeds
are Insufficient to cover the damage done TO the
oil slo fha = ,J,J2 L.
merely loses his labor and the capital which he
produced by former more successful industry
can hardly be said to injure materially any one
but himself. This is often done in disastrous
commercial and mechanical operations; the cap
ital invested is sunk, and the labor performed is
lost. Bad as operations Of this character really
arc, they are much less injurious to the commu-
nifty than cool deal of agricultural industry
which most political economist, consider peculi-
arly productive. Mr.. Nautilus says: sit has
been justly observed by Adam Smith, that no
equal quantity Of productive labor, employed in
manufactures, can ever occasion so great re-
production as in agriculture" Commenting on
the above, Mr.. Ricardo remarks: 'If Adam
Smith speaks of palue, he is correct, but il he
speaks Of riches, which is the material point he
is mistaken, for nc has himself defined riches to
consist Of the necessaries, conveniences, and en-
joyments of human life.'
A common error pervo les the mind of each
OF TIE above named authors, in regard to the
pro- uctiveness of rural Industry. Not one of
them takes cognizance OF the tact that valuable
raw material is consumed ci much in max ing
bushel OF grain, as in making yard of CLOTH
'R. ). has fallen into the same error, and hence
fails to comprehend how 'tillage alone, without
cropping, exhausts land, while skillful husband
ny will not only maintain the virgin fertility of
the earth, but render il still more productive"
insist on the point that no writer ON Political
Economy, of any note, whether he supports
Free Trade or Protection, has attempted to show
the difference between destructive and productive
farm labor. No one who is familiar with Amer-
can agriculture in any State east of the Missis-
sippi, will deny that the impovershment of the
soil is the rule, and its improvement in fertility,
above its natural fruitfulness, the exception "a
mong American cultivators. Following the
common estimate Of the value Of crops, and the
gain in domestic animals end their products, lei
us assume the aggregate product to be $500,
100000 in the currenn year, 1851 and that the
as a class consumes 5000, 900 900
OF the fruits of their industry. This leaves
surplus OF wealth created in twelve months by
them Of $200,000,000. The important ques-
tion now arises, how much will it cost to reno
vate so much of the soil as has been damaged in |
any way by the loss of fertility in grass and hay,
in grain, roots, tubers, flax, hemp, tobacco, SUI
gar-cane, rice, cotton, fruits of all kinds, and in
all other field and garden crops, removed from
the ground that produced them? Admit that
only half of the improved lands in the Union
huvc lost by tillage, the teaching and washing
of rains, by the certain consumption of vegeta-
bic mold, and the volatilization of manure in
hundred forms, the equivalent of one good hat
what 10 I,
Dor, that will replace in the soil the equivalent,
in manure, of sixty millions acres of grain, cot
ton, and tobacco, so far as the atmosphere and
rains fail to supply the elements of crops9
IL ifay be iinPcssible'to give clear and sat-
iSfactory answer to this question, without also
giving brief account Of the things in the soil,
consumed, partly 10 form the substance of cul- |
hvated plants, and partly to furnish that consid-
cradle amount of the organic and inorganic food
of crops, which rain-water always teaches out,
and removes from arated earth. Did ar. S."
ever turn over large compost heap six times
in the course of the summer? If so, he must
have noticed that the ''grew smaller by de- |
grees, and beautifully less" The stirring of the
soil with the implements of tillage consumes
vegetable mold, irrespective OF all crops, in a |
similar manner, and il also dissolyes out of the
loose ground, salts of lime, magnesia, potash, and
sofa, without which plants cannot grow. What
political economist has duly considered the fact
that Nature never plows, nor harrows, nor hoes,
nor cultiyates the EARTH in any way, to produce
her largest and most luxuriant vegetables /? of
AL the animals on earth, man alone tills it, and
ignorantly impairs its natural fertility. "R. S."
calls attention TO the care with which manure is
saved and applied in Great Britain and ON the
Continent. hope to be pardoned for intimat-
ing that am tolerably well posted up in the
NJ