New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-07-31
POLITICAL ECONOMY.
BY HORACE GREELEY.
ppoTEcTION FOR AGRICULTURE.

Il
founders of this Observation-Disclosures either farmers
by vocation or the representatives mainly of farmers
deliberately and thOughtfully determined to pro-
feet and develop Home Manufactures, and that they
did this in the conviction that they thereby promoted
the interest and enhanced the gains OF American
Agriculture. II any one chooses to pronounce them
idiots, shall not here contest the assumption Dut
the hypothesis of their ignorance OF the vital mater
in dispute is at war with facts mountainous ana lh
controyertbe. Free Trade had always strong party
In ConQress its dogmas and It's arguments were es-
sentially as now; and they have no living champion
able to present them more forcibly than Mr. WEBSTER
did in his speech of 1924, when John Randolpn Oh
Roanoke led the antiProtectionsts OF the ooutn 10
intrepidly as Mr.. Webster did those OF the
North--but in vain. The Middle States from
New.York to Kentucky inclusive. declared Jor
Protection upon the grounds 80 forcby set forth IN
Gen. Jacksons letter ALREADY quoted OF that year
to DR.. Coleman of Virginia. Those states-
still almost exclusively northumberland tha1
70 "plant the manufacturer by the side of the far.
mer' was lin Gen. Jaeksons words) the true ana
sure way to increase the recompense of the husband
mans toil-that, even though his Metals, his I'm
Elements, his Wares, his Fabrics, should cost him
moro money than under Free Trade, he would never
theless pay for them with less Produce or Labor
which was to him the controlling consideration.
Such was their conclusion after listening for years
70 arguments pro and con, from statesmen at least
az able an their successors now living !, though
child IN the early stages of their controversy was an
ca ger and omnyorous reader of those discussions;
nv judgement thereon held IN allegiance uhtl
after years of dspassiOnate inquiry and consldera
ton; ii ultimately inclined to the conclusions OF
Hezekiah Niles Henry Clay and Rollin C. Mallary;'
and the convictions then deliberately attained have
since remained unclOuded and mistaken.
II controversy is to be prosecuted with sincere
purpose Of arriving at common and just conclusion,
the disputants must grappe with and try to compre
bend each others positions. seek, then, tho latest
authentic exposition Of the Free Trade view OF the
point am considering and find 1t synopsis OF Dr.
Francis Lieber's recent lectures "Protectionist
Fallaces" as Professor of Political Economy in Co
lumbia College. In his summary report thereof for
The Erening Post, he comes at length to what be
terms the Pauper Labor argument, and read as
follows
oft is mere fallacy; and possibly no [otherl argu
ment of orr Protectionsts is fallaclous AZ tins,
their most popular because most insinuatlng aTgu-
ment Tho errors and inconsistencies inyo we'd in it
are so numerous that little more can DC zone here
than barely to enumerate them
IAN that is meant by American labor in this case
is the manufacturing labor and that OF the artisans
the wOr men as they are styled But Is the
gagged in farming than in manufacturing ana hanul-
crafts-I believe twice as many. All these cltlZens
of our republic left unprotected against the pro-
tected wOrkmen; for the farmer has 10 pay higher
price that is TO say he must uOTk several days more
Tor rhat he stands IN need Of than he TOud had not our
LEGISLATURE privileged particular class called uorkuen
The farmer cannot spend the product OF so many
DAYS labOr-Of which he ~ robbed for the supposed
benefit of another class-for better schooling or more
Tosnectable dresses for his children, more comforts
for his wife. books for himself, or the improve
ment of his FARM
DIR. Lieber here quietly assumes the vital matter
in issue-namely, that the farmer must work sew
eral days more for what he stands in need Of" UNI
der Protection than under Free Trade. will not
doubt that such is his opinion, which he has perfect
right to PROFOUND and uphold as such but know
nothing in his position or achievements which en-
titles that opinion to pass unchallenged when such
respectable authorities as Napoleon l., Henry Clay,
Walter Forward, A. Alison. Theirs Daniel Webster
from and after 1921 Henry c. Carey, &C., &c, are
arrayed against him. l hold, with them, that the
Professor is mistaken-that the farmer is not
robbed by Protection. even though Manufactures
only were thereby subjected TO duty (which is by
means the case-that he is not thereby required to
work several days more" for the and fabrics
he buys but the contrary. 1t seems to me selfevi-
dent that Protection tends to shorten the distance
between the farmer and the artisan manufacturer,
hence 20 diminish the cost of exchanging their
spectye products and thus to secure to the farmer
not only surer and seader markets for his produce,
but ampler recompense for his labor. Such the
conclusions that long ago made me aProtectiOnist.
Neither Prof Lieber nor any of his school have
even tried TO convince mo that / am in error
They Dramatically assume, /. That homemade
Wares aud Fabrics must cost more money than
their imported rivals, which is probable, though
not always the case and g. That il they cost
moro money, they must cost the farmer more of
his produce or labor, which is quite another matter
and which most confidently deny. hold that the
Metals, Wares and Fabrics, required and bought by
farmers would cost them very much more of their
produce it, in the absence of Protection. obtained
them almost wholly from abroad. AS this is the
vital point. let me elucdate it more fully:
l. Distant markets are all but inevitably incon-
slant, uncertain markets. Europe has deficient har-
vests one year, and buys Grain of US quite freely;
but next year her haryests bounteOus and she re-
quires very little food than she produces, no
matter how freely we may be buying of her fabrics.
Hence our Wheat now sells very far below the prices
which ruled here when Europe had meager harvest.
III. heavy export of Wheat and other cereals is a
virtual expectation of certain of the best elements of
our soil Ii must and will gradually impoverish the
best soils. and soon exhaust those of medium OF
lower capacity. Thus the average product of Wheat
in this country has fallen in the course of the last
sixty years from twenty-five to twelve bushels per
acre, while that of Great Britain has risen in like
proportion. She has drawn away from us much
of the best elements of soil. and applied this
in good part to the improvement of her own. Sixty
years ago, Eastern New-York was wheat growing
region; forty years ago, that industry had moved
westward to the Holland Purchase" or Genesee
country that, too, in turn gave ont, and wheat
growing took flight to Michigan, Illinois, Iowa. Wis
will in fnr ho nxh.
if crop after crop of Wheat or Corn is grown and
shinnad off reinrninn lttln or nnfhinr 10 tLn all