The Daily state journal. [volume] (Alexandria, Va.) 1868-1874, 1872-08-24


Is the farmer injured or benefited by
protecting duties to manufactures? This
is question which has agitated the public
mind ever since the days Of Henry Clay.
1t has been triumphantly answered by the
rapid increase in the value of iarm lands and
in the net profits of the farmer, wherever
the protective policy has been fairly tried.
The price of land, like all other kinds OF
property, will always depend in the lsng
run upon the profits which the cultivator
can realize by working it. The farmer
must sell his crop as well as raise it. The
purchaser must belong to other professions.
The multiplication of consumers who have
means to purchase, and who are not farm.
ers is the most vital matter to agriculture.
To obtain this result it can afford to be
taxed largely and yet be immensely the
gamer.
If the farmer is destitute of transporta-
ton, distant from canal or railroad, it is
clear that he can well afford to contribute
Literally for building these public i'm
proyements. 1t is true he must erpend
Nancy to do this, but it is not a loss, it is
and investment bringing him sure returns.
The average value of farm products all
over the West has been doubled by the
construction Of railroads. The value of
lands has consequently increase marve-
lousy. The farmers who contributed to
building these roads have been richly repaid
for their outlay, not only in money but in
the conyeniences and blessings of civiliza-
ton. Now, conceding an increase of price
to the farmer for the moment, by protect
ing duties, sse claim that lie pays this price
moi. for tie article purchased merely, but to
obtain the best market for a0hat he has to
sell. He willingly subscribed money to
build a railroad by which his surplus grain
could be carried to distant market. On
what ground shall he object to paying for
the encouragement of mills and furnaces at
his oaqa door, which absorb his surplus at
still better prices, and by making popula-
ton dense, greatly increase the price of his
lands ?
The end sought is precisely the same in
both cases, but it is easily denonstrable
that the market given by manufacturing
industry at home, is vastly better, than any
foreign market.
1t is plain that if the workmcn employed
in these industries receive, by the operation
Of the tariff, high wages, they can afford
to pay, and do pay, to the agriculturist
much higher prices for his produce than he
would otherwise secure, and besides are
larger purchasers from him. If any one
will take the trouble to compare the prices
Of farm produce at our manufacturing Or
mining towns, and the quantities consumed
by workmen and their families, with The
prices and quantities Of similar places in
England, as shown in the British Blue
Books" he will undoubtedly conclude that
the American farmer is, if not in word, in
fact, largely protected" by the tariff.
And the truth is, the farmer has benefited
in another way also for as the tariff stirnu-
lates industries in his neighborhood
he finds his market near his door.
In the Juniata Valley and other
iron-producing centers in Pennsylvania the
farmer formerly was compelled to ship his
agricultural produce by railroad to Phila-
delphia, and realized but little after the
payment Of commissions and f1eights.
Now, as a remote operation Of the tariff,
his crops are sold to advantage on the spot,
among the mining population and the only
one who suffers by the change is the Phila-
delphia commission dealer, for whom, as a
vampire middeman, T" there can be ne
sympathy. In the West the same causes
are gradually creating the same effects.
Farmers, then, will have some excuse for
remonstrance if free trade, in taking away
tie wages of our working men, deprives
the agriculturalist of steady support from
the expenditures of class who in this
country have been his best patrons.