The Rock Island daily Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1872-1873, 1873-10-27
Agricultural and Manufacturing PROFITS

The striking contrast of the conditions of
the agricultural and manufacturing inter
ests OF the United States presented in the
speech Of Hon J. Proctor Knott, of Ken
lucky, delivered before the farmers OF
Munfordville, KY, Oct. l4th. deserves at
tcution. The whole story in few words is
that the Agricultural West has been sub
iected to the manufacturing East, and
made 10 enrich the latter with blood
drawn from its own veins. The very
Eastern-owned mortgages that cover so
many thousands of Western farms have
been bought with the proceeds Of that
protection of which the agricultural West
is the victim and the manufacturing East
the beneficiary, and the very hardships
that Western agriculture has been for
two years complaining of are, in a large
degree, symptom of the depletion 10
which the West has been subjected for the
behoot Of the East
The facts bearing on the question are the
official aud unquestioned figures of the last
census This census informs US that there
were5 ,922, AL persons engaged in agricul-
ture in the United States, and 2, 053, 996 en-
gagged in manufacturing OF all kinds that
the capital invested in agriculture including
the value Of farms, farming implements
and live stock on hand, was $ll ,l24, $685.
7Gj, and the total capital invested in man
utacturing was 81, lis, POS, 1876. 1t will be
noticed that the number of persons engag-
ed in manufacturing is only about one
third the number engaged in agriculture,
and that the manufacturing capital of the
country is less than fifth its aericultu
raj capital But when we come 10 pro
ducts and profits, the smaller interest goes
far ahead of the larger one. The total
value of all farm productions, including
betterments and additions to stock was 81,
Az ,j3S ,65s, and the total value of the
manufacturing product of the country was
81, 232, 325, 442--the gross product of the
smaller interest being nearly twice as great
in value as the gross product of the larger
one. If we divide the whole amount OF
agricultural capital by the total number OF
persons engaged in agriculture, we have
an average of 81 ,S7S to each, and If we di.
vide the value of the gross product of agri
culture by the total number of persons en-.
gagged IN that business, we find that each per
son thus engaged, on an average of 81 SIS
capital. produced $4l2 Of gross values. By
a similar computation we find that the
average capital 10 each person engaged il
manufacturing was $l,2ll, and that each
person thus engaged on this averag,
amount of capital produced $S4S. The
labor and capital of farmer, therefore
yielded less than halt'as much as the labor
and capital Of manufacturer The cen
sus figures do not tell US what the ne
profits OF agriculture were but it will not b
claimed that they were over 10 per cent
on the capital involved Indeed, it we es
innate farm hand labor at SIS pc
month and his board at $40 per month
both costing together $500 year, and de
duct this from the average annual produc
($4l2) OF each person engaged in agricul
ture, we have SIP as the farmers aver
age net profit on the labor of his hire,
hands-Or only little over 6 per cent. o.
his average capital Of 81, SIS The profit
Of tho manufacturing capitalists are NOR
easily and more accurately determined
Adding together the total amour
paid for raw materials C$2, ASS, Az, 242
and the total amount paid in wages ($775
5S4, 343), and deducting the sum ($3,264
0ll,5S5) from the gross manutacturin
product t$4, 232, 325, 442G we have 1868
3l3,Sj7 as the net profit on a total mani
featuring capital 81, 1lS, POS, 796-or 0Ut
forty, foe per cent And it is this bus
ness, paying an average Of As per cont pC
annum, that is protected" by the govern
ment at the expense of another bushes
that pays only per cent. .
A very interesting phase of this subje,
is the large proportion Of the manufactu
ing capitalists profit in the average gro
product Of his employee. We have see
that the average gross product Of the agr
cultural laborer is x4i2 on an average ca
ital Of $l,S7S, and that the estimate
share of which the agricultural employ'
gets is SIP, and we have seen that Il
average net product Of the manufacture
laborer is 1913 on an average -'capital
$l,2ll. Dividing the total manufacture
wages paid ($775, 5Si, 343) by the tot
number of persons employed in manufa
ing 1908, 996), we find the average a
nual wages per man to be 1913, and d
Quoting this from theaverage gross produ
Of each mans labor ($84S), we have 81
as the employers share. Out of eve
$84S per annum earned by manufactu
ing laborer, the employer gets $40 and d
laborer 1878. This shows pretty clear
where the benefit Of our so per cent. pr
tecuve tariff goes to; 1t does not 20 Il
hmerlcan laborer Vt Is monopolized by b
manufacturing capitalist.
..As - Woman Huffrnw.