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


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
tention. The whole story in few words is
that the Agricultural West has been sub
iected TO the manufacturing East, and
made TO enrich the latter with blood
drawn from its own veins The very
Eastern-owued 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 large
degree, q eymptom of the depletion 10
which the West has been subjected for the
behoof Of the East
The facts bearing on the question are the
official and unquestioned figures of the last
census. This census informs us that there
were5, 1924 persons engaged in agricul-
ture in the United States, and 2,O53, goo 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.
765, and the total capital invested in mau-
utacturing was 81 rs, POS, 796. 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 one fifth its agricutu
raj capital But when we come to 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, =
Al, 53s, 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 II we divide the whole amount of
agricultural capital by the total number of
persons engaged in agriculture we have
an average Of 81 SIS to each, and il we d.
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 ISIS
capital, produced $Il2 Of gross values. BY
average capital b each person engaged in
manufacturing was 81 oil, and that each
person thus engaged on this average
amount Of capital produced SSiS. The
labor and capital Of a farmer, therefore
yielded less than halfas much a. the labor
and capital of a manufactures The cen
sus figures do not tell us what the net
profits of agriculture were but it will not =,
claimed that they were over 10 per cent.
on the capital involved Indeed it we es-
innate a farm hands labor at $l5 per
month and his board at SlO per month,
both costing together 5000 year, and de
duct this from the average annual product
(S4l2l OF each person engaged in agricul-
ture, We have $ll2 as the farmers aver
age net profit on the labor Of his hired
hands-Or only little over per cent. on
his average capital Of 81 SIS The profits
fho manufacturing capitalists are more
easily and more accurately determined.
Adding together the total amount
paid tor raw materials ($2, IsS, AZ, 2l2l
and the total amount paid in wages ,S77j,-
5S4,43l, and deductlng the sum 1926
Oll.5Sjl from the gross manufacturing
product tS4, 232, 32J, 442), we have 1905 -
3l3,Sj7 rs the net profit on a total manu-
featuring capital 81, SOS, I96--or orey
forty, flee per cent. And It is this bust
ness, paying an average Of 50 per cont. pei
annuui, that is protected by the govern
ment at the expense of another bushes;
that pays only per cent
a very interesting phase Of this subjec
is the large proportion OF the manufactur
ing capitalists profit in the average gros
product Of his employe. We have seer
that tho average gross product of the agri
cultural laborer is Sll2 ON an average cap
ital OF Sl,STS, and that the estimated
share OF which the agricultural employee
gets Is SIP, and we have seen that tn
average net product Of the manufacturing
laborer is S51S ON an average scapital o
Sl,2lI Dividing the total manufacturing
wages paid 1918 ,5Si, 343) by the tota
number of persons employed in maHuiac
ing t2,053, 1866, we lind the average an
nual wages per man to be $37S, aad de
Quoting this from theaverage gross produc
OF each mans labor ($S4s), we have SIT
as the employers sharn Out Of ever
$S4S per annunI earned BY a nanufactur
ing laborer, the employer gets $40 and tn
laborer 1878. This shows pretty clearl
where the benefit Of our so per cent. Pre-
tective tariff goes to IL does not 90 tn
American laborer IT is monopolized by tn
manufacturing capitalist '--' ..
-
WnUan anA-m~.