The patron of husbandry. (Columbus, Miss.) 1875-1883, 1880-02-07
THE QUESTION OF A CABINET
OFFICER FOR THE AGRICUL-
TURAL DEPAR TMENT.

Leading political Journals grow merry
when considering any proposition to give
agriculture recognition in the affairs of
government They cannot restrain their
mirth excited by the expressed desire to
place Cabinet officer over the Depart.
ment of Agriculture. 1t is asked, face
tiously, by way of reductfo ad adSWrdaDz,
"Why not make department of shoe:
making?" The real question is, as Cows
eminent in any degree dependent upon
agriculture?,' fthe answer be yes, then
the investigation becomes necessary that
the nature and extent of this dependence
arises, q What industrial interest is wor-
thy of governmental regard :" 1t has
been the settled policy Of this country to
foster and protect manufacturing indus
tries, but the national government is pow
erless to make these thrive, except as ag-
riculture is prosperous for they are all
dependent upon the products of the soil
for their support, and in a very large de-
gree for the material upon which they
work. The people of this country pay
enormous sums annually, levied in the
form of tariffs, the direct purpose being
to promote manufactures. Other sums
aggregating millions are paid yearly by
the people to sustain commerce-not re-
ferring to the price of service, but to con-
tributions of public money made for the
purpose of giving encouragement to COM
merce. Yet without surplus of soil
products we should have but the smallest
need of ships, or railway trains, and for
eign markets would have very little in
terest for our people.
The two articles that contribute most
to the internal revenue are tobacco and
distilled liquors, both products of the soil.
The next is sugar, paying its tax through
the operation of tariff; but an agricul-
tural product brought from abroad, be-
cause the development of sugar produc
ton at home must tax Individual enter
prise too greatly to permit the underta
king-that is to say, the few hundred
thousand dollars reeded to develop the
industry can not be collected easily by
farmers whose work would be thus en-
larged for the benefit of the all the people,
SO the government goes on collecting
millions annually from sugar produced by
foreign labor, and the sum is paid in
wheat, corn, cotton and other products of
the soil that make up the bulk of the ex-
ports. Would it not be to the interest
and profit of all classes if all the sugar re-
CURED by our people could be produced
at home, and the money now sent abroad
for this article be kept at home? IF the
government has no direct interest in ag-
riculture, then it certainly has not in man
ufactures, nor in commerce The annual
appropriations for river and harbor i'm
provements, subsidies for steamships and
other like uses, amounting to many mill
ions, are largely drawn from agriculture,
besides the direct tax it is made to bear
for the support of the government; vet
we are told by political solons that it is
absurd to trouble the government with
the demand for anything that concerns
agricultural production In the last
twenty years the total yearly sum of ex-
ports has been made up more than three
tourths of the soil products, and less than
one-fourth of all all other values, including
the precious metals, manufactures of ev
cry kind, and products of the mines.