The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1882-10-27

From the indianapolis journal.
Nothing in the moral world is more GER
tain than that the prosperity and welfare of
the country demand policy of judicious
protection. 1t is the habit of some to dis |
miss the consideration of this subject with |
the remark that it concerns only the manu-
featuring interest, and consequently is inter
esting only To class. There could be no
greater mistake than this. II concerns all
interests, the development of the whole
country, and the prosperity of every
individual II protection is the true policy,
as reason, experience, and facts prove it to
be, the farmers of Indiana and the west are
as much interested in its establishment as
are the manufacturers of New England and
the east For il stands to reason that the
development of manufactures means the
creation of home market for the products
of the soil, with diversified industry and gen
eral prosperity. The development of manu-
features not only creates a new demand for
labor in that field, thus inuring to the benefit
consumers and creates an increased demand
for the products of the soil, thus contribut-
ing directly to the prosperity of the farmer.
That this was the view of the fathers of the
government is very clear. Hamilton was the
father of the protective policy. Washington
and Jefferson, the first two Presidents, were
both farmers, and both repeatedly urged in
their messages governmental policy TO pro-
mote manufactures. 1t is not To be supposed
that they did this To develop one class at the
expense of others, or to build up manu-
features at the expense of agriculture. They
did it because they knew the development
of manufactures meant tine development of
| agriculture by the creation of home markets
and increased demand for agricultural pro-
ducts. The direct benefit to agriculture by
the development of manufactures will appear
from few considerations:
First, suppose the case of farmer without
any market at all for his surplus products.
Suppose him to be located in the midst of an
extensive plain or valley, fertile and produc-
tive, but inaccessible, and so completely cut
off from the rest of the world that he would
have no market at all. Not only would the
results of his toll be greatly lessened by the
impossibiity of producing labor saving ma
chinery and implements, but all that he pro-
duced over and above the wants of himself
and familywould be sheer waste. 1t would
be dead loss for the lack of market. The
condition of such a farmer would be most
deplorable. Second, suppose that instead of
ket, say a manufacturing city or town hun
dred miles distant, and accessible only by.a
country road. This would be an improve
ment on the former situation, but still very
far from happy condition. The remote
ness of the market and the difficulty of
reaching it would prevent him from ayailing
himself of i with any regularity, and would
practically compel him to accept whatever
might be offered for his products. If other
farmers We're situated near the market he
would be completely at their mercy in every
respect. He could market but very few arti-
cles, and would have to take the buyers price
for what he did market. But, third, suppose
a manufacturing town to spring up within
a few miles of the farmers house, and means
of communication were such as TO enable
him TO market his products every day or
whenever il suited him. Now, he not only
has steady and reliable market for all he
can produce, at good prices, but he is en-
couraged to engage in branches of agricul-
ture untried before and TO produce articles
which he had never dreamed there was any
demand for or any profit in. BY the cheap
ening of many things which he needed, and
which are now produced almost at his door,
his labor is rendered more easy and produc-
tive, while the surplus produce which before
was accustomed to decay on his hands now
finds steady and profitable sale.
The foregoing simple illustration. If APP
piled on large scale, will show the effect of
developing manufactures, on agriculture. To
state the case in a nutshell, protection Gre
ates home market for home products. 1t
tends to shorten the distance between the
farmer and the manufacturer, the producer
and the consumer, thus diminishing to both
the cost of exchanging their respective pro-
ducts, and securing to the farmer not only
sufer and steadier markets for his produce
but better recompense for his labor. If
the farmers of Indiana will only think about
this matter they can not fail to see where
their true interest lies, and to see, also, the
suicidal folly of policy which would destroy
their home markets.
M fali..,.;.,s. Io1.o~ or,1o;ce ;4salf ond