The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-06-05
FREE TRADE AND THE FARMER.

needs no argument 20 convince him that his
interests demand a large, actively-employed
army of workingmen, who do not till the
| fields, to furnish market for his produce
| Under the operation of protective tariff he
enjoys this. At best 1t is an unsolved prob
| lem what would be the effect of free trade,
but by no possibility could the advantages
derived counterbalance the loss. Granting
that American industries could still be kept
| in operation, it must of necessity be at
great reduction of expenses, the bulk of
which burden must fall upon the working
men In the shape of lower wages This must
be true, or the argument of free trade goes
10 pieces. Indeed, the free traders concede, at
the start that the first effect would be
a reduction of at least % per cent. in wages.
| The secondary results of lower wages would
manifest themselves in two ways: Mechan-
les could pay less for food and clothing, and
hundreds of thousands of them would be
compelled to turn to farming. From these
facts it is plain that there would be a reduc-
ton in the demand for farm products, cor
| responding decline in prices, while at the
same time the total product would be large
ly augmented. because of the increased
| number of agricultural laborers drafted
from the ranks of unemployed me-
chanlcs. In the event of free
trade there is but one possible
advantage, and that very doubtful of realiza-
ton, viz The price ofcertain manufactured
goods would be cheapened. Please observe
that the word price" not cost" is used,
for if, under protection, the value of bushel
of wheat ISL. IA yesterday, Indianapolis quo
tation) is equal to that of twelve pounds of
sugar Qocal quotation) what advantage will
it be to have sugar sell at ~ cents instead
of 91z cents, if wheat must fall fifty-seven
cents per bushelf But it would not
stop there. The great addition to the
farming population at the expense of
mechanical industries would induce a COM
petition, through increased production that
would make provisions fall at greater ratio
than manufactured articles. Meanwhile, the
foreign demand for field crops would not ma
terially increase. So that, while they took
but 10 per cent land less per cent under the
new conditions, as shownl of American
crops, Europe would sell us ten times their
value in manufactured goods, making fear
full drain upon our revenues.
1t is folly to say that to America must the
old world look for its food supply. Even
France and Austria, in good seasons, raise
surplus of wheat while Russia whose terri
tory is almost boundess, is a great rival
of ours in the same field. Add
to these the new wheat region of
India, opened up to Western Europe through
the Suez canal, and it is only too apparent
rivals in the matter of feeding the over
crowded population of the old world. With
increased shipping facilities. which would
not be slow in being put into operation,
southern Russia and India would be able to
meet our lowest bid, even under the new
and unfayorable conditions of free trade. 1t
is not paradoxical, therefore, to declare
that our great extent Of undeveloped
farming territory may be made the
source of greatest danger to our man.
ufacturing industries and to the financial
standing of the country, 1t is daily urged
that the American mechanic is independent.
because he can go West and begin farming
if mechanical labor fails. This is true to a
limited degree only. To incorporate it as
principle in our political economy must, we
think, result as above indicated Our ma
tional affairs, the relation between manu-
featuring industries and American farming,
are too nicely adjusted to be overturned
without serious danger TO national prosperl-
ty. The wise course would be to look to a
readjustment of the tariff, a reform of
its imperfections, rather than to utterly
destroy it. More than this:
it is but reasonable to conclude that the
tariff as it was before the late readj ustment
would be infinitely preferable and safer to
every financial interest in the United States
than to suddenly supplant it with free trade,
or tariff so constructed as to invite the
largest importation, and thereby be a tariff
for revenue only. The tariff is question
that appeals to the farmer as strongly as to
the manufacturer. The former can't 90
down without harm to the latter. Their in
terests are mutual. and both by their votes
and influence. should seek to perpetuate
wisely-devised system of protection to
wheel of national prosperity. Under
protection the farmers and mechanics Of
America are allies With free trade they be-
come rivals. The recent reduction of ia xa-