St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-04-28
FALLACY AND FACT.
The Fallacy of Representing the
Motive of Misrepresentation.
The Fact In Observations Upon the Basis OF
Misrepresentation.
Will the United States Suffer from Conn
petitive Wheat Growing?

Recent publications in the newspapers OF
this county, to the effect that the European
demand for American breadstuifs is likely
to be materially diminished, if not wholly
suspended in the early future, are having
depressing effect on some of the agricultu-
ralists of Minnesota and the entire north
west, and contributing to what may become
serious stagnation of all kinds of business.
1t is, therefore, not amiss to examine briefly
as to the origin of the reports and the degree
OF truth that sustains them. If the state
ments are true, the farmers of this region
will be under the necessity of completely rev.
authorizing their business, in order to make
their investments of capital and labor profit
able; and how to effect such revolution will,
in that case, become question Of moment
with all classes of the community, for the
welfare Of all depends upon the prosperity of
the agriculturalists. All must suffer from
whatever misfortune befals them.
Before submitting to the discouraging in
fiuence of this alarming report, however, it
is best to inquire calmly concerning its ORR
gin and reasonableness. 1t seems partly ev
ident that its primitive source is foreign OPP
ponents of the commercial policy of this gov
eminent. For a good many years it has
been the custom of foreign Especially En-
| glish) newspapers to express the sentiment
that, if the United States persists in imposing
protective duties on manufactured imports,
other governments must retaliate by procur-
ing their supplies OF agricultural products
| from some other quarter. We heard this
doctrine advocated before the war, when
southern cotton was to be
tabooed, and English manufacturers were to
be supplied from India. Such expressions
were uttered with a show of confidence and
sincerity that alarmed cotton growers in our
southern states, and they were anxiously
considering what other product to cultivate
in lieu their great staple. Cotton had been
successfully grown in India long prior to
that date, and though the quality was inferior
TO the American product and the quantity
only about sufficient for home consumption,
no doubt was entertained that the former
could be improved to the required standard
of excellence By the substitution of Ameri
can for native seed, and the quantity in
creased to the limit of the demand. No
marked dissimilarity Of soil or climate ex
listed to detract from the plausibility of
such supposlton, and, indeed, experiments
with American seed had already been made
there with an assuring measure of success.
Hence, there seemed to exist no good rea-
son for doubling that the threat would be
put into immediate execution, and southern
cotton growers were justified in believing
that their prospects of future prosperity were
blasted. EaJ2gst *
The developments, however, proposed to be
far short of realization Of the expectations
of those who were promoting the schemes.
True, cotton was grown in India from Anne
rican seed, but although the enterprise had
the fostering care of the British government,
the high quality of the product could not be
maintained nor could the quantity produced
be increased sufficiently to interfere mate
rally with the demand for the American
product. Even the cost of the article was
but little less than that procured from this
country. More than quarter of a century
has elapsed since, and yet the cotton inter
ests of this country have not suffered per-
ceptible by this competition, nor is it proba-
!
increase as rapidly as the supply.
Have not these current threats to cLs off
the foreign demand for our wheat originated
with parties similarly situated and actuated
by identical motives! Again, it is British
enterprise by which we are threatened, and
the localities which are to become our over
towering competitors are under British do
minion. The English press is urging the
development of the retaliatory policy which
is to ruin US. So far the operating causes
are identical. A further similarity consists
in the circumstance that the threats
have, on both occasions, been directed
against sections of this country where the
preponderance Of popular sentiment was be-
lieved to be inimical to the protective policy
Then it was the cotton growing South that
was to be sacrificed because Of offences com
mitted by New England, now it is the wheat
producing West that is doomed ON account
of the sins of the northeastern and the east
ern middle states. Moreover,
this threat comes as the form
er did, when the section that
is to be made to suffer is enjoying more than
usual prosperity, and seems likely to lose
sight of the tariff question in the ardor Of
its efforts to extend the area Of the cuItiva-
ton of its great staple, and in building up
its own fortune and influence. The object
of the effort is, no doubt, to arouse the people
of the northwest to the exercise Of the fullest
measure Of their power in effectlng radical
change Of policy on the subject Of protection
of American manufacturers.
Wheat spectators, who happen to be so
situated as to make a present decline in
prices especially desirable to them, have
caught up the prediction and given it far
more general circulation than it could other
wise have obtained, in order to affect the
market advantageously to themselves, and
much of the injury resulting from it is
chargeable directly to them. That it has
wrought injury is probably not so palpable a.
to be generally admitted, but it is obviou:
enough to justify the exposition Of
its fallacy and the motives which
, promoted it. It is a creation of those who
would be pleased to witness a curtailment Of
our commerce, because the commercial poll
cy of the government is antagonistc 20 theil
private interests. 1t is due to the same en-
yious disposition which originated the project
of establishing a seaport on the ice fields Of
Hudson's bay, through which to ship the pro
duce of the British northwest territory; and
which prompts the discrimination agains
American beef and pork in foreign markets
The advocates of low tariff in this country
have not used, nor to the writer's knowl
edge countenanced this subterfuge. They
cause is retarded rather than promoted BY